Does anyone have the specs for the film *ist? (or a link)
I assume (from the $319 list price) it is a lower end camera compeeting
more with the MZ/ZX-10, 30, 50, 60 then the 7, 6, 5(n), 3.
Am I correct?
L
Hi,
Sunday, March 2, 2003, 11:34:28 PM, you wrote:
> On 2 Mar 2003 at 10:18, William Robb wrote:
>> Some thoughts (mine only) on craftsmanship though. A craftsman can
>> produce something from raw material with skill and little waste. In the
>> woodshop, that means not making bad cuts that cause
Levente,
Here are the specs:
http://www.pentax.com/news/news_display.cfm?pressid=149
>From reading it, it sounds closer to the ZX-5n except for the prism.
But the price is closer to the lower end. Somewhat hard to tell
whether this one model stretches from bottom to mid or if they will
introduce
Hi!
MR> P.S. Now that I'm an "artist" do I have to wear one of those damned
MR> berets?
Congratulations... Well, indeed you'd have to. That's the price of
being an artist .
---
Boris Liberman
www.geocities.com/dunno57
www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=38625
Hello folks,
Well it's like it's always is on the PDML. People asks for a DSLR, otherwise
they're going to jump the ship. Pentax shows the DSLR, and people still
consider to jump the ship, because the *ist D "can't compete with Canon
anyway". Come on, the product isn't finished yet. The final s
Hi!
I like few things too.
1. K-mount
2. The camera was actually designed from the ground up with both film
and digi versions in mind. So it is probably way cleaner engineering
wise.
3. And finally, that it is finally there ...
---
Boris Liberman
www.geocities.com/dunno57
www.photosig.com/viewus
I'm wondering what is the general take on Epson printers? Because I really
do need an all in one multifunction printer, I am thinking about the Epson
CX3200 which advertises up to 5760x720 dpi. Thanks in advance for all
feedback.
Stephen Hoffman
Hi!
MC> I'm thinking of getting a film *ist if it isn't too expensive. Anyone else?
For my purposes ZX-L that I have is just fine. By the way, I find no
problem with its AF, except than in some difficult conditions with
135/5.6 long end of the Sigma zoom that I use.
Don't forget that both ZX-L
Hi!
MJ> NOW FORMING
MJ> The PDML Hundred Percenters Club, for those netizens who shoot 100%
MJ> black-and-white.
MJ> We have two members already. Anybody else wanna join?
Should I be starting the opposite club then? Just yesterday I was
given a first roll of TMAX 100 to try out. Before then I
If that lens is a SMC Takumar 50mm/1.4, shouldn't it have a rubber grip?
As the lens has the metal focusing grip, shouldn't it read
"Super-Multi-Coated Takumar"?
Somebody make a hybrid in the shop?
Regards, Bob S.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=29
a telephoto with a TC is never going to match
a dedicated macro lens for closeup quality, let alone
a superb macro such as the pentax 200/4. Dont kid
yourself...
JCO
> -Original Message-
> From: Sylwester Pietrzyk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 6:43 AM
> To: [EMAI
on 03.03.03 12:58, J. C. O'Connell at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> a telephoto with a TC is never going to match
> a dedicated macro lens for closeup quality, let alone
> a superb macro such as the pentax 200/4. Dont kid
> yourself...
Did I asy, that it will match 200/4 in temrs of picture quality?
>You can do almost anything in Photoshop including change the grain
>characteristics.
>If you do no other manipulation you might be right but anytime you start
>with digital
>where do you stop.
...as the actress said to the bishop.
Where do you stop with anything? When does a painter know when
>Using the filter-size on the lenses on the 4/3 and the *ist D as very rough
>indicators on my screen, it looks to me as though they are about the same
>size. One interesting note though; the Pentax follows tradition by
>centering the lens mount over the "film transport" in the body. The 4/3 is
>o
adphoto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
"i love using depth of field and a very bright viewfinder so my choices are:
vivitar 28mm 1.9 series 1 ** vivitar 28mm 2.0 ** sigma 28mm 1.8 pentax 28mm
2.0 pentax 30mm 2.8 pentax 31mm 1.9 limted pentax 24mm 2.0 sigma
24mm 1.8 vivitar/kiron 24mm 2.0 anyon
most "normal" ( non-macro ) lenses are
optimized for a single focus distance, or
in the case of IF lenses, a range of distances.
