The November Pop Photo arrived today, complete with an article on
Canon's new dSLR selling for $899. Yep, $899. It lacks a bunch of
features, but otherwise has the same sensor as the 10D and apparently
takes marvelous photos.
The issue is gaining market share. Newcomers are more frequently sway
This one time, at band camp, Joseph Tainter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The November Pop Photo arrived today, complete with an article on
> Canon's new dSLR selling for $899. Yep, $899. It lacks a bunch of
> features, but otherwise has the same sensor as the 10D and apparently
> takes marvelou
- Original Message -
From: "Joseph Tainter"
Subject: Has Pentax missed again?
> The November Pop Photo arrived today, complete with an article on
> Canon's new dSLR selling for $899. Yep, $899. It lacks a bunch of
> features, but otherwise has the same sensor a
This one time, at band camp, Alin Flaider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hopefully Pentax doesn't share your opinion.
> The DSLR potential market _is_huge_ - virtually every film SLR owner
> is going to eventually buy a DSLR in the next five years or so.
> Especially when the industry starts
I dont deny that the market potential is huge, just that Pentax have not
really taken to it, leaving it for the other manufactures to fight over.
Whilst in the point and shoot arena, they are the market leaders. That
would be a bad thing to give up for them. I am quite happy with the
meagre digital
This is interesting perception of Canon, because it means folks have a short
memory. Ignoring the Kodak/Nikon/Canon DSLRs for the moment, The Nikon D1 was
out well before the Canon D30. Canon was playing catchup to Nikon in the
begining (at least a year). Now things are back to the status quo wi
Alin,
Every computer store, every electronics store, every large floor space, mass
merchandise store carries digital point-n-shoot. Only the best, pro camera
store will carry a 35mm digital, and they are dropping Pentax 35mm. The
market here in the USA is clearly point-n-shoot. Christmas wil
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, Alan Chan wrote:
> Unfortunately, when it comes to P&S digital, Canon & Sony are the
> leading players. Pentax (& Olympus) might be the winner in the old day
> with film based P&S, but these products are losing their ground. And I
> must say, none of the current Pentax digital
On Thursday, Oct 9, 2003, at 20:43 America/New_York, Joseph Tainter
wrote:
The issue is gaining market share. Newcomers are more frequently
swayed by price. It is not until they are more experienced that they
realize they will need those extra-cost features. Newcomers will buy
this Canon, not
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris Brogden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> I admit to being a little confused as to why more people don't like
> Pentax's p&s digitals. Pentax has always excelled at
> putting out small,
> well-featured, well-built products. They're rarely the first on the
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, tom wrote:
> Right now the p+s I'd like to get is that Pentax w/ the 24mm.
Which model is this?
> One more thing...with digital sensor sizes, it seems to me there's an
> opportunity for a new class of p+s, a fixed lens camera with a
> seriously fast lens. How about a p+s with
> -Original Message-
> From: alex wetmore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, tom wrote:
> > Right now the p+s I'd like to get is that Pentax w/ the 24mm.
>
> Which model is this?
Espio 24EW.
I just checked, the lens is kind of slow.
>
> > One more thing...with digi
Alan,
I hear you, but have to wonder.
Will the current crop of 25 year olds ever move to a digital SLR?
They don't know anything about film qualities.
When they need to replace that old 5 megapixel Sony,
will it be another point-n-shoot with 15 megapixels?
I don't know how long it will be before
d
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, Alin Flaider wrote:
> Kevin wrote:
>
> KW> I really dont think Pentax is too fussed about the dSLR market, consentrating
> KW> more on point and shoot folks is where the dollars are.
>
> Hopefully Pentax doesn't share your opinion.
> The DSLR potential market _is_huge_ -
what it takes to compete in
the low-end digital slr market, I'd just as soon Pentax didn't go there.
