I have and still use from time to time a Vivitar 135/2.5, which is a very good
lens indeed. Sharp, and less contrasty than many modern lens, but that is a
positive for portraiture, I find.
Someone said that Vivitar Series 1 confounded the opinion that third party lens
were rubbish, and I concu
Hi Cory,
On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 08:59:49 -0500, CBWaters wrote:
> From the 5n manual:
> "When the camera senses subject movement during autofocus operation, [...]
Well, I really feel stupid now. That exact paragraph is also in the
ZX-5 manual. It never occurred to me to check the manual.
TTYL,
Why would I bother, the question was about Pentax. I took this as an Internet
related question and gave Internet related advice. Since I didn't pick my
gear
based on what "professionals" use I really don't care if Nikon or Canon get
the
lions share of the credits.
At 04:51 PM 3/11/2002 -0800,
in sharp focus on the subject.
If the subject is moving too fast, the shutter may not be released."
Cory
- Original Message -
From: "Doug Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 8:33 AM
Subject: Re: AF speed (was: Sil
Do a search on Pentax on their site. I turned up at least a dozen images
taken with Pentax equipment.
At 02:59 PM 3/11/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>I've visited the website many times and done a lot of poking around -- and
>missed them. That's why I wondered if anyone could provide more specifics.
Yep, that's why I bought it way back then.
--- Peter Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Interesting, this was the poor man's Series One, if it's the same one I'm
> remembering.
> Same optical formula as the original Series One 70 210 in a smaller lighter
> than two
> touch package, a bit more
I spent Halloween two years ago doing some street photography in Austin TX,
(almost as wild in some way's as Mardi Gras in New Orleans), I was walking
around with a 85 F2.0 on my LX trying to remain unobtrusive. The only other
two photographers I noticed were using Canon and Nikon gear respectiv
igham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 10:07 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: AF speed (was: Silly Photo.net thread)
Any difference must be due to AF innacuracy, shutter lag or a wrong
prediction being masked by the DOF. IF the AF SPEED was not good enough
then the sh
...and use gaussian blur on the backgrond in PS.
--- Brendan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Set it to F 8 and it will be in focus
> :)
Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email!
http://mail.yahoo.com/
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://w
Wow.. there's a ton of (most likely) hand held 67 shots on there.
And a fair amount of 35mm with 600mm/4.
-R
-
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 http://pug.ko
On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Pål Audun Jensen wrote:
> One example of this is that a rank amateur considering a Pentax MZ-5n
> should buy a Nikon or a Canon because you can't rent a Pentax 600/4 in
> Florida.
> It is of course of no consequence to this rational argument that 99,99% of
> the worlds popu
On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Pål Audun Jensen wrote:
If you really want a low impression of the photo.net readership, go read
the article about his (philip greenspun's) Acura NSX. I think it may be
on philip.greenspun.com by now.
dave
--
dave o'brien - http://www.diaspoir.net
So I'm ugly. So what?
Mick wrote: Yup!
Doh! I knew I shouldnt have chipped in!
Regards,
/\/\ick...
-
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 http://pug.komkon.org .
concerned before the aperture blades were closed - ie at
f2.8.
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruce Rubenstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 11 March 2002 14:45
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: AF speed (was: Silly Photo.net thread)
>
>
> Take a f2.8 telep
I used trap focus with the ZX-5, which drops motor/lens speed out of the
equation, and the plane of focus still falls behind where the subject is when
the shutter fires.
--- William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Focus is also dependant on how fast the subject moves after the
> camera has conf
On Monday, March 11, 2002, at 09:29 AM, William Robb wrote:
>
> I had a Vivitar 135mm f/2.8 lens that was so bad I took the
> glass out of it and made a flower pot out of.
HAR! Now THAT is a lens review.
-Aaron
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://
Theres a significant difference. Photo.net isn't supposed to be a brand
oriented or indeed a equipment oriented forum. In fact, they goes to great
length saying that this vs. that brand is unwanted. This is just fluff of
course. In reality its only the way it's done that has been changed. I've
Alan wrote:
>Is this the same magazine as we have in the UK called Outdoor Photography?
