OK, but *ist D users still use many of the same lenses as 35mm(and possibly 645 and 67) Pentax users. So should we have a separate list for lenses too? OR should we only discuss K/M lenses on the main list, only FAJ and DA lenses on the digi list and set up another list for lenses common to each? It just becomes a nightmare, especially when you consider we often go off topic and cross subject categories. Sorry - I can see why you like the idea, its just not practical even if we all agreed.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Apilado [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 29 September 2003 04:21 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: I haven't got *Ist D > > > 645 and 67 users are film users. I own a 645. I can > identify more easily with users of film than the users of > digital SLRs. I would welcome comments on the *ist 35mm > because it is a film based camera. I would lament about the > compatibility of K and M lenses with the *ist. There might be > *ist D users who are going to abandoned film completely and > then they won't have anything in common with film users. A > separate D-PDML might be of more interest to that owner than > one mixed in with film users. > > > Jim A. > > > From: Frits W�thrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Date: 28 Sep 2003 21:35:20 +0200 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: I haven't got *Ist D > > Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Resent-Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 15:35:30 -0400 > > > > I am not in favour of that at all. > > > > We also could have a separate list for the 645, and one for the 67, > > etc. If we split it out as much as we can, we end up with three > > hundred lists with only one member. OK, OK, that is obviously > > ridiculous, however I wouldn't want this list to split up. > Combining > > it all is giving this list a lot of different areas of > interest. And > > more options for flame wars as well. > > > > > > On Sun, 2003-09-28 at 21:28, Jim Apilado wrote: > >> I notice on dpreview.com that some *istD users are taking > a vote to > >> get a separate forum for the "D" instead of lumping > everything under > >> Pentax. Perhaps all the *istD users here should go to the > other site, > >> or else a digital PDML list could be developed exclusively for the > >> new camera. > >> > >> Jim A. > >> > >>> From: Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 20:24:27 +0200 > >>> To: Hans Beumer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>> Subject: Re: I haven't got *Ist D > >>> Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> Resent-Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 13:22:17 -0400 > >>> > >>> Hi! > >>> > >>> Neither have I. But I also don't really want one. I am > pretty much > >>> happy with my ZX-L, several lenses, ME Super seemingly > permanently > >>> in repairs and one film a week that I try to shoot. > >>> > >>> When *ist D would cost $500 it may be worth thinking of, at least > >>> for me. Meanwhile I am going to enjoy reading reports of William > >>> Robb, Leon Altoff and other "digital brothers". Hopefully I would > >>> learn a thing or two since they are bound to be discussing some > >>> aspects of technique that would be applicable to simple-filmed > >>> people, such as you and me. > >>> > >>> Don't hang your nose just yet (this is Russian saying, no offence > >>> meant). > >>> > >>> Boris (the one _happily_ without) > >>> > >>> HB> I haven't got *Ist D. Haven't got the cash, or the nerves to > >>> HB> tell my > >>> wife > >>> I > >>> HB> want one. And all PDML is talking about is *Ist D. Life sucks > >>> HB> :-( Oh well, I'still have got my health... > >>> > >>> HB> Hans B. (the one without...) > >>> > >>> HB> mail to: > >>> HB> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> > > -- > > Frits W�thrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > >
