Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

On Nov 27, 2006, at 2:14 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > On the other hand, if you don't see the image stabilization through > the viewfinder, the tendency is to stabilize the camera very well > without it. Then the action of the stabilization is even more > effective. That's exactly how I see it

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

Jaume Lahuerta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Sometimes it is not easy to focus it when shooting wide open (very > narrow DoF) but when you manage it, it is one of the sharpests lens > i have. With the new screen in my LX (I bought the set of screens made for the LX2000), I find that focusing the

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

for >> film as well digital whereas its not >> really possible to do IS for film in the >> body... >> jco >> >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Saturday, N

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

William Robb wrote: >From: "Cotty" > >> On 25/11/06, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed: >> >>>I am avoiding looking through the viewfinder of an inlens IS system >>>for >>>this very reason. >> >> I made that mistake and look what happened to me > >Lost yer hair, didn't you. I held Cot

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

> film as well digital whereas its not > really possible to do IS for film in the > body... > jco > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 1:34 PM > To: pdml@pdml.ne

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

- Original Message - From: "Cotty" Subject: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm > On 25/11/06, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed: > >>I am avoiding looking through the viewfinder of an inlens IS system >>for >>this very reason. > > I made that mistake an

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

On 11/26/06, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David Savage wrote: > > >On 11/26/06, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On 25/11/06, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed: > >> > >> >I am avoiding looking through the viewfinder of an inlens IS system > for > >> >this very reason. > >>

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

David Savage wrote: >On 11/26/06, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 25/11/06, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed: >> >> >I am avoiding looking through the viewfinder of an inlens IS system for >> >this very reason. >> >> I made that mistake and look what happened to me > >An all to

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

On Nov 26, 2006, at 2:30 AM, Cotty wrote: > On 25/11/06, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed: > >> I am avoiding looking through the viewfinder of an inlens IS >> system for >> this very reason. > > I made that mistake and look what happened to me On the other hand, if you don't see t

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

On 11/26/06, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 25/11/06, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed: > > >I am avoiding looking through the viewfinder of an inlens IS system for > >this very reason. > > I made that mistake and look what happened to me An all to familiar & sad story. Talented

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

On 25/11/06, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed: >I am avoiding looking through the viewfinder of an inlens IS system for >this very reason. I made that mistake and look what happened to me -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://ww

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

On 11/26/06, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "Markus Maurer" > Subject: AW: Pentax 1.8 85mm > > > > This may be a stupid question but does SR/IS have any negative side > > effects? > > Not for us Pentax users, its only available on digital cameras.

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

On 11/25/06 10:59 PM, "William Robb", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am avoiding looking through the viewfinder of an inlens IS system for > this very reason. I understand that some people actually get a motion sickness by looking through the finder with IS lenses. I do not understand why becaus

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm > > Hmmm, oh. Didn't realize K100/K10D AS didn't show in the viewfinder. > That > would be strange, not seeing it. I am used to that. > I am avoiding looking through the viewfi

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

- Original Message - From: "Markus Maurer" Subject: AW: Pentax 1.8 85mm > This may be a stupid question but does SR/IS have any negative side > effects? Not for us Pentax users, its only available on digital cameras. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net htt

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

In a message dated 11/25/2006 4:18:47 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I do not have a K100D and am still waiting for the K10D. I have a couple of Canon IS zooms (consumer grade, 28-135 and 75-300) and one thing I might miss would be the confident feeling of the finder image act

Re: OT - Jeeps, jeeps and Land Rovers (was: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm)

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 00:37:03 +0800 "David Savage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > and i hope, this is not getting too OT > > No such thing as too off topic. > > :-) dave, thanks. i think that sounds reassuring... :) regards, subash -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdm

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

On 11/25/06 6:53 PM, "J. C. O'Connell", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The body technique has many advantages > over the lens technique, but for film bodies, > its a no go, thats probably the sole > advantage of the lens technique, it works > for either film or digital. I do not have a K100D and am

RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm

That's a valid argument, for film shooters. Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of J. C. O'Connell Sent: 25. november 2006 23:49 To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Subject: RE:

RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm

Robb Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 6:11 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm - Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm > It certainly was against your better judgement, > I specifically mentioned that

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

In a message dated 11/25/2006 12:17:29 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Marnie, Are you trying to cause trouble? === Sorry. :-( I am ashamed to admit that I fell into the pit that I fully realized was there, having watched tons of others fall into it before me. But, wha

