I own a Pentax Stereo adapter so can i join the acoustic photography group?
Peter
Manchester, England
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.o
A scroll of mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Tue, 13 Feb 2001 15:15:54
EST
Read it? y
>Which might break some folks of their habit of shooting 98% horizontal shots.
I'll tell ya something: I played with a friends F5 for a while (we
actually swapped cameras during a shoot as I'd loaded my last roll
A scroll of mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Tue, 13 Feb 2001 09:43:24
EST
Read it? y
>But every shooter hears their own shutter. And how does that affect concert
>musicians in full bore rehearsal music? While it may be a gaucherie to shoot
>during the actual concert, really *serious* musicians,
Your no-flash (presumption on my part) film preference when taking these
pictures?
Otis Wright
John Edwin Mason wrote:
> Sorry, Mafud, but you're wrong on this, as Rob has
> pointed out.
>
> I'm one of those "serious musicians." It's not my
> living, but I'm a member of the local symphony and
On 14 Feb 2001, at 10:21, John Francis wrote:
> Standing at the back of the club with a 300/2.8 isn't inconspicuous,
> but at least that way shutter noise isn't a problem. I've found that
> using the 50/1.4 gets me too close to be really comfortable, although
> those extra two stops are really n
John Edwin Mason wrote:
>
> One learns how not to cause problems, mostly by being
> in every way as invisible and inaudible as possible.
>
> I've found that when shooting acoustic jazz and
> classical music, my 5N is going to cause problems
> because it's too noisy in every aspect of its
> opera
>You seem to be taking things far too litteral. I'm not included in any
>inner circles not worked as consultant. As Roland has pointed out, I'm
>refering to the wishes and wants from Pentax customer base over the years.
>From this mailing list and similar in Japan. There are endless posts about
In a message dated 2/13/01 9:33:09 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< I was made well aware of my presence after a snide glance from the
choir-master
of a large (100+) choir after made a few shots with the LX sans winder/motor
a the peak of a crescendo where I thought it
Tom wrote:
>I'm asking Pal, who by all accounts appears to be
> PERSONALLY included in Pentax's inner circle, for the facts to back up the
> claims he makes.Was he formally included in a marketing survey/research
> regarding features of future Pentax products? Does he think HIS input was
> f
Roland wrote:
> We must consider now that the MZ-S body and shutter mechanism are far more
> expensive to manufacture than the body and shutter in the Z-1p, simply because
> that they are of higher quality.
I was told today that the MZ-S was built to more exacting standards - low tolerances.
(
In a message dated 2/13/01 1:05:58 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< * AA Battery pack/hand grip suitable for vertical shooting >>
Which might break some folks of their habit of shooting 98% horizontal shots.
Mafud
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
This message is f
Paul wrote:
>>All manufacturers of expensive consumer goods conduct product clinics before they
>commit to production. They bring a bunch of people into a secure room and show them
>both the new product and competitive merchandise. Then they quiz them in regard to
>the inclusion or exclusion of
is or conjecture if they're not backed up by credible evidence (dates,
> time, names).
>
> Tom C.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Pål Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 8:
en <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 8:47 AM
Subject: Re: News from PMA - MZ-S and other stuff
>Dave
>
>> So, a Pentax market survey involves asking just Pål what he wants in
>> the next camera? :) Did they as
On 13 Feb 2001, at 7:20, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> My thoughts precisely. Perhaps the MZ-S with booster should do a fine job of
> filling up the hand.
And emptying the pocket, so it appears :-(
Cheers,
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
Fax +61-2-9554-9259
UTC(GMT) +10 Ho
Dave
> So, a Pentax market survey involves asking just Pål what he wants in
> the next camera? :) Did they ask anyone else?
Sure. MZ-size, nifty features from the Z-1p, and LX built was pretty much the message
from the Pentax user base. Pentax have been listening more to their customers than
In a message dated 2/13/01 2:38:22 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< ...The grip of Z-1p is not bad either, just that my last finger did not
have a good grip since the body is a bit short. >>
My thoughts precisely. Perhaps the MZ-S with booster should do a fine job of
Frantisek wrote:
> (why Leica made such ugly and big slr when their rf cameras are so cute
> and small is out of my imagination... R8 also looks like it's been made by
> a designer on a bad trip, imho. I much prefer the early German hardware
> (like Contax S, Contaxes, Leicas #,M3,...) to those s
>Its all about balance and in my opinion the MZ-S achieve that balance. I'm
>sure some disagree. Anyway, small size has been an important design goal
>for Pentax the last 25 years and the funny part is that every single one
>camera marketed by Pentax were small size (for what it does) has been
>everybody knows what an F5 is.