- Original Message -
From: "Juey Chong Ong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 9:14 AM
Subject: Re: Has Pentax misse
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This is interesting perception of Canon, because it means folks have a short
> memory. Ignoring the Kodak/Nikon/Canon DSLRs for the moment, The Nikon D1 was
> out well before the Canon D30. Canon was playing catchup to Nikon in the
> begining (at l
On Friday, Oct 10, 2003, at 13:34 America/New_York, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Pentax, Minolta, and Olympus aren't playing the
cutting-edge-pro-technology game because at this point Nikon and Canon
have a huge lead.
imho, Olympus is going one further by playing the bleeding edge pro
game. And they
I'm sure that the market for SLRs of any kind is pretty small,
and getting smaller every year.
The 35mm SLR was successful against the cameras of the day because
it was smaller, lighter, and cheaper. The picture quality wasn't
as good, but it was good enough. And the SLR design was ideal for
in
Unfortunately Pentax no longer fills up warehouses before shipping. They
tend to sell faster than the dealers can get them. How many Pentax
digitals do you have in stock, Chris? How long do they sit around the
store? Now, tell us, where is your store again (grin)? Go to a mass
marketer. Look fo
I admit to being a little confused as to why more people don't like
Pentax's p&s digitals. Pentax has always excelled at putting out small,
well-featured, well-built products. They're rarely the first on the
market, but they're usually worth the wait.
Not that I can see for the digital market so
Pentax will price it and market it to meet their targets, whatever they
are. The *ist-D is no Rebel Digital. They compete in different segments. If
Pentax wanted to compete with a Rebel Digital, they would have called it a
ZX-D or something like that.
Don't forget Canon took everyone by surprise
imho, Olympus is going one further by playing the bleeding edge pro game.
And they're waging a pretty extensive media campaign by getting Doug Dubler
to do the ads. Interestingly they run Fuji film and Olympus ads in the same
magazine featuring the same model --- perhaps to imply that the Olympu
>
> I remember those days. Those big heavy ugly DSLRs which were not designed
> for the general public, but press photographers only. Even so, few were
> using them.
I guess it depends where you looked. In my experience as soon as the D1
came out you could hardly find an F5 in the media centre
>
> Perhaps I have a different way to approach the digital products. The 1st
> thing I check is the picture quality. If they aren't good, I don't care. Why
> bother to produce a 5MP model when the images are(sic) that good anyway?
Have you checked the Canon PowerShot G1/2/3/4/5? The Olympus 30
Have you checked the Canon PowerShot G1/2/3/4/5? The Olympus 30x0 series?
The image quality of each of those that I've tested seems perfectly
adequate
for any situation where I'd consider using a 35mm camera without using
flash.
I haven't looked at the Nikon CoolPix 5700 in detail, but a prelimi
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, tom wrote:
> There are 2 types of p+s I'd like. One is the small, pocketable,
> take-it-anywhere type, the other is the larger "serious" type.
>
> I'd take a Pentax for the former and a G5 for the latter *except* that
> they just don't go wide enough. Digital p+s' in particula
Except that Pentax *has* been going there for a long time. Their
entry-level film SLRs aren't any better built than Canon's Rebels or
Nikon's F55/F75. As fun as it is to slag Canon, it's not really fair to
criticize a Rebel for falling apart when used professionally day in and
day out. They're
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, graywolf wrote:
> Unfortunately Pentax no longer fills up warehouses before shipping. They
> tend to sell faster than the dealers can get them. How many Pentax
> digitals do you have in stock, Chris? How long do they sit around the
> store? Now, tell us, where is your store ag
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Chris posted:
> >
> > I admit to being a little confused as to why more people don't like
> > Pentax's p&s digitals. Pentax has always excelled at putting out small,
> > well-featured, well-built products. They're rarely the first on the
> > market,
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, Alan Chan wrote:
> >I admit to being a little confused as to why more people don't like
> >Pentax's p&s digitals. Pentax has always excelled at putting out small,
> >well-featured, well-built products. They're rarely the first on the
> >market, but they're usually worth the
but they are exactly so unique to draw much attention from the
competitions.
Damn, I mean "aren't", not "are". :-)
And it's a matter of perspective. I don't expect my SLR to fit in my
pocket, so why should I expect my p&s to take as good a photo as my SLR?
If it could, I wouldn't need the SLR.
It's the rumored, but not yet announced, D2X that I'm waiting for.
