The translator didn't bother to mention the MLU feature either with the
2sec. timer. Probably the same idiot that translated "magnesium aluminium
beschichtetess Gehause" which then became "magnesium alloy body coating" in
English on the Photokina explanation panel.
Not that I have too high
Not that I have too high expectations, but "semiprofessionel"
is a poor choice of words, because it can be interpreted as
"not suitable for profesionel" all to easily.
The text also says "professional travel and reportage photography". I
think this suits very well. The MZ-S is no all
BTW, most of this text looks like a translation of the
same (originally Japanese?) texts I have read before in
English.
The equivalent presentation on the Pentax.com website is
titled: PENTAX LAUNCHES NEW FLAGSHIP 35MM AUTOFOCUS SLR,
THE MZ-S PROFESSIONAL
But still, they haven't
Kevin wrote:
Wouldn't it be 400x?
20 x length x20 x width= 400 x area
Probably just depends on how you define magnification.
Nope -- 20x ; one inch (shortest side) relative to 20inches
(if you want to use the linear magnification which is all but
People just gotta stop thinking that Hollywood is real.
Not the point
-
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 .
Jon Hope wrote:
That's why the camera has an MF/AF
switch, and lenses a focusing ring. :-)
If you're not happy with what the AF
is selecting you can go to MF. It
happens a lot, especially when you
are focusing on an area that isn't
covered by an AF sensor.
Can an AF sensor focus on
Hey guys,
Slumming on e-Bay and found this unatainable morsel
(to me at least)
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=1215328829
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget
More good glass for you all
(I need to get a real job)
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=1215307664
-
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'
I love this lens overall.
The only flaw of this lens would be the inside reflection
of the lens barrel behind the front element, which causes
some kinds of flare in side-light situations. So you need
an effective hood for this lens.
Just my opinion.
--
Yoshihiko Takinami
Osaka,
Can an AF sensor focus on something as small as an eye? It
seems that, from what I understand you to be saying,
it may not
be possible to get that precise, and that MF may well be a
better, more accurate, method of focusing when making typical
portraits, especially if one were to be
In a message dated 2/16/2001 10:11:57 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
3. OL messages. These are "contributions" to the PDML that have
essentially
nothing to do with Pentax in specifics nor with photography in general,
and
therefore, in my humble opinion,
At 18:49 17/02/01, you wrote:
Can an AF sensor focus on something as small as an eye? It
seems that, from what I understand you to be saying, it may not
be possible to get that precise, and that MF may well be a
better, more accurate, method of focusing when making typical
portraits, especially
Shel asked:
Can an AF sensor focus on something as small as an eye? It
seems that, from what I understand you to be saying, it may not
be possible to get that precise, and that MF may well be a
better, more accurate, method of focusing when making typical
portraits, especially if one were
John Mustarde wrote:
Although my first impression was reserved, I think the MZ-S will
be a big hit, especially with the love-factor crowd who see a
camera as a class act in addition to a photo tool.
Even though I think I have understood the concept behind the MZ-S, I
would be surprised
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 21:58:48 -0600 (CST), Chris Brogden wrote:
It uses the same printing system as the date
feature on the compacts. LED lights that put the information down as the
film is winding, not while it is stationery
That matches the info in the Pentax patent on data-imprinting,
Before our studio went to all P645N, I used a PZ-1P with a "grip strap"
which also attached to the bottom of the camera as well. I my opinion,
it gave the camera a better appearance and the side strap made carrying
it somewhat easier.
Is that grip strap still available. If so, where.
Thanks
Congrats to Ebayers for jacking up the prices on certain Pentax lenses
lately. Another A* 135/1.8 sold for over $1,800 - and it was not even
in mint condition!
This is a lens that regularly traded for a maximum of $650 as recently
as 18 months ago. Bet they start coming out of the closets now.
