On Sunday, September 29, 2002, at 09:40 AM, Robert Soames Wetmore wrote:
> Yes, it was a really old email. Brad has changed greatly since the
> tumultuous days of his youth...a little less than a week ago. He's no
> longer on the quaaludes, the bell-bottoms are in the trash (wait,
> they'v
o your reply!
Brad Dobo
- Original Message -
From: "Robert Soames Wetmore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 10:40 AM
Subject: Re:x Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
> Yes, it was a really old email. Brad has changed grea
cameras :)
Go nuts guys!
Keeper of the flame,
Brad Dobo
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 12:35 AM
Subject: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
> Here, here
> vic
>
> In a message dated 9/28/02 9:00
Here, here
vic
In a message dated 9/28/02 9:00:20 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< I don't get your reasoning. You bought an MZ-S because you wanted to
shoot film, right? So now you can't buy a high-end digital because you
spent your money. So what? Have fun shooting film.
I don't have an
27;t buy the MZ-S to shoot film, I
bought it to shoot pictures.
Regards,
Brad Dobo
- Original Message -
From: "Paul Stenquist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2002 6:00 PM
Subject: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
> I
Whaley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 10:50 AM
> Subject: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
>
> >
> >
> > Rob Studdert wrote:
> > >
> > > On 24 Sep 2002 at 3:21, Keith Whaley wrote:
&
Some people are Cognoscenti, but far more are Cognisnotty. I love that
phrase!
Fred wrote:
> >>> But the congnisoti, (I'm not even sure that I spelled that
> >>> correctly and the damned spell checker is no help), will know
> >>> who you are.
>
> >> "Cognisnotty" is the correct spelling, I beli
>>> But the congnisoti, (I'm not even sure that I spelled that
>>> correctly and the damned spell checker is no help), will know
>>> who you are.
>> "Cognisnotty" is the correct spelling, I believe.
"Cognoscenti", maybe?
Fred
Thanks I think.
At 01:40 PM 9/26/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>On Wednesday, September 25, 2002, at 11:26 AM, Peter Alling wrote:
>
>>But the congnisoti, (I'm not even sure that I spelled that correctly and
>>the damned spell checker is no help),
>>will know who you are.
>
>"Cognisnotty" is the corr
Don,
My apologies for my misreading of your post. I took the meaning that you
objected to the language of the insults, rather than the insults themselves.
I certainly wasn't aware that you had been the recipient of any insults
before your "Bye bye" message was posted.
If I was a doctor I'd enjo
I sent this to the list and to Don yesterday. Don has read it and replied
but it hasn't shown up in my PDML folder yet so I'm resending. Apologies to
anyone who gets it twice.
---
Don,
My apologies for my mis
Dr. Williams:
Call me an idiot if you like, I've been called worse.
My only point was that most of us would like to see an end to the long personal
attacks that some posters hurl at others, whether the language is crude or not.
To quote these attacks in full in our replies only perpetuates and e
> Send it to me and I'll guarantee that it comes back to you with a
> nice smooth focus feel, I can't guarantee however that it will be
> covered under the manufacturers warranty and it definitely won't
> AF any longer :-)
Er, thanks, Rob.
Fred
iams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 26 September 2002 09:28
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600 and Bye bye
>
>
> Anthony et al,
>
> This reply is a personal attack and quite out of place. Now,
> try to concentrate and read
sonal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams
Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery
Updated: March 30, 2002
- Original Message -
From: "Anthony Farr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 4:35 AM
Subject: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-6
Alan Chan wrote:
> What about a digital LX which is every bit the same as the original LX,
> except with a "Digital Back LX"? You must wind the film (of
> course there is
> no film, but Pentax keep the winding mechanism anyway for the purists) to
> take the next picture. What happened when the ne
On 25 Sep 2002 at 23:08, Dan Scott wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, September 24, 2002, at 11:08 PM, Fred wrote:
>
> >> How about making manual focus only versions? I heard they make
> >> them in Leica mount, why not KA?
