On 10 Jul 2003 at 18:56, Joseph Tainter wrote:
> "the Pentax Apologists At Large"
>
> Clever, Mark. Very, very clever.
>
> (Folks, make it an acronym if you haven't gotten it yet.)
This is the church of Pentax Dissenters Mail List is it not? :-)
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-95
"the Pentax Apologists At Large"
Clever, Mark. Very, very clever.
(Folks, make it an acronym if you haven't gotten it yet.)
Enjoyed the rest of the post too. I was one of those complaining early
on about the MZ-S not having aperture priority on the body. You recall
what is said about foolish i
And, once again, I sort of misspoke. I understand
your comment about the inexact nature of the
mechanical aperture control. My real point on this is
that it makes little sense to disown certain pieces of
old technology now when eventually you must disown the
whole lot for the same ultimate reason
Jostein,
Thank you for the welcome!
> One thought occurred to me as I read; that if
> screwmount
> lenses gives right exposure because of lacking the
> aperture
> coupler, why not just clip it off the M- and K-
> lenses to
> make it work?
I thought of that too. I can imagine the headlines:
"Ne
Hi, Michael!
Welcome on board.
[...]
> Am I on the right track here? Please
>tell me if I've gone astray anywhere here.
I haven't followed the discussion on this issue very
closely, but FWIW, I think your argument seem reasonable.
One thought occurred to me as I read; that if screwmount
lenses
If Pentax drops the aperture coupling mechanism, presumably it's not as a
cost saving measure on a $1000 plus camera. It was a standard feature up
until now on very inexpensive cameras such as the MZ-M and MZ-10.
If they do so, they are being doubly foolish.It's not just because I
couldn'
6 matches
Mail list logo
