I wouldn't want to wear it out. Perhaps I'll put in a digital
simulation of a bell to preserve the original... ;-)
G
On Oct 19, 2007, at 8:24 AM, Y. Rowe wrote:
Please, ring it daily!
If I may ring the Luddite bell, relying upon AF for critical focus is
a foolish idea.
--
PDML
Please, ring it daily!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Godfrey DiGiorgi
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 09:52
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
If I may ring
On 17/10/07, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:
(She's
thrilled with the DOF scale next to the focusing ring.)
Got her number ? ;-))
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
--
PDML
From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2007/10/18 Thu AM 07:08:07 GMT
To: pentax list PDML@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
On 17/10/07, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:
(She's
thrilled with the DOF scale next to the focusing
Adam Maas wrote:
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
We were speaking of Rebel users. I'll bet nine out of ten use autofocus
for everything.
So we aren't speaking of people
Christian wrote:
Adam Maas wrote:
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
We were speaking of Rebel users. I'll bet nine out of ten use autofocus
for everything.
So we aren't
From: Adam Maas
Cory Papenfuss wrote:
Wow. Impressive thread. Let me know if I missed any controversies:
- WR vs. JCO AND WR+JCO vs PDML.
- Sensor sizes defying physical laws
- Whether Pentax will ever release a FF-DSLR
- Canikon vs. Pentax
- Emacs vs. VI
- Firefox vs. Internet
On 10/18/07, John Sessoms [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Adam Maas
Cory Papenfuss wrote:
Wow. Impressive thread. Let me know if I missed any controversies:
- WR vs. JCO AND WR+JCO vs PDML.
- Sensor sizes defying physical laws
- Whether Pentax will ever release a FF-DSLR
-
On Oct 18, 2007, at 7:40 AM, Christian wrote:
I know a lot of digiRebel users... none of them would EVER
consider the
50/1.8. It doesn't zoom is the most often heard reason. sheesh.
Yup.
It is a noisy flimsy little lens, but wow, is it ever value for money.
Bokeh is also very crappy,
. it is the reality of a reflection.
-Jean Luc Godard
- Original Message -
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 5:26 PM
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
- Original Message
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Oct 18, 2007, at 7:40 AM, Christian wrote:
I know a lot of digiRebel users... none of them would EVER
consider the
50/1.8. It doesn't zoom is the most often heard reason. sheesh.
Yup.
It is a noisy flimsy little lens, but wow, is it ever value for money.
- Original Message -
From: Bob Blakely
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
When I was a Boy Scout, I made my own 4x5 pinhole camera from
cardboard.Some
folks have made them from those cylindrical Quaker Oatmeal boxes. An 8
year
old can do
Adam Maas wrote:
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Oct 18, 2007, at 7:40 AM, Christian wrote:
I know a lot of digiRebel users... none of them would EVER
consider the
50/1.8. It doesn't zoom is the most often heard reason. sheesh.
Yup.
It is a noisy flimsy little
P. J. Alling wrote:
Adam Maas wrote:
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Oct 18, 2007, at 7:40 AM, Christian wrote:
I know a lot of digiRebel users... none of them would EVER
consider the
50/1.8. It doesn't zoom is the most often heard reason. sheesh.
Yup.
It is a
In a message dated 10/16/2007 11:30:42 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Let's see:
1. Word Processing software
2. Political orientations
3. Sci Fi quotes
4. Some discussion of DSLR design.
5. Some name calling
Yep, typical PDML thread. VBG
Actually, this
From: Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The 30D/40D are pretty good though. Less accurate than the Pentax's, but
they get there a fair bit faster.
Isn't that like running 100yards in the opposite direction to a marathon start
then claiming you've won?
Not a good analogy, more like running the hundred yard dash, beating the
those who finished to the 90 yard mark, stopping there and declaring
yourself the winner.
mike wilson wrote:
From: Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The 30D/40D are pretty good though. Less accurate than the Pentax's, but
Doug Franklin wrote:
Adam Maas wrote:
Less accurate than the Pentax's, but
they get there a fair bit faster.
Getting to the wrong place quickly rarely helps anyone.
:-)
It's fine as long as they're covered by DoF. That's why you hear all the
Rebel owners whining that their Rebel
Focus within the range of DOF and critical focus are two different things. If
you're shooting portraits, for example, you want the eyes to be THE focal
point, not just within range of DOF. And less than 2.8 is frequently the stop
of choice for portraiture.
