place
for about 10 years, it costs a lot.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 8:45 PM
Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera!
Think about it, the tooling would have co
on a different assembly line from one that had the tooling already in place
for about 10 years, it costs a lot.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 8:45 PM
Subject: Re
OTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera!
That's right tooling and assembly jigs cost considerably more, if it's
designed in from the beginning the additional cost
can be minuscule. In this case it pr
MAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera!
> That's right tooling and assembly jigs cost considerably more, if it's
> designed in from the beginning the additional cost
> can be minuscule. In this case it probably would have been.
a hundred times more, per unit, than the part to be inserted.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 12:30 AM
Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera!
I've been in eng
r 24, 2004 12:30 AM
Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera!
> I've been in engineering for a long time, but I also spent some time
> working on a factory floor, on an assembly line and in electronics and
> photographic retail, (not to mention a bunch of higher education in
> econ
:
you talk like someone who hasn't been part of an assembly line operation.
they are even more price sensitive.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 6:24 PM
Subject:
sues again! (WAS: RE: istDs -
what a great camera!)
- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: RE: Even more compatibility issues again! (WAS: RE: istDs -
what a great camera!)
> What a load of BS. I just explained to you how I use LF
> to do seascapes wi
- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: RE: Even more compatibility issues again! (WAS: RE: istDs -
what a great camera!)
> What a load of BS. I just explained to you how I use LF
> to do seascapes with boats and why pan and stitch wont
> work a
tibility issues again! (WAS: RE: istDs -
what a great camera!)
- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 4:57 PM
Subject: RE: Even more compatibility issues again! (WAS: RE: istDs -
what a great camera!)
>
> Yes, I state
- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 4:57 PM
Subject: RE: Even more compatibility issues again! (WAS: RE: istDs -
what a great camera!)
>
> Yes, I state facts matter of factly. If you don't like what I say
>
On 23 Sep 2004 at 15:46, Alan Chan wrote:
> I am with Rob. Though I don't have the *istD, but the accuracy of the
> aperture at 'A' setting has been questioning for years. The difference could be
> between less than 1/3 to 2/3EV depends on the lens/camera combination.
Exactly, and experiencing v
context.
>
> JCO
>
> -Original Message-
> From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 3:17 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Even more compatibility issues again! (WAS: RE: istDs -
> what a great camera!)
>
>
- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: RE: Even more compatibility issues again! (WAS: RE: istDs -
what a great camera!)
> You must be spoon fed everything like a little baby.
> If you are down near the lower limit of the meter cells
> and you
JCO
-Original Message-
From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 3:17 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Even more compatibility issues again! (WAS: RE: istDs -
what a great camera!)
- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Su
On 23/9/04, Peter J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed:
>You know I'm very sorry that you're sorry...
PETER DON'T START!
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_
You know I'm very sorry that you're sorry...
Cotty wrote:
On 21/9/04, John Forbes, discombobulated, unleashed:
I was afraid you'd start apologising too!
Sorry about not being sorry and then being sorry for not paying attention.
Hey I can apologise with the best of 'em!
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\
T. Of course the ones who do buy it don't mind
and arent going to argue otherwise.
Thirdly I don't think you did read the paragraph below because
it isnt a *istD issue commentary. It's the new major pentax philosophy
that I am very disappointed in...
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Pau
t;
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera!
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 10:47:03 +0200
Try telling that to Microsoft, one of the most unethical and poorly
perceived companies ever.
A.
On 16/9/04 2:04 am, "J. C. O'Connell" <[
On 21/9/04, John Forbes, discombobulated, unleashed:
>I was afraid you'd start apologising too!
Sorry about not being sorry and then being sorry for not paying attention.
Hey I can apologise with the best of 'em!
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|
tter speed if the subject brightness changes or is it locked
to whatever speed the reading was when the green button
was released?
jco
-Original Message-
From: Gonz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 12:50 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camer
JCO wrote:
For the price of what a
*istD costs I am not going to buy into the argument
that full K/M support would have driven up the cost in
any signifigant way because K/M support was provided
on many budget cameras, pentax made and third parties.
REPLY:
You forget that the production method
Mark wrote:
To satisfy a few hundred people? You're overestimating, Herb. This
list represents 400-600 of the most hardcore Pentax fanatics on the
planet. Yet even out of that select group there are literally only a
handful of people complaining about this issue. If anyone from Pentax
does read th
JCO
BIG DIFFERENCE - read my last post. When they abandoned M42
in favor of K mount there was a huge gain, much better and
faster lens mounting. With the *istD abandoning the K/M aperture
setting, THERE IS NO GAIN. ALL LOSS.
REPLY:
Thats debatable. Some prefer screw mount. I don't think the gain
On 21/9/04, John Forbes, discombobulated, unleashed:
>OK, we'd better drop this before Cotty gets in on the act!
Sorry, I wasn't paying attention.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_
- Original Message -
From: "Lon Williamson"
Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera!
> Having read quite a few messages with JCO vs. the
> rest of the PDML on the subject of KM compatibility,
> I am moved to ask the group what Nikon, the other
> brand of backw
: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 6:04 AM
Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera!
When manufacturing anything, there are a million decisions to be made
on what to put in and what to leave out. The fact that "it's only
$10.00" is not a good argume
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004, Cotty wrote:
> On 19/9/04, Keith Whaley, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
> >Uhhh, what's a "botch?"
> >In the English I understand, to botch something means to do something
> >clumsily.
> >As a noun, I don't recognize it.
>
> you can botch something up, and if you did, it's a bo
Having read quite a few messages with JCO vs. the
rest of the PDML on the subject of KM compatibility,
I am moved to ask the group what Nikon, the other
brand of backward compatibility, has done with their
digital SLRs and compatibility with older lenses.
I've read just a bit about this in the past
On 19/9/04, Keith Whaley, discombobulated, unleashed:
>Uhhh, what's a "botch?"
>In the English I understand, to botch something means to do something
>clumsily.
>As a noun, I don't recognize it.
you can botch something up, and if you did, it's a botched job, or a
botch for short.
Cheers,
Co
I assume he's refering to the firmware update and green button.
Combination of "patch" and "kluge".
Don
> -Original Message-
> From: Keith Whaley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2004 6:27 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004, William Robb wrote:
Look at the pricing and capabilities of what is leading edge right
now, and get back to us on that one.
Aye, but you could say the same about the MZ-S when it was released.
When it comes to brand loyalty, it's what's in the fam
- Original Message -
From: "Kostas Kavoussanakis"
Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera!
> On Sun, 19 Sep 2004, William Robb wrote:
>
> > Look at the pricing and capabilities of what is leading edge
right
> > now, and get back to us on that one.
>
&g
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004, William Robb wrote:
> Look at the pricing and capabilities of what is leading edge right
> now, and get back to us on that one.
Aye, but you could say the same about the MZ-S when it was released.
When it comes to brand loyalty, it's what's in the family that counts.
This cam
Kostas Kavoussanakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Sep 2004, Nick Clark wrote:
>
>> I think you'll find that K/M legacy lens support is worse with other manufacturers
>> than with Pentax.
>
>Aye, but for how long?
The guarantee you get in that department is exactly the same as the
one y
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004, Keith Whaley wrote:
> All this serious _supposition_ (=guessing) on what Pentax MIGHT do tomorrow,
> and what Pentax MIGHT be thinking of doing next year, and what Pentax'
> future lens design manufacture plans MIGHT be... Geez!
> All without a shred of tangible, valid evidenc
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004, Nick Clark wrote:
> I think you'll find that K/M legacy lens support is worse with other manufacturers
> than with Pentax.
Aye, but for how long?
And if one is to forfeit use of their K/Ms, why not go somewhere with
IS for example? And should they do a Cotty and do it quick
-Original Message-
From: Kostas Kavoussanakis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2004 9:34 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: istDs - what a great camera!
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> Kostas,
>
> What exactly in my emails is inacc
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> Kostas,
>
> What exactly in my emails is inaccurate?
Please read on.
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> They have never done anything like this before so the sky is
> the limit for them now.
Why are you complaining now? They have bee
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004, Paul Stenquist wrote:
> JCO's big gripe is with the way the *istD utilizes K and M lenses.
Yes, but that's not what I was responding to or saying I agree with.
Just read below, since you are quoting.
> that opinions based on pure speculation are not valid. You have to
> shoo
this support
is limited (manual settings require stoped down metering).
Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Keith Whaley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 16. september 2004 01:16
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: Re: istDs - what
imited (manual settings require stoped down metering).
Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Keith Whaley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 16. september 2004 01:16
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: Re: istDs - what a great camera!
J
t; - Original Message -
>> From: "Antonio"
>> Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera!
