I have a bunch of shots of the bridge from both the water
via tour boat and via the observation area near the bridge.
Shot them all on K64. This was from spring '96 long before
I got a scanner so I don't have anythinng to post, never got
around to scanning them but I do still have them. The wide
an
I recently aquired a Mamiya/Sekor Auto SX lens
with a 300mm F5.6 spec. I bought this as a collector
item mainly as I already have a like new SMCT
300mm F4. But as I ran a test roll with it to
check it out I found the 300mm F5.6 compactness
is a definate plus and in daylight 300mm F5.6
is still ve
This statement is overlooking the fact that those
"OTHER" pro DSLRs which are crowding the marker don't
take PENTAX lenses and given the current market prices,
the cost of lens systems is WAY more money than DSLR
bodies so a pro level PENTAX DSLR would be "all alone"
in the marketplace, not in a cr
What make either of these predictions possible. HOW
do you guys know what Pentax will or will not do
in the near or distant future?
For example they have put out 4 different DSLRs in just
the last 2 years. Who predicted or would have even
guessed that would come from them?
JCO
-Original Mess
guess you never used anything better than 35mm because the current APS
sensors and lenses cant match medium format film for resolution and
theres large format and ultra large format too. If you see what these
do you wouldn't be assuming APS DSLR is as "good as it gets" and you
don't even need go to
I think we need a consistant clear defintion of the
word obsolete before this thread gets out of hand.
In my opinion 35mm Film Cameras/Film are not yet obsolete
because DSLRs that can match them on every possible aspect
do not even exist yet and the ones getting close still
cost several thousand
Not sure if that's technically possible but my way of looking
at it is that if they can do a full frame sensor with same
desity as the current APS sensors (i.e. a ~ 14MP ff at same
exact density as current APS 6 MP sensors, than it can only
be BETTER. You would always have the option of cropping t
I suggest you rent/buy a 4x5 camera and scan those negatives
and make 24"x36" print from true 100MP files
and maybe your definition of "stunning" will change.
Do you really think that at 24x36" print size there is no room
for vast improvement over a 6MP APS captured image?
JCO
-Original Messa
Don't forget that these claims are supposedly made
with 6MP images, if there is any cropping ( and many
photo can benefit from cropping because the original
scene just doesn't match the cameras aspect ratio)
the quality gets even worse. This is one of the benefits
of having higher resolution, more
To me, truly obsolete is something that has been replaced
by something else that is equal or superior in EVERY
aspect for same or less money, CURRENT NEW COST.
If the new item has even one shortcoming or costs more than the old
one isnt truly obsolete.
This is based on buying new products of cou
1:58 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: "Sunning" at 24x36 inches?
On 23-Aug-05, at 9:58 AM, J.C. O'Connell wrote:
> Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 12:12:50 -0400
> From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Subject: "Sunning&quo
ject: Re: MY defintion of obsolete - its way different than those
suggested
- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: MY defintion of obsolete - its way different than those
suggested
> To me, truly obsolete is something that has been replaced
>
sounds cool. One thing to remember though
is that once you get into the reciprocal
failure mode of a film and want to use
time bracketing, you wont get linear time progressions
for equivilant exposure changes. ( i.e.
the 2.5, 5, 10, 20 sequence will not yield
equal steps in exposure change). This
I disagree with this assessment. The reason is that lenses can only put out
so many lines per mm and once the sensors become dense enough
the only way to increase captured resolution is to increase the
sixe of the sensor and use longer lenses with bigger image circles
at same lines/mm lens resoluti
Does the number of high quality fully functional pentax lenses you already
own
dramatically affect your decision? ( You don't state ).
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Larry Hodgson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2005 5:26 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Probably g
Since modern multicoated lenses transmit more
than 99 percent of the light that hits them
(<1% reflection) I doubt that's ever visible.
A poorly designed mirror box or relflective
metals on the lens rear surfaces would be
more like culprits than the lens optics
in causing unwanted stray light refle
Isnt is a contradiction that the lens is CLOSER
to the sensor and its an improvement because that
means the light it hitting the corners of the sensor
at a GREATER angle away from perpendicular which
is BAD (perpendicular being ideal)?
--
: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: First non DSLR digicam with 10MP APS sensor- contradiction
J. C. O'Connell wrote on 09.09.05 17:06:
> Isnt is a contradiction that the lens is CLOSER
> to the sensor and its an improvement because that
> means the light it hitting the corners of th
x27;s relatively long register
necessitated by the mirror box. That is one reason that C*n*n developed
their EF-S mount, which allows the lens to protrude further into the
mirror box, making the 10-22 easier to design.
