On Sep 16, 2006, at 8:10 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> I now personally know three people who have actually ordered a
> K10D, at
> least one of which ordered some accessories and a lens along with
> it. Just
> curious who else may have actually ordered the camera, and, if you
> care to
> shar
Oh, it's cumbersome compared to turning an aperture
ring. Your hand is already there to support the lens.
Wheels are superfluous when you already have other
controls on the body to work like DOF preview,
shutter, exposure comp, AF settings, etc. And that's
from somebody who's used lenses of all kin
Abes of Maine (!)
Jens Bladt
http://www.jensbladt.dk
+45 56 63 77 11
+45 23 43 85 77
Skype: jensbladt248
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af P. J.
Alling
Sendt: 16. september 2006 00:26
Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Emne: Re: Friday Foto Funni
What's the best to stop speculations and enormous expectations like
20-bit color depth and what not.
Dry facts, boring specification from Pentax says it all. What camera
does, and what not. From what I read I love it, especially being under
$1000 for a body. Help yourself at:
http://www.pentax
I have finally inventoried all my PK lenses, and I have a total
Of 47. 37 Pentax, 10 third party. The pentax are mostly
All primes, K/M. Am I crazy or any others of you out there
With that many (about $6000 worth ) just in Pentax K mount lenses?
I think I will be getting a K10D too but I have been
Coolness!
I just built a roll-up 2m J-pole I'm taking with me on
a hiking trip in the Shining Rock Wilderness
(Nantahala NF area) next week (Also bringing a K1000
and a few lenses, of course!). Gonna string the
antenna up in a tree and see if I can hit the Mount
Mitchell (actually on Clingman, I t
Lawrence Kwan wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Sep 2006, David S. wrote:
>
>>Stores out here in western Canada do not have Pricing from Pentax yet &
>>are also not taking orders yet.
>
>
> Cameracanada.com is taking pre-orders at C$1,049.88. It is located in
> London, Ontario; so you may be able to save on
What's the 60's?
--
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---
D Brooks wrote:
> Quoting Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> Depending on which variety of Amanitas it might be. Some are
>
On Sep 16, 2006, at 10:56 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote:
>> I had both at the same time. I don't recall that the A50/1.4 was
>> substantially smaller than the FA50/1.4, or any lighter. Personally,
>> I prefer the FA model, but the A model was a fine lens too.
>
> It definitely felt larger to use
At 01:56 PM 17/09/2006, Digital Image Studio wrote:
>On 17/09/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I had both at the same time. I don't recall that the A50/1.4 was
> > substantially smaller than the FA50/1.4, or any lighter. Personally,
> > I prefer the FA model, but the A model w
Are we still debating this?
On Sep 16, 2006, at 9:12 PM, Brendan MacRae wrote:
> Using a dial on a camera body to control the aperture
> is nuts to me. I don't see it as an advantage either.
> To me it seems cumbersome and ridiculous.
Six years ago I felt the same way. But now I find the on-body
At 01:52 PM 17/09/2006, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>Are we still debating this?
No, were discussing it, because some people still don't feel comfortable
with on body aperture control.
>On Sep 16, 2006, at 9:12 PM, Brendan MacRae wrote:
>
> > Using a dial on a camera body to control the aperture
>
On 17/09/06, graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So you are saying a 22 bit ADC is overkill. Wonder if Pentax knows that?
> BTW, Rob's explanation was clearer, but still not documented for my
> curiosity.
A theoretically perfect 22 bit ADC should be able to resolve 4,194,304
voltage levels betwe
A masochist?
--
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---
P. J. Alling wrote:
> What are you when you use three?
>
> Paul Stenquist wrote:
>
>> I've found that two cameras make you a pro eve
On 17/09/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I had both at the same time. I don't recall that the A50/1.4 was
> substantially smaller than the FA50/1.4, or any lighter. Personally,
> I prefer the FA model, but the A model was a fine lens too.
It definitely felt larger to use, having
The ideal mount for an interchangeable lens digital sensor camera has
a wider diameter with respect to the format diagonal. Olympus' Pen F
mount was relatively small diameter, designed to meet the
requirements of a film body.
G
On Sep 16, 2006, at 9:24 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
> I do kinda won
Thanks, guys. It would have to be a *really* compelling lens to
convince me that it was worth purchasing. I've moved my entire lens
kit to FA/DA series spec, with the exception of the A50/2.8 macro and
Zeni 16 FE.
