Re: Semi-OT: The true reasons for a full frame camera
Actually I don't think that Pentax licenses there version from Sony, IIRC they use a very differnt system based on some sort of magnetic levitation as opposed to Sony which uses ball bearings actuated by magnets. The only thing they have in common are the magnets. On the other hand, the only thing Poloroid patented instant film process had in common with Kodak's was osmosis, which being a natural phenomenon, I didn't think was patentable, but hey Kodak lost. On 7/17/2013 8:15 PM, John wrote: Sony does with their full-frame DSLRs. Pentax licenses the in-body stabilization technology from Sony. I figure Nikon & Canon already have too much investment in their in-lens IS to ever change. I see that as a shortcoming on the part of CaNikon On 7/17/2013 6:44 PM, George Sinos wrote: Can you do in-body shake reduction with larger sensors? I doubt the N or C would put it in the body anyway. They make too much money on the lenses and have spent too much time telling everyone that it's better when it's in the lens. gs George Sinos www.GeorgesPhotos.net www.GeorgeSinos.com On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 5:27 PM, P.J. Alling wrote: I'm not sure how much scaling up would be required the hypothetical FF Pentax would require for a FF mirror box. If you compare a *ist-D and a *ist-Ds and an ZX/MZ-5n, you'll find that the *ist-D has the same size mirror box as the ZX/MZ camera and the *ist-Ds camera has a mirror box and mirror more in keeping with an APS-C sensor. Yet it isn't appreciably smaller for that, the volume just seems to be distributed differently. Now the shake reduction system might require a slightly different form factor, but then again it might not. On 7/17/2013 5:18 PM, John wrote: I ran across this in a discussion thread in DPReview comparing the Nikon D600 to the Nikon D7100. I've mentioned here before that I've been looking closely at the Nikon D600 and consider its specifications to be a minimum starting point for what any Pentax FF must offer. Still, it has some shortcomings from my point of view (beyond Nikon having put their IS in the lenses). Someone mentioned the D7100 as an example of what a Pentax K5II follow-on camera would need to be, so I took a look at its specs on DPReview and it seems to have fixed every concern I had about the D600 (other than IS which I understand ain't gonna' happen). http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/equivalence/ff.html Semi-OT because the author bases his design of a hypothetical compact FF Nikon "D800c" on scaling up the the Pentax K5 body to fit in a FF sensor & mirror box. The rest of the article doesn't matter all that much, but I thought it was interesting for the suggestion that Nikon should be taking design cues from Pentax. -- There are two kinds of computer users those who've experienced a hard drive failure, and those that will. -- There are two kinds of computer users those who've experienced a hard drive failure, and those that will. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Semi-OT: The true reasons for a full frame camera
On 7/17/2013 7:46 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: Bruce Walker wrote: Well in-lens is fancier, anyways. You get little knobs that let you control what kind of shake you are trying to eliminate. Eg: A. Shake, Rattle and Roll. B. Shimmy, Shimmy Shake. C. Whole 'Lotta Shakin' Goin' On. D. Shakin' All Over. E. Shake'n'Bake Steak 'n Shake? and don't forget the ubiquitous Shake and Bake(tm). -- There are two kinds of computer users those who've experienced a hard drive failure, and those that will. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Semi-OT: The true reasons for a full frame camera
Sony does with their full-frame DSLRs. Pentax licenses the in-body stabilization technology from Sony. I figure Nikon & Canon already have too much investment in their in-lens IS to ever change. I see that as a shortcoming on the part of CaNikon On 7/17/2013 6:44 PM, George Sinos wrote: Can you do in-body shake reduction with larger sensors? I doubt the N or C would put it in the body anyway. They make too much money on the lenses and have spent too much time telling everyone that it's better when it's in the lens. gs George Sinos www.GeorgesPhotos.net www.GeorgeSinos.com On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 5:27 PM, P.J. Alling wrote: I'm not sure how much scaling up would be required the hypothetical FF Pentax would require for a FF mirror box. If you compare a *ist-D and a *ist-Ds and an ZX/MZ-5n, you'll find that the *ist-D has the same size mirror box as the ZX/MZ camera and the *ist-Ds camera has a mirror box and mirror more in keeping with an APS-C sensor. Yet it isn't appreciably smaller for that, the volume just seems to be distributed