I know, a hammer without a handle.
regards,
Alan Chan
_
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To uns
>I guess my question, is how do you come by this information? How do WE
>know
>that a majority of SLR users in the market don't care about fps or top
>shutter speed and care more about size? I was never made part of a survey
>by any camera manufacturer. I think just the opposite is true of any
>High Magnification , High Eyepoint, x% coverage?
The higher the magnification is, the bigger the viewing image will be
(through the viewfinder).
High eyepoint simply means your eye can be further from the eyepiece, yet
still see the whole image throught the viewfinder. However, there is not
John wrote:
>They suggest that the
> MZ-S is aimed at the middle of the market, at the N80
> and Elan 7 (which, BTW, also has a part-metal frame).
Two other factors to consider when dealing with the MZ-S market position is the fact
that Pentax clearly label it PROFESSIONAL (something the rumo
If I were shopping for a new camera right now (and I may be
later this year) I'd be considering the MZ-S and the PZ-1p.
Although there are many differences between the two, the ones
that would affect my decision would be the better viewfinder
(from what we've heard so far), faster standard flash
John wrote:
> I mention the N80 and the Elan 7 because the specs
> which cause so much disappointment for those of us who
> hoped for a F100 competitor and PZ-1P successor
> actually make me quite happy. They suggest that the
> MZ-S is aimed at the middle of the market, at the N80
> and Elan 7
I guess my question, is how do you come by this information? How do WE know
that a majority of SLR users in the market don't care about fps or top
shutter speed and care more about size? I was never made part of a survey
by any camera manufacturer. I think just the opposite is true of any
serio
Ralf wrote:
> Taking the Minolta 7 and EOS 30/Elan 7 into account, we indeed have a
> new class arising here, the $650-800 class. Isn't this the class Paal
> delared to be dead? The big split in amateur (<$500) and
> knowledgeables (>$1000) on the SLR market? Doesn't seem so.
It certainly wa
aimcompute wrote:
>
> I hope your wrong about the next flagships of major mfr's being digital.
That's the way it is going. Canon have stated they don't expect to
develop anything new at the high end that is anything but digital,
and Nikon have said they consider an F6 unlikely to be developed.
At 23:36 11.2.2001 -0500, you wrote:
> At 01:38 PM 2/12/01 +1000, Rob Studdert wrote:
>
> As it is virtually a software function how they execute MLU on the Leica R8
> system is: set the mode to MLU, one press of the shutter pre-fires the
mirror
> the next press triggers the shutter after which
Folks, it seems to me that how the MZ-S looks depends
on where you stand. I stand in need of something to
replace my ZX-5N, so the MZ-S looks pretty darn good.
I bought the 5N about a year ago. After many years
with my trusty K1000 and KX, I wanted autofocus, spot
metering, auto advance, auto
BTW,
did you notice this Sigma SA-9?
1/8000s shutter
1/180s(!) synch
3 fps
cross AF, but not wide
10-segment metering
bracketing, MLU
price $750.-
Taking the Minolta 7 and EOS 30/Elan 7 into account, we indeed have a
new class arising here, the $650-800 class. Isn't this the class Paal
delare
On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Alan Chan wrote:
> >Manual focus?? Who needs that? Sheesh, get with the 90's already! :)
>
> Well, there are many many manual focus Pentax lenses on the market. And many
> of them are damn fine lenses which I am sure still in actual use. Besides,
> Pentax's AF ability is no
A scroll of mail from Chris Brogden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Sun,
11 Feb 2001 22:15:30 -0600 (CST)
Read it? y
>...and its onboard infrared beam would disable the electronics on any
>Canon or Nikon in the vicinity. :)
Nah, the onboard infrared beam tells your palm pilot the details of
the shot. On
> >I was thinking, is it possible to turn their power-zoom (the extra 2 pins)
> >power into USM power source. If so, they might just forget the power-zoom
> >feature and employ USM technolgy without phyical modification to the camera
> >mount.
