As the subject line says I am after a Battery Grip M in working condition,
preferably not too beaten about. Contact me off list
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) if you have one or know of one that might be for
sale. AFAIK this was used with the MX, LX and K2DMD motordrives, maybe the
KX as well. I think the
On Sun, 2 Mar 2003, [iso-8859-1] Pål Jensen wrote:
And magnesium bodies. Olympus is squarely targeting the professional
market according to the press releases. The camera is no beauty but it
is far from bland.
Far from bland? But it looks exactly like its ZLR models E10 and E20. I
can't see
Hi,
Tuesday, March 4, 2003, 1:50:03 AM, you wrote:
On 3 Mar 2003 at 20:56, Bob Walkden wrote:
that seems to be the one I was told about last year and reported to
the list. My skepticism was obviously misplaced. A very desirable
set of cameras.
I think I still prefer the classic M6, that
The lenses should have the size of the Pentax 110 Pocket system, as this has
also a factor of 2.
So what is the advantage of 4/3?
Hi,
this point I don't understand: Where comes this factor 2 from?
4/3 means four thirds of an inch diagonal, right? But these are almost
34 millimeters, so
On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
What does 4/3 stand for? 4 thirds of an inch?
Yes, but not what you think it refers to. It is not the diagonal of the
sensor area as most people would think.
It is actually a confusing system dating back to the standard sizes of TV
camera tube. The
The lenses should have the size of the Pentax 110 Pocket system, as this has
also a factor of 2.
There comes another idea:
Will anybody stuff an 1/2 CCD into my old auto 110?
Nice little body, and lenses I have already.
*g*
Thomas
going to stick with a vivitar 28mm f2 which cost me $10 Aus new in box and
try and get a 24mm f2
on 04.03.03 4:28, tom at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Thomas,
Still, you get double the reach, not to mention that there's no such
thing as a 35mm 600/2.8.
you are almost right, as is Bruce R. in his posts. But imagine such a
situation: Canon, Nikon or Pentax decide to produce special version
on 04.03.03 2:32, Rob Studdert at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rather it seems to me after reading all the list traffic over the last few
days
that Pentaxians have a strange bordering on obsessive fixation about camera
size and weight. If you think it won't be successful because it's not the
on 04.03.03 7:20, Artur Ledóchowski at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That silver ring, however, together with the tulip lens hood, make this lens
look quite pro-like, don't you think?:))
BTW, I've always thought that such hoods can be used only on IF lenses. The
18-35, however, isn't claimed to be
Easy.
The LCD overlay for the viewfinder that displays the active autofocus
points could also carry APS frame lines that would only appear (or be
highlighted) when the sensor switches to APS mode.
Regards,
Anthony Farr
- Original Message -
From: Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mark
Hi all,
This is my first post since December, when I 'left the room' to get my
monitor repaired. As it happened my '98 model 17in IBM was shorting out
in its magnetic yoke and a repair was uneconomical, new monitors are so
cheap. However I was rather PO'd as it was only a few months outside of
on 04.03.03 4:13, Rob Studdert at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Team,
Just reporting another PDMLer cover shot, one of my images made it on the
cover
of the Greek Lonely Planet Guide to Dublin, yes it's a little esoteric I know,
but it was an national news paper insert and the print run was
Pal,
When you repeat an inside whisper of pending Pentax news I always take
heed, because I have learned to trust your grapevine.
As a market analyst I'm not so sure of your talents. It seems now that
Pentax are doing something right you don't know how to receive the news.
Don't forget the
if you look at the picture of the Oly 2.8/300, you can see that is has a
filter diameter of 112mm. If you calculate the length, it will be around
250mm.
So how do you make a 300/2.8 lens with a smaller front element diameter?
You call it a 200mm 2.8 and put it on the front of a *ist D.
g
My question to you guys is this: If you are as optimistic as I, what
are you planning on buying? Also, what size CF card's would be best?
I'm figuring on having 2 or 3 CF cards to start with, but have no idea
what size they should be. What size files should I expect from a 6.1 MP
HE USES AN I-MAC SO HE'S PREPARED.
Lol. Ipso facto.
Quote of the day.
