Stan Halpin wrote:
On Oct 2, 2007, at 8:10 AM, Steve Desjardins wrote:
Just like my students. Generally sharp if you stay near
the center but sometimes getting pretty dim as you go near the
corners.
MARK! The man speaks truth!
Yeah. Tell me about it.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
if grandma were grandpa... (the rest of the quote is NC17)
best,
mishka
On 10/3/07, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if they do then...
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link
:
the more functional variables a lens has, the more important the
designation becomes.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Tom C
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 2:39 PM
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: DA70 and 24x36 coverage
@pdml.net
Subject: Re: DA70 and 24x36 coverage
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 09:56:16 -0400
would someone also be upset about designation if it turned out that some
K (M,A,FA...) lens covers 6x45 format? doesn't K500/4.5? why it isn't
labeled
as such? besides, although it is labeled as K, it has preset aperture
k mount lensses wont normally mount on a 645 will they?
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Mishka
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 9:56 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: DA70 and 24x36 coverage
would someone also be upset
Mishka wrote:
would someone also be upset about designation if it turned out
that some K (M,A,FA...) lens covers 6x45 format? doesn't
K500/4.5? why it isn't labeled as such? besides, although it is
labeled as K, it has preset aperture! burn 'em!
Not only do we have special lens
Right. PRIMARY feature and function of DA lenses (incuding DA40 and
DA70) is an optimal performance with digital bodies. Everything else
doesn't matter.
BRM
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
series designations give indication to features and functions.
if they arent the same, then there should be
Hi,
Why should they? Has anyone EVER quaranteed you those lenses work 100%
well on film bodies? The answer in NO. Pentax has never stated you may
mount 'em to FF film/sensor body, so we do use 'em purely on our own
risk. Primarily, DA Limiteds have to behave as good as possible with
digital
On Oct 2, 2007, at 8:10 AM, Steve Desjardins wrote:
Just like my students. Generally sharp if you stay near
the center but sometimes getting pretty dim as you go near the
corners.
MARK! The man speaks truth!
stan
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
] On Behalf Of
Margus Männik
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 5:39 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: DA70 and 24x36 coverage
Right. PRIMARY feature and function of DA lenses (incuding DA40 and
DA70) is an optimal performance with digital bodies. Everything else
doesn't matter.
BRM
J. C
F FA FAJ Full frame 35mm
D FA Full frame (24x36mm) Digital (what ever that means special coatings
at the very least) with a f stop ring for film bodies.
DA Reduced frame digital
The definitions are fairly simple. Full frame will be guaranteed to
cover 24x36mm Reduced frame will be guaranteed to
Yes, Peter, that's my understanding too.
But why then honorable sir William would take the DA 70 and probably
DA 40 lenses and mount them on his film camera?
Like I said - a little blurred...
Boris
On 10/2/07, P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
F FA FAJ Full frame 35mm
D FA Full frame
I was going to say the same thing as peter, but as noted some of the DA's
cover the full 35mm frame.
I think the best way to classify them is in regards to the variations in
the lens mount.
FA: KAF2 lens mount.
FAJ: KAF mount (crippled), minus aperture simulator aperture ring.
DA: KAF2 mount,
David Savage wrote:
I was going to say the same thing as peter, but as noted some of the DA's
cover the full 35mm frame.
I think the best way to classify them is in regards to the variations in
the lens mount.
FA: KAF2 lens mount.
FAJ: KAF mount (crippled), minus aperture simulator
From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2007/10/01 Mon PM 10:14:03 GMT
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: RE: DA70 and 24x36 coverage
Kinda kills ya doesn't it? :-)
Tom C.
A little bit of me dies every time it happens.
From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail
P. J. Alling wrote:
F FA FAJ Full frame 35mm
D FA Full frame (24x36mm) Digital (what ever that means special coatings
at the very least) with a f stop ring for film bodies.
