- Original Message -
From: "Luigi de Guzman"
Subject: Re: *istD EOL...
But if it comes up from the US (or in from
anywhere else, for that matter), it's subject to duty.
Man. NAFTA was supposed to do away with that, wasn't it?
Luigi, please treat NAFTA the same wa
Great analogy.
Bob Blakely wrote:
When you realize that if you create an image of a distant 60 foot tree
on your film, develop that film, put it back in the camera (with the
back open) and shine a light through it, you will project the 60 foot
tree back on itself, then you will understand that i
d the
direction the light is going.
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 4:56 PM
Subject: Re: Astrophotography (was Re: *istD EOL...)
I find telescope eyepieces work pretty much as intuition suggests;
a "stronger" e
On Friday 14 January 2005 11:35, frank theriault wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 11:17:19 -0500, Luigi de Guzman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > On Wednesday 12 January 2005 11:12, Graywolf wrote:
> > > VAT?
> >
> > Again, unless the Iron Chancellor has made Canon DSLRs VAT-exempt, this
> > wouldn't m
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 11:17:19 -0500, Luigi de Guzman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 12 January 2005 11:12, Graywolf wrote:
> > VAT?
>
> Again, unless the Iron Chancellor has made Canon DSLRs VAT-exempt, this
> wouldn't make a difference. Something else is going on.
>
> -Luigi
It's lik
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 19:56:34 -0500 (EST), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I find telescope eyepieces work pretty much as intuition suggests;
> a "stronger" eyepiece increases the magnification of the image.
> A far more interesting question, to my mind, is why that isn't the
> case in photography.
I find telescope eyepieces work pretty much as intuition suggests;
a "stronger" eyepiece increases the magnification of the image.
A far more interesting question, to my mind, is why that isn't the
case in photography.
Bob Blakely mused:
>
> Ok, the analogy using "light levers" didn't work. Let'
OK, that's what I started to conclude must be the answer. Thank you.
Tom C.
From: "Bob Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To:
Subject: Re: Astrophotography (was Re: *istD EOL...)
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:29:13 -0800
Ok, the analogy using "
Thanks for the replies. I'm still not sure I understand the focal length
magnification thingy, so I guess I'll have to draw some ray diagrams.
I'll try to "shoot the moon" when I next get a chance. It's a bit chilly and
windy at night at the moment.
Nick
Ok, the analogy using "light levers" didn't work. Let's try again...
Nothing is working opposite to expectations. One lens, the objective lens,
is working in one direction with light coming in from the distant object at
the *distant* focal point to the image on the other side of the lens at its
fication. What
makes it work opposite of what one (I) would expect?
I know this is a basic optics question that I'm just not too embarrassed
to ask.
Tom C.
From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To:
Subject: Re: Astrophotography (was Re:
At 6:28 PM + 1/12/05, Nick Clark wrote:
I got a telescope for Christmas with a camera adaptor. I've not had
much chance to play with it yet but was quite impressed with its
power the first couple of times I used it. It's a Telstar 900
I assume that this is the focal length of the mirror?
x114
.
the eyepiece then magnifies that fixed plane.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 9:09 PM
Subject: Re: Astrophotography (was Re: *istD EOL...)
> OK, I understand the math and don't disagree, but
t?
I know this is a basic optics question that I'm just not too embarrassed to
ask.
Tom C.
From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To:
Subject: Re: Astrophotography (was Re: *istD EOL...)
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 20:48:29 -0500
short focal l
-
From: "Nick Clark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 1:28 PM
Subject: Astrophotography (was Re: *istD EOL...)
> I got a telescope for Christmas with a camera adaptor. I've not had much
chance to play with it yet but was quite impressed with its power t
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 18:28:39 -, Nick Clark wrote:
> Strangely the moon is even larger when using the shorter focal
> length 4mm eyepiece, which I haven't quite worked out yet.
