You're right. I've seen those. But they're not used in place of
galvanizing, but rather in addition to it.
Paul
On Nov 23, 2008, at 8:31 PM, Joseph McAllister wrote:
I was referring to the plastic sheets that are in the wheel wells,
to keep the spray off the back of the headlights, out of
Indeed they are.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of PN Stenquist
Sent: 22 November 2008 01:36
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
These are kind of pretty too:
http://photo.net/photodb/photo
Naturally. And since you're already wishing for the impossible why not also
ask for it to come supplied with a crack team of international whores
dressed in spangly catsuits to stroke your testicles every time you expose a
frame.
Of course I would want a FF M42 DSLR...
JC O'Connell
[EMAIL
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 3:00 PM, Scott Loveless [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/22/08, John Celio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cut me some slack.
You do realize this is the PDML?
Mark!
--
Sandy Harris,
Quanzhou, Fujian, China
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Naturally. And since you're already wishing for the impossible why not also
ask for it to come supplied with a crack team of international whores
dressed in spangly catsuits to stroke your testicles every time you expose a
frame.
No way. Spangles are tacky.
--
On Nov 21, 2008, at 21:52 , P. J. Alling wrote:
drew wrote:
frank theriault wrote:
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're paying 80% of the money for the 20% quality increase you
get over the
competition. Once a certain level of quality is reached, the cost
them.
M42 and Pentax do not have this luxury. No one from the high-end market
segments think of the M42 or K mount systems as being particularly high-end
or worth shelling out the big bucks. Pentax and others have to cater to
people who don't know shit to make a profit. That is the hard truth
From: Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Naturally. And since you're already wishing for the impossible why not also
ask for it to come supplied with a crack team of international whores
dressed in spangly catsuits to stroke your testicles every time you expose a
frame.
Of course I would want a FF M42
On Nov 22, 2008, at 9:43 AM, Joseph McAllister wrote:
... Me too an Aston Martin. ;-)
You guys are pikers...
1937 Cord 812 Phaeton.
Now you're talking!
Loved that gearbox sound...
But I settled for Porsches. :-)
Either a Citroën CV11 or a Bugatti Atalanta Electron SC35 Coupé for
On 11/22/08, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 22, 2008, at 9:43 AM, Joseph McAllister wrote:
... Me too an Aston Martin. ;-)
You guys are pikers...
1937 Cord 812 Phaeton.
Now you're talking!
Loved that gearbox sound...
But I settled for
://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f
- Original Message -
From: John Sessoms [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
From: frank theriault
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Steve Desjardins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This?
http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/bikes/road/madone/madone69pro
The mere mention of Citroen makes my wallet shudder. Head gaskets,
engine rebuilds, yuck.
I guess if I had to choose I might go for a classic, a Mercedes 540K,
but I have a connection, so it''s personal in some ways
Paul
On Nov 22, 2008, at 4:56 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Nov 22, 2008,
Old 'Troons like the CV11 were simple, beautifully made and reliable.
It's the complexity of the ID19 and later models that gave us all fits.
Love 'Troons ... always wanted one but it never happened.
One of my worst jobs as a mechanic was fitting a set of motor mounts
in a DS21, however.
G
2008/11/23 Scott Loveless [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 11/22/08, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 22, 2008, at 9:43 AM, Joseph McAllister wrote:
... Me too an Aston Martin. ;-)
You guys are pikers...
1937 Cord 812 Phaeton.
Now you're talking!
Loved
JC OConnell wrote:
Huh? The whole point of a M42 DSLR is to get the convenience
of the M42 automatic aperture function which WAS invented over
50 years ago. There is no M42 DSLR or DSLR adapter on the market
that enables the M42 lenses to operate fully (yet). That's my point.
This M42 DSLR would
on them.