DA Reduced frame digital
The definitions are fairly simple. Full frame will be guaranteed to
cover 24x36mm Reduced
, Forever without a 24x36mm is a very very long time...
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Cotty
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 5:39 PM
To: pentax list
Subject: Re: DA70 and 24x36 coverage
On 01/10/07, P. J. Alling, discombobulated
David, the way I understood is the following:
The aperture simulator is not a function of the mount lens-wise but a
feature of the body mount.
I may be wrong of course.
And DFA has for sure no aperture simulator problem since they can be
used on a K1000 ifthat suits you.
Regards,
--
Thibault
I just treat them all as very special lenses with their own
personalities. Just like my students. Generally sharp if you stay near
the center but sometimes getting pretty dim as you go near the corners.
I'd put a g but this suddenly sounds much too true.
Steve
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail
On 10/2/07, Thibouille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And DFA has for sure no aperture simulator problem since they can be
used on a K1000 ifthat suits you.
I wasn't 100% sure about that. Thanks for the clarification.
Cheers,
Dave
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Another list member has my 40 at the moment
William Robb
You didn't get it yet?
Tom C.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
On Oct 1, 2007, at 10:45 PM, Boris Liberman wrote:
If you remember, Godfrey, FAJ 18-35 used to be a kit lens for *istD
when
it first came out.
No, there is nothing confusing about it. It is just that the
definition
of what exactly is FA, FAJ, DA, D FA lens is a little blurred to me.
Hi,
you are looking from the wrong side :)
Those two lenses (especially 70mm) wouldn't be any smaller if made for
reduced image circle. Fullframe DA21, OTOH, would have been much more
complex and expensive to design. DA means optimized for digital and no
one have ever said if DA lenses have to
I guess you're right. Though admit - if you are choosing lenses and
you have both film and digital body, it is extremely confusing which
ones you could use on both bodies and which ones you could use only on
the digital one.
On 10/2/07, Margus Männik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
you are
You can use them all on film bodies. It's just that with some you get a
fancy black frame around a circular image. :-)
Tom C.
From: Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: DA70 and 24x36
I agree with Tom.
Boris, you're making it much more complicated than reality:
Film body: all lenses up to FA series, include D-FA for full
coverage. If some DA lenses cover larger format, bonus ... otherwise
enjoy the vignette.
DSLR body: all lenses.
That's it.
When I had the MX body, I
I think that if you changed the mount on most of Pentax's longer lenses
you would get acceptable coverage on 6x7 format. That coverage just
wouldn't be guaranteed if you managed to somehow get a K or M42 lens
mounted on a 6x7 while the other way around would be just fine.
Boris Liberman wrote:
David Savage wrote:
I was going to say the same thing as peter, but as noted some of the DA's
cover the full 35mm frame.
I think the best way to classify them is in regards to the variations in
the lens mount.
FA: KAF2 lens mount.
FAJ: KAF mount (crippled), minus aperture simulator
You can find the same information in less tabular form at Boz's site as
well.
Derby Chang wrote:
P. J. Alling wrote:
F FA FAJ Full frame 35mm
D FA Full frame (24x36mm) Digital (what ever that means special coatings
at the very least) with a f stop ring for film bodies.
DA Reduced frame
He forgot to mention the M* series, (there was only one lens in it but
he got the AF series and there was only one lens in that AFAIK).
Derby Chang wrote:
P. J. Alling wrote:
F FA FAJ Full frame 35mm
D FA Full frame (24x36mm) Digital (what ever that means special coatings
at the very
Not really. If you're buying lenses and you want to use them on a film
body, as well as digital, they should not be in the DA series, period.
They may cover the whole film frame but outside of the 24mm diameter
circle required by the digital format you may find unacceptable
vignetting, image
any camera that features a ff 35mm sensor that doesnt take PK lenses
is foolish
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Adam Maas
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 8:48 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: DA70 and 24x36 coverage
Mail List
Subject: Re: DA70 and 24x36 coverage
No it's not bad. DA lenses are guaranteed to cover 16x24 but may cover a
larger format. That's the only guaranteed there is. It hurts nothing if
they cover a larger format.
