There are a lot of options for remapping images now each with ever increasing
scope. I primarily use a free-ware application called Hugin to implement all my
distortion transformations now, it's extremely accurate and very flexible (much
more so than PS and you know how well that works).
I
On 17 Feb 2006 at 21:56, Paul Stenquist wrote:
Excellent results. It wold be interesting to compare a transformed
fisheye pic to a corrected pic from a rectilinear lens of equal focal
length.
I'll find or produce an example for you, however from past experience I know
that images made with
On 18 Feb 2006 at 7:27, Cory Papenfuss wrote:
Rectilinear (i.e. normal) lenses cannot mathematically represent 180
degrees of field of view. So, correcting for severe fisheye can remap
perspective, but it's not the lens' fault that things look weird when one
goes too far:
By contrast, here's an equirectangular projection of the same
shot. Less fishy than the original, although straight lines don't stay
straight. At least the whole shot is viewable.
http://www.ee.vt.edu/~mythtv/PESO/imgp3342_defished.jpg
I tend towards plain cylindrical projections for
Pentax - a new 10MP body could at least make
this theoretically posible.
Regards
Jens Bladt
http://www.jensbladt.dk
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Jay Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 16. februar 2006 09:16
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: Re: Pentax Pre PMA announcment.
Ok, I'll
On Feb 17, 2006, at 7:16 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Most of the folks I know who've ordered the Nikon D200 within the
past three months are still waiting too. Only 2 of the 12 people
have received their cameras.
Down here that happens with any new Nikon or Canon body. But our
market is
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 08:53:08 -, Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Jay:
The gear available
right now for say shooting birds in flight or other similar subjects is
somewhat limited.
With a Pentax name on it, it is.
Other than that, there's quite a few lenses availble from Tokina,
Gosh, someone better tell the magazines I shoot for and the stock house
that sels my pics that six megapixels isn't good enough. They have
hundreds of my images that are working just fine for them. How could
that be?
Paul
On Feb 17, 2006, at 4:13 AM, John Forbes wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006
On Feb 16, 2006, at 7:45 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
The business of buying and selling cameras and photographic
equipment is quite different from photography. Who sells these
items and how they make money are mostly irrelevant to photography.
Absolutely. The guys running the companies
On 17 Feb 2006 at 6:23, Paul Stenquist wrote:
Gosh, someone better tell the magazines I shoot for and the stock house
that sels my pics that six megapixels isn't good enough. They have
hundreds of my images that are working just fine for them. How could
that be?
There's no need to be
fra: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 17 Feb 2006 at 6:23, Paul Stenquist wrote:
Gosh, someone better tell the magazines I shoot for and the stock house
that sels my pics that six megapixels isn't good enough. They have
hundreds of my images that are working just fine for them. How
Given the bitingly sarcastic negativity that typifies many Pentax
critiques posted here, there is a need to be condescending. The post
implied that the Pentax cameras are inadequate photographic tools. Not
only are the 6 megapixel images very acceptable to the stock house and
pubs for which I
Of course the adequacy of six megapixel images for many types of work
is dependent on shooting RAW and converting to high resolution with
good tools.
On Feb 17, 2006, at 7:30 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
Given the bitingly sarcastic negativity that typifies many Pentax
critiques posted here,
On 17 Feb 2006 at 7:30, Paul Stenquist wrote:
Given the bitingly sarcastic negativity that typifies many Pentax
critiques posted here, there is a need to be condescending. The post
implied that the Pentax cameras are inadequate photographic tools. Not
only are the 6 megapixel images very
What is the size requirement of the stock house to which you refer? You
can convert to six megapixel image to a nice 72 meg, 8 bit file in the
PSCS RAW converter. No stock house I've contacted wants images larger
than that. The Hearst and Primedia photo editors I've worked with
prefer them at
On 17 Feb 2006 at 7:37, Paul Stenquist wrote:
Of course the adequacy of six megapixel images for many types of work
is dependent on shooting RAW and converting to high resolution with
good tools.
Sorry I just really hate being told what's good for me. Like the jerks who
can't understand
And there's a big difference between 6MP from a dslr and 6MP from a compact.
DagT
fra: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
dato: 2006/02/17 fr PM 01:37:41 CET
til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
emne: Re: Pentax Pre PMA announcment.
Of course the adequacy of six megapixel images for many types
I don't remember the exact numbers, but in the beginning the requirement was
about A4 format (21x30cm) with 300dpi printing.
The numbers you mention here looks like the same range that she is able to do
now, but she uses another program specially made for the purpose. I have all
these names
On 17 Feb 2006 at 7:44, Paul Stenquist wrote:
What is the size requirement of the stock house to which you refer? You
can convert to six megapixel image to a nice 72 meg, 8 bit file in the
PSCS RAW converter. No stock house I've contacted wants images larger
than that. The Hearst and
Message]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Date: 2/17/2006 4:34:22 AM
Subject: Re: Pentax Pre PMA announcment.
fra: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 17 Feb 2006 at 6:23, Paul Stenquist wrote:
Gosh, someone better tell the magazines I shoot for and the stock
- Original Message -
From: Shel Belinkoff
Subject: Re: Pentax Pre PMA announcment.
At the last NorCal get together that I attended, Bruce showed one of his
photos made with the istD blown up to 16x20, or some other such large
size.
Larger than the 13x19 or so which a lot of people
Bingo! Well said, Rob ...
Look guys, we all have different needs and expectations. What works in one
scenario may not work in another.
I like to make big prints sometimes. From what I've seen, 6mp won't cut it
at the sizes I'd like to see. But, for most of what I do, it's fine.
Now, just so
It seems we are in total agreement.
Paul
-- Original message --
From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 17 Feb 2006 at 7:30, Paul Stenquist wrote:
Given the bitingly sarcastic negativity that typifies many Pentax
critiques posted here, there is a need to be
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Good enough takes many forms, and is, of course, at times, subjective. IMO
6mp is enough for magazines and most print work. It's not good enough for
some large, exhibition-sized prints.
But neither is 35mm, which is why medium- and large-format didn't go
away when 35mm
On Feb 17, 2006, at 6:46 AM, E.R.N. Reed wrote:
But neither is 35mm, which is why medium- and large-format didn't
go away when 35mm became popular. Digital is another format, not a
replacement for all possible uses of everything else.
Yes.
Godfrey
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Feb 17, 2006, at 6:46 AM, E.R.N. Reed wrote:
But neither is 35mm, which is why medium- and large-format didn't go
away when 35mm became popular. Digital is another format, not a
replacement for all possible uses of everything else.
Yes.
Godfrey
No.
Digital
On Feb 17, 2006, at 7:24 AM, Dario Bonazza wrote:
But neither is 35mm, which is why medium- and large-format
didn't go away when 35mm became popular. Digital is another
format, not a replacement for all possible uses of everything else.
Yes.
No.
Digital is not a format. Digital is a
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Feb 17, 2006, at 7:24 AM, Dario Bonazza wrote:
But neither is 35mm, which is why medium- and large-format didn't
go away when 35mm became popular. Digital is another format, not a
replacement for all possible uses of everything else.
Yes.
No.
Digital is
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
While I agree with you technically ... digital and film are capture
mediums, not definitions of format ...
That was my statement too.
the contrapoint YES NO was unnecessary and simply argumentative.
ERN's meaning was clear.
You agree with E.R.N. and wrote
E.R.N. Reed wrote:
But neither is 35mm, which is why medium- and large-format didn't go
away when 35mm became popular. Digital is another tool, not a replacement
for all possible uses of everything else.
E.R.N. Do that digital in your sentence mean digital APS and formats
alike?
If so,
I concur. I have delivered many 20X30 inch family group prints that
the clients are very happy with from my *istD. Remember that I was
shooting 67's before that.
I'm not saying that higher res wouldn't be useful, but that 6mp from
the *istD is pretty darn good.
--
Bruce
Friday, February 17,
]
Subject: Re: Pentax Pre PMA announcment.
On Feb 17, 2006, at 7:30 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
Given the bitingly sarcastic negativity that typifies many Pentax
critiques posted here, there is a need to be condescending. The post
implied that the Pentax cameras are inadequate photographic
Belinkoff
WR Subject: Re: Pentax Pre PMA announcment.
At the last NorCal get together that I attended, Bruce showed one of his
photos made with the istD blown up to 16x20, or some other such large
size.
Larger than the 13x19 or so which a lot of people print at. The print was
soft, and Bruce
would be fine but I'll probably not upgrade til a 10 or 12 mp Pentax
digital is available. I may eat these words.
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Pentax Pre PMA announcment.
On Feb 17, 2006, at 7:30 AM, Paul Stenquist
On 17 Feb 2006 at 8:46, E.R.N. Reed wrote:
But neither is 35mm, which is why medium- and large-format didn't go
away when 35mm became popular.
Digital is another format, not a replacement for all possible uses of
everything else.
(Kind of agreeing with you, I think.)
I know what you mean
On 17 Feb 2006 at 17:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've made at least 300 11 x 17 to 13 x19 prints from *istD images. The only
ones that have proved unsatisfactory seemed to be the product of operator
error, usually camera shake softness or simply missed focus. I generally
judge all my
- Original Message -
From: Rob Studdert
Subject: Re: Pentax Pre PMA announcment.
On 17 Feb 2006 at 17:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've made at least 300 11 x 17 to 13 x19 prints from *istD images. The
only ones that have proved unsatisfactory seemed to be the product
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 17 Feb 2006 at 8:46, E.R.N. Reed wrote:
But neither is 35mm, which is why medium- and large-format didn't go
away when 35mm became popular.
Digital is another format, not a replacement for all possible uses of
everything else.
(Kind of agreeing with you, I think.)
On 17 Feb 2006 at 14:25, William Robb wrote:
I've looked at this problem, and have concluded that a DSLR is about as
useful as a 35mm camera for landscapes.
I don't think doubling the pixel count is going to change my mind.
I suspect that shortly, I will be investing heavily in BW sheet
On Feb 17, 2006, at 1:09 PM, Rob Studdert wrote:
I know what you mean but I'd argue heartily that a well scanned and
post
processed low grain 35mm film frame will be far superior to the
output from the
current Pentax DSLR
I disagree completely. Far superior is too much. A perfect
- Original Message -
From: Rob Studdert
Subject: Re: Pentax Pre PMA announcment.
Har, everyone has their limits as to what's acceptable and what's not,
mine is
67, anything beyond that is just for cropping space in my books :-)
I like camera movements.
A few years ago, I left
My experience suggests that Godfrey is right on this one. The
mathematical computations that try to predict digital performance don't
seem to mesh with real-world results.
Paul
On Feb 17, 2006, at 6:17 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Feb 17, 2006, at 1:09 PM, Rob Studdert wrote:
I know what
On 17 Feb 2006 at 19:12, Paul Stenquist wrote:
My experience suggests that Godfrey is right on this one. The
mathematical computations that try to predict digital performance don't
seem to mesh with real-world results.
I was speaking from a practical perspective too, so I guess we'll all
On 17 Feb 2006 at 17:35, William Robb wrote:
I like camera movements.
A few years ago, I left the 4x5 at home and went travelling with the 6x7,
since I had just enabled myself a few lenses.
Bad mistake.
Pictures that would have been routine on the 4x5 were impossible on the 6x7
because I
I'm okay with that. I wish the God people would follow our example:-).
Paul
On Feb 17, 2006, at 8:40 PM, Rob Studdert wrote:
On 17 Feb 2006 at 19:12, Paul Stenquist wrote:
My experience suggests that Godfrey is right on this one. The
mathematical computations that try to predict digital
I was amazed to see how well perspective errors can be handled with
simple PhotoShop operations. I only tried them after reading your
comments here. What a joy it was to see for myself how simple and
intuitive these tools are.
Paul
On Feb 17, 2006, at 8:45 PM, Rob Studdert wrote:
On 17 Feb
- Original Message -
From: Rob Studdert
Subject: Re: Pentax Pre PMA announcment.
I guess so but I don't feel so constrained these days, I shoot to scan so
I can
always combine any number of images to create the DOF that I require in
the
digital realm. This was one of the reasons
On 17 Feb 2006 at 19:15, William Robb wrote:
I want to get away from digital and get back into the darkroom.
You could always get a used 5x4 8k film recorder/printer, they are cheaper
than a good enlarging lens now :-)
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT) +10 Hours
On 17 Feb 2006 at 20:54, Paul Stenquist wrote:
I was amazed to see how well perspective errors can be handled with
simple PhotoShop operations. I only tried them after reading your
comments here. What a joy it was to see for myself how simple and
intuitive these tools are.
There are a lot
Excellent results. It wold be interesting to compare a transformed
fisheye pic to a corrected pic from a rectilinear lens of equal focal
length.
Paul
On Feb 17, 2006, at 10:29 PM, Rob Studdert wrote:
On 17 Feb 2006 at 20:54, Paul Stenquist wrote:
I was amazed to see how well perspective
The DS2 has been in stock at numerous dealers in the US and in Canada,
which last I heard was North America. So where have all these places
(BH,
Adorama, Beach, Buydig, Don's, McBain's, and at least a half-dozen other
places) been getting these cameras that aren't supposed to be here?
Ok, I'll put my newbie DSLR two cents in on this one. I could care less
about a new body announcement at PMA. Actually, I hope there isn't one
because number 1)I don't have the funds to get one right now, 2) I'm
still trying to figure out how to fully utilize the DS and DL bodies
capabilities
As Godfrey said, they're sticking to the timeline that was announced: A
new DSLR at Photokina. Why should their adherence to the previously
announced schedule cause a lack of confidence? It's more chicken little
from the list.
Paul
On Feb 15, 2006, at 10:41 PM, Perry Pellechia wrote:
That's
If BH says, notify when in stock, then the camera has not been
discontinued. They're probably the number one seller of cameras in the
world, and if they say they're getting more stock, you can be sure that
Pentax has assured them that they're getting more stock. I'm not
surprised that the
Everyone who is bemoaning the fact that this announcement only
mentions point and shoot should remember two things. First PMA is
for dealers. Dealers make their bread and butter from point and
shoot, so to them this is very interesting news. Second, this is a
photokina year. Camera
Which is why i have decided to give Nikon one more chance and have ordered a
D200. Looking
at April
arivall.
Keepin all my Pentax gear of course. You know Nikon's track record with
moi.vbg
Dave
Not a good sign. Three new PS's, No word on
a new DSLR
John,
The DS2 is/was available in North America, it's Europe that didn't get
it. I've held the DS2 in my hands, from an Authorized Pentax dealer, who
gets their stock direct from Pentax Canada. Nice little body.
Shel,
I'll duck into Henry's today and see if they have any DS2's. They're
I was in Henrys last weekend, buying a Sigma 10-20, and i saw one on the rear
display
shelf. Also
saw one at the Thornhill location when i was buying BW paper a few weeks ago.
I would
imagine
they are still there. They push Canon and Nikon a lot harder.
Dave
Hi,
Please don't check Henry's on my account. I no longer do business with
them having had two bad transactions with them. Thanks for the offer to
help out, though. Much appreciated.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Adam Maas
Shel,
I'll duck into Henry's today and see if they have any
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006, Adam Maas wrote:
I'll duck into Henry's today and see if they have any DS2's. They're Canada's
equivalent to BH and they're showing stock on the DS2 for $818USD on their
site. Check them out at http://www.henrys.ca they do ship to the US (Half
their site is set up to sell
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Please don't check Henry's on my account. I no longer do business with
them having had two bad transactions with them.
Oops!
Kostas
Talking about stock. The local Pentax
distributor owes me a camera. When the *ist D
arrived here last year the flash didn't work.
I posted about this. They promised to replace
it immediately but found they had no stock.
On Monday I phoned and was told they'd just
got some cameras from Spain
Thanks for the reminder carrot, Bob. =)
Jack
--- Bob Shell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Everyone who is bemoaning the fact that this announcement only
mentions point and shoot should remember two things. First PMA is
for dealers. Dealers make their bread and butter from point and
shoot,
Rather than being criticized, I think the brotherhood should be
complimented for having shown incredible patience.
