Re: x Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
On Sunday, September 29, 2002, at 09:40 AM, Robert Soames Wetmore wrote: > Yes, it was a really old email. Brad has changed greatly since the > tumultuous days of his youth...a little less than a week ago. He's no > longer on the quaaludes, the bell-bottoms are in the trash (wait, > they've come back in style again), and he sold the motorcycle. He's > now working on Wall Street, has a family and even a minivan - he's > quite the man now, you'd hardly recognize him. Never thought I'd see > him in a suit. He's really done well for himself. > > Things move at a fast pace in the digital age. > > RSW 'ludes? You are really dating yourself, dude. :-) Dan Scott
Re: Re:x Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
Hmmm...I've just woke up and only had a few hours sleep due to the massive email attack on the PDML :) I waited up for replies, and even now didn't get any! I'm so disappointed (it's true). I haven't had my coffee, so I really don't understand your email Rob It seems as incoherent as my own! Rob, even if it was an insult to me, send me an email off-board [EMAIL PROTECTED] and tell me what it really means. Ok? I promise not to hunt you down if it's bad. :) I'm just really curious about it. Whether it is a fun email or nasty, looking forward to your reply! Brad Dobo - Original Message - From: "Robert Soames Wetmore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 10:40 AM Subject: Re:x Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600 > Yes, it was a really old email. Brad has changed greatly since the > tumultuous days of his youth...a little less than a week ago. He's no > longer on the quaaludes, the bell-bottoms are in the trash (wait, they've > come back in style again), and he sold the motorcycle. He's now working on > Wall Street, has a family and even a minivan - he's quite the man now, you'd > hardly recognize him. Never thought I'd see him in a suit. He's really > done well for himself. > > Things move at a fast pace in the digital age. > > RSW > > > >On Sat, 28 Sep 2002 23:46:21 -0400 Brad Dobo wrote: > >Hey Paul, > > > >Wow, you are replying to an *old* email. I barely remember writing it > > > >[...] > > > >On Saturday, September 28, 2002 6:00 PM Paul Stenquist wrote: > >[...] > >Brad Dobo wrote: > > > >[...] > > > > On September 24, 2002 10:50 AM, Rob Studdert wrote: > > > > >[...] > > > > > On 24 Sep 2002 at 3:21, Keith Whaley wrote: > > > > >[...] > > > _ > Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com > >
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
Wow, and I thought I was boring and had too much time on my hands. I must endevour to write as many illogical comments as I can in the future, then you can respond (a compulsion, I know) and I can read, laugh and type a response! After all, this group has nothing to do with Pentax or cameras :) Go nuts guys! Keeper of the flame, Brad Dobo - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 12:35 AM Subject: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600 > Here, here > vic > > In a message dated 9/28/02 9:00:20 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > << I don't get your reasoning. You bought an MZ-S because you wanted to > shoot film, right? So now you can't buy a high-end digital because you > spent your money. So what? Have fun shooting film. > I don't have an MZ-S or any other high end autofocus camera. (And I > don't want one.) But I have a lot of fun taking pictures. And, while > it's not my real job, I sometimes make some money doing it. I don't > think I need any more equipment to do what I do. I have an LX, an MX, a > 6x7, and a brace of Spotmatics. They all take outstanding photographs > when I do my job correctly. And some people are willing to pay for those > photographs. They wouldn't pay me any more if I was shooting with a 15 > megapixel multisynch wondercam. But based on some of the comments I've > seen on the list, I guess that I might get more satisfaction from the > wondercam. Somehow, I don't think that's the case. But I guess I'm just > old fashioned and nieve. > Paul Stenquist >> >
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
Here, here vic In a message dated 9/28/02 9:00:20 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << I don't get your reasoning. You bought an MZ-S because you wanted to shoot film, right? So now you can't buy a high-end digital because you spent your money. So what? Have fun shooting film. I don't have an MZ-S or any other high end autofocus camera. (And I don't want one.) But I have a lot of fun taking pictures. And, while it's not my real job, I sometimes make some money doing it. I don't think I need any more equipment to do what I do. I have an LX, an MX, a 6x7, and a brace of Spotmatics. They all take outstanding photographs when I do my job correctly. And some people are willing to pay for those photographs. They wouldn't pay me any more if I was shooting with a 15 megapixel multisynch wondercam. But based on some of the comments I've seen on the list, I guess that I might get more satisfaction from the wondercam. Somehow, I don't think that's the case. But I guess I'm just old fashioned and nieve. Paul Stenquist >>
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
Hey Paul, Wow, you are replying to an *old* email. I barely remember writing it since I've written quite a few. You have rehashed the same debates some others have, so I won't get into that. You don't have to understand my reasoning, only I do. :) One small thing, I didn't buy the MZ-S to shoot film, I bought it to shoot pictures. Regards, Brad Dobo - Original Message - From: "Paul Stenquist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2002 6:00 PM Subject: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600 > I don't get your reasoning. You bought an MZ-S because you wanted to > shoot film, right? So now you can't buy a high-end digital because you > spent your money. So what? Have fun shooting film. > I don't have an MZ-S or any other high end autofocus camera. (And I > don't want one.) But I have a lot of fun taking pictures. And, while > it's not my real job, I sometimes make some money doing it. I don't > think I need any more equipment to do what I do. I have an LX, an MX, a > 6x7, and a brace of Spotmatics. They all take outstanding photographs > when I do my job correctly. And some people are willing to pay for those > photographs. They wouldn't pay me any more if I was shooting with a 15 > megapixel multisynch wondercam. But based on some of the comments I've > seen on the list, I guess that I might get more satisfaction from the > wondercam. Somehow, I don't think that's the case. But I guess I'm just > old fashioned and nieve. > Paul Stenquist > > Brad Dobo wrote: > > > > Wow, some long and passionate emails. This isn't geared towards any one > > person. I see my position simply. I do photography as a hobby, and like > > using the best. I dropped a wad of cash for the MZ-S, grips, cables, 360FGZ > > flash, couple prime lenses. If they come out with a digitalI don't > > really care. Why? Because I cannot now afford it due to the above > > purchases. If a Pentax DSLR comes along, I'll be pissed...natually. They > > are really f**king over everyone that went out and got a MZ-S kit IMHO. So > > I'll have my little digital P&S, and otherwise shoot film until they no > > longer make it. (or I win the lottery) > > > > Brad Dobo > > - Original Message - > > From: "Keith Whaley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 10:50 AM > > Subject: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600 > > > > > > > > > > > Rob Studdert wrote: > > > > > > > > On 24 Sep 2002 at 3:21, Keith Whaley wrote: > > > > > > > > > I do get tired of folks wanting digital instead of glass. > > > > > No, that's not true. I am weary of those who want digital knocking > > > > > glass to the ground! > > > > > Both can exist. Why is a world beater digital any better than a world > > > > > beater glass camera? > > > > > You do use them for different things, they serve different markets... > > > > > > > > Hi Keith, > > > > > > > > Its these types of comments that I don't understand. As a photographer I > > expect > > > > to have the choices of the current (digital is current, it's not up and > > coming, > > > > it's here) image capture medium available to me. I expect to be able to > > have > > > > film bodies and a digital body in the same bag sharing all my excellent > > Pentax > > > > glass, I don't believe it's too much to ask for. > > > > > > No, but it's the 'sharing' bit that is NOT here yet. Not with Pentax. > > > I know, that's what everybody's looking for, hoping for. > > > But you see, you are not praising digital to the _exclusion_ of glass. > > > It's those who get my goat. > > > Our hope is that we WILL be able to share, to have a digital body and > > > a film body, and use all the same lenses for whichever. > > > > > > > Obviously I can dump all my Pentax kit and go off a by a couple of the > > new > > > > Kodak 14MP bodies and a heap of Nikon glass but I really don't wish to > > do that. > > > > Aside from the hassle and potential financial losses I really like my > > kit of > > > > lenses, I know them and I would like to keep them. But I need a digital > > body > > > > too. > > > > > > I do understand that. > > > What
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
I don't get your reasoning. You bought an MZ-S because you wanted to shoot film, right? So now you can't buy a high-end digital because you spent your money. So what? Have fun shooting film. I don't have an MZ-S or any other high end autofocus camera. (And I don't want one.) But I have a lot of fun taking pictures. And, while it's not my real job, I sometimes make some money doing it. I don't think I need any more equipment to do what I do. I have an LX, an MX, a 6x7, and a brace of Spotmatics. They all take outstanding photographs when I do my job correctly. And some people are willing to pay for those photographs. They wouldn't pay me any more if I was shooting with a 15 megapixel multisynch wondercam. But based on some of the comments I've seen on the list, I guess that I might get more satisfaction from the wondercam. Somehow, I don't think that's the case. But I guess I'm just old fashioned and nieve. Paul Stenquist Brad Dobo wrote: > > Wow, some long and passionate emails. This isn't geared towards any one > person. I see my position simply. I do photography as a hobby, and like > using the best. I dropped a wad of cash for the MZ-S, grips, cables, 360FGZ > flash, couple prime lenses. If they come out with a digitalI don't > really care. Why? Because I cannot now afford it due to the above > purchases. If a Pentax DSLR comes along, I'll be pissed...natually. They > are really f**king over everyone that went out and got a MZ-S kit IMHO. So > I'll have my little digital P&S, and otherwise shoot film until they no > longer make it. (or I win the lottery) > > Brad Dobo > - Original Message - > From: "Keith Whaley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 10:50 AM > Subject: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600 > > > > > > > Rob Studdert wrote: > > > > > > On 24 Sep 2002 at 3:21, Keith Whaley wrote: > > > > > > > I do get tired of folks wanting digital instead of glass. > > > > No, that's not true. I am weary of those who want digital knocking > > > > glass to the ground! > > > > Both can exist. Why is a world beater digital any better than a world > > > > beater glass camera? > > > > You do use them for different things, they serve different markets... > > > > > > Hi Keith, > > > > > > Its these types of comments that I don't understand. As a photographer I > expect > > > to have the choices of the current (digital is current, it's not up and > coming, > > > it's here) image capture medium available to me. I expect to be able to > have > > > film bodies and a digital body in the same bag sharing all my excellent > Pentax > > > glass, I don't believe it's too much to ask for. > > > > No, but it's the 'sharing' bit that is NOT here yet. Not with Pentax. > > I know, that's what everybody's looking for, hoping for. > > But you see, you are not praising digital to the _exclusion_ of glass. > > It's those who get my goat. > > Our hope is that we WILL be able to share, to have a digital body and > > a film body, and use all the same lenses for whichever. > > > > > Obviously I can dump all my Pentax kit and go off a by a couple of the > new > > > Kodak 14MP bodies and a heap of Nikon glass but I really don't wish to > do that. > > > Aside from the hassle and potential financial losses I really like my > kit of > > > lenses, I know them and I would like to keep them. But I need a digital > body > > > too. > > > > I do understand that. > > What I find troubling is those who say, in effect, if Pentax doesn't > > bring out a digital back that will take all the lenses we have, > > there's a strong possiblility we'll just _have_ to switch to another > platform. > > Is digital really all that important at this point in time, in that it > > has overtaken and supplanted film? > > > > Maybe I'm missing something here. Is there actually an in-process > > switch from film to digital going on? > > How many of us are professional photographers -- actually make a > > living at it? > > Is that where the drive comes from? > > As a serious amateur, I'd LIKE to have a Pentax back in digital, but > > if they don't bring it out for another year, I'm certainly not running > > off in a big huff, dumping all my Pentax gear and going to some other > > make... > > > > So, I must assume it's all the professional photogs here that are > > making all the threatening, doomsday noises? > > I guess if this is just a PRO lament, I'll just quiet down, let 'em > > lament and read the mail! ;^) > > > > keith whaley > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Rob Studdert > > > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > > > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > > > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html > >
