John wrote:
Personally, I think the 4/3 system could
be the future of digital, and that we will
see the 'Holy Grail' of a 24x36mm sensor
as more of a 'blind alley'.
No doubt Paal will tell me I'm wrong again.
REPLY:
Why should I say that? I've said the same thing since I forst heard about the
Must be the 645NII. I've now shot 40 rolls with low battery warning. I just replaced
the batteries to be on the safe side; it was still clicking along. I've noticed that
film transport speed increased significantly with new batteries. I don't bother with
spares anymore; batteries last forever an
I have now seen the result this lens produce and it is quite simply sharp at all
apertures and at every focal lenght. Bokeh is perhaps a bit "busy". This lens is a no
brainer when it comes to 645 telephoto lenses if you don't need faster lenses. No
wonder zoom lenses are popular these days.
Pen
Dario wrote:
To be more precise, the hardware was production type for sure (including a
standard serial number), nice finished and working well
REPLY:
What finish? Is it plastic or magnesium?
Pål
John wrote:
Just like the *ist D's only function is to
convince potential customers to buy into
the Pentax FA* system because there's a digital future there
too?
REPLY:
No. The MD-S was. The *ist D will be released in a months time. The R9 digital back
will be *shown* in 1,5 years time. The ba
John wrote:
This so-called "enormous cost" is an illusion put
about by people who think they cannot afford
Leica.
REPLY:
Illusion? The back alone cost $4500 at a time when similarly specced digital solution
will likely cost $1000 or less. On thing is the case for expensive Leica lenses and
b
John wrote:
It is quite clear that the Leica R8 and R9
were designed from the ground up to be
BOTH film AND digital cameras. This back
is not some half-baked add-on accessory,
it is an intrinsic part of the Leica R8/R9
system.
REPLY:
It was designed in the mid 90's where it might have bee
Bruce wrote:
Western marketing mindset it to get interest going with tidbit, product flashes.
Perhaps the Eastern mindset is to not reveal anything until it is finished. Other
Japanese companies are much more Western than Pentax.
REPLY:
They are. However, they have impoved somewhat in the las
Lukasz wrote:
It's one thing to critisize something, and the other to repeatedly moan
about how a certain company should do this or that while having no intention
to buy the supposedly "better" product.
REPLY:
It would have been weird if I moaned repeatedly on the Leica mailing list. Like 67
p
> Like that guy Paal Jensen being unhappy with Leica R9 ?
No. That guy is not unhappy with the R9, he has no interest in it. He does, however,
find the R6 interesting.
Doug wrote:
> Not unfortunate at all. I'm comfortable and satisfied with my choice of
> camera gear. Makes photography less stressful, being fine with the equipment.
So am I. Particularly after I aquired the 150-300 for the 645 all my gear lust (well
most of it) is cured. I'm perfectly happy
John wrote:
I think you've completely overlooked the enormous benefit
of using a digital back with a film SLR. That is, when the
digital technology improves, you can buy a better back
without having to change your SLR.
REPLY:
What enormous benefit? It seems to be at an enourmous cost and gettin
William wrote:
The MZ-S, as well constructed as it is, is not backed by a system, and
doesn't have a lot of what are now considered Pro features.
REPLY:
Pentax never claimed the MZ-S was a pro camera. They have called it semi-pro and the
boss of the camera division compared it to the EOS3 and th
John wrote:
On the contrary, there have been official denials from Nikon
Japan,
Nikon USA, Nikon Europe and Nikon UK. You can be sure that
the
rumour is about as false as could be.
REPLY:
If so, it is sad. It was such a great idea. However, unless Nikon plan to release the
stuff in the next m
Jostein wrote:
Got my Z1 back from service today, and a counter in the camera says the
shutter has been tripped close to 9500 times. Just wonder how far into it's
life-time it actually is...
REPLY:
The Z-1p uses the same shutter unit as the Nikon F/N90. I have no idea about its life
expectancy
I wrote:
> Anyway, these current digital news breaking is mostly to signalise to the market
> that the manufacturer have plans for digital solutions for their systems. I for one
> expect Minolta soon to disclose their DSLR.
