Comments made by Joe Tainter got me to spout off about the superiority of
SD cards over CF cards. After posting my comments I began to think about
what I said. Can anyone make a case for CF cards as being a better choice
than SD cards, apart from some CF cards having a greater capacity than the
c
On 22/8/06, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed:
>Comments made by Joe Tainter got me to spout off about the superiority of
>SD cards over CF cards. After posting my comments I began to think about
>what I said. Can anyone make a case for CF cards as being a better choice
>than SD cards,
I would guess that they're pretty much the same, just a different size.
I have no problem with either card.
Paul
On Aug 22, 2006, at 3:08 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> Comments made by Joe Tainter got me to spout off about the superiority
> of
> SD cards over CF cards. After posting my comments I
On Aug 22, 2006, at 6:20 AM, Cotty wrote:
> Seems to me that SD is becoming the consumer standard. CF is still a
> professional standard and I don't see any sign of that changing. I
> would
> suspect that there are probably good reasons for that.
Considering that most "pro" bodies are physicall
> But if you gave me the option between a larger, slower card and a
> smaller, faster card for the same money, I'd take the smaller, faster
> card every time. Why wouldn't you?
Actually CompactFlash is capable of far higher speeds than SD. Not that it
matters a whole lot, the I/O speeds on Pent
On 22/8/06, Aaron Reynolds, discombobulated, unleashed:
>But if you gave me the option between a larger, slower card and a
>smaller, faster card for the same money, I'd take the smaller, faster
>card every time. Why wouldn't you?
I'm not saying I wouldn't.
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
||
On 22.08.2006, at 12:52 , Peter Loveday wrote:
> Actually CompactFlash is capable of far higher speeds than SD. Not
> that it
> matters a whole lot, the I/O speeds on Pentax DSLRs is far from
> stellar
> (especially the *istD).
>
> Although no cards are actually capable of this kind of speed
m: "Peter Loveday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subj: Re: CF v SD Cards
Date: Tue 2006 Aug 22 7:22 am
Size: 817 bytes
To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
> But if you gave me the option between a larger, slower card and a
> smaller, faster card for the same money, I'd t
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> Comments made by Joe Tainter got me to spout off about the superiority of
> SD cards over CF cards. After posting my comments I began to think about
> what I said. Can anyone make a case for CF cards as being a better choice
> than SD cards, apart from some CF cards having
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> Comments made by Joe Tainter got me to spout off about the superiority of
> SD cards over CF cards. After posting my comments I began to think about
> what I said. Can anyone make a case for CF cards as being a better choice
> than SD cards, apart from some CF cards having
On Aug 22, 2006, at 8:34 AM, Adam Maas wrote:
> are harder to lose
Heh, my Ampex 501 is a lot harder to lose than my iPod, but when
choosing a portable music player I'll go for the one that doesn't weigh
more than my kid.
-Aaron
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> Comments made by Joe Tainter got me to spout off about the
> superiority of
> SD cards over CF cards. After posting my comments I began to think
> about
> what I said. Can anyone make a case for CF cards as being a better
> choice
> than SD cards, apart from some CF
But the SD card will pass easier
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: Doug Franklin
> I really don't care for SD because it's so small
> it's easier to drop, lose, fall down
> the sewer grate, get swallowed by the dog, ...
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/m
So why should anyone care at this point what the "spec" is?
Shel
> Although no cards are actually capable of this kind of speed at the
moment,
> the current CF spec is capable of 133MB/sec (thats "886X"), where SD spec
> (including SDHC) is only capable of 20MB/sec (133X) as far as I know.
I have both a D and a Ds. So I use both cards. The shortcomings of CF
cards mainly seem to be the mechanical connection. There's been much
talk about pins breaking off on devices that accept them. If the CF
socket is well designed and implemented, and you have 1/2 of a clue
about what you'r
That's hardly a concern when comparing CF and SD cards. Unless you plan
to lift them into orbit.
Aaron Reynolds wrote:
>On Aug 22, 2006, at 8:34 AM, Adam Maas wrote:
>
>
>
>>are harder to lose
>>
>>
>
>Heh, my Ampex 501 is a lot harder to lose than my iPod, but when
>choosing a portable
My experience is that CF is more fragile in actual practice than SD.
