On Feb 24, 2006, at 8:14 PM, Rob Studdert wrote:
Pentax seem now simply hell bent on heading
done the pretty/compact/light niche end of the market, and that's not
where I
want to go.
I don't know about pretty. I guess they're okay. And some of the new
lenses seem to be upgrades in speed --
On 24 Feb 2006 at 15:02, Bruce Dayton wrote:
> Hello Rob,
>
> Based on your description, am I to interpret that the issue with
> bodies has mostly to do with High ISO/Low Noise? Essentially a larger
> sensor becomes the real solution from the body side of things. That
> would mean either a full
On 2006-02-25, at 00:51, Rob Studdert wrote:
Just butting in here for a minute, my photographic endeavours
include quite a
lot of mid-high energy concert photography these days, and as a
consequence
generally I find myself shooting in very low light/poor quality
light environs.
Static low l
Hello Rob,
Based on your description, am I to interpret that the issue with
bodies has mostly to do with High ISO/Low Noise? Essentially a larger
sensor becomes the real solution from the body side of things. That
would mean either a full frame sensor or a MF body. So Nikon is no
help to you ei
On 24 Feb 2006 at 8:01, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> I don't see a definition for a "kind of photography" in that quote,
> Kostas. I see a statement relating to a kind of equipment. What kind
> of PHOTOGRAPHS is the equipment intended to make? That's photography.
Just butting in here for a minut
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006, John Francis wrote:
On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 09:57:53AM +, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006, John Francis wrote:
There's a DA 50-135/2.8 on the way as well.
Looks like 2006 is going to be expensive.
Not really, it's a DA.
So's the 12-24, and that's
On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 06:44:23PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >
> > I think Kostas' point was that he won't buy DA glass.
> >
> > -Adam
> >
>
> I think that's all we're going to see in PK mount. I'm fine with that.
> Paul
I'd say that the announcement of DA f2.8 zooms which replace t
I agree. They will be about as compact as an old range finder with
lenses having corresponding fields of view.
DagT
Den 24. feb. 2006 kl. 18.31 skrev jtainter:
*ist D ( or successor)
+DA 40 F2.8
+DA 21 F3.2
+DA 70 F2.4
Together they mean that in my next fight with British Airways over
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think Kostas' point was that he won't buy DA glass.
-Adam
I think that's all we're going to see in PK mount. I'm fine with that.
Paul
Makes sense, since I don't expect Pentax to introduce any 35mm cameras
in the future, and also don't expect the film offerings t
>
> I think Kostas' point was that he won't buy DA glass.
>
> -Adam
>
I think that's all we're going to see in PK mount. I'm fine with that.
Paul
John Francis wrote:
On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 09:57:53AM +, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006, John Francis wrote:
There's a DA 50-135/2.8 on the way as well.
Looks like 2006 is going to be expensive.
Not really, it's a DA.
So's the 12-24, and that's almost into four fi
On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 09:57:53AM +, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Feb 2006, John Francis wrote:
>
> >There's a DA 50-135/2.8 on the way as well.
> >
> >Looks like 2006 is going to be expensive.
>
> Not really, it's a DA.
So's the 12-24, and that's almost into four figures.
The 1
*ist D ( or successor)
+DA 40 F2.8
+DA 21 F3.2
+DA 70 F2.4
Together they mean that in my next fight with British Airways over carry-on
weight, I'll win (again). These can just about all go in a pocket.
Joe
On Feb 24, 2006, at 8:09 AM, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
And what kind of photography is that, really? Have you defined it?
Yes, but you deleted it:
The LX with its superb finders and the old array of high
performance fast lenses made a pretty smick kit for low light
work.
If the new DLSR
-- Original message --
From: Martin Trautmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On 2006-02-24 16:20, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > The lens mount for the new pro camera is not PK, it's the 645 mount.
>
> How do you know?
Pentax made that clear when they announced this camera
On 2006-02-24 16:20, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The lens mount for the new pro camera is not PK, it's the 645 mount.
How do you know?
> And the sensor isn't 35mm full frame.
I suppose that it's not really 35 mm. 36x24 mm -> ø 43 mm,
60:45 @ 43 mm -> 34.6 x 26.0 mm
That's 4 % more area ;-)
The lens mount for the new pro camera is not PK, it's the 645 mount. And the
sensor isn't 35mm full frame. It's somewhere in between that and 645. The DFA
lens on the chart is apparently a 645 mount lens.