>The one where Andy Rouse uses a 645NII.
Not that's Outdoor Photography (British). Outdoor Photographer (US) is
another magazine.
Pål
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
Vivitar 75-205 f3.8 circa 1979 that was middle of the Vivitar line back then
(less than the Series 1, more than the more common f4.5's). Nothing special
performance, and about equivalent to a current $125 70-200. Not something worth
having the lens mount converted, IMO.
--- Aaron Reynolds <[EMAIL
Tiny little flowers, eh?
I had one too, but it was a very early one, and was quite good.
Steve Larson
Redondo Beach, California
> I had a Vivitar 135mm f/2.8 lens that was so bad I took the
> glass out of it and made a flower pot out of.
>
> William Robb
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discus
IL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Consume yourself happy with instant gratification (WAS:
> Silly Photo.net thread)
>
>
> Alan wrote:
>
> >Is this the same magazine as we have in the UK called
> Outdoor Photography?
> >The one where Andy Rouse uses a 645NII.
>
>
Take a f2.8 telephoto lens, shoot a quick moving subject at f2.8 and f11 and
see what the percentage of in focus shoots you get at both apertures. If
they're both %100, find a more difficult subject. If they're both 0% find an
easier subject. I already know the answer, because I've done it.
---
- Original Message -
From: Aaron Reynolds
Subject: Re: Consume yourself happy with instant gratification
(WAS: Silly Photo.net thread)
> On Sunday, March 10, 2002, at 08:22 PM, Bruce Rubenstein
wrote:
>
> > The original snippy remark applied to Vivitar and Kiron
lenses wit
I wrote:
>One of the more interesting technique are the arguments
>against eg. brand y, and even if this has nothing to do with the consensus
>brands, it used anyway as an argument as why you should buy those brands.
>These argument have almost never any contextual basis, like what the
>photogra
- Original Message -
From: Rob Brigham
Subject: RE: AF speed (was: Silly Photo.net thread)
> But DOF is not an issue for focussing - the camera focusses
wide open.
> It doesnt stop down until you take the shot. When you talk
about the
> subject leaving the plane of focus b
Alan wrote:
>Is this the same magazine as we have in the UK called Outdoor Photography?
>The one where Andy Rouse uses a 645NII.
Yup, and I agree with Pal on that one. I get said magazine and it seems
mostly gear oriented (including SUV's), although there are very good columns
by very good photo
Is this the same magazine as we have in the UK called Outdoor Photography?
The one where Andy Rouse uses a 645NII.
Alan
>
>Pål wrote:
>
>
> Sorry for the sarcasm but this is the essence of what you get
> from reading
> the nature section on Photo.net for awhile. Besides, you get the same
>
BTW Interestingly enough, and also a point that underlines the consumerist
nature of photo.net, is the fact that there's a anti medium format
undercurrent on the nature section. Pretty weird considering that MF is the
most popular format globally for landscape, which is the most popular area
if it is an f2.8 lens.
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruce Rubenstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 11 March 2002 01:03
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: AF speed (was: Silly Photo.net thread)
>
>
> The issue is Depth Of Field. Shooting wide open with lon
with instant gratification (WAS: Silly
Photo.net thread)
> On 11 Mar 2002 at 0:28, T Rittenhouse wrote:
>
> > Aha! That explains it. No one ever sees a Pentax camera being used,
> > because the Pentax users are all out in the woods taking pictures
> > instead of hanging around
On 11 Mar 2002 at 0:28, T Rittenhouse wrote:
> Aha! That explains it. No one ever sees a Pentax camera being used,
> because the Pentax users are all out in the woods taking pictures
> instead of hanging around the parking lot bragging about their
> cameras.
Now you *know* this ain't true...we j
- Original Message -
From: Doug Brewer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2002 10:36 PM
Subject: Re: Consume yourself happy with instant gratification (WAS: Silly
Photo.net thread)
> Pål,
>
&
Pål,
Let's see. You're saying that, based on the preferences of Photo.Net regulars, all
North American nature photographers travel in packs and shoot nothing they can't see
from the pavement.
