Hi,
You're not going to get any reading with a normal
spotmeter... unless the Aurora is extremely bright
(but then you'll be able to measure with your camera meter as well).
This may happen only about once in 25 years or so... ;-)
The only camera which I know to work on automatic with Aurora
is
Here, even if it is yours!
John Coyle
Brisbane, Australia
- Original Message -
From: Bob Blakely [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 11:45 AM
Subject: Re: Worst Ebay Seller of all time
Same here, unless it's yours...
Regards,
Bob...
From: Rob
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Peter Loveday wrote:
As another note, every time I've had my *istD do something odd, (...)
Half the time, re-inserting the same batteries will fix it
Yesterday my *istD did a quite odd thing. It got stuck. The display
continued to show what it previuosly was showing,
On 11/11/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:
Is there any one on the list who has or has used the Pentax MF 200mm f2.5 ?
If so what do you have to say about it?
I owned one once. Big lens, solidly built, good performer IIRC, but
compared to a 2.8 80-200 zoom, not as flexible,
Comments in text
-Original Message-
From: Ryan Lee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 10:46 AM
To: PDML
Subject: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison
So, time to make the announcement. After returning my ist D, I now find
myself with a
frank theriault wrote:
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:58:22 -0800, Bruce Dayton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have to agree. Even though you didn't think it would make any
difference, Frank, the explanation does bring more meaning and
interest into the photo. Thanks for sharing it.
The explanation makes
My first *istD didn't work, and BH replaced it with a new camera, no
questions asked. However, they did require that it be returned in the
original box Pentax with all the packing material.
On Nov 10, 2004, at 10:55 PM, William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: Ryan Lee
Subject:
frank theriault wrote:
[...]
So, what has all this to do with this thread? Well, when a catcher
moves up the line to block the plate, it's within the rules for a base
runner to run over him to get to home. Rose was within the rules of
the game.
BUT, it was an All Star (exhibition) game. It
http://tinyurl.com/2ja75
Enjoy :-)
regards,
Anthony Farr
Like Cotty says, good performer and BIG.
Reminds me of a 'pre'-300mm f4 A in shape and size.
Becomes a nice 400mm with the old T6-2X converter, but 1.4 2.0A's work ok too.
Overall much bigger and heavier than the Pentax 200/4 (K, M, or A),
But the extra speed is great for focusing in the
-Original Message-
From: Mishka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 10:26 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Worst Ebay Seller of all time
Sorry if I was misunderstood but I still hold that there is a big
difference between following the rules
Thanks Frank, I wholeheartedly agree.
Don
-Original Message-
From: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 10:06 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Worst Ebay Seller of all time
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 21:05:18 -0600, Don Sanderson
[EMAIL
Neat!
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: OT - for catlovers /or Led Zep fans
http://tinyurl.com/2ja75
Bruce,
Great photo but a little disorienting.
The rocks are so high...magnificent!
...And the sky with the clouds.
I think the left foreground hill is what unbalances me.
But I love the tree.
Is it the camera angle that unbalances me?
It all grows on you over time.
Great photo!
Regards, Bob S.
That's great! Thanks
Don
-Original Message-
From: Anthony Farr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 6:54 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: OT - for catlovers /or Led Zep fans
http://tinyurl.com/2ja75
Enjoy :-)
regards,
Anthony Farr
Was the 200/2.5 easier - faster to work with than the 80-200/2.8 at the
long end, or no significant difference?
Cheers,
Ronald
Cotty wrote:
On 11/11/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:
Is there any one on the list who has or has used the Pentax MF 200mm f2.5 ?
If so what do
Big and heavy. No tripod collar is a big minus (IMO).
The fastest 200 you can buy in K mount.
Fantastic build, very smooth. Very sharp.
I love mine.
Mishka
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 02:30:09 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi
Is there any one on the list who has or has used the
Previously, Ryan wrote:
So, time to make the announcement. After returning my ist D, I now find
myself with a C***n 20D, 17-85 f4-5.6IS USM, a 580EX speedlite, a BG-E2
battery grip, an E1 hand strap, an extra battery and a B+W MRC UV filter.
