Chris wrote:
>I pointed out
> that Nikon users said the same thing, and that Nikon, a very
> well-respected camera company, obviously thought that there was a very
> good reason to remove the ring, so they did. Let's see... Canon and
> Minolta have no aperture rings... now Nikon is slowly removin
> >
> > >Does anyone know for sure that the existing
> software in the MZ-S could
> not
> > >operate an FAJ lens aperture? Or why a firmware
> upgrade could not be
> > >installed to provide it (at no cost, of course)?
> > >
> > >Solid reasoning only please, no wild speculation!
> >
> >
>
Questi
I downloaded the MZ-S manual. In program mode the camera picks a f
stop/shutter speed combination, and that is THE one and only one it will
use in program mode for that given EV. With program shift you can select
any f stop/shutter speed combination that gives the same EV. This is
usually imple
Steve,
That sounds right to me. When I used PZ-1p's and you had a dial to
spin for shutter and one for aperture, it seemed like two are
necessary/useful. In reality, shifting one shifts the other. The one
difference is in the case of over/underexposure control, you could
specify whether the shu
I guess I don't understand this. I assume that the FAJ lenses would act
like an A or FA lens on A. This means that the body would pick the Av
and Tv. Turning the main dial on the MZ-S would cycle though
combinations of Av and Tv that still work. (This is just like a program
shift) Manual mode
Bojidar Dimitrov wrote:
I imagine that the FAJ lenses behave like an A, F or FA lenses set on
the "A" aperture. Due to MZ-S's program-shift, you should be able to
deliberately set any aperture value you want.
Strictly speaking, MZ-S doesn't have program-shift. When the aperture is
set on t
Antti-Pekka Virjonen wrote:
On the other hand I think there is no need to implement USM at all. The
shaft/pin
drive methods works about as fast and good as the USM competition and it
allows
the lenses to be cheaper without the motor.
For wide-angle to short telephoto lens, your point is right
---
From: "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: On USM and KAF2/KAF3 (was Re: End of K-mount?
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 17:00:49 -0800
Perhaps it could be done with a switch on the lens to determine which AF
method was used? Some
Chris wrote:
>We obviously have different opinions on this, but I never believe
> anyone who insists that something is impossible, especially when it's
> happened to every other major camera companies' lenses.
I never said anything was impossible.I even said that they may switch to the Canon
mou
I knew there was something else I liked about my PZ-1p. The ability to
control the aperture from the body, without an aperture ring. You say that
the MZ-S can't do this?
Len
---
On MZ-S, the "program shift" is achieved by turning the aperture ring of
the lens to aperture priority mode. If
Perhaps it could be done with a switch on the lens to determine which AF
method was used? Something like "AF/USM" switch. When the switch was in "AF"
position, the power for the "USM" would be disconnected and the lens acted
like a regular Pentax AF lens. When the switch was set to "USM", the
c
Dear all,
Steven wrote:
I assume that this KAJ lens would work on an MZ-s. You just could only
use the "program shift" mode to change aperature and would have to use
exposure compensation for everything else.
On MZ-S, the "program shift" is achieved by turning the aperture ring of the
lens
gfen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Is it then possible that USM lenses will be AF backwards compatable with
>any body that doesn't not support KAF3?
It's certainly technically possible, but the real question is whether
it's economically practical. You'd have to have both conventional and
USM focusi
>> Certainly not. According to Pentax KAF3 patents, both IS and USM will
>> work without sacrificing compatibility.
>
>IS=Image Stabilization, but what is USM?
Ultra Sonic Motor.
LOOB
Load of old bollocks!
Cotty
Picking up the pieces after the CPU went in my road warrior PowerBook.
Like Arnie
Chris wrote:
> Since when did it become reasonable to assume that Pentax will never ever
> do something that Nikon did?
This is still completely absurd. It is major difference between assuming or believeing
something will happen before it happens, and asuming things won't happen uintil you
s
> Is it then possible that USM lenses will be AF backwards compatable with
> any body that doesn't not support KAF3?
I guess everything is possible but it is highly unlikely.
Pål
Let's say that KAF3 is coming and does support USM. USM lenses are made
and sold.
OK... so, again, my limited knowledge says that USM puts the AF motor in
the lens, and not the body. This means that the screw-drive method for the
camera communicating to the lens the focus is useless.
Is it then
Chris wrote:
> Sure there is. Just look at the direction Nikon is taking, and look at
> how Nikon users felt when the first G lenses came out. They started out
> by releasing a very few low-end lenses with limited compatibility: their
> 28-80, 28-100 and 70-300. No big deal, right? Just a few b
-
> From: Mike Johnston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 13 February 2003 01:32
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: End of K-mount?