differently. Now the shake reduction system might require a slightly different form factor, but then again it might not. On 7/17/2013 5:18 PM, John wrote: I ran across this in a discussion thread in DPReview comparing the Nikon D600 to the Nikon D7100. I've mentioned here before that I've been looking closely at the Nikon D600 and consider its specifications to be a minimum starting point for what any Pentax FF must offer. Still, it has some shortcomings from my point of view (beyond Nikon having put their IS in the lenses). Someone mentioned the D7100 as an example of what a Pentax K5II follow-on camera would need to be, so I took a look at its specs on DPReview and it seems to have fixed every concern I had about the D600 (other than IS which I understand ain't gonna' happen). http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/equivalence/ff.html Semi-OT because the author bases his design of a hypothetical compact FF Nikon "D800c" on scaling up the the Pentax K5 body to fit in a FF sensor & mirror box. The rest of the article doesn't matter all that much, but I thought it was interesting for the suggestion that Nikon should be taking design cues from Pentax. -- There are two kinds of computer users those who've experienced a hard drive failure, and those that will. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Semi-OT: The true reasons for a full frame camera
While I'm sure that there is some engineering involved to make the SR mechanisms handle a larger full frame sensor, in practice the software change should be rather trivial. Due to the 1.5x FOV factor being done away with, all one would have to do is a mathematical change in the focal length that is displayed on the LCD. (What was formerly a 75mm would become a 50mm). The "problem" is that I don't think there WAS a 75mm (it was 85mm) but my point is (hopefully) taken. The algorithm probably needs few changes but the display focal lengths would. I think the bigger problem is in the processing engine and the number of AF points. If you are coming from Pentax's AFS-C design perspective to full frame, I would leave the 11 AF points where they are and then design more around the periphery (of the larger sensor). Adding a minimum of 12 might do it, but you have a lot of computational changes to make to accommodate them. In addition, you have a larger filesize to process and write to disk (new territory for Pentax) so the buffer might again be a problem for continuous shooting. I think that Pentax should probably not shoot for PRO land here, but ENTHUSIAST land in their first full frame DSLR. Then take the lessons learned and apply them to the next generation. I think that the body will have to be somewhat bigger, just to accommodate the larger mirror/pentaprism needed for a full frame. It wouldn't bother me if they ignored video COMPLETELY on a full frame camera, but I doubt that the marketing department would be very excited about that. I'm not sure that anyone who isn't familiar with the injection molding (plastics) business can truly appreciate the amount of time and complexity that goes into a significant new revision (like a full frame camera would entail). My employers own three injection molding plants and an injection mold machining business. That's (probably) why the past several models have all pretty much been in the same K-5 body. A full frame would be a BIG departure from that. And that isn't even considering the software side of things. There are reasons that things take time. On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 5:44 PM, George Sinos wrote: > Can you do in-body shake reduction with larger sensors? > > I doubt the N or C would put it in the body anyway. They make too > much money on the lenses and have spent too much time telling everyone > that it's better when it's in the lens. > > gs > George Sinos > > www.GeorgesPhotos.net > www.GeorgeSinos.com > > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 5:27 PM, P.J. Alling > wrote: >> I'm not sure how much scaling up would be required the hypothetical FF >> Pentax would require for a FF mirror box. If you compare a *ist-D and a >> *ist-Ds and an ZX/MZ-5n, you'll find that the *ist-D has the same size >> mirror box as the ZX/MZ camera and the *ist-Ds camera has a mirror box and >> mirror more in keeping with an APS-C sensor. Yet it isn't appreciably >> smaller for that, the volume just seems to be distributed differently. Now >> the shake reduction system might require a slightly different form factor, >> but then again it might not. >> >> >> On 7/17/2013 5:18 PM, John wrote: >>> >>> I ran across this in a discussion thread in DPReview comparing the Nikon >>> D600 to the Nikon D7100. >>> >>> I've mentioned here before that I've been looking closely at the Nikon >>> D600 and consider its specifications