On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Steven Desjardins drd1...@gmail.com wrote:
They made it because it was easy and there are some who will take
great delight in picking up a $50 M50.17 at KEH and have it be a
really fast lens with a 275 fov. Even at that, it still won't be that
big and you
On 9/13/2011 12:36 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
You might consider taking that approach when you disagree with my
histrionics in the future.
BTW, I've never read Walt Gilbert's comments in the past, he's not
participated in any useful way in this discussion between me and
Anthony Farr, so he
To me, high-ISO performance and dynamic range are paramount and are the
single most important feature in choosing a SLR these days. Here are some
typical pictures I had to take two days ago:
ISO 12,800, FA 24-90mm @ 35mm f/4, 1/13s:
www.dariobonazza.com/public/K5_23830x.jpg
As you can see, above
On 9/13/2011 12:21 AM, Dario Bonazza wrote:
To me, high-ISO performance and dynamic range are paramount and are the
single most important feature in choosing a SLR these days. Here are some
typical pictures I had to take two days ago:
ISO 12,800, FA 24-90mm @ 35mm f/4, 1/13s:
This is a big problem facing manufacturers. Some folks never shoot at
those isos and don't want to pay, either in money or size/weight, to
have that capacity. OTOH, it makes sense for many enthusiasts to have
a DSLR and a MSC for the appropriate occasions. What is miss most
when using my mu43
Dario, I'm not participating of the high ISO discussion, but those
first two shots are awesome.
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 3:21 AM, Dario Bonazza
dario.bona...@virgilio.it wrote:
To me, high-ISO performance and dynamic range are paramount and are the
single most important feature in choosing a SLR
The fact that some people desperately need/want higher sensitivity
cameras to achieve the photographs they want to make is not in
question.
The statement I made is that the *obsession* with ultra-high
sensitivity as single point of focus for whether a camera is good or
bad is ridiculous. I stand
Ditto and ditto!
On 11-09-13 10:29 AM, Fernando wrote:
Dario, I'm not participating of the high ISO discussion, but those
first two shots are awesome.
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 3:21 AM, Dario Bonazza
dario.bona...@virgilio.it wrote:
To me, high-ISO performance and dynamic range are paramount
Larry Colen wrote:
I photograph a lot of dancers in low light, fortunately they seem to move
slower than the ones that you photograph.
I usually shoot performers, rather than dancers. In this case, she was doing
a roll.
And often you are allowed to use flash, it seems.
ISO 10,000, DA*
Steven Desjardins wrote:
This is a big problem facing manufacturers. Some folks never shoot at
those isos and don't want to pay, either in money or size/weight, to
have that capacity.
There are plenty of cameras where pixel count prevail against dynamic range
and high-ISO performance. 99%
Fernando wrote:
Dario, I'm not participating of the high ISO discussion, but those
first two shots are awesome.
ISO 12,800, FA 24-90mm @ 35mm f/4, 1/13s:
www.dariobonazza.com/public/K5_23830x.jpg
As you can see, above shooting data were not enough for freezing action
and
getting the subject
with everything,
especially the last sentence ;-)
Dario
- Original Message -
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi gdigio...@gmail.com
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 5:13 PM
Subject: Re: When high ISO performance matters (was: Pentax K-Q adapter
andsuch
Tritto!
Dario
- Original Message -
From: Bruce Walker bruce.wal...@gmail.com
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 5:20 PM
Subject: Re: When high ISO performance matters (was: Pentax K-Q adapter
andsuch)
Ditto and ditto!
On 11-09-13 10:29
You'd think the different camera approach would work, but companies
are afraid of creating a camera that sacrifices high iso performance
for some other feature and then have the reviews clobber them for not
having high iso performance.
I would really like high iso performance because sometimes I
I'm sorry, Steven, but I can't find a reference to what MSC stands
for. Can you elucidate? Thanks!
