thanks anthony. you wrote what i was going to.
the ZD 35 Macro and ZD 25 focus quickly but with nowhere near the
speed and silence of the Olympus pro-class lenses I have (ZD
11-22/2.8-3.5, ZD 50-200/2.8-3.5) or Panasonic/Leica lenses (Vario-
Elmarit-D 14-50/2.8-3.5, Summilux-D 25/1.4). Obviou
olved.
Regards, Anthony Farr
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Adam Maas
> Sent: Sunday, 14 September 2008 7:17 AM
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: panasonic's new micro four/thirds camera: G1
>
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, 12 September 2008 11:28 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: panasonic's new micro four/thirds camera: G1
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 3:24 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> It seems to me however, that it is a nice attempt and that
Contrast-Detect Auto-Focus, the method used on many P&S digital
cameras and in Live View on some DSLR's to AF. It's very accurate but
generally slower than the traditional AF units on DSLR's which can't
be used when the mirror is up. It works by measuring contrast off the
sensor.
-Adam
On Sat, Se
CDAF.??
Dace
On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 5:17 PM, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When everybody elses lensed designed "years" before Live View and CDAF
> work just fine? Yup. Canon and Nikon had much more significant hurdles
> to get 20 year old lenses to AF with CDAF than Oly did with at mos
Sadly, my D300's got faster CDAF than the last couple of Nikon P&S's
I've tried. Nikon just doesn't do the P&S thing well anymore and it
shows in the CDAF performance. CDAF on the D300 is usable without a
tripod though, just don't expect to follow anything moving.
Doesn't change the fact that 4/3r
I played with a couple of them on that body.
Nikon calls it "tripod mode" for a reason. :-)
G
On Sep 13, 2008, at 3:43 AM, Adam Maas wrote:
> That's simply not the case. My D300 does CDAF just fine with
> screwdriver-drive AF lenses from the late 80's as well as lens-motor
> AF-S lenses from bot
That's simply not the case. My D300 does CDAF just fine with
screwdriver-drive AF lenses from the late 80's as well as lens-motor
AF-S lenses from both before and after Nikon introduced CDAF with Live
View on its DSLR's. Oly bungled the spec.
-Adam
On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 3:53 AM, Godfrey DiGiorg
> On 13/9/08, Boris Liberman, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
> >Godfrey, I don't give a toss (I couldn't possibly know how
> to actually
> >give one)
>
> No worries, plenty of folk here could teach you :)
>
;o)
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/p
On 13/9/08, Boris Liberman, discombobulated, unleashed:
>Godfrey, I don't give a toss (I couldn't possibly know how to actually
>give one)
No worries, plenty of folk here could teach you :)
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.
CDAF requires much more out of a lens focus servo than phase detect AF
for responsive operation. CDAF could not have been foreseen as a part
of the original 4/3 System specification.
A 20mm f/1.7 is on the lens roadmap. It's unknown as to how much Leica
is going to be involved ... I hope the
There's no such thing as "full expression of ... blah blah blah".
Those are only expectations and desires. If you want the FoV-DoF
coverage of a 35mm film camera, well, that's the sensor format you
need. The lens doesn't care. ;-)
Godfrey
On Sep 12, 2008, at 8:56 PM, Boris Liberman wrote:
Yep.
Good work, Panasonic. It very well may be the next camera we will be buy
either for me or for Galia. I think that with 25/2.8 pancake or if it is
small with 20/1.7 lens, it will be great piece of kit.
Godfrey, I don't give a toss (I couldn't possibly know how to actually
give one) about f
The AF thing is a problem with the original 4/3rds spec, when they
introduced Contrast-detect AF they didn't do it in a fashion that's
compatible with most 4/3rds lenses. The limitation also applies to the
E-520 and E-420 when using contrast-detect AF as well.
I'm interested in this thing but I wo
; From: P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: panasonic's new micro four/thirds camera: G1
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
> Date: Friday, September 12, 2008, 12:51 PM
> Jack Davis wrote:
> > A closer proximity of lens and "film" would
On Sep 12, 2008, at 6:03 AM, Mike Hamilton wrote:
> - Olympus Zuiko 25 F2.8 'Pancake'
> - Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 14-42mm F3.5-5.6
> - Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm F4-5.6
> - Panasonic Leica D Summilux 25mm F1.4 ASPH
> - Panasonic Leica D Vario-Elmar 14-50mm F3.8-5.6 ASPH. Mega OIS
> - Panas
>> Will the fact that the sensor is closer to the lens produce a
>> "sharper" image?