BR
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Nikon D2H, which very few if any people actually have in their hands
right now but is promised this month, is better than the equivalent Canon
EOS-1D. Canon isn't sitting still, of course, so th
The D1 was based on the F100. It came out around a year before the D30.
You're thinking of the Kodak/Nikon hybreds.
BR
From: "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I remember those days. Those big heavy ugly DSLRs which were not designed
for the general public, but press photographers only. Even so, fe
John Francis quoted Alan Chan and posted a comment:
> > Perhaps I have a different way to approach the digital products. The 1st
> > thing I check is the picture quality. If they aren't good, I don't care.
Why
> > bother to produce a 5MP model when the images are(sic) that good anyway?
>
> Hav
John Francis quoted Alan Chan and posted a comment:
> > Perhaps I have a different way to approach the digital products. The 1st
> > thing I check is the picture quality. If they aren't good, I don't care.
Why
> > bother to produce a 5MP model when the images are(sic) that good anyway?
>
> Hav
Chris posted, among many other things:
>
> Optical quality is important to me, but I don't have excessive
> expectations for p&s digital. It's hard to find a 5MP digital that takes
> really bad photos, and I'd feel comfortable enlarging the Optio 550's
> shots to 5x7. I haven't made any 8x10's w
For that matter, have you seen images from the Pentax Optio 550??
I just checked the samples from dpreview & imaging resource and they aren't
as good as the other 5MP models I prefer. Not that 550 is bad, but there are
better choices.
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
__
> >For that matter, have you seen images from the Pentax Optio 550??
>
> I just checked the samples from dpreview & imaging resource and they aren't
> as good as the other 5MP models I prefer. Not that 550 is bad, but there are
> better choices.
>
> Alan Chan
I saw some of those samples when
I saw some of those samples when I was researching the camera myself, and
really wondered if it would be a good choice for me (but still determined
to
try it). However, since using the camera and seeing my own results, I've
been
wondering just how they got those poor-quality samples.
I would love
I wrote:
> >I saw some of those samples when I was researching the camera myself, and
> >really wondered if it would be a good choice for me (but still determined
> >to
> >try it). However, since using the camera and seeing my own results, I've
> >been
> >wondering just how they got those poor-q
Hi
I just noticed an unusual phenomenon. While pretty much everybody online is
selling the 300D kit ($999 US) I can't find anyone listing the *ist-D kit.
The *ist-D body is going for $1699 US. I checked Adorama, B&H, Calumet,
Ritz, and State Street. Does anyone else find that unusual? (or am I jus
On 11/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
>> The shop's website lists the *ist-D with FA-J 18-35mm for NZ$4095
>> (US$2457).
>>
>> The Canon 300D with EF-S 18-55mm is NZ$2250 (US$1350).
>>
>> What are the US street prices for these kits?
>
>The Canadian street for the 300D with the 18-55 is $1599.
>A lot of people are predicting the end of film but I don't buy it. Yes more
and more people are moving to digital but there are still millions of film
cameras out there that will continue to be used for decades. I think people
are
beginning to panick a little too much about the future of film.
Steve wrote:
I don't think film will end for a long time, but once it becomes a niche
market it's "dead" as far as the camera makers are concerned. I don't
expect any further development in 35 mm SLRs. They'll be a heathy
market, however, in older equipment and this alone will keep a revenue
str
Alin wrote:
Hopefully Pentax doesn't share your opinion.
The DSLR potential market _is_huge_ - virtually every film SLR owner
is going to eventually buy a DSLR in the next five years or so.
Especially when the industry starts to drop film support and DSLRs
enter the mid level SLR price are
REPLY:
I'm not convinced. In order for the market to go where you predict in less
than five years digital need to offer more than simply "not using film" which is
basically all that there is to digital at present. Mind you, that may be
enough for many but not convincing enough for a wholesale s
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: Has Pentax missed again?
>
> To my way of thinking, no film is a pretty big advantage. So, just
curious,
> what else could DSLRs offer?
I think consumers are going to be forced into digital, whether they like it
or not, if they are going to continue to take pictures.
At least I can feel the pressure too.