>
> Wouldn't you get strange results is you put a
>But the RTSIII has 100% coverage and a relatively high-eyepoint finder, and
>those things aren't unrelated to magnificaton. Generally, eye relief and/or
>higher coverage both make it harder to achieve high magnification, and high
>magnification makes it harder to achieve 100% coverage and/or good
A scroll of mail from "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Sun, 11 Feb
2001 17:30:42 -0800
Read it? y
>I was thinking, is it possible to turn their power-zoom (the extra 2 pins)
>power into USM power source. If so, they might just forget the power-zoom
>feature and employ USM technolgy without phy
Alan wrote:
> But the metal outer shell does not necessarily mean metal body. Just hope
> the major structure was made of die-cast metal (like Z-1p). The body must be
> rigid enough to hold the mount (unlike the current MZ/ZX bodies).
It is. Its significantly stiffer and more rigid than the
> > I understand that 100% viefinder is difficult to design and manufacture.
> > However, can't they use larger eyepiece to ovecome the high
>magnification
> > with high-eyepoint? To me anyway, high magnification is important for
>manual
> > focus. Even though I wear glasses, I prefer high magni
On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Chris Brogden wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Gerald Wang wrote:
>
> > Hi Mike, in what ways do you consider the MZ-S to be lacking when compared
> > to the PZ-1p?
>
> I'm not Mike, but
>
> --1/6000 and 1/180 instead of 1/8000 and 1/250
Howdy Chris,
That's only a 1/2-st
On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Alan Chan wrote:
> Now, that's the special feature No.1:
> - when the built-in flash was pop-up, the zoom lens would be limited to 28mm
> or narrower to avoid vignetting.
...and its onboard infrared beam would disable the electronics on any
Canon or Nikon in the vicinity.
In light of the specs that Doug just posted, I retreat on my position that
there are a LOT of features missing. If there is a mirror prefire, then my
only serious gripes would be the fact that it'll require me to buy new
flashes to take advantage of the new features (as opposed to some kind of
ad
I am not sure about other MZ/ZX bodies, but the MZ-M has very very little
mirror vibration compared to any other Pentax SLRs that I have used. With a
sturdy tripod and a good quality tripod head, I do not see the mirror
vibration could cause any practical difference (and the quality of the
tri
On 11 Feb 2001, at 17:39, Alan Chan wrote:
> >But the RTSIII has 100% coverage and a relatively high-eyepoint finder, and
> >those things aren't unrelated to magnificaton. Generally, eye relief and/or
> >higher coverage both make it harder to achieve high magnification, and high
> >magnification
>I'm assuming there's no such body in the works. The words "Pentax
>Introduces the New Flagship of Its 35mm Autofocus SLR Lineup" would
>indicate
>this is as good as it gets. Obviously Pentax believes there only competing
>with themselves. Not that this is not a good body, it's just doesn't
>
At 01:38 PM 2/12/01 +1000, Rob Studdert wrote:
As it is virtually a software function how
they execute MLU on the Leica R8
system is: set the mode to MLU, one press of the shutter pre-fires the
mirror
the next press triggers the shutter after which the mirror comes down
ready
for focussing/com
I think you have brought up an intertesting point. I have the feeling that
the general public (less discriminating consumers) would usually go for
cheaper models when all they wanted was a camera to shoot. However, when
talking about top end models (MZ-S in this case), the consumers are usually
On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Gerald Wang wrote:
> Hi Mike, in what ways do you consider the MZ-S to be lacking when compared
> to the PZ-1p?
I'm not Mike, but
--1/6000 and 1/180 instead of 1/8000 and 1/250
--2.5 fps instead of 4.3 fps
--.75x viewfinder instead of .8x
--no more nifty side-mounted ho
On 11 Feb 2001, at 17:42, Mark Cassino wrote:
> Personally, I find the terms "true mirror lock up" and "pseudo mirror lock up"
> to be needlessly pejorative. "Mirror lock up" and "Mirror Pre-fire" are two
> distinct ways of addressing the issue of unsharpenss induced by mirror
> vibration, with r
>Dang. Maybe they should have interchangable finders, then you could
>replace
>the entire prism with a better one and no dinky pop-up flash.
>
>Actually, I found it rather odd that the built in flash only covers 28mm
>but the 'standard' lens is almost certainly going to be a 24-90. Surely
>this
>I wonder if the new cable switches mean the old ones won't work.
Seems to be. The new socket is round shape. Bad bad idea to those who just
wanted a simple cable release!!!
regards,
Alan Chan
_
Get Your Private, Free E-ma
x27;t seem to have any use
except for as a substitute for MLU.
