A few things regarding the "not so good news":
> - In aperture priority mode, with a K-mount lens not in "A" position,
> the camera chooses the shutter speed as if the lens was set at open
> aperture. And really, the aperture stays open during exposure, no matter
> what aperture is set on the lens
They better just put the simulator back in the camera
and make it work correctly, we would want DOF preview
AT ANY TIME like we are used to. That and metering AT
ANY TIME to.
--- Arnold Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >
Thanks to a good Pentax contact and to a very kind
> invitation I was
> tod
Brendan wrote:
They better just put the simulator back in the camera
and make it work correctly, we would want DOF preview
AT ANY TIME like we are used to. That and metering AT
ANY TIME to.
C'mon Brendan. They are now closer to that great camera Nikon F80 and
you complain ?
cheers,
caveman
On 5 Jun 2003 at 22:34, Arnold Stark wrote:
> Let's hope (never stop hoping) that the compatibilty issue will be
> bettered in a software update or in an updated *ist D or in the
> successor of the *ist D - this could be one advatage of the short
> production cycles of the digital age.
Thanks
Looks like an owner of KA lenses will be OK with the "ist-D. I've got screw
mount and a three K-mounts lenses. I am out of luck with the Pentax DSLR.
Jim A.
> From: Arnold Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 22:34:47 +0200
> To: PDML <[EMAIL PROTECTE
1) There is one thing I don't understand. If the aperture always stays wide
open in AV mode when the lens is not set to 'A', why does the metering
matter anyway? Who is going to use it this way?
2) If the metering works in AV mode, why not manual mode? Did Pentax
purposely design it this way to
Hi Christian
- In manual mode, with a lens not in "A" position, the meter does not work, but DOF preview does, just like with the *ist. This really is a shame. Why do the programmers of the camera not just turn the meter ON with DOF preview activated for manual mode?
This makes no sense at al
I am more concerned with the image quality. So far picture samples from
Pentax digital compacts aren't as "attractive" as other brands. Do they
purposely lower the contrast & colour to retain the Pentax "taste"?
regards,
Alan Chan
_
Hi Alan
1) There is one thing I don't understand. If the aperture always stays
wide open in AV mode when the lens is not set to 'A', why does the
metering matter anyway Who is going to use it this way?
Well, just rename the AV mode (when the lens is not set to 'A') to "open
apertrue mode", th
I think he gets everything that Tom dropped and sent back. Seriously
Alan, you do seem to be a magnet for problems. I have purchased 3
ZX-10's, 2 PZ-1p's, 2 MZ-S's, F17-28 fisheye, FA 20/2.8, FA *24/2, FA
28/2.8, FA 35/2, FA 50/1.7, FA *85/1.4, FA 100/2.8 macro, FA 135/2.8,
FA *200/2.8 and A 400/
Alan,
I'm very inclined to agree with that. I suspect we could be seeing
the beginning of the end of Pre-A lenses. Fortunately for me, all my
lenses are A or newer.
Bruce
Friday, June 6, 2003, 12:04:40 AM, you wrote:
AC> If an expensive model like *ist D doesn't support pre-A lenses, there
From: Arnold Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: *ist D revisited
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 07:31:18 +0200
Manual aperture lenses stops down by tehmselves. No coupling between lens
and body is required.
Does this mean that the FA Soft focus 85 and 28 will work in aperture
priority mode wi
My adventure started 4 years ago.
Z-1p - big gap near the self timer LED (checked 3 and picked the best). The
problem due to pooly molded transparent red colour plastic.
FA100/2.8 - missing screw under the rubber (what should I tell the shop?)
FA43 - loose focus ring and front section, click soun
Actually Pentax have stopped to support even A lenses since the Z/PZ series,
quietly... Most of us just haven't noticed. If you checked the exposure with
handheld meter or another camera, the exposure could be 2/3-1 stops
difference. I have checked this many times with my Z-1p and come to the sa
- Original Message -
From: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 10:19 AM
Subject: Re: *ist D revisited
> I'm very inclined to agree with that. I suspect we could be seeing
&g
Tetrazen wrote:
>
> It is pity that Pentax made a decision for ourselves. Even
I have mostly A,
> F and FA lenses, I still want to use my older (pre-A) ones
with a digital
> body. I believe they could be a good combination with
all-metal *ist D.
