It is working now ...
D. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 11:39 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: pentax-discuss-d Digest V03 #624 ------------------------------ Content-Type: text/plain pentax-discuss-d Digest Volume 03 : Issue 624 Today's Topics: RE: Happy 4th of July [ "Amita Guha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] High-end film bodies (WAS: Re: *ist [ "Steve Desjardins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: High-end film bodies (WAS: Re: * [ "Steve Desjardins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: High-end film bodies (WAS: Re: * [ Sylwester Pietrzyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: Image stabilizers on Pentax [ Caveman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] Re: Image stabilizers on Pentax [ Lon Williamson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] Re: Re: Image stabilizers on Pentax [ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] Re: Technical Evaluation [ "Gregory L. Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: Image stabilizers on Pentax [ Sylwester Pietrzyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Renaming the *ist [ Joseph Tainter <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] MZ-S the new LX? (WAS:Re: comparison [ =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=E5l_Jensen?= <paal ] Who's buying DSLR's? (WAS: Re: D-SLR [ =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=E5l_Jensen?= <paal ] Re: Lenses without aperture rings (W [ =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=E5l_Jensen?= <paal ] Re: Technical Evaluation [ "Gregory L. Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: Image stabilizers on Pentax [ =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=E5l_Jensen?= <paal ] Re: Technical Evaluation [ "Gregory L. Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] *ist available in Germany [ Martin Trautmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] Re: *ist available in Germany [ Martin Trautmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] Re: *ist available in Germany [ Sylwester Pietrzyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: Digital Delays? [ Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] Re: Lens compatibility in perspectiv [ Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] Re: Lenses without aperture rings (W [ =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Artur_Led=F3chowski? ] Re: Must-read: Mike's latest column [ Frits =?ISO-8859-1?Q?W=FCthrich?= < ] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 09:12:48 -0400 From: "Amita Guha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Happy 4th of July Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Miles Standish was the Pilgrims' military captain. > -----Original Message----- > From: Lon Williamson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 8:42 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Happy 4th of July > > > Amita, what did _your_ ancestor do to get hurled into > the brave new world? Poach the King's deer, perchance? > > Amita Guha wrote: > > Lon, your ancestor must have hung out with mine! My mom traces her > > lineage in a direct line back to Miles Standish. :) > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 09:26:11 -0400 From: "Steve Desjardins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: High-end film bodies (WAS: Re: *ist D was not production type :-() Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline A lot of this may depend on how easy (i.e., cheap) it is to "co-produce" a digital camera and a film sibling. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 09:30:43 -0400 From: "Steve Desjardins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: High-end film bodies (WAS: Re: *ist D was not production type :-() Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Even if film SLR's are steady in sales, most of the R&D money is going into the DSLR's. for this reason, I think that most of the "flagships" are going to be DSLR's. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 15:42:27 +0200 From: Sylwester Pietrzyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: High-end film bodies (WAS: Re: *ist D was not production type :-() Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit on 07.07.03 15:30, Steve Desjardins at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Even if film SLR's are steady in sales, most of the R&D money is going > into the DSLR's. for this reason, I think that most of the "flagships" > are going to be DSLR's. > That's it! So maybe rumoured Pentax flagship (or LX as some suggested) will materialize as full-frame, 11 MPix DSLR? -- Best Regards Sylwek ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 09:50:48 -0400 From: Caveman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Image stabilizers on Pentax Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit P�l Jensen wrote: > Pentax have patented an IS teleconverter. You have my blessing for printing the patent, rolling the paper to form a tube, and use that between your lens and camera. cheers, caveman ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 10:03:20 -0400 From: Lon Williamson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Image stabilizers on Pentax Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I have to admit that I don't care what Pentax has patented, developed, or prototyped. I'm interested in products that hit dealer shelves. Caveman wrote: > P�l Jensen wrote: > >> Pentax have patented an IS teleconverter. > > > You have my blessing for printing the patent, rolling the paper to form > a tube, and use that between your lens and camera. > > cheers, > caveman > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:13:27 +0200 From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Re: Image stabilizers on Pentax Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > Fra: Caveman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > P�l Jensen wrote: > > > Pentax have patented an IS teleconverter. > > You have my blessing for printing the patent, rolling the paper to form > a tube, and use that between your lens and camera. > I would prefer to have the patent number.... DagT ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 09:35:26 -0500 (EST) From: "Gregory L. Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Technical Evaluation Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Her Chong asked: > just what is the maximum focal length of your zoom? > > Herb... 80-200mm zoom, 2x TC. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Gregory L. Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 16:21 > Subject: Technical Evaluation > > > > I'm sure a lot of it is just me. But I do use an old zoom with a cheap, > > teleconverter, and I've never had really good optics to play with. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:35:20 +0200 From: Sylwester Pietrzyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Image stabilizers on Pentax Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit on 07.07.03 16:03, Lon Williamson at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I have to admit that I don't care what Pentax has > patented, developed, or prototyped. I'm interested > in products that hit dealer shelves. Maybe they have some real problems with implementing IS in new lenses/bodies? And that would be OK - IS seems quite complicated to implement. For me it is mystery, why Pentax hasn't decided to introduce USM lenses? After all they have long-term experience in complicated ultrasonic medical devices and if Sigma can introduce their HSM lenses and bodies (they sell far worse than even Pentax SLRs) that can use it, then why Pentax couldn't do the same? That should even be easier to implement than IS - KAF2 bodies already accept signal from lens (FA* in this case) not to use in-camera AF motor (when AF/MF clutch on FA* lenses is in "manual focus" position) and most of them have power zoom contacts, that could provide power to ultrasonic motor in lens. This is really strange... -- Best Regards Sylwek ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 08:59:03 -0600 From: Joseph Tainter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: pdml <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Renaming the *ist Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "In the computer world * means The Joker. You search for *.tif when you don't know the right name. "So, * can mean anything; you name it: Hobbyist, Lobbyist, Liberalist, Socialist, Copyist, Optimist, Pacifist, Philatelist..." So if I buy one I could be a - - photographist, - PDMList, - PUGist. Hmmm. Doesn't exactly work in English. Well, we could rename it the *er. That would give - - photographer, - PDMLer, - PUGer. Errr...PUGer doesn't sound quite right. I thought we were PUGsters. OTOH, "ist" is a useful suffix and we shouldn't discard it entirely. So I propose that we petition Pentax to rename the camera the: *ist/(st)er Of course, then I couldn't call it the starkist. But I will sacrifice fun for proper English. Of course, the name is now even more unpronounceable, so we would just call it THAT camera. What does everyone think? (I know, you probably think I have too much time on my hands.) Joe ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 17:03:12 +0200 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=E5l_Jensen?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: MZ-S the new LX? (WAS:Re: comparison shots) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Vic wrote: Looking at the first shot with the MZ-S and the LX, It's hard to believe that when Pentax said it was making a new LX, they were not referring to the MZ-S. The similarities are unmistakable... REPLY: Actually, the boss of Pentax camera division uttered that he wanted to make an LX with AF long after the MZ-S was released. On thing is what he wanted to make. Another is what Pentax allows to market. I personally feel that the MZ-S is more of an MX spiritual successor. Anyway, I spent spent 10 hours shooting up in the mountains the other day with the MZ-S, the K18/3,5, A 24/2.8, FA 31/1.8 Limited, FA 43/1.9 Limited and the FA 77/1.8 Limited. I much prefer the MZ-S for general photography before the LX. The LX is now only used when the OTF metering really proves an advantage like Aurora photography. The MZ-S is great all rounder; I used the built-in flash for fill flash, excellent metering both matrix and spot. Very helpful for judging the contrast range of a scene. The interface is great: you can see and use the top controls and display when the camera is at eye-height on a tripod. The prefire is great doing away with remote releases/cable releases. It is also totally free of vibrations. The only drawback is the battery consumptions. They always seem to run out in remote places. I had spare batteries but one day I will forget them.... P�l ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 17:03:14 +0200 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=E5l_Jensen?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Who's buying DSLR's? (WAS: Re: D-SLR poll on dpreview) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Mark wrote: Not surprising at all, really. A very large percentage of people buying DSLRs are actually buying their first SLR of any kind (Michael Reichmann says an amazing number of people attending his photography workshops have never owned a film camera at all). REPLY: Exactly. This is what Pentax sources tells me too. The *istD, like entry level film slr's, will mostly be bought by people who start at scratch. For the majority of buyers backwards compatibility is a non-issue. Foreward compatibility is an issue. Regrettable as this may be, it is the realities of the marketplace. P�l ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 17:03:10 +0200 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=E5l_Jensen?