Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm
On 25/11/06, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed: I am avoiding looking through the viewfinder of an inlens IS system for this very reason. I made that mistake and look what happened to me -- 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
Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm
On 11/26/06, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 25/11/06, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed: I am avoiding looking through the viewfinder of an inlens IS system for this very reason. I made that mistake and look what happened to me An all to familiar sad story. Talented padawan becomes so disoriented, they fall into the seductive embrace of the dark side. g Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm
On Nov 26, 2006, at 2:30 AM, Cotty wrote: On 25/11/06, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed: I am avoiding looking through the viewfinder of an inlens IS system for this very reason. I made that mistake and look what happened to me On the other hand, if you don't see the image stabilization through the viewfinder, the tendency is to stabilize the camera very well without it. Then the action of the stabilization is even more effective. Doesn't matter to me one way or another. I try not to depend upon the stabilization... I just want it to work. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm
David Savage wrote: On 11/26/06, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 25/11/06, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed: I am avoiding looking through the viewfinder of an inlens IS system for this very reason. I made that mistake and look what happened to me An all to familiar sad story. Talented padawan becomes so disoriented, they fall into the seductive embrace of the dark side. What? I thought he was talking about hair loss... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm
On 11/26/06, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David Savage wrote: On 11/26/06, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 25/11/06, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed: I am avoiding looking through the viewfinder of an inlens IS system for this very reason. I made that mistake and look what happened to me An all to familiar sad story. Talented padawan becomes so disoriented, they fall into the seductive embrace of the dark side. What? I thought he was talking about hair loss... How many Dark Lord's have you seen with hair? Think about it. Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm
- Original Message - From: Cotty Subject: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm On 25/11/06, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed: I am avoiding looking through the viewfinder of an inlens IS system for this very reason. I made that mistake and look what happened to me Lost yer hair, didn't you. WW -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm
Would the new lenses due out next year with IS work with the Z1p? Ever the optimist Peter On 11/25/06, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It certainly was against your better judgement, I specifically mentioned that some were done with bodies and some were done with lenses, but the net effect of all of the them is that the image tracks the camera movement to keep the recorded image from blurring Nobody mentioned it but the lens technique has one major advantage over the body technique, and that is it will work for film as well digital whereas its not really possible to do IS for film in the body... jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 1:34 PM To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm In a message dated 11/24/2006 11:29:31 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IS, VR, Shake reduction, etc. They are all the same concept ( done in either lenses or bodies ) with different trade names jco === Sigh. Against my better judgment, I respond. They are different. One of the biggest differences is that some are in camera and some are in lens. This makes quite a difference as regards usage. One of the reasons I will probably switch back to Pentax from Canon, after I hear more reports and read reviews. Marnie aka Doe And since I have no K or M lenses, I need no $5-$1,000 part. Nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah. -- 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: Pentax 1.8 85mm
William Robb wrote: From: Cotty On 25/11/06, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed: I am avoiding looking through the viewfinder of an inlens IS system for this very reason. I made that mistake and look what happened to me Lost yer hair, didn't you. I held Cotty's camera for just a minute or two and look what it did to me. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm
There are no IS lenses coming. The new lenses are SSM (USM focusing). The 200 and 300 D-FA's will work on the Z-1p, although they may not AF. The DA*'s will not cover 35mm at all focal lengths. -Adam Peter Fairweather wrote: Would the new lenses due out next year with IS work with the Z1p? Ever the optimist Peter On 11/25/06, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It certainly was against your better judgement, I specifically mentioned that some were done with bodies and some were done with lenses, but the net effect of all of the them is that the image tracks the camera movement to keep the recorded image from blurring Nobody mentioned it but the lens technique has one major advantage over the body technique, and that is it will work for film as well digital whereas its not really possible to do IS for film in the body... jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 1:34 PM To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm In a message dated 11/24/2006 11:29:31 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IS, VR, Shake reduction, etc. They are all the same concept ( done in either lenses or bodies ) with different trade names jco === Sigh. Against my better judgment, I respond. They are different. One of the biggest differences is that some are in camera and some are in lens. This makes quite a difference as regards usage. One of the reasons I will probably switch back to Pentax from Canon, after I hear more reports and read reviews. Marnie aka Doe And since I have no K or M lenses, I need no $5-$1,000 part. Nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah. -- 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: Pentax 1.8 85mm
Jaume Lahuerta [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sometimes it is not easy to focus it when shooting wide open (very narrow DoF) but when you manage it, it is one of the sharpests lens i have. With the new screen in my LX (I bought the set of screens made for the LX2000), I find that focusing the K85/1.8 is quick and easy, and I can place the plane of focus exactly where I want it, even in low light. -tih -- Don't ascribe to stupidity what can be adequately explained by ignorance. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm
On Nov 27, 2006, at 2:14 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: On the other hand, if you don't see the image stabilization through the viewfinder, the tendency is to stabilize the camera very well without it. Then the action of the stabilization is even more effective. That's exactly how I see it. I also found that it doesn't feel right to have a viewfinder image that's totally still when I know it should be moving about a little. - Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
OT - Jeeps, jeeps and Land Rovers (was: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm)
On 24/11/06, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed: one of our major problems was that Jeep had become a generic name for 4x4 SUVs It's gone full circle. It started out as a generic term before it became trademarked as you know. I owned a CJ7 for a couple of years and loved it. A CJ-5 is still on my wish-list. Factoids: Did you know that the very first Land Rover was based entirely on a war- time jeep (sic) ? Body panels were aluminium because steel was in short supply during and after the war. There are still places on Earth where the CJ-3 is made under license (India for one I think - Mahindra) :-) -- 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
Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm
On 25/11/06, David Savage, discombobulated, unleashed: That's another thing I hate. When corporations trademark common usage terms. ...like fuckface. Sorry, I mean FuckFace (t). -- 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
Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm
On Nov 24, 2006, at 8:27 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: I agree. Substitutions are a problem in modern society. As are brand impeachments. I worked on Jeep advertising, and one of our major problems was that Jeep had become a generic name for 4x4 SUVs. This was particularly true in Europe. We even did an advertising campaign aimed specifically at correcting this. It was for Europe and South America only. Each had a picture of the three Jeep models was pictured at an archetypical American location. The headlines read something like: There's only one Grand Canyon. There's only one Jeep. Yeah. One time I arranged to rent a Jeep through Avis. When I got to my destination what was waiting for me was a Suzuki Jeep. Not only that, but the Avis guy said, Oh, by the way, just ignore the engine overheat warning light. It comes on all the time. It did. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT - Jeeps, jeeps and Land Rovers (was: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm)
On 11/25/06, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are still places on Earth where the CJ-3 is made under license (India for one I think - Mahindra) here in india, the jeep *is* synonymous with the Willys utility vehicle (it is not generic) and, as you point out, the mahindra derivatives (most of them have peugeot diesel engines which have a reputation for sturdiness; i think they also use renault engines, though i am not too sure) which are still being made here. the following one, i think, resembles the original willys, at least in looks: http://www.mahindra.com/mahindras/automotive/CL500-550%20MDI.HTM btw, you can still see a lot of the original willys jeeps running around in fairly good shape... :) regards, subash (not a car or a jeep guy :)) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm
On 11/25/06, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 25/11/06, David Savage, discombobulated, unleashed: That's another thing I hate. When corporations trademark common usage terms. ...like fuckface. Sorry, I mean FuckFace (t). Har! Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm
On Nov 25, 2006, at 12:51 AM, Adam Maas wrote: Jeep is a generic term that Willys co-opted then spent years turning into a brand. That gives them and their successor companies exactly zero right to bitch when people use the term genericly as far as I'm concerned. Before the vehicle there was a character in Popeye named Jeep. Some think that's where the name came from. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm
On Nov 25, 2006, at 12:44 AM, David Savage wrote: Chrysler are victims of their own marketing then. Jeep has now entered the English language, they will forever be defending the trademark. It's the same problem that Apple is having with it's i-Pod trademark. Look at the number of mp3 players that are now i-this or pod that. I remember reading a British photo magazine years ago (like how I steered this back towards photography :-) The author referred to a ball point pen as a biro in one of his articles and got a politely worded letter from the Biro trademark owners lawyers, telling him to stop that. He was simply unaware that it was a brand. I have no point, other than if an advertising campaign the product are successful, it enters common language usage, the trademark owners are going to be very busy. Yep. Lots of letters to send out. When I was writing for Shutterbug I got quite a nice collection of the Velcro letter. Every time I mentioned Velcro in an article I got one. I always capitalized Velcro as a nod to its brand name status, but they would have had me check each time to see if what I was describing on a product was really Velcro brand or not. If not, they wanted me to call it generic hook and loop fastener. Yeah, that really rolls smoothly off your tongue! Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm
We all KNOW he has a point. We just don't need it to be repeated ad infinitum (and with increasing levels of obscenity), by him or by you or by anybody else. We have ALL had it up to the eyeballs with this, and it is surprising to me that you are attempting to prolong the thread by your posts, and at the same time pretend weariness with the whole subject. As I said, like JCO, you can't let it go. And if that's bullshit, in your view, so be it. John On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 02:22:41 -, P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John, I'm tired. I have had it up to my eyeballs with your BS. I've also had it up to my eyeballs with JCO's. On the other hand while he may be a one note symphony he has a valid point, that Pentax is being quite cynical in it's advertising about backward compatibility in marketing it's DSLRs. I, and a number of others on this list, agree with this point, to some extent. Most of us have learned to leave him alone when he starts to rant. The last few responses to his posts on this subject, have been of the, I don't need it, it's not necessary, it's gone, get over it, not to mention the oh so eloquent get lost. All of which kind of misses the point. After watching the pig pile long enough, when someone else, in this case me, chimes in that he has a point, you attack them as well. Because you silence someone doesn't make them wrong. Now you've decided to ignore the posts that have more or less said we don't need it. Well, I've made an offer, if you don't need the capability of open aperture metering, I'm perfectly willing to trade a near mint quality lens for a bargain quality one, A bargain A 35mm f2.0 for a near mint M 35mm f2.0, to make my point. I don't need auto focus, I'll happily manually focus my 50mm normal equivalent. I expect no takers because the capability to meter at full aperture is very desirable. You can't accuse me of not having used the *ist D or Ds as I own one of each. It's a _pain_ _in_ _the_ _ass_ to switch between lenses,that work properly (FA, F and A) and those that don't, (heck it's a pain in the ass to switch between the D and DS but that's another rant, which could have avoided by buying two D's, so thats my fault). I'm not saying the K and M lenses don't work, or that when you have time to use them they can't be rewarding, just that they are a pain in the ass, especially when you are working fast. Having a raft load of M and K lenses hasn't stopped me from buying new and used FA, F, and A lenses to use with my D and DS. Not having done so would apparently disqualify me from discussing this according to some, but in my case it doesn't. Maybe JCO is incapable of forming a coherent thought when he's angry, and he's easy to anger Maybe you think it's fun to bait him. Why don't you pick on someone your own size for a change. With all due respect P. J. Alling John Forbes wrote: As far as I can recall, nobody here has ever said that the aperture simulator is totally unnecessary. Almost everybody here would like to have it on a DSLR. Nobody is arguing against the AP; they are simply fed up with a million posts reiterating the same old argument. But, like JCO, you seem unable to grasp that fact. John On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 23:29:08 -, P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just as an aside, to anyone who thinks the aperture simulator is totally unnecessary. I'd love to trade my nearly mint M-35mm f2.0 for the equivalent A lens in bargain condition. Any takers? I though not. John Whittingham wrote: I'm sure they weren't trying to deliberately mislead you but logic says this is pure BS. Given that a component for registering lens aperture position was incorporated in every camera including the least expensive for many years. I don't know if it would generate a significant number of sales (I don't expect the additional cost to incorporate it would be large enough to stymie sales) but it sure would make operation of legacy lenses far more natural/intuitive. Is this the part of the thread where common sense takes over, thanks Rob. Does anyone really think that incorporating support for legacy lenses K M (fully) would stop your average Pentax owner from buying new ones? I think not I've more K, M A lenses than I can shake a stick at, but I still bought FA primes and zooms, now I'm looking for a DA 16-45 or maybe the DA 12- 24..oh and perhaps a telephoto with USM, HSM or whatever Pentax decide to label it in the future. John -- Original Message --- From: Digital Image Studio [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Sent: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 09:35:45 +1100 Subject: Re: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm On 25/11/06, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That $35.00 (US currency) is the estimated manufacturing cost per unit that I got from a recently retired Pentax rep. In a normal marketplace
Re: OT - Jeeps, jeeps and Land Rovers (was: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm)
Interesting, thanks. As Cotty noted, that's essentially the same as the old CJ-3. The current version sold in the US is called Jeep Wrangler. It's even better off road but too civilized for the die-hard Jeep fans. Paul On Nov 25, 2006, at 6:21 AM, SJ wrote: On 11/25/06, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are still places on Earth where the CJ-3 is made under license (India for one I think - Mahindra) here in india, the jeep *is* synonymous with the Willys utility vehicle (it is not generic) and, as you point out, the mahindra derivatives (most of them have peugeot diesel engines which have a reputation for sturdiness; i think they also use renault engines, though i am not too sure) which are still being made here. the following one, i think, resembles the original willys, at least in looks: http://www.mahindra.com/mahindras/automotive/CL500-550%20MDI.HTM btw, you can still see a lot of the original willys jeeps running around in fairly good shape... :) regards, subash (not a car or a jeep guy :)) -- 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: Pentax 1.8 85mm
- Original Message - From: Cotty Subject: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm On 25/11/06, David Savage, discombobulated, unleashed: That's another thing I hate. When corporations trademark common usage terms. ...like fuckface. Sorry, I mean FuckFace (t). Fuckface is the registered trademark of the Incompetent Lying Abusing Punk Thug Coward Mental Cases Corp. WW -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT - Jeeps, jeeps and Land Rovers (was: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm)
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 08:51:15 -0500 Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interesting, thanks. As Cotty noted, that's essentially the same as the old CJ-3. The current version sold in the US is called Jeep Wrangler. It's even better off road but too civilized for the die-hard Jeep fans. you are welcome paul. :) here too, there are many versions of the vehicle. the link i had sent earlier (the cj-3) is sold as a rural utility vehicle. for a more upmarket (mahindra designed) version, see here: http://www.mahindra-bolero.com/ and i hope, this is not getting too OT regards, subash -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm
On 11/25/06, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course, the exact same thing has happened with Hummer (which originated as military slang for a HMMWV). That's not quite right. When the HMMWV first started replacing Jeeps and some other tactical vehicles in the 80's it immediately earned the name hum-vee, at leat among Army personnel. The brand Hummer was something invented by GM several years later when they had fulfilled their government contract and started selling these things to the public. New recruits who call them hummers often find themselves the subject of ridicule as they do more push-ups. -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com Shoot more film! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT - Jeeps, jeeps and Land Rovers (was: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm)
On 25/11/06, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed: Interesting, thanks. As Cotty noted, that's essentially the same as the old CJ-3. The current version sold in the US is called Jeep Wrangler. It's even better off road but too civilized for the die-hard Jeep fans. Too right. Now these are more like it ;-))) http://www.jeepbrokers.com/Jeep_Ads_Sold/CJ5/jeep_ads_sold_cj5.htm -- 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
Re: OT - Jeeps, jeeps and Land Rovers (was: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm)
On 25/11/06, SJ, discombobulated, unleashed: and i hope, this is not getting too OT Welcome to the PDML :-) -- 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
Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm
On 25/11/06, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed: Fuckface is the registered trademark of the Incompetent Lying Abusing Punk Thug Coward Mental Cases Corp. WW North American division? In the UK I have seen it used by Total Wazzock And Tosser Ltd. -- 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
Re: OT - Jeeps, jeeps and Land Rovers (was: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm)
On 11/25/06, SJ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: and i hope, this is not getting too OT No such thing as too off topic. :-) Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: OT - Jeeps, jeeps and Land Rovers (was: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm)
Interesting, thanks. As Cotty noted, that's essentially the same as the old CJ-3. The current version sold in the US is called Jeep Wrangler. It's even better off road but too civilized for the die-hard Jeep fans. Too right. Now these are more like it ;-))) http://www.jeepbrokers.com/Jeep_Ads_Sold/CJ5/jeep_ads_sold_cj5.htm -- around here they're mostly driven up and down Old Compton Street by men with highlights. -- Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm
: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm On 25/11/06, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That $35.00 (US currency) is the estimated manufacturing cost per unit that I got from a recently retired Pentax rep. In a normal marketplace, that would translate to about a $150.00-$200.00 retail cost increase to the end user of the equipment. The retail camera marketplace is too competitive to allow that kind of cost increase on consumer level DSLR bodies, which is all Pentax is selling at the moment. Pentax didn't think including it would generate as many sales as having a lower end user price would. Fuckface will disagree, but his connection to reality is tenuous at best. I'm sure they weren't trying to deliberately mislead you but logic says this is pure BS. Given that a component for registering lens aperture position was incorporated in every camera including the least expensive for many years. I don't know if it would generate a significant number of sales (I don't expect the additional cost to incorporate it would be large enough to stymie sales) but it sure would make operation of legacy lenses far more natural/intuitive. -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net The information transmitted is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you have received an email in error please notify Carmel College on [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete all copies of it from your systems. Although Carmel College scans incoming and outgoing emails and email attachments for viruses we cannot guarantee a communication to be free of all viruses nor accept any responsibility for viruses. Although Carmel College monitors incoming and outgoing emails for inappropriate content, the college cannot be held responsible for the views or expressions of the author. The views expressed may not necessarily be those of Carmel College and Carmel College cannot be held responsible for any loss or injury resulting from the contents of a message. --- End of Original Message --- The information transmitted is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you have received an email in error please notify Carmel College on [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete all copies of it from your systems. Although Carmel College scans incoming and outgoing emails and email attachments for viruses we cannot guarantee a communication to be free of all viruses nor accept any responsibility for viruses. Although Carmel College monitors incoming and outgoing emails for inappropriate content, the college cannot be held responsible for the views or expressions of the author. The views expressed may not necessarily be those of Carmel College and Carmel College cannot be held responsible for any loss or injury resulting from the contents of a message. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm
Actually it was AM General that built the Humvee, not GM. GM bought the rights to build the military Humvee as Hummers and tied the name to further development of civilian vehicle's based on current GM chassis. Scott Loveless wrote: On 11/25/06, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course, the exact same thing has happened with Hummer (which originated as military slang for a HMMWV). That's not quite right. When the HMMWV first started replacing Jeeps and some other tactical vehicles in the 80's it immediately earned the name hum-vee, at leat among Army personnel. The brand Hummer was something invented by GM several years later when they had fulfilled their government contract and started selling these things to the public. New recruits who call them hummers often find themselves the subject of ridicule as they do more push-ups. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm
In a message dated 11/24/2006 11:29:31 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IS, VR, Shake reduction, etc. They are all the same concept ( done in either lenses or bodies ) with different trade names jco === Sigh. Against my better judgment, I respond. They are different. One of the biggest differences is that some are in camera and some are in lens. This makes quite a difference as regards usage. One of the reasons I will probably switch back to Pentax from Canon, after I hear more reports and read reviews. Marnie aka Doe And since I have no K or M lenses, I need no $5-$1,000 part. Nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm
Marnie, Are you trying to cause trouble? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 11/24/2006 11:29:31 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IS, VR, Shake reduction, etc. They are all the same concept ( done in either lenses or bodies ) with different trade names jco === Sigh. Against my better judgment, I respond. They are different. One of the biggest differences is that some are in camera and some are in lens. This makes quite a difference as regards usage. One of the reasons I will probably switch back to Pentax from Canon, after I hear more reports and read reviews. Marnie aka Doe And since I have no K or M lenses, I need no $5-$1,000 part. Nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm
It certainly was against your better judgement, I specifically mentioned that some were done with bodies and some were done with lenses, but the net effect of all of the them is that the image tracks the camera movement to keep the recorded image from blurring Nobody mentioned it but the lens technique has one major advantage over the body technique, and that is it will work for film as well digital whereas its not really possible to do IS for film in the body... jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 1:34 PM To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm In a message dated 11/24/2006 11:29:31 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IS, VR, Shake reduction, etc. They are all the same concept ( done in either lenses or bodies ) with different trade names jco === Sigh. Against my better judgment, I respond. They are different. One of the biggest differences is that some are in camera and some are in lens. This makes quite a difference as regards usage. One of the reasons I will probably switch back to Pentax from Canon, after I hear more reports and read reviews. Marnie aka Doe And since I have no K or M lenses, I need no $5-$1,000 part. Nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah. -- 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: Pentax 1.8 85mm
- Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm It certainly was against your better judgement, I specifically mentioned that some were done with bodies and some were done with lenses, but the net effect of all of the them is that the image tracks the camera movement to keep the recorded image from blurring Nobody mentioned it but the lens technique has one major advantage over the body technique, and that is it will work for film as well digital whereas its not really possible to do IS for film in the body... I suspect that Pentax, along with the other camera makers, is pretty much done making film SLR cameras. The huge advantage of in camera IS over in lens IS is that every lens that can be used on the camera can take advantage of the technology. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm
William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm It certainly was against your better judgement, I specifically mentioned that some were done with bodies and some were done with lenses, but the net effect of all of the them is that the image tracks the camera movement to keep the recorded image from blurring Nobody mentioned it but the lens technique has one major advantage over the body technique, and that is it will work for film as well digital whereas its not really possible to do IS for film in the body... I suspect that Pentax, along with the other camera makers, is pretty much done making film SLR cameras. The huge advantage of in camera IS over in lens IS is that every lens that can be used on the camera can take advantage of the technology. William Robb That's the case. I only expect new 35mm film cameras from Mr K. at Cosina and maybe Leica. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm
In a message dated 11/25/2006 12:17:29 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Marnie, Are you trying to cause trouble? === Sorry. :-( I am ashamed to admit that I fell into the pit that I fully realized was there, having watched tons of others fall into it before me. But, whattheheck, sometimes you just gotta, huh? LOL. Marnie aka Doe -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm
The body technique has many advantages over the lens technique, but for film bodies, its a no go, thats probably the sole advantage of the lens technique, it works for either film or digital.. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Robb Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 6:11 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm It certainly was against your better judgement, I specifically mentioned that some were done with bodies and some were done with lenses, but the net effect of all of the them is that the image tracks the camera movement to keep the recorded image from blurring Nobody mentioned it but the lens technique has one major advantage over the body technique, and that is it will work for film as well digital whereas its not really possible to do IS for film in the body... I suspect that Pentax, along with the other camera makers, is pretty much done making film SLR cameras. The huge advantage of in camera IS over in lens IS is that every lens that can be used on the camera can take advantage of the technology. 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: Pentax 1.8 85mm
That's a valid argument, for film shooters. Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of J. C. O'Connell Sent: 25. november 2006 23:49 To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Subject: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm It certainly was against your better judgement, I specifically mentioned that some were done with bodies and some were done with lenses, but the net effect of all of the them is that the image tracks the camera movement to keep the recorded image from blurring Nobody mentioned it but the lens technique has one major advantage over the body technique, and that is it will work for film as well digital whereas its not really possible to do IS for film in the body... jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 1:34 PM To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm In a message dated 11/24/2006 11:29:31 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IS, VR, Shake reduction, etc. They are all the same concept ( done in either lenses or bodies ) with different trade names jco === Sigh. Against my better judgment, I respond. They are different. One of the biggest differences is that some are in camera and some are in lens. This makes quite a difference as regards usage. One of the reasons I will probably switch back to Pentax from Canon, after I hear more reports and read reviews. Marnie aka Doe And since I have no K or M lenses, I need no $5-$1,000 part. Nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah. -- 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: Pentax 1.8 85mm
On 11/25/06 6:53 PM, J. C. O'Connell, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The body technique has many advantages over the lens technique, but for film bodies, its a no go, thats probably the sole advantage of the lens technique, it works for either film or digital. I do not have a K100D and am still waiting for the K10D. I have a couple of Canon IS zooms (consumer grade, 28-135 and 75-300) and one thing I might miss would be the confident feeling of the finder image actually stabilize as you peep. In the end, we get the same benefit, be it an in-camera or an in-lens system, but for the DSLR, through the lens confirmation of how the image is being stabilized would be beneficial (aside from the argument of possible image degradation due to additional lens system required for IS etc). I am so used to in-lens stabilization but the ability to make any lens into the stabilized ones would eventually prevail. Don't know what happens when they ever go FF, but that's another story which we have no way of knowing for now :-). Ken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT - Jeeps, jeeps and Land Rovers (was: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm)
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 00:37:03 +0800 David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: and i hope, this is not getting too OT No such thing as too off topic. :-) dave, thanks. i think that sounds reassuring... :) regards, subash -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm
In a message dated 11/25/2006 4:18:47 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I do not have a K100D and am still waiting for the K10D. I have a couple of Canon IS zooms (consumer grade, 28-135 and 75-300) and one thing I might miss would be the confident feeling of the finder image actually stabilize as you peep. In the end, we get the same benefit, be it an in-camera or an in-lens system, but for the DSLR, through the lens confirmation of how the image is being stabilized would be beneficial (aside from the argument of possible image degradation due to additional lens system required for IS etc). I am so used to in-lens stabilization but the ability to make any lens into the stabilized ones would eventually prevail. Don't know what happens when they ever go FF, but that's another story which we have no way of knowing for now :-). Ken Hmmm, oh. Didn't realize K100/K10D AS didn't show in the viewfinder. That would be strange, not seeing it. I am used to that. Marnie aka Doe (one of the nasty Canon users on list) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm
- Original Message - From: Markus Maurer Subject: AW: Pentax 1.8 85mm This may be a stupid question but does SR/IS have any negative side effects? Not for us Pentax users, its only available on digital cameras. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm Hmmm, oh. Didn't realize K100/K10D AS didn't show in the viewfinder. That would be strange, not seeing it. I am used to that. I am avoiding looking through the viewfinder of an inlens IS system for this very reason. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm
On 11/25/06 10:59 PM, William Robb, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am avoiding looking through the viewfinder of an inlens IS system for this very reason. I understand that some people actually get a motion sickness by looking through the finder with IS lenses. I do not understand why because the image stabilizes fairly quickly, but when your hands or body moves beyond the IS's range, the image does look like it is swaying which might give some people motion sickness. Ken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm
On 11/26/06, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Markus Maurer Subject: AW: Pentax 1.8 85mm This may be a stupid question but does SR/IS have any negative side effects? Not for us Pentax users, its only available on digital cameras. LOL I had to read that twice :-) Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm
I exchanged my A70-210 + 20EUR for a K85 1.8 in a store. My best deal so far. Sometimes it is not easy to focus it when shooting wide open (very narrow DoF) but when you manage it, it is one of the sharpests lens i have. Regards, Jaume - Mensaje original De: Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Para: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Enviado: jueves, 23 de noviembre, 2006 21:05:32 Asunto: Pentax 1.8 85mm I was offered to buy this lens locally. A K-mount lens, I believe. Is it worth buying? Thanks in advance. Regards Jens -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.14/548 - Release Date: 11/23/2006 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net __ LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo. Llamadas a fijos y móviles desde 1 céntimo por minuto. http://es.voice.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So the $5 part is now a $50 part? For the record, it's several parts, not one. The people at Pentax I've heard from estimate that the parts and associated additional assembly complexity add about $25.00-35.00 to the cost of a camera. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm
I think if you continue to persist with these childish obscene fuckface comments YOU should be kicked off the list immediately. Its totally inappropriate and completely unprovoked. Stop it if you can help yourself, you pathetic loser... JCO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Robb Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 10:49 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff Subject: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm Once more into the breach Paul, stop encouraging this line of commentary. Discussion. Fuckface. End of discussion. 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: Pentax 1.8 85mm
And how many really good K/M lenses do you have that you dont ming losing key features on for only $50 in savings? JCO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of cbwaters Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 10:37 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm I would not. - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' pdml@pdml.net Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 10:31 PM Subject: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm A HAR! does not answer the question. Would you pay $50 more for full K/M support on a top line Pentax DSLR or not? I W O U L D ! If I only had ONE really good K/M lens it would be well worth it to me. JCO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Stenquist Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 10:20 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm HAR! On Nov 23, 2006, at 9:55 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: Put it the way it is, if you could buy a high end DSLR body for only an extra $50 that would fully support this and the many other fine K/M lenses you wouldnt? I certainly would, its a no brainer. Its not a matter that you can work around the lack of full support, its a matter if you would pay the $50 bucks to get it or not... It's dumb to even not have it for ONE $300 K/M lens, let lone all the fine K/M lenses one may use. This is a cost vs benefit issue, not whether you can get a picture with the lenses at all jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Stenquist Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 9:20 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm HAR! I use it all the time on my digital Pentax cameras. No problem. An *istD/K85/1.8 sample: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2154000 Paul On Nov 23, 2006, at 8:58 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: That lens is one of the many good reasons the Pentax top line DSLRS should be fully supporting K/M lenses.. joco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jens Bladt Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 6:56 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: SV: Pentax 1.8 85mm Thanks Paul, Shel and PJ. I'll se if I can get it for 300 USD. 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 P. J. Alling Sendt: 24. november 2006 00:47 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm Yes. Jens Bladt wrote: I was offered to buy this lens locally. A K-mount lens, I believe. Is it worth buying? Thanks in advance. Regards Jens -- 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: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.14/548 - Release Date: 11/23/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.14/548 - Release Date: 11/23/2006 -- 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 -- 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 -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.14.14/547 - Release Date: 11/22/2006 5:41 PM -- 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: Pentax 1.8 85mm
Thats not the issue, the issue is would you rather have full support of K/M for the very low cost it would add to the camera or not? THAT is what I am talking about. Your so called argument makes no sense. Its like saying no need for IS, because tripods exist, or no need for a meter at all because you could take pictures using an external hand held meter. These are good camera FEATURES, not just the ability to get a photograph or not if you work around the lack of the features. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 1:30 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm Read between the lines ... John, why do you insist on continuing this stupidity. We all know your position on this, and for those of us who buy and use Pentax DSLR's, we have either accepted the reality of the situation or just don't care. I love my K-mount lenses, and I'm glad to be able to easily use them on the DSLR. Shel J. C. O'Connell wrote: A HAR! does not answer the question. Would you pay $50 more for full K/M support on a top line Pentax DSLR or not? I W O U L D ! If I only had ONE really good K/M lens it would be well worth it to me. -- 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: Pentax 1.8 85mm