-Adam
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> Isnt is a contradiction that the lens is CL
ember 09, 2005 2:18 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: First non DSLR digicam with 10MP APS sensor- contradiction
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> Isnt is a contradiction that the lens is CLOSER
> to the sensor and its an improvement because that
> means the light it hitting the co
ng on optical design...
> JCO
>
> -Original Message-
> From: keith_w [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 2:18 PM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: First non DSLR digicam with 10MP APS sensor- contradiction
>
>
> J. C. O
-Original Message-
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2005 6:05 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: First non DSLR digicam with 10MP APS sensor- contradiction
On Sep 9, 2005, at 2:27 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> I did a quick s
too large
relative to the small format (APS),
jco
-Original Message-
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2005 6:05 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: First non DSLR digicam with 10MP APS sensor- contradiction
On Sep 9, 2005, at 2:27 PM, J. C.
-Original Message-
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2005 7:39 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: First non DSLR digicam with 10MP APS sensor- contradiction
On Sep 11, 2005, at 3:51 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> My sket
-Original Message-
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2005 7:39 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: First non DSLR digicam with 10MP APS sensor- contradiction
On Sep 11, 2005, at 3:51 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> My sket
too bad pentax has yet to make a DSLR to fully support
them. There were/are some really nice K/M lenses that
arent getting the digital bodies they deserve. We need a higher
resolution body with full K/M mount lens support and full frame
wouldn't hurt either IMHO. Its really sad too because it would
5/200mm
I use K and M lenses every day on my *istD. No problem. Once you become
accustomed to the button, it's not an inconvenience, it's an automatic. Paul
On Sep 17, 2005, at 9:04 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> too bad pentax has yet to make a DSLR to fully support
> them. Ther
l. But as
many have said here so many times, the green button quickly becomes an
automatic. It provides quite adequate backward compatibility. The
loudest objections have usually come from those who haven't tried it. Paul
On Sep 17, 2005, at 9:48 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> I don'
the green button quickly becomes an
> automatic. It provides quite adequate backward compatibility. The
> loudest objections have usually come from those who haven't tried it.
> On Sep 17, 2005, at 9:48 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
>
> > I don't want to start up
ake up your complaint directly with
Pentax.
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: J. C. O'Connell
>
> I have about had it with this insulting "dreamworld" crap.
ssage-
From: Kostas Kavoussanakis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 5:34 AM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: RE: Pentax K 2.5/200mm
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> I KNOW the difference between open apeture metering and what it
> means in low
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 7:00 AM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Pentax K 2.5/200mm
JCO,
You can bringing this up. Then you get angry when some of us say we
don't care. So why do you raise the issue over and over again? Very
strange.
Paul
On Sep 18,
hi,
I like your idea with regards to the metering issue.
Its much better than "green" but of course not as good
as full K/M support.
I don't however buy into the idea that this K/M
lens support is a cost reduction measure. The part
and code to support it is so ridiculously simple
and cheap that e
WRONG- Pentax developed open aperture metering and AE support
on the SCREWMOUNT series of lenses around 1972 well prior to even the very
first K mount lens or bodies. ( SMCT lenses & Spotmatic F and ES/ESII
bodies)
the K/M lenses were ALL designed for open aperture metering
and AE support and even
collection in order to have a
relatively modern film body,but until pentax adds the Green Button
functionality to the *ist, it's not an option.
-Adam
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
>You're the guilty of diatribes not me, and I am the one discussing the
>subject matter instead
aperture on M42
bodies that supported the feature. So the current situation with the
all-electronic K mount to mechanical lenses is akin to that switch 30
years ago.
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
>NO- I get angry when people say I don't know what I am
>talking about just because I don'
or it wont change the fact that some people just
don't understand the difference between loss of
compatability for getting a new feature vs loss of compatiblity
for NO NEW FEATURE. The difference is huge, and that
what I a talking about here...
-Original Message-
From: Mark Roberts [mailto
compatibility out of proportion. The lenses
still gather light & they still render an image FULL STOP
It could be worse. Pentax could have completely redesigned the lens mount.
Dave
On 9/18/05, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> too bad pentax has yet to make a DSLR to
Please see my last post, all this K/M degradation is UNNECESSARY.
Yes we could be arguing the merits of doing what they did or how
good or bad or not bad it is if
they had to do this for some new feature BUT THERE ISNT ONE.
That's the alarming part of it all, there isnt something new
or valuable
n stop drooling!!
(Damn eekBay rule!)
Don
> -----Original Message-
> From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 10:28 AM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: RE: Pentax K 2.5/200mm
>
>
> hi,
>
> I think my p
what way did I make an "unjustified personal attack" upon you? Please be
specific.
