- Original Message -
From: "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I suspect, but could be wrong of course, that the MZ-S is the last "gift" to
people using older K-mount gear in conjunction with newer AF gear. With the
MZ-5/n/3 they gave us the cheap alternative. With the MZ-S they gaves us the
Joshua wrote:
The conversion from the LX to the MZS should be no problem as you demonstrate and
testify. If you look at the two cameras they are laid out in the same fashion: shutter
"wheel" in the same spot on both bodies; compensation dial in the same spot; aperture
still controlled the same.
Mike wrote:
As the one who pointed the spacing issue out first, I feel obliged to
note that it was a pre-production model and I was assured that the
software glitch was rectified before production commenced. Anyone who
had the problem with a model sold to them needs to consult their
retailer.
- Original Message -
From: Caveman
Subject: Re: Lens Mount Progress !!
> What you described is called "consistency". For "accuracy" you need to
> refer to the difference between the real value and the one indicated
by
> the meter.
Accuracy is the part wh
- Original Message -
From: Paul Stenquist
Subject: Re: Lens Mount Progress !!
> My LX, with the ISO resistor upgrade, has never failed to meter
> correctly. Perhaps I'm just lucky. Some of my Spotmatics get a little
> iffy now and again. But, like me, they're getting
- Original Message -
From: Anthony Farr
Subject: Re: Vs: Vs: Lens Mount Progress
> Oh, I see now.
>
> Other rangefinders are just as expensive as Leicas, unless someone
actually
> proves that they're not. In which case Leicas are so much more
> expensive becau
Of course, the M5 is a rather weird camera. It was not very popular.
Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto
- Original Message -
From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 9:06 PM
Subject:
Exactly Joshua...
Vic
In a message dated 6/23/03 4:17:17 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>The conversion from the LX to the MZS should be no problem as you
>demonstrate and testify. If you look at the two cameras they are laid
>out in the same fashion: shutter "wheel" in the same spot on both
>
frank theriault wrote:
>I was planning on selling my CL, which had been in the shop for almost
6 months. I got it back (finally had the $$ for the bill) almost two
weeks ago. I got back my first roll last week. The sharpness and
beautiful contrast of that little lens is palpable. That combine
on 6/23/03 9:29 AM, tom at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Lon Williamson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>> Mebbe what we ought to do is place an MZ-S in TV's hands for
>> 6 months (if he doesn't have one) and get a report back.
>> That would settle build quality
I wasn't comparing M bodies with the CL. I was merely pointing out that some "Leica
owners" (as if we're all the same!) aren't buying a Leica "because it's more
expensive".
I was trying to refute Herb's position, and here's his quote: "a person who wants a
Leica doesn't want anything remotely le
I looked at some old Leicas because I love cameras, and Leicas are so
much a part of the history of photography. I bought one because I fell
in love with the beautiful metalwork, the solid feel of the mechanics,
and the whisper of the shutter.
Paul
Back is not that bad, although plastic. Actually ou will find plastic back
on Nikon F100 too. Real problem could be latch pin - it is only one and
could eventually break badly treated - in F100 there are two of them for
security.
Seems to be a common problem for most plastic backs, including the Z-
Hi, Herb,
My info was slightly inaccurate, as it appears that about 65,000 Leica badged CL's
were produced, with a few more Minolta or Leica/Minolta badged CL's produced for the
Japanese market. That figure (65,000) is about twice as many as the M series produced
during the time the CL was sol
On 23 Jun 2003 at 18:13, Herb Chong wrote:
> what were the total unit sales of the M bodies at the time? there are several
> instances of retailing products where raising the price increased sales. to
> charge this much, they must have something. that's cachet, invented or real.
> Honda discovered
Herb Chong wrote:
>
> i have to point out that my standard of comparison is the
FA* 80-200 f2.8.
Thanks Herb, understood.
John
- Original Message -
From: "Artur Ledóchowski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Actually if a photographer is unable to take sharp pics, no brand name
will
> help him - be it Canon or Pentax. 45-points AF is built into the top class
> bodies only. Mid class stuff has up to 7 points (EOS 30/33/Elan
On 23 Jun 2003 at 5:41, Steve Larson wrote:
> The 50/1 designation just looks so weird when you are used to seeing
> 50/1.2, 50/1.4 etc. Awesome glass! OK, I admit it, I`m a Leica wannabe.