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

William Robb wrote: > - Original Message - > From: "J. C. O'Connell" > Subject: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm > > >> It certainly was against your better judgement, >> I specifically mentioned that some were done >> with bodies and some were done

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

- Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm > It certainly was against your better judgement, > I specifically mentioned that some were done > with bodies and some were done with lenses, > but the net effect of all of the them

RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm

: Saturday, November 25, 2006 1:34 PM To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm In a message dated 11/24/2006 11:29:31 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IS, VR, Shake reduction, etc. They are all the same concept ( done in either lenses or bodies ) with different trade names

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

Marnie, Are you trying to cause trouble? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In a message dated 11/24/2006 11:29:31 AM Pacific Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > IS, VR, Shake reduction, etc. They are all the > same concept ( done in either lenses or bodies ) > with different trade names > j

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

In a message dated 11/24/2006 11:29:31 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IS, VR, Shake reduction, etc. They are all the same concept ( done in either lenses or bodies ) with different trade names jco === Sigh. Against my better judgment, I respond. They are different. On

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

Actually it was AM General that built the Humvee, not GM. GM bought the rights to build the military Humvee as Hummers and tied the name to further development of civilian vehicle's based on current GM chassis. Scott Loveless wrote: > On 11/25/06, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Of

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

>>>>> least expensive for many years. I don't know if it would generate a >>>>>> significant number of sales (I don't expect the additional cost to >>>>>> incorporate it would be large enough to stymie sales) but it sure >

RE: OT - Jeeps, jeeps and Land Rovers (was: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm)

> > >Interesting, thanks. As Cotty noted, that's essentially the > same as the > >old CJ-3. The current version sold in the US is called Jeep > Wrangler. > >It's even better off road but too civilized for the die-hard > Jeep fans. > > Too right. > > Now these are more like it ;-))) > >

Re: OT - Jeeps, jeeps and Land Rovers (was: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm)

On 11/25/06, SJ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > and i hope, this is not getting too OT No such thing as too off topic. :-) Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

On 25/11/06, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed: >Fuckface is the registered trademark of the >Incompetent Lying Abusing Punk Thug Coward Mental Cases Corp. >WW North American division? In the UK I have seen it used by Total Wazzock And Tosser Ltd. -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O)

Re: OT - Jeeps, jeeps and Land Rovers (was: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm)

On 25/11/06, SJ, discombobulated, unleashed: >and i hope, this is not getting too OT Welcome to the PDML :-) -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDM

Re: OT - Jeeps, jeeps and Land Rovers (was: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm)

On 25/11/06, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed: >Interesting, thanks. As Cotty noted, that's essentially the same as the >old CJ-3. The current version sold in the US is called Jeep Wrangler. >It's even better off road but too civilized for the die-hard Jeep fans. Too right. Now these

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

On 11/25/06, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Of course, the exact same thing has happened with Hummer (which > originated as military slang for a HMMWV). > That's not quite right. When the HMMWV first started replacing Jeeps and some other tactical vehicles in the 80's it immediately earn

Re: OT - Jeeps, jeeps and Land Rovers (was: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm)

On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 08:51:15 -0500 Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Interesting, thanks. As Cotty noted, that's essentially the same as > the old CJ-3. The current version sold in the US is called Jeep > Wrangler. It's even better off road but too civilized for the > die-hard Jeep fans.

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

- Original Message - From: "Cotty" Subject: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm > On 25/11/06, David Savage, discombobulated, unleashed: > >>That's another thing I hate. When corporations trademark common usage >>terms. > > ...like fuckface. > > &

Re: OT - Jeeps, jeeps and Land Rovers (was: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm)

Interesting, thanks. As Cotty noted, that's essentially the same as the old CJ-3. The current version sold in the US is called Jeep Wrangler. It's even better off road but too civilized for the die-hard Jeep fans. Paul On Nov 25, 2006, at 6:21 AM, SJ wrote: > On 11/25/06, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

gt;>>> would make operation of legacy lenses far more natural/intuitive. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Is this the part of the thread where common sense takes over, thanks >>>> Rob. >>>> >>>> Does anyone really think that incorpo

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

On Nov 25, 2006, at 12:51 AM, Adam Maas wrote: > Jeep is a generic term that Willys co-opted then spent years turning > into a brand. That gives them and their successor companies exactly > zero > right to bitch when people use the term genericly as far as I'm > concerned. Before the vehicle

