True
Bob Blakely wrote:
You are generally correct, however:
Ammunition not being available is no bar from firing any old firearm. One
can always make the ammunition if one wants to, and it's usually a
relatively trivial matter. I know, I've done it. Further, while ammo for
certain
I guess my 2 MXen do not count as I still use them.
Graywolf
Website: http://www.graywolfphoto.com
Blog:http://www.graywolfphoto.com/journal/
---
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
Well, I've got film loaded in one of mine, but I haven't shot a frame in
about a year. I really should shoot off that roll sometime, but then
I'll have to get some more developer, and I've just been too lazy since
HC110 has become unavailable from the local stores.
graywolf wrote:
I guess
Spotmatic
K1000
MX
LX
--- Cesar Matamoros II [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
William Robb wrote:
Here is a sad survery.
How many Pentax film cameras do you have that you
are rarely, if ever,
using?
List by model and number if you like.
Reply in confidence to
warobb at accesscomm.ca
I bought it because I was planning to hitchhike around Europe with a
girlfriend for a few months, and I wanted something better than my
first SLR, a Zenith. Here's a picture taken with the MX of the
aforementiond gf, running along a beach somewhere in the S of France
(Gruissan or Cap d'Agde,
I deleted it yesterday.
--
Bob
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Gonz
Sent: 11 December 2007 17:40
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Mouldering film camera survey
I bought it because I was planning to hitchhike around
were killed in the sending of this message,
but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
From: P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 9:19 PM
Subject: Re: Current camera classics? WAS:Re: Mouldering film camera
You are generally correct, however:
Ammunition not being available is no bar from firing any old firearm. One
can always make the ammunition if one wants to, and it's usually a
relatively trivial matter. I know, I've done it. Further, while ammo for
certain antique firearms may not be mass
Looks like MX is the most loved Pentax as there are 36 of them unused
yet not sold in members' posession. There are also 41 Spotmatics and 36
ME series camera unused but it accounts for several different models I
suppose. Long live MX. :-)
Pawel
William Robb pisze:
Hear it is, kids, the
On 10/12/07, Bob Blakely, discombobulated, unleashed:
Camera W x Hx D (mm) Wt (g)
ME 131x 82.5 x 49.5460
ME Super 131.5 x 83x 49.5445
MX 135.8 x 82.5 x 49.3 495
LX 144.5 x 90.5 x 50 570 (for reference)
K2
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 10:07:21AM -0800, Bob Blakely wrote:
From Bojidar Dimitrov's Pentax K-Mount Page
(Best authority on all things K-mount)
http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/bodies/M/index.html
Camera W x Hx D (mm) Wt (g)
ME 131x 82.5 x 49.5460
ME Super
On Dec 10, 2007, at 11:11 AM, Cotty wrote:
... That is still a wilting pile of fetid testicles.
Mark!
I dunno, but that's just so gross it had me laughing until my ribs
ached. :-)
Godfrey
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to
On 10/12/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed:
... That is still a wilting pile of fetid testicles.
Mark!
I dunno, but that's just so gross it had me laughing until my ribs
ached. :-)
The nice thing is, it's pretty interchangeable as a sentence, viz:
That is still a fetid wilt
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Dec 10, 2007, at 11:11 AM, Cotty wrote:
... That is still a wilting pile of fetid testicles.
Mark!
I dunno, but that's just so gross it had me laughing until my ribs
ached. :-)
Quite. I mean, a pile of fetid testicles is one thing... but a
*wilting* pile of
Mark Roberts wrote:
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Dec 10, 2007, at 11:11 AM, Cotty wrote:
... That is still a wilting pile of fetid testicles.
Mark!
I dunno, but that's just so gross it had me laughing until my ribs
ached. :-)
Quite. I mean, a pile of fetid testicles is one thing...
As I said, the body of the ME exclusive of the prism housing is also
shorter from top plate to base plate than the MX those measly
millimeters make for very big difference in size in the hands. I've
used both and while I don't have exceedingly large hands the ME is much
more difficult to
Well, at least in this case one is noticeably larger than the other.
But this does not qualify the statement that 'the MX is much wider
than
the ME'. That is still a wilting pile of fetid testicles.
