John Francis wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 11:46:52AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 9/22/2005 8:41:34 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
They should, they can't afford to lose a sale.
===
I really hope the petition does some good. And,
Herb Chong wrote:
not being a better bean counting company is part of what got it where
it is today.
Actually, I think the way he uses the expression, bean counting refers
to practices that *by definition* aren't good for a company, so if you
are referring to Pentax's problems, they would
Pål Jensen wrote:
JCO wrote:
[ ... ]
Sure, but most don't want old lenses. [ ... ]T
See above...
Unfortunately, this isn't a numbers game. People today buy different lenses
than 30 years ago. How many lenses that is out there doesn't really count that
much...
I still want
mike wilson wrote:
From: Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2005/09/21 Wed AM 11:50:31 GMT
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request)
Herb Chong wrote:
not being a better bean counting company is part of what got it where
it is today
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: Toralf Lund
Subject: Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request)
I still want to take the image view on this, though (surely image
is more important to photo companies than most others ;-)) The
question is not (only) if people
But image and/or branding (nope, I don't like that word...) is about
what makes you stand out from the crowd, isn't it? Lens compatibility
may be important to Pentax precisely because Canon/Nikon/Minolta
don't offer it.
Sadly, lens quality is way down on the list for most buyers.
They
I still want to take the image view on this, though (surely image is
more important to photo companies than most others ;-)) The question is
not (only) if people actually want to use these old lenses, but how the
lens compatibility issue affects Pentax'es image, i.e. the way people
look at
Scott Loveless wrote:
Howdy gang!
After spending about four lifetimes following the recent spew about
non-A lens support, I started to think about what I would really WANT
in a digital camera.
I seem to be in the PDML mood today, so why not. List follows. Some of
the items are just wild
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Sep 21, 2005, at 12:37 PM, Scott Loveless wrote:
The increasing lack of Pentax fixed length lenses is one of
the lesser reasons I haven't drank the *istD/DS Kool-Aid.
At last count, there are 12 Pentax brand primes between 14mm and
135mm listed at BH Photo:
I
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Sep 21, 2005, at 1:22 PM, Toralf Lund wrote:
At last count, there are 12 Pentax brand primes between 14mm and
135mm listed at BH Photo:
I think we have discussed this before: Different distributors and/ or
importer's versions of the lens lineup seem to differ
Mark Erickson wrote:
[ ... ]
s
Anyone here with manufacturing engineering background care to actually make
some estimates? Say in the number of engineering hours, broken down into
design, development, integration, and test?
I guess I have *some* relevant experience, but I don't think I
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
You asked me to respond directly to your statements so I suppose I
will, just this once (again).
In the design of a computer logic board intended to sell in total
number of units far less than a camera body, I've been at the
engineering meetings where three
Gods, I hope that isn't the case ... I need a drink. I don't drink
beer, though. Single-malt scotch please. ;-)
Ah, yes, now this thread is really starting to get sensible...
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Is it at least as good as the M version? Solid feeling? Comments
appreciated. Tks!
I'd say that it feels a bit more plasticy than the M-50. Also, as I
think someone mentioned might happen: On mine the aperture ring has
started causing some trouble; it sometimes
There seems to be a HUGE number of digital camera brands and thousands, if
not billions LOL of models. I don't recall there ever being so many film
camera brands and models. Is my memory failing?
I think you can say that the digital camera market is still quite young.
Seems to me that
mike wilson wrote:
From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2005/09/13 Tue PM 12:39:46 GMT
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Ashes (was: Rob Studdert)
On 9/12/05, Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
England.
The game's easy really. Both sides go out, then the batsman who's in
or not genuine
or whatever...
:-)
Igor
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 05:23:51 -0700
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So why don't you explain it ...
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Toralf Lund
Inexpensive consumer glass, mediocre image quality
Maybe some of you expected this:
Now that and a F-100 macro is on its way, I'll probably be selling that
other macro thingy - the Vivitar KA macro focusing 2X teleconverter. I'
thinking of listing it on That Auction Site, but I'll run it through
this list first. It's in rather good condition,
Tom C wrote:
Hot pixels are photosites on the sensor that are, in layman's terms,
more sensitive to the light striking them, than average pixels.
Therefore they turn 'ON' sooner and tend to be more visible during
long exposures. Cold or dead pixels are photosites that are always
turned
Toralf Lund wrote:
Maybe some of you expected this:
Now that and a F-100 macro is on its way,
ARGH! I still haven't learned to write, apparently. Wrote something,
decided to modify it a bit, and ended up halfway between the original
text and what I wanted to change it to. As I often do
Herb Chong wrote:
Firewire is still about half the speed of recent EIDE, SCSI or SATA
interfaces. an internal drive or an external SATA drive is your
fastest bet.
That should be SCSI-320 (unless there is yet another upgrade of the SCSI
standard), shouldn't it?
Herb
- Original
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Inexpensive consumer glass, mediocre image quality?
To repeat something I've said on the list earlier, I believe the J is
short for jalla, but that may not mean a lot to most of you...
- T
that, too ;-)
As I was trying to say on that other thread, I think the way VIPS
handles resources is The Only Way, and I've never been able to
understand why PhotoShop et al don't do the same thing.
-Cory
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005, Toralf Lund wrote:
Since the GIMP was discussed here lately, and I
David Weiss wrote:
Say, anyone using the Gimp for their image manipulations?
Yes, I've used it a bit. And I rather like it. Especially version 2,
which actually seems to be able to handle the images we generate where I
work... (Oh no, he's boasting about his large images again...) I suspect
Igor Roshchin wrote:
Toralf Lund wrote on Mon, 29 Aug 2005 01:58:34 -0700
So I just ordered the #195 F-100/2.8 macro recently listed at ffordes.co.uk... I thought the price seemed a bit lower than what Pentax macros usually fetch at eBay.. I guess the ones that pop up there are usually FAs
Herb Chong wrote:
the D-FA is significantly lighter and somewhat smaller. used FA ones
in good condition will be quite close in price.
Hmmm. The RRP around here for the D-FA is approximately 2.5x what I
mentioned in the start of this thread...
i find the D-FA much easier to use, although
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Mac OS X handles memory differently than Win XP, however, that said, there
are plenty of people working in Photoshop using 1gig or less of memory.
The key is in knowing how to set up the memory, allocating the proper
amount to Photoshop and making sure the OS and
Since the GIMP was discussed here lately, and I talked about handling
large images etc, I thought I might ask if anyone here is using VIPS - see
http://www.vips.ecs.soton.ac.uk/
I think it is definitely worth a try, although I haven't used it a
lot... (I'm quite familiar with the basic design
on the Net. I'm a bit too tired to go looking for other
relevant ones right now...)
But we're moving off the topic...
**
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Date: 8/30/2005 1:37:37 PM
Subject: Re: Gimp, Anyone?
Shel Belinkoff wrote
So I just ordered the £195 F-100/2.8 macro recently listed at
ffordes.co.uk... I thought the price seemed a bit lower than what Pentax
macros usually fetch at eBay.. I guess the ones that pop up there are
usually FAs, but based on Bojidar's info I'm assuming the F is
essentially the same lens
Larry Hodgson wrote:
Hi gang:
After looking at the Canon EOS 5D at $3,300 U.S, I'm probably going to
switch to that camera. With Canon's resources and it's ability to make it's
own sensors,
Some people will automatically assume that the company with most
resources will always make the best
Hi all.
Even though everyone here knows that Kodak is almost dead, or their film
division anyway, they still seem to produce a surprisingly wide range of
films. Or at least, they have a confusingly wide range of product names
for films...
One I noticed popping up recently, was one called
Jack Davis wrote:
Toralf,
I've shot several rolls of Ultra Color (available in
100 and 400 ISO). Snappy, vivid colors, as you might
expect. Kodak claims UC produces the most vivid colors
of any print film. As I've mentioned here before, I
set the ISO at 125 to reduce the likelihood of whites
http://www.phaseone.com/Content/p1digitalbacks/Hotnews/Ultimate%20range.aspx
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
I disagree with this assessment. The reason is that lenses can only put out
so many lines per mm and once the sensors become dense enough
the only way to increase captured resolution is to increase the
sixe of the sensor and use longer lenses with bigger image circles
at
Steve Jolly wrote:
Toralf Lund wrote:
Since the full-frame discussion re-emerged yet another time earlier
today, I thought maybe I'd ask, how about a 36x36 mm sensor? Wouldn't
that be the ultimate size for a 35mm body and lens? I mean, the
elements being circular, surely the lens should
Kevin Waterson wrote:
I really dont see why the rush is on to get a full frame sensor for
35mm. The current Sony chips used by Pentax seem to do the job for
most folks just fine. How many folks need the extra size when I can
make 40x30 prints from the current sensor.
I think it was discussed
Since the full-frame discussion re-emerged yet another time earlier
today, I thought maybe I'd ask, how about a 36x36 mm sensor? Wouldn't
that be the ultimate size for a 35mm body and lens? I mean, the
elements being circular, surely the lens should handle the same size
along both axes?
Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
.
Kostas,
You missed the point completely.
#1 Numbers 1, 2, and 3 have everything to do with these computer cameras.
a. The operating systems WILL change. Who here used XP 10 years ago?
Windows was pretty much useless 10 years ago and is pretty much useless
Dario Bonazza wrote:
Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:
Dario Bonazza wrote on 23.08.05 15:07:
Because one can enlarge all of his/her pictures on screen, quickly
and to an
extent most people did very rarely with film. Of course, you can do
something similar with film, but most don't (at least don't
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Aug 19, 2005, at 5:33 AM, Jens Bladt wrote:
The FA 100-300mm sucks. The others I don't know. ...
Is the FA100-300 the same optically as the F100-300/4.5-5.6? I know
it isn't quite the performer that the 80-320 or F70-210 are supposed
to be, and it's not
Glen wrote:
Hi,
[ ... ]
You mean this one:
http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/zooms/long/FA100-300f4.7-5.8.html
?
Someone said elsewhere on this thread that the FA100-300 sucks, but I
suspect the were referring to this:
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
I have this one:
http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/zooms/long/F100-300f4.5-5.6.html
Based on the info on Bojidar's page it is tempting to assume that it is
the same optically as the 1st FA version I mentioned. Like I said, that
variant has the power zoom feature,
Cotty wrote:
On 16/8/05, Toralf Lund, discombobulated, unleashed:
Another thing is that you mass murderers isn't really what you should
fear most. It is actually a lot more likely that someone you know will
kill you in your own home...
You misunderstand me. I fear the mass
P. J. Alling wrote:
There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
--Mark Twain
Ah. I got it wrong. Three kinds, of course...
Toralf Lund wrote:
Cotty wrote:
On 16/8/05, Toralf Lund, discombobulated, unleashed:
Another thing is that you mass murderers isn't
Malcolm Smith wrote:
[ ... ]
In many ways it's all a nonsense; chances are in a small town you are
appearing on CCTV somewhere and in a big city maybe 50, 100, 200 cameras?
Not that I have any objection to that - I welcome it today - but the
principle should be both ways. If you objecting to
Cotty wrote:
On 16/8/05, Toralf Lund, discombobulated, unleashed:
Personally I dislike the surveillance cameras that are popping up all
over the place. I think they represent a restriction of my personal
freedom as well as a way for authorities to give the public a false
sense
keithw wrote:
Toralf Lund wrote:
Malcolm Smith wrote:
[ ... ]
In many ways it's all a nonsense; chances are in a small town you are
appearing on CCTV somewhere and in a big city maybe 50, 100, 200
cameras?
Not that I have any objection to that - I welcome it today - but the
principle
[ ... ]
... as well as a way for authorities to give the public a false sense
of security,
I recall reading several times, several places where numerous
nefarious people were stopped, felons caught, illegal acts thwarted,
etc. That's a reasonable sense of security. Proven, as it were...
David Oswald wrote:
Cotty wrote:
On 16/8/05, Toralf Lund, discombobulated, unleashed:
Personally I dislike the surveillance cameras that are popping up
all over the place. I think they represent a restriction of my
personal freedom as well as a way for authorities to give the public
Herb Chong wrote:
the Dalsa sensors for 22MP cameras were in excess of $5K in OEM
quantities.
That's certainly a lot. Still, the price doesn't necessarily say much
about what Dalsa's cost per unit was, or (perhaps more interesting) what
it cost them to make one extra once the production
an early adopter at least means you can make *some* of the
money back by asking a very high price for the equipment that initially
uses the new technology (because you have no competition yet.)
Herb
- Original Message - From: Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Great for Canon users, doesn't help if you don't own Canon Glass. If
I were starting from scratch I don't think I'd care if the sensor was
APS sized, and then the 12mp Nikon would be just fine.
Surely a 12Mp 24x36 sensor has several advantages over a, what is it,
Herb Chong wrote:
there is one close enough. it's in the Leica R digital back.
Hmmm...
* Image Sensor: 3872 x 2576 Pixels (10 MPixel) CCD-Chip, active
sensor area 26.4 x 17.6 mm, focal length extension factor 1.37
[ From
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005, Frank Wajer wrote:
The dark side does it again, another full frame, arghh. Will Pentax
ever release a full frame.
No. They are committed to APS-C for 35mm.
Or maybe they are committed to whatever sensor-size they can get at a
reasonable
Bob Shell wrote:
If it is a hoax, my usually-reliable sources fell for it. Personally,
I don't know if this is or isn't a hoax, but it conforms to the new
Canon we have been getting leaks about for a while.
Could it be a mixture of both? I mean, some clever people having made
these
Mark Roberts wrote:
Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bob Shell wrote:
If it is a hoax, my usually-reliable sources fell for it. Personally,
I don't know if this is or isn't a hoax, but it conforms to the new
Canon we have been getting leaks about for a while.
Could
and not profits.
Herb
- Original Message - From: Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 4:11 PM
Subject: Re: OT - Upping the anti
Sometimes the popup flash is useful for a tiny bit of fill.
Yes, but I could easily live without
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Aug 10, 2005, at 1:11 PM, Toralf Lund wrote:
Yes, but I could easily live without it, especially if it reduced
the price of the camera, or I could trade it in for something else,
like a full frame sensor (well that would not be a direct swap, I
guess
... IS that???) But I
believe someone else mentioned that, too...
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
--
Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] +47 66 85 51 22
ProCaptura AS +47 66
Tom C wrote:
I think they probably start looking for ways to downgrade the specs on
the camera they are designing so they can sell it for less...
As long as they downgrade the right things, I'm all for it.
I notice that Canon has removed the pop-up flash on the body discussed
here. If they
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Aug 10, 2005, at 11:51 AM, Toralf Lund wrote:
As long as they downgrade the right things, I'm all for it.
I notice that Canon has removed the pop-up flash on the body
discussed here. If they got rid of the 21 custom functions with 59
values (or whatever), too
P. J. Alling wrote:
Great for Canon users, doesn't help if you don't own Canon Glass. If
I were starting from scratch I don't think I'd care if the sensor was
APS sized, and then the 12mp Nikon would be just fine.
Surely a 12Mp 24x36 sensor has several advantages over a, what is it,
16x24
Cotty wrote:
On 8/8/05, Toralf Lund, discombobulated, unleashed:
Yes, that's what I really want, but it won't just fit on any old camera,
right? Unless you really bring out the tools... Has anyone tried that? I
mean, modify other bodies so that the LX viewfinders will fit.
Har
I've been wondering if there is there is any way I might be able to
actually see what I'm doing if I want to shoot from the hip with one of
my Pentax cameras. Are there any good options for this, besides getting
an LX and a proper waist-level finder?
I'm not necessarily looking for a finder
Cotty wrote:
On 8/8/05, Toralf Lund, discombobulated, unleashed:
I've been wondering if there is there is any way I might be able to
actually see what I'm doing if I want to shoot from the hip with one of
my Pentax cameras. Are there any good options for this, besides getting
an LX
Mark Roberts wrote:
Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seems to me you want a waist-level finder, plain and simple.
http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/focusing/viewfinders/FF-1.jpg
Nah. One of THESE:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0506/05060701zigview_lcd.asp
Yes, you are absolutely right.
P. J. Alling wrote:
I think it's a bit overpriced for what it is.
Yep. You can get now get some very basic bs digicams for less, can't you?
Perhaps if I glue one of those to the back of my MX-5n...