If I understand it correctly, the magnification of the image you see
will be the focal length of the scope divided by
Think of the lenses as simple, one element lenses. Think of the center of
the lenses as fulcrums (pivot points) of a "light lever" too. If the
eyepiece has a short focal length, the distance from the image in the
telescope to the lens "fulcrum" is short. The distance from the lens
"fulcrum" to
Bob wrote:
Think of it like a lever. The objective is focusing the image in the air
inside the telescope's tube. The longer the focal length, the larger this
image (like a camera lens). The eyepiece is used like a magnifying glass to
view this image "in the ether". The shorter the focal length o
overhead now, and it's rings are tilted so as to be quite spectacular.
Regards,
Bob...
- Original Message -
From: "Nick Clark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 10:28 AM
Subject: Astrophotography (was Re: *istD EOL...)
I got a telescope for
or their
price from Pentax Japan?
Nick
-Original Message-
From: "Peter J. Alling"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 12/01/05 02:20:30
To: "pentax-discuss@pdml.net"
Subject: Re: *istD EOL...
Pentax's English distributor strikes again.
lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 11/01/05 23:45:05
To: "pentax-discuss@pdml.net"
Subject: Re: *istD EOL...
Bruce,
I'm curious why the shop people thought the Digital Rebel was junk. Was it
based on look and feel ? What about image quality?
I
I think Canon are discounting quite heavily. The Pentax is GBP20 cheaper than
the D70, but nowhere near the Canon.
Nick
-Original Message-
From: "Herb Chong"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 12/01/05 00:12:25
To: "pentax-discuss@pdml.net"
Subject: Re: *
On Wednesday 12 January 2005 11:12, Graywolf wrote:
> VAT?
Again, unless the Iron Chancellor has made Canon DSLRs VAT-exempt, this
wouldn't make a difference. Something else is going on.
-Luigi
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005, Graywolf wrote:
> Luigi de Guzman wrote:
> > On Wednesday 12 January 2005 05:44, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
> >
> >>On Tue, 11 Jan 2005, Herb Chong wrote:
> >>
> >>>given that the US list price for the *istDs and the 300D are almost the
> >>>same and the street price is nearl
VAT?
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---
Luigi de Guzman wrote:
On Wednesday 12 January 2005 05:44, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005, Herb Chong wrote:
given that the US list price for the *istDs and the 300D are
If that is a Ritz I understand they give their salesfolk a bigger spiff on the
D70 than any of the others. There is a lot more going on than which is the best
camera. My understanding is that at least Pentax is making enough istDs's to
push them. They weren't pushing the istD because they were s
On Wednesday 12 January 2005 10:36, Peter J. Alling wrote:
> Taxes and Greed.
I don't see "taxes" as a valid reason--unless there are some shady deals,
Canon would have to pay the same taxes, unless for some reason there's an
anti-Pentax tax (er, perhaps a PenTax?) in force.
When I lived in Br
Taxes and Greed.
Luigi de Guzman wrote:
On Wednesday 12 January 2005 05:44, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005, Herb Chong wrote:
given that the US list price for the *istDs and the 300D are almost the
same and the street price is nearly so, what's up with the UK
distributor?
On Wednesday 12 January 2005 05:44, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005, Herb Chong wrote:
> > given that the US list price for the *istDs and the 300D are almost the
> > same and the street price is nearly so, what's up with the UK
> > distributor?
>
> You hit it on the head Herb. Pe
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005, Herb Chong wrote:
> given that the US list price for the *istDs and the 300D are almost the same
> and the street price is nearly so, what's up with the UK distributor?
You hit it on the head Herb. Pentax is really overpriced in the UK.
Kostas
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:20:30 -0500, Peter J. Alling wrote:
>Pentax's English distributor strikes again.
>
>>My local dedicated Camera shop says the *istDs isn't selling. They have it
>>and the 300d and D70 (and the Minolta which is humungous) on display
>>alongside each other. Even though the Pe
Keith,
I cannot be sure what they will work on, but you may want to check out
Gulfstream Camera
1682 East Oakland Park Blvd.
Oakland Park, FL
4
954-564-8586
They are in the Ft. Lauderdale area.
I plan on being in their store on Friday. Hopefully I will remember to
a
- Original Message -
From: "Tom C"
Subject: Re: *istD EOL...
I'm asking because right now the Rebel is the top selling DLSR for
astrophotography. I haven't had a chance to try the *ist D yet
with my telescope, but depending on results I get with the *ist D I
woul
Pentax's English distributor strikes again.