to be a minimum starting point for >>> what any Pentax FF must offer. Still, it has some shortcomings from my >>> point of view (beyond Nikon having put their IS in the lenses). >>> >>> Someone mentioned the D7100 as an example of what a Pentax K5II >>> follow-on camera would need to be, so I took a look at its specs on >>> DPReview and it seems to have fixed every concern I had about the D600 >>> (other than IS which I understand ain't gonna' happen). >>> >>> http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/equivalence/ff.html >>> >>> Semi-OT because the author bases his design of a hypothetical compact FF >>> Nikon "D800c" on scaling up the the Pentax K5 body to fit in a FF sensor >>> & mirror box. >>> >>> The rest of the article doesn't matter all that much, but I thought it >>> was interesting for the suggestion that Nikon should be taking design >>> cues from Pentax. >>> >> >> >> -- >> There are two kinds of computer users those who've experienced a hard drive >> failure, and those that will. >> >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- "Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art" - Peter Galassi -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailm
Re: Semi-OT: The true reasons for a full frame camera
I dunno. I was just kinda' impressed that the guy thought the K5 was the ideal Nikon should aspire to. On 7/17/2013 6:27 PM, P.J. Alling wrote: I'm not sure how much scaling up would be required the hypothetical FF Pentax would require for a FF mirror box. If you compare a *ist-D and a *ist-Ds and an ZX/MZ-5n, you'll find that the *ist-D has the same size mirror box as the ZX/MZ camera and the *ist-Ds camera has a mirror box and mirror more in keeping with an APS-C sensor. Yet it isn't appreciably smaller for that, the volume just seems to be distributed differently. Now the shake reduction system might require a slightly different form factor, but then again it might not. On 7/17/2013 5:18 PM, John wrote: I ran across this in a discussion thread in DPReview comparing the Nikon D600 to the Nikon D7100. I've mentioned here before that I've been looking closely at the Nikon D600 and consider its specifications to be a minimum starting point for what any Pentax FF must offer. Still, it has some shortcomings from my point of view (beyond Nikon having put their IS in the lenses). Someone mentioned the D7100 as an example of what a Pentax K5II follow-on camera would need to be, so I took a look at its specs on DPReview and it seems to have fixed every concern I had about the D600 (other than IS which I understand ain't gonna' happen). http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/equivalence/ff.html Semi-OT because the author bases his design of a hypothetical compact FF Nikon "D800c" on scaling up the the Pentax K5 body to fit in a FF sensor & mirror box. The rest of the article doesn't matter all that much, but I thought it was interesting for the suggestion that Nikon should be taking design cues from Pentax. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Semi-OT: The true reasons for a full frame camera
Bruce Walker wrote: >Well in-lens is fancier, anyways. You get little knobs that let you >control what kind of shake you are trying to eliminate. Eg: > >A. Shake, Rattle and Roll. >B. Shimmy, Shimmy Shake. >C. Whole 'Lotta Shakin' Goin' On. >D. Shakin' All Over. >E. Shake'n'Bake Steak 'n Shake? -- Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia www.robertstech.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Semi-OT: The true reasons for a full frame camera
Well in-lens is fancier, anyways. You get little knobs that let you control what kind of shake you are trying to eliminate. Eg: A. Shake, Rattle and Roll. B. Shimmy, Shimmy Shake. C. Whole 'Lotta Shakin' Goin' On. D. Shakin' All Over. E. Shake'n'Bake Powerful stuff. On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 6:44 PM, George Sinos wrote: > Can you do in-body shake reduction with larger sensors? > > I doubt the N or C would put it in the body anyway. They make too > much money on the lenses and have spent too much time telling everyone > that it's better when it's in the lens. > > gs > George Sinos > > www.GeorgesPhotos.net > www.GeorgeSinos.com > > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 5:27 PM, P.J. Alling > wrote: >> I'm not sure how much scaling up would be required the hypothetical FF >> Pentax would require for a FF mirror box. If you compare a *ist-D and a >> *ist-Ds and an ZX/MZ-5n, you'll find that the *ist-D has the same size >> mirror box as the ZX/MZ camera and the *ist-Ds camera has a mirror box and >> mirror more in keeping with an APS-C sensor. Yet it isn't appreciably >> smaller for that, the volume just seems to be distributed differently. Now >> the shake reduction system might