Tom, with all honesty and due respect - this is rather impolite remark. Respectfully.
Boris Tom C wrote: > Who cares? If you can't think for a couple of milliseconds or can't be > troubled to research a product you're going to plunk money down for, you > probably shouldn't be allowed to press the shutter release. > > Maybe they should have gone to an incompatible mount just to make sure that > people that can't read don't have this problem. > > Tom C. > > >> From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >> To: "'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'" <[email protected]> >> Subject: RE: DA70 and 24x36 coverage >> Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 14:11:20 -0400 >> >> LETS CLEAR THIS UP. IMHO, a lens series designation >> should cover all functionalities like coverage, AF, >> aperture rings, optimized for digital etc. They should >> be all the same within a given designation. This is how is was for >> K/M, A, F lenses so it was very clear what you were getting. >> Now its getting very unclear. >> jco >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >> P. J. Alling >> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 1:39 PM >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject: Re: DA70 and 24x36 coverage >> >> >> Why? So that you can curse that they don't have aperture rings? Give me >> a break. If a lens incidentally covers a larger format but doesn't do it >> >> well, or doesn't have the mechanics to make it useful, then to do what >> you suggest would be a disservice, as well as asking for complaints and >> bad publicity. >> >> >> J. C. O'Connell wrote: >>> I disagree, the lenses that fully cover 24x36 should be marked so so >>> there is confusion if you are using both aps and ff bodies. jco >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf >>> Of P. J. Alling >>> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 6:52 PM >>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> Subject: Re: DA70 and 24x36 coverage >>> >>> >>> No it's not bad. DA lenses are guaranteed to cover 16x24 but may cover >>> a >>> >>> larger format. That's the only guaranteed there is. It hurts nothing >>> if >>> they cover a larger format. >>> >>> J. C. O'Connell wrote: >>> >>>> If the comments below are true, it's bad. The lens designation should >>>> convey if a lens wont cover 24x36mm IMHO. A APS-C only lens is not >> the >>> >>>> same thing as a 24x36 lens and there should be an easy way to know by >>>> the lens designation IMHO. jco >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf >>>> Of Godfrey DiGiorgi >>>> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 3:37 PM >>>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>> Subject: Re: DA70 and 24x36 coverage >>>> >>>> >>>> On Oct 1, 2007, at 11:46 AM, Boris Liberman wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> I am asking my question mainly because if it indeed covered full >>>>> frame >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> and there were no image deterioration past the APC frame, Pentax >>>>> probably would have given it FDA designation instead of DA. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> The D-FA mount includes an aperture ring control. DA lenses do not. >>>> >>>> The DA70 has no aperture ring control, it was design for use with the >>>> digital SLR bodies. Whether it actually covers 24x36 mm format isn't >>>> really relevant to the mount designation. >>>> >>>> Godfrey >>>> >>>> --- >>>> Not really relevant but interesting: >>>> >>>> In the course of researching my latest lens acquisition, I saw an >>>> article about someone who took an M42 mount Pentax Fish-Eye-Takumar >>>> 17mm lens and cobbled up a mount to fit it on a 6x6 rollfilm folder >>>> with behind-lens leaf shutter. His goal was to make circular fish eye >>>> >>> >>>> images inexpensively ... it produced an image circle ~ 45mm in >>>> diameter on the 6x6 format film, which suited his needs perfectly. >>>> --- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Remember, it's pillage then burn. >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> [email protected] >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> [email protected] >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. > > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