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
If the comments below are true, it's bad. The lens
I've run across a couple film lenses that weren't adequate on digital, but they
seemed to all be lenses with average performance across the entire frame rather
than the more common sharp centre and poor corners. The SMC-F 35-80 was one
such lens that proved to be a poor performer on digital.
-Discuss Mail List' pdml@pdml.net
Subject: RE: DA70 and 24x36 coverage
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 13:18:07 -0400
I disagree, the lenses that fully cover 24x36 should be marked so
so there is confusion if you are using both aps and ff bodies.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto
Since never used one, and sold the only one I owned with a film body,
just to get rid of the horrible plasticy thing, I couldn't say.
Adam Maas wrote:
I've run across a couple film lenses that weren't adequate on digital, but
they seemed to all be lenses with average performance across the
01, 2007 6:52 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: DA70 and 24x36 coverage
No it's not bad. DA lenses are guaranteed to cover 16x24 but may cover a
larger format. That's the only guaranteed there is. It hurts nothing if
they cover a larger format.
J. C. O'Connell wrote
List
Subject: Re: DA70 and 24x36 coverage
I agree with Tom.
Boris, you're making it much more complicated than reality:
Film body: all lenses up to FA series, include D-FA for full
coverage. If some DA lenses cover larger format, bonus ... otherwise
enjoy the vignette.
DSLR body: all lenses
] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
P. J. Alling
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 1:02 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: DA70 and 24x36 coverage
Not really. If you're buying lenses and you want to use them on a film
body, as well as digital, they should not be in the DA series, period
: DA70 and 24x36 coverage
F FA FAJ Full frame 35mm
D FA Full frame (24x36mm) Digital (what ever that means special coatings
at the very least) with a f stop ring for film bodies.
DA Reduced frame digital
The definitions are fairly simple. Full frame will be guaranteed to
cover 24x36mm Reduced
getting very unclear.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
P. J. Alling
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 1:39 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: DA70 and 24x36 coverage
Why? So that you can curse that they don't have aperture rings
-Discuss Mail List' pdml@pdml.net
Subject: RE: DA70 and 24x36 coverage
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 13:18:07 -0400
I disagree, the lenses that fully cover 24x36 should be marked so so
there is confusion if you are using both aps and ff bodies. jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto
that can't read don't have this problem.
Tom C.
From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' pdml@pdml.net
Subject: RE: DA70 and 24x36 coverage
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 14:11:20 -0400
LETS CLEAR THIS UP. IMHO, a lens series
Subject: RE: DA70 and 24x36 coverage
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 14:11:20 -0400
LETS CLEAR THIS UP. IMHO, a lens series designation
should cover all functionalities like coverage, AF,
aperture rings, optimized for digital etc. They should
be all the same within a given designation. This is how
Op Tue, 02 Oct 2007 09:00:50 +0200 schreef David Savage
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
FAJ: KAF mount (crippled), minus aperture simulator aperture ring.
Nope, the FA J 18-35 has an aperture simulator (fixed at f22, of course).
As far as I know (but I admit that's hearsay) the other two FA J's don't
a different designation, not be
an unknown bonus.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Godfrey DiGiorgi
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 12:16 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: DA70 and 24x36 coverage
I agree with Tom
List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: DA70 and 24x36 coverage
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 20:23:39 +0200
Tom, with all honesty and due respect - this is rather impolite remark.
Respectfully.
Boris
Tom C wrote:
Who cares? If you can't think for a couple
All that the FA-J and DA series lenses need in an aperture
simulator ... or, more precisely, aperture position indicating
lever ... is a slot in the mount. The mechanical aperture ring
following lever in a non-Program equipped body will default to
minimum aperture, which will be the
On 10/2/07, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
any camera that features a ff 35mm sensor that doesnt take PK lenses
is foolish
jco
I dunno, some of those Canons and Nikons are pretty nice cameras.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Godfrey DiGiorgi
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 12:16 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: DA70 and 24x36 coverage
I agree with Tom.
