RE: PESO: Truth

[Jens Bladt]

Brilliant photograph!
The threat of the new day ...
Regards

Jens Bladt
http://www.jensbladt.dk
+45 56 63 77 11
+45 23 43 85 77
Skype: jensbladt248

-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af
Ralf R. Radermacher
Sendt: 10. oktober 2006 02:34
Til: Pentax Mailingliste
Emne: PESO: Truth


Truth is always the first victim of war.

For Anna Politkovskaja:

http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/mypics/770012/display/6884088

http://www.rsf.org

--
Ralf R. Radermacher  -  DL9KCG  -  Köln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.13.1/466 - Release Date: 10/07/2006

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.13.1/466 - Release Date: 10/07/2006


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT: joys and woes of new computer - couple of questions

[Eactivist]

In a message dated 10/9/2006 8:51:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] 
writes:
I hvae no credit cards listed on the web, fortunately.  I
dont buy ANYTHING
on line - well, I did once or twice, but I avoid it as a
whole.
IF someone tried to take "large amounts of money" from my
bank account they would
be in for a big surprise! LOL!

I dont use explorer - I took it off the desktop so I couldnt
even hit it by mistake.
I installed Firefox right away. 

While much of what you say I'm sure is right, I can't even
fathom it...

When I get on line I only go to my personal homepage, my
cafepress store,
photo.net, ebay and craigslist.  or to look at pics you guys
put up.

I never go to any sites have anything to do with
entertainment or sports -
I don't open attachments or forwarded mail.  

And I'm keeping my old dial up account for email - for a
while at least.

ann
===
That will cover most security holes, ann. It really well -- common sense is 
always the best defense. :-)

I do think, however, some of the MS updates are worth it. The first ones, 
later ones often have to do with Outlook and IE. If one doesn't use them the 
risk 
is much, much less. Especially Outlook. 

It doesn't hurt to go to the update page occasionally and look over the 
patches. One can pick and choose which to install. Many are useless for a 
majority 
of us.

I highly recommend though, that you create a system restore point before 
downloading/installing any update. Go to help on your XP menu bar, then Pick a 
Task, then Tools, then System Restore, then Set a Restore Point. That saves the 
current state of your computer so you can set it back if something goes wrong. 
Actually it's not a bad idea to do it before installing any new program. I 
forget and don't do it enough.

I've probably accepted about 6-8 updates since I started with XP about 
four-five years ago. Many are to plug security holes in Outlook, so I don't 
bother 
with those. Some are foreign language patches, and I don't need those. And some 
are to plug holes in IE, which I do use occasionally, rarely, but 
occasionally, so I evaluate those on a case by case basis and see if I think 
one or 
another is important or not. And occasionally there is one that is more 
general, 
not applying to either Outlook or I.E., and helpful. 

Yous take yous choice. But always create a restore point first.

Avast isn't bad. 

Marnie aka Doe 

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: The JCO survey

[Eactivist]

In a message dated 10/9/2006 8:07:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Digital has nothing to do with this issue.
There is no reason why thay cant make and sell
A digital SLR that supports the lenses in question.
Compromise is NOT necessary to go digital, that's
The whole point of my argument. I want BOTH.
jco
===
If wishes were horses... What you want and what Pentax will do are not 
necessarily the same thing.

wish = dead horse = beat

Marnie 

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

RE: 35mm equivalent focal length on P6x7

[Jens Bladt]

Take a look at my chart here:
http://www.jensbladt.dk/Images/Focal-length-multiplier-web.jpg

The focal length multiplyer is 2.1 actually.
(Excuse the rather misleading expression "focal length multiplier")
Regards

Jens Bladt
http://www.jensbladt.dk
+45 56 63 77 11
+45 23 43 85 77
Skype: jensbladt248

-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 10. oktober 2006 05:15
Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Emne: 35mm equivalent focal length on P6x7


Hi all

I may be on the verge of purchasing a 6x7 body and I'm wondering what the
conversion is for focal lengths since I'm used to thinking in 35mm focal
lengths.

I won't really have much of a budget for lenses, etc so I'll have to start
with only
one.  Considering what I plan to mostly use the body for, I want a wide
angle.  Can
someone please suggest a good wide angle for the 6x7 for landscapes?
Preferably
one that's fairly readily available used and not too expensive.  :)


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.13.1/466 - Release Date: 10/07/2006

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.13.1/466 - Release Date: 10/07/2006


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

RE: GESO: Speaking of Ducks (Gang Rape)

[Jens Bladt]

Christian wrote:
... females try very, very hard to get way.

Yes, indeed. At one point she tried so hard to get away, that the cars on
the road had to stop to avoid running her over.

Right after the incident my girl friend, who was there too, said (guessing
the thoughts of the mallard): "Kill me, please kill me!"

Nature is not always pretty. The law of the jungle is cruel.

Regards
Jens Bladt
http://www.jensbladt.dk
+45 56 63 77 11
+45 23 43 85 77
Skype: jensbladt248

-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af
Christian
Sendt: 10. oktober 2006 02:02
Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Emne: Re: GESO: Speaking of Ducks (Gang Rape)


Tim, the title is "Gang Rape."  Rape is the act of forced sex on a
victim.  The only way to describe what male mallards do to females
during breeding season is gang rape.  Trust me, I've watched it over and
over again, the females are not a willing participant.   When a group of
young males goes after a female the females try very, very hard to get
away.  What else would you call it?  Biologists call it rape.

Really, Jens was not trying to "glorify" rape in any way.  He gave the
picture a fitting, descriptive title.

You need to let go of your political correctness :-)

--

Christian
http://photography.skofteland.net

Tim Øsleby wrote:
> It is obvious that I'm not able to communicate my point in English.
> I hereby rest my case :-(
>
>
> Tim
> Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian)
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Adam
> Maas
> Sent: 10. oktober 2006 01:12
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: GESO: Speaking of Ducks (Gang Rape)
>
> Tim,
>
> Because the title is the only way to accurately describe the situation.
> Natural selection is often rather nasty (If you think this is bad, go
> read about Orca breeding patterns. They're nasty, and with beings far
> closer to sentience than a Mallard).
>
> -Adam
>
>
> Tim Øsleby wrote:
>
>>I have no problem with the pictures or the photographed phenomena itself.
>>It's simply nature, nothing wrong about nature. It's the title I have
>>trouble with.
>>Nature is ugly, yes. But it's not filthy. The title turns the natural
>>selection into something filthy IMO.
>>
>>>From a feministic point of view this submission normalises gang rape. I
>>don't think that's Jens intention.
>>
>>I'd better stop now. This makes me look like a softie ;-)


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.13.1/466 - Release Date: 10/07/2006

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.13.1/466 - Release Date: 10/07/2006


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

RE: The JCO survey

[Antti-Pekka Virjonen]

I would.

Antti-Pekka



Antti-Pekka Virjonen

Computec Oy
R&D Turku

www.computec.fi

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
> Of Lon Williamson
> Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 7:02 PM
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: The JCO survey
> 
> On the offhand chance that Pentax peeks at this list,
> I propose the following question:
> 
> How many people here would consider an aperature
> simulator permitting (for K,M, and all other lenses with
> aperature rings) CW metering, open aperature metering
> in manual and AV modes a _highly_ desirable feature on
> the K1D?
> 
> Put my name as the first on the list.
> 
> 
> -Lon
> 
> 
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: GESO: Speaking of Ducks (Gang Rape)

[David Mann]

On Oct 10, 2006, at 1:01 PM, Christian wrote:

> Tim, the title is "Gang Rape."  Rape is the act of forced sex on a
> victim.  The only way to describe what male mallards do to females
> during breeding season is gang rape.  Trust me, I've watched it  
> over and
> over again, the females are not a willing participant.   When a  
> group of
> young males goes after a female the females try very, very hard to get
> away.  What else would you call it?  Biologists call it rape.

A book I looked at recently estimated that at least half of all  
mallard inseminations are forcible.  I don't think that's unique to  
their species: nature is pretty rough when you look at it.

Last year I saw a couple of males mallards chasing a female on a  
quiet road, and when they caught her they were so eager that they  
ended up piled three-high which, aside from the predicament of the  
female, I found highly amusing.  I wished I had my camera with me.

A few weeks ago my partner was feeding some of the ducklings on our  
river when another mother duck came along and started trying to drown  
the first mother's ducklings so hers could have all the bread to  
themselves.  Apparently she wasn't very successful.

The other species of duck that inhabit this city don't seem to behave  
anywhere near as badly, but we only have mallards this far upstream.   
Sometimes I wish the river had more eels...

- Dave



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

In Living Color: Photographs by Saul Leiter

[Paul Sorenson]

Exhibit at the Milwaukee Art Museum, through Jan 7.  New York street 
photography, in color, from the 40's and 50's.  Anyone coming to 
Milwaukee, contact me off list and maybe we can meet.

-P

http://www.mam.org/exhibitions/exhibition_details.aspx?ID=77


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: 300*F4.5

[David Mann]

On Oct 9, 2006, at 6:32 PM, John Francis wrote:

> Basically there seem to be two camps:  "Pentax already screwed
> us once by taking away aperture rings, so why wouldn't they do
> it again?", and "Pentax have the best backwards compatibility
> story of any major manufacturer, so are they really likely to
> release lenses that don't work with a camera under a year old?"

To misquote a Dilbert cartoon:
"Our new camera has only one button, and they press it before it  
leaves the factory."

- Dave



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: PESO: Truth

[Paul Sorenson]

WOW!!  It's not often that a picture just reaches out a grabs me, but 
this one sure did.  What a strong image.

-P

Ralf R. Radermacher wrote:
> Truth is always the first victim of war. 
> 
> For Anna Politkovskaja:
> 
> http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/mypics/770012/display/6884088
> 
> http://www.rsf.org
> 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Way OT

[David Mann]

On Oct 10, 2006, at 3:25 AM, William Robb wrote:

> For those of you in the big cities, this is probably a small thing,  
> but
> Regina managed to persuade the Rolling Stones to play two shows here,
> one on Friday, the other last night.

Hmm, Mick Jagger must be getting slightly deaf.  I presume he mis- 
heard the invitation to Regina.

- Dave



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: 300*F4.5

[David Mann]

On Oct 9, 2006, at 5:22 PM, Kenneth Waller wrote:

> Obviously I assumed it was the FA.
> If it was the SMC-P F*, it makes me wonder what the FA is worth?

IIRC the F* is generally more desirable than the FA* because of the  
tripod mount.  The optics are identical.

I have an F* and the AF/MF switching is a bit annoying.  I much  
prefer FA* lenses in that regard.

- Dave


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

K10D - I've placed my order

[jkmess]

Well I bit the bullet yesterday and put a deposit down on a K10D without a firm 
availability date or even retail price for Aus.  I want to make sure I have one 
before 
Christmas and at least this way I can ensure I get one from the first shipment.

James

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: K100D- anybody bought one?

[Lawrence Kwan]

On Mon, 9 Oct 2006, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> Anybody bought the K100D and how do you
> Like it so far? Is the anti-shake working
> As well as touted?

Here's a light hearted janneman's lawnmower test of K100D's SR:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1036&thread=19647176&page=1

Quite impressive, even though the vibration frequency is not what the 
system is designed for.  And K10D SR is promised to be even better.

> What does the K10D do the K100 doesn't?

Apart from what Adam said, here's a crude demo of how fast the AF is in 
GX-10 (K10D's Samsung equilvalent) vs 400D and A100:

http://www.youtube.com/v/J4za9azUHz4


-- 
--Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.vex.net/~lawrence --
--Tungsten T3 Enhanced DIA KeyboardNokia Ringtone Convertor--

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: The JCO survey

[George Sinos]

If Pentax can add the feature without any compromise to newer more
useful features, without adding anything to the weight, size or power
consumption, and without adding anything to the cost, it's OK with me.

Just for fun, take a look at this article from Jakob Nielson, the web
design guru:



Two quotes from the article:

"In most online systems, 90 percent of the users are lurkers who never
contribute, 9 percent of the users contribute a little, and 1 percent
of the users account for almost all the action"

"If your company looks to Web postings for customer feedback on its
products and services, you're getting an unrepresentative sample."

See you later, gs


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT: joys and woes of new computer - couple of questions

[Ann Sanfedele]

Doug Franklin wrote:
> 
> Tim Øsleby wrote:
> > Ann. Most likely your system already has XP service pack 2 installed. That's
> > the one update you will need if it isn't. Without it your computer is very
> > vulnerable.
> 
> As someone who works on security software for Windows and Linux, I'd
> strongly urge keeping up with Windows updates, even post XP SP2.  You
> only have to get "owned" once to have large amounts of your money
> disappear from your bank account or get added to your credit cards or
> your identity get stolen.  I do review the updates that they try to
> send, I keep good backups, I only install critical updates, and I always
> refuse to let Windows Genuine Advantage or its updates install.  But if
> Microsoft is issuing a patch for it, there's a good reason.

I hvae no credit cards listed on the web, fortunately.  I
dont buy ANYTHING
on line - well, I did once or twice, but I avoid it as a
whole.
IF someone tried to take "large amounts of money" from my
bank account they would
be in for a big surprise! LOL!

I dont use explorer - I took it off the desktop so I couldnt
even hit it by mistake.
I installed Firefox right away. 

While much of what you say I'm sure is right, I can't even
fathom it...

When I get on line I only go to my personal homepage, my
cafepress store,
photo.net, ebay and craigslist.  or to look at pics you guys
put up.

I never go to any sites have anything to do with
entertainment or sports -
I don't open attachments or forwarded mail.  

