We're living interesting times. PJ and amateur's interests have started
to diverge, so the traditional Nikon scheme doesn't work anymore. It
will be fun to watch their attempts to getting out of this situation.
cheers,
caveman
KT Takeshita wrote:
This has been true and one of the reasons why
What did I break today?
tv
What did I break today?
An assistant's toe when you dropped a light on it?
-- Glenn
-Original Message-
From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
i was out shooting today with a guy from Kodak and he said
that the 14n's noise level is too high for landscape and
nature photographers that need extra long shutter speeds.
much below 1/4s and the noise becomes
Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark Roberts wrote:
Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Keith Whaley wrote:
Oooops! I meant to say:
I'm not fond of _automatic_ focus on my Pentaxes!
Yeah, but my favorite part was I have a number of the appropriate
lenses, maybe 10 M-42s and
Hallo Cotty,
Yery true, and I was extremely sad to have to let go my A*85mm f/1.4 -
the best lens of all time in my very humble opinion. However, I am
beginning to see that it may have been of limited value when attached to
the *ist D.
The A lenses will work, only the K and M lenses will not
KT Takeshita [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 03.6.6 11:44 PM, Caveman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
get it fast and in digital format please, and quality
doesn't matter that much any more
This is untrue. Canon has made their reputation in digital through
consistently increasing the quality of their
I submit we should do a survey and see why the current PDMLers are
sticking here. I suspect that a large percentage is still with pentax
because they still enjoy the manual focus era cameras and lenses. The AF
action is on the Canon list for a long time now.
I have a couple of MXs and some
It's the Pentax PUB.
If you knew that, what's the purpose of your coming in with dirty mouth?
You just do not make sense at all on everything.
Only reason you are here is because people here tolerate what you could not
do in the Nikon List.
Careful Ken, you're in danger of shooting yourself in
Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Boy, you got that right! I used to road race motorcycles (which is a
less expensive hobby than racing cars) and could easily go through a few
hundred dollars in expenses per race weekend. That's money burned with
nothing to show for it.
...except a huge smile and
Your Canon digital?
Bill
- Original Message -
From: tom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 2:55 AM
Subject: RE: Take a Guess
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
What did I break today?
An
I second that. I was really looking forward to that camera, now I am not.
I don`t think Pentax gives a rats ass about what we think here on the
list.
Steve Larson
Redondo Beach, California
- Original Message -
From: Arnold Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: PDML [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:
After having the opportunity to handle an Optio S last weekend on
Grandfather Mountain, the wife decided she wanted one in time for our
youngest's wedding on June 22. Unfortunately they are not available locally
due to a backorder of nearly 35,000 (popular little thing, isn't it).
However they
Mark Roberts wrote:
Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
incantations??? I knew that SMC glass was reputed to have some magical
properties!
Oh, it DOES, Sir! Indeed so! Love them SMC 50's of the 1.4 variety!
Love they little toes, [etc.]
I have three of the 50/1.4
What was funny or odd about the coating mentioned in the ad?
That he called it a golden color?
Just curious as to what you meant...
keith
collinb wrote:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=2933394539category=4688
On 03.6.7 7:23 AM, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Careful Ken, you're in danger of shooting yourself in the foot.
Yeah, yeah, I know.
I was just about to exit from my self-righteous BR policing (I never got
involved in any flame war stuff in the past but thought BR was going too far
in rampage
Since the 645 67 lenses on K mount cameras use stop down metering as compatible
as they ever were.
At 01:03 PM 6/7/03 +0200, you wrote:
Hallo,
look on
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-6234-6239
Will that be the dead of the Contax N-System?
Good that Pentax stopped their
Is there a prize offered for a correct answer?
If so how many try's do I get?
At 02:22 AM 6/7/03 -0400, you wrote:
What did I break today?
tv
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Nicely said if only we could be sure they read and care about what is said
on this list.
At 09:32 AM 6/7/03 +0200, you wrote:
Dear Pentax Corporation,
For more than 14 years I am a user and a big enthusiast of Pentax k-mount
equipment. I have spent a huge amount of money both on new and used
What was funny or odd about the coating mentioned in the ad?
