Re: Current camera classics? WAS:Re: Mouldering film camera survey
True Bob Blakely wrote: You are generally correct, however: Ammunition not being available is no bar from firing any old firearm. One can always make the ammunition if one wants to, and it's usually a relatively trivial matter. I know, I've done it. Further, while ammo for certain antique firearms may not be mass produced and therefore commonly listed as unavailable, it is almost always available from small producers. One example is the 45/120 cartridge used in some Sharps rifles. The same is and will always be true for unavailable film formats - ammo for old cameras. Regards, Bob... - Note: No trees were killed in the sending of this message, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced. From: graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] The combination of old and high-quality will always have value. Collectors will always be around. So what if film completely disappears, folks still collect guns for which no ammunition has been available for a century or more. When one is young old does not mean anything because almost everything was made before you were born, but when you can begin to appreciate the years involved things become valuable just because they have lasted. Bob Blakely wrote: Do you think the Speed Graphic folks will think the same? Have you seen what one goes for in just reasonable condition? There will always be people who will remember... Regards, Bob... - Note: No trees were killed in the sending of this message, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced. From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Skipped] Those great old film cameras will likely be totally forgotten by 2015, never mind 2037. [Skipped] -- Graywolf Website: http://www.graywolfphoto.com Blog:http://www.graywolfphoto.com/journal/ --- -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Current camera classics? WAS:Re: Mouldering film camera survey
From Bojidar Dimitrov's Pentax K-Mount Page (Best authority on all things K-mount) http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/bodies/M/index.html Camera W x Hx D (mm) Wt (g) ME 131x 82.5 x 49.5460 ME Super 131.5 x 83x 49.5445 MX 135.8 x 82.5 x 49.3 495 LX 144.5 x 90.5 x 50 570 (for reference) K2 144 x 92x 57 680 (for reference) Yup, the MX is a whole 5mm (~0.169in) wider than ME. Camera Viewfinder Mag [Cov] ME 0.95 x [92%] ME Super 0.95 x [92%] MX0.97 x [95%] LX *** x [98%] (for reference) K2 0.88 x [95%] (for reference) *** Depends on viewfinder used. Regards, Bob... - Note: No trees were killed in the sending of this message, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced. From: P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 9:19 PM Subject: Re: Current camera classics? WAS:Re: Mouldering film camera survey I have an ME and an MX and the viewfinders are more or less the same, (both for coverage and magnification), well close enough so that criticizing one is criticizing the other. The ME is much smaller than the MX, but has many fewer controls so that might make a difference in handling.. Sandy Harris wrote: On Dec 9, 2007 1:25 AM, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Owned an MX, poor viewfinder(WAY too much magnification, no eye relief), too small to handle nicely, low flash sync. ME - Alright I thought those two were identical except manual exposure on MX, aperature priority auto on ME. What did you find so different? -- The difference between individual intelligence and group intelligence is the difference between Harvard University and the Harvard University football team. -- P. J. O'Roarke -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Current camera classics? WAS:Re: Mouldering film camera survey
You are generally correct, however: Ammunition not being available is no bar from firing any old firearm. One can always make the ammunition if one wants to, and it's usually a relatively trivial matter. I know, I've done it. Further, while ammo for certain antique firearms may not be mass produced and therefore commonly listed as unavailable, it is almost always available from small producers. One example is the 45/120 cartridge used in some Sharps rifles. The same is and will always be true for unavailable film formats - ammo for old cameras. Regards, Bob... - Note: No trees were killed in the sending of this message, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced. From: graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] The combination of old and high-quality will always have value. Collectors will always be around. So what if film completely disappears, folks still collect guns for which no ammunition has been available for a century or more. When one is young old does not mean anything because almost everything was made before you were born, but when you can begin to appreciate the years involved things become valuable just because they have lasted. Bob Blakely wrote: Do you think the Speed Graphic folks will think the same? Have you seen what one goes for in just reasonable condition? There will always be people who will remember... Regards, Bob... - Note: No trees were killed in the sending of this message, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced. From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Skipped] Those great old film cameras will likely be totally forgotten by 2015, never mind 2037. [Skipped] -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Current camera classics? WAS:Re: Mouldering film camera survey
