Peter wrote:
It's a great lens & it has an ED glass element(s).
It's super sharp (wide open too), with good contrast
and colour. It's fairly well-built, and the lens
barrel is metal. Mine hasn't had any mechanical
problems. Optical quality is much better than the
SMC-A 70-210mm f4 (which I also ow
Cameron wrote:
That 31mm limited shot is just friggin amazing!
REPLY:
The 31 Limited is a friggin amazing lens. Like all the Limiteds :o)
Pål
Mark wrote:
Ooh, I just thought of one!
I want that sloping top panel that the MZ-S has! (Yeah, I was using a
tripod all the time and trying to read the LCD and controls on the top
of the camera.)
REPLY:
This is typically one of those features few think a lot about until one actually start
usi
I thought this could be an interesting topic. Particularly for those who use multiple
systems or formats.
Personally I've experinced that my intended usage for something I've bought change
over time. I originally bought my MF system in order to shoot aurora Borealis with
relativel fast (for MF)
Bill wrote:
> I disagree about a "pro" model. Firstly Pentax is not going to spend
> the money to give freebies and unlimited free service to so called
> "pros". Secondly, it seems to me that Pentax is quite happy in the
> advanced amateur/enthusiast market
It is nothing to disagree about rea
Mark wrote:
> At this point evidence suggests that the reverse is true; that chip
> makers can't meet the demand from camera makers.
The digital revolution has happened faster than anticipated by every manufacturer.
This is particularly true for DSLR's where the transition was a veritable explos
I wrote:
>The *ist D will mainly sell to existing Pentax users, and that may well be all Pentax
>is aiming for.
Let me just add that I don't think it will flop (although the Sigma and Contax has),
but that it will not be instrumental in increasing Pentax market share significantly
(well, of c
Mark wrote:
> Pentax will have to respond by building a *real* entry-level DSLR like
> the 300D. That'll happen in about a year, I'd guess.
According to Pentax president, a novice DSLR will be in place before 2005. And a pro
model as well. My guess is that PMA 2004 could be interesting. If not
Alex wrote:
I bet Pentax will sell every *istD they can make, even maybe if they price
it slightly higher. The main concern is if they can recover the R&D costs
(and make some profit) before replacing it (100D and 10D are older and sells
in higher volume). I'd really like to know how an *istD-like
I wrote:
> And don't forget his classic "Mountain light" and the "Art of adventure", the latter
> in the essay form as the "Inner game...".
> Note, there are two Art of adventure books by Rowell.
Actually, the "Art of adventure" books is entitled "Galen Rowell's vision: the art of
adventure..
Tony wrote:
That's hardly surprising, when the Pentax *ist D and Nikon
D100 share the same sensor and much of the same electronics,
including near-identical AF systems. The deal seems to be
that Nikon get to sell surplus components (the sales of the
D100 are disappointing), Pentax gets a DSLR wit
Mark wrote:
I just finished reading Galen Rowell's "Inner Guide to Outdoor
Photography" and was really very impressed. A great collection of
thoughts, musings, ideas and, needless to say, images. The writing
covers technical concepts as well as theoretical and philosophical
concepts. A few relativ
Sylwek wrote:
In babelfish tranlation of this page I have found another interesting
sentence:
"as for the active lens we have assumed that in 110 types, sum total 650 ten
thousand it was shipped"
This means that there are about 6.5 million Pentax K-mount lenses around and
110 types of them. It was
Lawrence wrote:
> So they are predicting 1.8 million DSLR worldwide sales in 2005 and 2.5
> million by 2006. Pentax is aiming for 20% market share of DSLR by 2005.
REPLY:
Which is an incredibly bold aim. It must be clear even for Pentax that in order to
achieve this they need to be at least e
Pentax will release a Pro DSLR and a novice DSLR soon.
They aim for 20% market share for DSLR by 2005.
Oh...and the Nikon D2 is essentially using Pentax SAFOX 8 AF system.
Pål
>The information I got was that Pentax see no profit
>in supporting the very limited number of users that still have
>working M lenses and that no new cameras will have the
>diaphragm coupling.
REPLY:
Could be. However, I would have expected that Pentax will make K/M compatibility in
high-end
Oh... and I forgot. The new DA series will only be wide angles and up to short teles
in focal lenghts. Longer lenses will be strictly full frame (for now at least).
Pål
>These are lenses particularly suited for digital but it is not lenses with reduced
>image circle.
Typical of my trusted Pentax sources to get details wrong :-(
Pål
Tom wrote:
As far as I know, the release date is still late (very late) August in the
US. Non-disclosure agreement is now supposed to end this upcoming Friday
(8/8/03), so look at the digital sites then.
REPLY:
Does anyone know if there are other products for disclosure at the embargo date? I'
I've tested out these lenses and compared them to each other. I've shot the same
subject at various apertures. The zooms I compared at 45mm. The 75mm was compared to
the 45-85 zoom set at 75mm. This was not a full blown test but basically for testing
my repaired 33-55 zoom. I alsowanted to find
Raimo wrote:
A 4.5/80-200 SMC-M Pentax would fit your needs very well - if you can find one. Very
sharp and contrasty (mine was sharper than 4/200 SMC-M Pentax that I had before it).
Not expensive.
REPLY:
You're the second, if not the third, who claims the M 80-200/4.5 is better than the M
2
Steve wrote:
With all of this in mind, I tried shooting a bit using the MZ-S in full
manual mode. It works really well this way, and I find the speed dial
very convenient to spin while I'm looking through the camera. I do like
the viewfinder better on the MX, however, especially the split prism.
Mark quoted:
"Photographic film, the product that helped create both a city and a
company, is heading for the fate of the American elm tree, white gloves,
enclosed phone booths, slide rules, carbon paper and other pieces of
vanishing Americana."
REPLY:
Generally true but slightly pessimistic. F
> We'll also see how long these digital cameras can "last" - we all are aware
> of Pentaxi that are still in great working condition after 30 or 35 years.
>
> Do you really think a Canon D30/D60/10D or Nikon D100 will be able to hold
> up that long?
We will know that in 30-35 years time. Some
Rüdiger wrote:
Hallo,
Pentax has copied the Nikon F80 with MF-lenses non compatiblity.
REPLY:
Pentax have in fact followed the Nikon D100 with the *ist D. They (will) compete with
each other and both companies have released lenses without aperture rings and both
camera bodies have limitations
> Any suggestions for low light and long exposure celestial ?
Well, then you're talking about the LX. However, if you're happy
enough with making your long exposures with the "B for Bulb"
setting, then I'd suggest possibly an MX or an ME Super, perhaps -
both have fairly bright screens and do not
Rob wrote:
DOF is only perception and in addition to the common guide formulas I have
found that unsharp lenses seem to display a more broad DOF than a sharp lens
where the absolute plane of focus is apparent.
REPLY:
True as sharpness is relative (within reason).
However, this also explains
Rüdiger wrote:
It is interesting, that the the new D2h uses the same AF patern than the
*ist/*istD.
There are also three new DX lenses, a 10.5 fisheye, a 2.8/17-55 and a VR
4/200-400 all for a faktor of 1.5.
REPLY:
Maybe they use the same AF system (I do believe these patterns are patented)? Pe
John wrote:
In theory, primes are
nearly always optically superior, but the best zooms are so
very close that it hardly matters any more.
REPLY:
Yes, but this theory is based on the assumption that all lense are made to the same
standards. In reality, compromises is involved in all lenses; pri
Albano:
> Is this true?
> "Even the "Pentax" name was originally a Zeiss Ikon
> VEB trademark until bought by Asahi. Itwas
> originally derived from "PENTaprism" and "contAX."
> from the cited below website
I don't remember but the Pentax name was considered, but not used by another compan
Gregory wrote:
I'm going to guess that this sort of advice appeared with early zooms,
when the quality really was pretty bad. But they've been improving for
half a century or so, and are a lot better now than they used to be. But
there seems to be a lot of very old photographers that hang on to
Steve wrote:
Depends on the lens. One of the main fixtures on my LX is an
circa 1980`s zoom. But you`re right, most were crap.
REPLY:
Zoom lenses started to be good in the late 70's.
Pål
Apart from the hassle of a rotating front lens tube, my lens was plagued with all
kinds of recurring problems. I owned it for 2 years and it spent 1,5 of those at
service. It was unable to power zoom past the 35mm setting. Lots of samples of this
lens have the same fault. It is a design weakness
Mark wrote:
Bit of a "straw man" argument there, since the A 3.5 f2.8 has been singled out by
several users (you in particular) as a dog.
REPLY:
Not really. I was trying to illustrate my opinion that todays good zoom are equally
good or better than yesterdays primes. The A 35/2.8 is fairly typ
Lon wrote:
Yeah, but a 300 f/4 is not long enough for most shots
I want, and a 2x puts me right back at f8, where my
mirror lens is. No help. Need faster lens to start
with.
REPLY:
Apart from the 300/2.8 you could also look into the A* 600/5.6 if you really need the
reach; Perhaps together
Marnie wrote:
First time I've heard this. I switched lately from Velvia to Provia F because
a lot on this list said it scanned better since Velvia is more color
saturated. And that does appear to be true based on my recent scanning experience.
But what does low accutance mean? Huh?
REPLY:
Ac
Frank wrote:
Even if we take Pal's original statement as true ("today's best zooms are every
bit as good as primes"), a zoom is going to exact some penalty on it's user.
REPLY:
I didn't actually say that. That was something I quoted.
Pål
Matt wrote:
I just think that viewing on a monitor and viewing as a print are such different
experiences as to make the comparison useless. I also think that typical use of
digital images is to ultimately print them. That's all.
REPLY:
Yeah. I think people are viewing digital on a screen, sli
Christian wrote:
Written by the man with a 400/2.8 and teleconverters HAR! :-)
(I know, I know, you get really close to your subjects, evidenced by
frame-filling shots of songbirds)
REPLY:
It is amazing how close you need to be a small bird to fill the frame even with a
600mm with 1,
Herb wrote:
> if Alan were to try a MZ-S on loan and had the same results as his PZ-1p, then i
> would believe that he is experiencing AF >system problems.
Well, he did say that he was getting the same problem while manual focusing
Most likely the viewfinders doesn't agree with him (but th
Lon wrote:
Just how impossible/heavy/awkward is the A 400mm f2.8?
Will a Bogen 3221 tripod be adequate for it?
And how about the 300mm f2.8 lenses?
REPLY:
Both these lenses are quite awkward in my opinion and a 400/2.8 is extremely awkward
for a 400mm lens. A Bogen 3221 is marginal at best;
Alan wrote:
Are you referring to me??? I know the LX & Super A/Program are great vibrators, and
the Z-1p vibrates better than the MX too. :-) However, the 2s mirror pre-fired of the
Z-1p has elimated pretty much most vibration while the MX doesn't have any MLU at all
(I don't use the trick anym
Tom wrote:
I don't think it's a matter of them not working, it's a matter of
finding out some of your lenses aren't as good as others. You could do
the same thing now by enlarging all your negs to 11x14.
REPLY:
But I also think it is a case of what the lens is good at. As I said in a previous
Boris wrote:
2. I did not mean to argue about 600/4 lens hunting down quite remote
and no less fast animal that for some reason should be filling the
whole frame once the film is processed and printed and/or scanned.
3. In fact I was talking about something like shooting my daughter
with 35 or 50
Cotty wrote:
I just got fed up with letting the camera
decide what was in focus or not.
REPLY:
Don't know about yours but on my camera I decide what I want in focus and the camera
does it for me when I'm not able to do it with necessary precision myself.
I use manual focus every time I'm able
Rüdiger wrote:
So, you think that the entry level lenses like the FAJ 18-35, FAJ 28-80 and
the FAJ 70-300 which are specialy made for the entry level *istD are better
then good the old lenses like the K 2/35, K 1.8/85 or K 2.5/135.
REPLY:
No I don't. Fisrtly, they don't appeal to the same custom
Caveman wrote:
>The most "insulting" to everyone threads I've been involved were indeed
the digital ones. Here they are in order:
REPLY:
Shes is not refering to your threads but your namecalling to anyone who dare disagree
with you
Pål
>You mean, not do like that guy Paal Jensen that's currently engaged in a
>thread where he states that it's impossible to take sharp photos with
>the PZ1p,
REPLY:
I said no such thing something thats apparent for all. I've used the Z-1p for six
years and plenty of sharp images shot with it. I
Anthony wrote:
But to repeat, those operations that are
presently done mechanically to be initiated electronically instead, this
would require the lens to have independent drive mechanisms for focus and
diaphragm.
REPLY:
It could also be as simple as having fully digital camera electronics in a
Harry wrote:
At the moment there is virtually no information coming from Pentax on
possible 'D' type lenses for the digital SLR.
REPLY:
They have promised more lenses in the fall particularly suited for the *istD.
Personally I think it is both focal lenghts and optics optimized for a DSLR.
På
Mark wrote:
I suspect (and let me hasten to add that this *only* suspicion and not
based on anything I heard from people at Pentax) that the aperture
simulator ring is being removed from the camera bodies to make room for
future electronic contacts - probably for electronically-controlled
lenses.
Thank you Joseph. Your tests cured my zoom-phobia. I
have always thought that the since 28-105 PZ has an
excellent reputation as a very sharp lens but it
still wasn't sharp enough when compared to any of my
primes, I have to stick with prime lenses only.
Turns out I was very wrong indeed.
REPLY:
Herb wrote:
> he doesn't want to believe that. this subject came up in the early spring.
Still, it can't be about the AF as manual focusing was no better. His camera could be
out of alignment and/or the vibration issue. There really is a huge difference between
the Z-1p and the MZ-S. I have s
Chrome MZ-S with a chrome 43 Limited.
Never have so sharpness been available in so a small and lightweight package.
Pål
Mark wrote:
If your DSLR effectively multiplies your focal length by 1.5, it also
*divides* the lens' resolution by 1.5. So you'll want to use top-notch
lenses whenever possible. I think the 31mm f/1.8 Limited would make a
fine normal lens for the *ist-D, though!
REPLY:
Perhaps this is a factor
Boris wrote:
Once upon a time, I read somewhere on the net (probably the huge third
party lenses site) that modern AF systems are optimized for 50 lp/mm.
Hence, on that site they would conclude that if you have a fine lens,
AF would take away most of its qualities by lousy focusing. I thought
of i
Caveman:
Quote: "A fascinating test. I'm especially amazed by how poorly the Nikkor 1.8/50
performs at all apertures".
No wonder Brucey doesn't bother with focus. It's all bokeh to him anyway.
REPLY:
Is it too much to ask of you that you for once refrain from insulting persons who use
other g
Tom wrote:
At least with manual focus you decide what to focus on. But you have heard
this argument from me before. Automation your can not control is worse than
no automation at all.
REPLY:
Well, the AF systems I use enables me to decide whats in focus. In addition, it can
yield sharp images
Alan wrote:
I can't give you any figure, but it's no BS. Really, I consistently obtain sharper
results with my MX than my Z-1p, with tripod or not. Even manual focus with Z-1p
doesn't seem to deliver the sharpness that the MX offers.
REPLY:
Well, it then can't have anything to do with the AF
Doug wrote:
As one Doug to another, I'm with you all the way. I'm also getting
tired of the folks attending the BR school of "let's stir up the mud
just for the sake of it". I've been on the list since '98 and I can't
remember it being less useful, with the possible exception of the "The
Who" in
Caveman wrote:
What about the "I swear by Pentax, and if you don't you're an idiot." Or a
"non-customer". Or "well done, Pentax, that's what these idiots having K/M lenses
deserve".
REPLY:
This is a complete fabrication and has never never been promoted by anyone in this
list. And being a no
Rob wrote:
Sorry Doug (listmaster, god), talk about whining. Surely discourse regarding
varied opinions and experience with Pentax equipment and other brand equipment
is educational and interesting? I can't understand why you apparently feel so
offended by reading other peoples experiences, opi
Peter wrote:
But AsahiFlex lenses are more compatible with the LX than K/M mounts are the *ist-D,
hell the *ist-D is
more compatible with AsshiFlex lenses than it has with K/M lenses. That's the whole
point!
REPLY:
Not so. The lenses for the original Asahiflex doesn't even fit a Spotmatic.
Yep. The FA645 45-85/4.5. This lens that I have loaned from Pentax is simply
extraordinarily sharp. A wonderful optic! I highly recommend this lens paired with the
new FA645 35/3.5 if you can mange the not insubstantial weight. I haven't used the
35mm but Popular Photography says it pushes the l
Bravo! Very well put.
One can wonder what drive certain people who practically only post negative and
hateful post on PDML on issues that doesn't even affect their photography! A mystery!
Pål
Doug wrote:
It's getting damned tiresome going through my email and getting the feeling that since
I
Alan wrote:
That means Pentax did not expect current Pentax users to buy any DSLR?
REPLY:
This years market for DSLR's will probably reach 1 million. Extremely few of this one
million buyers sits on many lenses. Even fewer sits on many Pentax lenses. Even fewer
of those sits on more than 20 y
Sylwek wrote:
Actually I have read this patent :-) But it seems strange that they haven't
implemented USM in their lenses/bodies yet. I wonder if *ist D would be able
to use such a lenses in the future? According to this patent no, because it
doesn't have powerzoom contact neccessary to drive in-l
> - Original Message -
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 6:43 PM
> Subject: Olympus E-1 in NYT
>
>
> > From today's NY Times
> (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/07/technology/07LENS.html?8hpib=&pagewanted=
> print&position=) :
> > "Over all
Artur wrote:
The problem is that the term "entry level" has so far incorporated bodies of
extremely different specs and the entry level standard is rising (which is
not good in this particular case) - the crippled mount is present both in
the MZ-60 (basicly an interchangeable-lens-P&S) and in the
Sylwester wrote:
> Maybe they have some real problems with implementing IS in new
> lenses/bodies? And that would be OK - IS seems quite complicated to
> implement.
> For me it is mystery, why Pentax hasn't decided to introduce USM lenses?
> After all they have long-term experience in complicated
Alin wrote:
Yeah, it's quite obvious, isn't it!?
Whatever "goodies" the fall will bring, I doubt it is aperture
ring-enabled FA lenses. We won't see any limiteds nor any attempt of
IS/USM either. My guess is some pompous FAJ star with APS sized
image circle. The thought gives me a nausea -
Mark wrote:
Not surprising at all, really. A very large percentage of people buying
DSLRs are actually buying their first SLR of any kind (Michael Reichmann
says an amazing number of people attending his photography workshops
have never owned a film camera at all).
REPLY:
Exactly. This is wha
Vic wrote:
Looking at the first shot with the MZ-S and the LX, It's hard to believe that
when Pentax said it was making a new LX, they were not referring to the MZ-S.
The similarities are unmistakable...
REPLY:
Actually, the boss of Pentax camera division uttered that he wanted to make an LX
Alan wrote:
Does that mean they actually produced a small quantity of these products but hide them
somewhere in the company? Would be cool if they just show them in the Pentax museum
and gain some respect. I certainly want to see them knowing that they were capable of
designing such products. T
Gregory wrote:
The only reason I can think of is bulk, but I don't know how bulky it
would have to be. But if someone came up with an image stabilizing
teleconverter for less than $200, I'd be liable to buy it. I think I'd
like that more than a specific lens.
REPLY:
Pentax have patented an IS
Frank wrote:
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the sales of high end film slr's remaining
pretty steady, despite the incursion of digital?
REPLY:
No. I think sales are down 10% or so if my memory serves me right. hardly dramatic but
significant.
Pål
I wrote:
> Without compatibility games you had to use the D10 with FD lenses, but most likely
> Canon would have been out of slr >manufacturing without "compatibility games". So
> would Nikon. Or Minolta.
REPLY:
Let me just add that without "compatibility games" (what a stupid term!) ther
Steve wrote:
Film cameras are more stable, and I really do
think e are going to see very few really new nigh end film SLR's.
There's just not money in them anymore, and the "pro show" cameras are
now digital, so its' the 1Ds and not the F5 that has the most "drool"
value.
REPLY:
But they need
Alin wrote:
Unless you know something you don't intend to disclose, I'm afraid
you are plainly wrong. The best the rest of us can expect is
FAJ Star lenses
REPLY:
According to sources that know these things intimately there will be no FAJ* lenses.
FA-J is Pentax entry level lens series (FA
> - Original Message -
> From: "Matti Etelapera" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2003 3:42 PM
> Subject: Image stabilizers on Pentax
>
>
> > From the Minolta users group:
> >
> > " But, just in case you didn't know, a UK magazine ("Outdoor Ph
William wrote:
What is it when you want to be in a camera segment, but the company you
betted on fails to allow you into that segment?
REPLY:
Then the whining is justified. If you, however, have never bought a Pentax product in
your life and never intend to and still whine, you better see a sh
William wrote:
Earning a customer base worth providing for seems to be work that Pentax
isn't interested in taking on.
They may be on a fast track to oblivion if they stay the course.
I do have to wonder about those expensive FA and LTD lenses, and where they
fit into the entry level customer base
Caveman wrote:
Recent years ? Canon ? All EF mount lenses work with all EF mount cameras ? Yes, they
did a major change 20 years ago, from FD to EF, Pentax did one from screw to K too,
but after that they didn't play sh*tty compatibility games
REPLY:
Huh? The Canon D10 is compatible with lenses
Collin wrote:
Pentax is now ready to lead Nikon in the consumer marketplace.
This year will be the FIRST year in the boom of the inexpensive
DSLR. Canon & Pentax will be there in the $1200-$1500 class.
These are NEW purchases and people will need NEW lenses.
That's how money is made.
We whine
Jens wrote:
> ..hmmm! I'm not gonna pick this one up! But: It's pobably too much to hope
> for that some other company will make a digital body for K-mount.
The *ist D is designed to be the platform for Pentax entry level DSLR offerings.
Hence, it doesn't offer more far reaching, expensive com
Jens wrote:
> Any research about age of Pentax users/buyers - or buyers of digital cameras
> above 1500-2000$?
Not even Nikon bothers with this sort of compatibility in the *ist D class and they
have a old user base incredibly much larger than Pentax. Digital attracks new buyers
to a large exte
William wrote:
I don't think any company can afford to alienate a customer base, especially
when it is an also ran who is introducing new for them technology to the
market place.
REPLY:
This requires that you have customer base worth providing for. The Pentax customer
base buy entry level slr'
Alan wrote:
> There is a major difference here. SM & K are completely different
> physically, but we are still living in the k-mount era, not the next
> generation mount yet. The real issue is not how many years Pentax chose to
> support, but they removed the coupling ring just to push the sale
Alan wrote:
> And there is the 4th category - those who keep buying Pentax products but
> complaining constantly. They don't consider those are their customers either
> because of the trouble (the truth doesn't really matter). They care about
> your money, not the whining. And that is me. :-)
Lon wrote:
Another thing that crosses my mind with regard to
the *ist-D: Pentax's most advanced customers are
probably those most likely to own a few older K/M/Screw
lenses. Why would a company want to produce a _first_
digital SLR that alienates its most experienced users?
REPLY:
Firstly, t
Rüdiger wrote:
It is the gred of Pentax from preventing using K-mount lenses, but it will
not pay, the people will go to Canon or Nikon.
REPLY:
Canon and Nikon are where they are because they gave a rats ass about users of more
than 20 year old lenses. If Pentax is going to survive they have
e the exposure, switch to manual exposure and
then dial it in, will be promptly laughed out of business. In fact, the current
solution with wide open metering would be faster and simpler in use.
Pål
---
Pål Jensen schrieb:
A screw mount
Arnold wrote:
1.) The *ist D KNOWS when there is no lens in A position. It treats all lenses that
are not in A position equally. This is fine, as to enable stop down metering for all
such lenses (including srew mount and manual aperture k-mount lenses) there is no need
to distinguish between th
Rüdiger wrote:
With the K-mount incompabilty Pentax is loosing their strongest marketing
argument.
REPLY:
This is a complete misunderstanding. The number of Pentax customers (as opposed to
users) who buy an slr with compatibility of more than 20 year old lenses are so few
that percentage is
Let me just add that this whole thing is about a fundamental change to wholly
"electronic" metering where the aperture value from the lens CPU is used. This also
opens up for wholly electronic aperture setting in lenses compatible with the *ists.
Pål
- Original Message -
Andre wrote:
> A little bit over eleven hundreds for a Pentax-A 300mm f2.8. Is this
> a common price for this lens?
Seems like more and more common. Most want AF in such a lens. I've noticed too that
the prices for manual focus 645 gear is dropping.
Pål
> Hi Pål
> Have you got one?
> Jens
No. I have neither black Limiteds or a chrome MZ-S.
Pål
Actually, this lens also have the 3D effect typical for the Limited lenses. Perhaps
not as much but it is still there. Maybe this lens is Mr. Harakawas work as well? I
think so, as the "look" it yields seems to have his hallmark.
The does have a quite different color rendition than my other Pent
Pat wrote:
Batteries continue after the low battery warning? Must be nice. On the
MZ-5n and MZ-S, the camera stops when the low battery warning appears. It's
more like a dead battery warning.
REPLY:
Yep. The batteries last about out the roll on the MZ-S after battery warning. The
645NII goe
Aaarghh! I need to have one of those chrome MZ-S! Gearlust again!
Pål
701 - 800 of 2309 matches
Mail list logo
