Hi all,
Amazing butterfly pics with FA*200/2.8
http://www2u.biglobe.ne.jp/~ikephoto/index.htm
Cheers,
Ken
On 03.9.20 10:32 AM, "Dario Bonazza 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Any further info? In case, thanks for sharing it.
Don't know about the patent situation but you might note that the designer
of SAFOX 8 has been scouted to Nikon :-).
Cheers,
Ken
On 03.9.23 3:40 AM, "Anders Hultman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ten odd years ago I worked at a local tv station, and noticed how the
> video photographers used to empty the camera batteries completely before
> recharging them. To do that they used big, hot power resistors, or more
> often, ligh
On 03.9.23 10:41 AM, "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You are correct to a degree but the problem is not the rate of discharge as
> you
> could easily select a bulb with a well matched power rating however the
> problem
> is that the batteries don't appreciate being too deeply dischar
On 03.9.27 1:13 AM, "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The flash card is almost impossible to remove without forceps once it is in.
> This is frightfully bad design, and shouldn't have made it to market like
> this.
This is also a general griping in Japan.
Somebody complained it to the s
On 5/15/04 6:14 AM, "Dr. Heiko Hamann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do you know any information or sources on the regional distribution of
> sales and income (Europe/America/Asia and especially Japan)?
Hi Heiko,
Following might be of interest to you. It is statistics published every
month by CI
On 5/18/04 9:50 PM, "KT Takeshita" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Even
> discussing the demise of APS (as well as 35mm for that matter) is not moot
Is NOW moot.
Ken
On 5/18/04 5:53 PM, "Antonio Aparicio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Really, I didn't know that. Interesting. So how come Windows is still
> so vulnerable to virus attacks?
Hi Antonio,
Nice to meet you (on the list :-).
This might help you understand what's going on in each OS?
http://maccentra
esson as
> always is watch what you DL.
>
> A.
>
>
>
> On 19 May 2004, at 05:21, KT Takeshita wrote:
>
>> On 5/18/04 5:53 PM, "Antonio Aparicio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Really, I didn't know that. Interesting. So how
On 04.5.19 8:14 PM, "Winston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree with most of it, except that I think 77 is equally sharp wide
> opened. I remember testing my *ist (35mm) with this lens - I shot almost
> a roll of Reala at f/1.8 and they are all sharp, very crisp with distant
> subjects. Of cour
On 5/20/04 3:13 PM, "Antonio Aparicio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is what happens in free speech loving democracies.
Hi Antonio,
No, PDML is not the place for exercising the right of free speech.
I think this is becoming too much. Each list (like PDML) has its own
culture nurtured over the
On 5/20/04 4:30 PM, "jtainter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (c) Pentax is remaining solvent by drastically cutting its manufacturing
> capacity.
>
> As I've posted here before, I admit that I know little of business matters.
> The signs, though, have made me suspect that (c) may be the case.
Or
On 3/23/03 7:43 PM, "Bruce Rubenstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is it Nikon, Canon or Minolta that pays you to be a Pentax spokesman?
Well, my colleagues in Japan have long been seriously suspecting that you
must have been paid by somebody to stay in Pentax List and keep farting with
no class
On 03.6.5 5:33 PM, "Bruce Rubenstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So stop confusing things with facts.
Here you go again.
Stop confusing things with something you know nothing about.
What is the point of you suddenly coming into this without anything useful
to contribute?
Be specific as others d
On 03.6.6 6:09 PM, "Bruce Rubenstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's the Pentax PUB.
If you knew that, what's the purpose of your coming in with dirty mouth?
You just do not make sense at all on everything.
Only reason you are here is because people here tolerate what you could not
do in the N
On 03.6.6 5:29 PM, "Caveman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I submit we should do a survey and see why the current PDMLers are
> sticking here. I suspect that a large percentage is still with pentax
> because they still enjoy the manual focus era cameras and lenses.
I do not necessarily think so.
On 03.6.6 11:44 PM, "Caveman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> get it fast and in digital format please, and quality
> doesn't matter that much any more
This has been true and one of the reasons why Nikon cannot get out of its
APS size CCD dilemma. Many are predicting that their DSLR won't (and can't
On 03.6.7 7:23 AM, "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Careful Ken, you're in danger of shooting yourself in the foot.
Yeah, yeah, I know.
I was just about to exit from my self-righteous BR policing (I never got
involved in any flame war stuff in the past but thought BR was going too far
in ramp
On 03.6.7 7:28 AM, "Mark Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Can't be Canon who already has 11mp full frame CMOS.