Paul
-- Original message
Indeed,
Which leads to a lot of frustrated Rebel owners(well, except for those using
the XTi, which has the more accurate AF unit from the 20D/30D).
-Adam
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Focus within the range of DOF and critical focus are two different things. If
you're shooting portraits, for
- Original Message -
From: mike wilson
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
From: Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The 30D/40D are pretty good though. Less accurate than the Pentax's, but
they get there a fair bit faster.
Isn't that like running
If I may ring the Luddite bell, relying upon AF for critical focus is
a foolish idea.
Godfrey
--
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.
We were speaking of Rebel users. I'll bet nine out of ten use autofocus for
everything.
Paul
-- Original message --
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
Focus within the range of DOF and critical focus are two different things.
If you're shooting portraits, for example, you want the eyes to be THE
focal point
For those who may be interested:
Most of the editors mentioned in this sub-thread are from the Unix/Linux world
although most of them are available for Windows these days (Unix stuff should
run natively on OS-X for the Apple fans). Emacs started out as a text editor
but
has over time evolved
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: mike wilson
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
From: Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The 30D/40D are pretty good though. Less accurate than the Pentax's, but
they get there a fair bit faster
On 10/18/07, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: mike wilson
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
From: Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The 30D/40D are pretty good though. Less accurate than
On 16/10/07, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed:
Point taken. It really is the high end Canons that are so blisteringly fast.
If I find myself shooting a lot of agility, I might have to consider one of
them and some sort of a zoom lens for it, though an improved Pentax would
suit me
On 17/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:
And less than 2.8 is frequently the stop of choice for portraiture.
or even 1.4 ;-)))
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
--
On Oct 17, 2007, at 9:49 AM, Cotty wrote:
On 17/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:
And less than 2.8 is frequently the stop of choice for portraiture.
or even 1.4 ;-)))
Huh? I dunno about anyone else, but I need about 1-1.5 feet DoF as a
minimum at 7' focus distance
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Oct 17, 2007, at 9:49 AM, Cotty wrote:
On 17/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:
And less than 2.8 is frequently the stop of choice for portraiture.
or even 1.4 ;-)))
Huh? I dunno about anyone else, but I need about 1-1.5 feet DoF as a
On 17/10/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed:
Shooting with either at f/2.8 or larger lens openings creates
unsharpness in the foreground (at the nose) of a HS portrait, which
is distracting and looks bad.
Godders Godders Godders
Selective focus portraiture has been in
When shooting paid portaits, I rarely shooter faster than f4, usually
more towards f5.6.
There are cases where faster is useful, but they are more the
exception than the rule. On trick is to not put them too close to the
background - that way they are all in focus and the background is not.
Or
If all you have is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail.
Cory Papenfuss wrote:
Word is used as the wrong tool for so many jobs it's
incredible.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit
That's all very true of conventional portraiture. But I've seen many lovely
shots with critical focus on the eyes only.
Paul
-- Original message --
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Oct 17, 2007, at 9:49 AM, Cotty wrote:
On 17/10/07, [EMAIL
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's all very true of conventional portraiture. But I've seen many lovely
shots with critical focus on the eyes only.
Paul
yeah but what do you, cotty and I know about portraiture! apparently
about as much as we know about street photography... :-)
--
No, no, Bruce. You know that you have to have auto-focus for portraiture. I
mean
that subject may move a couple of inches or so between shots.
GRIN
Excellent advice, by the way.
Bruce Dayton wrote:
When shooting paid portaits, I rarely shooter faster than f4, usually
more towards f5.6.
Everyone has their likes and dislikes. I prefer razor sharp eyes and
eyelashes, nose just soft enough that pores aren't disturbing, soft ears,
very soft forground (if any) and background so soft that it only hints of
something. Bokeh is important. But that's just me.
Regards,
Bob...
-- Original message --
From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
l
Regarding style and fashion, I realise that cutting edge European trends
take a while to filter across the pond ;-)))
Bite your tongue, young fellow. My pic of Steve at f2.5 with the K85/1.8:
So i was watching TV on the Labour day weekend, and wound up giving a
dollar to Jerry's squids.
Dave
On 10/16/07, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 16/10/07, P. J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed:
I'm a Doctor not a Sturgeon.
There's something fishy going on here
Cheers,
On Oct 17, 2007, at 10:50 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's all very true of conventional portraiture. But I've seen
many lovely shots with critical focus on the eyes only.