> From another perspective, Pentax do not offer long-
This still doesn't make any sense to me. If your goal is to promote
sales of new lenses by making K and M lenses redundant, why would you
keep compatibility with screw mount lenses? There can't be many people
who would want to use 645 and 67 lenses with it either to be important
enough a reason. As
Hi,
> Expect more lenses with the FAJ mount and no
> aperture ring, and don't try using them on
> your manual focus Pentax body unless you
> like using them wide open all the time.
Actually, closed. The FAJ lenses will only work on their narrowest
aperture on the older bodies, e.g. f/22 or f/32
AIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>From: Arnold Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Subject: Re: *ist D revisited
>>Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 07:31:18 +0200
>>
>>Manual aperture lenses stops down by tehmselves. No coupling between lens
>>and body is required.
>
>Does
In general, design and tech pubs (folks who write the manuals) are part of a technical
organization. They have nothing to do with PR. The designers and writers start their
work from an early set of specifications. The writers will try to get help from
engineers to make sure what they have is cor
penny for Pentax.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: "Tetrazen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 05:22
Subject: Re: *ist D revisited
> It is pity that Pentax made a decision for ourselves. Even I have mostly A,
> F and
- Original Message -
From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: *ist D revisited
> new lenses, including some ultrawides, are supposed to be on the announce
list for the fall.
Yes... more FA J lenses:(((
Regards
Artur
and see" camp and still planning on buying the D.
Christian Skofteland
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "Artur Ledóchowski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 7:42 AM
Subject: Re: *ist D revisited
> --
- Original Message -
From: "Christian Skofteland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: *ist D revisited
> As far as Pentax releasing new lenses in FAJ mount, perhaps they will have
a
> new FAJ* designation for the better quality ones. Look at the limiteds.
Yes, that&
d" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: *ist D revisited
As far as Pentax releasing new lenses in FAJ mount, perhaps they will have
a
new FAJ* designation for the better quality ones. Look at the limiteds.
Yes, that's possible. However, I won't care for the FAJ* lenses as long
; Christian Skofteland
CS> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CS> - Original Message -
CS> From: "Artur Ledóchowski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CS> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CS> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 7:42 AM
CS> Subject: Re: *ist D revisited
>> - Original Me
Bruce;
I was not directing my comments at any one writer, just stating my feelings
about Pentax and its recent offerings.
I think the interface sounds pretty crappy on the *ist too, but from all
accounts the *ist-D is a different animal all together.
I'm in the wait and see camp, but damn! it'
> -Original Message-
> From: Christian Skofteland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> I'm in the wait and see camp, but damn! it's killing me!
> Release the
> frigging camera already!!!
If the pre-production samples have arrived in the US and Germany, it
shouldn't be long now...
tv
oplifting :)
regards,
Anthony Farr
- Original Message -
From: "Roland Mabo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >From: Arnold Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: Re: *ist D revisited
> >Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 07:31:18 +0200
> >
> >Manual aperture lenses st
The K-adapted screwmounts, as well as the manual aperture lenses, will work
properly because Pentax can't stop them from working. Their apertures are
at the working position by default and don't need a camera provided linkage
to get them there. OTOH Pentax has deliberately disabled the aperture
s
Well, the consolation is that the 15 would only be a 22.5 on the digital
anyway.
Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto
- Original Message -
From: "Antti-Pekka Virjonen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 3:48
On Friday 06 June 2003 12:01, tom wrote:
>
> If the pre-production samples have arrived in the US and Germany, it
> shouldn't be long now...
>
> tv
Yeah, right.
Christian
Christian Skofteland schrieb:
>
> I'm still not ready to throw in the towel. As I stated before, I can't wait
> to get my hands on a *ist-D to see what it's really all about. I have only
> 4 non-"A" lenses in 3 focal lengths so I'm not too worried about
> compatibility.
>
> As far as Pentax r
get screwed...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As so often with Pentax, we just have to wait and...
