Re: On FF but without intent to start a flame
So we're on to sex now?
On 3/1/2010 8:02 AM, Tom C wrote:
It looks like it'll take an act of congress to get one.
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 8:45 AM, Steven Desjardinsdrd1...@gmail.com wrote:
I hadn't looked at this thread in a while. Clearly the Pentax FF
issue is far more complicated than I realized.
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 12:11 AM, P. J. Alling
webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/27/2010 12:50 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
From: P. J. Alling
On 2/26/2010 9:54 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
From: P. J. Alling
On 2/25/2010 8:30 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
I'm pretty sure they do already get to vote for President, so
there must be some way to count their electoral vote.
For them it's a beauty contest vote. It doesn't count they don't
have representation in congress so they don;t get an electoral vote.
Apparently I misunderstood how it works.
Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens, but residents of Puerto Rico, Guam
and the U.S. Virgin Islands do not vote in the national elections unless
they're registered to vote in one of the states or in DC, in which case
they should be able to vote an absentee ballot for the district in which
they're registered if they happen to be back in Puerto Rico.
Persons born in Puerto Rico, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands are U.S.
Citizens.
Persons born in the Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa are
U.S. Nationals, but are not U.S. Citizens. U.S. Nationals may reside and
work in the United States. They don't have to have a green card or work
permit. They are not prohibited by federal law from voting in national
elections, but no state permits them to do so.
U.S. Nationals may apply for citizenship under the same rules as
resident aliens.
DC doesn't get representation in Congress, but they do have 3
electors; the number they would be entitled to IF DC was a state.
I don't know where you got that last one from but I believe it's
incorrect. DC has no electors, and cannot, the number of electors is
defined in the constitution as the number of senators plus the number of
congressmen, since DC has neither then DC has no electors. For DC to be
granted electors without representation in Congress would require a
constitutional amendment, which is not likely to happen.
Amendment 23 - Presidential Vote for District of Columbia
1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States
shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct: A number of
electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of
Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be
entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous
State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they
shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice
President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the
District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of
amendment.
2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.
Ratified 29 Mar 1961
Aparently I was wrong, however I happen to think this amendment is also
wrong, it violates one of the rationals for having a federal district.
Perhaps that's why I'd prefer to forget it. Too bad amendments to the
constitution can't be declared unconstitutional.
--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0
Courier New;}}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to Thunderbird 3.0 and the
interface subtly weird.\par
}
--
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.
--
Steve Desjardins
--
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.
--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Courier
New;}}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to Thunderbird 3.0 and the
interface subtly weird.\par
}
--
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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
You mean that sometimes we aren't?
On Mar 7, 2010, at 6:54 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:
So we're on to sex now?
On 3/1/2010 8:02 AM, Tom C wrote:
It looks like it'll take an act of congress to get one.
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 8:45 AM, Steven
Desjardinsdrd1...@gmail.com wrote:
I hadn't looked at this thread in a while. Clearly the Pentax FF
issue is far more complicated than I realized.
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 12:11 AM, P. J. Alling
webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/27/2010 12:50 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
From: P. J. Alling
On 2/26/2010 9:54 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
From: P. J. Alling
On 2/25/2010 8:30 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
I'm pretty sure they do already get to vote for
President, so
there must be some way to count their electoral vote.
For them it's a beauty contest vote. It doesn't count they
don't
have representation in congress so they don;t get an
electoral vote.
Apparently I misunderstood how it works.
Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens, but residents of Puerto
Rico, Guam
and the U.S. Virgin Islands do not vote in the national
elections unless
they're registered to vote in one of the states or in DC,
in which case
they should be able to vote an absentee ballot for the
district in which
they're registered if they happen to be back in Puerto Rico.
Persons born in Puerto Rico, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands
are U.S.
Citizens.
Persons born in the Northern Mariana Islands and American
Samoa are
U.S. Nationals, but are not U.S. Citizens. U.S. Nationals may
reside and
work in the United States. They don't have to have a green
card or work
permit. They are not prohibited by federal law from voting
in national
elections, but no state permits them to do so.
U.S. Nationals may apply for citizenship under the same rules
as
resident aliens.
DC doesn't get representation in Congress, but they do have 3
electors; the number they would be entitled to IF DC was a
state.
I don't know where you got that last one from but I believe it's
incorrect. DC has no electors, and cannot, the number of
electors is
defined in the constitution as the number of senators plus the
number of
congressmen, since DC has neither then DC has no electors. For
DC to be
granted electors without representation in Congress would
require a
constitutional amendment, which is not likely to happen.
Amendment 23 - Presidential Vote for District of Columbia
1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the
United States
shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct: A
number of
electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole
number of
Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District
would be
entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least
populous
State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the
States, but they
shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of
President and Vice
President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall
meet in the
District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth
article of
amendment.
2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate
legislation.
Ratified 29 Mar 1961
Aparently I was wrong, however I happen to think this amendment
is also
wrong, it violates one of the rationals for having a federal
district.
Perhaps that's why I'd prefer to forget it. Too bad amendments
to the
constitution can't be declared unconstitutional.
--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil
\fcharset0
Courier New;}}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to Thunderbird 3.0
and the
interface subtly weird.\par
}
--
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.
--
Steve Desjardins
--
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.
--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil
\fcharset0 Courier New;}}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to Thunderbird 3.0
and the interface subtly weird.\par
}
--
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.
--
Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est
--
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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
- Original Message - From: P. J. Alling Subject: Re: On FF but without intent to start a flame So we're on to sex now? As soon as Congress got mentioned, it was pretty evident that someone was getting screwed. -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
Mark or not, it's true. On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 10:27 PM, William Robb war...@gmail.com wrote: - Original Message - From: P. J. Alling Subject: Re: On FF but without intent to start a flame So we're on to sex now? As soon as Congress got mentioned, it was pretty evident that someone was getting screwed. -- 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. -- Steve Desjardins -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
It looks like it'll take an act of congress to get one.
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 8:45 AM, Steven Desjardins drd1...@gmail.com wrote:
I hadn't looked at this thread in a while. Clearly the Pentax FF
issue is far more complicated than I realized.
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 12:11 AM, P. J. Alling
webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/27/2010 12:50 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
From: P. J. Alling
On 2/26/2010 9:54 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
From: P. J. Alling
On 2/25/2010 8:30 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
I'm pretty sure they do already get to vote for President, so
there must be some way to count their electoral vote.
For them it's a beauty contest vote. It doesn't count they don't
have representation in congress so they don;t get an electoral vote.
Apparently I misunderstood how it works.
Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens, but residents of Puerto Rico, Guam
and the U.S. Virgin Islands do not vote in the national elections
unless
they're registered to vote in one of the states or in DC, in which
case
they should be able to vote an absentee ballot for the district in
which
they're registered if they happen to be back in Puerto Rico.
Persons born in Puerto Rico, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands are U.S.
Citizens.
Persons born in the Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa are
U.S. Nationals, but are not U.S. Citizens. U.S. Nationals may reside
and
work in the United States. They don't have to have a green card or
work
permit. They are not prohibited by federal law from voting in national
elections, but no state permits them to do so.
U.S. Nationals may apply for citizenship under the same rules as
resident aliens.
DC doesn't get representation in Congress, but they do have 3
electors; the number they would be entitled to IF DC was a state.
I don't know where you got that last one from but I believe it's
incorrect. DC has no electors, and cannot, the number of electors is
defined in the constitution as the number of senators plus the number of
congressmen, since DC has neither then DC has no electors. For DC to be
granted electors without representation in Congress would require a
constitutional amendment, which is not likely to happen.
Amendment 23 - Presidential Vote for District of Columbia
1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States
shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct: A number of
electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of
Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be
entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous
State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they
shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice
President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the
District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of
amendment.
2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.
Ratified 29 Mar 1961
Aparently I was wrong, however I happen to think this amendment is also
wrong, it violates one of the rationals for having a federal district.
Perhaps that's why I'd prefer to forget it. Too bad amendments to the
constitution can't be declared unconstitutional.
--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0
Courier New;}}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to Thunderbird 3.0 and the
interface subtly weird.\par
}
--
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.
--
Steve Desjardins
--
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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
If that's true then Cotty's hat is safe.
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 8:02 AM, Tom C caka...@gmail.com wrote:
It looks like it'll take an act of congress to get one.
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 8:45 AM, Steven Desjardins drd1...@gmail.com wrote:
I hadn't looked at this thread in a while. Clearly the Pentax FF
issue is far more complicated than I realized.
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 12:11 AM, P. J. Alling
webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/27/2010 12:50 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
From: P. J. Alling
On 2/26/2010 9:54 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
From: P. J. Alling
On 2/25/2010 8:30 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
I'm pretty sure they do already get to vote for President, so
there must be some way to count their electoral vote.
For them it's a beauty contest vote. It doesn't count they don't
have representation in congress so they don;t get an electoral vote.
Apparently I misunderstood how it works.
Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens, but residents of Puerto Rico, Guam
and the U.S. Virgin Islands do not vote in the national elections
unless
they're registered to vote in one of the states or in DC, in which
case
they should be able to vote an absentee ballot for the district in
which
they're registered if they happen to be back in Puerto Rico.
Persons born in Puerto Rico, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands are U.S.
Citizens.
Persons born in the Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa are
U.S. Nationals, but are not U.S. Citizens. U.S. Nationals may reside
and
work in the United States. They don't have to have a green card or
work
permit. They are not prohibited by federal law from voting in
national
elections, but no state permits them to do so.
U.S. Nationals may apply for citizenship under the same rules as
resident aliens.
DC doesn't get representation in Congress, but they do have 3
electors; the number they would be entitled to IF DC was a state.
I don't know where you got that last one from but I believe it's
incorrect. DC has no electors, and cannot, the number of electors is
defined in the constitution as the number of senators plus the number of
congressmen, since DC has neither then DC has no electors. For DC to be
granted electors without representation in Congress would require a
constitutional amendment, which is not likely to happen.
Amendment 23 - Presidential Vote for District of Columbia
1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States
shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct: A number of
electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of
Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be
entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous
State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they
shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice
President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the
District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of
amendment.
2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.
Ratified 29 Mar 1961
Aparently I was wrong, however I happen to think this amendment is also
wrong, it violates one of the rationals for having a federal district.
Perhaps that's why I'd prefer to forget it. Too bad amendments to the
constitution can't be declared unconstitutional.
--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0
Courier New;}}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to Thunderbird 3.0 and the
interface subtly weird.\par
}
--
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.
--
Steve Desjardins
--
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.
--
Steve Desjardins
--
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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
I hadn't looked at this thread in a while. Clearly the Pentax FF
issue is far more complicated than I realized.
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 12:11 AM, P. J. Alling
webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/27/2010 12:50 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
From: P. J. Alling
On 2/26/2010 9:54 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
From: P. J. Alling
On 2/25/2010 8:30 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
I'm pretty sure they do already get to vote for President, so
there must be some way to count their electoral vote.
For them it's a beauty contest vote. It doesn't count they don't
have representation in congress so they don;t get an electoral vote.
Apparently I misunderstood how it works.
Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens, but residents of Puerto Rico, Guam
and the U.S. Virgin Islands do not vote in the national elections
unless
they're registered to vote in one of the states or in DC, in which case
they should be able to vote an absentee ballot for the district in
which
they're registered if they happen to be back in Puerto Rico.
Persons born in Puerto Rico, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands are U.S.
Citizens.
Persons born in the Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa are
U.S. Nationals, but are not U.S. Citizens. U.S. Nationals may reside
and
work in the United States. They don't have to have a green card or work
permit. They are not prohibited by federal law from voting in national
elections, but no state permits them to do so.
U.S. Nationals may apply for citizenship under the same rules as
resident aliens.
DC doesn't get representation in Congress, but they do have 3
electors; the number they would be entitled to IF DC was a state.
I don't know where you got that last one from but I believe it's
incorrect. DC has no electors, and cannot, the number of electors is
defined in the constitution as the number of senators plus the number of
congressmen, since DC has neither then DC has no electors. For DC to be
granted electors without representation in Congress would require a
constitutional amendment, which is not likely to happen.
Amendment 23 - Presidential Vote for District of Columbia
1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States
shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct: A number of
electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of
Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be
entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous
State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they
shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice
President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the
District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of
amendment.
2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.
Ratified 29 Mar 1961
Aparently I was wrong, however I happen to think this amendment is also
wrong, it violates one of the rationals for having a federal district.
Perhaps that's why I'd prefer to forget it. Too bad amendments to the
constitution can't be declared unconstitutional.
--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0
Courier New;}}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to Thunderbird 3.0 and the
interface subtly weird.\par
}
--
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.
--
Steve Desjardins
--
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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
2010/2/28 Steven Desjardins drd1...@gmail.com: I hadn't looked at this thread in a while. Clearly the Pentax FF issue is far more complicated than I realized. had to be there MARK!!! -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
From: Steven Desjardins I hadn't looked at this thread in a while. Clearly the Pentax FF issue is far more complicated than I realized. Got to keep a close eye on threads or they're liable to just wander off anywhere. -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
From: Doug Franklin On 2010-02-26 21:54, John Sessoms wrote: DC doesn't get representation in Congress, but they do have 3 electors; the number they would be entitled to IF DC was a state. IIRC, they also have a couple of non-voting members in the House, don't they? They might have, but that idea in my head comes from the same place I thought Puerto Rico got to vote in Presidential elections came from. I didn't see it anywhere in writing while I was reducing my other misconceptions. OTOH, I found the citizenship test questions from the INS on the internet and I think I did pretty good. The only two I missed were name the senators and name the governor. NC's got a new senator and new governor; both have only been in office a year and I still ain't used to 'em, keep going back to their predecessor's names, like wanting to write 2009 on checks. -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
From: P. J. Alling On 2/26/2010 9:54 PM, John Sessoms wrote: From: P. J. Alling On 2/25/2010 8:30 PM, John Sessoms wrote: I'm pretty sure they do already get to vote for President, so there must be some way to count their electoral vote. For them it's a beauty contest vote. It doesn't count they don't have representation in congress so they don;t get an electoral vote. Apparently I misunderstood how it works. Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens, but residents of Puerto Rico, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands do not vote in the national elections unless they're registered to vote in one of the states or in DC, in which case they should be able to vote an absentee ballot for the district in which they're registered if they happen to be back in Puerto Rico. Persons born in Puerto Rico, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands are U.S. Citizens. Persons born in the Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa are U.S. Nationals, but are not U.S. Citizens. U.S. Nationals may reside and work in the United States. They don't have to have a green card or work permit. They are not prohibited by federal law from voting in national elections, but no state permits them to do so. U.S. Nationals may apply for citizenship under the same rules as resident aliens. DC doesn't get representation in Congress, but they do have 3 electors; the number they would be entitled to IF DC was a state. I don't know where you got that last one from but I believe it's incorrect. DC has no electors, and cannot, the number of electors is defined in the constitution as the number of senators plus the number of congressmen, since DC has neither then DC has no electors. For DC to be granted electors without representation in Congress would require a constitutional amendment, which is not likely to happen. Amendment 23 - Presidential Vote for District of Columbia 1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct: A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Ratified 29 Mar 1961 -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
On 2/27/2010 12:50 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
From: P. J. Alling
On 2/26/2010 9:54 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
From: P. J. Alling
On 2/25/2010 8:30 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
I'm pretty sure they do already get to vote for President, so
there must be some way to count their electoral vote.
For them it's a beauty contest vote. It doesn't count they
don't have representation in congress so they don;t get an
electoral vote.
Apparently I misunderstood how it works.
Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens, but residents of Puerto Rico,
Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands do not vote in the national
elections unless they're registered to vote in one of the states
or in DC, in which case they should be able to vote an absentee
ballot for the district in which they're registered if they happen
to be back in Puerto Rico.
Persons born in Puerto Rico, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands are
U.S. Citizens.
Persons born in the Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa
are U.S. Nationals, but are not U.S. Citizens. U.S. Nationals may
reside and work in the United States. They don't have to have a
green card or work permit. They are not prohibited by federal law
from voting in national elections, but no state permits them to do
so.
U.S. Nationals may apply for citizenship under the same rules as
resident aliens.
DC doesn't get representation in Congress, but they do have 3
electors; the number they would be entitled to IF DC was a state.
I don't know where you got that last one from but I believe it's
incorrect. DC has no electors, and cannot, the number of electors is
defined in the constitution as the number of senators plus the number
of congressmen, since DC has neither then DC has no electors. For DC
to be granted electors without representation in Congress would
require a constitutional amendment, which is not likely to happen.
Amendment 23 - Presidential Vote for District of Columbia
1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United
States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct: A
number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole
number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the
District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more
than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those
appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the
purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be
electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and
perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.
2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.
Ratified 29 Mar 1961
Aparently I was wrong, however I happen to think this amendment is also
wrong, it violates one of the rationals for having a federal district.
Perhaps that's why I'd prefer to forget it. Too bad amendments to the
constitution can't be declared unconstitutional.
--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Courier
New;}}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to Thunderbird 3.0 and the
interface subtly weird.\par
}
--
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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
I think that many even here in Canada are frustrated that they can't get faster service if they pay for it (like you can in the US). That would, in the minds of many (including me!) undermine the idea of universality that's now the bedrock of our system. If one can pay to get to the front of the line, then someone with less money will have to wait longer. Some may think this is fair, some (like me) don't. You're assuming that the payers and the non-payers are competing for the same resource, but that's not necessarily the case. In the UK people can use private medicine if they can afford it, and can thereby get treated more quickly than they would under the NHS, but it's not necessarily at the expense of other people because they are using a different pool of resources in many cases. To some extent it's a completely different pool. For example, when I first had ear problems I used to private medical insurance to get to see a specialist quickly - the NHS waiting time was 6 months just to see the specialist and I was almost suicidal with the discomfort. My first ear operation followed swiftly after that, in a hospital that does not serve the NHS, so no NHS patient was disadvantaged. Following the operation I switched back to the NHS and was seen by the same specialist for about 18 months. However, I must say that there is some sharing of resources between public and private, but the queues take this into account so people are not actually bumped backwards if a private patient happens to come along. All my subsequent operations have been on the NHS, and have been technically better than the first because the man who looks after me now seems to be one of the world's top men in the field (http://www.londonentsurgeons.co.uk/david_bowdler.html) whereas the first guy seems to have been a bit of a butcher. I think the waiting time I was expected to put up with at first was a mistake by the GP, who wasn't aware of the seriousness of my condition - it had taken them literally years to recognise and refer to a specialist. If I had stamped my feet and screamed and screamed I think I could have got a referral without going private. When they do recognise a serious condition they work very quickly and get you to a specialist and under the knife very quickly - something that has been of use to several family members as well as to friends and acquaintances. -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
2010/2/26 P. J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com: Never work, in America we only have the right to arm bears. yeah... seeing that the right to USE them is probably not written down in the constitution why not amend it to say non-functional arms? ]=) -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
2010/2/25 Miserere miser...@gmail.com: In any case, you're ready to write Pentax a cheque for a 645D, right? Oh, no. But I might start saving up. Will take me at least two years, if the price guesstimates are in the ballpark. -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
2010/2/26 Stan Halpin s...@stans-photography.info: What is to discuss. You have it mostly correct. (God isn't dead; she is on an extended vacation in Andromeda.) It was for tax reasons, wasn't it? -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
2010/2/25 Miserere miser...@gmail.com: C'mon Jostein, you know what I'm talking about :-) On lenses intended for digital sensors the rear element (at least) is coated to minimise reflections coming off the sensor that could bounce back from the rear element to the sensor, causing a ghost image. This coating should be the easiest to observe tell-tale sign of a made-for-digital lens. Observed how, exactly, eh? You can't trust the colour of the coating, and the only equipment I have for assessing the light transmission is my digital camera. Which, as I told you, give very decent results. IIRC, the 645 FA 35mm was released just a few months ahead of the *istD. I believe the digital coating was already developed then, so it's at least theoretically possible that it has somesuch. Oh, and btw, I think there's nothing in the K-mount that beats 645 optics in lens stacking or bellows for extreme macro. Such arrangements bring out the worst in any lens combinations with regards to chromatic errors, but the 645 lenses continue to surprise me in this regard. Until this year I had used the A*300/4 and FA 75/2.8 stacked (4X magnification), the A 120/4 macro on bellows or the 75/2.8 reversed on bellows for up to 2.5X. All with good results. This winter I have borrowed a FA 150/2.8 and stacked it with the 75mm, and that's even better in the 2X area. Jostein -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
2010/2/26 AlunFoto alunf...@gmail.com: (God isn't dead; she is on an extended vacation in Andromeda.) It was for tax reasons, wasn't it? no in fact there are big firm litigators out looking to red tape Her for climate being no longer in accordance with the terms of the lease -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
