>
> http://www.robertstech.com/temp/ist-Dcrash.jpg
>
They don't build 'em like that anymore.
Mark Roberts wrote:
> John Celio wrote:
>
>
>
>> The E-1 was built like a friggin' tank, people. I don't know about
>>
> other
>
>> brands (their tech reps never tried similar demonstrati
On Jan 26, 2008, at 1:32 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
>> The E-1 was built like a friggin' tank, people. I don't know
>> about other
>> brands (their tech reps never tried similar demonstrations), but I
>> had full
>> confidence in the E-1's ability to survive just about anything.
>
> I forget whe
John Celio wrote:
>The E-1 was built like a friggin' tank, people. I don't know about
other
>brands (their tech reps never tried similar demonstrations), but I had
full
>confidence in the E-1's ability to survive just about anything.
I forget where this came from, but it's a photo of an ist
Op Sat, 26 Jan 2008 05:40:50 +0100 schreef Rick Womer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The same shutter was in the PZ-1p, IIRC...
The specs do sound familiar :o)
--
Ciao, Lucas
> --- Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Shouldn't be that much pricier, the Nikon F90x had a
>> 4.5fps 1/8000
>> shut
> But it is not in the same class as the E-1 with respect to
> basic quality.
I have a story about the E-1.
When it first came out, me and the other guys at Reed's were extensively
trained on the camera by Olympus. Olympus was commited to selling the
camera through real camera stores, not onli
The same shutter was in the PZ-1p, IIRC...
--- Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Shouldn't be that much pricier, the Nikon F90x had a
> 4.5fps 1/8000
> shutter with 1/250 sync and retailed under $1k up
> until 2002 or so.
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdm
On 1/25/08, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Adam Maas"
> Subject: Re: Cotty's Specification
>
>
>
> >>
> >
> > The shutter should be an off the shelf item,
>
> OTS or not, it
- Original Message -
From: "Adam Maas"
Subject: Re: Cotty's Specification
>>
>
> The shutter should be an off the shelf item,
OTS or not, it's still going to be a beefed up and consequently pricier
component.
William Robb
--
PDML Pentax-Disc
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Cotty's Specification
> Yes, D300 packaging and shutter performance would take it to the next
> level. But since the picture is the thing, the K20D will serve quite well
> for now. Since three-year cyc
On 1/25/08, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Subject: Re: Cotty's Specification
>
>
> > Yes, D300 packaging and shutter performance would take it to the next
> > level. But si
Adam Maas wrote:
>On 1/25/08, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> the 24 x 36 sensor in the Canon checking in at 138 pixels per
>> millimeter (linear). The 14 megapixel Pentax sensor (23.4 x
>>15.6) comes in at about 198 pixels per millimeter!
>>
>> Now granted, the 1Ds-III does have the
On Jan 25, 2008, at 1:27 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
> On 1/25/08, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> This raises an interesting issue. When Michael Reichmann tested the
>> Canon 1Ds-III, he said he suspected that its sensor was out-resolving
>> its lenses. In other words, the lenses didn't have
Sorry, my opinion differs.
The E-1 is *substantially* better built than the K10D, both with
respect to materials and the quality of the components. The shutter
is as close to noiseless as any SLR shutter I've ever used and
extremely smooth in operation. The viewfinder is on par for
brightn
On 1/25/08, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>
> >Pentax has long made the mistake of producing better lenses
> >than bodies. The FA and DA Limited primes, the A*, FA* and DA*
> >lenses, and even many of the "regular" series lenses are
> >pro-quality performers.
>
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>Pentax has long made the mistake of producing better lenses
>than bodies. The FA and DA Limited primes, the A*, FA* and DA*
>lenses, and even many of the "regular" series lenses are
>pro-quality performers.
This raises an interesting issue. When Michael Reichmann test
Yes, D300 packaging and shutter performance would take it to the next level.
But since the picture is the thing, the K20D will serve quite well for now.
Since three-year cycles seem to be about max for DSLR technology these days, I
don't know if I need better build than what I'm getting herre.
Gotta say I agree in most particulars. I'd love the K20D's imaging
system stuffed into a D300-equivalent body (Build, UI, performance.
D300 as the standard, not the Oly bodies which IMHO aren't any better
than the K10D). The only really 'Pro' small-format SLR Pentax ever
made was the LX. But the cu
The E-1 introduced Splashproof sealing. I do concur otherwise.
-Adam
On 1/25/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At least as good quality on noise and sensitivity as the K10D? it seems the
> K20D has already surpassed tha by a wide margin. I've held an E-1. Build
> quality is jus
I agree that there's little need for what people call" full frame." If it's
possible to get good noise characteristics with 14 megapixels on the DX sensor,
there's really no point to go larger in a moderatly sized and priced DSLR. In
any case, the Pentax present and future lens lineup says it a
At least as good quality on noise and sensitivity as the K10D? it seems the
K20D has already surpassed tha by a wide margin. I've held an E-1. Build
quality is just about on a par with K10D. Maybe a bit more in materials here
and there. Is it even sealed?
Paul
-- Original message --
This all points out the most serious lack in Pentax DSLR equipment: a
pro-class body. I personally believe that Pentax has long made the
mistake of producing better lenses than bodies. The FA and DA Limited
primes, the A*, FA* and DA* lenses, and even many of the "regular"
series lenses are
21 matches
Mail list logo