And I'm keeping my old dial up account for email - for a
while at least.

ann


> 
> Some of the vulnerabilities, especially some of the ones in Internet
> Explorer, are positively frightening, allowing "drive by" exploitation
> of your system.  That means the attacker plants the malware in such a
> way that you get infected by simply going to a reputable web page that
> has ads on it from a poorly defended or less than reputable ad system.
> 
> It's happened, too.  A year or two ago, the online IT technology (IT
> geek) newspaper "The Register" (http://www.theregister.co.uk or
> http://www.theregister.com) was using an ad service provider that got
> exploited. Just going to "The Register" web page and being unlucky
> enough to get one of the infected ads got your computer infected, IIRC,
> by a password stealer or spam engine (if you didn't have the proper
> patches installed).
> 
> A lot of the "virus" hype /is/ hype.  Shameless hype.  But some of it
> isn't.  Over the past couple of years there's been a definite and
> obvious shift in the motives of the purveyors of malware.  It's gone
> from more like graffiti or other vandalism to more like business (profit
> motive).
> 
> At the moment, there seems to be another shift underway, toward more
> focused attacks rather than the "shotgun approach".  The idea being to
> get the malware "under the radar" of the security monitoring folks.
> That means that, for example, the A/V engines don't get signatures for
> them because either the "virus sensors" out in the Internet never see
> the actual malware, or because the number of folks affected is "too small".
> 
> There have already been several of these sorts of targeted attacks in
> England and Scandinavia against specific banks.  Through a partnership
> with some customers, my development team is seeing a lot of this sort of
> activity right now.
> 
> --
> Thanks,
> DougF (KG4LMZ)
> 
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

RE: The JCO survey

[David Savage]

At 11:07 AM 10/10/2006, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
>Digital has nothing to do with this issue.

Yes it does.

If you want to shoot digital now, YOU have to compromise, as none of the 
current models have full K & M lens support.


>There is no reason why thay cant make and sell
>A digital SLR that supports the lenses in question.

True, but Pentax have decided to do away with it (the simulator) with no 
indication of it returning.

>Compromise is NOT necessary to go digital, that's
>The whole point of my argument. I want BOTH.

Yes it is. See my first point above.

Dave



>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
>David Savage
>Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 10:54 PM
>To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>Subject: RE: The JCO survey
>
>Well in that case I think it's time for you to sell you're Pentax kit
>and
>switch brands, because I can't see Pentax re-implementing in any of
>their
>new cameras.
>
>If your happy shooting film, it's not an issue. If you want to go to
>digital then you're going to have to make a compromise at some stage.
>
>Dave


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: 35mm equivalent focal length on P6x7

[Bob Sullivan]

Conversion factor for 6x7 lenses to 35mm is 1/2X.
That is the 165mm 6x7 lens looks like a 82.5mm lens in 35mm.
I like the 165/2.8 but it is really a short telephoto.
Try the 75/4.5 lens for a 37.5mm equivalent wide in 35mm.
It's not too expensive.
Regards,  Bob S.

On 10/9/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all
>
> I may be on the verge of purchasing a 6x7 body and I'm wondering what the
> conversion is for focal lengths since I'm used to thinking in 35mm focal 
> lengths.
>
> I won't really have much of a budget for lenses, etc so I'll have to start 
> with only
> one.  Considering what I plan to mostly use the body for, I want a wide 
> angle.  Can
> someone please suggest a good wide angle for the 6x7 for landscapes?  
> Preferably
> one that's fairly readily available used and not too expensive.  :)
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

RE: The JCO survey

[J. C. O'Connell]

Cost would be very little...even if you only
Own a few K/M wouldn't it be worth it? if
It added say $100 which I don't think it 
Would...thats like only $35 per lens if
You own three( sorry for the basic math, no
Offence intended)
JCO

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Lawrence Kwan
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 11:28 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: The JCO survey

No, I do not consider this as a desirable feature, even though I still 
have a few K and M lenses.
I would rather save this extra cost towards a USM lens.


On Mon, 9 Oct 2006, Lon Williamson wrote:
> How many people here would consider an aperature
> simulator permitting (for K,M, and all other lenses with
> aperature rings) CW metering, open aperature metering
> in manual and AV modes a _highly_ desirable feature on
> the K1D?

-- 
--Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.vex.net/~lawrence --
--Tungsten T3 Enhanced DIA KeyboardNokia Ringtone Convertor--

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: 35mm equivalent focal length on P6x7

[Doug Miles]

Hi -- Very close to 2:1 ratio. Plus a bit... For instance double 50mm, add a
bit, and the 105mm has very close to the same angle of view -- at least
going by diagonal lengths, since they have different proportions.

For your 35mm equivalent angle of view you have two choices in the P67: The
older and much less expensive 75mm f/4.5 and the latest hot stuff and more
expensive 75mm f/2.8 AL aspheric. I have the latter and it's a wonderful
lense except for a touch of barrel distortion. Pentax specs say it has a 61°
angle of view, which is a touch narrower than the 63° usually quoted for a
35mm, but it seems the same to me. I hear the f/4.5 is more closely
rectilinear, therefore preferred for architectural photography for instance.
Also there's a third choice, more obscure and also expensive; the
perspective control 75mm f/4.5 with pre-set diaphragm.

The excellent 55mm f/4 or the older f/3.5 gets you wider, more into the
26-27mm equivalent range.

Enjoy your shopping!
Mi Doug

On 10/09/06 20:15, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I may be on the verge of purchasing a 6x7 body and I'm
> wondering what the conversion is for focal lengths since I'm
> used to thinking in 35mm focal lengths.
> 
> I won't really have much of a budget for lenses, etc so I'll
> have to start with only one. Considering what I plan to
> mostly use the body for, I want a wide angle. Can someone
> please suggest a good wide angle for the 6x7 for landscapes?
> Preferably one that's fairly readily available used and not
> too expensive. :)


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT: joys and woes of new computer - couple of questions

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

I have a 3 month free "pc'illin
no bugs so far
I'll go to avast, I think, as some here have recommended.

I really find it annoying that one has to do it at all.

I'm trying to balance stuff I gotta do in real life with 
getting this thing up to speed.  stressful

ann

Original Message:
-
From: Doug Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 22:16:01 -0400
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: OT: joys and woes of new computer - couple of questions


Shel Belinkoff wrote:

> Apart from any other protection, get yourself a free copy of Zone Alarm -
> it's a firewall.  It may take you a while to set up properly, but when
> you've got it working right, it's very useful and affords a good amount of
> protection.  http://tinyurl.com/ohl6r

And an antivirus scanner.  I use AVG but am considering a switch to Avast.

-- 
Thanks,
DougF (KG4LMZ)

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net


mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

RE: 35mm equivalent focal length on P6x7

[J. C. O'Connell]

P67 focal lengths are simple , multiply your 35mm film camera
Focal lengths times TWO. This isnt exact because the aspect
Ratios of the two formats are different but its pretty close
On the diagonal. (The exact figure is 2.07X on the diagonal)

I had the 45mm, 55mm, & 75mm wide angles on P67.
They were all excellent so don't worry about quality.

jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 11:15 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: 35mm equivalent focal length on P6x7

Hi all

I may be on the verge of purchasing a 6x7 body and I'm wondering what
the 
conversion is for focal lengths since I'm used to thinking in 35mm focal
lengths.

I won't really have much of a budget for lenses, etc so I'll have to
start with only 
one.  Considering what I plan to mostly use the body for, I want a wide
angle.  Can 
someone please suggest a good wide angle for the 6x7 for landscapes?
Preferably 
one that's fairly readily available used and not too expensive.  :)


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: The JCO survey

[Lawrence Kwan]

No, I do not consider this as a desirable feature, even though I still 
have a few K and M lenses.
I would rather save this extra cost towards a USM lens.


On Mon, 9 Oct 2006, Lon Williamson wrote:
> How many people here would consider an aperature
> simulator permitting (for K,M, and all other lenses with
> aperature rings) CW metering, open aperature metering
> in manual and AV modes a _highly_ desirable feature on
> the K1D?

-- 
--Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.vex.net/~lawrence --
--Tungsten T3 Enhanced DIA KeyboardNokia Ringtone Convertor--

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: The JCO survey

[Adam Maas]

Read what the heck I wrote (Hint, you just agreed with it).

-Adam


P. J. Alling wrote:
> I think you're wrong about that, based on the original documentation, 
> some of which still carries forward through cut and paste into the 
> current documentation the *ist-D was originally intended to have an 
> aperture simulator.   It was removed relatively late in the design 
> process for marketing and economy reasons.  The K100/110/10D may not 
> have been so designed, but in a digital system it would be relatively 
> easy to re-introduce.  Pentax needs to know that it's desired and maybe 
> they will give it to us.  Otherwise there's no likelihood at all.  The 
> cost of an additional AD converter and programming would be considerably 
> less expensive than implementing SR.  The light meter circuitry is the 
> simplest part of the camera and has the most in common with the previous 
> series, the biggest cost would be the packaging, (and I mean that in the 
> engineering sense not the actual box the camera comes in).
> 
> Adam Maas wrote:
> 
>> The current cameras were not designed with an Aperture simulator in 
>> mind. The addition of new hardware, modification of the existing mirror 
>> box and integration of the extra electronics and software costs money.
>>
>> And SR did not come 'Free' on the K100D as you claim. It costs $100 (the 
>> price difference between the K100D and K110D. The only difference is SR).
>>
>> Systems integration is NOT cheap. What allows you to make cheap cameras 
>> is that the cost is spread among many cameras, as long as production 
>> costs are low. Note that extra mechanical features add complexity and 
>> are less reliable (more stuff to break).
>>
>> You obviously know nothing about mechanical or electronic engineering. 
>> Even minor changes can have major costs as you need to test the 
>> integration. It's not just throwing a couple extra parts into the box.
>>
>> The only Pentax DSLR which could have had the aperture simulator added 
>> easily is the *istD, which used a MZ mirror box (which was obviously 
>> designed with an aperture simulator in mind) and reportedly had one at 
>> some point in the design cycle. The others were not designed with this 
>> in mind and thus would be far more costly to add the feature (That said, 
>> if the feature had been designed in initially, the added cost would be 
>> much less to add it afterwords)
>>
>>
>> -Adam
>>
>>
>>
>> J. C. O'Connell wrote:
>>  
>>
>>> OK, explain to me how it was in the K1000, a $100
>>> Complete camera?
>>>
>>> Explain to me how you think it needs signifigant "R&D"?
>>> They did this already in film camerras, duh.
>>>
>>> What do you think it cost to develop anti-shake
>>> And they have thrown it in FOR FREE on the latest K100.
>>>
>>> Gimme a break, your acting like this is some incredibly
>>> New complex thing when its friggin childs play its so
>>> Simple and cheap.
>>>
>>> jco
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
>>> William Robb
>>> Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 8:00 PM
>>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>>> Subject: Re: The JCO survey
>>>
>>>
>>> - Original Message - 
>>> From: "J. C. O'Connell"
>>> Subject: RE: The JCO survey
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
 The aperture cam sensor would not add $100 to the final price
 IMHO. Look at anti-shake for example, its in a $500 camera
 And its way more complex/expensive to implement than the
 Super simple and dirt cheap cam sensor.
  

>>> What would it cost per camera?
>>> Please, cost per unit and what that wold trickle down to the consumer 
>>> as?
>>> Include R&D and manufacturing costs as well.
>>> Then tell us how many projected sales would be gained for their doing it
>>>
>>> vs. the number of sales lost on price point.
>>>
>>> You seem to know things that the people who I talk to don't know.
>>> What are the numbers, John?
>>>
>>> William Robb 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>  
>>
> 
> 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

K100D- anybody bought one?

[J. C. O'Connell]

Anybody bought the K100D and how do you
Like it so far? Is the anti-shake working
As well as touted? What are the pros/cons
If any (other than K/M lens issues)???

Secondly anybody know the street price
On K10d? Also besides the 10MP vs. 6MP
What does the K10D do the K100 doesn't?

Thanks in Advance,
JCO


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: PESO: Truth

[Jack Davis]

Stark and strong image!

Jack

--- "Ralf R. Radermacher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Truth is always the first victim of war. 
> 
> For Anna Politkovskaja:
> 
> http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/mypics/770012/display/6884088
> 
> http://www.rsf.org
> 
> -- 
> Ralf R. Radermacher  -  DL9KCG  -  Köln/Cologne, Germany
> private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
> manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005
> Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> 


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: K100D- anybody bought one?

[Adam Maas]

J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> Anybody bought the K100D and how do you
> Like it so far? Is the anti-shake working
> As well as touted? What are the pros/cons
> If any (other than K/M lens issues)???
> 
> Secondly anybody know the street price
> On K10d? Also besides the 10MP vs. 6MP
> What does the K10D do the K100 doesn't?
> 
> Thanks in Advance,
> JCO
> 
> 

I bought one, replaced my D50 with it, for the viewfinder, the SR and 
the ability to meter with MF lenses (yes, I shot with MF glass on the 
D50, which doesn't meter at all with them, I own far more Nikon MF kit 
than Pentax MF kit. I'd still be shooting with the D50 if it had as good 
a finder as the K100D, let alone the DS or K10D). The write speeds make 
up for the small buffer (small buffer, slow writes are the major reason 
i sold my *istD in January)

SR works quite well. I find it works better with F or A lenses (I don't 
own anything newer) than with K/M lenses, but it's effective with both.

The K10D offers a larger buffer (9 shots instead of 3), weather sealing, 
improved AF, dual control wheels (Making work with A and later lenses 
less hassle), HyperProgram, more effective SR and a battery grip over 
the K100D. MSRP is $899 for the body, street should be in the ballpark.

-Adam

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: PESO: Harvest Moon

[Jack Davis]

You're not the only one, Bill!
Speaking of poo, you critiqued the background of one of my shot as crap
and you'll be thrilled to learn that, while I didn't say do at the
time, you were right.
You'll probably never be considerate enough to post a shot that will
allow me to retaliate. =)

Jack

--- William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Shel Belinkoff"
> Subject: Re: PESO: Harvest Moon
> 
> 
> > Did _anyone_ say John's photo was crap?  Did anyone say anyone's
> photo 
> > was
> > crap?
> 
> I've called a few peoples photos crap
> 
> William Robb 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> 


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

RE: The JCO survey

[J. C. O'Connell]

What the hell are you talking about? I am not suggesting
They frankenstein a current model, I am suggesting they
Design a NEW model or series of models WITH IT. And it
Would be very easy to NOT supply it on basic designs
That had it in there too if cost was an issue of the part
But I cant see that. I could design it myself. Both
Hardware and software. All it is is "add exposure compensation"
Per degree(s) of rotation of the aperture ring away
>From wide open. This is really simple stuff here.
Cam sensing could be done a number of ways, analog or digital.
jco

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Adam Maas
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 10:58 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: The JCO survey

It sure as hell doesn't show.

It's easy to design in. Especially on a mechanical camera. It's not easy

to add later if it was left out of the initial design. Simple as that.