On 26/02/2010, AlunFoto alunf...@gmail.com wrote: Oh, and btw, I think there's nothing in the K-mount that beats 645 optics in lens stacking or bellows for extreme macro. Such arrangements bring out the worst in any lens combinations with regards to chromatic errors, but the 645 lenses continue to surprise me in this regard. Until this year I had used the A*300/4 and FA 75/2.8 stacked (4X magnification), the A 120/4 macro on bellows or the 75/2.8 reversed on bellows for up to 2.5X. All with good results. This winter I have borrowed a FA 150/2.8 and stacked it with the 75mm, and that's even better in the 2X area. The V125/2.5 APO with a TC behind it and/or tubes exhibits virtually no CA or LCA and it still retains full auto aperture operation on a K-body (when using an appropriate tube set) -- Rob Studdert (Digital Image Studio) Tel: +61-418-166-870 UTC +10 Hours Gmail, eBay, Skype, Twitter, Facebook, Picasa: distudio -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
2010/2/26 Rob Studdert distudio.p...@gmail.com: On 26/02/2010, AlunFoto alunf...@gmail.com wrote: Oh, and btw, I think there's nothing in the K-mount that beats 645 optics in lens stacking or bellows for extreme macro. Such arrangements bring out the worst in any lens combinations with regards to chromatic errors, but the 645 lenses continue to surprise me in this regard. Until this year I had used the A*300/4 and FA 75/2.8 stacked (4X magnification), the A 120/4 macro on bellows or the 75/2.8 reversed on bellows for up to 2.5X. All with good results. This winter I have borrowed a FA 150/2.8 and stacked it with the 75mm, and that's even better in the 2X area. The V125/2.5 APO with a TC behind it and/or tubes exhibits virtually no CA or LCA and it still retains full auto aperture operation on a K-body (when using an appropriate tube set) Never tried any Voightländers... :-( I should have said current or past offerings from Pentax in K-mount, I guess. Because that's where my experience is. Jostein -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
On 26/02/2010, AlunFoto alunf...@gmail.com wrote: Never tried any Voightländers... :-( I should have said current or past offerings from Pentax in K-mount, I guess. Because that's where my experience is. A hand held shot at f4.5 (original 2MP in camera jpg) c/o Christian http://picasaweb.google.com/distudio/SydneyPDML2010?authkey=Gv1sRgCPamu63HsdnI6AE#5422825591216601522 -- Rob Studdert (Digital Image Studio) Tel: +61-418-166-870 UTC +10 Hours Gmail, eBay, Skype, Twitter, Facebook, Picasa: distudio -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
LOL... On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 1:21 AM, William Robb war...@gmail.com wrote: - Original Message - From: Bob Sullivan Subject: Re: On FF but without intent to start a flame Are there people who live up there? Ok 54th state, the flag would look better with 54 stars. http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/temp/canadas-bitch.jpg William Robb -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
From: Bob W I think that many even here in Canada are frustrated that they can't get faster service if they pay for it (like you can in the US). That would, in the minds of many (including me!) undermine the idea of universality that's now the bedrock of our system. If one can pay to get to the front of the line, then someone with less money will have to wait longer. Some may think this is fair, some (like me) don't. You're assuming that the payers and the non-payers are competing for the same resource, but that's not necessarily the case. In the UK people can use private medicine if they can afford it, and can thereby get treated more quickly than they would under the NHS, but it's not necessarily at the expense of other people because they are using a different pool of resources in many cases. To some extent it's a completely different pool. For example, when I first had ear problems I used to private medical insurance to get to see a specialist quickly - the NHS waiting time was 6 months just to see the specialist and I was almost suicidal with the discomfort. My first ear operation followed swiftly after that, in a hospital that does not serve the NHS, so no NHS patient was disadvantaged. Following the operation I switched back to the NHS and was seen by the same specialist for about 18 months. However, I must say that there is some sharing of resources between public and private, but the queues take this into account so people are not actually bumped backwards if a private patient happens to come along. All my subsequent operations have been on the NHS, and have been technically better than the first because the man who looks after me now seems to be one of the world's top men in the field (http://www.londonentsurgeons.co.uk/david_bowdler.html) whereas the first guy seems to have been a bit of a butcher. I think the waiting time I was expected to put up with at first was a mistake by the GP, who wasn't aware of the seriousness of my condition - it had taken them literally years to recognise and refer to a specialist. If I had stamped my feet and screamed and screamed I think I could have got a referral without going private. When they do recognise a serious condition they work very quickly and get you to a specialist and under the knife very quickly - something that has been of use to several family members as well as to friends and acquaintances. And I'll just add that I think that's the health care model we should be following here in the U.S. The only effect NHS has on the profits of private insurance companies in the UK is from forcing them to actually compete; to offer something of value for the premium dollar. It is, in fact, the model I'm finally under now with the VA. I just shouldn't have had to wait until I was 60 years old to get it. -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
From: AlunFoto 2010/2/26 Stan Halpin s...@stans-photography.info: What is to discuss. You have it mostly correct. (God isn't dead; she is on an extended vacation in Andromeda.) It was for tax reasons, wasn't it? Funny how the brain works sometimes. For years and years (and through numerous re-readings) I misread the guy's name as Hot Black DeSoto - a joke on rock 'n rollers hot-rodders. Funny because the only person I ever knew who actually owned and drove a DeSoto was a spinsterish 3rd grade teacher at my elementary school. Can't for the life of me remember her name, but I can still see that car. Come to think of it though, it was black. -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
On 2/26/2010 5:24 AM, AlunFoto wrote:
2010/2/25 Misereremiser...@gmail.com:
In any case, you're ready to write Pentax a cheque for a 645D, right?
Oh, no. But I might start saving up. Will take me at least two years,
if the price guesstimates are in the ballpark.
Don't expect state of the art autofocus, just gorgious billboard sized
prints, and you;ll be happy.
--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Courier
New;}}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to Thunderbird 3.0 and the
interface subtly weird.\par
}
--
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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
On 2/26/2010 5:57 AM, Rob Studdert wrote:
On 26/02/2010, AlunFotoalunf...@gmail.com wrote:
Never tried any Voightländers... :-(
I should have said current or past offerings from Pentax in K-mount,
I guess. Because that's where my experience is.
A hand held shot at f4.5 (original 2MP in camera jpg) c/o Christian
http://picasaweb.google.com/distudio/SydneyPDML2010?authkey=Gv1sRgCPamu63HsdnI6AE#5422825591216601522
That's very clean.
--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Courier
New;}}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to Thunderbird 3.0 and the
interface subtly weird.\par
}
--
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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
On 2/25/2010 7:39 PM, eckinator wrote:
2010/2/26 John Sessomsjsessoms...@nc.rr.com:
First of all, they'd have to be satisfied to start at #52, 'cause Puerto
Rico's got dibs on #51.
that's only 'cos of Ricky Martin - offer him citizenship instead =)
Puorto Ricans have citizenship.
--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Courier
New;}}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to Thunderbird 3.0 and the
interface subtly weird.\par
}
--
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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
On 2/25/2010 8:30 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
From: steve harley
On 2010-02-25 17:39 , eckinator wrote:
that's only 'cos of Ricky Martin - offer him citizenship instead =)
{chuckles} but note that Puerto Ricans are US Citizens; they just
don't get a vote in the US Congress
They don't get to vote for Congress if they're still living in Puerto
Rico proper. They can move to any of the states any time they want and
register to vote the day they get there.
And they will get to vote for Congress if/when Puerto Rico becomes a
state.
I'm pretty sure they do already get to vote for President, so there
must be some way to count their electoral vote.
For them it's a beauty contest vote. It doesn't count they don't have
representation in congress so they don;t get an electoral vote.
--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Courier
New;}}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to Thunderbird 3.0 and the
interface subtly weird.\par
}
--
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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
From: P. J. Alling On 2/25/2010 8:30 PM, John Sessoms wrote: I'm pretty sure they do already get to vote for President, so there must be some way to count their electoral vote. For them it's a beauty contest vote. It doesn't count they don't have representation in congress so they don;t get an electoral vote. Apparently I misunderstood how it works. Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens, but residents of Puerto Rico, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands do not vote in the national elections unless they're registered to vote in one of the states or in DC, in which case they should be able to vote an absentee ballot for the district in which they're registered if they happen to be back in Puerto Rico. Persons born in Puerto Rico, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands are U.S. Citizens. Persons born in the Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa are U.S. Nationals, but are not U.S. Citizens. U.S. Nationals may reside and work in the United States. They don't have to have a green card or work permit. They are not prohibited by federal law from voting in national elections, but no state permits them to do so. U.S. Nationals may apply for citizenship under the same rules as resident aliens. DC doesn't get representation in Congress, but they do have 3 electors; the number they would be entitled to IF DC was a state. -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
On 2010-02-26 21:54, John Sessoms wrote: Persons born in the Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa are U.S. Nationals, but are not U.S. Citizens. U.S. Nationals may reside and work in the United States. Hmmm. That's something I didn't know. Time for some more research. I wonder why the difference between Puerto Rico, Guam, and USVI versus Northern Marys and Samoa ... DC doesn't get representation in Congress, but they do have 3 electors; the number they would be entitled to IF DC was a state. IIRC, they also have a couple of non-voting members in the House, don't they? -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
On 2/26/2010 5:09 AM, eckinator wrote:
2010/2/26 P. J. Allingwebstertwenty...@gmail.com:
Never work, in America we only have the right to arm bears.
yeah... seeing that the right to USE them is probably not written down
in the constitution why not amend it to say non-functional arms? ]=)
That defeats the purpose. But I tend to believe that reality is more
important than appearances. The right to bear arms stems from the
fundamental right to self defense. For your arms to be non functional
defeats their purpose.
--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Courier
New;}}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to Thunderbird 3.0 and the
interface subtly weird.\par
}
--
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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
On 2/26/2010 9:54 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
From: P. J. Alling
On 2/25/2010 8:30 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
I'm pretty sure they do already get to vote for President, so
there must be some way to count their electoral vote.
For them it's a beauty contest vote. It doesn't count they don't
have representation in congress so they don;t get an electoral vote.
Apparently I misunderstood how it works.
Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens, but residents of Puerto Rico, Guam
and the U.S. Virgin Islands do not vote in the national elections
unless they're registered to vote in one of the states or in DC, in
which case they should be able to vote an absentee ballot for the
district in which they're registered if they happen to be back in
Puerto Rico.
Persons born in Puerto Rico, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands are U.S.
Citizens.
Persons born in the Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa are
U.S. Nationals, but are not U.S. Citizens. U.S. Nationals may reside
and work in the United States. They don't have to have a green card or
work permit. They are not prohibited by federal law from voting in
national elections, but no state permits them to do so.
U.S. Nationals may apply for citizenship under the same rules as
resident aliens.
DC doesn't get representation in Congress, but they do have 3
electors; the number they would be entitled to IF DC was a state.
I don't know where you got that last one from but I believe it's
incorrect. DC has no electors, and cannot, the number of electors is
defined in the constitution as the number of senators plus the number of
congressmen, since DC has neither then DC has no electors. For DC to be
granted electors without representation in Congress would require a
constitutional amendment, which is not likely to happen.