By that logic, all nature photographers use Nikon and Canon, because that's the
preference of the Pho
10, 2002 8:03 PM
Subject: RE: AF speed (was: Silly Photo.net thread)
> The issue is Depth Of Field. Shooting wide open with long lenses gives a
very
> shallow DOF. If the whole AF system (lens speed/electronics/motor, etc.)
> doesn't work fast enough, the subject can past throug
At 12:36 PM 3/9/02 +0100, you wrote:
>I always been of the opinion the Photo.net would an excellent site for
>research into blatant consumerism and the concept of branding. Sites like
>photo.net are places were people can meet to get acknowledgement of their
>consumption.
... snip ...
>Parti
At 05:22 PM 3/10/02 -0800, Bruce wrote:
>Vivitar lenses along with Kiron are
>best known for being inexpensive.
Kiron lenses are largely know for their excellent build and optical
quality. Vivitar Series 1 lenses are known for smashing the myth that third
party lenses were inferior.
I use two
t;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2002 12:21 PM
Subject: Pics from the Toronto PDML meet, was Re: Why I love
PDML, was Re: Silly Photo.net thread
> On Sunday, March 10, 2002, at 12:35 PM, frank theriault
wrote:
> >
> > BTW, when are ya gon
On Sunday, March 10, 2002, at 02:01 PM, Bruce Rubenstein wrote:
> You have made an unwarranted assumption that the reference to ìVivitar
> and
> Kironî equates to ìtruly great optics made in the pastî and ìVivitar
> Series One
> lensesî. I didnít do that. Find something else to off half cocked
On Saturday, March 9, 2002, at 10:26 AM, Bruce Rubenstein wrote:
> I understand that photo.net doesn't make sense to a typical Pentax user
> who
> asks questions like, "Is there any way to have Vivitar and Kiron lenses
> originally purchased for Konica SLR cameras remounted for use on Pentax
>
Chris asks:
>>> Who cares what you like? You're stupid and LaserDiscs suck.
Welcome to alt.video.laserdisc, circa 1998.
Tom says:
>> Needs a haircut too.
Very true, as the folks who showed up to the Toronto PDML meet can
confirm. Hopefully if the rest of furniture moving goes well tonight
What was the shooting aperture?
--- Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Almost all my Mid-Ohio shots were taken with a 300/2.8 (Sigma EX 300/2.8 APO)
> and many were taken using that lens with the Pentax F 1.7x teleconverter.
Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email!
http://ma
I don't care about supposed specs, show me the percentage of in focus pictures
of a vehicle cresting a rise at 150 feet/sec, shot with a 300/2.8, at f2.8,
taken with a PZ-1p.
--- Pål Audun Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> When the Z-1 was released Pentax published exactly such numbers; ie.
In a message dated Sun, 10 Mar 2002 5:56:32 AM Eastern Standard Time, Pål Audun
Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Bruce wrote:
>
>
> >It reaffirms that Pentax MF gear is used by professionals. There was never any
> >issue there.
>
>
> It is both Pentax MF and Pentax 35mm gear. Otherwise
Pål Audun Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>When the Z-1 was released Pentax published exactly such numbers; ie. how
>fast a subject have to move in order for a Z-1p AF being unable to follow
>it when using a 300/2.8 lens.
Almost all my Mid-Ohio shots were taken with a 300/2.8 (Sigma EX 300/
> PDML isn't like that. That's why I like it.
Why do I like it?
PDML = Post any Damn Message you Like
:-)
-Original Message-
From: tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, 9 March 2002 7:37 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why I love PDML, was Re: Si
TED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2002 6:36 AM
Subject: Consume yourself happy with instant gratification (WAS: Silly
Photo.net thread)
> Doug wrote:
>
> >The
> >Nikon/Canon camp then uses their community as "proof" that Nikon and
Canon
&
Actually, I think I read about it a while ago here, on PDML. Never
tested it though. So I took out MZ-3 today, put it on a tripod and took a
few frames of a target sheet to see it myself. The result is that I was
talking nonsense, more or less. The image seems to be shifted
downwards a bit, b
I purchased my 6x7 for 202.11. And it's in great shape. I found a 300/4 for a
reasonable price. When I get my 2X converter, I'm going to use it for nature
photography. All for about the price of a Nikon N80 and a long lens.