>>
> Probably not.
>> Will the image circle of existing 4:3 lenses not completely cover
>> the sensor, therefore, producing vignetting, but increasing the
>> telescopic effect?
>> Do to a gain in DOF, will sm
> Final thoughts on the issue,
>
> Jack
>
>
> --- On Fri, 9/12/08, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> From: P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Subject: Re: panasonic's new micro four/thirds camera: G1
>> To: "Pentax-Discuss Ma
?)
Thanks, Peter!
Final thoughts on the issue,
Jack
--- On Fri, 9/12/08, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: panasonic's new micro four/thirds camera: G1
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
> Date:
> Do to a gain in DOF, will small aperture diffraction be reduced?
>
No more than on current 4:3 cameras.
> Please be gentle. ;)
>
Suffer.
>
> Jack
>
>
>
> --- On Fri, 9/12/08, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> From: P. J. Alling
be reduced?
Please be gentle. ;)
Jack
--- On Fri, 9/12/08, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: panasonic's new micro four/thirds camera: G1
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
> Date: Friday, September
If I remember correctly Pentax sold the Spotmatic F SP1000 and ESII
alongside the KM KX and K2 for at least a year maybe two so you still
had a choice. In fact Pentax had only gone over to an Open aperture
metering system a couple of years earlier so most users lost only auto
diaphragm which w
They're still hobbled by the small sensor size. As technology improves
and 24x36mm sensors become more prevalent, (and there's no upgrade path
even possible), I think this will be relegated to a second class system,
sort of where 4:3 is headed today. The same issue that always comes up
when co
On 12/9/08, Bob W, discombobulated, unleashed:
> I cannot focus
>on the screen at the back of a camera unless I wear my reading
>glasses, but I'm not prepared to wear them when I'm out and about
>shooting - it is just not practical. I suspect an electronic
>viewfinder would be unusable for me and
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 3:24 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> It seems to me however, that it is a nice attempt and that in a couple
>>> months this micro4/3 may indeed be a very interesting market segment.
>>
>> The whole M4/3 system is still walks in baby-shoes. In 1975 when Pentax
>> create
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 3:24 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It seems to me however, that it is a nice attempt and that in a couple
>> months this micro4/3 may indeed be a very interesting market segment.
>
> The whole M4/3 system is still walks in baby-shoes. In 1975 when Pentax
> created the P
On 12-Sep-08, at 1:03 AM, Thibouille wrote:
>
> the quote at the end may stink IMO:
>
>> Lenses that are not compatible with the contrast AF function can be
>> used with manual
>> focusing. There are some limitations to other functions when the
>> lenses other than LUMIX G
>> VARIO 14-45mm/F3.5
Sandy,
you switched the size numbers of G1 and E420 - G1 is the small one
--
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.
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 3:03 PM, Thibouille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> First things I note (those are preliminary notes, I think it should be
> compared before defenitive decision, speaking for me of course):
>
> * it doesn't seem *that* small but it is very difficult to judge not
> having a e.g.
> It seems to me however, that it is a nice attempt and that in a couple
> months this micro4/3 may indeed be a very interesting market segment.
The whole M4/3 system is still walks in baby-shoes. In 1975 when Pentax
created the Pentax K bayonett all of the older Pentax lenses (M42 Taks)
was useab
it's an interesting idea, and if it leads to a high quality
rangefinder camera (perhaps something like the Contax G cameras) I'd
be interested. But I'm not at all sure that their stated market really
wants electronic viewfinders. Speaking for myself, my eyesight has
deteriorated to the point where
First things I note (those are preliminary notes, I think it should be
compared before defenitive decision, speaking for me of course):
* it doesn't seem *that* small but it is very difficult to judge not
having a e.g. E420 next to it.
the quote at the end may stink IMO:
>Lenses that are not com
32 matches
Mail list logo