I miss my kidneys.
One question. Why? Please answer
this is just a guess but since it is faster, probably
contrastier(sic?), probably sharper, and lighter, I bet it is.
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Ronald Arvidsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 9:37 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
Was the 200/2.5 easier - faster to work with than the 80-200/2.8 at the
long end, or no significant difference?
Cheers,
Ronald
Cotty wrote:
On 11/11/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:
Is there any one on the list who has or has used the Pentax MF 200mm f2.5 ?
If so what do
It still weighs less than a 80-200 F2.8 lens
no?
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Mishka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 9:34 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
Big and heavy. No tripod collar is a big minus (IMO).
The fastest 200 you
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Peter Loveday wrote:
As another note, every time I've had my *istD do something odd, (...)
Half the time, re-inserting the same batteries will fix it
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Anders Hultman replied:
Yesterday my *istD did a quite odd thing. It got stuck. The display
continued
Paul Stenquist wrote on 11/11/2004, 6:17 AM:
My first *istD didn't work, and BH replaced it with a new camera, no
questions asked. However, they did require that it be returned in the
original box Pentax with all the packing material.
On Nov 10, 2004, at 10:55 PM, William Robb wrote:
Exactly right! One my major points to them was that they have an obligation
to sell me goods which are working in the first place- they were trying to
tell me it's procedure and it could only be done that way etc. They weren't
even considering refunding me because having an incompatible (correct
Well Tom, it's a bit late now isn't it! I've already bitten the bullet and
got my 20D stuff (btw, that handstrap which I bought as an extra is amazing.
I remember running all about the place with the ist D and grip, a Sigma
28-70 2.8 and the AF360fgz for the Aussie Olympians returning to Brisbane,
ROFL! It's so true :-( I've limited myself to one ice cube a day!
Cheers,
Ryan
- Original Message -
From: Butch Black [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 10:37 PM
Subject: Re: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison
Previously,
On 11/11/04, Ronald Arvidsson, discombobulated, unleashed:
Was the 200/2.5 easier - faster to work with than the 80-200/2.8 at the
long end, or no significant difference?
I have no experience with the Pentax 80-200 2.8 - I had a Sigma 70-
200 2.8 in KA mount and a Canon 70-200 2.8 L IS. There
It's interesting (I have close to 25 years in software design/development).
I wonder if I was triggering a bug. I was impatient to get the next shot
and so occassionally would go spastic on the shutter release, hoping to fire
it as soon as the camera would allow. Maybe this rejected input
On 11/11/04, Ryan Lee, discombobulated, unleashed:
I completely agree with you about feels and looks; the ist D is a gorgeous
little thing, and it's not too shabby specwise either. However, I'm not
deeply invested in Pentax glass, and my love affair is more with the mz5n or
the mz3 bodies
Yep... you've gone over. :)
May God rest his soul.
Tom C.
From: Ryan Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 23:41:44 +0800
Well Tom, it's a bit late now isn't it! I've
Hi,
Thanks Cotty,
I didn't mean AF speed. I meant easier - I kind a prefer fixed focal
lengths as I find them easier to work with than zoomz when only one
focal length is needed. However, I've got an old Sigma 200/2.8, fixed
focal length, and I don't quite like that lens -its good enough but
On 11/11/04, Tom C, discombobulated, unleashed:
May God rest his soul.
He'll be joining me and one or two others in the Howling Hells mate, you
better believe it.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
With the battery grip attached, the *istD is a nice size for me. Without the
grip, it's too small for real work, but perfect for social affairs.
Paul
On 11/11/04, Ryan Lee, discombobulated, unleashed:
I completely agree with you about feels and looks; the ist D is a gorgeous
little thing,
On 11/11/04, Ronald Arvidsson, discombobulated, unleashed:
Do you rate the 200/2.5 as easy to
work with as a 135 mm or 200/f4 lens (manual focus)?