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
_
MSN 8 with e-mail virus
I think film will continue to be available for hobbyists. But pros will
eventually be forced into digital. But not until 10 megapixel cameras
are widely available for less than $1000. When will that happen? Two to
three years at most. But film is fun, ans ome of us will continue to use
it. It's a d
What I am worrying is that good quality processing might become harder and
harder to find in the near future.
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
I think film will continue to be available for hobbyists. But pros will
eventually be forced into digital. But not until 10 megapixel cameras
are wi
y-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:14:51 -0700
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Has Pentax missed again?
> Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Resent-Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 15:14:46 -0400
>
>> I think consumers are going to be forced into digital, whethe
-
> From: Alin Flaider [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 12 October 2003 21:36
> To: Pål Jensen
> Subject: Re: Has Pentax missed again?
>
>
>
> However I'm afraid it's just a
> matter of time before I have to step in and get a DSLR, simply
> because
>
> What I am worrying is that good quality processing might become harder and
> harder to find in the near future.
>
> Alan Chan
"Near Future" be blowed. In two years I've had to find a new place to get
my slides processed twice because the lab I was using closed down, and one
of the two labs
Robert G posted:
> I had my first look at a camera store near me and it looks
> like a winner. Very light! But very solid.
Which camera store ...
?
>
> I can't see spending $1500 for a six megapixel camera.
> In two or three years it will be a paperweight.
No. In two or three years it will still produce 6MP images.
That's more than enough for most purposes; it's a full-frame
8x10 print at 300ppi. Unless you're shooting on a tripod, at
opti
OTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Has Pentax missed again?
>
>
> And, of course, in three years it's not that hard for even a
> $1500 camera to pay for itself; my normal film is Provia
> 100F. Processed and mounted I don't get all that much change
> from $20 for a single ro
This is not true because it ignores the difference between price and value.
Price is established when you sell something. Value is what it is worth to
you. A computer or DSLR may have a low resale price, but still be perfectly
capable of producing perfectly adequate work. A 6mp DSLR that produce
cause they were records of a
moment/mood/expression.
Some of these shots alone mean the camera has already paid for itself to
me.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 13 October 2003 12:23
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Has
>Fortunately I've found a small independent one-hour lab operated by a
guy
who treats my film as if it were his own, and who takes good care of his
equipment, but it's not the dip-and-dunk I could get two years ago.
Another sign is the crash in value of processing gear. I bought a Jobo
CPP with l
> But film
> is fun, ans ome of us will continue to use it. It's a
> different medium. Remember, they didn't stop using oil paints
> when film was invented.
Yep. After all, I can still get 120 film for my Yashicamat.
On Friday, Oct 10, 2003, at 19:28 America/New_York, Alan Chan wrote:
Don't forget Canon took everyone by surprise with their Rebel Digital
which was released later. Perhaps Pentax knew that. But if not, Pentax
didn't choose not to compete with it, but forced not to. There is a
big difference.
I
Precision camera in Austin. Where are you located?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Robert G posted:
I had my first look at a camera store near me and it looks
like a winner. Very light! But very solid.
Which camera store ...
?
- Original Message -
From: "Mike Ignatiev"
Subject: RE: Has Pentax missed again?
> thanks for a great econ 101; i hate to break it to
> you, but MP = MV.
>
> a $8000 PC from 20 years ago would still run its
> original software just fine, and is screen would st
you don't need to end up with too many
shots you would otherwise have passed by before you are convinced
that the outlay on the digital was worth it.
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: John Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: 13 October 2003 04:51
>
I don't disagree about the value of digital - in fact I was one of the
'others' who noted this!
I was just staggered at how much you are paying!
Provia for me is £3 per film. Process/Mount by Fuji is £4 - could get
cheaper but I am more than happy with them. 3 of the lot for £20.
Neg film work
On 13/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
>The technology is accelerating at a rate that is perhaps one hundred
>times what we are used to in the film world. I can't see spending $1500
>for a six megapixel camera. In two or three years it will be a paperweight.
How so Paul? I expect to be shootin
> Precision camera in Austin. Where are you located?
>
San Antonio. And Precision Camera was who I thought you might have meant. (Been
there once. Bought my Optio 550 there.)