Although I sometimes feel I should get a Lensbaby for the fun of it.
Godfrey
On Sep 16, 2006, at 5:34 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote:
> I agree the size is limited by the element diameters but there is a
> lot of fat on the FA 50/1.4, more so than the A version, if one could
> be built similar to the FA77 form factor it would be more compact.
I had both at the same time.
So you are saying a 22 bit ADC is overkill. Wonder if Pentax knows that?
BTW, Rob's explanation was clearer, but still not documented for my
curiosity.
--
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
Over-all-magnification = subject-size : image-size.
The size of intermediate things like sensors or negatives have nothing
to do with DOF. They do however affect the quality of the image. Also
almost all DOF charts are calculated for an 8x10 print viewed at 10
inches. That is the standard, alth
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006, David S. wrote:
> Stores out here in western Canada do not have Pricing from Pentax yet &
> are also not taking orders yet.
Cameracanada.com is taking pre-orders at C$1,049.88. It is located in
London, Ontario; so you may be able to save on PST (assuming that you are
not in
On 17/09/06, Lawrence Kwan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Sep 2006, Jens Bladt wrote:
> But isn't it true that ISO 3200 in some cameras is just ISO 1600 pushed to
> simulate ISO 3200? Not sure about *istD*, but apparently many Canon's
> were like this from reading at dpreview (they calle
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006, Bertil Holmberg wrote:
> Things are looking good for Pentax right now. Eight supersonic lenses
> coming up. Now, where is that medium format camera?
Are you sure that those eight lenses displayed in the brochure are the
upcoming USM lenses? Not by my interpretation.
The USM
On 17/09/06, David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't believe in labels man.
I have two identical glass jars in my pantry, one containing table
salt and one castor sugar, I know which is which but they aren't
labeled, it's fun when I point visitors to the sugar :-)
--
Rob Studdert
HURS
On 17/09/06, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Digital Image Studio wrote:
> Given it's 1/3 of a stop slower, but less expensive than the FA 20/2.8
> (About 2/3rds the cost) and a third the size, I really can't see the
> complaints about the 21 DA. The 70 is quite reasonable too, giving me a
Reduced complexity in the lens perhaps, and added
complexity into the body.
Obviously the camera functions without it, but is it
really an advantage? To me, no.
-Brendan
--- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There's no significant advantage to eliminating the
> aperture ring
> other
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006, Jens Bladt wrote:
> Is it true that the K10D only offers ISO 100-1600? (no over ride to 3200
> like the D)
But isn't it true that ISO 3200 in some cameras is just ISO 1600 pushed to
simulate ISO 3200? Not sure about *istD*, but apparently many Canon's
were like this from re
On 17/09/06, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You may not like it. You're entitled to your preferences, as is Rob.
> But it's neither ridiculous or cumbersome. In fact, it's considerably
> less cumbersome than an aperture ring. And that's from someone who
> used aperture rings for forty
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> I now personally know three people who have actually ordered a K10D, at
> least one of which ordered some accessories and a lens along with it. Just
> curious who else may have actually ordered the camera, and, if you care to
> share, from where did you order it?
>
>
> Sh
You may not like it. You're entitled to your preferences, as is Rob.
But it's neither ridiculous or cumbersome. In fact, it's considerably
less cumbersome than an aperture ring. And that's from someone who
used aperture rings for forty years.
Paul
On Sep 17, 2006, at 12:12 AM, Brendan MacRae
Thanks
-Adam
David J Brooks wrote:
> I have my Nikon 70-200 VR on all the time and pan quite a bit with the
> flat work, equine wise. Seems to work that way, so i'd suspect it
> would Pentax wise.
>
> BTW Adam, nice shot
>
> Dave
>
> Quoting Doug Franklin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>>Adam
I do kinda wonder why they didn't use a variation of that mount for 4/3rds.
-Adam
Doug Miles wrote:
> Seems we've visited this place before... Reminding me there was a 38mm
> f/1.8, 40mm f/1.4, 60mm f/1.5, and 70mm f/2 all made for 18x24mm coverage...
> by Olympus for the Pen F. They didn't do a
Digital Image Studio wrote:
> On 17/09/06, Tim Øsleby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>IMO there is nothing wrong with the pancakes. In fact I'm debating myself
>>buying the 21mm. With the tiny 21mm I can have the camera in my pocket and
>>flip it up and shoot from the hip. Don't know if I'll ever d
Ason one of the guys pushing a D-FA 50, it has nothing to do with the
aperture ring and everything to do with loving my LX.