>
Actually, at closer scrutiny this seem like nothing but an attempt t
Sylwek wrote:
Actually E-1 body is bigger and heavier by 150g than *ist D. And it has only
5 MPix... You are right - only some specialized pros will buy it (mainly for
weather sealed body and lenses)
REPLY:
But they have probably figured out that the the way to crack the consumer market is
thr
Bruce quoted:
"NIKON IS NOT PLANNING ON CHANGING THE STANDARD "F" MOUNT ON NEW CAMERAS."
REPLY:
The statement can be understood in two ways. Even if Nikon release another mount the
statement stoill holds true.
So basically, they avoided the issue and said really nothing except that they won'
Caveman wrote:
IIRC they were speaking of a new body, not a back for the existing one ?
REPLY:
It was a bit unclear. It sounded like a digital back for a coming MF camera. Or it
could be a digital camera using MF lenses. I'm almost sure it is not a digital back
for current camera models.
Pål
Bruce wrote:
DSLR sales this year are projected to be in the 600,000 - 1,000,000 range. Canon is
selling 30,000 10Ds a month and can't keep up with demand. I Pentax can't get a decent
piece of this market they are beyond hopeless.
REPLY:
Agreed. Provided the numbers are correct.I can remember t
Thomas wrote:
But why then can't Pentax develop such a back for an MZ-S or LX?
Silly question?
I'd be happy with such a back and would pay for it the price of an
*ist-D I think.
No need for another body...
After all, manufacturers from Chinon to Zeiss where presenting mockups
of such backs since
Peter wrote:
Wasn't there a huge debate some time ago where this concept was widely
decided to be impractical? It looks like a nicely integrated digital
back on a manual film advance manual focus camera.
REPLY:
It seems pretty impractical to me! The thing is huge! In 1,5 years time DSLR with 10
Collin wrote:
Y'all should be out shooting!
REPLY:
We have. The last few days I've been shooting fox puppies (incredibly cute!) and
birds. I've been on montain rising through the clouds photographing mountain scenery
bathed in the midnight sun. Tonight its another mountain top.
Pål
I own the A 35/2.8, which is supposed to be the same optic. As others have pointed
out, it is not a stellar lens but perfectly OK. About par with a decent zoom,
something that probably explains the popularity of zoom lenses.
Pål
Joshua wrote:
The conversion from the LX to the MZS should be no problem as you demonstrate and
testify. If you look at the two cameras they are laid out in the same fashion: shutter
"wheel" in the same spot on both bodies; compensation dial in the same spot; aperture
still controlled the same.
Mike wrote:
As the one who pointed the spacing issue out first, I feel obliged to
note that it was a pre-production model and I was assured that the
software glitch was rectified before production commenced. Anyone who
had the problem with a model sold to them needs to consult their
retailer.
Rob wrote:
It's rock solid, I haven't subjected it to a good soaking yet but it's still a
baby.
REPLY:
It is the most brick-like of any Pentax 35mm camera. According to the engineers it has
the most rigid body of all Pentaxes ever.
Pål
Carlos wrote:
Other ones haven't jumped ship yet, but seem to argue for the sake of
it.
REPLY:
It is not a case of arguing for the sake of it. It is a case of denigrating anything
the said person don't use in order to justify what he do use. In this way any argument
for using this or that fea
Caveman wrote:
All in order to have a sane argument.
REPLY:
You have been using this term "sane" or "sane discussion/argument" several times
during the last couple of weeks. I wonder why?
For anyone who have followed the various threads you have been involved with
recently, it is obvious tha
John wrote:
But what sets Pål apart from others here is that he seems
constantly
to confuse his opinions with fact. When Pål is reporting
fact, he is
clear and concise and almost always right. But he would do
well to
realise that his opinions are just that; his opinions.
I must admit to envy; I
Caveman wrote:
There's no meter with 100% accuracy. If you didn't know that, you're entitled to ask
for a refund for your physics courses. It might allow for buying a new lens or
something.
REPLY:
As usual this is one of your anal retentive (did anyone use the word measurbator?),
wild goose ch
Caveman wrote:
Just marketing talk (that also inspired Paal with the "100% accurate metering" claim).
REPLY:
It is based on experience as usual not marketing talk. Meters that are 100% for what
they are calibrated for is something thats taken for granted these days.