> BTW, are you going Canon?
Only time will tell, I'll be a little more decisive at the end of August I
gues
Artur Ledóchowski wrote:
>
> What the hell?! All I said was the MZ-S is overpriced!
Nothing more!
Artur,
I agree.
Pentax UK appear to agree with you too; the best "street"
price
of the MZ-S is now almost exactly half the Pentax UK list
price.
It was overpriced at GBP 1099.99, but I will probab
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Vs: Vs: Lens Mount Progress
> them, grow to love them.. Those who don't appreciate them go buy a fully
loaded
> clone or a fully loaded sport-ute or a Canon with 45 eye-focus points and
then
> they go
Hi,
Monday, June 23, 2003, 7:44:26 PM, you wrote:
> are they still using them as their primary camera?
yes, a great many of them are. Tom Stoddart does, so do people like Dario
Mitidieri, Claus Bjorn Larsen, Kai Wiedenhofer, Joachim Ladefoged - all
fairly young, all recent winners of World Press
/~raikorho
-Alkuperäinen viesti-
Lähettäjä: Anthony Farr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Päivä: 23. kesäkuuta 2003 19:07
Aihe: Re: Vs: Vs: Lens Mount Progress
>Oh, I see now.
>
>Other rangefinders are just as expensive as L
You are probably aware that after you stated that Leica cameras use
Zeiss lenses, your credibility level in what concerns Leica is 0.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Less than there used to be, and now mostly in documentary photography. It also tends to be older photographers who have been using them a
Less than there used to be, and now mostly in documentary photography. It also tends
to be older photographers who have been using them a very long time. When you've used
a camera so long that you don't have to think about working the controls and it's
quiet and descrete, it becomees the non-cam
TED]>
Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 8:10 PM
Subject: Re: Vs: Vs: Lens Mount Progress
> The Leica says Leica on the front. The Leica uses Zeiss lenses. When you
> understand what these two things mean the comparison is over.
incidentally, that is a fine description of cachet. you use X because famous Y uses X.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: "Bob Walkden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 14:15
Subject: Re: Vs: Vs: Lens
are they still using them as their primary camera?
Herb
- Original Message -
From: "Bob Walkden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 14:15
Subject: Re: Vs: Vs: Lens Mount Progress
> that must be why
Hi,
Monday, June 23, 2003, 5:09:07 PM, you wrote:
> i can. a person who wants a Leica doesn't want anything remotely less in cost.
I have 2 Leica Ms. I'd like another, and I'd have been very happy indeed if
they cost a lot less money.
> that is what cachet does. cost is in of itself a feature.
ginal Message -
From: "Raimo Korhonen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, 24 June 2003 3:42 AM
Subject: Vs: Vs: Vs: Lens Mount Progress
> Actually there was the assertion that the other current rangefinders have
prices close to Leica´s. That
And you have sunk to his level, which is exactly what he was seeking.
Pål Jensen wrote:
> Oh give me a break! You have been insulting this whole forum the last couple of
> weeks by claiming people that disagree with you are "measurebators", liars, cheats,
> pretenders, snapshooters, not able to
://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
-Alkuperäinen viesti-
Lähettäjä: Anthony Farr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Päivä: 23. kesäkuuta 2003 18:35
Aihe: Re: Vs: Vs: Lens Mount Progress
>Well, if you're compiling a list of cameras that
Well, if you're compiling a list of cameras that aren't Leicas, then I
suppose only one camera marque is disqualified from inclusion.
I believe Raimo was listing a few cameras that fulfil the same function as a
Leica. But I wasn't aware that actually BEING a Leica was a requisite.
regards,
Antho
Pål Jensen wrote:
REPLY:
A meter is designed to assign whatever it is metering to a calibrated value.
Seems that you have some serious problems with the definition of a
meter. If you are against dictionaries, please feel free to use for the
scope of this discussion *the* reference: "Internationa
3 09:26
Subject: Re: Vs: Vs: Lens Mount Progress
> Have Minolta released a new line of Himatics? Are they available with
> interchangeable lenses?
