Loveday [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 10:01 PM
Subject: Re: New *ist D review - Imaging Resource
Actually, there are ways to do things like this. It is very common for
applications to read every 8th pixel of a JPEG to make a thumbnail, or
display a rough
John Francis wrote:
not to display some of the pixels if they were available, and there's
no reasonable way to get some of the pixels from an image without
getting all of them (except, as noted, if it were a progressive JPEG).
how is that?
you can give an order to address and read every 4th
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 02 April 2004 11:00
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: New *ist D review - Imaging Resource
John Francis wrote:
not to display some of the pixels if they were available,
and there's
no reasonable way to get some of the pixels from an image without
is not easy or perhaps even possible for a
standard jpg...
-Original Message-
From: vr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 02 April 2004 11:00
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: New *ist D review - Imaging Resource
John Francis wrote:
not to display some of the pixels if they were
John Francis wrote:
not to display some of the pixels if they were available, and there's
no reasonable way to get some of the pixels from an image without
getting all of them (except, as noted, if it were a progressive JPEG).
how is that?
you can give an order to address
Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2004 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: New *ist D review - Imaging Resource
JPEG compresses data. you don't know what the nth pixel is until you
decompress enough of the file to find it. some other formats do row level
lossless compression
Maybe it's a stealth upgrade to newer *ist-D's
I doubt that, for two reasons:
1) I emailed the Image Resource reviewer a few weeks ago asking if he was
ever going to review the *ist D. He replied that he'd started an *ist D
review a long time ago but had been unable to find the time to finish
197.5 MB total
On Thu, 2004-04-01 at 01:40, William M Kane wrote:
The question is what speed DID you confirm? I believe that the
original article spoke of an unusually high speed for USB 1.1, but
didn't claim it was of USB 2.0 caliber . . .
. . . so the question becomes, How many MB were
Bucky wrote:
When one previews the picture in the on-camera screen, you will notice that
the camera apparently loads a small image first. Then, if you keep that
image in the monitor for a few seconds, it is substituted with a larger one.
You can see the effect when you call up a preview of a
On 1 Apr 2004 at 12:37, Keith Whaley wrote:
There's no replacing of one low-resolution image with another high res
image. It's a filling in of pixel information left out of the initial pass.
It sounds like the embedded jpeg may be a variation on progressive jpeg which
does in fact display
New review of the *ist D at Imaging Resource:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/ISTD/ISTDA.HTM
Very positive; maybe the most positive I've read.
Greg
On 2004-03-31, at 14:40, Mark Roberts wrote:
While the manual claims that the *ist D only supports the USB v1.1
interface standard, my own tests seemed to show that it's actually
running at USB v2.0 speeds. I clocked its download speed at 1963
KB/second with a Lexar 24x memory card, connected to
I just ran a test and I can NOT confirm the USB2 speed for the *ist D
connected to a PC.
This is what I did:
I connected the *ist D with my PC by means of the Pentax supplied USB
cable, and copied all 15 RAW images that I had on the flash card to a
folder on a drive of my PC.
That took about 3
On 31 Mar 2004, Frits [ISO-8859-1] Wüthrich wrote:
I just ran a test and I can NOT confirm the USB2 speed for the *ist D
connected to a PC.
This is what I did:
I connected the *ist D with my PC by means of the Pentax supplied USB
cable, and copied all 15 RAW images that I had on the flash
On Wed, 31 Mar 2004, William M Kane wrote:
. . . so the question becomes, How many MB were the 15 RAW files?
RAW files are 13mb. 13 * 15 = 195mb.
alex
Which means they were moving at .92 MB/s with the USB cable connected
to the camera.
and
3.14 MB/s with the USB 2.0 6 in 1 reader.
On Wednesday, March 31, 2004, at 05:49 PM, alex wetmore wrote:
On Wed, 31 Mar 2004, William M Kane wrote:
. . . so the question becomes, How many MB were the 15
Maybe it's a stealth upgrade to newer *ist-D's - my *ist-D hooked directly
to the PC and my USB 1.1 card reader both take about 20 minutes to download
1 gig of data. My X-Drive II takes only ~5 minutes for the same transfer
using USB 2. The card in the X-Drive reader is somewhat faster than
my Lexar Media Firewire card takes just over 3 minutes for a full 1G card.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: Mark Cassino [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 6:57 PM
Subject: Re: New *ist D review - Imaging Resource
Maybe it's a stealth upgrade
- Original Message -
From: William M Kane
Subject: Re: New *ist D review - Imaging Resource
The question is what speed DID you confirm? I believe that the
original article spoke of an unusually high speed for USB 1.1, but
didn't claim it was of USB 2.0 caliber . . .
