Graywolf wrote:
>
> I tend to disagree with you both. I find the narrower view
of something
> like a 100mm lens nice for picking out details. I readily
admit that
> landscape photography is not really my thing, but I think
there is more
> to it then sweeping panoramics.
Agree 100%.
I do a lot o
Rob Brigham wrote:
>
> Have you any experience with this company? I was thinking
about
> ordering a TV from them.
Hi Rob,
I've not had any personal dealings with them (yet) but know
two people who have purchased domestic electrical items and
have been very satisfied with price and delivery.
A
Cotty wrote:
> For UK buyers, the *ist D (body only) is available at
Cameraworld for £1199!
... and the Canon EOS 300D body is available for a mere
£708.00 at:
http://www.qed-uk.com/?i=&vp=6&bg=265&bp=300ds&bi=0&ird=1407
:-(
John
Boris Liberman wrote:
>
> Here's the correct URL:
> http://pug.komkon.org/01jul/IceFlwer.html
>
> Congratulations.
Seconded. Wonderful image. Well done Kenneth!
John
William Robb wrote:
>
> Nikon was doing this sort of thing long before the F80. I
don't recall which
> model, it may have been the N601 from the late 1980s which
would not work at
> all with non AI lenses, though they would mount with no
problem.
The F401 (N4004) had this problem, but I didn't (an
Alan Chan wrote:
> whickersworld wrote:
> >That wasn't the reason why I abandoned Nikon for Pentax,
but
> >it was probably *one* of the reasons. Now Pentax have
done
> >it, and Canon and Minolta did it a long time ago, I have
> >nowhere to go!
>
> You can
Chris Brogden wrote:
>
> So if the Nikon D100 will stop down an MF lens in manual
mode (no meter),
> then it's actually a step ahead of the *istD, which won't
even stop down
> an MF Pentax K-mount lens. That's sad.
Yes, it is sad. In each case, the necessary engineering
would have cost only a n
Cotty wrote:
>
> You're kidding. Now I see why folk
are upset.
Now Pentax users know *exactly* how Nikon users felt when
the F80 (N80) was introduced, with its deliberately designed
inability to meter with pre-autofocus Nikkors.
That wasn't the reason why I abandoned Nikon for Pentax, but
it wa
Alan Chan wrote:
> I have never used the zooms you mentioned, but the issue
assoicated with the
> SMC-A 28-135/4 is weight.
Hi Alan,
Long ago I resolved that I would bear the weight of any lens
that helped me produce the results I wanted.
The SMC-A 28-135/4 did not last long in my outfit, bec
Cotty wrote:
>
> whickersworld wrote:
>
> >In future years, when photographers reminisce about the
year
> >2003, the EOS 300D is the only one of these two digital
SLRs
> >that anyone will remember. A truly remarkable coup, and
> >full marks to Canon for making th
Amita Guha wrote:
>
> I would love to buy a Bessa T or R, because I tried them
out a while
> back and liked them a lot, but I've been looking around
for lenses and
> it looks like the lenses are several hundred $ each no
matter where I
> look. Am I missing something or will I really have to pay
ton
Amita Guha wrote:
>
> I would love to buy a Bessa T or R, because I tried them
out a while
> back and liked them a lot, but I've been looking around
for lenses and
> it looks like the lenses are several hundred $ each no
matter where I
> look. Am I missing something or will I really have to pay
ton
T Rittenhouse wrote:
>
> WRONG!
No, what I wrote is RIGHT!
> Yes, the istD will take K and M mount lenses. The maintain
auto-aperture,
> but do not have meter coupling, so only work in full
manual mode. You do
> have to set a custom function to allow the shutter to
release with non-A
> lenses.
Kevin Waterson wrote:
>
> whickersworld wrote:
>
> > In future years, when photographers reminisce about the
year
> > 2003, the EOS 300D is the only one of these two digital
SLRs
> > that anyone will remember. A truly remarkable coup, and
> > full marks to Canon f
Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:
>
> Well, I would say, that 200mm lens on APS-sized DSLR will
have the same DOF
> as the same piece of glass on 35mm camera. One condition -
the same camera
> to subject distance. At equal magnification, DSLR will
have greater DOF -
> just because you have to stand at long
Feroze Kistan wrote:
>
> Could someone please explain why so many on the list have
MX's. It seems to
> be a very popular model, what gives?
It's fully manual, small, light, simple, robust, reliable,
has excellent handling and is cheap to buy and own.
