Leon Altoff wrote:
Hi,
The R-CRV-3 batteries are not recommended for use in the Pentax
cameras. They supply too high a current that can cause motors to burn
out.
I'm not sure I understand how that can happen. Aren't batteries voltage
sources, not current sources?
- T
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 8 Nov 2005 at 12:51, Toralf Lund wrote:
Leon Altoff wrote:
Hi,
The R-CRV-3 batteries are not recommended for use in the Pentax
cameras. They supply too high a current that can cause motors to burn
out.
I'm not sure I understand how that can happen
Albano Garcia wrote:
Hi gang,
I'm terribly excited
My lawyer just confirmed I'm cashing an old debt, so
I'll get right the money to get a DSLR...
Now the dilemma... D50, Rebel XT, Pentax?
The D50 is usd 1050 in kit, with full warranty.
The Rebel XT is usd 1120 in kit, with a more doubtfull
Albano Garcia wrote:
Yes, these prices are high, but I'm in the butt of the
world (Argentina).
Right... But actually, the Canon and Nikon prices seem to be comparable
to the ones in this country (Norway), but like I said, it isn't exactly
known as the cheapest place place on the planet. The
Bruce Dayton wrote:
Just want to make sure there is no interest in this camera before I
move on to venues for selling it. It does seem that the age of film
is about over.
Actually, I sort of want it, but expect the price will be higher than
what I'm prepared to pay for another camera right
frank theriault wrote:
On 10/30/05, Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I thought I might post a proper picture now:
http://www.toralf.net/bilde.php?navn=children
love it, especially the rapt expression of the asian girl in the foreground.
That was mainly what caught my
Yes, red or yellow :-)
Such as the sun?
Of course, including the sun is dangerous, but I also think it can be
interesting... And this was a case of the sun being visible through the
clouds, rather than shining from a clear sky, I believe...
But I think I used a filter. That's why
Jack Davis wrote:
This has a joy to it that I feel, certainly makes it a proper
picture. The coral of adult legs implies protection and grants
permission to the children to have their own group experience.
Unusual and very intriguing moment.
Thanks. Glad you liked it ;-)
- Toralf
3. It is definitely possible that I messed up somehow on frame 18 -
that's why frame 19 has essentially the same shot.
I'll bet it was gross over-exposure.
I'm trying very hard to remember what exactly I did, but I', not sure if
I can. I must be getting old...
I'm thinking I
I thought I might post a proper picture now:
http://www.toralf.net/bilde.php?navn=children
Not necessarily among the best I've taken, but since we were discussing
picture-taking in the public, and using children as subjects in
particular, a while back... I have in fact photographed a number
Toralf Lund wrote:
I thought I might post a proper picture now:
http://www.toralf.net/bilde.php?navn=children
Or
http://www.toralf.net/bilde.php?navn=children2
for a smaller file (and reduced quality.)
- T
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
The file is HUGE ... perhaps in the future you can bring your posted pics
down to a reasonable size. Those on slow dialup connections have to wait a
l-o-n-g time to see the photo.
Right. Sorry. I did scale reduce quality somewhat, but perhaps not as
much as I might.
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: Toralf Lund Subject: Re: What's
wrong with this picture?
In any case, I've now also done a quick scan of the entire negative
strip. Not a very good one as I used a plain A4 document scanner, but
I think it illustrates the problem
Rick Womer wrote:
Was this roll of film in checked luggage on an
airplane?
Not while it was in my possession, no. But I'm quite sure the film
wasn't manufactured anywhere near the place I bought it, if you know
what I mean. And in this case I also used a shop that will send off the
film
You mean, of the kind that they tell you is harmless to film?
No X-rays are harmess to film, not according to Kodak documentation anyway.
Probably not. The point was that I suspect the people in charge of
controls at airports don't have exactly the same opinion on what is
harmful to
Does anyone have any idea about what went wrong here:
http://www.procaptura.com/~toralf/bilde.php?navn=error
?
I mean, where did the horizontal red band come from? This is a scan from
film, and the band is clearly visible on the negative as well (as green
rather than red, obviously.) So what
Charles Robinson wrote:
On Oct 28, 2005, at 4:26, David Savage wrote:
Looks like there may have been a light leak that fogged the film to me.