>
> If the answer is no to just one of those questions, I don't see how a
> Himatic could rank with the group mentioned.
>
> regards,
> Anthony Farr
Get your facts straight again.
1) "measurbator" is about people obsessed with 100% accurate metering;
I've noticed only one until now
2) I have used the word "liar" only once, in this context:
"I read a lot of "pro" advice and discussion about how it should
actually be "rated" at 40, and how Fu
on 23.06.03 16:29, tom at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I had 2 of them for about a year, they didn't break. I think it's a
> solid camera except for the back.
Back is not that bad, although plastic. Actually ou will find plastic back
on Nikon F100 too. Real problem could be latch pin - it is only on
Rob wrote:
It's rock solid, I haven't subjected it to a good soaking yet but it's still a
baby.
REPLY:
It is the most brick-like of any Pentax 35mm camera. According to the engineers it has
the most rigid body of all Pentaxes ever.
Pål
d the only thing that got
FUBAR'ed was the grid screen when I scrapped it while putting it in. I'm not
directing my comments to anyone in particular BTW.
Feroze
- Original Message -
From: "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monda
if you believe that these are reasonable substitutes, i have a Minolta Himatic that
should fall into these categories too.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: "Raimo Korhonen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 03:23
Subject:
Alan, I'm afraid your last remark betrays exactly how much you know about
the MZ-S.
I have never said I know the MZ-S. I simply raise some questions.
I won't even bother to comment upon your second-hand and negative
points,
Why not? Is that question not fair?
By all means carry on comparing spec
Looks to me like the Canadian agent wants to earn more from reselling an
MZ-S than Pentax Corp earns by building them. Politely put it's the tail
wagging the dog. Bluntly put, the agent is being a greedy parasite. It's
the same everywhere, unfortunately :-(
- Original Message -
From: "
f that does have it. It won't make you a better
photographer, only your eye and talent will do that.
Rant over, I feel better now...
John Coyle
Brisbane, Australia
- Original Message -
From: "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday,
It's survived two falls in the space of six months without skipping a beat
-
that's build quality.
I remember someone here mentioned a MZ-? was dropped from the roof and it
survived. It isn't no MZ-S. That's quality.
It does everything it should every time - that's build quality.
There were cons
TED]>
Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Päivä: 23. kesäkuuta 2003 2:07
Aihe: Re: Vs: Vs: Lens Mount Progress
>all other rangefinder cameras are close to Leica's price.
>
>Herb
>- Original Message -
>From: "Lukasz Kacperczyk" <[EMA
t;
Päivä: 23. kesäkuuta 2003 2:08
Aihe: Re: Vs: Vs: Lens Mount Progress
>The Leica says Leica on the front. The Leica uses Zeiss lenses. When you
>understand what these two things mean the comparison is over.
>
>BR
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Well, we seem to be do
On 23 Jun 2003 at 13:12, jcoyle wrote:
> It's survived two falls in the space of six months without skipping a beat -
> that's build quality. It does everything it should every time - that's build
> quality. It's completely consistent from frame to frame - that's build quality.
> It doesn't have a
ane, Australia
- Original Message -
From: "Lon Williamson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 2:30 AM
Subject: Re: Vs: Vs: Lens Mount Progress
> I am one of those who feel that build quality is worth paying
> for, and may therefor
On 22 Jun 2003 at 22:43, Bruce Rubenstein wrote:
> No, I know working photographers who just prefer a Leica rangefinder
> over anything else. There is also the issue of the look of Leitz lenses.
> Many people who have the money for a Leica have no need to brag about
> how much they have. I thin
On 22 Jun 2003 at 22:43, Bruce Rubenstein wrote:
> No, I know working photographers who just prefer a Leica rangefinder
> over anything else. There is also the issue of the look of Leitz lenses.
> Many people who have the money for a Leica have no need to brag about
> how much they have. I thin
Herb Chong wrote:
is a $500 Gucci bag better than a knockoff at $100? yes. i can tell the difference too. is it worth five times as much? that is a different question. is a Leica close to 10 times better than my ZX-5n? definitely not. is it even twice as good? that is a much harder question to answ
CTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 22:43
Subject: Re: Vs: Vs: Lens Mount Progress
> You might just be surprised. Take one to Paris next time you're there. Don't
> expect it to improve your natural landscape photography though.