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
Some people are Cognoscenti, but far more are Cognisnotty. I love that phrase! Fred wrote: > >>> But the congnisoti, (I'm not even sure that I spelled that > >>> correctly and the damned spell checker is no help), will know > >>> who you are. > > >> "Cognisnotty" is the correct spelling, I believe. > > "Cognoscenti", maybe? > > Fred -- Daniel J. Matyola mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Stanley, Powers & Matyola mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Suite203, 1170 US Highway 22 East http://geocities.com/dmatyola/ Bridgewater, NJ 08807 (908)725-3322 fax: (908)707-0399
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
>>> But the congnisoti, (I'm not even sure that I spelled that >>> correctly and the damned spell checker is no help), will know >>> who you are. >> "Cognisnotty" is the correct spelling, I believe. "Cognoscenti", maybe? Fred
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
Thanks I think. At 01:40 PM 9/26/2002 -0500, you wrote: >On Wednesday, September 25, 2002, at 11:26 AM, Peter Alling wrote: > >>But the congnisoti, (I'm not even sure that I spelled that correctly and >>the damned spell checker is no help), >>will know who you are. > >"Cognisnotty" is the correct spelling, I believe. > >Dan Scott
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600 and Bye bye
Don, My apologies for my misreading of your post. I took the meaning that you objected to the language of the insults, rather than the insults themselves. I certainly wasn't aware that you had been the recipient of any insults before your "Bye bye" message was posted. If I was a doctor I'd enjoy being called "Doc". Excuse me for assuming that you would, too. FWIW I was the recipient of the "shit-for-brains" comment, and while it was framed in other words I and the whole list knew what the meaning was. I'm pleased to say that I carved up Bruce Rubenstein for that (using all the Sang Froid I could muster) and he has been too gutless to respond to me since, it seems he's only interested in easy little victories. So you see I've had to endure the insults and not just read them. As for the language, I have no problem, but this time around the worst I've written was "fart" so the list-moms shouldn't be too upset :-) Come back soon, these things always blow over. Regards, Anthony Farr
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600 and Bye bye
I sent this to the list and to Don yesterday. Don has read it and replied but it hasn't shown up in my PDML folder yet so I'm resending. Apologies to anyone who gets it twice. --- Don, My apologies for my misreading of your post. I took the meaning that you objected to the language of the insults, rather than the insults themselves. I certainly wasn't aware that you had been the recipient of any insults before your "Bye bye" message was posted. If I was a doctor I'd enjoy being called "Doc". Excuse me for assuming that you would, too. FWIW I was the recipient of the "sh*t-for-brains" comment, and while it was framed in other words I and the whole list knew what the meaning was. I'm pleased to say that I carved up Bruce Rubenstein for that (using all the Sang Froid I could muster) and he has been too gutless to respond to me since, it seems he's only interested in easy little victories. So you see I've had to endure the insults and not just read them. As for the language, I have no problem, but this time around the worst I've written was "fart" so the list-moms shouldn't be too upset :-) Come back soon, these things always blow over. Regards, Anthony Farr
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600 and Bye bye
Dr. Williams: Call me an idiot if you like, I've been called worse. My only point was that most of us would like to see an end to the long personal attacks that some posters hurl at others, whether the language is crude or not. To quote these attacks in full in our replies only perpetuates and encourages this unwanted behavior. Dan Dr E D F Williams wrote: > Who said I object to bad language as such? That idiot Maytola divines from > my messages that I am a hypocritical prude who complains about bad language > and then uses it himself.
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
> Send it to me and I'll guarantee that it comes back to you with a > nice smooth focus feel, I can't guarantee however that it will be > covered under the manufacturers warranty and it definitely won't > AF any longer :-) Er, thanks, Rob. Fred
RE: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600 and Bye bye
I am sending you thise directly and to the list in case you are still subscribed. Whilst I agree with the basic sentiment that you express, I do not agree in the manner that you go about it. I have made mistakes, and I was the one that started the 'pope joke' problems, but I at least had the grace to acknowledge that I was out of order and apologise. You should notice that Brad has also apologised for the insults that you seem to refer to, which were mistakenly sent to the list rather than direct. Maybe you don't have a problem with the bad language, but the many comments seen recently make it obvious that a great many people here do, especially as some younger readers are here. It therefore does not seem very considerate of you to perpetuate the problem and possibly offend more people - many of whom have not insulted you and are innocent parties. I too get hundreds of PDML messages, but I can only think of maybe half a dozen in the last month which have contained real insults to people here, and maybe 20-30 that dealt with the pope and royals 'issues'. None of these to my knowledge have been 'one line' insults. If the majority of your messages are insults then it must be people mailing you directly to insult you, in which case I understand your angst, but please do not take it out on the board as a whole. > Until this group gets back to Pentax and photography it has > no appeal for me. At the moment, for every one interesting > post there are at least two, or even three, that are > pointless rubbish. Some of us like pointless rubbish, some people would argue that photography itself is pointless rubbish. If so many of us are taking part, then perhaps it is you that is in the minority in not wanting it here, so you have no right to tell what we can or cannot discuss. Until you modify your attitude, I am not convinced that you have any appeal to the group (although I will not say that I am speaking on their behalf). Please learn from your mistakes, and if you return show that you have taken not that many here do not like profanity - whether you are OK with it or not. I think this is a good bunch and we will all forgive and forget, provided you have the grace not to perpetuate the problem. I wish you all the best during your absence... > -Original Message- > From: Dr E D F Williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 26 September 2002 09:28 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600 and Bye bye > > > Anthony et al, > > This reply is a personal attack and quite out of place. Now, > try to concentrate and read it carefully: > > Who said I object to bad language as such? That idiot Maytola > divines from my messages that I am a hypocritical prude who > complains about bad language and then uses it himself. Can't > you guys read English? Where do I say anything about > language, bad or otherwise? Use all the obscenities you like, > but stick to Pentax and photography for fucks sake! Calling a > contributor 'Pencil Dick', implying that his head is full of > shit, or telling someone to 'Fuck off' are nasty personal > attacks and are out of place; as are derogatory remarks about > individuals and institutions some of us hold dear. > > I've been getting hundreds of messages from pdml each day. > Many of which have been one line insults; like those you > might overhear in a school yard. And, while cleaning out all > the shit, I'm sure to have deleted some messages that would > have been informative. Why make it so difficult? Why do some > of you find it so hard to keep your typing fingers in check? > > Until this group gets back to Pentax and photography it has > no appeal for me. At the moment, for every one interesting > post there are at least two, or even three, that are > pointless rubbish. I was about to unsubscribe last evening > when another stupid message arrived from Mr Maytola. And I > won't be seeing his smart - at least he'll think it is - > answer to this. But I will take a look in a week or two to > see if things have improved. > > By the way, my name is Don. I started using the 'Dr.' > salutation on my signature to distinguish myself from several > other, well known, Don Williams'. One is a Country and > Western singer, the other an illustrator of children's books. > People looking for my novels (or photo-gallery) on the www > turn up dozens of unrelated Don Williams' hits - I'm trying > to fix that. > > In the remote event of any of you wanting to contact me it > will need to be directly - for the time being anyway. > > D > > Dr E D F Williams > http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Ga
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600 and Bye bye
Anthony et al, This reply is a personal attack and quite out of place. Now, try to concentrate and read it carefully: Who said I object to bad language as such? That idiot Maytola divines from my messages that I am a hypocritical prude who complains about bad language and then uses it himself. Can't you guys read English? Where do I say anything about language, bad or otherwise? Use all the obscenities you like, but stick to Pentax and photography for fucks sake! Calling a contributor 'Pencil Dick', implying that his head is full of shit, or telling someone to 'Fuck off' are nasty personal attacks and are out of place; as are derogatory remarks about individuals and institutions some of us hold dear. I've been getting hundreds of messages from pdml each day. Many of which have been one line insults; like those you might overhear in a school yard. And, while cleaning out all the shit, I'm sure to have deleted some messages that would have been informative. Why make it so difficult? Why do some of you find it so hard to keep your typing fingers in check? Until this group gets back to Pentax and photography it has no appeal for me. At the moment, for every one interesting post there are at least two, or even three, that are pointless rubbish. I was about to unsubscribe last evening when another stupid message arrived from Mr Maytola. And I won't be seeing his smart - at least he'll think it is - answer to this. But I will take a look in a week or two to see if things have improved. By the way, my name is Don. I started using the 'Dr.' salutation on my signature to distinguish myself from several other, well known, Don Williams'. One is a Country and Western singer, the other an illustrator of children's books. People looking for my novels (or photo-gallery) on the www turn up dozens of unrelated Don Williams' hits - I'm trying to fix that. In the remote event of any of you wanting to contact me it will need to be directly - for the time being anyway. D Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery Updated: March 30, 2002 - Original Message - From: "Anthony Farr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 4:35 AM Subject: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600 and Bye bye > Let me get this straight. Doc Williams takes offence at bad language, then > gives us a taste of his own. > > I have only on word in reply to that: "consistency?" > > Regards, > Anthony Farr > > - Original Message - > From: "Dr E D F Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > ... this puerile shit ... > > > > Dr E D F Williams > > > >