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Looks like a handy gizmo. I'm bookmarking Intro2020... :-)
P. J. Alling wrote:
P. J. Alling wrote:
Glen wrote:
At 12:17 PM 8/8/2005, Mark Roberts wrote:
Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seems to me you want a waist-level finder, plain and simple.
http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/focusing/viewfinders/FF-1.jpg
Nah. One of THESE:
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Further searching brought up a number of other hot shoe mounted waist level
finders that could possibly do the trick.
Any good links?
Trying to find info on this may serve as a perfect illustration of
what's wrong with the common web search engines. I mean, if you
Cotty wrote:
On 8/8/05, Toralf Lund, discombobulated, unleashed:
I've been wondering if there is there is any way I might be able to
actually see what I'm doing if I want to shoot from the hip with one of
my Pentax cameras. Are there any good options for this, besides getting
an LX
Cotty wrote:
I have just come across a very strange thing, is it happening to you?
OS X.3.8
I use Safari (1.2.4) and normally when I type a search term into the
Google field at top right of the browser and hit enter, the browser page
changes to the Google results. I have the Google
Doug Franklin wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 21:32:53 -0400, Mishka wrote:
http://source.winehq.org/source/dlls/winsock/socket.c#L2542
That source code is a perfect example of what's wrong with WINE in my
opinion ... the comments tell you nothing about why it does what it
does and tell
Doug Franklin wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 00:39:18 -0400, Scott Loveless wrote:
You lost me right after the smiley. :) Sorry I wasn't any help.
No problem, bud. At this point all help is appreciated. I'm afraid
we're going to have to get serious face time with one of the WINE
Jostein wrote:
Toralf,
I think I've missed both your original posts, so I'll have to answer
you on general basis about AF in my macro shots.
Sorry if I'm repeating stuff from the other thread.
I don't think you are...
That other thread was mainly about how different macro lenses compare to
Toralf Lund wrote:
Jostein wrote:
[ snip ]
I sometimes use AF with my FA100/2.8 macro. The bee shot I posted a
week ago is one example where it worked well. However, AF is even
more useful with manual focus lenses when it comes to macro. Because
of the snap-in focus feature, you can sneak
Boris Liberman wrote:
Hi!
It is 90/2.5 1:2 macro and with matching adaptor it is 180/5 1:1
macro. The latter being even more useful because of greater working
distance from the subject - less intrusive!
How well does the adaptor work? I mean, does it hurt the performance
in any way? I
I'm still sort of casually looking for a real macro lens... Just
wondering, how do you people reckon the old f/4 Pentax macros compare to
the newer FA-100 f/2.8? (Just came across one of the former class for
sale; not sure if it is the F, A or original K variant - I'm assuming
these are all
Boris Liberman wrote:
Hi!
I'm still sort of casually looking for a real macro lens... Just
wondering, how do you people reckon the old f/4 Pentax macros compare
to the newer FA-100 f/2.8? (Just came across one of the former class
for sale; not sure if it is the F, A or original K variant -
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 16 Jun 2005 at 18:33, Toralf Lund wrote:
Yep. I think those files fit the term raw more properly, though. Using
the term RAW when the file has metadata, i.e. contains a lot besides the
raw pixel data, is counter intuitive, IMO. The fact that the so-called
RAW
Herb Chong wrote:
but it did exist before most digital cameras existed. there are
several RAW formats as Cory or Toralf describes. image with no
metadata, not even including image dimensions. i thought it was stupid
because the creator had to tell you the number the pixel dimensions
before
Doug Franklin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 16:38:13 +0200, Toralf Lund wrote:
I'm not sure the traditional JPEG files support this kind of
compression [lossless] even in theory.
According to my Encyclopedia of Graphic File Formats (Murray and van
Ryper, 1996) it did.
The JPEG
Cory Papenfuss wrote:
A digital camera RAW file is not a picture, it should be nothing more
nor less than the raw data as read from the CCD (possibly with some form
of lossless compression) so it makes no sense comparing it to image
formats
===
Which, in point of fact, is why most
Yes. And as I was trying to say earlier, there is no law saying that
you have to represent the pixels as read, green and blue values for
the same location to call the data a picture or the format an
image format. The bayer pattern data is just another way to
describe an image. You may
Cory Papenfuss wrote:
Yes. I believe that's right. The article referenced of course
presents the failure to utilise internal interpolation, and that you
have to convert by hand, as an argument against RAW. I'm thinking
that the ideal format would be a file containing the Bayer data as
well
Cory Papenfuss wrote:
I would be surprised if in-camera produced TIFFs are 16 bits. They
would be extra-huge if they were. Pentax's RAW files basically
*are* TIFFs (zero padded 12-16 for the -D, and packed 12-12 for
the -DS). The difference is that only a single plane of 6megapixel,
Jerry in Houston wrote:
Not everyone agrees .
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm
Don't flame me, I am just encouraging discussion
Yep. Seems like this person is getting things mixed up a bit...
As a long-time user of the TIFF format for somewhat unrelated purposes,
I feel
Mark Roberts wrote:
Jerry in Houston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not everyone agrees .
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm
Don't flame me, I am just encouraging discussion
Ken Rockwell is almost as highly regarded as Brad Dobo around these
parts...
Whooa. I just
P. J. Alling wrote:
Oh, Gaud, NO, not KENNY BOY, possibly the worlds LEAST TALLENTED
FAMOUS PHOTOGRAPHER.
I think I'm going to be ill.
He, he...
Having glimpsed through some of the other articles on his web site, it
seems to me that he *sometimes* knows what he's talking about, though.
Cory Papenfuss wrote:
As a long-time user of the TIFF format for somewhat unrelated
purposes, I feel most inclined to comment on this note:
Tiffs don't have any of the post-processing advantages of RAW
Which is obviously untrue, since TIFF (unlike JPEG) won't usually
compress data by
Yet another used lens I came across: Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX macro (Pentax
version, obviously.)
Anybody here using it? Is it any good? I'd use it mainly for macro work,
probably - instead of a 50mm+macro teleconverter.
- Toralf
As another spin-off from the looong why choose *istDL thread, I
thought I might mention that I completely agree with the whoever-it-was
who said that what he'd really like to see, was something that might be
described as a digital version of the MZ-5n (or ZX-5n.) Like that other
person, I'm
Ronald Arvidsson wrote:
Hmm, I often present myself as Scandinavian abroad since many more
people in certain parts would rather know that then one of the
specific countries. I guess also the EU maps showing some countries
and others not show the same ignorance of geography as Europeans
I expect to get one - the FA variant - in the post in a couple of days.
Paid NOK 1000,- for it. That would be about 125 euros, I believe. Quite
reasonable, don't you think?
- Toralf
Just came across another FS zoom - a 28-105, this time. Not 100% sure
which variant it is, but I think it's most likely to be this one:
http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/zooms/short/FA28-105f4-5.6-ii.html
As usual, I would like to ask for opinions on the performance,
reasonable price level
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Toralf,
Friday, June 3, 2005, 3:31:54 PM, you wrote:
TL I expect to get one - the FA variant - in the post in a couple of days.
TL Paid NOK 1000,- for it. That would be about 125 euros, I believe. Quite
TL reasonable, don't you think?
TL - Toralf
Thats good
Gonz wrote:
Sign me up too!
rg
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Toralf Lund wrote:
I expect to get one - the FA variant - in the post in a couple of days.
Paid NOK 1000,- for it. That would be about 125 euros, I believe. Quite
reasonable, don't you think?
Very. If you
2. Remove the manual exposure modes. Swap for more auto pic modes.
I hate the auto modes. In general I find the icons confusing and
wouldn't like a camera w/o the ability to go totally manual.
Agreed. I'd much rather loose all the picture modes, and most
adjustable parameters that
Alan Chan wrote:
--- Cornelius Nuzzlemuff III [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why is it seemingly so difficult to produce a camera with a full frame (35mm)
sensor, if Pentax and many others have/will have MF digitals surely one of these
sensors could be used, even if it has to be masked?
I
Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:
Shel Belinkoff wrote on 01.06.05 1:34:
Camera bodies are discontinued. Kodak will continue to develop CCD and
CMOS image sensors.
Here's the part that's most discouraging: Kodak will only support the
cameras through 2008. So, the cameras are what, about a year
801 - 900 of 994 matches
Mail list logo
