A scroll of mail from "Anthony Farr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on
Sun, 9 Sep 2001 19:10:52 +1000
Read it? y
>BTW my dream Pentax has no meter, interchangeable finders and screens, a
>manually raised and lowered mirror (slow tripod work a top priority, you
>see), the simplest shutter there is, and I don'
Bob,
I don't believe that any idiot chooses to own a Pentax. Your desires
can be as inconsistent as you like (but to me an inconsistent argument
is like a red rag to a bull).
If only Bill Gates or the Sultan of Brunei could be infected with the
desire for an all manual Pentax then there would b
Fine.
Right.
I'm a real idiot with inconsistent arguments and desires.
You win the intellectual discussion.
I still want what I want.
It's still exactly what I described.
From: "Anthony Farr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Bob,
> You're usually one of my favourite correspondents to PDML, but this t
Bob,
You're usually one of my favourite correspondents to PDML, but this time
you've gone off half-cocked. The inconsistency of your argument is a
joke.
On one hand you say,
> I am willing
> to pay the extra necessary to obtain what I want.
But later you contradict yourself thus,
> Your soluti
You're probably right so far as what will be available from now on,
nevertheless...
From: "Anthony Farr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> From: "David A. Mann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> (snip)
> > My ideal camera would see a return to separating the motordrive from
> the
> > body. There are times when smal
A scroll of mail from "David A. Mann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Fri,
7 Sep 2001 08:20:02 +1200
Read it? y
>Dave O'Brien writes:
>
>> Pentax could easily make an F5 killer from the Z-1p if they gave up on
>> small size. Just upgrade the AF and the fps, and add the interval
>> timer back.
>
> I'm not
A scroll of mail from "Anthony Farr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on
Fri, 7 Sep 2001 17:30:21 +1000
Read it? y
>All future cameras need is a slow, silent winding mode (can't be too
>hard if Canon can do it) and non auto rewind (I noticed recently that
>Nikon F4s retained a manual rewind crank, don't know i
06, 2001 1:42 PM
Subject: Re: A butchered (AKA "modern") LX
> Yes!
>
> From: "David A. Mann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > My ideal camera would see a return to separating the motordrive from the
> > body. There are times when small and quie
- Original Message -
From: "David A. Mann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(snip)
> My ideal camera would see a return to separating the motordrive from
the
> body. There are times when small and quiet are paramount.
(snip)
Economics is the cold hard reason for getting rid of the thumb-lever
from
David wrote:
> Dave O'Brien writes:
>
> > Pentax could easily make an F5 killer from the Z-1p if they gave up on
> > small size. Just upgrade the AF and the fps, and add the interval
> > timer back.
>
> I'm not sure that Pentax would want to go down that path. BTW that body
> would have to
A scroll of mail from "Skofteland, Christian"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Tue, 4 Sep 2001 09:10:32 -0400
Read it? y
>oops! I neglected the "small" requirement...
Also neglected the IDM requirement.
An F5 is a fine camera, but it's comparable to a 6x7 in terms or bulk.
Great meter (meters in color!)
Short answer no. There is no need for for a long answer.
At 06:25 AM 9/4/2001 -0700, you wrote:
>I confess I'm not familiar with an F5. Is it really true then that I can
>remove a winder and the autofocus drive and associated weight? (Gotta be
>able to drop down to a light weight here.) Is CW ID
From: "Skofteland, Christian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [skipped]
>
> Also, with all those features it would have to be bigger than expected. I
> would think of it as comparing the F3 to the LX. Therefore the modern
> counterpart to the F3 being the F5 and the F5 is a monstrosity.
>
I don't want a
F3 being the F5 and the F5 is a monstrosity.
Christian Skofteland
-Original Message-
From: Pel Jensen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 11:47 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A butchered (AKA "modern") LX
Christian wrote:
> The LX has everyth
Christian wrote:
> The LX has everything I need!
But thats not what its all about. The fact remains that the LX is out of production
because not enough people were buying them anymore. The camera was past its selling
date. And this is not due to some evil conspiration. The LX doesn't have w
ng his car trap focus and
predictive AF would have been nice! :-) DOH!
Christian Skofteland
-Original Message-
From: Bob Blakely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 9:25 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A butchered (AKA "modern") LX
I confess I'
I confess I'm not familiar with an F5. Is it really true then that I can
remove a winder and the autofocus drive and associated weight? (Gotta be
able to drop down to a light weight here.) Is CW IDM metering really
available? Tell me all about it!
Regards,
Bob...
From: "Skofteland, Christian" <[
.
Regards,
Bob...
- Original Message -
From: "Jody" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 7:58 AM
Subject: Re: A butchered (AKA "modern") LX
> You don't want an LX. Why not try a Minolta or Canon?
> I'm
Jody,
This reminds me of the discussions around putting
lights in @ Wrigley Field. (That's BASEBALL for you fereigners.) But it's still
Wrigley. (And the Cubs are still the Cubs.)
Collin
>From: Jody <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>or do you want to butcher that too? >
>
>I'm sorry, but:
>LX+AF+Spo
Geez, Jody, get a life! Crawl out of your cave and look around. It's a
brave new world.
Bruce Dayton
Sacramento, CA
- Original Message -
From: "Jody" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 7:58 AM
Subject: Re: A butchere
20 matches
Mail list logo