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|
On 10/12/07, P. J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed:
As I said, the body of the ME exclusive of the prism housing is also
shorter from top plate to base plate than the MX those measly
millimeters make for very big difference in size in the hands. I've
used both and while I don't have
It's a gift.
Cotty wrote:
On 10/12/07, P. J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed:
As I said, the body of the ME exclusive of the prism housing is also
shorter from top plate to base plate than the MX those measly
millimeters make for very big difference in size in the hands. I've
On Dec 11, 2007 6:45 AM, P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
peter you're just obnoxious
It's a gift.
Mark!
--
Sandy Harris,
Nanjing, China
--
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
On 10/12/07, P. J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed:
It's a gift.
LOL
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
On 09/12/07, P. J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed:
The ME is much smaller than
the MX,
Poppycock.
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 09:33:39 +, Cotty wrote
On 09/12/07, P. J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed:
The ME is much smaller than
the MX,
Poppycock.
--
Cheers,
Cotty
Having owned both, the ME is slighly smaller 131 x 82.5 x 49.5 compared to
the MX 135.8 x 82.5 x 49.3. Most
In camera terms is certainly is. Look at a pair side by side sometime.
Lets see. The width of an MX (side to side) is 94% of the width of an
LX a camera that most everyone would admit is much bigger. (In fact the
LX is damn close to the same size as that old K dinosaur the K2). The
width
On 09/12/07, John Whittingham, discombobulated, unleashed:
Having owned both, the ME is slighly smaller 131 x 82.5 x 49.5 compared to
the MX 135.8 x 82.5 x 49.3. Most noticeable when you're trying to fit an ME
ERC to the MX body, but we're only talking a few mm.
Exactly. The Allingator said:
On 09/12/07, P. J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed:
Lets see. The width of an MX (side to side) is 94% of the width of an
LX a camera that most everyone would admit is much bigger. (In fact the
LX is damn close to the same size as that old K dinosaur the K2). The
width of an ME is 96%
The extra size and magnification of the MX (.97x at 95% instead of
.95x at 92%) is enough to make the MX's too large to use comfortably.
I find the ME smallish as well, but since I'm not trying to use the
shutter dial it's a lot less annoying.
But other than the LX, I never clicked with any of my
William Robb wrote:
Here is a sad survery.
How many Pentax film cameras do you have that you are rarely, if ever,
using?
List by model and number if you like.
Reply in confidence to
warobb at accesscomm.ca
I'll tally them up and post numbers, but not names when I have something.
Hear it is, kids, the results you don't want to see from a survey you didn't
want to have..
I will keep score for a while longer, but the replies are slowing enough
that I thought I'd post what I have...
Fourty seven people decided to partake in this thing, and they have 302
Pentax 35mm
Interesting. It suggests that we aren't likely to part with our Spotmatics, but
MZ-S and other recent models? Put 'em on ebay.
Paul
-- Original message --
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hear it is, kids, the results you don't want to see from a survey you
Or the MZ-S and other recent models are still finding use.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Interesting. It suggests that we aren't likely to part with our Spotmatics,
but MZ-S and other recent models? Put 'em on ebay.
Paul
-- Original message --
From: William Robb
The MZ-S is the only Pentax 35mm film body I've not owned that I'd be
actually tempted to get. Too bad the prices are still ridiculous (Good
body, but it's priced similar to far more capable bodies of similar
vintage. An EOS 1v or F5 it is not).
-Adam
On 12/9/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL
No likely. They're film cameras.
Paul
-- Original message --
From: Paul Crovella [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or the MZ-S and other recent models are still finding use.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Interesting. It suggests that we aren't likely to part with our Spotmatics,
If a used MZ-S is expensive, then I'm wrong. I thought they had become
somewhat disposable. I've never wanted one. Well, maybe for a minute or two
when they were first released. But prior to digital, I was shooting primarily
MF for a couple years. If I wanted to shoot 35mm, it was the LX or my
Cotty wrote:
On 09/12/07, P. J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed:
The ME is much smaller than the MX...
Poppycock.
My ME super is 3/8 less wide than my MX.
However, the MX is a little taller than the Super, about 1/8.
The body thicknesses seem the same.
So, the ME is not as wide, but
They're running $5-600 for a copy in good condition, about double the
cost of an F100 or EOS 3 and almost 3x the cost of a Minolta 7, all of
which are more capable bodies of similar vintage.