>> I think any reasonable person who bought say a K85.1.8 in 1975 woud
>> be pretty dam chuffed that it works at all with an *istD in 2004,
>> nearly 30 years later. I mean
I think perhaps voiglander or other may do that at some point. Who know,
perhaps even Pentax, but I doubt it. You would effectively be making a body
that few will buy new lenses for given the abundance of cheap SH ones on
ebay.
A.
On 19/9/04 1:46 am, "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
given the dismal sales vs forecast for the *istD, there may not be anything
you can buy.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: "mike wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera!
- Original Message -
From: "Antonio"
Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera!
> I think any reasonable person who bought say a K85.1.8 in 1975 woud
be
> pretty dam chuffed that it works at all with an *istD in 2004,
nearly 30
> years later. I mean come on, if on
IL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 11:08 PM
Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera!
I bet Mike hasn't tried the *istD. That's why he's so sure his
present
lenses won't work well enough to make him happy.
On Sep 18, 2004, at 2:19 PM, mike wilson wrote:
Hi
Wrong. But an understandable statement.
Paul Stenquist wrote:
I bet Mike hasn't tried the *istD. That's why he's so sure his present
lenses won't work well enough to make him happy.
On Sep 18, 2004, at 2:19 PM, mike wilson wrote:
Hi,
Keith Whaley wrote:
Yeah, and the world might end tomorrow.
I'
As I understand it, you couldn't do that (evenbiggervbg)
OTF metering beats digital wizardry hands down.
Paul Stenquist wrote:
What if they abandon support for all lenses and we are all forced to
make a pinhole in the body cap? I see this happening soon .
On Sep 18, 2004, at 12:59 PM, mike wi
.
On 18/9/04 11:03 pm, "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "J. C. O'Connell"
> Subject: RE: istDs - what a great camera!
>
>
>> The answer is Pentax is screwing the very people
>> most
Hi,
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Here's a crazy thought Mike, one that you touched upon: If the gear you
have works for what you're doing, what need is there to buy something
newer, especially if it makes it difficult to use some of the gear you
already have? If you want to do something other than what
Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Rob, you're gonna hate me but I never really liked the aperture ring- I
>always found it a bit of a faff.
Same here. It's quite difficult to reach on some lenses, especially
when the camera is on a tripod and *especially* when shooting
verticals. I complained whe
e why there wouldn't be ) that
is because they chose there to be no room for the part.
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Keith Whaley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 7:14 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera!
J. C. O'Connel
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
The capture has nothing to do with the lensmount.
Huh?
There are no new lenses or lens features on
this camera.
No, there are LESS features on this camera (the *ist-D or the -DS.) That's
what we're 'discussing.'
They don't accomodate the mechanical portion of the lens/body
Rob Studdert mused:
>
> On 18 Sep 2004 at 10:10, Jim Apilado wrote:
>
> > I believe that if you use M-42 lenses on a K2, K2DMD, ME, and the LX, the
> > AE is easier than that on the *ist D. Those cameras will "sense" the change in
> > light and accordingly will adjust the shutter speed for it.
ECTED]
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 6:14 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera!
- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: RE: istDs - what a great camera!
> Slowing down the exposure process is luxury?
> Reducing the
On 18 Sep 2004 at 23:01, Cotty wrote:
> Rob, you're gonna hate me but I never really liked the aperture ring- I
> always found it a bit of a faff. I agree that left hand supports the lens
> and tickles the focus, but to adjust the ap ring I always found myself
> having to support the camera with m
On 18 Sep 2004 at 22:58, Cotty wrote:
> On 18/9/04, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
> >Of course the D10 that Cotty opted for isn't markedly superior the the
> >*istD. In fact, the local Canon pro who talked me into digital, thinks
> >the *istD is quite superior to the 10D. He was
- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: RE: istDs - what a great camera!
> Slowing down the exposure process is luxury?
> Reducing the metering range is a luxury?
> If you want to think, go manual. AE is
> about speed and the green button is
On 18/9/04, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed:
>Hey, what do I know .
>Paul
More than me
I am your humble servant,
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_
On 18 Sep 2004 at 12:53, Keith Whaley wrote:
> Perhaps you DO know what room is available in the D and DS for all the
> linkages, I don't know.
> If you do know, I'll shut up permanently!
The tail wagging the dog perhaps. If they couldn't fit it then they set an
initial design criterion that
Hey, what do I know . The 1D is definitely a very fine camera.