>
>
> > With all due respect, Sigma has HSM and now OS. Maybe you
> cant do a
> > carbon copy of Canon, but no reason wh
Mike wrote:
>I don¹t have any inside track or any great knowledge of this, but personally I doubt
>very much we'll see any Pentax lenses with either of these technologies at any time
>in the foreseeable future.
Next month is the perfect time for new product releases as major shows are schedul
On 12 Feb 2003 at 16:31, Alan Chan wrote:
> I like the Contax manual focus SLR system too, and my friend has a system
> ready to be sold. However, the future of the Contax system certainly doesn't
> appear as bright as Pentax imho.
If the right products aren't presented at PMA it won't be far be
> Frankly, all I expect for PMA of interest for most PDML's (I exclude the
> various P&S; digital or not) are the DSLR, maybe in prototype form, a chap
> film SLR, a few new lenses made for the DSLR, maybe one or two that don't
> cover full image cycle. Thats about it. Anything else I take as a bon
Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The only reason Nikon has them is that MITI forced Canon to share.
Could that happen in the USA? I thought that only occurred in Ayn Rand's
epic novel, Atlas Shrugged, where Hank Rearden spends years perfecting a
copper-titanium alloy ("Rearden steel") that
Well, to be fair, there were a lot of Nikon users who switched to Canon
when Canon began beating Nikon to the punch on too many technologies: USM,
IS, and then the leapfrogging DSLR race. I don't think Nikon can count on
as much user loyalty now that more and more people are going digital.
chris
>> But where have you heard about Pentax introducing USM or IS lenses? From
>> what I've heard, both those technologies are closely controlled by Canon.
>> The only reason Nikon has them is that MITI forced Canon to share. Olympus,
>> for instance, had a big hit with the digital UZI, but could not
Except no matter how much complaints there are, Nikon fans still stick with
Nikon no matter what. Many people worship "NIKON", don't think Pentax can
afford that.
regards,
Alan Chan
Sure there is. Just look at the direction Nikon is taking, and look at
how Nikon users felt when the first G len
> With all due respect, Sigma has HSM and now OS. Maybe you cant do a
> carbon copy of Canon, but no reason why you cant do your own. If Sigma
> can do it then damn sure Pentax can!
Rob,
You may be right. (I wasn't even aware of "HSM and OS.") On the other hand,
maybe Canon is willing to licens
On 12 Feb 2003 at 14:38, gfen wrote:
> As for USM? Perhaps I'm missing the point of just what makes USM
> special..I was under the impression that the biggest difference was that
> there was a motor in each lens to focus, and not a motor in the body with
> a screw... While there may be a patent fo
gfen wrote:
> I was under the impression that IS patents were put out by Pentax many
> years ago, and further more that the current IS and VR lenses were based
> on these patents?
Pentax put out their first IS patent in '89, 90 or 91 (I don't remember). They are the
oldest patents I can find on
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>I've never heard of ANY patent lasting only 7 years,
17 is about the minimum isnt it?.
JCO<
in the US, yes.
Herb
I've never heard of ANY patent lasting only 7 years,
17 is about the minimum isnt it?.
JCO
> -Original Message-
> From: Gregory L. Hansen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 3:49 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: End of K-mount?
>
Mike Johnston wrote:
>
[...]
> Perhaps it is human nature to extrapolate.
Well, it sure is on PDML, pilgrim!
keith whaley
>
>
>
> --Mike
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, Mike Johnston wrote:
> But where have you heard about Pentax introducing USM or IS lenses? From
I was under the impression that IS patents were put out by Pentax many
years ago, and further more that the current IS and VR lenses were based
on these patents?
I won't fight if I
> Huh? Nothing preventing them to releadse them with Canon mount ether! The
> whole thing is about people claiming Pentax will abandon compatibility because
> they have released two lenses with limited compatibility. It is absurd. Theres
> no basis for any such conclusion. Pentax have released bodi
Okay by me, Matt! I stand corrected!
Thanks for the correction.
keith whaley
Matt Greene wrote:
>
> --- Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The autofocus actuator requires an Ultra Small Motor
> > to drive it!
> >
> > keith whaley
> >
> > "Gregory L. Hansen" wrote:
> > >
> > > [EMAIL P
> I also predict I won't be proven wrong for a few
> years, and then nobody here would remember, so it's like a freebie for me.
<*chuckle*>
Mike wrote:
> But where have you heard about Pentax introducing USM or IS lenses? From
> what I've heard, both those technologies are closely controlled by Canon.
Maybe for USM. For IS, however, there are several patents holders. The optics seems to
me mostly Asahi patents. The only thing Canon
> If Pentax takes away the aperture ring at the same time when
> introducing the new technologies like ultrasonic motor and image
> stabilizing, that's the end of my investment on Pentax equipment. I feel
> betrayed for my long patience on Pentax.
Henry,
With all due respect, I think you may be
Pål Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The whole thing is about people claiming Pentax will abandon
>compatibility because they have released two lenses with
>limited compatibility. It is absurd. Theres no basis for any
>such conclusion. Pentax have released bodies with the same
>limitation ye
Peter Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Because the mount can be backward compatible doesn't mean it will be. That
>takes an act of will. There is nothing to prevent KAF3 mounts to be on "J"
>lenses only.
So you think they'll make new high-tech lenses that are incompatible
with their top-of-t
It was great response, Alan!! Why to change to Canon/Nikon if maybe Pentax introduces
similar technology with any kind of compatibility? If so for many of us it will be
still the best mount. Hope our dreams come true.
Alek
Użytkownik Alan Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał:
>>My problem is, if Pent
--- Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The autofocus actuator requires an Ultra Small Motor
> to drive it!
>
> keith whaley
>
> "Gregory L. Hansen" wrote:
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> >
> > > Certainly not. According to Pentax KAF3 patents,
> both IS and USM will
> > > work without
The autofocus actuator requires an Ultra Small Motor to drive it!
keith whaley
"Gregory L. Hansen" wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>
> > Certainly not. According to Pentax KAF3 patents, both IS and USM will
> > work without sacrificing compatibility.
>
> IS=Image Stabilization, but what is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Certainly not. According to Pentax KAF3 patents, both IS and USM will
> work without sacrificing compatibility.
IS=Image Stabilization, but what is USM?
Henry wrote:
> My problem is, if Pentax to going to release more lenses with FAJ mount to
> match the coming D-SLR, I will be gone to Canon.
The FAJ lenses are not intended for a DSLR but for entry level film slr's.
> There's no point for me to
> remain staying with Pentax because my exist
Boz wrote:
> If Pentax goes along the same way (and they must, if they are to compete
> with Nikon and Canon), then our K and M lenses are doomed.
Certainly not. According to Pentax KAF3 patents, both IS and USM will work without
sacrificing compatibility.
Pål
Hi,
> [...] Granted they have released a
> 70-200 f2.8 IF-ED G lens, I don't think most Nikon
> owners are worried that Nikon will abandon the F-mount
Nikon has already abandoned the "old" F-mount. Or is your idea of "full
compatibility" having to buy the F-100 (price $1000+) ?
If Pentax goes a
ply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 08:50:16 +0800
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: End of K-mount?
> Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 19:50:25 -0500
>
> Dear all,
>>
>> Good grief! How is possible to react in the
> I must admit that I was a bit hysterical last night when I first read the
> news at around midnight. These are the last things that I wish to learn
> before going to bed.
Henry,
One thing I learned during the time I was on the LUG: never read mailing
list e-mail before bedtime!
The LUG could
Henry wrote:
My problem is, if Pentax to going to release more
> lenses with FAJ mount to
> match the coming D-SLR, I will be gone to Canon.
Uhhh, didn't Nikon release some bottom-end G lenses a
couple of years ago? Granted they have released a
70-200 f2.8 IF-ED G lens, I don't think most Nikon
Dear all,
Good grief! How is possible to react in the way cited below to the fact
that Pentax release two bottom level lenses? We had the same sort of
reaction when they released the first plastic mount lenses. Suddenly all
Pentax lenses would use plastic mounts! Pentax is just releasing the s
Boy, I don't see why such over-reaction.
regards,
Alan Chan
I feel sick by the news of two new KAJ mount lenses.
I think it signals the end of K-mount afterall. Obviously, the new user
manual is designed for future use, as the KAJ lenses are yet to be
released. This implies that there is no
For God's sake man! Pull yourself together before blurting out
HTML code advice relating to humerous postings on email lists!
I hope Henry isn't dangling from a tree branch by now. KAJ my arse!
LOL.
>Shouldn't there be a before that last statement?
>
>At 06:19 PM 2/11/2003 +, Cotty wrote
Good grief! How is possible to react in the way cited below to the fact that Pentax
release two bottom level lenses? We had the same sort of reaction when they released
the first plastic mount lenses. Suddenly all Pentax lenses would use plastic mounts!
Pentax is just releasing the same crap as
Arnold wrote:
> P - A - T- I - E - N - C - E!!
We don't have to wait very long
Pål
P - A - T- I - E - N - C - E!!
Just wait and see what PMA really brings.
Arnold
Iren & Henry Chu schrieb:
Dear all,
I feel sick by the news of two new KAJ mount lenses.
I think it signals the end of K-mount afterall. Obviously, the new
user manual is designed for future use, as the KAJ len
56 matches
Mail list logo