Cotty
Oh, swipe me! He paints with light!
http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/
Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at
http://www.macads.co.uk/
http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=2915155848category=12877
55x1.5=82.5mm 1.2
who cares if it is a little soft
on 04.03.03 11:58, adphoto at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=2915155848category=12877
55x1.5=82.5mm 1.2
who cares if it is a little soft
I feel that for portraits it would be often desired for this lens to be
soft. Interesting anyway. The same
Good explanation of the *ist name, Mike. But you forgot sexist,
pessimist, and bigamist
g.
Paul
Mike Johnston wrote:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/EVENTS/PMAS03/1046271605.html
--Mike
(And thanks again, Ken T.!)
Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Diagnostician's version of Occam's razor: When you hear hoofbeats, don't
think 'Zebra.'
That's exactly why I fear that the ISO range will top out at 400: If it were
higher, Pentax would have said so.
Anthony wrote:
Don't forget the lesson of the M-series of Pentaxes. They were a 'me
too' product copying the Oly OM range and also selling against similar
models from Nikon (EM), Canon (AE-1) and Minolta (I think it was the
X-series). Pentax were not the innovator of this class but did very
Vic wrote:
I don't know why we are all so hung up on the pro market. I can take just
as good pictures as any pro with my cameras...
That is because in order to crac the slr market today you need the same credibility as
the market leaders, and thats pro credibility. Or, alternatively, you
Sylwester wrote:
you are almost right, as is Bruce R. in his posts. But imagine such a
situation: Canon, Nikon or Pentax decide to produce special version of their
DSLR called Sports and Nature. They pack it with 4/3 CCD sensor so it got
2x multiplication factor. Now your FA* or EF L 300/2.8
on 04.03.03 13:04, Pål Jensen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem is that this is equal to adding a perfect teleconverter to your
lens with the associated reduction in quality. A lens has a certain resolution
in line pr. mm. If you reduce the number of lines and then magnify the image
to
Rüdiger wrote:
look at the 2.8/300. It has a filter size of 112mm like the a 35mm 2.8/300
and it is no smaller. The lenses should have the size of the Pentax 110
Pocket system, as this has
also a factor of 2. So the diameter should be only 56 mm.
The diameter would be 56mm if the Olympus lens
On 4 Mar 2003 at 3:21, Lawrence Kwan wrote:
Far from bland? But it looks exactly like its ZLR models E10 and E20. I
can't see how you can win users in the professional market by making the
camera looking like an amateurish/prosumer ZLR. It is not beautiful and
it is not sexy, and it hardly
I wrote:
Its diaphragm has something like 12 blades, for incredibly even lighting.
Andre Langevin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul, what does a round aperture have to do with even lighting (over the
frame?)?
Quite a bit, I thought. I believe that Contax has always stated this in its
T*-series
In the USA, many buyers shop for a digital camera in an electronics
superstore like Best Buy-not in a camera store. If a DLSR gets under glass
at those stores, it will greatly affect that brand's DLSR market share.
On an SLR zoom, we expect the focal range at 28mm, even 24 mm. Yet on nearly
every digicam, the zoom starts at an equivalent focal length of 35 to 38mm.
Why so unwide?
I think it's that, early on, the camera is specified to have a prescribed
zoom ratio-say, 4:1-and the marketing people tell the
Pål wrote:
The Limited lenses: more idiosyncratic than anything else!
Well, dont forget that 1990s Olympus retro point-and-shoot that was
shaped like an old flashbulb and had an equally bizarre name. What was it
again?
Could a zoom lens designed for an APS-sized sensor have less distortion or
vignetting than a zoom lens designed for full-frame 35mm? In other words, is
it easier to design a no compromise 5:1 or 10:1 zoom for the smaller
format? Would a hood, for example, be able to work well over a greater range
Steve Desjardins wrote:
It seems like Olympus did the obvious/safe thing and created an
interchangeable lens version of the E-10/20.
They must have made some other changes, because their E-10 literature claims
that interchangeable lenses cannot ensure the proper lens-to-CCD distance
within
- Original Message -
From: David Mann
Subject: Re: *ist D lens compatibility
I honestly think that Pentax would be shooting themselves in the foot
with a lens mount which is not backwards compatible. The *ist-D seems
ideal for the current-Pentax-owning enthusiast, and most of those
- Original Message -
From: Anthony Farr
Subject: Re: All Is Right In The Pentax World!