I suspect this has a lot to do with availability, as far as I'm aware,
MZ-S bodies were never produced in
Not remotely the same. The MX was the last of the old school, the ME the first
of the new. The lenses and eyepiece accessories were about the only thing
interchangeable between them.
Sandy Harris wrote:
On Dec 9, 2007 1:25 AM, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Owned an MX, poor
The combination of old and high-quality will always have value. Collectors will
always be around. So what if film completely disappears, folks still collect
guns for which no ammunition has been available for a century or more. When one
is young old does not mean anything because almost
Well it is as much smaller as a Leica IIIC is smaller than a Leica IIIF, about
1/8 inch in length.
Cotty wrote:
On 09/12/07, P. J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed:
The ME is much smaller than
the MX,
Poppycock.
--
Graywolf
Website: http://www.graywolfphoto.com
Blog:
In a message dated 12/9/2007 10:18:22 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In camera terms is certainly is. Look at a pair side by side sometime.
Lets see. The width of an MX (side to side) is 94% of the width of an
LX a camera that most everyone would admit is much
Owned an MX, poor viewfinder(WAY too much magnification, no eye
relief), too small to handle nicely, low flash sync.
ME - Alright
ME Super - Horrid UI.
KX, big, heavy.
Super Program - see ME Super
LX - Real nice camera, needs grip+winder to be comfortable to shoot.
The LX is the only one of the
Big hands Adam? Regards, Bob S.
On Dec 8, 2007 11:25 AM, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Owned an MX, poor viewfinder(WAY too much magnification, no eye
relief), too small to handle nicely, low flash sync.
ME - Alright
ME Super - Horrid UI.
KX, big, heavy.
Super Program - see ME
Do you think the Speed Graphic folks will think the same? Have you seen what
one goes for in just reasonable condition? There will always be people who
will remember...
Regards,
Bob...
-
Note: No trees were killed in the sending of
For some folks, there is a warmly felt appreciation for a craftsman like
elegance that transcends the function of the tool itself. The H1a, etal.,
the Spotmatics and their K-mount cousins, the MX, the ME-Super and the LX.
These each had and continue to have such an appeal to me. It's much like
I love my Speed Graphic. Gotta break it out and shoot some sheet film
one of these days. One of these days.:-)
Paul
On Dec 8, 2007, at 8:13 PM, Bob Blakely wrote:
Do you think the Speed Graphic folks will think the same? Have you
seen what
one goes for in just reasonable condition? There
Average, but small cameras don't work for me unless thay've got a
grip. I like to have a handful of camera.
Best handling camera I own is my 645 Super.
-Adam
On 12/8/07, Bob Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Big hands Adam? Regards, Bob S.
On Dec 8, 2007 11:25 AM, Adam Maas [EMAIL
On Dec 9, 2007 1:25 AM, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Owned an MX, poor viewfinder(WAY too much magnification, no eye
relief), too small to handle nicely, low flash sync.
ME - Alright
I thought those two were identical except manual exposure on MX,
aperature priority auto on ME. What did
No, the viewfinders change. MX is less visible to me wearing
eyeglasses. Regards, Bob S,
On Dec 8, 2007 10:55 PM, Sandy Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 9, 2007 1:25 AM, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Owned an MX, poor viewfinder(WAY too much magnification, no eye
relief), too
I have an ME and an MX and the viewfinders are more or less the same,
(both for coverage and magnification), well close enough so that
criticizing one is criticizing the other. The ME is much smaller than
the MX, but has many fewer controls so that might make a difference in
handling..
Sandy
Well, if I list all of my Pentax film cameras it will be a *very* sad list.
I'm a collecter so I have quite a number of them, including lots of Espios that
I picked up for a few bucks each.
But, if I restrict myself to those that I've actually used more than once or
twice, the list goes
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 16:20:18 +, Cotty wrote
On 06/12/07, John Whittingham, discombobulated, unleashed:
3x KX one silver, one black one for spares
3x MX all silver, all working.
1x LX
2x Super A's c/w motordrives MEII winders.
2x MZ-3's c/w FG battery packs.
1x 645
Jesus H, you're
On 06/12/07, John Francis, discombobulated, unleashed:
Nope. That's my cold dead hands film camera. It was my first K-mount
body (thirty years ago - how time flies ...), and I was lucky enough to
pick up a New In Box motor drive about ten years ago.
My second MX was bought purely as a spare in
On 07/12/07, frank theriault, discombobulated, unleashed:
BTW, gorgeous woman! Is that your then-girlfriend, or just some
French Tart on the Beach?
Knowing Bob a bit, both.
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
On Dec 7, 2007 4:37 AM, Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip:
http://www.web-options.com/aotb.jpg
I must have had a cheap tele zoom lens. The slide obviously needs
cleaning.
Looks perfectly sharp to me!
:-)
BTW, gorgeous woman! Is that your then-girlfriend, or just some
French Tart on the
On Dec 7, 2007 8:58 AM, frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW, gorgeous woman! Is that your then-girlfriend, or just some
French Tart on the Beach?
Oops!
Just re-read your post, Bob, and I see she's no FTotB...
cheers,
frank
--
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri
ME Super
Super Program
They were in a camera shop counter case for months with no interest.
Also, tried each on eBay twice. Nothing!
Jack
--- David S. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
William Robb wrote:
Here is a sad survery.
How many Pentax film cameras do you have that you are rarely, if
ever,
To what country would it be shipped?
In a fit of honesty, the ISO ring allows the setting to vary at times,
so needs to be checked (jiggled) from time to time. This is pretty much
standard with a used unit.
Cosmetically and operationally (except for ISO ring glitch) in very
good condition.
On Dec 7, 2007 9:37 PM, Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ME Super
Super Program
They were in a camera shop counter case for months with no interest.
Also, tried each on eBay twice. Nothing!
Anyone here with equipment that is both unused and unsaleable
should consider donating it to Baba,
* Z1 but just bought a new 2CR5 for it to play again ;)
* P30t.. superceded in all areas by my other cameras.
* KR10x used only as body I would not regret in any way if broken
(read, bad weather or other risks)
* MX not much used but at very stable interval
* SuperA much like the MX but a couple
On 07/12/07, frank theriault, discombobulated, unleashed:
BTW, gorgeous woman! Is that your then-girlfriend, or just some
French Tart on the Beach?
Knowing Bob a bit, both.
Hmmph! She was my girlfriend, and not at all French. Or tarty.
In fact, we're still friends, 28 years on.
--
From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2007/12/06 Thu PM 04:20:18 GMT
To: pentax list PDML@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Mouldering film camera survey
On 06/12/07, John Whittingham, discombobulated, unleashed:
3x KX one silver, one black one for spares
3x MX all silver, all working.
1x LX
2x
Well, that should be an interesting research project for some 22nd century
archaeologist
Cheers
Brian
++
Brian Walters
Western Sydney, Australia
http://members.westnet.com.au/brianwal/SL/
http://www.blognow.com.au/peso1/
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Cotty
Sent: 07 December 2007 08:53
To: pentax list
Subject: Re: Mouldering film camera survey
On 06/12/07, John Francis, discombobulated, unleashed:
Nope. That's my cold dead hands film camera
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 12:38:02 +, mike wilson wrote
From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2007/12/06 Thu PM 04:20:18 GMT
To: pentax list PDML@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Mouldering film camera survey
On 06/12/07, John Whittingham, discombobulated, unleashed:
3x KX one silver, one
On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 11:39:10 -0500, Scott Loveless wrote
Cotty wrote:
On 06/12/07, John Whittingham, discombobulated, unleashed:
3x KX one silver, one black one for spares
3x MX all silver, all working.
1x LX
2x Super A's c/w motordrives MEII winders.
2x MZ-3's c/w FG battery
From: John Whittingham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2007/12/07 Fri PM 03:44:06 GMT
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Mouldering film camera survey
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 12:38:02 +, mike wilson wrote
From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2007/12/06 Thu PM 04:20
None,
In fact I've only got 2 35mm cameras at present, a Nikon F2a and a
Minolta Maxxum 7. The llatter was part of a planned move to Sony, but
my dissatisfaction with Minolta/Sony metering (Their matrix meter is
useless) put a hold on that. So the Maxxum 7 is for sale ($200 w/
35-70 f4 if
On Dec 7, 2007, at 2:53 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote:
You are absolutely right Cory.
The old gear has a touch and feel that doesn't go away.