RE: Re[2]: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
Alan Chan wrote: > What about a digital LX which is every bit the same as the original LX, > except with a "Digital Back LX"? You must wind the film (of > course there is > no film, but Pentax keep the winding mechanism anyway for the purists) to > take the next picture. What happened when the next generation > multi-MegaPixel sensor was out? No problem, just released the > "Digital Back > LX-II". Cool huh?! :) That does sound good. Sadly, I don't think it will happen as using the materials that the original LX used, would make it very expensive - plastics are extensively used, where metal used to be the standard (by no means a camera industry issue) and everyone is LCD mad, not the older styles of manual display. New technology and take up by a new generation, the LX is a relic of the past and has no 'connection' with today's world. You only have to look at the mobile telephone craze to see each manufacturer try to outdo each other with functions; but at the end of the day a 'phone call is basically all it gives and - camera wise - no matter how many bells and whistles your camera has, it only takes a photograph. People are obsessed by technology. Basics are important, if you have 'nothing' to say no matter how good your 'phone is, it will not make up for that - and neither will your camera compensate for skills you have yet to learn. I'll stick with film and my LX/MXs for now :-) Malcolm
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
On 25 Sep 2002 at 23:08, Dan Scott wrote: > > On Tuesday, September 24, 2002, at 11:08 PM, Fred wrote: > > >> How about making manual focus only versions? I heard they make > >> them in Leica mount, why not KA? > > > > I would love that concept, Mishka, bit I wouldn't expect it, of > > course. Sort of a Limited-Limited lens line (Limited-squared?)... > > > > > > Fred > > The "Ltd II". And they could even charge more for it. Heck, they don't > even have to stock it here, just make it available as a special order > from Japan. That's exactly what they did with the Pentax-L 43mm, 800 silver and 1200 black only available in Japan and strictly limited, their RRP with matched finder was around US$1200 :-) Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
On Tuesday, September 24, 2002, at 11:08 PM, Fred wrote: >> How about making manual focus only versions? I heard they make >> them in Leica mount, why not KA? > > I would love that concept, Mishka, bit I wouldn't expect it, of > course. Sort of a Limited-Limited lens line (Limited-squared?)... > > > Fred The "Ltd II". And they could even charge more for it. Heck, they don't even have to stock it here, just make it available as a special order from Japan. Dan Scott (armchair CEO)
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
On Tuesday, September 24, 2002, at 08:34 PM, William Robb wrote: > The problem is with the build quality. The MZ series cameras are > not up to the build standard of the limited lenses. > The MZ-S most certainly is, but they are not marketing them in a > complementary finish. > > William Robb > Hi Bill, Let me acknowledge upfront that my experience is very limitedI've seen zero MZ-S in the flesh and my US champagne-silvery 77 and Cesar's similarly finished 77 and 31 are the only limited lenses I've ever seen in person. The US Ltd lenses' color matches the color on my two tone ZX-5n nicely. From the photos I've seen, they look oddly out of sync with any of the black bodies I've seen them on, from the PZs to the LXs to the US MZ-S. Apparently, however, the Japanese market has both black and two-tone MZ-S bodies available, in addition to the black lenses and the champagne-silvery finish our Ltd's are limited to. The black Ltd lenses were designed to match the Black MZ-S and the two-tone MZ-S is the body the champagne-silvery Ltd lenses match up to. The screw-up appears to belong to management, whoever decided which products would be available in which countries outside the Japanese market. I don't know if the blame belongs to Pentax Japan or in the regional Pentax organizations. It does seem like the kind of problem the average 5 year old could solve with relatively little effort. Why it hasn't happened after this long is a mystery to me. The people designing and making the gear are top-notch and the people responsible for getting that gear to countries outside of Japan are as far below average as the former are above. Really stupid and absurd. But I'm here for the lenses, anyway. Dan Scott
Re: Re[2]: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
- Original Message - From: "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 11:30 PM Subject: Re: Re[2]: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600 > What about a digital LX which is every bit the same as the original LX, > except with a "Digital Back LX"? You must wind the film (of course there is > no film, but Pentax keep the winding mechanism anyway for the purists) to > take the next picture. You must wind the film, because it's batery-less (except a small button-like, for the meter), so it cranks up the small generator. Mishka
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600 and Bye bye
In a message dated 9/25/02 10:31:48 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << HmmmI posted two pieces about this, and only the 2nd one has made it to the board. You should read them Vic. I was wrong for blasting in that language, but you and Bruce both used insulting words that were just not necessary. So, to use what you've said, smarten up please. Brad Dobo >> Brad I simply quoted your words.
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
> No it's better than a super program, it has dials instead of those stupid > buttons. Some things we, (as in people), got right the first time like > changing shutter speeds > and changing radio stations. I don't know about the radio, but I sure like the shutter speed dial a lot more than any other design. regards, Alan Chan
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
On Wed, 25 Sep 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [entire original message snipped] > I am personally insulted by YOUR language on the PDML. GROW UP. Then why quote it entirely in your reply? You just did the same thing Brad did. chris
RE: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600 and Bye bye
<<..who are the insulted beloved public figures? Bruce Rubenstein. WW >> :)) Lukasz
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
I guess somebody had to Pentax certainly sold a lot of them. At 03:53 PM 9/25/2002 -0400, you wrote: > > it has dials instead of those stupid buttons > >...but I ~love~ the little shutter speed buttons on the ME Super, >MEF, Program Plus/A, and Super Program/A... > >Fred
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600 and Bye bye
The British "royals." Brad Dobo wrote: > Since I didn't do most of those things (but I did some, don't get me wrong) > I'll assume the good doctor is referring to posts that I guess I haven't > read. I'm curious now...who are the insulted beloved public figures?
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600 and Bye bye
If you object to that language, as you should, why repeat it in your message? Dr E D F Williams wrote: > Can't handle 300+ messages a day; don't wish to handle messages where people > call each other 'Pencil dick' or 'Shit for Brains' and write 'fuck you!'; or > where they insult beloved public figures and deride the values of others. > > Can't handle this puerile shit - so bye-bye for a while. > > D > > Dr E D F Williams > > http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams > Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery > Updated: March 30, 2002 > > - Original Message - > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 5:33 PM > Subject: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600 > > > > > In a message dated 9/25/02 1:06:04 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > << *sigh* Read my other post. IMHO why are you asking me this anyhow? Is > it > > > > constructive? Did I make an error in voicing my own IMHO personal > opinion? > > > > Will a good answer satisfy you? You are also more than bordering on > insult > > > > by saying "The only thing f**king you over is you mind" How ELSE do I > read > > > > that? Are you friends with Bruce? Give a polite and positive critisism > or > > > > opinion or shut the fuck up pencil-dick. > > > > > > Fuck you, > > > > > > Brad Dobo! >> > > > > I am personally insulted by YOUR language on the PDML. GROW UP. > > > > -- Daniel J. Matyola mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Stanley, Powers & Matyola mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Suite203, 1170 US Highway 22 East http://geocities.com/dmatyola/ Bridgewater, NJ 08807 (908)725-3322 fax: (908)707-0399
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
> it has dials instead of those stupid buttons ...but I ~love~ the little shutter speed buttons on the ME Super, MEF, Program Plus/A, and Super Program/A... Fred
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600 and Bye bye
When did he become beloved? At 01:45 PM 9/25/2002 -0600, you wrote: >- Original Message - >From: Brad Dobo >Subject: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600 and Bye bye > > > > Since I didn't do most of those things (but I did some, don't >get me wrong) > > I'll assume the good doctor is referring to posts that I guess >I haven't > > read. I'm curious now...who are the insulted beloved public >figures? > >Bruce Rubenstein. > >WW
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600 and Bye bye
- Original Message - From: Brad Dobo Subject: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600 and Bye bye > Since I didn't do most of those things (but I did some, don't get me wrong) > I'll assume the good doctor is referring to posts that I guess I haven't > read. I'm curious now...who are the insulted beloved public figures? Bruce Rubenstein. WW
Re[2]: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600 and Bye bye