. . . so
On 31 Mar 2004 at 22:06, William Robb wrote:
I thought RAW files were kinda fixed size.
I don't know if you recall but John did mentioned a few weeks back that they
also include an embedded jpg file. From my experience they vary in size from
around 12,750kB to 14,500kB.
Rob Studdert
On 31 Mar 2004 at 23:19, Frits Wüthrich wrote:
I just ran a test and I can NOT confirm the USB2 speed for the *ist D
connected to a PC.
Nor me. I loaded a file of almost 1GB on my Ridata 52x Pro card and found the
following Card read results:
X-Drive II via USB2 (add on PCI Via card)
On 31 Mar 2004 at 22:06, William Robb wrote:
I thought RAW files were kinda fixed size.
I don't know if you recall but John did mentioned a few weeks back that they
also include an embedded jpg file. From my experience they vary in size from
around 12,750kB to 14,500kB.
Several JPEG
PROTECTED]
Sent: 31-Mar-04 20:50
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: New *ist D review - Imaging Resource
On 31 Mar 2004 at 22:06, William Robb wrote:
I thought RAW files were kinda fixed size.
I don't know if you recall but John did mentioned a few weeks
back that they
also
The new issue contained a pretty comprehensive review of the camera and was
pretty positive. The only complaints were that it's slow to focus in dim
light, it doesn't come with rechargable batteries and it's a little more
expensive than the competition. The biggest good thing (IMO) is that the
It was very positive. The reviewer did, however, identify the 50 f1.4 as
an FAJ lens.
Joe
Great work on the *istD. I also have the epson 925. Had a little
trouble with it producing streaks. I think it gets clogged easily. I
like your review of the 3200 scanner. I'm looking for a scanner right
now to scan alot of Kodachrome slides, which seem to be really difficult
according to
Happy reading; any and all feedback always welcomed:
http://www.reed-electronics.com/ednmag/article/CA336981
==
Brian Dipert
Technical Editor: Mass Storage, Memory, Multimedia, PC Core Logic and
Peripherals, and Programmable Logic
EDN Magazine: http://www.edn.com
5000
]
Subject: *ist D review
Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 12:34:13 -0500
Happy reading; any and all feedback always welcomed:
http://www.reed-electronics.com/ednmag/article/CA336981
==
Brian Dipert
Technical Editor: Mass Storage
Just picked up the rag...leafing through...looks goodvery favourable
review2 small gripes, button locations and 1 in 20 or 30 shots
underexposingwill read and precis soon
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps
Okay digital dabblers, here's what AP has to say about the diminutive
Pentax *ist D:
The review is by Chris Gatcum and I hope the snippets of verbatim text
here will act as an impetus to go and buy the magazine (where available)
instead of providing AP with ammunition for breach of copyright. I
Hi Cotty,
on 27 Sep 03 you wrote in pentax.list:
Okay digital dabblers, here's what AP has to say about the diminutive
Pentax *ist D:
Thanks a lot! Very nice article. I'm quite sure that you will handle a
*istD as soon as you can get one into your fingers. I'm looking forward
to your
På lørdag, 20. september 2003, kl. 23:20, skrev William Robb:
- Original Message -
From: Dag T
Subject: Re: My own little *ist D review (fwd)
Any WP version of ´95 may read (almost)
any text written in its latest versions. Hows that for compatibility?
My wife was using WP 6 at work. I
On 21/9/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
Damn. And on my G4 Apple, I'm using an Epson scanner, an Epson printer,
an ACOM firewire drive, a couple of IBM SCSI drives, and four PCI cards
from several manufacturers. Now you tell me that Apple doesn't support
anything but Apple hardware? Maybe
I had the same experience when I put took out an old HP and replaced it with
an AOpen 52X burner two weeks ago. No trouble at all. I use it with Nero and
it takes longer to set up the 'lead in' and 'out' than it takes to burn the
backups.