On 10/12/07, Bob Blakely, discombobulated, unleashed: Camera W x Hx D (mm) Wt (g) ME 131x 82.5 x 49.5460 ME Super 131.5 x 83x 49.5445 MX 135.8 x 82.5 x 49.3 495 LX 144.5 x 90.5 x 50 570 (for reference) K2 144 x 92x 57 680 (for reference) Yup, the MX is a whole 5mm (~0.169in) wider than ME. OH MY GOD IT'S NOT!!! OH NO!! (with apologies to Basil Fawlty) Actually 4.8mm wider. But this does not qualify the statement that 'the MX is much wider than the ME'. That is still a wilting pile of fetid testicles. -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Current camera classics? WAS:Re: Mouldering film camera survey
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 10:07:21AM -0800, Bob Blakely wrote: From Bojidar Dimitrov's Pentax K-Mount Page (Best authority on all things K-mount) http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/bodies/M/index.html Camera W x Hx D (mm) Wt (g) ME 131x 82.5 x 49.5460 ME Super 131.5 x 83x 49.5445 MX 135.8 x 82.5 x 49.3 495 LX 144.5 x 90.5 x 50 570 (for reference) K2 144 x 92x 57 680 (for reference) Yup, the MX is a whole 5mm (~0.169in) wider than ME. FWIW, that's about the difference between a *ist D and a DS, too. The biggest difference between the new digital bodies and the older (pre-AF) film bodies is in the depth, but most of that is because the digitals have a hand grip and a pop-up flash, both of which protrude considerably beyond the plane of the lens mount. Apart from that most of the digital bodies (excluding the K10D) are more or less the same sort of size as the M bodies; a little narrower, but also a little taller (again the pop-up flash probably accounts for some of that difference). -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Current camera classics? WAS:Re: Mouldering film camera survey
On Dec 10, 2007, at 11:11 AM, Cotty wrote: ... That is still a wilting pile of fetid testicles. Mark! I dunno, but that's just so gross it had me laughing until my ribs ached. :-) Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Current camera classics? WAS:Re: Mouldering film camera survey
On 10/12/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed: ... That is still a wilting pile of fetid testicles. Mark! I dunno, but that's just so gross it had me laughing until my ribs ached. :-) The nice thing is, it's pretty interchangeable as a sentence, viz: That is still a fetid wilt of testicular piles. -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Current camera classics? WAS:Re: Mouldering film camera survey
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: On Dec 10, 2007, at 11:11 AM, Cotty wrote: ... That is still a wilting pile of fetid testicles. Mark! I dunno, but that's just so gross it had me laughing until my ribs ached. :-) Quite. I mean, a pile of fetid testicles is one thing... but a *wilting* pile of fetid testicles? That's over the top. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Current camera classics? WAS:Re: Mouldering film camera survey
Mark Roberts wrote: Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: On Dec 10, 2007, at 11:11 AM, Cotty wrote: ... That is still a wilting pile of fetid testicles. Mark! I dunno, but that's just so gross it had me laughing until my ribs ached. :-) Quite. I mean, a pile of fetid testicles is one thing... but a *wilting* pile of fetid testicles? That's over the top. I'm sure cotty has first hand experience... :-) -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Current camera classics? WAS:Re: Mouldering film camera survey
As I said, the body of the ME exclusive of the prism housing is also shorter from top plate to base plate than the MX those measly millimeters make for very big difference in size in the hands. I've used both and while I don't have exceedingly large hands the ME is much more difficult to hold comfortably than the MX. Cotty wrote: On 10/12/07, Bob Blakely, discombobulated, unleashed: Camera W x Hx D (mm) Wt (g) ME 131x 82.5 x 49.5460 ME Super 131.5 x 83x 49.5445 MX 135.8 x 82.5 x 49.3 495 LX 144.5 x 90.5 x 50 570 (for reference) K2 144 x 92x 57 680 (for reference) Yup, the MX is a whole 5mm (~0.169in) wider than ME. OH MY GOD IT'S NOT!!! OH NO!! (with apologies to Basil Fawlty) Actually 4.8mm wider. But this does not qualify the statement that 'the MX is much wider than the ME'. That is still a wilting pile of fetid testicles. -- The difference between individual intelligence and group intelligence is the difference between Harvard University and the Harvard University football team. -- P. J. O'Roarke -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Current camera classics? WAS:Re: Mouldering film camera survey
Well, at least in this case one is noticeably larger than the other. But this does not qualify the statement that 'the MX is much wider than the ME'. That is still a wilting pile of fetid testicles. -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. !SIG:475d91c212745188609! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Current camera classics? WAS:Re: Mouldering film camera survey
On 10/12/07, P. J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed: As I said, the body of the ME exclusive of the prism housing is also shorter from top plate to base plate than the MX those measly millimeters make for very big difference in size in the hands. I've used both and while I don't have exceedingly large hands the ME is much more difficult to hold comfortably than the MX. peter you're just obnoxious -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Current camera classics? WAS:Re: Mouldering film camera survey