-Adam


J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> Regarding your comment about electronics engineering,
> I WORKED in an enginnering lab for over 20 years so
> I do know what I am talking about. This is nothing
> More than a simple positional sensor that is a hell
> Of a lot easier than you make it out to be. $100
> Cameras had it for Christ's sake. Its really easy
> With the K mount because the lens is consistantly
> Aligned to the body so the sensor can be fixed to the
> Body also. Its far less complex than the one in
> The spotmatic F from 30 years ago and they provided
> That didn't they?
> JCO
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of
> Adam Maas
> Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 10:18 PM
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: The JCO survey
> 
> The current cameras were not designed with an Aperture simulator in 
> mind. The addition of new hardware, modification of the existing
mirror 
> box and integration of the extra electronics and software costs money.
> 
> And SR did not come 'Free' on the K100D as you claim. It costs $100
(the
> 
> price difference between the K100D and K110D. The only difference is
> SR).
> 
> Systems integration is NOT cheap. What allows you to make cheap
cameras 
> is that the cost is spread among many cameras, as long as production 
> costs are low. Note that extra mechanical features add complexity and 
> are less reliable (more stuff to break).
> 
> You obviously know nothing about mechanical or electronic engineering.

> Even minor changes can have major costs as you need to test the 
> integration. It's not just throwing a couple extra parts into the box.
> 
> The only Pentax DSLR which could have had the aperture simulator added

> easily is the *istD, which used a MZ mirror box (which was obviously 
> designed with an aperture simulator in mind) and reportedly had one at

> some point in the design cycle. The others were not designed with this

> in mind and thus would be far more costly to add the feature (That
said,
> 
> if the feature had been designed in initially, the added cost would be

> much less to add it afterwords)
> 
> 
> -Adam
> 
> 
> 
> J. C. O'Connell wrote:
>> OK, explain to me how it was in the K1000, a $100
>> Complete camera?
>>
>> Explain to me how you think it needs signifigant "R&D"?
>> They did this already in film camerras, duh.
>>
>> What do you think it cost to develop anti-shake
>> And they have thrown it in FOR FREE on the latest K100.
>>
>> Gimme a break, your acting like this is some incredibly
>> New complex thing when its friggin childs play its so
>> Simple and cheap.
>>
>> jco
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
> Of
>> William Robb
>> Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 8:00 PM
>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> Subject: Re: The JCO survey
>>
>>
>> - Original Message - 
>> From: "J. C. O'Connell"
>> Subject: RE: The JCO survey
>>
>>
>>> The aperture cam sensor would not add $100 to the final price
>>> IMHO. Look at anti-shake for example, its in a $500 camera
>>> And its way more complex/expensive to implement than the
>>> Super simple and dirt cheap cam sensor.
>> What would it cost per camera?
>> Please, cost per unit and what that wold trickle down to the consumer

>> as?
>> Include R&D and manufacturing costs as well.
>> Then tell us how many projected sales would be gained for their doing
> it
>> vs. the number of sales lost on price point.
>>
>> You seem to know things that the people who I talk to don't know.
>> What are the numbers, John?
>>
>> William Robb 
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: The JCO survey

[P. J. Alling]

I think you're wrong about that, based on the original documentation, 
some of which still carries forward through cut and paste into the 
current documentation the *ist-D was originally intended to have an 
aperture simulator.   It was removed relatively late in the design 
process for marketing and economy reasons.  The K100/110/10D may not 
have been so designed, but in a digital system it would be relatively 
easy to re-introduce.  Pentax needs to know that it's desired and maybe 
they will give it to us.  Otherwise there's no likelihood at all.  The 
cost of an additional AD converter and programming would be considerably 
less expensive than implementing SR.  The light meter circuitry is the 
simplest part of the camera and has the most in common with the previous 
series, the biggest cost would be the packaging, (and I mean that in the 
engineering sense not the actual box the camera comes in).

Adam Maas wrote:

>The current cameras were not designed with an Aperture simulator in 
>mind. The addition of new hardware, modification of the existing mirror 
>box and integration of the extra electronics and software costs money.
>
>And SR did not come 'Free' on the K100D as you claim. It costs $100 (the 
>price difference between the K100D and K110D. The only difference is SR).
>
>Systems integration is NOT cheap. What allows you to make cheap cameras 
>is that the cost is spread among many cameras, as long as production 
>costs are low. Note that extra mechanical features add complexity and 
>are less reliable (more stuff to break).
>
>You obviously know nothing about mechanical or electronic engineering. 
>Even minor changes can have major costs as you need to test the 
>integration. It's not just throwing a couple extra parts into the box.
>
>The only Pentax DSLR which could have had the aperture simulator added 
>easily is the *istD, which used a MZ mirror box (which was obviously 
>designed with an aperture simulator in mind) and reportedly had one at 
>some point in the design cycle. The others were not designed with this 
>in mind and thus would be far more costly to add the feature (That said, 
>if the feature had been designed in initially, the added cost would be 
>much less to add it afterwords)
>
>
>-Adam
>
>
>
>J. C. O'Connell wrote:
>  
>
>>OK, explain to me how it was in the K1000, a $100
>>Complete camera?
>>
>>Explain to me how you think it needs signifigant "R&D"?
>>They did this already in film camerras, duh.
>>
>>What do you think it cost to develop anti-shake
>>And they have thrown it in FOR FREE on the latest K100.
>>
>>Gimme a break, your acting like this is some incredibly
>>New complex thing when its friggin childs play its so
>>Simple and cheap.
>>
>>jco
>>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
>>William Robb
>>Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 8:00 PM
>>To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>>Subject: Re: The JCO survey
>>
>>
>>- Original Message - 
>>From: "J. C. O'Connell"
>>Subject: RE: The JCO survey
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>The aperture cam sensor would not add $100 to the final price
>>>IMHO. Look at anti-shake for example, its in a $500 camera
>>>And its way more complex/expensive to implement than the
>>>Super simple and dirt cheap cam sensor.
>>>  
>>>
>>What would it cost per camera?
>>Please, cost per unit and what that wold trickle down to the consumer 
>>as?
>>Include R&D and manufacturing costs as well.
>>Then tell us how many projected sales would be gained for their doing it
>>
>>vs. the number of sales lost on price point.
>>
>>You seem to know things that the people who I talk to don't know.
>>What are the numbers, John?
>>
>>William Robb 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>  
>


-- 
Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler.

--Albert Einstein



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: The JCO survey

[P. J. Alling]

I think I would dispute that.  Those who have old glass and can live 
with the limitations.  Those who don't know the old glass will buy new.  
Those who have old glass and can't live with the limitations will look 
for used A/F/FA glass and Pentax doesn't really benefit.

Adam Maas wrote:

>Cory Papenfuss wrote:
>  
>
reach a bit farther than my 18-55 kit lens, but as for primes and fast
glass, I prefer the cost/benefit ratio of older glass.


>>>Yes, and that cost/benefit will rapidly diminish if Pentax brings back  
>>>auto-exposure with old lenses.  You can't have it both ways!
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>  ?  Maybe I'm not getting it.  Are you saying that the price of 
>>used MF glass will go up if it is supported better?  I suspect you're 
>>probably correct, which can only help.
>>
>>  To me it seems like the benefit of new lensed (through quality, 
>>weight reduction, autofocus, focal length, etc) should stand for 
>>themselves.  I thought that the benefits of a new product over an old were 
>>supposed to do that... not be artificially depricated and lose 
>>functionality.
>>
>>  If I *needed* new AF glass, or a new item was produced with enough 
>>quality differential to merit its purchase, I would jump right in.
>>
>>-Cory
>>
>>
>
>No, he's saying that Pentax will make more money if the K/M lenses 
>aren't fully supported than if they are, as a larger percentage of 
>people buying Pentax DSLR's will not be buying new lenses.
>
>-Adam
>
>  
>


-- 
Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler.

--Albert Einstein



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

35mm equivalent focal length on P6x7

[jkmess]

Hi all

I may be on the verge of purchasing a 6x7 body and I'm wondering what the 
conversion is for focal lengths since I'm used to thinking in 35mm focal 
lengths.

I won't really have much of a budget for lenses, etc so I'll have to start with 
only 
one.  Considering what I plan to mostly use the body for, I want a wide angle.  
Can 
someone please suggest a good wide angle for the 6x7 for landscapes?  
Preferably 
one that's fairly readily available used and not too expensive.  :)


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

RE: The JCO survey

[J. C. O'Connell]

Digital has nothing to do with this issue.
There is no reason why thay cant make and sell
A digital SLR that supports the lenses in question.
Compromise is NOT necessary to go digital, that's
The whole point of my argument. I want BOTH.
jco

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
David Savage
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 10:54 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: RE: The JCO survey

Well in that case I think it's time for you to sell you're Pentax kit
and 
switch brands, because I can't see Pentax re-implementing in any of
their 
new cameras.

If your happy shooting film, it's not an issue. If you want to go to 
digital then you're going to have to make a compromise at some stage.

Dave


At 10:35 AM 10/10/2006, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
>YES, I know what the metering limitation is and I don't
>Like it. I don't need to buy one to know what that mode
>Is. Spotmatics had it..Its called metered manual.
>jco
>
>-Original Message-
>David Savage
>Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 10:04 PM
>To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>Subject: RE: The JCO survey
>
>At 03:28 AM 10/10/2006, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> >Any how many customer will simply just jump ship
> >On Pentax completely?
>
>Not many. Otherwise the PDML would be less crowded.
>
> >If I have to buy all new
> >Lenses I will go Canon EF. Much better system
> >To start from scratch on. Problem is I don't
> >Want AF from anybody, I want MF with my K/M
> >Lenses, I don't even like the "A"s.
>
>Then buy a Pentax DSLR. Short of Leica, they are still your best bet
for
>
>manual focus lens support.
>
>It's been asked of you before, but I don't know if you've answered it.
>Have
>you ever used your K or M lenses on a Pentax DSLR? Or are your
>objections
>purely based on reading the spec sheet?
>
>Dave


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: PESO -- "Connecticut Zen V"; View from a Japanese Restaurant

[P. J. Alling]

That kind of goes along with Connecticut Zen...

Mat Maessen wrote:

>On 10/9/06, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  
>
>>http://www.mindspring.com/~morephotos/PESO_--_connzen5.html
>>
>>
>
>Foreground - very Zen.
>Background - not so Zen. More "western consumerist." :-)
>
>-Mat
>
>  
>


-- 
Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler.

--Albert Einstein



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: The JCO survey

[P. J. Alling]

As I expected you don't know.  The absence of data is not data.

Mark Roberts wrote:

>P. J. Alling wrote:
>
>  
>
>>I'm sorry, but how the hell do you have sales figures on a product
>>that doesn't exist? 
>>
>>
>
>??? The two products I mentioned specifically were the K100D, for which 
>demand is exceeding production capacity, and the K10D which is 
>generating sales deposits (including mine) even before it is on the 
>shelves.
>  
>
They don't know how many more sales they'll get with an aperture 
simulator included, part of the reason they're getting these pre-orders 
it the touted backward compatibility.  If were better wouldn't it be 
logical to expect better sales to old farts like us?  I'm certain that 
they'd have one more if it had one. In fact I think there'd be a lot 
more.  There may even be pre-orders by old users who don't know the 
limitations caused by lack of an aperture simulator, it's so seldom 
mentioned in the reviews.  Those people will be disappointed and won't 
help create positive buzz about the next camera release.  We get a 
number of questions on this list about that regularly.  How many of them 
decided to stay with Pentax or move on.   We don't know, and neither 
does Pentax.

>The success of these, and earlier Pentax DSLR's, indicates that the 
>lack of the aperture simulator isn't costing them sufficient sales to 
>be concerned about.
>  
>
Which may not last.  They still need all the sales they can get, and 
every useful feature helps. 

-- 
Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler.

--Albert Einstein



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: PESO -- "Connecticut Zen V"; View from a Japanese Restaurant

[P. J. Alling]

I know, but unfortunately you get what get.  The magic hour sun that 
would illuminate the opposite shore would be in the morning and the 
restaurant is closed, and I'd still be asleep.

Paul Stenquist wrote:

>Pretty scene. But I wish that magic hour sun was illuminating the  
>opposite shore of the river.
>Paul
>On Oct 9, 2006, at 8:47 PM, Mat Maessen wrote:
>
>  
>
>>On 10/9/06, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>http://www.mindspring.com/~morephotos/PESO_--_connzen5.html
>>>  
>>>
>>Foreground - very Zen.
>>Background - not so Zen. More "western consumerist." :-)
>>
>>-Mat
>>
>>-- 
>>PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>>PDML@pdml.net
>>http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>>
>>
>
>
>  
>


-- 
Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler.

--Albert Einstein



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: The JCO survey

[Adam Maas]

It sure as hell doesn't show.

It's easy to design in. Especially on a mechanical camera. It's not easy 
to add later if it was left out of the initial design. Simple as that.

-Adam


J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> Regarding your comment about electronics engineering,
> I WORKED in an enginnering lab for over 20 years so
> I do know what I am talking about. This is nothing
> More than a simple positional sensor that is a hell
> Of a lot easier than you make it out to be. $100
> Cameras had it for Christ's sake. Its really easy
> With the K mount because the lens is consistantly
> Aligned to the body so the sensor can be fixed to the
> Body also. Its far less complex than the one in
> The spotmatic F from 30 years ago and they provided
> That didn't they?
> JCO
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Adam Maas
> Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 10:18 PM
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: The JCO survey
> 
> The current cameras were not designed with an Aperture simulator in 
> mind. The addition of new hardware, modification of the existing mirror 
> box and integration of the extra electronics and software costs money.
> 
> And SR did not come 'Free' on the K100D as you claim. It costs $100 (the
> 
> price difference between the K100D and K110D. The only difference is
> SR).
> 
> Systems integration is NOT cheap. What allows you to make cheap cameras 
> is that the cost is spread among many cameras, as long as production 
> costs are low. Note that extra mechanical features add complexity and 
> are less reliable (more stuff to break).
> 
> You obviously know nothing about mechanical or electronic engineering. 
> Even minor changes can have major costs as you need to test the 
> integration. It's not just throwing a couple extra parts into the box.
> 
> The only Pentax DSLR which could have had the aperture simulator added 
> easily is the *istD, which used a MZ mirror box (which was obviously 
> designed with an aperture simulator in mind) and reportedly had one at 
> some point in the design cycle. The others were not designed with this 
> in mind and thus would be far more costly to add the feature (That said,
> 
> if the feature had been designed in initially, the added cost would be 
> much less to add it afterwords)
> 
> 
> -Adam
> 
> 
> 
> J. C. O'Connell wrote:
>> OK, explain to me how it was in the K1000, a $100
>> Complete camera?
>>
>> Explain to me how you think it needs signifigant "R&D"?
>> They did this already in film camerras, duh.
>>
>> What do you think it cost to develop anti-shake
>> And they have thrown it in FOR FREE on the latest K100.
>>
>> Gimme a break, your acting like this is some incredibly
>> New complex thing when its friggin childs play its so
>> Simple and cheap.
>>
>> jco
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
> Of
>> William Robb
>> Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 8:00 PM
>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> Subject: Re: The JCO survey
>>
>>
>> - Original Message - 
>> From: "J. C. O'Connell"
>> Subject: RE: The JCO survey
>>
>>
>>> The aperture cam sensor would not add $100 to the final price
>>> IMHO. Look at anti-shake for example, its in a $500 camera
>>> And its way more complex/expensive to implement than the
>>> Super simple and dirt cheap cam sensor.
>> What would it cost per camera?
>> Please, cost per unit and what that wold trickle down to the consumer 
>> as?
>> Include R&D and manufacturing costs as well.
>> Then tell us how many projected sales would be gained for their doing
> it
>> vs. the number of sales lost on price point.
>>
>> You seem to know things that the people who I talk to don't know.
>> What are the numbers, John?
>>
>> William Robb 
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

RE: The JCO survey

[David Savage]

Well in that case I think it's time for you to sell you're Pentax kit and 
switch brands, because I can't see Pentax re-implementing in any of their 
new cameras.