--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Courier
New;}}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to Thunderbird 3.0 and the
interface subtly weird.\par
}
--
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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
On Feb 24, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Adam Maas wrote: On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 9:03 PM, Mark Roberts m...@robertstech.com wrote: David Savage wrote: Also you wouldn't have to contend with their stupid proprietary flash hot shoe :-) That's the biggest drawback. But it does have a PC socket and I have an AF 240 :-) The flash shoe is the one thing Minolta got right 22 years ago and no other maker else has clued in on. A flash shoe with no exposed contacts, a simple pushbutton lock system that doesn't fail, jam or Huh? My X700 is much newer than 22 years old, and it has exposed contacts. It'll also use regular manual flashes, so maybe Minolta didn't put it on any of their SLRs that I own. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
Peter, Paul, and BILL? On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:41 PM, William Robb war...@gmail.com wrote: - Original Message - From: Tom C Subject: Re: On FF but without intent to start a flame Boris wins the Grand Prize! A thread entitled On FF but without intent to start a flame has an additional 100 responses counting this one and no flames. Kumbaya, my Lord, Kumbaya! Kumbaya, my Lord, Kumbaya! Kumbaya, my Lord, Kumbaya! Oh, Lord! Kumbaya! Someone's crying, Lord, Kumbaya! Someone's crying, Lord, Kumbaya! Someone's crying, Lord, Kumbaya! Oh, Lord! Kumbaya! Someone's praying, Lord, Kumbaya! Someone's praying, Lord, Kumbaya! Someone's praying, Lord, Kumbaya! Oh, Lord! Kumbaya! Someone's singing, Lord, Kumbaya! Someone's singing, Lord, Kumbaya! Someone's singing, Lord, Kumbaya! Oh, Lord! Kumbaya! -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 4:40 AM, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote: On Feb 24, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Adam Maas wrote: The flash shoe is the one thing Minolta got right 22 years ago and no other maker else has clued in on. A flash shoe with no exposed contacts, a simple pushbutton lock system that doesn't fail, jam or Huh? My X700 is much newer than 22 years old, and it has exposed contacts. It'll also use regular manual flashes, so maybe Minolta didn't put it on any of their SLRs that I own. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est Your X-700 is a 29 year old design even if your example is much newer in construction, it was introduced in 1981. MD stuff continued in production but ceased being developed around the time the i-series A mount bodies were introduced. All innovation by Minolta was in their AF line from that point including the new flash shoe. -Adam -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 7:04 AM, Bob Sullivan rf.sulli...@gmail.com wrote: Peter, Paul, and BILL? Mary recently passed on and they've been looking for a replacement. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
- Original Message - From: Larry Colen Subject: Re: On FF but without intent to start a flame Huh? My X700 is much newer than 22 years old, and it has exposed contacts. It'll also use regular manual flashes, so maybe Minolta didn't put it on any of their SLRs that I own. Minolta's MD camera development stopped in the early 1980s. The X-700 was the last MD mount camera, though I believe they made some cosmetic changes to the X-370 and released it under a different name somewhat later. The improved hot shoe was introduced on one of the second generation Maxxum cameras. William Robb -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
From: frank theriault On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Tom C caka...@gmail.com wrote: Boris wins the Grand Prize! A thread entitled On FF but without intent to start a flame has an additional 100 responses counting this one and no flames. No flames? We'll see about that: God is dead. No she isn't. She's just moved on to a new relationship. She says we can still be friends. -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
Kenneth Waller http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f - Original Message - From: frank theriault knarftheria...@gmail.com Subject: Re: On FF but without intent to start a flame On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Tom C caka...@gmail.com wrote: Boris wins the Grand Prize! A thread entitled On FF but without intent to start a flame has an additional 100 responses counting this one and no flames. No flames? We'll see about that: I think all handguns should be banned, no exceptions. I think it's legitimate and morally right to consider abortion as a form of birth control. Obama's health care bill doesn't go nearly far enough. Screw bipartisanism, he should just ram the bill through. It's for the good of the people. God is dead. *** Discuss among yourselves... you forgot to add Canada becomming the 51 st state ! cheers, frank, stirring the pot again -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
What the hell Ken. Be generous. Give them 3 states, 51st for the Frenchies, 52nd for Ontario, and 53rd for the west. Regards, Bob S. On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Ken Waller kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote: Kenneth Waller http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f - Original Message - From: frank theriault knarftheria...@gmail.com Subject: Re: On FF but without intent to start a flame On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Tom C caka...@gmail.com wrote: Boris wins the Grand Prize! A thread entitled On FF but without intent to start a flame has an additional 100 responses counting this one and no flames. No flames? We'll see about that: I think all handguns should be banned, no exceptions. I think it's legitimate and morally right to consider abortion as a form of birth control. Obama's health care bill doesn't go nearly far enough. Screw bipartisanism, he should just ram the bill through. It's for the good of the people. God is dead. *** Discuss among yourselves... you forgot to add Canada becomming the 51 st state ! cheers, frank, stirring the pot again -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
I think they show figure out the best star pattern for the flag and divide Canada accordingly. Preferably before the gold medal game. On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Bob Sullivan rf.sulli...@gmail.com wrote: What the hell Ken. Be generous. Give them 3 states, 51st for the Frenchies, 52nd for Ontario, and 53rd for the west. Regards, Bob S. On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Ken Waller kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote: Kenneth Waller http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f - Original Message - From: frank theriault knarftheria...@gmail.com Subject: Re: On FF but without intent to start a flame On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Tom C caka...@gmail.com wrote: Boris wins the Grand Prize! A thread entitled On FF but without intent to start a flame has an additional 100 responses counting this one and no flames. No flames? We'll see about that: I think all handguns should be banned, no exceptions. I think it's legitimate and morally right to consider abortion as a form of birth control. Obama's health care bill doesn't go nearly far enough. Screw bipartisanism, he should just ram the bill through. It's for the good of the people. God is dead. *** Discuss among yourselves... you forgot to add Canada becomming the 51 st state ! cheers, frank, stirring the pot again -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- 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. -- Steve Desjardins -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
Kenneth Waller http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f - Original Message - From: William Robb war...@gmail.com Subject: Re: On FF but without intent to start a flame Kenneth Waller http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f you forgot to add Canada becomming the 51 st state ! At least then you'd all be getting decent health care... Yep. That's why in Detroit we have instances of the citizens of Windsor (you know the city south of Detroit) coming over to the states for their medical treatments, instead of waiting for it in Ca na da. Could we get the loonie too? William Robb -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
On 24 February 2010 03:14, AlunFoto alunf...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/2/24 Miserere miser...@gmail.com: Jostein, Does the rear element of that 35mm f/3.5 have digital coating? You mean fingerprints? :-) Seriously though, I have no idea. Please tell me what this thing is you're asking about, and why it is the single factor discerning digital from non-digital lenses? I made the observation that on the *istD the resolution and colour accuracy of this lens is comparable to the 31 ltd. Basically, that's enough for me to gauge its suitability for digital. But it wouldn't surprise me at all if Pentax draw some new lenses out of the hat in addition to the announced 55mm. Jostein C'mon Jostein, you know what I'm talking about :-) On lenses intended for digital sensors the rear element (at least) is coated to minimise reflections coming off the sensor that could bounce back from the rear element to the sensor, causing a ghost image. This coating should be the easiest to observe tell-tale sign of a made-for-digital lens. On top of that, made-for-digital lenses attempt to shine light out of their rear element as perpendicularly as possible to the sensor, although this is not something that's easy to test at home. Granted, the larger registration distance of the 645D might alleviate the problem of sensor reflection (and maybe Kodak has produced a sensor that reflects less light), but the 2nd problem is still there, and is even worse with the 645D. With a little trigonometry you can show that rays reaching the edge of the 645D's 48mm wide chip (with reg. distance = 70.87mm) have a smaller incidence angle than those incident on an APS-C chip in a K-mount camera. Then again, maybe Kodak will use what they learnt when designing the Leica M9 chip (progressive offsetting of the chip's microlenses with distance from center of the chip) and apply it to lessen or neutralise this problem. In any case, you're ready to write Pentax a cheque for a 645D, right? --M. -- http://EnticingTheLight.com A Quest for Photographic Enlightenment -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Ken Waller kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote: you forgot to add Canada becomming the 51 st state ! ...we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender... https://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/1184/images/chipmunk_armed.jpg ;-) cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Bob Sullivan rf.sulli...@gmail.com wrote: What the hell Ken. Be generous. Give them 3 states, 51st for the Frenchies, 52nd for Ontario, and 53rd for the west. Regards, Bob S. You'll want the east coast, too. You can never have too many Maines... cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Ken Waller kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote: Yep. That's why in Detroit we have instances of the citizens of Windsor (you know the city south of Detroit) coming over to the states for their medical treatments, instead of waiting for it in Ca na da. I didn't bother telling the list, because it was rather inconsequential, but about a month ago, I was sitting, got up quickly, had that head rush and (for the first time in my life) fainted. As I'd heard that every loss of consciousness requires a doctor visit, I went to the nearest emergency ward. Now, I have to admit, I was there a long time. It was one of Toronto's largest trauma centres (Sunnybrooke, for you locals) at evening rush hour, and there were several serious automobile collision victims that needed help more than me. All in all, it was a 10 hour visit, but I realize that my condition put me at the bottom of the triage list. However, in that ten hours I got great treatment. Before seeing a doctor, nurses took blood, checked blood pressure/pulse and gave me a cardiogram. The doctor finally saw me and said that in a way it was good that I was there for that length of time, because he could give me ~another~ cardiogram to make sure there was no change (out of an abundance of caution). There was also a specific blood test that he wanted to see that the nurses didn't do, so I got a second session of bloodwork. The doctor saw me two or three times, and appeared concerned yet calming. After it all, he said that all tests were fine, and that (as he said) gravity just got the best of me that day. A head rush gone too far, nothing more. He said that I'd done the right thing by having it checked and apologized for the long wait (as several nurses did earlier). Can you imagine how much that would have all cost me had I paid for it? Or if my insurance paid? Would they have authorized all those duplicate tests? And that was at one of Toronto's top hospitals - yes, I got to choose the hospital I went to, no insurance company to give me a list of approved hospitals. So, I'll take the wait to get top treatment with nothing out-of-pocket, thank you very much. BTW, Ken, there are many anecdotal stories (as yours was) of Detroit citizens crossing the border into Canada to try to get treatment here, as they have no coverage in the US. Borrow a Canadian's card and hope you don't get caught and charged with fraud - that's how desperate some uninsured Americans are. And, to top it off (on a personal note), my heartbeat came in a 57 bpm. Not quite Lance's resting heartbeat of 32, but pretty good for an old guy... ;-) cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 10:11 AM, John Sessoms jsessoms...@nc.rr.com wrote: God is dead. No she isn't. She's just moved on to a new relationship. She says we can still be friends. Were She really omniscient, she'd know that ~never~ works... ;-) cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
Are there people who live up there? Ok 54th state, the flag would look better with 54 stars. Regards, Bob S. On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 4:57 PM, frank theriault knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Bob Sullivan rf.sulli...@gmail.com wrote: What the hell Ken. Be generous. Give them 3 states, 51st for the Frenchies, 52nd for Ontario, and 53rd for the west. Regards, Bob S. You'll want the east coast, too. You can never have too many Maines... cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
Shouldn't it be a prime number? You know, one nation under God, indivisible? Are there people who live up there? Ok 54th state, the flag would look better with 54 stars. Regards, Bob S. On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 4:57 PM, frank theriault knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Bob Sullivan rf.sulli...@gmail.com wrote: What the hell Ken. Be generous. Give them 3 states, 51st for the Frenchies, 52nd for Ontario, and 53rd for the west. Regards, Bob S. You'll want the east coast, too. You can never have too many Maines... -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
Kenneth Waller http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f you forgot to add Canada becomming the 51 st state ! At least then you'd all be getting decent health care... William Robb -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
