The infamous FA 28-70mm f4.0 had a composite aspheric element made up of
a glass component with an optically matched molded plastic. It was the
break down of this element that supposedly rendered a number of those
lenses into, (very lightweight), paperweights.
On 1/6/2014 10:11 AM, Bruce
Thanks for that, Bipin.
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 4:12 AM, Bipin Gupta bip...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Bruce Sir, some aspheric lens elements are made by depositing
optical plastic on the glass.
Unlike a spherical lens element which is perfectly smooth and
roundish, asperical lenses will have a
Boris, it's possibly no coincidence that the Pentax kit lenses are
actually very good optically (esp. the 18-55) where the Canikon ones
are apparently just disposable.
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 11:58 PM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for heads up, Bipin, but I have a question. It
Hi Bruce Boris Sirs, New Year Greetings. Pentax does not use
optical plastic elements in their K- mount lenses including the 18-55
kit
lens or the cheaper primes.
Yes they do use plastic in the Aspheric lens elements. This plastic is
deposited over the glass lens in ridges. Hence aspherical
Hello Bruce Sir, some aspheric lens elements are made by depositing
optical plastic on the glass.
Unlike a spherical lens element which is perfectly smooth and
roundish, asperical lenses will have a number
of jagged edges forming the lens curvature.
Also Dupleix lenses (two lenses glued together)
Thanks for adding some facts to the debate Bipin, and welcome back!
I've been wondering where you disappeared to. Hope all is well.
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 4:12 AM, Bipin Gupta bip...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Bruce Sir, some aspheric lens elements are made by depositing
optical plastic on the
Thanks for heads up, Bipin, but I have a question. It seems rather
strange to me that even the cheaper kit lenses that boast to have
aspherical elements would not use plastic in the composition. I wouldn't
presume that 18-55/3.5-5.6 AL was made all of pure glass...
Anything I miss here?
On
The RX100II is Wifi enabled and has a companion app for smart phones :)
On 6 January 2014 16:16, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote:
That's right. Especially that nowadays being connected (aka being able to
upload your next selfie to facebook or whatever) matters more than being
That's a good question, Boris. Not being a gearhead I don't closely
study the fine details of lens construction, but I assumed that only
glass was hard and stable enough to be ground or milled into shape
with the required tolerances.
Does anyone know if plastic, or anything besides glass and
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Bruce Walker bruce.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
That's a good question, Boris. Not being a gearhead I don't closely
study the fine details of lens construction, but I assumed that only
glass was hard and stable enough to be ground or milled into shape
with the
My recollection is that virtually all modern wide-to-normal camera lenses
contain aspherical elements, and that most of those are hybrid--a glass
spherical lens with a plastic element cemented on to give it a complex aspheric
shape.
The most notorious of these in Pentax land is the FA 28-70/4,
I don't know about any k-mount lenses, but plastic is used for lenses in
some critical applications were high precision and light weight are both
desirable.
On 1/6/2014 10:11 AM, Bruce Walker wrote:
That's a good question, Boris. Not being a gearhead I don't closely
study the fine details of
Point taken. However I don't believe that all modern Pentax lenses are
devoid of optical plastic. Nor do I think that all the lenses that
Pentax marks as having aspherics is made by crafty glass processing
techniques, especially the inexpensive ones...
On 1/4/2014 9:46 PM, Bruce Walker
On 1/5/2014 12:07 AM, Aahz Maruch wrote:
The Nokton's far too big for someone to just carry around. You can't
stick that in your pocket. The Pentax barely fits (once you add the
required camera), and it's not full-frame.
Again, only people who care about DOF, macro, or large prints want
That's right. Especially that nowadays being connected (aka being able
to upload your next selfie to facebook or whatever) matters more than
being photographically endowed, so to speak.
On 1/5/2014 12:57 AM, Rob Studdert wrote:
My Sony RX100II is truly pocket-able and has an integrated 28/1.8
On 1/2/2014 6:27 PM, Darren Addy wrote:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/12/goodbye-cameras.html
Darren, have you held in your hands Panasonic GM1 and the pancake kit
zoom lens?
Boris
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
On Sat, Jan 04, 2014, Boris Liberman wrote:
On 1/2/2014 6:27 PM, Darren Addy wrote:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/12/goodbye-cameras.html
Darren, have you held in your hands Panasonic GM1 and the pancake
kit zoom lens?
Yeah, I have (renting one right now from
My point is that miniaturization is reaching yet another level. And this
camera unlike iPhone's and plethora of Android devices is seriously real
deal.
On 1/4/2014 8:54 PM, Aahz Maruch wrote:
On Sat, Jan 04, 2014, Boris Liberman wrote:
On 1/2/2014 6:27 PM, Darren Addy wrote:
On Sat, Jan 04, 2014, Boris Liberman wrote:
My point is that miniaturization is reaching yet another level. And
this camera unlike iPhone's and plethora of Android devices is
seriously real deal.
Yes and no -- real glass requires real weight and bulk. I agree that
most people (who don't care
On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Aahz Maruch a...@pobox.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 04, 2014, Boris Liberman wrote:
My point is that miniaturization is reaching yet another level. And
this camera unlike iPhone's and plethora of Android devices is
seriously real deal.