Paul
Bruce Rubenstein wrote:
> It reaffirms that Pentax MF gear is used
PAJ> I always been of the opinion the Photo.net would an excellent site for
PAJ> research into blatant consumerism and the concept of branding. Sites like
[...]
Pal,
thanks for an excellent post! It says it all... I can't but second
it!
BTW, indeed, the newsgroups and photo.net are e
It reaffirms that Pentax MF gear is used by professionals. There was never any
issue there. The citation also points up that most hobbiests are interested in
nature photography, but this is only a very small part of professional
photography.
It has nothing to do with recommending equipment to the
> Doug wrote:
>
> >The
> >Nikon/Canon camp then uses their community as "proof" that Nikon and
Canon
> >are the best for everyone, which is of course ludicrous.
>
>
> I always been of the opinion the Photo.net would an excellent site for
> research into blatant consumerism and the concept of brand
About a week after the Canon Ixus was launched in Europe a few years ago, my
wife and I stopped over night in Bath, England,for some sightseeing while
driving to Scotland. Wandering around town I noticed a guy with his two
fists scrunched up against his face and realized that he had some sort o
Doug wrote:
>The
>Nikon/Canon camp then uses their community as "proof" that Nikon and Canon
>are the best for everyone, which is of course ludicrous.
I always been of the opinion the Photo.net would an excellent site for
research into blatant consumerism and the concept of branding. Sites lik
Bruce wrote:
>Well, you can take a look at the Professional Photographers forums here:
>http://www.photonews.com/forums/forums.html You will see: a) That they are
>just about all freelancers and pay for their own equipment. b) For 35mm
>they shoot Nikon and Canon
I have a book by the nature
Rob wrote:
Rob wrote:
>If I get round to it, I
>will type or scan the review for those interested...
I'm going downtown to see if I can find the magazine. They do sell them
over here.
It's interesting than many feel that the Pentax 645 system can replace 35mm
for most uses.
Pål
-
This messa
On 9 Mar 2002 at 8:28, Matjaz Osojnik wrote:
> Indeed. MZ-S viewfinder is good. It is easier to focus with then MZ-3.
> Better than ME Super too. Apart from that, those 92% of the frame that
> viewfinder shows are dead in the center. Without shifted image down
> and to the right as in MZ-5n/3. I
Indeed. MZ-S viewfinder is good. It is easier to focus with then MZ-3.
Better than ME Super too. Apart from that, those 92% of the frame that
viewfinder shows are dead in the center. Without shifted image down
and to the right as in MZ-5n/3. I find that rather important.
Matjaz
> Tom wrote a
On 9 Mar 2002 at 17:11, David A. Mann wrote:
> tom wrote:
>
> [Quoting Alan Chan]
> > > Now
> > > you might try to convince me that it had better viewfinder than
> > > the Z-1p, but I really didn't see with my aging eyes.
> >
> > I wish it showed more of the frame, but I find it easy to focus
>
tom wrote:
[Quoting Alan Chan]
> > Now
> > you might try to convince me that it had better viewfinder than the
> > Z-1p, but I really didn't see with my aging eyes.
>
> I wish it showed more of the frame, but I find it easy to focus with.
> Very snappy.
On the subject of viewfinders, I'm amaze
t/graywolfphoto
- Original Message -
From: Aaron Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 2:30 PM
Subject: Why I love PDML, was Re: Silly Photo.net thread
> On Friday, March 8, 2002, at 11:57 AM, Doug Brewer wrote:
>
>
ssage -
From: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 10:44 AM
Subject: Re: Silly Photo.net thread
> T Rittenhouse wrote:
>
> >just because the EOS1 is use by a lot of pros, it does not mean a
> >Rebel is a better camer
, 2002 11:12 AM
Subject: Re: Silly Photo.net thread
> Well, you can take a look at the Professional Photographers forums here:
> http://www.photonews.com/forums/forums.html
> You will see:
> a) That they are just about all freelancers and pay for their own
equipment.