In a message dated 2/17/01 2:42:29 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Subj: Re: Bodies Roll Call UPDATE 59
Date: 2/17/01 2:42:29 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michel Adam)
My point is, even within the same newspaper, you can usually tell what
Hi Erwin, you wrote:
When I say poor choice of words, I'm not talking about the
camera, I'm talking about selling a product. ...
However the last thing one should do, is to put a new 2500,--DM
camera in the catalog, and to include in the TITLE of the very
first public presentation : for
I've been watching the scarce 'mint' ones go unsold for awhile now - first
the 30mmf2.8-K, then the 20mm f4-K and now the 50mm f.1.2-K - all from
same seller, and the prices were (relatively) low, how come? people losing
interest in K series, or cause of the seller?
and thanks for all the
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 22:14:46 -0800, you wrote:
As I was shooting yesterday, I was thinking about how an AF
camera might focus in the same situation. I don't believe an AF
camera can focus as precisely.
Sure it can - just move the little switch beside the lens mount. The
one that says AF or
Hello,
At 17 Feb 2001 05:12:08 -0600,
"Len Paris" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote;
The only flaw of this lens would be the inside reflection
of the lens barrel behind the front element, which causes
some kinds of flare in side-light situations. So you need
an effective hood for this lens.
Last time I looked BH had them. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/
Another place to look if BH is out of them is Adorama,
http://adoramacamera.com/
Len
---
Before our studio went to all P645N, I used a PZ-1P
with a "grip strap"
which also attached to the bottom of the camera as
well. I my
Thank`s to Boz and Martin for answer to my question about MZ-10.
Raivo
---
Ühe e-maili aadressi asemel 5! Uuri järgi - http://www.hot.ee
I do not think the built-in hood of FA77/1.8 Limited is
effective enough. I consider it as an emergency hood.
My favorite hood for the lens is Pentax MH-RB52, a lens
hood for 85mm soft lens. Yes, you need 49 to 52 step up
ring.
I also use Olympus rubber hood for 40/2, 85/2, or
On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Bill D. Casselberry wrote:
Chris writes, w/ unabashed pseudo-arrogance ...
Hey, I resent that! I'm the genuine arrogant article, through and
through. :)
Um... not personally, but I think Bill C. might be persuaded to lend out
his Amazing 20mm Barking Takumar. :)
Skip wrote:
Maybe. But I would like to know about Sigma, for Pentax k-mounts. I found
this weird site on the web that is all about Sigma lenses. The first three
quarters of all the postings there are horror stories from people completely
knocking Sigma(s); ie; "they're trash held together by
John wrote:
I think Mike has come up with the best sig line ever for the
discriminating equipment-enabled photo buff. Can I steal it?
It won't be stealing...it will be "helping disseminate the truth." Please
help yourself.
I'm sorry I don't have it to hand, but a few years ago I attended a
In a message dated 2/17/01 6:15:48 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Is the hood that comes with the lens an effective hood? Or do
we need to find a larger, deeper one than that?
Only HAMA steel hoods from Germany seem to be deep enough. My recent purchase
of a 67mm
Ed wrote:
I couldn't agree more! BTW, my degrees are in history.
Regards,
Ed M.
Uh, but I thought an Ed.M was a Masters in Education!!
g, d, r
--Mike
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget
In a message dated 2/17/01 7:48:39 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, but is this positive? The MZ-S might get the image of a slow
camera with luxury attitude for the slow people with luxury attitude.
What?
Mafud
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
This message
Ralf wrote:
"Even though I think I have understood the concept behind the MZ-S, I
would be surprised if it becomes a _big_ hit. It might sell well,
especially in the first time though."
REPLY:
I agree but it's obvious to me that the MZ-S is not designed for high volume. This
makes sense to
Hi Shel,
Yes, your assumption is correct, AF is not for everything, especially
for us people shooters. I prefer to use it as a feature I resort to when
manual focus is difficult (getting more frequent as I approach 40). While
many of the smaller center zone AF brackets in cameras are very
- Original Message -
From: "Shel Belinkoff"
Subject: Re: Autofocus Question
The trouble with using the centre AF
sensor for portraits is that you can
end up with images that you wouldn't
take if you were using MF.
