Re: Lens optimized for nonexistent camera

2011-12-16 Thread Joseph McAllister
On Dec 12, 2011, at 05:26 , P. J. Alling wrote: > On 12/12/2011 3:41 AM, Larry Colen wrote: >> On Dec 12, 2011, at 12:40 AM, Larry Colen wrote: >> >>> On Dec 11, 2011, at 10:24 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: >>> I take it that it's specially designed for the MZ-D, (or K-1 as it was rebrande

Re: Lens optimized for nonexistent camera

2011-12-12 Thread John Francis
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 01:48:26PM -0500, Mark Roberts wrote: > John Francis wrote: > > >My PZ-1p has exactly the same set of contacts as my K-5. > > > >The digital signals flowing over the signal path may be different, > >but the physical electrical interface is the same. > > Are there digital s

Re: Lens optimized for nonexistent camera

2011-12-12 Thread Mark Roberts
John Francis wrote: >My PZ-1p has exactly the same set of contacts as my K-5. > >The digital signals flowing over the signal path may be different, >but the physical electrical interface is the same. Are there digital signals involved? My understanding has always been that the PZ contacts never s

Re: Lens optimized for nonexistent camera

2011-12-12 Thread John Francis
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:45:46AM -0500, John Sessoms wrote: > From: "P. J. Alling" > > >On 12/12/2011 8:44 AM, John Sessoms wrote: > >>>On Dec 12, 2011, at 12:40 AM, Larry Colen wrote: > >>> > On Dec 11, 2011, at 10:24 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: > > >I take it that it's specially desig

Re: Lens optimized for nonexistent camera

2011-12-12 Thread John Francis
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 08:44:09AM -0500, John Sessoms wrote: > >On Dec 12, 2011, at 12:40 AM, Larry Colen wrote: > > > >>On Dec 11, 2011, at 10:24 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: > >> > >>>I take it that it's specially designed for the MZ-D, (or K-1 as > >>>it was rebranded by Pentax marketing in Japan or

Re: Lens optimized for nonexistent camera

2011-12-12 Thread John Sessoms
From: "P. J. Alling" On 12/12/2011 8:44 AM, John Sessoms wrote: On Dec 12, 2011, at 12:40 AM, Larry Colen wrote: On Dec 11, 2011, at 10:24 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: I take it that it's specially designed for the MZ-D, (or K-1 as it was rebranded by Pentax marketing in Japan or maybe somebody

Re: Lens optimized for nonexistent camera

2011-12-12 Thread P. J. Alling
On 12/12/2011 8:44 AM, John Sessoms wrote: On Dec 12, 2011, at 12:40 AM, Larry Colen wrote: On Dec 11, 2011, at 10:24 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: I take it that it's specially designed for the MZ-D, (or K-1 as it was rebranded by Pentax marketing in Japan or maybe somebody else). What I don't u

Re: Lens optimized for nonexistent camera

2011-12-12 Thread John Sessoms
On Dec 12, 2011, at 12:40 AM, Larry Colen wrote: On Dec 11, 2011, at 10:24 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: I take it that it's specially designed for the MZ-D, (or K-1 as it was rebranded by Pentax marketing in Japan or maybe somebody else). What I don't understand is why the optical stabilization w

Re: Lens optimized for nonexistent camera

2011-12-12 Thread John Sessoms
From: Larry Colen On Dec 11, 2011, at 10:24 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: I take it that it's specially designed for the MZ-D, (or K-1 as it was rebranded by Pentax marketing in Japan or maybe somebody else). What I don't understand is why the optical stabilization would not work with film DSLRs.

RE: Lens optimized for nonexistent camera

2011-12-12 Thread John Sessoms
From: Igor Roshchin It's kind of funny: This description of Sigma 70-200/2.8 (for Pentax!) says that the lens is "Optimized for Pentax Full-Frame DSLRs": http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/833526-REG/Sigma__70_200mm_f_2_8_EX_DG.html/ Also, I wonder, if there is indeed and optical stabilizer

Re: Lens optimized for nonexistent camera

2011-12-12 Thread P. J. Alling
On 12/12/2011 3:41 AM, Larry Colen wrote: On Dec 12, 2011, at 12:40 AM, Larry Colen wrote: On Dec 11, 2011, at 10:24 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: I take it that it's specially designed for the MZ-D, (or K-1 as it was rebranded by Pentax marketing in Japan or maybe somebody else). What I don't un

Re: Lens optimized for nonexistent camera

2011-12-12 Thread Larry Colen
On Dec 12, 2011, at 12:40 AM, Larry Colen wrote: > > On Dec 11, 2011, at 10:24 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: > >> I take it that it's specially designed for the MZ-D, (or K-1 as it was >> rebranded by Pentax marketing in Japan or maybe somebody else). > > What I don't understand is why the optical

Re: Lens optimized for nonexistent camera

2011-12-12 Thread Larry Colen
On Dec 11, 2011, at 10:24 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: > I take it that it's specially designed for the MZ-D, (or K-1 as it was > rebranded by Pentax marketing in Japan or maybe somebody else). What I don't understand is why the optical stabilization would not work with film DSLRs. > > On 12/12/

Re: Lens optimized for nonexistent camera

2011-12-11 Thread P. J. Alling
I take it that it's specially designed for the MZ-D, (or K-1 as it was rebranded by Pentax marketing in Japan or maybe somebody else). On 12/12/2011 12:50 AM, Igor Roshchin wrote: It's kind of funny: This description of Sigma 70-200/2.8 (for Pentax!) says that the lens is "Optimized for Pentax

Lens optimized for nonexistent camera

2011-12-11 Thread Igor Roshchin
It's kind of funny: This description of Sigma 70-200/2.8 (for Pentax!) says that the lens is "Optimized for Pentax Full-Frame DSLRs": http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/833526-REG/Sigma__70_200mm_f_2_8_EX_DG.html/ Also, I wonder, if there is indeed and optical stabilizer in the Pentax version.