> b) For 35mm
MAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: OT: foolish arguments, was Re: Re[2]: Silly Photo.net thread
> Neither! It's a trick question! The Yeti would take 'em both!
>
> Christian
> Also a cryptozoologist
>
> On Friday 08 March 2002 15:10,
Aaron,Which mountain,sorry.just being silly,fun Friday
Dave
- Original Message -
From: "Aaron Reynolds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 3:10 PM
Subject: Re: OT: foolish arguments, was Re: Re[2]: Silly Photo.net thread
>
BATMAN
Dave
- Original Message -
From: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Sas Gabor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 11:51 AM
Subject: Re[2]: Silly Photo.net thread
> Reminds me of the discussion concerning whether Mighty Mous
Yah Warren
Dave
- Original Message -
From: "W.Xato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 11:57 AM
Subject: RE: Silly Photo.net thread
> Sorry to get onto this "silly" discussion so late but
> you're mis
I sent in my 2 cents worth($75.00 USd
Dave
- Original Message -
From: "Fred" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 8:26 AM
Subject: Re: Silly Photo.net thread
> Here: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0021
On 8 Mar 2002 at 15:54, Alan Chan wrote:
>
> I like the MZ/ZX bodies, except I can never bear their shitty
> viewfinders (distorted, blurred, dull, dim). If the magnification of
> the MZ-S's viewfinder were not so low, I might buy one already. Now
> you might try to convince me that it had better
>Well, I for one is glad Pentax made a camera for serious amateurs that is
>different from similarly positioned offerings from Nikon and Canon. Being
>among those who for years have asked for a small, solid, lightweight, metal
>MZ-camera can only acknowledge that Pentax do listen to their customer
I like the fact than when a question or comment
is asked/made,actual users of the product
contribute.We may receive a dozen different
answers but it sure helps in mind making up
Dave
Begin Original Message
From: Aaron Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PDML isn't like that. That's why
On Friday, March 8, 2002, at 03:23 PM, Christian Skofteland wrote:
> Neither! It's a trick question! The Yeti would take 'em both!
Damn, I thought I'd get you with that one.
-Aaron
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the
On Fri, 8 Mar 2002, Aaron Reynolds wrote:
> can't count how many times I've seen questions like "How good is the
> transfer on the LaserDisc of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid?"
> answered with "Who cares, that movie was stupid and LaserDiscs suck"
> elsewhere on the internet. PDML isn't like
Uh, the one that's not extinct? Just a shot in the dark. ;-)
Len
---
-Original Message-
From: Aaron Reynolds [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 2:11 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OT: foolish arguments, was Re: Re[2]: Silly Photo.net
thread
On F
Aaron Reynolds wrote:
>I dropped in to photo.net to contribute some help, as someone had asked
>if anyone had info on the new 75mm f2.8 AL for 67 from Pentax, and the
>first response (from a moderator) was about how there wasn't any good
>reason to make that lens. What about the significantly
On Friday, March 8, 2002, at 11:57 AM, Doug Brewer wrote:
> It's the Photo.net Syndrome, where, starting with Greenspun on down,
> there is a palpable hatred of anything that isn't Nikon or Canon.
I dropped in to photo.net to contribute some help, as someone had asked
if anyone had info on th
On Friday, March 8, 2002, at 11:51 AM, Bruce Dayton wrote:
> Reminds me of the discussion concerning whether Mighty Mouse or
> Superman is stronger...So it goes that someone wisely pipes in
> "Obviously it is Superman! Mighty Mouse is just a cartoon character."
I prefer "Which is better: Spide
Hi,
On 8 Mar 2002 at 8:12, Bruce Rubenstein wrote:
> Well, you can take a look at the Professional Photographers forums here:
> http://www.photonews.com/forums/forums.html
> You will see:
> a) That they are just about all freelancers and pay for their own equipment.
> b) For 35mm they shoot Nikon
his Canon SLR with a 300mm on it. If I get round to it, I
will type or scan the review for those interested...
> -Original Message-
> From: Pål Audun Jensen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 08 March 2002 15:27
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Silly Photo.net thread
&
Hi,
On 8 Mar 2002 at 10:36, Collin Brendemuehl wrote:
> Pentax produces some of the finest lenses around,
> and the most outstanding consumer bodies available.