>
> It *could* be for Canon...if they want to upgrade the EOS 1D.
> Personally, I think Canon will make their own sensor, though...
You could very well be right. I did not think
On 03.6.7 9:21 AM, "Mark Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just thought of a reason why Canon *might* go to an outside supplier:
> Parts availability. If they can't produce enough sensors themselves
> they'll certainly go to outside suppliers rather than give up market
> share by cutting pro
On 03.6.7 9:26 AM, "KT Takeshita" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I just thought of a reason why Canon *might* go to an outside supplier:
>> Parts availability. If they can't produce enough sensors themselves
>> they'll certainly go to outside supp
On 03.6.7 10:53 AM, "KT Takeshita" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I do not know but I was always under the impression that Canon buy CCD for
> DSLR (Cheaper that way?). I do not think they ever announced who is making
> their CCD. Perhaps I can check with someone in Ja
On 03.6.4 3:45 PM, "Roland Mabo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pentax is not alone, Fuji is delaying also. What a relief! :-)
There has been a chronic parts shortage in Japan in the recent few months
and the delay was not just by Pentax but across the board.
Looking through some of the news artic
On 03.6.7 5:11 PM, "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There is a also a rumour that only 2000 units were sold, worldwide.
Are you sure it's 2,000, not 20?:-).
Ken
On 03.6.7 5:57 PM, "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If that silver shell isn't soft, I don't know why? Besides, I believe
> they used hardened steel on K/M/A lenses (along with some plastic for A),
> not brass.
I said hard anodized "surface". Aluminium is inherently a soft metal. Once
y
On 03.6.7 5:50 PM, "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> They said it would take 4-6 weeks to get the
> parts. So I guess it will be lying around for the next 2 month... :-(
Alan, you seem to be struggling with this problem quite a bit lately and I
share your pain :-).
Re closing of Vancouver
On 03.6.7 6:22 PM, "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But it is only the surface cover. The lens barrel on the 77 and 31 Limited are
> made of steel like most FA* lenses.
Oh, I did not know that. I was told by Pentax that Ltd lenses are made of
aluminum (and glass too :-).
They have to ca
On 03.6.7 6:58 PM, "Peter Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't remember where I read this maybe Pål but the 43 and 77 had a
> different designer or maybe a different design team than the 31.
It's probably Pål who brought that info but 43/77 were designed by
Mr.Hirakawa (like anybody care
On 03.6.7 8:39 PM, "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am no material enginner. Those worn K/M lenses show silver metal which
> can't be brass.
I am no expert on the lens barrel either but I once saw a brass helicoid and
that's why I was assuming that older metal lens barrels were made of
On 03.6.7 8:53 PM, "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The inner barrels are steel, just like other good old K/M lenses. But all
> the silver coverings aren't.
I am becoming curious about this, as I never disassembled a lens myself.
Both you and Pål (who actually saw the material) say that t
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
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
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
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 03.6.8 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 0:10 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 0:54 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
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
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 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 8:38 AM, "Lon Williamson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Snapshooter here. I don't care about original vision, highly creative,
> evocative, etc. The charm of photography for me is very simple: capturing
> moments and memories. Once in a while (about once a roll), I get a shot
> I like
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
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
On 03.6.15 4:53 PM, "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The
> strange thing is, the focus ring feels light again if the camera was shifted
> to portrait format (on camera or not really doesn't matter).
I too have been aware of it since I purchased it when it came out. In fact,
it was first
On 03.6.16 2:14 PM, "Caveman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since several people had the same problem...
I am not sure if it is any kind of "problem" per se. One does not notice it
until told. Perhaps just the way it is designed :-). It does not give me
any problem.
Not that I am defending Mr.
On 03.6.16 3:44 PM, "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In other words, this is not necessarily a digital back but a digital medium
> format camera; that is, a camera that take one of the Pentax MF lenses.
> Is this the rumored 645D or is it related to the new and compact 67, or is it
> both
On 03.6.20 7:39 PM, "whickersworld" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pål Jensen wrote:
>> You seem to base this on the assumption that MZ-S contains
> a shutter not optimized for durability. This is way off the
> truth.
>
>
>
> *Your* assumption is way off the truth, Pål.
>
> Try sticking to facts
On 03.6.21 5:29 AM, "Raimo Korhonen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> During the last Photokina I learned that Pål has good, reliable sources in the
> Pentax circles in Japan.
Wasn't Pål the one who correctly predicted that the name of the new series
was *ist when none of us had the faintest clue?
C
On 3/29/05 7:41 AM, "Morten Dahl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just bought an *ist DS with the 16-45 mm. Very happy about it, and
> will probably buy the 50-200.
>
> But one thing is worrying me: What are the chances that a Pentax DSLR
> with a full frame sensor will make my DA-lenses obsolete
On 3/29/05 10:37 AM, "Quasi Modo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Perhaps also consider the Tamron 90/2.8 Di instead of the DFA100/2.8
> macro (unsure of size/weight comparison). I know I'm a heretic but
> keep 3rd party in mind (even the Sigma 50/2.8 macro EX DG is getting
> very good feedback).
On 3/29/05 11:41 AM, "Mark Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> And, come to think of it, they don't really show much interest
>> in the production of *better* (your definition of better goes here)
>> APS-C k-mount DSLRs.
>
> I think they definitely have shown interest. I expect a better K-moun
On 3/29/05 11:20 AM, "Quasi Modo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "if everything else is at least equal to the FA version" - ceteris
> paribus is a dangerous thing Ken! I've only seen one comparison page
> between the FA 100 and the DFA 100 but the FA 100 used in the
> comparison looked severely co
On 3/30/05 6:06 AM, "Alin Flaider" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As always I appreciate your glimpses over the "inside". What I find
> most interesting now is the hint to the build costs (point 2).
> I suspect a major contribution to the cost was due to having to
> maintain very low tolerances and
On 3/30/05 9:49 AM, "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It does conjure thoughts of how they might cut corners on any new WA lenses
> for
> the soon to be arriving (LOL) 645D. I wonder if it will be profitable to
> continue production of the current 645 lens line or maybe they are thinkin
On 4/5/05 9:59 PM, "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5 Apr 2005 at 10:15, Joseph Tainter wrote:
>
>> Pentax lost money on both the FA 50 f2.8 and FA 100 f2.8 macros. So they
>> were redesigned to be less expensive to build. The D FA is reported to
>> keep the same optical design as t
On 4/6/05 9:38 PM, "Joseph Tainter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do you know if Pentax changed the wonderful optical formula of the FA 50
> f2.8 or just added more coating?
Hi Joe,
Optical formula.
Ken
On 4/6/05 9:58 PM, "KT Takeshita" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4/6/05 9:38 PM, "Joseph Tainter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Do you know if Pentax changed the wonderful optical formula of the FA 50
>> f2.8 or just added more coating?
>
On 4/12/05 2:03 PM, "Rick Womer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Very impressionistic, Bruce. It took me a while to
> figure out what I was looking at, and even then my
> eyes kept trying to bring the sidewalk and grass next
> to the puddles into focus. I like the idea a lot, but
> somehow it's not
On 4/13/05 10:04 AM, "John Whittingham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I was wondering if one of our resident japanese list members might
>> help me understand the significance of the left chart versus the
>> right one. Is the left one for high (1:1000) contrast level and the
>> other one f
On 1/23/03 11:29 AM, "Dan Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is it AHH-sah-HEE or ahh-SAH-high or something else entirely?
In Japanese language, as a general rule, there normally is no real
intonation in pronunciation of words (boring language, eh :-). Intonation
on the second syllable from the
On 1/23/03 12:00 PM, "Fred" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've often wondered if it really should be something like
> "TAK-oo-mar"
You wondered right :-).
Ken
On 1/23/03 11:28 AM, "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Last night I had a nighmare dreaming that a squirrel ate my LX. According to
> the same dream Saddam Hussein is huge Emerson, Lake & Palmer fan! Weird stuff!
Hi Pål,
Wow, this is really weird! Are you OK? :-). Sounds like your neur
On 1/24/03 11:04 AM, "Mike Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Re 110 DSLR, if they ever release such a thing, I believe it would just be a
>> novelty side show. But I certainly do not mind Pentax showing some sense of
>> humour :-).
>
>
> Ken,
> Replying seriously to what was admittedly a
On 1/24/03 11:39 AM, "Bruce Rubenstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Flagship is coming! The Flagship is coming! The Flagship is coming!
>From the person who preached loudly;
Pentax DSLR Never! Pentax DSLR Never! Pentax DSLR Never! Pentax DSLR Never!
HOWEVER, after this bubble burst, his pos
On 1/24/03 1:26 PM, "Bruce Rubenstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ah, but it's not out yet. The show that it's supposed to be
> shown/announced at hasn't taken place yet. I still win my bet if B&H
> isn't selling it yet as a stock item by Sept. 1, 2003. For now we all
> have to...wait and see.