An M42 body would not be priced or put on market today or in
the future to sell
new M42 lenses, it would be put on the market to allow use the
millions of existing lenses already out there in need
of a DSLR body that supports them fully. It would have
to make money on its own, not be a free
and a straight slot
screwdriver to drive a hole through the cameras, and through the glass
in the lenses. Watch many a Nikon and lenses die in my hands. It was a
good thing.
The same should be done with the old M42 glass if the owner can't sell
it for the price they want, does not have a public
On Nov 21, 2008, at 1:32 AM, keith_w wrote:
Does anyone believe Leica's bodies and lenses justify their obscene
prices, from a manufacturing and assembly cost standpoint?
With no insight into manufacturing and assembly cost standpoint,
having used Leica lenses for thirty plus years ...
I want a job like that.
Cheers,
Destructo Dave
2008/11/21 Joseph McAllister [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
It was my job, when the new stuff arrived, to sit on the loading dock at the
rear of the photolab and use a hammer and a straight slot screwdriver to
drive a hole through the cameras, and through
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 7:00 PM, JC OConnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
you dont understand, the lenses create the market/need for the body,
you dont have to convince the person who would buy this camera to
buy it, they already would want it. At least anyone with extensive
experience with M42
I've an opinion on this too. (Full of 'em tonight! :-D
Does anyone believe Leica's bodies and lenses justify their
obscene prices, from
a manufacturing and assembly cost standpoint? Is there THAT
much labor in either
one?
You're paying 80% of the money for the 20% quality increase
More demand for Auto110 lens usage than M42?
Shirley,You cant be serious.
I am serious, and don't call me Shirley.
It actually has nothing to do with the lenses and everything to do with
size.
These days, consumers want small, smaller and smallest. Back in 2002,
when I started selling
The big problem with a 110-sized DSLR is that small sensors suck. End
of story.
Paul
On Nov 21, 2008, at 4:03 PM, John Celio wrote:
More demand for Auto110 lens usage than M42?
Shirley,You cant be serious.
I am serious, and don't call me Shirley.
It actually has nothing to do
of
story.
Paul
On Nov 21, 2008, at 4:03 PM, John Celio wrote:
More demand for Auto110 lens usage than M42?
Shirley,You cant be serious.
I am serious, and don't call me Shirley.
It actually has nothing to do with the lenses and everything to do with
size.
These days, consumers want
Ooh! I've got it! A Digital Auto 110 with a 4/3 sensor and
interchangeable mounts for 4/3, 110 and M42 lenses. And a little auto
actuator bar thingy for the M42 lenses so JCO will STFU.
On 11/21/08, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But you could make a bloody small camera with a still much
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're paying 80% of the money for the 20% quality increase you get over the
competition. Once a certain level of quality is reached, the cost of making
it even better rises out of proportion to the cost of the baseline, so to
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
If you assume the M3's cost when new was roughly equivalent to the cost new
of an M8.2 today - £3,990 - then it has cost about £80 per year, £1.60 per
week or 23p per day. That's not much for such a nice object. It's a lot
frank theriault wrote:
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're paying 80% of the money for the 20% quality increase you get over the
competition. Once a certain level of quality is reached, the cost of making
it even better rises out of proportion to the cost of
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 10:39 AM, JC OConnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Man, I would die for a basic M42 DSLR at this point.
After reading this whole thread, I have to ask: How soon are you
likely to die? In my opinion, one day building a digital camera from
close to scratch will no longer
The big problem with a 110-sized DSLR is that small sensors suck. End
of story.
Consumers don't know that, nor do the vast majority of them care.
Besides, a 110-sized sensor would still be a lot bigger than the sensors
in normal digital PS cameras.
John
--
http://www.neovenator.com
If I had the money, I know what I'd be driving...
And that would be
An inquiring mind would like to know. ;+)
Kenneth Waller
http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f
- Original Message -
From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
On Fri, Nov 21
On 11/21/08, frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I read somewhere that if one took the money equivalent of an M3 in
1953 (the year it was introduced) and invested it into a very
conservative investment vehicle, that note would be worth many times
the cost of a used 1953 M3 (unless of
I'd rather use the M42 lenses for landfill than placate the incessant
noise.
