Perhaps we should set up an abuse hotline?
Norm
- Original Message -
From: Anthony Farr
Subject: Re: Fw: Cameron's Pentax Comments
> Norm,
>
> Your comment reveals more about you than about me. Off-list
abuse is a
> cancer on the PDML, if you don't care that's your prerogative.
On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Peter Alling wrote:
> I was hoping you wouldn't go there.
Hey, my last name is Fenstermacher, and I know now how he feels about
large Teutonic men...
(for the record, I'm now recycling the same jokes I used offlist earlier
today!)
Well I'd say it depends on the person in question don't you think?
At 10:37 AM 10/14/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Anthony Farr wrote:
> > For all anybody really knows a Pentax DSLR will be based on a Morgan Plus 8
> > chassis, or carved from a bar of soap.
>
>If they carve it from
On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Anthony Farr wrote:
> For all anybody really knows a Pentax DSLR will be based on a Morgan Plus 8
> chassis, or carved from a bar of soap.
If they carve it from soap, I don't want to see anyone's bath pictures...
> -Original Message-
> From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
>
> Fer Christs sake Rob, of course I'm correct about the pro spec
> stuff. You know what Pentax has marketed over the past 4 decades
> as well as I have.
> The LX was a one off camera, with no history from the
> manufa
On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, Malcolm Smith wrote:
> A fair point. You must also consider the point that the real money is to be
> made with the take up of new camera users (90% of new camera sales to under
> 20s is digital), and maybe they consider what sells now is more important to
> the company. I know
Haven't we already had that thread?
Regards,
Anthony Farr
- Original Message -
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(snip)
>
> Let's start a thread about the Popes sex life.
>
(snip)
For some reason I get a vision of King Knut commanding the tide not to rise
:-)
Regards,
Anthony Farr
- Original Message -
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(snip)
> I liked this list a lot more when it was about film and
> photography. I thought I had useful stuff to contribute
> If, and this is a big if, Pentax chooses to market a DSLR (and I
> don't think they will), it will be based on the MZ-5 chassis,
> and will not have pro specifications.
Observation here. Pentax have built the 230, 330 and 430 optio on the same
operating system and display, so the electronics ob
> It is interesting that neither Nikon or Canon produced new lens mounts
> for Digital. But Canon did produce a new lens mount when they went to
> Auto-Focus.
> This in spite of drawbacks inherent in using a smaller than full frame
35mm
> sensor
> with 35mm lenses. (Just food for thought).
I
William Robb wrote:
> The convention in DSLR development is geared to the user of pro
> oriented equipment. This is why the digital SLR bodies have been
> based on pro oriented 35mm camera bodies.
> Pentax doesn't have a history of pro support, and has no history
> at all in the pro 35mm body seg
- Original Message -
From: Rob Studdert
Subject: Re: Cameron's Pentax Comments
> On 13 Oct 2002 at 8:56, William Robb wrote:
>
> > If, and this is a big if, Pentax chooses to market a DSLR
(and I
> > don't think they will), it will be based on the MZ-5
ch
On 13 Oct 2002 at 8:56, William Robb wrote:
> If, and this is a big if, Pentax chooses to market a DSLR (and I
> don't think they will), it will be based on the MZ-5 chassis,
> and will not have pro specifications.
> If that happens, there won't be any cheering from the peanut
> gallery, there wi
It is interesting that neither Nikon or Canon produced new lens mounts
for Digital. But Canon did produce a new lens mount when they went to
Auto-Focus.
This in spite of drawbacks inherent in using a smaller than full frame 35mm
sensor
with 35mm lenses. (Just food for thought).
At 12:23 AM 1
- Original Message -
From: Rob Studdert
Subject: Re: Cameron's Pentax Comments
> On 13 Oct 2002 at 8:13, William Robb wrote:
>
> > At the risk of being tiresome, if not having a large format
rig
> > was costing you money, you'd buy one, and would accept tha
On 13 Oct 2002 at 8:13, William Robb wrote:
> At the risk of being tiresome, if not having a large format rig
> was costing you money, you'd buy one, and would accept that
> Pentax doesn't support it, because they never have supported it.
> Why is a digital SLR any different?
Because it should o
- Original Message -
From: Rob Studdert
Subject: Re: Cameron's Pentax Comments
> On 13 Oct 2002 at 6:22, William Robb wrote:
>
> > So it's costing you enough money to gripe about, but not
enough
> > to act on.
> > That's fair.
>
> I'
On 13 Oct 2002 at 6:22, William Robb wrote:
> So it's costing you enough money to gripe about, but not enough
> to act on.
> That's fair.
I've noticed too that it's most often the bystanders that shout from the side-
lines "just write it off, take a loss on it" :-(
Anyone care to offer personal
18 matches
Mail list logo
