Mark wrote:
What baffles me is that the Mz-S - just released a couple of years ago - not only
supports the aperture ring but _needs_ it for aperture priority and metered manual
operation. I don't think releasing a new, limited mount in the new flagship would have
made a lot of sense, but if Pen
but if Pentax knew this was the direction they were going in why not
include on-body aperture control?
Judging from the Pentax K mount history, I have a strong feeling that they
have never had a strong vision, let alone direction. We all know they have
had many never-seen-the-light products, as
At 12:08 PM 6/8/2003 +0200, Bojidar Dimitrov wrote:
I do not think so. I think that Pentax's future really lies in the
crippled (AKA FAJ-mount, AKA Kaf3), and if they are to do this thing,
then why not now? For the kinds of customers that Pentax is after, it
really makes sense economically to le
> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> "tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >My 70-200/2.8 IS should be here in time for this weekend's
> >gig...thanks Mark!
>
> Let me know how it works out. *That's a lens I'd like to
> try out! (Wish
> I'd had time
> -Original Message-
> From: Lon Williamson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> And I choose tripod before USM. I never did figure out
> how this is supposed to be so wonderful. The bigger the lens,
> the harder to handhold. Jeeze, just how long do you want to
> hold even a 300mm lens waitin
riginal Message -
From: "Lon Williamson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 17:57
Subject: Re: Pentax's future (was: *ist D revisited)
> And I choose tripod before USM. I never did figure out
> how this is supposed to be so
And I choose tripod before USM. I never did figure out
how this is supposed to be so wonderful. The bigger the lens,
the harder to handhold. Jeeze, just how long do you want to
hold even a 300mm lens waiting for the moment?
In fact, most of my tripod shots are pre-framed, pre-focused,
and I sit
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 04:14:25 -0600
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
- Original Message -
From: alexanderkrohe
Subject: Re: *ist D revisited
> > No. The point that I was trying to make is that
when
> > you have a fle
-Original Message-
From: Dr E D F Williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 10 June 2003 18:17
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: No so way off topic Re: *ist D revisited/Al alloys
$20 000 -- try $200 000 old boy.
Don
Don't forget to take into account the GBP to Euro conversion rate
t: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 8:10 PM
Subject: RE: No so way off topic Re: *ist D revisited/Al alloys
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Caveman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 10 June 2003 17:44
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: No so way off topic Re: *ist D revis
-Original Message-
From: Caveman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 10 June 2003 17:44
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: No so way off topic Re: *ist D revisited/Al alloys
Th. Stach wrote:
> To get this on topic again:
> I've got an old K-1000 body attached to my electron
Th. Stach wrote:
To get this on topic again:
I've got an old K-1000 body attached to my electron microscope (Camscan
CS4 SEM with EDX & WDX).
Would it be a wise idea to replace this with an *ist-D ?
:-)
Yes, especially if you need to replace the whole microscope with a new
Kaf3 mount one.
cheers,
#x27;s Web Site and Photo Gallery
Updated: March 30, 2002
- Original Message -
From: "Th. Stach" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 6:57 PM
Subject: Re: No so way off topic Re: *ist D revisited/Al alloys
> Dr E D F Williams schri
Dr E D F Williams schrieb:
>
> Yes the specimen holder and other parts of the specimen itself. Even the
> polepiece which was very close. I fashioned a shield (very complicated
> shape) of graphite, intending that it should serve as a model for making one
> of beryllium. But in the end decided it
"I have the feeling that Pentax is trying to follow the Nikon route -
drop
the aperture ring, introduce AF-S, then VR."
What's AF-S, besides the "autofocus, single" setting on the MZ-S?
Steven Desjardins
Department of Chemistry
Washington and Lee University
Lexington, VA 24450
(540) 458-8873
F
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 5:19 AM
Subject: Re: *ist D revisited
> Nikon sells DSLRs based on the N80 and the F100/F5. The ones based on
the highend film cameras meter with non CPU lenses. The com
Nikon sells DSLRs based on the N80 and the F100/F5. The ones based on the highend film
cameras meter with non CPU lenses. The compatibility that Nikon lost with the DSLRs is
TTL flash: you had to get one of their new flashes.
BR
"William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
.
>Nikon has managed it
- Original Message -
From: alexanderkrohe
Subject: Re: *ist D revisited
> No. The point that I was trying to make is that when
> you have a fleet of K/M lenses and you are happy with
> it, it simply does not make sense to buy the new
> bodies at all.
> I think this co
- Original Message -
From: "Bojidar Dimitrov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> It is also my prediction that if Pentax survives this transition (from
> Kaf2 to crippled-mount), there will eventually be a further mount
> evolution that will support IS lenses. I am sure that the *ist and ist
> D moun
It is fun to speculate but I can't see any reasons why not Pentax would
make manual aperture adjustment from the body available with F and FA
lenses with upper end bodies. Limiting such use makes no sense from any
perspective as it doesn't need mechanical transmissions. Not does make any
sense
If the plain K-mount compatibility is really gone (and I agree it is) then
actually the IS is not as critical as the USM IMHO.
If you ask me, I think both are important these days. However, if one must
choose, I will put IS before USM. It really saves your lots of blurred shots
with telephotos.
Or there might be a Limited lens without an aperture ring, and if it is a
good one, you will all buy it. This will ease your move towards the
crippled mount.
LIMITED lens without an aperture ring is no LIMITED lens no more. Oh wait!
What's a better name for a lens with limited ability? :-)
It
Customers and users are and have always been two different categories.
Some uses are also customers, but crossing the boundary is up to them.
Either way, they can be fiercely loyal in either guise... Pentaxians all...
keith whaley
I haven't been a buyer (customer) for a LONG time, but don't tell m
Peter wrote:
> Then they've lost me, and all of the people I would have convinced to
> buy Pentax cameras who would never have considered them. That includes
> most of the people on this list who discovered Pentax as a place where
> quality and customer loyalty, as well as loyalty to the customer
Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2003 12:08:27 +0200
From: Bojidar Dimitrov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi Boz,
> ...
> ... it
> really makes sense economically to leave out the
aperture ring and the
> aperture simulator. These are complex mechanical
shapes that require
> lots of machining and complex assembly, and t
nd digital SLR's.
Pål
- Original Message -
From: "Bojidar Dimitrov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 12:08 PM
Subject: Pentax's future (was: *ist D revisited)
> Hi Peter,
>
> > Giving the option of
Corrected message!
Bojidar wrote:
> Now, this is all a speculation on my side, but just like the prediction
> that the *ist and *ist D will not work with the K/M lenses,
No offense, but it wasn't much of a prediction as it well known in Japan at PMA times
and the same whine war as we have now
Bojidar wrote:
> Now, this is all a speculation on my side, but just like the prediction
> that the *ist and *ist D will not work with the K/M lenses,
No offense, but it wasn't much of a prediction as it well known in Japan at PMA times
and the same whine war as we have now was raging on japane
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 23:51:45 +0200
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=E5l_Jensen?=
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I can symphatize with those affected. However, I
believe Pentax have
> done some math: How many K and M mount lenses are
there? I cannot imagine
> there are many of those who want to use, say, the M
3
Hi Peter,
> Giving the option of stop down metering with K mount lenses would
> have cost nothing in hardware and no more in software development
> than has already be expended. It to would have made the camera no
> less attractive to beginners with no difference in cost and would
> have kept at
I hate to bring it up, but me don't get this fetching message.
-Lon
Dr E D F Williams wrote:
... But some mistakes made in US
English are extremely annoying. The mixing up of 'bring', 'get' and 'fetch'
the incorrect use of the personal pronoun 'I' and 'me'.
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 17:41:50 -0600
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
- Original Message -
From: alexanderkrohe
Subject: Re: *ist D revisited
> > But it is true, it does not make much sense buying
a
> > new body (e.g. P
At 11:47 6.6.2003 -0400, you wrote:
>Well, the consolation is that the 15 would only be a 22.5 on the digital
>anyway.
>
>Ciao,
>Graywolf
True, but the closest new production lens, the FA 20/2.8 would be a 30 which is
far from superwide... :-)
Antti-Pekka
Har!
But it is true, it does not make much sense buying a
new body (e.g. PZ-1 , MZ-S etc.) and then using it
with K/M lenses.
It does not make much sense buying a new Pentax body from their current
offer unless:
1. All you want is just a camera and a 28-90 zoom and make it cheap, please;
or
2.
Many buyers just plain don't want second hand gear!
They want Pentax to make a new camera that functions with the lenses to a
degree that they think is desirable. From what I've learned the new cameras
will allow full diaphragm function in manual mode but without metering and
that is as much as I
On 8 Jun 2003 at 21:05, Mark Roberts wrote:
> In fact, it would have made the camera *more* attractive to beginners,
> even those who don't have (and never intend to buy) pre-A lenses: People
> *like* the idea of non-obsolescence. It makes them fell more confident
> in what they're buying. Especia
On 8 Jun 2003 at 21:47, Caveman wrote:
> Cut the c**p, Bruce. The "average Nikon user" has a P&S and not a D100,
> and all he knows is how to turn it on and which button to press in order
> to take a photo, and that it must be good stuff because it's a Nikon and
> that's "professional" isn't it
Cut the c**p, Bruce. The "average Nikon user" has a P&S and not a D100,
and all he knows is how to turn it on and which button to press in order
to take a photo, and that it must be good stuff because it's a Nikon and
that's "professional" isn't it. Most Nikon users (average or not) can't
tell
So, a Ph.D. (?) geologist, Pentax user, isn't smart enough to understand
what the average Nikon user knows? There's an interesting conclusion
that can be drawn here, buy you wouldn't get it.
BR
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Nikon D100 has various limitation it takes the Nikon experts to figure
On 03.6.8 5:18 PM, "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh yes, the 40/2.8 is fun to work with too. Where do you want to proceed
> 1st? Front or back? :-)
You are baaad, Alan! :-).
Cheers,
Ken
Alexander wrote:
> But it is true, it does not make much sense buying a
> new body (e.g. PZ-1 , MZ-S etc.) and then using it
> with K/M lenses. With these K/M lenses all the new
> bodies will basically work like a ME-super.
I can symphatize with those affected. However, I believe Pentax have
You, know what, Alan? A magnet will tell you instantly if it is steel or
some sort aluminum alloy. Steel or brass will be heavy. Steel magnetic,
brass not magnetic. Alloy will be light, and not magnetic. Aluminum alloys
can range from something almost as soft as lead, to something they use for
armo
Pål wrote:
> Are you sure? I suspect it does signalize the end of
> the world. In fact, limiting K/M lenses use on a digital
> camera is an act of majestic proportions of enormous
> long term significance.
What? A company screwing it's most loyal customers? No, not the end of
the world. Not eve
> Is aluminum some kind of "American" spelling, or aluminum and aluminium
> indicates any subtle difference, or no distinction at all?
Both the same product. No distinction.
And I thought the US aluminium was lighter (as indicated by its spelling),
damn, I mean aluminum. Oh... I am lost...
regar
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 21:45:09 +0200
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=E5l_Jensen?=
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Alexander wrote:
> > Yes, I do regret that too but it is not the end of
the
> > world ...
>
>
> Are you sure? I suspect it does signalize the end of
> the world. In
> fact, limiting K/M lenses use o
Do those super strength aluminium alloys cost a lots more than, say steel?
regards,
Alan Chan
I've dealt with designing and fabricating parts out of aluminum for most
of my professional life, and in the past 25+ years for aero- and outer
space programs and let me tell you, there are aluminum alloy
So who do they sell the expensive gear to?
Last time buyers. :-)
regards,
Alan Chan
_
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
It always amazes me how many (true) experts in various areas we have in
this
list (and how one subject goes way off track for extreme :-). I have my
own
expertise but it is not the photography related.
Good to have you guys as we do not know when we need you next time :-).
What's even more amazi
I would not touch my Limiteds, but I was looking at M40/2.8 as an ideal
candidate.
No, no, no, don't tempt me :-).
Oh yes, the 40/2.8 is fun to work with too. Where do you want to proceed
1st? Front or back? :-)
Please. I want to know everything.
Everyone does, even lies. :-)
regards,
Ala
Wow, Tom,
If that's supposed to be (phonetically) a French Canadian accent, it's the worst
I've ever seen (or read).
T Rittenhouse wrote:
>
> French Canadian: Theet stuff
>
> Sorry, Frank, I couldn't resist. Glad to hear you got the bike back on the
> road.
>
> Ciao,
> Graywolf
> http://pages
- Original Message -
From: "Caveman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: K-mount compatibility (was Re: *ist D revisited)
> While you guys are having fun with it... let me add that dropping
> backward compatibility in K-mount à la Nikon means that from this moment
> on,
Pål Jensen wrote:
While you guys are having fun with it... let me add that dropping
backward compatibility in K-mount à la Nikon means that from this moment
on, Pentax will be competing with C/N/M based on strictly their FA lens
lineup quality, features, pricing and completeness.
For new buyers
> While you guys are having fun with it... let me add that dropping
> backward compatibility in K-mount à la Nikon means that from this moment
> on, Pentax will be competing with C/N/M based on strictly their FA lens
> lineup quality, features, pricing and completeness.
For new buyers (which
Alexander wrote:
- Original Message -
> This is not so. The LX had a worse compatibility than
> the *ist and *istD. The LX was introduced just 4 or 5
> years after introduction of the K-mount, so it eas
> incompatible with any lens older than 5 years. By
> contrast, the the *ist and *istD
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >Because of the drab weather in the UK, they have to introduce more
> >letters to make their language more coulorful.
>
> Boy, you're gonna hear some 'coulorful' language in a minute Bob!
Cotty,
My spell checker only speaks 'Merikan. I knew there was a U in colourfu
>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 1:51 PM
Subject: Re: Al barrel (was: *ist D revisited )
> I said nothing about their lens barrels (try reading the words in front
> of you), which are aluminum alloy. I said something can be steel (as in
> stainless) and n
:43 AM
Subject: Re: Al barrel (was: *ist D revisited )
The most common types of stainless steel are not magnetic. This is true
for the Pentax lens mounts.
Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 11:43 AM
Subject: Re: Al barrel (was: *ist D revisited )
> The most common types of stainless steel are not magnetic. This is true
> for the Pentax lens mounts.
Interesting thing is my dictionary has: aluminium. Brit. see aluminum.
Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto
- Original Message -
From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I was being tongue-in-cheek. I'm aware that the US (and no other
places
> that I'm aware of)
CTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 8:42 AM
Subject: Re: Al barrel (was: *ist D revisited )
> I just bought a "new" used track bike frame, my first aluminium frame.
It's the
> stiffest freaking frame I've ever ridden. When I stand up, there i
>Because of the drab weather in the UK, they have to introduce more
letters to
>make their language more coulorful.
Boy, you're gonna hear some 'coulorful' language in a minute Bob!
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_
On 8 Jun 2003 at 5:20, Keith Whaley wrote:
> No reason to expect that the camera industry wouldn't have just much
> interest in making parts of the best aluminum alloys, with properties
> chosen to do the job.
> Which is not to say that there aren't some parts from manufacturers who
> don't care a
On 8 Jun 2003 at 14:07, Pål Jensen wrote:
> REPLY:
> No they don't. They mostly sell to first time buyers who buys an entry level slr
> bundled with a couple of zoom lenses. And so does Canon. About 85% of their
> customers. This people don't give a damned about compatibility and this explains
> w
Well, in Canada (being a Canadian and all), I've always seen it as
"aluminium". It may be changing, as we are constantly being inundated with US
culture and customs. But when I was a kid at least we spelled it the British
way, and pronounced it the American way (if that makes sense)
-frank
zoo
I was being tongue-in-cheek. I'm aware that the US (and no other places
that I'm aware of) drop the last "i". Part of the American "rationalization" of
the language, I guess. Like "center" instead of "centre", etc.
I just like to get my digs in...
cheers,
frank
Dr E D F Williams wrote:
>
KT Takeshita wrote:
>
> On 03.6.8 8:42 AM, "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > even though he doesn't know how to spell it .
>
[...]
>
> Is aluminum some kind of "American" spelling, or aluminum and aluminium
> indicates any subtle difference, or no distinction at all?
Both t
On 03.6.8 8:42 AM, "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> even though he doesn't know how to spell it .
When I was in the islands in the orient once upon a time, I always spelled
aluminium. Since I came to this continent, I see aluminum everywhere. So,
I began to use aluminum to avoid
llery
Updated: March 30, 2002
- Original Message -
From: "KT Takeshita" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Pentax Discuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 4:02 PM
Subject: Re: Al barrel (was: *ist D revisited )
> On 03.6.8 8:42 AM, "frank theriault&
I have an idea. Could Pentax also make a limited D***ist compatible with K
and M Lenses and charge the end users an exhorbitant amount to use our K and M
lenses. Would it be worth $1500-$1,000 to have access to K-M lenses?
Vic
On 03.6.8 8:42 AM, "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> even though he doesn't know how to spell it .
When I was in the islands in the orient once upon a time, I always spelled
aluminium. Since I came to this continent, I see aluminum everywhere. So,
I began to use aluminum to avoid e
I just bought a "new" used track bike frame, my first aluminium frame. It's the
stiffest freaking frame I've ever ridden. When I stand up, there is ~no~ flex
in the bottom bracket area at all. Not compared to what I've been used to in
riding steel all my life.
This has nothing to do with camera
On 03.6.8 7:11 AM, "Thomas Stach" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dr E D F Williams schrieb:
>>
>> Surely EDX would be enough? You'd need to prepare a sample of the metal to
>> do a quantitative analysis? We'd only need to know the elemental
>> constituents, not the exact proportions, to settle this
On 03.6.8 1:55 AM, "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's what happened when you are sleepy. You said something you shouldn't
> have said. Now we know Takeshita didn't make the number up himself. :-)
>> If you made that number up, then you are very good. 7075-T6 is the most
>> widely us
On 03.6.8 1:51 AM, "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Alan, you gave me an opportunity to look into the construction of the metal
>> barrel lenses ! :-).
>
> Don't blame me if you broke your lenses. :-)
I would not touch my Limiteds, but I was looking at M40/2.8 as an ideal
candidate
I've dealt with designing and fabricating parts out of aluminum for most
of my professional life, and in the past 25+ years for aero- and outer
space programs and let me tell you, there are aluminum alloys available
that can match the strength and come close to the thermal expansion of
good steel.
Artur wrote:
In other words, Pentax sells its stuff to the long time Pentax users mostly.
Do you think it's good? Don't you think things should change? Do you think
the current policy is the right way to such changes?
REPLY:
No they don't. They mostly sell to first time buyers who buys an entry
Alan wrote:
I honestly don't think their products would be more attractive to the general public
by removing the aperture coupling ring. Perhaps the FAJ lenses might attract some
buyers who don't want to mess with the aperture ring. But not the aperture coupling
ring.
REPLY:
Yes, it wouild be
Sunday, June 08, 2003 2:11 PM
Subject: Re: *ist D revisited
>
>
> Dr E D F Williams schrieb:
> >
> > Surely EDX would be enough? You'd need to prepare a sample of the metal
to
> > do a quantitative analysis? We'd only need to know the elemental
> >
- Original Message -
From: "Peter Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: *ist D revisited
> Thanks for saying that Mark, I wish that I could actuate that clearly
> under pressure.
And so do I. That's exactly what I think...
Regars
Artur
- Original Message -
From: "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: *ist D revisited
> I'm sure that if PDML had been around in 1980 some would have complained
that LX didn't have full compatibility with screw mount lenses. Some would
protested load
On 7 Jun 2003 at 20:55, Alan Chan wrote:
> The inner barrels "feel" like those metal stepping rings or the filter
> threads on the front of the lenses. Are they steel?
>
> PS: This is a real question btw. :-)
In every case I have encountered they have been fabricated using aluminium
alloys. I
That's what happened when you are sleepy. You said something you shouldn't
have said. Now we know Takeshita didn't make the number up himself. :-)
regards,
Alan Chan
If you made that number up, then you are very good. 7075-T6 is the most
widely used alloy in the military aircraft industry.
Alan, you gave me an opportunity to look into the construction of the metal
barrel lenses ! :-).
Don't blame me if you broke your lenses. :-)
I am almost certain that you are not seeing steel (but I could be wrong).
As Tom (Rittenhouse) said, the corrosion is an additional factor. Aluminum
sever
On 03.6.8 0:54 AM, "Gary L. Murphy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you made that number up, then you are very good. 7075-T6 is the most
> widely used alloy in the military aircraft industry.
Oh, good. I only knew it was something like 7065 or 7075 or some such, with
T4 or T6 suffix. This alloy
KT Takeshita wrote:
I do not pretend to be a know-it-all, and leave everything to an expert like
you :-), but I thought the aircraft aluminum was usually designated by
7075-T6 (never mind the number itself as I made it up) for the highest
If you made that number up, then you are very good. 7075-T6
On 03.6.8 0:10 AM, "Gary L. Murphy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> After 18 years in the aerospace industry, that is exactly correct, Bruce.
I do not pretend to be a know-it-all, and leave everything to an expert like
you :-), but I thought the aircraft aluminum was usually designated by
7075-T6 (n
On 03.6.8 0:08 AM, "Bruce Rubenstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Aluminum alloy. Real answer.
Everybody was assuming we were talking about Al alloys, except perhaps Mr.R
:-). No sane mind will assume pure aluminum. If you use this logic, you
have to specify the particular kind of steel too.
On 03.6.8 0:07 AM, "Bruce Rubenstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The T stands for temper and has nothing to do with forging.
You mentioned Al alloy and aircraft, that almost automatically leads to
forged Al. You also mentioned something about "treatment" and "proper
treatment" and some such.
On 03.6.7 11:52 PM, "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Could it be some sort of super rigid aluminum alloy? I
> don't think so, but I have no answer.
Alan, you gave me an opportunity to look into the construction of the metal
barrel lenses ! :-).
I am an engineer but certain knowledge is ru
Bruce Rubenstein wrote:
The T stands for temper and has nothing to do with forging. Refer to:
Aluminum Alloy Selection and Applications at:
After 18 years in the aerospace industry, that is exactly correct, Bruce.
--
Later,
Gary
Aluminum alloy. Real answer.
BR
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The inner barrels "feel" like those metal stepping rings or the filter
threads on the front of the lenses. Are they steel?
PS: This is a real question btw. :-)
The T stands for temper and has nothing to do with forging. Refer to:
Aluminum Alloy Selection and Applications at:
http://www.aluminum.org/Content/NavigationMenu/The_Industry/Technology_Resources/Technology_QandA/applications.pdf
BR
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
T series aluminum are forged, and po
That's exactly what I thought, but two prominent PDMLers actually saw the
material which made me hesitate. However, unanodized aluminum (inner
barrel
does not have to be anodized, except perhaps some friction parts) could be
easily mistaken as a bare steel. Alan said it was easily dented or
some
I already said somewhere that it must be alloy but for the purpose of the
discussion in this list, referring to aluminum is good enough. I had no
intention to go deeper than that. It is futile. We were talking about
Aluminum, steel and brass etc in a general term.
Actually there is another thing
I am becoming curious about this, as I never disassembled a lens myself.
Both you and Pål (who actually saw the material) say that the inner barrel
is of steel so I believe it. But if the outer casing is aluminum, there
could be a problem. If you found definitively what the material of the
inner
On 03.6.7 11:14 PM, "Bruce Rubenstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Referring to a metal as aluminum is about as meaningful as saying it's
> made of "stuff". Things are made from aluminum alloys.
I already said somewhere that it must be alloy but for the purpose of the
discussion in this list, re
I know I voted my support for the camera with my dollars.
BR
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Really? I don't know. If I were a Nikon user, I would buy the FM3a in
no time. Really! Believe me pls... :-)
Referring to a metal as aluminum is about as meaningful as saying it's
made of "stuff". Things are made from aluminum alloys. The alloys can
have a range of properties from soft and malleable to hard and brittle.
Some alloys have to be treated after machining to attain their proper
characterist
On 03.6.7 10:11 PM, "T Rittenhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not likely, heavy, hard to machine, and prone to
> corrosion.
That's exactly what I thought, but two prominent PDMLers actually saw the
material which made me hesitate. However, unanodized aluminum (inner barrel
does not have to be
William Robb wrote:
>
> This explains the lady today who didn't know about the mid roll rewind
> on her Zoom 90. Most people only know what the camera salesman told them
> before he took their money. Owners manuals are the least read books in
> the world.
> The don't come with used cameras becau
1 - 100 of 251 matches
Mail list logo