It's a gift. Cotty wrote: On 10/12/07, P. J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed: As I said, the body of the ME exclusive of the prism housing is also shorter from top plate to base plate than the MX those measly millimeters make for very big difference in size in the hands. I've used both and while I don't have exceedingly large hands the ME is much more difficult to hold comfortably than the MX. peter you're just obnoxious -- The difference between individual intelligence and group intelligence is the difference between Harvard University and the Harvard University football team. -- P. J. O'Roarke -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Current camera classics? WAS:Re: Mouldering film camera survey
On Dec 11, 2007 6:45 AM, P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: peter you're just obnoxious It's a gift. Mark! -- Sandy Harris, Nanjing, China -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Current camera classics? WAS:Re: Mouldering film camera survey
On 10/12/07, P. J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed: It's a gift. LOL -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Current camera classics? WAS:Re: Mouldering film camera survey
On 09/12/07, P. J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed: The ME is much smaller than the MX, Poppycock. -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Current camera classics? WAS:Re: Mouldering film camera survey
On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 09:33:39 +, Cotty wrote On 09/12/07, P. J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed: The ME is much smaller than the MX, Poppycock. -- Cheers, Cotty Having owned both, the ME is slighly smaller 131 x 82.5 x 49.5 compared to the MX 135.8 x 82.5 x 49.3. Most noticeable when you're trying to fit an ME ERC to the MX body, but we're only talking a few mm. The MX has more viewfinder coverage and magnification, I personally prefer the MX viewfinder. John The information transmitted is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you have received an email in error please notify Carmel College on [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete all copies of it from your systems. Although Carmel College scans incoming and outgoing emails and email attachments for viruses we cannot guarantee a communication to be free of all viruses nor accept any responsibility for viruses. Although Carmel College monitors incoming and outgoing emails for inappropriate content, the college cannot be held responsible for the views or expressions of the author. The views expressed may not necessarily be those of Carmel College and Carmel College cannot be held responsible for any loss or injury resulting from the contents of a message. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Current camera classics? WAS:Re: Mouldering film camera survey
In camera terms is certainly is. Look at a pair side by side sometime. Lets see. The width of an MX (side to side) is 94% of the width of an LX a camera that most everyone would admit is much bigger. (In fact the LX is damn close to the same size as that old K dinosaur the K2). The width of an ME is 96% of that of an MX, hum pretty close to the difference in size between an MX and an LX.. While it is true that the ME is front to back the same dimension as an MX, and from baseplate to to the top of the Prism housing the same height (it would have to be wouldn't it), if you look at the difference from base plate to top plate, excluding the prism housing you'll see that the difference is about the same as from side to side. (I don't have them right at hand so I can't measure them exactly). This makes a huge difference in the size, and handling. So I stand by my statement. Cotty wrote: On 09/12/07, P. J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed: The ME is much smaller than the MX, Poppycock. -- The difference between individual intelligence and group intelligence is the difference between Harvard University and the Harvard University football team. -- P. J. O'Roarke -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Current camera classics? WAS:Re: Mouldering film camera survey
On 09/12/07, John Whittingham, discombobulated, unleashed: Having owned both, the ME is slighly smaller 131 x 82.5 x 49.5 compared to the MX 135.8 x 82.5 x 49.3. Most noticeable when you're trying to fit an ME ERC to the MX body, but we're only talking a few mm. Exactly. The Allingator said: The ME is much smaller than the MX 4.8 mm and .2 mm on two dimensions is not *much*. :-P -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Current camera classics? WAS:Re: Mouldering film camera survey
On 09/12/07, P. J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed: Lets see. The width of an MX (side to side) is 94% of the width of an LX a camera that most everyone would admit is much bigger. (In fact the LX is damn close to the same size as that old K dinosaur the K2). The width of an ME is 96% of that of an MX, hum pretty close to the difference in size between an MX and an LX.. While it is true that the ME is front to back the same dimension as an MX, and from baseplate to to the top of the Prism housing the same height (it would have to be wouldn't it), if you look at the difference from base plate to top plate, excluding the prism housing you'll see that the difference is about the same as from side to side. (I don't have them right at hand so I can't measure them exactly). This makes a huge difference in the size, and handling. So I stand by my statement. What a load of complete bollocks. You're on a different planet mate!! -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Current camera classics? WAS:Re: Mouldering film camera survey