Your insistence on this iss
Ken wrote:
I believe Pål is right on this account. I remember reading a Japanese
magazine article where Pentax designers were discussing the process of
designing the MZ-S, wherein they said that one of the most difficult tasks
was to keep the power consumption within a limit (it's still a battery
John wrote:
It is also true to state that most MZ-S bodies will
never reach the point of breaking a shutter because they
only get light amateur use.
REPLY:
You seem to base this on the assumption that MZ-S contains a shutter not optimized for
durability. This is way off the truth. The MZ-S u
In other words, this is not necessarily a digital back but a digital medium format
camera; that is, a camera that take one of the Pentax MF lenses.
Is this the rumored 645D or is it related to the new and compact 67, or is it both?
Pål
> Then they have an efficiency problem. Like in pouring in more effort and
> money than C/M/N, and lagging behind in results.
Huh? This WAS the result!
Christian wrote:
Or. Pentax SMC-A 200/4 macro or Pentax SMC-FA 200/4 ED IF
macro... But who can justify the cost?
REPLY:
Justification? Who needs to justify things? :o)
Pål
--- Tony Cogan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi
> I want to quit using close-up filters and start
> using a macro lens for
> flowers, insects, etc. Which lens would be a good
> place to start?
For insects a 200 Macro is definitely the no. 1 choice. It is great for flowers as
well. The working d
Lon wrote:
At a given price point, pan-tilt is usually a better
value. More precise, locks down better, steadier.
Unless you know you need a ballhead (which are easier
to use when recomposition is frequent), stick with
a pan-tilt. This amounts to conventional wisdom
as I understand it, and my ex
Mark wrote:
What baffles me is that the Mz-S - just released a couple of years ago - not only
supports the aperture ring but _needs_ it for aperture priority and metered manual
operation. I don't think releasing a new, limited mount in the new flagship would have
made a lot of sense, but if Pen
Jostein wrote:
To a relatively speaking small company,
that kind of investment has to be a risk to take. -Which of course increase
the importance of finding the right moment to enter the market.
REPLY:
Relative and relative. Relative to General Motors they are a small company but file as
many p
By first inspection this lens lives up to the expectation. It is lighweight for what
it does; it doesn't really weight significantly more than the FA 120/4 macro. It is
also very well made. No wobbly elements or rattles. It has metal filter threads and
whole thing seem very solid. I'm surprised
William wrote:
I actually quite envy Pål. It would be so much easier to only have to
toss images because I can't compose a picture worth looking at.
I have no problem with his assertion that his images are always
perfectly exposed.
He uses modern equipment that is well calibrated and I expect he k
Doug wrote:
Why the hell does it matter to you if Paal shoots to his satisfation? Does it affect
your photography even a little bit?
REPLY:
The modus operandi is the following: He doesn't use equipment where you can set
exposure consistently within 1/3s. When I say that I want such possibiliti
Caveman:
They're not taken seriously there either. Otherwise we had heard of a third-party rush
to provide digital backs for the 645 or 67.
REPLY:
There have been "such a rush" even if you haven't heard about it. I know people who
have used a digital back for the 645N(II). The problem is that
Collin wrote:
Given how technology changes and how fabrication needs
would seem to require some consistency ...
I wonder how many of these were made all in one batch
with the expectation that they'd be sold over time.
Perhaps make 500 (in whole or parts awaiting later assembly)
knowing that the st
Caveman:
Minolta also changed mounts, but that did not prevent them to be now in such a poor
shape that they're looking for a buyer for the company (I hear they're in talks with
Konica).
REPLY:
Minolta changed mount and sold 2.000.000 AF cameras of one single, expensive model in
2 years. Nobod
And as a serious comment. Canon does a lot of business because they always have the
right product at the right time, with the right technology and performance, not
because they changed camera mounts.
REPLY:
Really? So Canon EOS has nothing to do with the lens mount?
The technology and perform
Bruce quoted:
>From photo.net:
"Can anyone think of a single valid reason why a new lens mount should be necessary? "
Ask Canon or Minolta. They did such a stunt and made a lot of business sense.
-- Pål Jensen
If some of you are old enough you might recall that Pentax also h
Ramesh wrote:
I am planning replace my existing tripd with corbon
fibre tripod, so was thinking about the ball heads.
I have few doubts about them.