Brad, The Pope for one. Bruce Wednesday, September 25, 2002, 12:06:32 PM, you wrote: BD> Since I didn't do most of those things (but I did some, don't get me wrong) BD> I'll assume the good doctor is referring to posts that I guess I haven't BD> read. I'm curious now...who are the insulted beloved public figures? BD> - Original Message - BD> From: "Dr E D F Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> BD> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> BD> Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 2:36 PM BD> Subject: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600 and Bye bye >> Can't handle 300+ messages a day; don't wish to handle messages where BD> people >> call each other 'Pencil dick' or 'Shit for Brains' and write 'fuck you!'; BD> or >> where they insult beloved public figures and deride the values of others. >> >> Can't handle this puerile shit - so bye-bye for a while. >> >> D >> >> Dr E D F Williams >> >> http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams >> Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery >> Updated: March 30, 2002 >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 5:33 PM >> Subject: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600 >> >> >> > >> > In a message dated 9/25/02 1:06:04 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >> > >> > << *sigh* Read my other post. IMHO why are you asking me this anyhow? BD> Is >> it >> > >> > constructive? Did I make an error in voicing my own IMHO personal >> opinion? >> > >> > Will a good answer satisfy you? You are also more than bordering on >> insult >> > >> > by saying "The only thing f**king you over is you mind" How ELSE do I >> read >> > >> > that? Are you friends with Bruce? Give a polite and positive BD> critisism >> or >> > >> > opinion or shut the fuck up pencil-dick. >> > >> > >> > Fuck you, >> > >> > >> > Brad Dobo! >> >> > >> > I am personally insulted by YOUR language on the PDML. GROW UP. >> > >> > >> >>
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600 and Bye bye
Since I didn't do most of those things (but I did some, don't get me wrong) I'll assume the good doctor is referring to posts that I guess I haven't read. I'm curious now...who are the insulted beloved public figures? - Original Message - From: "Dr E D F Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 2:36 PM Subject: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600 and Bye bye > Can't handle 300+ messages a day; don't wish to handle messages where people > call each other 'Pencil dick' or 'Shit for Brains' and write 'fuck you!'; or > where they insult beloved public figures and deride the values of others. > > Can't handle this puerile shit - so bye-bye for a while. > > D > > Dr E D F Williams > > http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams > Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery > Updated: March 30, 2002 > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 5:33 PM > Subject: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600 > > > > > > In a message dated 9/25/02 1:06:04 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > << *sigh* Read my other post. IMHO why are you asking me this anyhow? Is > it > > > > constructive? Did I make an error in voicing my own IMHO personal > opinion? > > > > Will a good answer satisfy you? You are also more than bordering on > insult > > > > by saying "The only thing f**king you over is you mind" How ELSE do I > read > > > > that? Are you friends with Bruce? Give a polite and positive critisism > or > > > > opinion or shut the fuck up pencil-dick. > > > > > > Fuck you, > > > > > > Brad Dobo! >> > > > > I am personally insulted by YOUR language on the PDML. GROW UP. > > > > > >
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600 and Bye bye
Can't handle 300+ messages a day; don't wish to handle messages where people call each other 'Pencil dick' or 'Shit for Brains' and write 'fuck you!'; or where they insult beloved public figures and deride the values of others. Can't handle this puerile shit - so bye-bye for a while. D Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery Updated: March 30, 2002 - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 5:33 PM Subject: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600 > > In a message dated 9/25/02 1:06:04 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > << *sigh* Read my other post. IMHO why are you asking me this anyhow? Is it > > constructive? Did I make an error in voicing my own IMHO personal opinion? > > Will a good answer satisfy you? You are also more than bordering on insult > > by saying "The only thing f**king you over is you mind" How ELSE do I read > > that? Are you friends with Bruce? Give a polite and positive critisism or > > opinion or shut the fuck up pencil-dick. > > > Fuck you, > > > Brad Dobo! >> > > I am personally insulted by YOUR language on the PDML. GROW UP. > >
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, gfen wrote: > Started looking into it.. it was an f 0.7 lens made by Zeiss for NASA, and > modified by Kubrick for film use. > Unsure if it was for 16mm or 35mm film, and also what focal length it was. > Said it was twice as fast as any lens before it. If anyone really cares (nothing like responding to your own posts), I provide this link: http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/v13/msg09017.html And now, back to Pentax -- http://www.infotainment.org "The destructive character is cheerful." - Walter Benjamin
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, Jan van Wijk wrote: > >Is there anything faster than an f 1.0 lens? I seem to remember > >reading of Stanley Kubrick commisioning the build of an f 0.8 lens for > >Barry Lyndon, but for actual still photo work? > There is an f 0.9 lens for canon I think, but that is an old prototype AFAIK Started looking into it.. it was an f 0.7 lens made by Zeiss for NASA, and modified by Kubrick for film use. Unsure if it was for 16mm or 35mm film, and also what focal length it was. Said it was twice as fast as any lens before it. -- http://www.infotainment.org "The destructive character is cheerful." - Walter Benjamin
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
But the congnisoti, (I'm not even sure that I spelled that correctly and the damned spell checker is no help), will know who you are. At 12:23 AM 9/26/2002 +1000, you wrote: >On 25 Sep 2002 at 9:31, gfen wrote: > > > Ergo, if you want to look like you're rich and powerful, and not have to > > worry about upgrading to a new "flagship" camera every so often, buy a > > classic Leica, otherwise, deal. > >Leicas suck, at a glance you can't tell if it's 30 years old or 3 months old, >where's the pose value in that :-( > >Cheers, > >Rob Studdert >HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA >Tel +61-2-9554-4110 >UTC(GMT) +10 Hours >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
No it's better than a super program, it has dials instead of those stupid buttons. Some things we, (as in people), got right the first time like changing shutter speeds and changing radio stations. At 08:08 AM 9/25/2002 -0400, you wrote: > > It's [ZX-5n/MZ-5n] basically a highly spec'd early 80's MF camera > > that happens to have AF and is made of plastic. I still love it's > > interface. > >Yes - the "highly spec'd early 80's MF camera" that comes to mind is >the Super Program/A from 1983. My impression when using my wife's >ZX-5n or my daughter-in-law's ZX-5n is that it's a Super Program >with AF (which helped my wife's transition to the ZX-5n, since she >previously had been using a Super Program). > >Fred
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
It's not the sound so much as the feel. It's got a whirry feel to it. It doesn't bother me since it's a smooth gentle whirr but I can see how it might bother others. At 11:28 PM 9/24/2002 -0700, Alan Chan wrote: > > How about making manual focus only versions? I heard they make them in >Leica > > mount, why not KA? > >I could be wrong, but I think the Leica mount version was meant for the >Japanese market mainly where people like to collect unique items, useful or >not. Even Ricoh made a 28/2.8 in Leica mount after the success of the >original GR-1. KA mount market is different where most KA mount users aren't >willing to pay the premium for high quality lenses. Besides, was the sound >really so annoying to warrant a set of manual focus version? I consider >myself a very picky person and never noticed it was a concern, until someone >raised the issue here (I still don't think its an issue to me). As far as I >am concerned, the focus windows frames peeled themselves off the FA* lenses >is a very real issue, stupid and annoying design. I am certian Pal could >tell you guys more. :( > >regards, >Alan Chan
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
On Wed, 25 Sep 2002 11:24:16 -0400 (EDT), gfen wrote: > >I just want a Leica if its attached to a Noctilux f 1.0 lens (that is the >Noctilux, I believe?) > >Is there anything faster than an f 1.0 lens? I seem to remember >reading of Stanley Kubrick commisioning the build of an f 0.8 lens for >Barry Lyndon, but for actual still photo work? There is an f 0.9 lens for canon I think, but that is an old prototype AFAIK Regards, JvW -- Jan van Wijk; http://www.dfsee.com/gallery
Re[2]: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
Hi, Wednesday, September 25, 2002, 3:23:19 PM, you wrote: > Leicas suck, at a glance you can't tell if it's 30 years old or 3 months old, > where's the pose value in that :-( It's all about the secret thrill you get when you're sucking a Wall's "Magnum" ice cream, mate, and think 'This is what Capa would have chosen' . --- Bob
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Rob Studdert wrote: > Leicas suck, at a glance you can't tell if it's 30 years old or 3 months old, > where's the pose value in that :-( Yeah, but the L will make image concious camera geeks green with envy. I just want a Leica if its attached to a Noctilux f 1.0 lens (that is the Noctilux, I believe?) Is there anything faster than an f 1.0 lens? I seem to remember reading of Stanley Kubrick commisioning the build of an f 0.8 lens for Barry Lyndon, but for actual still photo work? -- http://www.infotainment.org "The destructive character is cheerful." - Walter Benjamin
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
On Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Brad Dobo wrote: > purchases. If a Pentax DSLR comes along, I'll be pissed...natually. They > are really f**king over everyone that went out and got a MZ-S kit IMHO. So You bought, at the time, the nicest Pentax film body made. That was then, this is now. Now something new comes out, so you no longer have the nicest. Its called progress. This is the way it works. If you don't wish to play that sort of game, buy a vintage classic that will only GAIN in value. Ergo, if you want to look like you're rich and powerful, and not have to worry about upgrading to a new "flagship" camera every so often, buy a classic Leica, otherwise, deal. I seriously don't fault your attention gathering attitude, everyone does it (myself included). However, to kick and cry because there's something better coming down the pipe is just plain childish and stupid. There will always be something new and better, regardless of brand. Hey, if nothing else, take solace in the fact that no one knows your MZ-S is no longer hot sheet because no one even knows what it is. "Pentax? Aren't they those people who make the K1000?" -- http://www.infotainment.org "The destructive character is cheerful." - Walter Benjamin
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
> I don't want digital *instead* of glass. I just want a digital > body I can use my Pentax glass on. That way I can shoot film or > digital, whichever is appropriate to the situation, and have my > investment in Pentax lenses be a better value. My thoughts, exactly. > Right now I have some customers that want digital pictures and > others that want film. I'd be ever so much happier if I could > keep them happy with just a Pentax system. And there'd also be customers such as I that would really want "just a Pentax system". Fred
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
>> The real thing, resplendent in its 1990s era technology, would >> really get peoples creative writing juices flowing. > It'll be a rerun of the MZ-S. They'll release a good DSLR body, > then the conversation will shift to "I don't like it because". But, I'll suspect that I myself could be very happy with a "digitized" version of the MZ-S. No, it wouldn't be perfect, but it would fit a lot of very neat lenses... Fred
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
>> Well, Rob, that may be true, but I would rather have them be just >> a bit larger but a lot nicer to focus. Just my 2 f-stops worth... >> ;-) > I think the AF mechanism could be extracted from Limited lenses > and still working perfectly, without AF of course. I agree, Alan, but I just don't think that it would be economically feasible for Pentax to come out with a "gutted" manual focus version of any of the Limited lenses. If Pentax did do so, however, I'd snatch up an mf version of the 31/1.8 in a heartbeat... Fred
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
