since we're obviously so unimportant to Pentax.
LOL! At least you got that right. :-)
regards,
Alan Chan
_
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
That was said sometime after the release of the MZ-S, the way things are going
I see a mis-translation, not a camera to carry to your grave but one that will
put us in our graves, since we're obviously so unimportant to Pentax.
At 07:50 AM 7/6/03 -0400, you wrote:
What about the report someone post
on 07.07.03 15:30, Steve Desjardins at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Even if film SLR's are steady in sales, most of the R&D money is going
> into the DSLR's. for this reason, I think that most of the "flagships"
> are going to be DSLR's.
>
That's it! So maybe rumoured Pentax flagship (or LX as som
A lot of this may depend on how easy (i.e., cheap) it is to "co-produce"
a digital camera and a film sibling.
Steven Desjardins
Department of Chemistry
Washington and Lee University
Lexington, VA 24450
(540) 458-8873
FAX: (540) 458-8878
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Probably not compatible with older mounts. ;-)
Steven Desjardins
Department of Chemistry
Washington and Lee University
Lexington, VA 24450
(540) 458-8873
FAX: (540) 458-8878
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Frank wrote:
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the sales of high end film slr's remaining
pretty steady, despite the incursion of digital?
REPLY:
No. I think sales are down 10% or so if my memory serves me right. hardly dramatic but
significant.
Pål
My vote is the MZ-S with or without the limited lenses..
Vic
In a message dated 7/6/03 4:14:24 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>What about the report someone posted a few years
>>back that the new Pentax CEO said about a new film
>>camera that LX owners would want to buy and "carry
>>to the grav
Very little. It's a Pentax list.
BR
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
After reading this list for a few years, I sometimes wonder what
this list has to do with photography .
>This argument can surely now be laid to rest?
>John Coyle
>Brisbane, Australia
Surely you jest. This is PDML!
Marnie aka Doe Sorry, couldn't resist that, even though I am not part of the
argument. ;-)
ginal Message -
From: "Hans Imglueck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 11:33 PM
Subject: Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
> Heiko wrote:
>
> >ACK. And I'm quite sure that a well made plastics body is as
in the US anyway, none of the above is not a choice one is allowed to make.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: "Ed Matthew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 16:12
Subject: Re: High-end film bodies (WAS: Re: *ist D w
they don't bother with the lie anymore.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: "T Rittenhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 15:00
Subject: Re: High-end film bodies (WAS: Re: *ist D was not production type :-()
>Poli
Can you really blame the voters for who's running things?
regards,
frank
Tom didn't refer to the President. He said "politicians". It takes no
particular knowledge/intellectual application/judgment to blame problems on
the politicians. Never forget where elected politicians come from.
In answer
t; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 2:03 PM
Subject: Re: High-end film bodies (WAS: Re: *ist D was not production type
:-()
> Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the sales of high end film
slr's remaining pretty steady, despite
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the sales of high end film slr's remaining
pretty steady, despite the incursion of digital?
I'll have to look that one up, and get back to y'all (no time right now), but IIRC,
percentage of digital in overall camera sales is increasing very steadily, a
Steve wrote:
Film cameras are more stable, and I really do
think e are going to see very few really new nigh end film SLR's.
There's just not money in them anymore, and the "pro show" cameras are
now digital, so its' the 1Ds and not the F5 that has the most "drool"
value.
REPLY:
But they need
>Sunny 16 says that for a bright sunny day, you set the aperture at f16, and
the >shutter to the speed nearest the ISO rating of the film - or the inverse
of the shutter >speed anyway. So if you use 400 ISO film, you set the shutter
to 1/500.
>From there, you adjust according, depending on con
Sunny 16 says that for a bright sunny day, you set the aperture at f16, and the shutter
to the speed nearest the ISO rating of the film - or the inverse of the shutter speed
anyway. So if you use 400 ISO film, you set the shutter to 1/500.
>From there, you adjust according, depending on condition
There's a dirty joke in there somewhere!
-frank
Lon Williamson wrote:
> The
> actual size of the hole is something I'm uninterested in.