When was the last time you bought a new camera from Pentax?
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: J. C. O'Connell
> You're the guilty of diatribes not me, and I am the one discussing the
NOT the same, Canon EOS mount has very
notable features that the old FD mount
could never overcome most notably the much
larger mount diameter. So in that case there
was something gained there too. this is
not the case with Pentax K/M abandonment.
There is no new mount or feature gained, just ignor
ht the D. I almost didn't because of this very issue.
BTW: Would someone PLEASE buy JCO's lovely SMCP-xxxmm/f:xx
lens from eekBay so I can stop drooling!!
(Damn eekBay rule!)
Don
> -Original Message-
> From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday,
hi, I don't think anyone was arguing that the green mode
wasn't quicker and easier than pure manual modes, the issue is is as easy or
quick as true AE modesSecondly, there are very few if any K mount
cameras that had stop down K/M metering before the isTD. Open aperture
metering was standard on
nd there's a fair bit of
precision necessary, so it's an expensive pot and calibrated spring, not
a cheap one.
-Adam
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
>See my last post, your entire second paragraph is
>WRONG because these are NOT expensive mechanical
>couplings ( even bottom li
ity of a lens line that's
been dead for 30 years.
Listen, I use the D, I mostly use K/M lenses on it, I'm not missing this
functionality much. The arguement is a tempest in a teapot, especially
considering that Pentax abandoned the compatibility in 1997 with the
MZ-50, 6 years before th
> best
> about such matters.
>
> And now it's time for a big bowl of hot and sour soup yu!
>
> Shel
>
>
>> [Original Message]
>> From: Paul Stenquist
>
>> Of course I haven't forgotten. I use FA and A lenses as well. But as
>> m
Cant you guys read my posts before you make such comments about me? I
have explained repeatedly its not just the issue or K/M lenses on an
istD here that concerns me its Pentax turning point decision to no
longer support something without technical or financial CAUSE. Its
ridiculous that a camera a
And also are you trying to say the sensor is revealing
the lens to not actually be as good as reviewed or are you
saying the sensor is inferior to film with regards to
the range of optical designs it can handle without sensor
induced artifacts?
I could see where one lens could be superior on digit
acceptable. none ever got better. i got rid of any lenses
that had too much difference between center and corner sharpness. also sold
ones that showed too much falloff wide open too.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Sun
I don't agree because its not that simple. What you say is right but
its not the whole story. If someone is going to start
from scratch, WHY IN THE WORLD would they choose pentax?
Pentax is inferior mount to both canon and minolta because
those companies made the leap to a newer more modern lens mo
I miscommunticated. I threw out a number.
This part is not $50 added cost to selling
price as you should know, even real cheapo
budget third party entire cameras have this
part. it's a pot and a spring and and a A/D
channel. You cant be serious if you think
in todays market that would cause a $50
]
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 10:23 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Pentax K 2.5/200mm
On Sep 18, 2005, at 6:45 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> ... Since film is far higher resolving power than
> current 6Mp APS sensors ...
I don't understand why you say this. Film a
hi,
I am not "bitching" about old technology, I am bitching
about Pentax's new policy to degrade older products, even
high end ones, functionality WITHOUT CAUSE.
My use of capitol lettering is only for emphisis in
plain text messaging because other fonts like italics
are not available and certai
This I agree with. If they did make
a new film camera what lenses should fully
work on it? I bet even pentax couldn't
decide that! I see new film 35mm SLR cameras
disappering altogher shortly. the market
is flooding with plenty of nice old ones
nobody wants already.Medium format
will be next...
ronics, and firmware to an already very small platform. But that's
another debate
--Mark
"J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Cant you guys read my posts before you make such comments about me? I
> have explained repeatedly its not just the issue o
some old
incompatable mount. that is not the case
with the Pentax DSLRS and K/M lenses though...
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Gonz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 11:22 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: green button wars (again)
J. C. O'Con
eady very small platform. But that's
another debate
--Mark
"J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Cant you guys read my posts before you make such comments about me? I
> have explained repeatedly its not just the issue or K/M lenses on an
> i
s
reflected in the spec sheets. It takes 10+MP to exceed 35mm film under
idea; conditions, and as the 1Ds mkII has shown you can match 120 film
with 17MP.
At 10MP and up the lens becomes the real limiting factor on performance
with 35mm and APS lenses.
-Adam
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
&g
ut this enough.
I.e. they are trying to aim the new DSLR's to a market segment that
does not fit your profile. Since they are trying to survive in a very
competitive and brutal market right now, its hard to second guess their
decisions based on our own little microscopic view of whats good
, September 19, 2005 12:08 AM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: green button wars (again)
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
>I CONTINUE TO RANT because you keep missing
>my key point,
>
(etc.)
Some people may be missing your point (though by this stage I seriously
doubt it), some peop
nobody said pushing the extra button was hard to do physically.
But if your in a situation where AE is needed, the reason is
you DON'T HAVE TIME to push the button. That's like saying you
don't ever need AF because all you have to do is "turn a ring"
or you didn't ever need a motor drive because al
Don't forget but that not all 6MP images are of same
quality because true color 6MP images are much better
than the the interpolated 6MP images that come out
of these DSLRs. A 6Mp dslr is not a true color 6MP
image, its only got 6MP of partially color sensitive
pixels. I think you have to divide by
Not wanting to sound like I am arguing everything here or knocking the
usage of hand held meters as I prefer that method myself when possible but
how can
you say that's faster than using the built in meter with green button
or true AE if the camera had it? Its slower and not simpler to set both
the
smarter.
-Original Message-
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 1:16 AM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: green button wars (again)
On Sep 18, 2005, at 7:32 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> I CONTINUE TO RANT
Rant alone. You&#
I think you are overlooking a MAJOR truism I have found in my experience,
and that is
that when it comes down to it, the average person DOESN'T
WANT what the pros use because they are just plain cheap
when it comes to buying things that are not their main
hobby or interest and when they hear the wo
has been in the closet
for years. the high end market like people here account for a tiny fraction
of the buyers.
Herb....
- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 12:06 AM
Subject: RE: green button wars
More unfounded stop down advocacy. when you get down into the
low light region where stop down metering wont at small apertures
you are already needing to tripod
mount the camera so there is no reason
to be shooting wide open, most lenses
are poor wide open.
Like I said if anyone here thinks stop
You don't care about PENTAX PRODUCT SUPPORT
in general? I don't believe that and that
is the key to my criticism of them on this
because if you fully understand what they
did you would understand what it means for the
future of all pentax products then and now
and everything they will ever make in
I totally disagree - you don't drop features that are virtually free to
include and of great
value to a large portion or ANY customers. This part is so damn simple and
cheap
and RELIABLE- (Pentax has been making them for over 30 years
so I seriously doubt they havent been able to "debug" it
yet if
pardon the hereing glitch!
-Original Message-
From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 9:37 AM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: RE: green button wars (again)
Fine with me, some people cant handle the truth.
I never put anybody in my kill
rt. And neither does much of the list. And it's an 8 year old
issue, not a new issue.
-Adam
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> You don't care about PENTAX PRODUCT SUPPORT
> in general? I don't believe that and that
> is the key to my criticism of them on this
> becau
--
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 10:52 AM
To: PDML
Subject: Re: green button wars (again)
On Sep 19, 2005, at 6:36 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> Fine with me, some people cant handle the truth.
No, the expression "you're in my .kill f
Re-installation of the $5 lenscam sensor.
jco
-Original Message-
From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 11:36 AM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: green button wars (again)
How might the "green button" be improved?
Shel
> [Original Mes
getting the support back, and we should be damned
glad that we got the support we did in the DSLR's, unlike loyal Nikon
customers (Like I used to be).
-Adam
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> Cant you understand? How many times
> do I have to post this? THIS ISNT
> JUST ABOUT A S
Your not being reasonable or logical. Moving parts
are not desirable if the same thing can be achieved
without moving parts but REMOVAL of basic essential functions
just to achieve "no moving parts" is absurd. That's a really
silly argument. It mirrors the earlier reliablity argument.
Its better to
He didn't say regular dust, he said "wear dust" from the cam
sensor. That's pure speculation to assume there would be
any "wear dust" at all let alone if that it would actually be
be signifigant relative to the current normal dust problem
and to proclaim green button as "optimum" for K/M for that r
es that they
really don't need if the required part had not been intentionally removed
completely from all available new bodies...
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 12:39 PM
To: pentax list
Subject: Re: green button w
to care about one minor issue about Pentax Product
> Support. And neither does much of the list. And it's an 8 year old
> issue, not a new issue.
>
> -Adam
>
>
>
> J. C. O'Connell wrote:
>
>> You don't care about PENTAX PRODUCT SUPPORT
>> in genera
ave
money by just getting something cheaper that's only
"good" instead. Incredible but true.
-Original Message-
From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 1:20 PM
To: pentax list
Subject: Re: Pentax K 2.5/200mm
On 19/9/05, J. C. O'Connell,
My point was that there is no evidence whatsoever
that the cam sensor would emit dust at all or
even if it did if it would be signifigant RELATIVE
to the normal BASIS dust problem that already exists.
If there was NO basis dust problem already and it created
one that would be a valid point but ther
NOT PROVIDING THE FUNCTION AT ALL
is far worse than a long term possible or
potential failure of the function that MIGHT happen,
it's a guaranteed immediate point of failure.
HOW MANY TIMES do I have to say this?
You don't simply remove key functions because they
might fail someday, you only remov
Stop the sarcasm please and don't edit my posts
like that. It gives a false impression if you
cant see the incredibly flawed statement that
prompted my responseIf you want to show my frustrated
responses then show the statements that prompted them
to give it context. Otherwise you are just blow
ntially little advantage to Pentax to include this
capability on the film bodies, and little more on the DSLR's. I'm glad
they gave us an option with the DSLR's, it works well even if not ideal
and it's MORE than anybody else offers. I'm quite satisfied with that.
-Adam
J. C.
nd anyone else of the original
Star Trek?
In a recent message, "J. C. O'Connell" wrote:
>
> Your not being reasonable or logical.
In another recent message, "J.C. O'Connell" wrote:
>
> YOUR post is illogical,
BS- there is no basis for this kind of response.
Were you or was Pentax having any problems with
these sensors? I seriously doubt it. they made them for
over 30 years and if any problem had ever surfaced
they would have corrected it long ago. I have had many
pentax cameras with the aperture sensor
odfrey DiGiorgi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 4:07 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: green button wars (again)
On Sep 19, 2005, at 12:44 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> I refuse to buy into this B/S ...
So do I. Your bullshit, that is. I believe that what you
cuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: green button wars (again)
On Sep 19, 2005, at 12:44 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> I refuse to buy into this B/S ...
So do I. Your bullshit, that is. I believe that what you really
refuse to do is just shut up. I've now counted 62 posts *from you*
reit
differences between the finest
lenses out there, not just see differences between excellent, good, and fair
lenses...
jco
-Original Message-
From: Gonz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 4:29 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Pentax K 2.5/200mm
J. C
Is this a double post or what?
I previously posted that if a part performing a function
is is failing you find a better part
or redesign to make it work - you don't just
remove it. So your last sentence doesn't
make any sense within that context. They would have
had to removed it for some other rea
wer to some of these differences on film, by all
means share. We will probably not do a film test, it just adds another
dimension we are not prepared to undertake right now.
rg
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> Ok, thanks for the feedback. Have you specifically
> found ANY pair of OUTSTAND
Yes there is certainly insufficient market
for it because it isnt needed if the superior open aperture
metering is offered instead. That's a given.
They don't offer what people don't need.
I am beginning to tire out over these arguments
because I posted an explaination why open apeture
metering is
e costs
aren't. And the issue is inherent to Potentiometers.
-Adam
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
>Is this a double post or what?
>I previously posted that if a part performing a function
>is is failing you find a better part
>or redesign to make it work - you don't just
>remove
scuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: more green button wars
But by that standard, there is insufficient market for mechanical
aperture sensing. Otherwise every major SLR manufacturer would not have
abandoned it (Heck Canon and IIRC Minolta even abandoned mechanical
aperture coupling as well).
-Adam
y get.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 10:09 AM
Subject: RE: green button wars (again)
> Lets see some proof/numbers to back it up dude! I didn't claim to know
> for a fact but
ngineering
required to integrate the extra functionality into the design (Hardware
is always harder to integrate than firmware, hence the firmware fix).
-Adam
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
>There is a big difference, millions
>of PK/M lenses are still out there with ONLY
>the cams on th
Not necessilary true or even probably
true. I have purchased quite a few 25-30
year old Pentax bodies in new old stock
conditon that ALL worked beatifully
with regards to these pots. I think this
so called pot problem doesn't exist
at least in pentax cameras for the vast
majority of the bodies stil
For your information it was the spotmatic list
and the moderator admitted that he really had
no reason to kick me whatsoever, its just
that due to the incredible amount of blatantly wrong
posts and misconceptions by the posters there who
didn't like being told the truth constantly
by me and they fe
Get out of here with this stuff. You think the pentax DS
did or didn't have the K/M hardware integrated because
of the population/market size of these lenses in the field ? What makes you
say
that, there was so much backlash that pentax had to
come up with the green button band-aid right away
to st
eased image quality and speed of the new-generation
bodies like the Canon mkII's and the Nikon D2's.
-Adam
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
>I don't understand your post. If your saying
>the pentax list isnt the source for your claims
>regarding DSLR buyers being first ti
1 - 100 of 4060 matches
Mail list logo