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

On Nov 25, 2006, at 12:44 AM, David Savage wrote: > Chrysler are victims of their own marketing then. Jeep has now entered > the English language, they will forever be defending the trademark. > > It's the same problem that Apple is having with it's i-Pod trademark. > Look at the number of mp3 pl

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

On 11/25/06, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 25/11/06, David Savage, discombobulated, unleashed: > > >That's another thing I hate. When corporations trademark common usage terms. > > ...like fuckface. > > > Sorry, I mean FuckFace (t). Har! Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.n

Re: OT - Jeeps, jeeps and Land Rovers (was: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm)

On 11/25/06, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There are still places on Earth where the CJ-3 is made under license > (India for one I think - Mahindra) here in india, the jeep *is* synonymous with the Willys utility vehicle (it is not generic) and, as you point out, the mahindra derivatives (mo

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

On Nov 24, 2006, at 8:27 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > I agree. Substitutions are a problem in modern society. As are brand > impeachments. I worked on Jeep advertising, and one of our major > problems was that "Jeep" had become a generic name for 4x4 SUVs. This > was particularly true in Europe. W

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

On 25/11/06, David Savage, discombobulated, unleashed: >That's another thing I hate. When corporations trademark common usage terms. ...like fuckface. Sorry, I mean FuckFace (t). -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com ___

OT - Jeeps, jeeps and Land Rovers (was: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm)

On 24/11/06, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed: >one of our major >problems was that "Jeep" had become a generic name for 4x4 SUVs It's gone full circle. It started out as a generic term before it became trademarked as you know. I owned a CJ7 for a couple of years and loved it. A CJ-5

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

Thanks for the clarification Adam. That's another thing I hate. When corporations trademark common usage terms. Dave On 11/25/06, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Actually, they aren't. Willys co-opted something that entered common > usage during WW2 (note that the Willys Jeep wasn't the o

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

Actually, they aren't. Willys co-opted something that entered common usage during WW2 (note that the Willys Jeep wasn't the only Jeep of WW2, the term was also used for CVE escort aircraft carriers, which were called Jeep Carriers). Since they're using a generic term as a trademark, they'll for

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

Jeep is a generic term that Willys co-opted then spent years turning into a brand. That gives them and their successor companies exactly zero right to bitch when people use the term genericly as far as I'm concerned. This is different from a situation where the brand came first (like Kleenex, X

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

That actually came later. The earliest use was of 'untested vehicle'. Although the 1/4 ton truck was referred to in at least one TM as a general Purpose vehicle. To make life interesting, Ford (the largest manufacturer of the original Willys Jeep) referred to the vehicle as model GP or GPW (G f

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

Chrysler are victims of their own marketing then. Jeep has now entered the English language, they will forever be defending the trademark. It's the same problem that Apple is having with it's i-Pod trademark. Look at the number of mp3 players that are now i-this or pod that. I remember reading a

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

But Jeep is a trademarked brand, and it's a valuable one. So if you own the trademark, you do your best to protect it. It's just good business. What should have been or could have been is irrelevant. Willys made it a brand. American Motors and, later, Chrysler invested in it and will of cou

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

I seem to recall that the name came from "General Purpose Passenger Vehicle" or GP or "jeep". Kinda like the penetrating oil, WD-40, name came from "Water Dispersal formulation number 40". Godfrey On Nov 24, 2006, at 9:10 PM, Adam Maas wrote: > Part of the problem there is that Jeep should

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

Part of the problem there is that Jeep should never have been a brand in the first place. In fact it originated as a WW1 term for an unproven vehicle, although how it came to be applied to the 1/4 ton 4x4 truck of WW2 is speculation. Of course, the exact same thing has happened with Hummer (whi

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

> With all due respect Mark ! Double Har - as if this exists here. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm > John, > I'm tired. I have had it up to my eyeballs with your BS. I've a

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

I don't want or need mechanical aperture position sensors in my DSLRs. I'd rather Pentax saved me the cost of it, no matter what it might be, and put the development money into delivering a DA28mm f/2 Limited lens. My lens kit is all most recent series Pentax lenses ... they do a better jo

Re: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm

- Original Message - The simpleton, lying, abusing coward and active long term coprophagiac incurable homophobic fuckface posted: Subject: RE: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm > Thats NOT all you posted on the topic, > you specifically posted they told you they decided > to keep t

RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm

st Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 8:42 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm On Nov 24, 2006, at 6:49 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > Go give your boyfried a blowjob > if you are so gay horny you cant stop with the > stupid sexual obscenities...Maybe th