The extra size and magnification of the MX (.97x at 95% instead of .95x at 92%) is enough to make the MX's too large to use comfortably. I find the ME smallish as well, but since I'm not trying to use the shutter dial it's a lot less annoying. But other than the LX, I never clicked with any of my Pentax bodies. I much prefer Nikon's film bodies. -Adam On 12/8/07, Sandy Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 9, 2007 1:25 AM, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Owned an MX, poor viewfinder(WAY too much magnification, no eye relief), too small to handle nicely, low flash sync. ME - Alright I thought those two were identical except manual exposure on MX, aperature priority auto on ME. What did you find so different? -- Sandy Harris, Nanjing, China -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Current camera classics? WAS:Re: Mouldering film camera survey
Cotty wrote: On 09/12/07, P. J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed: The ME is much smaller than the MX... Poppycock. My ME super is 3/8 less wide than my MX. However, the MX is a little taller than the Super, about 1/8. The body thicknesses seem the same. So, the ME is not as wide, but it's a little taller. Oh well. keith -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Current camera classics? WAS:Re: Mouldering film camera survey
Not remotely the same. The MX was the last of the old school, the ME the first of the new. The lenses and eyepiece accessories were about the only thing interchangeable between them. Sandy Harris wrote: On Dec 9, 2007 1:25 AM, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Owned an MX, poor viewfinder(WAY too much magnification, no eye relief), too small to handle nicely, low flash sync. ME - Alright I thought those two were identical except manual exposure on MX, aperature priority auto on ME. What did you find so different? -- Graywolf Website: http://www.graywolfphoto.com Blog:http://www.graywolfphoto.com/journal/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Current camera classics? WAS:Re: Mouldering film camera survey
The combination of old and high-quality will always have value. Collectors will always be around. So what if film completely disappears, folks still collect guns for which no ammunition has been available for a century or more. When one is young old does not mean anything because almost everything was made before you were born, but when you can begin to appreciate the years involved things become valuable just because they have lasted. Bob Blakely wrote: Do you think the Speed Graphic folks will think the same? Have you seen what one goes for in just reasonable condition? There will always be people who will remember... Regards, Bob... - Note: No trees were killed in the sending of this message, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced. From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Skipped] Those great old film cameras will likely be totally forgotten by 2015, never mind 2037. [Skipped] -- Graywolf Website: http://www.graywolfphoto.com Blog:http://www.graywolfphoto.com/journal/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Current camera classics? WAS:Re: Mouldering film camera survey
Well it is as much smaller as a Leica IIIC is smaller than a Leica IIIF, about 1/8 inch in length. Cotty wrote: On 09/12/07, P. J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed: The ME is much smaller than the MX, Poppycock. -- Graywolf Website: http://www.graywolfphoto.com Blog:http://www.graywolfphoto.com/journal/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Current camera classics? WAS:Re: Mouldering film camera survey
In a message dated 12/9/2007 10:18:22 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In camera terms is certainly is. Look at a pair side by side sometime. Lets see. The width of an MX (side to side) is 94% of the width of an LX a camera that most everyone would admit is much bigger. (In fact the LX is damn close to the same size as that old K dinosaur the K2). The width of an ME is 96% of that of an MX, hum pretty close to the difference in size between an MX and an LX.. While it is true that the ME is front to back the same dimension as an MX, and from baseplate to to the top of the Prism housing the same height (it would have to be wouldn't it), if you look at the difference from base plate to top plate, excluding the prism housing you'll see that the difference is about the same as from side to side. (I don't have them right at hand so I can't measure them exactly). This makes a huge difference in the size, and handling. So I stand by my statement. = I just got a headache. Marnie aka Doe ;-) - Warning: I am now filtering my email, so you may be censored. **Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest products. (http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop000301) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Current camera classics? WAS:Re: Mouldering film camera survey