If your happy shooting film, it's not an issue. If you want to go to 
digital then you're going to have to make a compromise at some stage.

Dave


At 10:35 AM 10/10/2006, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
>YES, I know what the metering limitation is and I don't
>Like it. I don't need to buy one to know what that mode
>Is. Spotmatics had it..Its called metered manual.
>jco
>
>-Original Message-
>David Savage
>Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 10:04 PM
>To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>Subject: RE: The JCO survey
>
>At 03:28 AM 10/10/2006, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> >Any how many customer will simply just jump ship
> >On Pentax completely?
>
>Not many. Otherwise the PDML would be less crowded.
>
> >If I have to buy all new
> >Lenses I will go Canon EF. Much better system
> >To start from scratch on. Problem is I don't
> >Want AF from anybody, I want MF with my K/M
> >Lenses, I don't even like the "A"s.
>
>Then buy a Pentax DSLR. Short of Leica, they are still your best bet for
>
>manual focus lens support.
>
>It's been asked of you before, but I don't know if you've answered it.
>Have
>you ever used your K or M lenses on a Pentax DSLR? Or are your
>objections
>purely based on reading the spec sheet?
>
>Dave


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

RE: The JCO survey

[J. C. O'Connell]

Regarding your comment about electronics engineering,
I WORKED in an enginnering lab for over 20 years so
I do know what I am talking about. This is nothing
More than a simple positional sensor that is a hell
Of a lot easier than you make it out to be. $100
Cameras had it for Christ's sake. Its really easy
With the K mount because the lens is consistantly
Aligned to the body so the sensor can be fixed to the
Body also. Its far less complex than the one in
The spotmatic F from 30 years ago and they provided
That didn't they?
JCO

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Adam Maas
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 10:18 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: The JCO survey

The current cameras were not designed with an Aperture simulator in 
mind. The addition of new hardware, modification of the existing mirror 
box and integration of the extra electronics and software costs money.

And SR did not come 'Free' on the K100D as you claim. It costs $100 (the

price difference between the K100D and K110D. The only difference is
SR).

Systems integration is NOT cheap. What allows you to make cheap cameras 
is that the cost is spread among many cameras, as long as production 
costs are low. Note that extra mechanical features add complexity and 
are less reliable (more stuff to break).

You obviously know nothing about mechanical or electronic engineering. 
Even minor changes can have major costs as you need to test the 
integration. It's not just throwing a couple extra parts into the box.

The only Pentax DSLR which could have had the aperture simulator added 
easily is the *istD, which used a MZ mirror box (which was obviously 
designed with an aperture simulator in mind) and reportedly had one at 
some point in the design cycle. The others were not designed with this 
in mind and thus would be far more costly to add the feature (That said,

if the feature had been designed in initially, the added cost would be 
much less to add it afterwords)


-Adam



J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> OK, explain to me how it was in the K1000, a $100
> Complete camera?
> 
> Explain to me how you think it needs signifigant "R&D"?
> They did this already in film camerras, duh.
> 
> What do you think it cost to develop anti-shake
> And they have thrown it in FOR FREE on the latest K100.
> 
> Gimme a break, your acting like this is some incredibly
> New complex thing when its friggin childs play its so
> Simple and cheap.
> 
> jco
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of
> William Robb
> Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 8:00 PM
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: The JCO survey
> 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "J. C. O'Connell"
> Subject: RE: The JCO survey
> 
> 
>> The aperture cam sensor would not add $100 to the final price
>> IMHO. Look at anti-shake for example, its in a $500 camera
>> And its way more complex/expensive to implement than the
>> Super simple and dirt cheap cam sensor.
> 
> What would it cost per camera?
> Please, cost per unit and what that wold trickle down to the consumer 
> as?
> Include R&D and manufacturing costs as well.
> Then tell us how many projected sales would be gained for their doing
it
> 
> vs. the number of sales lost on price point.
> 
> You seem to know things that the people who I talk to don't know.
> What are the numbers, John?
> 
> William Robb 
> 
> 
> 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

RE: The JCO survey

[J. C. O'Connell]

YES, I know what the metering limitation is and I don't
Like it. I don't need to buy one to know what that mode
Is. Spotmatics had it..Its called metered manual.
jco

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
David Savage
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 10:04 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: RE: The JCO survey

At 03:28 AM 10/10/2006, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
>Any how many customer will simply just jump ship
>On Pentax completely?

Not many. Otherwise the PDML would be less crowded.

>If I have to buy all new
>Lenses I will go Canon EF. Much better system
>To start from scratch on. Problem is I don't
>Want AF from anybody, I want MF with my K/M
>Lenses, I don't even like the "A"s.

Then buy a Pentax DSLR. Short of Leica, they are still your best bet for

manual focus lens support.

It's been asked of you before, but I don't know if you've answered it.
Have 
you ever used your K or M lenses on a Pentax DSLR? Or are your
objections 
purely based on reading the spec sheet?

Dave


>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
>William Robb
>From: "Mark Roberts"
> > No, the real question is how many camera sales might Pentax lose by
> > not
> > having this feature.
>
>Or, how many lens sales will they lose by adding it back in.
>
>William Robb


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

RE: The JCO survey

[J. C. O'Connell]

Yes, I stand corrected, there is a $100 price differece
Between anti shake and no anti shake. Now what is the
World makes you think that the simple aperture cam
Would cost anywhere near that much. Development is
Not really an issue because if you know what it is
It's really simple, FAR FAR less hardware and software
Is needed.
jco

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Adam Maas
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 10:18 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: The JCO survey

The current cameras were not designed with an Aperture simulator in 
mind. The addition of new hardware, modification of the existing mirror 
box and integration of the extra electronics and software costs money.

And SR did not come 'Free' on the K100D as you claim. It costs $100 (the

price difference between the K100D and K110D. The only difference is
SR).

Systems integration is NOT cheap. What allows you to make cheap cameras 
is that the cost is spread among many cameras, as long as production 
costs are low. Note that extra mechanical features add complexity and 
are less reliable (more stuff to break).

You obviously know nothing about mechanical or electronic engineering. 
Even minor changes can have major costs as you need to test the 
integration. It's not just throwing a couple extra parts into the box.

The only Pentax DSLR which could have had the aperture simulator added 
easily is the *istD, which used a MZ mirror box (which was obviously 
designed with an aperture simulator in mind) and reportedly had one at 
some point in the design cycle. The others were not designed with this 
in mind and thus would be far more costly to add the feature (That said,

if the feature had been designed in initially, the added cost would be 
much less to add it afterwords)


-Adam



J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> OK, explain to me how it was in the K1000, a $100
> Complete camera?
> 
> Explain to me how you think it needs signifigant "R&D"?
> They did this already in film camerras, duh.
> 
> What do you think it cost to develop anti-shake
> And they have thrown it in FOR FREE on the latest K100.
> 
> Gimme a break, your acting like this is some incredibly
> New complex thing when its friggin childs play its so
> Simple and cheap.
> 
> jco
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of
> William Robb
> Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 8:00 PM
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: The JCO survey
> 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "J. C. O'Connell"
> Subject: RE: The JCO survey
> 
> 
>> The aperture cam sensor would not add $100 to the final price
>> IMHO. Look at anti-shake for example, its in a $500 camera
>> And its way more complex/expensive to implement than the
>> Super simple and dirt cheap cam sensor.
> 
> What would it cost per camera?
> Please, cost per unit and what that wold trickle down to the consumer 
> as?
> Include R&D and manufacturing costs as well.
> Then tell us how many projected sales would be gained for their doing
it
> 
> vs. the number of sales lost on price point.
> 
> You seem to know things that the people who I talk to don't know.
> What are the numbers, John?
> 
> William Robb 
> 
> 
> 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: The JCO survey

[Adam Maas]

The current cameras were not designed with an Aperture simulator in 
mind. The addition of new hardware, modification of the existing mirror 
box and integration of the extra electronics and software costs money.

And SR did not come 'Free' on the K100D as you claim. It costs $100 (the 
price difference between the K100D and K110D. The only difference is SR).

Systems integration is NOT cheap. What allows you to make cheap cameras 
is that the cost is spread among many cameras, as long as production 
costs are low. Note that extra mechanical features add complexity and 
are less reliable (more stuff to break).

You obviously know nothing about mechanical or electronic engineering. 
Even minor changes can have major costs as you need to test the 
integration. It's not just throwing a couple extra parts into the box.

The only Pentax DSLR which could have had the aperture simulator added 
easily is the *istD, which used a MZ mirror box (which was obviously 
designed with an aperture simulator in mind) and reportedly had one at 
some point in the design cycle. The others were not designed with this 
in mind and thus would be far more costly to add the feature (That said, 
if the feature had been designed in initially, the added cost would be 
much less to add it afterwords)


-Adam



J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> OK, explain to me how it was in the K1000, a $100
> Complete camera?
> 
> Explain to me how you think it needs signifigant "R&D"?
> They did this already in film camerras, duh.
> 
> What do you think it cost to develop anti-shake
> And they have thrown it in FOR FREE on the latest K100.
> 
> Gimme a break, your acting like this is some incredibly
> New complex thing when its friggin childs play its so
> Simple and cheap.
> 
> jco
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> William Robb
> Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 8:00 PM
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: The JCO survey
> 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "J. C. O'Connell"
> Subject: RE: The JCO survey
> 
> 
>> The aperture cam sensor would not add $100 to the final price
>> IMHO. Look at anti-shake for example, its in a $500 camera
>> And its way more complex/expensive to implement than the
>> Super simple and dirt cheap cam sensor.
> 
> What would it cost per camera?
> Please, cost per unit and what that wold trickle down to the consumer 
> as?
> Include R&D and manufacturing costs as well.
> Then tell us how many projected sales would be gained for their doing it
> 
> vs. the number of sales lost on price point.
> 
> You seem to know things that the people who I talk to don't know.
> What are the numbers, John?
> 
> William Robb 
> 
> 
> 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

RE: The JCO survey

[J. C. O'Connell]

Just because a company doesn't go bankrupt doesn't mean
They are making all the right moves...
jco

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
David Savage
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 9:42 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: RE: The JCO survey

At 01:35 AM 10/10/2006, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
>They have? Your conclusion is based on what?
>jco

Lack of full K & M lens support hasn't bankrupted them.

Pentax is still in business, and selling decent cameras that people are
buying.

Dave


>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
>Mark Roberts
>Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 1:24 PM
>To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>Subject: Re: The JCO survey
>
>Perry Pellechia wrote:
>
> >The real question is how much would you be willing to pay extra for a
> >camera that had the feature.
>
>No, the real question is how many camera sales might Pentax lose by not
>having this feature.
>
>It's been several years since the aperture simulator disappeared.
>They've figured out the answer at this point.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: PESO: Truth

[Bruce Dayton]

This one has loads to say...most excellent!

-- 
Bruce


Monday, October 9, 2006, 5:34:03 PM, you wrote:

RRR> Truth is always the first victim of war. 

RRR> For Anna Politkovskaja:

RRR> http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/mypics/770012/display/6884088

RRR> http://www.rsf.org

RRR> -- 
RRR> Ralf R. Radermacher  -  DL9KCG  -  Köln/Cologne, Germany
RRR> private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
RRR> manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005
RRR> Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses




-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT: joys and woes of new computer - couple of questions

[Doug Franklin]

graywolf wrote:
> Anyone who uses Internet Explorer deserves to be exploited!

The problem is that Internet Explorer and its infrastructure exist on
your system even if you don't use IE itself.  Some of the weaknesses the
bad guys exploit don't require you to use IE, or, occasionally, to do
anything other than turning on your computer and connecting to the
Internet without a firewall and/or the latest patches.

-- 
Thanks,
DougF (KG4LMZ)

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT: joys and woes of new computer - couple of questions

[Doug Franklin]

Shel Belinkoff wrote:

> Apart from any other protection, get yourself a free copy of Zone Alarm -
> it's a firewall.  It may take you a while to set up properly, but when
> you've got it working right, it's very useful and affords a good amount of
> protection.  http://tinyurl.com/ohl6r

And an antivirus scanner.  I use AVG but am considering a switch to Avast.

-- 
Thanks,
DougF (KG4LMZ)

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT: joys and woes of new computer - couple of questions

[Shel Belinkoff]

Ann,

Apart from any other protection, get yourself a free copy of Zone Alarm -
it's a firewall.  It may take you a while to set up properly, but when
you've got it working right, it's very useful and affords a good amount of
protection.  http://tinyurl.com/ohl6r

Shel




-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

RE: The JCO survey

[David Savage]

At 03:28 AM 10/10/2006, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
>Any how many customer will simply just jump ship
>On Pentax completely?

Not many. Otherwise the PDML would be less crowded.

>If I have to buy all new
>Lenses I will go Canon EF. Much better system
>To start from scratch on. Problem is I don't
>Want AF from anybody, I want MF with my K/M
>Lenses, I don't even like the "A"s.

