At work we've had a couple of cases of people accidentally shorting
live DC busbars with their watch straps. We make power systems for
telecommunications, typically capable of producing 1,000A at 48VDC.
My watch has a leather strap...
Cheers,
- Dave
On Sep 17, 2004, at 10:36 PM, mike wilson
And then the artist replies: I don´t know, I just liked it´s
weirdness...
:-)
DagT
På 18. sep. 2004 kl. 05.59 skrev Ryan Lee:
I'm having one of those pleb-in-an-art-gallery moments..
But but but.. What does it mean?
:-)
Ryan
- Original Message -
From: DagT [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL
The surprise do you credit, Shel. :-)
You came across as a bit... patronising, I think.
Jostein
- Original Message -
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 7:10 PM
Subject: Re: Leica Goes Digital
Seems like you, to, misunderstood
Shel, I believe you.
You sig. is absolutely hilarious in this context, though. :-)
Cheers,
Jostein
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
it was never my intention to be negative.
Shel Belinkoff
People that hate cats will come back as mice in their next life.
Well the fact that they are still successfull , 25 years on, is indicative
that it is their policies work, and that their success is not due to chance
as you argue. Monopoly is a game you have to play to win from the start.
A.
On 17/9/04 11:53 pm, John C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/cgi-bin/paw.cgi?date=18-Sep-2004
- Dave
http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the people with many pre-A lenses that are interested in a DSLR for right
now are a tiny number of people. the software fix satisfied most of them.
spending a lot of money to satisfy a few hundred of people is a waste of
money. with Pentax looking now to
On 18/9/04, David Mann, discombobulated, unleashed:
http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/cgi-bin/paw.cgi?date=18-Sep-2004
Looks cold!
Very nice Dave.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_
i was being generous.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 9:52 AM
Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera!
To satisfy a few hundred people? You're overestimating, Herb. This
list represents 400-600
You guys don't seem to understand the implication of
abandoning support of K/M lenses with no technical ( and no
one has yet proven it was a cost issue either) reason
to do so. They have crossed the line and can longer be trusted
to support anything you buy for any time as they may decide
Pentax didn't screw me. I'm very happy with the *ist D. When I bought
my first one, I owned only K and M lenses. I was so happy with the way
the *ist D worked with these lenses that I went out and bought a second
*istD. I also bought an FA lens and a DA lens, which is exactly what
Pentax had
Thanks John.
I appreciate your time. Adding another $100.00 to the fund as we speak.
Now to sell more pictures to get the remainder.:-)
Dave
Dave, results from the A70-210 f4 on the
*ist-D look as
good as they do on a
film camera. I just shot two
Guess you didn't read this:
JCO wrote:
You guys don't seem to understand the implication of
abandoning support of K/M lenses with no technical ( and no
one has yet proven it was a cost issue either) reason
to do so. They have crossed the line and can longer be trusted to
support anything you buy
Nice shot, Dave. I like the grayscale effect in a color photograph.
Very pretty.
On Sep 18, 2004, at 6:35 AM, David Mann wrote:
http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/cgi-bin/paw.cgi?date=18-Sep-2004
- Dave
http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
On Sep 18, 2004, at 7:31 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
You guys don't seem to understand the implication of
abandoning support of K/M lenses with no technical ( and no
one has yet proven it was a cost issue either) reason
to do so. They have crossed the line and can longer be trusted
to support
Or course I read it. But it's only your opinion, and it's not even
based on personal experience. IThe vast majority of Pentax users who've
bought and used the *istD don't agree with you.
On Sep 18, 2004, at 7:58 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
Guess you didn't read this:
JCO wrote:
You guys don't
If they abandoned K/M aperture setting for no good reason what exactly
make you think they wont abandon other product's features shortly ,
later
products, products you now own or might buy? Why trust them after this?