Paul
On Sep 18, 2004, at 5:58 PM, Cotty wrote:
On 18/9/04, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed:
Of course the D10 that Cotty opted for isn't markedly superior the the
*istD. In fact, the local Canon pro who talked me into digital
Sorry, but I don't find it toilsome. It's less toilsome, in fact, than
moving a film advance lever. In time, it becomes second nature, and you
don't even know you're doing it.
Paul
On Sep 18, 2004, at 5:46 PM, Rob Studdert wrote:
On 18 Sep 2004 at 10:10, Jim Apilado wrote:
I believe that if you
On 19/9/04, Rob Studdert, discombobulated, unleashed:
>I not in the manuals now they suggestion is to hold the camera both hands on
>the body like you are gnawing on a rib not the time honoured and sensible
>method of cradling the lens (hand on focus and aperture rings for quick
>adjustment). T
I bet Mike hasn't tried the *istD. That's why he's so sure his present
lenses won't work well enough to make him happy.
On Sep 18, 2004, at 2:19 PM, mike wilson wrote:
Hi,
Keith Whaley wrote:
Yeah, and the world might end tomorrow.
I'm not going to lose any sleep over it...
All this serious _supp
A very wise post, Shel. Things don't stand still.
John
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 11:53:51 -0700, Shel Belinkoff
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Here's a crazy thought Mike, one that you touched upon: If the gear you
have works for what you're doing, what need is there to buy something
newer, especially i
What if they abandon support for all lenses and we are all forced to
make a pinhole in the body cap? I see this happening soon .
On Sep 18, 2004, at 12:59 PM, mike wilson wrote:
Hi,
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
they want to do on anything. What if they abandon A series next and
when? There is now no li
#x27;s not just the gut that needs to be
flushed out, as the testing is based on fat or muscle tissue.
Jostein
- Original Message -
From: "mike wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 6:07 PM
Subject: Re: istDs - what a g
Amen !
Cotty wrote:
My Pentax allegiance still remains, but to a company that I knew in the
70s and 80s.
You pays yer money, you takes yer choice.
missing.
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Keith Whaley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 3:53 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera!
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> 20 years of film cameras that fully supported
> both A and K/M lenses
he M lenses are better made (longer
life) than
the "A" series. Support the shit, abandon quality. What a policy.
They are now in the disposable camera market.
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 9:52 AM
To: [EMAIL
Here's a crazy thought Mike, one that you touched upon: If the gear you
have works for what you're doing, what need is there to buy something
newer, especially if it makes it difficult to use some of the gear you
already have? If you want to do something other than what you're now
doing, then som
Hi,
Saturday, September 18, 2004, 6:28:12 PM, Keith wrote:
> Yeah, and the world might end tomorrow.
> I'm not going to lose any sleep over it...
> All this serious _supposition_ (=guessing) on what Pentax MIGHT do tomorrow,
> and what Pentax MIGHT be thinking of doing next year, and what Pentax'
Hi,
> In the UK, too. Sheep from the Lake District are routinely taken to the
> south of England to graze for a few weeks before slaughter, to reduce
> the isotope levels. I presume that the isotopes are flushed out of the
> gut and deposited in the field. Come to think of it, I haven't heard o
ptember 18, 2004 2:32 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera!
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
I guess Keith just doesn't understand the reality
of pentax not fully supporting the K mount without cause.
It is a first in their history and goes against
everything they always
sily
> support K/M AND A,F lenses. the A and F lenses are
> not hindered in any way by the K/M support.
> JCO
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Antonio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 2:42 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: is
Cotty wrote:
On 18/9/04, mike wilson, discombobulated, unleashed:
In the UK, too. Sheep from the Lake District are routinely taken to the
south of England to graze for a few weeks before slaughter, to reduce
the isotope levels. I presume that the isotopes are flushed out of the
gut and depos
: istDs - what a great camera!
Now you are just spinning things - what I said was that you seem stuck
in the past if you think that a camera made in 2004 should fully support
lenses made in 1975.
Apart from anything else it is not in Pentax financial interests to do
so. 1970s lenses would canabalise
Cotty wrote:
[...]
My Pentax allegiance still remains, but to a company that I knew in the
70s and 80s.
You pays yer money, you takes yer choice.
Having said that, I would definitely consider an *ist Ds and a wide prime
for the pocket! Way cool.
WAYyyy cool, sir!
What's 24mm (35mm equivalent talk)
> From: Keith Whaley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 1:28 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera!