Nick Clark wrote:
My local dedicated Camera shop says the *istDs isn't selling. They have it and
the 300d and D70 (and the Minolta which is humungous) on display alongside each
other. Even though the Pentax is smaller, they say the reasons people don't
On Tuesday 11 January 2005 18:18, Nick Clark wrote:
> My local dedicated Camera shop says the *istDs isn't selling. They have it
> and the 300d and D70 (and the Minolta which is humungous) on display
> alongside each other. Even though the Pentax is smaller, they say the
> reasons people don't go f
I didn't realize that Nikon needed to be saved.
Shel
> From: Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> But they are really making
> their money on the D70. It could well be the camera that saved
> Nikon's hide.
telescope, but depending on results I get with the *ist D I wouldn't mind
TC> trying the Rebel.
TC> Tom C.
>>From: Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
>>To: Nick Clark
>>Subject: Re: *istD EOL...
>>Date: Tue, 11 Ja
given that the US list price for the *istDs and the 300D are almost the same
and the street price is nearly so, what's up with the UK distributor?
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: "Nick Clark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 6:18 PM
S
only rumors from Graywolf that we are to look for something important at PMA
are true. of course if it is a digital 645, then i'm not interested.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 8:11 AM
S
telescope, but depending on results I get with the *ist D I wouldn't mind
trying the Rebel.
Tom C.
From: Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: Nick Clark
Subject: Re: *istD EOL...
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 15:33:08 -0800
I was in my local shop yesterday - mos
I was in my local shop yesterday - mostly Nikon and Pentax, some
Canon. They are selling about five D70's everyday. People just keep
walking in a buying them. They think highly of the *istDS, but it
doesn't sell anywhere like the D70. Pretty much the word is out in
all media that photographers
My local dedicated Camera shop says the *istDs isn't selling. They have it and
the 300d and D70 (and the Minolta which is humungous) on display alongside each
other. Even though the Pentax is smaller, they say the reasons people don't go
for it are partly the SD card but mostly the difference in
- Original Message -
From: "Pål Jensen"
Subject: Re: *istD EOL...
Jens wrote:
Good point. But not allways true. A camera is still a camera. IMO
the *ist
D/DS models make others look ridiculous.
Yes, but who knows except Pentax insiders?
My local camera store was telling me t
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 11 January 2005 15:23
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: RE: *istD EOL...
Quoting Pål Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Alan wrote:
>
>
> There never was much wrong with Pentax AF anyway.
(I'm not quite sure
Jens wrote:
> Good point. But not allways true. A camera is still a camera. IMO the *ist
> D/DS models make others look ridiculous.
Yes, but who knows except Pentax insiders?
Pål
ig meddelelse-
Fra: Pål Jensen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 11. januar 2005 14:23
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: Re: *istD EOL...
John wrote:
I hate to say it, but I agree. Pentax needs something to really set it apart
from the other guys. Consistantly making smallest-in-their-class cameras
Quoting Pål Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Alan wrote:
>
>
> There never was much wrong with Pentax AF anyway.
(I'm not quite sure whose comment that was)
I never found anything wrong with Pentax AF on the much-maligned PZ-1 and I
thought the ZX-5n wasn't too bad either, though not good in
Herb wrote:
no surprise if they are really going to announce a signficantly higher end
body at PMA with 10 megapixels at $3-4K street price.
REPLY:
They are...?
Pål
John wrote:
I hate to say it, but I agree. Pentax needs something to really set it apart
from the other guys. Consistantly making smallest-in-their-class cameras isn't
enough for serious photographers.
REPLY:
I think it will be more than enough. As high-end DSLR are larger than medium
forma
Alan wrote:
I'm not so sure. It seems like AF isn't an issue anymore among consumers. Now
they concentrate on megapixels instead.
There never was much wrong with Pentax AF anyway. The spinning through the
helicoid trick has never been a benchmanrk on true AF performace.
Andy Rouse, the wildlife
On 9 Jan 2005 at 8:57, Brian Dipert wrote:
> The representative DID however point out that they'd need to
> 'digitize' their medium format product line soon; that as-is it was getting
> 'long in the tooth'
It's teeth have already fallen out and there aren't any gums to bother with.