BTW news of the *ist D is everywhere in photography e-zines and
chat/email lists. Apart from the 'N C Appreciation Society' (aka
photonet) I can't imagine where your impression of apathy comes
Pål wrote:
In fact some Pentax users wait out the *ist D and when they see it they buy
a Canon.
I could be wrong, but I suspect that most shoppers will try to read about
the various DSLRs on the Web before buying. Most will find hands-on reviews
that evaluate the cameras strictly in terms of
- Original Message -
From: Paul Franklin Stregevsky
Subject: Idiosyncrasy (was: Re: All Is Right In The Pentax World!)
Well, don't forget that 1990s Olympus retro point-and-shoot that was
shaped like an old flashbulb and had an equally bizarre name. What was it
again?
Was that the
It seemed to work that way for 8mm movie cameras.
Len
---
Could a zoom lens designed for an APS-sized sensor have less distortion or
vignetting than a zoom lens designed for full-frame 35mm? In other words,
is
it easier to design a no compromise 5:1 or 10:1 zoom for the smaller
format? Would a
OOooo!
I'm really tempted, but have been counting on a new Optio-S, so it
will have to go to some other high bidder...
keith whaley
Paul Franklin Stregevsky wrote:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemcategory=3354item=2915311123;
rd=1
If you have trouble copying and pasting the
I think you are right, Paul. I think that the worst possible thing that
could happen to Pentax would be for all prospective Pentax buyers to find
and read the PDML before they made their purchase. For a user's group, we
seem to be pretty negative about Pentax's efforts.
Len
---
From: Paul
I'd postpone my Optio-S order for one, for sure!
keith whaley
Jim Apilado wrote:
I would love a Pentax RF camera.
Jim A.
From: Paul Franklin Stregevsky [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 21:47:46 -0500
To: 'Pentax-Discuss' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm afraid MP will wind up standing for 'maximum price.'
Evan
Bob Walkden wrote:
It has all the M3 face furniture, which I like very much. Better than
the squared-off levers. I have an M3 and and M4-2, so I have both
styles of rewind knob, and I don't really have a preference from the
Hi folks,
Those who attended the Pentax road show reported that all AF sensors except
outermost two of the middle row (5) is cross sensor, i.e., 9 cross sensors
and 2 horizontal. Hard to believe but that's what they are reporting,
alleged to be told by Pentax staff there and some checked it by
On 4 Mar 2003 at 4:59, Keith Whaley wrote:
OOooo!
I'm really tempted, but have been counting on a new Optio-S, so it
will have to go to some other high bidder...
keith whaley
Paul Franklin Stregevsky wrote:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemcategory=3354item=2915311123;
On March 4, 2003 08:00 am, Leonard Paris wrote:
I think you are right, Paul. I think that the worst possible thing that
could happen to Pentax would be for all prospective Pentax buyers to find
and read the PDML before they made their purchase. For a user's group, we
seem to be pretty
on 04.03.03 14:12, KT Takeshita at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi folks,
Those who attended the Pentax road show reported that all AF sensors except
outermost two of the middle row (5) is cross sensor, i.e., 9 cross sensors
and 2 horizontal. Hard to believe but that's what they are reporting,
I had thought MP might stand for 'Magnum Photos', but probably not. So
what does the P stand for? Pretty? Professional? Primitive?
Pretentious?
Photojournalist.
--Mike
On 4 Mar 2003 at 8:11, Nick Zentena wrote:
On March 4, 2003 08:00 am, Leonard Paris wrote:
I think you are right, Paul. I think that the worst possible thing that
could happen to Pentax would be for all prospective Pentax buyers to find and
read the PDML before they made their purchase.
That's why I
say, that these lenses presented by Olympus aren't as small as they could
be, taking in consideration, that they produce smaller circle of light.
My guess is that these Olympus lenses will cover APS and probably 35mm as
well. Olympus is hedging its bets. If it commits an entire
On 4 Mar 2003 at 14:16, Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:
on 04.03.03 14:12, KT Takeshita at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi folks,
Those who attended the Pentax road show reported that all AF sensors except
outermost two of the middle row (5) is cross sensor, i.e., 9 cross sensors and
2
Hi Team,
I have a slight problem, I have placed an order with a Canadian company in Ile
Bizard, QC who have debited a credit card and supposedly shipped goods 6 Feb
however they haven't arrived nor will the company return emails.