-Adam
Brendan MacRae wrote:
> I agree...
> As I was telling Godfrey, the loss of the aperture
> ring is just crazy to me. I noticed in the question
> posed by Shel about t
No, it wasn't Marnie ... but in all honesty, I'd not post it publicly on
the list if it were. It would be her choice to do that.
It's a woman I know, but I was just guessing that she may have ordered from
you. She may have ordered before your announcement.
Well, my meds are kicking in, time t
There's no significant advantage to eliminating the aperture ring
other than reduced complexity. But, likewise, there is no advantage
to retaining it. The camera functions just as well without it.
Paul
On Sep 17, 2006, at 12:07 AM, Brendan MacRae wrote:
> I agree...
> As I was telling Godfrey,
On 17/09/06, Brendan MacRae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm going to have to get used to not having them I
> suppose, but I don't see the advantage...I just don't
> see it.
That's because the advantage is not yours, it's to the manufacturer,
they can produce a cheaper interface and then add a he
Rob...I'm totally with you on this.
Using a dial on a camera body to control the aperture
is nuts to me. I don't see it as an advantage either.
To me it seems cumbersome and ridiculous.
-Brendan
--- Digital Image Studio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 17/09/06, Paul Stenquist
> <[EMAIL PROTECTE
Hi Shel,
You know me personally. You've just been spared the pain of seeing
me:-).
Yes, Bob Sullivan was one of the few orders B&H took. I tried to
order and asked them about that. They admitted a mistake. They soon
changed their "Out of Stock" nomenclature to "New- coming soon." I
think th
> Sullivan ordered from B&H, another from John Celio @ Reed's Camera here in
> the East Bay. I don't specifically recall where the third person ordered
> from, although I think it was from John as she's local..
Only one person so far has asked for me and mentioned you, Shel. Thanks
very much for
I agree...
As I was telling Godfrey, the loss of the aperture
ring is just crazy to me. I noticed in the question
posed by Shel about the 50mm lenses that I'm not alone
in this. Many folks wanted a 50mm for digital as long
as it came with an aperture ring.
I'm going to have to get used to not hav
On 9/17/06, Digital Image Studio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 17/09/06, David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > LOL.
> >
> > Tom, Adam & Rob received an ear bashing & were labeled "negative" a
> > couple of days ago for saying that.
> >
> > I guess we can add Paul to the list of negative nay
Amateur Extra KD2L
- Original Message -
From: "Jon Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2006 6:48 PM
Subject: Hams (was Re: OT: Bummer)
> Collin, are you a ham too?
>
> I wonder how many hams we have on this list. :)
>
> I'm a techni
i did exactly the same.
mishka
On 9/16/06, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I ordered and paid for a K10D from Amazon, which seems to be the only
> internet provider who is taking orders. I've also asked to be
> notified when available from B&H. I would prefer to buy from them,
> but t
I didn't order the camera - three people I personally know did, and you're
now the fourth person I know, although I don't know you personally. Bob
Sullivan ordered from B&H, another from John Celio @ Reed's Camera here in
the East Bay. I don't specifically recall where the third person ordered
fro
I ordered and paid for a K10D from Amazon, which seems to be the only
internet provider who is taking orders. I've also asked to be
notified when available from B&H. I would prefer to buy from them,
but they are not taking orders. According to them, the few they took
were a mistake.
Where d
I now personally know three people who have actually ordered a K10D, at
least one of which ordered some accessories and a lens along with it. Just
curious who else may have actually ordered the camera, and, if you care to
share, from where did you order it?
Shel
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail
Hmm. I think I want the A28/2 as well. Much more practical than the
Vivitar, although I wonder which is better. We may never know.
Paul
On Sep 16, 2006, at 11:01 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> Well, now I feel a little better - at least not so alone in my
> foolishness.
>
> Shel
>
>
>
>> [Orig
I ordered five, one for everyone in my family, plus one more backup. :)
Not. I'm waiting for the (hopefully) eventual price drop and to see
what kind of image quality we are going to get from 10Mp.
rg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I now personally know three people who have actually ordered a K
I know that aperture dials are not your preference. I also am very
familiar with the purpose of an aperture ring. I was turning them
when you were still in knickers. But I responded to your post in like
manner. I own a number of lenses that have aperture dials rather than
aperture rings. I
Well, now I feel a little better - at least not so alone in my
foolishness.