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Robert G posted:
> >
> >>I had my first look at a camera store near me and it looks
> > a $8000 PC from 20 years ago would still run its
> > original software just fine, and is screen would
> > still show those gorgeous 4 shades of green...
>
> And you just compared the computer equivalent of
> rubbing two sticks together or using a Zippo to
> start a campfire.
>
> William Ro
Hi,
Rob Brigham wrote:
> However, when I am taking more artistic stuff like landscapes etc (which
> is my passion)
If landscape is what trips your shutter, _why_ go digital and not large
format?
mike
, but then I always go for the underdog!
> -Original Message-
> From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 13 October 2003 19:52
> To: pentax list
> Subject: RE: Has Pentax missed again?
>
>
> On 13/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
>
> >I have taken
; for my purposes in that respect. Digital would be
too - at a stretch, if only it could do wide angles.
> -Original Message-
> From: mike wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 13 October 2003 21:42
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Has Pentax missed again?
>
>
Hi,
Rob Brigham wrote:
>
> I have thought about it, honestly, for many years - but it just seems
> like too much of a pain in the a**e. I really like the look of the 645,
> didn't really like the 67 (sorry brothers), especially the finder. Its
> been a constant should I, shouldn't I situation.
Well I've got the cape, and I did feel the force of the dark side (oops
sorry, you said dark slide!) for a long while, but then Pentax brought
out a DSLR called the Yoda*ist, which saved me from the evil Canon Trade
Federation for now!
I love the mechanics of some of the LF cameras, from an engine
id Mann"
Subject: Re: Has Pentax missed again?
> The shop's website lists the *ist-D with FA-J 18-35mm for NZ$4095
> (US$2457).
>
> The Canon 300D with EF-S 18-55mm is NZ$2250 (US$1350).
>
> What are the US street prices for these kits?
The Canadian street for the 300D with
tober 13, 2003 11:05 PM
Subject: Re: Has Pentax missed again?
> Since we don't have a Native SLR industry, (or for that matter camera
> manufacturers)
> they can't be accused of dumping. Pentax want's to recapture the US
> market, it might
> help if they advertise
- Original Message -
From: "Peter Alling"
Subject: Re: Has Pentax missed again?
> Since we don't have a Native SLR industry, (or for that matter camera
> manufacturers)
> they can't be accused of dumping.
Well, not quite.
Dumping is classified under GA
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert"
Subject: RE: Has Pentax missed again?
> > The FA*24 and 77ltd
> > don't give me an fov that suits me ibn the ist either - and they are my
> > fave lenses *sigh*
>
> Disappointing isn't it.
Something
The digital gear is great for all those photographic exploits where
convenience and speed is far more important than absolute quality.
My aim is to continue shooting MF film for as long as I can and all smaller
format work will be digital. Of course I'd be putting film through my
classic
35mm bodi
On 15 Oct 2003 at 1:04, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> Problem with that thinking is that digital has already matched/beaten
> medium format film in most the cameras in terms of grain/noise and the latest
> 10-14 Mpixels models are giving it a run for the money in terms of
> resolution.
Might be be
>
> Cotty wrote:
>
> C> Rob, I bet you are soo relieved you didn't cave in to the Sigma
> C> DSLR a while back ;-) The *ist D is a little cutey.
>
> Yes, a nice box but still a box around the sensor. And the cutey thing
> in Sigma is that Foveon sensor, something I wish to see in a P
- Original Message -
From: "Steve Desjardins"
Subject: RE: Has Pentax missed again?
> How are the normals on the *ist D? I noticed that some were saying
> their 77 wasn;t as good as it used to be. I was wondering how the FA50
> 1.4 or the 43 ltd were with the
That is what digital hasn't got. It, in my opinion, comes from the fine
nuances of shading you get with film and not with digital.
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert"
Subject: RE: Has Pentax missed again?
The FA*24 and 77ltd
don't give
The FA50 1.4 is lovely. Had no use for that focal length before, but
with the 1.5 factor it(or the 43) was a must. My unhappiness with the
77 has nothing to do with the picture quality, just that my favourite
lens now has a focal length that it of little use to me.
And who says longer is better?
. Same goes for the 30-60 range for me.