My first impression, as well, is that the film was somehow exposed to
light - perhaps at some point in the development stage. If you look
at
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: Toralf Lund
Subject: Re: What's wrong with this picture?
The band visble on the picture shown goes from top to bottom in the
middle of a frame,
Check the foam seal around the DX window (if your camera has one).
I've seen them leak
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Oct 20, 2005, at 11:22 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
I haven't used any DA lenses myself, but several others have reported
that they cover more than the APS-C area, enough for full-frame,
in some
cases. And Canon seems to do fine selling DSLR's that don't work with
Dario Bonazza wrote:
Pål Jensen wrote:
I think a 16MP DSLR in a 35mm size [ ... ]
Hmmm... technology being equal, I don't expect 18MP to be so much
better than 16MP. OK, larger pixels should deliver better S/N ratio
than smaller ones, but... is technology equal? I'm afraid it won't.
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Pentax DSLR future
I think Pentax would lose more than they would gain by introducing a
35mm-style DSLR that disenfranchised the people to whom they just
sold new lenses.
Look at all the trouble they
Cotty wrote:
On 20/10/05, Rob Studdert, discombobulated, unleashed:
Sometimes I go out filming with the police when they have various purges
(overweight vans / Christmas drink/drive / speeding / etc etc) and the
cop will say to me 'right, tell me when you want me to pull someone over'.
I
E.R.N. Reed wrote:
If you want dangerous perverts to wander around your district and
never be caught, you're entitled to your opinion. (Which we have now
heard, over and over.) My opinion, (which I've also shared many times
and so I suppose this can be the last time) is that I do not want
Bob Shell wrote:
On Thursday, October 20, 2005, at 09:40 AM, Toralf Lund wrote:
Anyhow, I'd say that being asked to pull over when driving a car and
being stopped by the police while walking around with (or without) a
camera is not the same thing at all. I think one is OK, but object
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
You don't see reducing the number of drunk drivers on the road as a public
service?
I have to agree with you there. Like I said elsewhere, I'm not sure I
understand how car driving came into this discussion, as I think it's
something else entirely. Being run over by a
Raimo K wrote:
That would indeed be good - but I do not think that there are more
than one of those - Epson.
Looks like good optical viewfinder is expensive to make.
Probably. I doubt that it is more expensive than an electronic one with
comparable brightness/resolution, however.
- T
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff
Subject: Re: LCD screens and the way we photograph...
Really? Is this supposition on your part or is your opinion based on
some
facts. I'd love to know as I've priced and paid for a good optical
rangefinder recently,
William Robb wrote:
I wonder how many people won't see this because of the subject line
It is pornography if the subject is in a situation or position that
may be titillating to the viewer.
In other words, pornography is defined not by the creator of it, but
by the viewer, and that
Perusing my favorite internet sites reveals that the selection seems
to have been cut back greatly, with some previously stocked lenses
shown as backord [ ... ]
Sorry if this has already been discussed - I don't often have a chance
to read the list these days.
I think it has, or at least,
Amita Guha wrote:
This isn't really an answer to your question, but I've been buying the
Pentax lenses I wanted before they go out of production. I missed out
on the black FA 77mm last summer, but I decided to buy a silver one
anyway just in case. Someone else on this list missed the chance to
DagT wrote:
In Norway it is illegal to sell pornography (that is active
genitalia),
Actually, I think someone representing Statens Filmtilsyn/Medietilsynet
(the State Media Authority) said on TV a while back that although most
people seem to believe the law mentions active genitalia, the
Mishka wrote:
no, since the mirror would block the ccd and you won't have the
live histogram. which is very useful, btw.
So you prefer a proper rangefinder system? Yep, that's all right with me.
Seriously, though, it seems to me that the best of two worlds is
actually a digital camera
Albano Garcia wrote:
I've been thinkin on this subject for a long time.
I think the use of digicams with LCDs is an unobserved
change in social life compared to the use of
viewfinders.
