From: "Peter Loveday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 10:01 PM
Subject: Re: New *ist D review - Imaging Resource
> Actually, there are ways to do things like this. It is very common for
> applications to read every 8th pixel
rom: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2004 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: New *ist D review - Imaging Resource
> JPEG compresses data. you don't know what the nth pixel is until you
> decompress enough of the file to find it.
>
>
>
> John Francis wrote:
>
>
> > not to display some of the pixels if they were available, and there's
> > no reasonable way to get some of the pixels from an image without
> > getting all of them (except, as noted, if it were a progressive JPEG).
> >
>
> how is that?
> you can give an or
you say is not easy or perhaps even possible for a
standard jpg...
-Original Message-
From: vr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 02 April 2004 11:00
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: New *ist D review - Imaging Resource
John Francis wrote:
not to display some of the pixels if
--
> From: vr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 02 April 2004 11:00
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: New *ist D review - Imaging Resource
>
>
>
>
> John Francis wrote:
>
>
> > not to display some of the pixels if they were available,
> and there&
John Francis wrote:
not to display some of the pixels if they were available, and there's
no reasonable way to get some of the pixels from an image without
getting all of them (except, as noted, if it were a progressive JPEG).
how is that?
you can give an order to address and read every 4th pix
On 1 Apr 2004 at 12:37, Keith Whaley wrote:
> There's no replacing of one low-resolution image with another high res
> image. It's a filling in of pixel information left out of the initial pass.
It sounds like the embedded jpeg may be a variation on progressive jpeg which
does in fact display p
Bucky wrote:
When one previews the picture in the on-camera screen, you will notice that
the camera apparently loads a small image first. Then, if you keep that
image in the monitor for a few seconds, it is substituted with a larger one.
You can see the effect when you call up a preview of a sh
197.5 MB total
On Thu, 2004-04-01 at 01:40, William M Kane wrote:
> The question is what speed DID you confirm? I believe that the
> original article spoke of an unusually high speed for USB 1.1, but
> didn't claim it was of USB 2.0 caliber . . .
>
> . . . so the question becomes, How many MB
>> Maybe it's a stealth upgrade to newer *ist-D's <<
I doubt that, for two reasons:
1) I emailed the Image Resource reviewer a few weeks ago asking if he was
ever going to review the *ist D. He replied that he'd started an *ist D
review a long time ago but had been
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 31-Mar-04 20:50
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: New *ist D review - Imaging Resource
>
>
> >
> > On 31 Mar 2004 at 22:06, William Robb wrote:
> >
> > > I thought RAW files were kinda fixed size.
> >
> > I don
>
> On 31 Mar 2004 at 22:06, William Robb wrote:
>
> > I thought RAW files were kinda fixed size.
>
> I don't know if you recall but John did mentioned a few weeks back that they
> also include an embedded jpg file. From my experience they vary in size from
> around 12,750kB to 14,500kB.
Seve
On 31 Mar 2004 at 23:19, Frits Wüthrich wrote:
> I just ran a test and I can NOT confirm the USB2 speed for the *ist D
> connected to a PC.
Nor me. I loaded a file of almost 1GB on my Ridata 52x Pro card and found the
following Card read results:
X-Drive II via USB2 (add on PCI Via card) 3668kB
On 31 Mar 2004 at 22:06, William Robb wrote:
> I thought RAW files were kinda fixed size.
I don't know if you recall but John did mentioned a few weeks back that they
also include an embedded jpg file. From my experience they vary in size from
around 12,750kB to 14,500kB.
Rob Studdert
HURSTVI
- Original Message -
From: "William M Kane"
Subject: Re: New *ist D review - Imaging Resource
> The question is what speed DID you confirm? I believe that the
> original article spoke of an unusually high speed for USB 1.1, but
> didn't claim i
my Lexar Media Firewire card takes just over 3 minutes for a full 1G card.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Cassino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 6:57 PM
Subject: Re: New *ist D review - Imaging Resource
Maybe it's a stealth upgrade to newer *ist-D's - my *ist-D hooked directly
to the PC and my USB 1.1 card reader both take about 20 minutes to download
1 gig of data. My X-Drive II takes only ~5 minutes for the same transfer
using USB 2. The card in the X-Drive reader is somewhat faster than USB
Which means they were moving at .92 MB/s with the USB cable connected
to the camera.
and
3.14 MB/s with the USB 2.0 6 in 1 reader.
On Wednesday, March 31, 2004, at 05:49 PM, alex wetmore wrote:
On Wed, 31 Mar 2004, William M Kane wrote:
. . . so the question becomes, How many MB were the 15 RA
On Wed, 31 Mar 2004, William M Kane wrote:
> . . . so the question becomes, How many MB were the 15 RAW files?