require a slightly different form factor, >> but then again it might not. >> >> >> On 7/17/2013 5:18 PM, John wrote: >>> >>> I ran across this in a discussion thread in DPReview comparing the Nikon >>> D600 to the Nikon D7100. >>> >>> I've mentioned here before that I've been looking closely at the Nikon >>> D600 and consider its specifications to be a minimum starting point for >>> what any Pentax FF must offer. Still, it has some shortcomings from my >>> point of view (beyond Nikon having put their IS in the lenses). >>> >>> Someone mentioned the D7100 as an example of what a Pentax K5II >>> follow-on camera would need to be, so I took a look at its specs on >>> DPReview and it seems to have fixed every concern I had about the D600 >>> (other than IS which I understand ain't gonna' happen). >>> >>> http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/equivalence/ff.html >>> >>> Semi-OT because the author bases his design of a hypothetical compact FF >>> Nikon "D800c" on scaling up the the Pentax K5 body to fit in a FF sensor >>> & mirror box. >>> >>> The rest of the article doesn't matter all that much, but I thought it >>> was interesting for the suggestion that Nikon should be taking design >>> cues from Pentax. >>> >> >> >> -- >> There are two kinds of computer users those who've experienced a hard drive >> failure, and those that will. >> >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- -bmw -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Semi-OT: The true reasons for a full frame camera
on 2013-07-17 16:44 George Sinos wrote I doubt the N or C would put it in the body anyway. They make too much money on the lenses and have spent too much time telling everyone that it's better when it's in the lens. perhaps not, but i noted a recent rumor that Panasonic will come out with in-body IS in its next m43 body, despite having shipped many lenses with IS -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Semi-OT: The true reasons for a full frame camera
The Sony alpha 850 is a full size sensor with anti-shake. Jeffery On Jul 17, 2013, at 5:44 PM, George Sinos wrote: > Can you do in-body shake reduction with larger sensors? > > I doubt the N or C would put it in the body anyway. They make too > much money on the lenses and have spent too much time telling everyone > that it's better when it's in the lens. > > gs > George Sinos > > www.GeorgesPhotos.net > www.GeorgeSinos.com > > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 5:27 PM, P.J. Alling > wrote: >> I'm not sure how much scaling up would be required the hypothetical FF >> Pentax would require for a FF mirror box. If you compare a *ist-D and a >> *ist-Ds and an ZX/MZ-5n, you'll find that the *ist-D has the same size >> mirror box as the ZX/MZ camera and the *ist-Ds camera has a mirror box and >> mirror more in keeping with an APS-C sensor. Yet it isn't appreciably >> smaller for that, the volume just seems to be distributed differently. Now >> the shake reduction system might require a slightly different form factor, >> but then again it might not. >> >> >> On 7/17/2013 5:18 PM, John wrote: >>> >>> I ran across this in a discussion thread in DPReview comparing the Nikon >>> D600 to the Nikon D7100. >>> >>> I've mentioned here before that I've been looking closely at the Nikon >>> D600 and consider its specifications to be a minimum starting point for >>> what any Pentax FF must offer. Still, it has some shortcomings from my >>> point of view (beyond Nikon having put their IS in the lenses). >>> >>> Someone mentioned the D7100 as an example of what a Pentax K5II >>> follow-on camera would need to be, so I took a look at its specs on >>> DPReview and it seems to have fixed every concern I had about the D600 >>> (other than IS which I understand ain't gonna' happen). >>> >>> http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/equivalence/ff.html >>> >>> Semi-OT because the author bases his design of a hypothetical compact FF >>> Nikon "D800c" on scaling up the the Pentax K5 body to fit in a FF sensor >>> & mirror box. >>> >>> The rest of the article doesn't matter all that much, but I thought it >>> was interesting for the suggestion that Nikon should be taking design >>> cues from Pentax. >>> >> >> >> -- >> There are two kinds of computer users those who've experienced a hard drive >> failure, and those that will. >> >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Semi-OT: The true reasons for a full frame camera