How do you mean that?
I have found that AF users (myself
Carlos Royo wrote:
Please explain to us what you mean when you write "young
and wild camera". ...
it (MZ-S) seems to me the kind of camera we have been
longing for: light, small, sturdy, with almost every useful
feature needed for nearly everyone.
That's a 100% subjective view and a
Bravo Mike! Good reminders here about enjoying yourself and forgetting about
perfectionism
Dosk
If you love a lens and some "test" says it sucks, who are you going to
believe?
All lens tests are wrong.
--Mike
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go
Shel asks:
As I was shooting yesterday, I was thinking about how an AF
camera might focus in the same situation. I don't believe an
AF
camera can focus as precisely. It seems the sensors are too
large to be able to focus specifically on an eye, or any
particular facial feature. Is this the
Ed Mathews wrote:
Hi Ed ...
AF is not for everything, especially
for us people shooters. I prefer to
use it as a feature I resort to when
manual focus is difficult
What MF bodies are you using? The LX (and, I suppose, the MX to
a degree) with its interchangeable screens seems to work
Re Doug's reference to:
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem
=1215307664
This same item was offered, and sold, a few months
ago on eBay. That always
makes me a little suspicious--I'd at least ask the
seller why the prior sale
went wrong, and, if you can dig it up,
Rofini wrote:
Robert Monaghan has an
interesting page comparing
auto focus with manual focus.
Seems rather scathing to the
autofocus camp. See:
http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/third/af.html
I read that some time ago, and my recollection is that the
comments weren't at all favorable to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But for portraiture, you ought to
use manual focus, trying to set
the ~exact~ plane of focus ~just
*behind* the eyes~, never in front.
*Focusing just behind the eyes gives
them depth.
Great tip. I'll have to try that and see if I can make it work
even with
In a message dated 2/17/01 10:51:48 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- Original Message -
From: Mafud
Subject: Re: Fast film to go with Porta 160
*("Rating" film is a slide/BW technique).
Could you expand on this thought please? Are you saying that people who
dosk wrote:
Bravo Mike! Good reminders here about enjoying yourself
and forgetting about perfectionism
Arf! , Arf! --- Bow Wow! --- Ahrrrugh!!
!8^D
-
Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography
Mike Johnston wrote:
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=1215307664
This same item was offered,
and sold, a few months ago
on eBay.
How do you know it's the same lens? I couldn't see any serial
number on the lens, nor was there one mentioned in the
description. The
Shel asks:
As I was shooting yesterday, I was thinking about how an AF
camera might focus in the same situation. I don't believe an
AF
camera can focus as precisely. It seems the sensors are too
large to be able to focus specifically on an eye, or any
particular facial feature. Is
on 2/17/01 12:07 PM, Shel Belinkoff at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And in the ZX5N (besides not being
able to choose the AF sensor), the
outer AF brackets are only sensitive
to horizontal lines so in the portrait
position, they don't see the eyeball well.
That's good to know. Since the MZ-3
In a message dated 2/17/01 10:55:29 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am talking about my sour earned money here. Buying a F80 kind of camera
every 5 years costs me $1300.
If it's value for dollar spent you're fretting about, you could buy two
brand-new-in-the-box
On Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:50:09 -0600, you wrote:
*("Rating" film is a slide/BW technique).
What I hear him saying is that print film users need to be extra
careful, because they can't rescue the negs in the development
process. One should know the effects of over and under exposure on a
given
In a message dated 2/17/01 10:59:30 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I do know I see a lot of badly
underexposed film coming through the lab these days, but I
suspect this has more to do with people insisting on buying zoom
lens piss and shit cameras with maximum
on 2/17/01 12:30 PM, Len Paris at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Remember, the steps are:
1. Decide on the important feature that you want in focus.
2. Don't be afraid to tilt or twist the camera until focus is
achieved.