But no, I was out shooting a little while ago, Pentax Fish-Eye-Takumar
17mm f/4 on M42-FourThirds adapter, and having a good time with it. I
don't need an aperture actuator or screw mount body ... either
On Nov 21, 2008, at 2:03 PM, Scott Loveless wrote:
You can pick up a functional M3 right now for well under $1000US. I'd
have to sell almost all my Pentax gear to get an M3 and a single 50mm
lens. And sometimes I think I just might do that.
An Epson R-D1 traded on Ebay this week for $1200
This?
http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/bikes/road/madone/madone69pro/
;-)
If I had the money, I know what I'd
be driving...
cheers,
frank
--
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Steven Desjardins
Department of Chemistry
Washington and Lee University
Lexington, VA
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Steve Desjardins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This?
http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/bikes/road/madone/madone69pro/
Nah, more like this:
http://www.colnago.com/pistaENG.html
;-)
cheers,
frank
--
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
--
PDML
On 11/21/08, Steve Desjardins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This?
http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/bikes/road/madone/madone69pro/
You don't need nine grand for that. You need fifty bucks for bolt cutters.
--
Scott Loveless
New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, USA
http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/
On 21/11/08, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed:
I'd rather use the M42 lenses for landfill than placate the incessant
noise.
I've been looking in this thread. Had to happen.
Mark!
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http
After reading this whole thread, I have to ask: How soon are you
likely to die?
Mark!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Cymen Vig
Sent: 21 November 2008 22:01
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet
Bob W wrote:
Keith Whaley wrote:
I've an opinion on this too. (Full of 'em tonight! :-D
Does anyone believe Leica's bodies and lenses justify their
obscene prices, from
a manufacturing and assembly cost standpoint? Is there THAT
much labor in either
one?
You're paying 80% of the money
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 09:59:10PM +, drew wrote:
frank theriault wrote:
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're paying 80% of the money for the 20% quality increase you get over the
competition. Once a certain level of quality is reached, the cost of making
[...]
Thanks to one and all for the insight and opinion. After all,
that's why we are
here, no?
and this is probably the best looking and most desirable camera I've ever
seen:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/aperture64/2739236380/
Bob
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
On Nov 21, 2008, at 3:33 PM, Bob W wrote:
and this is probably the best looking and most desirable camera I've
ever
seen:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/aperture64/2739236380/
Lovely stuff. Some yutz will probably paint it with Krylon because it
looks icky and worn.
G
--
PDML
Scott Loveless wrote:
Ooh! I've got it! A Digital Auto 110 with a 4/3 sensor and
interchangeable mounts for 4/3, 110 and M42 lenses. And a little auto
actuator bar thingy for the M42 lenses so JCO will STFU.
Quote of the year contender, I'd say...
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML
The pedals are missing. (I'll have to hide these posts from Debbie.
She's the bicycle fan)
frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/21/2008 5:39 PM
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Steve Desjardins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This?
http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/bikes/road/madone/madone69pro/
You can pick up a nice IIIf or IIIc for $400. Add a Summicron 50/2
Collapsible for another $400 or so, and you have a highly functional
and quite beautiful camera.
Paul
(who shot almost exclusively with his IIIf RD and Summicron for a year
or so-- a great experiende)
On Nov 21, 2008, at
These are kind of pretty too:
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2870904
On Nov 21, 2008, at 6:33 PM, Bob W wrote:
[...]
Thanks to one and all for the insight and opinion. After all,
that's why we are
here, no?
and this is probably the best looking and most desirable camera I've
From: JC OConnell
you dont understand, the lenses create the market/need for the body,
you dont have to convince the person who would buy this camera to
buy it, they already would want it. At least anyone with extensive
experience with M42 lenses would.