Are there any advantages in using ballhead instead of
pan-tilt style ones?
Which is more stable?
REPLY:
I suggest you look into the Berlebach woo
Arnold wrote:
I can't believe that Pentax will leave its 35mm system like that, especially with the
1.5x factor of the digital sensors. More extreme wide-angle lenses must eventually be
coming. hopefully WITH aperture ring, so that they are usable on older cameras,
too, and in * or Limited
Caveman wrote:
> Read again. My grip were the "professionals" riding high horses and
> stating that Fuji lies and the film is actually 40 ISO etc. Of course,
> none of them was basing his statements on a decent measured test against
> the film's data sheets and the ISO definition. Pretty much
Caveman wrote:
> This sounds very much like Brucey's standard argument. "You did not use
> it for 6 months so you don't know what you're talking about".
Oh really? You are making statements that a products can't do this or that. Your claim
is in contraction to manufacturer specifications and ev
for anyone serious about shooting
slides. Not to mention those who do it for a living.
Pål
------
> -Original Message-
> From: Pål Jensen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 9:56 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Exposu
Ok, if we have no definition than this is really a Twilight Zone thread. I just
labelled it accordingly.
cheers,
caveman
REPLY:
Twilight zone exposure is somewhere in the area -1 to - 1,5, depending on what the
photographer wants. In order to get the exact effects he need tools able to read and
Frantisek wrote:
I have just had this news from a Pentax dealer, that they have been
told the Shift and 15/3.5 lenses are dropped, perhaps with several
others of the manual focus lenses. Anyone else to confirm/deny?
REPLY:
No idea but it make sense. These lenses are either new old stock or
Alan wrote:
For a lens with extensive damage like this, I wonder if repair is really possible.
They might need to replace all barrels to get the thing back to new condition. :-(
REPLY:
They did replace all barrels! They were also told by the service boss here in Norway
(the lens was repaired
Mark wrote:
With Kodak discontinuing E100S, the film I use the most, I was interested in whether
or not Velvia 100 would be a suitable replacement. I can't see using this as anyting
but a specialty film (it would probably be great for product shots, maybe sunsets and
sunrises.) I'll be interest
I heard this rumor about two years ago from one of my very reliable sources. I didn't
believe it back then and didn't take it any further. Oh..and at the same time I heard
that Pentax worked on a new smaller 67 and that they would relese USM lenses or a new
generation of cameras. It is probably
William wrote:
I find it a bit baffling is that people find it hard to believe that
modern camera equipment can give consistently accurate exposures.
REPLY:
It is baffling to those who have never used modern equipment. They seem to have an axe
to grind.
The main reason I use "modern" equipment
I think the idea about a new system suited for a new medium (digital) makes a lot of
sense. The old Nikon mount was designed 50 years ago for film. The next 50 years
probably set totally new demands. Compatibility can only go so far...
Pål
Caveman wrote:
Depends on the purpose you're taking the photos.
I already mentioned the arteestec one: "the exposure that gives the most pleasing
interpretation and visual rendition of a scene". (which is very interesting especially
since for certains scenes you might find 2 different exposure
Caveman wrote:
Pål Jensen wrote:
I get 100% correct readout on every meter I own.
ROFL. This is quite a bold statement. Can you support it with some facts, like the
method you used to check your meters, and the results that you got by following that
method ?
REPLY:
Perhaps stating
From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Exposure (WAS: Re: OK Survey time)
Weve been down this road before, unless your
aiming your camera at a full screen 18% reflectance
subject the meter will over or under expose
the subject. the only way you could be accurate
is if you manual
Peter wrote:
> You are mixing two contradictory arguments in your post:
>
> 1.) Pentax doesn't care how many of these bastard things they market so why
> make them
> compatible.
That was not what I said. Or meant to say. Making them comoatible don't make any
difference for sales exept making t
> If you still don't see why this ain't a decent definition, then let me
> give you a cave example.
What you don't get that this is not about definition of expousre but getting the
exposure you want with precision and consistency.
It is about photography. I assign part of the scene to the tona
Peter wrote:
>Pentax is
> introducing
> a product that will compete on price, not on installed base on some
> perceived value but
> on price it has to cheep since it's not likely to be special.