Stan
> From: tom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: News from PMA - MZ-S and other stuff
>
> Well, I'm pretty excited about it. That top view is pretty sexy.
>
> ...
>
> I may buy one just for that
>--- Alan Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > With the features listed, I would be pretty
> > surprised if its street price
> > was more than USD800. Personally, I feel it worth
> > USD700 only.
>
>Yeah, and with N dropping the F100's price below
>US$1000 I don't think Pentax can sell too many
>But the RTSIII has 100% coverage and a relatively high-eyepoint finder, and
>those things aren't unrelated to magnificaton. Generally, eye relief and/or
>higher coverage both make it harder to achieve high magnification, and high
>magnification makes it harder to achieve 100% coverage and/or good
Well, it looks pretty nice to me.
I'll add my comiserations to the loss of the 98% viewfinder,
but other than that I'd be pretty happy with one.
2.5fps is more than enough for me; I don't think I've ever
shot continuous shooting except for auto-bracketing anyway.
1/180th sync is fine for my pur
>--- Alan Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > With the features listed, I would be pretty
> > surprised if its street price
> > was more than USD800. Personally, I feel it worth
> > USD700 only.
>
>Yeah, and with N dropping the F100's price below
>US$1000 I don't think Pentax can sell too many
Bob wrote:
> Data imprinting between the frames is a major pain in the arse if
> you're doing reportage work, Flavio. It slows the film advance very
> significantly. I have this feature on the RXs, but have no need of it.
Apparently, the MZ-S prints along the frames, not between them. I don't k
On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Bucky wrote:
> All I can say is that, from the specs, I am going to find it hard to make
> the switch from my PZ1p twins to this new offering. The digital version is
> gonna be too expensive for me, and the conventional one is going to be a
> step backwards in too many areas.
> > This viewfinder info looks rather strange. With such a high eyepoint
>(only
> > x.75 magnification), how come the viewfinder area is only 92%. It
>should be
> > more.
> > Well, let's hope that some posted specs could be wrong :-)
>Since I've been told by an utter reliable source that the
Peter wrote:
> Is there actually anything changed in the final specs to the
> original version of this camera show (KB-266 was it?) - other
> than the fact it actually is finished perhaps.
>
> Considering it was supposed to have various upgrades, etc, hence
> the delay.. It looks identical to wh
- Original Message -
From: "Peter Loveday" Subject: Re: News from PMA - MZ-S and
other stuff
>
> Actually, I found it rather odd that the built in flash only
covers 28mm
> but the 'standard' lens is almost certainly going to be a
24-90. Surely
> this is
Len wrote:
> No, I don't think this is marketing bullshit. I think that the
> MZ-S is an honest attempt to field a camera that both pros and
> amateurs will appreciate. The feature set looks good, the size
> and weight looks good, and the build quality looks good.
I sincerely hope so. It
> Incidentally, on the MZ-S as on many newer cameras, a physical feature that
> limites viewfinder magnification and coverage is the pop-up flash, since it
> effectively limits the space available for the prism.
Dang. Maybe they should have interchangable finders, then you could replace
the enti
Hi
The 1st Z1 only gave 2fps. Maybe there will be a MZ-Sn in a couple of years!
This wouldn't be the first time (ME-Super,SFXn,MZ5-n)
Jens
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax U
Is there actually anything changed in the final specs to the
original version of this camera show (KB-266 was it?) - other
than the fact it actually is finished perhaps.
Considering it was supposed to have various upgrades, etc, hence
the delay.. It looks identical to what we saw before, as far a
At 11:00 AM 2/11/01 -0500, Flavio and Mike wrote:
> this is the same spec as the
Z1-p's.
> There IS the pseudo MLU as in the Z1-p, I think.
I suppose it's better than nothing, I use the self timer on my SP in that
manner since it lacks a
true MLU feather. However, I truly miss the real MLU of
Dario wrote:
> I should have written "I believe" we'll see new lenses with new features
> pretty soon, as I have no info at all. Just my idea.
Oh
Well, we should expect them pretty soon. The press release says they will be launched
with the MZ-S. I guess the formal launch of the MZ-S is a
It doesn't surprise me. They haven't been really attempting to compete with
the other flagships for over a decade have they? Goodness sakes, they don't
EVEN ADVERTISE their current flagship (PZ-1p) anymore.
Tom C.