Owned an MX, poor viewfinder(WAY too much magnification, no eye relief), too small to handle nicely, low flash sync. ME - Alright ME Super - Horrid UI. KX, big, heavy. Super Program - see ME Super LX - Real nice camera, needs grip+winder to be comfortable to shoot. The LX is the only one of the lot I'd ever consider owning. Prefer my K10D to any Pentax 35mm film body I've ever tried. Pentax and ergonomics were not in the same universe for most of their bodies (I've never tried an M-S though, and the LX ain't bad with a grip added). -Adam On 12/7/07, Bob Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You are absolutely right Cory. The old gear has a touch and feel that doesn't go away. The ME is so small, clean,and quick in the hands. The ME Super is more quiet and solid feeling when the shutter fires. The KX is big and durable and kind of ols school. I feel like a pro with the little MX. And the LX just feels premium, bigger and more substantial but so nimble and flexible. Finally the Super Program, the poor man's LX with TTL flash and a 3.5 fps winder. Great cameras that the K10D will never compare to. Regards, Bob S. On Dec 7, 2007 3:08 PM, cbwaters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Godfrey, you view is certainly logical, if a bit dispassionate. I tend to impart a soul and personality to my possessions (and indeed items I want but will never own for lack of funds). I'm wondering if you had posters of cars, bikes or whatever on your walls as a teenager. I admire gadgets and equipment. I'm sure I give them more importance than they're really worth. I guess my point with the post was to say that nobody will have any of the current crop of digital cameras in five to ten years time. We'll have dumped them for newer models or binned them because they're dead and cannot be repaired. And to contrast that with the thread about cameras we own and can't quite bring ourselves to sell even if we're not using them is interesting God help the poor prat who tries to send Pentax his K10 for service or even a CLA in 2015 let alone 2037. Cory I have a Super Program and a beautiful black MX that don't see enough use. - Original Message - From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Old things are interesting because they're old and remind us of good times of the past we had with them, using them. It has nothing to do with whether they were designed to last 30 years or not. But then I'm a robotnik. Cameras are tools. It's the photographs which make me nostalgic. ;-) Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Current camera classics? WAS:Re: Mouldering film camera survey
Big hands Adam? Regards, Bob S. On Dec 8, 2007 11:25 AM, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Owned an MX, poor viewfinder(WAY too much magnification, no eye relief), too small to handle nicely, low flash sync. ME - Alright ME Super - Horrid UI. KX, big, heavy. Super Program - see ME Super LX - Real nice camera, needs grip+winder to be comfortable to shoot. The LX is the only one of the lot I'd ever consider owning. Prefer my K10D to any Pentax 35mm film body I've ever tried. Pentax and ergonomics were not in the same universe for most of their bodies (I've never tried an M-S though, and the LX ain't bad with a grip added). -Adam On 12/7/07, Bob Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You are absolutely right Cory. The old gear has a touch and feel that doesn't go away. The ME is so small, clean,and quick in the hands. The ME Super is more quiet and solid feeling when the shutter fires. The KX is big and durable and kind of ols school. I feel like a pro with the little MX. And the LX just feels premium, bigger and more substantial but so nimble and flexible. Finally the Super Program, the poor man's LX with TTL flash and a 3.5 fps winder. Great cameras that the K10D will never compare to. Regards, Bob S. On Dec 7, 2007 3:08 PM, cbwaters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Godfrey, you view is certainly logical, if a bit dispassionate. I tend to impart a soul and personality to my possessions (and indeed items I want but will never own for lack of funds). I'm wondering if you had posters of cars, bikes or whatever on your walls as a teenager. I admire gadgets and equipment. I'm sure I give them more importance than they're really worth. I guess my point with the post was to say that nobody will have any of the current crop of digital cameras in five to ten years time. We'll have dumped them for newer models or binned them because they're dead and cannot be repaired. And to contrast that with the thread about cameras we own and can't quite bring ourselves to sell even if we're not using them is interesting God help the poor prat who tries to send Pentax his K10 for service or even a CLA in 2015 let alone 2037. Cory I have a Super Program and a beautiful black MX that don't see enough use. - Original Message - From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Old things are interesting because they're old and remind us of good times of the past we had with them, using them. It has nothing to do with whether they were designed to last 30 years or not. But then I'm a robotnik. Cameras are tools. It's the photographs which make me nostalgic. ;-) Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Current camera classics? WAS:Re: Mouldering film camera survey
Do you think the Speed Graphic folks will think the same? Have you seen what one goes for in just reasonable condition? There will always be people who will remember... Regards, Bob... - Note: No trees were killed in the sending of this message, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced. From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Skipped] Those great old film cameras will likely be totally forgotten by 2015, never mind 2037. [Skipped] -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Current camera classics? WAS:Re: Mouldering film camera survey