I have a physical address and phone number and was wondering if
Pentax actually had one of the first PS cameras with a lens that
started at 28mm. Now most makers have at least one model that starts at
28mm. Also, for a given aperture, a 28 is physically bigger than a 35.
BR
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On an SLR zoom, we expect the focal range at 28mm, even
That's exactly why I fear that the ISO range will top out at 400: If it were
higher, Pentax would have said so.
It isn't determined yet. As I said elsewhere, don't read tea leaves...lots
about this camera is not yet set in stone one way or the other. Wait for the
production models.
--Mike
On 4 Mar 2003 at 7:22, Mike Johnston wrote:
That's why I
say, that these lenses presented by Olympus aren't as small as they could be,
taking in consideration, that they produce smaller circle of light.
My guess is that these Olympus lenses will cover APS and probably 35mm as
well.
The sensors work on horizontal and vertical lines. This is done by
having 2 sensor arrays, at each sensor location, in a cross pattern. It
makes it much more likely for the AF to focus on something.
BR
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What does this mean for the AF illiterate?
I honestly think that Pentax would be shooting themselves in the foot
with a lens mount which is not backwards compatible.
They've already announced that it will be compatible. They even specified
that it will be compatible with _screwmount_ lenses, which I got a real kick
out of (the average
Paul wrote:
I could be wrong, but I suspect that most shoppers will try to read about
the various DSLRs on the Web before buying. Most will find hands-on reviews
that evaluate the cameras strictly in terms of functions, value, ease of
use, and accessories. Few will find PDML and other user
On Mon, 3 Mar 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A50/2.8 is relatively plentiful.
A100/2.8 Macro is about as rare as the K85/1.8,
and will be quite pricey in any condition.
That's what I was afraid of.
I've not used the F100/2.8, but many compare it to the A100/2.8. It
is also seen more often
Thanks for the info!
BTW, was the Olympus's built-in flash actually part of some kind of
slide-on grip for the camera? I know it was located over on the side
(above the grip?)
And I think Pentax's SF1 was not only the first RTF flash on a 35mm
SLR, but the first built-in TTL flash as well.
Henry wrote:
Many people
don't want to be associated with the cosmopolitan big brands like Canon or
Nikon. This time, Pentax is targetting at the *-ist who want something to
represent their individual status. That's what the name of the D-SLR
intends to be.
I agree, and thats why I
with finger and thumb, but can be fiddly and needs two hands unless
you glue the card dread to the deck! Also
That should of course read:
with finger and thumb, but can be fiddly and needs two hands unless
you glue the card reader to the deck! Also
Cot
On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Taz wrote:
Why not just buy a Canon 10D with Canon lenses?
If you have to start again buying lenses for a camera, why not buy lenses
from a maker who's optical qualities you are familiar with, and you like?
William Robb
Everyone that I know of dealing with
Nice shot. (Was it MF or digital?) ;-)
Steven Desjardins
Department of Chemistry
Washington and Lee University
Lexington, VA 24450
(540) 458-8873
FAX: (540) 458-8878
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
IF is not necessary, just a non rotating front is all that's needed.
At 09:47 AM 3/4/2003 +0100, you wrote:
on 04.03.03 7:20, Artur Ledóchowski at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That silver ring, however, together with the tulip lens hood, make this
lens
look quite pro-like, don't you think?:))
Yeah, but that was before they came out with one ;-). I'm sure thaey
had to fix specific details, but I will bet that it will not be
completely unreasonable to view this thing as an E-10/20 upgrade. Which
isn't a bad thing. I have found the E-10 to be a nice camera, large and
heavy but with
-Original Message-
From: Taz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you have to start again buying lenses for a camera,
why not buy lenses
from a maker who's optical qualities you are familiar
with, and you like?