> >
> > I would love that concept, Mishka, bit I wouldn't expect it, of
> > course.
On Tuesday, September 24, 2002, at 11:08 PM, Fred wrote:
>> How about making manual focus only versions? I heard they make
>> them in Leica mount, why not KA?
>
> I would love that concept, Mishka, bit I wouldn't expect it, of
> course. Sort of a Limited-Limited lens line (Limited-squared?)...
On Tuesday, September 24, 2002, at 08:34 PM, William Robb wrote:
> The problem is with the build quality. The MZ series cameras are
> not up to the build standard of the limited lenses.
> The MZ-S most certainly is, but they are not marketing them in a
> complementary finish.
>
> William Robb
>
- Original Message -
From: "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 11:30 PM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
> What about a digital LX which is every bit the same as the original LX,
> except w
In a message dated 9/25/02 10:31:48 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< HmmmI posted two pieces about this, and only the 2nd one has made it to
the board. You should read them Vic. I was wrong for blasting in that
language, but you and Bruce both used insulting words that were just not
nec
> No it's better than a super program, it has dials instead of those stupid
> buttons. Some things we, (as in people), got right the first time like
> changing shutter speeds
> and changing radio stations.
I don't know about the radio, but I sure like the shutter speed dial a lot
more than any
On Wed, 25 Sep 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[entire original message snipped]
> I am personally insulted by YOUR language on the PDML. GROW UP.
Then why quote it entirely in your reply? You just did the same thing
Brad did.
chris
<<..who are the insulted beloved public
figures?
Bruce Rubenstein.
WW >>
:))
Lukasz
I guess somebody had to Pentax certainly sold a lot of them.
At 03:53 PM 9/25/2002 -0400, you wrote:
> > it has dials instead of those stupid buttons
>
>...but I ~love~ the little shutter speed buttons on the ME Super,
>MEF, Program Plus/A, and Super Program/A...
>
>Fred
The British "royals."
Brad Dobo wrote:
> Since I didn't do most of those things (but I did some, don't get me wrong)
> I'll assume the good doctor is referring to posts that I guess I haven't
> read. I'm curious now...who are the insulted beloved public figures?
y
> Updated: March 30, 2002
>
> - Original Message -
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 5:33 PM
> Subject: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
>
> >
> > In a message dated
> it has dials instead of those stupid buttons
...but I ~love~ the little shutter speed buttons on the ME Super,
MEF, Program Plus/A, and Super Program/A...
Fred
When did he become beloved?
At 01:45 PM 9/25/2002 -0600, you wrote:
>- Original Message -
>From: Brad Dobo
>Subject: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600 and Bye bye
>
>
> > Since I didn't do most of those things (but I did some, don't
>get me wrong)
- Original Message -
From: Brad Dobo
Subject: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600 and Bye bye
> Since I didn't do most of those things (but I did some, don't
get me wrong)
> I'll assume the good doctor is referring to posts that I guess
I haven't
> read.
I'm curious now...who are the insulted beloved public figures?
BD> - Original Message -
BD> From: "Dr E D F Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
BD> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
BD> Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 2:36 PM
BD> Subject: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/2
lliams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 2:36 PM
Subject: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600 and Bye bye
> Can't handle 300+ messages a day; don't wish to handle messages where
people
> call each other 'Penc
ile shit - so bye-bye for a while.
D
Dr E D F Williams
http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams
Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery
Updated: March 30, 2002
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002
On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, gfen wrote:
> Started looking into it.. it was an f 0.7 lens made by Zeiss for NASA, and
> modified by Kubrick for film use.
> Unsure if it was for 16mm or 35mm film, and also what focal length it was.
> Said it was twice as fast as any lens before it.
If anyone really cares
On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, Jan van Wijk wrote:
> >Is there anything faster than an f 1.0 lens? I seem to remember
> >reading of Stanley Kubrick commisioning the build of an f 0.8 lens for
> >Barry Lyndon, but for actual still photo work?
> There is an f 0.9 lens for canon I think, but that is an old pro
But the congnisoti, (I'm not even sure that I spelled that correctly and
the damned spell checker is no help),
will know who you are.
At 12:23 AM 9/26/2002 +1000, you wrote:
>On 25 Sep 2002 at 9:31, gfen wrote:
>
> > Ergo, if you want to look like you're rich and powerful, and not have to
> > wo
No it's better than a super program, it has dials instead of those stupid
buttons. Some things we, (as in people), got right the first time like
changing shutter speeds
and changing radio stations.
At 08:08 AM 9/25/2002 -0400, you wrote:
> > It's [ZX-5n/MZ-5n] basically a highly spec'd early 8
It's not the sound so much as the feel. It's got a whirry feel to it. It
doesn't
bother me since it's a smooth gentle whirr but I can see how it might
bother others.
At 11:28 PM 9/24/2002 -0700, Alan Chan wrote:
> > How about making manual focus only versions? I heard they make them in
>Leic
On Wed, 25 Sep 2002 11:24:16 -0400 (EDT), gfen wrote:
>
>I just want a Leica if its attached to a Noctilux f 1.0 lens (that is the
>Noctilux, I believe?)
>
>Is there anything faster than an f 1.0 lens? I seem to remember
>reading of Stanley Kubrick commisioning the build of an f 0.8 lens for
>Bar
Hi,
Wednesday, September 25, 2002, 3:23:19 PM, you wrote:
> Leicas suck, at a glance you can't tell if it's 30 years old or 3 months old,
> where's the pose value in that :-(
It's all about the secret thrill you get when you're sucking a Wall's
"Magnum" ice cream, mate, and think 'This is what
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Rob Studdert wrote:
> Leicas suck, at a glance you can't tell if it's 30 years old or 3 months old,
> where's the pose value in that :-(
Yeah, but the L will make image concious camera geeks green with envy.
I just want a Leica if its attached to a Noctilux f 1.0 lens (that
On Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Brad Dobo wrote:
> purchases. If a Pentax DSLR comes along, I'll be pissed...natually. They
> are really f**king over everyone that went out and got a MZ-S kit IMHO. So
You bought, at the time, the nicest Pentax film body made.
That was then, this is now. Now something ne
> I don't want digital *instead* of glass. I just want a digital
> body I can use my Pentax glass on. That way I can shoot film or
> digital, whichever is appropriate to the situation, and have my
> investment in Pentax lenses be a better value.
My thoughts, exactly.
> Right now I have some cus
>> The real thing, resplendent in its 1990s era technology, would
>> really get peoples creative writing juices flowing.
> It'll be a rerun of the MZ-S. They'll release a good DSLR body,
> then the conversation will shift to "I don't like it because".
But, I'll suspect that I myself could be
>> Well, Rob, that may be true, but I would rather have them be just
>> a bit larger but a lot nicer to focus. Just my 2 f-stops worth...
>> ;-)
> I think the AF mechanism could be extracted from Limited lenses
> and still working perfectly, without AF of course.
I agree, Alan, but I just don't
> I'm really hoping Pentax does not pursue a DSLR. Then people will
> bitch and moan and threaten to switch and leave the list. It
> should make for some interesting emails.
I hope that was said tongue-in-cheek. It would be kind of sad if
PDML members would be wishing the worst for Pentax and
> It's [ZX-5n/MZ-5n] basically a highly spec'd early 80's MF camera
> that happens to have AF and is made of plastic. I still love it's
> interface.
Yes - the "highly spec'd early 80's MF camera" that comes to mind is
the Super Program/A from 1983. My impression when using my wife's
ZX-5n or my
creen! :)
- Original Message -
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 2:34 AM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Brad Dobo
> Subject: Re: Re[2]: SMC P
- Original Message -
From: Brad Dobo
Subject: Re: Re[2]: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
> I'm really hoping Pentax does not pursue a DSLR. Then people
will bitch and
> moan and threaten to switch and leave the list. It should
make for some
> interesting emails.