But there is a disadvantage; those drives get rather hot
Hi Paul,
Fact is, Apple's software stability is the result of what used to be
Apple's insistence that software coders follow Apple's coding methods (I
don't know what else to call them) and to do it by the numbers.
In other words, do it exactly according to Apple's cookbook -- their
rules and
I wasn't paying much attention to what I was typing, I guess, and I
seriously mis-spoke! I have no idea how HFS slipped into the comments! Geez!
Apologies all around!
Remove HFS/HFS+ from the comments, and they read okay. Big ooops!
keith whaley
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Keith Whaley
The camera is programmed to recognize if the lens is set to A or can be set
to A. If it falls into one of these categories you must override the
programming
to fire the shutter. When you do this the camera shuts off the
meter. It's a software
feature.
At 06:31 PM 9/17/03 +0100, you wrote:
Jeez, Cameron, get off it will you? Just cause your experience with
Windows is much like Alan Chan's Pentax experience doesn't mean the
rest of us have the same problems and experience. TAKE IT TO ANOTHER
FORUM ABOUT COMPUTERS PLEASE!
Bruce
Friday, September 19, 2003, 6:13:28 PM, you
Doug Franklin wrote
Uhhh. There weren't no .386 stuff when PCs or DOS was invented. The
iAPX386 chip didn't come out until several years later. PCs used the
8088 chip which was an 8-bit external bus version of the 8086, which
had a 16-bit external bus. Both had 16-bit internal busses.
I rest
On Saturday, September 20, 2003, at 12:17 AM, Bruce Dayton wrote:
Jeez, Cameron, get off it will you? Just cause your experience with
Windows is much like Alan Chan's Pentax experience doesn't mean the
rest of us have the same problems and experience. TAKE IT TO ANOTHER
FORUM ABOUT COMPUTERS
Dear Boz, I love your site! Are you going to be posting those updated
*ist D pics? The first ones were fairly terrifying to those of us who
were planning to buy the camera.
C.
And for what it is worth the istD is supposed to allow for firmware
updates throught the USB port.
Boris Liberman wrote:
Hi!
KW Writing the code is less than 20% of a project's time. The rest is
KW debugging the stuff, and getting it to conform to the original
KW requirements. WindowsME is a
I don't know why that Apple stuff keeps getting repeated. The Apple I
was a kit computer produced in a garage. The Apple II was the first
apple computer to come out as a production model. However, you could
actually buy a Radio Shack TRS-80 (1977) before you could an Apple II,
though I think
Cameron quoted and posted as follows:
On Saturday, September 20, 2003, at 12:17 AM, Bruce Dayton wrote:
Jeez, Cameron, get off it will you? Just cause your experience with
Windows is much like Alan Chan's Pentax experience doesn't mean the
rest of us have the same problems and
- Original Message -
From: graywolf
Subject: Re: My own little *ist D review (fwd)
Much of the reason for Apples software stability is the Apple
philosophy, We support Apple hardware only. Where other brands of
computers may have almost any hardware from any manufacture
På lørdag, 20. september 2003, kl. 22:41, skrev William Robb:
- Original Message -
From: graywolf
Subject: Re: My own little *ist D review (fwd)
Much of the reason for Apples software stability is the Apple
philosophy, We support Apple hardware only. Where other brands of
computers may
Well I don´t care about the history, I bought an iMac a year ago
because I liked Unix and Xwindows, in 1987. Windows 3.0 was a big
disappointment, and though MS may have improved I still don´t like it.
We complain about compatibility with Pentax, but MS cripples the
mount every second year.
- Original Message -
From: Dag T
Subject: Re: My own little *ist D review (fwd)
Sure, I made a Powerpoint presentation yesterday, nice, but it didn´t
work in the next Powerpoint version I tried. I guess it´s my fault,
but I´m glad I didn´t trust it.
It was the same
- Original Message -
From: Dag T
Subject: Re: My own little *ist D review (fwd)
Any WP version of ´95 may read (almost)
any text written in its latest versions. Hows that for compatibility?
My wife was using WP 6 at work. I sent her something written with WP 9.
No go, she couldn't
Subject: Re: My own little *ist D review (fwd)
But, for those of you who need it spelled out in detail:
Which bodies can use the FA-J lenses in aperture priority (and/or manual)?
Wouldn't the cameras that control everything from the body (MZ-30? as an
example) be able to use them?