Boris, you're making it much more complicated
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Tom C
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 2:22 PM
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: RE: DA70 and 24x36 coverage
Who cares? If you can't think for a couple of milliseconds or can't be
troubled to research a product you're going
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
you seem to not comprehend what a lens series designator is for.
Its so you KNOW by the designations exactly what type of lens
you are using, not just buying. i.e. you dont have to remember
the characteristics for every lens of possibly dozens, just every series
which
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
P. J. Alling
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 2:46 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: DA70 and 24x36 coverage
There are some things I agree with you on. But in this case you are
being a complete idiot. If you
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 08:18:49PM +0200, Boris Liberman wrote:
Godfrey, I find it incredibly strange that Pentax produced DA 40 and DA
70 that cover full frame (presumably, but most probably so) obviously
knowing it and not having advertised it in any way.
Why? The lenses work just fine
There's just some things I don't comprehend I guess.
Tom C.
From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' pdml@pdml.net
Subject: RE: DA70 and 24x36 coverage
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 15:09:29 -0400
you seem to not comprehend
I was reffering to any new PENTAX DSLR of course in that context of
reply.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
William Robb
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 2:44 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: DA70 and 24x36 coverage
On 10/2
the more functional variables a lens has, the more important the
designation becomes.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Tom C
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 2:39 PM
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: DA70 and 24x36 coverage
It could
John Francis wrote:
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 08:18:49PM +0200, Boris Liberman wrote:
Godfrey, I find it incredibly strange that Pentax produced DA 40 and DA
70 that cover full frame (presumably, but most probably so) obviously
knowing it and not having advertised it in any way.
Why? The
On Oct 2, 2007, at 12:27 PM, John Francis wrote:
Godfrey, I find it incredibly strange that Pentax produced DA 40
and DA
70 that cover full frame (presumably, but most probably so) obviously
knowing it and not having advertised it in any way.
Why? The lenses work just fine with all
- Original Message -
From: Boris Liberman
Subject: Re: DA70 and 24x36 coverage
Yes, Peter, that's my understanding too.
But why then honorable sir William would take the DA 70 and probably
DA 40 lenses and mount them on his film camera?
Because you asked me
- Original Message -
From: Tom C
Subject: Re: DA70 and 24x36 coverage
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Another list member has my 40 at the moment
William Robb
You didn't get it yet?
bastard.
WW
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman
, October 02, 2007 4:11 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: DA70 and 24x36 coverage
On Oct 2, 2007, at 12:27 PM, John Francis wrote:
Godfrey, I find it incredibly strange that Pentax produced DA 40
and DA
70 that cover full frame (presumably, but most probably so) obviously
knowing
Yes, where I see the real problem is that Pentax designated DA lenses
for their DSLR's. They are all reduced frame. So that means by the
definition, the lenses do not have to cover Full Frame. However,
those who keep asking can they use a DA lens on their full frame film
camera are trying to
-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: DA70 and 24x36 coverage
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 14:23:51 -0700
Yes, where I see the real problem is that Pentax designated DA lenses
for their DSLR's. They are all reduced frame. So that means
.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Tom C
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 1:32 PM
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: RE: DA70 and 24x36 coverage
I'm confused. :-)
There's a ton of FF lenses on the market and they're not marked, and
never
At 02:18 AM 3/10/2007, Boris Liberman wrote:
Godfrey, I find it incredibly strange that Pentax produced DA 40 and DA
70 that cover full frame (presumably, but most probably so) obviously
knowing it and not having advertised it in any way.
I don't.
I expect that the lens designers could have
Again, someone on DPR certifies the DA70 is perfectly useable on 24x36 body.
Can anybody confirm this ?
Thank you.