>
On 22 Jun 2003 at 21:37, Herb Chong wrote:
> but then you are not looking for a Leica. women like Gucci handbags.
> photographers like Leica's. i wouldn't mind having a nice M7, but i am sure that
> it will not help me take better pictures. that is my first priority. a Leica is
> for bragging righ
No, I know working photographers who just prefer a Leica rangefinder
over anything else. There is also the issue of the look of Leitz lenses.
Many people who have the money for a Leica have no need to brag about
how much they have. I think it's really envy on the part of the have-nots.
BR
[EMA
build? i decided it made no difference. i
spent the money on lenses.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: "Paul Stenquist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 18:06
Subject: Re: Vs: Vs: Lens Mount Progress
> But a Leica is als
- Original Message -
From: "Caveman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 22:04
Subject: Leica & Gucci (Re: Vs: Vs: Lens Mount Progress)
> There was a nice test some years ago about that. A sample of women was
> asked to
Alan,
You get no points at all, not even partial credit... A price is
reasonable and not excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory if
it is an actuarially sound estimate of the expected value of all costs
associated with the production and sale of the merchandise.
cheers,
caveman
Alan
My father used a screwmount Leica as a "tie tack" and a Spotmatic for taking
pictures - go figure:-)
Bob
- Original Message -
From: "Paul Stenquist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 8:06 AM
Subject: Re: Vs: Vs: Lens M
Herb Chong wrote:
a Leica is for bragging rights about "how seriously i take my photography".
>
But a Leica is also a wonderful machine. If one tales delight in the
camera as a machine, then a Leica is the ultimate goal. And the classic
Leicas may well be the most rewarding. Take a iiif or a ii
The Leica says Leica on the front. The Leica uses Zeiss lenses. When you
understand what these two things mean the comparison is over.
BR
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, we seem to be doing a lot of comparison with the MZS to Nikon or
Canon. But take a look at the Leica R9.
all other rangefinder cameras are close to Leica's price.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: "Lukasz Kacperczyk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 18:39
Subject: Re: Vs: Vs: Lens Mount Progress
> > i was looking fo
Hi Lon,
Well worth the price (which was U$D1400). Ergonomically excellent, don't
like the back cover very much though. Seems very flimsy, like its gonna pop
off at any moment. Dosn't feel the same as the rest of the camera, almost
like it was designed after the fact. Mind you its pretty curvaceous
Time to order one from Japan. :-)
regards,
Alan Chan
i was looking for a $500 street price Pentax body and the MZ-S is spec'd
like the competition's $500 street price bodies at $800 street price.
_
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection
This doesn't necessarily constitutes a comercial success. It may be made of
whatever you can imagine - if the price is not competitive, nobody will buy
it except for a few hobbyists.
There is the manufacturing cost, and then there is the demand-supply factor.
I guess we could not determine if it w
Not true at all! You claim that the MZ-S is overpriced as if it was a fact,
when in reality you simply means that you don't want to pay that kind of
money for that camera. Thats OK. However, you won't find any better built
and better specified 35mm slr cheaper than the MZ-S. It is the cheapest
Some people on the PDML seem to go blindly furious whenever any one says
anything against the MZ-S. They forget the context and attack such person
as
if everything was a personal matter. There's no place for a normal exchange
of opinions - one is allowed only to constantly repeat words of praise f
Quality costs. The MZ-S is probably the most durable camera you can buy
under $1500. Features, especially electronic features, cost almost nothing.
Though it is my experience that 90% of the people can not tell the
difference. The other 10% will appreciate the MZ-S very much.
Quality does cost mone
- Original Message -
From: "Raimo Korhonen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Vs: Vs: Vs: Lens Mount Progress
> But you have not used either. Your opinions should be classified under
educated guesses, at best.
My opinions are as good as those of the people who are about t
i have to point out that my standard of comparison is the FA* 80-200 f2.8.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: "whickersworld" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 16:25
Subject: Sigma 15-30mm (was: Lens Mount Progress
Aren't you the guy that said that 100% can mean 99% or any other figure.