>
--
"I don't believe in God, but I do believe in pi" - Henri Cartier-Bresson
Probably a MZ-S with and Limited's!
Jens
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Lon Williamson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 6. juli 2003 13:50
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
What about the report someone posted a few years
back that the new Pentax CEO
What about the report someone posted a few years
back that the new Pentax CEO said about a new film
camera that LX owners would want to buy and "carry
to the grave"? Is this the MZ-S?
Alan Chan wrote:
If Pentax does come out with another film SLR, I
think the best we can get is a Mg alloy *ist wi
nce to the
wall.
I tend to agree with Alan!
Jens
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Lon Williamson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 5. juli 2003 15:07
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
This has not been my experience if you use a longer lens and
keep your subject r
Hi
Brilliant idea. Untill then, I'll might start saving for a MZ-S! (I happen
to think it's beautiful too!
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Caveman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 6. juli 2003 02:50
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
Alan Chan wr
If Pentax does come out with another film SLR, I
think the best we can get is a Mg alloy *ist with (maybe) and aperture
simulator.
Or just an MZ-S with 11 AF sensors?
regards,
Alan Chan
_
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection
Metal vs. Plastic is a tough trade off. A lighter body will hit the
ground or swing with less momentum, reducing the force available to do
damage. Metal will dent, whereas plastic will give but then crack.
Polycarbonate is tough stuff, even if it doesn't fell as solid. I'd
actually like to see
stop (or two).
Kidding
Jens
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: T Rittenhouse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 5. juli 2003 17:30
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
Brucey thought he was kidding .
1. How big is an f-stop
2. How fast does your shutter ope
olfphoto
- Original Message -
From: "Bruce Rubenstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2003 11:20 AM
Subject: Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
Don't worry Lon, if you are as old as Tom then you have the "knowledge
I get Grandfathered into the "Knowledge of the Ages, Old Crock
Photographers Union" in September when I turn 50. I don't need your test.
BR
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brucey thought he was kidding .
1. How big is an f-stop
2. How fast does your shutter open and close when set to 125.
3. What f-s
bulb
at 7 feet.
5. How accurate is the Sunny-16 rule for exposure.
Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto
- Original Message -
From: "Bruce Rubenstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2003 11:20 AM
Subject: Re: *is
You know, the funny part of teasing you is to see how you project your
insecurity on others by trying to be insulting. Take a note: it
doesn´t work.
I´m fairly native to the English language, although my writing may have
some errors as I haven´t lived in the states for some years and I
usual
Don't worry Lon, if you are as old as Tom then you have the "knowledge
of the ages" and can use any gear you desire. If you are younger, then
you have to take a written test of Tom's (he doesn't care about a
portfolio: only theory counts) to get permission to use auto capable
cameras.
BR
[EMA
The last part makes no difference. All that counts is the image. Nobody
knows, or cares how you got it.
BR
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi
On the other hand...
A good photographer is a person who gets good photographs - and without
getting disliked by his "victims".
A LF camera isn't very GOOD for underwater photography, is it? I only
said good and bad, you had to go into all sorts of hardware issues. You
also left out the first part of what I said, which is introducing
hardware obscures the main point that good photographers take better
pictures than bad
This has not been my experience if you use a longer lens and
keep your subject reasonably close to a wall. I like to
use a 135 prime in-doors for such shots. It always sucks
if you're using something like a 50mm and there is no close
background you'll get a subject surrounded by black every
t
Tom, I use this kind of "logic" to justify shooting nothing newer
than a SuperProgram, but yesterday I fooled around with my wife's
ZX-L and experienced a tad of envy. Some of the touches on the
newer cameras, even one as basic as the -L, are really nice.
I believe they can help capture the instin
-
From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2003 06:28
Subject: SV: *ist D was not production type :-(
> ...Beautiful photographs, Herb. And a beautiful country BTW. Allways wanted
> to visit some day. Maybe I will! Did you k
- Original Message -
From: "Dag T"
Subject: Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
> På fredag, 4. juli 2003, kl. 19:02, skrev Bruce Rubenstein:
>
> > Good photographers with good equipment will take better pictures than
> > good photographers with bad
Anyone who has not cussed autoexposure from time to time, doesn't
know enough to comment about it because there are situations where it just
plain doesn't work.