>
>
> Yeah, and the world might end tomorrow.
> I'm not going to lose any sleep over it...
> All this serious _
On 18/9/04, mike wilson, discombobulated, unleashed:
>In the UK, too. Sheep from the Lake District are routinely taken to the
>south of England to graze for a few weeks before slaughter, to reduce
>the isotope levels. I presume that the isotopes are flushed out of the
>gut and deposited in th
On 18/9/04, Caveman, discombobulated, unleashed:
>Cotty found the solution ;-)
>
>Nick Clark wrote:
>> I think you'll find that K/M legacy lens support is worse with other
>manufacturers than with Pentax.
>>
Hmm. I did what I did because I enjoy the old Pentax lenses and the
quality is first rat
rry, I don't see how you can call removal of true open
> aperture AE , a 1970's development, without cause "pretty damn good".
> JCO
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Antonio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 11:16 AM
>
short- and long-term business decisions. Most of which we are
simply not privy to...
keith
This isnt a MIGHT HAVE, they have done this.
I would not put anything past them after this.
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Keith Whaley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 1:
On 18/9/04, John Forbes, discombobulated, unleashed:
>Do calm down.
>
>John
GO BRITS :-)
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_
Hi,
Keith Whaley wrote:
Yeah, and the world might end tomorrow.
I'm not going to lose any sleep over it...
All this serious _supposition_ (=guessing) on what Pentax MIGHT do
tomorrow, and what Pentax MIGHT be thinking of doing next year, and what
Pentax' future lens design manufacture plans MIGHT
Jim Apilado mused:
>
> I believe that if you use M-42 lenses on a K2, K2DMD, ME, and the LX, the
> AE is easier than that on the *ist D. Those cameras will "sense" the change
> in light and accordingly will adjust the shutter speed for it. If you have
> to continually press the green button for
y and havent.
This isnt a MIGHT HAVE, they have done this.
I would not put anything past them after this.
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Keith Whaley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 1:28 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera!
Yeah, an
, September 18, 2004 1:18 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera!
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> I don't need to buy or use the camera to see what they
> are doing sucks.
[...]
Therein lies the entirety of JCO's philosophy.
Sorry, JC, I can't
r changing conditions, it becomes
toilsome.
No more toilsome than pressing the shutter button halfway down for the focus
to kick in!
keith
Jim A.
From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 11:05:41 -0400
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re
Yeah, and the world might end tomorrow.
I'm not going to lose any sleep over it...
All this serious _supposition_ (=guessing) on what Pentax MIGHT do tomorrow,
and what Pentax MIGHT be thinking of doing next year, and what Pentax'
future lens design manufacture plans MIGHT be... Geez!
All without
Hi,
Jostein wrote:
Btw, I happened upon a band of reindeer hunters when out photographing
last week-end. It was they who told me about the radioactivity. In
some parts, the Tchernobyl aftermath is still an issue. Sheep having
grazed freely in the mountains are still controlled before
slaughtered.
I
en aperure meter
and AE with the K/M lenses.
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Antonio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 11:14 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera!
Not true, the gain is that you dont have to include a 1970
removal of true open
aperture AE , a 1970's development, without cause "pretty damn good".
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Antonio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 11:16 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera!
You seem s
: istDs - what a great camera!
Interesting that you should mention the screwmounts, Antonio. (It was
actually in your last post, but I already deleted it.) For the very
fact that it doesn't have the stop down cam, the *istD supports
screwmount lenses better than any of the K-mount cameras hav
Yes, so I hear. I found using screwmounts on my super a a bit of a pain, but
the process sounds a whole lot more user friendly on the *istD.
A.
On 18/9/04 5:05 pm, "Paul Stenquist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Interesting that you should mention the screwmounts, Antonio. (It was
> actually in yo
aperture setting and doing everthing wide open and
> on the fly.
> JCO
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Antonio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 10:12 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera!
>
>
> W
Cotty found the solution ;-)
Nick Clark wrote:
I think you'll find that K/M legacy lens support is worse with other manufacturers
than with Pentax.
ity of the old lenses: much faster lens
> changing.
> JCO
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Antonio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 10:06 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera!
>
>
> Not exactly, the
I think you'll find that K/M legacy lens support is worse with other manufacturers
than with Pentax.
Nick
-Original Message-
From: "Caveman"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 18/09/04 13:48:05
To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sub
1 - 100 of 327 matches
Mail list logo