The ME is so small, clean,and quick in the hands.
The ME Super is more quiet and solid feeling when the shutter fires.
The KX is big and durable and kind of
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Cotty
Sent: 07 December 2007 22:42
To: pentax list
Subject: Re: Mouldering film camera survey
On 07/12/07, Bob W, discombobulated, unleashed:
In fact, we're still friends, 28 years on.
Nudge
Godfrey,
you view is certainly logical, if a bit dispassionate. I tend to impart a
soul and personality to my possessions (and indeed items I want but will
never own for lack of funds).
I'm wondering if you had posters of cars, bikes or whatever on your walls as
a teenager.
I admire gadgets
On Dec 7, 2007 2:14 PM, cbwaters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anybody think they'll ever again make a camera body that would elicit
the same emotions thirty years on?
I won't be strong enough to pick it up by then.:-)
Dave
CW
does not.
- Original Message -
From: Cotty [EMAIL
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 16:04:06 +, mike wilson wrote
From: John Whittingham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2007/12/07 Fri PM 03:44:06 GMT
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Mouldering film camera survey
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 12:38:02 +, mike wilson wrote
On Dec 7, 2007, at 11:27 AM, Scott Loveless wrote:
cbwaters wrote:
Does anybody think they'll ever again make a camera body that
would elicit
the same emotions thirty years on?
Nor do I. They (camera makers) figured out a while back that making
cameras which last 30+ years isn't
On Dec 7, 2007, at 4:31 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Those great old film cameras will likely be totally forgotten by
2015, never mind 2037.
Hmmm. What do you want to bet that my Leica IIIf RD won't be even
more coveted in 2037 than it is today? Worth more, adjusted for
inflation?
-- Original message --
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Dec 7, 2007, at 1:08 PM, cbwaters wrote:
Those great old film cameras will likely be totally forgotten by
2015, never mind 2037.
Hmmm. What do you want to bet that my Leica IIIf RD
On Dec 7, 2007, at 1:08 PM, cbwaters wrote:
you view is certainly logical, if a bit dispassionate. I tend to
impart a
soul and personality to my possessions (and indeed items I want but
will
never own for lack of funds).
I don't really care all that much about possessions. I have built
You are absolutely right Cory.
The old gear has a touch and feel that doesn't go away.
The ME is so small, clean,and quick in the hands.
The ME Super is more quiet and solid feeling when the shutter fires.
The KX is big and durable and kind of ols school.
I feel like a pro with the little MX.
And
On 07/12/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed:
But then I'm a robotnik. Cameras are tools.
It's the photographs which make me nostalgic. ;-)
O the pathos!!
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
On 07/12/07, Bob W, discombobulated, unleashed:
In fact, we're still friends, 28 years on.
Nudge nudge wink wink. Does she likep h o t o g r a p h s ?? Nudge nudge
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
Nice :)
I do't feel sad either. Just counted my Pentaxes (and posted directly to
William) - I do own 22 working Pentax SLR bodies. Plus Chinons/Ricohs.
Plus about hundred soviet M39/M42/K/other cameras. I've taken at least a
roll with every of my Pentaxes and don't feel sad AT ALL. Much more
On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 09:37:03AM -, Bob W wrote:
you got a bargain. I bought [my MX] in 1979 for ?125- from a shop in
Leeds. I gave up smoking for a year to get the money together. It's
now in my safe with my Contaxes. I've also had several other MXs over
the years, but have always
Does anybody think they'll ever again make a camera body that would elicit
the same emotions thirty years on?
CW
does not.
- Original Message -
From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Same here. I bought my MX (black) in 1979 from Techno in the Euston Road
(London) for either 106 or 104 GBP,
cbwaters wrote:
Does anybody think they'll ever again make a camera body that would elicit
the same emotions thirty years on?
CW
does not.
Nor do I. They (camera makers) figured out a while back that making
cameras which last 30+ years isn't conducive to turning a profit. While
I can't
MZ7 with batery grip.
super program with motor drive, both getting repaired at this moment.
Camera,s I used to have.
Spotmatic, sold it when I got my me super
ME super till it was stolen :( insurance got me the super program.
James
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
0 :) ... funny, that comes out 0:) ... hmmm
Here is a sad survery.
How many Pentax film cameras do you have that you are rarely, if ever,
using?