Frank, Another comment on Emergency Room treatment: My 25 year old daughter got a 2nd medication for a sinus infection. She had an adverse reaction, puffy face, rash, and trouble breathing. Living in downtown Chicago, she went to the nearby Northwestern Univ. ER. Lynn and I met her there for 4 hours. That was Friday night. She had difficulties breathing again Saturday night and another ER trip, and again Sunday night with multiple hours in the ER. 3 ER trips and the bill was $10,000, perhaps less after insurance is involved. Regards, Bob S. On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 5:16 PM, frank theriault knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Ken Waller kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote: Yep. That's why in Detroit we have instances of the citizens of Windsor (you know the city south of Detroit) coming over to the states for their medical treatments, instead of waiting for it in Ca na da. I didn't bother telling the list, because it was rather inconsequential, but about a month ago, I was sitting, got up quickly, had that head rush and (for the first time in my life) fainted. As I'd heard that every loss of consciousness requires a doctor visit, I went to the nearest emergency ward. Now, I have to admit, I was there a long time. It was one of Toronto's largest trauma centres (Sunnybrooke, for you locals) at evening rush hour, and there were several serious automobile collision victims that needed help more than me. All in all, it was a 10 hour visit, but I realize that my condition put me at the bottom of the triage list. However, in that ten hours I got great treatment. Before seeing a doctor, nurses took blood, checked blood pressure/pulse and gave me a cardiogram. The doctor finally saw me and said that in a way it was good that I was there for that length of time, because he could give me ~another~ cardiogram to make sure there was no change (out of an abundance of caution). There was also a specific blood test that he wanted to see that the nurses didn't do, so I got a second session of bloodwork. The doctor saw me two or three times, and appeared concerned yet calming. After it all, he said that all tests were fine, and that (as he said) gravity just got the best of me that day. A head rush gone too far, nothing more. He said that I'd done the right thing by having it checked and apologized for the long wait (as several nurses did earlier). Can you imagine how much that would have all cost me had I paid for it? Or if my insurance paid? Would they have authorized all those duplicate tests? And that was at one of Toronto's top hospitals - yes, I got to choose the hospital I went to, no insurance company to give me a list of approved hospitals. So, I'll take the wait to get top treatment with nothing out-of-pocket, thank you very much. BTW, Ken, there are many anecdotal stories (as yours was) of Detroit citizens crossing the border into Canada to try to get treatment here, as they have no coverage in the US. Borrow a Canadian's card and hope you don't get caught and charged with fraud - that's how desperate some uninsured Americans are. And, to top it off (on a personal note), my heartbeat came in a 57 bpm. Not quite Lance's resting heartbeat of 32, but pretty good for an old guy... ;-) cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
On 26 February 2010 06:55, frank theriault knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Ken Waller kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote: you forgot to add Canada becomming the 51 st state ! ...we shall fight on the beaches I've seen Canadian beaches. They're not worth fighting over. :-D -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
Well, I suppose 53 is better. Maybe we could annex and make it Greater Maine. Regards, Bob S. On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Bob W p...@web-options.com wrote: Shouldn't it be a prime number? You know, one nation under God, indivisible? Are there people who live up there? Ok 54th state, the flag would look better with 54 stars. Regards, Bob S. On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 4:57 PM, frank theriault knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Bob Sullivan rf.sulli...@gmail.com wrote: What the hell Ken. Be generous. Give them 3 states, 51st for the Frenchies, 52nd for Ontario, and 53rd for the west. Regards, Bob S. You'll want the east coast, too. You can never have too many Maines... -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
2010/2/26 Bob Sullivan rf.sulli...@gmail.com: Well, I suppose 53 is better. Maybe we could annex and make it Greater Maine. Regards, Bob S. On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Bob W p...@web-options.com wrote: Shouldn't it be a prime number? You know, one nation under God, indivisible? Are there people who live up there? Ok 54th state, the flag would look better with 54 stars. Regards, Bob S. On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 4:57 PM, frank theriault knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Bob Sullivan rf.sulli...@gmail.com wrote: What the hell Ken. Be generous. Give them 3 states, 51st for the Frenchies, 52nd for Ontario, and 53rd for the west. Regards, Bob S. You'll want the east coast, too. You can never have too many Maines... you sure? always a huge mess when a maine breaks or separates... and ugly things come to mind... we need a flame... keep on baiting!!! how about putting a fence around NWT and calling it Can'danamo? Much too cold for amnesty treehuggers anyway... ]=) Next call part of it North Central Los Angeles and haul up all the gangs. Saves another star. -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
Glad to hear it was only a case of gravity ! The waits I'm hearing about with Canadian medicine are mostly about elective surgery - knees, hips and things like that.\ BTW, as I sit here typing away, my pulse is 59 bpm. Kenneth Waller http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f - Original Message - From: frank theriault knarftheria...@gmail.com Subject: Re: On FF but without intent to start a flame On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Ken Waller kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote: Yep. That's why in Detroit we have instances of the citizens of Windsor (you know the city south of Detroit) coming over to the states for their medical treatments, instead of waiting for it in Ca na da. I didn't bother telling the list, because it was rather inconsequential, but about a month ago, I was sitting, got up quickly, had that head rush and (for the first time in my life) fainted. As I'd heard that every loss of consciousness requires a doctor visit, I went to the nearest emergency ward. Now, I have to admit, I was there a long time. It was one of Toronto's largest trauma centres (Sunnybrooke, for you locals) at evening rush hour, and there were several serious automobile collision victims that needed help more than me. All in all, it was a 10 hour visit, but I realize that my condition put me at the bottom of the triage list. However, in that ten hours I got great treatment. Before seeing a doctor, nurses took blood, checked blood pressure/pulse and gave me a cardiogram. The doctor finally saw me and said that in a way it was good that I was there for that length of time, because he could give me ~another~ cardiogram to make sure there was no change (out of an abundance of caution). There was also a specific blood test that he wanted to see that the nurses didn't do, so I got a second session of bloodwork. The doctor saw me two or three times, and appeared concerned yet calming. After it all, he said that all tests were fine, and that (as he said) gravity just got the best of me that day. A head rush gone too far, nothing more. He said that I'd done the right thing by having it checked and apologized for the long wait (as several nurses did earlier). Can you imagine how much that would have all cost me had I paid for it? Or if my insurance paid? Would they have authorized all those duplicate tests? And that was at one of Toronto's top hospitals - yes, I got to choose the hospital I went to, no insurance company to give me a list of approved hospitals. So, I'll take the wait to get top treatment with nothing out-of-pocket, thank you very much. BTW, Ken, there are many anecdotal stories (as yours was) of Detroit citizens crossing the border into Canada to try to get treatment here, as they have no coverage in the US. Borrow a Canadian's card and hope you don't get caught and charged with fraud - that's how desperate some uninsured Americans are. And, to top it off (on a personal note), my heartbeat came in a 57 bpm. Not quite Lance's resting heartbeat of 32, but pretty good for an old guy... ;-) cheers, frank -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
From: Steven Desjardins I think they show figure out the best star pattern for the flag and divide Canada accordingly. Preferably before the gold medal game. On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Bob Sullivan rf.sulli...@gmail.com wrote: What the hell Ken. ?Be generous. ?Give them 3 states, 51st for the Frenchies, 52nd for Ontario, and 53rd for the west. Regards, ?Bob S. Kind of two minds on that ... First of all, they'd have to be satisfied to start at #52, 'cause Puerto Rico's got dibs on #51. Secondly, I think they should all be happy to be in one big state - do to Alaska what Alaska did to Texas, IYKWIM. ;-D -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
Kenneth Waller http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f - Original Message - From: frank theriault knarftheria...@gmail.com Subject: Re: On FF but without intent to start a flame On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Ken Waller kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote: you forgot to add Canada becomming the 51 st state ! ...we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender... https://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/1184/images/chipmunk_armed.jpg Shouldn't it be a beaver ? ;-) cheers, frank -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
2010/2/26 John Sessoms jsessoms...@nc.rr.com: First of all, they'd have to be satisfied to start at #52, 'cause Puerto Rico's got dibs on #51. that's only 'cos of Ricky Martin - offer him citizenship instead =) -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
On 2010-02-25 17:39 , eckinator wrote:
that's only 'cos of Ricky Martin - offer him citizenship instead =)
{chuckles} but note that Puerto Ricans are US Citizens; they just don't
get a vote in the US Congress
--
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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
2010/2/26 steve harley p...@paper-ape.com:
{chuckles} but note that Puerto Ricans are US Citizens; they just don't get
a vote in the US Congress
GIVE RICKY A VOTE IN CONGRESS!!!
--
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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Ken Waller kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote: Glad to hear it was only a case of gravity ! The waits I'm hearing about with Canadian medicine are mostly about elective surgery - knees, hips and things like that.\ BTW, as I sit here typing away, my pulse is 59 bpm. 59 is impressively low. You're right about the waits for elective surgery. They've been unreasonably long for some time now. I believe that they're getting better, but there's certainly more work that needs to be done. About 10 years ago we had a shortage of MRI technicians (not the machines, just the techs) so there was a waiting list for those as well. We Ontarians were sending cancer patients down to Buffalo on the Canadian taxpayers dime. In time we got our waiting time down to something more reasonable. I think that many even here in Canada are frustrated that they can't get faster service if they pay for it (like you can in the US). That would, in the minds of many (including me!) undermine the idea of universality that's now the bedrock of our system. If one can pay to get to the front of the line, then someone with less money will have to wait longer. Some may think this is fair, some (like me) don't. That being said, I've never been in the situation of needing surgery and having to wait. I'm honest enough to admit that my tune might change some if I could afford hip-replacement surgery but had to wait months or years to get my surgery. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
From: frank theriault On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Ken Waller kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote: you forgot to add Canada becomming the 51 st state ! ...we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender... https://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/1184/images/chipmunk_armed.jpg You will be assimulated! BTW, that is NOT a chipmunk. -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
Kenneth Waller http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f - Original Message - From: frank theriault knarftheria...@gmail.com Subject: Re: On FF but without intent to start a flame On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Ken Waller kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote: Glad to hear it was only a case of gravity ! The waits I'm hearing about with Canadian medicine are mostly about elective surgery - knees, hips and things like that.\ BTW, as I sit here typing away, my pulse is 59 bpm. 59 is impressively low. You're right about the waits for elective surgery. They've been unreasonably long for some time now. I believe that they're getting better, but there's certainly more work that needs to be done. About 10 years ago we had a shortage of MRI technicians (not the machines, just the techs) so there was a waiting list for those as well. We Ontarians were sending cancer patients down to Buffalo on the Canadian taxpayers dime. In time we got our waiting time down to something more reasonable. I think that many even here in Canada are frustrated that they can't get faster service if they pay for it (like you can in the US). That would, in the minds of many (including me!) undermine the idea of universality that's now the bedrock of our system. If one can pay to get to the front of the line, then someone with less money will have to wait longer. Some may think this is fair, some (like me) don't. That being said, I've never been in the situation of needing surgery and having to wait. I'm honest enough to admit that my tune might change some if I could afford hip-replacement surgery but had to wait months or years to get my surgery. While I did put off replacement knees for quite some time until the pain really affected my daily activities, when I decided to do it - it was a few weeks wait, mainly due to the specific doctor I had do them. cheers, frank -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
From: steve harley
On 2010-02-25 17:39 , eckinator wrote:
that's only 'cos of Ricky Martin - offer him citizenship instead =)
{chuckles} but note that Puerto Ricans are US Citizens; they just don't
get a vote in the US Congress
They don't get to vote for Congress if they're still living in Puerto
Rico proper. They can move to any of the states any time they want and
register to vote the day they get there.
And they will get to vote for Congress if/when Puerto Rico becomes a state.
I'm pretty sure they do already get to vote for President, so there must
be some way to count their electoral vote.