-- Original message --
From: Martin Trautmann <[EMAIL PROT
On 2006-02-24 06:08, Paul Stenquist wrote:
> You can get two of the new Pentax for the price of one 5D. Or you could
> make a sizable down payment on the 645D, which apparently will be much
> higher spec than the 5D.
So the new roadmap indicates:
- 'consumer cameras' use APS sized sensors and D
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Feb 24, 2006, at 2:09 AM, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
And what kind of photography is that, really? Have you defined it?
Yes, but you deleted it:
The LX with its superb finders and the old array of high performance fast
lenses made a pretty s
I don't see a definition for a "kind of photography" in that quote,
Kostas. I see a statement relating to a kind of equipment. What kind
of PHOTOGRAPHS is the equipment intended to make? That's photography.
Godfrey
On Feb 24, 2006, at 2:09 AM, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
And what kind of
- Original Message -
From: "John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
That make sense. It will be the new standard lens. The D FA label
probably
(almost certainly) indicate that it will be full frame and that it will
fit
film 645 as well. That strongly indicate that it have aperture ring
(
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006, Jon Myers wrote:
What's wrong with the 55/2.8? It is for the 645D,
after all - according to the english version of that
roadmap.
Thanks, I read that later on. What is wrong is that it would benefit
from not being on the same roadmap as the K-mount products.
Kostas
What's wrong with the 55/2.8? It is for the 645D,
after all - according to the english version of that
roadmap.
--- Kostas Kavoussanakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> But they plan a DFA55/2.8. I will buy it in a flash.
> Not.
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tire
>
> From: Kostas Kavoussanakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2006/02/24 Fri AM 09:57:53 GMT
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: Lens Road Map revised
>
> On Thu, 23 Feb 2006, John Francis wrote:
>
> > There's a DA 50-135/2.8 on the way as wel
wouldn't be a small one.
Tom C.
From: Christian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Lens Road Map revised
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 23:31:47 -0500
Tom C wrote:
I don't see how you can call it "under-spec'd"
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Feb 23, 2006, at 10:52 PM, Rob Studdert wrote:
I guess it does. Their conservatism however does little now for the
photography that I like to pursue. ...
And what kind of photography is that, really? Have you defined it?
Yes, but you deleted
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006, John Francis wrote:
There's a DA 50-135/2.8 on the way as well.
Looks like 2006 is going to be expensive.
Not really, it's a DA.
But they plan a DFA55/2.8. I will buy it in a flash. Not.
Kostas
Why shouldn't the pancakes be considered as "pro" lenses?
I'm wondering is they are aiming at the old rangefinder market. A lot of pros
liked Leica M6 because of their compact size and good lenses...
DagT
> fra: Mishka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> i think they are leveraging that with small limite
I don't think we're too far apart on many things ...
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: Godfrey DiGiorgi
> How is it that we agree so much on some things, Shel? ;-)
>
> Godfrey
>
> On Feb 23, 2006, at 8:50 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
>
> > Some people care about specs, others care about makin
On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 11:27:11PM -0500, Mishka wrote:
> i think they are leveraging that with small limited lenses
> quite nicely. if there was a choice, usm or small primes,
> i would pick the second. perhaps that's not what "pros"
> need -- than i'm happy pentax is not "pro" oriented.
>
> best
FA50 1.4 still there :)
http://www.digital.pentax.co.jp/en/lens/
2006/2/24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Quoting "K.Takeshita" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > On 2/23/06 10:37 PM, "Rob Studdert", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > DFA55/2.8
> >
> > This is for 645D
> >
> > Ken
> >
>
>
>
On Feb 23, 2006, at 6:20 PM, K.Takeshita wrote:
http://www.digital.pentax.co.jp/ja/lens/roadmap.pdf
Ken,
Thanks for posting the new roadmap. Some interesting possibilities.
I've been waiting for mount updates on several lenses ... I want
quick-shift focusing on any new lenses I buy, whic
On 23 Feb 2006 at 22:36, Tom C wrote:
Godfrey wrote: "I like their conservatism. I think it is what
makes these
cameras and lenses especially useful."