> -Original Message-
> From: Alan Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 15 October 2003 22:43
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Has Pentax missed again?
>
>
> >The FA50 1.4 is lovely. Had no use for that focal length
in the 30-60 range: when I
had only a 55/1.8 SMC Takumar, they all did!
John Coyle
Praxis Data Solutions
Brisbane, Australia
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 8:02 AM
Subject: RE: Has P
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> REPLY:
>
> I'm not convinced. In order for the market to go where you predict in less
> than five years digital need to offer more than simply "not using film" which is
> basically all that there is to digital at present. Mind you, that may be
> e
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003, Rob Brigham wrote:
> The FA50 1.4 is lovely. Had no use for that focal length before, but
> with the 1.5 factor it(or the 43) was a must. My unhappiness with the
> 77 has nothing to do with the picture quality, just that my favourite
> lens now has a focal length that it of
On 17/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
>Given the lenses that WERE in my bag (20,28/1.4,50/1.4,85/1.8,180) I have
>lost my wider apertures and cannot exactly replace some lenses. I have
>in fact replaced ALL the lenses in my pro bag, primarily with zooms,
>to compensate--cost me more than the
Cotty wrote:
>
> On 17/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
>
> >Given the lenses that WERE in my bag (20,28/1.4,50/1.4,85/1.8,180) I have
> >lost my wider apertures and cannot exactly replace some lenses. I have
> >in fact replaced ALL the lenses in my pro bag, primarily with zooms,
> >to comp
At 02:07 PM 10/17/03, throwing caution to the wind, Cotty wrote:
What is a pro bag?
it's black, natch.
I agree with this argument. Everyone I have talked to who owns digital says
they shoot more now than they ever did with film. They experiment more and the
results show it... It's an argument in favour of digital that often gets
overlooked.
The down side that gets overlooked is the amount of time
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 09:23:49 EDT
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Has Pentax missed again (More shots)
> Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Resent-Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 09:24:00 -0400
> .
> The down s
Wendy posted:
> At 10:49 AM 13/10/2003 -0400, Vic wrote:
> >The down side that gets overlooked is the amount of time needed to tweak and
> >file all the digital images.
>
> Have to agree with that.
> On the other hand, shooting digital has forced me to catalogue and backup
> my shots. I now have
y-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 11:27:16 -0400
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Has Pentax missed again (More shots)
> Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Resent-Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 11:27:32 -0400
>
> At 10:49 AM 13/10/2003 -0400, Vic wrote:
>> Th
've heard that Zenits are made from steel :-) )
- Original Message -
From: "Chris Brogden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2003 3:15 AM
Subject: Re: Has Pentax missed again?
>
>
> Except that Pentax *has* bee
Hi!
Do you have any info about the MZ-6 (or other cameras) internal
structure?
Alex Sarbu (who wants Heavy Metal-style cameras. Hmm...
I've heard that Zenits are made from steel :-) )
You're one lucky fellow - I just happen to have MZ-6 and used to have
Zenit back in Moscow.
I don't know much
ething everyone's said before..) and it's not
compatible with older lenses. I'm not sure how the 6 compares with the 7
though.
Rgds,
Ryan
From: "Boris Liberman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is my MZ-6 a plastic toy? (was: Has Pentax missed again?)
> Yes, Zenint is cl
- Original Message -
From: "Boris Liberman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ryan Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 6:06 AM
Subject: Re: Is my MZ-6 a plastic toy? (was: Has Pentax missed again?)
>There's one thing that struck me a
Hi!
Yep you can't set aperture on the 5n body.. would be useful to have
so that
they'd be fully compatible with the FAJ lenses. Maybe Pentax has some
super
post- powerzoom, post-IS, post-HSM innovation which requires lenses
to have
a basic FAJ circuitry configuration! Or maybe they're innovatio
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 17:51:30 +1000, Ryan Lee wrote:
> > Though of course MZ-6 has snap in focus, which though is independent
> > of picture more.
>
> Hasn't the 5n got snap in focus w/ manual lenses too?
The ZX-5/MZ-5 has snap in focus, so I'd think the -5n does, too.
> do you notice the eyecup
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