As an aside
Doug Franklin wrote:
Uhhh. There weren't no .386 stuff when PCs or DOS was invented. T
Of course when PCs were invented, there already were several PCs on the
market, the Apple among them.
Bruce Dayton wrote:
Jeez, Cameron, get off it will you? Just cause your experience with
Windows is much like Alan Chan's Pentax experience doesn't mean the
rest of us have the same problems and experience. TAKE IT TO ANOTHER
FORUM ABOUT COMPUTERS PLEASE!
I was pleased to hear
graywolf wrote:
Much of the reason for Apples software stability is the Apple
philosophy, We support Apple hardware only. Where other brands of
computers may have almost any hardware from any manufacture in it Apple
only has to support Apple hardware that simplifies the task immensely.
On 20 Sep 2003 at 23:03, Paul Stenquist wrote:
Damn. And on my G4 Apple, I'm using an Epson scanner, an Epson printer,
an ACOM firewire drive, a couple of IBM SCSI drives, and four PCI cards
from several manufacturers. Now you tell me that Apple doesn't support
anything but Apple hardware?
Hi!
I couldn't agree more. Take Linux for example wink.
There is another point to what you saying, Doug. I think that
shareware/freeware usually written by a single programmer during their
off hours like a weekend mechanic has much less ambition than similar
piece of quite often junk written by
Chris wrote:
CB Like any other huge change
CB designed to slip in under the radar and avoid pissing off tons of people
CB at once, the disappearance of the aperture ring will be slow, subtle, and
CB almost inevitable.
Pentax in their wisdom waited for a long time for an occasion to
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Chris Brogden wrote:
Actually, the *ist will work fine with MF lenses.
No, it's a cripple-mount, so it won't work with non-A lenses. The best
it can work with them is like the MZ-50 (metering at full, but
stopping down for the exposure, thus underexposing).
Kostas
Kostas,
I have several MF lenses that are also A lenses. I expect the D to work
fine with them.
Cory Waters
- Original Message -
From: Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 4:29 AM
Subject: Re: My own little *ist D review (fwd
Is it not interesting that people are predicting Pentax's Future
from crippled (and mostly LowBall) bodies? Hell, I am too.
Well, the old glass is still cheap, may get cheaper, and as long
as my eyes can still focus, the hell with it.
Chris Brogden wrote:
Now Pentax users know *exactly* how Nikon
Arnold, I 'spects you are right.
This is just as awkward and stupid as using
a K-1000 to get DOF. Pentax needs to change the firmware.
PENTAX NEEDS TO CHANGE THE FIRMWARE.
(repeat after me:)
PENTAX NEEDS TO CHANGE THE FIRMWARE.
PENTAX NEEDS TO CHANGE THE FIRMWARE.
PENTAX NEEDS TO CHANGE THE
Mark, I think this is crap.
Pentax has been screwing with DLSRs for 4 years.
That's enough time to hatch, say, WindowsME.
And cameras ain't as hard as operating sytems.
Pentax may need to hire some more SW engineers.
Mebbe they can find some in Pakinstan.
Mark Roberts wrote:
whickersworld [EMAIL
On Friday, Sep 19, 2003, at 20:49 Europe/Dublin, Lon wrote:
Mark, I think this is crap.
Pentax has been screwing with DLSRs for 4 years.
That's enough time to hatch, say, WindowsME.
And cameras ain't as hard as operating sytems.
Pentax may need to hire some more SW engineers.
Mebbe they can find
Gee, I sure hope the istD works better than WinME.
Lon Williamson wrote:
Mark, I think this is crap.
Pentax has been screwing with DLSRs for 4 years.
That's enough time to hatch, say, WindowsME.
And cameras ain't as hard as operating sytems.
Pentax may need to hire some more SW engineers.
Mebbe
It works better than XP, just try it...
And XP is very stable.
Ziggy
-Original Message-
From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 20 September 2003 00:20
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: My own little *ist D review (fwd)
Gee, I sure hope the istD works better
On Friday, September 19, 2003, at 04:47 PM,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Writing the code is less than 20% of a project's time. The rest is
debugging the stuff, and getting it to conform to the original
requirements. WindowsME is a bad example to compare against, because
like a lot of MS software,
I have always found it interesting that as soon as Mr Gates quites
supporting a product for a fee, he comes out with a final upgrade and
from then on it works pretty good. But then I have be told that I
paranoid and distrustful.
