Hello Ken,
> 2. Pentax apparently tweaked the CF retrieval area (in beta
> testers, you had to fiddle and jiggle a bit to pull out a
> CF. Now they apparently enlarged the area so that you can
> actually see the battery!
I have one of those, and while still fiddly, it is workable. Sometimes
I n
Hello Rick,
You must be a really patient person!
> People really need to be more patient on this camera coming out.
> It is not the end of the world if the camera is delayed another
> few weeks!
You call 20 weeks "few"? I'm counting since CeBIT, but maybe I should
count since the announcement o
Hi Alin,
> Boz, try to get best quality jpegs, without noise-reduction if
> possible.
The settings are RAW, TIFF L, TIFF M, TIFF S, ***L, **L, *L, ***M, **M,
*M, ***S, **S, *S. I have found out how to turn off noise reduction, so
I will do it that way.
I guess the best was to compare qualit
Hi Rob,
> Does the istD come with RAW software? If I were to buy a jap import,
> would I get an english version of the software? Is this kind of stuff
> downloadable normally?
All Canon cameras come with RAW software. The 10D comes with a driver
for most Windows systems, download/view software
Hello Kostas,
> I am trying to understand what it will take so as to enable an MZ-5n
> (or and MZ bar the MZ-S) to do contrast-control-sync flash.
> Could not find anything on Boj's site or on the Pentax UK/US sites.
It's there. Go to the "Flashes" page and look under "General
Information". Al
Hi all,
it looks like I do not have permission to post any sample images from
the *ist D. Not until I get a real retail body.
Still, I can assure you that the camera is very nice and ergonomic, and
seems to be worth the wait. The JPGs look good, with a very light blue
tint. The JPGs are somewh
Hello Robert,
> The 5 image continuous max keeps bugging me when they had originally
> said max. I wonder if its because you had noise reduction turned on?
I had it turned off. I need to reread my text, maybe I wrote it
wrong...
Thanks for pointing it out,
Boz
Hi Alin,
In general you are correct, and these are my biggest gripes with Canon
too, along with the crummy viewfinders (theoretically, in practice they
work at least as well as the 5n).
> - everything from lenses to bodies is almost twice as big and heavy
> than equivalent Pentax (entry lev
Hi,
> Bojidar Dimitrov schrieb:
>
> >I hope that Arnold will tell you a story about his FA 135/2.8.
Arnold Stark wrote:
>
> It IS built like a tank. Execpt for two unfortunate details: The
> lens is easily scratched on the barrel, and the focusing ring is
> much mor
Hi Caveman,
> I found on Boz's site this mention about the Pentax 220T flash:
> "Despite featuring a completely analog interface, this flash
> seems to be incompatible with the manual focus bodies."
>
> However, I have a vague remembering that someone on this list
> used (or at least tried) it wi
Hi Heiko,
> What did they say?
Probably that they need to make everything cheaper than Canon, otherwise
it does not sell.
> Another question remaining open: does the LCD operate when taking
> pictures or only in playback-mode?
Surely you can only see the image AFTER taking it. Before that the
Hi Roland,
> We don't know yet if this lens mount really is "crap". It might
> have support for IS and USM. It's too early to tell. *If* it has
> support for USM and IS, then I doubt that Pentax is going to tell
> anyone before they have released IS and USM lenses. Simply because
> if they tell it
Hi Roland,
> Yes, Pentax has promised three filmbased cameras in the complete *ist
> lineup. And so far we have only seen one. But I doubt that the user
> interface and styling of the 5n will be repeated.
Please remind me, when and where did they give this promise?
Thank you,
Boz
Hi Roland,
> I remember that we had a discussion a while back about an aperture
> motor inside the FAJ lenses since Pentax seems to have changed the
> electrical protocol for the aperture, I don't think that we came
> to an absolute conclusion.