3. Hold the shutter button halfway down to lock focus or if
your
On Sat, 17 Feb 2001 07:19:36 -0800, you wrote:
John Mustarde wrote:
And with the focus assist beam I
can even do it in complete darkness!
Does that mean that, in order to focus on a person's eye, you
have to put a beam of light into their eye?
Yes - if doing it in complete darkness.
TexDance wrote ...
Now - is anyone saying that overexposure of color print film does
*not* saturate the colors, or that underexposure does *not* increase
grain and block up shadows?
Exactly my experiences, and this happens, yea, even w/ standard
processing. Another factor
Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's one for my permanent atrchives :-)
-
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 .
Mafud wrote:
If it's value for dollar spent you're fretting about, you could
buy two brand-new-in-the-box PZ-1p bodies and have enough left
over to go a long way on a PENTAX tele-extender or flash for the
same $1300.
I hate these subject shifts in threads. No, No. The point is not how
Is USD$200 really a reasonable price for a 50mm lens? I realize it's an
f/1.2, but do they generally sell for that?
More good glass for you all
(I need to get a real job)
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the
Ken, that would be interesting to see. Thanks
- Original Message -
From: "K.Takeshita" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2001 9:54 AM
Subject: Re: Autofocus Question
BTE, on Z-1p, there was a testing on its focus-lock ability on low EV, low
"dosk" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
"All lens tests are wrong."
Maybe. But I would like to know about Sigma, for Pentax k-mounts.
If all lens tests are wrong, then all generalizations about an
*entire line* of lenses are even more wrong!
You'd be better off asking about a specific Sigma lens.
In a message dated 2/17/01 11:54:22 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However, it seems that other price classes/camera types will
disappear now from the Pentax lineup, and this includes cameras in
the technically capable mid class, a class I always have found
actually there's someone currently offering to trade my SMC-K 17mm f4
(fisheye) for his 50mm f1.2. Both lenses are in perfect condition (well,
mine is! and of course he says his is too) - and I *am* interested in
the f1.2 , especially if I can get one without getting in the red but...
isnt the
Answers/comments interspersed:
Thanks,
Ed
- Original Message -
From: "Shel Belinkoff" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2001 12:07 PM
Subject: Re: Autofocus Question
Ed Mathews wrote:
Hi Ed ...
AF is not for everything, especially
for us
I vaguely remember this thread and my lack of energy
to contribute.
But with the world of second hand AF-Nikkor lenses
from 1986 to now
on offer, nobody will miss anything.
Ralf
-
I'm not sure about that, Ralf. The N80 has an AF-D mount, so
it's a pretty good bet that earlier AF
In a message dated 2/17/01 12:09:35 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The guy doing the buying runs all of the risk.
Not when you use I-Escrow, the ~only~ way to (I'll) buy "pricey" items.You
actually have the item in your mitts for up to two days for testing-etc.
Mafud
Ed Sed:
Yeah, for focus accuracy, a macro
lens should provide better flatness
of field and be better. But then
you get all those nasty macro problems,
like: too sharp; not such great bokeh;
slower lens, etc
I like "too sharp". The A100/2.8 macro is no slower than the
K105/2.8.
Rofini wrote:
Robert Monaghan has an interesting page comparing auto focus
with manual focus. Seems rather scathing to the autofocus camp.
See:
http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/third/af.html
This kind of "research" is usually done for justifying some people position and their
subjective
Ralf wrote:
Here we are at the topic: Most brands offer different types of
cameras for different attitudes.
Not at all. Canon basically makes the same camera but at different price points. This
is good if you happen to like their philosophy. If not, you're lost. Lately, Nikon has
Ralf wrote:
The answer is still: no. The MZ-S is not a camera for everybody. Not
everybody wants smallest size and is willing to pay high prices.
Durability is also not everybodies priority, since some want to
update their gear regularly in order to enjoy latest technology.
This is
Ralf Engelmann wrote:
Carlos Royo wrote:
Please explain to us what you mean when you write "young
and wild camera". ...
it (MZ-S) seems to me the kind of camera we have been
longing for: light, small, sturdy, with almost every useful
feature needed for nearly everyone.
That's
Hi, folks.
Does someone have a February 2001 Shutterbug that
they'd be willing to part with for a few bucks?
Thanks, John
=
John Edwin Mason
Charlottesville, Virginia
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Alt Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
__
Do You
Pl said:
I also have a problem with this
anal-retentive fascination
with focus accuracy. Does anyone
really have problem with focusing
on normal subjects with
"normal" lenses? For this, any
reasonable human error is way within
DOF for anyone with normal
vision, even with the lenses
In a message dated 2/17/2001 10:41:23 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[I wrote]
3. OL messages. These are "contributions" to the PDML that have
essentially nothing to do with Pentax in specifics nor with
photography in general, and therefore, in my humble opinion,
Ed wrote:
But in critical conditions, in
every case with every lens and camera used, AF failed to provide enough
accuracy to match a carefully manually focused lens when comparing them with
lines/mm tests. Sometimes the results were staggering.
Sorry for being rude but it isn't personal.
No, there is no such inverse relationship between the cost of the lens and
the web site Sigma complainers. In fact, most of the complaints seem to come
from advanced amateurs (or "pros") using high end glass, while the defenders
are from the lower priced consumer end. (Which is what I said in my
Len Paris wrote:
Remember, the steps are:
1. Decide on the important feature that you want in focus.
2. Don't be afraid to tilt or twist the camera until focus is
achieved.
3. Hold the shutter button halfway down to lock focus or if
your camera has a focus lock button,
Hi,
A lot of the group own the PZ-1p. What items for the this camera have some
of you acquired that make it easy, if that's the term, to use in everyday
shooting. I know I can't get an AA adapter for it like I got for my SF1n
camera. Some have mentioned a grip that make handling the PZ easier.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am not trying to say that these topics are not worth discussing. Rather, I
am suggesting that this should not be the forum for discussing them.
I agree wholeheartedly, despite the fact that I jumped in with my 2 cents worth
re: Henry Ford and the Nazis (well,
Hi Pl and all
Pl wrote:
"During the 90's we have almost only seen utterly vision-free cameras.
The MZ-S does indeed have direction. Its a strong statement in design and
features. Its equally strong statement as the MZ-5 was back in '95. Of
course it won't suit all but neither does a camera along
- Original Message -
From: Mafud
Subject: Re: Fast film to go with Porta 160
*("Rating" film is a slide/BW technique).
Could you expand on this thought please? Are you saying
that people who
shoot colour negative films are sloppy about technique?
Bill
I said nor inferred
On Sat, 17 Feb 2001 16:47:44 -0500, you wrote:
Has anyone successfully digitally recovered from this kind of mess ? Is it
possible to recover or should I just toss the film and move on?
I don't know about every case of cross-processing, but this scan is
very close to fully recovered. Don't
In a message dated 2/17/01 1:20:31 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But newspapers and other print media are so in love with the sheer speed of
digital photography I believe, especially in the newspaper business, digital
is here to stay. It's cost effective enough, even if
In a message dated 2/17/01 1:24:43 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The MZ-S is not a camera for everybody.
Ralf, ~you~ of all people, ought not make a snap judgement about a camera you
have neither seen or operated and a camera which ~you~ yourself seem to deny,
has
In a message dated 2/17/01 1:24:43 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hence they will accept lower built quality, but will demand moderate
prices.
Again, speak for yourself, Ralf.
Mafud
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail
Gads talk about thread drift. I think we should shut this one
down PDQ.
- Original Message -
From: Mafud
Subject: Re: Fast film to go with Porta 160
In a message dated 2/17/01 10:59:30 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I do know I see a lot of badly
In a message dated 2/17/01 1:24:43 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Durability is also not everybodies priority,
Huh?!
Mafud
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow
Ralf wrote:
As far as F80 is concerned - I have enjoyed mine very well...[snip]...I won't
complain, since I have bought the F80 exact to have certain features for the
lowest possible price...[snip]...So far I had 9 months of good fun with this
camera
Ralf,
Today I took my son to the pet store
- Original Message -
From: "tom" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: February 17, 2001 4:00 PM
Subject: Re: Cross Processing - Recovery Possible?
What's C-4?
Thats the plastique explosive Mark is going to use at the local
drug store for willfully wrecking his film.
HAR
In a message dated 2/17/01 1:24:43 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not everybody wants smallest size and is willing to pay high prices.
No, Ralf, you must say ~you~ (I) don't want the small size and high prices,
particularly since you, Ralf, don't know how small it
About the only disappointing thing about my experience with the
Pentax 645 I purchased this year has been my lack of any means
of doing any macro photography.
Before buying extension tubes or a macro lens I thought I'd try
an achromatic close-up "filter". So last week I scored a 58mm
Sigma
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Cassino" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: February 17, 2001 3:47 PM
Subject: Cross Processing - Recovery Possible?
I presume you mean E-6. If you can scan it with a blank strip of
C-41 film in place, you will get better results.
William Robb
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: February 17, 2001 5:17 PM
Subject: Re: Subject: MZ-S spirit (was: MZ-S with LX durability)
In a message dated 2/17/01 1:24:43 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hence they will accept lower
In a message dated 2/17/01 2:14:59 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When considering that the MZ-S fuses MZ-style, Z-1p features, and LX built
and finish, its apparent that Pentax is reaching out to the Pentax
enthusiasts
And, as Micheal Coreleone said: "dragging me
Exactly. Instead of trying to correct the errant behavior of all us
screwball OT characters, just set your mail program to delete (or not even
download) anything from PDML that has OT in the subject line. (Or perhaps
you only like some OT themes and not others? If that's the case, then what
Comments interspersed:
Thanks,
Ed
- Original Message -
From: "Pl Jensen" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2001 2:37 PM
Subject: Re: Autofocus Question
Ed wrote:
But in critical conditions, in
every case with every lens and camera used, AF failed
In a message dated 2/17/01 2:31:33 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am not trying to say that these topics are not worth discussing.
Rather, I
am suggesting that this should not be the forum for discussing them.
But, what do I know...
In every serious
Bob S. wrote:
The list is becoming like a chat room with everyone chattering away. I find
myself deleting whole threads and all messages from some babblers without
even reading them.
How about about we agreed on restricting us not to send more than, say 5 messages a
day? (The number up
In a message dated 2/17/01 2:34:30 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For example, what looks good and sharp at 5x magnification may not look so
good at 10x magnification, and may look awful at 16x or 20x
Ah, another slide shooter's affectation, looking at things at 10x,
You can be sure it is true. In landscape mode, the center AF area is
sensitive only vertical lines, and the two outer AF areas are sensitive only
to vertical lines. Turn to portrait mode, and of course that turns to the
reciprocal.
Thanks,
Ed
- Original Message -
From: "K.Takeshita"
The N80 works fine with all AF lenses, and AI-P lenses.
Thanks,
Ed
- Original Message -
From: "Len Paris" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2001 1:38 PM
Subject: RE: Subject: MZ-S spirit (was: MZ-S with LX durability)
I vaguely remember this
I wonder if I might make a gentle general suggestion at this point...
Just because the MZ-S specs have finally surfaced, I think we should
remember that very few people--certainly very few of us--have actually held
one in their hands and looked through it; and, remember that it takes more
than
Mafud wrote:
No, Ralf, you must say ~you~ (I) don't want the small size and high prices,
particularly since you, Ralf, don't know how small it ~actually~ is or how
much it costs.
In Ralf's defense, I do think he speaks for himself and we do know how small the MZ-S
is and what it cost.
Ed wrote:
Or should they just ignore it and continue wiping their
asses with this information?
You should :-)
Because you then try to use AF in a situation where manual focus works perfectly well.
The point must be to articulate a situation where MF won't work, and MF works any
target that
1 - 100 of 167 matches
Mail list logo