RE: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm

ecause you cant remember your own lies? jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Robb Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 8:49 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm - Original Message - From: "J. C

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

;>> >>> Does anyone really think that incorporating support for legacy lenses K >>> & M >>> (fully) would stop your average Pentax owner from buying new ones? I >>> think not >>> >>> I've more K, M & A lenses than I

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

On Nov 24, 2006, at 6:49 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > Go give your boyfried a blowjob > if you are so gay horny you cant stop with the > stupid sexual obscenities...Maybe that will > make you give it up... > Mark! I truly think some jco quotes belong in the yearly summary. If for no other rea

Re: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm

- Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm Listen WR, you complete dumbshit, Thats not what you said originally, you said they PROFITED $25-35 by not putting it in Um, you are not only a fuckface, you are a lying homophobic fuckface.

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

I agree. Substitutions are a problem in modern society. As are brand impeachments. I worked on Jeep advertising, and one of our major problems was that "Jeep" had become a generic name for 4x4 SUVs. This was particularly true in Europe. We even did an advertising campaign aimed specifically

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

John Forbes wrote: >As far as I can recall, nobody here has ever said that "the aperture >simulator is totally unnecessary". Of course not. It's called the "straw man" argument: Arguing against a position which no one takes. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/ma

RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm

PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 6:48 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm That is not the case with IS or SR - and the point is that a Coke is not a Pepsi, and Canon's IS is not Penatx's SR. Coke

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

>> 24..oh and perhaps a telephoto with USM, HSM or whatever Pentax >> decide to label it in the future. >> >> John >> >> -- Original Message --- >> From: "Digital Image Studio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "Pen

RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm

That is not the case with IS or SR - and the point is that a Coke is not a Pepsi, and Canon's IS is not Penatx's SR. Coke, BTW, has not become a generic term. Tell that to the good folks in Atlanta. It's not my place to come up with examples for you. If you want to argue a point, use good examp

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

On Nov 24, 2006, at 2:56 PM, John Whittingham wrote: > Is this the part of the thread where common sense takes over Sadly, John, I don't expect common sense or courtesy to appear in these "discussions" at all. An imbecile monomaniac will post the same inane litany thousands of times as soon a

RE: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm

: Pentax 1.8 85mm - Original Message - From: "John Whittingham" Subject: Re: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm > For the record, it's several parts, not one. The people at Pentax I've > heard from estimate that the parts and associated additional assembly > complexity add a

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

On Nov 24, 2006, at 6:14 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > No, it's not. A Coke is NOT Pepsi. They are different formulas > and taste > different. When I order a Coke, I don't want a Pepsi. The > converse is > also true. Try telling Coke that it's the same as Pepsi. If you > tell me > Coke,

RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm

th a better oneNot ones that that HAVEN'T. JCO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 6:14 PM To: PDML Subject: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm No, it's not. A Coke is NOT Pepsi. They are dif

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

x27;m looking for a DA 16-45 or maybe the DA 12- > 24..oh and perhaps a telephoto with USM, HSM or whatever Pentax > decide to label it in the future. > > John > > -- Original Message --- > From: "Digital Image Studio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm

No, it's not. A Coke is NOT Pepsi. They are different formulas and taste different. When I order a Coke, I don't want a Pepsi. The converse is also true. Try telling Coke that it's the same as Pepsi. If you tell me Coke, I expect Coke, not Pepsi. If you want to argue minutia, make a good soli

Re: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm

a DA 16-45 or maybe the DA 12- 24..oh and perhaps a telephoto with USM, HSM or whatever Pentax decide to label it in the future. John -- Original Message --- From: "Digital Image Studio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" Sent: Sat, 25

RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm

ist > Date: 11/24/2006 1:33:45 PM > Subject: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm > > It's like ordering a Coke when all they sell is > Pepsi, everybody knows what I am talking about > except possibly you, actually, scratch that, you > knew, you just want to argue over nothing. Since >

Re: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm

On 25/11/06, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That $35.00 (US currency) is the estimated manufacturing cost per unit > that I got from a recently retired Pentax rep. In a normal marketplace, > that would translate to about a $150.00-$200.00 retail cost increase to > the end user of the eq

Re: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm

- Original Message - From: "John Whittingham" Subject: Re: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm > For the record, it's several parts, not one. The people at Pentax > I've heard from estimate that the parts and associated additional > assembly complexity add about $25.00-