> I'm really hoping Pentax does not pursue a DSLR. Then people will > bitch and moan and threaten to switch and leave the list. It > should make for some interesting emails. I hope that was said tongue-in-cheek. It would be kind of sad if PDML members would be wishing the worst for Pentax and for other PDML members. Fred
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
> It's [ZX-5n/MZ-5n] basically a highly spec'd early 80's MF camera > that happens to have AF and is made of plastic. I still love it's > interface. Yes - the "highly spec'd early 80's MF camera" that comes to mind is the Super Program/A from 1983. My impression when using my wife's ZX-5n or my daughter-in-law's ZX-5n is that it's a Super Program with AF (which helped my wife's transition to the ZX-5n, since she previously had been using a Super Program). Fred
Re: Re[2]: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
Yes people have become rather excited about a DSLR and Photokina. Despite the volume I've read every thread, sometimes laughing out loud! It is like I can see all us PDMLers hunched in front of a computer screen, typing madly on the keyboard and shaking their fists at the screen! :) - Original Message - From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 2:34 AM Subject: Re: Re[2]: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600 > > - Original Message - > From: Brad Dobo > Subject: Re: Re[2]: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600 > > > > > I'm really hoping Pentax does not pursue a DSLR. Then people > will bitch and > > moan and threaten to switch and leave the list. It should > make for some > > interesting emails. > > Actually, it would be better if they make one. The subject has > already made for some excellent name calling, accusations of > juvenile mentality, and outright slander, and it is just vapour > ware. > The real thing, resplendent in its 1990s era technology, would > really get peoples creative writing juices flowing. > > William Robb > > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To > unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't > forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . > > >
Re: Re[2]: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
- Original Message - From: Brad Dobo Subject: Re: Re[2]: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600 > I'm really hoping Pentax does not pursue a DSLR. Then people will bitch and > moan and threaten to switch and leave the list. It should make for some > interesting emails. Actually, it would be better if they make one. The subject has already made for some excellent name calling, accusations of juvenile mentality, and outright slander, and it is just vapour ware. The real thing, resplendent in its 1990s era technology, would really get peoples creative writing juices flowing. William Robb This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
> Well, Rob, that may be true, but I would rather have them be just a > bit larger but a lot nicer to focus. Just my 2 f-stops worth... ;-) I think the AF mechanism could be extracted from Limited lenses and still working perfectly, without AF of course. regards, Alan Chan
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
> How about making manual focus only versions? I heard they make them in Leica > mount, why not KA? I could be wrong, but I think the Leica mount version was meant for the Japanese market mainly where people like to collect unique items, useful or not. Even Ricoh made a 28/2.8 in Leica mount after the success of the original GR-1. KA mount market is different where most KA mount users aren't willing to pay the premium for high quality lenses. Besides, was the sound really so annoying to warrant a set of manual focus version? I consider myself a very picky person and never noticed it was a concern, until someone raised the issue here (I still don't think its an issue to me). As far as I am concerned, the focus windows frames peeled themselves off the FA* lenses is a very real issue, stupid and annoying design. I am certian Pal could tell you guys more. :( regards, Alan Chan
Re: Pentax digital slr (WAS: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600)
Bruce has a mental disorder that prevents him from realizing what an idiot he is. - Original Message - From: "Treena Harp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 12:24 AM Subject: Re: Pentax digital slr (WAS: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600) > You know, I have to say this. I don't care how knowledgeable you may be, I > cannot take seriously anyone who spouts such utterly juvenile drivel as > this. You can argue your point without bringing it down to kindergarten > level. > > - Original Message - > From: "Bruce Rubenstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 9:59 PM > Subject: Re: Pentax digital slr (WAS: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600) > > > > I happen to still have more Pentax gear than Nikon gear. You'd best calm > > down before your brain explodes and you soil your pants. > >
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
> Amen. I (for a short time each) have owned Limited lenses, and I do > not care for their focus feel. I won't buy another unless/until > they provide a focus clutch, or some other way to turn their > "whirring" focus feel into a more "silky" feel. Don't think that will ever happen. :( regards, Alan Chan
Re: Re[2]: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
- Original Message - From: "tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 12:52 AM Subject: RE: Re[2]: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600 > > -Original Message- > > From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > > I can certainly second that. The build quality of the MZ series > > cameras is very light and plasticky. > > Excepting the MZ-S of course. Yes, you gotta love that camera. I certainly do. > The funny thing is that the other MZ's (5n in particular) are such > nice cameras...if the MZ-5n was made of metal people would be freaking > flipping out. It's basically a highly spec'd early 80's MF camera that > happens to have AF and is made of plastic. I still love it's > interface. I loved the MZ-5n, it was a great camera for sure! > Another thing...I've dropped it several times but have never broken > it. Plastic isn't particularly cuddly or inspiring, but it bears an > impact as well as anything else. Me too unfortunately. As a side-not, I did drop the AF-360FGZ from ~5ft onto a hard floor. Only thing that happened is the battery compartment opened and the batteries spilled out. I put them back in, closed it up, tested it, and it was fineno scratches either! I bring this up because I've heard a lot about the AF500FTZ breaking. I'm really hoping Pentax does not pursue a DSLR. Then people will bitch and moan and threaten to switch and leave the list. It should make for some interesting emails. Brad Dobo
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
Perhaps you could try to contact Pentax Japan directly by sending them a fax. Or someone on the list might go to Pentax Melbourne to look for the parts for you directly (rang or faxed them didn't do much) they still had some pretty old parts. But first, you need to figure out which parts you need exactly (you need the service manual which lists all the part numbers). If you care to try, I can give you a Pentax Japan email address which I dealed with before for parts and got response (but eye glasses). They sent me the parts for free (camera parts could be different however). regards, Alan Chan > Actually, one of the repair problems I had recently was with an > upgraded part. Pål would have a better idea of exactly what > changed, I think, but as near as I was able to ascertain, the > main curcuit board had to be replaced, and what was available > was different in some respect(s) from what was in the camera. > The problem in this case was not all PCI's doing. The LX got a > lot of design modifications along the way. Hell, it was in > production for close to 20 years, it would have been negligent > if they hadn't improved in it. > The problem was in getting the part from Japan (I had the > distinct impression it was being made to order), and more than > that, they had the unmitigated gaul to bald faced lie to me (the > service manager said they had lied) about the thing having been > shipped out, when in fact the thing was still waiting for parts > and installation instructions from Japan. > > Sometimes service and marketing should work together. > Had they said "Sorry, Mr Robb, but we have to hand build a part > for your already hand built camera, and it will take an > additional couple of months to complete the job", then I would > have been very happy. > > William Robb
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
*sigh* Read my other post. IMHO why are you asking me this anyhow? Is it constructive? Did I make an error in voicing my own IMHO personal opinion? Will a good answer satisfy you? You are also more than bordering on insult by saying "The only thing f**king you over is you mind" How ELSE do I read that? Are you friends with Bruce? Give a polite and positive critisism or opinion or shut the fuck up pencil-dick. Fuck you, Brad Dobo! - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 12:43 AM Subject: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600 > > In a message dated 9/24/02 3:22:33 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > << If a Pentax DSLR comes along, I'll be pissed...natually. They > > are really f**king over everyone that went out and got a MZ-S kit IMHO. >> > > Why are they f**king you over. You bought it. No one twisted your arm. Are > you happy with it? Does it take pictures? Will it last you for many, many > years of photography? Will it give you great joy? The only thing f**king you > over is your mind and your desire for something new? > > Vic >
RE: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
> -Original Message- > From: Keith Whaley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > tom wrote: > > > > I raise my Bass to the PDML! > > > > tv > > Will a Murphy's do? As long as you're buying tv
RE: Re[2]: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
> -Original Message- > From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > I can certainly second that. The build quality of the MZ series > cameras is very light and plasticky. Excepting the MZ-S of course. The funny thing is that the other MZ's (5n in particular) are such nice cameras...if the MZ-5n was made of metal people would be freaking flipping out. It's basically a highly spec'd early 80's MF camera that happens to have AF and is made of plastic. I still love it's interface. Another thing...I've dropped it several times but have never broken it. Plastic isn't particularly cuddly or inspiring, but it bears an impact as well as anything else. > > As to marketing, Pentax has done NO marketing that I have > seen around > northern California concerning the MZ-S or Limited Lenses. I think I understand Pentax marketing now: *we* are Pentax marketing. tv
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
In a message dated 9/24/02 3:22:33 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << If a Pentax DSLR comes along, I'll be pissed...natually. They are really f**king over everyone that went out and got a MZ-S kit IMHO. >> Why are they f**king you over. You bought it. No one twisted your arm. Are you happy with it? Does it take pictures? Will it last you for many, many years of photography? Will it give you great joy? The only thing f**king you over is your mind and your desire for something new? Vic
Re: Pentax digital slr (WAS: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600)
You know, I have to say this. I don't care how knowledgeable you may be, I cannot take seriously anyone who spouts such utterly juvenile drivel as this. You can argue your point without bringing it down to kindergarten level. - Original Message - From: "Bruce Rubenstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 9:59 PM Subject: Re: Pentax digital slr (WAS: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600) > I happen to still have more Pentax gear than Nikon gear. You'd best calm > down before your brain explodes and you soil your pants.