That he called it a golden color?
I guess that's it. It's not golden but rather yellow. The lens on auction is
the infamous 50/1.4 with a radioactive element (or something like that - I
don't remember) that caused yellowing.
Oooo! That has sort of a Lotus flavor, doesn't it? I do like it!
I'd love one in my stable, if I had one...a stable that is.
Thanks for the site URL. I'm going back for a good look.
keith
Cotty wrote:
(I would love a Ginetta to run around in on sunny Sunday afternoons
though - oops, don't
On 03.6.7 7:28 AM, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can't be Canon who already has 11mp full frame CMOS.
It *could* be for Canon...if they want to upgrade the EOS 1D.
Personally, I think Canon will make their own sensor, though...
You could very well be right. I did not think Canon
Harold wrote:
Pentax will have to release quality FAJ lenses for the *ist D rather
than the 'economy' type lenses supplied for the *ist SLR.
REPLY:
I've been told that the FA-J lenses are strictly entry level and that there will be no
higher end FA-J lenses.
Pål
Bruce wrote:
There weren't enough people willing to spend $1,400 on a Minolta no matter how good it
was.
REPLY:
I believe the main problem for the Dynaxx 9 was that it didn't really offer anything
over its cheaper siblings than built quality. Nikon and Canon can presently get away
with such
John wrote:
No wonder the 7 is such a sales *success*.
REPLY:
Success? That depends on how you count. According to the Wall street journal the
Dynaxx 7 only sell 1/10th of its projected sales and Minolta is loosing wholesale on
it.
Pål
Alan wrote:
Okay ODML members, this will be my last attempt to ask for help to buy some parts for
my brand new FA31/1.8 LIMITED lens (unfortunately).
REPLY:
Why can't Pentax Canada get parts for it? Around here they can even rebuilt chrome
Limiteds into black ones. Parts are easily
Alan wrote:
Unfortunately, they have already done so. Perhaps they saw Nikon did okay so they
followed the same route. I don't know the difficulty of designing a camera with the
coupling ring, but that ring can't be expensive. Perhaps US$20 more to the selling
price (just to be safe)? But when
Alin wrote:
Unlikely - I agree. But maybe Pentax thinks there is room for a
higher model - larger sensor and full K mount compatibility. Who
knows!? Is the D100 fully AI compatible ?...
It's hard to accept they will dump just like that their most
precious asset - mount compatibility.
Alan wrote:
2) Pentax will suffer a slow and painful death because most Pentax long time users
will abandon their good old K mount lenses for good (why stay with Pentax if they must
re-invest all over again?). Make sense? :-)
REPLY:
From Pentax point of view people who are using 20+ year
Artur wrote:
There is NO, and I mean NO, sign of implementing image stabilisation or/and
USM motors from Pentax in any reasonably near future. Such implementation
exists only in the virtual reality of our list, it's nothing but our wishful
thinking. Yet the signs of abandoning the compatibility
Roland wrote:
Now, the information seems strange since Pentax has officially claimed compatibility
with K-mount lenses. It's also strange that they in the *ist manual writes that
shutter speed varies according to aperture ring position, when it seems not be doing
this. Has Pentax any
Christian wrote:
As far as Pentax releasing new lenses in FAJ mount, perhaps they will have a
new FAJ* designation for the better quality ones.
REPLY:
I've been told that there will be no FAJ* lenses. My guess is that the FA, FA* and FA
Limiteds will continue unless they release a completely
Alin wrote:
This is just an urban legend. Used market is another sign of a well
doing company. Availability and fast turnaround of used items means
money consolidation that generates new sales for the company. It's
as valid in the camera market as it is in the auto market, if you
need
Maybe he broke his vow to wait for the *ist-D? g
keith
Peter Alling wrote:
Is there a prize offered for a correct answer?
If so how many try's do I get?
At 02:22 AM 6/7/03 -0400, you wrote:
What did I break today?
tv
KT Takeshita [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 03.6.7 7:28 AM, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can't be Canon who already has 11mp full frame CMOS.