Understood Ron. I would say that it is appreciably heavier than the 135
or the 200/4 so that may slow you down a bit. Depends. I am big of frame
Can I quote you on that?
-Original Message-
From: Peter J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Nov 10, 2004 9:22 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Worst Ebay Seller of all time
And a very good quote it is too. Such a magnificent quote is just what
we expect from such a
towering presence
The size is fine for me, but the shape of the grip is less than ideal.
I REALLY miss the MZ-S as it felt like it was bespoke built for me and
could easily have been an extension of my arm! There is not another
camera on the planet which grips as nicely as the MZ-S...
I have the grip but never
Tom C wrote:
It's interesting (I have close to 25 years in software design/development).
I wonder if I was triggering a bug. I was impatient to get the next
shot and so occassionally would go spastic on the shutter release,
hoping to fire it as soon as the camera would allow. Maybe this
I have some concerns about moving to digital, not as a replacement for film
but as a supplemental system. Having been reading many digi-threads here,
one thing keeps popping up: the various problems people have been having
with the istD. The idea of buying a camera and then working through
I loved its size with the grip. Just nice for me. I think they could have
done a bit better on the bit where the tips of your fingers hold on to
though. Would be perfect if the edge came forward a tad more. And without
the grip *snigger* mine's seen a few social affairs.. ask John Coyle :-)
On 11/11/04, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed:
Are these problems typical of the Pentax dslr, or are there just a few
people here with such problems who post a lot looking for help in resolving
these issues. From what I gather most of the regulars here are using an
istD. How many have
Shel said:
I have some concerns about moving to digital, not as a replacement for film
but as a supplemental system.
Are these problems typical of the Pentax dslr, or are there just a few
people here with such problems who post a lot looking for help
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, John Whittingham wrote:
That all sounds very reassuring, I think I might just look into getting the
AF400FTZ
It is a very nice flash and can be bought for a song. There is also an
optional W/A adapter (24mm coverage on 35mm) for it, for which I have
no opinion.
Kostas
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Cotty wrote:
No tripod mount means you're on your own there.
Is it too heavy to stick the camera (with it attached :-) on the
tripod?
Kostas
Butch Black wrote:
Previously, Ryan wrote:
So, time to make the announcement. After returning my ist D, I now find
myself with a C***n 20D, 17-85 f4-5.6IS USM, a 580EX speedlite, a BG-E2
battery grip, an E1 hand strap, an extra battery and a B+W MRC UV filter.
I miss my kidneys.
One
My first *istD was defective. It wouldn't recognize a card. However, BH
replaced it immediately. I now have two *istD and have not had any problems
with either. i find that my exposures are very accurate and the quality is very
good. The camera has made me much more productive. Where a magazine
No tripod mount means you're on your own there.
Is it too heavy to stick the camera (with it attached :-) on the
tripod?
Kostas
Very impractical. I think it would put a big strain on the lens and body
mounts, and possibly on the bush or quick release mount.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
A footnote to my earlier comments: One of the reasons I went digital was that I
had experienced a lot of problems with film. The best pro lab in town kept
kinking my 6x7 transparency film, frequently rendering the first one or two
frames useless. The lab that was processing my color neg film
While those with problems are vocal because they need help or to vent, those
without don't comment as much (probably so as not to sound like they're
gushing) because they don't really have to. I was unfortunate to have 2 ist
D related problems, the first a backfocus issue with the Sigma 28-70 2.8
It's been evident from discussions here @ camera shops
that each model has a differing image quality partly because
of the changes to the physical screen in front of the sensor.
So ...
Is that the basis for some of the istD/Canon/Nikon image differences?
Sincerely,
C. Brendemuehl
God has nothing to do with it...
Tom C wrote:
Yep... you've gone over. :)
May God rest his soul.
Tom C.
From: Ryan Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 23:41:44 +0800
Ok, we are swinging back to Monterey and the 17 mile drive for this
one. Part of the same trip as the other two.
Pentax *istD, Sigma 55-200/3.5-5.6 DC, Handheld
http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/pinnacles_0085.htm
Comments welcome.