CF's can and will shed the metal sides on occasion, exposing the ircuit
board, especially when dropped or stepped on. SD's are rather tough in
actual fact, and able to survive a fair bit more abuse.
-Adam
P. J. Alling wrote
After posting my comments I began to think about what I said. Can
anyone make a case for CF cards as being a better choice than SD cards,
apart from some CF cards having a greater capacity than the current
highest capacity SD cards?
Shel
-
Make a case? The case for me is that it feels li
I always carry my cards in either a small, individual case, which equates
to a size equal to or somewhat larger than a CF card, or in a larger,
multi-card case, which is 4"x3"x1", and which will hold 4 CF cards + 4 SD
cards, and/or other cards.
http://www.adorama.com/GPCSE4N.html
Great case - ver
http://battersbox.ca
http://hardballtimes.com
-Original Message-
From: Joseph Tainter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subj: Re: CF v SD Cards
Date: Tue 2006 Aug 22 11:15 am
Size: 794 bytes
To: pdml@pdml.net
After posting my comments I began to think about what I said. Can
anyone make a ca
So do I. I have a case logic leatherette thingy. Not as good as the
one you're referring to, but the price was right. It takes time to get
the case open and closed. The same is true of the individual
containers. Sometimes what you want to photograph is happening "right
now", so I'll tidy u
Then you'd really hate the XD cards - Godfrey showed me the card used in
his little Fuji - looks to be about 1/2 the size of an SD card.
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: P. J. Alling
>My main complaint about the SD cards is their size.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http:
On Aug 22, 2006, at 8:15 AM, Joseph Tainter wrote:
> Make a case? The case for me is that it feels like Pentax has
> gratuitously slapped me in the face. I bought an *ist D and supported
> Pentax at a time when the company was reeling. In return, Pentax won't
> even explain why CF cards have been a
I've dropped SD cards into my pants or shirt pocket with no ill
effects. Accidentally put one through the washing machine once, it
had no problems afterwards.
Godfrey
On Aug 22, 2006, at 7:56 AM, P. J. Alling wrote:
> I have both a D and a Ds. So I use both cards. The shortcomings
> of
I've posted this a couple of times, but if it were an SD card it would
be either be snapped in half or inside the dog...
http://www.mindspring.com/~webster26/cfcardassnack.html
Adam Maas wrote:
>My experience is that CF is more fragile in actual practice than SD.
>CF's can and will shed the m
il List
Subject: Re: CF v SD Cards
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 06:37:23 -0400
On Aug 22, 2006, at 6:20 AM, Cotty wrote:
> Seems to me that SD is becoming the consumer standard. CF is still a
> professional standard and I don't see any sign of that changing. I
> would
> suspect tha
; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
To: "PDML"
Subject: CF v SD Cards
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 00:08:46 -0700
Comments made by Joe Tainter got me to spout off about the superiority of
SD cards over CF cards. After posting my comments I began to think about
what I
I don't see anyone changing those in the field.
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
>Then you'd really hate the XD cards - Godfrey showed me the card used in
>his little Fuji - looks to be about 1/2 the size of an SD card.
>
>Shel
>
>
>
>
>
>>[Original Message]
>>From: P. J. Alling
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>My ma
Rally?
Tom C.
"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or
numbered."
From: "Aaron Reynolds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: CF v SD Cards
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 7:
Tom, go ahead and compare the price difference on cards of the same speed.
-Aaron
--
http://aaronreynolds.ca
http://battersbox.ca
http://hardballtimes.com
-Original Message-
From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subj: Re: CF v SD Cards
Date: Tue 2006 Aug 22 11:56 am
Siz
On 22/8/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed:
>I've dropped SD cards into my pants ... with no ill
>effects
Mark!
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
--
PDML Pentax-Dis
happy with CF II (microdrives). :-)
Tom C.
"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or
numbered."
From: "Aaron Reynolds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: CF v SD Cards
On Aug 22, 2006, at 11:58 AM, Tom C wrote:
> Rally?
Okay, Tom, I'll bite: what Pentax body using SD cards is slower to
write to the card than the original *istD using CF cards? I freely
admit to having used only the D, the DS, the DS2 and the DL and to only
owning the DS2. Are the new K
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 17:11:28 +0100, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 22/8/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
>> I've dropped SD cards into my pants ... with no ill
>> effects
No ill effects on what?