Now, it's medium role si more evident, the camera is
put between the man and the subject, within a
Raimo K wrote:
I am waiting for the electronic viewfinders to develop to clarity - it
would be the best of 2 worlds.
I don't know... Wouldn't it be even better to put, say, a mirror in
there? And (I'm taking this out of the blue of course) couple it with a
prism perhaps?
- T
graywolf wrote:
The sensor in the DCS-14 cameras were not made by Kodak, they
outsourced them.
Surely that was one of the reasons why they discontinued those cameras?
They were Nikons/Canons with a sensor produced by a forget who, but
someone other than Kodak. Seems to me that continuing
But Cotty said Samsung was respected in the UK. I thought I'd mention it,
because it certainly has not always been respected in the US. Although I guess
that is changing or has changed.
I think that's the main point here. Samsung was probably not respected
anywhere 10 or 15 years ago, but
Albano Garcia wrote:
Hi Graywolf,
Actually, it proves that brand names (trade marks)
mean a lot. If a brand were worthless, they'll sell
the stuff as Cheng Sung El Cheapo, instead of RCA or
Whirlpool...
I think graywolf means brand names mean nothing in the sense that
buying something with
Don Sanderson wrote:
In the consumer electronics industry Samsung is a
brand I grew to respect a long time ago.
They have an uncanny habit of producing products
as good _or better_ than the competition at lower
prices.
I used to agree with you, but my new Samsung LCD monitor has started
Thibouille wrote:
Buy an MZ-M and exchange the screens.
Simple (and cheap) as that.
It has been suggested earlier on this list that the split image/micro
prism might cause problems for the spot metering, though - as they sort
of change the brightness of the centre of the screen.
Tom Reese wrote:
Has anyone else noticed that KEH now has:
(5) FA 50 2.8 macro lenses
(4) F 85 2.8 soft lenses
(2) FA 85 2.8 soft lenses
(2) FA 100 2.8 macro lenses
(9) FA 28-105 zoom lenses
I'm wondering where all these used lenses are coming from and why they're
all appearing on the market
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
That seems to have been the problem. I noticed that the camera would fire
normally when the focus indicator light came on, but not if the indicator
didn't light up. You completed the last par of the puzzle ... sometimes
there's just too much to think about with these
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: Toralf Lund
Subject: Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...
Except, perhaps, you have one motor instead of one in each and every
lens? Seems more sensible to me... And if you update the motor,
you'll see an improvement
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: Tom C
Subject: Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...
PENTAX, Official camera of women, and men with small hands...
Trying to be funny at 10:35 PM PDT.
I know what they say about how foot size relates to other body parts,
does
Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:
P. J. Alling wrote on 05.10.05 9:43:
Pentax could do that, if they wanted to.
They did. At least in patent filed a few years ago. I have even made a PDF
from that patent, we called it KAF3 mount. It used current digital contact
for communication and
Adam Maas wrote:
Toralf Lund wrote:
Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:
P
Have they really removed it, or just used the KAF mount instead of
KAF2? As far as I can tell, KAF2 has been used only for relative
higher-end cameras; KAF ones have always been produced along with
them. For instance
Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:
Have they really removed it, or just used the KAF mount instead of KAF2?
As far as I can tell, KAF2 has been used only for relative higher-end
cameras; KAF ones have always been produced along with them. For
instance, while the MZ-5n/MZ-3 and MZ-S have KAF2 mounts,
Except, perhaps, you have one motor instead of one in each and every
lens? Seems more sensible to me... And if you update the motor, you'll
see an improvement for *all* lenses.
If you have an original EOS lens, and buy a new lens, you have just
updated your AF technology.
Not really. You
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Oct 5, 2005, at 7:25 AM, Adam Maas wrote:
The most important factor is how efficienty the overall system works.
Lens driven AF is more efficient than body driven AF.
I very much doubt that this holds as a general claim.
This is a general truth in the
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: Christian
Subject: Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...
I'm not being negative about Pentax quality. I used their gear for
20 years and it always performed great. I was only clarifying what I
think Mr. Robb was referring to
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Oct 5, 2005, at 7:59 AM, Toralf Lund wrote:
The most important factor is how efficienty the overall system
works.
Lens driven AF is more efficient than body driven AF.
I very much doubt that this holds as a general claim.
This is a general truth
Pål Jensen wrote:
Lucas wrote:
Currently. That still does not prove an in-lens system is better in
principle. As a simile, public radio shifted from wireless technology to
wired and back at least two times in the last 100 years...
Right. Basically Canon had no choice being
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Oct 5, 2005, at 9:49 AM, Toralf Lund wrote:
...
No, I don't think they necessarily are that important *as such*.
Once you can move the parts precisely enough to be within the
tolerance of (in this case) the rest of the AF system, and quickly
enough
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
By the same token, one might ask why the Michael Franks song, Popsicle
Toes, made quite popular by Diana Krall, mentions a Pentax camera.
I'm now reminded of Norwegian singer-songwriter Lillebjørn Nilsen
(http://www.lillebjorn.no), who has this weird song about Nikon
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: Toralf Lund
Subject: Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...
Behind in AF, behind (non-existent) in USM, behind (non-existent) in
IS/Anti-shake, behind in etc, etc.
Ah, yes, they are behind in thinking up completely
DagT wrote:
Of course, we don´t hear ultrasound, but some animals do.
So, if you try to shoot them with a Canon, they'll run away???
Is there really anything ultrasonic about it, by the way?
Toralf was thinking about whether they were harmful. I wouldn´t
worry too much there, but...
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 4 Oct 2005 at 9:18, Toralf Lund wrote:
USM is just a *name*. Complaining that Pentax doesn't have it is just
silly. I think I'll quote Tom, here
If you are all conversant with the Canon USM and Pentax body driven focus
technologies then you'd know quite
Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:
Toralf Lund wrote on 04.10.05 10:06:
I must admit that although I've tried some of the never Canons and
Nikons, I've only shot a couple of pictures with each. I wasn't
immediately struck by any important differences in the AF, though.
Quieter, perhaps, but more
Adam Maas wrote:
Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:
Toralf Lund wrote on 04.10.05 10:06:
USM is not faster, at least until you have very long lens with
heavy optics. [ ... ]
Ring-type in-lens motors (USM/AF-S Ring-type) are faster, in all but
the lightest lenses. You can easily verify
I didn't expect this to work, but when I recently found an adapter for
Nikon lens on M42 body on eBay, I just had to bid so that I might be
able to give it a try... I won the bid, and I got the thing yesterday...
Just trying it out now... That's with a K-mount body, via yet another
adapter.
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
M42 and K-bayonet have the same register, and very similar to Nikon
bayonet. That's why there are no adapters I know of that will allow
infinity focus.
That's what I thought. I was just wondering if there was *something*
about M42 I'd missed...
The weird thing
keith_w wrote:
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Oct 4, 2005, at 9:55 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
M42 and K-bayonet have the same register...
Lens mount body flange-to-film plane measurement?
...and very similar to Nikon
bayonet. That's why there are no adapters I know of that will allow
M42 and K-bayonet have the same register, and very similar to Nikon
bayonet. That's why there are no adapters I know of that will allow
infinity focus.
There used to be a K-to-M42 adapter that did allow infinity focus. It
contained one or more optical elements to make this work. ...
It's
On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 19:52:33 +0200, Toralf Lund
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
M42 and K-bayonet have the same register, and very similar to
Nikon bayonet. That's why there are no adapters I know of that
will allow infinity focus.
That's what I thought. I
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 2 Oct 2005 at 17:57, Toralf Lund wrote:
Always glad to amuse ;-) [ ... ]
[ ... ] no more issues over scratched films blamed on my perfectly clean camera
bodies and no more bad print crops etc.
I guess I've been lucky in this respect... I've had my fair
John Forbes wrote:
I suspect Toralf is alluding to the fact that more than half of the
human beings who have ever lived are still alive today. As they
haven't yet died, we cannot be certain that they will. (This is very
worrying.)
Exactly ;-)
I just wish that everyone on this list
Cotty wrote:
On 3/10/05, Toralf Lund, discombobulated, unleashed:
that Canon will always make the best cameras because they
have more money to spend on RD etc. I just don't think this is the
case. In fact truly great products often come from more minor players,
and the highest amount
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: Toralf Lund
Subject: Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...