RAW files are 13mb. 13 * 15 = 195mb.
alex
On 31 Mar 2004, Frits [ISO-8859-1] Wüthrich wrote:
> I just ran a test and I can NOT confirm the USB2 speed for the *ist D
> connected to a PC.
> This is what I did:
> I connected the *ist D with my PC by means of the Pentax supplied USB
> cable, and copied all 15 RAW images that I had on the flash
I just ran a test and I can NOT confirm the USB2 speed for the *ist D
connected to a PC.
This is what I did:
I connected the *ist D with my PC by means of the Pentax supplied USB
cable, and copied all 15 RAW images that I had on the flash card to a
folder on a drive of my PC.
That took about 3 minu
On 2004-03-31, at 14:40, Mark Roberts wrote:
"While the manual claims that the *ist D only supports the USB v1.1
interface standard, my own tests seemed to show that it's actually
running at USB v2.0 speeds. I clocked its download speed at 1963
KB/second with a Lexar 24x memory card, connected to
New review of the *ist D at Imaging Resource:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/ISTD/ISTDA.HTM
Very positive; maybe the most positive I've read.
Greg
It was very positive. The reviewer did, however, identify the 50 f1.4 as
an FAJ lens.
Joe
The new issue contained a pretty comprehensive review of the camera and was
pretty positive. The only complaints were that it's slow to focus in dim
light, it doesn't come with rechargable batteries and it's a little more
expensive than the competition. The biggest good thing (IMO) is that the
capt
Great work on the *istD. I also have the epson 925. Had a little
trouble with it producing streaks. I think it gets clogged easily. I
like your review of the 3200 scanner. I'm looking for a scanner right
now to scan alot of Kodachrome slides, which seem to be really difficult
according to
Martin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chris Pound" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: *ist D review
> Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 12:34:13 -0500
>
> Happy reading; any and all feedback always welcomed:
>
> http://www.reed-
Happy reading; any and all feedback always welcomed:
http://www.reed-electronics.com/ednmag/article/CA336981
==
Brian Dipert
Technical Editor: Mass Storage, Memory, Multimedia, PC Core Logic and
Peripherals, and Programmable Logic
EDN Magazine: http://www.edn.com
5000
Hi Cotty,
on 27 Sep 03 you wrote in pentax.list:
>Okay digital dabblers, here's what AP has to say about the diminutive
>Pentax *ist D:
Thanks a lot! Very nice article. I'm quite sure that you will handle a
*istD as soon as you can get one into your fingers. I'm looking forward
to your compa
Okay digital dabblers, here's what AP has to say about the diminutive
Pentax *ist D:
The review is by Chris Gatcum and I hope the snippets of verbatim text
here will act as an impetus to go and buy the magazine (where available)
instead of providing AP with ammunition for breach of copyright. I cl
Just picked up the rag...leafing through...looks goodvery favourable
review2 small gripes, button locations and 1 in 20 or 30 shots
underexposingwill read and precis soon
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps
__
I wasn't paying much attention to what I was typing, I guess, and I
seriously mis-spoke! I have no idea how HFS slipped into the comments! Geez!
Apologies all around!
Remove "HFS/HFS+" from the comments, and they read okay. Big ooops!
keith whaley
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Quoting Keith Whale
Hi Paul,
Fact is, Apple's software stability is the result of what used to be
Apple's insistence that software coders follow Apple's coding methods (I
don't know what else to call them) and to do it "by the numbers."
In other words, do it exactly according to Apple's "cookbook" -- their
rules and
I had the same experience when I put took out an old HP and replaced it with
an AOpen 52X burner two weeks ago. No trouble at all. I use it with Nero and
it takes longer to set up the 'lead in' and 'out' than it takes to burn the
backups.
But there is a disadvantage; those drives get rather hot an
On 21/9/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
>> Damn. And on my G4 Apple, I'm using an Epson scanner, an Epson printer,
>> an ACOM firewire drive, a couple of IBM SCSI drives, and four PCI cards
>> from several manufacturers. Now you tell me that Apple doesn't support
>> anything but Apple hardware? M
På lørdag, 20. september 2003, kl. 23:20, skrev William Robb:
- Original Message -
From: "Dag T"
Subject: Re: My own little *ist D review (fwd)
Any WP version of ´95 may read (almost)
any text written in its latest versions. Hows that for compatibility?
My wife was using WP
Hi!
I couldn't agree more. Take Linux for example .
There is another point to what you saying, Doug. I think that
shareware/freeware usually written by a single programmer during their
off hours like a weekend mechanic has much less ambition than similar
piece of quite often junk written by a gro
On 20 Sep 2003 at 23:03, Paul Stenquist wrote:
> Damn. And on my G4 Apple, I'm using an Epson scanner, an Epson printer,
> an ACOM firewire drive, a couple of IBM SCSI drives, and four PCI cards
> from several manufacturers. Now you tell me that Apple doesn't support
> anything but Apple hardware?
graywolf wrote:
>
>
> Much of the reason for Apples software stability is the Apple
> philosophy, "We support Apple hardware only". Where other brands of
> computers may have almost any hardware from any manufacture in it Apple
> only has to support Apple hardware that simplifies the task imme
Bruce Dayton wrote:
>
> Jeez, Cameron, get off it will you? Just cause your experience with
> Windows is much like Alan Chan's Pentax experience doesn't mean the
> rest of us have the same problems and experience. TAKE IT TO ANOTHER
> FORUM ABOUT COMPUTERS PLEASE!
>
I was pleased to hear
Doug Franklin wrote:
>
>
> Uhhh. There weren't no .386 stuff when PCs or DOS was invented. T
Of course when PCs were invented, there already were several PCs on the
market, the Apple among them.
hn Francis"
Subject: Re: My own little *ist D review (fwd)
> But, for those of you who need it spelled out in detail:
>
> Which bodies can use the FA-J lenses in aperture priority (and/or manual)?
Wouldn't the cameras that control everything from the body (MZ-30? as an
exampl
- Original Message -
From: "Dag T"
Subject: Re: My own little *ist D review (fwd)
>
Any WP version of ´95 may read (almost)
> any text written in its latest versions. Hows that for compatibility?
My wife was using WP 6 at work. I sent her something written with
- Original Message -
From: "Dag T"
Subject: Re: My own little *ist D review (fwd)
>
> Sure, I made a Powerpoint presentation yesterday, nice, but it didn´t
> work in the next Powerpoint version I tried. I guess it´s my fault,
> but I´m glad I didn´t trust it.
&g
Well I don´t care about the history, I bought an iMac a year ago
because I liked Unix and Xwindows, in 1987. Windows 3.0 was a big
disappointment, and though MS may have improved I still don´t like it.
We complain about compatibility with Pentax, but MS "cripples the
mount" every second year.
På lørdag, 20. september 2003, kl. 22:41, skrev William Robb:
- Original Message -
From: "graywolf"
Subject: Re: My own little *ist D review (fwd)
Much of the reason for Apples software stability is the Apple
philosophy, "We support Apple hardware only". Where other bra
- Original Message -
From: "graywolf"
Subject: Re: My own little *ist D review (fwd)
>
> Much of the reason for Apples software stability is the Apple
> philosophy, "We support Apple hardware only". Where other brands of
> computers may have almost any
Cameron quoted and posted as follows:
> On Saturday, September 20, 2003, at 12:17 AM, Bruce Dayton wrote:
>
> > Jeez, Cameron, get off it will you? Just cause your experience with
> > Windows is much like Alan Chan's Pentax experience doesn't mean the
> > rest of us have the same problems and e
I don't know why that Apple stuff keeps getting repeated. The Apple I
was a kit computer produced in a garage. The Apple II was the first
apple computer to come out as a production model. However, you could
actually buy a Radio Shack TRS-80 (1977) before you could an Apple II,
though I think th
And for what it is worth the istD is supposed to allow for firmware
updates throught the USB port.
Boris Liberman wrote:
Hi!
KW> Writing the code is less than 20% of a project's time. The rest is
KW> debugging the stuff, and getting it to conform to the original
KW> requirements. WindowsME is
Dear Boz, I love your site! Are you going to be posting those updated
*ist D pics? The first ones were fairly terrifying to those of us who
were planning to buy the camera.
C.