> Pål wrote:
>Not necessarily. The press release clearly state the following: "
Jens wrote:
> Hi all
> Mike wrote about the MZ-S, referring to a 92%/ x0.75 viewfinder:
>> a very fancy, very capable consumer-grade snapshot camera<
>
> Well, maybe that's just what Pentax does best. (I'm disapointed with the
> viewfinder as well - if this is really true. It's not just annother
All I can say is that, from the specs, I am going to find it hard to make
the switch from my PZ1p twins to this new offering. The digital version is
gonna be too expensive for me, and the conventional one is going to be a
step backwards in too many areas. It seemed such a no-brainer - the PZ1p i
> Hell. Look at this (from the press release): "the
> MZ-S is expected to set the new standard for high-end
> 35mm autofocus SLR cameras and satisfy the
> photographic needs of uncompromising photographers -
> professionals and experienced amateurs alike."
> Doesn't seem like an F80 to me! Marke
With little trepidation, Mike Johnston opined on 02/11/2001 08:15:
>Incidentally, on the MZ-S as on many newer cameras, a physical feature that
>limites viewfinder magnification and coverage is the pop-up flash, since it
>effectively limits the space available for the prism.
And the larger the
"aimcompute" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>By the way I just have to get this out of my system. Does Galen Rowell and
>his OBVIOUS pimping of even Nikon's mid-level 35mm offferings make anybody
>else want to puke too? Sometimes I enjoy his OP column, but I recall one
>recently that was what I ju
With little trepidation, herbet brasileiro opined on 02/11/2001 09:08:
>
>--- Alan Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> With the features listed, I would be pretty
>> surprised if its street price
>> was more than USD800. Personally, I feel it worth
>> USD700 only.
>
>Yeah, and with N droppin
With little trepidation, Shel Belinkoff opined on 02/11/2001 07:57:
>Jens Bladt said:
>
>> MLU is missing, but this is only
>> important for macro/night shots.
>> So, we'll just have to use other
>> cameras (LX, K1000, PZ1-p) for this.
>
>I can think of several scenarios other than macro or
- Original Message -
From: Gary L. Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2001 11:00 AM
Subject: Re: News from PMA - MZ-S and other stuff
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2001 10:45:38 -0700, aimcompute wrote:
>
> >I'm assuming ther
John wrote:
> I actually like the specs. Seem to mean that the
> camera will compete with the N/F80 and the new Elan 7
> (which also has part-metal construction) and not the
> F100.
Problem is that Pentax claims its a high-end camera that supposedly compete with the
F100 and EOS3 and in addi
that said, there's nothing wong with a K1000 or MX is there?
Tom C.
-Original Message-
From: Treena Harp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sunday, February 11, 2001 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: News from PMA - MZ-S and other stuff
>I think t
Tom wrote:
> I'm assuming there's no such body in the works. The words "Pentax
> Introduces the New Flagship of Its 35mm Autofocus SLR Lineup" would indicate
> this is as good as it gets.
Not necessarily. The press release clearly state the following: "Heralded as the new
flagship model of
...
so...
Tom
-Original Message-
From: Michael Perham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sunday, February 11, 2001 11:33 AM
Subject: Re: News from PMA - MZ-S and other stuff
> Anyway as I have said in my previous post, now I
>have to si
Tom wrote:
> I'm surprised the finder coverage is only 92%.
>
> I'm surprised it only does 2.5 frames per sec.
I find this surprising when seen in light of the "high-end" statements and comparison
with LX durability and built quality.
Pål
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail L
On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Flavio Minelli wrote:
> Self-Timer: Electronically controlled type with 2 or 12 seconds delay.
> Cancellation possible.
>
> Jens,
> this is the same spec as the Z1-p's.
> There IS the pseudo MLU as in the Z1-p, I think.
But doesn't the MZ-7 do the 2 second timer as well, on
Shel is right. Every list, of which I am a member, is the same.
Major speculation (and rumors) before official announcements are
made. Then, after the official announcements, the complaints
(whining?) roll in. It's true on all the lists that I see. A
person has to weigh the factors according t
aimcompute wrote:
> I'm assuming there's no such body in the works. The words "Pentax
> Introduces the New Flagship of Its 35mm Autofocus SLR Lineup" would indicate
> this is as good as it gets. Obviously Pentax believes there only competing
> with themselves. Not that this is not a good body,
On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Flavio Minelli wrote:
> I'm reading the PDML from the archives so my apologies if this has
> already been discussed but I checked some negative/slide strips and I
> wonder how you can have anything written between the frame and the
> perforations.