I don't mind the pessimism in general so much myself. What can get me
a bit worked up, is the continuous assertion that Pentax will always
be one step behind
Christian wrote:
- Original Message - From: Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED]
William Robb wrote:
I don't mind the pessimism in general so much myself. What can get
me a bit worked up, is the continuous assertion that Pentax will
always be one step behind
We just have
Technically advanced and feature rich don't always translate to best.
Best is what does the job. Sometimes a lesser product that has what
you need is the best.
Quite.
As I read that, it occurred to me that technically advanced products are
almost by definition inferior. Well, it depends
Christian wrote:
- Original Message - From: Tom Reese [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 3:13 PM
Subject: Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...
I expect to see IS/anti-shake in the next top of the line digital
body. I
expect it to be
John Francis wrote:
On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 02:12:08PM +0200, Toralf Lund wrote:
John Forbes wrote:
I suspect Toralf is alluding to the fact that more than half of the
human beings who have ever lived are still alive today. As they
haven't yet died, we cannot be certain
John Forbes wrote:
As well as immediate feedback ;-) , I think the two biggest advantages
of digital are the much greater control that you have over the image
(I'm talking about colour here, it's not the same with bw), and the
fact that the cost is zero until and unless you want to print.
William Robb wrote:
It's like watching a good friend slowly succumb.
I ran volume numbers yesterday for the past three summer seasons (July
and Auguat).
The highest film processing volume my lab has done was 2003, and I
still had access to those numbers as well as 2004/2005.
I will treat
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 2 Oct 2005 at 13:04, Toralf Lund wrote:
I've never been able to believe that the cost is quite zero, though. Not
for the pictures you want to keep (whether you print them or not),
anyway. Storing maintaining data on a digital medium costs something,
too
It would be at least mildly interesting to have the numbers of the
years leading up to 2003, too, though. What I mean to say is that if
2003 was a particularly good year for film processing, then obviously
you might have expected the volume to drop a bit in 2004 and 2005
even without
The point is, the $650 cameras you mention do not have the same specs as
the $3300 FF one. The only 12MP APS-C camera I know actually costs
40-50% more than That 12MP FF, and over half of That Other 16MP FF [ ... ]
Disagree. Actually, dismissing sensor, 5D has WORSE parameters than 20D,
John Forbes wrote:
I don't know where no cost came from. I don't think anybody
claimed that.
Actually, you did say cost is zero until and unless you want to print.
But I was referring more to how I notice no cost generally seems to
pop up as an argument in discussions like this, or should
John Forbes wrote:
I'll tell you a secret. I'm going to die! You, too.
No, I maintain that we have a nearly 50% chance of surviving... I'm not
joking either, we really do - statistically ;-)
- T
Cotty wrote:
On 2/10/05, Toralf Lund, discombobulated, unleashed:
And I
wouldn't be surprised if the norm becomes there is no norm,
Yeah, he's not been about for a while. Must be at a cell phone cover
conference in Brazil.
Yeah, I thought so ;-)
Cheers,
Cotty
Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:
On Oct 1, 2005, at 12:57 AM, Cotty wrote:
I think you're wrong!
God one knows who of us is really right ;-)
(If you want reasons, I gotta think a bit harder - and it's late here -
I'll try and come up with something tomorrow. Suffice it to say for
now,
that
Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:
On Oct 1, 2005, at 5:10 PM, Toralf Lund wrote:
I think that might be more like 12 MPix APS-C for $499 vs. 20MPix FF
camera for $999. Now, it has already been proven that they are
willing to go up from say $400-500 for a reasonably good camera, to
1000 for a much
graywolf wrote:
No, Bill, at Ulan Bator they will anounce the MZ-D 5000. It will have
a 5000mp full-frame sensor. Will take a card (accepts all current
image cards) full (max size 1000gb) of full-res images at 25fps. The
sensor will be interchangable, intitially there will be a 32bit per
Jens Bladt wrote:
...or two. When was the Hassie H2 with Imacon sensor/Ixpress back presented?