Sure you wouldnt, I don't believe you one bit. Youre just full of shit yourself$900 for a DSLR with crippled K/M or $950 with full K/M support and you would buy the $900 camera, either your lying or retarded if you have $300+ K/M lenses you dont want to take full advantage of them by saving a piddly $50. The part you dont understand is its really really DUMB to disable key features of really, really good K/M lenses, possibly a whole bunch of them, to save a single lousy $50 on the $900 or more body. JCO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Stenquist Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 10:41 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm I wouldn't pay a nickel more for it if I had a choice. Apparently Pentax agrees. Your opinion is irrelevant. You don't buy new cameras or new lenses. You've never tried using a K or M lens on a Pentax digital. You're nothing but a bag of hot air. You're merely a loudmouth sideline player. You don't count. You're a zero. What part of this don't you understand? Paul (Filling in for Bill since it's a holiday down here and a working day up there) On Nov 23, 2006, at 10:31 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: A HAR! does not answer the question. Would you pay $50 more for full K/M support on a top line Pentax DSLR or not? I W O U L D ! If I only had ONE really good K/M lens it would be well worth it to me. JCO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Stenquist Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 10:20 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm HAR! On Nov 23, 2006, at 9:55 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: Put it the way it is, if you could buy a high end DSLR body for only an extra $50 that would fully support this and the many other fine K/M lenses you wouldnt? I certainly would, its a no brainer. Its not a matter that you can work around the lack of full support, its a matter if you would pay the $50 bucks to get it or not... It's dumb to even not have it for ONE $300 K/M lens, let lone all the fine K/M lenses one may use. This is a cost vs benefit issue, not whether you can get a picture with the lenses at all jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Stenquist Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 9:20 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm HAR! I use it all the time on my digital Pentax cameras. No problem. An *istD/K85/1.8 sample: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2154000 Paul On Nov 23, 2006, at 8:58 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: That lens is one of the many good reasons the Pentax top line DSLRS should be fully supporting K/M lenses.. joco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jens Bladt Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 6:56 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: SV: Pentax 1.8 85mm Thanks Paul, Shel and PJ. I'll se if I can get it for 300 USD. 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 P. J. Alling Sendt: 24. november 2006 00:47 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm Yes. Jens Bladt wrote: I was offered to buy this lens locally. A K-mount lens, I believe. Is it worth buying? Thanks in advance. Regards Jens -- 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: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.14/548 - Release Date: 11/23/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.14/548 - Release Date: 11/23/2006 -- 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 -- 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 -- 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: Pentax 1.8 85mm
No one cares cares about metering features? No one cares about exposure modes? You're out of your GD mind... jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Stenquist Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 10:37 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm But you're forgetting that no one cares. The K 10D sold out in one day at BH. Retailers I've talked to say the demand is amazing. Only JCO cares about the aperture simulator piece of shot. GET OVER IT!! You're an anachronism. Only you care. Shut up about it. Paul On Nov 23, 2006, at 10:26 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: $5 part, $50 retail price increase. If they can sell you IS for $100 retail price increase, its pretty safe to say the simple aperture cam sensor wouldnt cost the customer more than $50. Care to argue that one? jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 10:06 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm So the $5 part is now a $50 part? Do you have any other pet subjects you'd like to rant about ad nauseum? Quoting J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Put it the way it is, if you could buy a high end DSLR body for only an extra $50 that would fully support this and the many other fine K/M lenses you wouldnt? I certainly would, its a no brainer. Its not a matter that you can work around the lack of full support, its a matter if you would pay the $50 bucks to get it or not... It's dumb to even not have it for ONE $300 K/M lens, let lone all the fine K/M lenses one may use. This is a cost vs benefit issue, not whether you can get a picture with the lenses at all jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Stenquist Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 9:20 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm HAR! I use it all the time on my digital Pentax cameras. No problem. An *istD/K85/1.8 sample: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2154000 Paul On Nov 23, 2006, at 8:58 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: That lens is one of the many good reasons the Pentax top line DSLRS should be fully supporting K/M lenses.. joco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jens Bladt Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 6:56 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: SV: Pentax 1.8 85mm Thanks Paul, Shel and PJ. I'll se if I can get it for 300 USD. 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 P. J. Alling Sendt: 24. november 2006 00:47 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm Yes. Jens Bladt wrote: I was offered to buy this lens locally. A K-mount lens, I believe. Is it worth buying? Thanks in advance. Regards Jens -- 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: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.14/548 - Release Date: 11/23/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.14/548 - Release Date: 11/23/2006 -- 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 -- 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 -- 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: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm
Yes, its technically an assembly, not a part. And its way way simpler than IS, which they are current only asking $100 more for (retail) than the body without IS. Thats why I stated I bet that it wouldnt add more than $50 to the retail cost of the body and thats being generous to Pentax... JCO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Roberts Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 7:33 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So the $5 part is now a $50 part? For the record, it's several parts, not one. The people at Pentax I've heard from estimate that the parts and associated additional assembly complexity add about $25.00-35.00 to the cost of a camera. -- 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: Pentax 1.8 85mm
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006, William Robb wrote: We can no longer discuss certain subjects due to the thread hijacking that Fuckface insists on perpetrating. Essentially, we have lost the right to discuss non A series bayonet lenses, and Pentax backwards compatability. I know you think killfiles are for wimps, but, I assure you, they work miracles. Kostas (killfiles work miracles, not wimps) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm
We can no longer discuss certain subjects due to the thread hijacking that Fuckface insists on perpetrating. Essentially, we have lost the right to discuss non A series bayonet lenses, and Pentax backwards compatability. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm
Actually, its much more complex mechanically than Pentax's SR system (although it's less complex than Sony/Minolta's). The Pentax SR system is two plates, one of which floats on magnets and is controlled by strategically placed electromagnets. Essentially the moving parts are the plate (which holds a circuit board) and the cable which connects the circuit board to the rest of the camera. That's it. It's an exercise in elegant engineering. -Adam J. C. O'Connell wrote: Yes, its technically an assembly, not a part. And its way way simpler than IS, which they are current only asking $100 more for (retail) than the body without IS. Thats why I stated I bet that it wouldnt add more than $50 to the retail cost of the body and thats being generous to Pentax... JCO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Roberts Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 7:33 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So the $5 part is now a $50 part? For the record, it's several parts, not one. The people at Pentax I've heard from estimate that the parts and associated additional assembly complexity add about $25.00-35.00 to the cost of a camera. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
re: Pentax 1.8 85mm
First of all, I'm not putting forth an argument. I'm just stating an opinion and how I feel about the situation. But, since you insist, it doesn't matter very much to me. I'm satisfied with the way the lenses work on the DSLR's. Yes, it would be nice if the lenses could be used as they were on the earlier film bodies, but for me, and many, many others here, it's not a big deal. You constantly criticize people for not answering your questions. So, with that in mind, answer mine - the one I asked earlier and the others in this message: John, why do you insist on continuing this stupidity. We all know your position on this ... How many times are you going to repeat your position? How many threads are you going to hijack with your repetitive comments? Do you have any idea how foolish you appear to others here on the PDML? JCO Wrote: Thats not the issue, the issue is would you rather have full support of K/M for the very low cost it would add to the camera or not? THAT is what I am talking about. Your so called argument makes no sense. Its like saying no need for IS, because tripods exist, or no need for a meter at all because you could take pictures using an external hand held meter. These are good camera FEATURES, not just the ability to get a photograph or not if you work around the lack of the features. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm
Get it right - Pentax doesn't offer IS at this point. Shel J. C. O'Connell wrote: Yes, its technically an assembly, not a part. And its way way simpler than IS -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm
I restated my postion on this when the K85/1.8 came up because many here have stated that the K/M lenses are old obsolete lenses and then proceed later to rave about lenses like the K85, etc. I say if these old lenses were no good, that would be one thing, but thats not the case, and if full K/M support could be implemented cheaply ( And I believe it can ), I would definately pay for that. This isnt a rehash, its just further proof to support my position. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 10:04 AM To: PDML Subject: re: Pentax 1.8 85mm First of all, I'm not putting forth an argument. I'm just stating an opinion and how I feel about the situation. But, since you insist, it doesn't matter very much to me. I'm satisfied with the way the lenses work on the DSLR's. Yes, it would be nice if the lenses could be used as they were on the earlier film bodies, but for me, and many, many others here, it's not a big deal. You constantly criticize people for not answering your questions. So, with that in mind, answer mine - the one I asked earlier and the others in this message: John, why do you insist on continuing this stupidity. We all know your position on this ... How many times are you going to repeat your position? How many threads are you going to hijack with your repetitive comments? Do you have any idea how foolish you appear to others here on the PDML? JCO Wrote: Thats not the issue, the issue is would you rather have full support of K/M for the very low cost it would add to the camera or not? THAT is what I am talking about. Your so called argument makes no sense. Its like saying no need for IS, because tripods exist, or no need for a meter at all because you could take pictures using an external hand held meter. These are good camera FEATURES, not just the ability to get a photograph or not if you work around the lack of the features. -- 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: Pentax 1.8 85mm
J. C. O'Connell wrote: That lens is one of the many good reasons the Pentax top line DSLRS should be fully supporting K/M lenses.. joco Go away, John. -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm
Hijacking? I have the right to discuss usability of the K/M lenses when they are discussed just like anybody else. You are the one hijacking the list with your stupid repeated fuckface comments. It just shows you cant discuss the topic, so you have to resort to these stupid childish off topic obscene posts. It's really pathetic jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Robb Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 9:20 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm We can no longer discuss certain subjects due to the thread hijacking that Fuckface insists on perpetrating. Essentially, we have lost the right to discuss non A series bayonet lenses, and Pentax backwards compatability. 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: Pentax 1.8 85mm
