On 11/4/2010 9:47 AM, John Sessoms wrote:
From: Larry Colen
On Nov 4, 2010, at 2:52 AM, Thibouille wrote:
My take on this is the following:
... snip ...
Those are bold lies and should be presented as such.
First you want honesty in advertising? What next? Honesty in
politics?
My take on this is the following:
There's no wonder that cameras do indeed change the exact values of
exposure parameters. This is nothing new.
Oe will display 1/30 at f/2.8 (AV mode) when really the camera decided
to use 1/27 but for clarity purposes, displays 1/30.
I have no problem with that.
On Nov 4, 2010, at 2:52 AM, Thibouille wrote:
My take on this is the following:
... snip ...
With reviews as they are done now (good or bad) the fact that some
cameras (yes, Nikon being one of them but Pentax might be as well)
display (always) Iso6400 but use Iso5000 is nothing but a
Hehe, got your point Larry but there's a difference between promoting
the good things of a product (not stating bad ones) and bold lies.
I'll add that politics lies are no reason to accept lies everywhere
else except maybe if this is the world one wants to live in.
2010/11/4 Larry Colen
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 5:55 AM, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote:
First you want honesty in advertising? What next? Honesty in politics?
Politeness on mailing lists? A Pentax
with decent autofocus?
MARK!
-Mat
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
From: Larry Colen
On Nov 4, 2010, at 2:52 AM, Thibouille wrote:
My take on this is the following:
... snip ...
Those are bold lies and should be presented as such.
First you want honesty in advertising? What next? Honesty in
politics? Politeness on mailing lists? A Pentax with decent
We can work on half of that. ;-)
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 10:47 AM, John Sessoms jsessoms...@nc.rr.com wrote:
From: Larry Colen
On Nov 4, 2010, at 2:52 AM, Thibouille wrote:
My take on this is the following:
... snip ...
Those are bold lies and should be presented as such.
First you
On 4/11/10, John Sessoms, discombobulated, unleashed:
Nah! I just want to be able to walk down the streets and hear people
murmuring, Boy, that guy sure is *RICH*!, instead of the usual Ain't
he good lookin'!
John you should try going out by yourself and not with you pal.
- ;-)
--
This is rather interesting to me:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_open_letter_to_the_major_camera_manufacturers.shtml
Dario
--
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
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Dario Bonazza dario.bona...@virgilio.it wrote:
This is rather interesting to me:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_open_letter_to_the_major_camera_manufacturers.shtml
Dario,
Thanks for sharing this link. I learned A LOT of things I didn't know.
I would
Maybe Pentax just uses slower lenses (they do) and doesn't correct (no
idea since the data wasn't there). The funny thing would be if they
didn't correct there would no evidence of it in this data but rather
in inconsistent exposure results between lenses.
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 10:43 AM,
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Steven Desjardins drd1...@gmail.com wrote:
The funny thing would be if they
didn't correct there would no evidence of it in this data but rather
in inconsistent exposure results between lenses.
I guess I should have prefaced my comments as coming from one who
The best thing would be to admit the correct and allow the shooter to
turn it on or off with a custom function. Why change the iso anyway?
why not just change the Tv?
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 11:30 AM, CheekyGeek cheekyg...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Steven Desjardins
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 10:38 AM, Steven Desjardins drd1...@gmail.com wrote:
Why change the iso anyway?
why not just change the Tv?
My guess would be because, out of the three main variables (shutter
speed, aperture, ISO), ISO is the one that people will be most willing
to compromise on.
I believe the article is written using an overly hysterical tone.
This isn't news. It has long been known that the metering in
many digital cameras takes the maximum aperture of the lens into
account. In the case of Pentax it was discussed when the K-10
was a fairly new body (I believe Ned
He does present it as a vast conspiracy. I think that the camera
makers don't mention it because they probably think no one cares. Of
course, maybe they will now.
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 1:09 PM, John Francis jo...@panix.com wrote:
I believe the article is written using an overly hysterical
2010/11/3 Steven Desjardins drd1...@gmail.com:
He does present it as a vast conspiracy. I think that the camera
makers don't mention it because they probably think no one cares. Of
course, maybe they will now.
The measurebators will. Kennyboy will write a featurette on it. Maybe
even the
Joe the Pro is probably too busy to be concerned as well. It's always
the enthusiasts who stress over this stuff.
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 7:47 PM, eckinator eckina...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/11/3 Steven Desjardins drd1...@gmail.com:
He does present it as a vast conspiracy. I think that the
18 matches
Mail list logo