On 1/26/03 8:58 AM, "Mark Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> my Japanese is aweful, is that a home made adaptor? or is it an extension
>> tube with eos mount on one side and k mount on the other? That would take
>> out infinity focus wouldn't it?
>
> If he was able to make it reealy thin
On 1/28/03 9:24 AM, "Iren & Henry Chu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh... I've made a typing mistake. The correct one should read as:
>
> The prediction for year 2003 production is: 31.45million unit for digital
> cameras, 20.17million units for film cameras.
Hi Henry,
:-))
What you should ha
On 1/28/03 9:38 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you have Nikon system, too how you assess Pentax lenses (in general) in
> comparison with Nikon.
> Probbaly one cannot say in general. Just your impressions.
> Some people believe Nikkors are better some not...
Hi Alek,
I ha
On 1/28/03 5:02 PM, "Bruce Rubenstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No kidding. You don't even know how the camera works, or what it can do.
> There's a dedicated switch on the back to turn the dummy, auto AF
> select, to user selects the AF sensor. If you don't like the AF assist
> light, turn it
On 1/28/03 5:02 PM, "Bruce Rubenstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No kidding. You don't even know how the camera works, or what it can do.
> There's a dedicated switch on the back to turn the dummy, auto AF
> select, to user selects the AF sensor. If you don't like the AF assist
> light, turn it
On 1/28/03 7:15 PM, "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, many DSLR buyers will be first time slr buyers and hence don't own
> lenses the camera needs to fit. Lets not forget that most slr owners owns only
> a couple of zoom lenses anyway, so buying another brand of DSLR isn't such a
> b
On 1/28/03 8:37 PM, "Bruce Rubenstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Canon Rebel (EOS 1000) was introduced in Oct. 1990
> (http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/f_camera.html). This was
> about 5 years before the MZ-5 was introduced. Low cost SLRs were a
> response to P&S cameras that were
On 2/04/03 1:59 PM, "Bruce Rubenstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It isn't how many times you can get the mechanism to work, it's the
> alignment of the lens elements.
Your initial question was indeed boiled down to the cycle. I am sure the
alignment is fine and the concern, if any, would be a
On 2/04/03 1:40 PM, "Dan Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, February 4, 2003, at 11:42 AM, Bruce Rubenstein wrote:
>
>> If you look at the cut-away, you would see that the camera is "flat"
>> only with the lens stored. To make it pack flat the center element
>> group is moved out
On 2/04/03 1:17 PM, "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I want
> it to be fully compatible with the current lenses. You don't buy MF
> to save money on your photography.
I thought so too :-).
Ken
On 2/04/03 2:43 PM, "Keith Whaley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Once it sashays back _into_ the optical axis, it must nestle into
> position positively and surely, each and every time.
> This is not magic. This is precise mechanical engineering. It might
> require some fancy 'tricks of the trade'
On 2/04/03 6:18 PM, "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> However, you vastly improved yourself after your "Pentax digital never"
>> bubble burst, and became a better contributor to the list.
>> Keep it up :-).
>
> We still don't have a DSLR Ken.
Fair enough, Rob and I said the same thing
On 2/04/03 5:45 PM, "Bruce Rubenstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not going to bother arguing with a gadget freak fool.
> Go here: A Virtual Tour of the Lens Production
> http://www.zeiss.de/de/photo/home_e.nsf/Inhalt-FrameDHTML/4FDEACEDCB7D0AF54125
> 6A53003923AA
> and come back when you kn
On 2/04/03 6:01 PM, "Bruce Rubenstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's all being done for style, and no
> different than tail fins. If that's what folks want then that's fine. It
> just won't help how well it works.
Very amateurish way of looking at the engineering design from the person who
cl
On 2/04/03 7:28 PM, "Bruce Rubenstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh yes, lets not trouble ourselves with these arcane, technical details
> that effect performance when we have to worry about really important
> putting the camera in a pocket without making a bulge and incorporating
> a digital D
On 2/04/03 7:38 PM, "Iren & Henry Chu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We have been discussing for the need for very precise lens alignment but
> let's check the latest patent application by Pentax:
>
> No. 20030007260 Lens frame structure for optical axis adjustment.
>
> Pentax engineer has elimin
On 2/04/03 8:18 PM, "Keith Whaley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Oh yes, lets not trouble ourselves with these arcane, technical details
>> that effect performance when we have to worry about really important
>> putting the camera in a pocket without making a bulge and incorporating
>> a digital D
Bruce, I thought I would ignore your usual ever subtle shift in contentions
after taking hits from others, but cannot resist :-).