John
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera
On Aug 22, 2006, at 12:17 PM, Tom C wrote:
> I don't really care Aaron. If in use, I can't detect a difference (or
> it's
> negligible), the specs don't matter. Price may make a difference, but
> not
> memory card specs where the slowest link in the chain is probably the
> camera
> itself.
On Aug 22, 2006, at 11:02 AM, P. J. Alling wrote:
> That's hardly a concern when comparing CF and SD cards. Unless you
> plan
> to lift them into orbit.
Yes, thus the "heh" to convey the jokiness of the post,
I, too, put SD cards in my pockets all the time and have not even come
close to los
On Aug 22, 2006, at 9:37 AM, John Forbes wrote:
>>> I've dropped SD cards into my pants ... with no ill
>>> effects
>
> No ill effects on what?
lol ... the card, of course. hey, i just found a piece of the casing
for my old Sony flash drive in the pants pocket too... been through
the was
For those of you who bought only the DS (or later) model, and feel that you
need to criticise those who bought the D and would like to keep using our CF
cards, consider this:
If Pentax's new attitude is "back of the hand" to their customers' investments,
what is to keep them from abandoning the
Lets not go there.
John Forbes wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 17:11:28 +0100, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>>On 22/8/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I've dropped SD cards into my pants ... with no ill
>>>effects
>>>
>>>
>
>No ill effects on wha
Huh? Over the years Pentax has provided better backward compatability than any
other camera maker. I have two *istD cameras and don't feel the least bit
slighted by Pentax's move to a different card configuration.
Paul
-- Original message --
From: jtainter <[EMA
pared them, but
large margin? How large?
Tom C.
"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or
numbered."
From: Aaron Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: CF v SD Cards
Date: Tue
If that happens, I suppose each of us will decide whether or not to
upgrade. I expect things to change over time and wouldn't consider pentax
to be bad guys when or if changes take place. As far as lenses go, fifty
years or so of compatibility or adaptabilty's not a bad run.
I don't think anyone
On Aug 22, 2006, at 9:51 AM, jtainter wrote:
> For those of you who bought only the DS (or later) model, and feel
> that you need to criticise those who bought the D and would like to
> keep using our CF cards, consider this:
>
> If Pentax's new attitude is "back of the hand" to their custome
On 8/22/06, jtainter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It's not the money. It's the attitude Pentax has displayed.
>
> Joe
>
What attitude? If you want to complain about something, I'd recommend
the stop-down coupler which is currently missing from the digital
SLRs, btw.
Actually I think that support
I'd say about twice as fast, maybe a bit more ... at least for the DS/DS2
and the DL series. Can't speak to the newer cameras.
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: Tom C
>
> You wrote "The *ist D isn't worth comparing, speed-wise, as even Pentax's
> cheapest DSLR
> outperforms it by a large ma
speed, I'd take
the 2x buffer (but I'm going off on a tangent).
Tom C.
"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or
numbered."
From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
To: "Pentax-Discu
bursts
one after another.
-Aaron
--
http://aaronreynolds.ca
http://battersbox.ca
http://hardballtimes.com
-Original Message-
From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subj: Re: CF v SD Cards
Date: Tue 2006 Aug 22 1:46 pm
Size: 1K
To: pdml@pdml.net
Shooting .jpgs or RAW? H
; -Aaron
>
> --
> http://aaronreynolds.ca
> http://battersbox.ca
> http://hardballtimes.com
>
> -Original Message-----
>
> From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subj: Re: CF v SD Cards
> Date: Tue 2006 Aug 22 1:46 pm
> Size: 1K
> To: pdml@pdml.net
&g
I wouldn't put the DL in that category. It may write to the card
faster, and will clearly benefit from a faster card. But the D has a
larger buffer so it's first few shots will be faster. Then it will slow
down and depending on the card speed maybe fall behind. Pentax giveth
Pentax taketh a
uying it without giving the
competition a good look.