Jack
--- Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do not understand this gotta have new more better faster more now
attitude. The rumors and supposedly informed folks have
Sorry to hear that. Henry's is by no means my favourite local store
(they're local for me, the flagship store is about 2 minutes walk from
work), but I've not had any bad transactions with them. They even gave
me a free CLA on my MX because I bought the $20 extended warranty.
-Adam
Shel
If I hold my breath for an *ist D upgrade, my next probably won't be until
2007.
Tom C.
From: Perry Pellechia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Pentax Pre PMA announcment.
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 21:43:38 -0500
I would be more
And your point is... ??? :-)
Tom C.
From: Perry Pellechia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That's funny, I do not see where anyone in this tread was saying
gotta have new more better faster more now. The point I think we
all were trying to make is that Pentax has really not done much to
keep our
-
Fra: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 16. februar 2006 17:21
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: Re: Pentax Pre PMA announcment.
And your point is... ??? :-)
Tom C.
From: Perry Pellechia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That's funny, I do not see where anyone in this tread was saying
gotta have new
On Feb 16, 2006, at 7:01 AM, Jack Davis wrote:
Rather than being criticized, I think the brotherhood should be
complimented for having shown incredible patience.
Patience would be evidenced by a lot less bitching and moaning.
Godfrey
Pre PMA announcment.
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 22:06:47 -0800
On Feb 15, 2006, at 7:45 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
I think the DS and DS2 are great cameras. I bought one. Now, after
being
out less than a year, the DS2 has become scarce as hen's teeth. That is
~frustrating~ especially since I
in all of them (apart from Optios) was
the Sigma 28-80/2.4
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Pentax Pre PMA announcment.
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 22:06:47 -0800
On Feb 15, 2006, at 7:45 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
I
an explanation that makes sense ... it would be nice to know what it is.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Date: 2/16/2006 8:37:42 AM
Subject: Re: Pentax Pre PMA announcment.
You can't sell cameras if they aren't available to sell. A potential
: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Date: 2/16/2006 8:37:42 AM
Subject: Re: Pentax Pre PMA announcment.
You can't sell cameras if they aren't available to sell. A potential
buyer
will be easily swayed to another brand if the product is not available.
That bodes ill
@pdml.net
Date: 2/16/2006 8:37:42 AM
Subject: Re: Pentax Pre PMA announcment.
You can't sell cameras if they aren't available to
sell. A potential
buyer
will be easily swayed to another brand if the
product is not available.
That bodes ill, not well, as with less than 10
I'm referring to their continued allegiance to Pentax.
Bitching and moaning simply demonstrate our loyal intent.
Jack
--- Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 16, 2006, at 7:01 AM, Jack Davis wrote:
Rather than being criticized, I think the brotherhood should be
Some of us might just like to B Moan...
Tom C.
From: Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Pentax Pre PMA announcment.
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 09:42:21 -0800 (PST)
I'm referring to their continued allegiance to Pentax
from Willoughby's at the time. That taught me a
little lesson that some of these big advertisers are just paper/web store
fronts.
Tom C.
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Pentax Pre PMA announcment.
Date: Thu
? I'm sure there's
an explanation that makes sense ... it would be nice
to know what it is.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Date: 2/16/2006 8:37:42 AM
Subject: Re: Pentax Pre PMA announcment.
You can't sell cameras
Tom C wrote on 16.02.06 19:01:
I'm shocked that Pentax does not have at least a *visible* DSLR presence
*consistently* in these major mass retailers. I would stick my neck out on
the line and guess that by far the vast majority of camera sales (in the USA
at least) are done in person at one
From: Sylwester Pietrzyk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
One never knows. As a matter of fact Olympus 4/3 DSLRs are much easier to
spot here and there in Poland than Pentax.
Same here!?
Tom C.
By comparison, my local Fry's Electronics (two of them), CompUSA, and
pro camera shop have both DL and DS in stock at present. The Fry's
had a few D models still in stock as well. The local camera shop had
four DS2s and they're all sold, they're waiting for the next shipment.
