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
Peter,
I do see a reason to continue this dicussion. As well, it isn't up to you
to draw a line under your own message and declare it the last word. You
raised issues that I disagree with, and it is my choice to answer them.
Did I start the cheapness and nastiness? I quoted a cheapshot
- Original Message -
From: Caveman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Anthony Farr wrote:
Pentax knows more about making and selling
cameras than you or I ever will.
I find it interesting that you accept that for Pentax, but not for
Minolta: It works because it works, and because we tell you so.
Anthony Farr wrote:
So why make Pentax users face two changes,
first to digital imaging and later to a more complete electronic lens
interface, when the two changeovers can be integrated.
I haven't heard of any more complete interface, on the contrary, it's
about a less complete one, like in
Pål wrote:
PJ The FA-J lenses are for those cheap ones who don't want to pay for
PJ aperture rings they don't know how to use.
You seem to forget the *ist d effectively forbids the use of
aperture ring, so along this *ist line it looks likely the Pentax
won't manufacture lenses with
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!) there would
Looking at my last 8 rolls of Provia, the statistics are that I
bracket for almost every still subject in order to have a copy, to
vary depth of field or try a smoother boke, and only once or twice
I did bracket for exposure. And that happened when I wasn't sure of
the compensation to
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
Herb: That's not a good thing. You are either happy with shots that could
have been better if tweaked a little, or, more likely, you are only taking shots
of subjects in average light that turn out perfect in automatic mode. I know
that evaluative metering these days is exceptional, but it's
Anthony Farr wrote:
Pentax knows more about making and selling
cameras than you or I ever will.
I find it interesting that you accept that for Pentax, but not for
Minolta: It works because it works, and because we tell you so. Trust
us, we're Minolta's advertising agency and we wouldn't lead
You're the one who started out being cheap and nasty.
To use your own words GET THIS since you don't seem to understand, I
like Pål.
I even agree with him a lot of the time. He is however a Pentax Partisan and
he likes to win, to do so he will, how shall I say this, re-interpret
facts to
William Robb wrote:
What a hilarious pile of crap.
William,
It might appear hilarious, but he's right.
Annoying, isn't it!
;-)
John
Mark Cassino wrote:
Maybe that is the real story behind the name - if you can't find it on eBay, people
might actually buy it new
You won't be able to find it in an online shop, either...
Pushing the local dealer?
Best regards
Martin
That's OK, Paal. My H3 didn't have 20 years of Pentax lenses to be
compatable with either. And, the Nikon F was even worse there were no old
lenses that fit it. One has to start somewhere, but if the lenses fits, it
ought to work!
Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto
-
Hi, Cotty. Now I understand. Her name is Carolina
Ardohain, aka Pampita. The last name has no special
connotation in spanish, besides being not common (I
suppose its arab in origin???). What it means in
english, if any?
Regards
Albano
PS: No, I'm not president of the fan club, she has
about 15
Hi,
Friday, July 4, 2003, 8:10:54 PM, you wrote:
She *is* gorgeous. I gather you're her fan club president.?
not such an onerous task - he just has to bang his gavel and shout
All rise!
---
Cheers,
Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I assume eBay meant the asterisk needs to be at the end of the letters?
On Fri, 2003-07-04 at 03:44, Anthony Farr wrote:
eBay does not permit wildcard (*) searches containing fewer than 2 letters.
Please enter more letters.
When I counted it, *ist had three letters, or four if you include
]
To: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 09:03
Subject: Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in American
Photo magazine)
This suits your subjects and style and is not necessarily the
do-it-all approach. Some prefer precise exposure to bracketing
PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 10:36
Subject: Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in American
Photo magazine)
Herb: That's not a good thing. You are either happy with shots that could
have been better if tweaked a little, or, more likely, you
No, I don't get it. I guess I haven't been paying attention. How, if it
will
use manual and AF lenses, is it NOT backward compatible?
There are manual lenses and manual lenses - an A series lens is a manual
lens that should work on the *ist D, while plain K-mount lenses probably
won't.
Hi,. Jerome,
ROTFL! You had me going for a second there...
cheers,
frank
jerome wrote:
snipThose who will bitch and moan about backwards compatibility are likely
the same old farts that wouldnt have bought the camera anyway, unless it was
to be found at a yard sale or on eBay for 20% of
Quoting Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Drop me a big hint, Jerome. What is J-Lo ?
Multiple choice exam:
Option A:
J-Lo is a (Pentax?) Model that was made in 1970. Unlike other Pentax models,
this one was designed in Puerto Rico, not Japan, and manufactured in the Bronx,
NY. The user interface is
Jennifer Lopez???