>
> It seems there is about
Flavio Minelli wrote:
> this is the same spec as the Z1-p's.
> There IS the pseudo MLU as in the Z1-p, I think.
I suppose it's better than nothing, I use the self timer on my SP in that manner since
it lacks a
true MLU feather. However, I truly miss the real MLU of my LX.
Cheers, Mike.
-
Th
--- Alan Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With the features listed, I would be pretty
> surprised if its street price
> was more than USD800. Personally, I feel it worth
> USD700 only.
Yeah, and with N dropping the F100's price below
US$1000 I don't think Pentax can sell too many MZS at
th
Dario wrote:
> Which is their target. I see this MZ-S much like the Super-A (Super Program)
> was for ME Super users back in the 80's.
I agree. Then we can only wait for the LX equivalent :-)
>
> I'm quite sure we'll see new lenses with new features pretty soon.
So there are indeed lens
Ken wrote:
> This viewfinder info looks rather strange. With such a high eyepoint (only
> x.75 magnification), how come the viewfinder area is only 92%. It should be
> more.
> Well, let's hope that some posted specs could be wrong :-)
Since I've been told by an utter reliable source that the
Jens Bladt said:
> MLU is missing, but this is only
> important for macro/night shots.
> So, we'll just have to use other
> cameras (LX, K1000, PZ1-p) for this.
I can think of several scenarios other than macro or night shots
in which MLU would be valuable. True MLU is a valuable feature
for
Doug wrote:
> Let the whining begin.
This comment is needlessly offensive. If people are disappointed by the lack
of features they need, it is not "whining."
Speaking for myself, I understand perfectly well that people who shoot
slides may not be disappointed by a 92% finder. I shoot black-and
Gianfranco wrote:
> Viewfinder:
> Field of View: 92% vertically/horizontally
>
> ARGH!!
> NO, PLEASE NOT THIS!
>
> Gianfranco
> (mourning for the 98% viewfinder)
This is really surprising (I guess they let the bean counters loose) and a real
drawback. I
Mike Johnston writes:
> UG!
>
> 92% viewfinder @ .75X. That scks.
>
> I'm out.
I'm taking this camera as a sign of things to come for a Z-1p successor. I'm
seriously impressed with it, although I must agree about the viewfinder.
Reading the text, it looks like
>I must say this is better than I expected. The magnesium exterior in
>particular took me by surprise. I look forward to seeing the full list of
>specs.
So, they decided to use the more expensive metal shell, let's hope the
eyepiece was made of glass rather than some cheap plastic. Otherwise, th
I've been reading over the specs for the new camera, and speaking as someone
who's a little visually impaired -- nearsighted as hell, my optometrist says
:-) -- I'm not too wild about the viewfinder, either. But there is a lot of
other great stuff there.
I thought my husband had gotten thoroughly
>Well, I don't know about you guys but I think it has the just the right
>amount of features.. Not overkill...Wait, it doesn't have. ;)
>
>Unfortunately it's after all my saved up "fun money" went towards a blown
>head gasket on my car. sigh...
With the features listed
I was about to complaint that it has 0.75x magnification which is even less
than the MZ-M, until I have discovered RTSIII has 0.74x.
regards,
Alan Chan
>Viewfinder:
>Field of View: 92% vertically/horizontally
>
>ARGH!!
>NO, PLEASE NOT THIS!
>
>Gianfranco
>(mo
Let the whining begin.
--
Douglas Forrest Brewer
Ashwood Lake Photography
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.alphoto.com
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://p
on 2/11/01 12:01 AM, Paul C at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Everything looks great EXCEPT for the 2.5 fps, maybe the battery grip boosts
> the fps a little? Thanks Gianfranco for the link!
The camera is nice and certainly gives me plenty enough features. I am not
sure if I would jump on it now as
On Sat, 10 Feb 2001, Paul C wrote:
> Everything looks great EXCEPT for the 2.5 fps, maybe the battery grip boosts
> the fps a little? Thanks Gianfranco for the link!
It's odd that the specs don't say anything about MLU, but that could just
be an oversight. I'm not sure I like the sound of, "In
Mike, Mike, Mike...
I've been forcing my wife to look at every photo of this camera that has appeared on
the web, so she has become quite numb to it. I could have a whole fleet of them in
here and she wouldn't notice.
Doug "be prepared" Brewer
At 6:12 PM -08002/10/01, -=Mike=- caused thus t
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo
