According to DPReview, there's some wizard new processing system in this
camera:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06082103pentaxa20.asp
that bumps up the resolution. they call it 'ASIC'. I presume this is
what Aaron is hyped up about?
deflating wind
Give me a party-popper ;-)
--
Cheers,
Not the resolution part of it, and not by itself.
But sort of yes!
-Aaron
--
http://aaronreynolds.ca
http://battersbox.ca
http://hardballtimes.com
-Original Message-
From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subj: Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
Date: Tue 2006 Aug 22 4:23 pm
Size: 526 bytes
Cotty wrote:
According to DPReview, there's some wizard new processing system in this
camera:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06082103pentaxa20.asp
that bumps up the resolution. they call it 'ASIC'. I presume this is
what Aaron is hyped up about?
deflating wind
Give me a
Something wrong with that link, Cotty--I get a cannot
be found message.
Rick
--- Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
According to DPReview, there's some wizard new
processing system in this
camera:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06082103pentaxa20.asp
that bumps up the resolution. they
On 22/8/06, Aaron Reynolds, discombobulated, unleashed:
Not the resolution part of it, and not by itself.
Processing speed increase + probable buffer size increase = reasonably
fast shooting capability.
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|
On 22/8/06, Rick Womer, discombobulated, unleashed:
Something wrong with that link, Cotty--I get a cannot
be found message.
Rick
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06082103pentaxa20.asp
Keep trying, it's there.
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|
According to DPReview, there's some wizard new processing system in this
camera:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06082103pentaxa20.asp
that bumps up the resolution. they call it 'ASIC'. I presume this is
what Aaron is hyped up about?
I really hope theres more to this that it seems on the
On Aug 22, 2006, at 7:02 PM, Peter Loveday wrote:
I really hope theres more to this that it seems on the surface.
I don't know anything about the ps, but as to that other thing, yes.
-Aaron
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
PROTECTED] vegne af Paul
Stenquist
Sendt: 18. august 2006 04:43
Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Emne: Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
Pentax has some very nice new zooms. The DA 12-24/4 is excellent, as
is the DA 16-45/4. Some more are on the horizon. I believe one of
them is a 50-200/2.8.
Paul
+45 56 63 77 11
+45 23 43 85 77
Skype: jensbladt248
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Paul
Stenquist
Sendt: 18. august 2006 04:43
Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Emne: Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
Pentax has some very nice new zooms. The DA
, augustus 16, 2006 12:43 PM
Aan: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'
Onderwerp: Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
On Aug 16, 2006, at 1:36 AM, Jens Bladt wrote:
A lens with shutterblades, will allow high shutterspeeds, when using a
flash.
Nope, I don't have one of those for the 67.
-Aaron
I've found a source for Ilford Galerie Smooth Gloss for about 25% less
than I can get it anywhere on line. I print to fit that and find frames
and mats to match. But then I'm a Yankee, (read cheap).
Aaron Reynolds wrote:
On Aug 16, 2006, at 2:47 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
Cropping the image
On Aug 18, 2006, at 6:45 AM, Bertil Holmberg wrote:
What I would appreciate in a new body is the alternative to look down
into the viewfinder. This is possible with the Pentax 67, I believe.
Yes, with the waist-level finder. The thing I like about the 67
viewfinder is that it's big; I
On Aug 18, 2006, at 3:35 AM, Cotty wrote:
I have done this from my first days with inkjet. I bought a Dahl
rotary
trimmer (cuts up to A3) for fifty quid in 1999 and haven't looked
back.
One of the best investments I ever made - and still going strong on
the
original blade!
I print
In a message dated 8/17/2006 9:58:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The rumoured prices are quite steep, though; $1000 for the 18-50, and $1300
for the 50-135. Still, that's only $3500 or so for a K10D, battery grip,
and both the f2.8 zooms; I was anticipating a
Op Fri, 18 Aug 2006 07:09:28 +0200 schreef John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Just someone who tracks the announcements a little more closely.
The original Pentax lens roadmap did, indeed, show a 50-200 zoom.
In fact it showed two of them; the 50-200/f4-5.6 we've now seen,
and a later, more
I'd give it a few months more to decide. If they are going to introduce USM
lenses it will be a logical explanation for why they have stopped producing a
lot of long lenses. They may be planning to revive them with USM.
DagT
Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You know I am getting seriously tempted
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 10:03:00 +0100, DagT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd give it a few months more to decide. If they are going to introduce
USM lenses it will be a logical explanation for why they have stopped
producing a lot of long lenses. They may be planning to revive them
with USM.
Fra: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 10:03:00 +0100, DagT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd give it a few months more to decide. If they are going to introduce
USM lenses it will be a logical explanation for why they have stopped
producing a lot of long lenses. They
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 8/17/2006 9:58:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The rumoured prices are quite steep, though; $1000 for the 18-50, and $1300
for the 50-135. Still, that's only $3500 or so for a K10D, battery grip,
and
If the image circle is designed for APS-C, then the lenses will be smaller
and lighter than those designed for 35mm. So they WILL be small and
light, relatively speaking.
But, like you, I hope they have USM. We shall know in good time.
John
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 09:41:15 +0100, DagT [EMAIL
They will be smaller of you compare field of view (as a 135 2.8 is much smaller
than a 200mm 2.8), but if you compare with the same focal length with the same
maximum aperture the front element will be the same no matter how small the
sensor is.
DagT
Fra: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If
- Original Message -
From: DagT [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'd give it a few months more to decide. If they are going to introduce
USM lenses it will be a logical explanation for why they have stopped
producing a lot of long lenses. They may be planning to revive them with
USM.
- Original Message -
From: Lucas Rijnders [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I believe the 'more expensive' one from the first roadmap transmogrified
into the 60-250/4 rumour. The constant f/4 was never in the roadmap, it
was only referred to as 'high performance D FA telezoom', IIRC. Someone on
So how do you explain the fact that a Pentax 110 1:2.8 50mm is about 1/4
the size of a Pentax 1:2.8 50mm in K-mount?
John
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 10:35:13 +0100, DagT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They will be smaller of you compare field of view (as a 135 2.8 is much
smaller than a 200mm 2.8),
: jensbladt248
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Aaron
Reynolds
Sendt: 17. august 2006 00:14
Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Emne: Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
On Aug 16, 2006, at 5:53 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMHO, the only BIIG
The size of the mirror, or in other words: the distance from the lens mount to
the film/sensor, does play a part in shorter lenses, but the width stays the
same. Remember that aperture is simply the ratio between focal length and lens
diameter. As long as you dont have retrofocus or telecentric
- Original Message -
From: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If the image circle is designed for APS-C, then the lenses will be smaller
and lighter than those designed for 35mm. So they WILL be small and
light, relatively speaking.
According to the roadmap the two 2.8 zooms are
On Aug 17, 2006, at 11:17 PM, David Mann wrote:
On Aug 18, 2006, at 6:45 AM, Bertil Holmberg wrote:
What I would appreciate in a new body is the alternative to look down
into the viewfinder. This is possible with the Pentax 67, I believe.
Yes, with the waist-level finder. The thing I like
Thanks to those who have discussed telephotos. Since that is MY interest.
Beginning to think about selling some Canon gear. Beginning to feel more
Pentaxian again.
Exciting times.
Marnie aka Doe ;-)
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
I wrote:
According to the roadmap the two 2.8 zooms are covering the APS size; they
are DA lenses. The 60-250/4 is a D FA lens and hence full frame. You can bet
that the coming telephotos are full frame too as it makes no sense making
them DA lenses.
REPLY:
I'm talking about the roadmap
That is not necessarily the case with ultra-telephoto lenses. For
instance, the original 6x7 300mm f/4.0 was exactly the same lens as the
K version for 35mm with a different mount, and 300mm is not exactly a
UT. With UT's the size of the glass is determined by the speed desired
not the
Simple: the lens elements in a 50/2.8 are very small in relation to the
35mm lens mount. Making it fit a much smaller lens mount produces a much
smaller lens. The diameter of the glass is about the same though. That
is what they did with the M300/4 which is why it has that distictive
potato
You're right. In fact, the front element of the 110 lens is bigger
(radially) than the same element of the K lens. The rear element on the K
is larger than that of the 110, though.