Auto exposure with flash indoor, sucks everytime.
regards,
Alan Chan
_
Ti
PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 21:39
Subject: Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
> A good tradesman never blames his tools because he knows them and HE is
> the one that drives them. A good photographer doesn't blame his camera
> because
who said i never did it. what did you think i did when i shot a s1a with no meter? no
handheld meter, nothing.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: "T Rittenhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 19:30
Subject: Re: *ist D w
On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 19:30:31 -0400, T Rittenhouse wrote:
>If you never did it, how do you know you can? From your posts on this
>subject so far, I can already tell you wouldn't know a good exposure if it
>bit you. Anyone who has not cussed autoexposure from time to time, doesn't
>know enough to com
If you never did it, how do you know you can? From your posts on this
subject so far, I can already tell you wouldn't know a good exposure if it
bit you. Anyone who has not cussed autoexposure from time to time, doesn't
know enough to comment about it because there are situations where it just
plai
i can do all that and i don't regret for an instant not doing any ever.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: "T Rittenhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 11:58
Subject: Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
Add AI and there's no need for human contact what so ever.
At 12:12 PM 7/4/03 -0400, you wrote:
T Rittenhouse wrote:
Anyway, it is hard for a 22 year old computer programmer to figure why
anyone would use a camera that is older than he is other than cheapness.
*WARNING* The following link leads to
Bruce Rubenstein wrote:
Good
photographers with good equipment will take better pictures than good
photographers with bad equipment.
Twisting it again, Brucey ? It was about new vs. old cameras and not
about good vs. bad ones. New <> Good and Old <> Bad.
cheers,
caveman
Taken with an LX and an M-120 I think I had it set on autoexposure, or it
may have
been manual, (it's a bit overexposed and usually the LX is better than that).
http://www.mindspring.com/~palling/photography/gallery1/photographs/On_the_wing.jpg
At 11:58 AM 7/4/03 -0400, you wrote:
Well, first of
We don't use any Korea War era fighter planes in combat, and for good
reasons: they can't do what modern fighters can, no matter whose flying
it. (There is also no reason to think that pilots of yesteryear (and
photographers too) were better than the current ones. ) Same thing with
cameras. Man
At 12:02 PM 7/4/2003 -0400, you wrote:
From: "T Rittenhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Well, first off, Bill, most of the cameras us "old farts" like are almost as
old as the kids who are complaining about us using them. If the new auto
everything wonder cameras they insist is the only thing that works
T Rittenhouse wrote:
Anyway, it is hard for a 22 year old computer programmer to figure why
anyone would use a camera that is older than he is other than cheapness.
*WARNING* The following link leads to a web site using coarse language
and matters of adult nature. Viewer discretion advised *END OF
Well, first off, Bill, most of the cameras us "old farts" like are almost as
old as the kids who are complaining about us using them. If the new auto
everything wonder cameras they insist is the only thing that works actually
took better quality photographs, there might me something to their argume
- Original Message -
From: "Jens Bladt"
Subject: SV: *ist D was not production type :-(
> Hi
> OK metal shells may be better. But I have a 11 years old Z1, (plastic
> shell) - still working like the day i got it in 1992 - through thousinds
of
> rolls. What more w
IL PROTECTED]
Emne: Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
Hi Alan,
on 02 Jul 03 you wrote in pentax.list:
>The problem with plastic shells is that they tend to crack when aged.
>But then again, the 6 month cycle for digital cameras should not pose
>any problem.
LOL. Hard but true... ;-)
Cheers, Heiko
Hi John,
on 03 Jul 03 you wrote in pentax.list:
>> No, there are no different layers of material but one composite
>> material (as far a I have understood that).
>My Super As appear to have a plastic top plate/prism cover
>that has been vacuum plated then painted black.
Sorry - I meant the *ist
Heiko Hamann wrote:
>
> No, there are no different layers of material but one
composite material
> (as far a I have understood that).
My Super As appear to have a plastic top plate/prism cover
that has been vacuum plated then painted black.