Then buy a Pentax DSLR. Short of Leica, they are still your best bet for 
manual focus lens support.

It's been asked of you before, but I don't know if you've answered it. Have 
you ever used your K or M lenses on a Pentax DSLR? Or are your objections 
purely based on reading the spec sheet?

Dave


>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
>William Robb
>From: "Mark Roberts"
> > No, the real question is how many camera sales might Pentax lose by
> > not
> > having this feature.
>
>Or, how many lens sales will they lose by adding it back in.
>
>William Robb


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: PESO: Duck!

[Paul Stenquist]

Thanks Russell. Just a fun pic. I found it slightly humorous, but I'm  
easy:-).
Paul
On Oct 9, 2006, at 9:49 PM, Russell Kerstetter wrote:

> I like it, it has a lot of visual interest for me.
>
> russell
>
> On 10/8/06, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5051185&size=lg
>>
>> --
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> PDML@pdml.net
>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>>
>
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: PESO - The Line Forms to the Right

[Russell Kerstetter]

nice one shel...  mm.. deli's are good!

russell

> I visit Zarri's at least once a week for a lunch sandwich, or to sometimes
> pick up a favorite olive oil or some pasta.
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~ebay-pics/lineformstoright.html

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: The JCO survey

[graywolf]

Probably more like semi-pro

-- 
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---


Lon Williamson wrote:

> The 10D is hi-amateur (whatever that means) and the 1D is pro.  Hell, 
> I'm thinking

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT: joys and woes of new computer - couple of questions

[graywolf]

Anyone who uses Internet Explorer deserves to be exploited!

-- 
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---


Doug Franklin wrote:
> Tim Øsleby wrote:
>> Ann. Most likely your system already has XP service pack 2 installed. That's
>> the one update you will need if it isn't. Without it your computer is very
>> vulnerable. 
> 
> As someone who works on security software for Windows and Linux, I'd
> strongly urge keeping up with Windows updates, even post XP SP2.  You
> only have to get "owned" once to have large amounts of your money
> disappear from your bank account or get added to your credit cards or
> your identity get stolen.  I do review the updates that they try to
> send, I keep good backups, I only install critical updates, and I always
> refuse to let Windows Genuine Advantage or its updates install.  But if
> Microsoft is issuing a patch for it, there's a good reason.
> 
> Some of the vulnerabilities, especially some of the ones in Internet
> Explorer, are positively frightening, allowing "drive by" exploitation
> of your system.  That means the attacker plants the malware in such a
> way that you get infected by simply going to a reputable web page that
> has ads on it from a poorly defended or less than reputable ad system.
> 
> It's happened, too.  A year or two ago, the online IT technology (IT
> geek) newspaper "The Register" (http://www.theregister.co.uk or
> http://www.theregister.com) was using an ad service provider that got
> exploited. Just going to "The Register" web page and being unlucky
> enough to get one of the infected ads got your computer infected, IIRC,
> by a password stealer or spam engine (if you didn't have the proper
> patches installed).
> 
> A lot of the "virus" hype /is/ hype.  Shameless hype.  But some of it
> isn't.  Over the past couple of years there's been a definite and
> obvious shift in the motives of the purveyors of malware.  It's gone
> from more like graffiti or other vandalism to more like business (profit
> motive).
> 
> At the moment, there seems to be another shift underway, toward more
> focused attacks rather than the "shotgun approach".  The idea being to
> get the malware "under the radar" of the security monitoring folks.
> That means that, for example, the A/V engines don't get signatures for
> them because either the "virus sensors" out in the Internet never see
> the actual malware, or because the number of folks affected is "too small".
> 
> There have already been several of these sorts of targeted attacks in
> England and Scandinavia against specific banks.  Through a partnership
> with some customers, my development team is seeing a lot of this sort of
> activity right now.
> 

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

RE: The JCO survey

[David Savage]

At 01:35 AM 10/10/2006, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
>They have? Your conclusion is based on what?
>jco

Lack of full K & M lens support hasn't bankrupted them.

Pentax is still in business, and selling decent cameras that people are buying.

Dave


>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
>Mark Roberts
>Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 1:24 PM
>To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>Subject: Re: The JCO survey
>
>Perry Pellechia wrote:
>
> >The real question is how much would you be willing to pay extra for a
> >camera that had the feature.
>
>No, the real question is how many camera sales might Pentax lose by not
>having this feature.
>
>It's been several years since the aperture simulator disappeared.
>They've figured out the answer at this point.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

RE: The JCO survey

[J. C. O'Connell]

OK, explain to me how it was in the K1000, a $100
Complete camera?

Explain to me how you think it needs signifigant "R&D"?
They did this already in film camerras, duh.

What do you think it cost to develop anti-shake
And they have thrown it in FOR FREE on the latest K100.

Gimme a break, your acting like this is some incredibly
New complex thing when its friggin childs play its so
Simple and cheap.

jco

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
William Robb
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 8:00 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: The JCO survey


- Original Message - 
From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: RE: The JCO survey


> The aperture cam sensor would not add $100 to the final price
> IMHO. Look at anti-shake for example, its in a $500 camera
> And its way more complex/expensive to implement than the
> Super simple and dirt cheap cam sensor.

What would it cost per camera?
Please, cost per unit and what that wold trickle down to the consumer 
as?
Include R&D and manufacturing costs as well.
Then tell us how many projected sales would be gained for their doing it

vs. the number of sales lost on price point.

You seem to know things that the people who I talk to don't know.
What are the numbers, John?

William Robb 



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT: joys and woes of new computer - couple of questions

[Doug Franklin]

Tim Øsleby wrote:
> Ann. Most likely your system already has XP service pack 2 installed. That's
> the one update you will need if it isn't. Without it your computer is very
> vulnerable. 

As someone who works on security software for Windows and Linux, I'd
strongly urge keeping up with Windows updates, even post XP SP2.  You
only have to get "owned" once to have large amounts of your money
disappear from your bank account or get added to your credit cards or
your identity get stolen.  I do review the updates that they try to
send, I keep good backups, I only install critical updates, and I always
refuse to let Windows Genuine Advantage or its updates install.  But if
Microsoft is issuing a patch for it, there's a good reason.

Some of the vulnerabilities, especially some of the ones in Internet
Explorer, are positively frightening, allowing "drive by" exploitation
of your system.  That means the attacker plants the malware in such a
way that you get infected by simply going to a reputable web page that
has ads on it from a poorly defended or less than reputable ad system.

It's happened, too.  A year or two ago, the online IT technology (IT
geek) newspaper "The Register" (http://www.theregister.co.uk or
http://www.theregister.com) was using an ad service provider that got
exploited. Just going to "The Register" web page and being unlucky
enough to get one of the infected ads got your computer infected, IIRC,
by a password stealer or spam engine (if you didn't have the proper
patches installed).

A lot of the "virus" hype /is/ hype.  Shameless hype.  But some of it
isn't.  Over the past couple of years there's been a definite and
obvious shift in the motives of the purveyors of malware.  It's gone
from more like graffiti or other vandalism to more like business (profit
motive).

At the moment, there seems to be another shift underway, toward more
focused attacks rather than the "shotgun approach".  The idea being to
get the malware "under the radar" of the security monitoring folks.
That means that, for example, the A/V engines don't get signatures for
them because either the "virus sensors" out in the Internet never see
the actual malware, or because the number of folks affected is "too small".

There have already been several of these sorts of targeted attacks in
England and Scandinavia against specific banks.  Through a partnership
with some customers, my development team is seeing a lot of this sort of
activity right now.

-- 
Thanks,
DougF (KG4LMZ)


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: PESO: Duck!

[Russell Kerstetter]

I like it, it has a lot of visual interest for me.

russell

On 10/8/06, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5051185&size=lg
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: PESO - spider from the window

[Russell Kerstetter]

nice shot, although I hate spiders... they make me cringe like a little girl  :(

russell

On 10/7/06, Mat Maessen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Last weekend, I pulled the air conditioner out of my living room
> window. Within 2 hours of doing so, this little guy had spun a web in
> its place.
>
> http://www.matoe.org/gallery2/v/tomatoe/testscans/IMGP0281-cropped.jpg.html
>
> No idea what kind of spider it is. Not having a real macro lens, I
> shot him/her with my A35-105/3.5 at its closest focus, and cropped the
> image in photoshop. Shot handheld, wide open.
>
> I think I need to put a real macro lens on the to-purchase list. That,
> and a better tripod...
>
> -Mat
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

RE: Decisions decisisons

[J. C. O'Connell]

Just keep one good one (LX)!
JCO
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Joseph Tainter
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 7:40 PM
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Decisions decisisons

Okay I know this has been discussed in detail here many times over but
I am having a hard time trying to decide whether to sell some, if not
all, of my film cameras.

-

I thought perhaps I might try to salvage a few dollars out of one of my 
two PZ-1p bodies. So I went to KEH's web site to see what they might 
offer. KEH no longer lists it as a camera they will buy. It doesn't 
matter much. The camera, while excellent condition-wise, would probably 
have brought not much more than $125-$150, and I don't really want to 
part with either of them.

Joe

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

RE: The JCO survey

[J. C. O'Connell]

K/M/A are hugh groups of lenses OPTICALLY.
I do not agree that all "A"s are better than
ALL "K" or all "M". On an optical basis you
Have to evaulate them one by one. There are
Some incredible K and M lenses were not exceeded
In "A" mount at same focal length because pentax
Deleted some of these due to size (for "M")
And speed ( for marketing in general). Yes,
Thre are some "A" which are better than anything
In K/M no doubt but the converse is true too.
jco

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Paul Stenquist
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 7:18 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: The JCO survey

I agree that the K lenses have a great feel. Perhaps only the SMC  
Takumars with the metal focus ring feel better. But the A lenses, by  
and large, take better pictures. The FA and DA lenses are better  
still. I expect the DA* lenses to be the best ever produced by  
Pentax. I'm not a fondler. I'm a photographer. A great lens feel is  
nice, but a superb rendering is better.
Paul
On Oct 9, 2006, at 4:34 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote:

> Compared to the "K" series and to a lesser extent
> The "M" series, the build quality and focus "feel"
> Of the "A" lenses are dog doo doo. This is based
> On years of experience with both. The "K" lenses
> In particular are outstanding MF lenses in terms
> Of the focus mechanisms. Things went downhill with
> The M's a little and much worse with the "A"s in
> That regard specifically.
> jco
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On  
> Behalf Of
> Cotty
> Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 4:07 PM
> To: pentax list
> Subject: Re: The JCO survey
>
> On 9/10/06, J. C. O'Connell, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
>> Any how many customer will simply just jump ship
>> On Pentax completely? If I have to buy all new
>> Lenses I will go Canon EF. Much better system
>> To start from scratch on.
>
> That I can understand.
>
>
>
>> Problem is I don't
>> Want AF from anybody, I want MF with my K/M
>> Lenses,
>
> That I have a bit of trouble with but I'll grant you that.
>
>
>
>
>> I don't even like the "A"s.
>
> But that's the line in the sand. You're a complete and utter nutcase.
> Mad as March hare.
>
>
> Completely potty.
>
>
> -- 
>
>
> Cheers,
>   Cotty
>
>
> ___/\__
> ||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
> ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
> _
>
>
>
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>
>
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Way OT

[Russell Kerstetter]

cool!

so far it seems like regina is the only town that gets two shows, so
that seems pretty good, especially considering the others towns like
Austin

russell

On 10/9/06, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For those of you in the big cities, this is probably a small thing, but
> Regina managed to persuade the Rolling Stones to play two shows here,
> one on Friday, the other last night.
> I went to last nights show.
> Heck of a good concert.
> No, I didn't try to smuggle a camera in.
>
> William Robb
>
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: The JCO survey

[David Savage]

At 12:01 AM 10/10/2006, Lon Williamson  wrote:
>On the offhand chance that Pentax peeks at this list,
>I propose the following question:
>
>How many people here would consider an aperature
>simulator permitting (for K,M, and all other lenses with
>aperature rings) CW metering, open aperature metering
>in manual and AV modes a _highly_ desirable feature on
>the K1D?
>
>Put my name as the first on the list.

I only own 1 pre "A" lens (M 50mm f1.7), and I don't use it on my D 
(because I also have the FA 50mm f1.4), however I do use it on my LX.

I'm indifferent to the idea, Pentax can put it on or leave it off. It 
doesn't bother me one way or the other.

Put me down as a "Eh, don't care".

Dave

(BTW, my highly desirable feature for any future "K1D" would be a full 
frame sensor, not some little lever thingy.) 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: PESO: Harvest Moon

[Russell Kerstetter]

> Nothing overly awesome

sure, but it's still nice to look at!

russell

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: The JCO survey

[Mishka]

for the last couple of weeks, there's been >150 successful auctions
for older lens over $50. that translates to about 4000/year. even if you
that meny of those buyers participated in multiple auctions, i think the figure
would still be of the order of a few thousands people/year. i also imagine that
not everyone is buying the lenses every year, so the numbers need to be summed
over a few years. all in all, i think 10K is a sensible rough
(pessimistic) estimate.

now, with monthly production rates of the order of 10-20K/months, that's
about 5..10% of annual sales (and with the digital lifespan, that may be 5-10%
of all sales). not a hell of a lot, but might be worth their while,
considering that
those sales will very likely be at "premium" prices.


On 10/9/06, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "J. C. O'Connell"
> Subject: RE: The JCO survey
>
>
> > The aperture cam sensor would not add $100 to the final price
> > IMHO. Look at anti-shake for example, its in a $500 camera
> > And its way more complex/expensive to implement than the
> > Super simple and dirt cheap cam sensor.
>
> What would it cost per camera?
> Please, cost per unit and what that wold trickle down to the consumer
> as?
> Include R&D and manufacturing costs as well.
> Then tell us how many projected sales would be gained for their doing it
> vs. the number of sales lost on price point.
>
> You seem to know things that the people who I talk to don't know.
> What are the numbers, John?
>
> William Robb
>
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT: joys and woes of new computer - couple of questions

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

Parking is what I'm looking for :)

ann

Original Message:
-
From: P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 19:31:31 -0400
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: OT: joys and woes of new computer - couple of questions


That's just it Ann, I don't use their home page, I roll my own pages.  
Mostly I'm just parking PESOs for now but I've used it for other things 
as well.

ilman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net


mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Re: PESO -- "Connecticut Zen V"; View from a Japanese Restaurant

[Russell Kerstetter]

I like the composition, the only 'nit' I have is the bit 'o' lamp on the right

> Background - not so Zen. More "western consumerist." :-)

maybe next time you should try asking all those people to "please move
your house, it's in my way.  thanks."

russell

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

RE: PESO: Truth

[Shel Belinkoff]

Excellent!  This is the best photo you've posted here.

