On Apr 1, 2005 4:33 PM, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "John Francis"
> Subject: Re: I'm surprised that this one didn't attract a single bid
>
> > frank theriault mused:
> >>
> >>
- Original Message -
From: "John Francis"
Subject: Re: I'm surprised that this one didn't attract a single bid
frank theriault mused:
So, I have my driver's licence for the photo ID part
(even though it's expired, the photo works, and it shows my birt
frank theriault mused:
>
> So, I have my driver's licence for the photo ID part
> (even though it's expired, the photo works, and it shows my birthdate)
Good luck! An expired driver's licence is not acceptable
according to the current TSA guidelines (from my own experience).
I'd strongly urge
On Apr 1, 2005 2:43 AM, mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Won't the photo on it be a bit, er, dated?
>
> mike
> who thinks that proper ID probably needs a picture of the bearer.
Right now, to get into the US, photo ID alone isn't enough. One needs
proof of citizenship.
So, I have my
On Apr 1, 2005 8:48 AM, Kenneth Waller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I now have a birth certificate.
> Should work nicely...
>
> Yeah but who's is it?
-frank
--
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
> I now have a birth certificate.
Should work nicely...
Yeah but who's is it?
Kenneth Waller
-Original Message-
From: frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Mar 31, 2005 10:55 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: I'm surprised that this one didn't attr
frank theriault wrote:
On Mar 30, 2005 10:46 PM, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Frank always has to sneak past the border guards because he forgets to
bring proper I.D...
I didn't forget proper ID. I just didn't have it.
This year will be different, however. I now have a birth certifica
On Mar 30, 2005 10:46 PM, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Frank always has to sneak past the border guards because he forgets to
> bring proper I.D...
I didn't forget proper ID. I just didn't have it.
This year will be different, however. I now have a birth certificate.
Should work
Of course, some of us did not think Frank was all there last year.
(couldn't resist)
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---
frank theriault wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 21:33:11 -0500, Mishka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
might work. i
Mishka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>might work. if you can smuggle him past the border guards otoh,
>in small quantities you might get frank even duty free...
Frank always has to sneak past the border guards because he forgets to
bring proper I.D...
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
ww
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 21:33:11 -0500, Mishka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> might work. if you can smuggle him past the border guards otoh,
> in small quantities you might get frank even duty free...
Hey, I managed to wrangle my way into and out of the USA for GFM last
year. Hope to do the same t
might work. if you can smuggle him past the border guards otoh,
in small quantities you might get frank even duty free...
best,
mishka
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:36:26 -0500, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mishka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 12:35:37 -0500, Mar
How do you know, Bob? You've never seen me with MY pearl necklace.
PDML London, stand by.
John
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 06:53:47 +0100, Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
Wednesday, March 30, 2005, 2:19:25 AM, Tom wrote:
Like her too, don't know about John.
Once you get to know him he's alright. Pro
Frank, I was trying to be brief, but of course you're absolutely correct!
;-)
John
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 20:15:10 -0500, frank theriault
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 00:48:28 +0100, John Forbes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Kinda like anybody vs. Sophia Loren.
Of course, you mean
Bob W wrote:
Hi,
Wednesday, March 30, 2005, 2:19:25 AM, Tom wrote:
Like her too, don't know about John.
Once you get to know him he's alright. Probably not as nice as Audrey
Hepburn with a pearl necklace though...
_Far_ too early for that sort of information. You must be suffering
from early mo
.get2net.dk/bladt
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 30. marts 2005 08:04
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: Re: I'm surprised that this one didn't attract a single bid
> > Like her too, don't know about John.
>
>Once you get to know hi
may very well add annother week to
finish the transactrion.
Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 29. marts 2005 15:08
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: I'm surprised that this one di
> Like her too, don't know about John.
Once you get to know him he's alright. Probably not as nice as Audrey
Hepburn with a pearl necklace though...
--
Cheers,
Bob
Hah! I think I like every movie Audrey Hepburn was in. "How to Steal a
Million" and "Charade" are two of my favorites. Charade is m
> Like her too, don't know about John.
Once you get to know him he's alright. Probably not as nice as Audrey
Hepburn with a pearl necklace though...
--
Cheers,
Bob
Hah! I think I like every movie Audrey Hepburn was in. "How to Steal a
Million" and "Charade" are two of my favorites. Charade is m
Hi,
Wednesday, March 30, 2005, 2:19:25 AM, Tom wrote:
> Like her too, don't know about John.
Once you get to know him he's alright. Probably not as nice as Audrey
Hepburn with a pearl necklace though...
--
Cheers,
Bob
>>On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 00:48:28 +0100, John Forbes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrot
Quoting Quasi Modo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Manual lenses = too much hassle in this day and age.
> (I think that captures the sentiments of ~90% of ppl
> in the market for Pentax lenses)
>
I'm in your remaining 10% minority then ;-)
-
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:36:26 -0500, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What about a Canadian? Could I replace myself with Frank?
Do I get Lisa in the bargain? If so, I'll be happy to participate...
cheers,
frank
ps: perhaps you may consider replacing yourself with
someone else, if y
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:57:11 +1000, Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So how is that, this is a Pentax photographic list surely there are better
> places to discuss Lauren and Hepburn?
I must disagree, Rob. There is never a wrong time or place to talk
about Audrey Hepburn.
-frank
Mark Roberts wrote:
What a splendid idea! I've always wondered what equipment to replace in
order to make my photography better. Now I know; it's the photographer!
What about a Canadian? Could I replace myself with Frank?
Two wrongs don't make a right. ;)
On 30 Mar 2005 at 12:05, Quasi Modo wrote:
> I bet a few people are thinking...take one group of photography
> enthusiasts, talk down the manual focus gear which comprises most of
> their collection, sit back and watch! The most important thing is
> that they're often the same optical formulas,
Ah yes! I thought so.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---
Quasi Modo wrote:
I saw your sig and just had to take it up a level - you followed it as
fluidly as if it were metered and focused in SAFOX VIII itself. I'm
all for ec
when 2.5 fps isn't fast enough, manual focus is out of the question.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 7:24 PM
Subject: Re: I'm surprised that this one didn't attract a single bid
Mishka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 12:35:37 -0500, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >True, absolutely. It would come down to sample variation if anything .8)
>>
>> Yeah, that and "photographer variation"
>>
>have you tried to switch to using japanese or german
y-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> >To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> >Subject: Re: I'm surprised that this one didn't attract a single bid
> >Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 20:15:10 -0500
> >
> >On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 00:48:28 +0100, John Forbes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> w
Well, I only have one lens rating, "professionally acceptable". Beyond that IMO
it is all mystic mumbo-jumbo, and below that it is all junk. But I think I have said this
before.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---
Quasi Modo
On 29 Mar 2005 at 20:07, Mishka wrote:
> exactly.
> (1) available to germany only
> (2) "as is, no warranty whatsoever"
> (3) payment by bank transfer only
> looks like a winning combination of friendliness and convenience.
> i think the best one was
> (4) "I pay the eBay fees!" -- a truly gener
Like her too, don't know about John.
Tom C.
From: frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: I'm surprised that this one didn't attract a single bid
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 20:15:10 -0500
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 00:48:28 +0100, John Forbes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kinda like anybody vs. Sophia Loren.
Of course, you mean anybody except Audrey Hepburn.
cheers,
frank
--
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
have you tried to switch to using japanese or german photographers
(where the quality control is presumably better) instead?
best,
mishka
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 12:35:37 -0500, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >True, absolutely. It would come down to sample variation if anything .8)
>
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 20:52:36 +0100, Nick Clark
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey whatever works for you. I prefer MF lenses and the way they affect my
> picture taking. Most AF lenses don't have the right feel for me.
> Nick
I too, prefer manual focus lenses. The fact that I don't own an AF
body
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 12:35:37 -0500, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Yeah, that and "photographer variation"
>
I can take any lens and blur the shit out of it.
-frank
--
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
:)
Tom C.
From: "John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: I'm surprised that this one didn't attract a single bid
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 00:48:28 +0100
Kinda like anybody vs. Sophia Loren.
A Fan
On Tue,
exactly.
(1) available to germany only
(2) "as is, no warranty whatsoever"
(3) payment by bank transfer only
looks like a winning combination of friendliness and convenience.
i think the best one was
(4) "I pay the eBay fees!" -- a truly generous spirit!
best,
mishka
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 11:47:
oh man, now you are in knee deep in ...
... trouble!
best,
mishka
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 01:10:58 +1000, Quasi Modo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With regard to manual focus lens collection, optical quality
> and/or superiority to AF is the classic fallback position. It was
> assumed that you were
IL PROTECTED]>
HC> To:
HC> Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 10:17 AM
HC> Subject: Re: I'm surprised that this one didn't attract a single bid
>> Amen! I can't even explain the joy of using a manual
>> focus lens with the *istDS. Currently I'm playing
>> around with it and the Super Takumar 35mm f/3.5
>> screwmount lens.
You must be a very, very busy person. The time spent focusing must be
quite scarce. I hope I never get to the point where the spent focusing is
wasted time.
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: Herb Chong
> ... using MF more than necessary is just a waste of
> my time. it's about getting the
2005 10:17 AM
Subject: Re: I'm surprised that this one didn't attract a single bid
Amen! I can't even explain the joy of using a manual
focus lens with the *istDS. Currently I'm playing
around with it and the Super Takumar 35mm f/3.5
screwmount lens.
Kinda like anybody vs. Sophia Loren.
A Fan
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 15:44:38 -0700, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
William Robb wrote:
Compared to the older lens, it feels like cheap junk, and looks like a
small pile of carefully formed moose puke.
Kinda like Britney Spears vs. Sophia Loren.
-
On 29 Mar 2005 at 19:39, Nick Clark wrote:
> I think this auction had too many restrictions on location and payment
> methods.
> What is it with German ebayers not liking PayPal anyway?
Paypal terms and charges are really only attractive to US dealers dealing in
US$, I won't have a bar of them
.
--
Best regards,
Bruce
Tuesday, March 29, 2005, 3:33:52 PM, you wrote:
WR> - Original Message -
WR> From: "Rob Studdert"
WR> Subject: Re: I'm surprised that this one didn't attract a single bid
>> LOL, I love where this simple post went, got
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert"
Subject: Re: I'm surprised that this one didn't attract a single bid
LOL, I love where this simple post went, got to appreciate the PDML for
sheer
entertainment value. Though I do agree having owned two A20/2.8 and having
On 29 Mar 2005 at 15:44, Tom C wrote:
> William Robb wrote:
>
>
> >Compared to the older lens, it feels like cheap junk, and looks like a
> >small pile of carefully formed moose puke.
>
> Kinda like Britney Spears vs. Sophia Loren.
LOL, I love where this simple post went, got to appreciate th
- Original Message -
From: "Tom C"
Subject: Re: I'm surprised that this one didn't attract a single bid
William Robb wrote:
Compared to the older lens, it feels like cheap junk, and looks like a
small pile of carefully formed moose puke.
Kinda like Britney Spe
E! I LIKE that one!
For us in the midwest USA it would be pigeon droppings tho. ;-)
Don
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 4:45 PM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: I'm surprised that this
William Robb wrote:
Compared to the older lens, it feels like cheap junk, and looks like a
small pile of carefully formed moose puke.
Kinda like Britney Spears vs. Sophia Loren.
- Original Message -
From: "Christian"
Subject: Re: I'm surprised that this one didn't attract a single bid
> > Your statement is just as bad as the zooms vs. primes or automatic vs
> > manual arguments about learning composition.
>
> Have you
William Robb wrote on 3/29/2005, 5:17 PM:
> > Your statement is just as bad as the zooms vs. primes or automatic vs
> > manual arguments about learning composition.
>
> Have you actually taught this stuff or are you blowing smoke?
>
> William Robb
>
I taught myself. The statement was "l
Hi,
> I've seen a lot posted in several places about
> the superior optical quality of manual focus Vs AF lenses and have
> seen the arguments lose their legs within 100 characters.
the argument doesn't stack up in either direction. It makes no more
(or less) sense to say "AF lenses
- Original Message -
From: "Quasi Modo"
Subject: Re: I'm surprised that this one didn't attract a single bid
With regard to manual focus lens collection, optical quality
and/or superiority to AF is the classic fallback position.