For some folks, there is a warmly felt appreciation for a craftsman like elegance that transcends the function of the tool itself. The H1a, etal., the Spotmatics and their K-mount cousins, the MX, the ME-Super and the LX. These each had and continue to have such an appeal to me. It's much like the fond appreciation I have for an old, brass mariner's sextant that was handed down to me. Of course GPS is easier and so much more accurate, but that sextant will shine with it's own appeal long after the plastic cased, non reparable GPS units have been replaced with another plastic doohickey. Folks who drive REO's will understand this to. Regards, Bob... - Note: No trees were killed in the sending of this message, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced. From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Dec 7, 2007, at 2:53 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote: You are absolutely right Cory. The old gear has a touch and feel that doesn't go away. The ME is so small, clean,and quick in the hands. The ME Super is more quiet and solid feeling when the shutter fires. The KX is big and durable and kind of ols school. I feel like a pro with the little MX. And the LX just feels premium, bigger and more substantial but so nimble and flexible. Finally the Super Program, the poor man's LX with TTL flash and a 3.5 fps winder. Great cameras that the K10D will never compare to. Sorry. I had an MX: it was nice but I prefer my Nikon FM2n for that kind of camera. The K10D works better. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Current camera classics? WAS:Re: Mouldering film camera survey
I love my Speed Graphic. Gotta break it out and shoot some sheet film one of these days. One of these days.:-) Paul On Dec 8, 2007, at 8:13 PM, Bob Blakely wrote: Do you think the Speed Graphic folks will think the same? Have you seen what one goes for in just reasonable condition? There will always be people who will remember... Regards, Bob... - Note: No trees were killed in the sending of this message, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced. From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Skipped] Those great old film cameras will likely be totally forgotten by 2015, never mind 2037. [Skipped] -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Current camera classics? WAS:Re: Mouldering film camera survey
Average, but small cameras don't work for me unless thay've got a grip. I like to have a handful of camera. Best handling camera I own is my 645 Super. -Adam On 12/8/07, Bob Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Big hands Adam? Regards, Bob S. On Dec 8, 2007 11:25 AM, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Owned an MX, poor viewfinder(WAY too much magnification, no eye relief), too small to handle nicely, low flash sync. ME - Alright ME Super - Horrid UI. KX, big, heavy. Super Program - see ME Super LX - Real nice camera, needs grip+winder to be comfortable to shoot. The LX is the only one of the lot I'd ever consider owning. Prefer my K10D to any Pentax 35mm film body I've ever tried. Pentax and ergonomics were not in the same universe for most of their bodies (I've never tried an M-S though, and the LX ain't bad with a grip added). -Adam On 12/7/07, Bob Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You are absolutely right Cory. The old gear has a touch and feel that doesn't go away. The ME is so small, clean,and quick in the hands. The ME Super is more quiet and solid feeling when the shutter fires. The KX is big and durable and kind of ols school. I feel like a pro with the little MX. And the LX just feels premium, bigger and more substantial but so nimble and flexible. Finally the Super Program, the poor man's LX with TTL flash and a 3.5 fps winder. Great cameras that the K10D will never compare to. Regards, Bob S. On Dec 7, 2007 3:08 PM, cbwaters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Godfrey, you view is certainly logical, if a bit dispassionate. I tend to impart a soul and personality to my possessions (and indeed items I want but will never own for lack of funds). I'm wondering if you had posters of cars, bikes or whatever on your walls as a teenager. I admire gadgets and equipment. I'm sure I give them more importance than they're really worth. I guess my point with the post was to say that nobody will have any of the current crop of digital cameras in five to ten years time. We'll have dumped them for newer models or binned them because they're dead and cannot be repaired. And to contrast that with the thread about cameras we own and can't quite bring ourselves to sell even if we're not using them is interesting God help the poor prat who tries to send Pentax his K10 for service or even a CLA in 2015 let alone 2037. Cory I have a Super Program and a beautiful black MX that don't see enough use. - Original Message - From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Old things are interesting because they're old and remind us of good times of the past we had with them, using them. It has nothing to do with whether they were designed to last 30 years or not. But then I'm a robotnik. Cameras are tools. It's the photographs which make me nostalgic. ;-) Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Current camera classics? WAS:Re: Mouldering film camera survey
On Dec 9, 2007 1:25 AM, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Owned an MX, poor viewfinder(WAY too much magnification, no eye relief), too small to handle nicely, low flash sync. ME - Alright I thought those two were identical except manual exposure on MX, aperature priority auto on ME. What did you find so different? -- Sandy Harris, Nanjing, China -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Current camera classics? WAS:Re: Mouldering film camera survey