Shel



> [Original Message]
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]

> Truth is always the first victim of war. 
>
> For Anna Politkovskaja:
>
> http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/mypics/770012/display/6884088



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Way OT

[Charles Robinson]

On Oct 9, 2006, at 9:25, William Robb wrote:
> No, I didn't try to smuggle a camera in.
>

Heh.

Last time I saw 'em, cameras were allowed!  :-)

  http://charles.robinsontwins.org/photogal/concerts/mick_j.jpg
  http://charles.robinsontwins.org/photogal/concerts/keith_r.jpg
  http://charles.robinsontwins.org/photogal/concerts/ron_kth.jpg

(although from the photos you might be able to see that this was a  
few years ago!)

The original Kodachrome-64 shots were much sharper than these crap  
scans.  Time to go back with a good scanner and do it right (The  
color ones are scans made from prints made from internegs made from  
slides - boo!)

  -Charles

--
Charles Robinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Minneapolis, MN
http://charles.robinsontwins.org



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: PESO -- "Connecticut Zen V"; View from a Japanese Restaurant

[Mat Maessen]

On 10/9/06, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.mindspring.com/~morephotos/PESO_--_connzen5.html

Foreground - very Zen.
Background - not so Zen. More "western consumerist." :-)

-Mat

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: The JCO survey

[Adam Maas]

Cory Papenfuss wrote:
>>> reach a bit farther than my 18-55 kit lens, but as for primes and fast
>>> glass, I prefer the cost/benefit ratio of older glass.
>> Yes, and that cost/benefit will rapidly diminish if Pentax brings back  
>> auto-exposure with old lenses.  You can't have it both ways!
>>
>   ?  Maybe I'm not getting it.  Are you saying that the price of 
> used MF glass will go up if it is supported better?  I suspect you're 
> probably correct, which can only help.
> 
>   To me it seems like the benefit of new lensed (through quality, 
> weight reduction, autofocus, focal length, etc) should stand for 
> themselves.  I thought that the benefits of a new product over an old were 
> supposed to do that... not be artificially depricated and lose 
> functionality.
> 
>   If I *needed* new AF glass, or a new item was produced with enough 
> quality differential to merit its purchase, I would jump right in.
> 
> -Cory

No, he's saying that Pentax will make more money if the K/M lenses 
aren't fully supported than if they are, as a larger percentage of 
people buying Pentax DSLR's will not be buying new lenses.

-Adam

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: PESO - spider from the window

[Charles Robinson]

On Oct 9, 2006, at 14:53, Cotty wrote:
>
> So, of course, the Scruples question is - was I right or wrong to
> interfere with reality?
>

Great story, Cotty.  My wife was amused, too, as I read it out loud  
to her.

That's a damned good question.  I'm torn on that one.  I completely  
understand wanting to set it up "the way it was just a minute ago"  
but unfortunately, that lady got in the way of your photogenic  
reality and turned it into something boring.

Myself - I'm not sure what I would consider "right" to do with that,  
although I 100% sympathize with what you did!
>
> BTW great shot of the web, it's lovely.

Thank you!  I'm thinking I want to see it larger but then all the  
blurriness on the edges stands out.  Hmmm.

  -Charles

--
Charles Robinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Minneapolis, MN
http://charles.robinsontwins.org



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: PESO -- "Connecticut Zen V"; View from a Japanese Restaurant

[Paul Stenquist]

Pretty scene. But I wish that magic hour sun was illuminating the  
opposite shore of the river.
Paul
On Oct 9, 2006, at 8:47 PM, Mat Maessen wrote:

> On 10/9/06, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> http://www.mindspring.com/~morephotos/PESO_--_connzen5.html
>
> Foreground - very Zen.
> Background - not so Zen. More "western consumerist." :-)
>
> -Mat
>
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: The JCO survey

[Mark Roberts]

Christian wrote:

>IF, and it's still an "if" at this point, a K1D is produced, I'll put 
my 
>hat on the line (Cotty!  Table for 2!) that it WILL NOT have the 
>aperture stimulator.  Pentax is done with this device 

*Everyone* knows that. What do you think all the pouting is about?


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: The JCO survey

[Mishka]

having more than one model would answer that concern.

of course assuming that their supply curve has some elasticity
(mark's point of 3 factories working 3 shifts to satisfy the current
demand)

bestm
mishka

On 10/9/06, John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I fail to see why this would be an attractive proposition for Pentax.
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: PESO: Truth

[Paul Stenquist]

Great shot. Very powerful.
Paul
On Oct 9, 2006, at 8:34 PM, Ralf R. Radermacher wrote:

> Truth is always the first victim of war.
>
> For Anna Politkovskaja:
>
> http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/mypics/770012/display/6884088
>
> http://www.rsf.org
>
> -- 
> Ralf R. Radermacher  -  DL9KCG  -  Köln/Cologne, Germany
> private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
> manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005
> Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses
>
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

RE: PESO: Truth

[Tom C]

Good shot! Powerful image.


Tom C.
Truth is always the first victim of war.

For Anna Politkovskaja:

http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/mypics/770012/display/6884088

http://www.rsf.org

--
Ralf R. Radermacher  -  DL9KCG  -  Köln/Cologne, Germany



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

PESO: Truth

[Ralf R. Radermacher]

Truth is always the first victim of war. 

For Anna Politkovskaja:

http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/mypics/770012/display/6884088

http://www.rsf.org

-- 
Ralf R. Radermacher  -  DL9KCG  -  Köln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: The JCO survey

[Cory Papenfuss]

> > reach a bit farther than my 18-55 kit lens, but as for primes and fast
> > glass, I prefer the cost/benefit ratio of older glass.
> 
> Yes, and that cost/benefit will rapidly diminish if Pentax brings back  
> auto-exposure with old lenses.  You can't have it both ways!
> 
?  Maybe I'm not getting it.  Are you saying that the price of 
used MF glass will go up if it is supported better?  I suspect you're 
probably correct, which can only help.

To me it seems like the benefit of new lensed (through quality, 
weight reduction, autofocus, focal length, etc) should stand for 
themselves.  I thought that the benefits of a new product over an old were 
supposed to do that... not be artificially depricated and lose 
functionality.

If I *needed* new AF glass, or a new item was produced with enough 
quality differential to merit its purchase, I would jump right in.

-Cory

*
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA   *
* Electrical Engineering*
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University   *
*


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: PESO: Harvest Moon

[Shel Belinkoff]

I wracked my brain on that, and I couldn't recall you ever saying that. 
You've come close, I know that, and you ripped me a new aperture with a
caustic comment about one of my pics, but I couldn't recall you using the
word crap specifically.  There's only one person here that I now recall 
for sure who has called someone's photo crap, but on one at least one level
I discount most anything he says.

Shel



> [Original Message]
> From: William Robb

> - Original Message - 
> From: "Shel Belinkoff"
> Subject: Re: PESO: Harvest Moon
>
>
> > Did _anyone_ say John's photo was crap?  Did anyone say 
> > anyone's photo was crap?
>
> I've called a few peoples photos crap



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: PESO: Harvest Moon

[Christian]

William Robb wrote:
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Shel Belinkoff"
> Subject: Re: PESO: Harvest Moon
> 
> 
> 
>>Did _anyone_ say John's photo was crap?  Did anyone say anyone's photo 
>>was
>>crap?
> 
> 
> I've called a few peoples photos crap
> 
> William Robb 

Rightfully so ;-)

-- 

Christian
http://photography.skofteland.net

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: The JCO survey

[Mark Roberts]

P. J. Alling wrote:

>I'm sorry, but how the hell do you have sales figures on a product
> that doesn't exist? 

??? The two products I mentioned specifically were the K100D, for which 
demand is exceeding production capacity, and the K10D which is 
generating sales deposits (including mine) even before it is on the 
shelves.

The success of these, and earlier Pentax DSLR's, indicates that the 
lack of the aperture simulator isn't costing them sufficient sales to 
be concerned about.



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Decisions decisisons

[Adam Maas]

William Robb wrote:
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Vic MacBournie"
> Subject: Decisions decisisons
> 
> 
>> Okay I know this has been discussed in detail here many times over but
>> I am having a hard time trying to decide whether to sell some, if not
>> all, of my film cameras. My dillemma is that I love my film cameras
>> more than the digital but I use the digital almost exclusively. I will
>> sometimes carry my film cameras out on a shoot but not use them or at
>> least use them very rarely.
>> I have two very nice LX with winders and accessories and an MZS with
>> winder.
>> I also have the istd which certainly gets the most use.
>> My question is to those who have recently made this decision. It is
>> worth itin the end? Do you regret selling the film cameras. What are
>> the pros and cons.
>> In the end I will probably just sell the one LX but I could be
>> convinced to sell it all...
>> The other part of the dillemma is that I have a lot of K,M and A 
>> lenses
>> that really deserve an LX
>> Your viewsplease
> 
> My view is that film is pretty much a dead parrot. Film cameras have 
> lost their desirablity to users, since they are no longer using film.
> Without looking at what things are going for in the auctions, I somehow 
> doubt that an LX or MZ-S are going to fetch enough money to make the 
> vendor feel anything but ripped.
> 
> William Robb 
> 

Having looked at pricing on those, they're about the only Pentax 35mm 
bodies that have any value, still going for $400+ on fleaBay.

Anything else you might as well keep.

-Adam


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Decisions decisisons

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Vic MacBournie"
Subject: Decisions decisisons


> Okay I know this has been discussed in detail here many times over but
> I am having a hard time trying to decide whether to sell some, if not
> all, of my film cameras. My dillemma is that I love my film cameras
> more than the digital but I use the digital almost exclusively. I will
> sometimes carry my film cameras out on a shoot but not use them or at
> least use them very rarely.
> I have two very nice LX with winders and accessories and an MZS with
> winder.
> I also have the istd which certainly gets the most use.
> My question is to those who have recently made this decision. It is
> worth itin the end? Do you regret selling the film cameras. What are
> the pros and cons.
> In the end I will probably just sell the one LX but I could be
> convinced to sell it all...
> The other part of the dillemma is that I have a lot of K,M and A 
> lenses
> that really deserve an LX
> Your viewsplease

My view is that film is pretty much a dead parrot. Film cameras have 
lost their desirablity to users, since they are no longer using film.
Without looking at what things are going for in the auctions, I somehow 
doubt that an LX or MZ-S are going to fetch enough money to make the 
vendor feel anything but ripped.

William Robb 



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: PESO: Harvest Moon

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Shel Belinkoff"
Subject: Re: PESO: Harvest Moon


> Did _anyone_ say John's photo was crap?  Did anyone say anyone's photo 
> was
> crap?

I've called a few peoples photos crap

William Robb 



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: The JCO survey

[Christian]

Lon Williamson wrote:
> Paul, according to stuff we've all read recently, the K1D should exceed 
> the K10D.
> The 10D is hi-amateur (whatever that means) and the 1D is pro.  Hell, 
> I'm thinking
> LX + 10D.BTW, I'm  collecting respones to the JCO survey and intend to
> bring the results to Pentax's attention..  I'm gonna ask all the folks 
> who vote "yea"
> to list their old glass and why they still want to use it.

God I love this list  The K10D isn't even in the stores yet and you 
guys are speculating about the "K1D."  "according to stuff we've all 
read recently, the K1D should exceed the k10D."  Yeah, ok.

IF, and it's still an "if" at this point, a K1D is produced, I'll put my 
hat on the line (Cotty!  Table for 2!) that it WILL NOT have the 
aperture stimulator.  Pentax is done with this device  Hello!  The 
only aperture stimulation at Pentax is via their endoscopes.

-- 

Christian
http://photography.skofteland.net

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: The JCO survey

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: RE: The JCO survey


> The aperture cam sensor would not add $100 to the final price
> IMHO. Look at anti-shake for example, its in a $500 camera
> And its way more complex/expensive to implement than the
> Super simple and dirt cheap cam sensor.

What would it cost per camera?
Please, cost per unit and what that wold trickle down to the consumer 
as?
Include R&D and manufacturing costs as well.
Then tell us how many projected sales would be gained for their doing it 
vs. the number of sales lost on price point.

You seem to know things that the people who I talk to don't know.
What are the numbers, John?

William Robb 



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: GESO: Speaking of Ducks (Gang Rape)

[Christian]

Tim, the title is "Gang Rape."  Rape is the act of forced sex on a 
victim.  The only way to describe what male mallards do to females 
during breeding season is gang rape.  Trust me, I've watched it over and 
over again, the females are not a willing participant.   When a group of 
young males goes after a female the females try very, very hard to get 
away.  What else would you call it?  Biologists call it rape.

Really, Jens was not trying to "glorify" rape in any way.  He gave the 
picture a fitting, descriptive title.

You need to let go of your political correctness :-)

-- 

Christian
http://photography.skofteland.net

Tim Øsleby wrote:
> It is obvious that I'm not able to communicate my point in English. 
> I hereby rest my case :-(
> 
> 
> Tim
> Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian)
>  
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam
> Maas
> Sent: 10. oktober 2006 01:12
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: GESO: Speaking of Ducks (Gang Rape)
> 
> Tim,
> 
> Because the title is the only way to accurately describe the situation. 
> Natural selection is often rather nasty (If you think this is bad, go 
> read about Orca breeding patterns. They're nasty, and with beings far 
> closer to sentience than a Mallard).
> 
> -Adam
> 
> 
> Tim Øsleby wrote:
> 
>>I have no problem with the pictures or the photographed phenomena itself.
>>It's simply nature, nothing wrong about nature. It's the title I have
>>trouble with. 
>>Nature is ugly, yes. But it's not filthy. The title turns the natural
>>selection into something filthy IMO. 
>>
>>>From a feministic point of view this submission normalises gang rape. I
>>don't think that's Jens intention. 
>>
>>I'd better stop now. This makes me look like a softie ;-)


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

RE: GESO: Speaking of Ducks (Gang Rape)

[Tim Øsleby]

It is obvious that I'm not able to communicate my point in English. 
I hereby rest my case :-(


Tim
Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian)
 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam
Maas
Sent: 10. oktober 2006 01:12
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: GESO: Speaking of Ducks (Gang Rape)

Tim,

Because the title is the only way to accurately describe the situation. 
Natural selection is often rather nasty (If you think this is bad, go 
read about Orca breeding patterns. They're nasty, and with beings far 
closer to sentience than a Mallard).

-Adam


Tim Øsleby wrote:
> I have no problem with the pictures or the photographed phenomena itself.
> It's simply nature, nothing wrong about nature. It's the title I have
> trouble with. 
> Nature is ugly, yes. But it's not filthy. The title turns the natural
> selection into something filthy IMO. 
> 
>>From a feministic point of view this submission normalises gang rape. I
> don't think that's Jens intention. 
> 
> I'd better stop now. This makes me look like a softie ;-)
> 
> 
> Tim
> Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian)
>  
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of P.
> J. Alling
> Sent: 10. oktober 2006 00:45
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: GESO: Speaking of Ducks (Gang Rape)
> 
> Survival of the fittest is often ugly.
> 
> Tim Øsleby wrote:
> 
>> The pictures are ok. 
>> But Jens, I dislike the title. Is it a joke? I can assure you, there is
>> nothing funny about a gang rape. 
>>
>> If it isn’t a joke. Why turn natural selection into something ugly? 
>>
>>
>> Tim
>> Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian)
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Jens
>> Bladt
>> Sent: 9. oktober 2006 19:39
>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> Subject: GESO: Speaking of Ducks (Gang Rape)
>>
>> Gang rape - that's what this is!
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/sets/72157594320086680/
>>
>> (sorry if I posted this before)
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Jens Bladt
>> http://www.jensbladt.dk
>> +45 56 63 77 11
>> +45 23 43 85 77
>> Skype: jensbladt248
>>
>> -Oprindelig meddelelse-
>> Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sendt: 9. oktober 2006 19:16
>> Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> Emne: Re: PESO: Duck!
>>
>>
>>
>> -- Original message --
>> From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>  
>>
>>> You should have tried their native tongue.
>>>
>>>
>> I once tried it in a Chinese restaurant. It was somewhat tough and
sinewy.
>> Not a lot unlike chicken tongue.
>>
>>  
>>
>>> Paul Stenquist wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
 I told them where I wanted them to stand, but they acted like they
 didn't eve hear me:-).
 On Oct 9, 2006, at 4:11 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:



  

> It might have been a better pic had you been able to get a shot that
> showed
> a pattern amongst the ducks.  As it is, it's just a nice snap of a
> group of
> ducks
>
> Shel
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Paul Stenquist wrote:
>>
>> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5051185&size=lg
>>
>>
>>  
>>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>
>
>
>
>

  

>>> --
>>> Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler.
>>>
>>> --Albert Einstein
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>>> PDML@pdml.net
>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> PDML@pdml.net
>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.13.1/466 - Release Date:
10/07/2006
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.13.1/466 - Release Date:
10/07/2006
>>
>>
>>  
>>
> 
> 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: PESO: Harvest Moon

[Shel Belinkoff]

Did _anyone_ say John's photo was crap?  Did anyone say anyone's photo was
crap?

Shel



> [Original Message]
> From: Kenneth Waller 

> I've atended a fair number of student slide 
> critiques presented by outdoor professionals.
> For the most part the pros tried to point out a 
> flaw in the image that could be improved 
> & move that image to a higher level.
> On several occasions the working pro couldn't 
> suggest anything and ghenerally acknowledged
>  that by saying so.
>
> Very seldom did they say an image was crap, 
> unless they knew the owner well.
>
> Kenneth Waller
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> >From: William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: Re: PESO: Harvest Moon
> >
> >
> >- Original Message - 
> >From: "Bob Sullivan"
> >Subject: Re: PESO: Harvest Moon
> >
> >
> >> Shel,
> >>
> >> What a stuck-up bunch of elitists we must look like.  Put a picture up
> >> and we'll tell you where your are failing.  Is that why we have
> >> PESO's?  So we can frighten people off?  What lurker is gonna put
> >> something out in this friendly forum?
> >>
> >> I know you know John personally and perhaps he feels comfortable with
> >> your critique.  Funny, but I would of thought he wouldn't have
> >> bothered to post the picture if he thought it was so common that it
> >> would be immediately panned.
> >>
> >> This is what I imagine the Leica list is like.  Post your picture and
> >> we will tell you why it isn't good enough.  Wow, I wish we were the
> >> old Pentax list where folks tried to give constructive criticism and
> >> friendly advice.  I don't feel that spirit in your comments.
> >
> >Respectfully, I disagree,
> >I have had my share of offlist abuse tossed at me because I practice 
> >disagreement.
> >
> >For the most part, pictures posted to the list are greeted with oohs and 
> >aahs.
> >
> >"Much nicer than any moon pic I have ever shot."
> >"Intriguing, dramatic. Excellent work IMO."
> >"Nice shot and an especially good conversion to BW..."
> >
> >With the occassional constructive critisism:
> >
> >"Wow, I was expecting to see a lot more web and a lot less spider.  Not
> >> too bad with the circumstances.  Handholding with that a short of DOF
> >> is quite difficult.
> >> Nice work"
> >
> >That stops just short of a circle jerk.
> >
> >This is just not healthy.
> >My mother taught me that if I had nothing nice to say, then say nothing.
> >Is that what is expected?
> >How can a person learn if they don't get told what they are doing wrong 
> >by their peers?
> >If a picture is sophomoric crap, then someone should point this out.
> >If a person's work is developing a boring sameness, they should be told 
> >they are developing a genre unto themselves, to perhaps snap them out of 
> >the rut they are getting into.
> >If a picture is technically perfect, but esthetically boring, should 
> >that go unstated?
> >
> >If you put a picture out there, and solicit comments, then take the good 
> >with the bad.
> >It's not just about pleasing oneself, and just because oneself is 
> >pleased with a picture doesn't automatically make it a good picture.
> >
> >Shooting broadsides at a picture may be unkind, shooting broadsides at 
> >someone who had made an honest effort to critique a photo, whether or 
> >not the critique is nice, is unfair.



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: The JCO survey

[graywolf]

How can something they put in $100 cameras cost $300?

-- 
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---


John Francis wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 04:05:37PM -0400, Cory Papenfuss wrote:
>>> I would save _much_ more than $100 in unbought lenses.  (Which I'm not 
>>> going to buy anyway, Pentax, in case you are listening)  So it's worth 
>>> much more than that to me.  Count me in.
>>>
>>  Well-said.  I also have no intention of buying new lenses.  At 
>> least not high-quality ones.  I may buy a cheapie AF megazoom that can 
>> reach a bit farther than my 18-55 kit lens, but as for primes and fast 
>> glass, I prefer the cost/benefit ratio of older glass.
>>
>> -Cory
> 
> So, if Pentax were to re-introduce the aperture simulator, they might
> sell a few more bodies to people like you.  On the other hand, though,
> they'll probably lose sales to people who are deterred by the extra
> cost (even $100 on a $1500 camera is noticeable, let alone the $300
> that has been suggested here).  And those sales they lose are more
> likely to be potential purchasers of new lenses; you, and the others
> like you, are want the aperture simulator precisely because you have
> no intention of buying new lenses.
> 
> I fail to see why this would be an attractive proposition for Pentax.
> 
> 

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: The JCO survey

[Lon Williamson]

Paul, according to stuff we've all read recently, the K1D should exceed 
the K10D.
The 10D is hi-amateur (whatever that means) and the 1D is pro.  Hell, 
I'm thinking
LX + 10D.BTW, I'm  collecting respones to the JCO survey and intend to
bring the results to Pentax's attention..  I'm gonna ask all the folks 
who vote "yea"
to list their old glass and why they still want to use it.

Yrs Truly,   Lon

Paul Stenquist wrote,  in part:

> Hell yes,  
>I'd like the simulator. But I'd rather see Pentax continue to  
>introduce new glass. And they'll only do that if there is sales  
>potential.
>  
>

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Decisions decisisons

[Joseph Tainter]

Okay I know this has been discussed in detail here many times over but
I am having a hard time trying to decide whether to sell some, if not
all, of my film cameras.

-

I thought perhaps I might try to salvage a few dollars out of one of my 
two PZ-1p bodies. So I went to KEH's web site to see what they might 
offer. KEH no longer lists it as a camera they will buy. It doesn't 
matter much. The camera, while excellent condition-wise, would probably 
have brought not much more than $125-$150, and I don't really want to 
part with either of them.

Joe

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: The JCO survey

[P. J. Alling]

There will always be sales potential for good new glass. While if given 
a choce between the 77mm ltd or the 70mm ltd I would choose the former, 
the new 21mm ltd certianly has me salivating, the new 10-17mm fisheye or 
the 12-24mm is certianly on my list, even though I can't afford any of 
them at the moment.  A lot of buyers won't want the K/M glass because 
they don't autofocus, don't support program mode or Tv mode.  Pentax 
didn't have to cripple them further.  On the other hand it allows those 
who would like to have a good long lens, say a 300mm f4.0 as an 
affordable choice beyond the third party super zoom of dubious quality.  
A choice which hardly helps Pentax's bottom line.  It also helps keep 
Pentax's best unpaid sales force, their current user base,  happy.

Paul Stenquist wrote:

>Well put, John. I don't know why this isn't obvious to all. Hell yes,  
>I'd like the simulator. But I'd rather see Pentax continue to  
>introduce new glass. And they'll only do that if there is sales  
>potential.
>Paul
>On Oct 9, 2006, at 5:53 PM, John Francis wrote:
>
>  
>
>>On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 04:05:37PM -0400, Cory Papenfuss wrote:
>>
>>
I would save _much_ more than $100 in unbought lenses.  (Which  
I'm not
going to buy anyway, Pentax, in case you are listening)  So it's  
worth
much more than that to me.  Count me in.



>>> Well-said.  I also have no intention of buying new lenses.  At
>>>least not high-quality ones.  I may buy a cheapie AF megazoom that  
>>>can
>>>reach a bit farther than my 18-55 kit lens, but as for primes and  
>>>fast
>>>glass, I prefer the cost/benefit ratio of older glass.
>>>
>>>-Cory
>>>  
>>>
>>So, if Pentax were to re-introduce the aperture simulator, they might
>>sell a few more bodies to people like you.  On the other hand, though,
>>they'll probably lose sales to people who are deterred by the extra
>>cost (even $100 on a $1500 camera is noticeable, let alone the $300
>>that has been suggested here).  And those sales they lose are more
>>likely to be potential purchasers of new lenses; you, and the others
>>like you, are want the aperture simulator precisely because you have
>>no intention of buying new lenses.
>>
>>I fail to see why this would be an attractive proposition for Pentax.
>>
>>
>>-- 
>>PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>>PDML@pdml.net
>>http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>>
>>
>
>
>  
>


-- 
Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler.

--Albert Einstein



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

PESO -- "Connecticut Zen V"; View from a Japanese Restaurant

[P. J. Alling]

Yes in spite of popular demand another Connecticut Zen image, but this 
time in Color!

http://www.mindspring.com/~morephotos/PESO_--_connzen5.html

Technical Data:

Pentax *ist-Ds ISO 200 @ 1/125sec (M)
smc Pentax FA 43mm f1.9 Limited @ f7.1
-- 

Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler.

--Albert Einstein



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

RE: The JCO survey

[J. C. O'Connell]

The aperture cam sensor would not add $100 to the final price
IMHO. Look at anti-shake for example, its in a $500 camera
And its way more complex/expensive to implement than the 
Super simple and dirt cheap cam sensor.
jco

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
John Francis
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 5:54 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: The JCO survey

On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 04:05:37PM -0400, Cory Papenfuss wrote:
> > I would save _much_ more than $100 in unbought lenses.  (Which I'm
not 
> > going to buy anyway, Pentax, in case you are listening)  So it's
worth 
> > much more than that to me.  Count me in.
> > 
>   Well-said.  I also have no intention of buying new lenses.  At 
> least not high-quality ones.  I may buy a cheapie AF megazoom that can

> reach a bit farther than my 18-55 kit lens, but as for primes and fast

> glass, I prefer the cost/benefit ratio of older glass.
> 
> -Cory

So, if Pentax were to re-introduce the aperture simulator, they might
sell a few more bodies to people like you.  On the other hand, though,
they'll probably lose sales to people who are deterred by the extra
cost (even $100 on a $1500 camera is noticeable, let alone the $300
that has been suggested here).  And those sales they lose are more
likely to be potential purchasers of new lenses; you, and the others
like you, are want the aperture simulator precisely because you have
no intention of buying new lenses.

I fail to see why this would be an attractive proposition for Pentax.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: The JCO survey

[Paul Stenquist]

I agree that the K lenses have a great feel. Perhaps only the SMC  
Takumars with the metal focus ring feel better. But the A lenses, by  
and large, take better pictures. The FA and DA lenses are better  
still. I expect the DA* lenses to be the best ever produced by  
Pentax. I'm not a fondler. I'm a photographer. A great lens feel is  
nice, but a superb rendering is better.
Paul
On Oct 9, 2006, at 4:34 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote:

> Compared to the "K" series and to a lesser extent
> The "M" series, the build quality and focus "feel"
> Of the "A" lenses are dog doo doo. This is based
> On years of experience with both. The "K" lenses
> In particular are outstanding MF lenses in terms
> Of the focus mechanisms. Things went downhill with
> The M's a little and much worse with the "A"s in
> That regard specifically.
> jco
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On  
> Behalf Of
> Cotty
> Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 4:07 PM
> To: pentax list
> Subject: Re: The JCO survey
>
> On 9/10/06, J. C. O'Connell, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
>> Any how many customer will simply just jump ship
>> On Pentax completely? If I have to buy all new
>> Lenses I will go Canon EF. Much better system
>> To start from scratch on.
>
> That I can understand.
>
>
>
>> Problem is I don't
>> Want AF from anybody, I want MF with my K/M
>> Lenses,
>
> That I have a bit of trouble with but I'll grant you that.
>
>
>
>
>> I don't even like the "A"s.
>
> But that's the line in the sand. You're a complete and utter nutcase.
> Mad as March hare.
>
>
> Completely potty.
>
>
> -- 
>
>
> Cheers,
>   Cotty
>
>
> ___/\__
> ||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
> ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
> _
>
>
>
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>
>
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: k10d and manual-aperture lenses?