This deserves a carefully worded reply. :-)
Word a reply any way you want. I'm quite happy with my position.
On Feb 23, 2006, at 10:52
How is it that we agree so much on some things, Shel? ;-)
Godfrey
On Feb 23, 2006, at 8:50 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Some people care about specs, others care about making photographs.
Shel
On 2/23/06, Tom C wrote:
I do find it a little sad that the Pentax top of the line will
be under
Quoting "K.Takeshita" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 2/23/06 10:37 PM, "Rob Studdert", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > DFA55/2.8
>
> This is for 645D
>
> Ken
>
Yes, English version of the roadmap here (sorry if someone has already posted
this)
http://www.digital.pentax.co.jp/en/lens/roadmap.pd
On 23 Feb 2006 at 22:36, Tom C wrote:
> Godfrey wrote: "I like their conservatism. I think it is what makes these
> cameras and lenses especially useful."
>
> This deserves a carefully worded reply. :-)
I guess it does. Their conservatism however does little now for the photography
that I lik
Godfrey wrote: "I like their conservatism. I think it is what makes these
cameras and lenses especially useful."
This deserves a carefully worded reply. :-)
Tom C.
From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.
And so what a*e point are you trying to make?
Tom C.
From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Lens Road Map revised
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 20:50:43 -0800
Some people care about specs, others c
On 23 Feb 2006 at 20:50, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> Some people care about specs, others care about making photographs.
And some people used to care about chemistry, temperature and agitation, others
cared about making photographs.
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT) +
...yet another deep insight from the Master.
best,
mishka
On 2/23/06, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Some people care about specs, others care about making photographs.
>
> Shel
Some people care about specs, others care about making photographs.
Shel
> On 2/23/06, Tom C wrote:
> >
> I do find it a little sad that the Pentax top of the line will
> be underspec'd compared to Canon's middle of the line.
I was comparing it to that, largely because if I was going to make a jump,
it wouldn't be a small one.
Tom C.
From: Christian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Lens Road Map revised
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 23:31:47 -
Tom C wrote:
I don't see how you can call it "under-spec'd" compared to Canon
(especially without seeing it's specs). You cannot compare it to the
5D. That's a whole other animal.
You're right in a sense. Except that's what I was comparing it to.
Tom C.
You can only compare it to the 5
i think they are leveraging that with small limited lenses
quite nicely. if there was a choice, usm or small primes,
i would pick the second. perhaps that's not what "pros"
need -- than i'm happy pentax is not "pro" oriented.
best,
mishka
On 2/23/06, Christian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "missin
I don't see how you can call it "under-spec'd" compared to Canon
(especially without seeing it's specs). You cannot compare it to the 5D.
That's a whole other animal.
--
Christian
You're right in a sense. Except that's what I was comparing it to.
Tom C.
-)
Tom C.
From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Lens Road Map revised
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 23:12:10 -0500
Mr. gloom and doom is back. The 20D and 30D are Canon's middle of the line.
The Pentax camera wi
Which is exactly what it should be. The Pentax pro camera is the 645D.
It's there for anyone who needs that kind of horsepower. And of course
the Canon top range models await you as well. I would argue that Nikon
doesn't really have anything significantly better. Bigger and perhaps
slightly fas
Tom C wrote:
I do find it a little sad that the Pentax top of the line will be
underspec'd compared to Canon's middle of the line.
In fairness to Pentax (this from a Canon "defector") and with all due
respect, the new 10MP D-whatever will be targeted at the advanced
amateur audience and wil
ll be
underspec'd compared to Canon's middle of the line.
Tom C.
From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Lens Road Map revised
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 22:44:56 -0500
For that small a difference, I certainly wo
... and quite on par with nikon middle of the line.
i just wish it were released earlier, like, before summer.
otoh, 21/3.2 DA LTD is a *fantastic* news -- i don't think anyone else
is commited to small, superbly built primes. kudos to pentax!
if 70/2.4 is going to be 1/3 size/weight/price of 71LT
underspec'd compared to Canon's middle of the line.
Tom C.
From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Lens Road Map revised
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 22:44:56 -0500
For that small a difference, I certainly
John Francis wrote:
On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 03:47:41AM +0100, P?l Jensen wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "K.Takeshita" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
DFA55/2.8
This is for 645D
That make sense. It will be the new standard lens. The D FA label probably
(almost certain
o proof for that statement obviously.
Tom C.
From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Lens Road Map revised
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 22:05:43 -0500
Sounds like the new D will pretty much match the Canon 5D in specs.
W
On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 03:47:41AM +0100, P?l Jensen wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "K.Takeshita" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >>DFA55/2.8
> >
> >This is for 645D
>
>
> That make sense. It will be the new standard lens. The D FA label probably
> (almost certainly) indicate that it
s@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Lens Road Map revised
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 22:05:43 -0500
Sounds like the new D will pretty much match the Canon 5D in specs. Why
would you want two incompatible systems?
On Feb 23, 2006, at 9:59 PM, Tom C wrote:
They must think we'r
Sounds like the new D will pretty much match the Canon 5D in specs. Why
would you want two incompatible systems?
On Feb 23, 2006, at 9:59 PM, Tom C wrote:
They must think we're stupid...
I can see the *ist D and 40mm pancake becoming my point and shoot
while a Canon 5D and 2 - 3 lenses, becom
If the new D has good performance in high ISO (low noise), and
possibly with some sort of image stabilization, those small
pocketable primes are wonderful.
I would rather prefer compact and lighter lenses without going
too fast an aperture.
Chhers,
Ken
--
Thanks for posting the link
They must think we're stupid...
I can see the *ist D and 40mm pancake becoming my point and shoot while a
Canon 5D and 2 - 3 lenses, becoming my main system.
Tom C.
From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
All I can think is what the hell are they thinking, how many lenses at or
around 50
On 2/23/06 10:48 PM, "Rob Studdert", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes I guess it would look good next to my 77/1.8LTD if I was trying to find
> the
> smallest least usable lenses.
Didn't the original road map say something about "pancake" type?
Maybe lens designers are having too much fun.
But 7
Weird...
Tom C.
From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Lens Road Map revised
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 13:37:24 +1000
On 23 Feb 2006 at 21:20, K.Takeshita wrote:
> http://www.digital.pentax.co.jp/
On 23 Feb 2006 at 21:42, K.Takeshita wrote:
> On 2/23/06 10:37 PM, "Rob Studdert", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > DFA55/2.8
>
> This is for 645D
Thanks Ken, that makes much more sense now, still doesn't account for the 70mm
though?
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC
On 24 Feb 2006 at 3:41, Pål Jensen wrote:
> I am confused over the D-FA 55/2.8 but not the 70/2.4 Limited.
Yes I guess it would look good next to my 77/1.8LTD if I was trying to find the
smallest least usable lenses.
All I can think is what the hell are they thinking, how many lenses at or
ar
- Original Message -
From: "K.Takeshita" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
DFA55/2.8
This is for 645D
That make sense. It will be the new standard lens. The D FA label probably
(almost certainly) indicate that it will be full frame and that it will fit
film 645 as well. That strongly indica
On 2/23/06 9:32 PM, "John Francis", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 09:20:47PM -0500, K.Takeshita wrote:
>> http://www.digital.pentax.co.jp/ja/lens/roadmap.pdf
>>
>> DA16-50/2.8!
>
> Now we know why there's a rebate on the 16-45/4
>
> There's a DA 50-135/2.8 on the way as w
On 2/23/06 10:37 PM, "Rob Studdert", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> DFA55/2.8
This is for 645D
Ken
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Is anyone else more than a little confused over the inclusion of a
DFA55/2.8
and DA70/2.4LTD?
I am confused over the D-FA 55/2.8 but not the 70/2.4 Limited.
On 23 Feb 2006 at 21:20, K.Takeshita wrote:
> http://www.digital.pentax.co.jp/ja/lens/roadmap.pdf
>
> DA16-50/2.8!
Is anyone else more than a little confused over the inclusion of a DFA55/2.8
and DA70/2.4LTD?
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT) +10 Hours
[EMAIL PRO
On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 09:20:47PM -0500, K.Takeshita wrote:
> http://www.digital.pentax.co.jp/ja/lens/roadmap.pdf
>
> DA16-50/2.8!
Now we know why there's a rebate on the 16-45/4
There's a DA 50-135/2.8 on the way as well.
Looks like 2006 is going to be expensive.
68 matches
Mail list logo