Yep. And that probably explains why the can't afford an expensive lens mount and a
more expensive
Alin wrote:
> Don't know if the bulk Provia 100F that B&H is selling is pro grade,
> however I'm amazed by the level of consistency I kept getting for
> the last 3 years with this film, despite using different developing
> kits. The greens, the reds, the grays always turn the same shades
>
I'm right now downloading a new version of my anti virus program. I'll let you know if
I'm the guilty one.
- Original Message -----
From: "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 6:11 PM
Subject: Re
>
> I've just received a virus in the attachment to the message sent from the
> (fake?) address [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> The virus is in preussen.gif.exe file from your Email address via PDML.
> This message came directly (not via PDML). I suspect somebody here in PDML
> got a virus on his PC...
Huh?
Anthony wrote:
> Perhaps YOU don't think a Pentax is worth $US1,600, that's your privelege.
I don't think Pentax need customers unwilling to pay for it.
Pål
Mike wrote:
> >
> > roll to roll film variances are nonsystematic and cannot be dealt with, but i
> > doubt it's as bad as 1/3 stop. even then, one >can get a bulk roll and calibrate
> > for it.
Pro film is calibrated with 1/6 stop. Thats a words case scenario. It is usually far
better. Amat
Caveman wrote:
> He stated that he can do it with 100% success with real scenes (not gray
> cards). Unfortunately he hasn't yet defined yet what he understands by
> "perfect exposure" of a real scene, so there's no sane way of arguing
> with him.
I've done it about ten times but you don't get
Peter wrote:
> If it doesn't sell for a fairytail amount then who'll buy it?
I don't think it is intended to sell. I don't think anyone are into DSLR to make money
in the short term. They release the *ist D to signalize that they are determined to
still be a contender in slr's that take 35mm
JCO wrote:
> Weve been down this road before, unless your
> aiming your camera at a full screen 18% reflectance
> subject the meter will over or under expose
> the subject. the only way you could be accurate
> is if you manually compensated the meter reading
> based on the KNOWN reflectance of th
Ryan wrote:
> It only makes sense that Pentax will keep aperture
> rings on most higher end future lenses. (I hope)
> What MZ-S owner would want a lens that doesn't allow
> him to use aperture priority or manual modes?
Pentax now has about 55 K-mount lenses with aperture rings. It would be weird
Caveman wrote:
> Pål Jensen wrote:
>
> > A perfect exposure is what I define as a perfect exposure. I want that exposure
> > within 1/3 of a stop so that I can get what I define as perfect exposure every
> > time. .
>
> Tadaa-badaa-da-daa. Twilight Zone. We&
Caveman wrote:
> You're hitting the nail on the head. What Paal disperately avoided was
> to admit that "perfect exposure" might be defined as "the exposure
> giving the most visually pleasing interpretation and rendition of a
> scene". Which no meter can give.
I did say that the correct exp
Alexander wrote:
> You make a mistake here. The camera is targeted
> towards a completely new market.
Yep. All facets of digital is basically a new market that add to the film market. It
isn't like everyone who buys the D10 are sitting on huge inventory of Canon glass. The
majority are digital
Nick wrote:
> Consistency not== accuracy. Make the same mistake 100 times in a row and your
> consistent.
I didn't say it was. I said it wasn't about rigid definition of correct exposure. I
said you need consistency in order to get whatever exposure you consider correct
exposure.
Pål
Mark wrote:
> Backwards compatibility isn't just about being able to use certain
> lenses with certain cameras, it's about giving your potential customers
> the confidence that what they buy today will be compatible tomorrow.
> *That's* the most important thing Pentax is throwing away.
But in all
Arnold wrote:
> I am sick of this "those who have not bought a new lens in the last 20
> years can hardly be called customers".
> I have spent the equivalent of several thousand dollars on new Pentax
> lenses in the past 6 years, I am a customer, even if have bought even
> more used stuff. I f
Arnold wrote:
> On the contrary: Especially as the competition is fierce Pentax cannot
> afford to drop compatibilty for no particular reason at all.
I believe they can beacuse this compatibility is important to so few people that it
doesn't matter.
Pål
JCO wrote:
> First of all, you will rarely if ever get "perfect"
> exposures with any TTL metering system due to the
> way they only measure reflected light.
Not true. I get 100% correct readout on every meter I own. No meter is designed to
give correct exposure but to assign whatever you mete
quest for "perfect" exposures on
> all rolls of slide film is unrealististic, impossible, and
> thankfully unnecessary with the prudent use of bracketing techniques
>
> JCO
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Pål Jensen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECT
Caveman wrote:
> Ahhgad. Here we have a measurbator.
I haven't met single photographer who don't want to nail the exposure dead on. I want
consistent exposure and I want it without wasting film.
It is OK to like the LX meter. It is OK to prefer it. But have you actually extensive
experience w
Caveman:
> LOL. What are you trying to do. Shooting graycards and trying to get the
> corresponding density in the film data sheets. I have bad news for you:
> film and lab processing tolerances.
I'm trying to get expousre within 1/3 stop which I succeed with. Obviously you do not
or you wou
Doug wrote:
> Two of the three... I've added the 43/1.9 to my lens collection and am
> totally stoked about it. I've shot with it before and was impressed with
> what I saw, so I can now look forward to more in-depth exploration of its
> qualities.
Qualities? What qualities? Everyone who has
Peter wrote:
> You keep missing the point, Pentax has always been different. If they
> change to be just like everyone else then why be loyal to them.
I have some sympathy with this view. However, I don't consider compatibility with 20+
year old lenses to add to this difference. I think Pent
Peter wrote:
> Then they've lost me, and all of the people I would have convinced to
> buy Pentax cameras who would never have considered them. That includes
> most of the people on this list who discovered Pentax as a place where
> quality and customer loyalty, as well as loyalty to the customer
Boz wrote:
> Does this mean that Pentax thought that there is no market for the
> MZ-S? If yes, why would they ever release a higher-end body than the
> *ist D?
Prices on DSLR's are to large extent dependent on the sensor cost. Sensors cost and
performance is in constant flux. Theres no lesson
Bojidar wrote:
> To Canon and Nikon EUR 2000 may be entry-level but not to Pentax.
This entry level for all. 35mm slr entry level may start at $150. For DSLR it starts
at whatever the Canon EOS 10D sells for at present. Pentax want to compete where the
volume for DSLR's are and this is the ent
I agree with most cited below except the speculative part. I do think Pentax is about
to introduce a new lens mount interface but I can't see any reasons to assume that
they won't make an easy upgrade path. This path will be visible in upper end models;
not bottom of the line film and digital SL
Corrected message!
Bojidar wrote:
> Now, this is all a speculation on my side, but just like the prediction
> that the *ist and *ist D will not work with the K/M lenses,
No offense, but it wasn't much of a prediction as it well known in Japan at PMA times
and the same whine war as we have now
Bojidar wrote:
> Now, this is all a speculation on my side, but just like the prediction
> that the *ist and *ist D will not work with the K/M lenses,
No offense, but it wasn't much of a prediction as it well known in Japan at PMA times
and the same whine war as we have now was raging on japane
Heiko wrote:
> In my eyes all theese products are entry level. Yes - the *istD is entry
> level as the D100 or 10D are. 2000,- is much money but it is the price
> to enter the DSLR market. High-end DSLRs are the Nikon D1 and Canon 1D.
Pentax started out with the MD-S prototype that was built
Lon wrote:
> I personally think only a measurebator would have two 35mm SLR
> systems. Think of it: everything in duplicate. Twice the cost,
> weight, and storage.
Really? People who owns 30 lens are going to have dublicate anyway. My point is to use
different equipment for different usage
Gianfranco wrote:
> I *really* cannot understand those who blaim the lack of a
> aperture ring just to jump into a Canon system...
That is because they want to use the aperture ring on the Canon lenses :o)
The whole thing is mostly psychological.
Pål
Rüdiger wroter:
> Pentax will maybe gain some short time money and it will ruin in the
> end the whole company. A lot of my friends have bought Pentax,
> but I cannot recommend Pentax anymore.
Because you can't use lenses older than 20 years on an entry level camera and a DSLR?
Surpise! You can
Rüdiger wrote:
> 1. So far the design objective was to reach as much compatibility as
> technically possible But now is the goal: as few compatibility as still
> straight necessarily.
They have designed entry level with limitations for years. Theres no change.
> 2. Change in the camera operat
801 - 900 of 2309 matches
Mail list logo