Bruce
Many of these problems are typical of all DSLR or Digital cameras in
general or digital equipment in
general. Software is pounded out and often not properly tested. The
rush to market makes the end
user the final tester in many cases. I'm sure the Canon and Nikon
forums have just as many
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Ryan.
I too have toyed with the idea of going over to the dark side. Oddly
enough, what's stopped me from doing so has been the relative size and
weight differences between Pentax and Canon offerings. Any of the
unfortunate souls who accompanied me on my short,
Bruce Dayton wrote on 11/11/2004, 11:43 AM:
Ok, we are swinging back to Monterey and the 17 mile drive for this
one. Part of the same trip as the other two.
Pentax *istD, Sigma 55-200/3.5-5.6 DC, Handheld
http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/pinnacles_0085.htm
Normally you aren't
Well here they are. I had 10 people respond, which is what we had in our last
Municipal
Election, LOL,
but hopefully this will be helpful.
I was hoping to here from more people who had complains about the camera,but
they did not
want to
play I suppose.:-)
Answers follow the
1-Why did you
Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, we are swinging back to Monterey and the 17 mile drive for this
one. Part of the same trip as the other two.
Pentax *istD, Sigma 55-200/3.5-5.6 DC, Handheld
http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/pinnacles_0085.htm
This photo reminds me of Michael Reichmann's
I suppose, but I figured I'd stick to Pentax issues since the Pentax would
be my first choice (or consideration) were I to buy a DSLR, mostly because
of all the K-mount glass that I have. Anyway, this is mostly a Pentax
forum ;-)) That Nikon, Canon, Kodak, and others have similar problems is
That's one of the best PESO/PAW/etc. shot I've seen here. Just superb.
--Mark
Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, we are swinging back to Monterey and the 17 mile drive for this
one. Part of the same trip as the other two.
Pentax *istD, Sigma 55-200/3.5-5.6 DC, Handheld
Hello Shel,
I have two *istD bodies with about 15000-2 frames shot. I have
not had any problems of concern with them. Every camera is going to
have standard quirks, especially electronic ones. So for me, the big
quirk (and I have tamed it in one or two sessions) is the flash TTL
thing.
I am mailing Bruce Dayton two pictures from my nikon to look at, then John
Coyle wants to
see them.
I'm sure Bruce and John will carve them apart.lol
As for your question, it could be. I tried a friends 1D this summer and other
than not
really liking the
camera layout and feel,felt the images
So, 33% of your cameras were unsatisfactory and needed replacement ;-))
Thanks for jumping in, Paul.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My first *istD was defective. It wouldn't recognize a card.
However, BH replaced it immediately. I now have two *istD
and have not had
Thanks for posting this. Your figures seem odd. With only 10 replies, how
do you arrive at these odd percentage responses?
Shel
[Original Message]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 11/11/2004 8:58:02 AM
Subject: Poll Results(long)
7a- What lenses, Pentax or other, do
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
I have some concerns about moving to digital, not as a replacement for film
but as a supplemental system.
Big snip
What I did not see in your list (and I am only mentioning it just in
case) is how problematic dust is/is not with the *ist-D/DSLRs.
At the risk of starting a heated discussion (really really please that's
not what I want!!), it seems to me that most people on this list that
talk about going to the dark side use that phrase to mean switch to
Canon. Is there any particular reason that there's not as much
discussion about going
Bravo Bruce. That's a wall hanger for sure.
CW
- Original Message -
From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 11:43 AM
Subject: PESO - 17 mile drive #2
Ok, we are swinging back to Monterey and the 17 mile drive for this
one. Part of
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Haynes, Grady (PPC) wrote:
At the risk of starting a heated discussion (really really please that's
not what I want!!), it seems to me that most people on this list that
talk about going to the dark side use that phrase to mean switch to
Canon. Is there any particular
Like 47% of all statistics he made them up.
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Thanks for posting this. Your figures seem odd. With only 10 replies, how
do you arrive at these odd percentage responses?