-Aaron
--
http://aaronreynolds.ca
http://battersbox.ca
http://hardballtimes.com
-Original Message-
From: jtainter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subj: Re: CF v SD Cards
Date: Tue 2006 Aug 22 12:51 pm
Size: 588 bytes
To: pdml@pdml.net
F
Joe,
You are ridiculous. The attitude Pentax has displayed over lenses is that
it has kept better compatibility than any other manufacturer, and shows no
sign of changing that now. When they discovered that some people wanted
to use thirty year-old lenses on the *ist D, they issued a fix s
The D has about 1 extra shot available over the DL. So you lose 1 shot
and gain the ability to not wait a minute before shooting again.
-Adam
P. J. Alling wrote:
> I wouldn't put the DL in that category. It may write to the card
> faster, and will clearly benefit from a faster card. But the
I'd call that marketing discovering the engineering department was right
after all. Pentax made a recovery from a stupid move. It was trying to
build market share and forgot that it's best marketing is done word of
mouth by current users. Once Pentax had a product that a lot of people
might
Since I seldom shoot more than a burst of three I hardly notice.
However as I said it's mixed bag with the DL vs the D you can make a
valid argument either way. One thing the D has over the DS/DL[2] is the
shape of it hand grip. Yes I know the later cameras are much easier to
grip than the D
I do
--
Cheers,
Bob
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of P. J. Alling
> Sent: 22 August 2006 17:03
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: CF v SD Cards
>
> I don't see anyone changing those in t
ds.
--
Cheers,
Bob
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff
> Sent: 22 August 2006 16:02
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: CF v SD Cards
>
> I always carry my cards in either a small, individual ca
On 22/8/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed:
>lol ... the card, of course. hey, i just found a piece of the casing
>for my old Sony flash drive in the pants pocket too... been through
>the wash several times, and it mated up perfectly, I've glued it back
>together now. ;-)
Let
On 22/8/06, jtainter, discombobulated, unleashed:
>It's not the money. It's the attitude Pentax has displayed.
Joseph. I am a Canon shooter now, tried and tested. Pentax blew me off
by teasing me with the MZ-D and just as i was waiting to pounce - it was
whisked away out of reach. I skulked off a
On 23/08/06, Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I do
Daredevil!
--
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT) +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pd
On 23/08/06, Alexandru-Cristian Sarbu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What attitude? If you want to complain about something, I'd recommend
> the stop-down coupler which is currently missing from the digital
> SLRs, btw.
> Actually I think that supporting a single card format (SD. Well, the
> *istD i
On 23/08/06, John Forbes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joe,
>
> You are ridiculous. The attitude Pentax has displayed over lenses is that
> it has kept better compatibility than any other manufacturer, and shows no
> sign of changing that now. When they discovered that some people wanted
> to use
>From: "Digital Image Studio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
>Subject: Re: CF v SD Cards
>Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 07:17:09 +1000
>
>On 23/08/06, John Forbes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrot
On 23/08/06, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do you mean like when they decided to go with APS-C and call the new lenses
> 'digital lenses'? Which all the mfrs, did as a means to get into the DLSR
> market quickly, cut costs on DSLR production, and sell a wagonload of new
> lenses?
>
> Like tha
It was a no-brainer for me to stick with a Pentax DSLR since I could use my
older lenses with it. IMO, it's not only loyalty but smart marketing. In
fact, some of the press releases I've read on the new cameras make a point
of the cameras being able to use 30+ yo lenses. And don't think word of
> When they "discovered" that some people wanted to use thirty year-old lenses ?
>
> You are kidding, dropping the aperture simulator was no more than a
> bold move by marketing to create a demand for new lenses.
Absolutely. Rather than let the new *real* features of newer
lenses (Progr
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> Frankly, I'd rather buy some new cards than buy 10 or 20 lenses.
Amen. Especially stuff like the FA* 200/2.8 and F* 300/4 ... they were
hard enough to get for a reasonable price the first time around.
--
Thanks,
DougF (KG4LMZ)
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdm
AIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
>Subject: Re: CF v SD Cards
>Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 14:53:58 -0700
>
>It was a no-brainer for me to stick with a Pentax DSLR since I could use my
>older lenses with it. IMO, it&#x
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Digital Image Studio
> Sent: 22 August 2006 22:22
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: CF v SD Cards
>
> On 23/08/06, Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> &
>I guess part of the problem with moving forward at this point is that
>they've backed themselves into a corner to a degree, moving to full
>frame sensor technologies will have the cropped lens brigade screaming
>like stuck pigs.