Certainly. Conventional portraiture is what I was referring to.
Blurry bits in the foreground, however, are
On 17/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:
-- Original message --
From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
l
Regarding style and fashion, I realise that cutting edge European trends
take a while to filter across the pond ;-)))
Bite your tongue, young
Right on the money, Bruce. :-)
G
On Oct 17, 2007, at 11:11 AM, Bruce Dayton wrote:
When shooting paid portaits, I rarely shooter faster than f4, usually
more towards f5.6.
There are cases where faster is useful, but they are more the
exception than the rule. On trick is to not put them
On Oct 17, 2007, at 10:46 AM, Cotty wrote:
Shooting with either at f/2.8 or larger lens openings creates
unsharpness in the foreground (at the nose) of a HS portrait, which
is distracting and looks bad.
Godders Godders Godders
Selective focus portraiture has been in vogue here in
On Oct 17, 2007, at 12:59 PM, Cotty wrote:
On 17/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4159763
Love both of those portraits you showed, by the way. Particularly the
old coot!
The pic of Steve I like very much, but personally, with
Steve is both vain and insecure:-).
Paul
-- Original message --
From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 17/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:
-- Original message --
From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
l
Regarding
Cotty wrote:
Selective focus portraiture has been in vogue here in Europe for several
years, almost passe now. The latest fashion seems to be shooting sharp
and blurring in PS in areas that would have been impossible to do at
shooting stage. From landscapes to product shots - they're all at it.
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
We were speaking of Rebel users. I'll bet nine out of ten use autofocus
for everything.
So we aren't speaking of people with lenses faster than f2.8 then, are we
Good point.
On Oct 17, 2007, at 6:59 PM, William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under
NDA) ?
We were speaking of Rebel users. I'll bet nine out of ten use
autofocus
for everything.
So
William Robb wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
We were speaking of Rebel users. I'll bet nine out of ten use
autofocus
for everything.
So we aren't speaking of people with lenses faster than f2.8 then, are
we.
True. I just convinced one of my students, a digi-rebel user, to buy a
prime. She
Students should be required to make and use their first camera - a pinhole.
After this, students should be required to use cameras without batteries.
Camera won't work without batteries? Get one that does! Light meters should
be forbidden until at least half way through the course.
Regards,
- Original Message -
From: Bob Blakely
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
Students should be required to make and use their first camera - a
pinhole.
After this, students should be required to use cameras without batteries.
Camera won't work
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
We were speaking of Rebel users. I'll bet nine out of ten use autofocus
for everything.
So we aren't speaking of people with lenses
From: P. J. Alling
Sorry my text editor of choice is KEdit, a windows version of XEdit.
Extensible using REX, (I think I have a REX manual around here
somewhere), a language that is one understandable by mere mortals and
doesn't lead me to trying to rewrite the editor entirely, so I
actually
- Original Message -
From: Adam Maas
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
Yeah, we are. Canon 50 f1.8's are the cheapest lens in the system, they
run less than $80 USD new, and are a lens that many recommend to Canon
owners as a must-have (Sharp
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Adam Maas
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
Yeah, we are. Canon 50 f1.8's are the cheapest lens in the system, they
run less than $80 USD new, and are a lens that many recommend to Canon
William Robb wrote:
One of things I am being asked to do quite often at the shop is to fix
pictures taken by supposed pros that should have been easy images to make if
the person had a clue about what they were doing.
So charge the shit out of them and laugh all the way to the bank. A lot
- Original Message -
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
On Oct 15, 2007, at 10:02 PM, William Robb wrote:
For a second rate company, they do pretty well.
Try shooting with a mid range or higher Canon somtime.
Owned
On 15/10/2007, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 15/10/07, Bob Blakely, discombobulated, unleashed:
Art is not a reflection of reality. it is the reality of a reflection.
-Jean Luc Godard
Make it so.
- Jean Luc Picard
Cheers,
Cotty
Indeed!
-Teal'c
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail
On Oct 15, 2007, at 11:04 PM, William Robb wrote:
Do try to appreciate that some people actually want a high spec
camera body,
whether or not they will use it to the maximum of it's abilities.
Not all of us shoot dead objects sitting on sidewalks.
I have two dogs that can easily outrun
At 02:41 PM 16/10/2007, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Oct 15, 2007, at 11:04 PM, William Robb wrote:
I don't necessarily want a full frame camera, but I would like
something
that can keep up with my dogs.
So buy a Canon. They're good for that sort of thing.
I was waiting for that
I don't
At 02:37 PM 16/10/2007, you wrote:
On 15/10/2007, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 15/10/07, Bob Blakely, discombobulated, unleashed:
Art is not a reflection of reality. it is the reality of a reflection.
-Jean Luc Godard
Make it so.
- Jean Luc Picard
Cheers,
Cotty
- Original Message -
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
I don't necessarily want a full frame camera, but I would like
something
that can keep up with my dogs.
So buy a Canon. They're good for that sort of thing.
I'd
- Original Message -
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
On Oct 15, 2007, at 11:48 PM, David Savage wrote:
Yeah. Sometimes the dead things are on the road, a grassy field,
under a car...
Yup. Sometimes they move
On Oct 15, 2007, at 11:48 PM, David Savage wrote:
Yeah. Sometimes the dead things are on the road, a grassy field,
under a car...
Yup. Sometimes they move pretty fast too...
http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW7/32a.htm
But some just like to piss and moan. Must be disgruntled
- Original Message -
From: David Savage
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
Indeed!
-Teal'c
Wrong franchise buddy.
It's dead, Jim.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
- Original Message -
From: David Savage
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
So buy a Canon. They're good for that sort of thing.
I was waiting for that
It would be good advice, and I'd probably take it, except for the
impractibility
On Oct 15, 2007, at 11:55 PM, William Robb wrote:
So buy a Canon. They're good for that sort of thing.
I'd rather Pentax built a camera that was up to the standard of a
five year
old Canon. I could live with that, and use my present lenses to boot.
LOL ... I'm sure you wouldn't be
Quoting William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Indeed!
-Teal'c
Wrong franchise buddy.
It's dead, Jim.
There's Klingons on the starboard bow..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCARADb9asE
Cheers
Brian
++
Brian Walters
Western Sydney,
For a second rate company, they do pretty well.
Try shooting with a mid range or higher Canon somtime.
Have a look at the D40.
In 1972, Pentax was still more or less a big player in the marketplace,
though they were already at least a generation out of step.
People want decent
and Nikon do at major
sporting
events. Pentax products lack presence on store shelves in the
USA. Etc.
Tom C wrote:
- Original Message -
From: John Sessoms
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even
under NDA)
?
If memory serves the other two are an over
Pentax autofocus keeps up quite nicely in CAF mode.
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4834217size=lg
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6065859size=lg
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5786253size=lg
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5700158size=lg
On Oct 16, 2007, at
Why is that, Mr Data?
Jean Luc, after generating a particularly obtuse histogram in the red channel.
From: David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2007/10/16 Tue AM 12:41:08 GMT
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA
.
Etc.
Tom C wrote:
- Original Message -
From: John Sessoms
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under
NDA)
?
If memory serves the other two are an over-priced Nissan and an
over-priced Honda
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: David Savage
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
So buy a Canon. They're good for that sort of thing.
I was waiting for that
It would be good advice, and I'd probably take it, except
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
I don't necessarily want a full frame camera, but I would like
something
that can keep up with my dogs.
So buy a Canon. They're good
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
For a second rate company, they do pretty well.
Try shooting with a mid range or higher Canon somtime.
Have a look at the D40.
In 1972
In the words of Commander Data
Could you please continue the petty bickering? I find it most intriguing.
Peter
--
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
Bob Blakely wrote:
Will, sometimes there is nothing we can do but bow to the absurd.
- Picard, again...
I'm a physician, not a bricklayer!
- Dr. McCoy
;-)
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please
Adam Maas wrote:
Tom C wrote:
It'll likely be a matter of attrition. What % of people here use
WordPerfect as opposed to MS Word?
I use vi
Open Office here.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML,
Toralf Lund wrote:
It sort of makes me wish that Pentax were producing mobile phone,
because then I might be able to buy one that's, well, a phone - and not
an MP3 player, GPS, radio, Filofax, games console, toaster... Or a
camera for that matter ;-)
I'd never have thought of it if you hadn't
On 10/16/07, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Toralf Lund wrote:
It sort of makes me wish that Pentax were producing mobile phone,
because then I might be able to buy one that's, well, a phone - and not
an MP3 player, GPS, radio, Filofax, games console, toaster... Or a
camera for that
A
-Chewbacca
Peter Fairweather [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/16/2007 2:37 AM
On 15/10/2007, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 15/10/07, Bob Blakely, discombobulated, unleashed:
Art is not a reflection of reality. it is the reality of a
reflection.
-Jean Luc Godard
Adam Maas wrote:
And to William - I'd probably be a Republican if I was an American, it's
a more comfortable party to a small-l libertarian like me.
-Adam
Republican, libertarian? Really
(OK, I'm Australian, but I could raise the same eyebrow about the
Liberal Party of Australia, a
not
provide
the kind of professional support that Canon and Nikon do at major
sporting
events. Pentax products lack presence on store shelves in the USA.
Etc.
Tom C wrote:
- Original Message -
From: John Sessoms
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under
NDA
David Savage wrote:
On 10/16/07, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Toralf Lund wrote:
It sort of makes me wish that Pentax were producing mobile phone,
because then I might be able to buy one that's, well, a phone - and not
an MP3 player, GPS, radio, Filofax, games console, toaster... Or
Steve Desjardins wrote:
Peter Fairweather wrote:
On 15/10/2007, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 15/10/07, Bob Blakely, discombobulated, unleashed:
Art is not a reflection of reality. it is the reality of a
reflection.
-Jean Luc Godard
Make it so.
- Jean Luc Picard
Indeed!
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 16:22:50 +0100, P. J. Alling
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well yes it was a pissing match. But I'm not mad a Adam because he
wouldn't back down. In fact I learned a few things from him. I just
don't agree that they're the whole reason for the high ISO improvements.
WW has
Derby Chang wrote:
Adam Maas wrote:
And to William - I'd probably be a Republican if I was an American, it's
a more comfortable party to a small-l libertarian like me.
-Adam
Republican, libertarian? Really
(OK, I'm Australian, but I could raise the same eyebrow about the
Liberal
-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 00:20:34 -0400
Why? Pentax has never been a player in the Pro 35mm market. Not being
one now will make little
And, of course, there's AF which is a much more difficult and variable
feature than AE and one in which Pentax really fell behind. The big
issue here is again the lenses, as the new DA* lenses will bring AF
speed much closer to the market leaders.
Unfortunately, the DA* lenses don't focus
I'm a Doctor not a Sturgeon.
(well McCoy should have said it, sometime...)
Mark Roberts wrote:
Bob Blakely wrote:
Will, sometimes there is nothing we can do but bow to the absurd.
- Picard, again...
I'm a physician, not a bricklayer!
- Dr. McCoy
;-)
--
Remember,
and Nikon.
To really do that, it needs to be FF.
Tom C.
From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 06:08:13 -0400
How
On Oct 16, 2007, at 6:46 AM, Steve Desjardins wrote:
Canon (and Nikon, but especially Canon) will always be ahead of Pentax
in feature-rich body design since they have so much more RD money.
Not always true. Neither Canon nor Nikon have Pentax' MTF program
line, and Sv, TAv exposure modes
Libertarian philosophy works well in two places, a position of absolute
strength or utopia. Since neither exists it must be modified to match
current conditions. I've often thought that pure libertarians lived in
utopia, though it's also strange that the first place I heard the
execrable words
So these lenses were just introduced for market hype?
Joseph Tainter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/16/2007 11:25 AM
And, of course, there's AF which is a much more difficult and variable
feature than AE and one in which Pentax really fell behind. The big
issue here is again the lenses, as the new DA*
As you may already know, i don't use Word, Wordperfet OR spell checkers.
:-)
Dave
On 10/16/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't use either MS Word or WordPerfect. Never used either,
actually. I do most of my writing in a source code editor or in the
Mail editor. But then I
I don't use either MS Word or WordPerfect. Never used either,
actually. I do most of my writing in a source code editor or in the
Mail editor. But then I only rarely need formatted text. vi, emacs,
pico, BBEdit, whatever..
When I do need formatted text, there are better options available
That's not his only problem. He has a hard time telling a fool from
someone who simply disagrees with him. He also is perfectly willing to
project his faults on others. Many of us do this I suppose but William
never seems to realize it, which I've found more and more insufferable.
John Forbes
On Oct 16, 2007, at 9:04 AM, Steve Desjardins wrote:
... So these lenses were just introduced for market hype?
I have both DA* lenses on hand to work with at present. Compared to
the DA16-45 and DA50-200, they're significantly better built and
finished, a stop to two stops faster, and
1 - 100 of 267 matches
Mail list logo