You are not contending that optical alignment is critical. Everybody knows
that. You are not the only one to know it.
You are not contending that any lens reposition
On 2/05/03 11:42 AM, "Mike Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can't debate that. But if it were, your ineptitude at argumentation would
> obviously not keep you away, since it *is* a Pentax club, and the fact that
> you hate Pentax doesn't faze you.
Firstly to the fellow PDMLers,
I apologi
On 2/08/03 9:01 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> P&S, ZSLR digital cameras may be "lifestyle" items, but interchangeable lens
> DSLRs aren't and won't be. Lumping P&S digitals and DSLRs together is foolish.
> It's like thinking the film camera buying of professional photographe
On 2/08/03 3:46 PM, "Alin Flaider" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh well, I hope I won't be forced to resign within the consumer
> condition and have to stare at the reconstructed piece of the reality
> in the viewfinder. If I need mind blowing simulations with subject
> identification based on the
On 2/08/03 3:46 PM, "Alin Flaider" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> True, but digital does not necessarily level the field. There's a
> limit for miniaturization. A DSLR will always have more resources
> than a p&s, and the difference in ergonomics is what makes apart a
> tool from a toy. Modular SLR
On 2/08/03 6:09 PM, "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wonder when the bubble of digital camera industry will blow after the .com
> industry.
Yes, it feels like so, doesn't it ? :-). It's too hot to touch.
However, in the case of the digital camera, the whole tide, i.e., printing,
storag
On 2/09/03 8:51 AM, "Rick Diaz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is it to market a DSLR, which currently holds no
> standard like the true and tried 35mm sibling? And
> what is the print standard available now to support a
> DSLR market? Which memory card standards are
> prevalent?
[snipped to shor
On 2/09/03 6:22 PM, "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The funny thing to me is, that we all seem to be forgetting the lab.
Yes, that's true. In my case, if I took my digicam to a trip and took a
bunch of shots, there is no way I print them myself. But in most cases,
when I take out my
On 2/09/03 6:34 PM, "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> People want to take pictures, and they want
> to have prints.
> This is true for the vast majority of people. We are a handful of
> enthusiasts amoung millions of Joe Sixpack types, and as a consequence, I
> take with a grain of salt
On 2/09/03 7:17 PM, "KT Takeshita" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There is
> also another thing called "print club" frenzy going on in that country (I do
> not quite understand what it really is and why it is becoming so popular. I
> will find out) but it in
On 2/09/03 9:10 PM, "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think (I hope) most won't.
Hi William,
I won't :-). For now at least.
Ken
On 03.2.11 0:10 PM, "Boris Liberman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> KT> Minolta has already been selling the cameras of the similar concept
"Alpha
>> KT> Sweet II", Canon "EOS Kiss III L" and Pentax "MZ-L". All these cameras
>> are
>> KT> competitively priced yet with various features and
On 03.2.20 9:53 AM, "Chris Brogden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Feb 2003, KT Takeshita wrote:
>
>> On 03.2.19 2:32 PM, "Bruce Rubenstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> The ZX/MZ series was also introduced with a mid r
On 03.2.20 9:58 AM, "Mike Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 3. how much would it cost
>
> Around $1600, is my guess.
That's what I heard but with the street price less than that ($1,300
range?).
Cheers,
ken
On 03.2.20 5:53 PM, "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tosh!
>
> You cannot pigeon-hole people like this. It's all in your mind.
Hi,
Did not think anyone would take this so seriously!
If it bothered you, I only apologize.
And I no loner drive Subaru, and I do have Canon and Nikon (but I do us
On 03.2.20 5:53 PM, "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Dead on, Vic !!!
>> One of the ways (among so many others :-) to describe Pentax users is the
>> Maverick (and eccentric). People (at least some of them) choose Pentax in
>> the sea of Nikon/Canon. Some do so almost in defiance to what av
On 03.2.20 6:32 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Perhaps Pentax users don't have as big ego's as Nikon/Canon users. It
> makes them more willing to compromise and not insist they are always right.
Hi Bob,
Perhaps that's the thing.
>As for restrained and genteel behav
On 03.2.23 10:16 AM, "Iren & Henry Chu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You can tell from Pentax Japan web page, when they put *ist in the mid tier
> of the list of existing cameras. *ist is placed in between MZ-5n and MZ-6
> and that's how Pentax headquarter people ranks them and this is a fact.
I
1 - 100 of 181 matches
Mail list logo