Bruce, have you ever worked as a technical writer or are you making this
up from your a** ?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In general, design and tech pubs (folks who write the manuals) are part of a technical organization. They have nothing to do with PR. The designers and writers start their work fro
Soft focus 85 and shift 28 and all the mirror lenses of course as far as I
can remember without actually looking them up, (of course all the mirror
lenses always work at maximum aperture).
At 10:22 AM 6/6/03 +0200, you wrote:
From: Arnold Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: *ist D rev
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: *ist D revisited
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 22:35:49 -0700
I am more concerned with the image quality. So far picture samples from
Pentax digital compacts aren't as "attractive" as other brands. Do they
purposely lower the contrast & colour to r
Hi Heiko,
> What did they say?
Probably that they need to make everything cheaper than Canon, otherwise
it does not sell.
> Another question remaining open: does the LCD operate when taking
> pictures or only in playback-mode?
Surely you can only see the image AFTER taking it. Before that the
Hi Roland,
> We don't know yet if this lens mount really is "crap". It might
> have support for IS and USM. It's too early to tell. *If* it has
> support for USM and IS, then I doubt that Pentax is going to tell
> anyone before they have released IS and USM lenses. Simply because
> if they tell it
Leonard Paris wrote:
If you were actually concerned with image quality, you wouldn't want to
make any adjustments inside the camera. You'd want raw image output so
that you could make the adjustments yourself.
I submit they should include Photoshop in the camera firmware, and mouse
and monitor
I think we said the same thing when the MZ-S was released. :-( But then
again, perhaps they still have too many lens stocks due to low demand over
the years, they won't do USM/IS until the current inventory started to dry
up.
regards,
Alan Chan
We don't know yet if this lens mount really is "
If I already had been a member of this list at that time, had I been
told to wait? ;-)
Don't be fooled by all the complaints here. We are the most patient people
on this planet. We keep waiting...
regards,
Alan Chan
_
Protect your PC
Like some Pentax lens manual said certain lenses were ok with built-in
flash, some not. :-)
regards,
Alan Chan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In general, design and tech pubs (folks who write the manuals) are part of
a technical organization. They have nothing to do with PR. The designers
and writer
U, but what about some mehanical patch to K-mount lenses?
I think it is simple, IF you REALLY want it.
Gasha
Christian Skofteland wrote:
A few things regarding the "not so good news":
- In aperture priority mode, with a K-mount lens not in "A" position,
the camera chooses the shutter speed
I submit we should do a survey and see why the current PDMLers are
sticking here. I suspect that a large percentage is still with pentax
because they still enjoy the manual focus era cameras and lenses. The AF
action is on the Canon list for a long time now.
cheers,
caveman
Alan Chan wrote:
Yes
I submit we should do a survey and see why the current PDMLers are sticking
here. I suspect that a large percentage is still with pentax because they
still enjoy the manual focus era cameras and lenses. The AF action is on
the Canon list for a long time now.
I am keeping my MX in good working or
It's the Pentax PUB. A significant number of people here no longer use
Pentax 35mm gear as their primary system any more. An even bigger number
wouldn't buy a new Pentax regardless of what technology it had. So it
must be what's on draft.
BR
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I submit we should do a su
Hi Bojidar,
on 05 Jun 03 you wrote in pentax.list:
>> Another question remaining open: does the LCD operate when taking
>> pictures or only in playback-mode?
>Surely you can only see the image AFTER taking it. Before that the
>sensor sees no light at all.
What about mirror lock-up or a partly
On 7 Jun 2003 at 11:40, Rob Studdert wrote:
It's getting worse :-(
should read:
"The option of a suitable K-mount DIGITAL body is where they are likely to
loose me as a customer and unfortunately I can justify running two independent
35mm SLR mounts."
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +6
manuals are definitely the last thing anyone gives sh*t about. people don't pay money
for manuals, they pay for features.
mishka
> Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 14:18:24 -0400
> From: Caveman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: *ist D revisited
>
> Did *you* do the technica
people don't pay
> money for manuals, they pay for features.