Perhaps there is some reason for th
- Original Message -
From: "Christian"
Subject: Re: I'm surprised that this one didn't attract a single bid
Your statement is just as bad as the zooms vs. primes or automatic vs
manual arguments about learning composition.
Have you actually taught this stuff or a
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert"
Subject: I'm surprised that this one didn't attract a single bid
SMC PENTAX-A 1:2,8 20mm 5862014
http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=7502833948
The guy only wants to sell to Germany.
Th
.net"
Subject: Re: I'm surprised that this one didn't attract a single bid
Nick Clark wrote on 3/29/2005, 2:11 PM:
> It's not just about optical quality, it's about the gestalt of picture
> taking. MF lenses feel better and
Nick Clark wrote on 3/29/2005, 2:11 PM:
> It's not just about optical quality, it's about the gestalt of picture
> taking. MF lenses feel better and promote a more considered approach
> to composition.
>
Oh god... not this again...
I'm not going to argue the "feel" because what feels good
Try them!
It's not just about optical quality, it's about the gestalt of picture taking.
MF lenses feel better and promote a more considered approach to composition.
Nick
-Original Message-
From: "Quasi Modo"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 29/03/05 17:12:05
I've seen a lot posted i
I disagree. I'd much rather have a decent manual focus lens with a proper
focusing ring than an AF lens. MF are generally better built too (limiteds
excluded). I use MF 90% of the time.
I think this auction had too many restrictions on location and payment methods.
What is it with German ebayer
ssories/filters + the FA 135 f/2.8 and went
for£178.51p .8)
John
-- Original Message ---
From: "John Whittingham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 18:06:30 +0100
Subject: Re: I'm surprised that this one didn'
> Yeah, that and "photographer variation"
LOL
John
-- Original Message ---
From: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 12:35:37 -0500
Subject: Re: I'm surprised that this one didn't attract a single bid
"John Whittingham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Not to mention the fact that the manual focus 20/2.8 and the
>> autofocus 20/2.8 are optically IDENTICAL. ;-)
>
>True, absolutely. It would come down to sample variation if anything .8)
Yeah, that and "photographer variation"
--
Mark Roberts
Ph
indelig meddelelse-
> Fra: John Whittingham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sendt: 29. marts 2005 19:07
> Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Emne: Re: I'm surprised that this one didn't attract a single bid
>
> > Optical superiority is not my genre. Here is a comparison f
ntax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 12:23:06 -0500
Subject: Re: I'm surprised that this one didn't attract a single bid
> "John Whittingham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Asside from all the arguments over which are superior manual or AF lenses
if
&g
t
Emne: Re: I'm surprised that this one didn't attract a single bid
> Optical superiority is not my genre. Here is a comparison for you: I
> bought a used K135/2.5 from a local shop at a price where (assuming
> enough of them) I could buy 6 of them before matching one new
>
"John Whittingham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Asside from all the arguments over which are superior manual or AF lenses if
>we come back to the original post regarding the A 20mm f/2.8, how useful do
>you think AF really is at 20mm?
Not to mention the fact that the manual focus 20/2.8 and the
> Optical superiority is not my genre. Here is a comparison for you: I
> bought a used K135/2.5 from a local shop at a price where (assuming
> enough of them) I could buy 6 of them before matching one new
> FA135/2.8. No, there are no used ones around, I don't think.
There's been three on eBay UK
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Quasi Modo wrote:
> Finally, it's amazing how few of these head to head comparisons
> between F/FA/DA/DFA and A/K/M etc lenses see the light of web. I'm
> all ears.
My friend,
Optical superiority is not my genre. Here is a comparison for you: I
bought a used K135/2.5 from
iscuss@pdml.net
Sent: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 02:12:05 +1000
Subject: Re: I'm surprised that this one didn't attract a single bid
> I saw your sig and just had to take it up a level - you followed it
> as fluidly as if it were metered and focused in SAFOX VIII itself.