It seems a lot of pro's are using this already, judging from TV.
I guess it's quite expensive, being from Scandinavia, but I can't seem to
find a price anywhere.
I guess it's in the neighbourhood of
Paul Stenquist wrote:
I believe it has to do with the size of the lens mount. You should ask
Nikon:-). Seriously, if the noise can be controlled, the size of the
sensor becomes somewhat irrelevant.
As someone else mentioned, the lens resolution probably also comes into
the picture. And
Or is the 1.5 crop here to stay forever, as a sort
of 'new format' along with a smattering of 'D' lenses?
I think we are already in face of creating new standard for DSLR. It doesn't
matter what is better os what provides ability to use 35 mm lenses as it was
before. Sales figure rule
If they're going to cram 16 MP onto a chip that size, why not just make a
24x36mm sensor?
The cost of silicon per area.
Yes but I don't understand - why continue to try and get the best out of
a smaller sensor? Surely the aspiration of all SLR camera makers who have
ventured
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 30 Sep 2005 at 13:45, Toralf Lund wrote:
I'm quite sure the price as such isn't high enough to matter - I mean,
if you can actually utilise all the silicon and/or don't need
special-quality material to get usable components. I have a chip in
front of me
John Francis wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 09:03:57AM +0100, Cotty wrote:
Yes but I don't understand - why continue to try and get the best out of
a smaller sensor? Surely the aspiration of all SLR camera makers who have
ventured into digital, is to produce a DSLR that captures the full
I missed this earlier, but yes, I still shoot film... The last one I
finished (in for development now) was a roll of the new(ish) Kodak Elite
Colour 400UC...
- T
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I used my right eye for more than twenty years. When it became too farsighted,
I switched to my left, but I had trouble closing my right eye while keeping the
left open. [ ... ]
New poll: How many people on this list shoot links, or goofy, if you
like?
Hmmm. To
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 9/26/2005 10:42:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'd like to know how many of you is holding the camera/lens correctly - in
the palm of your left hand. Like this:
http://www.camerahobby.com/EBook-HoldingCamera_Chapter5Sub.htm
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Sep 23, 2005, at 2:22 PM, Toralf Lund wrote:
I was very used to controlling aperture from an on-lens ring with
generations of Nikon and Leica gear. Moving to a new control
paradigm, with control of all exposure related elements on my
right hand adjacent
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Sep 23, 2005, at 4:07 PM, Frantisek wrote:
De gustibus non est disputandum.
... I think this is an useless debate, as it really depends on one's
preference
I wasn't really debating the matter. Just stating what I found in
the movement to these new control
Not entirely true, though. With the DS, I know from experience which
way to move the control wheel to obtain smaller and larger apertures.
I can crank it to the limit, then back off with a precise number of
clicks to the setting I want because I know exactly how much each
click nets
Thibouille wrote:
I wanted to know how a raw file would compress, specially since D
files are quite big (bigger than DS as you probably know). I tried a
couple formats. My point was to know how it would compress the best,
not taking speed into account !!
Of course size will vary with the
Cotty wrote:
On 22/9/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:
So I am going to something irreverent in this irrelevant poll: What I'd
really, really like is a Canon DSLR with a Pentax interface.
Marnie, that's just plain sick ;-)
So, what you're saying is you like
graywolf wrote:
The components most likely to fail in a piece of electrical/electronic
equipment are switchs. So the way to make cameras more reliable is to
remove the mechanical aperture ring from the lens that is used only
with that lens and replace it with a multi-position, multi-function
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Sep 23, 2005, at 1:39 AM, Toralf Lund wrote:
I like aperture rings, too
I was very used to controlling aperture from an on-lens ring with
generations of Nikon and Leica gear. Moving to a new control
paradigm, with control of all exposure related elements
Don Sanderson wrote:
OK Folks, how vote you, Yea or Nay
Aye!
- T
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: Toralf Lund
Subject: Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request)
With the possible exception of Leica (which compete in a quite
different segment anyhow), I believe they do.
I thought with Leica it mattered which metering cam
701 - 800 of 994 matches
Mail list logo