I can't think of any other reasons right now
zoomshot wrote:
>
> See http://www.dpreview.com/
It's official from Pentax UK:
The *ist D will list at GBP 1400.00 (body only) or GBP
1529.99 with an 18-35mm f/4-5.6 FA-J lens.
Meanwhile, Canon lists the EOS 300D at GBP 899.00 (body
only) or GBP 999.00 with a very interesting zoom lens, and
wil
Harold Owen wrote:
> It would appear that the Pentax *istD body only is going
to cost £1,400
> here in the UK.
>
> See this link:-
http://www.ephotozine.com/news/fullnews.cfm?NewsID=1327
The more it changes, the more it remains the same.
Long live "Rip-Off Britain".:-(
John
Steve Desjardins wrote:
>
> For me, $1000 is still too much for a low end camera. We
need the
> equivalent of the *ist body with a 6 MP senor in it for
about $600.
Steve,
All you need to do is wait a while. It will surely come.
Maybe by end of 2004?
John
Christian Skofteland wrote:
>
> Pål;
> Now I know why you don't think the ist-D is a nice looking
camera. You
> obviously have much different tastes than a lot of people
I know. The Leica
> R8 and R9 are two of the most beautifully designed SLRs.
The ist-D is an
> average looking "modern" SLR; th
Lon Williamson wrote:
>
>
> I own 2 SuperPrograms, 3 MXen, and 3 KXen. In the market
for
> more good KXen. No desire to own an LX.
Lon,
I had no particular desire to own an LX (I was happy with my
Super A) until I picked up a cheap Pentax outfit at a camera
fair. It included an LX body, an L
My name is John and I am a cameraholic.
I shoot in the broad genre that is usually called "travel
photography" and use a Leica rangefinder outfit most of the
time. The 24mm, 35mm and 90mm focal lengths would be fine
for 90% of my shots but I resort to my Pentax SLR gear when
I need an SLR. As
Graywolf wrote:
>
>
>The new Olympus E1 is aparently going to be a mid-line
> camera with no upgrade potential.
I don't know where you got that from, Tom.
The E1 will be one of several DSLRs in the Olympus range.
It is a "prosumer" camera and there will be at least one
model below it and one ab
Anders Hultman wrote:
>
> One thing I've wondered for some time now, what does
"Limited" mean
> here? In what way are these lenses limited?
It means that they have "Limited Appeal".
(They certainly don't appeal to me!)
;-)
John
Graywolf wrote:
>
>Should Pentax drop the price on the MZ-S because the Rebel
is cheaper?
No, they should drop the price anyway!
;-)
John
Bill Owens wrote:
>
> I disagree about a "pro" model. Firstly Pentax is not
going to spend
> the money to give freebies and unlimited free service to
so called
> "pros". Secondly, it seems to me that Pentax is quite
happy in the
> advanced amateur/enthusiast market
Bill,
You're 100% right. Wh
Cotty wrote:
>
> LOL. Now there's a Freudian slip!
>
> Now if I was a Pentax, what model would I be?
I don't know about you, but I could easily identify
with most Pentax models released since the LX ...
"Full of promise, but never quite delivered!"
;-)
John
T Rittenhouse wrote:
> IIRC Pentax out sold (units) all other SLR makers in the
late 60's early
> 70's. Then the plastic cameras came out and Pentax was
late getting into
> that (cheap camera) market.
Surely the problem was more related to Pentax's extreme
tardiness in adopting a bayonet mount?
Jonathan Donald
>
> It seeems that Nikon (and now Pentax) have cast the
> die for the emergent digital format size. It is
> curious to note how much these companies have in
> common, especially regarding their support of the 1.5X
> multiplier sensor size with their reduced coverage
> lenses.
That
Graywolf wrote:
>
> Intersesting, the D100 doesn't sell, they are pilling up
on the dealers
> shelves?
Where did I write that the D100 doesn't sell? Where did I
write that they are piling up on the dealers' shelves? What
I actually wrote was:
> >The deal seems to be
> > that Nikon get to sell s
Alexandru-Cristian Sarbu wrote:
>
> I bet Pentax will sell every *istD they can make, even
maybe if they price
> it slightly higher. The main concern is if they can
recover the R&D costs
> (and make some profit) before replacing it (100D and 10D
are older and sells
> in higher volume). I'd really l
Bob S wrote:
> Digital is not a fad, but the conjunction of photography
and the computer
> craze.