It's a total about-face in policy from their entire previous
history
JCO
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004, Paul Stenquist wrote:
On Sep 18, 2004, at 7:31 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
You guys don't seem to understand the implication of
abandoning support of K/M lenses with no technical ( and no
one has yet proven it was a cost issue either) reason
to do so. They have
They're not stupid. They'll continue to support those products and
functions that matter. The aperture cam doesn't make a hoot of a
difference. The *istD works fine without it. But you don't know that.
You haven't tried it.
On Sep 18, 2004, at 8:14 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
If they abandoned
Again, those who are upset over the way the *istD utilizes K and M
lenses are, for the most part, those who haven't tried it.
Paul
On Sep 18, 2004, at 8:16 AM, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004, Paul Stenquist wrote:
On Sep 18, 2004, at 7:31 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
You guys
I don't need to buy or use the camera to see what they
are doing sucks. Less support of legacy products
with absolutely nothing gained in the process. This is
kinda similar to when they switched from screwmount to
K-mount. The SM auto aperure and aperture sensing was lost
on the newer K bodies but
WRONG WRONG WRONG.
When they went to K, they HAD to change the mount
to provide bayonet mounting and the new mount was
better. THEY GAINED A NEW BETTER MOUNTING SYSTEM.
There is NO new gain with the istD mount, just loss of K/M
AE.
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Antonio [mailto:[EMAIL
Caveman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No Paul, JCO is not alone.
I still own a couple of Pentax film cameras and lenses, they work just
fine, I'll probably keep one of them around for the fun of it, but
there's no more of my money to P. They are going in a direction that's
not exactly to my like,
I can't compete with David Mann's beautiful come on in, the water's warm!
http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/cgi-bin/paw.cgi?date=18-Sep-2004
so I'll offer this old shot with a story.
20 years ago last month, my employer gave us a family vacation to Disney
World. Florida in August was 95 to
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 22:30:59 +0100, John Forbes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A snapper from Oxford named Cotty
Was widely regarded as dotty
His photos weren't bad
But his jokes were just mad
And his verse was much worse; it was grotty.
Very clever, John!!
Of course, my favourite limericks (for
David Mann wrote:
http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/cgi-bin/paw.cgi?date=18-Sep-2004
- Dave
http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Hi, David
Just got back on list and back to reality - now i
have to see this???
waahh _ i wanna be _there_
Lovely, evocative shot. But you know that :)
annsan
Do calm down.
John
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 09:42:40 -0400, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
WRONG, read what I said, you cant see it unless
you press button and if you change aperture you
cant see it unless you press button again.
and if light changes, you cant see it unless you
press
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 19:59:59 -0400 (EDT), Fred Widall
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This evening I noticed the sun was casting the shadows of my grandson's
toy dinosaurs on the wall producing an interesting image.
Hope you like it.
http://ist.uwaterloo.ca/~fwwidall/dinos.html
That is an
Mark R, are you safe and dry?
Bill O ?
I got back in time to see that Cesar was ok
It has just tapered off here and it is never a
real problem
in my neck of the woods - though sometimes the
power goes.
Will eventually post a paw or two from my digital
snaps
Frank, the half roll of Tri-x was
Not exactly, the *istD provides digital capture, which its predecesors did
not. To some that is a big gain.
A.
On 18/9/04 2:51 pm, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BIG DIFFERENCE - read my last post. When they abandoned M42
in favor of K mount there was a huge gain, much better and
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 15:09:00 +0100, John Forbes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You mean like this one (which I have slightly colinised)?
A pleasing young girl of Nantucket
Was *
And *
But *
So **
I must say I prefer the unexpurgated
Well, in my book if the camera takes a stop down reading then it IS taking
apeture into account. All I am concerned with is does the camera respond to
changes I make manually to the apeture setting on the lens? Answer = Yes.
And does it change the shutter speed accordingly? Answer = Yes. And does
Rob Studdert wrote:
This will definitely be of interest on this list ;-)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/hitchhikers/
Airing on BBC Radio 4 Tuesdays from this coming week. Listen online via
above site
RealAudio streams only Gr,,,
Sorry :-)
S
Now that I'm not shooting film anymore I think it's time to sell the
scanner.