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Lenses without aperture rings (WAS: Re[2]: Lens compatibility in perspective) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Alin wrote: Yeah, it's quite obvious, isn't it!? Whatever "goodies" the fall will bring, I doubt it is aperture ring-enabled FA lenses. We won't see any limiteds nor any attempt of IS/USM either. My guess is some pompous FAJ star with APS sized image circle. The thought gives me a nausea - hope I'm wrong. REPLY: No it really isn't obvious. The obvious fact is that they have made "crippled" mount on what Pentax labels entry level bodies. This is nothing new: they did the same on entry level MZ-bodies. This did not mean that the MZ-3 and the MZ-S turned out likewise compromised. My suggestion is to save the whiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiining about the demise of compatibility forever until the fact actually happens. I personally doubt that the "good things in fall" has limited compatibility as this good things information was given in respons to whining about FA-J lenses. Note that I have no idea what this good thing actually means except that it involve lenses that are obviously more "desireable" than the FA-J's. Pentax engineers have stated that there will be no FA-J* lenses. Of course there could be FA-S* lenses for all we know :o). P�l ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 10:02:24 -0500 (EST) From: "Gregory L. Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Technical Evaluation Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Eactivist said: > >I've noticed with foxes, though, that sometimes you can jump up and down > >and wave your arms, and they'll just watch you. But if you try to talk to > >them, they'll run. I figured talking would reassure them because > >predators try to sneak up on their prey, but I was wrong. > > Interesting. Very few foxes around here. There may be more than you realize. I'd lived more than 20 years in my home town in Minnesota and seen foxes there twice, but I'd assumed they were just passing through. One winter when I went back on vacation, and I was a little more interested in that, there was an inch of snow on the ground, which let me go everywhere and see every track, pounce, and butt print. And the foxes were everywhere, along railroad tracks, on the community college grounds, the YMCA grounds, a cemetary, behind a strip mall, behind a library, basically every place that I thought to look. They must have literally been coming into my back yard every night, and I didn't have a clue. But that's the way they are. Where I am now, I count myself lucky if I see them once in ten trips to the woods, but I find their signs everywhere-- tracks, scat on the sidewalks, scent marks on light poles, etc. > Sometimes, yes, I can jump around > and wave and the deer won't move, usually when they are laying down pooped. > Other times if I move, they move. Depends I think how much the see the territory > as "their" territory and not just a passing through territory. But I am not > sure about that. > > I may say under my breath about a spotted fawn, "Aren't you cute," but it > never occurred to me to talk to them. Hehehehe. > > Marnie aka Doe Okay, I can nix that one before even trying it. ;-) Good > luck with your future shots and good luck to me too. Deer are weird. But if they don't just run when they see me, they don't seem to mind me talking to them. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 17:14:04 +0200 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=E5l_Jensen?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Image stabilizers on Pentax Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sylwester wrote: > Maybe they have some real problems with implementing IS in new > lenses/bodies? And that would be OK - IS seems quite complicated to > implement. > For me it is mystery, why Pentax hasn't decided to introduce USM lenses? > After all they have long-term experience in complicated ultrasonic medical > devices and if Sigma can introduce their HSM lenses and bodies (they sell > far worse than even Pentax SLRs) that can use it, then why Pentax couldn't > do the same? That should even be easier to implement than IS - KAF2 bodies > already accept signal from lens (FA* in this case) not to use in-camera AF > motor (when AF/MF clutch on FA* lenses is in "manual focus" position) and > most of them have power zoom contacts, that could provide power to > ultrasonic motor in lens. This is really strange... Well, they have patented this too :o) The KAF3 mount will cater for both IS and USM. It is probably not a technical decision, more a marketing one. I think Pentax must releases USM lenses because all the competition does soon. Minolta will release their USM lens series this fall. Canon, Nikon and even Sigma already got theirs. Firstly, though. Pentax needs bodies that can take USM lenses and that appeal to likely buyers of such lenses. P�l ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 10:16:39 -0500 (EST) From: "Gregory L. Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Technical Evaluation Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Lon Williamson said: > Greg, > > I've notice grain gets butt-ugly on any speed of color > neg film if that film is underexposed. I have also > noticed that using a 2x TC on a consumer zoom (in my > case, a Sigma APO 70-300) gives horrible sharpness no > matter what tripod tricks I use (take your pick: any > combination of MLU/Timer/CableRelease/HandOnLens/Face > AgainstCamera). Since I don't have a lot of experience, until now I've been working on the assumption that I'm a bigger limitation than my equipment is. In a sense it's reassuring to think that I don't need to spend more money than I have. But even when I thought I'd done everything right, I don't seem to get the sharpness I want. > > I own two 500mm mirror lenses, both of which give better > results than the Sigma @ 300mm with TC. The trick with > mirror lenses is: don't use them with slide film. The > contrast and saturation loss can be depressing. Use neg > film and darkroom contrast control or Photoshop to put the > "snap" back in. > > You might want to try an old mirror lens. The Spiratone > ones labled Plura-Coat can be had for under $100 (same cost > as a cheap new 2x TC) and deliver acceptable 8x10s, as far > as I am concerned. I have a Kalimar 500mm reflex, and all that telephoto was exciting at first, especially with a TC. But all the photos I take with it seem to be grayish and low contrast. Longer shutter speed helps, with all the side effects of a long shutter speed on 500mm or 1000mm of telephoto. I wanted to try pushing film to see if that improves contrast, but none of the shops near me can do that. It's summer now, and our extended rain seems to have passed along. I should take it out again in the sunshine and try some birds. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 17:13:49 +0200 From: Martin Trautmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Pentax Discuss Mailing List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: *ist available in Germany Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Hi all, it seems to me that the *ist now becomes available in Germany. One of the printed catalogs claims 289 Euro, while online it says 379 Euro (Brenner). Foto Koch says 379 Euro as well, while the US price is about $299 (B&H), which would be about 230 Euro today (plus local taxes). Ok, I'm not really interested in this piece of plastic, but just did want to let you know. Regards, Martin ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 17:17:56 +0200 From: Martin Trautmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Pentax Discuss Mailing List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: *ist available in Germany Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline 379 EUR is the official price on http://www.pentax.de/pentaxeurope/pentaxeurope_prod/pentaxeurope/v2/de/image s/Preisliste_endverbraucher.pdf ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 17:20:06 +0200 From: Sylwester Pietrzyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: *ist available in Germany Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit on 07.07.03 17:13, Martin Trautmann at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > One of the printed catalogs claims 289 Euro, while online it says 379 Euro > (Brenner). Foto Koch says 379 Euro as well, while the US price is about $299 > (B&H), which would be about 230 Euro today (plus local taxes). 379 Euro is MSRP by Pentax Germany - this price should fall dwon shortly on the streets. -- Pozdrowienia Sylwek ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:17:53 +0100 From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Digital Delays? Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >There is a loss in the first jpeg save. How much depends on how much >compression you choose. That lost may be acceptable to you, but still it is >there. There is no denying it, and in fact I personally never have. What I did say was that I compared a RAW image to a least-lossy setting jpeg and the difference was minimal - it was virtually impossible to detect by increasing magnification in Photoshop until I was examining individual pixels, simoultaneously, all over the images. By using the jpeg images instead of the RAW images, the loss is perfectly acceptable to me given that the advantages are less room taken up in storage and faster processing of pictures. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _____________________________ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:20:14 +0100 From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Lens compatibility in perspective Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>I have enough cash set aside now to buy a 1Ds and a clutch of L lenses but >I'd >>much rather be able to buy a Pentax body to suite the great lenses that I >>already own. > >>Rob Studdert > > >Is that what it's called, a clutch? Like a flock of geese and a school of >fish? Always wondered. A focus of cameramen, a whinge of reporters and the collective noun for sound recordists is not repeatable here. Is it a focus of photographers? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _____________________________ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 17:29:42 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Artur_Led=F3chowski?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Lenses without aperture rings (WAS: Re[2]: Lens compatibility in perspective) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "P�l Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Lenses without aperture rings (WAS: Re[2]: Lens compatibility in perspective) > No it really isn't obvious. The obvious fact is that they have made "crippled" mount on what Pentax labels entry level bodies. This is nothing new: they did the same on entry level MZ-bodies. This did not mean that the MZ-3 and the MZ-S turned out likewise compromised. The problem is that the term "entry level" has so far incorporated bodies of extremely different specs and the entry level standard is rising (which is not good in this particular case) - the crippled mount is present both in the MZ-60 (basicly an interchangeable-lens-P&S) and in the *ist (a camera which easily competes against bodies like, say, F80 or Dynax 5 in terms of features). *ist D can also be called the entry level DSLR. I disagree with Pentax calling the *ist "entry level" - they may call it whatever they will but the specs alone say something else. And that means to me the "crippled mount" will be present in any future Pentax body except for the possible flagship. Much like in the Nikon camp... Regards Artur ------------------------------ Date: 07 Jul 2003 16:29:02 +0100 From: Frits =?ISO-8859-1?Q?W=FCthrich?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Must-read: Mike's latest column Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I liked the part about the terrorist the best. On Mon, 2003-07-07 at 13:33, Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote: > on 07.07.03 14:38, Lukasz Kacperczyk at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >> I have read! Lots of fun :-) Especially TRI-X sentences :-))) > > > > I can only hope you've read it in Polish... ;-) > > > Of course I have! Great translation - especially Canon BS-D to GOW-NO ;-))) > Hehehehe - that was incredible!!! :-))) -- Frits W�thrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -------------------------------- End of pentax-discuss-d Digest V03 Issue #624 *********************************************