That (plus compatibility) is far enough for me.
What else does an amateur need?
> BUT -- only 1 pro body. It appears they want to
> *s
a Rebel is a better camera than an ZX7.
>
> Ciao,
> Graywolf
> http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Bruce Rubenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <
>> just because the EOS1 is use by a lot of pros, it does not mean a
>> Rebel is a better camera than an ZX7.
> If you insist on bring logic and common sense into this discussion
> I'm afraid we're going to have to ask you to leave!
Har!
Fred
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.
> If you are serious, why are you participating in this Silly
> thread?
Good point.
You know, my momma told me to stay away from threads like
this...
;-)
Fred
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forge
The cameras are: ZX-5 with Pentax FA28-105 (the big one with motor zoom) and
Tamron 28-105/4-5.6, and Nikon N80 with Nikon 28-105/3.5-4.5. A ZX-5n (same AF
as the ZX-5) and the N80 both sell for between $300-$400. The Nikon and Pentax
lenses are also about the same price ($300). I don't anyone thi
ay, March 08, 2002 9:35 AM
Subject: Re: Silly Photo.net thread
> > Pentax has aquired its present reputation through years of
> > dilligent presistance of making 35mm SLRs that serious amatures
> > and professionals don't want.
>
> Hi, Bruce.
>
> And to think th
T Rittenhouse wrote:
>just because the EOS1 is use by a lot of pros, it does not mean a
>Rebel is a better camera than an ZX7.
If you insist on bring logic and common sense into this discussion I'm afraid
we're going to have to ask you to leave!
--
Mark Roberts
www.robertstech.com
-
This mes
Bruce is right and wrong. It is all marketing,
and Pentax has failed miserably. Not in the
aspect of visibility, the sales aspect of marketing,
but with respect to being driven.
Pentax produces some of the finest lenses around,
and the most outstanding consumer bodies available.
BUT -- only 1
OK I found his web page. It says he is about to switch brands. Apparently
from Canon to Pentax and Nikon!
Who is Andy Rouse and does he have a web page?
Pål
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the direct
- Original Message -
From: Bruce Rubenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 8:51 AM
Subject: Re: Silly Photo.net thread
> It's only sill because Pentax users, who live in their own little universe
and
> are clueless when
Tounge was planted firmly in cheek.
My general view is that if you like your Pentax gear, and are getting the
photos you want with it enjoy it and keep it. My view is different when it
comes to making equipment recommendations to rank amatuers (i.e., the poster on
photo.net, judging by the questio
Rob wrote:
>Again however, Andy Rouse has just announced that up to 500mm he will
>only use the Pentax 645Nii in the future, and above that a D1x.
Who is Andy Rouse and does he have a web page?
Pål
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net
On Friday, March 8, 2002, at 08:51 AM, Bruce Rubenstein wrote:
> Having
> used more than one system I would say that Pentax is fine for stuffed
> animals,
> but for live ones there are far more sutiable tools.
What were the bodies and lenses that you directly compared, and what
were the faili
Hi,
I think the thread IS silly because the initial question is silly as well. Lower class
budget camera bodies aren't supposed to be used for nature photography with big
glass. Nor the MZ/ZX bodies, nor Canon Rebels, nor Nikon Fxx cameras.
Interesting to see that some people can heavily arg
It's only sill because Pentax users, who live in their own little universe and
are clueless when it comes to using other systems, think that a ZX-5n or ZX-M
and AF lens availabilty is just as good as Canon and Nkon for wild life. Having
used more than one system I would say that Pentax is fine for
> Here: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0021wu
Yes, Pål, quite silly. The same attitudes/platitudes (generally
rehashed from the frontrunners' literature) show up in the rec.photo
newsgroups, too.
The main problem, though, is that Pentax has done little to
counteract those
It's silly, all right. Stuff like that is why more stores don't
carry Pentax in the U.S.A. :-(
Len
---
- Original Message -
From: "Pål Audun Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 3:23 AM
Subject: Silly Pho
Here:
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0021wu
-
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 http://pug.komkon.org .
96 matches
Mail list logo