Yes and no -- real glass
Aahz, I have to very respectfully disagree. Have a look on Voigtlander
Nokton 40/1.4. Given its speed, it is positively very small. And to boot
it naturally covers the so called full frame. The Pentax 40/2.8 pancake
is also very small.
So you can have small (not iPhone small though) lenses
Bruce, let me suggest to you ever so humbly that the precision of
execution has nothing to with material used...
On 1/4/2014 9:30 PM, Bruce Walker wrote:
On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Aahz Maruch a...@pobox.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 04, 2014, Boris Liberman wrote:
My point is that
Excellent! Let me know when your balsa wood jetliner is ready for its
maiden voyage and I shall be there with my K-3 to document it.
On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote:
Bruce, let me suggest to you ever so humbly that the precision of execution
has nothing
On Sat, Jan 04, 2014, Bruce Walker wrote:
On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Aahz Maruch a...@pobox.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 04, 2014, Boris Liberman wrote:
My point is that miniaturization is reaching yet another level. And
this camera unlike iPhone's and plethora of Android devices is
seriously
On Sat, Jan 04, 2014, Boris Liberman wrote:
On 1/4/2014 9:22 PM, Aahz Maruch wrote:
On Sat, Jan 04, 2014, Boris Liberman wrote:
My point is that miniaturization is reaching yet another level. And
this camera unlike iPhone's and plethora of Android devices is
seriously real deal.
Yes and no --
My Sony RX100II is truly pocket-able and has an integrated 28/1.8
equivalent lens, the Panasonic is very small but you still need to add
a lens but in both cases neither are even close to replacing an SLR
for so many types of photography that I do. I use the camera in my
Android phone exensively
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 4:12 PM, Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com wrote:
Most people don't care enough about photography to spend the money on a 77mm
LTD anyway.
And that why i have one
Dave
bill
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/12/goodbye-cameras.html
--
I don't have a problem with idiots.
I have a problem with the fact that they have an internet connection.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE
My wife has completely abandoned her Nikon for the iPhone 5s, and my
son uses his for almost everything now. I am stubborn, and cling to
my old-fashioned DSLR, probably because I understand how to use it a
bit better than I do the phone camera.
Dan Matyola
The 20% decline in sales of mirror-less cameras has all the
manufacturer's attention.
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/12/goodbye-cameras.html
--
I don't have a problem with idiots.
I have a problem
2013's 43% decline in sales of ALL cameras across the board has even more of
the manufacturers attention.
Godfrey
On Jan 2, 2014, at 8:52 AM, Bob Sullivan rf.sulli...@gmail.com wrote:
The 20% decline in sales of mirror-less cameras has all the
manufacturer's attention.
On Thu, Jan 2,
OTOH, my son is doing very nice things with my old K10D, and loves having
control over shutter speed and DOF. His iPhone 5 gets a lot of use for casual
snaps, but other photography is done on the DSLR.
Rick
On Jan 2, 2014, at 11:51 , Daniel J. Matyola wrote:
My wife has completely abandoned
His conclusion may make sense in his essential worldview of journalism
and social networking. transform[s] an otherwise innocuous photo of
an empty field near Fukushima into an entirely different object.
But as someone who enjoys seeing his work printed, and especially
printed large, and captures
I think he is confusing things. What defines a camera looks like a
problem.
It seems that we view a real camera as one with image controls, any of
tilt/shift/aperture/shutter speed.
So, did the real camera, the view camera as we know it, disappear when Kodak
introduced the Brownie as the
What gets me about this story, and the many others in the same vein, is
that they all seem to completely ignore the importance of optics in
photography.
I can't imagine anyone who cares about photography enough to spend money
on a 77/1.8 Ltd. suddenly saying to themselves, You know what?
People like that have always been in a minority. The people who are using their
iPads and phones to take pictures are the people who used the cheapest ps
cameras, and they're the cameras that will disappear. There will continue to be
a small market for enthusiasts and the few professionals that
On 02/01/2014 2:23 PM, Walt wrote:
What gets me about this story, and the many others in the same vein, is
that they all seem to completely ignore the importance of optics in
photography.
It's only important to certain snobby types who have an inflated ego and
derive their self worth from how
On 1/2/2014 11:27 AM, Darren Addy wrote:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/12/goodbye-cameras.html
Alright, I managed to post my first thought when I tried to delete and
start over. This is the same reasoning that proclaims the end of the PC
(Mac or Microsoft doesn't
On 1/2/2014 3:12 PM, Bill wrote:
On 02/01/2014 2:23 PM, Walt wrote:
What gets me about this story, and the many others in the same vein, is
that they all seem to completely ignore the importance of optics in
photography.
It's only important to certain snobby types who have an inflated ego
On 02/01/2014 3:36 PM, Walt wrote:
On 1/2/2014 3:12 PM, Bill wrote:
On 02/01/2014 2:23 PM, Walt wrote:
What gets me about this story, and the many others in the same vein, is
that they all seem to completely ignore the importance of optics in
photography.
It's only important to certain
40 matches
Mail list logo