>
>--
>Rob Studdert
Oink oink, Rhee rhee!
No offense intended.
To
They haven't backed themselves into a corner. They made a business
decision based on sensor cost vs. the quality that could be achieved
with APS-C. Based on the way things are going in terms of both new
products and sales, it looks like they made the right decision. The
only brigade that's
any new lenses?
Paul
On Aug 22, 2006, at 5:40 PM, Tom C wrote:
>> From: "Digital Image Studio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
>> Subject: Re: CF v SD Cards
>> Date: Wed, 23 A
You're a braver man than I...
Bob W wrote:
>I do
>
>--
>Cheers,
> Bob
>
>
>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>>Behalf Of P. J. Alling
>>Sent: 22 August 2006 17:03
>>To: Pentax-Disc
I'm no optics expert, although I played one on a local TV show
A while ago Bruce and I met for dinner, and I "kinda komplained" about the
lack of a Pentax camera with a "full frame" sensor. Bruce pointed out that
using a 24x36 frame can often result in soft and poorly defined edges due,
as you s
On 23/08/06, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> They haven't backed themselves into a corner. They made a business
> decision based on sensor cost vs. the quality that could be achieved
> with APS-C. Based on the way things are going in terms of both new
> products and sales, it looks like
I'm not insisting on FF, but I expect Pentax to introduce FF as soon as
1.) the technology permits a cost effective FF camera. or 2.) Pentax
builds it's user base enough to sell a super flagship, (I won't call it
professional), body, and expect to sell enough of them for it to at
least recover
Pentax is building a base with APS-C and DA lenses. I doubt that
you'll see them dump them with a camera that won't accept DA lenses.
Pentax has repeatedly said that it's large sensor pro camera will be
the 645D. Why do we continue to doubt them?
Paul
On Aug 22, 2006, at 9:16 PM, P. J. Alling
Okay:-).
Paul
On Aug 22, 2006, at 8:49 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote:
> On 23/08/06, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> They haven't backed themselves into a corner. They made a business
>> decision based on sensor cost vs. the quality that could be achieved
>> with APS-C. Based on the
On 23/08/06, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pentax is building a base with APS-C and DA lenses. I doubt that
> you'll see them dump them with a camera that won't accept DA lenses.
> Pentax has repeatedly said that it's large sensor pro camera will be
> the 645D. Why do we continue to d
Because the marketers are in charge now. I've dealt with marketing
companies, I've worked for them. 1 day beyond 5 years is eternity for
for a marketing company, don't expect a plan or a promise to last beyond
that.
Paul Stenquist wrote:
>Pentax is building a base with APS-C and DA lenses. I
I doubt that I will buy a 645D. I think the K10 will meet my needs.
I've found that I can please all of my clients with *istD images.
That list includes a number of well respected publications and a
range of stock buyers. I'm a little fussier than some of them, so I
would prefer a slight up
Not true. I've worked all my life in the advertising and marketing
biz. You don't throw away an owner base. Pentax has a history of
recognizing the value of that base. I'm sure they will continue to do
so.
Paul
On Aug 22, 2006, at 9:50 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:
> Because the marketers are in c
I agree about the CA, but I've noticed that DA lenses aren't as sharp
or contrasty as my FA lenses. YMMV.
Dave (yet to be convinced that DA's are any better than FA's)
On 8/23/06, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The image circle of DA lenses is better suited to the size of the
> senso
My experience is exactly the opposite. However, one has to compare
zooms to zooms and primes to primes. Thus far, all my DA lenses are
zooms. I doubt that Pentax has regressed in optical technology.
Paul
On Aug 22, 2006, at 10:46 PM, David Savage wrote:
> I agree about the CA, but I've noticed
John Forbes wrote:
>
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 17:11:28 +0100, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On 22/8/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed:
> >
> >> I've dropped SD cards into my pants ... with no ill
> >> effects
>
> No ill effects on what?