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
> How about making manual focus only versions? I heard they make > them in Leica mount, why not KA? I would love that concept, Mishka, bit I wouldn't expect it, of course. Sort of a Limited-Limited lens line (Limited-squared?)... Fred
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
> Unfortunately to implement a focus clutch on them would serve only > to destroy their attractive and diminutive dimensions. :-( Well, Rob, that may be true, but I would rather have them be just a bit larger but a lot nicer to focus. Just my 2 f-stops worth... ;-) Fred
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
A, William :) > How would you have been screwed by the MZ-S if they come out > with a digital SLR? I enjoy film, I love my lightbox and loupe and slides and looking at them. I guess I am fond of the traditional aspects of photography. While anyone is free to debate this, it is my personal feeling that digital is going to *crush* film very soon. I have no stats or anything.Just a gut feeling. So it gets me to my point, that a DSLR from Pentax may be the new flagship. Remember my vanity :) I forgot this in my list but I also went crazy with a tripod to replace my flimzy entry tripod. I spent nearly $1000 between the tripod and head. Heh...before you say it, I will, a DSLR will no doubt work with it :) Basically, I spent a lot of money on what I figured was the best Pentax could offer. I'm afraid that if they come out with a DSLR, it may be better. I just got these things at the beginning of the summer. I used to use an MZ-5n. So this is just my personal feelings. >Are you thinking the flagship film camera > should be the MZ-3? No Will, and you know that! :) > BTW, if you like using the best, why did you buy 35mm at all? To be frank, I have completely ignored MF and LF cameras, discussions, etc, etc, to the point that I am very much ignorant of them. Blissfully I should add. (I'm assuming you are referring to MF and LF and not digital). I like the convience of the 35mm, and it is main stream. I couldn't afford (I'm assuming) a MF setup like my 35mm? I also assume (from my visits to camera stores) that accessories, lens, and whatnot are harder to find. Remember I'm still peeved at the lack of Pentax equipment on display for me to try out. I waited 5 weeks for my FA 100mm 1:2.8 Macro. I ordered another cable release and it's been about 4 weeks and it hasn't showed up. I'm *assuming* that a MF would be even worse. Btw, I do have the Pentax Optio 230 (dunno why I had to add that :)) With love, :) Brad Dobo - Original Message - From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 9:32 PM Subject: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600 > > ----- Original Message - > From: Brad Dobo > Subject: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600 > > > > Wow, some long and passionate emails. This isn't geared > towards any one > > person. I see my position simply. I do photography as a > hobby, and like > > using the best. I dropped a wad of cash for the MZ-S, grips, > cables, 360FGZ > > flash, couple prime lenses. If they come out with a > digitalI don't > > really care. Why? Because I cannot now afford it due to the > above > > purchases. If a Pentax DSLR comes along, I'll be > pissed...natually. They > > are really f**king over everyone that went out and got a MZ-S > kit IMHO. So > > I'll have my little digital P&S, and otherwise shoot film > until they no > > longer make it. (or I win the lottery) > The things are built like point and shoots. > Or are you thinking they should just abandon film cameras? > > > William Robb >
Re[2]: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
I can certainly second that. The build quality of the MZ series cameras is very light and plasticky. My wife loves them for the light weight and ease of point and shoot behavior. I don't particularly care for them because of the lack of heft and weight. Of course, I've been using and loving a 67 body. But even an MX has a much more solid feel. As to marketing, Pentax has done NO marketing that I have seen around northern California concerning the MZ-S or Limited Lenses. Bruce Tuesday, September 24, 2002, 6:34:47 PM, you wrote: WR> - Original Message - WR> From: Dan Scott WR> Subject: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600 >snip< WR> The problem is with the build quality. The MZ series cameras are WR> not up to the build standard of the limited lenses. WR> The MZ-S most certainly is, but they are not marketing them in a WR> complementary finish. WR> William Robb
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
How about making manual focus only versions? I heard they make them in Leica mount, why not KA? Mishka - Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600 > On 24 Sep 2002 at 23:06, Fred wrote: > > > Amen. I (for a short time each) have owned Limited lenses, and I do > > not care for their focus feel. I won't buy another unless/until > > they provide a focus clutch, or some other way to turn their > > "whirring" focus feel into a more "silky" feel. > > Hi Fred, > > Unfortunately to implement a focus clutch on them would serve only to destroy > their attractive and diminutive dimensions. :-( > > Cheers, > > > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html > > >
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
On 24 Sep 2002 at 23:06, Fred wrote: > Amen. I (for a short time each) have owned Limited lenses, and I do > not care for their focus feel. I won't buy another unless/until > they provide a focus clutch, or some other way to turn their > "whirring" focus feel into a more "silky" feel. Hi Fred, Unfortunately to implement a focus clutch on them would serve only to destroy their attractive and diminutive dimensions. :-( Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: Pentax digital slr (WAS: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600)
This is begining to sound like the Pentax Flagship thread from 4 years ago. Probably with the same results on the part of Pentax: still waiting for the right moment.. BR From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Well by that time I'll wildly speculate then that they'll fly out the door at between US$1100 to US$1250 :-)
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
...paulaner hefe-weizen... mishka - Original Message - From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 10:33 PM Subject: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600 > > - Original Message - > From: tom > Subject: RE: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600 > > > > > > Now, stop being a buffoon and presume you know what > motivates > > > me. > > That was pretty harsh. > > > > It's beer, right? > > No, it's red wine > > > > I raise my Bass to the PDML! > > I raise my Pinot Noir to the PDML! > > William Robb > > >
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
William Robb wrote: > = snipped = > > The only place I feel they have let my down is in keeping my > LX's operating. Seems, from all I've read, Pentax would have done everyone well, had they just done adequate product improvement on the LX, and finally made it the camera it had/has potential to be! I certainly agree there! > Now, stop being a buffoon and presume you know what > motivates me. Okay. > Regards > > William Robb Peace, keith
Re: Pentax digital slr (WAS: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600)
On 24 Sep 2002 at 20:22, Chris Brogden wrote: > FWIW, the word from my Pentax rep is that Pentax is officially working on > a DSLR. It's *not* a full-frame one apparently, and will probably be > around 5-6MP (that's the working model right now). It's allegedly slated > for either announcement or release at PMA, *not* Photokina. Obviously I > can't speak for the accuracy of this, but I'm passing it along to feed the > flames of controversy. :) Well by that time I'll wildly speculate then that they'll fly out the door at between US$1100 to US$1250 :-) Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
- Original Message - From: Dan Scott Subject: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600 > > I don't know about that, the Limited lenses in the US look like a good > match for US ZX-5n. The feel is a little different, cold metal versus > warm polycarbonate, but that doesn't bum me out or anything. If anything > were to change with the limiteds, I'd like them to have a focus feel > more like m series lenses. The problem is with the build quality. The MZ series cameras are not up to the build standard of the limited lenses. The MZ-S most certainly is, but they are not marketing them in a complementary finish. William Robb This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
- Original Message - From: Brad Dobo Subject: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600 > Wow, some long and passionate emails. This isn't geared towards any one > person. I see my position simply. I do photography as a hobby, and like > using the best. I dropped a wad of cash for the MZ-S, grips, cables, 360FGZ > flash, couple prime lenses. If they come out with a digitalI don't > really care. Why? Because I cannot now afford it due to the above > purchases. If a Pentax DSLR comes along, I'll be pissed...natually. They > are really f**king over everyone that went out and got a MZ-S kit IMHO. So > I'll have my little digital P&S, and otherwise shoot film until they no > longer make it. (or I win the lottery) How would you have been screwed by the MZ-S if they come out with a digital SLR? Are you thinking the flagship film camera should be the MZ-3? The things are built like point and shoots. Or are you thinking they should just abandon film cameras? BTW, if you like using the best, why did you buy 35mm at all? William Robb
Re: Pentax digital slr (WAS: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600)
On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Pål Jensen wrote: > Bruce wrote: > > > I have no idea why anyone seriously thought, as opposed to wished, that Pentax >would sell a DSLR. > > People seriously thought so because Pentax have officially stated that > they intend to manufacture K-mount digital slr's. I'll still think so > until they state otherwise. > > Pål FWIW, the word from my Pentax rep is that Pentax is officially working on a DSLR. It's *not* a full-frame one apparently, and will probably be around 5-6MP (that's the working model right now). It's allegedly slated for either announcement or release at PMA, *not* Photokina. Obviously I can't speak for the accuracy of this, but I'm passing it along to feed the flames of controversy. :) chris
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
- Original Message - From: Pål Jensen Subject: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600 In the camera industry, pro gear means a camera that can withstand certain shutter cycles. My 3 LX bodies. > > > > Pentax "PRO" means no product support, and little brand cachet. > > The first part is simply not correct. My 3 LX bodies. William Robb This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
> I do get tired of folks wanting digital instead of glass. > No, that's not true. I am weary of those who want digital > knocking glass to the ground! Both can exist. Why is a world > beater digital any better than a world beater glass camera? > You do use them for different things, they serve different markets... > > So it seems to me. > > keith whaley I don't want digital *instead* of glass. I just want a digital body I can use my Pentax glass on. That way I can shoot film or digital, whichever is appropriate to the situation, and have my investment in Pentax lenses be a better value. Right now I have some customers that want digital pictures and others that want film. I'd be ever so much happier if I could keep them happy with just a Pentax system. Len ---
William Robb bashing. Was: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
- Original Message - From: Pål Jensen Subject: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600 > William wrote: > > > This is how it has always been, how it is now, and how it will > > always be. > > > Interresting concept. One must be pretty rigid in mind to believe such drivel. > No Pål, but I have been a working photographer for 30 years now. I think I have a pretty good handle on how it was and how it is. How it always will be is an easy extrapolation from the first two. William Robb
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
- Original Message - From: Keith Whaley Subject: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600 > And it doesn't matter how the photographer performs in all this mess? > That's being ignored? > You mean you walk in and present your folio, and before the person > looks at your WORK, s/he says, "What platform are you using? Ohhh. > Pentax. Sniff... We only hire Nikon [or Canon, or Leica] cameras.]" > If that's a ludricous scenario, which it seems to be, then what are > you talking about? > Seems to me all you have to bitch about is how Pentax doesn't live up > to your expectations, not how Pentax equipment performs, which is > REALLY what permits you to do your job! > Isn't it? > > If you want your image collecting gear to be different from what > Pentax offers...or you want the MAKER of your image collecting gear to > be better than you perceive they are, there IS a solution, isn't there? I mean that at some point the client is going to see what you have sitting on the tripod. If they have a mindset that Nikon takes better pictures, then they are going to stop thinking about how wonderful your portfolio is, and start thinking how much better it would be if the shots had been done with a Nikon. This is the cachet value of brand marketing. Nikon knows it. Canon knows it. Leica knows it. Hasselblad knows it. Pentax doesn't think it matters. >From there, the next move is to hire another photographer, one who uses what they think will give them better pictures. Fortunately, this only happened to me a couple of times. My pro career was in the studio. I shot weddings with a K1000. I shot portraits with a 6x7 or 4x5. I shot small product with all 3 formats. Nothing I did as a pro required a fast responsive camera. All that was required was a good lens. OTOH, I use Nikkor lenses on my 4x5, which was my bread and butter camera when I was shooting. For the record, I switched from Nikon to Pentax, with absolutely no pretensions about what I was selling or buying. I bought Pentax for the lenses, not the cameras. I have absolutely no expectations, or even wishes really, regarding new products from Pentax. The only place I feel they have let my down is in keeping my LX's operating. Now, stop being a buffoon and presume you know what motivates me. Regards William Robb
