Re[2]: Photokina and Pentax - the future?
Hi, With a last name like fenstermacher, you'd think I'd have this German thing down... it's pretty easy really: -ei- is like ice, lice, rice, nice, dice, mice, spice, Zeiss... -ie- is like wiener, as in schnitzel. alles in ordnung! --- Bob Thursday, October 10, 2002, 3:24:00 PM, you wrote: On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, William Robb wrote: foo gee I knew that one, but it makes me laugh to see it spelled out as foo gee. or Zise Aha! I wasn't sure if it was zice or zeeece, and now I know. I asked one other person awhile back, and he said he's heard it both ways. With a last name like fenstermacher, you'd think I'd have this German thing down...
Re[2]: Photokina and Pentax - the future?
Perhaps only in the window-making business? Collin O'Brendemuehl :) With a last name like fenstermacher, you'd think I'd have this German thing down...
Re: Re[2]: Photokina and Pentax - the future?
Expectations are getting steeper all the time. A week ago it wouldhave bebeen enough to be sub $US2000. Regards, Anthony Farr - Original Message - From: Chris Brogden [EMAIL PROTECTED] (snip) and with a $1000 DSLR based on an MZ body, their stock would shoot up faster than a heroin addict in withdrawl. :) chris
Re: Re[2]: Photokina and Pentax - the future?
On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, gfen wrote: Again, who else has AF 645 cameras? Quite a few.. but who has a silent, quick focus 645? No one. Its a wide open market. Yup. If Pentax came out with USM and IS lenses for their 645 camera, and with a $1000 DSLR based on an MZ body, their stock would shoot up faster than a heroin addict in withdrawl. :) chris
Re: Re[2]: Photokina and Pentax - the future?
I've been kindof thinking about this too. But I've been thinking more along the lines of medfo lenses with USM. Think about it... a 645 or even 67 lens with a USM driven AF. Nick --- Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: gfen, Boy, I gotta admit you have a very interesting idea there... Bruce Tuesday, October 1, 2002, 9:38:10 AM, you wrote: g I don't really follow all of this, mainly because any new tech that g comes out, I can't afford, and I'm quite happy with what I've got now.. g But, all this talk of IS lenses and converters and other fun stuff.. g What's the chance it has nothing to do with 35mm, and that the IS lenses g were intended for the 645 system? g 645 IS lenses: There's a market NO ONE has, yet, and probably won't... g Canon, Sigma, and Nikon don't have MF cameras (although I believe that g Nikon makes Bronica lenses?). g It would be easy to corner a market that doesn't exist, if the existing g 35mm IS lenses are all based on Pentax patents (as I've read), then g presumably they don't have to license it out to any other manufacturers, g and if the P645 is considered a favourite among field photographers, g imagine having stabilized lenses on something like that. g I would say that IS 645 (or 67) lenses would far outweigh a digital back g among wildlife photogs, etc, especially (as I'm lead to understand), most g MF digital backs need to be tied to a PC to use them. Its also been said g many times that the Pentax pro segment is 645, not 35mm. Finally, haven't g we seenupdated MF cameras from Pentax both relativly recently (645nII, g 67II), are there contacts that might support this feature? g OK, someone shoot me down! = Nick Wright __ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Re: Re[2]: Photokina and Pentax - the future?
On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, Nick Wright wrote: I've been kindof thinking about this too. But I've been thinking more along the lines of medfo lenses with USM. Think about it... a 645 or even 67 lens with a USM driven AF. I think you'd need an AF 67, first.. But yeah. I actually forgot the USM idea that was being thrown around, as well. Again, who else has AF 645 cameras? Quite a few.. but who has a silent, quick focus 645? No one. Its a wide open market. -- http://www.infotainment.org The destructive character is cheerful. - Walter Benjamin
Re: Re[2]: Photokina and Pentax - the future?
Well I remember a few years ago, someone here posed the question as to why Pentax had not introduced an AF 67 camera. I believe the general consensus was something along the lines that the motor required to focus such large lenses would be much too big for the camera body. But with USM the motor is in the lenses and are much smaller. Not to mention that each motor would be ideallized for the lens that it was in. Nick Wrigh --- gfen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: *snip* I think you'd need an AF 67, first.. But yeah. I actually forgot the USM idea that was being thrown around, as well. __ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com