"Insane" was the first word that came to my mind.
It is also insane to claim that a meter can be 100% accurate, and do
that in 10 messages in a row, without blinking.
Your obstination in trying to insult me is remarkable.
-Alkuperäinen viesti-
Lähettäjä: Bob Walkden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Vastaanottaja: Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Päivä: 22. kesäkuuta 2003 21:04
Aihe: Re: VS.: Lens Mount Progress
>Hi,
>
>Sunday, June 22, 2003, 7:51:18 PM, you wrote:
>
>> Hi
>> I shoot (for private use
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Päivä: 22. kesäkuuta 2003 20:10
Aihe: Re: Vs: Vs: Lens Mount Progress
>- Original Message -
>From: "Raimo Korhonen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Vs: Vs: Vs: Lens Mount Progress
>
>> OK, how many rolls have you pu
Herb Chong wrote:
>
> mine has been OK optically. it is not as sharp as i would
like in the corners, but it is not bad.
Thanks Herb,
That seems to be the consensus among users of this lens.
"OK optically".
I remember reading at least two magazine reviews where it
appeared to be
a stellar perfor
day, June 22, 2003 08:46
Subject: Re: Vs: Vs: Lens Mount Progress
> Both of you seem not to get the point. I have NEVER bashed the MZ-S for
> anything except its too high price. My point was that if one is about to
> make his choice about an advanced camera, usually compares features and
&
--- Original Message -
From: "Bruce Rubenstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 3:05 AM
Subject: Re: Lens Mount Progress
> You can't test one camera to determine the designed MTBF of the shutter.
> For a manufacturer, a shut
Hi,
Sunday, June 22, 2003, 7:51:18 PM, you wrote:
> Hi
> I shoot (for private use) appr. 1 roll of film a week.
> If the shutter lasts 100.000 cycles, it would last me appr. 50 years!
> Pretty good, eh? That's is if I don't fire it without having loaded the
> camrea with film - which I do frequen
> -Original Message-
> From: Jens Bladt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> Hi
> I shoot (for private use) appr. 1 roll of film a week.
> If the shutter lasts 100.000 cycles, it would last me appr.
> 50 years!
> Pretty good, eh?
It would last me approximately 1 year! Pretty crappy, eh?
tv
Fra: Bruce Rubenstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 22. juni 2003 03:06
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: Re: Lens Mount Progress
You can't test one camera to determine the designed MTBF of the shutter.
For a manufacturer, a shutter designed for 100,000 cycles means that
very few would
- Original Message -
From: "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Vs: Vs: Lens Mount Progress
> It is you who don't get the point that built quality costs and for many it
is worth paying for. I can fully understand that not all want to pay extra
for built
- Original Message -
From: "Raimo Korhonen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Vs: Vs: Vs: Lens Mount Progress
> OK, how many rolls have you put through the Dynax and how many through
MZ-S?
None.
But I have the constant access to the Dynax 7 as my best friend uses it and
s
Carlos wrote:
Other ones haven't jumped ship yet, but seem to argue for the sake of
it.
REPLY:
It is not a case of arguing for the sake of it. It is a case of denigrating anything
the said person don't use in order to justify what he do use. In this way any argument
for using this or that fea
Caveman wrote:
All in order to have a sane argument.
REPLY:
You have been using this term "sane" or "sane discussion/argument" several times
during the last couple of weeks. I wonder why?
For anyone who have followed the various threads you have been involved with
recently, it is obvious tha
Raimo Korhonen wrote:
No, I have not had the pleasure. How many films have you put through one? And through MZ-S?
All the best!