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: Digital Image Studio
> Shel Belinkoff <
> > I'd much prefer the SMCP-A 28/2.0 that, for some reason I stupidly sold
a
> > year or so back. I found the 28/2.0 to be a bit soft
Very nice, Dave! I like the soft light. Have you
considered a tighter crop, maybe just above the
headlights and just in front of the bumper?
Rick
--- David J Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4947803
>
> Horse show season, for me anyway, is pretty
On 17/09/06, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But you no longer need the ring to set the aperture. The dial works
> just fine.
It might work fine, but it's not my preference, my preference is to
use the aperture ring, as it is on my Mamiya and Leicas. I'm not happy
that I am being steer
I always assume mushrooms are poisonous, there are a number of varieties
that are quite edible, which have mimics which will kill you dead
quickly or slowly. I have a friend who's a mycologist, he collects
mushrooms to eat occasionally . If he gets just one he's not sure of in
a batch he thro
> Just got one of these (refurbished grade A stock) for my son - anyone
> have one? Any comments?
I LOVED that camera when we had it in stock at my store. The lens was very
sharp, and the super macro mode was a lot of fun to play with on slow days.
It was a little difficult to sell because of i
KG4LOV, not active at the present time.
Bill
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mat
Maessen
Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2006 10:45 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Hams (was Re: OT: Bummer)
On 9/16/06, Jon Myers <[EMAIL PROTECT
But you no longer need the ring to set the aperture. The dial works
just fine.
Paul
On Sep 16, 2006, at 10:29 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote:
> On 17/09/06, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Aperture ring? For what?
>
> You've already forgotten? It's simply one of the two primary con
On 9/16/06, Jon Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Collin, are you a ham too?
>
> I wonder how many hams we have on this list. :)
There's a bunch of us lurking around here. I've got my Extra ticket.
-Mat, N2NJZ
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml
I didn't mention that some of the shots need to be deleted. I was using the
MZ-S at the time and some of the shots of the afterglow (burning at night to
light up a tethered balloon like a light bulb) show a fair amount of camera
movement.
Phyllis has a few days off for fall break in October, so I
Sounds like your back Bill.
Dave
Quoting Bill Owens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I just dug out an old CD of a local hot air balloon rally and played it as a
> slide show on the media edition. It's really neat. Landscape oriented
> shots zoom to slightly more than fit the screen and portrait oriente
Quoting Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Depending on which variety of Amanitas it might be. Some are
> psychoactive, some can kill you.
Is that why i have a problem remembering the 60's.
G
Dave
> Paul
> On Sep 16, 2006, at 9:30 PM, Doug Franklin wrote:
>
>> P. J. Alling wrote:
>>
>>> My
On 17/09/06, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Aperture ring? For what?
You've already forgotten? It's simply one of the two primary controls
that photographers have over how a photographic exposure is set.
--
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT) +10 Hours
[
IIRC there were people with 77's on the list when the 31mm was
announced. In fact the 43 and 77 look like the work of the same design
team. The 31 is almost a different family all together.
Mark Roberts wrote:
>P. J. Alling wrote:
>
>
>
>>Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Sat,
Jon Myers wrote:
> Collin, are you a ham too?
There are a few of us. I'm also a Technician license, but I haven't
been active much the last two years or so.
--
Thanks,
DougF (KG4LMZ)
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Wow. Looks like they are converting all the DA lense lineup to be USM?
I better start saving up, or selling my non-USM DA lenses now!
rg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It was on the dpreview forum:
>
> Please see the K10D pentax catalogue at
> http://www.pentax.no/accounts/433774/File/Datablade
I just dug out an old CD of a local hot air balloon rally and played it as a
slide show on the media edition. It's really neat. Landscape oriented
shots zoom to slightly more than fit the screen and portrait oriented shots
scroll to more than fill the screen, yet also end up showing the entire
ph
On 9/16/06, John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I actually managed to bend the hinge on a Canon PowerShot G1.
> It (the hinge) still worked, but it was very stiff to operate,
> and the screen didn't lie quite flat when in the closed position.
> It eventually got replaced when the camera had
On 9/16/06, Kostas Kavoussanakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Sep 2006, Scott Loveless wrote:
>
> > Typical P&S shutter lag.
>
> Standard Pentax P&S gripe. Thanks for the long report. Any comments on
> the lens?
>
The lens is fine, as far as I can tell. It is SMC and the front
element
On 9/16/06, Rick Womer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> An ugly time of day, for sure...