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

vegne af J. C. > O'Connell > Sendt: 24. november 2006 16:23 > Til: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' > Emne: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm > > > I restated my postion on this when the K85/1.8 came up > because many here have stated that the K/M lenses are > "old" obsol

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

On 11/24/06, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > everybody knows what I am talking about > except possibly you, actually, scratch that, you > knew, you just want to argue over nothing. Sounds familiar? -- <> Perry Pellechia Primary e

RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm

6 3:19 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm Since we're talking about Pentax, get it right. Don't generalize - be specific and precise. By using the wrong terminology you are passing along erroneous information. The results are similar but the implementation

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

egne af J. C. > O'Connell > Sendt: 24. november 2006 16:23 > Til: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' > Emne: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm > > > I restated my postion on this when the K85/1.8 came up > because many here have stated that the K/M lenses are > "old"

RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm

nkoff > Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 10:11 AM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm > > > Get it right - Pentax doesn't offer IS at this point. > > Shel > > > > > J. C. O'Connell wrote: > > > Yes, its technically a

RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm

Why dont you "go away" if all you can add to a discussion is worthless "go away" post? jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 10:26 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Pe

RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm

Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af J. C. O'Connell Sendt: 24. november 2006 16:23 Til: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Emne: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm I restated my postion on this when the K85/1.8 came up because many here have

RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm

Mail List Subject: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm Get it right - Pentax doesn't offer IS at this point. Shel > J. C. O'Connell wrote: > Yes, its technically an assembly, not a part. > And its way way simpler than IS -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.n

RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm

-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 12:12 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm J. C. O'Connell wrote: > Hijacking? I have the right to discuss usability > of the K/M lenses Y

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

J. C. O'Connell wrote: > Hijacking? I have the right to discuss usability > of the K/M lenses You have the right to discuss it when you actually try it. Everyone else who comments on it, has actually used it. -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List P

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

> >I know you think killfiles are for wimps, but, I assure you, they >work miracles. > >Kostas (killfiles work miracles, not wimps) > >-- Agreed. The only JCO posts I get now are those where others have responded. He can't hijack a thread unless people respond to him. He can very simply me

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

tated I >> bet that it wouldnt add more than $50 to >> the retail cost of the body and thats being >> generous to Pentax... >> JCO >> >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >> Mark Roberts &g

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

So for 35 extra buck we could have full K and M compatibility? I'll bet it would be less if they'd designed it in from the beginning. Mark Roberts wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >> So the $5 part is now a $50 part? >> > > For the record, it's several parts, not one. The people at

Re: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm

ed in a heated debate or slanging match, if I'm prompted I WILL NOT reply. John John Whittingham -- Original Message --- From: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Sent: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 07:32:59 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

> From: Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2006/11/24 Fri PM 02:56:25 GMT > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm > > Actually, its much more complex mechanically than Pentax's SR system > (although it's less complex than Sony/Mi

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

shel: Anti Shake is nothing more than branding verbiage on Pentax' implementation of image stabilization, which is a class of technologies encompassing optical, digital, and sensor based implementations for reducing/minimizing camera motion during recording. Godfrey On Nov 24, 2006, at 7:1

RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm

cheaper or even the same price as the cam sensor would be. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Maas Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 9:56 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm Actually, its much more complex

RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm

off topic obscene posts. It's really pathetic jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Robb Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 9:20 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm We can no longer discuss certain subj

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

J. C. O'Connell wrote: > That lens is one of the many good reasons the Pentax > top line DSLRS should be fully supporting K/M lenses.. > joco Go away, John. -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml

RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm

nt: Friday, November 24, 2006 10:04 AM To: PDML Subject: re: Pentax 1.8 85mm First of all, I'm not putting forth an argument. I'm just stating an opinion and how I feel about the situation. But, since you insist, it doesn't matter very much to me. I'm satisfied with the way

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

Get it right - Pentax doesn't offer IS at this point. Shel > J. C. O'Connell wrote: > Yes, its technically an assembly, not a part. > And its way way simpler than IS -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

First of all, I'm not putting forth an argument. I'm just stating an opinion and how I feel about the situation. But, since you insist, it doesn't matter very much to me. I'm satisfied with the way the lenses work on the DSLR's. Yes, it would be nice if the lenses could be used as they were on

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Mark Roberts > Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 7:33 AM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >>So the $5 part is now a $50 part? > >

Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm

We can no longer discuss certain subjects due to the thread hijacking that Fuckface insists on perpetrating. Essentially, we have lost the right to discuss non A series bayonet lenses, and Pentax backwards compatability. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml

  1   2   >