It *could* be for Canon...if they want to upgrade the EOS 1D.
Personally, I think Canon will make their own sensor, though...
You could very
No, you may be right, but consider that the front element on the lens
shown DID have a yellowish or golden cast to it, as a result of the
anti-reflective coating applied.
I'd go look at mine, but it's in the window being irradiated by the sun,
to get rid of it's rear element yellow! g
keith
On 03.6.7 9:21 AM, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just thought of a reason why Canon *might* go to an outside supplier:
Parts availability. If they can't produce enough sensors themselves
they'll certainly go to outside suppliers rather than give up market
share by cutting
Pål read the damned *ist manual posted by Pentax USA on their official web
site. Some
of your information directly contradicts official released
documentation. Spoken word
is hearsay while written words have much more weight in court. Why is
that? (Rhetorical
question don't bother to
He did that months ago.
At 06:13 AM 6/7/03 -0700, keith wrote:
Maybe he broke his vow to wait for the *ist-D? g
keith
Peter Alling wrote:
Is there a prize offered for a correct answer?
If so how many try's do I get?
At 02:22 AM 6/7/03 -0400, you wrote:
What did I break today?
tv
On 03.6.7 9:26 AM, KT Takeshita [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just thought of a reason why Canon *might* go to an outside supplier:
Parts availability. If they can't produce enough sensors themselves
they'll certainly go to outside suppliers rather than give up market
share by cutting
Peter wrote:
Pål read the damned *ist manual posted by Pentax USA on their official web
site. Some
of your information directly contradicts official released
documentation. Spoken word
is hearsay while written words have much more weight in court. Why is
that? (Rhetorical
question
Hi Pål,
on 07 Jun 03 you wrote in pentax.list:
I cannot see why the abandonment of the aperture simulator should
help implementing IS or USM. If they need a new protocol to implement
You're basically right. However, the lack of cmpatibility is a cost issue
first and foremost in case of the
Arnold,
Does this mean in non-metered manual mode, all apertures are available with
K/M lenses? That wasn't clear from your earlier report. It wasn't even
clear that a non-metered mode was available.
If it's true then I'd be happy enough, as I'm not as married to the concept
of internal meters
We were riding a
Yam FZR400 and the light weight and relatively low horsepower made it
easy to outrun the bigger, more powerful bikes on the wet asphalt. I
have *never* had more fun on a race track.
Later, a friend of mine described my mood after the race thusly: I've
never seen anyone get off a
On June 6, 2003 11:51 pm, Cameron Hood wrote:
Vancouver is a city of 1.5 million people. And this is the only
Pentax repair station west of Toronto, over 3,000 miles away. They plan
on operating in Canada out of Toronto only. This can not be a good
thing, and cannot be a sign of a healthy
The problem is the word compatibility means different things to different
people.
Novice user: Everything works.
Experienced user: Works like it did on the old bodies.
Manufacturer: You can mount it on the body.
Said in jest, but unfortunately, it is only funny because there is a certain
amount
Sorry if I did not describe things clearly. Yes, on the *ist D a
non-metered manual mode is available with K- and M series lenses. DOF
preview is available, too. One can even meter with the camera in AV mode
at open aperture, then switch to manual mode and calculate what the
shutter time
I won't either buy a Nikon or Canon DSLR. If Pentax does not hear us and
does not offer better compatibilty on a DSLR that I can afford, then I
will either buy a better film scanner, or I will wait for Cosina to
bring a DSLR in true k-mount. Or I willpull out the memory chip and
reprogram that
On June 6, 2003 07:22 pm, Daniel Liu wrote:
Also, interestingly enough, i've run into a zeiss 135mm m42 lens on
ebay running for about $35 US, and even an Angenieux (are they still
around?) 135mm m42 lens going for *faints* almost $700.
Is that a Zeiss Jena? You can find a real
LOL!
Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto
- Original Message -
From: Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 11:36 AM
Subject: Re: *ist D revisited
- Original Message -
From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Only when it is damp.
Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto
- Original Message -
From: Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 2:42 PM
Subject: Re: *ist in stock
On Friday 06 June 2003 14:30, T Rittenhouse wrote:
Yes,
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What did I break today?
Not Another Flash!
Oooh, very close.
tv
On June 5, 2003 11:04 pm, Rob Studdert wrote:
On 5 Jun 2003 at 20:51, Nick Zentena wrote:
So it was stacked in favour of the digital. What's new?
Read again.
It was nicely highlighting the inadequacies of mainstream digital
projection options.
No it was testing a digital
FYI, Samys camera in LA has this flash for sale at a decent price.
_
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
On June 5, 2003 10:30 pm, Caveman wrote:
Nick Zentena wrote:
Has
Pentax ever made a lens with lower resolution then any current digital
sensor can handle? The worst Pentax lens ever made likely exceeds the
best current digital sensor.
Don't underestimate digital. It's still in its
On June 5, 2003 09:19 pm, Mark Roberts wrote:
It was stacked *against* digital.
How can any test that gives one side that much of a monetary advantage be
stacked against the side with more money?
Nick
Bruce,
A thoughtful post. I see all this wailing and moaning about the d*ist, and
like you, I can't get too excited. I will probably migrate to medium format
someday but still keep my 35 mm stuff. I fully expect that it will outlast me.
In fact, I have been enjoying going backward in time
So the statement Nice trade is inappropriate?
At 09:27 AM 6/7/03 -0500, you wrote:
Ryan Charron wrote:
You didn't spill milk on one of her books did you?
Nope, more like Crown Royal... :-)
Just setting it up for me to get the *ist-D when it comes out.
--
Later,
Gary
Outside of a dog, a
Thanks for answering so soon, Arnold.
This makes me happier, and I can now deselect rant-mode, and withdraw my
recent complaints. I'm sympathetic to those who prefer to have the camera's
meter and especially Av mode available with their classic lenses, and I hope
that either a work-around is
-Original Message-
From: Pål Jensen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tom wrote:
Ha! The 10D is metal too.
REPLY:
Isn't this just another case of canons Classic metal scam
job? Ultra cheap plastic body with a thin cosmetic metal
film on top? Like the Elan 7 or the AE-1 etc.
I
Rather like the description of gear as portable, which in many instances
means that it has a handle (despite weighing 200kg).
regards,
Anthony Farr
- Original Message -
From: T Rittenhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, 8 June 2003 2:28 AM
Subject: Re: *ist D
- Original Message -
From: Heiko Hamann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The *ist camera
This is something, that I could accept. I did never mind the crippled
mount on a MZ-30/50/60, as there is no need to buy such a camera. But I
can't understand, why cost cutting is an argument on a
Why do you say that?
The average snapshooter (and PJ) only needs 2mp (adequate for a 4x print,
web page, or e-mail).
People photographers (portrait, wedding, candid, etc.) need more, around
14mp (adequate for an 11x14 print).
Fine art and advertising photographers can use whatever they can get.
Pål, it makes on sense for a camera manufacturer to purposefully make a
camera that annoy's
there present user base without offering something that is unavailable
elsewhere. There is
almost nothing in the current Pentax lens line that excites me enough to
buy their new 35mm
lenses. If I have
If you've got a prom burner...
At 06:32 PM 6/7/03 +0200, you wrote:
I won't either buy a Nikon or Canon DSLR. If Pentax does not hear us and
does not offer better compatibilty on a DSLR that I can afford, then I
will either buy a better film scanner, or I will wait for Cosina to bring
a DSLR
It's always damp in England...
At 12:35 PM 6/7/03 -0400, you wrote:
Only when it is damp.
Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto
- Original Message -
From: Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 2:42 PM
Subject: Re: *ist in
If these cameras can use A lenses they support 99% of the old
protocol. Leaving out
the last 1% is not a cost saving, it's a scheme to sell new lenses. When
third party
lens makers produce Pro quality lenses for not much more than Pentax
produces consumer
quality lenses who's do you think new
On 03.6.7 10:53 AM, KT Takeshita [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do not know but I was always under the impression that Canon buy CCD for
DSLR (Cheaper that way?). I do not think they ever announced who is making
their CCD. Perhaps I can check with someone in Japan.
Hi Mark,
One of my contacts
- Original Message -
From: Peter Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The *ist camera
When
third party
lens makers produce Pro quality lenses for not much more than Pentax
produces consumer
quality lenses who's do you think new users will buy?
They have already been doing it
Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 12:20:38 +0100
From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have a couple of MXs and some Pentax glass. These
items are from a
completely different company that exists now.
That is the case for all camera manufacturers. Those
who did not change went bankrupt some time ago.
-Original Message-
From: T Rittenhouse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
People photographers (portrait, wedding, candid, etc.) need
more, around
14mp (adequate for an 11x14 print).
Um, this 16x20 I have sitting here suggests 6M works ok for big
prints. I've seen nice 11x14's from a 1D
So guess what. Suddenly the 35mm PJ flagships are in disgrace,
and you can't use those anymore for your marketing.
This is great news. Since they are not longer useful for PJ's or
marketing, there is a real chance Pentax will finally release one.8^)
Seriously, I think this post is dead on.
Well, Tom, I used 300dpi as a basis of excellent quality prints, many say
200dpi is enough. I preferred to use a resolution almost no one would
quibble about. If you want to make 30x40's from a 1mp image, go ahead, no
one is stopping you.
Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto
-Original Message-
From: T Rittenhouse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, Tom, I used 300dpi as a basis of excellent quality
prints, many say
200dpi is enough.
It was resampled and printed at 300dpi.
tv
Roland Mabo wrote:
Many here assumes that the *ist D is not going to be as
good as Nikon or
Canons DSLR's. I wonder how people will react if it simply
outperforms the
Nikon D100 and the Canon 10D in terms of image quality...
Hi Roland,
It will use the same Sony (?) CCD chip as the D100 (this
Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Roland wrote:
I remember that we had a discussion a while back about an
aperture motor inside the FAJ lenses since Pentax seems to
have changed the electrical protocol for the aperture, I
don't think that we came to an absolute conclusion.
REPLY:
A Pentax
Since you had the AB hung from the ceiling, I will guess you or your
assistant dropped that.
Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto
- Original Message -
From: tom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 4:31 AM
Subject: RE: Take a Guess
KT Takeshita [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 03.6.7 10:53 AM, KT Takeshita [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do not know but I was always under the impression that Canon buy CCD for
DSLR (Cheaper that way?). I do not think they ever announced who is making
their CCD. Perhaps I can check with someone
-Original Message-
From: T Rittenhouse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Since you had the AB hung from the ceiling, I will guess you or your
assistant dropped that.
Now that would have sucked, and was my biggest fear. I used about 30
feet of geffer's tape to make sure it wasn't going
Sync cords don't count. They are throw away items (Ya, I know, they aren't
priced that way anymore).
Another thing is, your breakage is about par for the course among full time
professional photographers. When you are trying to make money, you can not
afford to baby your equipment. You use it as
- Original Message -
From: Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In fact the FAJs are the most miraculous lenses Pentax has ever made. I'm
certain I read somewhere that they'd been 'Canonized'.
regards,
Anthony Farr
HAR!
Christian
The review I just read stated something to the effect of: polycarbonate body
on an aluminum chassis with magnesium alloy side top and bottom panels for
added strength.
Tom, shouldn't you be photographing scantily-clad models today?
Christian Skofteland
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message
Because of several comments I buyed the SMC-M-135/3.5 in jan 2002 for 60
Euros and first was impressed. But in the summer on a biking trip I took a
picture that disappointed me and I found that this lens doesn't reproduce
enough details. I sold it and got me a SMC-K-135/2.5 with 58mm front. It is
Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED]
incantations??? I knew that SMC glass was reputed to have some magical
properties!
In fact the FAJs are the most miraculous lenses Pentax has ever made. I'm
certain I read somewhere that they'd been 'Canonized'.
That
Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7 Jun 2003 at 0:19, KT Takeshita wrote:
There is a persistent rumour that Contax N
Digital has been discontinued. So the plot thickens :-).
Kyocera cut their throat when they introduced the N mount.
I wouldn't say they cut their own throat by
Tom, Tom , Tom; what ever are we going to do with you? This is Pentax
digital; as in theoretical, not real tangible images. The good doctors
here will explain to you that you can't see what you think you see.
BR
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Original Message-
From: T Rittenhouse
Thank GOD, and all the other Gods for that.
--- Pål_Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been told that the FA-J lenses are strictly
entry level and that there will be no higher end
FA-J lenses.
Pål
__
Post your
Better maybe, infinitely no. Before if I was going to purchase one it
would have
to be the latter. Now just better will do.
At 01:31 AM 6/8/03 +1000, you wrote:
On 7 Jun 2003 at 17:18, Pål Jensen wrote:
Tom wrote:
Ha! The 10D is metal too.
REPLY:
Isn't this just another case of canons
So you're saying that Pål is a Manufacture? (Another rhetorical question). ;)
At 12:28 PM 6/7/03 -0400, you wrote:
The problem is the word compatibility means different things to different
people.
Novice user: Everything works.
Experienced user: Works like it did on the old bodies.
Manufacturer:
There is no reason for Pentax to also alienate old users at the
same time, they just have however.
At 10:34 AM 6/7/03 -0700, you wrote:
Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 12:20:38 +0100
From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have a couple of MXs and some Pentax glass. These
items are from a
completely
AGGG!
At 03:21 PM 6/7/03 -0400, you wrote:
Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED]
incantations??? I knew that SMC glass was reputed to have some magical
properties!
In fact the FAJs are the most miraculous lenses Pentax has ever made. I'm
I wouldn't give thanks until this is proven out. So far
Pål only bats in US major league averages when predicting.
At 04:01 PM 6/7/03 -0400, you wrote:
Thank GOD, and all the other Gods for that.
--- Pål_Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been told that the FA-J lenses are strictly
entry
Hallo,
what happend if you are using a A lens on the *ist and the aperture ring is
not in A-position.
Is there any difference to a K-mount lens. Will the aperture stop down?
Or do behave the A or K mount lens then in the same way?
Thanks
Rüdiger
I suspect that one of the real impetuses behind this move is precision. I
believe it is impossible to achieve precise enough aperture control with
auto settings via the old K-mount protocol. Obviously, Pentax goes the
fullly auto route with the *ists but they have provided choices for those
When a situation like this presents it'self. You hope
Pal is right, the averages are in out favour and you
Pray to every God there is ( and then some, leave no
stone unturned ) that it will only be a low end lens.
--- Peter Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wouldn't give thanks until this is
Hey everyone,
This is a little off topic but I can't read another post
about dslrs. Anywho, I'm thinking about buying an HP S20xi
film scanner. It lacks ICE and has questionable build
quality but it's easy to find new for around $100. So, for
anyone who has owned this scanner, comments
As long as the description is ambiguous, they aren't lying. :-)
regards,
Alan Chan
The problem is the word compatibility means different things to different
people.
Novice user: Everything works.
Experienced user: Works like it did on the old bodies.
Manufacturer: You can mount it on the body.
Speaking of metal, the silver metal shell used on Limited lenses are rather
soft compared to K or M lenses. I have found out the construction of the 31
is different from 43 77 too. The latter 2 are closer to manual focus
lenses while the mechanical design of the 31 is no different from other
Ha! The 10D is metal too.
REPLY:
Isn't this just another case of canons Classic metal scam job? Ultra cheap
plastic body with a thin cosmetic metal film on top? Like the Elan 7 or the
AE-1 etc.
In 6 months time, it won't matter no more because everyone will be talking
about the next model.
If they do indeed offer such compatibility I'll expect it on expensive
products, not on the *ist and *ist D, entry level for film and digital
respectively.
But digital DSLRs are expensive products, so far.
regards,
Alan Chan
_
The
1 - 100 of 188 matches
Mail list logo