To me, that sounds like a *definition* of a fad!
Digital *is* a fad, except for those professionals (and some
advanced amateurs) who need the workflow advantages of
digital.
Digital is here to sta
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
>
> Havent heard anything on this for a while.
> whats the latest news on release?
Pentax have probably been waiting for the discussion on this
list to come to a close, so that they can finalise which
features to incorporate and which ones to drop.
John
Brendan wrote:
>
> Now the english version
http://www.torphoto.net/images/tearsheet4s.jpg
>
> tho it sucks in B&W
NICE SHOT! I like it in B+W.
John
frank theriault wrote:
>
> I can't ever put this into PUG, as it weren't taken with a
Pentax. But,
> I kind of like it, so I put in a request for critique on
Photo.net. So
> far, I don't think they "get it":
>
>
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1639375&size=lg
>
> Either that, or I'm r
Lon Williamson wrote:
>
> I feel DAMNED sorry for what my ancestors did.
>
> They stole sheep.
> They wore cheap shoes.
> They spit wads of tobacco.
>
> I'm still cleaning up, and I'm pissed.
>
> lol.
Some of my ancestors (Vikings) raped and pillaged the people
of the country in which I live (En
frank theriault wrote:
>
> Why Amsterdam? I mean, Amsterdam sounds great, but why
there?
It's an exceptionally photogenic city, with colourful
opportunities for "Street" and "Urban Landscape" photography
around every corner.
The Flowermarket, the Leidseplein, the museums of Modern
Art, Van Gogh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> http://members.aol.com/camdir/faj18351.jpg
>
> http://members.aol.com/camdir/faj18352.jpg
>
> http://members.aol.com/camdir/faj18353.jpg
Goodness me!! It's TINY!!
;-)
Chris Stoddart wrote:
>
> :- let's hope Casey Ryback isn't going to be necessary
in Don's
> particular case :-)
I must admit I would sometimes welcome Ryback at my side
when I'm "doing street photography"!
;-)
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=294103125
2
Enjoy!
John
Dave Brooks wrote:
>
> For fear of missing someone,here are the folk that have
been helpfull to me.No particular
> order:
> -Tom V
> -Graywolf
> -Bill Casselberry
> -Sid Barras(both are my IR guys)
> -Herb
> -Alan
> -Bruce Dayton
> -ex Aaron Reynolds
> -The good fol;k at the TOPDMLFrank,Jeff,David,
Cameron Hood wrote:
>
> Must not have tried the FA* series zooms.
Hi Cameron,
Yes, you're absolutely right. I am now hesitating about
buying any more Pentax gear, so it is also unlikely I ever
will.
John
frank theriault wrote:
>
> For the record, I didn't say that. I believe that it was
a response to
> a post of mine.
Please accept my apology, Frank.
Best regards,
John
Bob S wrote:
>
> I'd swap you Slick Willie for Tony, but then you'd have to
hide all your daughters. :-)
A price worth paying, maybe?
;-)
Hans Imglueck wrote:
>
> The wounds of WWII were not
> healed by removing Hitler - of course it was necessary to
do this first - but
> by the friendship between American, French, British,
German and all
> the others.
Wise, wise words.
Thank you, Hans.
Kristian Walsh wrote:
>
> From the TIPA website (www.tipa.com)
>
> "Pentax *ist: Best 35mm SLR Camera
>
> With it's ultra-compact and radical styling coupled to a
newly
> developed multi-point autofocus system, the *ist
demonstrates that
> Pentax is still a leading light in the autofocus SLR
field.
John Dallman wrote:
>
> Yes, my credit card bill did arrive today. Why do you ask?
I didn't.
Harold Owen wrote:
>
> The UK magazine 'Photography Monthly' reviews the Pentax
*ist in the
> August issue.
>
> Overall it is a favourable review for the new camera
So the UK's most incompetent photo magazine gives the *ist a
good review? The only positive thing about such a review is
that the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Don't bring the camera to your eye until you are ready to
take a picture. You are not ready to take a picture until
you know what you want. Assuming that I'm not taking a
picture of some fleeting moment event, that I can't position
myself for, I look at the subject and
Shaun Canning wrote:
>
> Hmmm...vengeance is always a positive step toward world
peace isn't it?
Especially when that vengeance is directed at a country
which had *not even the slightest involvement* in what was
being avenged ...
Herb Chong wrote:
>
> they have had their share of less than competent too.
Absolutely right. Bliar is absolutely the worst Prime
Minister we have had since ... the last Labour Prime
Minister.
Don't be fooled: Britain loves Clinton - because we only
saw the persona he chose to present to Brita
Sid Barras wrote:
>
> I found Bush to be tongue-tied, hesitant, and generally
"ill-at-ease" while
> Tony Blair was simply brilliant and oh-so-in-command of
the english
> language.
That's because Blair is a highly intelligent, highly
educated glib lawyer who is also an accomplished liar.
Remind yo
frank theriault wrote:
>
> What happened? Did someone find a WMD in Iraq?
Frank,
Don't be silly!
Bliar just happened to mention that, even if no WMD
were ever found (as looks increasingly likely), history
would judge Bliar kindly for taking Britain into an
illegal war.
(the Iraq would be
Cotty wrote:
>
> Tony Blair for President :-)
Yes please! Any job for him is welcome,
just as long as he has to leave the UK!!
His speech to Congress was totally insincere
and frankly sick-making.
Yes, I was sick.
John
Rob Brigham wrote:
>
> Eh? But I had already drunk half of it (the bottom half)!
LOL!!! I was only kidding ... ;-)
frank theriault wrote:
>
>Tony Blair made some big speech today.
Don't trust a word Blair says. He's Britain's Clinton.
John
(who normally avoids politics but was physically
sick after hearing Bliar's speech to Congress)
Joseph Tainter wrote:
>
> I agree with this. I am annoyed, though, by those who
write or say that
> you are not a serious or conscientous photographer if you
use zooms. (I
> don't claim that this was said on PDML, but we were
pointed recently to
> an article that did say something like that.)
>
> I
Joseph Tainter wrote:
>
> It's very simple. Everything in photography is a
trade-off. Everything:
> film format (size), film type, camera bodies, lenses,
whether or not to
> carry a tripod, what one spends, etc. Provided that we
have some
> experience with gear or film, we each make our own
decisio
Paul Stenquist wrote:
>
> Thanks John. Yeah, I think a flash would have gotten her
attention:-).
That's not always a bad thing; you could even turn a very
good candid shot into an excellent "candid portrait" ...
(did I really type that?!).
> I never use a flash with the Leica. Just doesn't seem
Andre Langevin wrote:
>
> About the MX shutter, a repairman once told me that while
it gained
> in precision over the Spotmatic shutter (and, I guess, the
following
> KM and KX, which must have shared the same shutter
technology), it
> lost its precision faster, so needed more frequent
adjustment.
Cotty wrote:
>
> > Is "shite" pronounced with a
> > long or short "i"?
>
> Long 'I', as in flying a 'kite'. British slang.
Actually, its derivation is *Irish*, although
it has now been "accepted" into English
so-called "culture".
;-)
Paul Ewins wrote:
>
> 1. The *ist-D is the digital equivalent of the MX.
> The Australian Distributor of Pentax
(http://www.crkennedy.com.au ) lists
> four major features of the *ist-D, and one of them is
"The world's
> smallest, lightest body" which was one of the major
features of the MX & ME.
Lon Williamson wrote:
>
> A few of you have mentioned recently that you
> belong to or once belonged to camera clubs.
>
> What's it like?
Hi Lon,
What a camera club is like depends entirely
on the wishes of the existing - and previous -
members. I have learnt far more from a
few hours of for
Bob S wrote:
>
> J-lo is a media phenomena.
> I didn't pay any attention to her until a couple of
years ago.
> She appeared as a presenter on the Oscar Awards ceremony
on TV.
> Her dress was cut down to her navel and she used double
sided
> sticky tape to make sure it stayed covering her
jerome wrote:
>
> As for J-Lo, the truth is, beauty-wise you can find a
dozen of her per square
> mile of Brooklyn / Bronx terrain. She just happens to be
the one that "made it".
Can anyone please recommend a good, cheap, safe hotel within
strolling distance of Brooklyn/Bronx??
John
William Robb wrote:
>
>What a hilarious pile of crap.
William,
It might appear hilarious, but he's right.
Annoying, isn't it!
;-)
John
Pål Jensen wrote:
>John wrote:
>>No doubt Paal will tell me I'm wrong again.
>
>REPLY:
>Why should I say that? I've said the same
>thing since I forst heard about the 4/3 system.
>The Olympus makes more sense than the *ist D
>(or D10 for that matter) to me.
>The way I see it is that the Olympus off
Heiko Hamann wrote:
>
> No, there are no different layers of material but one
composite material
> (as far a I have understood that).
My Super As appear to have a plastic top plate/prism cover
that has been vacuum plated then painted black.
John
Dario Bonazza wrote:
>
> Even the 645N II housings are magnesium-like plastic, with
the same look of
> the MZ-S, so why the *ist D should be magnesium? Only for
fighting against
> the EOS 10D? If it's magnesium, do you really believe that
Pentax could miss
> to point out that in their press release
Cotty wrote:
>
>This from DPReview on the UK pricing of the E-1 DSLR from
Olympus:
>
>"Olympus UK has today confirmed that the body only list
price of the E-
1 digital SLR (including 17.5% VAT) will be £1699.99. This
means that
at least initially the E-1 will be approximately £200 more
than a
frank theriault wrote:
>
> Happy Birthday, Canada!
>
>
Seconded (from the UK!),
John
- Original Message -
From: "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 4:03 AM
Subject: Goods things to see/do in Alicante and Gibraltar
> Hi,
>
> Just wondering if any one has any must see's or do's for
traveling to =
> Alicante and Gibraltar?
Paul
Marnie aka Doe wrote:
>
> I was really intrigued by these comments. I wonder if you
(or someone) could
> clarify that. What IS the Pentax "look?" Meaning the
result -- the pictures.
> And I don't mean flare or lack of it, and/or specifically
bokeh, because bokeh
> discussion is another thread and
Bruce Rubenstein wrote:
>
> The Nikkor is also supposed to have some vignetting issues
wide open.
Bruce,
All versions of the Nikkor AF 80-200mm
f/2.8 have severe light fall-off. At worst
it is about 1.7 stops but it never falls below
0.7 stops. It's otherwise a fine lens, but
such high figures
Cotty wrote:
>
> Philippe, I admire your use of caps to reinforce a command
line, but if
> you really want to unsubscribe, you could try creating a
Photoshop
> document of a white background, size about 20 metres by
about 350m metres
> at 12,600 ppi and use the type tool to fill it with the
word
>
Jan van Wijk wrote:
>
> After more than two years lusting for the MZ-S, and all
the time thinking
> "yes I like it, but no I do not need it", I finally bit
the bullet and got one.
>
> If I would wait any longer they might get extinct :-)
>
> Just got it today, so I have only been playing and
studyi
mishka wrote:
>
> don't know about f4, but f3 is not sealed, afaik.
> there's a good reason why lx has a lens between the screen
anf the
> finder. i suspect it's a lot more difficult
> to make interchangeable screens f3-style, that would also
keep the
> camera sealed.
Mishka,
The F4 has better s
Pål Jensen wrote:
>
>John wrote:
>>
>>This so-called "enormous cost" is an illusion put
>>about by people who think they cannot afford
>>Leica.
>
>
>Illusion? The back alone cost $4500 at a time
>when similarly specced digital solution will
>likely cost $1000 or less.
Pål,
Quoting a projected pr
frank theriault wrote:
>
> I guess Mark Cassino's an amateur?
I guess he is one of the very, very few
exceptions that prove the rule!
;-)
Alan Chan wrote:
>
> I have always thought Pentax lenses have not-so-high
contrast and
> not-so-vivid colour in general. At least that is the case
when compared to
> Nikkors, or Pentax 67 lenses against Mamiya 7 lenses.
Hi Alan,
No doubt someone will correct me if I
am wrong, but I have always a
Graywolf wrote:
>
> The problem with interchangeable backs on 35mm cameras is
not patents, but
> technology. It is simply that digital sensors have not
been on the surface
> of the chip but buried behind a protective surface and
then maybe an
> antialiasing filter over that.
>
> What does that mean
Marnie aka Doe wrote:
>
> Yes, that's quite different. And agreed.
Thanks!
John
mishka wrote:
>
> you want it sealed against element , have interchangeable
finders,
> interchangeable screens and have easy access to insides?
Of course! My Nikon F3 and F4 both did, so why so you
suggest it is not reasonable to expect that of the Pentax?
In fact, the LX does well in all resp
Dr E D F Williams wrote:
> Is it true that Superia Reala is the sharpest, most
contrasty and saturated
> film
> compared to other 35 mm colour negative material? Is there
a sharper, more
> contrasty and more saturated film available in 35 mm?
Don,
I apologise for not answering your question,
bu
Bruce Rubenstein wrote:
>
> Canon & Nikon provide Professional Service
> plans for free for qualifying (i.e. pro)
> photographers. It doesn't help amateurs.
Bruce,
The Nikon Professional Service in the UK
is a joke. I cannot speak about any other
country, but here NPS is almost a byword
f
Alin Flaider wrote:
>
>Very likely the camera won't keep up with the digital
back.
>Supposing the number of megapixel increases, so it
should the
>processing power in the camera itself to deal with the
increased
>and faster output of the digital back.
I doubt very much that there
Henk Terhell wrote:
>
> it's now close to 4 months since I have ordered an eye-cup
and one of the
> rubber strips for the contacts protection on the bottom
plate of my MZ-S.
> Both are easily lost by sliding in and out a camera bag.
No response from
> Pentax NL received. Fortunately I can use the
Marnie aka Doe wrote:
>
>Any camera designed from the ground up
>to be digital will be a much bettter
>digital camera than a film camera with a
>digital back.
Hi Marnie,
It is quite clear that the Leica R8 and R9
were designed from the ground up to be
BOTH film AND digital cameras. This b
Pål Jensen wrote:
>
>This was not about dissing Leica but about
>the concept of a digital back for an old
>camera model.
The R9 is a *brand new* model, unless of
course one of your many talents is time
travel.
>I would not, though, spend about 55 post
>on it on the Leica list.
Neither would I
Pål Jensen wrote:
>
>So somebody has finally figured out that the *ist is
perhaps the best buy in entry level sector.
Pål,
The TIPA award has nothing to do with
which is the best camera to buy. It has
all to do with which camera is likely to
be the most profitable to **SELL**.
The same comment
Peter Alling wrote:
>
> Not on the LX unfortunatly.
Thanks.
(FX: sound of quiet sobbing ...)
Bruce Rubenstein wrote:
>
> Not with the LX, you still have to change screens
> through the lens mount throat.
Uh Oh. Bad news. :-(
>(With the Nikon F cameras, after the finder is
>removed then the screen can be lifted out. No
>need to play dentist.)
Same with the F2, F3 and F4. I somet
Joseph Tainter wrote:
> I am shifting my color negative shooting from ISO 400 to
ISO 100. I am
> looking for a film with good color saturation, low
contrast, and fine
> grain. Recommendations?
>
> BTW, there seems to be little point in trying Portra
160VC. It has the
> same grain as Portra 400 UC.
David Chang-Sang wrote:
>
> Giving a pre production model to a Pentaxian vs giving a
pre production
> model to a Web or Magazine reviewer are two different
things.
David,
Exactly right! Pentaxians would not respond quite so
obediently if they
were told what to write, or even given the copy that
Herb Chong wrote:
>
> i have to point out that my standard of comparison is the
FA* 80-200 f2.8.
Thanks Herb, understood.
John
Artur Ledóchowski wrote:
>
> What the hell?! All I said was the MZ-S is overpriced!
Nothing more!
Artur,
I agree.
Pentax UK appear to agree with you too; the best "street"
price
of the MZ-S is now almost exactly half the Pentax UK list
price.
It was overpriced at GBP 1099.99, but I will probab
Herb Chong wrote:
>
> mine has been OK optically. it is not as sharp as i would
like in the corners, but it is not bad.
Thanks Herb,
That seems to be the consensus among users of this lens.
"OK optically".
I remember reading at least two magazine reviews where it
appeared to be
a stellar perfor
Alan Chan wrote:
>
> I know this will make a lot of people "not happy", but the
latest Japan CAPA
> June magazine didn't compared the MZ-S to any F5/EOS1v/9
(1st group), or
> F100/EOS3/N1 (2nd group). And you know what? They compared
it to other mid
> end bodies F80/EOS7/7/NX (3rd group), yet still
Rüdiger Neumann wrote:
>
>The FAJ lenses are very cheep in comparision to the former
cheapest lenses
>FAJ 28-8099 Euro (FA 28-80 179 Euro)
>FAJ 75-300...149 Euro (FA 80-200 239 Euro)
Hi Rüdiger,
I have heard that the FAJ lenses are of the same generic
Tamron design
that is sold cheaply u
Alan Chan wrote:
>
> You will never get the full story from consumer report
because it takes time
> to show the weakness of certain products. For instances,
some Sigma lenses
> scored well in test reports but degrade quickly
mechanically.
Alan,
I don't know anyone who has bought a Sigma lens tha
1 - 100 of 136 matches
Mail list logo