Most of the
-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Pentax Pre PMA announcment.
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 10:16:56 -0800
By comparison, my local Fry's Electronics (two of them), CompUSA, and pro
camera shop have both DL and DS in stock at present. The Fry's had a few D
models
Yes.
G
On Feb 16, 2006, at 10:25 AM, Tom C wrote:
I'm curious if they have them on display as well as in stock.
-- Original message --
From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm shocked that Pentax does not have at least a *visible* DSLR presence
*consistently* in these major mass retailers.
Really? Then you don't know much about marketing. The mass retailers buy only
with big
Well, ummm... I think I forgot it 8-)
On 2/16/06, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And your point is... ??? :-)
Tom C.
From: Perry Pellechia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That's funny, I do not see where anyone in this tread was saying
gotta have new more better faster more now. The point I think we
On 2/16/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 16, 2006, at 7:01 AM, Jack Davis wrote:
Rather than being criticized, I think the brotherhood should be
complimented for having shown incredible patience.
Patience would be evidenced by a lot less bitching and moaning.
Godfrey
straight down like a lead balloon, but on the
other hand I'm not sure it's staying put where most would like it to stay.
Tom C.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Pentax Pre PMA announcment.
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:09:43 +
to know what it is.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Date: 2/16/2006 8:37:42 AM
Subject: Re: Pentax Pre PMA announcment.
You can't sell cameras if they aren't available to
sell. A potential
buyer
Just stopped by the Wolf Camera between my contract's offices and the
joint where I have lunch. They had the *ist DL and a selection of
four Pentax lenses on the shelf too.
Godfrey
With humor, do you really think that the divine is that interested in
hearing bitching and moaning even if you are a loyal and faithful
follower? If I were the divine, I'd change Reality to get the
noisemakers to shut up. And I don't mean give them what they want...
Godfrey
On Feb 16,
Pre PMA announcment.
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 13:39:37 -0800
Just stopped by the Wolf Camera between my contract's offices and the
joint where I have lunch. They had the *ist DL and a selection of four
Pentax lenses on the shelf too.
Godfrey
like a lead balloon, but on the
other hand I'm not sure it's staying put where most would like it to stay.
Tom C.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Pentax Pre PMA announcment.
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:09:43
No problem for me. It expresses a passionate opinion that often
validates mine.
BTW, define devine.
Jack
--- Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With humor, do you really think that the divine is that interested in
hearing bitching and moaning even if you are a loyal and faithful
Tom C wrote:
I may be one of the few that bought my *ist D, sight unseen. I tried
to see it at one of the big photo magazine advertisers in New Jersey
in Jan 2004, and they were going to have to get one from their
warehouse and it would be available to see and touch and hold on
Monday. As
It is a similar situation with Apple computers and was the same with
the ipod a few years ago when they could not make enough to meet
demand. These big mass market retailers demand a heavily discounted
price before they will stock them and Apple refuses to go that route.
They feel that it
It's a term for grape-picking. You didn't know that?
Tom C.
From: Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Pentax Pre PMA announcment.
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:22:44 -0800 (PST)
BTW, define devine.
Jack
From: Steve Sharpe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
They feel that it would cheapen the brand name.
Unfortunately, I don't think Pentax suffers from that problem in the eyes of
Joe Public.
Tom C.
Well, this seems like as good a spot as any to post this URL. Someone
lurking on the list sent it to me. Essentially it says that the DS2 is
discontinued. Personally, I have my doubts, but what the heck, may as well
add another opinion to the conversation:
At 3:42 PM -0700 2/16/06, Tom C wrote:
From: Steve Sharpe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
They feel that it would cheapen the brand name.
Unfortunately, I don't think Pentax suffers from that problem in the
eyes of Joe Public.
But perhaps in their own eyes they do.
And you could probably say the same
I was in their store last month. Could not get served, which is
probably just as well or else I would have bought the 50 f1.7 FA they
had. :^)
Henry's in north London also had the DL and the DS2. I played with
the latter. IMO, the build quality is not a patch on my MZ-S which I
had with
1 - 100 of 137 matches
Mail list logo