Shel
[Original Message]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 11/11/2004 8:58:02 AM
Some people had several answers to one question,like the film one. Some shot
35mm slide
aAND 35mm
film so i put tick mark for both.
Should have added,results may vary by 10-30%.lol
Dave
Thanks for posting this. Your
figures seem
odd. With only 10
Pentax seems to put such emphasis on
design and ergonomics, and my personal opinion is that in these areas,
Nikon stands out compared to Canon.
Just wondering... please, no Canon vs. Pentax vs. Nikon and all possible
permutations thereof flamewar!
I
I don't see that as a problem that will prevent getting the picture, so I
didn't mention it. If dust, however, causes mechanical or electronic
problems, that's another concern, but I don't think it does. I don't see
at as any more of a concern than scratches, spots, or dust on a negative.
Canon is the Evil empire, they are cleaning Nikons clock, eating their
lunch, kicking Nikons dog,
(I seem to have run out of inappropriate metaphors, oh well). If
present trends continue Nikon
could well find itself in the same position as Pentax in a few years, a
niche producer with some nice
Only to protect the guilty.
Hey this took up valuable at work time to do this.VBG
Dave
Like 47% of all statistics he made them up.
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Thanks for posting this. Your figures seem odd. With only 10 replies, how
do you arrive at
You're really getting me motivated to take a day and drive down to the area.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ok, we are swinging back to Monterey and the 17 mile drive for this
one. Part of the same trip as the other two.
Pentax *istD, Sigma 55-200/3.5-5.6
I'll respond to a few of the other messages in this thread. (Sorry
if this is a bit long of an answer - remember, though, I could have
flooded the thread with a bunch of short answers instead - g.)
Was the 200/2.5 easier - faster to work with than the 80-200/2.8
at the long end, or no
Is it too heavy to stick the camera (with it attached :-) on the
tripod?
Very impractical. I think it would put a big strain on the lens
and body mounts, and possibly on the bush or quick release
mount.
I'd say it depends on the body. I've used the K 200/2.5 on a
tripod-mounted LX with
Oh silly me... I thought God had something to do with just about
everything... indirectly at least. :)
Tom C.
From: Peter J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004
Dust is not a problem if the camera is handled properly. I change lenses
frequently and shoot outdoors quite a bit, but I don't have dust problems. I
never leave the body exposed without a cap for more than a few seconds at a
time, and I clean the sensor by flowing it off with a sterile ear
Hello Kostas,
I can say that after scanning thousands of pictures, that dust on the
sensor is a minuscule problem compared to all the crap that is on
negatives. I don't have to blow the dust off very often and then it
is a 20 second operation. If a few images end up with a dust spot, it
is no
I really wish I could have stayed there longer. One quick drive
through does not do it justice.
Bruce
Thursday, November 11, 2004, 9:41:08 AM, you wrote:
SB You're really getting me motivated to take a day and drive down to the area.
SB Shel
[Original Message]
From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL
Tom C wrote:
Oh silly me... I thought God had something to do with just about
everything... indirectly at least. :)
No, not really.
However, if you choose to cling to that belief, it's a perfectly
innocuous creed and certainly acceptable to everyone.
Best,
keith whaley
Tom C.
From: Peter J.
- Original Message -
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Seems that there have been quite a bit more quality and operational
problems with cameras (and this is a very personal conjecture) since
the
advent of autofocus and cameras with lots of electronics.
That's the first thing
dust isnt much of an issue anymore with film or sensor
sourced digital images because it is so easy to clean up with
photoshop ( unless its absurdly large or numerous).
Its not like the old days where dust in a wet darkroom
could easily drive you to insanity because it was so
hard to eliminate
Tom C wrote:
***Basically***, the only things that are against the ***strictly
enforced*** rules on e-bay are receiving money for an item and not
delivering it to the buyer, or buying an item and not delivering the funds
to the seller (which in the end deprives the seller of nothing but his
Yeah it was me. I saw you ignoring the DONT WALK and decided you were a
deviant. :)
Tom C.
