Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
That was said sometime after the release of the MZ-S, the way things are going I see a mis-translation, not a camera to carry to your grave but one that will put us in our graves, since we're obviously so unimportant to Pentax. At 07:50 AM 7/6/03 -0400, you wrote: What about the report someone posted a few years back that the new Pentax CEO said about a new film camera that LX owners would want to buy and carry to the grave? Is this the MZ-S? Alan Chan wrote: If Pentax does come out with another film SLR, I think the best we can get is a Mg alloy *ist with (maybe) and aperture simulator. Or just an MZ-S with 11 AF sensors? regards, Alan Chan _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail To grasp the true meaning of socialism, imagine a world where everything is designed by the post office, even the sleaze. O'Rourke, P.J.
Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
since we're obviously so unimportant to Pentax. LOL! At least you got that right. :-) regards, Alan Chan _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
Re: High-end film bodies (WAS: Re: *ist D was not production type :-()
Frank wrote: Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the sales of high end film slr's remaining pretty steady, despite the incursion of digital? REPLY: No. I think sales are down 10% or so if my memory serves me right. hardly dramatic but significant. Pål
Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
Probably not compatible with older mounts. ;-) Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
High-end film bodies (WAS: Re: *ist D was not production type:-()
A lot of this may depend on how easy (i.e., cheap) it is to co-produce a digital camera and a film sibling. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: High-end film bodies (WAS: Re: *ist D was not production type:-()
on 07.07.03 15:30, Steve Desjardins at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Even if film SLR's are steady in sales, most of the RD money is going into the DSLR's. for this reason, I think that most of the flagships are going to be DSLR's. That's it! So maybe rumoured Pentax flagship (or LX as some suggested) will materialize as full-frame, 11 MPix DSLR? -- Best Regards Sylwek
RE: *ist D was not production type :-(
Hi Brilliant idea. Untill then, I'll might start saving for a MZ-S! (I happen to think it's beautiful too! -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Caveman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 6. juli 2003 02:50 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: *ist D was not production type :-( Alan Chan wrote: If Pentax does come out with another film SLR, I think the best we can get is a Mg alloy *ist with (maybe) and aperture simulator. Or just an MZ-S with 11 AF sensors? 9, and an 1/4000 sec shutter. Imagine the savings in battery life.. cheers, caveman ;-)
Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
If you use a flash bracket to elevate your flash, the shadow goes down and straight behind the subject. Minimal shadow. Flat lighting, though. OTOH, using the bracket is about as good as you can do for a 1-flash, wander-around situation like a wedding reception. I stand by my previous statement. Don't want to make a war out of it, though. Jens Bladt wrote: Hi Lon The wall will catch the shadow from the subject. Use bounced flash (off the cieling or a wall or a door or whatever) or totally off camera. Make sure the shadow hits the wall outside the frame - keep great distance to the wall. I tend to agree with Alan! Jens -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Lon Williamson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 5. juli 2003 15:07 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: *ist D was not production type :-( This has not been my experience if you use a longer lens and keep your subject reasonably close to a wall. I like to use a 135 prime in-doors for such shots. It always sucks if you're using something like a 50mm and there is no close background you'll get a subject surrounded by black every time Alan Chan wrote: Auto exposure with flash indoor, sucks everytime. regards, Alan Chan _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
What about the report someone posted a few years back that the new Pentax CEO said about a new film camera that LX owners would want to buy and carry to the grave? Is this the MZ-S? Alan Chan wrote: If Pentax does come out with another film SLR, I think the best we can get is a Mg alloy *ist with (maybe) and aperture simulator. Or just an MZ-S with 11 AF sensors? regards, Alan Chan _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
SV: *ist D was not production type :-(
Probably a MZ-S with and Limited's! Jens -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Lon Williamson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 6. juli 2003 13:50 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: *ist D was not production type :-( What about the report someone posted a few years back that the new Pentax CEO said about a new film camera that LX owners would want to buy and carry to the grave? Is this the MZ-S? Alan Chan wrote: If Pentax does come out with another film SLR, I think the best we can get is a Mg alloy *ist with (maybe) and aperture simulator. Or just an MZ-S with 11 AF sensors? regards, Alan Chan _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
There's a dirty joke in there somewhere! vbg -frank Lon Williamson wrote: snip The actual size of the hole is something I'm uninterested in.snip -- I don't believe in God, but I do believe in pi - Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re:Tom's test - was: *ist D was not production type :-(
Sunny 16 says that for a bright sunny day, you set the aperture at f16, and the shutter to the speed nearest the ISO rating of the film - or the inverse of the shutter speed anyway. So if you use 400 ISO film, you set the shutter to 1/500. From there, you adjust according, depending on conditions, shadows, etc.- open a stop if it's hazy, a couple of stops for light, high cloud, another stop for overcast, etc. Problem is, that especially in larger cities areas near industrial zones, due to the more or less permanent haze caused by pollution, it's more like sunny 11 these days. Anyway, Marnie, the point of this post is to more or less correct you, insofar as the shutter speed is based on the ISO, not ~always~ at 1/125 as you indicated. cheers, frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip5. How accurate is the Sunny-16 rule for exposure. With the shutter speed set to 1/125, usually right on on sunny days. However, despite all that, I rarely use f16. Supposedly on sunny days, it will make middle tones the 18% middle gray that a light meters use as its basis. snip -- I don't believe in God, but I do believe in pi - Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Tom's test - was: *ist D was not production type :-(
Sunny 16 says that for a bright sunny day, you set the aperture at f16, and the shutter to the speed nearest the ISO rating of the film - or the inverse of the shutter speed anyway. So if you use 400 ISO film, you set the shutter to 1/500. From there, you adjust according, depending on conditions, shadows, etc.- open a stop if it's hazy, a couple of stops for light, high cloud, another stop for overcast, etc. Problem is, that especially in larger cities areas near industrial zones, due to the more or less permanent haze caused by pollution, it's more like sunny 11 these days. Anyway, Marnie, the point of this post is to more or less correct you, insofar as the shutter speed is based on the ISO, not ~always~ at 1/125 as you indicated. cheers, frank Definitely a C-. I simply refuse to get a D. Thx. Yeah, I rarely use f16. And luckily I don't really NEED to know this stuff to take good pictures. I do set the aperture and shutter speed manually, but I rely heavily on the light meter and go from there. Marnie aka Doe :-) Although I'd heard of sunny 16 naturally.
High-end film bodies (WAS: Re: *ist D was not production type :-()
Steve wrote: Film cameras are more stable, and I really do think e are going to see very few really new nigh end film SLR's. There's just not money in them anymore, and the pro show cameras are now digital, so its' the 1Ds and not the F5 that has the most drool value. REPLY: But they need a platform for DSLR. Also high-end ones. Providing there will be a market for high-end film cameras at all, I wouldn't be surprised to see a Nikon F6 with a digital sibling. Pål
Re: High-end film bodies (WAS: Re: *ist D was not production type :-()
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the sales of high end film slr's remaining pretty steady, despite the incursion of digital? I'll have to look that one up, and get back to y'all (no time right now), but IIRC, percentage of digital in overall camera sales is increasing very steadily, and the actual numbers of film cameras may be dropping, but higher-end film cams are holding their own - so far... cheers, frank Pål Jensen wrote: Steve wrote: Film cameras are more stable, and I really do think e are going to see very few really new nigh end film SLR's. There's just not money in them anymore, and the pro show cameras are now digital, so its' the 1Ds and not the F5 that has the most drool value. REPLY: But they need a platform for DSLR. Also high-end ones. Providing there will be a market for high-end film cameras at all, I wouldn't be surprised to see a Nikon F6 with a digital sibling. Pål -- I don't believe in God, but I do believe in pi - Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: High-end film bodies (WAS: Re: *ist D was not production type :-()
Well, we have hit bottom and are on the upswing of the current economic cycle. Funny thing is marketeers never seem to be able to figure out how economic cycles affect sales. Over the decades a lot of companies have gone belly up when all they had to do was hang in there another year. Back in the days when Japanese companies tooled up, made a production run, and stocked them in the warehouse to sell over 5 or more years things tended to continue to be available when the cycle swung up again, in these days of just in time inventory, they have destroyed the tooling and gone out of business by the time things get better. I continue to be bemused that people do not understand economic cycles even after they have lived through a bunch of them. The down swings are always precived as something unique. Maybe, that is because marketing executives tend to be rather young. I mean if the last recession happened when you were a kid, you probably barely noticed it. Politicians, of course, are just plain stupid, they think everything can be fixed with a smile and a lie. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 2:03 PM Subject: Re: High-end film bodies (WAS: Re: *ist D was not production type :-() Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the sales of high end film slr's remaining pretty steady, despite the incursion of digital? I'll have to look that one up, and get back to y'all (no time right now), but IIRC, percentage of digital in overall camera sales is increasing very steadily, and the actual numbers of film cameras may be dropping, but higher-end film cams are holding their own - so far... cheers, frank Pål Jensen wrote: Steve wrote: Film cameras are more stable, and I really do think e are going to see very few really new nigh end film SLR's. There's just not money in them anymore, and the pro show cameras are now digital, so its' the 1Ds and not the F5 that has the most drool value. REPLY: But they need a platform for DSLR. Also high-end ones. Providing there will be a market for high-end film cameras at all, I wouldn't be surprised to see a Nikon F6 with a digital sibling. Pål -- I don't believe in God, but I do believe in pi - Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: High-end film bodies (WAS: Re: *ist D was not production type :-()
Can you really blame the voters for who's running things? regards, frank Tom didn't refer to the President. He said politicians. It takes no particular knowledge/intellectual application/judgment to blame problems on the politicians. Never forget where elected politicians come from. In answer to your question, blame them or credit them, Yes. What in hell does this have to do with Pentax? After reading this list for a few years, I sometimes wonder what this list has to do with photography g. Ed _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
Re: High-end film bodies (WAS: Re: *ist D was not production type :-()
they don't bother with the lie anymore. Herb... - Original Message - From: T Rittenhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 15:00 Subject: Re: High-end film bodies (WAS: Re: *ist D was not production type :-() Politicians, of course, are just plain stupid, they think everything can be fixed with a smile and a lie.
Re: High-end film bodies (WAS: Re: *ist D was not production type :-()
in the US anyway, none of the above is not a choice one is allowed to make. Herb - Original Message - From: Ed Matthew [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 16:12 Subject: Re: High-end film bodies (WAS: Re: *ist D was not production type :-() Well, Tom, the politicians are the product of the people who elected them. The image in one's mirror shows one part of the problem.
Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
Hans, you must have missed at least two messages where I said that my MZ-S is undamaged and unblemished after falling from a shelf two metres above the ground onto a (thinly-carpeted) concrete floor and I note that Alan recalls them too! One of my grand-daughters later knocked over a table on which it and the PZ FA28-105 were sitting, causing a small dent in the filter on the lens and still no other problems. In the nature of things, the degree of damage caused after impact depends upon the degree of flexion of the casing, and whether or not any internals are in direct contact with the impact point. Also you must take into account whether the impact force is concentrated at a point or spread over a larger area - too many variables to focus on simply the type of material under consideration. Practical experience surely suggests that plastic (or polycarbonate) is very resistant to impact damage, but will crack if it runs out of room to flex: metal will dent but will resist penetration better than other materials, and is not good at returning to it's original shape. I would be reasonably certain that _all_ camera manufacturers have undertaken extensive research to determine which is the best material to provide: Economics of manufacture, including supply costs Ability to be formed into complex shapes Strength for purpose Cosmetic characteristics (not necessarily in that order) This argument can surely now be laid to rest? John Coyle Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: Hans Imglueck [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 11:33 PM Subject: Re: *ist D was not production type :-( Heiko wrote: ACK. And I'm quite sure that a well made plastics body is as endurable as those modern metal bodies. Cheers, Heiko Hi Heiko, that's also my opinion. The durability of metal bodies is much overestimated and plastic in the same way underestimated. Plastic can damp away many shocks whereas metal will trasmit it to the underlying electronics. Concerning durability I see no much difference between a MX body and a ZX/MZ-5. I got a MX with a bump (which is quite common) and has also a MZ5 with a crack in the plastic. Both of them are working nicely. But I am quite sure that if a MZ-S and a MZ5 are falling down to solid ground from about 1.5-2.0 meter both of them will be damaged. So what is the benefit of magnesium bodies? Or will someone proof to me, that his MZ-S will survive such a fall? Regards, Hans. _ 23a mail
Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
This argument can surely now be laid to rest? John Coyle Brisbane, Australia Surely you jest. This is PDML! Marnie aka Doe Sorry, couldn't resist that, even though I am not part of the argument. ;-)
Re: High-end film bodies (WAS: Re: *ist D was not production type:-()
Very little. It's a Pentax list. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: After reading this list for a few years, I sometimes wonder what this list has to do with photography g.
Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
My vote is the MZ-S with or without the limited lenses.. Vic In a message dated 7/6/03 4:14:24 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What about the report someone posted a few years back that the new Pentax CEO said about a new film camera that LX owners would want to buy and carry to the grave? Is this the MZ-S? You have to ask Pal. But we seem to have different answer every week. :-) regards, Alan Chan
Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
- Original Message - From: Dag T Subject: Re: *ist D was not production type :-( På fredag, 4. juli 2003, kl. 19:02, skrev Bruce Rubenstein: Good photographers with good equipment will take better pictures than good photographers with bad equipment. I don´t agree. Good photographers make good pictures with the right equipment for their task. Personally, I think good photographers will take good photographs no matter what they are using. William Robb
Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
i know Canada has some very large National Parks, but i never tried comparing them in size to a country. there is a lot of snow and ice up north that is counted as a national park. much more flat than Greenland though Baffin Island has many mountains too. Herb - Original Message - From: Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2003 06:28 Subject: SV: *ist D was not production type :-( ...Beautiful photographs, Herb. And a beautiful country BTW. Allways wanted to visit some day. Maybe I will! Did you know that Canada has national parks larger than Denmark (Greenland excluded)? Jens
Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
Tom, I use this kind of logic to justify shooting nothing newer than a SuperProgram, but yesterday I fooled around with my wife's ZX-L and experienced a tad of envy. Some of the touches on the newer cameras, even one as basic as the -L, are really nice. I believe they can help capture the instinctive grab shots that tend to pass me by. T Rittenhouse wrote: Well, first off, Bill, most of the cameras us old farts like are almost as old as the kids who are complaining about us using them. If the new auto everything wonder cameras they insist is the only thing that works actually took better quality photographs, there might me something to their argument, but in fact they do not, and in many cases they do not do as well as the older cameras mostly due to the need to make things light enough not to overload the focusing motors. The fact that most of the whippersnappers can not believe that you can make photos of action, or do flash without TTL, much less using guide numbers, shows that their cameras are better photographers than they are. As you well know, all you need are aperture, shutter speed, and focus controls and a little knowledge. However, on many current cameras you are not a photographer you are a camera programmer. Yes on the better cameras you can override everything but since it is designed not for human interface but for computer interface, that is never as satisfactory as a camera designed for human interface. Simply put, most of the improvements in each new generation of cameras is better interface with, and more capability for, the built in autopilot. If you prefer to drive it yourself the new cameras really offer no improvement. Unlike the automobiles you mention which tend to be faster, safer, and more comfortable than 20 year old ones. In fact, cameras are in some ways more like airplanes than cars as there are still a lot of 20, 30, or 50 year old ones still in service. Anyway, it is hard for a 22 year old computer programmer to figure why anyone would use a camera that is older than he is other than cheapness.
Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
This has not been my experience if you use a longer lens and keep your subject reasonably close to a wall. I like to use a 135 prime in-doors for such shots. It always sucks if you're using something like a 50mm and there is no close background you'll get a subject surrounded by black every time Alan Chan wrote: Auto exposure with flash indoor, sucks everytime. regards, Alan Chan _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
A LF camera isn't very GOOD for underwater photography, is it? I only said good and bad, you had to go into all sorts of hardware issues. You also left out the first part of what I said, which is introducing hardware obscures the main point that good photographers take better pictures than bad ones. I realize as a someone for who English isn't their native language, they may miss some things. Also, as an insecure, defensive Pentax user you have certain knee jerk reactions, but do make an attempt to read what you think you are responding to. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sure, but he would know that it´s difficult, e.g. to use an LF camera for underwater photography or an APS camera if he wanted large prints of landscapes :-)
Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
The last part makes no difference. All that counts is the image. Nobody knows, or cares how you got it. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi On the other hand... A good photographer is a person who gets good photographs - and without getting disliked by his victims.
Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
Don't worry Lon, if you are as old as Tom then you have the knowledge of the ages and can use any gear you desire. If you are younger, then you have to take a written test of Tom's (he doesn't care about a portfolio: only theory counts) to get permission to use auto capable cameras. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom, I use this kind of logic to justify shooting nothing newer than a SuperProgram, but yesterday I fooled around with my wife's ZX-L and experienced a tad of envy. Some of the touches on the newer cameras, even one as basic as the -L, are really nice. I believe they can help capture the instinctive grab shots that tend to pass me by.
Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
You know, the funny part of teasing you is to see how you project your insecurity on others by trying to be insulting. Take a note: it doesn´t work. I´m fairly native to the English language, although my writing may have some errors as I haven´t lived in the states for some years and I usually write technical stuff in English (you know: Physics and other things you don´t understand). I understand you quite well, thank you. Have a nice day! DagT På lørdag, 5. juli 2003, kl. 17:11, skrev Bruce Rubenstein: Also, as an insecure, defensive Pentax user you have certain knee jerk reactions, but do make an attempt to read what you think you are responding to.
Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
Brucey thought he was kidding grin. 1. How big is an f-stop 2. How fast does your shutter open and close when set to 125. 3. What f-stop do you have to use to have everything from 8 feet to infinity sharp in your photography. 4. What f-stop do you need to get proper exposure with a #5 clear flash bulb at 7 feet. 5. How accurate is the Sunny-16 rule for exposure. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Bruce Rubenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2003 11:20 AM Subject: Re: *ist D was not production type :-( Don't worry Lon, if you are as old as Tom then you have the knowledge of the ages and can use any gear you desire. If you are younger, then you have to take a written test of Tom's (he doesn't care about a portfolio: only theory counts) to get permission to use auto capable cameras. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom, I use this kind of logic to justify shooting nothing newer than a SuperProgram, but yesterday I fooled around with my wife's ZX-L and experienced a tad of envy. Some of the touches on the newer cameras, even one as basic as the -L, are really nice. I believe they can help capture the instinctive grab shots that tend to pass me by.
Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
I get Grandfathered into the Knowledge of the Ages, Old Crock Photographers Union in September when I turn 50. I don't need your test. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brucey thought he was kidding grin. 1. How big is an f-stop 2. How fast does your shutter open and close when set to 125. 3. What f-stop do you have to use to have everything from 8 feet to infinity sharp in your photography. 4. What f-stop do you need to get proper exposure with a #5 clear flash bulb at 7 feet. 5. How accurate is the Sunny-16 rule for exposure.
Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
OK, I'll take a wack at answering: 1) An f stop's hole size (radius or diameter, take your pick) depends on focal length. f2.8 at 50mm is a smaller hole than f2.8 at 100mm. The actual size of the hole is something I'm uninterested in. 2) A shutter set at 125 should expose some point of film to light for exactly 128th of a second. However, 125th is plenty close enough. The shutter itself may be exposing light for longer than that as it runs along the film. 3) The hyperfocal f-stop is going to depend on focal length. Many older wide primes have an f-stop (typically f8) in a different color and even a special focal length mark to indicate these settings. I've used 'em, btw. My M35 f2.8 often gets set this way. 4) I have NO idea about flash bulbs. I'll guess f8 (and be there) 5) Sunny-16 is dead nuts on for most people, even slide shooters. Another one I've used often. Does being over 50 classify me as aged? Even so, my total SLR experience is lumped into the last 10 years. I'm a newbie.. T Rittenhouse wrote: Brucey thought he was kidding grin. 1. How big is an f-stop 2. How fast does your shutter open and close when set to 125. 3. What f-stop do you have to use to have everything from 8 feet to infinity sharp in your photography. 4. What f-stop do you need to get proper exposure with a #5 clear flash bulb at 7 feet. 5. How accurate is the Sunny-16 rule for exposure. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Bruce Rubenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2003 11:20 AM Subject: Re: *ist D was not production type :-( Don't worry Lon, if you are as old as Tom then you have the knowledge of the ages and can use any gear you desire. If you are younger, then you have to take a written test of Tom's (he doesn't care about a portfolio: only theory counts) to get permission to use auto capable cameras. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom, I use this kind of logic to justify shooting nothing newer than a SuperProgram, but yesterday I fooled around with my wife's ZX-L and experienced a tad of envy. Some of the touches on the newer cameras, even one as basic as the -L, are really nice. I believe they can help capture the instinctive grab shots that tend to pass me by.
RE: *ist D was not production type :-(
... 1. Doubles or halves the light in-let. 2. Fast enough to let as much light in as if it were totally open for 1/125 sec. (which it's not in cameras with flashsyncs slower than 1/125 sec.) 3. Check yor Hyperfocal distance table for that particular focal length 4. No clue 5. Give or take a stop (or two). Kidding Jens -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: T Rittenhouse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 5. juli 2003 17:30 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: *ist D was not production type :-( Brucey thought he was kidding grin. 1. How big is an f-stop 2. How fast does your shutter open and close when set to 125. 3. What f-stop do you have to use to have everything from 8 feet to infinity sharp in your photography. 4. What f-stop do you need to get proper exposure with a #5 clear flash bulb at 7 feet. 5. How accurate is the Sunny-16 rule for exposure. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Bruce Rubenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2003 11:20 AM Subject: Re: *ist D was not production type :-( Don't worry Lon, if you are as old as Tom then you have the knowledge of the ages and can use any gear you desire. If you are younger, then you have to take a written test of Tom's (he doesn't care about a portfolio: only theory counts) to get permission to use auto capable cameras. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom, I use this kind of logic to justify shooting nothing newer than a SuperProgram, but yesterday I fooled around with my wife's ZX-L and experienced a tad of envy. Some of the touches on the newer cameras, even one as basic as the -L, are really nice. I believe they can help capture the instinctive grab shots that tend to pass me by.
Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
Metal vs. Plastic is a tough trade off. A lighter body will hit the ground or swing with less momentum, reducing the force available to do damage. Metal will dent, whereas plastic will give but then crack. Polycarbonate is tough stuff, even if it doesn't fell as solid. I'd actually like to see some tests to destruction for camera bodies. Anyone know of some? (Official ones, not the kind that Tom does ;-) Digital cameras are evolving quickly so there is a reason to buy a new one every few years. Film cameras are more stable, and I really do think e are going to see very few really new nigh end film SLR's. There's just not money in them anymore, and the pro show cameras are now digital, so its' the 1Ds and not the F5 that has the most drool value. Like it or not, I think the *ist and it's ilk are the new sweet spot of film SLR's. If Pentax does come out with another film SLR, I think the best we can get is a Mg alloy *ist with (maybe) and aperture simulator. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
If Pentax does come out with another film SLR, I think the best we can get is a Mg alloy *ist with (maybe) and aperture simulator. Or just an MZ-S with 11 AF sensors? regards, Alan Chan _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
Well, first off, Bill, most of the cameras us old farts like are almost as old as the kids who are complaining about us using them. If the new auto everything wonder cameras they insist is the only thing that works actually took better quality photographs, there might me something to their argument, but in fact they do not, and in many cases they do not do as well as the older cameras mostly due to the need to make things light enough not to overload the focusing motors. The fact that most of the whippersnappers can not believe that you can make photos of action, or do flash without TTL, much less using guide numbers, shows that their cameras are better photographers than they are. As you well know, all you need are aperture, shutter speed, and focus controls and a little knowledge. However, on many current cameras you are not a photographer you are a camera programmer. Yes on the better cameras you can override everything but since it is designed not for human interface but for computer interface, that is never as satisfactory as a camera designed for human interface. Simply put, most of the improvements in each new generation of cameras is better interface with, and more capability for, the built in autopilot. If you prefer to drive it yourself the new cameras really offer no improvement. Unlike the automobiles you mention which tend to be faster, safer, and more comfortable than 20 year old ones. In fact, cameras are in some ways more like airplanes than cars as there are still a lot of 20, 30, or 50 year old ones still in service. Anyway, it is hard for a 22 year old computer programmer to figure why anyone would use a camera that is older than he is other than cheapness. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am still driving a 1995 car, my wife is driving a 1985 car. While the auto industry has surely evolved greatly, especially in the past 18 years, we have stayed with what we know. Why would a person automatically junk a camera every couple of years, just because something better (a vacuous justification at best) has come along? If the product serves you well when you buy it, it will probably still serve you well in a decade. Perhaps all the screw heads or manual focus camera users on this list know something you don't? Camera technology has surely passed these people by, but they continue to plod along making pictures that make them happy with very old technology equipment.
Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
T Rittenhouse wrote: Anyway, it is hard for a 22 year old computer programmer to figure why anyone would use a camera that is older than he is other than cheapness. *WARNING* The following link leads to a web site using coarse language and matters of adult nature. Viewer discretion advised *END OF WARNING* It's the generation dreaming of this: http://www.fu-fme.com/ cheers, caveman
Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
At 12:02 PM 7/4/2003 -0400, you wrote: From: T Rittenhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, first off, Bill, most of the cameras us old farts like are almost as old as the kids who are complaining about us using them. If the new auto everything wonder cameras they insist is the only thing that works actually took better quality photographs, there might me something to their argument, but in fact they do not, and in many cases they do not do as well as the older cameras mostly due to the need to make things light enough not to overload the focusing motors. Yes, but as an (also) old software developer (programmer) remember I can recall the day when the Vector Graphic, PDP-8 or -11, Archive, or Altos running Oasis were the creme of the crop. Multi-user. Fast. Lots of DRAM. Wow. Now they're antiques. Nobody would use them in business. Not realistically. Though one might argue that word processing is word processing no matter the platform. The fact that most of the whippersnappers can not believe that you can make photos of action, or do flash without TTL, much less using guide numbers, shows that their cameras are better photographers than they are. As you well know, all you need are aperture, shutter speed, and focus controls and a little knowledge. However, on many current cameras you are not a photographer you are a camera programmer. Yes on the better cameras you can override everything but since it is designed not for human interface but for computer interface, that is never as satisfactory as a camera designed for human interface. you are a camera programmer -- Exactly. Simply put, most of the improvements in each new generation of cameras is better interface with, and more capability for, the built in autopilot. If you prefer to drive it yourself the new cameras really offer no improvement. Unlike the automobiles you mention which tend to be faster, safer, and more comfortable than 20 year old ones. In fact, cameras are in some ways more like airplanes than cars as there are still a lot of 20, 30, or 50 year old ones still in service. But while an old car will run well and do many good things the same as newer cars, the addition of (of course) computers, the latching torque converter, and efficient fuel injection have made the car much nicer to drive and more efficient to own. Anyway, it is hard for a 22 year old computer programmer to figure why anyone would use a camera that is older than he is other than cheapness. Good question. It's usually a matter of familiarity. The common rule of thumb is to not introduce new technologies to persons over 50. That seems mean, but the thinking paradigms have changed so much that many have a difficult time adjusting to the new ways. Old habits and learned preferences are hard to break. But some old, inexpensive things are difficult to beat. We (Steven that is) picked up a nice JBL speaker set (built as a kit from late 1960s) @ a thrift shop yesterday for $30. Sound great. Makes his NAD receiver sound like the audio bottleneck in the system! Surround sound may be nice, but without spending a small fortune some of these old things present some surprising high quality. Sometimes old character is easy to underestimate. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto CRB
Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
We don't use any Korea War era fighter planes in combat, and for good reasons: they can't do what modern fighters can, no matter whose flying it. (There is also no reason to think that pilots of yesteryear (and photographers too) were better than the current ones. ) Same thing with cameras. Many pictures of today, of similar subjects, look different than 50 year old ones, because of newer camera technology. The old, a great photographer with a box camera can take better pictures than a Bozo with an auto wunder, obscures the major point that good photographers take better pictures than bad ones. Good photographers with good equipment will take better pictures than good photographers with bad equipment. You like old stuff? Fine I do to, but I use the new stuff when I know I'll get better results with it. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In fact, cameras are in some ways more like airplanes than cars as there are still a lot of 20, 30, or 50 year old ones still in service.
Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
Taken with an LX and an M-120 I think I had it set on autoexposure, or it may have been manual, (it's a bit overexposed and usually the LX is better than that). http://www.mindspring.com/~palling/photography/gallery1/photographs/On_the_wing.jpg At 11:58 AM 7/4/03 -0400, you wrote: Well, first off, Bill, most of the cameras us old farts like are almost as old as the kids who are complaining about us using them. If the new auto everything wonder cameras they insist is the only thing that works actually took better quality photographs, there might me something to their argument, but in fact they do not, and in many cases they do not do as well as the older cameras mostly due to the need to make things light enough not to overload the focusing motors. The fact that most of the whippersnappers can not believe that you can make photos of action, or do flash without TTL, much less using guide numbers, shows that their cameras are better photographers than they are. As you well know, all you need are aperture, shutter speed, and focus controls and a little knowledge. However, on many current cameras you are not a photographer you are a camera programmer. Yes on the better cameras you can override everything but since it is designed not for human interface but for computer interface, that is never as satisfactory as a camera designed for human interface. Simply put, most of the improvements in each new generation of cameras is better interface with, and more capability for, the built in autopilot. If you prefer to drive it yourself the new cameras really offer no improvement. Unlike the automobiles you mention which tend to be faster, safer, and more comfortable than 20 year old ones. In fact, cameras are in some ways more like airplanes than cars as there are still a lot of 20, 30, or 50 year old ones still in service. Anyway, it is hard for a 22 year old computer programmer to figure why anyone would use a camera that is older than he is other than cheapness. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am still driving a 1995 car, my wife is driving a 1985 car. While the auto industry has surely evolved greatly, especially in the past 18 years, we have stayed with what we know. Why would a person automatically junk a camera every couple of years, just because something better (a vacuous justification at best) has come along? If the product serves you well when you buy it, it will probably still serve you well in a decade. Perhaps all the screw heads or manual focus camera users on this list know something you don't? Camera technology has surely passed these people by, but they continue to plod along making pictures that make them happy with very old technology equipment. To grasp the true meaning of socialism, imagine a world where everything is designed by the post office, even the sleaze. O'Rourke, P.J.
Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
Bruce Rubenstein wrote: Good photographers with good equipment will take better pictures than good photographers with bad equipment. Twisting it again, Brucey ? It was about new vs. old cameras and not about good vs. bad ones. New Good and Old Bad. cheers, caveman
Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
Add AI and there's no need for human contact what so ever. At 12:12 PM 7/4/03 -0400, you wrote: T Rittenhouse wrote: Anyway, it is hard for a 22 year old computer programmer to figure why anyone would use a camera that is older than he is other than cheapness. *WARNING* The following link leads to a web site using coarse language and matters of adult nature. Viewer discretion advised *END OF WARNING* It's the generation dreaming of this: http://www.fu-fme.com/ cheers, caveman To grasp the true meaning of socialism, imagine a world where everything is designed by the post office, even the sleaze. O'Rourke, P.J.
Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
i can do all that and i don't regret for an instant not doing any ever. Herb... - Original Message - From: T Rittenhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 11:58 Subject: Re: *ist D was not production type :-( The fact that most of the whippersnappers can not believe that you can make photos of action, or do flash without TTL, much less using guide numbers, shows that their cameras are better photographers than they are. As you well know, all you need are aperture, shutter speed, and focus controls and a little knowledge.
Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
If you never did it, how do you know you can? From your posts on this subject so far, I can already tell you wouldn't know a good exposure if it bit you. Anyone who has not cussed autoexposure from time to time, doesn't know enough to comment about it because there are situations where it just plain doesn't work. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] i can do all that and i don't regret for an instant not doing any ever.
Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 19:30:31 -0400, T Rittenhouse wrote: If you never did it, how do you know you can? From your posts on this subject so far, I can already tell you wouldn't know a good exposure if it bit you. Anyone who has not cussed autoexposure from time to time, doesn't know enough to comment about it because there are situations where it just plain doesn't work. Auto exposure ALWAYS works. But like everything that is a computer you must remember the first rule of computing - Computers are basically stupid. They will do exactly what you tell them and nothing more or less. You have to learn auto exposure the same as you have to learn manual exposure - and it's a lot easier to learn if you know manual exposure first. A good tradesman never blames his tools because he knows them and HE is the one that drives them. A good photographer doesn't blame his camera because HE is the one that drives it. No matter what tool he chooses he should learn it's capabilities and quirks. I use an MZ-S and P-TTL flash. I use it because it makes life easier for me, but I know what it is doing and why it is doing it and the situations where if left to it's own devices it would get it wrong, and that is where I override it. I also manual focus a lot because my camera does not understand about creative use of depth of field. Leon http://www.bluering.org.au http://www.bluering.org.au/leon
Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
who said i never did it. what did you think i did when i shot a s1a with no meter? no handheld meter, nothing. Herb... - Original Message - From: T Rittenhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 19:30 Subject: Re: *ist D was not production type :-( If you never did it, how do you know you can? From your posts on this subject so far, I can already tell you wouldn't know a good exposure if it bit you. Anyone who has not cussed autoexposure from time to time, doesn't know enough to comment about it because there are situations where it just plain doesn't work.
Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
well said. i know what my camera does and what it doesn't do and i know how to use my exposure compensation button. every single one of these pictures was shot using evaluative metering. guess which ones were bracketed and which ones weren't. guess how many were shot with a point and shoot with no exposure override possible. guess which ones had exposure compensation applied beyond my preference for underexposing Provia by 1/2 stop. http://users.bestweb.net/~hchong/Random/Selected_Images1.htm Herb - Original Message - From: Leon Altoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 21:39 Subject: Re: *ist D was not production type :-( A good tradesman never blames his tools because he knows them and HE is the one that drives them. A good photographer doesn't blame his camera because HE is the one that drives it. No matter what tool he chooses he should learn it's capabilities and quirks.
Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
Anyone who has not cussed autoexposure from time to time, doesn't know enough to comment about it because there are situations where it just plain doesn't work. Auto exposure with flash indoor, sucks everytime. regards, Alan Chan _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
Heiko Hamann wrote: No, there are no different layers of material but one composite material (as far a I have understood that). My Super As appear to have a plastic top plate/prism cover that has been vacuum plated then painted black. John
Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
Hi John, on 03 Jul 03 you wrote in pentax.list: No, there are no different layers of material but one composite material (as far a I have understood that). My Super As appear to have a plastic top plate/prism cover that has been vacuum plated then painted black. Sorry - I meant the *istD. Cheers, Heiko
SV: *ist D was not production type :-(
Hi OK metal shells may be better. But I have a 11 years old Z1, (plastic shell) - still working like the day i got it in 1992 - through thousinds of rolls. What more would you expect from a diggie? You may have to buy a new one every 2-4 years anyway, because technology evolves so (too) fast. On the other hand, the new Kodak DCS 14n reaches 3000ppi. In a year or two they may reach a final level of let's say 7000ppi - which pretty much is high as any film. Mybe I'll wait for that. I'm quite happy with 16MB scannings (2048 ppi). Enough for not too large enlargements. The producers of digital cameras want to satisfy price tags not too much above the current price level of film SLR's. A Leica M7 cost about the same as the Kodak 14 MP diggie! Jens -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Heiko Hamann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 3. juli 2003 07:36 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: *ist D was not production type :-( Hi Alan, on 02 Jul 03 you wrote in pentax.list: The problem with plastic shells is that they tend to crack when aged. But then again, the 6 month cycle for digital cameras should not pose any problem. LOL. Hard but true... ;-) Cheers, Heiko
Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
- Original Message - From: Jens Bladt Subject: SV: *ist D was not production type :-( Hi OK metal shells may be better. But I have a 11 years old Z1, (plastic shell) - still working like the day i got it in 1992 - through thousinds of rolls. What more would you expect from a diggie? You may have to buy a new one every 2-4 years anyway, because technology evolves so (too) fast. I am still driving a 1995 car, my wife is driving a 1985 car. While the auto industry has surely evolved greatly, especially in the past 18 years, we have stayed with what we know. Why would a person automatically junk a camera every couple of years, just because something better (a vacuous justification at best) has come along? If the product serves you well when you buy it, it will probably still serve you well in a decade. Perhaps all the screw heads or manual focus camera users on this list know something you don't? Camera technology has surely passed these people by, but they continue to plod along making pictures that make them happy with very old technology equipment. Regarding plastic camera bodies, they may or may not be more rugged. I have seen more than enough plastic shelled SLR's that fell the wrong way and got seriously damaged. For myself, I still trust metal over plastic. William Robb
Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
Pål Jensen wrote: What finish? Is it plastic or magnesium? Pål I'm afraid it's plastic. Dario
Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
Rüdiger Neumann wrote: Hallo Dario, is there something new about the K-mount. Will it work in the same way as the analog *ist with all the restrictions? regards Rüdiger Of course. This is the (revised) Pentax way! Cheers, Dario Bonazza www.aohc.it www.dariobonazza.com
Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
I wrote: To be more precise, the hardware was production type for sure (including a standard serial number), nice finished and working well I meant that all of the controls of the *ist D on show at Pentax Day were working well, unlike the flimsy dials and 4-way controller seen on prototype at PhotoShow 2003. So that camera is a production hardware for sure. In my opinion, Pentax is currently manufacturing the *ist D, to be loaded with production firmware and put on sale next August/September, as planned. I'm not worried about sales date and I don't expect further delays. However, I'm still worried about image quality, since I was not allowed checking it, and a firmware so much behind of completion doesn't encourage great hopes. Bye, Dario Bonazza www.aohc.it www.dariobonazza.com
Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
How do you know that it is plastic? The sample that I handled was so stiff/hard that I thought it was magnesium although it was as light as plastic. I still am not sure. Are you? Arnold What finish? Is it plastic or magnesium? I'm afraid it's plastic.
Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
No, not sure, I'm just afraid it is plastic. Dario - Original Message - From: Arnold Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 10:00 AM Subject: Re: *ist D was not production type :-( How do you know that it is plastic? The sample that I handled was so stiff/hard that I thought it was magnesium although it was as light as plastic. I still am not sure. Are you? Arnold What finish? Is it plastic or magnesium? I'm afraid it's plastic.
Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
Even the 645N II housings are magnesium-like plastic, with the same look of the MZ-S, so why the *ist D should be magnesium? Only for fighting against the EOS 10D? If it's magnesium, do you really believe that Pentax could miss to point out that in their press release? It's possible, but not very likely. I'm afraid it's plastic. Dario Bonazza - Original Message - From: Arnold Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 10:00 AM Subject: Re: *ist D was not production type :-( How do you know that it is plastic? The sample that I handled was so stiff/hard that I thought it was magnesium although it was as light as plastic. I still am not sure. Are you? Arnold What finish? Is it plastic or magnesium? I'm afraid it's plastic.
Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
Dario Bonazza wrote: Even the 645N II housings are magnesium-like plastic, with the same look of the MZ-S, so why the *ist D should be magnesium? Only for fighting against the EOS 10D? If it's magnesium, do you really believe that Pentax could miss to point out that in their press release? It's possible, but not very likely. I'm afraid it's plastic. The EOS 10D is a bit of a con trick, with a plastic body that is concealed by a magnesium alloy outer casing. John
Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
On 2 Jul 2003 at 6:33, Hans Imglueck wrote: But I am quite sure that if a MZ-S and a MZ5 are falling down to solid ground from about 1.5-2.0 meter both of them will be damaged. So what is the benefit of magnesium bodies? Or will someone proof to me, that his MZ-S will survive such a fall? The mechanical stability, precision and rigidity of cameras produced on metal chassis is usually better than that of plastic chassis and where it's equal the cost of the composite plastics are probably higher than metal of comparable performance. A cameras physical design most probably has more to do with its resilience to impact than the materials from which it is made. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re[2]: *ist D was not production type :-(
I believe our pdmler John Coyle might entertain you in this regard. His has fallen from 2 meter on carpeted - I think - concrete... Servus, Alin Hans wrote: HI But I am quite sure that if a MZ-S and a MZ5 are falling down to solid HI ground from about 1.5-2.0 meter both of them will be damaged. So HI what is the benefit of magnesium bodies? Or will someone proof to HI me, that his MZ-S will survive such a fall?
SV: *ist D was not production type :-(
I the rumor says 1200 or 1600$ for the *ist D, I guess it may not be a magnesium body. Anyway it's difficult to tell the difference - at work we have a Nikon Coolpix something - it's supposed to be magnesium - but the feel is plasic. Jens
Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
If it's magnesium, do you really believe that Pentax could miss to point out that in their press release? Absolutely. regards, Alan Chan _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
ACK. And I'm quite sure that a well made plastics body is as endurable as those modern metal bodies. The problem with plastic shells is that they tend to crack when aged. But then again, the 6 month cycle for digital cameras should not pose any problem. regards, Alan Chan _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
Perhaps something like the Super A where the top cover is plastic with metal sheet on top? regards, Alan Chan At the Cebit I was told that the *istD has a special, mixed material. Not the expensive magnesium body of the MZ-S but a kind of mixture of magnesium particles and plastics. For me it felt similar as the MZ-S - very light but not like plastics. _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
Production life doesn't equal owned/used life. You don't expect your car to stop working when the manufacturer changes models do you? BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The problem with plastic shells is that they tend to crack when aged. But then again, the 6 month cycle for digital cameras should not pose any problem.
Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
The Super A has a chrome plated plastic top cover. It is not a metal sheet over plastic. It still wears much better than the silver paint that the industry has gone to (cheaper to paint than plate) BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps something like the Super A where the top cover is plastic with metal sheet on top?
*ist D was not production type :-(
Hi friends, I forgot to tell you that the *ist D on show at Pentax Day last June 22 was not production type :-( To be more precise, the hardware was production type for sure (including a standard serial number), nice finished and working well (as opposed to that on show at PhotoShow last March), but the firmware was still incomplete and not fully working (heavy underexposure when taking pictures, exposure compensation not working, etc.). For that reason I was not allowed to shoot and get picture files on my compactflash card for close inspection at home, like I was hoping before the Pentax Day (or Pentax D-Day, as Caveman suggested). So, in order to know how well the *ist D will work, we still have to wait some more time :-( Despite that, I'm rather confident that the production *ist D will be on sale very soon, as promised. Bye, Dario Bonazza www.aohc.it www.dariobonazza.com
Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
Hallo Dario, is there something new about the K-mount. Will it work in the same way as the analog *ist with all the restrictions? regards Rüdiger From: Dario Bonazza Hi friends, I forgot to tell you that the *ist D on show at Pentax Day last June 22 was not production type :-( To be more precise, the hardware was production type for sure (including a standard serial number), nice finished and working well (as opposed to that on show at PhotoShow last March), but the firmware was still incomplete and not fully working (heavy underexposure when taking pictures, exposure compensation not working, etc.). For that reason I was not allowed to shoot and get picture files on my compactflash card for close inspection at home, like I was hoping before the Pentax Day (or Pentax D-Day, as Caveman suggested). So, in order to know how well the *ist D will work, we still have to wait some more time :-( Despite that, I'm rather confident that the production *ist D will be on sale very soon, as promised. Bye, Dario Bonazza www.aohc.it www.dariobonazza.com
Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
Dario wrote: To be more precise, the hardware was production type for sure (including a standard serial number), nice finished and working well REPLY: What finish? Is it plastic or magnesium? Pål