Re: Loyalties (was: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600)
- Original Message - From: Pål Jensen Subject: Re: Loyalties (was: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600) > Are you telling me they don't do that in North America? Have you actually asked Pentax about their pro services? I personally loaned a 120 film insert for free from one of their loaner cameras for two months. They got it around here ,and as far as I know, in the rest of the world as well. In Japan, registered pros can rent any Pentax gear for free while theirs are at service or repair. Anything is available for rent. For all I know, North America may be an exception. Pentax doesn't have a "professional" division in Canada, and AFAIK, not in the USA either. No pro division in the company translates into no pro support from the company. In Canada, this includes a repair and service department that is at the playdough stage of product support. Pentax Canada has been entirely unable to keep my LX bodies operating for more than 3 years and 30 rolls of film at a time. Every time I send an LX to the repair depot, it costs me at least 300 dollars. That works out to a real equipment cost to me of $0.40 EVERY TIME I PUSH THE SHUTTER BUTTON. Disposable cameras have a better perfomance/cost ratio than that. William Robb This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Pentax digital slr (WAS: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600)
Ouch (not) Talk about Oscar Wilde. Once again Bruce demonstrates his uncanny psychic ability to know the unknowable. He's just guessing, folks, and like any guesser he'll crow about his hits and hope we forget his misses. Regards, Anthony Farr - Original Message - From: "Rubenstein, Bruce M (Bruce)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > like the way the point on your head has dulled over the years. >
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
On Tuesday, September 24, 2002, at 12:23 PM, Pål Jensen wrote: > Hmmm. I always felt that the screw mount Takumars matched the > Spotmatics: The K-series lenses the K-bodies; the M-series the > M-bodies; the A-series the A bodies. The LX matches pretty much all of > these. The F-series of lenses fit well to the F bodies; the FA lenses > fit the Z series. Admittedly, the Limited doesn't really fit in > > > Pål > I don't know about that, the Limited lenses in the US look like a good match for US ZX-5n. The feel is a little different, cold metal versus warm polycarbonate, but that doesn't bum me out or anything. If anything were to change with the limiteds, I'd like them to have a focus feel more like m series lenses. Dan Scott
Re: Pentax digital slr (WAS: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600)
Bruce, Wrong is wrong. The rounding error defense doesn't wash in this case. You gave a price which the cameras wouldn't go below, and then they did >:-P I don't care if a Pentax DSLR appears tomorrow or on any particular date, but there's no reason for Pentax to release at any time except when they want to, they are still in charge of their own affairs AFAIK. And they don't care one iota what Bruce Rubenstein thinks because he's obviously a Nikon acolyte who's only here to plant the seeds of discontent. Regards, Anthony Farr - Original Message - From: "Rubenstein, Bruce M (Bruce)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 2.5% difference, just rounding error; like the way the point on your head has dulled over the years. When Pentax doesn't introduce a DSLR tomorrow I suppose that you will personally blame me for that too. > >
RE: Loyalties (was: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600)
On Tue, 24 Sep 2002 17:23:53 -0400, tom wrote: > I'm very happy with the support I get. Is "Santa Claus" your rep? IIRC, you're in Maryland, and I think that's part of his territory. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
RE: Loyalties (was: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600)
On Tue, 24 Sep 2002 20:37:48 +0100, Malcolm Smith wrote: > I expect I am one of the few people on this list who has been so happy with > what they have, that other equipment/manufacturers products, were of little > relevance. I'm another. So far, there hasn't been anything that I both wanted and could afford that Pentax couldn't supply. That could change one day, like if they don't come out with a digital K-mount SLR before I need one. And that's not even on the horizon yet. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: Loyalties (was: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600)
Tom wrote: > > You are correct that there is no official structure to support pros as > Nikon or Canon has, but that doesn't mean pros who use Pentax don't > get support. They do *if* they are actual working pros. > > I'm very happy with the support I get. Right! Thats another case of Pentax weird marketing. Pål
RE: Loyalties (was: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600)
-Original Message- > From: Rubenstein, Bruce M (Bruce) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > No they don't. There is nothing on their web site, and I've > spoken to Pentax reps here. It is an official, documented > program of Canon and Nikon. There is no support for pros > using 35mm Pentax gear in NA: No special programs by the > distributors, no places to rent gear and almost no full > line dealers. Get the picture? You are correct that there is no official structure to support pros as Nikon or Canon has, but that doesn't mean pros who use Pentax don't get support. They do *if* they are actual working pros. I'm very happy with the support I get. tv
Re: Pentax digital slr (WAS: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600)
Bingo Pål. - Original Message - From: "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 12:13 PM Subject: Re: Pentax digital slr (WAS: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600) > Bruce wrote: > They are too small a company to be able to come out with a new digital body every year (their sales are 1/10 of Canon's). > > > REPLY: > In this you must have included Canons business machine division. Pentax is on par with Minolta which means they are bigger than Nikon and Olympus and make much more money than the to latter loss leaders. > The reason theres no Minolta, Pentax or Olympus digital slr (with interchangeable lenses) is because virtually nobody is buying them. Only the companies with monopoly on the photo journalist market bothers so far. There are all reason to believe this will change when prices starts dropping. > > Pål > > >
Re: Re[2]: Pentax digital slr (WAS: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600)
To PDMLers I can honestly say I like the criticisms and comments, as it helps me expand my photographic knowledge. A few here know that, it was only when some of my comments were referred to in a derogatory manner (smugness) that I took offence. Rob Studdert goes after me all the time, on list or personal addressed email. He's polite, says what he means, and I generally learn from it or we agree to disagree. I like him. I like almost *everyone* here. I love taking the time to read the piles of email that come in. The PDML has really helped me. People here *I think* appreciate my candid views on things (vanity), and do not condemn me for it. We do have some humour here, for instance, my portrait on the website :) I know people aren't serious, and I play along. There is always the bad apple, the PDML, great as it is, can't be perfect. Regards, Brad Dobo - Original Message - From: "Mike Ignatiev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 11:12 AM Subject: Re[2]: Pentax digital slr (WAS: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600) > Anthony, > I am relatively new here, but so far I have heard a lot less "clangers" from Bruce than from some of the loyal pentaxians here. And I haven't heard him insulting or aggravating pentax users -- but unfortunately, many here take almost everything personaly. > > Best, > Mishka > > -Original Message- > From: "Anthony Farr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 00:45:36 +1000 > Subject: Re: Pentax digital slr (WAS: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600) > > > > > William, > > > > Being a troll or not has absolutely nothing to do with knowledge or > > eloquence. I don't doubt that Bruce is no dummy although he has at times > > dropped some clangers, notably the claim that Nikon got an SLR to the market > > before Asahi, and "Prices aren't going to drop below $2k for the establish > > (sic) companies any time soon" when discussing D-SLRs". Well, C/NET Shopper > > http://dpreview.cnet.com/shopping/resellers/0-8920592-311-9387214.html?tag=p > > t.dpreview.Canon_EOS-D60 currently has 4 links to sites offering EOS-D60 for > > $US1,949.00). > > > > Bruce's mission appears to be to insult or aggravate Pentax users on our own > > forum, provoking a defensive or hostile reaction from someone among us. > > That sounds like a troll to me, and makes him about as welcome as a fart in > > a spacesuit. > > > > Regards, > > Anthony Farr > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > (snip) > > > > > > You will find that the person you are labeling as a troll is one > > > of the more knowledgable people on this list. That is, if you > > > keep reading. > > > > > > William Robb > > > > > > > > > >
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
Wow, some long and passionate emails. This isn't geared towards any one person. I see my position simply. I do photography as a hobby, and like using the best. I dropped a wad of cash for the MZ-S, grips, cables, 360FGZ flash, couple prime lenses. If they come out with a digitalI don't really care. Why? Because I cannot now afford it due to the above purchases. If a Pentax DSLR comes along, I'll be pissed...natually. They are really f**king over everyone that went out and got a MZ-S kit IMHO. So I'll have my little digital P&S, and otherwise shoot film until they no longer make it. (or I win the lottery) Brad Dobo - Original Message - From: "Keith Whaley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 10:50 AM Subject: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600 > > > Rob Studdert wrote: > > > > On 24 Sep 2002 at 3:21, Keith Whaley wrote: > > > > > I do get tired of folks wanting digital instead of glass. > > > No, that's not true. I am weary of those who want digital knocking > > > glass to the ground! > > > Both can exist. Why is a world beater digital any better than a world > > > beater glass camera? > > > You do use them for different things, they serve different markets... > > > > Hi Keith, > > > > Its these types of comments that I don't understand. As a photographer I expect > > to have the choices of the current (digital is current, it's not up and coming, > > it's here) image capture medium available to me. I expect to be able to have > > film bodies and a digital body in the same bag sharing all my excellent Pentax > > glass, I don't believe it's too much to ask for. > > No, but it's the 'sharing' bit that is NOT here yet. Not with Pentax. > I know, that's what everybody's looking for, hoping for. > But you see, you are not praising digital to the _exclusion_ of glass. > It's those who get my goat. > Our hope is that we WILL be able to share, to have a digital body and > a film body, and use all the same lenses for whichever. > > > Obviously I can dump all my Pentax kit and go off a by a couple of the new > > Kodak 14MP bodies and a heap of Nikon glass but I really don't wish to do that. > > Aside from the hassle and potential financial losses I really like my kit of > > lenses, I know them and I would like to keep them. But I need a digital body > > too. > > I do understand that. > What I find troubling is those who say, in effect, if Pentax doesn't > bring out a digital back that will take all the lenses we have, > there's a strong possiblility we'll just _have_ to switch to another platform. > Is digital really all that important at this point in time, in that it > has overtaken and supplanted film? > > Maybe I'm missing something here. Is there actually an in-process > switch from film to digital going on? > How many of us are professional photographers -- actually make a > living at it? > Is that where the drive comes from? > As a serious amateur, I'd LIKE to have a Pentax back in digital, but > if they don't bring it out for another year, I'm certainly not running > off in a big huff, dumping all my Pentax gear and going to some other > make... > > So, I must assume it's all the professional photogs here that are > making all the threatening, doomsday noises? > I guess if this is just a PRO lament, I'll just quiet down, let 'em > lament and read the mail! ;^) > > keith whaley > > > Cheers, > > > > Rob Studdert > > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html >
Re: Pentax digital slr (WAS: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600)
Why not include disposable camera makers too while you're at it? From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=E5l_Jensen?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Who's talking about SLR's?