Actu
> Well, Rob, that may be true, but I would rather have them be just a
> bit larger but a lot nicer to focus. Just my 2 f-stops worth... ;-)
I think the AF mechanism could be extracted from Limited lenses and still
working perfectly, without AF of course.
regards,
Alan Chan
> How about making manual focus only versions? I heard they make them in
Leica
> mount, why not KA?
I could be wrong, but I think the Leica mount version was meant for the
Japanese market mainly where people like to collect unique items, useful or
not. Even Ricoh made a 28/2.8 in Leica mount afte
Bruce has a mental disorder that prevents him from realizing what an idiot
he is.
- Original Message -
From: "Treena Harp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 12:24 AM
Subject: Re: Pentax digital slr (WAS: Re: SMC Pent
> Amen. I (for a short time each) have owned Limited lenses, and I do
> not care for their focus feel. I won't buy another unless/until
> they provide a focus clutch, or some other way to turn their
> "whirring" focus feel into a more "silky" feel.
Don't think that will ever happen. :(
regard
- Original Message -
From: "tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 12:52 AM
Subject: RE: Re[2]: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTE
Perhaps you could try to contact Pentax Japan directly by sending them a
fax. Or someone on the list might go to Pentax Melbourne to look for the
parts for you directly (rang or faxed them didn't do much) they still had
some pretty old parts. But first, you need to figure out which parts you
need
ject: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
>
> In a message dated 9/24/02 3:22:33 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> << If a Pentax DSLR comes along, I'll be pissed...natually. They
>
> are really f**king over everyone that went out and got a MZ-S kit IMHO.
>>
> -Original Message-
> From: Keith Whaley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> tom wrote:
> >
> > I raise my Bass to the PDML!
> >
> > tv
>
> Will a Murphy's do?
As long as you're buying
tv
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
>
> I can certainly second that. The build quality of the MZ series
> cameras is very light and plasticky.
Excepting the MZ-S of course.
The funny thing is that the other MZ's (5n in particular) are such
nice cameras
In a message dated 9/24/02 3:22:33 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< If a Pentax DSLR comes along, I'll be pissed...natually. They
are really f**king over everyone that went out and got a MZ-S kit IMHO. >>
Why are they f**king you over. You bought it. No one twisted your arm. Are
you happy
n" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 9:59 PM
Subject: Re: Pentax digital slr (WAS: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600)
> I happen to still have more Pentax gear than Nikon gear. You'd best calm
> down before your brain explodes and you soil your pants.
> How about making manual focus only versions? I heard they make
> them in Leica mount, why not KA?
I would love that concept, Mishka, bit I wouldn't expect it, of
course. Sort of a Limited-Limited lens line (Limited-squared?)...
Fred
> Unfortunately to implement a focus clutch on them would serve only
> to destroy their attractive and diminutive dimensions. :-(
Well, Rob, that may be true, but I would rather have them be just a
bit larger but a lot nicer to focus. Just my 2 f-stops worth... ;-)
Fred
ROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 9:32 PM
Subject: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
>
> ----- Original Message -
> From: Brad Dobo
> Subject: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
>
>
> > Wow, some long and passionate email
From: Dan Scott
WR> Subject: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
>snip<
WR> The problem is with the build quality. The MZ series cameras are
WR> not up to the build standard of the limited lenses.
WR> The MZ-S most certainly is, but they are not marketing them in a
WR> complementary finish.
WR> William Robb
How about making manual focus only versions? I heard they make them in Leica
mount, why not KA?
Mishka
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
> On 24 Sep 2002 at 23:06, Fred wrote:
>
> > Ame
On 24 Sep 2002 at 23:06, Fred wrote:
> Amen. I (for a short time each) have owned Limited lenses, and I do
> not care for their focus feel. I won't buy another unless/until
> they provide a focus clutch, or some other way to turn their
> "whirring" focus feel into a more "silky" feel.
Hi Fred,
This is begining to sound like the Pentax Flagship thread from 4 years ago.
Probably with the same results on the part of Pentax: still waiting for the
right moment..