Let's just
On 9 Jan 2005 at 23:56, Luigi de Guzman wrote:
> I spent, with tax, about a thousand dollars, US on the DS. I nearly threw
> up;
> it was the most money I'd ever spent in one go on a single piece of
> photographic
> equipment, and probably equalled the value of all my gear in all formats (35mm
Luigi de Guzman mused:
>
> I spent, with tax, about a thousand dollars, US on the DS. I nearly threw
> up;
> it was the most money I'd ever spent in one go on a single piece of
> photographic equipment.
I paid full release price for my *ist-D; $1695 US, I believe.
Then I watched the price tu
On Sunday 09 January 2005 23:28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Luigi de Guzman mused:
> > verdict: "If I wasn't already so heavily invested in Canon glass, I'd
> > get this." ("heavily invested," here means that the total value of his
> > lenses is easily in excess of the value of his car. Admittedl
John can attest to the fact that I can exceed the value of my Toyota with
just a lens cap ;-))
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> There's many of us here in that category. In fact I can easily exceed
> the value of my car (a 1986 Mustang GT ragtop) with just one lens.
Luigi de Guzman mused:
>
> verdict: "If I wasn't already so heavily invested in Canon glass, I'd get
> this." ("heavily invested," here means that the total value of his lenses is
> easily in excess of the value of his car. Admittedly, he drives a very
> well-used car, but for someone who isn
On Saturday 08 January 2005 23:32, John Celio wrote:
> > Without USM and IS like technology, I am afraid nothing Pentax could do
> > to impress
> > high end 135 users.
>
> I hate to say it, but I agree. Pentax needs something to really set it
> apart from the other guys. Consistantly making small
Unfortunately, no. I did a few years back but the guy retired or died or
something. Micro-Tools has some Retina parts in their catalog. There is a guy in
Australlia that comes up with a '"kodak retina" repairs' search but it looks
like he only works on RF models. If you are handy copies of the r
- From: "Graywolf"
Subject: Re: *istD EOL...
AFAIK Pentax is still servicing LXen. After all it was only
discontinued in 2000 (although they were almost impossible to get
outside Japan).
It won't be the machanics that are the problem, it will be the
electronic components.
As an e
Hi,
Graywolf wrote:
AFAIK Pentax is still servicing LXen. After all it was only discontinued
in 2000 (although they were almost impossible to get outside Japan).
Since they were made for almost 20 years official repairs should be
available for at least a few years yet. It is not lack of parts it
Graywolf wrote:
AFAIK Pentax is still servicing LXen. After all it was only discontinued
in 2000 (although they were almost impossible to get outside Japan).
Since they were made for almost 20 years official repairs should be
available for at least a few years yet. It is not lack of parts it is
- Original Message -
From: "Graywolf"
Subject: Re: *istD EOL...
AFAIK Pentax is still servicing LXen. After all it was only
discontinued in 2000 (although they were almost impossible to get
outside Japan).
It won't be the machanics that are the problem, it will be
Quoting Graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> AFAIK Pentax is still servicing LXen.
Certainly were doing so around April/May of 2004, when mine paid them a
couple of visits.
ERNR
> Thanks for the report. Makes sense, given the (almost?) identical
> imaging sensors in the two cameras and the faster processing in the
> Ds. Did they drop any hints regarding the release of a higher-end DSLR?
>
> --Mark
I asked about a higher-end 35mm model and did not get an encouraging
resp
AFAIK Pentax is still servicing LXen. After all it was only discontinued in 2000
(although they were almost impossible to get outside Japan). Since they were
made for almost 20 years official repairs should be available for at least a few
years yet. It is not lack of parts it is lack of interest
Without USM and IS like technology, I am afraid nothing Pentax could do to
impress
high end 135 users.
I hate to say it, but I agree. Pentax needs something to really set it
apart from the other guys. Consistantly making smallest-in-their-class
cameras isn't enough for serious photographers.
I agree in principle. But repair services have already quit servicing the LX.