Oh, I thought it was something important ;-p
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_
Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Oh, I thought it was something important ;-p
Nope! Not at all. Sorry. It ranks right up there with D-ist speculation in that
respect and Digital vs. Film debates in that respect.
. They
might even make it optional. Or an adition to the *its Dn, which is bound to
come in a year!
Regards
Jens
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: jerome [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 3. juli 2003 05:17
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: D-ist blurb in American Photo magazine
Admittedly, I picked
I couldn't have said it better.
At 07:40 AM 7/3/03 +0200, you wrote:
It would have been better not to have added your two sentences because
they simply and absolutely are not true. I, for example, am in the market
for a new Pentax DSLR, and I only WILL try to get such a camera in a yard
sale
Current pop/rap/soul star, a somewhat overrated actress/singer with about the
same talent as Madonna but better looking. (Ok, so Madonna's better
looking since
she's had a few corrections done too, or she's mellowed with age).
At 09:19 AM 7/3/03 +0100, you wrote:
But back to the J-Lo thing
I couldn't have said it better.
Relax. Don't your panties in a bunch.
If you think J-Lo is beauty, you must see this:
http://www.pampita-ardohain.com.ar/
It's worth some web-surfing. She is awesome
Regards
Albano
--- jerome [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I couldn't have said it better.
Relax. Don't your panties in a bunch.
=
Albano Garcia
El Pibe
Pål
When you take a position you defend it even when it's
indefensible. The problem is people on the list
who don't know better will take your word as gospel. The LX had at least
limited but useable compatibility
with all previous Pentax made lenses for their 35mm cameras. As a
landscape
If you think J-Lo is beauty, you must see this:
http://www.pampita-ardohain.com.ar/
It's worth some web-surfing. She is awesome
Regards
Albano
...a long way ahead of J Lo. Thanks.
Ed
_
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection
At 11:17 PM 7/2/2003 -0400, jerome wrote:
From the magazine (July / August issue):
Those who will bitch and moan about backwards compatibility are likely
the same old farts that wouldnt have bought the camera anyway, unless it was
to be found at a yard sale or on eBay for 20% of retail. Pentax
- Original Message -
From: Pål Jensen
Subject: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in
American Photo magazine)
It IS true. You are just an exception.
The funny thing is that the *ist D has better compatibility than the LX
had when released. The LX was only fully
(WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in
American Photo magazine)
Pål
When you take a position you defend it even when it's
indefensible. The problem is people on the list
who don't know better will take your word as gospel. The LX had at least
limited but useable compatibility
with all previous Pentax
Arnold,
Apparently the *ist D isn't the right camera for you. You could either hope
for better from future models above entry level, or you could look for
another DSLR that fits K-mount lenses. Who knows, someone might make a K to
4/3 adapter.
regards,
Anthony Farr
- Original Message
eBay does not permit wildcard (*) searches containing fewer than 2 letters.
Please enter more letters.
When I counted it, *ist had three letters, or four if you include the
asterisk. eBay is flouting its own rules.
regards,
Anthony Farr
- Original Message -
From: Mark Cassino [EMAIL
On 4 Jul 2003 at 12:23, Anthony Farr wrote:
Oh, that's right! You can't use the internal light meter at the same time
except at the largest aperture only. That's a shame, and a nuisance, but no
more than that.
Only a nuisance? Not from my perspective, I find it ridiculous, very short
(WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in
American Photo magazine)
Pål
When you take a position you defend it even when it's
indefensible. The problem is people on the list
who don't know better will take your word as gospel. The LX had at least
limited but useable compatibility
with all previous Pentax made
At 05:07 PM 7/3/2003 +0200, Pål Jensen wrote:
The funny thing is that the *ist D has better compatibility than the LX
had when released. The LX was only fully compatible with 5 year old lenses
compared to the *ist D 20 year! The LX was compatible with future lenses
and I expect the *ist D to
Rob,
It's relative. I'm 'old school' in many ways. I've never been a great
advocate of TTL metering, and certainly don't find it indispensable. Only
my 35mm cameras have it, and only because I wasn't able to opt out of it and
apply the funds elsewhere, as I did with other formats.
Even in
- Original Message -
From: Anthony Farr
Subject: Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in
American Photo magazine)
At it again, eh Peter.
A camera user can use an *ist, and can use on it any K mount lens, and be
able to use any shutter speed and use any
- Original Message -
From: Peter Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You know, I was responding immediately to Pål, I was ignoring you. I know
your
argument and I think you are short sighted. Pål is passing opinion as
fact
and
he should be called on it. I wasn't the only one who did. I make
: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: Anthony Farr
Subject: Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in
American Photo magazine)
At it again, eh Peter.
A camera user can use an *ist, and can use on it any K mount lens, and
be
able
43 matches
Mail list logo