BR
From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Well by that time I'll wildly speculate then that they'll fly out the door
at
betwee
...paulaner hefe-weizen...
mishka
- Original Message -
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 10:33 PM
Subject: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
>
> - Original Message -
> From:
William Robb wrote:
>
= snipped =
>
> The only place I feel they have let my down is in keeping my
> LX's operating.
Seems, from all I've read, Pentax would have done everyone well, had
they just done adequate product improvement on the LX, and finally
made it the camera it had/has potential
On 24 Sep 2002 at 20:22, Chris Brogden wrote:
> FWIW, the word from my Pentax rep is that Pentax is officially working on
> a DSLR. It's *not* a full-frame one apparently, and will probably be
> around 5-6MP (that's the working model right now). It's allegedly slated
> for either announcement o
- Original Message -
From: Dan Scott
Subject: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
>
> I don't know about that, the Limited lenses in the US look
like a good
> match for US ZX-5n. The feel is a little different, cold metal
versus
> warm polycarbonate, but that does
- Original Message -
From: Brad Dobo
Subject: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
> Wow, some long and passionate emails. This isn't geared
towards any one
> person. I see my position simply. I do photography as a
hobby, and like
> using the best. I dropped a wad of c
On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Pål Jensen wrote:
> Bruce wrote:
>
> > I have no idea why anyone seriously thought, as opposed to wished, that Pentax
>would sell a DSLR.
>
> People seriously thought so because Pentax have officially stated that
> they intend to manufacture K-mount digital slr's. I'll still
- Original Message -
From: Pål Jensen
Subject: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
In the camera industry, pro gear means a camera that can
withstand certain shutter cycles.
My 3 LX bodies.
>
>
> > Pentax "PRO" means no product support, and little brand
> I do get tired of folks wanting digital instead of glass.
> No, that's not true. I am weary of those who want digital
> knocking glass to the ground! Both can exist. Why is a world
> beater digital any better than a world beater glass camera?
> You do use them for different things, they ser
- Original Message -
From: Pål Jensen
Subject: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
> William wrote:
>
> > This is how it has always been, how it is now, and how it
will
> > always be.
>
>
> Interresting concept. One must be pretty rigid in mind to
believe suc
- Original Message -
From: Keith Whaley
Subject: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
> And it doesn't matter how the photographer performs in all
this mess?
> That's being ignored?
> You mean you walk in and present your folio, and before the
person
> looks a
- Original Message -
From: Pål Jensen
Subject: Re: Loyalties (was: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600)
> Are you telling me they don't do that in North America? Have
you actually asked Pentax about their pro services? I personally
loaned a 120 film insert for free from one
Ouch (not)
Talk about Oscar Wilde.
Once again Bruce demonstrates his uncanny psychic ability to know the
unknowable.
He's just guessing, folks, and like any guesser he'll crow about his hits
and hope we forget his misses.
Regards,
Anthony Farr
- Original Message -
From: "Rubenstein, B
On Tuesday, September 24, 2002, at 12:23 PM, Pål Jensen wrote:
> Hmmm. I always felt that the screw mount Takumars matched the
> Spotmatics: The K-series lenses the K-bodies; the M-series the
> M-bodies; the A-series the A bodies. The LX matches pretty much all of
> these. The F-series of le
Bruce,
Wrong is wrong. The rounding error defense doesn't wash in this case. You
gave a price which the cameras wouldn't go below, and then they did >:-P
I don't care if a Pentax DSLR appears tomorrow or on any particular date,
but there's no reason for Pentax to release at any time except whe
On Tue, 24 Sep 2002 17:23:53 -0400, tom wrote:
> I'm very happy with the support I get.
Is "Santa Claus" your rep? IIRC, you're in Maryland, and I think
that's part of his territory.
TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
On Tue, 24 Sep 2002 20:37:48 +0100, Malcolm Smith wrote:
> I expect I am one of the few people on this list who has been so happy with
> what they have, that other equipment/manufacturers products, were of little
> relevance.