No, the viewfinders change. MX is less visible to me wearing eyeglasses. Regards, Bob S, On Dec 8, 2007 10:55 PM, Sandy Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 9, 2007 1:25 AM, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Owned an MX, poor viewfinder(WAY too much magnification, no eye relief), too small to handle nicely, low flash sync. ME - Alright I thought those two were identical except manual exposure on MX, aperature priority auto on ME. What did you find so different? -- Sandy Harris, Nanjing, China -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Current camera classics? WAS:Re: Mouldering film camera survey
I have an ME and an MX and the viewfinders are more or less the same, (both for coverage and magnification), well close enough so that criticizing one is criticizing the other. The ME is much smaller than the MX, but has many fewer controls so that might make a difference in handling.. Sandy Harris wrote: On Dec 9, 2007 1:25 AM, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Owned an MX, poor viewfinder(WAY too much magnification, no eye relief), too small to handle nicely, low flash sync. ME - Alright I thought those two were identical except manual exposure on MX, aperature priority auto on ME. What did you find so different? -- The difference between individual intelligence and group intelligence is the difference between Harvard University and the Harvard University football team. -- P. J. O'Roarke -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Current camera classics? WAS:Re: Mouldering film camera survey
On Dec 7, 2007, at 2:53 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote: You are absolutely right Cory. The old gear has a touch and feel that doesn't go away. The ME is so small, clean,and quick in the hands. The ME Super is more quiet and solid feeling when the shutter fires. The KX is big and durable and kind of ols school. I feel like a pro with the little MX. And the LX just feels premium, bigger and more substantial but so nimble and flexible. Finally the Super Program, the poor man's LX with TTL flash and a 3.5 fps winder. Great cameras that the K10D will never compare to. Sorry. I had an MX: it was nice but I prefer my Nikon FM2n for that kind of camera. The K10D works better. G -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Current camera classics? WAS:Re: Mouldering film camera survey
Godfrey, you view is certainly logical, if a bit dispassionate. I tend to impart a soul and personality to my possessions (and indeed items I want but will never own for lack of funds). I'm wondering if you had posters of cars, bikes or whatever on your walls as a teenager. I admire gadgets and equipment. I'm sure I give them more importance than they're really worth. I guess my point with the post was to say that nobody will have any of the current crop of digital cameras in five to ten years time. We'll have dumped them for newer models or binned them because they're dead and cannot be repaired. And to contrast that with the thread about cameras we own and can't quite bring ourselves to sell even if we're not using them is interesting God help the poor prat who tries to send Pentax his K10 for service or even a CLA in 2015 let alone 2037. Cory I have a Super Program and a beautiful black MX that don't see enough use. - Original Message - From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Old things are interesting because they're old and remind us of good times of the past we had with them, using them. It has nothing to do with whether they were designed to last 30 years or not. But then I'm a robotnik. Cameras are tools. It's the photographs which make me nostalgic. ;-) Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Current camera classics? WAS:Re: Mouldering film camera survey
On Dec 7, 2007, at 4:31 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Those great old film cameras will likely be totally forgotten by 2015, never mind 2037. Hmmm. What do you want to bet that my Leica IIIf RD won't be even more coveted in 2037 than it is today? Worth more, adjusted for inflation? Although I doubt I'll be around to collect. But just in case, how about a vintage port, 2007? I dunno Paul, but I'll make that wager. Let's make it a 2024 port ... according to my friends in the wine industry, ports start to go down after about 12-13 years. :-) Far as the folks dealing in vintage, collectible cameras have told me, the bottom has dropped out of the market with very few exceptions (like the occasional high-visibility fancy auction, like that Ur- Leica auction sale a few weeks ago). Collectibility value comes and goes in waves. Old Leica RF cameras, the II and III series, were so worthless in 1999 that my first Leica rangefinder cameras were a nicely used IIc and IIf, fitted with Elmar 3.5cm f/3.5 and Elmar 5.0cm f/3.5 lenses, which I bought complete from Olden Camera for about $99. No one wants this old junk is what the salesman told me. I did, at the time. I used them for about 17 years. Now people extol their beauty and excellence, toast them as if they were some kind of heady. Those two cameras were probably worth about 15x that about a decade ago. They were just decent cameras to me. Nice ones, they didn't break more than once or twice in the years I had them. They took good photos. Unfortunately, they didn't survive. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Current camera classics? WAS:Re: Mouldering film camera survey
-- Original message -- From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Dec 7, 2007, at 1:08 PM, cbwaters wrote: Those great old film cameras will likely be totally forgotten by 2015, never mind 2037. Hmmm. What do you want to bet that my Leica IIIf RD won't be even more coveted in 2037 than it is today? Worth more, adjusted for inflation? Although I doubt I'll be around to collect. But just in case, how about a vintage port, 2007? Paul -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Current camera classics? WAS:Re: Mouldering film camera survey