[Gonz]

Well, this solves your problem then.  Your main complaint was about 
changing lighting.  Changing the aperture your going to be changing the 
DOF, how often do you need to do that FAST?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I didn't read you message fully, yes you could
> Compensate for changes in lighting but in order
> To compensate for changes is aperture setting
> You would need to re-stop-down meter over and over.
> Re-Implementing the PK/PKM aperture sensing solves everything
> And fully open aperture to boot. Its dirt cheap to add but
> Very valuable (to me at least). 
> jco
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Juan Buhler
> Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2006 2:00 PM
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: RE: Re: k10d and manual-aperture lenses?
> 
> Wrong. The camera has metered closing down when you pressed the
> button, and can meter at open aperture at all times. All the software
> has to do is add the relative change of exposure to the one it has
> stored.
> 
> j
> 
> On 10/8/06, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
>>Its impossible to achive in software because there
>>Is no way for the camera to know what aperture setting
>>Is other than to stop down which is one shot, not continous
>>AE.
>>jco
>>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
> 
> Of
> 
>>Juan Buhler
>>Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2006 1:18 PM
>>To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>>Subject: Re: Re: k10d and manual-aperture lenses?
>>
>>I know it is a dead horse, but I think it was killed in the wrong way.
>>
>>The mechanical coupler is gone for good, and there's no reason for
>>Pentax to reimplement it.
>>
>>But a better solution could be achieved with software. I'd like to
>>have, besides the green button behavior in M mode, a similar behavior
>>in P: press the green button to get correct exposure. When the light
>>changes, the camera modifies the shutter speed it had selected. If you
>>move the aperture ring you're on your own.
>>
>>This would be a trivial firmware update, and would add a totally new
>>mode for pre-A lenses.
>>
>>j
>>
>>
>>On 10/8/06, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>William Robb wrote:
>>>
- Original Message -
From: "Adam Maas"
Subject: Re: k10d and manual-aperture lenses?



>In practice, the 'Green Button'/AE-lock hack on the DSLR's is
>>
>>simple
>>
>and
>easy to use. You always set aperture on the lens for non-A
> 
> lenses,
> 
>>and
>>
>either hit the AE-Lock (Green Button on D/K10D) and it
> 
> immediately
> 
>sets
>an appropriate shutter speed or you use the DoF preview to get a
>metering readout. I usually do the former and it works very well.
>
>Av mode is usable with adaptor-mounted glass (since that is
>>
>>stop-down
>>
>on
>any K mount body and doesn't have the aperture coupling either)
> 
> or
> 
>wide-open with pre-A glass. The latter is surprisingly useful for
> 
> a
> 
>serious low-light shooter like me.
>
>Frankly working with MF glass on the K100D is less hassle than
>>
>>using
>>
>the
>same glass on my MX (Or any other purely manual body).

You do have to keep an eye on things, since it is possible to run
>>
>>the
>>
meter out of range pretty quickly. It's a good idea to have a clue
>>
>>about
>>
what the shutter speed should be with the aperture chosen.

William Robb

>>>
>>>Agreed.
>>>
>>>Frankly, if you're going to use old glass, you should know what
> 
> you're
> 
>>>doing with regards to exposure and be paying attention. Of course,
>>>that's a useful skill even shooting within the metering range with A
>>
>>and
>>
>>>later glass.
>>>
>>>Note I successfully shot for quite a while with the D50 and AI-era
>>>glass, which utterly lacks metering of any sort. And after the first
>>>week or two I was shooting 1-2 test shots for each lighting
> 
> condition
> 
>>>and leaving it at that. It's a good way to learn to expose (So is
>>>shooting RVP50 in a TLR with no meter and only an exposure
> 
> calculator)
> 
>>>-Adam
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>>>PDML@pdml.net
>>>http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>Juan Buhler - http://www.jbuhler.com
>>photoblog: http://photoblog.jbuhler.com
>>a book: http://www.jbuhler.com/book.html
>>
>>--
>>PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>>PDML@pdml.net
>>http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>>
>>
>>--
>>PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>>PDML@pdml.net
>>http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>>
> 
> 
> 

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT: joys and woes of new computer - couple of questions

[P. J. Alling]

That's just it Ann, I don't use their home page, I roll my own pages.  
Mostly I'm just parking PESOs for now but I've used it for other things 
as well.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>Peter, I'm not on earthlink - except for a couple of days -
>(long story) I signed up for road runner and Time warner then told me
>their "special" was through earthlink -- I said I wanted nothing to do with
>them - I'll be on road runner on Friday
>
>IF they give me a home page that has no ads on it that will work.
>But I really want a place that is not "out there" where I can store
>individual images that I can link to for my ebay things and is otherwise
>hidden.  That is why I only need about 10 mgs.
>
>I don't mind the ebay picture service except the display is too small. 
>Ok for some things - but to have to pay 75 cents to put up a large
>photo is really annoying.  I guess it is ok if you are selling soemthin
>glike a car
>or a house but not the kind of stuff I put up.
>
>sigh.
>
>ann
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Original Message:
>-
>From: P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 14:07:16 -0400
>To: pdml@pdml.net
>Subject: Re: OT: joys and woes of new computer - couple of questions
>
>
>Ann, earthlink gives you 80 meg of web space for free, to get to it you 
>just FTP to www.earthlink.net using your email address and email 
>password to attach.  That's good for 10mb.  Each additional 10mb needs 
>an e-mail account to be created, but that's relatively easy.  Most 
>people probably don't need more than 10mb anyway. 
>
>All the profile is, is a translation from the values output by your 
>digital camera to the display output.  You need to have a seperate 
>profile for your printer and for the screen.  I really can't help you 
>more than that.  My system barely allows any profiling at all. 
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>  
>
>>did a bad thing --
>>I calibrated my monitor using the custom settings and saved it as Adobe
>>1998 :(
>>Now I'm getting confused --
>>
>>For the stock stuff and stuff I want to print, I want the 1998 RGB adobe
>>settings
>>which I have in my camera.
>>
>>Im comfused about what is regulating the screen as opposed to what is
>>regulating what i
>>
>>get when I print.  
>>
>>I stumbled around getting the screen to look right to me, comparing it to
>>the screen
>>on my old computer that is sitting next to this one. 
>>
>>another thing - if anyone is using  the Microsoft Works word processor (it
>>came installed
>>and Word would have cost me) I can't find where to set the default font and
>>size, nor can
>>I get the stuff I'm typing to fill up the entire screen, as in WORD.  
>>
>>also, if anyone has a corner of a server I could use to store the images I
>>put up
>>on ebay - at elast for a while - I'd appreciate it.  Using the ebay picture
>>thing the
>>pics are much smaller than mine but I'd like not to have to use rcn anymore
>>for that
>>stuff.
>>
>>right now I'm hooked up on earthlink just as a connector - will be on RR on
>>Friday.
>>
>>I do like the speed of the cable connection and it was certainly 10 times
>>as fast getting stuff on ebay.
>>
>>I've hardly read anything on this list or my other ones during this time of
>>turmoil
>>but I havent' unsubbed -
>>I'll be back eventually :)
>>
>>ann
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>mail2web - Check your email from the web at
>>http://mail2web.com/ .
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>  
>


-- 
Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler.

--Albert Einstein



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: GESO: Speaking of Ducks (Gang Rape)

[Adam Maas]

Tim,

Because the title is the only way to accurately describe the situation. 
Natural selection is often rather nasty (If you think this is bad, go 
read about Orca breeding patterns. They're nasty, and with beings far 
closer to sentience than a Mallard).

-Adam


Tim Øsleby wrote:
> I have no problem with the pictures or the photographed phenomena itself.
> It's simply nature, nothing wrong about nature. It's the title I have
> trouble with. 
> Nature is ugly, yes. But it's not filthy. The title turns the natural
> selection into something filthy IMO. 
> 
>>From a feministic point of view this submission normalises gang rape. I
> don't think that's Jens intention. 
> 
> I'd better stop now. This makes me look like a softie ;-)
> 
> 
> Tim
> Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian)
>  
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of P.
> J. Alling
> Sent: 10. oktober 2006 00:45
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: GESO: Speaking of Ducks (Gang Rape)
> 
> Survival of the fittest is often ugly.
> 
> Tim Øsleby wrote:
> 
>> The pictures are ok. 
>> But Jens, I dislike the title. Is it a joke? I can assure you, there is
>> nothing funny about a gang rape. 
>>
>> If it isn’t a joke. Why turn natural selection into something ugly? 
>>
>>
>> Tim
>> Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian)
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Jens
>> Bladt
>> Sent: 9. oktober 2006 19:39
>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> Subject: GESO: Speaking of Ducks (Gang Rape)
>>
>> Gang rape - that's what this is!
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/sets/72157594320086680/
>>
>> (sorry if I posted this before)
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Jens Bladt
>> http://www.jensbladt.dk
>> +45 56 63 77 11
>> +45 23 43 85 77
>> Skype: jensbladt248
>>
>> -Oprindelig meddelelse-
>> Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sendt: 9. oktober 2006 19:16
>> Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> Emne: Re: PESO: Duck!
>>
>>
>>
>> -- Original message --
>> From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>  
>>
>>> You should have tried their native tongue.
>>>
>>>
>> I once tried it in a Chinese restaurant. It was somewhat tough and sinewy.
>> Not a lot unlike chicken tongue.
>>
>>  
>>
>>> Paul Stenquist wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
 I told them where I wanted them to stand, but they acted like they
 didn't eve hear me:-).
 On Oct 9, 2006, at 4:11 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:



  

> It might have been a better pic had you been able to get a shot that
> showed
> a pattern amongst the ducks.  As it is, it's just a nice snap of a
> group of
> ducks
>
> Shel
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Paul Stenquist wrote:
>>
>> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5051185&size=lg
>>
>>
>>  
>>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>
>
>
>
>

  

>>> --
>>> Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler.
>>>
>>> --Albert Einstein
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>>> PDML@pdml.net
>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> PDML@pdml.net
>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.13.1/466 - Release Date: 10/07/2006
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.13.1/466 - Release Date: 10/07/2006
>>
>>
>>  
>>
> 
> 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: PESO: Harvest Moon

[Kenneth Waller]

I've atended a fair number of student slide critiques presented by outdoor 
professionals.
For the most part the pros tried to point out a flaw in the image that could be 
improved & move that image to a higher level.
On several occasions the working pro couldn't suggest anything and ghenerally 
acknowledged that by saying so.

Very seldom did they say an image was crap, unless they knew the owner well.

Kenneth Waller



-Original Message-
>From: William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: PESO: Harvest Moon
>
>
>- Original Message - 
>From: "Bob Sullivan"
>Subject: Re: PESO: Harvest Moon
>
>
>> Shel,
>>
>> What a stuck-up bunch of elitists we must look like.  Put a picture up
>> and we'll tell you where your are failing.  Is that why we have
>> PESO's?  So we can frighten people off?  What lurker is gonna put
>> something out in this friendly forum?
>>
>> I know you know John personally and perhaps he feels comfortable with
>> your critique.  Funny, but I would of thought he wouldn't have
>> bothered to post the picture if he thought it was so common that it
>> would be immediately panned.
>>
>> This is what I imagine the Leica list is like.  Post your picture and
>> we will tell you why it isn't good enough.  Wow, I wish we were the
>> old Pentax list where folks tried to give constructive criticism and
>> friendly advice.  I don't feel that spirit in your comments.
>
>Respectfully, I disagree,
>I have had my share of offlist abuse tossed at me because I practice 
>disagreement.
>
>For the most part, pictures posted to the list are greeted with oohs and 
>aahs.
>
>"Much nicer than any moon pic I have ever shot."
>"Intriguing, dramatic. Excellent work IMO."
>"Nice shot and an especially good conversion to BW..."
>
>With the occassional constructive critisism:
>
>"Wow, I was expecting to see a lot more web and a lot less spider.  Not
>> too bad with the circumstances.  Handholding with that a short of DOF
>> is quite difficult.
>> Nice work"
>
>That stops just short of a circle jerk.
>
>This is just not healthy.
>My mother taught me that if I had nothing nice to say, then say nothing.
>Is that what is expected?
>How can a person learn if they don't get told what they are doing wrong 
>by their peers?
>If a picture is sophomoric crap, then someone should point this out.
>If a person's work is developing a boring sameness, they should be told 
>they are developing a genre unto themselves, to perhaps snap them out of 
>the rut they are getting into.
>If a picture is technically perfect, but esthetically boring, should 
>that go unstated?
>
>If you put a picture out there, and solicit comments, then take the good 
>with the bad.
>It's not just about pleasing oneself, and just because oneself is 
>pleased with a picture doesn't automatically make it a good picture.
>
>Shooting broadsides at a picture may be unkind, shooting broadsides at 
>someone who had made an honest effort to critique a photo, whether or 
>not the critique is nice, is unfair.
>
>William Robb
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-- 
>PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>PDML@pdml.net
>http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net



PeoplePC Online
A better way to Internet
http://www.peoplepc.com

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: The JCO survey

[Paul Stenquist]

Well put, John. I don't know why this isn't obvious to all. Hell yes,  
I'd like the simulator. But I'd rather see Pentax continue to  
introduce new glass. And they'll only do that if there is sales  
potential.
Paul
On Oct 9, 2006, at 5:53 PM, John Francis wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 04:05:37PM -0400, Cory Papenfuss wrote:
>>> I would save _much_ more than $100 in unbought lenses.  (Which  
>>> I'm not
>>> going to buy anyway, Pentax, in case you are listening)  So it's  
>>> worth
>>> much more than that to me.  Count me in.
>>>
>>  Well-said.  I also have no intention of buying new lenses.  At
>> least not high-quality ones.  I may buy a cheapie AF megazoom that  
>> can
>> reach a bit farther than my 18-55 kit lens, but as for primes and  
>> fast
>> glass, I prefer the cost/benefit ratio of older glass.
>>
>> -Cory
>
> So, if Pentax were to re-introduce the aperture simulator, they might
> sell a few more bodies to people like you.  On the other hand, though,
> they'll probably lose sales to people who are deterred by the extra
> cost (even $100 on a $1500 camera is noticeable, let alone the $300
> that has been suggested here).  And those sales they lose are more
> likely to be potential purchasers of new lenses; you, and the others
> like you, are want the aperture simulator precisely because you have
> no intention of buying new lenses.
>
> I fail to see why this would be an attractive proposition for Pentax.
>
>
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net