I'm another. So far, there hasn't been anything that I both wanted an
Tom wrote:
>
> You are correct that there is no official structure to support pros as
> Nikon or Canon has, but that doesn't mean pros who use Pentax don't
> get support. They do *if* they are actual working pros.
>
> I'm very happy with the support I get.
Right! Thats another case of Pentax
-Original Message-
> From: Rubenstein, Bruce M (Bruce) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> No they don't. There is nothing on their web site, and I've
> spoken to Pentax reps here. It is an official, documented
> program of Canon and Nikon. There is no support for pros
> using 35mm Pentax gear
Bingo Pål.
- Original Message -
From: "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 12:13 PM
Subject: Re: Pentax digital slr (WAS: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600)
> Bruce wrote:
> They are too small a company
- Original Message -
From: "Mike Ignatiev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 11:12 AM
Subject: Re[2]: Pentax digital slr (WAS: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600)
> Anthony,
> I am relatively new here, but so far I have
ilm until they no
longer make it. (or I win the lottery)
Brad Dobo
- Original Message -
From: "Keith Whaley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 10:50 AM
Subject: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
>
>
> Rob Studdert wr
Why not include disposable camera makers too while you're at it?
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=E5l_Jensen?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Who's talking about SLR's?
No they don't. There is nothing on their web site, and I've spoken to Pentax reps
here. It is an official, documented program of Canon and Nikon. There is no support
for pros using 35mm Pentax gear in NA: No special programs by the distributors, no
places to rent gear and almost no full line de
And this helps a SLR shooter how? Who cares how well a company does if it doesn't sell
what you want to buy?
Wanna see the pop up flash of my P&S Hasselblad?
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=E5l_Jensen?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
theres no way a company will loose out for missing the slr boat. 99% (or si
I wrote:
All camera manufacturers survive on P&S sales.
CORRECTION:
It is supposed to be all major manufacturers
Pål
Bruce wrote:
> Cite a reference, with more validity than "everybody knows" or "told to me by a
>local Pentax rep", that has unit sales of SLRs.
>
Who's talking about SLR's? I was responding to the statement that Pentax was a small
camera manufacturer. As far as I know, SLR is an insubstanti
At 07:19 PM 9/24/2002 +0200, Pal wrote:
>These generalizations are utterly meaningless. The guy with 7FPS will
>never reash the top of Mount Everest.
Just a little tweak, but tell that to the team that dragged an IMAX up there.
>Pål
Bruce wrote:
> This statement is just as untrue now as it was the first time you wrote it. In the
>US Canon and Nikon both have Professional Services for working pros that: expedite
>repairs, give loaners for equipment being repaired and lend out equipment for trial,
>and not just during the O
Cite a reference, with more validity than "everybody knows" or "told to me by a local
Pentax rep", that has unit sales of SLRs.
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=E5l_Jensen?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Pentax is on par with Minolta
:-)
No, Pentax indeed.
I find Canon bokeh to just be "fuzz" or noise, and Nikon a bit better-
but not thrilling. Maybe I'm still hooked on the screw 50/1.4- who knows.
Those pentagonal buttons on the Kodak DSLR say alot.
But I'll take fuzz over nothing..
R
Mishka wrote:
>are you talki
;> From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: 24 September 2002 14:59
>> To: Pentax List
>> Subject: Loyalties (was: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600)
>>
>>
>> >> Well Gents, I have just one thing to say, whether or not
>> Pentax comes
Keith wrote:
> Maybe I'm missing something here. Is there actually an in-process
> switch from film to digital going on?
No it isn't (when talking digital slr's). The photo journalist have switcvhed a few
years ago. The rest is a few wealthy amateurs. All others are sitting on the fence
waiti
Bruce wrote:
They are too small a company to be able to come out with a new digital body every year
(their sales are 1/10 of Canon's).
REPLY:
In this you must have included Canons business machine division. Pentax is on par with
Minolta which means they are bigger than Nikon and Olympus and m
1 - 100 of 147 matches
Mail list logo