--
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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 06:17:53PM -0500, frank theriault scripsit: On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 10:11 AM, John Sessoms jsessoms...@nc.rr.com wrote: God is dead. No she isn't. She's just moved on to a new relationship. She says we can still be friends. Were She really omniscient, she'd know that ~never~ works... Ah, but if She's omniscient, She can *make* it work. -- Graydon -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 20:55:52 -0500 Graydon o...@uniserve.com wrote: Were She really omniscient, she'd know that ~never~ works... Ah, but if She's omniscient, She can *make* it work. -- Graydon Dat would be Omnipotent -- Love is that condition in which the happiness of another person is essential to your own... Jealousy is a disease, love is a healthy condition.- Robert Heinlein -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 08:07:28PM -0600, Bran Everseeking scripsit: On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 20:55:52 -0500 Graydon o...@uniserve.com wrote: Were She really omniscient, she'd know that ~never~ works... Ah, but if She's omniscient, She can *make* it work. -- Graydon Dat would be Omnipotent Dat it would. (Though if you know everything presumably you know how to be omnipotent...) -- Graydon -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
On Feb 24, 2010, at 11:02 PM, frank theriault wrote: I think all handguns should be banned, no exceptions. I think it's legitimate and morally right to consider abortion as a form of birth control. Obama's health care bill doesn't go nearly far enough. Screw bipartisanism, he should just ram the bill through. It's for the good of the people. God is dead. *** Discuss among yourselves... cheers, frank, stirring the pot again What is to discuss. You have it mostly correct. (God isn't dead; she is on an extended vacation in Andromeda.) stan -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 8:02 PM, frank theriault knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote: I think that many even here in Canada are frustrated that they can't get faster service if they pay for it (like you can in the US). That would, in the minds of many (including me!) undermine the idea of universality that's now the bedrock of our system. If one can pay to get to the front of the line, then someone with less money will have to wait longer. Some may think this is fair, some (like me) don't. That being said, I've never been in the situation of needing surgery and having to wait. I'm honest enough to admit that my tune might change some if I could afford hip-replacement surgery but had to wait months or years to get my surgery. cheers, frank -- Canada's always had a two-tier health system. The poor get stuck with our mediocre service, the rich go to the US and pay the over-inflated costs down there. The thing that frustrates people is that we can't pay a Canadian for service outside the line, even if we can afford it. The only thing we handle reasonably well is emergency services (and to a lesser extent, medical emergencies which require non-emergency department care). I've got extensive experience with the Canadian Health system due to having two chronically ill close family members (grandfather with post-polio syndrome, who passed away in the late 90's, and my mother has severe Rheumatoid Arthritis and has had 2 hip replacements and various other surgeries). The Canadian system sucks, we just tend to suck less than most of the more socialized systems (mostly because Canada has 11 semi-independent systems, not one National system). Overall the US system delivers better care, but its costing is totally broken, mostly due to problems with the large Insurance Companies and HMO's, which drive up uninsured costs (if the insurance companies in the US payed the same rates as uninsured for care, uninsured costs would plummet. As it is, uninsured payers end up paying for most of the cost of delinquent uninsured patents). Both the US and Canadian systems are broken in different ways. -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
On 2/25/2010 5:55 PM, frank theriault wrote:
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Ken Wallerkwal...@peoplepc.com wrote:
you forgot to add Canada becomming the 51 st state !
...we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing
grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall
fight in the hills; we shall never surrender...
https://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/1184/images/chipmunk_armed.jpg
;-)
cheers,
frank
Never work, in America we only have the right to arm bears.
--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Courier
New;}}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to Thunderbird 3.0 and the
interface subtly weird.\par
}
--
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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
- Original Message - From: Bob Sullivan Subject: Re: On FF but without intent to start a flame Are there people who live up there? Ok 54th state, the flag would look better with 54 stars. http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/temp/canadas-bitch.jpg William Robb -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
2010/2/24 Miserere miser...@gmail.com: Jostein, Does the rear element of that 35mm f/3.5 have digital coating? You mean fingerprints? :-) Seriously though, I have no idea. Please tell me what this thing is you're asking about, and why it is the single factor discerning digital from non-digital lenses? I made the observation that on the *istD the resolution and colour accuracy of this lens is comparable to the 31 ltd. Basically, that's enough for me to gauge its suitability for digital. But it wouldn't surprise me at all if Pentax draw some new lenses out of the hat in addition to the announced 55mm. Jostein -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
On Feb 24, 2010, at 12:14 AM, AlunFoto wrote: 2010/2/24 Miserere miser...@gmail.com: Jostein, Does the rear element of that 35mm f/3.5 have digital coating? You mean fingerprints? :-) Seriously though, I have no idea. Please tell me what this thing is you're asking about, and why it is the single factor discerning digital from non-digital lenses? I could see a lens for digital cameras needing better anti-reflection on the rear element because a sensor is more reflective than film. The differences that I've heard are that film has the different colors on different layers, where with digital you need all colors to focus in the same plane. I've also heard that digital sensors are more sensitive to the angle of incidence of the light rays striking them. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
2010/2/24 Tom C caka...@gmail.com: Dichotomy again. What Pentax does must be correct, while what they do not do is unnecessary, unneeded, or unwanted. Sorry, Tom, this is not to point at you personally, but your statement is exactly why I choose to call the 135 factor sensors Fool's Format instead of anything else. Whatever forum you go to, there are whiners (RiceWhine, anyone?) who bitch that their-brand-do-not-have-the-fancy-stuff-of-the-other-brand. Now it's the chip format, before that it was either buffer size, AF speed, number of spots in the light metering systems... the list goes on. If Pentax complied to the current whiners, the whiners would immediately turn to the lack of 135 format lenses, and think that Pentax sucks because they're not able to push a magic button and spew forth a full lens range to fit the new sensors within weeks of launching the new camera. The bottom line is that some people seem to thrive on disdain, demand what they can't have, and generally meet any new development with the intent of pointing out what could have been better for them personally. And then of course post that opinion to any online forum where they can hope to be read. If they really meant it as seriously as their posts would have you think, they should have switched brands a long time ago. And quite possibly switched brands multiple times over the years as the technology leadership drift from one brand to the next, but that's the only way to be honest about ones perpetual dissatisfaction with any particular brand. Pentax included. Why not focus on the nice things instead, for a change? Jostein -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
2010/2/24 Larry Colen l...@red4est.com: The differences that I've heard are that film has the different colors on different layers, where with digital you need all colors to focus in the same plane. I've also heard that digital sensors are more sensitive to the angle of incidence of the light rays striking them. Then consider the register distance that 645 lenses are made for, and you'll see that the retrofocus angle is much less of a problem than for K-mount. Jostein -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
On Feb 24, 2010, at 3:58 AM, Cotty wrote: Hmm - in a way the corporate geeks are worse - not only do they want value for money, they want it to look like they are getting all the icing on the cake. I am shooting web video productions and I could easily do it on my small solid-state HD camera. Instead, out comes the big SD camera and all the lights - to them it looks like the real deal. Easy solution. Get the Dremel out and mount the little camera inside the big one. Dave -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
2010/2/24 John Sessoms jsessoms...@nc.rr.com: Since the one I got ain't gettin' as much use as I think it should, why would I want another one? it opens up new alleys of creativity plus you can race yourself... I'd take one ]:) -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
2010/2/24 Tom C caka...@gmail.com: I sense a gender of our PDML has stopped following this thread. must be penis envy =P -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:15:57AM -0500, Tom C scripsit: I almost never use the camera on my cell phone, granted it's about 3 years old. The camera on mine scarcely deserves the name, *but* in terms of money and manufacturing effort, it's cell phone cameras and a relatively small space marked other, which is where everything else goes. I find the mindset of those who use their cell phone as their only or predominant camera hard to fathom. I guess it's more about sharing the image immediately than it is about the image itself. Must be getting old. Or it's about social connectivity, which is a major motivating factor in a gang of monkeys. I generally agree with your thoughts. Especially that the value is in the lens, in that they are less transitory than the DSLR bodies. In the short time that DSLR's have been around I find that I upgrade my camera body every 1.5 cycles... Pentax has released 4 flagships... not counting the *ist D (the first), 3 upgrades were made available as the top of the line. I smartly skipped the K10D, foolishly purchased a K20D, and then got the K-7. I'd likely be the same with any other mfr. Certainly buying every new cycle release is a sign of excess disposable income in pretty much every other consumer electronics category as well. I don't see why cameras should be different. I believe that I could get the same or possibly better image quality with film and a good scanner. Though the price of film and developing would likely begin to encroach on the price of new gear, offset again somewhat by the need for more storage with digital, offset by the time required to scan the shots worthy of scanning... Ah, but what constitutes good scanner is also on that electronics release cycle. :) Next transition is the image formation moving out of the lens into lens plus processing, something we are already seeing; at that point, the value *isn't* in the lens, it's in the lens plus a body that has the correct (and nigh-certain to be intensely proprietary) algorithms. I'm not looking forward to that. With luck, Pentax isn't going there. -- Graydon -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
As someone who is obviously compensating for a small pee pee, I think I should add my thoughts on the whole FF question. Yes I own a D700. Yes it's full frame. Did I buy it because it's full frame. No, not really. I bought it for several reasons. The main one being it's much publicised low noise characteristics high ISO performance. One of the contributing factors to low noise is sensor temperature. In all of the Pentax DSLRs I've used ( *istD, K10D K20D) heat build up in the sensor has been a problem. Now this isn't an issue for most shooters, but at the time I was initially looking at the D700 I was fighting the K10/20D and spending lots of time in Photoshop cleaning up long exposure night shots that had huge magenta smears on them. Also for some time I had been dissatisfied with the AF exposure performance of the K10/20D until the announcement release of the D700 I had been considering the D300. But while the D300's AF was excellent very accurate exposure wise, I knew it had the same sensor amp glow issues with long exposure as my Pentax's. So while I was tempted to jump ship, I wasn't gaining the one thing I wanted most. At this point I'll admit that when the 5D first came out, I was very tempted almost bought one on a couple of occasions, just because it was full frame. But at that time I was still the limiting factor when it came to picture making. Not the hardware. Practicality and common sense overruled my initial FF desires. I attended the official Perth launch for the D700 in '08 and I spent a solid 2 hours wandering around with the camera putting it through it's paces. I was bloody impressed (and I still am). AF, exposure handling are all top notch. People around me kept commenting on the size of the viewfinder, but that wasn't something I wasn't paying attention to. I spent the next 4 weeks um'ing ah'ing before I finally pulled the trigger. I don't for one second regret the decision. The technology handling of that camera is several magnitudes above anything from Pentax. Given the D700's (ie, the D3) it's price, that shouldn't be a surprise. Ultimately I bought the camera, because it was better spec'ed the better tool for the kind of photography I'm interested in. Not because it was FF. And this is what any future Pentax FF DSLR has to live up too. It wouldn't be enough to just put a FF sensor in a camera with the K20D or K7 level of technology. Pentax would have to, IMHO, raise their technical standards much higher than they have previously. As I've said in the past, it doesn't matter how sharp a lens is, or how beautiful the bokeh, or how well the lens handles flare if the fucking photo is out of focus because the AF couldn't keep up or there is so much noise it looks like the shot was taken during a sand storm. Pentax has got away for a lot of years on the reputation of it's lenses (and it's a well deserved reputation. I know, I have some of their best glass). And back in the film days that wasn't such an issue, but the DSLR is such a pivotal part of image capture ultimately image quality, that the Penatx faithful should be demanding much better. Not shrugging their shoulders and saying thats the Pentax way Now I hope they do release a 35mm FF camera some day. But I don't think it likely. They just aren't a big enough company to manufacture APS, digi MF 35mm FF systems. Cheers, Dave On 23 February 2010 06:42, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote: Hey there. Just my opinion, really. I've spent good day and a half with my Minoltian friend just recently. He's got Sony A850 and assortment of Minolta FF lenses, such as 50/1.7, beercan, and some more. Well, I admit - I am envious. The look and the technical qualities of the pics are pretty darn amazing. Well, whatever you say about the full or fool format - I say it is full and not fool. Let's hope Pentax does what I would like them to do ;-). Boris -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
Given the D700's (ie, the D3) it's price, that shouldn't be a surprise Should read: Given the D700's pedigree (ie, the D3) it's price, that shouldn't be a surprise On 24 February 2010 21:58, David Savage ozsav...@gmail.com wrote: As someone who is obviously compensating for a small pee pee, I think I should add my thoughts on the whole FF question. Yes I own a D700. Yes it's full frame. Did I buy it because it's full frame. No, not really. I bought it for several reasons. The main one being it's much publicised low noise characteristics high ISO performance. One of the contributing factors to low noise is sensor temperature. In all of the Pentax DSLRs I've used ( *istD, K10D K20D) heat build up in the sensor has been a problem. Now this isn't an issue for most shooters, but at the time I was initially looking at the D700 I was fighting the K10/20D and spending lots of time in Photoshop cleaning up long exposure night shots that had huge magenta smears on them. Also for some time I had been dissatisfied with the AF exposure performance of the K10/20D until the announcement release of the D700 I had been considering the D300. But while the D300's AF was excellent very accurate exposure wise, I knew it had the same sensor amp glow issues with long exposure as my Pentax's. So while I was tempted to jump ship, I wasn't gaining the one thing I wanted most. At this point I'll admit that when the 5D first came out, I was very tempted almost bought one on a couple of occasions, just because it was full frame. But at that time I was still the limiting factor when it came to picture making. Not the hardware. Practicality and common sense overruled my initial FF desires. I attended the official Perth launch for the D700 in '08 and I spent a solid 2 hours wandering around with the camera putting it through it's paces. I was bloody impressed (and I still am). AF, exposure handling are all top notch. People around me kept commenting on the size of the viewfinder, but that wasn't something I wasn't paying attention to. I spent the next 4 weeks um'ing ah'ing before I finally pulled the trigger. I don't for one second regret the decision. The technology handling of that camera is several magnitudes above anything from Pentax. Given the D700's (ie, the D3) it's price, that shouldn't be a surprise. Ultimately I bought the camera, because it was better spec'ed the better tool for the kind of photography I'm interested in. Not because it was FF. And this is what any future Pentax FF DSLR has to live up too. It wouldn't be enough to just put a FF sensor in a camera with the K20D or K7 level of technology. Pentax would have to, IMHO, raise their technical standards much higher than they have previously. As I've said in the past, it doesn't matter how sharp a lens is, or how beautiful the bokeh, or how well the lens handles flare if the fucking photo is out of focus because the AF couldn't keep up or there is so much noise it looks like the shot was taken during a sand storm. Pentax has got away for a lot of years on the reputation of it's lenses (and it's a well deserved reputation. I know, I have some of their best glass). And back in the film days that wasn't such an issue, but the DSLR is such a pivotal part of image capture ultimately image quality, that the Penatx faithful should be demanding much better. Not shrugging their shoulders and saying thats the Pentax way Now I hope they do release a 35mm FF camera some day. But I don't think it likely. They just aren't a big enough company to manufacture APS, digi MF 35mm FF systems. Cheers, Dave On 23 February 2010 06:42, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote: Hey there. Just my opinion, really. I've spent good day and a half with my Minoltian friend just recently. He's got Sony A850 and assortment of Minolta FF lenses, such as 50/1.7, beercan, and some more. Well, I admit - I am envious. The look and the technical qualities of the pics are pretty darn amazing. Well, whatever you say about the full or fool format - I say it is full and not fool. Let's hope Pentax does what I would like them to do ;-). Boris -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
From: Larry Colen On Feb 24, 2010, at 12:14 AM, AlunFoto wrote: 2010/2/24 Miserere miser...@gmail.com: Jostein, Does the rear element of that 35mm f/3.5 have digital coating? You mean fingerprints? :-) Seriously though, I have no idea. Please tell me what this thing is you're asking about, and why it is the single factor discerning digital from non-digital lenses? I could see a lens for digital cameras needing better anti-reflection on the rear element because a sensor is more reflective than film. The differences that I've heard are that film has the different colors on different layers, where with digital you need all colors to focus in the same plane. I've also heard that digital sensors are more sensitive to the angle of incidence of the light rays striking them. One up for the Foveon sensor that has the colors layered like film ... I guess. -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
Hi Jostein, It's not a whine or a rant. It's something I've thought for years... that Pentax should/would have a full frame DSLR. Obviously Pentax thought so also at one point with the MZ-D, or whatever is was called, before cancellation due to sensor issues. As far as I can tell the only reason the smaller sensor size entered the picture (no pun intended but give me credit for noticing) is because it: 1. allowed mfrs. to produce more easily (sell) and cut costs (profit) 2. market specialized lenses (smaller, less materials, lower cost) for that format (sell and profit) In the 8 or 9 years that DSLR's for the public at large have existed, they (all mfrs.) have sold millions of cameras and lenses, from which we have profited by having a product, and they have profited to the the tune of 1000's of millions of dollars. In the meantime, sensor technology and manufacturing processes have matured to the point that FF 135mm bodies are now a reasonable proposition as evidenced by their existence, including even interloper Sony having one. The mfrs., at large have played the game pretty smartly, having produced and profited in the interim with what could be considered a compromise product (in the sense that they compromised and adjusted in order to market an affordable product). They now are profiting again (or stand to) by producing the level up FF 135mm body lines. They have experienced a sales revolution and paradigm shift over the last 10 years that was beyond their wildest dreams. In the past the average SLR purchaser bought a camera body and kept if for 5, 10, 20 years with possibly no compelling need to upgrade and the continued sale of additional lenses was extremely important. Fast-Forward... in the last 10 years many people have changed DSLR bodies 2, 3, 4, 5 times, plus they've purchased many new lenses to match the format. If sensor resolution is limited by density/pixel size/inherent noise, then as I see it, manufacturers have little choice but to increase sensor size as a means of generating continued interest in a new product they can sell to their existing customer base. It's a logical move. In fact it may become easier to increase resolution or image quality by moving to a larger sensor than by trying to eke out the last bit of headroom from the APS-C format. If Pentax, Hoya, whoever they are, does not make a 135mm format body they will simply be relegated further back in the pack as they will likely hit the brick wall of physics. I agree that MP count is not everything and that some people will/do not feel the need for more. But we live in a world where mfrs. have generated exactly the opposite perception and continue to do so. And at the base level, higher MP count = increased resolution = higher image quality. You're correct in that I haven't moved on from Pentax yet, largely because 1) everytime I consider it I must also factor in new lenses, and 2) everytime I consider it I must also factor in the cost for new lenses. My affinity for Pentax, despite my misgivings, is evidenced by the fact that I've purchased 4 of their DSLR's, 2 APS-C lenses, an expensive Sigma long zoom in K-mount, and that I continue to display images made with that gear. I believe I've every right to voice a negative opinion on some aspect of Pentax as I've paid for that right. When I write my opinion (this is the only list I frequent) and it includes what is, or is perceived as, negativity or criticism regarding Pentax, that's allowed. :-) If I chose only to say things positive about Pentax, while ignoring the other side of the picture, then I could be correctly referred to as a fanboy. Tom C. On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 3:35 AM, AlunFoto alunf...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/2/24 Tom C caka...@gmail.com: Dichotomy again. What Pentax does must be correct, while what they do not do is unnecessary, unneeded, or unwanted. Sorry, Tom, this is not to point at you personally, but your statement is exactly why I choose to call the 135 factor sensors Fool's Format instead of anything else. Whatever forum you go to, there are whiners (RiceWhine, anyone?) who bitch that their-brand-do-not-have-the-fancy-stuff-of-the-other-brand. Now it's the chip format, before that it was either buffer size, AF speed, number of spots in the light metering systems... the list goes on. If Pentax complied to the current whiners, the whiners would immediately turn to the lack of 135 format lenses, and think that Pentax sucks because they're not able to push a magic button and spew forth a full lens range to fit the new sensors within weeks of launching the new camera. The bottom line is that some people seem to thrive on disdain, demand what they can't have, and generally meet any new development with the intent of pointing out what could have been better for them personally. And then of course post that opinion to any online forum where they can hope to be read. If they really meant it as seriously as their posts
Re: On FF but without intent to start a flame
- Original Message - From: David Savage Subject: Re: On FF but without intent to start a flame And this is what any future Pentax FF DSLR has to live up too. It wouldn't be enough to just put a FF sensor in a camera with the K20D or K7 level of technology. Pentax would have to, IMHO, raise their technical standards much higher than they have previously. As I've said in the past, it doesn't matter how sharp a lens is, or how beautiful the bokeh, or how well the lens handles flare if the fucking photo is out of focus because the AF couldn't keep up or there is so much noise it looks like the shot was taken during a sand storm. Unfortunately, the common wisdom seems to be that if you can't make the photo with a Pentax you are a crap photographer who needs to gain more skills, or that epic fail of apologism, that being the Pentax sits several hundred dollars under the price of the competition, so the comparison isn't a valid one. I've run into this attitude a number of times with the no mind fanbois on PentaxForums and to both of these pearls, I call bullshit.. With the K7, they've come part way in that the exposure system can now mostly be trusted (a first for Pentax), with the K-x they seem to have solved some of the noise issues, but they had to walk away from Samsung to do it, but they still haven't addressed their really big technological failing, which is the AF system, which was lifted bodily out of the *ist film camera and has seen, at best, a few minor tweaks over the past decade or so since it was released. The AF is still slow, and it's accuracy is dodgy at best. In my portrait work I find that I have to shoot at f/8 to have any hope of securing something close to being in focus most of the time. You are right, going forwards, these issues must be resolved before going to a 135 format camera, as there is absolutely no point in putting an expensive sensor into a camera that performs at the level that the K7 is capable of. William Robb -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
Unfortunately, the common wisdom seems to be that if you can't make the photo with a Pentax you are a crap photographer who needs to gain more skills, or that epic fail of apologism, that being the Pentax sits several hundred dollars under the price of the competition, so the comparison isn't a valid one. This sentence should be taken out and shot! -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 9:23 AM, William Robb war...@gmail.com wrote: Unfortunately, the common wisdom seems to be that if you can't make the photo with a Pentax you are a crap photographer who needs to gain more skills, I'm a crap photographer who needs to gain more skills. or that epic fail of apologism, that being the Pentax sits several hundred dollars under the price of the competition, so the comparison isn't a valid one. I want a Ferrari at the price of a Fiat. I've run into this attitude a number of times with the no mind fanbois on PentaxForums and to both of these pearls, I call bullshit.. Pearls before bulls? With the K7, they've come part way in that the exposure system can now mostly be trusted (a first for Pentax), with the K-x they seem to have solved some of the noise issues, but they had to walk away from Samsung to do it, but they still haven't addressed their really big technological failing, which is the AF system, which was lifted bodily out of the *ist film camera and has seen, at best, a few minor tweaks over the past decade or so since it was released. The AF is still slow, and it's accuracy is dodgy at best. In my portrait work I find that I have to shoot at f/8 to have any hope of securing something close to being in focus most of the time. You are right, going forwards, these issues must be resolved before going to a 135 format camera, as there is absolutely no point in putting an expensive sensor into a camera that performs at the level that the K7 is capable of. Agreed. For what I do I generally find the AF accuracy adequate. I was down at the Snake River several months ago and there was paragliders jumping off the bridge (this is maybe a mile from where Evel Knievel attempted the infamous motorcycle jump over the Snake River Canyon). From about 100 yards away, using the DA 18-250 (when it used to work) on the K7, it focused accurately and achieved focus in time, about 90% of the time. -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
Sentence, sentence, come follow me and step out this door. BANG! On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 10:21 AM, John Sessoms jsessoms...@nc.rr.com wrote: Unfortunately, the common wisdom seems to be that if you can't make the photo with a Pentax you are a crap photographer who needs to gain more skills, or that epic fail of apologism, that being the Pentax sits several hundred dollars under the price of the competition, so the comparison isn't a valid one. This sentence should be taken out and shot! -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