John
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 17:32:43 +0100, graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Simple: the lens elements in a
Yes, you are right. It's the barrel that's so much bigger.
John
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 13:31:47 +0100, DagT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The size of the mirror, or in other words: the distance from the lens
mount to the film/sensor, does play a part in shorter lenses, but the
width stays the
On Aug 17, 2006, at 4:07 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Manual focus screen.
That's something I'd like for any AF camera. Just a microprism spot
in the centre, please.
- Dave
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
I'm not much into guessing games, but for those who are, I noticed
this post from Aaron earlier today:
On Aug 16, 2006, at 6:01 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
If you shoot RAW you'll probably want nothing smaller than 2 Gig
cards
for this camera, because of the 10-megapixels and... other
Op Thu, 17 Aug 2006 08:35:27 +0200 schreef Marco Alpert [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I'm not much into guessing games,
Yeah, right :o)
but for those who are, I noticed
this post from Aaron earlier today:
On Aug 16, 2006, at 6:01 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
If you shoot RAW you'll probably want
PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Marco
Alpert
Sent: Thursday, 17 August 2006 4:35 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
I'm not much into guessing games, but for those who are, I noticed
this post from Aaron earlier today:
On Aug 16, 2006
One more thing came to my head about what Aaron could like in K10D.
What about in-camera RAW development? ;-)
Best regards
Sylwek
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Op Thu, 17 Aug 2006 09:38:20 +0200 schreef Anthony Farr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Thinking along this line, and considering that music can be compressed
with
variable bit rates so that the detail goes where it is needed and not
where
it would be wasted, could image files be saved with
Yes, this is a good idea. Give us a jp4-file format!
Anthony Farr wrote / skrev:
Thinking along this line, and considering that music can be compressed with
variable bit rates so that the detail goes where it is needed and not where
it would be wasted, could image files be saved with variable
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Lucas
Rijnders
Sent: Thursday, 17 August 2006 5:54 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Compression, was Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
Op Thu, 17 Aug 2006 09:38:20 +0200 schreef Anthony Farr
We already have that. It's called shooting tiff or jpeg.
Paul
On Aug 16, 2006, at 11:22 AM, Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:
One more thing came to my head about what Aaron could like in K10D.
What about in-camera RAW development? ;-)
Best regards
Sylwek
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
This should demonstrate why digital photography needs more RD to correct
some deficiencies of shadow rendition. The examples are 8 bit for the web
of course, so 12 or more bit samples should be somewhat better.
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4816986
Regards,
Anthony Farr
--
Alpert
Sent: Thursday, 17 August 2006 4:35 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
I'm not much into guessing games, but for those who are, I noticed
this post from Aaron earlier today:
On Aug 16, 2006, at 6:01 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
If you
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Thibouille
Sent: Thursday, 17 August 2006 8:52 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
I don't think so. Image quality is important beacsue you will work
with it and apply effects.
Ifyou
On 17.08.2006, at 12:19 , Paul Stenquist wrote:
We already have that. It's called shooting tiff or jpeg.
Paul
But we have very little control of this ;-) Much more can be done for
example in Olympus E-1.
Cheers,
Sylwek
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
I don't think so. Image quality is important beacsue you will work with it
and apply effects.
Ifyou looose information: it is lost, period. Think JPEG vs RAW.
You can compress RAW of course...
2006/8/17, Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Thinking along
What K10D will or will not be, time shows. If it's as good as *istDL, +
11 AF points then its all good + 10Mp gives more space to crop more and
compose less during the shooting.
http://roman.blakout.net/?blog=20060814223110
--
home http://roman.blakout.net/
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Lazy...
Tom C.
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or
numbered.
From: Roman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: was Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 15:22:40 +0300
compose less
On 16/8/06, Bob W, discombobulated, unleashed:
I've never understood this, so maybe somebody could enlighten me. What
makes people think they have to crop the image to fit the paper?
To my mind it's a brain-upside-down way of thinking, but I've heard
and read it so often that perhaps it's me
On 16/8/06, Bob W, discombobulated, unleashed:
well, call me old-fashioned, but I think it should be a 'B' setting,
LX-style off-the-sensor metering, and no plastic.
You're old-fashioned.
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 12:31:35PM +0100, Richard Day wrote:
Raw rules!
But in addition to PEF (if they insist on keeping it), please implement
compressed DNG properly with full sized embedded JPEG in-camera as an
option.
PEF, of course, already includes a full sized embedded JPEG
Sounds like you played with a digital camera once, Scott. By the way, my
Oly requires about that much work after a battery change. Olympus fixed
that problem free under warranty (the capacitive devices that is
supposed to maintain power during a battery change were defective), but
I bought
Nobody is in any doubt that it will be at least as good as the K100D,
which is already a step up from the DL.
Most of the angst comes from *ist-D shooters like myself - people for
whom all the later variants (DS, DL, DS2, DL2, K100D, K110D) have too
many drawbacks to be considered as *ist-D
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John
Francis
Sent: 17 August 2006 17:15
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 12:31:35PM +0100, Richard Day wrote:
Raw rules!
But in addition to PEF
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af John
Francis
Sendt: 17. august 2006 18:15
Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Emne: Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 12:31:35PM +0100, Richard Day wrote:
Raw rules!
But in addition to PEF
.
Jens
Jens Bladt
http://www.jensbladt.dk
+45 56 63 77 11
+45 23 43 85 77
Skype: jensbladt248
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af John
Francis
Sendt: 17. august 2006 18:15
Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Emne: Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax
Dunno. I've never shot medium format. 4x5 is the best I've used.
Dave
On 8/18/06, Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Come on folks - it's not that hard. What makes the 67 superior to almost ANY
digital camera - except for resolution?
The K10D closes this gap.
And - yes - I believe I did
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jens
Bladt
Sent: 17 August 2006 17:47
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: RE: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
Come on folks - it's not that hard. What makes the 67 superior to almost ANY
digital camera - except for resolution?
The K10D closes
Francis
Sendt: 17. august 2006 18:15
Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Emne: Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 12:31:35PM +0100, Richard Day wrote:
Raw rules!
But in addition to PEF (if they insist on keeping it), please implement
compressed DNG properly with full
, and great for old fogies like me who's eyesight is failing!
Richard
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jens
Bladt
Sent: 17 August 2006 17:47
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: RE: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
Come on folks
meddelelse-
Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af John
Francis
Sendt: 17. august 2006 18:15
Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Emne: Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 12:31:35PM +0100, Richard Day wrote:
Raw rules!
But in addition to PEF (if they insist
George Eastman seems to have agreed with you, at least his first
roll-film camera shot round images.
--
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---
David Mann wrote:
On Aug 17, 2006, at 9:50 AM,
Sorry if this has been mentioned before, I get the digest and it is
easy to miss a post...
What I would appreciate in a new body is the alternative to look down
into the viewfinder. This is possible with the Pentax 67, I believe.
I don't think I have seen it in any of todays 35mm DSLRs,
-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
Nope, the Mamiya ZD, Canon 1Ds mkII and Canon 5D have already solved that.
-Adam
Richard Day wrote:
A By big bright viewfinder!
Maybe the K10D has a x3 magnifier in the eyepiece that allows you to
see the whole area
Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
Jens,
If it was merely resolution, why the heck would Aaron be looking at the
K10D instead of a higher-resolution body from Nikon or Canon (Or a
Hasselblad or other MF body with a digiback).
Aaron specifically said it was something _no_ other DSLR offered yet.
And between
Bertil Holmberg wrote:
Sorry if this has been mentioned before, I get the digest and it is
easy to miss a post...
What I would appreciate in a new body is the alternative to look down
into the viewfinder. This is possible with the Pentax 67, I believe.