William Robb
Everyone that I know of dealing with Pentax says the
Joe wrote:
Why did the Olympus OM77AF flop? I've come across the original ads
for it recently in Pop Photo when doing some Pentax research. It was
a bit ungainly looking, but didn't it share Pentax (and Nikon's)
vision of keeping manual-focus lenses useable on the AF bodies (with
focus
Hi,
Cotty wrote:
File sizes increase with ISO speed.
I would have assumed that they would decrease with increase in
speed. Bigger grain = less information. Is this a typo or
have I (as usual) missed something?
mike
on 04.03.03 17:08, Peter Alling at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IF is not necessary, just a non rotating front is all that's needed.
In fact, I have never seen zoom lens without rotating front and it wouldn't
be IF.
--
Best Regards
Sylwek
Well not quite. The MX was more or less a me-too product. It's specification
was nearly Identical to the OM-1, with additions (Shutter speed/f-stop
display in
the finder etc). The ME's were innovative in that they were measurably smaller
than any of the competition without manual shutter
When I was looking in the shop at work for aluminum foil I found a
Spotmatic F and some lenses; 50/1.4, 50/4 macro, 28/3.5 with metal hood,
extension tubes. The lenses also had weird feedthroughs that looked like
a screw mount version of open aperture metering. Whee! I asked around,
none of it
on 04.03.03 17:36, mike wilson at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
File sizes increase with ISO speed.
I would have assumed that they would decrease with increase in
speed. Bigger grain = less information. Is this a typo or
have I (as usual) missed something?
No, more noise means more
Yeah, but why Ig? You can get the same experience with Voigtländer Bessa T and you get
rangefinder as well.
All the best!
Raimo
Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
-Alkuperäinen viesti-
Lähettäjä: Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL
The Rollei has different viewfinder, frames for 40, 50 and 80 mm lenses. Different
outer finish as well. Other than that it´s a Bessa R2 - at double the price.
All the best!
Raimo
Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
-Alkuperäinen viesti-
Lähettäjä:
Not this one - the original MP was professional, though. From the Leica list I
remember it means Maximum Precision or something like that.
All the best!
Raimo
Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
-Alkuperäinen viesti-
Lähettäjä: Mike Johnston [EMAIL
I had thought MP might stand for 'Magnum Photos', but probably not. So
what does the P stand for? Pretty? Professional? Primitive?
Pretentious?
Photojournalist.
--Mike
Plutocrat!
Cotty
Oh, swipe me! He paints with light!
http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/
I haven't seen any DSLR's in electronics stores. Digital PS yes DSLR's
no. It
would be nice but the e-geeks in such places don't know jack as a rule. Now
if Pentax could get Radio Shack to sell them at least the sales force would
learn about the Cameras. They might not sell any but they'd
Those who attended the Pentax road show reported that all AF sensors
except
outermost two of the middle row (5) is cross sensor, i.e., 9 cross
sensors
and
2 horizontal. Hard to believe but that's what they are reporting,
alleged
to
be told by Pentax staff there and some checked it by
We've been there and I don't want to get into it.
At 09:35 AM 3/4/2003 +0100, you wrote:
The lenses should have the size of the Pentax 110 Pocket system, as
this has
also a factor of 2.
There comes another idea:
Will anybody stuff an 1/2 CCD into my old auto 110?
Nice little body, and lenses
The sensors work on horizontal and vertical lines. This is done by
having 2 sensor arrays, at each sensor location, in a cross pattern. It
makes it much more likely for the AF to focus on something.
Surely, much more likely for the AF to focus on the wrong thing?
Cotty
-Original Message-
From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I had thought MP might stand for 'Magnum Photos', but
probably not. So
what does the P stand for? Pretty? Professional? Primitive?
Pretentious?
Photojournalist.
--Mike
Plutocrat!
Pay Up!
tv
The *ist-D seems
ideal for the current-Pentax-owning enthusiast, and most of those would
be unlikely to purchase expensive new lenses just for the digicam. If
you need to replace your lenses for a d'cam why would you replace them
with Pentax ones? Why not just buy a Canon 10D with Canon
In other words they aren't taking advantage of the format, They're still
selling
35mm lenses on a sub 35mm format. It's nice to have a longer lens but you
can already
do that with Nikon, Canon, and soon with Pentax. I thought it was all
about smaller,
lighter, (less expensive), kit for the
(I am a
Swabian guy - Swabians are even more economical than the Scottish)
Just a minute. Is this possible?
Hi Hans. Welcome to the list.
Cotty
Oh, swipe me! He paints with light!
http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/
Free UK
Like the, in my opinion, infamous kodak claim the 6mp equals 35mm quality
it's an
advertising claim meant to sell a product, it the former case a photo CD in
the
latter a non-interchangeable lens digital camera. I draw my conclusions
from that.
At 07:40 AM 3/4/2003 -0500, you wrote:
Steve
Jpg compression allows for greater savings in filesize if you have large
expanses of continuous tone. More noise which is inherent with higher
ISOs means that there is much less smooth continuous areas to compress.
This is in VERY layman terms, but is how I understand it in my minds
eye. A
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:31:27 +0100
From: Pål
Len wrote:
For a user's group, we
seem to be pretty negative about Pentax's efforts.
I'm realistic about it. I do think the *ist D is a
great camera when
reading the specification list. The negative thing
about is that it
won't, in my
Speaking of Pentax, the nicest (in my opinion) of the several SF1 ad
designs appeared in the May 1987 issue.
Fred
Was that the one with the closeup of the built-in flash, with the
shining white flash tube alongside the red focus-confirmation lamp?
Or the one from a home-plate vantage point,
Sylwester Pietrzyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
on 04.03.03 17:36, mike wilson at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
File sizes increase with ISO speed.
I would have assumed that they would decrease with increase in
speed. Bigger grain = less information. Is this a typo or
have I (as usual) missed
Cotty wrote:
With digital, camera choice takes over - the sensor and the electronics
responsible for
producing the image are much more important to [digital] photography than
a light-tight box with film are to [film] photography.
If you consider sensor as a replacement for film, yes,
Are you sure that it wasn't Olympus that joined Kodak? It seems
Kodak's been genesis of all the dippy, err innovative film formats
of the past 1/2 century.
At 09:39 AM 3/4/2003 +0100, you wrote:
on 04.03.03 4:28, tom at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Thomas,
Still, you get double the reach, not
tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The older teles were very nice, and the newer ones that I've used are
on par or better.
And the Limiteds (wide, normal and tele) are in a class by themselves.
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
Henry Henry wrote:
Dear all,
It's so sad that one of the best AF system ever exist in a camera would not
be supported by faster focusing motor on lenses. Come on Pentax, please
release some ultrasonic lenses to match the 9 AF cross sensors on
*ist/*ist-D!!!
I still hope that
Kodak doesn't make the chips in their own DSLR, I don't think this is
likely. They probably own the intellectual property.
At 09:12 AM 3/4/2003 -0500, you wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Sylwester Pietrzyk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'll ask again: who else has signed on to produce
On Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:02:36 -0500
Joe Wilensky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for the info!
BTW, was the Olympus's built-in flash actually part of some kind of
slide-on grip for the camera? I know it was located over on the
side (above the grip?)
Actually, you do have a point there.
Hi Guys;
I've been reading the *-ist D threads and I am amused at the complaint that
the new cameras are not sexy enough. While I enjoy the tactile feel of a
well machined camera, like the old Spotmatics, sexy is not a term that I
associate with cameras.
However.
In keeping with the lists
That would depend on which way it was easiest and cheapest to build. You're
probably
right but we'll see in time.
At 05:17 PM 3/4/2003 +0100, you wrote:
on 04.03.03 17:08, Peter Alling at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IF is not necessary, just a non rotating front is all that's needed.
In fact, I
on 04.03.03 17:43, Peter Alling at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you sure that it wasn't Olympus that joined Kodak? It seems
Kodak's been genesis of all the dippy, err innovative film formats
of the past 1/2 century.
Peter, you are right, I wrote it by means of speed fingers :-) I don't know
Yeah, but if we want Pentax to continue in the business, we could consider
being a bit more up=beat about their products. We seem to have an ability to
spread negative information about new products before we know the facts. We
look at a picture of a new camera and find ways to pick it apart
A lot of great photographs were taken with the old Leicas. The users
probably suffered a lot loading them. I wonder how many photographers
use to auto loading P S's and SLR's could load an old K1000, Spotmatic,
etc.
Jim A.
1 - 100 of 272 matches
Mail list logo