> I'm all for e
I saw your sig and just had to take it up a level - you followed it as
fluidly as if it were metered and focused in SAFOX VIII itself. I'm
all for economising on lens expenditure, and not waiting ad infinitum
for a lens release. I've seen a lot posted in several places about
the superior optica
LES!
Tom C.
From: Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: I'm surprised that this one didn't attract a single bid
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 16:05:21 +0100
Hi,
>> > Anyway we're here to learn not impose idiosyn
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Quasi Modo wrote:
Cory, if I had a buck for everytime I've had people talk lovingly of
older, "quality" glass and end up not being able to cite, then
convincingly explain why, more than three cases of the AF version of a
given lens is inferior to the manual mount, I'd have a lo
Aside: there's at least 1other Australian active in this thread
(although I recall Rob is leaving Pentax...?) - Paxtons (Sydney) is no
longer buying 2nd hand and as such is reducing the prices to clear.
I did see a 135/2.5 of one description (manual, of course) for circa
AUD250 amongst others.
Amen! I can't even explain the joy of using a manual
focus lens with the *istDS. Currently I'm playing
around with it and the Super Takumar 35mm f/3.5
screwmount lens. Granted you have to do one or two
extra steps to get exposure but what I'm shooting at
won't move away and there's no hurry in g
Don the domain name rather gives you away. A brief analysis of the
market opens an opportunity, yes: D/DS have been successful releases
not matched with commensurate lens production/adjustments for crop
factor (+ issues with 35mm lenses at certain focal lengths =>
discontinued production) => shor
Hi,
>> > Anyway we're here to learn not impose idiosyncratic mindsets
>> [...]
have I suddenly been transposed into the PDML of a different,
parallel universe?
--
Cheers,
Bob
et to be 'replaced' in AF versions at an affordable price
> point.
>
> Don
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Quasi Modo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 8:22 AM
> > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> > Subject: Re: I'
Did I say that older lenses are "superior?" I just said there's a market
for them. Some older lenses may be superior to newer glass, but, Anonymous
One, it's necessary to define superior. Different lenses have different
fingerprints, as it were, different optical qualities, and depending on the
s yet to be 'replaced' in AF versions at an affordable price
point.
Don
> -Original Message-
> From: Quasi Modo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 8:22 AM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: I'm surprised that this one didn&#
Let the market decide, Shel. If you want to collect lenses and that
floats your boat, by all means do. But the only delusions are indeed
yours if you think a) they're consistently and noticably superior
optically to their younger AF siblings and b) they're worthy
investments. By all means col
HAR! If you pay much attention to anything this antonymous poster, Quasi
Modo, says, you'd be deluding yourself. Rob Studdert is probably right.
There's still a very strong demand for manual focus lenses throughout the
world, both from users and collectors.
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: C
Cory, if I had a buck for everytime I've had people talk lovingly of
older, "quality" glass and end up not being able to cite, then
convincingly explain why, more than three cases of the AF version of a
given lens is inferior to the manual mount, I'd have a lot more AF
lenses, at current eekbay pri
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Quasi Modo wrote:
Manual lenses = too much hassle in this day and age. We are the
Instant Gratification Generation. If I didn't filter my lens
browsing to auto-focus only I'd be there all day. (I think that
captures the sentiments of ~90% of ppl in the market for Pentax
len
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Quasi Modo wrote:
> Manual lenses = too much hassle in this day and age. We are the
> Instant Gratification Generation. If I didn't filter my lens
> browsing to auto-focus only I'd be there all day. (I think that
> captures the sentiments of ~90% of ppl in the market for P
On 29 Mar 2005 at 23:26, Quasi Modo wrote:
> Manual lenses = too much hassle in this day and age. We are the
> Instant Gratification Generation. If I didn't filter my lens
> browsing to auto-focus only I'd be there all day. (I think that
> captures the sentiments of ~90% of ppl in the market f
Manual lenses = too much hassle in this day and age. We are the
Instant Gratification Generation. If I didn't filter my lens
browsing to auto-focus only I'd be there all day. (I think that
captures the sentiments of ~90% of ppl in the market for Pentax
lenses)
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 23:07:40 +10
SMC PENTAX-A 1:2,8 20mm 5862014
http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=7502833948
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT) +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
88 matches
Mail list logo