On Dec 7, 2007, at 1:08 PM, cbwaters wrote: you view is certainly logical, if a bit dispassionate. I tend to impart a soul and personality to my possessions (and indeed items I want but will never own for lack of funds). I don't really care all that much about possessions. I have built nicely customized things for my use time and again. Then sold them when I'd had my fill of them. The fun is in the building, for me. That's the creative aspect, not the thing itself. I'm wondering if you had posters of cars, bikes or whatever on your walls as a teenager. Nope. I had photographs I'd made and printed. Remember: I started doing photography when I was 8 years old. I admire gadgets and equipment. I'm sure I give them more importance than they're really worth. I like gadgets and equipment. Clever devices fascinate me. I just don't like cluttering up my life with them or becoming attached to them. They don't care about me, they just work when I operate them and wear out over time. I guess my point with the post was to say that nobody will have any of the current crop of digital cameras in five to ten years time. We'll have dumped them for newer models or binned them because they're dead and cannot be repaired. Nonsense. Several millions of these things are sold every year. Someone will have them, they won't just go poof! and disappear. Digital cameras got off the ground in a big way about 2001-2002, already there are dozens of people I know who are using the same camera they bought 5 years ago. DSLRs from 2003 and up, particularly pro models, remain in use. Very little has changed since a certain plateau in image quality was reached. But marketing people keep feeding the hunger for new things by telling you about how much better they are, so new things sell and perfectly good old things sit on the shelf. I'm still processing thousands of photographs I made with the *ist DS body, and I still marvel at how nice they are. The K10D represents an improvement, certainly, and has advantages for my work. But I would be stupid if I really believed it was a necessary improvement. And to contrast that with the thread about cameras we own and can't quite bring ourselves to sell even if we're not using them is interesting I sell whatever I don't use for long enough, unless I get lazy. God help the poor prat who tries to send Pentax his K10 for service or even a CLA in 2015 let alone 2037. I bet that a sensibly used K10D will still be working perfectly and won't require a CLA in 2015. 2037 ... well, I might not be around at that point myself. What someone still capable of being a photographer would like to play with is up to them at that point. Those great old film cameras will likely be totally forgotten by 2015, never mind 2037. The tendency to place things on a pedestal is a subtle way of reaching for immortality. Life is transitory, things stick around. Honoring things with endearment is trying to hold onto something fixed in time, with some permanence. My little am/fm transister radio from 1966 is still working perfectly. It's nice that it still works since I use it every day, but if it breaks I'll hand it to the recyclers and buy something new. What I honor is the function it has served with great economy: to bring news and entertainment to me in my reading chair. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Current camera classics? WAS:Re: Mouldering film camera survey
You are absolutely right Cory. The old gear has a touch and feel that doesn't go away. The ME is so small, clean,and quick in the hands. The ME Super is more quiet and solid feeling when the shutter fires. The KX is big and durable and kind of ols school. I feel like a pro with the little MX. And the LX just feels premium, bigger and more substantial but so nimble and flexible. Finally the Super Program, the poor man's LX with TTL flash and a 3.5 fps winder. Great cameras that the K10D will never compare to. Regards, Bob S. On Dec 7, 2007 3:08 PM, cbwaters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Godfrey, you view is certainly logical, if a bit dispassionate. I tend to impart a soul and personality to my possessions (and indeed items I want but will never own for lack of funds). I'm wondering if you had posters of cars, bikes or whatever on your walls as a teenager. I admire gadgets and equipment. I'm sure I give them more importance than they're really worth. I guess my point with the post was to say that nobody will have any of the current crop of digital cameras in five to ten years time. We'll have dumped them for newer models or binned them because they're dead and cannot be repaired. And to contrast that with the thread about cameras we own and can't quite bring ourselves to sell even if we're not using them is interesting God help the poor prat who tries to send Pentax his K10 for service or even a CLA in 2015 let alone 2037. Cory I have a Super Program and a beautiful black MX that don't see enough use. - Original Message - From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Old things are interesting because they're old and remind us of good times of the past we had with them, using them. It has nothing to do with whether they were designed to last 30 years or not. But then I'm a robotnik. Cameras are tools. It's the photographs which make me nostalgic. ;-) Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