Raimo
That's a good question, Raimo. It's interesting to observe how some
people who have never used a MZ-S are bashing it, and praising other
cameras, that they have
On 21 Jun 2003 at 23:42, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I completely disagree. The MZ-S is an outstanding camera, very much in the same
> class as the LX. Understated, features photographers can use, and very well
> built. If you have never used one you wouldn't know just how good they are. I
> got on
I completely disagree. The MZ-S is an outstanding camera, very much in the
same class as the LX. Understated, features photographers can use, and very well
built. If you have never used one you wouldn't know just how good they are. I
got one today and can't believe how outstanding it is. It is m
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 21 Jun 2003 at 13:39, Pål Jensen wrote:
> Since then Pentax strategy in DSLR has changed: now they
> target the entry level DSLR segment with the *ist D and will make medium
format
> digital solutions for the professional
On 21 Jun 2003 at 13:39, Pål Jensen wrote:
> Since then Pentax strategy in DSLR has changed: now they
> target the entry level DSLR segment with the *ist D and will make medium format
> digital solutions for the professional segment.
Brilliant strategy, Pentax marketing strikes again :-(
Rob St
You can't test one camera to determine the designed MTBF of the shutter.
For a manufacturer, a shutter designed for 100,000 cycles means that
very few would fail before 100,000 cycles. It would all depend on how
similar one shutter would be in terms of manufacturing/process tolerance
and what p
iault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 1:54 PM
Subject: Re: Lens Mount Progress
> I wouldn't put much stock in what CR says about slr's, or any other piece
of
> photographic equipment.
>
> I recall many years ago, they test
- Original Message -
From: "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Vs: Lens Mount Progress
> In terms of features, no doubt Minolta 7 wins the game. But in terms of
> built quality, I have yet to strip down a MZ-S to be certain. You can't
> judge the
- Original Message -
From: "Caveman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Vs: Lens Mount Progress
> DMF (Direct Manual Focus) Mode (Custom 22-2) -
Also the excellent, bright viewfinder, DOF value display, last-4-films
exposure data storage (with the option to plug in an
John wrote:
But what sets Pål apart from others here is that he seems
constantly
to confuse his opinions with fact. When Pål is reporting
fact, he is
clear and concise and almost always right. But he would do
well to
realise that his opinions are just that; his opinions.
I must admit to envy; I
Caveman wrote:
There's no meter with 100% accuracy. If you didn't know that, you're entitled to ask
for a refund for your physics courses. It might allow for buying a new lens or
something.
REPLY:
As usual this is one of your anal retentive (did anyone use the word measurbator?),
wild goose ch
Alan Chan wrote:
>
> I know this will make a lot of people "not happy", but the
latest Japan CAPA
> June magazine didn't compared the MZ-S to any F5/EOS1v/9
(1st group), or
> F100/EOS3/N1 (2nd group). And you know what? They compared
it to other mid
> end bodies F80/EOS7/7/NX (3rd group), yet still
mine has been OK optically. it is not as sharp as i would like in the corners, but it
is not bad.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: "whickersworld" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 11:34
Subject: Re: Lens Mount Progress
On Sat, 21 Jun 2003, Caveman wrote:
> It also mentions impossible things like "Absolute accuracy in focusing
> and metering" and "The flexibility to suit any purpose and any
> photographer". For the shutter they just say "the high performance
> shutter puts the emphasis on reliability and accu
Alan Chan wrote:
>
> You will never get the full story from consumer report
because it takes time
> to show the weakness of certain products. For instances,
some Sigma lenses
> scored well in test reports but degrade quickly
mechanically.
Alan,
I don't know anyone who has bought a Sigma lens tha
Caveman wrote:
>
>Just marketing talk (that also inspired
>Paal with the "100% accurate metering" claim).
Exactly. I've learnt a lot from many people on here,
including Pål.
But what sets Pål apart from others here is that he seems
constantly
to confuse his opinions with fact. When Pål is repo
IL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 7:54 AM
Subject: Re: Lens Mount Progress
I wouldn't put much stock in what CR says about slr's, or any other piece
of
photographic equipment.
I recall many years ago, they tested stereo turntables. They basically
said,
CR caters to P. T. Barnum's favorite customers.
Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto
- Original Message -
From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 7:54 AM
Subject: Re: Lens Mount Progr
There's no meter with 100% accuracy. If you didn't know that, you're
entitled to ask for a refund for your physics courses. It might allow
for buying a new lens or something.
cheers,
caveman
Pål Jensen wrote:
Caveman wrote:
Just marketing talk (that also inspired Paal with the "100% accurate me
1 - 100 of 174 matches
Mail list logo