Re: Loyalties (was: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600)
No they don't. There is nothing on their web site, and I've spoken to Pentax reps here. It is an official, documented program of Canon and Nikon. There is no support for pros using 35mm Pentax gear in NA: No special programs by the distributors, no places to rent gear and almost no full line dealers. Get the picture? From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=E5l_Jensen?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Are you telling me they don't do that in North America?
Re: Used lens prices (WAS: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600)
And this helps a SLR shooter how? Who cares how well a company does if it doesn't sell what you want to buy? Wanna see the pop up flash of my P&S Hasselblad? From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=E5l_Jensen?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> theres no way a company will loose out for missing the slr boat. 99% (or similar) of camera sales are P&S. And in the upper part of the P&S marlet Pentax has been a market leader for 15 years. Hell, they invented the zoom compact. All camera manufacturers survive on P&S sales.
Re: Used lens prices (WAS: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600)
I wrote: All camera manufacturers survive on P&S sales. CORRECTION: It is supposed to be all major manufacturers Pål
Re: Pentax digital slr (WAS: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600)
Bruce wrote: > Cite a reference, with more validity than "everybody knows" or "told to me by a >local Pentax rep", that has unit sales of SLRs. > Who's talking about SLR's? I was responding to the statement that Pentax was a small camera manufacturer. As far as I know, SLR is an insubstantial part of any camera manufacturers overturn. I'm refer to the camera/photo equipment (not office machines) overturn numbers published a few years back. BTW Pentax has grown substantially the last few years. 20 years ago, Pentax was the worlds largest slr manufacturer but a "small" company. Now they are among the largest japanese manufacturers and are still growing. In the mid 80's they changed from an SLR-only manufacturer to the worlds absolute market leader in the expensive and profitable 35mm P&S market. They made more P&S cameras that costed the same as entry level slr's than perhaps the whole hirtory of slr production combined. Pentax hasn't slowed down slr releaes the last 15 years due to the lack of resources; they have spent their resources elsewhere. Judging Pentax size from the number of slr's they sell is pretty pointless. Pål
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
At 07:19 PM 9/24/2002 +0200, Pal wrote: >These generalizations are utterly meaningless. The guy with 7FPS will >never reash the top of Mount Everest. Just a little tweak, but tell that to the team that dragged an IMAX up there. >Pål
Re: Loyalties (was: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600)
Bruce wrote: > This statement is just as untrue now as it was the first time you wrote it. In the >US Canon and Nikon both have Professional Services for working pros that: expedite >repairs, give loaners for equipment being repaired and lend out equipment for trial, >and not just during the Olympics. > Are you telling me they don't do that in North America? Have you actually asked Pentax about their pro services? I personally loaned a 120 film insert for free from one of their loaner cameras for two months. They got it around here ,and as far as I know, in the rest of the world as well. In Japan, registered pros can rent any Pentax gear for free while theirs are at service or repair. Anything is available for rent. For all I know, North America may be an exception. Pål
Re: Pentax digital slr (WAS: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600)
Cite a reference, with more validity than "everybody knows" or "told to me by a local Pentax rep", that has unit sales of SLRs. From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=E5l_Jensen?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Pentax is on par with Minolta
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
:-) No, Pentax indeed. I find Canon bokeh to just be "fuzz" or noise, and Nikon a bit better- but not thrilling. Maybe I'm still hooked on the screw 50/1.4- who knows. Those pentagonal buttons on the Kodak DSLR say alot. But I'll take fuzz over nothing.. R Mishka wrote: >are you talking of Pentax or Leica? :) >Mishka > > > >>The similar focal length pics thru Canon glass are sharp and technically >>wonderful but definitely are missing some artistic component. >> >>-R >> >> > > > > >
Re[2]: Loyalties (was: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600)
Rob, I have been happy over the years with both Pentax and Nikon gear. It has mostly been a latency issue for me. However, medium format puts a new wrinkle in the picture for me. I am finding that almost any shot that can be taken with the 67II ends up being much better than with any 35mm I have owned (Pentax, Nikon, Canon and Olympus). This tends to cloud the issue to some degree - for me at least. Digital holds a very strong future direction for me - but so does MF. So I could see a possibility of remaining "loyal" to Pentax in MF and someone else for digital/35mm. We will wait and see what Pentax does. For the time being, I will continue to use and fill out my MF kit. Bruce Tuesday, September 24, 2002, 7:32:50 AM, you wrote: RB> In other words, Being loyal to a brand does not make sense unless the RB> brand is loyal to you. Pentax owes us nothing, and in DSLR terms gives RB> us nothing, therefore we should not feely bound to them by loyalty. It RB> is latency which holds many with good reason, the expense both in time RB> and money of changing lens mount is hard to come to terms with for me RB> and I don't really think I can be bothered. Not that I am against it in RB> principle, just that a lot of effort went into building up my current RB> kit - I don't have it in me to start all over again right now. RB> I have been thinking about a P&S digicam to get some digital capability, RB> but now the Foveon offering may comparable in price, so I might grab one RB> with a 24-70 lens for family snapshots. This could, however, set in RB> motion a chain of events... RB> So who here is with Pentax because of loyalty, and who because of RB> latency? >> -Original Message- >> From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> Sent: 24 September 2002 14:59 >> To: Pentax List >> Subject: Loyalties (was: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600) >> >> >> >> Well Gents, I have just one thing to say, whether or not >> Pentax comes >> >> up with a DSLR this year or the next or the next, you'll >> quickly find >> >> out who is truly loyal to Pentax or who is not (if one >> believes such >> >> loyalitys exist). >> >> The only thing I would add to the above would be: 'Ladies' on >> the first >> line. Don't forget we have lots of interesting and excellent women >> photographers on this list (creep creep, hubba hubba). >> >> (WARNING: long content) >> >> Regarding the subject of loyalties. I've been thinking about >> it a lot, >> mainly because I am in the process of changing (some of) them? >> >> I think that loyalty to one particular brand is borne of many >> things and >> circumstances. The only reason that I am loyal (still) to Pentax is >> because of the quality of the kit (that I enjoy using) and >> little else. >> Admittedly, that kit is (was) comprised wholly of gear that >> is simply not >> available any more. I'm referring to the venerable LX, and >> the various >> SMC lenses I own(ed). So, effectively I am loyal to Pentax in >> the 80's, >> not Pentax in the 21st century. >> >> Although I do admit that the Ltd lenses are really nice, and I am >> impressed by them, I have seen nothing in the way of new cameras from >> Pentax that I would buy in order to put them on. My opinion, based on >> what I like, what I think works. When I picked up the MZ-S at >> Duxford in >> the summer, I had no 'gut reaction' at all. I could take it >> or leave it. >> In fact, rather than take advantage of the fact that it >> wasn't being used >> and wander about burning some film with it, I instead >> replaced it after >> ten minutes, and picked up my LX again. For me there was no >> comparison at >> all. I knew then that I would never buy an MZ-S. >> >> Some of you may know that I am in the process of selling a lot of my >> Pentax gear in order to recoup enough funds for me to invest >> in a digital >> SLR setup. Odd that I am mentioning this on the evening of >> Photokina, you >> may think. Why didn't I wait to see what would be happening? >> I'm afraid I >> can't fully answer that question right now - I want to see >> what happens >> tomorrow :-) >> >> But in an effort to try and understand my motives, I'll >> explain a bit of >> what's going on in my head... >> >> First off, although I am selling some gear, I'm hardly 'switching >> loyalties'. First and foremost, I
Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
Keith wrote: > Maybe I'm missing something here. Is there actually an in-process > switch from film to digital going on? No it isn't (when talking digital slr's). The photo journalist have switcvhed a few years ago. The rest is a few wealthy amateurs. All others are sitting on the fence waiting for prices to drop and specification to rise. > How many of us are professional photographers -- actually make a > living at it? > Is that where the drive comes from? The drive is psychological. Pål
Re: Pentax digital slr (WAS: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600)
Bruce wrote: They are too small a company to be able to come out with a new digital body every year (their sales are 1/10 of Canon's). REPLY: In this you must have included Canons business machine division. Pentax is on par with Minolta which means they are bigger than Nikon and Olympus and make much more money than the to latter loss leaders. The reason theres no Minolta, Pentax or Olympus digital slr (with interchangeable lenses) is because virtually nobody is buying them. Only the companies with monopoly on the photo journalist market bothers so far. There are all reason to believe this will change when prices starts dropping. Pål