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Steven Desjardins drd1...@gmail.com wrote:
You'd think the different camera approach would work, but companies
are afraid of creating a camera that sacrifices
On 2011-09-13 01:21 , Dario Bonazza wrote:
To me, high-ISO performance and dynamic range are paramount and are the
single most important feature in choosing a SLR these days. Here are some
typical pictures I had to take two days ago:
cool examples; i am still in the old world equipment-wise,
On Sep 13, 2011, at 8:54 AM, Dario Bonazza wrote:
Larry Colen wrote:
I photograph a lot of dancers in low light, fortunately they seem to move
slower than the ones that you photograph.
I usually shoot performers, rather than dancers. In this case, she was doing
a roll.
And often you
Mirrorless System Camera. Sorry, I thought I had written it out at
some point but I didn't. It's the acronym that BH has settled on for
mu43, Nex, etc.
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi gdigio...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sorry, Steven, but I can't find a reference to what MSC
On Sep 13, 2011, at 8:13 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
The fact that some people desperately need/want higher sensitivity
cameras to achieve the photographs they want to make is not in
question.
The statement I made is that the *obsession* with ultra-high
sensitivity as single point of
On 11-09-13 2:51 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
for some reason in low light even my K-5 has a really tough time
focusing the Sigma 20/1.8. Which is annoying because I got it because
I needed a fast/wide lens for low light.
I believe this is a generic focusing issue, ie not limited to Pentax.
steve harley wrote:
as an example of this going the other way i note your later message that
focus is your next most important factor after ISO/d-range, but you don't
elaborate ... in my case i have almost abandoned autofocus -- not just
macro work but most of my shooting now relies on manual
Great work, Dario!
HIgh ISO performance and low noise are important to me as well. What's more,
the low noise levels of the K5 also yields a better image at ISOs as low as
400. As I'm sure you know, excellent noise control isn't all about low light
shooting.
Paul
On Sep 13, 2011, at 3:21 AM,
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Dario Bonazza
dario.bona...@virgilio.it wrote:
steve harley wrote:
as an example of this going the other way i note your later message that
focus is your next most important factor after ISO/d-range, but you don't
elaborate ... in my case i have almost
Here are some 'old' new pics in the same series:
1/13s is not enough for freezing action during a roll:
www.dariobonazza.com/public/K5_23830x.jpg
(ISO 12,800, FA 24-90mm @ 35mm f/4, 1/13s)
Then I tried a slightly higher speed, thanks to higher ISO:
www.dariobonazza.com/public/K5_23835x.jpg
Anthony Farr wrote:
The rest of the world may be irrelevant to you, but it's relevant to
the rest of the world. Hell, you're in the rest of the world from
where I stand.
Mark!
Dario
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to
Sure thing, it doesn't bother me. Then again my hide is a bit thicker
than some of the delicate souls on this list.
This is why I blame Larry for everything by default.
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 9:31 PM, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote:
On Sep 11, 2011, at 6:01 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On 9/11/2011 10:32 PM, Ken Waller wrote:
Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
- Original Message - From: Godfrey DiGiorgi
gdigio...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Pentax K-Q adapter and an OT rant about corporate silliness
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 8:28 PM
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 4:22 PM, P. J. Alling
webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote:
Often Godfrey seems to believe that the world revolves around him. I guess
we're all guilty of that, but Godfrey often seems to be less self aware,
especially when feelings begin to run high.
What always perplexes
On 12 September 2011 06:01, Bruce Walker bruce.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11-09-11 1:07 PM, Anthony Farr wrote:
Here's a photograph with some serious shadow banding:
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/UZHmptXW4qsffklRS3lX_aAuqTB9pnndhHCi9-Fvgfs?feat=directlink
Here's my repair:
On 13 September 2011 10:15, Godfrey DiGiorgi gdigio...@gmail.com wrote:
What always perplexes me is why you and so many others prefer to talk
about me rather than the subject I'm trying to have a discussion with
someone about.