Make a few calls to verify if you wish. I shoot with mine once in a while, but
it's becoming a museum piece. The *istD will undoubtedly follow, but not for at
least five years.
Paul
> Hi,
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
Hi,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would be surprised if you'd be able to get either the *istD or the LX serviced in 10 years. In fact, it's difficult to get the LX serviced now. Independents won't touch it. It's too specialized. And I think Pentax is on the verge of abondoning it. Don't get me wront.
I love my LX, and I will do my best
to get it work ad infinitum. Right now it's sitting in a dust free glass case.
That might be the best strategy.
Paul
> Hi,
>
> William Robb wrote:
> >
> > - Original Message ----- From: "Joseph Tainter"
> > Subj
Hi,
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: "Joseph Tainter"
Subject: Re: *istD EOL...
"What I was told is that there are less than 1000 bodies left in
factory inventory, and when they're gone there'll be no more made"
Hmmm. I wonder how long t
cameras.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: "Joseph Tainter"
Subject: Re: *istD EOL...
"What I was told is that there are less th
The law is 7 years but I'm not sure that matters much in electronics...
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: "Joseph Tainter"
Subject: Re: *istD EOL...
"What I was told is that there are less than 1000 bodies left in
factory inventory, and when they're
- Original Message -
From: "Joseph Tainter"
Subject: Re: *istD EOL...
"What I was told is that there are less than 1000 bodies left in
factory inventory, and when they're gone there'll be no more
made"
Hmmm. I wonder how long there will be parts fo
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Erickson"
Subject: Re: *istD EOL...
I thought that Pentax' "Pro" market was addressed by
their 645 and 67 series cameras.
"Was" is the key operative.
Pro's aren't using so much medium format now. More an
I thought that Pentax' "Pro" market was addressed by
their 645 and 67 series cameras. Remember that the 645n
was the first production autofocus medium format camera
in the world.
What I can't understand is why Pentax hasn't released
a digital system that uses 645 and/or 67 lenses. If
nothing el
"What I was told is that there are less than 1000 bodies left in factory
inventory, and when they're gone there'll be no more made"
Hmmm. I wonder how long there will be parts for repairs? I suppose that
the DS uses some of the same parts.
Joe
- Original Message -
From: "Jens Bladt"
Subject: RE: *istD EOL...
Interesting. It seems Pentax can't really impress a substantial
percentage
of high-end "35mm camera" buyers. I wonder what Pentax will be
doing to try
to replace the lost sales of professional t
- Original Message -
From: "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 7:34 AM
Subject: RE: *istD EOL...
> Without USM and IS like technology, I am afraid nothing Pentax could do to
impress
> high end 135 users.
--- Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Interesting. It seems Pentax can't really impress a substantial percentage
> of high-end "35mm camera" buyers. I wonder what Pentax will be doing to try
> to replace the lost sales of professional the MF cameras (6x45, 6x7) - in
> other words to get (back
"Brian Dipert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I had a chat with the folks at the Pentax booth today at CES. What I was
>told is that there are less than 1000 bodies left in factory inventory, and
>when they're gone there'll be no more made; the *istDS will carry the torch
>going forward (at least unt
Interesting. It seems Pentax can't really impress a substantial percentage
of high-end "35mm camera" buyers. I wonder what Pentax will be doing to try
to replace the lost sales of professional the MF cameras (6x45, 6x7) - in
other words to get (back) in to the pro market.
Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL P
Thanks for the report. Makes sense, given the (almost?) identical
imaging sensors in the two cameras and the faster processing in the
Ds. Did they drop any hints regarding the release of a higher-end DSLR?
--Mark
Brian Dipert wrote:
>
> I had a chat with the folks at the Pentax booth today at C
On Friday 07 January 2005 22:43, Brian Dipert wrote:
> I had a chat with the folks at the Pentax booth today at CES. What I was
> told is that there are less than 1000 bodies left in factory inventory, and
> when they're gone there'll be no more made; the *istDS will carry the torch
> going forward
no surprise if they are really going to announce a signficantly higher end
body at PMA with 10 megapixels at $3-4K street price.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: "Brian Dipert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 10:43 PM
Subject: *istD EOL...
> I had a chat with t
84 matches
Mail list logo