>
> mishka
>
> > Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 14:18:24 -0400
> > From: Caveman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Re: *ist D revisited
> >
> > Did *you* do the technical writing, or just
Mike Ignatiev wrote:
manuals are definitely the last thing anyone gives sh*t about.
Unless it's about field technician manuals.
cheers,
caveman
On 03.6.6 6:09 PM, "Bruce Rubenstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's the Pentax PUB.
If you knew that, what's the purpose of your coming in with dirty mouth?
You just do not make sense at all on everything.
Only reason you are here is because people here tolerate what you could not
do in the N
On 03.6.6 5:29 PM, "Caveman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I submit we should do a survey and see why the current PDMLers are
> sticking here. I suspect that a large percentage is still with pentax
> because they still enjoy the manual focus era cameras and lenses.
I do not necessarily think so.
>
> On 03.6.6 5:29 PM, "Caveman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I submit we should do a survey and see why the current PDMLers are
> > sticking here. I suspect that a large percentage is still with pentax
> > because they still enjoy the manual focus era cameras and lenses.
>
I'm a manual
Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Mark Roberts wrote:
>>
>> Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >Keith Whaley wrote:
>> >
>> >Oooops! I meant to say:
>> >I'm not fond of _automatic_ focus on my Pentaxes!
>>
>> Yeah, but my favorite part was "I have a number of the appropriate
>
> I submit we should do a survey and see why the current PDMLers are
> sticking here. I suspect that a large percentage is still with pentax
> because they still enjoy the manual focus era cameras and lenses. The AF
> action is on the Canon list for a long time now.
I have a couple of MXs and s
>> It's the Pentax PUB.
>
>If you knew that, what's the purpose of your coming in with dirty mouth?
>You just do not make sense at all on everything.
>Only reason you are here is because people here tolerate what you could not
>do in the Nikon List.
Careful Ken, you're in danger of shooting yourse
Mark Roberts wrote:
>
> Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
[...]
> >> "incantations"??? I knew that SMC glass was reputed to have some magical
> >> properties!
> > Oh, it DOES, Sir! Indeed so! Love them SMC 50's of the 1.4 variety!
> > "Love they little toes, [etc.]"
> I have three o
On 03.6.7 7:23 AM, "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Careful Ken, you're in danger of shooting yourself in the foot.
Yeah, yeah, I know.
I was just about to exit from my self-righteous BR policing (I never got
involved in any flame war stuff in the past but thought BR was going too far
in ramp
Alan wrote:
Unfortunately, they have already done so. Perhaps they saw Nikon did okay so they
followed the same route. I don't know the difficulty of designing a camera with the
coupling ring, but that ring can't be expensive. Perhaps US$20 more to the selling
price (just to be safe)? But when
Alin wrote:
Unlikely - I agree. But maybe Pentax thinks there is room for a
higher model - larger sensor and full K mount compatibility. Who
knows!? Is the D100 fully AI compatible ?...
It's hard to accept they will dump just like that their most
precious asset - mount compatibility.
Roland wrote:
Now, the information seems strange since Pentax has officially claimed compatibility
with K-mount lenses. It's also strange that they in the *ist manual writes that
shutter speed varies according to aperture ring position, when it seems not be doing
this. Has Pentax any explanati
Christian wrote:
As far as Pentax releasing new lenses in FAJ mount, perhaps they will have a
new FAJ* designation for the better quality ones.
REPLY:
I've been told that there will be no FAJ* lenses. My guess is that the FA, FA* and FA
Limiteds will continue unless they release a completely
Alin wrote:
This is just an urban legend. Used market is another sign of a well
doing company. Availability and fast turnaround of used items means
money consolidation that generates new sales for the company. It's
as valid in the camera market as it is in the auto market, if you
need some
Pål read the damned *ist manual posted by Pentax USA on their official web
site. Some
of your information directly contradicts official released
documentation. Spoken word
is hearsay while written words have much more weight in court. Why is
that? (Rhetorical
question don't bother to answer)
Peter wrote:
> Pål read the damned *ist manual posted by Pentax USA on their official web
> site. Some
> of your information directly contradicts official released
> documentation. Spoken word
> is hearsay while written words have much more weight in court. Why is
> that? (Rhetorical
> que
ly funny because there is a certain
amount of truth in it.
Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto
- Original Message -
From: "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 9:38 AM
Subject: Re: *ist D revisited
LOL!
Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto
- Original Message -
From: "Anthony Farr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 11:36 AM
Subject: Re: *ist D revisited
> - Original Message -
> From: &quo
> -Original Message-
> From: Pål Jensen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Tom wrote:
>
> Ha! The 10D is metal too.
>
>
> REPLY:
> Isn't this just another case of canons Classic metal scam
> job? Ultra cheap plastic body with a thin cosmetic metal
> film on top? Like the Elan 7 or the AE-1 etc..
8 June 2003 2:28 AM
Subject: Re: *ist D revisited
> The problem is the word "compatibility" means different things to
different
> people.
>
> Novice user: "Everything works."
> Experienced user: "Works like it did on the old bodies.
> Manufacturer: "You
Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 12:20:38 +0100
From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I have a couple of MXs and some Pentax glass. These
> items are from a
completely different company that exists now.
That is the case for all camera manufacturers. Those
who did not change went bankrupt some time ago
- Original Message -
From: "Anthony Farr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In fact the FAJs are the most miraculous lenses Pentax has ever made. I'm
> certain I read somewhere that they'd been 'Canonized'.
>
> regards,
> Anthony Farr
HAR!
Christian
The review I just read stated something to the effect of: polycarbonate body
on an aluminum chassis with magnesium alloy side top and bottom panels for
added strength.
Tom, shouldn't you be photographing scantily-clad models today?
Christian Skofteland
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
"Anthony Farr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>From: "Mark Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> "incantations"??? I knew that SMC glass was reputed to have some magical
>> properties!
>
>In fact the FAJs are the most miraculous lenses Pentax has ever made. I'm
>certain I read somewhere that they'd been
Better maybe, infinitely no. Before if I was going to purchase one it
would have
to be the latter. Now just better will do.
At 01:31 AM 6/8/03 +1000, you wrote:
On 7 Jun 2003 at 17:18, Pål Jensen wrote:
> Tom wrote:
>
> Ha! The 10D is metal too.
>
>
> REPLY:
> Isn't this just another case of c
IL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 9:38 AM
Subject: Re: *ist D revisited
> Peter wrote:
>
>
> > Pål read the damned *ist manual posted by Pentax USA on their official
web
> > site. Some
> > of your information directly contradicts
There is no reason for Pentax to also alienate old users at the
same time, they just have however.
At 10:34 AM 6/7/03 -0700, you wrote:
Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 12:20:38 +0100
From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I have a couple of MXs and some Pentax glass. These
> items are from a
completely di
AGGG!
At 03:21 PM 6/7/03 -0400, you wrote:
"Anthony Farr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>From: "Mark Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> "incantations"??? I knew that SMC glass was reputed to have some magical
>> properties!
>
>In fact the FAJs are the most miraculous lenses Pentax has ev
I suspect that one of the real impetuses behind this move is precision. I
believe it is impossible to achieve precise enough aperture control with
auto settings via the old K-mount protocol. Obviously, Pentax goes the
fullly auto route with the *ists but they have provided choices for those
who
As long as the description is ambiguous, they aren't lying. :-)
regards,
Alan Chan
The problem is the word "compatibility" means different things to different
people.
Novice user: "Everything works."
Experienced user: "Works like it did on the old bodies.
Manufacturer: "You can mount it on the bo
Speaking of metal, the silver metal shell used on Limited lenses are rather
soft compared to K or M lenses. I have found out the construction of the 31
is different from 43 & 77 too. The latter 2 are closer to manual focus
lenses while the mechanical design of the 31 is no different from other A
Ha! The 10D is metal too.
REPLY:
Isn't this just another case of canons Classic metal scam job? Ultra cheap
plastic body with a thin cosmetic metal film on top? Like the Elan 7 or the
AE-1 etc.
In 6 months time, it won't matter no more because everyone will be talking
about the next model.
They should manufacture the MX2000 to keep us old time users reasonably
happy at least. :-)
regards,
Alan Chan
There is no reason for Pentax to also alienate old users at the
same time, they just have however.
_
MSN 8 helps eliminat
On 03.6.7 5:57 PM, "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If that silver shell isn't soft, I don't know why? Besides, I believe
> they used hardened steel on K/M/A lenses (along with some plastic for A),
> not brass.
I said hard anodized "surface". Aluminium is inherently a soft metal. Once
y
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2003 16:27:08 -0400
From: Peter Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> There is no reason for Pentax to also alienate old
users at the
> same time, they just have however.
I agree, I would have liked to see full compatibility
of the *istD with plain K lenses.
OTOH A-lenses will work
So? Are you saying there are two limited lenses and one FA with a limited
look?
Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto
- Original Message -
From: "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 4:56 PM
Subject
It would need a vertical travel shutter for that sync speed. Sounds more
and more like a FMxx, and those aren't even selling like hot cakes.
Maybe a MX Limited?
BR
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But to be honest, I sure hope a regular production MX (with 1/250s
x-sync) rather than an expensive what
Hi,
at this point I always asked myself, what where the people doing, I
bought my glass like the FA 85/1.4,
F* 300/4.5 or FA 20~35 from?
Jumping ship?
Going digital P&S?
Got an FA* 300/2.8 or so?
Really curios...
Thomas
Pål Jensen schrieb:
>
> Alin wrote:
>
> This is just an urban lege
why not if the new users are going to make them more money?
Herb
- Original Message -
From: "Peter Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 16:27
Subject: Re: *ist D revisited
> There is no reason for Pentax to also
Alexander wrote:
> I agree, I would have liked to see full compatibility
> of the *istD with plain K lenses.
We all do...
>
> OTOH A-lenses will work without limitations. The
> camera is incompatible only for those old users who
> don't have bought a new lens from Pentax since 20
> years (w
Alan wrote:
And what's worse? Images taken with MX are consistantly slightly sharper than the Z-1p.
REPLY:
And so are the MZ-S images. It is because the Z-1p, and the LX for that matter, is a
vibrator.
Pål
Artur wrote:
In other words, Pentax sells its stuff to the long time Pentax users mostly.
REPLY:
No they don't. 90% SLR sales goes to new users who buy an entry level slr bundled with
some kit lenses.
Pål
Ken wrote:
> I said hard anodized "surface". Aluminium is inherently a soft metal. Once
> you scratch down to the bare metal, be careful, it's soft.
> Re K/M barrels, I thought they were of brass those days. I cannot think
> they use hardened steel as it would be a bit costly to machine. The m
I don't remember where I read this maybe Pål but the 43 and 77 had a
different designer or maybe a different design team than the 31.
At 01:56 PM 6/7/03 -0700, you wrote:
Speaking of metal, the silver metal shell used on Limited lenses are
rather soft compared to K or M lenses. I have found out
Well I own new and old bought new and used. I love the fact that I can
put almost any lens on any body and get the full capability of the least
capable of lens or body. I was really looking forward to being able to use
my Vivitar 90-180 and Pentax M*300 on a digital body, even if I didn't plan
to
Pål Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Peter wrote:
>
>> There is no reason for Pentax to also alienate old users at the
>> same time, they just have however.
>
>You mean alienating those who never buy anything new from them anyway :o)
>I suspect the compatibility issue is nonexistent for 99% of p
Sadly while I own three FA lenses I also own 15 assorted K/M
lenses because, I like their construction, compact dimensions
optical excellence, and in some cases quirkiness. That's exactly
why I like the 43mm ltd. I didn't buy these lenses because they were
cheep.
At 03:07 PM 6/7/03 -0700, you wro
On 03.6.7 6:22 PM, "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But it is only the surface cover. The lens barrel on the 77 and 31 Limited are
> made of steel like most FA* lenses.
Oh, I did not know that. I was told by Pentax that Ltd lenses are made of
aluminum (and glass too :-).
They have to ca
"Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>- Original Message -
>From: "Peter Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> There is no reason for Pentax to also alienate old users at the
>> same time, they just have however.
>
>why not if the new users are going to make them more money?
Because it's n
1 - 100 of 201 matches
Mail list logo