It doesn't matter what they say as long as they're talking about
On 9/12/2011 8:15 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 4:22 PM, P. J. Alling
webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote:
Often Godfrey seems to believe that the world revolves around him. I guess
we're all guilty of that, but Godfrey often seems to be less self aware,
especially when
On 13 September 2011 10:57, P. J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/12/2011 8:15 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 4:22 PM, P. J. Alling
webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote:
Often Godfrey seems to believe that the world revolves around him. I
guess
we're all
On 9/12/2011 7:15 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 4:22 PM, P. J. Alling
webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote:
Often Godfrey seems to believe that the world revolves around him. I guess
we're all guilty of that, but Godfrey often seems to be less self aware,
especially when
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 5:57 PM, P. J. Alling
webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote (in part):
Unfortunately Godfrey your opinion is often the subject. You expand your
desires to cover the whole world and contract the desires of others to cover
only themselves making your opinion the only correct
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
Godfrey DiGiorgi
[...]
Overall, though, this obsession with ultra high ISO settings and the
desire for noiseless results is, to me, utter and complete nonsense.
Mark!
And I kind of agree with you. It's always seemed to
On 11 September 2011 18:31, Bob W p...@web-options.com wrote:
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
Godfrey DiGiorgi
[...]
Overall, though, this obsession with ultra high ISO settings and the
desire for noiseless results is, to me, utter and complete
On 11 September 2011 16:31, Bob W p...@web-options.com wrote:
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
Godfrey DiGiorgi
[...]
Overall, though, this obsession with ultra high ISO settings and the
desire for noiseless results is, to me, utter and complete
On Sep 11, 2011, at 1:19 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Anthony Farr farranth...@gmail.com wrote:
I couldn't find a camera with the 10MP Panasonic sensor that could
reach iso6400. Olympus 410 and above, 510 and above and the Panasonic
DMC-L10 all top out at
regards, Anthony
Of what use is lens and light
to those who lack in mind and sight
(Anon)
On 11 September 2011 15:19, Godfrey DiGiorgi gdigio...@gmail.com wrote:
Easy to obtain higher ISOs: set the highest and underexpose by the
On 11 September 2011 21:31, Anthony Farr farranth...@gmail.com wrote:
regards, Anthony
Of what use is lens and light
to those who lack in mind and sight
(Anon)
Please forgive me for starting with my sig. It was but a simple cut
paste
David Savage wrote:
I actually use the D700's high ISO a lot (many of my star shots make
use of that cameras capabilities), so for me the desire for low noise
@ high ISO isn't complete nonsense.
Actually, I was about to mention you as an example of someone who
really does need and use high ISO.
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 6:41 AM, Mark Roberts m...@robertstech.com wrote:
David Savage wrote:
I actually use the D700's high ISO a lot (many of my star shots make
use of that cameras capabilities), so for me the desire for low noise
@ high ISO isn't complete nonsense.
Actually, I was about to
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 4:31 AM, Anthony Farr farranth...@gmail.com wrote:
But I don't see that it's about obsession with speed, it's about
defining a camera's limits of performance. It's not like the
good ole days when we could throw a faster film into a camera
on spec, if a digital camera
BTW, Anthony, why are you debating about low-end Olympus DSLRs on the
PDML list?
--
Godfrey
godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com
--
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
On 12 September 2011 00:21, Godfrey DiGiorgi gdigio...@gmail.com wrote:
BTW, Anthony, why are you debating about low-end Olympus DSLRs on the
PDML list?
--
Dario mused that he'd like to see an m43 MILC with a Sony sensor. He
expressed the view that Sony's superior sensor technology would blow
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 6:41 AM, Mark Roberts m...@robertstech.com wrote:
David Savage wrote:
I actually use the D700's high ISO a lot (many of my star shots make
use of that cameras capabilities), so for me the desire for low noise
@ high ISO isn't complete nonsense.
On 12 September 2011 00:20, Godfrey DiGiorgi gdigio...@gmail.com wrote:
I've never seen this shadow banding stuff, or at least I don't
recognize what you mean. Can you provide an example?