>
> John
>
LOL!
what i was thin
Doug Franklin wrote:
>
>
>
> CF cards are harder (for me, anyway) to lose, and they're easier to
> manipulate than SD cards. And, if you have any loss of mobility in your
> fingers or hands, ease of manipulation is a _big_ deal. I really don't
> care for SD because it's so small it's easie
It's just my gut feeling, nothing scientific.
But I'm of the opinion that optically my FA28-105mm f4-5.6 PZ &
FA80-200 f2.8 outperform my DA16-45 f4 & DA10-17 f3.5-4.5. Probably
because when using the FA's on digital your taking advantage of the
lens sweet spot. With the reduced image circle of th
On Aug 22, 2006, at 8:49 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote:
> And whilst I agree that the Pentax bodies are selling well at the
> moment I'm still not convinced that the volume is sustainable or
> particularly profitable as they appear to be priced ridiculously low.
And yet somehow their camera div
On 23/08/06, Aaron Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Aug 22, 2006, at 8:49 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote:
>
> > And whilst I agree that the Pentax bodies are selling well at the
> > moment I'm still not convinced that the volume is sustainable or
> > particularly profitable as they appear
On Aug 23, 2006, at 12:01 AM, Digital Image Studio wrote:
> From: Outline of Finances and Business Results in 1st Quarter of 2006
> Business Year (Consolidated)
What months are those?
-Aaron
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
At 12:14 PM 23/08/2006, you wrote:
>On Aug 23, 2006, at 12:01 AM, Digital Image Studio wrote:
>
> > From: Outline of Finances and Business Results in 1st Quarter of 2006
> > Business Year (Consolidated)
>
>What months are those?
It says on the first page.
Dave
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail Lis
"2. An outline of financial and business results for the first quarter of
2006 business year
(from April 1, 2006 to June 30, 2006):"
Dave
At 12:49 PM 23/08/2006, you wrote:
>On Aug 23, 2006, at 12:21 AM, David Savage wrote:
>
> > It says on the first page.
>
>Care to share? I'm reading my mai
On Aug 23, 2006, at 12:21 AM, David Savage wrote:
> It says on the first page.
Care to share? I'm reading my mail on my Palm, and its PDF support is,
well, substandard.
-Aaron
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
- Original Message -
From: "Shel Belinkoff"
Subject: Re: CF v SD Cards
>
> instead of complaining, I might want to look at the smaller digi
> sensor as
> just a different format, and to stop comparing it to 35mm. That made
> sense.
It made enough sense t
On Aug 23, 2006, at 12:57 AM, David Savage wrote:
> "2. An outline of financial and business results for the first quarter
> of
> 2006 business year
> (from April 1, 2006 to June 30, 2006):"
Hrm -- I'll have to place an inquiry as to where the numbers I was fed
come from.
-Aaron
--
PDML Pen
- Original Message -
From: "Paul Stenquist"
Subject: Re: CF v SD Cards
> If I was sitting on an A 15/3.5, I would move it and replace it with
> the DA 12-24, but that's just me.
I thought of that, after buying the 14/2.8.
The thing is, if I need a really wide a
- Original Message -
From: "Aaron Reynolds"
Subject: Re: CF v SD Cards
>
> On Aug 22, 2006, at 8:49 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote:
>
>> And whilst I agree that the Pentax bodies are selling well at the
>> moment I'm still not convinced that the volu
A 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC is available from Sigma BTW.
Yes I know what most people think about Sigma, I agree but when
there's no alternative: why not...
2006/8/23, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Paul Stenquist"
> Subject:
ws an historical trend: people prefer
little & less quality than bigger & better quality.
I expect this to continue...
2006/8/23, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Shel Belinkoff"
> Subject: Re: CF v SD Cards
>
>
>
This information predates the release of the K100, which by all
accounts is in huge demand. My local camera store, which sold only a
handful of the various D models, tells me that the K100 and DA lenses
are now among their top sellers. According to them, it's a sea change.
Paul
On Aug 23, 2006,
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 01:54:35 +0100, Shel Belinkoff
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, inter alia:
- get rid of that goofy smiling
> face and the silly flower on the mode dial, replace them with a "broad"
> wearing a tight sweater and packing a .38 - and would make me very happy.
Two 38s would be eve
1 - 100 of 222 matches
Mail list logo