John
The Super A has a chrome plated plastic top cover. It is not a metal
sheet over plastic. It still wears much better than the silver paint
that the industry has gone to (cheaper to paint than plate)
BR
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps something like the Super A where the top cover is plastic wi
Production life doesn't equal owned/used life. You don't expect your car
to stop working when the manufacturer changes models do you?
BR
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem with plastic shells is that they tend to crack when aged.
But then again, the 6 month cycle for digital cameras should n
Perhaps something like the Super A where the top cover is plastic with metal
sheet on top?
regards,
Alan Chan
At the Cebit I was told that the *istD has a special, mixed material.
Not the expensive magnesium body of the MZ-S but a kind of mixture of
magnesium particles and plastics. For me it fel
ACK. And I'm quite sure that a well made plastics body is as endurable
as those modern "metal" bodies.
The problem with plastic shells is that they tend to crack when aged. But
then again, the 6 month cycle for digital cameras should not pose any
problem.
regards,
Alan Chan
_
If it's magnesium, do you really believe that Pentax could miss
to point out that in their press release?
Absolutely.
regards,
Alan Chan
_
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campai
I the rumor says 1200 or 1600$ for the *ist D, I guess it may not be a
magnesium body.
Anyway it's difficult to tell the difference - at work we have a Nikon
Coolpix something - it's supposed to be magnesium - but the feel is plasic.
Jens
I believe our pdmler John Coyle might entertain you in this regard.
His has fallen from 2 meter on carpeted - I think - concrete...
Servus, Alin
Hans wrote:
HI> But I am quite sure that if a MZ-S and a MZ5 are falling down to solid
HI> ground from about 1.5-2.0 meter both of them will be
On 2 Jul 2003 at 6:33, Hans Imglueck wrote:
> But I am quite sure that if a MZ-S and a MZ5 are falling down to solid
> ground from about 1.5-2.0 meter both of them will be damaged. So
> what is the benefit of magnesium bodies? Or will someone proof to
> me, that his MZ-S will survive such a fall?
Dario Bonazza wrote:
>
> Even the 645N II housings are magnesium-like plastic, with
the same look of
> the MZ-S, so why the *ist D should be magnesium? Only for
fighting against
> the EOS 10D? If it's magnesium, do you really believe that
Pentax could miss
> to point out that in their press release
t not very
likely.
I'm afraid it's plastic.
Dario Bonazza
> - Original Message -
> From: "Arnold Stark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 10:00 AM
> Subject: Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
&g
No, not sure, I'm just afraid it is plastic.
Dario
- Original Message -
From: "Arnold Stark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 10:00 AM
Subject: Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
> How do you know that it
How do you know that it is plastic? The sample that I handled was so
stiff/hard that I thought it was magnesium although it was as light as
plastic. I still am not sure. Are you?
Arnold
What finish? Is it plastic or magnesium?
I'm afraid it's plastic.
I wrote:
> To be more precise, the hardware was production type for sure (including a
> standard serial number), nice finished and working well
I meant that all of the controls of the *ist D on show at Pentax Day were
working well, unlike the flimsy dials and 4-way controller seen on prototype
at
Rüdiger Neumann wrote:
> Hallo Dario,
> is there something new about the K-mount.
> Will it work in the same way as the analog *ist with all the restrictions?
> regards
> Rüdiger
Of course. This is the (revised) Pentax way!
Cheers,
Dario Bonazza
www.aohc.it
www.dariobonazza.com
Pål Jensen wrote:
> What finish? Is it plastic or magnesium?
>
> Pål
>
I'm afraid it's plastic.
Dario
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
Hallo Dario,
is there something new about the K-mount.
Will it work in the same way as the analog *ist with all the restrictions?
regards
Rüdiger
From: Dario Bonazza
>Hi friends,
>
>I forgot to tell you that the *ist D on show at Pentax Day last June 22 was
>not production type :-(
>To be more
Hi friends,
I forgot to tell you that the *ist D on show at Pentax Day last June 22 was
not production type :-(
To be more precise, the hardware was production type for sure (including a
standard serial number), nice finished and working well (as opposed to that
on show at PhotoShow last March), b
72 matches
Mail list logo