Your very mistaken on that, the cam sensor is nothing but a simple potentiometer and a spring to hold it snugly against the cam. The IS also needs the motion sensors/interface which you neglected to mention and needed software for the IS is much more complex too. There is no way that the IS is cheaper or even the same price as the cam sensor would be. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Maas Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 9:56 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm Actually, its much more complex mechanically than Pentax's SR system (although it's less complex than Sony/Minolta's). The Pentax SR system is two plates, one of which floats on magnets and is controlled by strategically placed electromagnets. Essentially the moving parts are the plate (which holds a circuit board) and the cable which connects the circuit board to the rest of the camera. That's it. It's an exercise in elegant engineering. -Adam J. C. O'Connell wrote: Yes, its technically an assembly, not a part. And its way way simpler than IS, which they are current only asking $100 more for (retail) than the body without IS. Thats why I stated I bet that it wouldnt add more than $50 to the retail cost of the body and thats being generous to Pentax... JCO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Roberts Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 7:33 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So the $5 part is now a $50 part? For the record, it's several parts, not one. The people at Pentax I've heard from estimate that the parts and associated additional assembly complexity add about $25.00-35.00 to the cost of a camera. -- 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: Pentax 1.8 85mm
shel: Anti Shake is nothing more than branding verbiage on Pentax' implementation of image stabilization, which is a class of technologies encompassing optical, digital, and sensor based implementations for reducing/minimizing camera motion during recording. Godfrey On Nov 24, 2006, at 7:11 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Get it right - Pentax doesn't offer IS at this point. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm
From: Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/11/24 Fri PM 02:56:25 GMT To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm Actually, its much more complex mechanically than Pentax's SR system (although it's less complex than Sony/Minolta's). The Pentax SR system is two plates, one of which floats on magnets and is controlled by strategically placed electromagnets. Essentially the moving parts are the plate (which holds a circuit board) and the cable which connects the circuit board to the rest of the camera. That's it. It's an exercise in elegant engineering. One of those plates is an entirely new assembly, not seen in any camera before. It therefore has development costs. The electromagnets contain expensive metal and need to be manufactured as separate assemblies and then constructed onto the plate. Then the sub-assemblies need to be joined toether. Elegant, indeed, and undoubtedly less mechanically complex than the aperture simulator mechanism. But much more complex in other ways and undoubtedly more expensive, at present, than a few pieces of stamped, painted steel. - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm
For the record, it's several parts, not one. The people at Pentax I've heard from estimate that the parts and associated additional assembly complexity add about $25.00-35.00 to the cost of a camera. For what it's worth, I'd pay the extra $35 for the feature. That's about £18 GBP, which doesn't buy a whole hell of a lot in the UK. But I doubt it will ever be implemented, I'm glad I can still use my older lenses with the K10D but I've moved on years ago, keeping the K series lenses though. I'd rather not be involved in a heated debate or slanging match, if I'm prompted I WILL NOT reply. John John Whittingham -- Original Message --- From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Sent: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 07:32:59 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So the $5 part is now a $50 part? For the record, it's several parts, not one. The people at Pentax I've heard from estimate that the parts and associated additional assembly complexity add about $25.00-35.00 to the cost of a camera. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net --- - The information transmitted is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you have received an email in error please notify Carmel College on [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete all copies of it from your systems. Although Carmel College scans incoming and outgoing emails and email attachments for viruses we cannot guarantee a communication to be free of all viruses nor accept any responsibility for viruses. Although Carmel College monitors incoming and outgoing emails for inappropriate content, the college cannot be held responsible for the views or expressions of the author. The views expressed may not necessarily be those of Carmel College and Carmel College cannot be held responsible for any loss or injury resulting from the contents of a message. --- - --- End of Original Message --- The information transmitted is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you have received an email in error please notify Carmel College on [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete all copies of it from your systems. Although Carmel College scans incoming and outgoing emails and email attachments for viruses we cannot guarantee a communication to be free of all viruses nor accept any responsibility for viruses. Although Carmel College monitors incoming and outgoing emails for inappropriate content, the college cannot be held responsible for the views or expressions of the author. The views expressed may not necessarily be those of Carmel College and Carmel College cannot be held responsible for any loss or injury resulting from the contents of a message. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm
So for 35 extra buck we could have full K and M compatibility? I'll bet it would be less if they'd designed it in from the beginning. Mark Roberts wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So the $5 part is now a $50 part? For the record, it's several parts, not one. The people at Pentax I've heard from estimate that the parts and associated additional assembly complexity add about $25.00-35.00 to the cost of a camera. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm
The aperture sensing apparatus could be redesigned to be mechanically just as elegant. Adam Maas wrote: Actually, its much more complex mechanically than Pentax's SR system (although it's less complex than Sony/Minolta's). The Pentax SR system is two plates, one of which floats on magnets and is controlled by strategically placed electromagnets. Essentially the moving parts are the plate (which holds a circuit board) and the cable which connects the circuit board to the rest of the camera. That's it. It's an exercise in elegant engineering. -Adam J. C. O'Connell wrote: Yes, its technically an assembly, not a part. And its way way simpler than IS, which they are current only asking $100 more for (retail) than the body without IS. Thats why I stated I bet that it wouldnt add more than $50 to the retail cost of the body and thats being generous to Pentax... JCO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Roberts Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 7:33 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So the $5 part is now a $50 part? For the record, it's several parts, not one. The people at Pentax I've heard from estimate that the parts and associated additional assembly complexity add about $25.00-35.00 to the cost of a camera. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm
I know you think killfiles are for wimps, but, I assure you, they work miracles. Kostas (killfiles work miracles, not wimps) -- Agreed. The only JCO posts I get now are those where others have responded. He can't hijack a thread unless people respond to him. He can very simply meet a huge wall of silence if he gets out of hand. As far as I'm concerned, I don't care to listen to anything he has to say now, be it germane or not. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm
J. C. O'Connell wrote: Hijacking? I have the right to discuss usability of the K/M lenses You have the right to discuss it when you actually try it. Everyone else who comments on it, has actually used it. -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm
Dont foolish, I know exactly what these DSLR K/M metering mode(s) are and are not. I dont have to buy or use the camera to know that. Are you attempting to say that the metering and exposure modes are now the same as they would be if the K/M lenses were fully supported via a cam sensor? HINT, The answer is NO. Metering would be done open aperture and true continuous open aperture AE ( with the usual AE lock ) would be possible but as these cameras currently are, these things are not possible. Dont try to say that because I havent bought/used the camera I dont know the differences because I do. These cameras essentially give you AE LOCK only, with no continuous AE and they do it stopped down instead of wide open which can dramatically lower the metering sensitivity when using small fstops. Both are not as good as fully supported K/M metering and exposure modes would be. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 12:12 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm J. C. O'Connell wrote: Hijacking? I have the right to discuss usability of the K/M lenses You have the right to discuss it when you actually try it. Everyone else who comments on it, has actually used it. -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.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: Pentax 1.8 85mm
IS, VR, Shake reduction, etc. They are all the same concept ( done in either lenses or bodies ) with different trade names jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 10:11 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm Get it right - Pentax doesn't offer IS at this point. Shel J. C. O'Connell wrote: Yes, its technically an assembly, not a part. And its way way simpler than IS -- 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: Pentax 1.8 85mm
Some of my best lenses are non-A lenses. M 1.7 50mm K 2.8 105mm K 2.5 135mm M* 4 300mm I'd gladly pay 50 $ more for my next body, ig it had an anperture simulator But I know this is not going to happen. 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 J. C. O'Connell Sendt: 24. november 2006 16:23 Til: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Emne: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm I restated my postion on this when the K85/1.8 came up because many here have stated that the K/M lenses are old obsolete lenses and then proceed later to rave about lenses like the K85, etc. I say if these old lenses were no good, that would be one thing, but thats not the case, and if full K/M support could be implemented cheaply ( And I believe it can ), I would definately pay for that. This isnt a rehash, its just further proof to support my position. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 10:04 AM To: PDML Subject: re: Pentax 1.8 85mm First of all, I'm not putting forth an argument. I'm just stating an opinion and how I feel about the situation. But, since you insist, it doesn't matter very much to me. I'm satisfied with the way the lenses work on the DSLR's. Yes, it would be nice if the lenses could be used as they were on the earlier film bodies, but for me, and many, many others here, it's not a big deal. You constantly criticize people for not answering your questions. So, with that in mind, answer mine - the one I asked earlier and the others in this message: John, why do you insist on continuing this stupidity. We all know your position on this ... How many times are you going to repeat your position? How many threads are you going to hijack with your repetitive comments? Do you have any idea how foolish you appear to others here on the PDML? JCO Wrote: Thats not the issue, the issue is would you rather have full support of K/M for the very low cost it would add to the camera or not? THAT is what I am talking about. Your so called argument makes no sense. Its like saying no need for IS, because tripods exist, or no need for a meter at all because you could take pictures using an external hand held meter. These are good camera FEATURES, not just the ability to get a photograph or not if you work around the lack of the features. -- 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: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.14/548 - Release Date: 11/23/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.14/548 - Release Date: 11/23/2006 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm
Why dont you go away if all you can add to a discussion is worthless go away post? jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 10:26 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm J. C. O'Connell wrote: That lens is one of the many good reasons the Pentax top line DSLRS should be fully supporting K/M lenses.. joco Go away, John. -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.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: Pentax 1.8 85mm
Since we're talking about Pentax, get it right. Don't generalize - be specific and precise. By using the wrong terminology you are passing along erroneous information. The results are similar but the implementation and the concepts are different. Shel [Original Message] From: J. C. O'Connell IS, VR, Shake reduction, etc. They are all the same concept ( done in either lenses or bodies ) with different trade names jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 10:11 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm Get it right - Pentax doesn't offer IS at this point. Shel J. C. O'Connell wrote: Yes, its technically an assembly, not a part. And its way way simpler than IS -- 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: Pentax 1.8 85mm
I personally don't care, but then I use my screwmount lenses more than my K/M lenses. -Adam Jens Bladt wrote: Some of my best lenses are non-A lenses. M 1.7 50mm K 2.8 105mm K 2.5 135mm M* 4 300mm I'd gladly pay 50 $ more for my next body, ig it had an anperture simulator But I know this is not going to happen. 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 J. C. O'Connell Sendt: 24. november 2006 16:23 Til: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Emne: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm I restated my postion on this when the K85/1.8 came up because many here have stated that the K/M lenses are old obsolete lenses and then proceed later to rave about lenses like the K85, etc. I say if these old lenses were no good, that would be one thing, but thats not the case, and if full K/M support could be implemented cheaply ( And I believe it can ), I would definately pay for that. This isnt a rehash, its just further proof to support my position. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 10:04 AM To: PDML Subject: re: Pentax 1.8 85mm First of all, I'm not putting forth an argument. I'm just stating an opinion and how I feel about the situation. But, since you insist, it doesn't matter very much to me. I'm satisfied with the way the lenses work on the DSLR's. Yes, it would be nice if the lenses could be used as they were on the earlier film bodies, but for me, and many, many others here, it's not a big deal. You constantly criticize people for not answering your questions. So, with that in mind, answer mine - the one I asked earlier and the others in this message: John, why do you insist on continuing this stupidity. We all know your position on this ... How many times are you going to repeat your position? How many threads are you going to hijack with your repetitive comments? Do you have any idea how foolish you appear to others here on the PDML? JCO Wrote: Thats not the issue, the issue is would you rather have full support of K/M for the very low cost it would add to the camera or not? THAT is what I am talking about. Your so called argument makes no sense. Its like saying no need for IS, because tripods exist, or no need for a meter at all because you could take pictures using an external hand held meter. These are good camera FEATURES, not just the ability to get a photograph or not if you work around the lack of the features. -- 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: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.14/548 - Release Date: 11/23/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.14/548 - Release Date: 11/23/2006 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm
It's like ordering a Coke when all they sell is Pepsi, everybody knows what I am talking about except possibly you, actually, scratch that, you knew, you just want to argue over nothing. Since the term IS came first, its more like a COKE than a pepsi (pentax) . These are just different trade names for the same damn thing, the image/sensor is moved to compensate for camera movements to reduce blur... What does Konica-Minolta call theirs? It's the same technique as Pentax is currently usingIf you dont like my terminology fine, but sometimes the generic term is the more appropriate term to use. And in the case of Pentax, they are only using one technique so there can be no confusion when reffering to their version of IS. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 3:19 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm Since we're talking about Pentax, get it right. Don't generalize - be specific and precise. By using the wrong terminology you are passing along erroneous information. The results are similar but the implementation and the concepts are different. Shel [Original Message] From: J. C. O'Connell IS, VR, Shake reduction, etc. They are all the same concept ( done in either lenses or bodies ) with different trade names jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 10:11 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm Get it right - Pentax doesn't offer IS at this point. Shel J. C. O'Connell wrote: Yes, its technically an assembly, not a part. And its way way simpler than IS -- 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: Pentax 1.8 85mm
On 11/24/06, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: everybody knows what I am talking about except possibly you, actually, scratch that, you knew, you just want to argue over nothing. Sounds familiar? -- Perry Pellechia Primary email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Alternate email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home Page: http://homer.chem.sc.edu/perry -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm
How like my own list of best lenses, M 1.4 50mm M 2.0 85mm M 2.8 120mm K 2.5 135mm A* 4.0 300mm Jens Bladt wrote: Some of my best lenses are non-A lenses. M 1.7 50mm K 2.8 105mm K 2.5 135mm M* 4 300mm I'd gladly pay 50 $ more for my next body, ig it had an anperture simulator But I know this is not going to happen. 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 J. C. O'Connell Sendt: 24. november 2006 16:23 Til: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Emne: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm I restated my postion on this when the K85/1.8 came up because many here have stated that the K/M lenses are old obsolete lenses and then proceed later to rave about lenses like the K85, etc. I say if these old lenses were no good, that would be one thing, but thats not the case, and if full K/M support could be implemented cheaply ( And I believe it can ), I would definately pay for that. This isnt a rehash, its just further proof to support my position. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 10:04 AM To: PDML Subject: re: Pentax 1.8 85mm First of all, I'm not putting forth an argument. I'm just stating an opinion and how I feel about the situation. But, since you insist, it doesn't matter very much to me. I'm satisfied with the way the lenses work on the DSLR's. Yes, it would be nice if the lenses could be used as they were on the earlier film bodies, but for me, and many, many others here, it's not a big deal. You constantly criticize people for not answering your questions. So, with that in mind, answer mine - the one I asked earlier and the others in this message: John, why do you insist on continuing this stupidity. We all know your position on this ... How many times are you going to repeat your position? How many threads are you going to hijack with your repetitive comments? Do you have any idea how foolish you appear to others here on the PDML? JCO Wrote: Thats not the issue, the issue is would you rather have full support of K/M for the very low cost it would add to the camera or not? THAT is what I am talking about. Your so called argument makes no sense. Its like saying no need for IS, because tripods exist, or no need for a meter at all because you could take pictures using an external hand held meter. These are good camera FEATURES, not just the ability to get a photograph or not if you work around the lack of the features. -- 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: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.14/548 - Release Date: 11/23/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.14/548 - Release Date: 11/23/2006 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm
- Original Message - From: John Whittingham Subject: Re: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm For the record, it's several parts, not one. The people at Pentax I've heard from estimate that the parts and associated additional assembly complexity add about $25.00-35.00 to the cost of a camera. For what it's worth, I'd pay the extra $35 for the feature. That's about £18 GBP, which doesn't buy a whole hell of a lot in the UK. But I doubt it will ever be implemented, I'm glad I can still use my older lenses with the K10D but I've moved on years ago, keeping the K series lenses though. That $35.00 (US currency) is the estimated manufacturing cost per unit that I got from a recently retired Pentax rep. In a normal marketplace, that would translate to about a $150.00-$200.00 retail cost increase to the end user of the equipment. The retail camera marketplace is too competitive to allow that kind of cost increase on consumer level DSLR bodies, which is all Pentax is selling at the moment. Pentax didn't think including it would generate as many sales as having a lower end user price would. Fuckface will disagree, but his connection to reality is tenuous at best. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm
On 25/11/06, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That $35.00 (US currency) is the estimated manufacturing cost per unit that I got from a recently retired Pentax rep. In a normal marketplace, that would translate to about a $150.00-$200.00 retail cost increase to the end user of the equipment. The retail camera marketplace is too competitive to allow that kind of cost increase on consumer level DSLR bodies, which is all Pentax is selling at the moment. Pentax didn't think including it would generate as many sales as having a lower end user price would. Fuckface will disagree, but his connection to reality is tenuous at best. I'm sure they weren't trying to deliberately mislead you but logic says this is pure BS. Given that a component for registering lens aperture position was incorporated in every camera including the least expensive for many years. I don't know if it would generate a significant number of sales (I don't expect the additional cost to incorporate it would be large enough to stymie sales) but it sure would make operation of legacy lenses far more natural/intuitive. -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm
Yep - it's damned annoying when people argue over stupid, inane, and useless points - think about that the next time your fingers are about to type something to the PDML. Shel [Original Message] From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Date: 11/24/2006 1:33:45 PM Subject: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm It's like ordering a Coke when all they sell is Pepsi, everybody knows what I am talking about except possibly you, actually, scratch that, you knew, you just want to argue over nothing. Since the term IS came first, its more like a COKE than a pepsi (pentax) . These are just different trade names for the same damn thing, the image/sensor is moved to compensate for camera movements to reduce blur... What does Konica-Minolta call theirs? It's the same technique as Pentax is currently usingIf you dont like my terminology fine, but sometimes the generic term is the more appropriate term to use. And in the case of Pentax, they are only using one technique so there can be no confusion when reffering to their version of IS. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 3:19 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm Since we're talking about Pentax, get it right. Don't generalize - be specific and precise. By using the wrong terminology you are passing along erroneous information. The results are similar but the implementation and the concepts are different. Shel [Original Message] From: J. C. O'Connell IS, VR, Shake reduction, etc. They are all the same concept ( done in either lenses or bodies ) with different trade names jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 10:11 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm Get it right - Pentax doesn't offer IS at this point. Shel J. C. O'Connell wrote: Yes, its technically an assembly, not a part. And its way way simpler than IS -- 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 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm
I'm sure they weren't trying to deliberately mislead you but logic says this is pure BS. Given that a component for registering lens aperture position was incorporated in every camera including the least expensive for many years. I don't know if it would generate a significant number of sales (I don't expect the additional cost to incorporate it would be large enough to stymie sales) but it sure would make operation of legacy lenses far more natural/intuitive. Is this the part of the thread where common sense takes over, thanks Rob. Does anyone really think that incorporating support for legacy lenses K M (fully) would stop your average Pentax owner from buying new ones? I think not I've more K, M A lenses than I can shake a stick at, but I still bought FA primes and zooms, now I'm looking for a DA 16-45 or maybe the DA 12- 24..oh and perhaps a telephoto with USM, HSM or whatever Pentax decide to label it in the future. John -- Original Message --- From: Digital Image Studio [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Sent: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 09:35:45 +1100 Subject: Re: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm On 25/11/06, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That $35.00 (US currency) is the estimated manufacturing cost per unit that I got from a recently retired Pentax rep. In a normal marketplace, that would translate to about a $150.00-$200.00 retail cost increase to the end user of the equipment. The retail camera marketplace is too competitive to allow that kind of cost increase on consumer level DSLR bodies, which is all Pentax is selling at the moment. Pentax didn't think including it would generate as many sales as having a lower end user price would. Fuckface will disagree, but his connection to reality is tenuous at best. I'm sure they weren't trying to deliberately mislead you but logic says this is pure BS. Given that a component for registering lens aperture position was incorporated in every camera including the least expensive for many years. I don't know if it would generate a significant number of sales (I don't expect the additional cost to incorporate it would be large enough to stymie sales) but it sure would make operation of legacy lenses far more natural/intuitive. -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net The information transmitted is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you have received an email in error please notify Carmel College on [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete all copies of it from your systems. Although Carmel College scans incoming and outgoing emails and email attachments for viruses we cannot guarantee a communication to be free of all viruses nor accept any responsibility for viruses. Although Carmel College monitors incoming and outgoing emails for inappropriate content, the college cannot be held responsible for the views or expressions of the author. The views expressed may not necessarily be those of Carmel College and Carmel College cannot be held responsible for any loss or injury resulting from the contents of a message. --- End of Original Message --- The information transmitted is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you have received an email in error please notify Carmel College on [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete all copies of it from your systems. Although Carmel College scans incoming and outgoing emails and email attachments for viruses we cannot guarantee a communication to be free of all viruses nor accept any responsibility for viruses. Although Carmel College monitors incoming and outgoing emails for inappropriate content, the college cannot be held responsible for the views or expressions of the author. The views expressed may not necessarily be those of Carmel College and Carmel College cannot be held responsible for any loss or injury resulting from the contents of a message. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm
No, it's not. A Coke is NOT Pepsi. They are different formulas and taste different. When I order a Coke, I don't want a Pepsi. The converse is also true. Try telling Coke that it's the same as Pepsi. If you tell me Coke, I expect Coke, not Pepsi. If you want to argue minutia, make a good solid argument, not this specious soft drink crap. Next you'll be telling us that a 7-up is the same as a Sprite, and that Budweiser is a Corona, and a Land Rover is a Jeep (Don't let Daimler-Chrysler catch you ... they are very protective of their trademark name). Shel [Original Message] From: J. C. O'Connell It's like ordering a Coke when all they sell is Pepsi, everybody knows what I am talking about except possibly you, actually, scratch that, you knew, you just want to argue over nothing. Since the term IS came first, its more like a COKE than a pepsi (pentax) . These are just different trade names for the same damn thing, the image/sensor is moved to compensate for camera movements to reduce blur... What does Konica-Minolta call theirs? It's the same technique as Pentax is currently usingIf you dont like my terminology fine, but sometimes the generic term is the more appropriate term to use. And in the case of Pentax, they are only using one technique so there can be no confusion when reffering to their version of IS. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm
Just as an aside, to anyone who thinks the aperture simulator is totally unnecessary. I'd love to trade my nearly mint M-35mm f2.0 for the equivalent A lens in bargain condition. Any takers? I though not. John Whittingham wrote: I'm sure they weren't trying to deliberately mislead you but logic says this is pure BS. Given that a component for registering lens aperture position was incorporated in every camera including the least expensive for many years. I don't know if it would generate a significant number of sales (I don't expect the additional cost to incorporate it would be large enough to stymie sales) but it sure would make operation of legacy lenses far more natural/intuitive. Is this the part of the thread where common sense takes over, thanks Rob. Does anyone really think that incorporating support for legacy lenses K M (fully) would stop your average Pentax owner from buying new ones? I think not I've more K, M A lenses than I can shake a stick at, but I still bought FA primes and zooms, now I'm looking for a DA 16-45 or maybe the DA 12- 24..oh and perhaps a telephoto with USM, HSM or whatever Pentax decide to label it in the future. John -- Original Message --- From: Digital Image Studio [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Sent: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 09:35:45 +1100 Subject: Re: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm On 25/11/06, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That $35.00 (US currency) is the estimated manufacturing cost per unit that I got from a recently retired Pentax rep. In a normal marketplace, that would translate to about a $150.00-$200.00 retail cost increase to the end user of the equipment. The retail camera marketplace is too competitive to allow that kind of cost increase on consumer level DSLR bodies, which is all Pentax is selling at the moment. Pentax didn't think including it would generate as many sales as having a lower end user price would. Fuckface will disagree, but his connection to reality is tenuous at best. I'm sure they weren't trying to deliberately mislead you but logic says this is pure BS. Given that a component for registering lens aperture position was incorporated in every camera including the least expensive for many years. I don't know if it would generate a significant number of sales (I don't expect the additional cost to incorporate it would be large enough to stymie sales) but it sure would make operation of legacy lenses far more natural/intuitive. -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net The information transmitted is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you have received an email in error please notify Carmel College on [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete all copies of it from your systems. Although Carmel College scans incoming and outgoing emails and email attachments for viruses we cannot guarantee a communication to be free of all viruses nor accept any responsibility for viruses. Although Carmel College monitors incoming and outgoing emails for inappropriate content, the college cannot be held responsible for the views or expressions of the author. The views expressed may not necessarily be those of Carmel College and Carmel College cannot be held responsible for any loss or injury resulting from the contents of a message. --- End of Original Message --- The information transmitted is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you have received an email in error please notify Carmel College on [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete all copies of it from your systems. Although Carmel College scans incoming and outgoing emails and email attachments for viruses we cannot guarantee a communication to be free of all viruses nor accept any responsibility for viruses. Although Carmel College monitors incoming and outgoing emails for inappropriate content, the college cannot be held responsible for the views or expressions of the author. The views expressed may not necessarily be those of Carmel College and Carmel College cannot be held responsible for any loss or injury resulting from the contents of a message
RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm
You missed the point, some brands become so popular and have been around so long that they become a generic term for everything similar. A Coke is just one of them (it's become a virtual generic term for a cola soda ) ... If you think my example is not good enough, YOU come up with a better oneNot ones that that HAVEN'T. JCO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 6:14 PM To: PDML Subject: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm No, it's not. A Coke is NOT Pepsi. They are different formulas and taste different. When I order a Coke, I don't want a Pepsi. The converse is also true. Try telling Coke that it's the same as Pepsi. If you tell me Coke, I expect Coke, not Pepsi. If you want to argue minutia, make a good solid argument, not this specious soft drink crap. Next you'll be telling us that a 7-up is the same as a Sprite, and that Budweiser is a Corona, and a Land Rover is a Jeep (Don't let Daimler-Chrysler catch you ... they are very protective of their trademark name). Shel [Original Message] From: J. C. O'Connell It's like ordering a Coke when all they sell is Pepsi, everybody knows what I am talking about except possibly you, actually, scratch that, you knew, you just want to argue over nothing. Since the term IS came first, its more like a COKE than a pepsi (pentax) . These are just different trade names for the same damn thing, the image/sensor is moved to compensate for camera movements to reduce blur... What does Konica-Minolta call theirs? It's the same technique as Pentax is currently usingIf you dont like my terminology fine, but sometimes the generic term is the more appropriate term to use. And in the case of Pentax, they are only using one technique so there can be no confusion when reffering to their version of IS. -- 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: Pentax 1.8 85mm
On Nov 24, 2006, at 6:14 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: No, it's not. A Coke is NOT Pepsi. They are different formulas and taste different. When I order a Coke, I don't want a Pepsi. The converse is also true. Try telling Coke that it's the same as Pepsi. If you tell me Coke, I expect Coke, not Pepsi. If you want to argue minutia, make a good solid argument, not this specious soft drink crap. Next you'll be telling us that a 7-up is the same as a Sprite, and that Budweiser is a Corona, and a Land Rover is a Jeep (Don't let Daimler-Chrysler catch you ... they are very protective of their trademark name). What makes me royally mad is to ask for butter in a restaurant and be brought margerine. They are not the same, no matter how many blank- faced young waitresses try to convince me otherwise. Similarly, if I ask for cream for my coffee, I mean something that came from a cow, not some partially-hydrogenated soybean oil crapola. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm
Listen WR, you complete dumbshit, Thats not what you said originally, you said they PROFITED $25-35 by not putting it in which would be the total cost of implementation, not just the part cost. Your nuts if you think it would cost $150-200 retail to add the cam sensor because all you have to do look at the IS, it sells for only $100 RETAIL and its a hell of a lot more complex/costly, both from a hardware and software standpoint. They have/had ENTIRE SLR cameras with cam sensors that sell for well under $200. P.S Go give your boyfried a blowjob if you are so gay horny you cant stop with the stupid sexual obscenities...Maybe that will make you give it up... jco -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Robb Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 5:08 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm - Original Message - From: John Whittingham Subject: Re: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm For the record, it's several parts, not one. The people at Pentax I've heard from estimate that the parts and associated additional assembly complexity add about $25.00-35.00 to the cost of a camera. For what it's worth, I'd pay the extra $35 for the feature. That's about £18 GBP, which doesn't buy a whole hell of a lot in the UK. But I doubt it will ever be implemented, I'm glad I can still use my older lenses with the K10D but I've moved on years ago, keeping the K series lenses though. That $35.00 (US currency) is the estimated manufacturing cost per unit that I got from a recently retired Pentax rep. In a normal marketplace, that would translate to about a $150.00-$200.00 retail cost increase to the end user of the equipment. The retail camera marketplace is too competitive to allow that kind of cost increase on consumer level DSLR bodies, which is all Pentax is selling at the moment. Pentax didn't think including it would generate as many sales as having a lower end user price would. Fuckface will disagree, but his connection to reality is tenuous at best. 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: Pentax 1.8 85mm
On Nov 24, 2006, at 2:56 PM, John Whittingham wrote: Is this the part of the thread where common sense takes over Sadly, John, I don't expect common sense or courtesy to appear in these discussions at all. An imbecile monomaniac will post the same inane litany thousands of times as soon as he gets started. Best thing to do is filter him and every thread he hijacks directly to the trash bucket and ignore it completely. I've just put the filter on this thread into place. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm
That is not the case with IS or SR - and the point is that a Coke is not a Pepsi, and Canon's IS is not Penatx's SR. Coke, BTW, has not become a generic term. Tell that to the good folks in Atlanta. It's not my place to come up with examples for you. If you want to argue a point, use good examples. Shel [Original Message] From: J. C. O'Connell You missed the point, some brands become so popular and have been around so long that they become a generic term for everything similar. A Coke is just one of them (it's become a virtual generic term for a cola soda ) ... If you think my example is not good enough, YOU come up with a better oneNot ones that that HAVEN'T. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm
As far as I can recall, nobody here has ever said that the aperture simulator is totally unnecessary. Almost everybody here would like to have it on a DSLR. Nobody is arguing against the AP; they are simply fed up with a million posts reiterating the same old argument. But, like JCO, you seem unable to grasp that fact. John On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 23:29:08 -, P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just as an aside, to anyone who thinks the aperture simulator is totally unnecessary. I'd love to trade my nearly mint M-35mm f2.0 for the equivalent A lens in bargain condition. Any takers? I though not. John Whittingham wrote: I'm sure they weren't trying to deliberately mislead you but logic says this is pure BS. Given that a component for registering lens aperture position was incorporated in every camera including the least expensive for many years. I don't know if it would generate a significant number of sales (I don't expect the additional cost to incorporate it would be large enough to stymie sales) but it sure would make operation of legacy lenses far more natural/intuitive. Is this the part of the thread where common sense takes over, thanks Rob. Does anyone really think that incorporating support for legacy lenses K M (fully) would stop your average Pentax owner from buying new ones? I think not I've more K, M A lenses than I can shake a stick at, but I still bought FA primes and zooms, now I'm looking for a DA 16-45 or maybe the DA 12- 24..oh and perhaps a telephoto with USM, HSM or whatever Pentax decide to label it in the future. John -- Original Message --- From: Digital Image Studio [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Sent: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 09:35:45 +1100 Subject: Re: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm On 25/11/06, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That $35.00 (US currency) is the estimated manufacturing cost per unit that I got from a recently retired Pentax rep. In a normal marketplace, that would translate to about a $150.00-$200.00 retail cost increase to the end user of the equipment. The retail camera marketplace is too competitive to allow that kind of cost increase on consumer level DSLR bodies, which is all Pentax is selling at the moment. Pentax didn't think including it would generate as many sales as having a lower end user price would. Fuckface will disagree, but his connection to reality is tenuous at best. I'm sure they weren't trying to deliberately mislead you but logic says this is pure BS. Given that a component for registering lens aperture position was incorporated in every camera including the least expensive for many years. I don't know if it would generate a significant number of sales (I don't expect the additional cost to incorporate it would be large enough to stymie sales) but it sure would make operation of legacy lenses far more natural/intuitive. -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net The information transmitted is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you have received an email in error please notify Carmel College on [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete all copies of it from your systems. Although Carmel College scans incoming and outgoing emails and email attachments for viruses we cannot guarantee a communication to be free of all viruses nor accept any responsibility for viruses. Although Carmel College monitors incoming and outgoing emails for inappropriate content, the college cannot be held responsible for the views or expressions of the author. The views expressed may not necessarily be those of Carmel College and Carmel College cannot be held responsible for any loss or injury resulting from the contents of a message. --- End of Original Message --- The information transmitted is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you have received an email in error please notify Carmel College on [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete all copies of it from your systems. Although Carmel College scans incoming and outgoing emails and email attachments for viruses we cannot guarantee a communication to be free of all viruses nor accept any responsibility for viruses. Although Carmel College
RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm
I never said a Coke WAS a pepsi, I said its become a virtual generic term for a cola. If you want a Pepsi, order a Pepsi, but if you dont care what brand you get (generic), 99% of the population orders a COKE, not a cola, when they want a cola. Get it? Secondly, I think the term IS is pretty much generic already in the photographic world. You are the exception when it comes to having the exact trade name referenced when talking about it...Image stabization is probably the best name for it, and the reason why it was chosen first by Canon, IMHO. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 6:48 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm That is not the case with IS or SR - and the point is that a Coke is not a Pepsi, and Canon's IS is not Penatx's SR. Coke, BTW, has not become a generic term. Tell that to the good folks in Atlanta. It's not my place to come up with examples for you. If you want to argue a point, use good examples. Shel [Original Message] From: J. C. O'Connell You missed the point, some brands become so popular and have been around so long that they become a generic term for everything similar. A Coke is just one of them (it's become a virtual generic term for a cola soda ) ... If you think my example is not good enough, YOU come up with a better oneNot ones that that HAVEN'T. -- 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: Pentax 1.8 85mm
John Forbes wrote: As far as I can recall, nobody here has ever said that the aperture simulator is totally unnecessary. Of course not. It's called the straw man argument: Arguing against a position which no one takes. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm
I agree. Substitutions are a problem in modern society. As are brand impeachments. I worked on Jeep advertising, and one of our major problems was that Jeep had become a generic name for 4x4 SUVs. This was particularly true in Europe. We even did an advertising campaign aimed specifically at correcting this. It was for Europe and South America only. Each had a picture of the three Jeep models was pictured at an archetypical American location. The headlines read something like: There's only one Grand Canyon. There's only one Jeep. Paul On Nov 24, 2006, at 6:33 PM, Bob Shell wrote: On Nov 24, 2006, at 6:14 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: No, it's not. A Coke is NOT Pepsi. They are different formulas and taste different. When I order a Coke, I don't want a Pepsi. The converse is also true. Try telling Coke that it's the same as Pepsi. If you tell me Coke, I expect Coke, not Pepsi. If you want to argue minutia, make a good solid argument, not this specious soft drink crap. Next you'll be telling us that a 7-up is the same as a Sprite, and that Budweiser is a Corona, and a Land Rover is a Jeep (Don't let Daimler-Chrysler catch you ... they are very protective of their trademark name). What makes me royally mad is to ask for butter in a restaurant and be brought margerine. They are not the same, no matter how many blank- faced young waitresses try to convince me otherwise. Similarly, if I ask for cream for my coffee, I mean something that came from a cow, not some partially-hydrogenated soybean oil crapola. Bob -- 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: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm
- Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm Listen WR, you complete dumbshit, Thats not what you said originally, you said they PROFITED $25-35 by not putting it in Um, you are not only a fuckface, you are a lying homophobic fuckface. From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net References: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: The JCO survey Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 22:29:01 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=Windows-1252; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962 - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff Subject: RE: The JCO survey A couple of questions: How do you know the part in question costs $5.00? The best information I have recieved is that the manufacturing cost per unit would be closer to US$35.00, and Pentax doesn't believe it is in their best interest to include this feature in their DSLR line. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm
On Nov 24, 2006, at 6:49 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: Go give your boyfried a blowjob if you are so gay horny you cant stop with the stupid sexual obscenities...Maybe that will make you give it up... Mark! I truly think some jco quotes belong in the yearly summary. If for no other reason, to point out the ignorance of his posts. Paul -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm
John, I'm tired. I have had it up to my eyeballs with your BS. I've also had it up to my eyeballs with JCO's. On the other hand while he may be a one note symphony he has a valid point, that Pentax is being quite cynical in it's advertising about backward compatibility in marketing it's DSLRs. I, and a number of others on this list, agree with this point, to some extent. Most of us have learned to leave him alone when he starts to rant. The last few responses to his posts on this subject, have been of the, I don't need it, it's not necessary, it's gone, get over it, not to mention the oh so eloquent get lost. All of which kind of misses the point. After watching the pig pile long enough, when someone else, in this case me, chimes in that he has a point, you attack them as well. Because you silence someone doesn't make them wrong. Now you've decided to ignore the posts that have more or less said we don't need it. Well, I've made an offer, if you don't need the capability of open aperture metering, I'm perfectly willing to trade a near mint quality lens for a bargain quality one, A bargain A 35mm f2.0 for a near mint M 35mm f2.0, to make my point. I don't need auto focus, I'll happily manually focus my 50mm normal equivalent. I expect no takers because the capability to meter at full aperture is very desirable. You can't accuse me of not having used the *ist D or Ds as I own one of each. It's a _pain_ _in_ _the_ _ass_ to switch between lenses,that work properly (FA, F and A) and those that don't, (heck it's a pain in the ass to switch between the D and DS but that's another rant, which could have avoided by buying two D's, so thats my fault). I'm not saying the K and M lenses don't work, or that when you have time to use them they can't be rewarding, just that they are a pain in the ass, especially when you are working fast. Having a raft load of M and K lenses hasn't stopped me from buying new and used FA, F, and A lenses to use with my D and DS. Not having done so would apparently disqualify me from discussing this according to some, but in my case it doesn't. Maybe JCO is incapable of forming a coherent thought when he's angry, and he's easy to anger Maybe you think it's fun to bait him. Why don't you pick on someone your own size for a change. With all due respect P. J. Alling John Forbes wrote: As far as I can recall, nobody here has ever said that the aperture simulator is totally unnecessary. Almost everybody here would like to have it on a DSLR. Nobody is arguing against the AP; they are simply fed up with a million posts reiterating the same old argument. But, like JCO, you seem unable to grasp that fact. John On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 23:29:08 -, P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just as an aside, to anyone who thinks the aperture simulator is totally unnecessary. I'd love to trade my nearly mint M-35mm f2.0 for the equivalent A lens in bargain condition. Any takers? I though not. John Whittingham wrote: I'm sure they weren't trying to deliberately mislead you but logic says this is pure BS. Given that a component for registering lens aperture position was incorporated in every camera including the least expensive for many years. I don't know if it would generate a significant number of sales (I don't expect the additional cost to incorporate it would be large enough to stymie sales) but it sure would make operation of legacy lenses far more natural/intuitive. Is this the part of the thread where common sense takes over, thanks Rob. Does anyone really think that incorporating support for legacy lenses K M (fully) would stop your average Pentax owner from buying new ones? I think not I've more K, M A lenses than I can shake a stick at, but I still bought FA primes and zooms, now I'm looking for a DA 16-45 or maybe the DA 12- 24..oh and perhaps a telephoto with USM, HSM or whatever Pentax decide to label it in the future. John -- Original Message --- From: Digital Image Studio [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Sent: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 09:35:45 +1100 Subject: Re: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm On 25/11/06, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That $35.00 (US currency) is the estimated manufacturing cost per unit that I got from a recently retired Pentax rep. In a normal marketplace, that would translate to about a $150.00-$200.00 retail cost increase to the end user of the equipment. The retail camera marketplace is too competitive to allow that kind of cost increase on consumer level DSLR bodies, which is all Pentax is selling at the moment. Pentax didn't think including it would generate as many sales as having a lower end user price would. Fuckface will disagree, but his connection to reality is tenuous at best. I'm sure they weren't trying
RE: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm
Thats NOT all you posted on the topic, you specifically posted they told you they decided to keep the $35 as profit too. I dont lie, you are the one lying by telling an obvious half truth here with a partial quote... My memory is better than yours on YOUR posts, maybe it's because you cant remember your own lies? jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Robb Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 8:49 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm Listen WR, you complete dumbshit, Thats not what you said originally, you said they PROFITED $25-35 by not putting it in Um, you are not only a fuckface, you are a lying homophobic fuckface. From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net References: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: The JCO survey Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 22:29:01 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=Windows-1252; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962 - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff Subject: RE: The JCO survey A couple of questions: How do you know the part in question costs $5.00? The best information I have recieved is that the manufacturing cost per unit would be closer to US$35.00, and Pentax doesn't believe it is in their best interest to include this feature in their DSLR line. 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: Pentax 1.8 85mm
I guess you missed his stupid fuckface comments he is using over and over about a hundred times and without any prior instigation before I posted this? I'm not surprised... jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Stenquist Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 8:42 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm On Nov 24, 2006, at 6:49 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: Go give your boyfried a blowjob if you are so gay horny you cant stop with the stupid sexual obscenities...Maybe that will make you give it up... Mark! I truly think some jco quotes belong in the yearly summary. If for no other reason, to point out the ignorance of his posts. Paul -- 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: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm
- Original Message - The simpleton, lying, abusing coward and active long term coprophagiac incurable homophobic fuckface posted: Subject: RE: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm Thats NOT all you posted on the topic, you specifically posted they told you they decided to keep the $35 as profit too. I dont lie, you are the one lying by telling an obvious half truth here with a partial quote... My memory is better than yours on YOUR posts, maybe it's because you cant remember your own lies? You can't seem to undertand what you read. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm
I don't want or need mechanical aperture position sensors in my DSLRs. I'd rather Pentax saved me the cost of it, no matter what it might be, and put the development money into delivering a DA28mm f/2 Limited lens. My lens kit is all most recent series Pentax lenses ... they do a better job. If, however, a mechanical aperture position sensor was there it wouldn't bother me. It would be about as relevant to my needs as the human appendix. I don't need an M35/2 lens either, I bought the FA35/2 AL. It's a better performing lens. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
