> I can make you mine, stop down to f/9
Mark! And strong competition to Bill's for quote of the year.
On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 6:57 PM, Stanley Halpin
wrote:
>
> On Jul 7, 2014, at 4:27 PM, Bruce Walker wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Mark Roberts
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Richard Womer wr
> The Nikon doesn't take Pentax lenses. If you have used both, you won't need
> an explanation.
>
shouldn't it be possible to adapt 6x7 lenses to anything 35mm and smaller?
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML,
On Jul 7, 2014, at 4:27 PM, Bruce Walker wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Mark Roberts
> wrote:
>>
>> Richard Womer wrote:
>>
>>> We all need negative, nitpicking reviews like that!
>>
>> I read that review a few days ago and considered posting it here under
>> the title "Rave Revie
Bill wrote:
>My wife can only kill me once.
Is it too early for a Quote of the Year award?
--
Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia
www.robertstech.com
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please vis
On 07/07/2014 2:50 PM, Luka Knezevic-Strika wrote:
nikon d800 is much cheaper, why exclude it? D3x has advantages mostly
in very specific realms of high-end sports photography, which
definitely isn't a medium format's forte anyway. Only the size and
price realy compare, but if you really want som
On 07/07/2014 2:22 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
The only reason I didn't is that the 645Z is so expensive it's a
little irrelevant for virtually everyone here.
I'm deciding if I should fire sale my 6x7 gear for some stupidly
ridiculous price (I'm thinking the body, 8 lenses, bellows and
accessori
Zos Xavius wrote:
>From what I've heard the 6x7 lenses were superb and supposedly better
>than the zeiss lenses hassy used on the V series and also better than
>the 645 lenses.
Most medium format lenses are much lower in absolute resolution than
35mm lenses. They don't need to be as good because
>From what I've heard the 6x7 lenses were superb and supposedly better
than the zeiss lenses hassy used on the V series and also better than
the 645 lenses. I don't know how true that exactly is, but I've heard
it repeated from various people that shot MF with pentax bodies. If
you factor 3-4 reall
true, well nothing than.
On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Mark Roberts
wrote:
> Luka Knezevic-Strika wrote:
>
>>well, you can also use the mf lenses on almost anything :D
>
> Sadly, I think the 645-to-k-mount adapter is out of production. And it
> didn't support autofocus.
>
> --
> Mark Roberts -
Luka Knezevic-Strika wrote:
>well, you can also use the mf lenses on almost anything :D
Sadly, I think the 645-to-k-mount adapter is out of production. And it
didn't support autofocus.
--
Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia
www.robertstech.com
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pd
well, you can also use the mf lenses on almost anything :D
On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 10:58 PM, Mark Roberts
wrote:
> Paul Stenquist wrote:
>
>>If I felt a strong need for a large sensor camera I'd go for the 8.5K 645Z
>>over a Nikon D3x, which is 7K. And it's only $500 more than a Leica
>>monochr
Paul Stenquist wrote:
>If I felt a strong need for a large sensor camera Id go for the 8.5K 645Z
>over a Nikon D3x, which is 7K. And its only $500 more than a Leica
>monochrome.
>
>Not a bad price for a medium format DSLR. A slam dunk vs. the above.
Oh yes. Amazing price for a med format DS
nikon d800 is much cheaper, why exclude it? D3x has advantages mostly
in very specific realms of high-end sports photography, which
definitely isn't a medium format's forte anyway. Only the size and
price realy compare, but if you really want something big, well, just
buy a mamiya rb67 and save a t
If I felt a strong need for a large sensor camera I’d go for the 8.5K 645Z
over a Nikon D3x, which is 7K. And it’s only $500 more than a Leica monochrome.
Not a bad price for a medium format DSLR. A slam dunk vs. the above.
Paul
On Jul 7, 2014, at 4:22 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
> Richard Womer
i also find that they rarely praise a piece of gear that much. all of
the criticisms also completely stand, afaic
On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Bruce Walker wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Mark Roberts
> wrote:
>>
>> Richard Womer wrote:
>>
>> >We all need negative, nitpicking revie
On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
>
> Richard Womer wrote:
>
> >We all need negative, nitpicking reviews like that!
>
> I read that review a few days ago and considered posting it here under
> the title "Rave Review of 645Z at Luminous Landscape". Seriously.
>
> The only reason I
Richard Womer wrote:
>Aw, c'mon guys, lighten up! The reviewers criticize the green button
>and the video, and wonder about the trade-offs of size, price, and
>performance compared to smaller cameras (esp. 24x36). They also say
>(just going quickly through the review):
>
>"But we have to put the
d customizable.
>
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Jack Davis wrote:
>> An aggravated, uninspired reluctant literal utterance that simply reflects
>> his frustration at failing to produce a negative review.
>>
>> J
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> Fr
> An aggravated, uninspired reluctant literal utterance that simply reflects
> his frustration at failing to produce a negative review.
>
> J
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "P.J. Alling"
> To: "PDML"
> Sent: Monday, July 7, 2014 8:25:05 AM
> Sub
An aggravated, uninspired reluctant literal utterance that simply reflects his
frustration at failing to produce a negative review.
J
- Original Message -
From: "P.J. Alling"
To: "PDML"
Sent: Monday, July 7, 2014 8:25:05 AM
Subject: The Luminous Landscape previews
This is not inconsistent with my general impression of LL; I'm not
sure it's any worse than it ever was.
On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 11:25 AM, P.J. Alling wrote:
> In which after deciding it's pretty good, the author says since I don't
> really need it, probably no one else does... Is it me or is eve
To suggest that nobody really needs it would be like telling wedding (film)
photographers that their blads were unnecessary, that 135 was enough.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link dire
LL clearly didn't want to give this camera a favorable review and yet
kind of had to because there is so little to fault about the camera.
On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 11:25 AM, P.J. Alling wrote:
> In which after deciding it's pretty good, the author says since I don't
> really need it, probably no on
In which after deciding it's pretty good, the author says since I don't
really need it, probably no one else does... Is it me or is every
photography news blog becoming Kennyboy's?
--
A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant, and the crazy,
crazier.
- H.L.Mencken
24 matches
Mail list logo