I don't think I have seen it in
A 35-year old memory came to light after my post – TOPCON. I think it
was the RE Super that I bought in 1970. It had an interchangeable
viewfinder and was a very clean and nice looking camera for its day.
Regrettably, I sold it when I bought my LeicaFlex.
Well, the view finder is something
At 9:56 PM +0200 8/17/06, Bertil Holmberg wrote:
A 35-year old memory came to light after my post - TOPCON. I think it
was the RE Super that I bought in 1970. It had an interchangeable
viewfinder and was a very clean and nice looking camera for its day.
Regrettably, I sold it when I bought my
Steve Sharpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My Miranda Auto Sensorex EE's (1971 - 1976) have interchangeable
viewfinders as well. A very useful feature.
A number of cameras did in their time. The Praktiflex, the Praktica VLC,
the various Exaktas, and the Contarex Special come to mind.
Ralf
--
You know I am getting seriously tempted to jump ship, from Canon back to
Pentax. Being able to have AS with ALL lenses is very, very attractive.
I only wish Pentax had some good new autofocus telephoto zooms. All the good
ones seem to be old ones, and/or manual focus ones. I really like
Pentax has some very nice new zooms. The DA 12-24/4 is excellent, as
is the DA 16-45/4. Some more are on the horizon. I believe one of
them is a 50-200/2.8.
Paul
On Aug 17, 2006, at 9:25 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You know I am getting seriously tempted to jump ship, from Canon
back to
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 10:42:56PM -0400, Paul Stenquist wrote:
Pentax has some very nice new zooms. The DA 12-24/4 is excellent, as
is the DA 16-45/4. Some more are on the horizon. I believe one of
them is a 50-200/2.8.
Paul
The next two lenses are supposedly an 18-50/f2.8 and a
In a message dated 8/17/2006 7:44:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Pentax has some very nice new zooms. The DA 12-24/4 is excellent, as
is the DA 16-45/4. Some more are on the horizon. I believe one of
them is a 50-200/2.8.
Paul
I already lust after the 16-45.
In a message dated 8/17/2006 8:34:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The next two lenses are supposedly an 18-50/f2.8 and a 50-135/f2.8
(both rumoured to have in-lens focussing motors of some kind).
Beyond that I'm just beginning to hear talk of a 60-250 (probably
f4, not
On Aug 17, 2006, at 11:26 PM, John Francis wrote:
Beyond that I'm just beginning to hear talk of a 60-250 (probably
f4, not f2.8).
Oh, I want that. Pretty please.
-Aaron
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
There you go. Correct information from someone not suffering from old-
age short term memory loss:-).
Paul
On Aug 17, 2006, at 11:26 PM, John Francis wrote:
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 10:42:56PM -0400, Paul Stenquist wrote:
Pentax has some very nice new zooms. The DA 12-24/4 is excellent, as
is
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 11:37:29PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A 50-135 2.8 would be right up my alley. I am sort of planning on waiting to
see what new lenses Pentax comes up before I finally decide. (Unless I have
to
wait too long. :-))
Do you think some of these will be revealed
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 11:29:59PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 8/17/2006 7:44:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Pentax has some very nice new zooms. The DA 12-24/4 is excellent, as
is the DA 16-45/4. Some more are on the horizon. I believe one of
Just someone who tracks the announcements a little more closely.
The original Pentax lens roadmap did, indeed, show a 50-200 zoom.
In fact it showed two of them; the 50-200/f4-5.6 we've now seen,
and a later, more expensive (constant aperture) version.
It was only some time later on that the
John Francis wrote:
The 16-45 is definitely a nice lens; I borrowed one for most of the
PDML meet in San Jose (thanks, Bruce!), and it went to the top of my
want list. But I'm waiting to see what the 18-50/f2.8 is like,
especially since I also want the 12-24 and/or the 10-17 fisheye to
give
On 15/8/06, keith_w, discombobulated, unleashed:
You've disappeared off the face of the earth!
Where have you BEEN?
Oh I'm still here.
Busy renovating a house, preparing to be self-employed, just the usual
stuff ;-)
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
Hey, I already suggested that. They could invert the electromagnetic SR
actuators to act as dynamos, and collect energy when the camera is moved but
not used .-)
DagT
Fra: Peter Loveday [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I know, it doesn't require batteries. :)
Love, Light and Peace,
- Peter Loveday
My guess is that the mount will be fully backwards compatible - eg no
green button kludge.
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
My guess is it will take pictures.
Dave
On 8/16/06, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My guess is that the mount will be fully backwards compatible - eg no
green button kludge.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Fra: Powell Hargrave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
After reading the patent file DagT posted, even though I could only get the
first page of drawings to download. It seems to me this must be the break
through.
http://v3.espacenet.com/textdes?DB=EPODOCIDX=US7084915F=0QPN=US7084915
I think the
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006, Cotty wrote:
My guess is that the mount will be fully backwards compatible - eg no
green button kludge.
Stop looking vaguely towards the north, sir, I am not biting.
Kostas (the mechanical actuators are gone)
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
On Aug 16, 2006, at 1:36 AM, Jens Bladt wrote:
A lens with shutterblades, will allow high shutterspeeds, when using a
flash.
Nope, I don't have one of those for the 67.
-Aaron
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
On Aug 16, 2006, at 3:55 AM, Cotty wrote:
My guess is that the mount will be fully backwards compatible - eg no
green button kludge.
Why would I sell my 67 for that?
Honestly, people -- WHAT ARE THE ADVANTAGES OF A 6x7?? There really
are not that many.
-Aaron
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail
- The sensor is larger than APS-C?
- The sensor can be changed buy the user?
Those are my best guess's.
Dave
At 06:46 PM 16/08/2006, you wrote:
On Aug 16, 2006, at 3:55 AM, Cotty wrote:
My guess is that the mount will be fully backwards compatible - eg no
green button kludge.
Why would
Fra: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Aug 16, 2006, at 3:55 AM, Cotty wrote:
My guess is that the mount will be fully backwards compatible - eg no
green button kludge.
Why would I sell my 67 for that?
Honestly, people -- WHAT ARE THE ADVANTAGES OF A 6x7?? There really
are not
-
Van: Aaron Reynolds [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: woensdag, augustus 16, 2006 12:43 PM
Aan: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'
Onderwerp: Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
On Aug 16, 2006, at 1:36 AM, Jens Bladt wrote:
A lens with shutterblades, will allow high shutterspeeds, when using a
flash
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
DagT
Sent: Wednesday, 16 August 2006 7:14 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: I know what it is:was: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
(snip)
I think the fairly broad claim 8 gives the best summary on what they are
doing
Mail List
Subject: Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
(snip)
Honestly, people -- WHAT ARE THE ADVANTAGES OF A 6x7?? There really
are not that many.
-Aaron
/pdml_pdml.net
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Way closer. What else?
-Aaron
-Original Message-
From: DagT [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subj: Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
Date: Wed Aug 16, 2006 7:04 am
Size: 449 bytes
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Fra: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Aug 16, 2006, at 3:55 AM
hmmm...
This guessing game is more about which features Aaron treasure most in
his 67, than it is about new features in the K10D.
My interpretation of the patent link Dag posted is that it looks like
a way to reek out noise produced by the sensor, in such a way that it
could be implemented at
My guess is that the mount will be fully backwards compatible - eg no
green button kludge.
Why would I sell my 67 for that?
Honestly, people -- WHAT ARE THE ADVANTAGES OF A 6x7?? There really
are not that many.
No grain/noise
Yes. Maybe he thinks (application of)
PROTECTED]
Subj: Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
Date: Wed Aug 16, 2006 6:59 am
Size: 518 bytes
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
- The sensor is larger than APS-C?
- The sensor can be changed buy the user?
Those are my best guess's.
Dave
At 06:46 PM 16/08/2006, you wrote:
On Aug 16
1 - 100 of 417 matches
Mail list logo