Can you do in-body shake reduction with larger sensors? I doubt the N or C would put it in the body anyway. They make too much money on the lenses and have spent too much time telling everyone that it's better when it's in the lens. gs George Sinos www.GeorgesPhotos.net www.GeorgeSinos.com On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 5:27 PM, P.J. Alling wrote: > I'm not sure how much scaling up would be required the hypothetical FF > Pentax would require for a FF mirror box. If you compare a *ist-D and a > *ist-Ds and an ZX/MZ-5n, you'll find that the *ist-D has the same size > mirror box as the ZX/MZ camera and the *ist-Ds camera has a mirror box and > mirror more in keeping with an APS-C sensor. Yet it isn't appreciably > smaller for that, the volume just seems to be distributed differently. Now > the shake reduction system might require a slightly different form factor, > but then again it might not. > > > On 7/17/2013 5:18 PM, John wrote: >> >> I ran across this in a discussion thread in DPReview comparing the Nikon >> D600 to the Nikon D7100. >> >> I've mentioned here before that I've been looking closely at the Nikon >> D600 and consider its specifications to be a minimum starting point for >> what any Pentax FF must offer. Still, it has some shortcomings from my >> point of view (beyond Nikon having put their IS in the lenses). >> >> Someone mentioned the D7100 as an example of what a Pentax K5II >> follow-on camera would need to be, so I took a look at its specs on >> DPReview and it seems to have fixed every concern I had about the D600 >> (other than IS which I understand ain't gonna' happen). >> >> http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/equivalence/ff.html >> >> Semi-OT because the author bases his design of a hypothetical compact FF >> Nikon "D800c" on scaling up the the Pentax K5 body to fit in a FF sensor >> & mirror box. >> >> The rest of the article doesn't matter all that much, but I thought it >> was interesting for the suggestion that Nikon should be taking design >> cues from Pentax. >> > > > -- > There are two kinds of computer users those who've experienced a hard drive > failure, and those that will. > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Semi-OT: The true reasons for a full frame camera
I'm not sure how much scaling up would be required the hypothetical FF Pentax would require for a FF mirror box. If you compare a *ist-D and a *ist-Ds and an ZX/MZ-5n, you'll find that the *ist-D has the same size mirror box as the ZX/MZ camera and the *ist-Ds camera has a mirror box and mirror more in keeping with an APS-C sensor. Yet it isn't appreciably smaller for that, the volume just seems to be distributed differently. Now the shake reduction system might require a slightly different form factor, but then again it might not. On 7/17/2013 5:18 PM, John wrote: I ran across this in a discussion thread in DPReview comparing the Nikon D600 to the Nikon D7100. I've mentioned here before that I've been looking closely at the Nikon D600 and consider its specifications to be a minimum starting point for what any Pentax FF must offer. Still, it has some shortcomings from my point of view (beyond Nikon having put their IS in the lenses). Someone mentioned the D7100 as an example of what a Pentax K5II follow-on camera would need to be, so I took a look at its specs on DPReview and it seems to have fixed every concern I had about the D600 (other than IS which I understand ain't gonna' happen). http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/equivalence/ff.html Semi-OT because the author bases his design of a hypothetical compact FF Nikon "D800c" on scaling up the the Pentax K5 body to fit in a FF sensor & mirror box. The rest of the article doesn't matter all that much, but I thought it was interesting for the suggestion that Nikon should be taking design cues from Pentax. -- There are two kinds of computer users those who've experienced a hard drive failure, and those that will. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Semi-OT: The true reasons for a full frame camera
I ran across this in a discussion thread in DPReview comparing the Nikon D600 to the Nikon D7100. I've mentioned here before that I've been looking closely at the Nikon D600 and consider its specifications to be a minimum starting point for what any Pentax FF must offer. Still, it has some shortcomings from my point of view (beyond Nikon having put their IS in the lenses). Someone mentioned the D7100 as an example of what a Pentax K5II follow-on camera would need to be, so I took a look at its specs on DPReview and it seems to have fixed every concern I had about the D600 (other than IS which I understand ain't gonna' happen). http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/equivalence/ff.html Semi-OT because the author bases his design of a hypothetical compact FF Nikon "D800c" on scaling up the the Pentax K5 body to fit in a FF sensor & mirror box. The rest of the article doesn't matter all that much, but I thought it was interesting for the suggestion that Nikon should be taking design cues from Pentax. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