--
Thibault Massart aka Thibouille
--
K10D,Z1,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ;) ...
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
- Original Message -
From: Thibouille
Subject: DA70 and 24x36 coverage
Again, someone on DPR certifies the DA70 is perfectly useable on 24x36
body.
Can anybody confirm this ?
It doesn't appear to vignette on my LX body. Remember that you will need a
programmed AE camera to use
Thank you William, this is good news.
My Z1 will do fine with it...
2007/10/1, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
- Original Message -
From: Thibouille
Subject: DA70 and 24x36 coverage
Again, someone on DPR certifies the DA70 is perfectly useable on 24x36
body.
Can anybody
William, what about its sharpness towards the corners of the full frame
image?
Boris
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Thibouille
Subject: DA70 and 24x36 coverage
Again, someone on DPR certifies the DA70 is perfectly useable on 24x36
body.
Can anybody confirm
- Original Message -
From: Boris Liberman
Subject: Re: DA70 and 24x36 coverage
William, what about its sharpness towards the corners of the full frame
image?
That would require me to put it onto a film camera and use it. In the finder
it looked about the same in the corners
if it indeed covered full frame
and there were no image deterioration past the APC frame, Pentax
probably would have given it FDA designation instead of DA.
Boris
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Boris Liberman
Subject: Re: DA70 and 24x36 coverage
William, what about its sharpness towards the corners of the full frame
image?
That would require me to put it onto a film camera and use it. In the
finder
it looked about the same in the corners as it did at the center, but this
is
in no way a scientific observation.
William Robb
And
and 24x36 coverage
William, what about its sharpness towards the corners of the full frame
image?
That would require me to put it onto a film camera and use it. In the finder
it looked about the same in the corners as it did at the center, but this is
in no way a scientific observation
On Oct 1, 2007, at 11:46 AM, Boris Liberman wrote:
I am asking my question mainly because if it indeed covered full frame
and there were no image deterioration past the APC frame, Pentax
probably would have given it FDA designation instead of DA.
The D-FA mount includes an aperture ring
and 24x36 coverage
William, what about its sharpness towards the corners of the full frame
image?
That would require me to put it onto a film camera and use it. In the
finder
it looked about the same in the corners as it did at the center, but this
is
in no way
no image deterioration past the APC frame, Pentax
probably would have given it FDA designation instead of DA.
Boris
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Boris Liberman
Subject: Re: DA70 and 24x36 coverage
William, what about its sharpness towards the corners
Thibouille escribió:
Again, someone on DPR certifies the DA70 is perfectly useable on 24x36 body.
Can anybody confirm this ?
Thank you.
Thibouille, if you search the DPreview forum, you will see that some
months ago Richard Day tested the DA limited lenses on a 35 mm. body
(MZ-S), shot
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
The D-FA mount includes an aperture ring control. DA lenses do not.
The DA70 has no aperture ring control, it was design for use with the
digital SLR bodies. Whether it actually covers 24x36 mm format isn't
really relevant to the mount designation.
That's pretty much
On 01/10/07, P. J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed:
When an
~24x36mm camera is released we'll probably see more D FA lenses, not before.
If.
;-)
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Godfrey DiGiorgi
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 3:37 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: DA70 and 24x36 coverage
On Oct 1, 2007, at 11:46 AM, Boris Liberman wrote:
I am asking my question mainly because if it indeed covered full frame
and there were
WHEN, Forever without a 24x36mm is a very very long time...
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Cotty
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 5:39 PM
To: pentax list
Subject: Re: DA70 and 24x36 coverage
On 01/10/07, P. J. Alling, discombobulated
Kinda kills ya doesn't it? :-)
Tom C.
From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' pdml@pdml.net
Subject: RE: DA70 and 24x36 coverage
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 18:02:43 -0400
If the comments below are true, it's bad
When in this case doesn't preclude if.
Cotty wrote:
On 01/10/07, P. J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed:
When an
~24x36mm camera is released we'll probably see more D FA lenses, not before.