(And for the literately challenged, please note that comma is
Gates should
be in jail for what he did, and continues to do; instead, he is the
richest man in the world, and is lauded as some kind of giant American
hero. Time will prove that he has perpetrated the largest scam in
corporate history. And we have all been his victims.
Get a Mac, you'll
Doe ;-) OTOH, I've had a lot less problems with 98, 2000, and Me that it
sounds like you have had.
Fewer. Drat slipped up. Bugs everywhere. Anyway, fewer for those who care.
Marnie aka Doe :-)
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 18:13:28 -0700, Cameron Hood wrote:
PC's, since their invention back in the DOS 2.0 days
Uhhh. Your history is a little foggy. PCs were invented before DOS
1.0, which was purchased from Seattle Computer Systems (I think) and
was a knock off of CPM-86.
around for solutions
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 21:31:34 EDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Frankly, I don't think it's that simple. Being a computer programmer
(for fun) and having been a computer programmer (for wages), I am not
sure it was all deliberate (I think some of it was to force people to
buy technical support --
It was and is deliberate, but not in the sense of having a team of
programmers that does nothing but foul up what the rest of the teams
are doing. It is deliberate in the sense of intentionally choosing not
to use best practices in the development cycle, from inception to
coding to testing to
Hi!
KW Writing the code is less than 20% of a project's time. The rest is
KW debugging the stuff, and getting it to conform to the original
KW requirements. WindowsME is a bad example to compare against, because
KW like a lot of MS software, it's written and released with as little
KW testing
That wasn't the reason why I abandoned Nikon for Pentax, but
it was probably *one* of the reasons. Now Pentax have done
it, and Canon and Minolta did it a long time ago, I have
nowhere to go!
You can always go LEICA, the final destination...
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
In manual mode, the *ist D does stop down a K or M lens (or A/F/FA
lenses that are not in A position). Only it does not meter. It is in
Av mode (metered!) that a K or M lens (or A/F/FA lenses that are not in
A position) does not get stopped down but stays wide open all the time
(unless one
Chris Brogden wrote:
So if the Nikon D100 will stop down an MF lens in manual
mode (no meter),
then it's actually a step ahead of the *istD, which won't
even stop down
an MF Pentax K-mount lens. That's sad.
Yes, it is sad. In each case, the necessary engineering
would have cost only a
Alan Chan wrote:
whickersworld wrote:
That wasn't the reason why I abandoned Nikon for Pentax,
but
it was probably *one* of the reasons. Now Pentax have
done
it, and Canon and Minolta did it a long time ago, I have
nowhere to go!
You can always go LEICA, the final destination...
Well, I
Hello,
Canon users must be feeling some rumblings of unease,
considering that Canon's new 18-35mm lens for the Digital
Rebel won't fit on their 35mm bodies
Exactly so.
No, not exactly so. Pentax and Nikon made a marketing decision to drop
support for their oldest lenses. Canon made a
William Robb wrote:
Nikon was doing this sort of thing long before the F80. I
don't recall which
model, it may have been the N601 from the late 1980s which
would not work at
all with non AI lenses, though they would mount with no
problem.
The F401 (N4004) had this problem, but I didn't (and
whickersworld [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris Brogden wrote:
So if the Nikon D100 will stop down an MF lens in manual mode
(no meter), then it's actually a step ahead of the *istD, which
won't even stop down an MF Pentax K-mount lens. That's sad.
Yes, it is sad. In each case, the
I have no doubt the market pressure had no influence on Pentax
decision to cut the backwards mount compatibility. Mechanical
aperture coupler and corresponding firmware were nothing new,
P could have inherited the solutions from previous bodies just as
they did with various other common
Chris,
I could be mistaken, but I was under the impression that the Nikon
D100 will NOT meter with older lenses. I'll ask my buddy who has one
tomorrow.
Bruce
Wednesday, September 17, 2003, 6:28:19 PM, you wrote:
CB So if the Nikon D100 will stop down an MF lens in manual mode (no meter),
Alin Flaider [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It was a deliberate, cynical move to force owners of old lenses to
buy new ones.
I don't buy this at all. The target demographic for the DSLR does not
consist of a significant number of people who own old lenses. They
certainly comprise a
. . . Canon made a marketing decision to
deliberately drop support for some functions in the 300D.
