I keep suggesting the most obvious rule:
"There must be some Pentax equipment involved"
(IMO, even disguised, if well known it is Pentax like in case of Samsung
clones)
Dario
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 11:47 AM
Subject: Re: PUG (No longer Re: *istD2)
I could agree if we still used film, but now much of the limitations also
relate to the sensor and electronics in the camera. So if brand has any
interest at all the camera is part of it.
DagT
fra: "John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Perhaps we should make it more restrictive. It's the lens that counts,
not the body. Why not stipulate that the picture must have been taken
using a Pentax lens?
John
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 09:11:54 -0000, Jaume Lahuerta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Oh yes, sure, but the difference with the PUG is that,
> here, I 'know' many of the submiters (or at least I
> have read their posts for many years), and I know that
> I will receive their feedback if I comment or ask for
> details in the PDML.
>
> --- Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
>
>> I don't know about the last point, it may have been
>> valid in the past but if
>> you are interested in seeing what Pentax cameras can
>> produce there are almost
>> 14000 shots made using Pentax kit here:
>>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/pentax/
>>
>>
>> Rob Studdert
>> HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
>> Tel +61-2-9554-4110
>> UTC(GMT) +10 Hours
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
> http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
>> Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo.
> Llamadas a fijos y móviles desde 1 céntimo por minuto.
> http://es.voice.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.23/243 - Release Date:
> 27/01/2006
>
>
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