Hey!
You know, I think I saw you at an intersection the other day, feverishly
pressing the WALK button at least 100 times a minute. I suppose I should
have stopped and said hello...
keith whaley
Tom
I suppose you're right in the strictly Judeo-Christian sense, but I
think Cotty expressed my nuance in his post...
Tom C wrote:
Oh silly me... I thought God had something to do with just about
everything... indirectly at least. :)
Tom C.
From: Peter J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To:
Thanks Cotty,
Sounds like what I want. Weight is not a problem - its more if its
convenient to work with and there big lenses do differ. Some being
outright awkward but I think from your description this is what I want.
I'm not quite small myself, my family were from northern Scandinavia and
I guess a monopod would do the trick if one wants to be mobile. Thats
what I prefer when photographing birds and wildlife if I need to be
mobile rather than handheld.
Cheers,
Ronald
Cotty wrote:
No tripod mount means you're on your own there.
Is it too heavy to stick the camera (with
This is a forwarded message
===8==Original message text===
Dear Friends,
Magnum Photos is looking to fill the position of Editorial Assistant. In
short it is to liaise on the editorial front for all the territories that
Magnum London addresses which include: the UK, Asia,
Yes.
I haven't found the *ist D to have more or less problems than a regular
electronic body film SLR.
Tom C.
I've had my little Sony for 18 months or so, maybe more, and have not had
a
single glitch with it. I just put in a card, make sure the battery has
juice, and point and shoot merrily
Thanks Fred,
Cheers,
Ronald
Fred wrote:
I'll respond to a few of the other messages in this thread. (Sorry
if this is a bit long of an answer - remember, though, I could have
flooded the thread with a bunch of short answers instead - g.)
Was the 200/2.5 easier - faster to work with than the
Has anyone a YS K-mount for spare? I'd like to buy one. Contact me off list.
Cheers,
Ronald
Tom C wrote:
Yeah it was me. I saw you ignoring the DONT WALK and decided you were
a deviant. :)
Heh, heh...You're way sharper than I thought you were!
Good onya!
keith
Tom C.
Hey!
You know, I think I saw you at an intersection the other day,
feverishly pressing the WALK button at least 100
You apparently possess faith that your belief is correct. :)
Tom C.
However, if you choose to cling to that belief, it's a perfectly innocuous
creed and certainly acceptable to everyone.
Best,
keith whaley
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well here they are. I had 10 people respond, which
is what we had in our last Municipal
Election, LOL,
but hopefully this will be helpful.
I was hoping to here from more people who had
complains about the camera,but they did not
want to
play I suppose.:-)
Tom C wrote:
You apparently possess faith that your belief is correct. :)
Funny how that works, isn't it. We're both right, absent contrary
proof. Meanwhile, we're both happy! g
Best wishes, keith
Tom C.
However, if you choose to cling to that belief, it's a perfectly
innocuous creed and
On 12/11/04, Ryan Lee, discombobulated, unleashed:
I'd suggest crossing your fingers Pentax have something planned
for next Photokina :-)
I'd cross everything mate. Arms, legs, shoelaces, etc.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|
On 11/11/04, Peter J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed:
I'm sure the Canon and Nikon
forums have just as many complaints.
You're kidding. More!
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
On 11/11/04, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:
When Canon announced the 1D-II I was sorely tempted. 8 megapixels is
very attractive and I'd settle for the 1.3x FOV crop over full-frame,
considering the price difference. But thing's simply too enormous for me
to even consider it. This may
On 11/11/04, Peter J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed:
I suppose you're right in the strictly Judeo-Christian sense, but I
think Cotty expressed my nuance in his post...
Just call me Bealzebub.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|
On 11/11/04, Fred, discombobulated, unleashed:
I love the K 200/2.5. I'd recommend the lens to anybody who wants a
sweet and fast 200mm manual focus lens (and who doesn't mind the
weight).
Totally agree.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|
1 - 100 of 269 matches
Mail list logo