List by model and number if you like.
Reply in confidence to
warobb at accesscomm.ca
I'll tally them up and post numbers, but not
William Robb wrote:
Here is a sad survery.
How many Pentax film cameras do you have that you are rarely, if ever,
using?
List by model and number if you like.
Reply in confidence to
warobb at accesscomm.ca
I'll tally them up and post numbers, but not names when I have something.
MX - 1
--
Bob
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of William Robb
Sent: 06 December 2007 04:35
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Mouldering film camera survey
Here is a sad survery.
How many Pentax film cameras do you have
I'm happy to have my name attached to my mouldy cameras
Same here...
K2 - dead electronics, works only with 1/125 B ...
Bong
--
Bong Manayon
http://www.bong.uni.cc
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML,
On Dec 5, 2007 11:35 PM, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here is a sad survery.
How many Pentax film cameras do you have that you are rarely, if ever,
using?
List by model and number if you like.
Reply in confidence to
warobb at accesscomm.ca
I'll tally them up and post numbers,
Kodak 35, circ 1948.
I just recently bought it but it ain't too sharp, and I don't like
film anymore :-)
Walt
On 12/5/07, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here is a sad survery.
How many Pentax film cameras do you have that you are rarely, if ever,
using?
List by model and number if
SP-500
MX
ZX-7
MZ-S
645
I really like the MZ-S body. Add a second wheel and make it digital
and I'm there. But in truth, I've was very happy with the DS and the
K10D is a pleasure to use.
Steven Desjardins
Department of Chemistry
Washington and Lee University
Lexington, VA 24450
(540) 458-8873
Emne: Re: Mouldering film camera survey
On Dec 5, 2007 11:35 PM, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here is a sad survery.
How many Pentax film cameras do you have that you are rarely, if ever,
using?
List by model and number if you like.
Reply in confidence to
warobb at accesscomm.ca
William Robb wrote:
Here is a sad survery.
How many Pentax film cameras do you have that you are rarely, if ever,
using?
List by model and number if you like.
Reply in confidence to
warobb at accesscomm.ca
I'll tally them up and post numbers, but not names when I have
something.
On 5-Dec-07, at 11:17 PM, WR wrote:
Here is a sad survery.
How many Pentax film cameras do you have that you are rarely, if ever,
using?
Just Pentax?
MZ-5
MZ-6
ME-F (lent to a friend)
Spotmatic SP (just got it!)
Others:
Yashicamat 124G - I'd like to use this more, but just don't get
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 22:35:04 -0600, William Robb wrote
Here is a sad survery.
How many Pentax film cameras do you have that you are rarely, if
ever, using?
List by model and number if you like.
Reply in confidence to
warobb at accesscomm.ca
I'll tally them up and post numbers, but
S1a
Asahi Pentax Spotmatic (2)
Honeywell Pentax Spotmatic
SuperProgram
MZ-5 AF
6x7
IQ zoom
That adds up to 6 SLRs, one Medium Format and one compact point-and-shoot
8 Total, plus one Sears TLS that takes Pentax screwmount lenses
Dan
On Dec 5, 2007 11:35 PM, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 06/12/07, Steve Desjardins, discombobulated, unleashed:
Add a second wheel and make it digital
and I'm there.
Like this?
http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/bodies/prototypes/MZ-D.html
*sigh*
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|
On 06/12/07, Derby Chang, discombobulated, unleashed:
I'm happy to have my name attached to my mouldy cameras
Oh alright then:
2 MXs, one retired in 2003 when I got a Canon D60, and one retired 2
years ago when my wife got an *ist Ds.
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People,
On 06/12/07, John Whittingham, discombobulated, unleashed:
3x KX one silver, one black one for spares
3x MX all silver, all working.
1x LX
2x Super A's c/w motordrives MEII winders.
2x MZ-3's c/w FG battery packs.
1x 645
Jesus H, you're going to hell as sure as night follows day!
--
Cotty wrote:
On 06/12/07, John Whittingham, discombobulated, unleashed:
3x KX one silver, one black one for spares
3x MX all silver, all working.
1x LX
2x Super A's c/w motordrives MEII winders.
2x MZ-3's c/w FG battery packs.
1x 645
Jesus H, you're going to hell as sure as night
1 - 100 of 127 matches
Mail list logo