The camera manufacturers make
From: Joseph McAllister
John, I was in the Navy back in the 60s. When a new version of a lens
or camera came out and was listed in the catalog of new gear, we
bought it.
It was my job, when the new stuff arrived, to sit on the loading dock
at the rear of the photolab and use a hammer and
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 5:03 AM, John Celio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
More demand for Auto110 lens usage than M42?
Shirley,You cant be serious.
I am serious, and don't call me Shirley.
Shirley, you jest.
It actually has nothing to do with the lenses and everything to do with
size
From: Scott Loveless
Ooh! I've got it! A Digital Auto 110 with a 4/3 sensor and
interchangeable mounts for 4/3, 110 and M42 lenses. And a little auto
actuator bar thingy for the M42 lenses so JCO will STFU.
I don't know about that, but wouldn't it be awful easy to make a
full-frame sensor
From: frank theriault
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Steve Desjardins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This?
http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/bikes/road/madone/madone69pro/
Nah, more like this:
http://www.colnago.com/pistaENG.html
$9,000 and it don't even come with pedals.
If I had money, I
On Nov 21, 2008, at 17:46 , John Sessoms wrote:
From: Joseph McAllister
John, I was in the Navy back in the 60s. When a new version of a
lens or camera came out and was listed in the catalog of new gear,
we bought it.
It was my job, when the new stuff arrived, to sit on the loading
dock
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Bob W
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 3:06 PM
To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'
Subject: RE: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
I've an opinion on this too. (Full of 'em tonight! :-D
Does anyone believe Leica's bodies
Yeah, M42 lenses can do FF digital! (24x36mm).
JC O'Connell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
PN Stenquist
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 4:19 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet
: Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're paying 80% of the money for the 20% quality increase you get
over the competition. Once a certain level of quality is reached, the
cost of making it even better rises out of proportion
Of course I would want a FF M42 DSLR...
JC O'Connell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Cymen Vig
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 5:01 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
On Wed, Nov
the differences in the finer things in
life pay/play the game.
JC O'Connell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
John Celio
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 5:01 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: RE: ANY M42 DSLR rumors
O'Connell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Scott Loveless
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 5:03 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
On 11/21/08, frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
5:24 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
I'd rather use the M42 lenses for landfill than placate the incessant
noise.
But no, I was out shooting a little while ago, Pentax Fish-Eye-Takumar
17mm f/4 on M42-FourThirds adapter, and having a good time
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
John Francis
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 6:30 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 09:59:10PM +, drew wrote:
frank theriault wrote:
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008
of
profitability for years now, compared to Canon and other brands that cater
to all market segments and have been doing well. Leica, Hasselbad and
others survive because they have the strongest reputations and professionals
swear by them, causing advanced amateurs to covet them.
M42
demand for Auto110 lens usage than M42?
Shirley,You cant be serious.
I am serious, and don't call me Shirley.
It actually has nothing to do with the lenses and everything to do with
size.
These days, consumers want small, smaller and smallest. Back in 2002,
when I started selling cameras
Stenquist wrote:
The big problem with a 110-sized DSLR is that small sensors suck. End
of story.
Paul
On Nov 21, 2008, at 4:03 PM, John Celio wrote:
More demand for Auto110 lens usage than M42?
Shirley,You cant be serious.
I am serious, and don't call me Shirley.
It actually has nothing to do
drew wrote:
frank theriault wrote:
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're paying 80% of the money for the 20% quality increase you get
over the
competition. Once a certain level of quality is reached, the cost of
making
it even better rises out of proportion
Geez John, a 110 sized sensor wouldn't be that much smaller than a
current 4:3 system sensor, (doesn't anyone look anything up anymore?)
John Celio wrote:
The big problem with a 110-sized DSLR is that small sensors suck. End
of story.
Consumers don't know that, nor do the vast majority
Oh, yea, I forgot to add, supercharged...