You'r very lucky to have never seen it. Google has heard of it.
You'll find plenty of references there.
On 12 September 2011 01:25, John Sessoms jsessoms...@nc.rr.com wrote:
All *obsession* is ridiculous ... except for my own of course.
Exactly. Obsession is a character flaw in other people. I, on the
other hand, am passionate about certain matters.
regards, Anthony
Of what use is lens
On 12 September 2011 00:20, Godfrey DiGiorgi gdigio...@gmail.com wrote:
There were never any 35mm films with ISO 800 or above that were as
grainless as most people obsessed with ultra high ISO sensitivity seem
to want to see these days. Nearly any DSLR class sensor camera made
since 2004
On Sep 10, 2011, at 10:19 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Overall, though, this obsession with ultra high ISO settings and the
desire for noiseless results is, to me, utter and complete nonsense.
I only ever use my computer to write plain ASCII text, so this desire for fast
clocks speeds and
On 11-09-11 3:18 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
On Sep 10, 2011, at 10:19 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Overall, though, this obsession with ultra high ISO settings and the
desire for noiseless results is, to me, utter and complete nonsense.
I only ever use my computer to write plain ASCII text, so
On 11-09-11 1:07 PM, Anthony Farr wrote:
On 12 September 2011 00:20, Godfrey DiGiorgigdigio...@gmail.com wrote:
I've never seen this shadow banding stuff, or at least I don't
recognize what you mean. Can you provide an example?
You'r very lucky to have never seen it. Google has heard of it.
From: Bruce Walker
On 11-09-11 3:18 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
On Sep 10, 2011, at 10:19 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Overall, though, this obsession with ultra high ISO settings and the
desire for noiseless results is, to me, utter and complete nonsense.
I only ever use my computer to write plain
I really don't care much what Google has heard of. I just want to see
what the issue is.
Sorry, trying to look at a JPEG image at this size is just about
useless to see shadow banding ... I can't see anything from
comparing the unprocessed image to the processed one with these tools
other than
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 12:16 PM, Anthony Farr farranth...@gmail.com wrote:
That was then and this is now. I'm not comparing my camera's
performance against film in 2001, I'm comparing it against its direct
competitors sold at the same time.
So why was this reference to film brought up at
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote:
I only ever use my computer to write plain ASCII text, so this desire for
fast clocks speeds and graphical interfaces, to me, utter and complete
nonsense.
So stick with a Linux or UNIX system running in the terminal. Why
On 12 September 2011 09:43, Godfrey DiGiorgi gdigio...@gmail.com wrote:
I really don't care much what Google has heard of. I just want to see
what the issue is.
I suggested Google to illustrate that it was a known issue, not
something I'd invented for the sake of an argument.
Sorry, trying to
On Sep 11, 2011, at 5:04 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote:
I only ever use my computer to write plain ASCII text, so this desire for
fast clocks speeds and graphical interfaces, to me, utter and complete
nonsense.
So stick
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Anthony Farr farranth...@gmail.com wrote:
That was an unanticipated consequence of the permissions that I'd set
for this album. The direct links to the pictures don't let you
navigate away from them to other restricted pictures. If you want to
toggle between
Wow. Another escalation of tangental rhetoric.
if you look at the mu43 forums or rumor sites, you do see some that
have elevated the high iso issue to the former status of MP. It can
be pretty maddening simply because they can't see past it. Of course
it matters for most and for some it's
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote:
... Oh come on Godfrey, you know that wasn't meant as an attack.
The way you wrote it could be considered an ad hominem attack. As long
as you want to comment on my writing style, I'll comment on yours, ok?
... your writing
On Sep 11, 2011, at 6:01 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote:
... Oh come on Godfrey, you know that wasn't meant as an attack.
The way you wrote it could be considered an ad hominem attack. As long
as you want to comment on my
Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
- Original Message -
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi gdigio...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Pentax K-Q adapter and an OT rant about corporate silliness
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Anthony Farr farranth...@gmail.com wrote:
I
I really don't care much what Google has heard of. I just want to see
what the issue is.
Mark !
Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
- Original Message -
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi gdigio...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Pentax K-Q adapter and an OT rant about
On 12 September 2011 09:55, Godfrey DiGiorgi gdigio...@gmail.com wrote:
So why was this reference to film brought up at all? Films have not
changed substantively since 1996 or so.
Now, now, Godfrey, you're not trying to mess with my mind are you?
You brought up the subject of comparison with
On 12 September 2011 10:51, Godfrey DiGiorgi gdigio...@gmail.com wrote:
Is the version of Camera Raw that you are using running process 2010
or process 2003 code? That could be the issue you're seeing. The
Camera Raw raw conversion routines were significantly improved with
the introduction of
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Anthony Farr farranth...@gmail.com wrote:
... It's my opinion that the Panasonic 10MP 4/3 sensor, with its poor
low-light performance, was the weak link in full sized FourThirds
cameras. At least when Kodak made DSLR sensors there was competition
and choice,
They made it because it was easy and there are some who will take
great delight in picking up a $50 M50.17 at KEH and have it be a
really fast lens with a 275 fov. Even at that, it still won't be that
big and you just throw it in a bag and pull it out on occasion. Anyone
who buys this camera is
On 11 September 2011 06:27, Godfrey DiGiorgi gdigio...@gmail.com wrote:
It's an interesting opinion being that no Micro-FourThirds cameras
were ever made with the 10Mpixel sensor, all were the 12.3Mpixel
sensor.
Actually, that was my point as well. I wrote,
They didn't make that mistake a
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Anthony Farr farranth...@gmail.com wrote:
I couldn't find a camera with the 10MP Panasonic sensor that could
reach iso6400. Olympus 410 and above, 510 and above and the Panasonic
DMC-L10 all top out at iso1600. The Olympus E-3 tops out at iso3200,
but its
On 09/09/2011 01:07, William Robb wrote:
On 08/09/2011 3:16 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:
On 9/8/2011 3:38 PM, William Robb wrote:
On 08/09/2011 1:25 PM, Sam L wrote:
Yet I have never seen anything quite as retarded. It is a little
bit like mounting a race engine to a bicycle.
If you bought
From: Sam L
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 3:46 AM, Dario Bonazza dario.bona...@virgilio.it wrote:
Just to see how it looks:
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/20110905_475272.html
Dario
Obviously pentax has to make an adapter from K to Q mount.
Yet I have never seen anything quite as retarded.
William Robb wrote:
I'm gonna play the Devil's Advocate for a moment.
You are certainly stating the obvious regarding size, but what is
perhaps getting lost is the usability of said package. I'd happily be
proven wrong, but tossing a NEX sized camera onto the back of a sizable
lens, say an
Just to see how it looks:
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/20110905_475272.html
Dario
--
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.
On Sep 8, 2011, at 12:46 AM, Dario Bonazza wrote:
Just to see how it looks:
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/20110905_475272.html
Impressive, the way that it makes the DA40 look big:
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/img/dcw/docs/475/272/html/004.jpg.html
Actually, the DA40 isn't big,
On 8 September 2011 17:46, Dario Bonazza dario.bona...@virgilio.it wrote:
Just to see how it looks:
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/20110905_475272.html
Dario
What a hoot!
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/img/dcw/docs/475/272/html/005.jpg.html
Good luck hand-holding that combo. Anyone
I wrote:
Anthony Farr wrote:
What a hoot!
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/img/dcw/docs/475/272/html/005.jpg.html
Good luck hand-holding that combo. Anyone know the crop factor for the Q?
5x, hence the DA 40mm acts as a 200mm at least!
While the soon-to-be-announced Nikon should be
On 8 September 2011 20:27, Dario Bonazza dario.bona...@virgilio.it wrote:
I wrote:
Anthony Farr wrote:
What a hoot!
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/img/dcw/docs/475/272/html/005.jpg.html
Good luck hand-holding that combo. Anyone know the crop factor for the Q?
5x, hence the DA 40mm acts
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 09:46:20AM +0200, Dario Bonazza wrote:
Just to see how it looks:
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/20110905_475272.html
Hmm.
What's the set of numbers 7654321 0 on the knurled ring?
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 08:01:33PM +1000, Anthony Farr wrote:
On 8 September 2011 17:46, Dario Bonazza dario.bona...@virgilio.it wrote:
Just to see how it looks:
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/20110905_475272.html
Dario
What a hoot!
That may be fine. The diffraction limit for that small a sensor might
be arount 2.8-4
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 2:13 PM, John Francis jo...@panix.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 08:01:33PM +1000, Anthony Farr wrote:
On 8 September 2011 17:46, Dario Bonazza dario.bona...@virgilio.it wrote:
On 9 September 2011 04:13, John Francis jo...@panix.com wrote:
And that's a DA lens, so there's no aperture ring. And with no digital
communication between the body and the camera, you're stuck with manual
focus at full aperture :-(
Here's the Bing translation of the relevent text,
But
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 3:46 AM, Dario Bonazza dario.bona...@virgilio.it wrote:
Just to see how it looks:
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/20110905_475272.html
Dario
Obviously pentax has to make an adapter from K to Q mount.
Yet I have never seen anything quite as retarded. It is a
On 08/09/2011 1:25 PM, Sam L wrote:
Yet I have never seen anything quite as retarded. It is a little
bit like mounting a race engine to a bicycle.
If you bought the Q, you wanted a small camera. If you mount anything
but a Q (or similar tiny lens),
then your camera is no longer small.
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 03:25:05PM -0400, Sam L wrote:
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 3:46 AM, Dario Bonazza dario.bona...@virgilio.it
wrote:
Just to see how it looks:
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/20110905_475272.html
Dario
Obviously pentax has to make an adapter from K to Q
The ring marked 0-7 is probably a manual stop down ring. But even with
that this is an extraordinarily silly proposition.
On 9/8/2011 2:13 PM, John Francis wrote:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 08:01:33PM +1000, Anthony Farr wrote:
On 8 September 2011 17:46, Dario Bonazzadario.bona...@virgilio.it
On 9/8/2011 3:38 PM, William Robb wrote:
On 08/09/2011 1:25 PM, Sam L wrote:
Yet I have never seen anything quite as retarded. It is a little
bit like mounting a race engine to a bicycle.
If you bought the Q, you wanted a small camera. If you mount anything
but a Q (or similar tiny
On Sep 8, 2011, at 2:16 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:
On 9/8/2011 3:38 PM, William Robb wrote:
On 08/09/2011 1:25 PM, Sam L wrote:
Yet I have never seen anything quite as retarded. It is a little
bit like mounting a race engine to a bicycle.
If you bought the Q, you wanted a small
On 08/09/2011 1:25 PM, Sam L wrote:
Yet I have never seen anything quite as retarded. It is a little
bit like mounting a race engine to a bicycle.
If you bought the Q, you wanted a small camera. If you mount anything
but a Q (or similar tiny lens),
then your camera is no longer small.
On 08/09/2011 3:16 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:
On 9/8/2011 3:38 PM, William Robb wrote:
On 08/09/2011 1:25 PM, Sam L wrote:
Yet I have never seen anything quite as retarded. It is a little
bit like mounting a race engine to a bicycle.
If you bought the Q, you wanted a small camera. If you
On 08/09/2011 4:15 PM, Tom C wrote:
On 08/09/2011 1:25 PM, Sam L wrote:
Yet I have never seen anything quite as retarded. It is a little
bit like mounting a race engine to a bicycle.
If you bought the Q, you wanted a small camera. If you mount anything
but a Q (or similar tiny lens),
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 7:07 PM, William Robb
anotherdrunken...@gmail.com wrote:
Except that the whole world is cumming in their pants over the NEX.
That explains all the floods we're having.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to
92 matches
Mail list logo
