What's with this obsession with digital?
I showed my flatmate my new LX. He said I shouldn't
have wasted my money. He said I already have a camera
(my MZ-30), and I should have got a digital so that I
can manipulate the images on my computer.
I don't want digital. I bought an LX because
Mark D. wrote:
Go get
a Nikon D1x and a few zooms. LOL
---
As if the digital wasn't bad enough! *snicker*
Thanks, I needed that.
-Aaron
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions.
From: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mark D. wrote:
Go get
a Nikon D1x and a few zooms. LOL
---
As if the digital wasn't bad enough! *snicker*
Thanks, I needed that.
Aaron,
I think a picture of Shel shooting with a D1 and 70-200/2.8 is worthy of a
A scroll of mail from Ivan Prenosil [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 13
Sep 2001 15:40:06 +0200
Read it? y
You can easily hear what noise is produced by operating diaphragm
(i.e. without film advance, mirror slap, shutter noise, AF) - just press DOF button.
If you are after silence, why not use digital
Mark D. wrote:
I think a picture of Shel shooting with a D1 and 70-200/2.8 is worthy of a
PUG submission VBG
Someone find me a pic of Shel, Photoshop's already up and running. ;)
But it couldn't be a good zoom -- he would need to be shooting a D1 with
a Tamron 28-300.
-Aaron
-
This message
Shel writes:
So, I started to imagine an
even more stripped down MX with lenses that were even smaller than
current lenses - Leica-like in size.
But the lens design itself has to be different to accomodate for the distance
to the film mandated by the mirror. I think this is what makes SLR
Are you trying to re-invent Canon Pelix ?
specs on same malaysian site which has LX specs
adi sorescu
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at
Shel wrote:
A pellicle mirror diverts some light and would cause the finder to be
darker still.
I don't agree. I used an EOS RT for a year and was never bothered by any
perceived dimness in the finder. The finder was fine. The problem with
Pellicle mirrors is that they cut two thirds of a
: Silent Lenses
Assuming one is willing to give up the automatic diaphragm on SLR
Pentax lenses, and use them only as a manually operated spot down
lens, how much size and weight might be saved on a given focal length
lens? Also, how much quieter might camera operation be by eliminating
-2302|
\ /---+
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 11:52 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Silent Lenses
Bob Rapp wrote:
Shel,
Try a K adaptor
Most of the noise comes from the mirror, Shel. The lens mechanism is fairly silent.
The shutter is
no more noisy than on a Leica.
--graywolf
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Perhaps I was a bit vague with my question, but the thought occurred
to me today, while adapting a Pentax hood to a Leica lens,
From: Ivan Prenosil [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can easily hear what noise is produced by operating diaphragm
(i.e. without film advance, mirror slap, shutter noise, AF) - just press
DOF button.
If you are after silence, why not use digital ?
ROTFLMAO! Yeah
|
\ /---+
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Farr
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 9:42 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Silent Lenses
Wouldn't a pellicle mirror be a practical way to keep dust off the
sensor of an intechangeable lens
Juan J. Buhler wrote:
But the lens design itself has to be different to accomodate for the distance
to the film mandated by the mirror. I think this is what makes SLR lenses
bigger, not the auto diaphragm.
Think about the early Pentax lenses, before there was any diaphragm
operation. The
Mark D. wrote:
ROTFLMAO! Yeah Shel?!?!? Seriously, if
you're after silence, why not use digital!?!?!? Quieter than a Leica. Go get
a Nikon D1x and a few zooms. LOL
I'm running out the door now.
--
Shel Belinkoff
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
This message
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 10:47 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Silent Lenses
Tom Rittenhouse wrote:
Most of the noise comes from the mirror, Shel.
I know that.
The lens mechanism
A few grams here, a few grams there - it all adds up. And then
there's the issue of size. The mechanisms involved take up space.
Remove the mechanisms and you may be able to reduce the size of the
camera and lenses, which, in turn, usually saves weight. Anyway, it's
just a bit of a fantasy,
Or, why not get a Visoflex for your Leica. These were common years ago for macro and
long telephoto
photography.
--graywolf
Chris Brogden wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Chris Brogden wrote:
Or to keep the regular bright mirror, it shouldn't be hard to make a
Tom Rittenhouse wrote:
Or, why not get a Visoflex for your Leica.
These were common years ago for macro and
long telephoto photography.
Heavy, complex, cumbersome, changing lenses is a bit of a PITA.
--
Shel Belinkoff
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss
Now you have spoiled all their fun...
Otis
Ivan Prenosil wrote:
You can easily hear what noise is produced by operating diaphragm
(i.e. without film advance, mirror slap, shutter noise, AF) - just press DOF button.
If you are after silence, why not use digital ?
Ivan
-
Have patience the ancients will understand...
Otis
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
I know all of that, but you keep missing the other points in my posts.
Mick Maguire wrote:
There is no auto diaphragm connector on the K mount adaptor. The diaphragm
stays closed down all the while
Tom wrote:
Most of the noise comes from the mirror, Shel. The lens mechanism is fairly
silent. The shutter is
no more noisy than on a Leica.
I don't know which the shutter you mean, but I'm not sure I agree with
you, Tom. The more robust shutters with higher sync-speeds especially can
Shel wrote:
However, it doesn't answer my question.
These lenses contain the mechanism to operate the auto diaphragm, and
the camera will still have the mechanism to operate the auto diaphragm
with K-mount lenses. What I'm trying to get a handle on is just how
quiet and stealthful a
Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Päivä: 13. syyskuuta 2001 18:58
Aihe: Re: Silent Lenses
Tom Rittenhouse wrote:
Or, why not get a Visoflex for your Leica.
These were common years ago for macro and
long telephoto photography.
Heavy, complex
The Olympus E-10 does this too. However, you can turn
the sound off in the Canon G1 and the Olympus E-10 so
if silent is what you want, silent is what you get.
Len
---
Quietness wasn't a particularly marketable feature,
however, so Canon turned
its attentions elsewhere. I think it's almost
Assuming one is willing to give up the automatic diaphragm on SLR
Pentax lenses, and use them only as a manually operated spot down
lens, how much size and weight might be saved on a given focal length
lens? Also, how much quieter might camera operation be by eliminating
that lens feature and
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 12:49 PM
Subject: Silent Lenses
Assuming one is willing to give up the automatic diaphragm on SLR
Pentax lenses, and use them only as a manually operated spot down
lens, how much size and weight might be saved on a given focal length
lens
Bob Rapp wrote:
Shel,
Try a K adaptor and screw an old (but fabulous) SMC Takumar on and try
it using the manual/auto selector.. They may be heavier, but they have
lasted one generation and will last several more.
Thanks for your suggestion. However, it doesn't answer my question.
28 matches
Mail list logo