But their decision not to support the new wide-angle on the existing
bodies is a technical one. That lens protrudes too deeply into the lens
mount, and owuld interfere
Which bodies can use the FA-J lenses in aperture priority (and/or manual)?
Wouldn't the cameras that control everything from the body (MZ-30? as an
example) be able to use them?
Yes. But I haven't been keeping up to date - which are these?
Let's start with the PZ-1p *ist-D. Any
John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alin Flaider [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It was a deliberate, cynical move to force owners of old lenses to
buy new ones.
I don't buy this at all. The target demographic for the DSLR does not
consist of a significant number of people who own old
John wrote:
JF It's funny how all the tirades seem to be aimed at the newer
JF bodies, and not at the new FAJ lenses.
Actually they had their share (don't know if you were here by then).
People still find it hard to believe FAJ is the future - maybe
because the first incarnations are cheap
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, John Francis wrote:
Which bodies can use the FA-J lenses in aperture priority (and/or manual)?
Wouldn't the cameras that control everything from the body (MZ-30? as an
example) be able to use them?
Yes. But I haven't been keeping up to date - which are these?
Makes sense.
Mark Roberts wrote:
In the case of stop-down metering in the *ist-D I suspect that money
wasn't as much of a factor as time. Even with the lack of the aperture
simulator, stop-down metering certainly could have been implemented in
software (using the DOF preview) but would have
On 18 Sep 2003 at 14:07, John Francis wrote:
Quite right. It's funny how all the tirades seem to be aimed at the newer
bodies, and not at the new FAJ lenses. These have even worse compatability
problems with old bodies, but I don't hear them being described as a plot to
force people to buy
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, whickersworld wrote:
Once their
compatibility decreases, and the lenses they produce (like
Nikon's
G-series) stop working on MF bodies, then they've just
alientated a lot of
people. They'll still make money selling cheap SLRs and
ps cameras, but
they'll simply be
Robert Gonzalez schrieb:
Thanks Boz, very interesting. Some of the Pentax images look slightly
underexposed as compared to the Canon images. By the look of them,
I'd say that the sensor is pretty much close to or exceeding the
limits of the lenses. I.e., you can really see the difference
Hello Robert,
The 5 image continuous max keeps bugging me when they had originally
said max. I wonder if its because you had noise reduction turned on?
I had it turned off. I need to reread my text, maybe I wrote it
wrong...
Thanks for pointing it out,
Boz
As reviews of the *ist D are flying in here is my own little contribution.
I have been able to play with the *ist D pre-production model serial
number 5645034 last weekend. I helped Boz in taking pictures for his
comparison with the Canon 10D (see his review at
AM
Subject: Re: My own little *ist D review
Actually, the image at
http://www.arnoldstark.de/bilder/030914_istD_testtafellinien.jpg.
is not compressed but stored at the maximum size available in JPEG. I
believe that in this case there are no JPEG artifacts. However, I can
send a portion
No.
Arnold
This would really be a very drastic way to have the *ist D meter with K
and M lenses at alle apertures. However, it would only work in Av mode.
In manual mode the meter would still be OFF. And you would have to use
your crippled lenses with real aperture metering, only, on your
This would really be a very drastic way to have the *ist D meter with K
and M lenses at alle apertures. However, it would only work in Av mode.
In manual mode the meter would still be OFF. And you would have to use
your crippled lenses with real aperture metering, only, on your film
bodies,
Cotty schrieb: No??? Why not?
Well, in maual mode, the *ist D simply does not meter with any lens that
is not set to A position. Why they chose tthe *ist D to behave like
this, only the Pentax engineers would be able to explain.
Arnold
On 17/9/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
Cotty schrieb: No??? Why not?
Well, in maual mode, the *ist D simply does not meter with any lens that
is not set to A position. Why they chose tthe *ist D to behave like
this, only the Pentax engineers would be able to explain.
Arnold
You're kidding.
Cotty wrote:
You're kidding. dawning realisation Now I see why folk
are upset.
Now Pentax users know *exactly* how Nikon users felt when
the F80 (N80) was introduced, with its deliberately designed
inability to meter with pre-autofocus Nikkors.
That wasn't the reason why I abandoned Nikon for
... reachable from the front page of the KMP. The rest should be
on-line on Tue or Wed at the latest...
Cheers,
Boz
100 matches
Mail list logo