By adding a ext. tube and going closer than designed
you will usually degrade the image compared
to what it was designed for.
JCO
> -Original Message-
> From: Sy
I know someone who loves his. I thought his was metal, though, and not plastic
as this one is.
The current $10 price might be ok, but the BIN of $20 seems a bit high for
what's essentially just a plastic button...
regards,
frank
Steve Pearson wrote:
> Has anyone ever used one of these and do t
Who knows? The cameras haven't be released yet. Some people take
pictures with cameras and not spec sheets.
BR
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John wrote:
So the trick for Pentax consumers is to get a DSLR with first-rate AF.
Pentax can make such a camera; the question is - will they do it.
on 03.03.03 13:27, J. C. O'Connell at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> most "normal" ( non-macro ) lenses are
> optimized for a single focus distance, or
> in the case of IF lenses, a range of distances.
> By adding a ext. tube and going closer than designed
> you will usually degrade the image compared
On Mon, 03 Mar 2003 12:48:51 +0100, you wrote:
>> Congrats, Sylwek! Can't wait to get my hand on this beauty ;-) (I should
>> have my AF 1.7 Adapter with me, so we could see what a nice looong telephoto
>> your new lens can be).
>>
>Wow! That would be interesting combination - 510/6.8!
And it wo
On Mon, 3 Mar 2003 18:18:18 +1030, adphoto wrote:
> sigma 400mm apo macro-fantastic equal to pentax
I have this lens in PK-AF mount, and I've been very happy with it. I
don't have a newer Pentax lens to compare, but the Sigma is better than
the SMC 400/5.6 in size, handling, and optics.
TTYL, D
> i currently use the 43mm limted and love it
> however it "becomes" a 65mm with 43mm perspective on the new dslr.
Again, where did this idea come from? Perspective doesn't change as long as
you're standing in the same place. The 43mm on the DSLR becomes a 65mm,
period. There is no change in pers
Pedantically, you are correct Mike. However, many people would then
back up to fit their subject in the frame as before, so perspective
WOULD change. As you say, this is not inherent purely due to the
cropping.
> -Original Message-
> From: Mike Johnston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent:
> Well it's like it's always is on the PDML. People asks for a DSLR, otherwise
> they're going to jump the ship. Pentax shows the DSLR, and people still
> consider to jump the ship, because the *ist D "can't compete with Canon
> anyway". Come on, the product isn't finished yet. The final specificat
Thanks Frank,
That's exactly what I was thinking, in terms of price.
Still not sure if it would be useful. I would think
it would be great if you could actually leave the
tripod at home. Not sure if that's realistic...
--- frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I know someone who loves h
I have often heard the phrase "If your photo is not good enough, then
you were not close enough" or some such.
Therefore DSLRs with in built crop factors obviously DO take better
photos than full frame - because it forces you to get closer!
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2915319475&category=4688
Wow, that's interesting. Could be a very rare transition sample from the
changeover to the rubberized ring.
More likely, it's just had its front ring replaced
--Mike
An off brand soft release works effectively with my ES series of Pentaxes.
I found a bunch of these buttons when a local camera store was closing.
Jim A.
> From: Steve Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 22:32:35 -0800 (PST)
> To: Pentax Mail List <[E
On Sun, 2 Mar 2003 22:41:08 -0800 (PST), Peter Jansen wrote:
> I find with my F-300mm f4.5 and Z1p that I have to use
> the 2s mirror-up at speeds as high as 1/125 or even
> 1/180.
Luckily, I'm typically shooting in bright overcast or daylight, so it's
not usually a problem to get at least 1/250
- Original Message -
From: "Paul Franklin Stregevsky"
Subject: Re: "ist D" marketing
>
> Pål wrote:
>
> "When it comes to cars theres no dispute that Europe is best when to comes
> to technology. For reliability, nothing beats the japanese."
>
> This belief was stated in about 1980 by a
- Original Message -
From: "Pål Jensen"
Subject: Re: Olympus going pro
>
> I'm old enough to remember when the Canon EF system was released. There
was no pro body. Only two amateur bodies that was in no manner better than
the competition. And only 12 lenses.
Utter nonsense. You need a
- Original Message -
From: "Peter Jansen"
Subject: Re: Olympus 4/3 Digital SLR 'E System' on Web
> the *ist D looks pint-sized.
>
> R.I.P. Olympus...
Seriously. One would think it needs the battery pack on the bottom for a
reason too.
William Robb
Since it has the scalloped metal focusing ring, there's no guarantee
that it's even Super Multicoated at all.
Joe
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2915319475&category=4688
Wow, that's interesting. Could be a very rare transition sample from the
changeover to the rubberized
Mike,
>
> I beg to differ. Having taken two photograph classes
> recently, everyone is
> interested in digital. Why? It's new. The color
> comes out sharp. And one can
> print one's own prints -- that is extremely
> attractive. Not just women are
> interested in that.
>
Yes, it's new and that's
On Sun, 2 Mar 2003, [iso-8859-1] Pål Jensen wrote:
> Well, it is reality sort of. The new Olydak is being previewed and
> although the camera is no beauty it has balls. At least this system
> realizes some of the advantages of digital
So...its OK if it doesn't have "styling" and uses a less than
My inbox is overflowing with messages from the PDML, even more than usual.
It seems a war has broken out over the *ist D.
One faction seems to love it, and promises to buy it if it is reasonably priced. This
is strange, as no one has actually seen this camera yet, and the last DSLR announced
Jim,
When you say it "works effectively", how so? What
kind of shutter speeds can you go down to and still
get good results?
Thanks.
--- Jim Apilado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> An off brand soft release works effectively with my
> ES series of Pentaxes.
> I found a bunch of these buttons when a
William wrote:
> Utter nonsense. You need a fact checker on this one.
> The EOS 650 was the first of the EOS cameras. When it came out, the Minolta
> 7000 and Nikon 2020 were the only competition there was, and the Canon was
> light years ahead in terms of perfomance and style.
Not true. The Pen
"Roland Mabo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>We might end up in a situation where Pentax has two systems - where the
>small sized digital can use the high-end lenses, but the high-end bodies
>can't use the low-end lenses.
Not at all. A high end (full frame) digital body could automatically
detect
William wrote:
> We couldn't keep the
> things in stock, sometimes selling as many as 20 per week.
But Minolta sold 1 000 000 a year and had up to 60% of the slr market
> The 650 was quickly followed by the 630, which had even better performance,
Not true either. There were two bodies release s
Daniel wrote:
> The other faction hates the camera, because it isn't perfect and isn't all things to
> all photographers.
I haven't seen anyone hating the camera. It is just rather bland, but will obviously
serve the purpose of a K-mount slr but won't steal a single customer from Nikon and
Ca
Pål rote:
"I'm old enough to remember when the Canon EF system
> was released. There was no pro body. Only two
> amateur bodies that was in no manner better than the
> competition. And only 12 lenses."
Like William said, you can't compare then to the
situation now. DSLR's are far too advanced by
> So...its OK if it doesn't have "styling" and uses a less than full frame
> sensor as long as it doesn't say Pentax?
>
> Maybe I'm just confused, I've taken to just deleting all teh *ist threads
> for the last few days, but isn't this exactly what you're crying about
> just the other day?
No. I
Is the PMA show started? If not, when?
Are there no surprises? How about Nikon? Nothing?
Pål
Peter wrote:
> Like William said, you can't compare then to the
> situation now.
I did compare the fact that Canon didn't have lots of lenses or bodies when they
released the EOS system, and they didn't have single user of their lenses as nobody
could use something that didn't exist until a ce
> I thought his major assumption was that consumers won't buy a product if
> something else out there looks kind of the same.
> I suppose it's unfair of Pentax to make the think look like a camera.
> It's so unfair to confuse people that way.
The thing that gets me is that Pål is flooding the lis
Peter wrote:
> AND this Olympus is not any smaller than any other
> system in body or lens size. No reason to buy in & no
> extensive system.
And where are the reason for buying into the Pentax DSLR system? The camera so far is
just a prototype. There are no compact lenses yet. Lets wait and see
Mark wrote:
> So your 10+ megapixel full-frame DSLR would automatically become a 6
> megapixel "APS" DSLR whenever the appropriate lens was attached.
But what about the finder?
Pål
> Dodger/Chrysler who have attempted to
> make such radically different looking cars are not
> doing so well now in the market. Why? All show & no
> go. The quality of Dodge stinks, and people catch on
> quick. A funky image can only go so far.
Amen, brother. I bought a Dodge Neon Sport on the bas
Thanks,
Matjaz
> Matjaz,
>
> I use the regular one. With TTL, it works great. I seem to get a
> little more even light than with the Omni-Bounce.
>
>
> Bruce
>
>
> The 650 was quickly followed by the 630, which had even better
performance,
Not true either. There were two bodies release simultaneously. I think it
was 620 and 630 (it could have been 650 and 630). They were practical
speaking identical and amateur bodies like the competition at the time.
Nice catch. I use the SMC Takumar lens twice a week on the average.
I didn't see the difference even with the hint.
Otis.
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
you got it.
Lens has been repaired most likely.
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, Marc
> Nope. Some of the most respected Car magazines world-wide call these cars
> utterly pointless and only for those with aversion to money. This is of course
> taking it a bit too far, but according to the japanese car manufacturers what
> sell well Europe sells well everywhere. Nobody in their righ
Mike wrote:
> I think they hit a home run with the looks of the thing. I would certainly
> not be ashamed to be seen with it.
You may think what you like but the fact is that never have there been released a DSLR
that created less interest. You may ask yourelf why. I'm not saying I have the
ult
The price for the E series will be critical. There are a lot of
E-10/20's out there and many folks like them. It seems like Olympus did
the obvious/safe thing and created an interchangeable lens version of
the E-10/20. Since Olympus has a reputation for reasonable optics, and
if the price is rig
> Oh, oh, oh, I know exactly how you feel!
> I have a 77 ltd an M85/2 and an 85/1.8
> I know that one has to go and that it has to be the 85/1.8 but I just can't
> make myself do it.
Well then DON'T! It's not a _sin_ to have three different medium telephotos,
you know.
--Mike
> I am considering selling the following lenses; most in very good condition
> unless otherwise noted:
>[snip]
> 85/1.8 TBD Still not sure I can bear to part with it.
Johnston's Seventh Law of Photography: "Never sell a good lens."
--Lawbreaker Mike
Well one look at the Pentax Website indicates 50 plus
lenses (and growing) that are compatible with the
Pentax, many of them compact for their speed/focal
length (e.g. 20-35mm f4). Plus the fact that there are
a million+ k mount lenses out there.
Remember it is a system & you have options with
Pen
on 03.03.03 16:28, Christian Skofteland at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> I have this lens too. It's great isn't it?
>
Oh yes! And I think for 199$ new in box it was a great deal!
--
Best Regards
Sylwek
On Monday 03 March 2003 06:59, Paul Franklin Stregevsky wrote:
> Since no one bought this lens on the list for $250 or on eBay for $220,
> I've relisted it at photo.net for $210:
> http://www.photo.net/gc/domain-top?domain_id=2
>
> For PDMLers, I'll include the 3-inch metal threaded hood and leathe
> Paul,
> Actually, after about the eighth time you load film into either one of
them,
> you'll sell them both.
He'd have to be very patient and determined to wait so long ;-)
But there are many very nice cameras you could use your screwmount lenses
on, Paul. One of my favourites (and something I
I bought an epson 785epx mainly for 3 reasons. One it has 6 color ink, two
it does full page photos without borders, and three last fall it did the
best job I've ever seen on photos. The epson ink and their process makes
the photos come out dry right out of the printer. I believe it's resolution
Roland wrote:
> I don't think that it's possible to steal customers from Nikon and Canon.
> They've invested too much in their glass, and they accept all the
> shortomings of their system (the bad exposure system in Canon, the
> under-featured low-end bodies from Nikon). Some of them even belie
From: Pål Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: PDML Wars
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:20:20 +0100
Thats where we disagree. I think that many Pentax owners will be happy
>with the *ist D. However, a significant portion will realize that they
>will be just as happy, if not happier, with a Nikon or a
Pål wrote:
"...but the fact is that
> never have there been released a DSLR that created
> less interest."
Yeah and it's called the Olydat by Olympus.
Go to Dpreview again. A new discussion on the *ist D
started & says how that and the 10D will kill Minolta.
Also, there's general dislike for thi
These will affect new buyers, not existing one.
--- Steve Desjardins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >
The price for the E series will be critical. There
> are a lot of
> E-10/20's out there and many folks like them. It
> seems like Olympus did
> the obvious/safe thing and created an
> interchangeab
Peter wrote:
> Remember it is a system & you have options with
> Pentax: lots of high end glass too.
I know. But that is only a good thing if you plan to use a full frame DSLR. To me, the
smaller frame DSLR have some unique advantages nether my 35mm or MF system can compete
with. I don't want t
> Frankly, I'd be willing to pay $5.00 a gallon for gasoline just to
> stick it to all the brainless-sheep SUV drivers.
Al Gore took a lot of heat a while back when he suggested that
Americans should be paying $5.00 per gallon for fuel, just like the
rest of the world. To what he said, I added my
Yeah, it is not a secret, it´s a lie.
All the best!
Raimo
Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
-Alkuperäinen viesti-
Lähettäjä: Alan Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Päivä: 02. maaliskuuta 2003 23:42
Aihe: Re: Ho
On Monday 03 March 2003 10:31, Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:
> on 03.03.03 16:28, Christian Skofteland at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
> > I have this lens too. It's great isn't it?
>
> Oh yes! And I think for 199$ new in box it was a great deal!
Wow, that is a good deal. I think I paid over US$200
Mike Johnston schrieb:
>
> > Oh, oh, oh, I know exactly how you feel!
> > I have a 77 ltd an M85/2 and an 85/1.8
> > I know that one has to go and that it has to be the 85/1.8 but I just can't
> > make myself do it.
>
> Well then DON'T! It's not a _sin_ to have three different medium telephotos,
>
If you can load film into a Leica, you will have acquired a skill that
will last a lifetime. I'm very good loading an M2 when I photograph a
wedding. Piece of cake, as they say.
Yes, the later Canons, like the P, were good performers. I like the Canon
VI-T (I think thats the designation)the one
> When Canon introduced the EOS, it
> was VERY ground breaking; no one had anything like it,
> and AF was in it's infancy.
No it wasn't. The first EOS was the EOS 650, introduced in March 1987. Canon
was the third major manufacturer to switch to AF, after Minolta and Nikon,
not the first. I would
On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Th. Stach wrote:
> In my case I'm not shure about that. I've long been using the M 85/2.0
> and now have the FA*85/1.4 - do I still need the M 85/2?
> Not shure...
> What would one get for such lens?
Lately they've been selling on the PDML for around $200-$250 US.
chris
> Mike,
>
>>
>> I beg to differ. Having taken two photograph classes
>> recently, everyone is
>> interested in digital. Why? It's new. The color
>> comes out sharp. And one can
>> print one's own prints -- that is extremely
>> attractive. Not just women are
>> interested in that.
>>
Again, I d
Hi everybody,
Looking at the picture shown at
http://www.imaging-resource.com/NPICS1/PENTAX_ISTD_HANDSON_2_L.JPG
it seems to me that there is no mechanical meter coupling in the
lens mount of the camera, so I was thinking that the only way to
use old lenses (K and M, not to mention the others vi
I just have looked at Imaging-resource PMA report, and looked closer at new
4/3 lenses. They are big! For instance 14-54/2.8-3.5 (28-108 equiv.) has
filter size 67 mm, while new Pentax FA 28-105/3.2-4.5 has only 58 mm having
not that worse f range... I feel, that it is true, what most of PDMLers sa
>> I'm old enough to remember when the Canon EF system was released. There
>> was no pro body. Only two amateur bodies that was in no manner better than
>> the competition. And only 12 lenses.
> Utter nonsense. You need a fact checker on this one.
> The EOS 650 was the first of the EOS cameras.
On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Mike Johnston wrote:
> > When Canon introduced the EOS, it
> > was VERY ground breaking; no one had anything like it,
> > and AF was in it's infancy.
>
> No it wasn't. The first EOS was the EOS 650, introduced in March 1987.
> Canon was the third major manufacturer to switch to
on 03.03.03 16:54, Gianfranco Irlanda at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
> Looking at the picture shown at
>
> http://www.imaging-resource.com/NPICS1/PENTAX_ISTD_HANDSON_2_L.JPG
>
> it seems to me that there is no mechanical meter coupling in the
> lens mount of the camera, so I was
Hear, hear, Daniel.
One wonders if there will have to be 2 separate *ists - the film $ist and the
digital £ist.
Kind regards
Peter
> You may think what you like but the fact is that never have there been
> released a DSLR that created less interest.
That's just not true. It's creating a LOT of interest.
--Mike
Peter wrote:
> Go to Dpreview again. A new discussion on the *ist D
> started & says how that and the 10D will kill Minolta.
> Also, there's general dislike for this new Olympus.
I was there yesterday and agian the essence was that Minolta owners were pissed off
because now even pentax had a DSL
Mike wrote:
> The thing that gets me is that Pål is flooding the list with his, er,
> "idiosyncratic" opinion,
But Pentaxes are idiosyncratic! Thats what they are all about. Thats why I use them!
Every Pentax I own are idiosyncratic compared to Nikon and Canon. The Limited lenses:
more idiosy
Mike wrote:
> No it wasn't. The first EOS was the EOS 650, introduced in March 1987. Canon
> was the third major manufacturer to switch to AF, after Minolta and Nikon,
> not the first. I would say the first EOS wasn't introduced until AF had
> become mainstream. And at first, the only result was v
Mike writes:
<< Frankly, I'd be willing to pay
$5.00 a gallon for gasoline just to stick it to all the brainless-sheep SUV
drivers. >>
Mike. Fortunately I am fairly thick (-skinned). I drive an SUV ( I think) and
regularly pay $7 near enough a gallon - mind you ours are bigger than yours
(bo
I don't understand this comment. Every buyer of the interchangeable
lens E series is a new buyer. The ones that have the current E-10/20
might be tempted because the camera are probably similar.
Steven Desjardins
Department of Chemistry
Washington and Lee University
Lexington, VA 24450
(540) 45
Gianfranco wrote:
> Am I correct or I'm missing something?
You are not missing anything. I've heard from sources that should know that the *ist
and *ist D may not have full compatibility with older lenses. I have uttered some
cryptic remarks to that effect before. However, the *ist D isn't fina
It's there, whats missing is the power zoom contacts,
but it's a bad angle to see the whole lens mount
--- Gianfranco Irlanda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote: > Hi everybody,
>
> Looking at the picture shown at
>
>
http://www.imaging-resource.com/NPICS1/PENTAX_ISTD_HANDSON_2_L.JPG
>
> it seems to me
Chris wrote:
>*And* they put the
> focusing motor in their lenses, not in their bodies, which helped to keep
> focusing quieter and, probably, quicker. How is this move not
> revolutionary?
Perhaps because Pentax did the same in 1982!
Pål
On March 3, 2003 11:12 am, Pål Jensen wrote:
> Gianfranco wrote:
> > Am I correct or I'm missing something?
>
> You are not missing anything. I've heard from sources that should know that
> the *ist and *ist D may not have full compatibility with older lenses. I
> have uttered some cryptic remarks
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0303/03030304istdinhand.asp
Ziggy
On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Pål Jensen wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
> >*And* they put the
> > focusing motor in their lenses, not in their bodies, which helped to keep
> > focusing quieter and, probably, quicker. How is this move not
> > revolutionary?
>
> Perhaps because Pentax did the same in 1982!
Good po
Since this isn't a 'working' version of the body, maybe they just forgot
to put in the aperature coupling lever? I don't see it in there either
. . .
. . . speaking of a non-working version of the body, wasn't the last
digital body a non-working version that they announced and then pulled
I use ~40% B&W Mostly Tri-X. I love it.
Cory
- Original Message -
From: "Malcolm Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 5:43 AM
Subject: What film do you use?
> Having just had Amateur Photographer's B&W special (08-03-03) edition drop
> throu
Hey Mat,
How does one know if the 1/4 or the 1/2 is required? I'm a dope when it
comes to exposure compensation. I've never used those dials...
Cory Waters
- Original Message -
From: "Mat Maessen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 12:55 PM
Subject:
Nobody expects a 300(600)/2.8 to be either small or light. The Olympus
will not be considered a competitor to Pentax's DSLR. Working pros, who
would never seriously consider the Pentax, will buy the Olympus because
it is smaller and lighter than the Nikon/Canon alternatives. Olympus has
already
Sure, go compare slow, consumer grade lenses to fast pro grade ones. If
those Olympus lenses were scaled to 35mm applications they would have 72
- 77mm filters. I do agree that the Olympus will not be successful with
typical Pentax buyers. This is not to say that they won't sell a lot of
camera
From: Mike
>> Well it's like it's always is on the PDML. People
asks for a DSLR,
otherwise
>> they're going to jump the ship. Pentax shows the
DSLR, and people
still
>> consider to jump the ship, because the *ist D
"can't compete with
Canon
>> anyway". Come on, the product isn't finished yet
This articles notes a "street price" of $1600. They cite it as a rumor,
however, so maybe they got bad info.
Steven Desjardins
Department of Chemistry
Washington and Lee University
Lexington, VA 24450
(540) 458-8873
FAX: (540) 458-8878
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/03/03 11:24AM >>
1 - 100 of 232 matches
Mail list logo