- Original Message - From: Tom C Subject: Re: On FF but without intent to start a flame On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 9:23 AM, William Robb war...@gmail.com wrote: Unfortunately, the common wisdom seems to be that if you can't make the photo with a Pentax you are a crap photographer who needs to gain more skills, I'm a crap photographer who needs to gain more skills. Yes well we read it here first... gdr or that epic fail of apologism, that being the Pentax sits several hundred dollars under the price of the competition, so the comparison isn't a valid one. I want a Ferrari at the price of a Fiat. I don't mind paying for the Ferrari as long as I am getting better than Fiat performance. I've run into this attitude a number of times with the no mind fanbois on PentaxForums and to both of these pearls, I call bullshit.. Pearls before bulls? Swineshit doesn't read as good. With the K7, they've come part way in that the exposure system can now mostly be trusted (a first for Pentax), with the K-x they seem to have solved some of the noise issues, but they had to walk away from Samsung to do it, but they still haven't addressed their really big technological failing, which is the AF system, which was lifted bodily out of the *ist film camera and has seen, at best, a few minor tweaks over the past decade or so since it was released. The AF is still slow, and it's accuracy is dodgy at best. In my portrait work I find that I have to shoot at f/8 to have any hope of securing something close to being in focus most of the time. You are right, going forwards, these issues must be resolved before going to a 135 format camera, as there is absolutely no point in putting an expensive sensor into a camera that performs at the level that the K7 is capable of. Agreed. For what I do I generally find the AF accuracy adequate. I was down at the Snake River several months ago and there was paragliders jumping off the bridge (this is maybe a mile from where Evel Knievel attempted the infamous motorcycle jump over the Snake River Canyon). From about 100 yards away, using the DA 18-250 (when it used to work) on the K7, it focused accurately and achieved focus in time, about 90% of the time. I suspect for a few dollars more, a D300 would give you 100%. Shooting scenics or shooting slow moving objects at distance, it's a no brainer that Pentax AF is good enough. The shooting style is more methodical, and apertures are generally small enough to cover any focus inaccuracy. Your 18-250 wide open is what? Around f/6.3? However, when you put a fast lens such as the DA*55/1.4 onto a K7 and start shooting from 15 feet, you realize very quickly that the camera is missing focus more often than it is aquiring focus. The shoot I did on Saturday had about 50% missed focus shots, and this was with the lens well stopped down. I don't even try to use AF with that lens above f/2.8 because I won't have anything usable. William Robb -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
- Original Message - From: John Sessoms Subject: Re: On FF but without intent to start a flame Unfortunately, the common wisdom seems to be that if you can't make the photo with a Pentax you are a crap photographer who needs to gain more skills, or that epic fail of apologism, that being the Pentax sits several hundred dollars under the price of the competition, so the comparison isn't a valid one. This sentence should be taken out and shot! I was hoping for a Mark. William Robb -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
On Feb 24, 2010, at 7:50 AM, William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: John Sessoms Subject: Re: On FF but without intent to start a flame Unfortunately, the common wisdom seems to be that if you can't make the photo with a Pentax you are a crap photographer who needs to gain more skills, or that epic fail of apologism, that being the Pentax sits several hundred dollars under the price of the competition, so the comparison isn't a valid one. This sentence should be taken out and shot! I was hoping for a Mark. You got one. A black one on your record, now three laps with Strunk and White. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
Yes, that's pretty sad. Is it mechanical or electronics that are failing? It would seem that the lens would have plenty of travel to sort things out mechanically. Is it weak electronics? I get better results with the DA60-250/4 at the short end with autofocus wide open than with most other older autofocus lenses (FA's). Regards, Bob S. On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 9:49 AM, William Robb war...@gmail.com wrote: The shoot I did on Saturday had about 50% missed focus shots, and this was with the lens well stopped down. I don't even try to use AF with that lens above f/2.8 because I won't have anything usable. William Robb -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
- Original Message - From: Bob Sullivan Subject: Re: On FF but without intent to start a flame Yes, that's pretty sad. Is it mechanical or electronics that are failing? It would seem that the lens would have plenty of travel to sort things out mechanically. Is it weak electronics? I get better results with the DA60-250/4 at the short end with autofocus wide open than with most other older autofocus lenses (FA's). I think it's just that the AF sensor isn't accurately able to pick out what it is pointed at. The sensor points may be too large, or the resolution of the AF driver may not be fine enough. Unfortunately, the AF misses on a pretty random basis, sometimes slightly behind, sometimes slightly in front and somtimes, albeit disturbingly rarely, bang on the money. It's too bad because when it works, it works very well indeed, it just doesn't work often enough. William Robb On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 9:49 AM, William Robb war...@gmail.com wrote: The shoot I did on Saturday had about 50% missed focus shots, and this was with the lens well stopped down. I don't even try to use AF with that lens above f/2.8 because I won't have anything usable. -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
On Feb 24, 2010, at 2:02 PM, William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Bob Sullivan Subject: Re: On FF but without intent to start a flame Yes, that's pretty sad. Is it mechanical or electronics that are failing? It would seem that the lens would have plenty of travel to sort things out mechanically. Is it weak electronics? I get better results with the DA60-250/4 at the short end with autofocus wide open than with most other older autofocus lenses (FA's). I think it's just that the AF sensor isn't accurately able to pick out what it is pointed at. The sensor points may be too large, or the resolution of the AF driver may not be fine enough. Unfortunately, the AF misses on a pretty random basis, sometimes slightly behind, sometimes slightly in front and somtimes, albeit disturbingly rarely, bang on the money. It's too bad because when it works, it works very well indeed, it just doesn't work often enough. Are you using selective autofocus? I use a single point for focus exclusively. When shooting model, it goes on the eye of course. I haven't had any problem getting good focus with the DA* 60-250 or the FA 50/1.4. Paul William Robb On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 9:49 AM, William Robb war...@gmail.com wrote: The shoot I did on Saturday had about 50% missed focus shots, and this was with the lens well stopped down. I don't even try to use AF with that lens above f/2.8 because I won't have anything usable. -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
Tom, Your comments strike a chord with me. I've owned Pentax gear since starting with an ME in 1978. By 1993, I had purchased several lenses (M's) but only my 3rd body, a PZ-1. That was 3 bodies in 15+ years and skipping multiple generations. Then came digital... I resisted until GFM and then ordered a *istDS on the ride back home. Then I jumped on the leading edge with a K-10 followed by a K-20, then a K-7. Pentax made more money from my recent camera purchases than lenses. I keep on chasing the latest technology to their profit. Would I like a FF camera? Absolutely! I still pick up an LX or MX and look thru the viewfinder. The picture is wonderful, big, bright, and very desirable. I will pay money to get back to that... And to have my wide angle lenses back! Regards, Bob S. On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 8:14 AM, Tom C caka...@gmail.com wrote: You're correct in that I haven't moved on from Pentax yet, largely because 1) everytime I consider it I must also factor in new lenses, and 2) everytime I consider it I must also factor in the cost for new lenses. My affinity for Pentax, despite my misgivings, is evidenced by the fact that I've purchased 4 of their DSLR's, 2 APS-C lenses, an expensive Sigma long zoom in K-mount, and that I continue to display images made with that gear. I believe I've every right to voice a negative opinion on some aspect of Pentax as I've paid for that right. Tom C. -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
- Original Message - From: paul stenquist Subject: Re: On FF but without intent to start a flame Are you using selective autofocus? I use a single point for focus exclusively. When shooting model, it goes on the eye of course. I haven't had any problem getting good focus with the DA* 60-250 or the FA 50/1.4. I'm generally using one of the off center cross points as the far outside points are virtually useless. Put point on eye, push button, pray. If I'm stopped down than this works, but wider than f/2.8 it is really hit or miss, more often miss, with the miss ratio going up as the aperture opens. And yes, I have my AF tuned to the lens. William Robb -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
I don't think it's so much a matter of Pentax moving up to full-frame as full-frame coming down to Pentax's current demographic. Right now the entry point for full-frame is $2000 (U.S.) but absolutely no one believes it's going to remain that high. What's interesting to me is the question of which direction Pentax eventually takes with full-frame: High-megapixel and high resolution (like the Sony A850) or big-pixel-size and low-noise (like the Nikon D700). I'm thinking it might be the latter... The 645D is interesting, but it still leaves a ridiculous gap between a $1000 body like the K7 and an approximately-$10,000 medium format camera. Hoya probably made the decision to revive the 645D because development was so far along that didn't make sense to leave it dormant, and the MF market seems to have started leveling out around 40-50 megapixels (they'd have had problems if they'd introduced it at the originally-planned 18 megapixels). -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
I generally use the far outside points to avoid having to reframe excessively. Works well for me. Paul - William Robb war...@gmail.com wrote: - Original Message - From: paul stenquist Subject: Re: On FF but without intent to start a flame Are you using selective autofocus? I use a single point for focus exclusively. When shooting model, it goes on the eye of course. I haven't had any problem getting good focus with the DA* 60-250 or the FA 50/1.4. I'm generally using one of the off center cross points as the far outside points are virtually useless. Put point on eye, push button, pray. If I'm stopped down than this works, but wider than f/2.8 it is really hit or miss, more often miss, with the miss ratio going up as the aperture opens. And yes, I have my AF tuned to the lens. William Robb -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
On Feb 24, 2010, at 2:42 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: I don't think it's so much a matter of Pentax moving up to full-frame as full-frame coming down to Pentax's current demographic. Right now the entry point for full-frame is $2000 (U.S.) but absolutely no one believes it's going to remain that high. What's interesting to me is the question of which direction Pentax eventually takes with full-frame: High-megapixel and high resolution (like the Sony A850) or big-pixel-size and low-noise (like the Nikon D700). I'm thinking it might be the latter... Or an optimized APS format camera. That might be the direction Pentax takes. I don't care one way or the other, but the lens lineup suggests that full frame isn't in Pentax' product plan. Paul The 645D is interesting, but it still leaves a ridiculous gap between a $1000 body like the K7 and an approximately-$10,000 medium format camera. Hoya probably made the decision to revive the 645D because development was so far along that didn't make sense to leave it dormant, and the MF market seems to have started leveling out around 40-50 megapixels (they'd have had problems if they'd introduced it at the originally-planned 18 megapixels). -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
- Original Message - From: Subject: Re: On FF but without intent to start a flame I generally use the far outside points to avoid having to reframe excessively. Works well for me. The two outside points (the bars, not the squares) are almost never in the right position for me, and I have a great deal of difficulty getting them to lock on. The next tier in works better for me regarding locking on, but not well enough to be perfectly accurate about it. Not a problem with slower lenses, but with the fast ones used wide open it is an issue. William Robb -- 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: On FF but without intent to start a flame
paul stenquist wrote: On Feb 24, 2010, at 2:42 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: I don't think it's so much a matter of Pentax moving up to full-frame as full-frame coming down to Pentax's current demographic. Right now the entry point for full-frame is $2000 (U.S.) but absolutely no one believes it's going to remain that high. What's interesting to me is the question of which direction Pentax eventually takes with full-frame: High-megapixel and high resolution (like the Sony A850) or big-pixel-size and low-noise (like the Nikon D700). I'm thinking it might be the latter... Or an optimized APS format camera. That might be the direction Pentax takes. I don't care one way or the other, but the lens lineup suggests that full frame isn't in Pentax' product plan. Many of the lenses released recently have been full-frame compatible (DA 70mm f/2.4 Limited, DA 40mm f/2.8 Limited, DA* 55mm f/1.4, DA*200mm f/2.8, DA*300mm f/4.0 and DA*60-250mm f/4.0). I'm confident full-frame is in their plans because I've talked to the top people at Pentax USA and they simply aren't stupid enough to ignore what's coming with regards to the entry price of full-frame. Say $1600 within a year from now? Personally, I'll be getting a Sony A850 as soon as my tax refund arrives (12 x 18 prints at 300ppi with no interpolation) and getting by with a couple of 3rd-party primes (Sony's selection of full-frame lenses isn't that great and really the good ones - the Zeiss lenses - are mostly zooms). -- 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.