I have missed this discussion, but I can assure you t
Hi Anthony,
> New sales opportunity for Pentax - remake the K/M classics in FA
> or FAJ mount. Can't use your M85/1.8 on your new *ist? Can we
> interest you in a brand new FAJ85/1.8? >;-)
I have wondered the same thing too... They do have the optical
formulas, so why don't they rerelease the
Hello everybody,
I guess that this is a "message from the great beyond"...
First of all, please visit http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/for_sale/items/ in
order to see my long list of items for sale. I will wait for 10-14
days, and will then sell all remaining items on eBay. Feel free to
group items toge
Paal wrote:
> I've been told that the FA-J lenses are strictly entry level and
> that there will be no higher end FA-J lenses.
Dario Bonazza wrote:
>
> I won't believe that for one second. When you (Pentax) remove
> diaphragm simulator from top end models (like the *ist D
> undoubtably currently
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
Hi all,
I had given up, but thanks to the perceverance of PDML member Arnold
Stark, I managed to photograph some of the treasures of Pentax, Germany.
This was two hours ago, and the first images are on the KMP. So, my
conclusion -- DIGITAL RULES!!! Am I going to leave 35 mm film? No, but
digit
Hi Heiko,
> You lucky one. BTW - is there an official possibility to visit
> Pentax Germany and have a look at their facilities and work?
I don't think that the offer any "guided tours," but you can always call
them and ask. The place is actually rather small, and the photo storage
is not in Ham
Hi Heiko,
Just a few quick notes...
> I've just read it.
I just read all of it too.
> I think, that Michael is right, when he says that the digital
> workflow is better for him. It is faster and the results are
> perfect to a certain paper size.
These are my thoughts too.
> BUT - this compari
Pål Jensen wrote:
>
> So putting the image through a scanner that cannot do justice to
> the film is considered "real world". With such test procedures you
> can prove anything by simply putting up test procedures that fits
> your preconceived ideas on how things should be.
If the only possibilit
Oliver Raymond wrote:
>
> THIS IS A DAMN THREAD ON GETTING THROUGH CUSTOMS AND SECURITY
> SCANS WITH LOADED FILM. LEAVE YOUR DAMN GEOPOLITICAL MEWLING
> OUT OF THIS.
R-e-l-a-x, friend...
> RIGHT TRACK? Stopping idiots who want to blow up planes in mid
> flight? I presume you condone internationa
Alin Flaider wrote:
>
>To bent a quote, 2003 will be an exciting year or Pentax will not
>be at all...
Sadly, I agree with this...
Cheers,
Boz
Hi,
Mike Johnston wrote:
> [...] The day is fast approaching when no more "film flagships"
> will be coming down the pike at all. [...]
> BTW (sorry if this news is redundant) Leica has just announced the
> discontinuation of the M6 (in its various forms) after 18 years.
Well, that doesn't me
Hi,
> [...] Granted they have released a
> 70-200 f2.8 IF-ED G lens, I don't think most Nikon
> owners are worried that Nikon will abandon the F-mount
Nikon has already abandoned the "old" F-mount. Or is your idea of "full
compatibility" having to buy the F-100 (price $1000+) ?
If Pentax goes a
Hi all,
I have just learned that the PZ-70 (no 'p' in the camera's name)
features a panorama switch. Could it be that the Z-70 also has the
panorama format, and that the Z-70p does not exist at all?
Owners of any of these cameras (Z-70, Z-70p, PZ-70, PZ-70p), please
check and let me know: [EMAIL
Hi Mike,
Mike Johnston wrote:
>
> It is to be hoped that Pentax will not move towards making all
> new lenses with no aperture ring. But when many dealers are
> successfully selling inexpensive SLRs with one or two zooms in
> preference to actual point-and-shoots, that's a good thing--and
> it's
Hi Arnold,
> So maybe it really is better not to unveil product news until
> the products can really be bought.
I believe that a company should have a strategic vision for the future.
At least this is what all those economics and management books say. I
believe that once you have a vision and
Hi,
> From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > I'd buy an LX.
Christian Skofteland wrote:
>
> After all your grumblings about it's reliability? ;-)
Yep, my thought exactly. I have a newest-style LX which has been to
Pentax twice, and it still ain't 100% healthy. Pentax tells me that
unev
Hi,
Pål Jensen wrote:
>
> A couple of years back we didn't know where Pentax was going.
> After whining on this list and Pentax lists in Japan, Pentax
> have deliberately leaked out where they are going in order to
> please the fan base.
1. I am not talking about leaks. I am talking about a cle
Hi Gregory,
Thanks for making my point better than I did!
Greetings from a Boilermaker,
Boz
> Keith Whaley said:
> > If they did, why ever would they tell you? Or, if you want, us?
"Gregory L. Hansen" wrote:
>
> Because a broad business strategy usually isn't sensitive information.
> Every
Hi,
Rob Studdert wrote:
>
> On 13 Feb 2003 at 20:16, Bruce Dayton wrote:
>
> > Another difference is that when using manual focus and the matte
> > area, I can compose and focus in any order - using AF I have to
> > lock focus and recompose. I tend to get better composition when
> > not using A
Hi,
> Doesn't Boz list them on his site? If not, I wouldn't know where
> to look but perhaps someone else will reply.
http://kmp.BDimitrov.de/ - [Focusing] - [focusing screens]
Cheers,
Boz
Hi,
thanks to all who responded to my query on the Z-70/PZ-70 cameras!
It seems that the Z-70 does not have a panorama switch, but the PZ-70
does. Neither Z-70p nor PZ-70p seem to exist.
Cheers,
Boz
Hi,
Those that have a manual for either of the above cameras, please check
out what the manual says about viewfinder magnification ratio and
coverage.
I also need the depth of the KX body without a lens attached. And let
me be optimistic, the weight of the KX-motor and KM-motor bodies would
be g
Hi,
it seems that the some PZ-?? bodies have the panorama switch but not the
small "p" at the end of the designation. Is the PZ-20 one of them?
Thanks in advance,
Boz
Hi,
Has anyone ever seen a Z-20p or a Z-70p camera in existance? I know
that the Z-20 and Z-20p exist, but the question here is about models
with a small "p" at the end of the name...
Thanks in advance,
Boz
Hi Sylwester,
> On Sun, 16 Feb 2003, Juey Chong Ong wrote:
>
> > I am staring at my PZ-70 right now and there is a panorama switch on
> > it. I've even used it once.
>
> Could it be, that it is Z-70 with date back? I wonder if these
> Z-series date backs could have panorama function and switch?
Hi,
Pål Jensen wrote:
>
> Alin wrote:
>
> > Sorry to be carried away - I'm especially bitter about this point
> > after seeing how Pentax embraced this trend with the overspecified
> > but heavily compromised *ist.
>
> Heanily compromised? I think not! Even if the more pessimistic
> price
Hi Mark,
Mark Roberts wrote:
>
> I have it from a source at Pentax that the camera *does* support K
> lenses.
If you turn off that PF 17, it supports them as much as the MZ-30 or
MZ-60 --> no support at all. If you turn on the function, it supports
them as much as the MZ-50 ---> the shutter ope
Hi Tom,
> I'm going digital, and will post here before going to ebay this
> weekend.
Which way are you going?
Cheers,
Boz
Hi Arnold,
Arnold Stark wrote:
>
> Bojidar Dimitrov schrieb:
> > If you turn off that PF 17, it supports them as much as the
> > MZ-30 or MZ-60 --> no support at all. If you turn on the
> > function, it supports them as much as the MZ-5 ---> the
> > s
Hi Alexander,
alexanderkrohe wrote:
>
> I am wondering too who brought this up. There is
> nothing in the press release that allows this
> conclusion: in contrast they explicitly state that the
> K-lenses are usable.
Probably I did. I read the following at www.dpreview.com and then at
Pentax US
zoomshot wrote:
>
> So, how many of you merry people are going to get an *ist-D and
> if not why not?
Here is what I am thinking of doing...
I will probably keep a superA with A20/2.8, A24/2.8, K30/2.8, A50/1.4
and A100/2.8 Macro, and will sell the (few) other Pentax items that I
own.
I will th
Hi,
I will be away from computers until March 10. I will surely will get
most news with much delay, but that's life...
Cheers,
Boz
Hi Matti,
Matti Etelapera wrote:
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0303/pma2003/pentax/istd-lensmount.jpg
>
> In this picture the FAJ 18-35mm seems to have atleast a mechanical
> diaphragm actuator.
Yes, but this is an absolute must. We are talking about the diaphragm
coupling, which enables co
Hi Mark,
Mark Roberts wrote:
>
> Boz must have incredibly powerful leg muscles by now...
> From jumping to conclusions, ya know.
Hey, how'd ya know?
Please see my previous mail to Arnold Stark where I list the reasons why
I beliebe what I believe.
Cheers,
Boz
Hi,
Pål Jensen wrote:
>
> Mark wrote:
>
> > Boz must have incredibly powerful leg muscles by now...
> > From jumping to conclusions, ya know.
>
> Well maybe he doesn't jump to conclusion but have gotten the same
> information I have.
Actually, I have not gotten any information from anyone. I
Hi,
Bruce Rubenstein wrote:
>
> In the most recent 15 year period (1987 - 2003), Canon has had
> complete, and better compatibility, than Nikon, Minolta or Pentax.
> The Canon EF mount was designed to transfer information
> electronically and not back fitted to do so. There is no reason
> to thin
Hi Arnold,
Arnold Stark wrote:
>
> One more thought: Maybe we are all right, and the *ist works with
> K- and M-lenses, but only with stop-down metering?
I don't think so. Stop-down metering indicates that the lens lacks the
mechanical aperture coupling. For example, if the aperture is deep in
Hi Valentin,
Caveman wrote:
>
> So where's that killer portrait lens? I was looking hard and my
> best bet was the 100/2.8 macro.
Does it have to be Pentax? If not, try the Canon EF 100/2 USM. Killer
performance, and available twice a week from eBay.de for about EUR 375.
Cheers,
Boz
Hi Arnold et al,
> Boz wrote:
> > Conclusion: K and M equipment is obsolete.
> > K and M buyers should buy Limited equipment
> > (these people want good mechanical build,
> > and nowadays that costs money). :-(
I wrote the above as a SPECULATION, and I ask you to treat it as such.
Until this ti
Hi Arnold,
> The lens then would stop down to the selected aperture and the camera
> could measure the amount of light regardless of what the selected
> f-number is. If this would only happen while the release button of the
> camera were pressed half-way down, you would get shutter speed and
> DOF
Hi Ken,
Are you still talking to me?3:-)
KT Takeshita wrote:
>
> When Pentax try to make camera bodies as small as possible, as they
> seem to be doing now, focus motor and mechanical aperture coupling
> etc would have nowhere to go and might be squeezed out of the body,
> ending up somewher
Hi Roland,
Roland Mabo wrote:
>
> I still believe in KAF3 mount in the *ist D, the one that they will
> produce. Pentax has *not* said what the lens mount type is.
A sceptic might say that there is no Kaf3 mount in the works. He might
then add that Pentax is not saying because they are not sure
Hi Roland,
Roland Mabo wrote:
>
> For example, I have a M 28 f/2.8. I want to use it on the *ist,
> because of the lovely character the M 28 has. Now, I set the
> lens at f/2.8 and the *ist displays a shutter speed of 1/125.
> But I don't want to use it at f/2.8, I want more depth-of-field.
> I w
Hi all,
I have virtually never used a motor or a winder, so I am relatively
ignorant in this area. I received a question from a KMP reader, if the
Winder ME (not the ME II) works properly with the programPlus.
On the Winders KMP page I say that the ME and ME II winders work with
all A bodies. B
ck to reality. I will go on working on the KMP, and will try to
improve it and make it more complete and more informative. I will also
hang around on the PDML for few more weeks, at least.
Best wishes to all and thanks for all I've learned from you!
To all KMP contributors most sincer
Hi all,
thank you very much for the nice answers to my previous mail! It is a
really special feeling to know that I have done something worthwhile,
and I am deeply moved that you all appreciate my work to such an
extent. I took no offense to the one or two mails that spoke about "the
results cou
Hi Roland,
> I don't know how this is done, since when holding a lens in the
> air and turning aperture - the aperture closes down. But on the
> *ist, this does not happen.
There is nothing special with the *ist. It's like this on any camera.
If you REALLY want to know look at the KMP --> Techn
Hi Steve,
see, I'm not gone yet... 3:-)
> Stupid question. I've read that an M lens on the *ist will only
> meter wide open. If the camera can't talk to the lens, how does
> it know what wide open is? and if its reading the light coming
> through the lens, why won't stopping down affect meteri
Hi Roland,
Do you remember the time about three weeks? Pentax had said "full
compatibility" for the *ist, and everyone was talking about how his
personal Pentax sources were confirming that. Pentax-Europe's marketing
director had confirmed it, and I was still not believing it because it
was not
Hi again,
I really did not plan to dwell so long on this topic, but since several
of you asked me to post from time to time my impressions of the two
systems, here is my first installment. Until I have enough images shot
with Canon lenses, I will limit myself to a THEORETICAL comparison of
the tw
Hi Heiko,
> But what I'm interested in - why did you switch to Canon and not
> to Nikon?
With Canon I get the feeling of being in the modern part of Berlin.
With Pentax I feel like I am in an older house. Not that this is bad,
just I prefer the modern building. Nikon would be a renovated old
h
Hi Roland,
> My FA 135 f/2.8 is built like a tank, I'm sure that it can stand
> the attack of missiles. It's a full metal construction.
I hope that Arnold will tell you a story about his FA 135/2.8.
> I also like the build quality of my FA 28 f/2.8 and FA 50 f/1.7.
While these are not bad, ask
Hi all,
For a long time now I have been looking for a good name for the FAQ
section of the KMP (www.phred.org/pentax/k/FAQ/). Apparently I am not the
one who thinks that "FAQ" is not the best choice:
> when I see an "FAQ" link, I somehow tend to expect that it gives answers
> to pretty specifi
Recently Skorepa Michal wrote:
>
> Anyway, if someone wants to know what "SMC" stands for, let's say, I bet she
> will go first into the Lenses section (rather than FAQ). Why don't you
> cancel the FAQ section altogether and relocate the individual links into
> appropriate existing sections: the
Recently John Francis wrote:
>
> The first two are easy - I hardly go anywhere without them.
For me all three are easy: Tokina 20-35/3.5-4.5, FA50/1.4, A70-210/4.
Cheers,
Boz
PS: Still collecting for the FA20-35/4.
PPS: Still waiting for that FA 70-210/4...
-
This message is from the Pentax-D
Recently Ralf Engelmann wrote:
>
> This means that Boz's and others infos, saying that the camera is not
> the flagship, is nonsense.
Moment mal! You just said that the MZ-S is dead, and this upgraded camera
is a "new" animal. And then you go on to say that my claim that the MZ-S
is not the f
Hi all,
As you know the PDML has a new home.
Between Christmas and New Year my company changed locations, so it took
some time before the telnet connections to the outside were set up.
Around that same time I moved also moved from one part of Hamburg to
another, and it was only last night that
Hi all,
I have just updated the KMP (http://www.phred.org/pentax/k/). There are no
revolutionary changes but there are a lot of small changes. There is one
interesting thing: "Pentax top bodies" in the FAQ section.
Cheers,
Boz
---
15.01.2001
* Chang
Recently Flavio Minelli wrote:
>
> Bojidar Dimitrov wrote:
> > Second, FREE and IF lenses do not have constant focal lengths. My A100/2.8
> > Macro has a focal length of something like 73 mm at 1:1. So 100 mm
> > extension will result in higher magnification than ex
Recently Esser, Hermann wrote:
>
> Does anybody have some more info on this lens?. I can get it very cheap for
> about $75.
Uuuum, I don't find $75 to be that cheap. The lens is said to be not very
good optically and horrible mechanically. However, if I neded a zoom in
that focal range for ver
Recently Peter Alling wrote:
>
>This is probably a lot of work but I think it might
> be useful, or at least interesting, to mention which
> of the modern lenses have plastic vs metal lens
> mounts.
Hi Peter,
This has been suggested before. I have not had the time to do it yet. I
am also
Recently Aaron Reynolds wrote:
>
> > - MX...104
> > - LX99
>
> This is embarrassing. C'mon, guys, one of you has to buy five more LXes.
It's actually worse (update 54):
MX..102
ME Super/ME Super SE100
LX..
Hi,
> I've purchased a 'magnifier' to clip on the viewfinder.
> It is labeled "Asahi Pentax Japan" all on line with no other ID. It
> does not look
> quite like either 'magnifier' that is documented at
> "http://www.phred.org/pentax/k/"
> which includes photos of a "magnifier M" and a "Magni
Recently tom wrote:
>
> "Robert P. VanNatta" wrote:
> >
> > I agree on the wides. The 'default' lense on my super program is a 24-50
> > SMC-A. 'cause I really like it. What is missing though are flash units
> > wide enough to suit me. Most of the flash units don't go wider than 28
> > witho
Recently [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I believe the frames of the M viewfinders became a bit larger, not smaller.
> This is why the old K magnifier didn't fit on the Super Program this AM.
> Some metal needs to be removed to make the opening big enough for the M
> viewfinder.
Hi Bob,
Understoo
Recently Gary L. Murphy wrote:
>
> What is the main diffenence between the 50mm "F" and "FA" lens other than the "F" is
>the older of the two. Is
> one better than the other and, if so, why?
Hi,
The differences between the F and FA lenses are discussed here:
http://www.phred.org/pentax/k/FAQ/
Recently [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Hi! I read somewhere that different focusing screens were available for
> SFXn. Anybody please knows which and what part numbers / designations ?
http://www.phred.org/pentax/k/focusing/screens/
Cheers,
Boz
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail Lis
Hi Skip,
> Hey Pentaxia, when you buy an older lens like a Pentax M, I know it doesn't
> register in the auto program feature of my very much liked ZX-M. But does it
> work when I set the ZX-M onto manual?
Yes, it works. THe only thing that you do not get is the aperture value to
be displayed i
John wrote:
> On a totally different thread, I need to feel good about my new purchase of an
> FA 28-105 power zoom lenscould it be the fact this now makes an even dozen
> lenses for me, could that make it right?? :)
Of course, a baker's dozen is even better...
Cheers,
Boz
-
This message i
Recently Jens Bladt wrote:
>
> What a thrill it would be to have a wide angle that fast!
Look into the Contax lineup. They have a 35/1.4. Nikon has a 28/1.4 and
Canon has a 24/1.4, I THINK.
> Doesn't Pentax have like a museum for exhibiting products over the years? If
> I ever get to go to Ja
Recently barry c. wrote:
>
> I am currently trying to decide between the Pentax
> 100mm f2.8 Macro Autofocus SMC-F and SMCP-FA versions.
>
> Optically, are they similar? I can pick up the *F*
> version for about $10 less used compared with the *FA*
> version.
Hi,
Yes, optically they are ident
Recently Wieland Willker wrote:
>
> Why do you need the IF for the 100mm Macro lens? What is this good for?
> I mean, 60mm at 1:1, is this desirable? Is this a Macro Zoom?
It's not strictly IF, it's FREE. See here:
http://www.phred.org/pentax/k/FAQ/lens_terms.html
Cheers,
Boz
-
This message
Recently Wieland Willker wrote:
>
> Ok, but what is this good for, why this extreme shift from 100mm to 60mm?
> I understand it is to improve image quality, but is this the only way
> possible? Why is it not utilized for the 50mm macro?
It seems that Pentax uses FREE only for lenses thta go to 1
Recently Chris Brogden wrote:
>
> Will digital flashes like the 500 FTZ work properly on TTL bodies like the
> Super Program? If not, why not? What will happen if I try to use this
> combination?
1. No, digital flashes will not work properly on analog-control bodies.
2. Because they understand
Recently Wieland Willker wrote:
>
> But, the 50mm has no FREE system and it works good. So, with the 100macro
> when I'm near 1:1, I work at around 60-70mm. For better image quality you
> sacrifice focal length, is this correct? Or better, you sacrifice it to
> get an all-in-one lens (good infini
Recently Wieland Willker wrote:
>
> Thanks Boz for your patience,
No, problem. The A 1002.8 is my favorite lens, so I will gladly defend
it...
Your understanding of the working distance is correct. The thing is that
the FREE macros change their focal length but they also change the
positions
Recently Jan van Wijk wrote:
>
> >Do you have any experience or advice?
> >Should I look at standard 3-way heads?
>
> I would, for macro work I prefer to use the Manfrotto 141 head, it is simple
> but sturdy and gives much more control over your composition than a
> ball-head does because you ca
Recently Bob Walkden wrote:
>
> An all-rounder is a
> camera like the LX which could be used for the full range of 35mm
> activities at the time. From scientific, macro and copy work, through the
> point-and-shoot functionality of the day, to heavy-
Recently Wieland Willker wrote:
>
> Isn't this interesting? That Pentax comes up with a new "flagship" after
> 7 years, which is NOT significantly better than the old one?
> I am thinking about a new body for my MF lenses. So, I am not interested
> in the better AF-system.
In other words: "The n
Recently Flavio Minelli wrote about Italy:
>
> Everybody here wants to be a formula 1 pilot.
Not only do they want to, they practice hard on the way to work too...
After my trip to Italy I had a real problem fitting back into the German
road-behavior requirements :-)
> We have about 1 cell
Hi,
does anyone have some Pentax publication where it is "officially" stated
that the FA 20-35/4 AL lens features the new ghostless coating?
Thanks,
Boz
--
_\\|//_ Imagination is more important than knowledge...
0(` O-O ')0 A. Einstein
===oo
Hi all,
I have just uploaded the next KMP release. You will find mostly small
corrections and additions to the "Lenses" and "Teleconverters" pages,
and some major changes in the "Bodies" section.
Now there is an individual page for each camera body, just like with
lenses and teleconverters.
I h
Hi,
> Sylwester wrote:
>
> You are right, but it also confirms what I said. Still Bojidar's
> site needs to be updated, just because almost every new lens
> (like cheapo FA 35-80/4-5.6) from Pentax features ghostless
> coating - not only the high end ones. Even older lenses has this
> coating - j
Hi all,
We know that the M100/4 and A100/4 "dental" macro lenses are
mechanically and optically identical to the "non-dental" macros, and
that the only difference are the magnification ratios in yellow and and
red.
But now I am not sure if the word "DENTAL" is part of the name enscriben
on the ri
Hi all,
in case anyone is interested, I have put up a few items for auctioning
at eBay. A Tokina 20-35/3.5-4.5 II, an MZ-7, and a Motor Drive A are
about to go very cheap...
Happy New Year to all,
Boz
--
_\\|//_ Imagination is more important than knowledge...
0(` O-O ')0
Bojidar Dimitrov wrote:
>
> in case anyone is interested, I have put up a few items for auctioning
> at eBay. A Tokina 20-35/3.5-4.5 II, an MZ-7, and a Motor Drive A are
> about to go very cheap...
http://cgi6.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewSellersOtherItems&userid=bdimitrov
1 - 100 of 252 matches
Mail list logo