If.
;-)
--
Remember, it’s pillage then burn.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: DA70 and 24x36 coverage
On Oct 1, 2007, at 11:46 AM, Boris Liberman wrote:
I am asking my question mainly because if it indeed covered full frame
and there were no image deterioration past the APC frame, Pentax
probably would have
pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: DA70 and 24x36 coverage
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 18:52:22 -0400
No it's not bad. DA lenses are guaranteed to cover 16x24 but may cover a
larger format. That's the only guaranteed there is. It hurts nothing if
they cover a larger
- Original Message -
From: Boris Liberman
Subject: Re: DA70 and 24x36 coverage
I am asking my question mainly because if it indeed covered full frame
and there were no image deterioration past the APC frame, Pentax
probably would have given it FDA designation instead of DA.
I think
- Original Message -
From: Tom C
Subject: Re: DA70 and 24x36 coverage
And you've forgotten how to load film??? :-)
I almost forgot how to open the back of an LX..
William Robb
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Tom C wrote:
Sure it's bad. Think of how many people might buy a lens and never
realize
that a significant portion of the light passing through reaches the
focal
plane 'off-sensor' and is not recorded. Totally wasteful. :-)
SAVE THE PHOTONS!
(Please give generously)
--
PDML
Cotty wrote:
On 01/10/07, P. J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed:
When an
~24x36mm camera is released we'll probably see more D FA lenses, not
before.
If.
;-)
With Nikon in the pool and Sony any day now it's pretty much inevitable.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
Mark Roberts wrote:
Cotty wrote:
On 01/10/07, P. J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed:
When an
~24x36mm camera is released we'll probably see more D FA lenses, not
before.
If.
;-)
With Nikon in the pool and Sony any day now it's pretty much inevitable.
That depends on whether
Subject: Re: DA70 and 24x36 coverage
Tom C wrote:
Sure it's bad. Think of how many people might buy a lens and never
realize
that a significant portion of the light passing through reaches the
focal
plane 'off-sensor' and is not recorded. Totally wasteful. :-)
Large format photographers
I think that SR will still work with a 1.1x to 1.3x crop. The Nikon FF
is really more like a 1.1x crop. If the 645d actually arrives it already
has a 1.3x crop factor by it's announced specifications, what makes you
think it wouldn't have had SR to begin with.
Adam Maas wrote:
Mark Roberts
The full frame distraction/debate again, I see.
Carry on then ... ;-)
G
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
I dunno where the silly idea that the D3 is 1.1x crop comes from, maybe
those pre-announcement rumours about the 1.1x Sony sensor. It's no such
thing.
The D3 has a 36mm by 23.9mm sensor. It's 1.0x crop, all of 0.1mm shorter
and just as wide as a 35mm frame. In fact it's larger than the 5D's
: Re: DA70 and 24x36 coverage
I am asking my question mainly because if it indeed covered full frame
and there were no image deterioration past the APC frame, Pentax
probably would have given it FDA designation instead of DA.
I think they would have had to put an aperture ring
- Original Message -
From: Boris Liberman
Subject: Re: DA70 and 24x36 coverage
In fact, if anyone of us who has these DA lenses (40, 70) would care for
a (as much as I dislike this term) full frame test, it would be most
helpful.
Another list member has my 40 at the moment
I don't know what's confusing about it. The FA-J lenses were a small
set of modestly priced junior lenses in the FA series produced for
the Film cameras.
The DA series are the latest lenses designed for the Digital cameras.
Just because a lens is optimized for a digital sensor doesn't mean
At 01:13 PM 2/10/2007, William Robb wrote:
:-)
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
I expect that Pentax would see it that way if the 645d released. Add in
the latest functionality and steal a march on the competition. After all
we haven't seen the final product just preproduction mock ups.
Adam Maas wrote:
I dunno where the silly idea that the D3 is 1.1x crop comes from,
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