>
I'm now polishing off my second lager of the evening. Once again, life is good.
--
Scott Loveless
http://www.twosixteen.com
Shoot more film!
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/ma
Depending on which variety of Amanitas it might be. Some are
psychoactive, some can kill you.
Paul
On Sep 16, 2006, at 9:30 PM, Doug Franklin wrote:
> P. J. Alling wrote:
>
>> My that's pretty, and probably poisonous. Nice capture and
>> rendition.
>
> Poisonous or hallucinogenic, depending o
On Sat, Sep 16, 2006 at 04:16:42PM -0400, Mark Roberts wrote:
> John Francis wrote:
>
> >On Sat, Sep 16, 2006 at 01:28:26PM -0400, Mark Roberts wrote:
> >> Ryan Brooks wrote:
> >>
> >> >Adam Maas wrote:
> >> >> At f2.4, the 70 is about perfect for me. Essentially the same length
> >> >> and
> >
By one measure, you could actually say the shot from the small-sensor
camera actually has more "magnification", as you're magnifying a
smaller image on the sensor to fill the same sized print. But,
despite that, the small-sensor camera still ends up with more DOF.
On Sat, Sep 16, 2006 at 04:46:5
Aperture ring? For what?
On Sep 16, 2006, at 9:18 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote:
> On 17/09/06, Tim Øsleby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> IMO there is nothing wrong with the pancakes. In fact I'm debating
>> myself
>> buying the 21mm. With the tiny 21mm I can have the camera in my
>> pocket
Collin, are you a ham too?
I wonder how many hams we have on this list. :)
I'm a technician class ham, soon to upgrade to general
or extra.
--- Collin R Brendemuehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> At 06:40 PM 9/16/2006, you wrote:
> >Message: 5
> >Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 23:22:24 +0100
> >From: Cot
Wow!!! Someone got a steal of a deal there.
--- Collin R Brendemuehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I came close last night, but just missed it.
>
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=002&item=120029822978&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEDW%3AIT&rd=1
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Collin Brendemu
On Sat, Sep 16, 2006 at 05:45:09PM -0400, graywolf wrote:
> Can you provide a reference on that? A quick goggle search* finds
> nothing the contradicts my explanation. Your comment may be accurate on
> the quantum level but I do not think we can quite apply it to current
> image sensors, but wou
I have my Nikon 70-200 VR on all the time and pan quite a bit with the
flat work, equine wise. Seems to work that way, so i'd suspect it
would Pentax wise.
BTW Adam, nice shot
Dave
Quoting Doug Franklin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Adam Maas wrote:
>> It certainly appears to. I do have to read th
P. J. Alling wrote:
> My that's pretty, and probably poisonous. Nice capture and rendition.
Poisonous or hallucinogenic, depending on who you ask.
--
Thanks,
DougF (KG4LMZ)
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4948475
Not much of a car shot, but i liked the message.
istD, 16-45 f4, Raw-CS conversion.
Comments??
Dave
Equine Photography in York Region
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Jens Bladt wrote:
> My *ist D has caught a huge fungus today:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/24451/
Woohoo! They'll love you in Amsterdam. :-) I haven't seen an /Amanita
Muscaria/ since college.
--
Thanks,
DougF (KG4LMZ)
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.ne
P. J. Alling wrote:
>Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 16 Sep 2006, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
>>
From: Kostas Kavoussanakis
Yes Shel, but there is a way out of slow, variable aperture zooms, and
that's fast primes. What is the way out of slow primes?
>>>Fast primes ...
>>
>
David Savage wrote:
> I guess we can add Paul to the list of negative naysayers.
This whole line of conversation reminds me of Spiro Agnew's and Richard
Nixon's "Nattering Nabobs of Negativism". And of the classic anagram of
Mr. Agnew's name.
--
Thanks,
DougF (KG4LMZ)
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss
Adam Maas wrote:
> It certainly appears to. I do have to read the instructions though.
> Powell Hargrave wrote:
>> Nice shot.
>> So panning with SR on works? I think Pentax recommends turning it off when
>> panning.
>>> http://static.flickr.com/98/244670476_9452ca7abf_b.jpg
>>> K100D, SMC-M 50mm
On 17/09/06, David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> LOL.
>
> Tom, Adam & Rob received an ear bashing & were labeled "negative" a
> couple of days ago for saying that.
>
> I guess we can add Paul to the list of negative naysayers.
I prefer to be labeled as realistic, cautious and practical, you
On 17/09/06, Tim Øsleby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IMO there is nothing wrong with the pancakes. In fact I'm debating myself
> buying the 21mm. With the tiny 21mm I can have the camera in my pocket and
> flip it up and shoot from the hip. Don't know if I'll ever do it, but the
> idea is tempting.
On 17/09/06, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve Larson, who used to frequent the list more frequently, had one I
> believe. And if my failing memory hasn't let me down, I had a chance to
> use it while we were in Santa Barbara a few years ago. Nice lens, although
> I'd much prefer
Since we're getting 1.8 zooms, I think we'll get some fast primes as
well. It all hinges on camera sales. If the demand for a higher spec
camera like the K10 exceeds demand for the K100, Pentax will answer
the market's call. It's just good business.
Paul
On Sep 16, 2006, at 8:35 PM, Digital I
IMO there is nothing wrong with the pancakes. In fact I'm debating myself
buying the 21mm. With the tiny 21mm I can have the camera in my pocket and
flip it up and shoot from the hip. Don't know if I'll ever do it, but the
idea is tempting. I imagine myself walking around slick pony tail, dark
shad
On 17/09/06, Eric Featherstone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 16/09/06, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm talking about the lens diameter, not the barrel diameter. For example,
> > the diameter of the front element of my 35mm Summicron (f/2.0) is about
> > 1-inch while the front e
Seems we've visited this place before... Reminding me there was a 38mm
f/1.8, 40mm f/1.4, 60mm f/1.5, and 70mm f/2 all made for 18x24mm coverage...
by Olympus for the Pen F. They didn't do as much with wide angles; their
"fast" 25mm coming in at f/2.8. Unfortunately these lenses are not
applicable
Not sure, but i don;t think so. Most of them today were from the big 3.
Dave
Quoting Christian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> David J Brooks wrote:
>> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4947803
>>
>
> Pretty cars. I don't know much about '20s and '30s cars. Is that front
> one a Duesenberg?
>
On 17/09/06, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Talk like what, Rob? Do you mean the more ready acceptance of slower
> lenses? I think we've seen that "dumbing down" with the prevalence of
> slower, variable aperture zooms.
Yes, I fear the fastest lenses we'll see from Pentax from now o
Of course we can stand to hear objectivity expressed. We're still
waiting to here it from certain quarters:-). And that is the point.
The *ist cameras were better than many of us expected to see from
Pentax. Many of us think this camera will be better. That' s
objective. And it's expressed
On 17/09/06, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Because you need a 35.7mm diameter front element for a 50mm f1.4, or a
> 41.6mm front element for a 50mm f1.2. The Pentax FA 50mm f1.4 is already
> about the smallest on the market, at it's size, I'd suspect the size of
> the optics necessary for
The Pentax lens is undoubtedly quite a bit lighter, and of course it
gives you all the metering options on a DSLR. I suspect that the
Vivitar, like all the early Series 1 lenses, is an all-metal little
tank. Probably quite heavy. But there's something to be said for
that. I love my Series 1
On 17/09/06, graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can you provide a reference on that? A quick goggle search* finds
> nothing the contradicts my explanation. Your comment may be accurate on
> the quantum level but I do not think we can quite apply it to current
> image sensors, but would be intere
FWIW:
I had both the K20/4 and the M20/4 at the same time
For a while. I did extensive tests and I couldn't
Find any differences (on fine grain film) so I sold
The M because I like the feel of the K better, its
Certainly no beast, slightly bigger (longer)than say a
50mm/1.4. Tbe M was too small fo
At 06:40 PM 9/16/2006, you wrote:
>Message: 5
>Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 23:22:24 +0100
>From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: OT: Bummer
>To: "pentax list"
>Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
>On 16/9/06, Collin R Brendemuehl, discombobulated, unlea
That wasn't the point... Paul... I think you know that.
The fact is that some of you can't stand to hear objectivity expressed.
Tom C.
>From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>Subject: Re: popphoto.com k10D
>Date: Fri, 15 S
The DB4 and the DB5, especially the DB4-GT Zagato, have always been my
favorite Astons.
http://www.astonmartins.com/db4_5_6_s/db4gt_zagato.htm
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: Bob W
> 10 a penny round here! Although I did see a very beautiful DB5 last
> week, and they're not so common.
--
1 - 100 of 325 matches
Mail list logo