On Saturday, September 20, 2003, at 12:17 AM, Bruce Dayton wrote:
Jeez, Cameron, get off it will you? Just cause your experience with
Windows is much like Alan Chan's Pentax experience doesn't mean the
rest of us have the same problems and experience. TAKE IT TO ANOTHER
FORUM ABOUT COMPUTERS PL
Doug Franklin wrote
Uhhh. There weren't no .386 stuff when PCs or DOS was invented. The
iAPX386 chip didn't come out until several years later. PCs used the
8088 chip which was an 8-bit external bus version of the 8086, which
had a 16-bit external bus. Both had 16-bit internal busses.
I rest m
Jeez, Cameron, get off it will you? Just cause your experience with
Windows is much like Alan Chan's Pentax experience doesn't mean the
rest of us have the same problems and experience. TAKE IT TO ANOTHER
FORUM ABOUT COMPUTERS PLEASE!
Bruce
Friday, September 19, 2003, 6:13:28 PM, you wro
The camera is programmed to recognize if the lens is set to "A" or can be set
to "A". If it falls into one of these categories you must override the
programming
to fire the shutter. When you do this the camera shuts off the
meter. It's a software
"feature".
At 06:31 PM 9/17/03 +0100, you wrot
Hi!
KW> Writing the code is less than 20% of a project's time. The rest is
KW> debugging the stuff, and getting it to conform to the original
KW> requirements. WindowsME is a bad example to compare against, because
KW> like a lot of MS software, it's written and released with as little
KW> test
>It was and is deliberate, but not in the sense of having a team of
programmers that does nothing but foul up what the rest of the teams
are doing. It is deliberate in the sense of intentionally choosing not
to use "best practices" in the development cycle, from inception to
coding to testing to d
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 21:31:34 EDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Frankly, I don't think it's that simple. Being a computer programmer
> (for fun) and having been a computer programmer (for wages), I am not
> sure it was all deliberate (I think some of it was to force people to
> buy technical support
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 18:13:28 -0700, Cameron Hood wrote:
> PC's, since their invention back in the DOS 2.0 days
Uhhh. Your history is a little foggy. PCs were invented before DOS
1.0, which was purchased from Seattle Computer Systems (I think) and
was a knock off of CPM-86.
> around for solution
>Doe ;-) OTOH, I've had a lot less problems with 98, 2000, and Me that it
sounds like you have had.
Fewer. Drat slipped up. Bugs everywhere. Anyway, fewer for those who care.
Marnie aka Doe :-)
>Gates should
be in jail for what he did, and continues to do; instead, he is the
richest man in the world, and is lauded as some kind of giant American
hero. Time will prove that he has perpetrated the largest scam in
corporate history. And we have all been his victims.
> Get a Mac, you'l
I have always found it interesting that as soon as Mr Gates quites
supporting a product for a fee, he comes out with a final upgrade and
from then on it works pretty good. But then I have be told that I
paranoid and distrustful.
(And for the literately challenged, please note that comma is afte
On Friday, September 19, 2003, at 04:47 PM,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Writing the code is less than 20% of a project's time. The rest is
debugging the stuff, and getting it to conform to the original
requirements. WindowsME is a bad example to compare against, because
like a lot of MS software, i
It works better than XP, just try it...
And XP is very stable.
Ziggy
-Original Message-
From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 20 September 2003 00:20
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: My own little *ist D review (fwd)
Gee, I sure hope the istD works better
Gee, I sure hope the istD works better than WinME.
Lon Williamson wrote:
Mark, I think this is crap.
Pentax has been screwing with DLSRs for 4 years.
That's enough time to hatch, say, WindowsME.
And cameras ain't as hard as operating sytems.
Pentax may need to hire some more SW engineers.
Mebbe t
On Friday, Sep 19, 2003, at 20:49 Europe/Dublin, Lon wrote:
Mark, I think this is crap.
Pentax has been screwing with DLSRs for 4 years.
That's enough time to hatch, say, WindowsME.
And cameras ain't as hard as operating sytems.
Pentax may need to hire some more SW engineers.
Mebbe they can find so
Mark, I think this is crap.
Pentax has been screwing with DLSRs for 4 years.
That's enough time to hatch, say, WindowsME.
And cameras ain't as hard as operating sytems.
Pentax may need to hire some more SW engineers.
Mebbe they can find some in Pakinstan.
Mark Roberts wrote:
"whickersworld" <[EMA
Arnold, I 'spects you are right.
This is just as awkward and stupid as using
a K-1000 to "get DOF". Pentax needs to change the firmware.