HP PhotoSmart Scanner Model # C5100A
http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/document?product=58823lang=enlc=encc=usdlc=endocname=bpy40001
- 2400ppi for slides and negatives 300ppi for prints up to 5x7
- 30 bit color (10
Nice composition and mood. I really like the grading of the blue/gray
tones.
Steven Desjardins
Department of Chemistry
Washington and Lee University
Lexington, VA 24450
(540) 458-8873
FAX: (540) 458-8878
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi!
I saw today, in a sh camera store, this beautifull ME
Super... unfortunatelly it has a little problem:
after the shutter fires, the mirror won't come down
(not even after a *very* gentle touch). Also the
mirror foam looks quite bad, I think it should be
changed. Otherwise, the camera seems to
Paul posted:
They're not stupid. They'll continue to support those products and
functions that matter. The aperture cam doesn't make a hoot of a
difference. The *istD works fine without it. But you don't know that.
You haven't tried it.
Paul, I agree with you entirely about the *ist D
Pentax DO support the legacy products fare better than most other manufacturers. My M
and K lenses work perfectly on my MX and KX which is what they were intended for. They
also work perfectly on my MZ-S, and very well on the *istD. They don't work well
enough on my wife's *ist, but she has
Hey Mark,
Support for legacy lenses is just a small part of the picture. Remember
that we're speaking of going from film to digital. It's a different
world. I am not even sure that I want a SLR type of camera. I suspect
that what I really want is a Canon G7 with fast response and fancy new
low
It probably just needs a CLA - if you can find someone to do that for
you, I'd go for it.
S
Sarbu Alexandru wrote:
Hi!
I saw today, in a sh camera store, this beautifull ME
Super... unfortunatelly it has a little problem:
after the shutter fires, the mirror won't come down
(not even after a
JCO said, among other things:
face it the *istD does not offer true AE with K/M.
It offers a mode, which I guess you could call one
shot AE, that is better than manual but much less than
conventional true AE.
You could also call it Hyper Manual.
ERN
that is NOT the way AE has worked for the last 30 years at pentax.
It has always been continuous, on the fly, and with the aperure
wide open. Stop down method is generally inferior because it
unnessacarily lowers the sensitivity of meter. And having to take
a reading before every exposure and
Nice story, nice shot. I miss having small children around. I'm going
to have to get my granddaughter over here every now and then.
Paul
On Sep 18, 2004, at 9:28 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can't compete with David Mann's beautiful come on in, the water's
warm!
Yeah, I throw all of my crap away, too, but I don't have anything left when
I'm done.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Tanya Mayer Photography [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 3:56 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: BG prints - *istD style
*blush*
You never had to take any readings with any Pentax camera
that supported AE. all you had to do was fire the shutter.
NO reading was ever necessary. Fire Fire Fire.
That is what AE is automatic exposure, takes lighting, film speed and
aperture into account at all times and fully automatically.
Interesting that you should mention the screwmounts, Antonio. (It was
actually in your last post, but I already deleted it.) For the very
fact that it doesn't have the stop down cam, the *istD supports
screwmount lenses better than any of the K-mount cameras have for the
last quarter century.
I think you'll find that K/M legacy lens support is worse with other manufacturers
than with Pentax.
Nick
-Original Message-
From: Caveman[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 18/09/04 13:48:05
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: istDs - what a great camera!
Not true, the gain is that you dont have to include a 1970's type manual
apeture cam as new lenses can comunicate with the camera bodies
electronically. Therefore you get lighter, les complicated lenses and
mounts, which have less moving parts and hence less to go wrong. I would say
that is an
Cotty found the solution ;-)
Nick Clark wrote:
I think you'll find that K/M legacy lens support is worse with other manufacturers
than with Pentax.
Yes, so I hear. I found using screwmounts on my super a a bit of a pain, but
the process sounds a whole lot more user friendly on the *istD.
A.
On 18/9/04 5:05 pm, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Interesting that you should mention the screwmounts, Antonio. (It was
actually in your
How is it supporting screwmounts any better than
a whole host of K bodies that would work in true AE stopdown mode
with screwmounts?
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 11:06 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re:
It's going to require a CLA (Clean, Lube, Adjust) to work properly.
Almost ANY ME Super you buy today is going to need this done.
So if you have a place that will CLA one at a fair price (Under $100.00 US)
you might as well start with as cheap a one as possible.
The sticky mirror problem is caused
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0409/04091602nikoncp8400.asp
Paul Franklin Stregevsky
Nice tranquil shot. Has a good feel to it. Good eye on this one, Dave.
Shel
From: David Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/cgi-bin/paw.cgi?date=18-Sep-2004
Not sure if I posted this one before. Made with a (Pentax) PS camera in
keeping with the situation LOL
http://home.earthlink.net/~sbelinkoff/bday-08bw.html
Im in favor of PROGRESS. Doing things in a new inferior
way is not PROGRESS. If it was the same or better as the past, that's
OK. But going backwards is REGRESSION. Especially
when it was not necessary ( nothing new was gained for this
regression). Sorry, I don't see how you can call removal of
I think I know that guy!
Didn't he used to teach Phys Ed?
Thanks Shel, neat shot.
Don (Who now likes almost ANY post not titled: Re:istDs - what a great
camera!)
-Original Message-
From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 10:33 AM
To: [EMAIL
Thought it might be fun to lighten things up around here
Shel
From: Don Sanderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think I know that guy!
Didn't he used to teach Phys Ed?
Thanks Shel, neat shot.
Don (Who now likes almost ANY post not titled: Re:istDs - what a great
camera!)
Not sure if I
EYES ROLLING AGAIN.
The inclusion of the cheap simple aperture sensing
cam in the body does not preclude removal of
mechanical linkage in new lenses. Both can be done. The miniscule weight
savings of the removal of the aperure cam sensor certainly does
not outweigh the abiiliy to open aperure
You got DAT right!
-Original Message-
From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 10:55 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: PAW - Birthday in a Cheap Motel
Thought it might be fun to lighten things up around here
Shel
From: Don
Hi,
Jostein wrote:
Btw, I happened upon a band of reindeer hunters when out photographing
last week-end. It was they who told me about the radioactivity. In
some parts, the Tchernobyl aftermath is still an issue. Sheep having
grazed freely in the mountains are still controlled before
slaughtered.
Yeah, and the world might end tomorrow.
I'm not going to lose any sleep over it...
All this serious _supposition_ (=guessing) on what Pentax MIGHT do tomorrow,
and what Pentax MIGHT be thinking of doing next year, and what Pentax'
future lens design manufacture plans MIGHT be... Geez!
All
Jim Apilado wrote:
I believe that if you use M-42 lenses on a K2, K2DMD, ME, and the LX, the
AE is easier than that on the *ist D. Those cameras will sense the change
in light and accordingly will adjust the shutter speed for it. If you have
to continually press the green button for changing
This is the basic model, w/o write acceleration. The price has come down
to the point that it is attractive, and I could use the extra capacity.
How annoying is the wait while these things write files? I am used to
the Lexar 40X cards. Is there a web site comparing write times?
Thanks,
Joe
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007
Might want to look at the Transcend 45x price in your area.
Joseph Tainter wrote:
This is the basic model, w/o write acceleration. The price has come down
to the point that it is attractive, and I could use the extra capacity.
How annoying
Adorama lists this at $199.95. Pentax needed to have this lens, and it
should help DS sales.
Joe
mike wilson mused:
Cotty wrote:
This will definitely be of interest on this list ;-)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/hitchhikers/
Airing on BBC Radio 4 Tuesdays from this coming week. Listen online via
above site
Unfortunately, the Beeb uses a grossly invasive (though less so
I know and understand exposure modes.
What they are offering for K/M is not
the same as or as good as true AE.
Period. If it was there never would
have been aperture cams on K/M lenses
in the first place.
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Keith Whaley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:
Sorry list, I apologise for encouraging this guy. ;-)
Anders, it was a joke. No such verse actually exists.
John
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 18:37:40 +0200, Anders Hultman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
John:
You mean like this one (which I have slightly colinised)?
A pleasing young girl of Nantucket
Was
How true, how true.
John
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 08:59:27 -0600, Dave Madsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Yeah, I throw all of my crap away, too, but I don't have anything left
when
I'm done.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Tanya Mayer Photography [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday,
I guess Keith just doesn't understand the reality
of pentax not fully supporting the K mount without cause.
It is a first in their history and goes against
everything they always stood for in supporting
legacy products when possible. They certainly could
have fully supported K/M very easily and
Jim Apilado mused:
I believe that if you use M-42 lenses on a K2, K2DMD, ME, and the LX, the
AE is easier than that on the *ist D. Those cameras will sense the change
in light and accordingly will adjust the shutter speed for it. If you have
to continually press the green button for
Gonz wrote:
Well when you press the green button, the aperture would stop down to
its mechanical setting, a meter reading would be taken, which would
allow the system to calculate the aperture based on the current ISO
setting and the ratio of the EVs stopped down and wide open. Now you
save
Hi,
Anders Hultman wrote:
Could you please send it to me off list?
For those with a penchant for this type of poetry, I recommend The
Limmerick - the famous Paris edition (no author/editor) ISBN
8148-0699-6 Library of Congress card number 78-56301
Hours and hours of eyestreamingly funny
Hi,
As an interesting aside, on page 15 of Photo, there's a later
photograph of the Master himself, taken around 1975, and guess what
he's got around his neck? Yup, a Leica CL!! I was very excited.
Doesn't have the 40mm Summicron C that was designed for it, but rather
something chrome,
On 18/9/04, Ann Sanfedele, discombobulated, unleashed:
I got back
Hi Ann
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_
Hi,
Keith Whaley wrote:
Yeah, and the world might end tomorrow.
I'm not going to lose any sleep over it...
All this serious _supposition_ (=guessing) on what Pentax MIGHT do
tomorrow, and what Pentax MIGHT be thinking of doing next year, and what
Pentax' future lens design manufacture plans
Hello.
With a seconds hand lens I also got a Pentax Ghostless uv filter. I
looks like a little lens itself (it is not flat). Currently I am not
using any filters to protect my lenses (I don't like some extra glas in
front of some good lenses.) But I am curious about this one.
Has anyone got
On 18/9/04, John Forbes, discombobulated, unleashed:
Do calm down.
John
GO BRITS :-)
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
I guess Keith just doesn't understand the reality
of pentax not fully supporting the K mount without cause.
It is a first in their history and goes against
everything they always stood for in supporting
legacy products when possible. They certainly could
have fully
Your comment reminds me that a recent issue of Aperture (#171) did a
feature on HCB's early work, much of it previously unpublished, including
some photos he made in 1931 in Ivory Coast. The issue also includeds an
interview with the old guy. Probably a nice addition to the library of HCB
fans.
Hi,
John Forbes wrote:
Sorry list, I apologise for encouraging this guy. ;-)
Anders, it was a joke. No such verse actually exists.
Seven examples in my book with Nantucket in the first line. Two
variations of Anders' ditty. None with John's first line.
So now we have to write it:
A pleasing
Now you are just spinning things - what I said was that you seem stuck in
the past if you think that a camera made in 2004 should fully support lenses
made in 1975.
Apart from anything else it is not in Pentax financial interests to do so.
1970s lenses would canabalise any new lens sales they can
On 18/9/04, Caveman, discombobulated, unleashed:
Cotty found the solution ;-)
Nick Clark wrote:
I think you'll find that K/M legacy lens support is worse with other
manufacturers than with Pentax.
Hmm. I did what I did because I enjoy the old Pentax lenses and the
quality is first rate.
On 18/9/04, mike wilson, discombobulated, unleashed:
In the UK, too. Sheep from the Lake District are routinely taken to the
south of England to graze for a few weeks before slaughter, to reduce
the isotope levels. I presume that the isotopes are flushed out of the
gut and deposited in the
On 18/9/04, mike wilson, discombobulated, unleashed:
A pleasing young girl of Nantucket
Was sad, for her istD was tuckered
And her card was SD
But she got batteries free
So she threw the K mount in a bucket
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|
On 18/9/04, Joseph Tainter, discombobulated, unleashed:
How annoying is the wait while these things write files? I am used to
the Lexar 40X cards. Is there a web site comparing write times?
Not perhaps what you are looking for but interesting reading...
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/cf.htm
20 years of film cameras that fully supported
both A and K/M lenses is all the proof I need
to show it can be done. I know it can be done
because I could design it myself it is so simple.
all it is is simple exposure compensation, so
many stops more exposure per degree of rotation
of the cam.
Cotty wrote:
[...]
My Pentax allegiance still remains, but to a company that I knew in the
70s and 80s.
You pays yer money, you takes yer choice.
Having said that, I would definitely consider an *ist Ds and a wide prime
for the pocket! Way cool.
WAYyyy cool, sir!
What's 24mm (35mm equivalent
Your whole point is pointless when they can easily
support K/M AND A,F lenses. the A and F lenses are
not hindered in any way by the K/M support.
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Antonio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 2:42 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re:
Cotty wrote:
On 18/9/04, mike wilson, discombobulated, unleashed:
In the UK, too. Sheep from the Lake District are routinely taken to the
south of England to graze for a few weeks before slaughter, to reduce
the isotope levels. I presume that the isotopes are flushed out of the
gut and
1. How can a point be pointless?
2. Yes, Pentax *could* support these lenses better, that is correct.
3. They chose not to some time ago. Get over it.
A.
On 18/9/04 9:34 pm, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your whole point is pointless when they can easily
support K/M AND A,F
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
20 years of film cameras that fully supported
both A and K/M lenses is all the proof I need
to show it can be done. I know it can be done
because I could design it myself it is so simple.
all it is is simple exposure compensation, so
many stops more exposure per degree of
Size. Pentax evidently is betting they'll gain more sales by offering the
smallest DSLR than they'll lose by forfeiting the upward compatibility with
the DS's big brother.
Joseph Tainter wrote:
Why did Pentax use an SD card in the *ist DS? That is a big strike
against buying one as a back-up
Hi,
In the UK, too. Sheep from the Lake District are routinely taken to the
south of England to graze for a few weeks before slaughter, to reduce
the isotope levels. I presume that the isotopes are flushed out of the
gut and deposited in the field. Come to think of it, I haven't heard of
Hi,
I'll just have to listen to the CD. My tapes of the original broadcast
wore out some years ago.
You could always listen to the programme itself! It's on during my
homeward drive so I expect I'll listen to it. However, I must
heretically say that I've never been a fan of H2G2. I think it's
Hi,
Saturday, September 18, 2004, 6:28:12 PM, Keith wrote:
Yeah, and the world might end tomorrow.
I'm not going to lose any sleep over it...
All this serious _supposition_ (=guessing) on what Pentax MIGHT do tomorrow,
and what Pentax MIGHT be thinking of doing next year, and what Pentax'
Here's a crazy thought Mike, one that you touched upon: If the gear you
have works for what you're doing, what need is there to buy something
newer, especially if it makes it difficult to use some of the gear you
already have? If you want to do something other than what you're now
doing, then
Only three people making dozens of posts. We are turning into Usenet here...
--
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
You guys don't seem to understand the implication of
abandoning support of K/M lenses with no technical ( and no
one has yet proven it was a cost issue either) reason
to do so. They have crossed
The capture has nothing to do with the lensmount.
There are no new lenses or lens features on
this camera. Why do you propose that it being a digital
camera prevented the K/M support when there is
nothing new going on with regard to the cameras
lens mount, just part of it is missing. Sorely
1 - 100 of 127 matches
Mail list logo
