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
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
-
first, a single exposure of anything is taking too many risks. anything important gets
six exposures so that i have six nearly identical originals to send out if i need to
sent originals out. second, what i think is best exposure when i take the picture may
not be what i think is best exposure
bracketing everything is cheap. not having near duplicate originals to send out and
not having different variations to suit different needs is foolish. there is no such
thing as a single perfect exposure of a scene to suit every need.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL
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
- 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
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 aperture. How does that lack
usability?
Oh, that's right! You can't use the internal light meter at the same time
except at the largest aperture only.
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
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
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 no other
claim
than that.
At 12:23 PM 7/4/03 +1000, Anthony Farr
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
Good usability is when a company has the solvency to get a product onto the
store shelves. Bad usability is having no product, and no company, as a
result of clinging to old manufacturing inefficiencies in order to placate a
noisy but financially unrewarding minority of potential customers.
Give
26 matches
Mail list logo