PENTAX NEEDS TO CHANGE THE FIRMWARE.
(repeat after me:)
PENTAX NEEDS TO CHANGE THE FIRMWARE.
PENTAX NEEDS TO CHANGE THE FIRMWARE.
PENTAX NEEDS TO CHANGE THE FIR
Is it not interesting that people are predicting Pentax's Future
from crippled (and mostly LowBall) bodies? Hell, I am too.
Well, the old glass is still cheap, may get cheaper, and as long
as my eyes can still focus, the hell with it.
Chris Brogden wrote:
Now Pentax users know *exactly* how Nikon
Kostas,
I have several MF lenses that are also A lenses. I expect the "D" to work
fine with them.
Cory Waters
- Original Message -
From: "Kostas Kavoussanakis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 4:29 AM
Subject:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Chris Brogden wrote:
> Actually, the *ist will work fine with MF lenses.
No, it's a cripple-mount, so it won't work with non-A lenses. The best
it can work with them is like the MZ-50 (metering at full, but
stopping down for the exposure, thus underexposing).
Kostas
Chris wrote:
CB> Like any other huge change
CB> designed to slip in under the radar and avoid pissing off tons of people
CB> at once, the disappearance of the aperture ring will be slow, subtle, and
CB> almost inevitable.
Pentax in their wisdom waited for a long time for an occasion to
drasti
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, whickersworld wrote:
> Once their
> > compatibility decreases, and the lenses they produce (like
> Nikon's
> > G-series) stop working on MF bodies, then they've just
> alientated a lot of
> > people. They'll still make money selling cheap SLRs and
> p&s cameras, but
> > they'
On 18 Sep 2003 at 14:07, John Francis wrote:
> Quite right. It's funny how all the tirades seem to be aimed at the newer
> bodies, and not at the new FAJ lenses. These have even worse compatability
> problems with old bodies, but I don't hear them being described as a plot to
> force people to b
Makes sense.
Mark Roberts wrote:
In the case of stop-down metering in the *ist-D I suspect that money
wasn't as much of a factor as time. Even with the lack of the aperture
simulator, stop-down metering certainly could have been implemented in
software (using the DOF preview) but would have requir
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, John Francis wrote:
> > >
> > > Which bodies can use the FA-J lenses in aperture priority (and/or manual)?
> >
> > Wouldn't the cameras that control everything from the body (MZ-30? as an
> > example) be able to use them?
>
> Yes. But I haven't been keeping up to date - whic
John wrote:
JF> It's funny how all the tirades seem to be aimed at the newer
JF> bodies, and not at the new FAJ lenses.
Actually they had their share (don't know if you were here by then).
People still find it hard to believe FAJ is the future - maybe
because the first incarnations are chea
"John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Alin Flaider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > It was a deliberate, cynical move to force owners of old lenses to
>> > buy new ones.
>>
>> I don't buy this at all. The target demographic for the DSLR does not
>> consist of a significant number of
> >
> > Which bodies can use the FA-J lenses in aperture priority (and/or manual)?
>
> Wouldn't the cameras that control everything from the body (MZ-30? as an
> example) be able to use them?
Yes. But I haven't been keeping up to date - which are these?
Let's start with the PZ-1p & *ist-D. A
>
>
> . . . Canon made a marketing decision to
> deliberately drop support for some functions in the 300D.
>
> But their decision not to support the new wide-angle on the existing
> bodies is a technical one. That lens protrudes too deeply into the lens
> mount, and owuld inte
>
> Alin Flaider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > It was a deliberate, cynical move to force owners of old lenses to
> > buy new ones.
>
> I don't buy this at all. The target demographic for the DSLR does not
> consist of a significant number of people who own old lenses. They
> certainly com
Chris,
I could be mistaken, but I was under the impression that the Nikon
D100 will NOT meter with older lenses. I'll ask my buddy who has one
tomorrow.
Bruce
Wednesday, September 17, 2003, 6:28:19 PM, you wrote:
CB> So if the Nikon D100 will stop down an MF lens in manual mode (no meter),
I have no doubt the market pressure had no influence on Pentax
decision to cut the backwards mount compatibility. Mechanical
aperture coupler and corresponding firmware were nothing new,
P could have inherited the solutions from previous bodies just as
they did with various other common
"whickersworld" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Chris Brogden wrote:
>>
>> So if the Nikon D100 will stop down an MF lens in manual mode
>> (no meter), then it's actually a step ahead of the *istD, which
>> won't even stop down an MF Pentax K-mount lens. That's sad.