P. J. Alling wrote:
drew wrote:
frank theriault wrote:
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're paying 80% of the money for the 20% quality increase you get
over the
competition. Once a certain level of quality is
Geez John, a 110 sized sensor wouldn't be that much smaller than a
current 4:3 system sensor, (doesn't anyone look anything up anymore?)
I was writing from work, didn't have the time. Cut me some slack.
John
--
http://www.neovenator.com
http://www.cafepress.com/neovenatorphoto
--
PDML
On 11/22/08, John Celio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cut me some slack.
You do realize this is the PDML?
--
Scott Loveless
New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, USA
http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to
Yessir.
:-D
Cheers,
Dave
2008/11/20 Bob Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Dave,
You're wrestling in the mud with pigs...
Stop it now.
Regards, Bob S.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the
Bob Sullivan wrote:
Dave,
You're wrestling in the mud with pigs...
You're being generous, Bob!
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
if supply was huge and market (demand)so thin, they would have been dirt cheap.
but they are not
best,
mishka
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 7:16 PM, David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, the supply of old M42 lenses is huge. The market for them is small.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML
Most M42 lenses cost under $100 on the used market. That ain't dirt cheap?
-Adam
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Mishka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if supply was huge and market (demand)so thin, they would have been dirt
cheap.
but they are not
best,
mishka
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 7:16
-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
Most M42 lenses cost under $100 on the used market. That ain't dirt
cheap?
-Adam
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Mishka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if supply was huge and market (demand)so thin, they would have been
dirt cheap
, November 20, 2008 1:41 PM
To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'
Subject: RE: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
cheap is relative. for something in the millions still
out there and no supposed demand, they are too high!
JC O'Connell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto
John, you are never going to be happy with digital photography. I think
you need to come to grips with that. There will never be an M42 dSLR
for one simple reason: it would not be profitable. Camera companies
make the majority of their profits on lenses and accessories, and with
millions of M42
[..]
One
would be hard
pressed to convince current and future camera buyers that a
camera based
on technolgy from 50 years ago is in any way superior to
modern designs.
Ahem...
http://uk.leica-camera.com/photography/m_system/m8/
However, I do agree that nobody is going to build a DSLR
of old tech turning a big profit.
John
--
http://www.neovenator.com
http://www.cafepress.com/neovenatorphoto
Original Message
Subject: RE: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
From: Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, November 20, 2008 2:15 pm
To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' pdml@pdml.net
More to the point: The Leica M-bayonet lens mount has been in current
production on lenses since 1953 by its original vendor. The Practika-
Pentax screw mount for auto-iris lenses has been obsoleted,
effectively, for over thirty years even though a couple of third-party
vendors still make
M mount in its current incarnation is also the most advanced
successful RF mount. While it hasn't evolved much since 1953 (Only the
addition of 6 digit lens coding with the M8 introduction) it is
arguably the current state of the art. Attempts to launch newer, more
advanced RF mounts have
Contax G-System mount never made it to third party lens vendors at
all. That whole camera line was only in production for a few years.
There are more current lenses in Contax rangefinder mount than in
Contax G-System mount ... !
G
On Nov 20, 2008, at 2:11 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
M mount in
you dont understand, the lenses create the market/need for the body,
you dont have to convince the person who would buy this camera to
buy it, they already would want it. At least anyone with extensive
experience with M42 lenses would.
Regarding the mechanism, its very simple, no more complex
Huh? The whole point of a M42 DSLR is to get the convenience
of the M42 automatic aperture function which WAS invented over
50 years ago. There is no M42 DSLR or DSLR adapter on the market
that enables the M42 lenses to operate fully (yet). That's my point.
This M42 DSLR would fill a demand
Theres more M42 lenses in circulation than Leica will ever
make.
JC O'Connell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Godfrey DiGiorgi
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 5:01 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: ANY
] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JC
OConnell
Sent: Friday, 21 November 2008 9:08 AM
To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'
Subject: RE: ANY M42 DSLR rumors (yet)?
Huh? The whole point of a M42 DSLR is to get the convenience
of the M42 automatic aperture function which WAS invented over
50 years ago
This M42 DSLR would fill a demand that already exists
What makes you think this demand exists? Just because Pentax sold an awful
lot of M42 lenses over the years doesn't mean that there are thousands or
millions of people, or however many are needed to constitute a viable
market, yearning
, 2008, at 16:07 , JC OConnell wrote:
Huh? The whole point of a M42 DSLR is to get the convenience
of the M42 automatic aperture function which WAS invented over
50 years ago. There is no M42 DSLR or DSLR adapter on the market
that enables the M42 lenses to operate fully (yet). That's my point
NO, YOU ARE JUST CLUELESS TO THE QUALITY AND QUANTITY OF
SUPERB M42 LENSES MADE BY PENTAX AND OTHERS. But if the
auto aperture feature is not supported on any DSLRS
it cripples them FUBAR from a user standpoint. If supported
these lense are pleasure and easy to use and offer incredible
image
are interested in
starting a new thread here...
(Note the mention of the Pentax Auto 110, please)
Joseph McAllister
Lots of gear, not much time
On Nov 20, 2008, at 16:33 , Bob W wrote:
This M42 DSLR would fill a demand that already exists
What makes you think this demand exists? Just because
screwdriver to drive a hole through the cameras, and through the glass
in the lenses. Watch many a Nikon and lenses die in my hands. It was a
good thing.
The same should be done with the old M42 glass if the owner can't sell
it for the price they want, does not have a public collection of
Pentax
of like an M42
dSLR, except an Auto110 dSLR might actually sell slightly better, due
entirely to its small size.
John
(hey, how about a digital HIT camera?)
--
http://www.neovenator.com
http://www.cafepress.com/neovenatorphoto
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman
More demand for Auto110 lens usage than M42?
Shirley,You cant be serious.
JC O'Connell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
John Celio
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 1:59 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: ANY
Man, I would die for a basic M42 DSLR at this point.
All I would need on it was the M42 screw mount, basic stop down metering
a shutter speed dial , a built in flash, and the little
pad to activate the auto aperture M42 lens pin at moment
of exposure. No need for AE or AF(obviously). Even 6-10Mp
Well, if there is no interest in adding a simple aperture coupler to an
existing DSLR so pre-A lenses can be full functional, I doubt that anyone
bothers to market such a M42 thing
Oh, no, did I pronounce the forbidden words???
Splas !!!
(Jaume becomes an ugly toad)
- Mensaje
was allegedly a serious attempt at a 10mp basic digital SLR, but
sadly that project also seems dead if they had made it, it was
expected to be K mount rather than M42 as later Zenits were/are.
Shame really, I would love a simple match needle or LED DSLR... no
screen, no modes, just the basics. Set your
On 11/19/08, drew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shame really, I would love a simple match needle or LED DSLR... no screen,
no modes, just the basics. Set your film speed, W/B, aperture and shutter
speed. Personally I wouldn't want a built in flash, I never had a problem
using an accessory flash
Scott Loveless wrote:
On 11/19/08, drew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shame really, I would love a simple match needle or LED DSLR... no screen,
no modes, just the basics. Set your film speed, W/B, aperture and shutter
speed. Personally I wouldn't want a built in flash, I never had a problem
using
But you can do that with a current DSLR. Just put it in manual focus
and manual exposure modes and turn off the review. I sometimes work
that way.
I cut my photographic teeth 35 years ago with all manual equipment. Im
not particular nostalgic about those times, and I don't gush about old
There will be no M42 DSLRs. Tough.
G
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
And, I'm sure, for a significantly cheaper price than a camera that
will only appeal to a tiny fraction of the market for a regular DSLR.
Less may or may not be more, but it's certainly going to cost more.
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 02:51:17PM -0500, PN Stenquist wrote:
But you can do that with
201 - 300 of 1105 matches
Mail list logo