>
>Yes, it is sad. In each case
William Robb wrote:
>
> Nikon was doing this sort of thing long before the F80. I
don't recall which
> model, it may have been the N601 from the late 1980s which
would not work at
> all with non AI lenses, though they would mount with no
problem.
The F401 (N4004) had this problem, but I didn't (an
Hello,
>> Canon users must be feeling some rumblings of unease,
>> considering that Canon's new 18-35mm lens for the Digital
>> Rebel won't fit on their 35mm bodies
> Exactly so.
No, not exactly so. Pentax and Nikon made a marketing decision to drop
support for their oldest lenses. Canon mad
Alan Chan wrote:
> whickersworld wrote:
> >That wasn't the reason why I abandoned Nikon for Pentax,
but
> >it was probably *one* of the reasons. Now Pentax have
done
> >it, and Canon and Minolta did it a long time ago, I have
> >nowhere to go!
>
> You can always go LEICA, the final destination...
Chris Brogden wrote:
>
> So if the Nikon D100 will stop down an MF lens in manual
mode (no meter),
> then it's actually a step ahead of the *istD, which won't
even stop down
> an MF Pentax K-mount lens. That's sad.
Yes, it is sad. In each case, the necessary engineering
would have cost only a n
In manual mode, the *ist D does stop down a K or M lens (or A/F/FA
lenses that are not in "A" position). Only it does not meter. It is in
Av mode (metered!) that a K or M lens (or A/F/FA lenses that are not in
"A" position) does not get stopped down but stays wide open all the time
(unless one
That wasn't the reason why I abandoned Nikon for Pentax, but
it was probably *one* of the reasons. Now Pentax have done
it, and Canon and Minolta did it a long time ago, I have
nowhere to go!
You can always go LEICA, the final destination...
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
Cotty wrote:
>
> You're kidding. Now I see why folk
are upset.
Now Pentax users know *exactly* how Nikon users felt when
the F80 (N80) was introduced, with its deliberately designed
inability to meter with pre-autofocus Nikkors.
That wasn't the reason why I abandoned Nikon for Pentax, but
it wa
On 17/9/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
>Cotty schrieb: No??? Why not?
>
>Well, in maual mode, the *ist D simply does not meter with any lens that
>is not set to "A" position. Why they chose tthe *ist D to behave like
>this, only the Pentax engineers would be able to explain.
>
>Arnold
You're
Cotty schrieb: No??? Why not?
Well, in maual mode, the *ist D simply does not meter with any lens that
is not set to "A" position. Why they chose tthe *ist D to behave like
this, only the Pentax engineers would be able to explain.
Arnold
ECTED]
> Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 11:59:45 +0200
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: My own little *ist D review
> Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Resent-Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 05:55:15 -0400
>
> This would really be a very drastic way to have the *ist D meter with K
> and
>>>This would really be a very drastic way to have the *ist D meter with K
>>>and M lenses at alle apertures. However, it would only work in Av mode.
>>>In manual mode the meter would still be OFF. And you would have to use
>>>your "crippled" lenses with real aperture metering, only, on your fi
No.
Arnold
This would really be a very drastic way to have the *ist D meter with K
and M lenses at alle apertures. However, it would only work in Av mode.
In manual mode the meter would still be OFF. And you would have to use
your "crippled" lenses with real aperture metering, only, on you
ednesday, September 17, 2003 7:52 AM
Subject: Re: My own little *ist D review
> Actually, the image at
>
> http://www.arnoldstark.de/bilder/030914_istD_testtafellinien.jpg.
>
> is not compressed but stored at the maximum size available in JPEG. I
> believe that in this case there are
Will I eventually buy the *ist D?
Yes!
Unless Pentax soon presents a follow-up model with better k-mount
compatibility (it would be sufficient TO SWITCH THE METER ON when DOF
previewing in manual and/or AV mode)
Arnold
As reviews of the *ist D are flying in here is my own little contribution.
I have been able to play with the *ist D pre-production model serial
number 5645034 last weekend. I helped Boz in taking pictures for his
comparison with the Canon 10D (see his review at
http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/bodies/d
Hello Robert,
> The 5 image continuous max keeps bugging me when they had originally
> said max. I wonder if its because you had noise reduction turned on?
I had it turned off. I need to reread my text, maybe I wrote it
wrong...
Thanks for pointing it out,
Boz
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo