On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:40:07 -0400 (EDT), wendy beard wrote:
> Now and again it's good to let loose and do a bit of
> machine gunning. :-)
As others have mentioned, even if you're not machine gunning, a faster
camera is ready for the next shot that much faster, too. Not that I
don't enjoy machine
--- John Dallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Higher resolution is fine, but I'm baffled by the
> need for a faster
> buffer. I spot the potential picture, get ready, and
> take it. If it's a
> moving or changing subject I wait for the right
> moment, near as I can
> guess, and press the button
...Pentax fans, of course :-)
Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: P. J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 5. juni 2005 15:15
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
I&#
First, Ist D stores it as 16-bit uncompressed file, even though there
are only 12 bits from the sensor.
Correct... 4 out of 16 bits are taking up space storing NO
information (zeros) on the -D. That's one pixels' worth in 2 bytes. On
the -DS they pack the bits so that they get two pixels in 3
conditions like
cold, moist, dust, sand and others compared
to an analog body?
just wondering
greetings
Markus
-Original Message-
From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 8:36 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Niko
ovely shot, thanks for showing it
Markus
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 4:28 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon
competitors?)
Thirty years ago I used to
LM> But something else strikes me as rather interesting: is the difference in
LM> RAW file size between *istD and D70 really that big? Why would that be so,
LM> considering both cameras store basically the same amount of image
LM> information? Or don't they?
If I remember correctly:
First, Ist D st
LOL
Try going through any door with a spear through your head. That's a neat trick.
Dave S
On 6/4/05, Christian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> > most things are possible
>
> Try going through a revolving door with a
unday, June 05, 2005 5:12 AM
>>To: Markus Maurer
>>Subject: Re: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon
>>competitors?)
>>
>>
>>I thought that I had mentioned the issue there. I do, in fact, have
>>two bodies and sometimes it works to do just
: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 11:07 PM
>>>To: John Dallman
>>>Subject: Re: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon
>>>competitors?)
>>>
>>>
>>>Hello John,
>>>
>>
t: Friday, June 03, 2005 4:28 PM
>>To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
>>Subject: Re: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon
>>competitors?)
>>
>>
>>Thirty years ago I used to shoot drag racing with a Speed Graphic
>>4x5. Most of the time I w
conditions like
cold, moist, dust, sand and others compared
to an analog body?
just wondering
greetings
Markus
>>-Original Message-
>>From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 8:36 PM
>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Subjec
allman
>>Subject: Re: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon
>>competitors?)
>>
>>
>>Hello John,
>>
>>Here is a very simple example. You are shooting a wedding - the party
>>is coming up the aisle two by two - there are 8-10 groups co
megabyte per megapixel with their lossless compression.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: "Leon Mlakar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2005 7:45 PM
Subject: RE: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon
competitors?)
But something el
>-Original Message-
>From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2005 1:36 AM
>To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
>Subject: Re: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon
>or Canon competitors?)
>
>in terms of megabytes/s, my 2-3 time
markcassino.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- Original Message -
From: "Christian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 10:10 PM
Subject: Re: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon
competitors?)
- Original Message -
From: "Herb Chong"
ne is on Ektachrome Tungsten. I
think it was about a one second exposure at 5.6 or so with a 127mm Wollensak
lens.
http://www.portfolios.com/zoom.html?User_number=stenquist&imagecount=14
- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent
- Original Message -
From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> most things are possible
Try going through a revolving door with a spear through your head :-)
Christian
On 3 Jun 2005 at 17:46, Pål Jensen wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
> >I shoot and test my FA43 many times and came to the
> > same conclusion. At least I know Rob has the same opinion on FA43. We both,
> > of
> > course, bought the lemons. :-)
>
>
> Obviously. The lens was tested by "Amateur Photograp
> From: Mishka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 11:16 PM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon
> competitors?)
>
>
> and how did people managed that with 36 exposures per fim?
>
]>
To:
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 5:18 PM
Subject: RE: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon
competitors?)
The Bruce's original message I was replying to stated raw to storage
medium
writing times being 1-2 secs for D70 and 7-9 secs for *istD. That's 3.5 to
9
most things are possible if you don't have to make a living at it, or even
just break even.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: "Christian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 9:56 AM
Subject: Re: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon
which works when you have two similar lenses. some people can afford a pair
of A* 400/2.8s. i can't.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: "John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 12:42 AM
Subject: Re: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist D
they didn't take as many pictures and didn't get as many good shots.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: "Mishka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 11:15 PM
Subject: Re: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon
competitor
>action sports models are 5-6 times faster and have 4 or 5
>times the buffer size.
>
>Herb
>- Original Message -
>From: "Leon Mlakar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 5:31 PM
>Subject: RE: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist
Alan wrote:
>I shoot and test my FA43 many times and came to the
> same conclusion. At least I know Rob has the same opinion on FA43. We both, of
> course, bought the lemons. :-)
Obviously. The lens was tested by "Amateur Photographer" magazine and promptly
became their reference lens outperfo
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, mike wilson wrote:
But Pentax users are unlikely to be targeted by this sort of thing.
I'm not sure if it is just (just!) spam or an apptempt to insert a
Trojan. (DON'T click the links!!)
x-gfi-me-from: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bcc:
Retur
I think you are right Shel.
luben
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
This little dialogue brings up an interesting, to me, point. First, I
would have no qualms about giving up features (like a built-in toaster oven
and wide screen TV) that are found in many "pro" cameras for a simplified
feature set and a
/zoom.html?User_number=stenquist&imagecount=14
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 7:46 AM
> Subject: RE: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon
> competitors?
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, mike wilson wrote:
But Pentax users are unlikely to be targeted by this sort of thing.
I'm not sure if it is just (just!) spam or an apptempt to insert a
Trojan. (DON'T click the links!!)
x-gfi-me-from: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bcc:
Retur
- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 7:46 AM
Subject: RE: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon
competitors?)
> hell, I still use large formant and you only get
> one exposure (
: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon
competitors?)
and how did people managed that with 36 exposures per fim?
mishka
On 6/2/05, Herb Chong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> the proper moment might be 10-20 times a minute for a few minutes
> fra: mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > > fra: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > > On 2/6/05, Alan Chan, discombobulated, unleashed:
> > >
> > > >Are Pentax people blind?
> > >
> > > Only in one eye, apparently.
> >
> > Hey, if you're referring to me
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, mike wilson wrote:
> But Pentax users are unlikely to be targeted by this sort of thing.
> I'm not sure if it is just (just!) spam or an apptempt to insert a
> Trojan. (DON'T click the links!!)
> x-gfi-me-from: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Bcc:
> Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
How ma
>
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2005/06/03 Fri AM 09:27:39 GMT
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
>
> > fra: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > On 2/6/05, Alan Chan, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
>
> From: Kostas Kavoussanakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2005/06/03 Fri AM 08:48:42 GMT
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
>
> On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
>
> > They also sponsor a
>> >Are Pentax people blind?
>>
>> Only in one eye, apparently.
>
>Hey, if you're referring to me you got it wrong. Both eyes work
>perfectly, but not together. .-)
I'm saying no more!
:-
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysn
> fra: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On 2/6/05, Alan Chan, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
> >Are Pentax people blind?
>
> Only in one eye, apparently.
Hey, if you're referring to me you got it wrong. Both eyes work perfectly, but
not together. .-)
DagT
>
> From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2005/06/03 Fri AM 03:28:14 GMT
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
>
> Shel wrote:
>
>
> >Having used a couple of Canons I really don&
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> They also sponsor a number of PBS shows, such as nature, where the audience
> demographics are terrific.
I think the key is placement: lube the news-channels to show reporters
using Canons; partially fund movies to get the star or the guy behind
the sta
On 2 Jun 2005 at 21:30, John Dallman wrote:
> Higher resolution is fine, but I'm baffled by the need for a faster
> buffer. I spot the potential picture, get ready, and take it. If it's a
> moving or changing subject I wait for the right moment, near as I can
> guess, and press the button.
Wh
--- Mishka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> and how did people managed that with 36 exposures per fim?
In the old days experience shooters predicted and shot, modern shooters just
shoot
and pray. :-)
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
__
Disco
Two bodies.
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 11:15:50PM -0400, Mishka wrote:
> and how did people managed that with 36 exposures per fim?
>
> mishka
>
> On 6/2/05, Herb Chong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > the proper moment might be 10-20 times a minute for a few
> > minutes
Shel wrote:
Having used a couple of Canons I really don't see what all the fuss is
about. For example, Image Stabilization may be nice, but I'd prefer
smaller lenses and bodies that don't need as much stabilization, and lenses
that offer the image qualities that I like over lenses that have a
On 2 Jun 2005 at 20:54, Jostein wrote:
> One thought that bugs me with the Canon 1Ds MkII is how the heck the
> Canon lenses can resolve enough detail to make 16 mill. pixels
> worthwhile on a 36x24mm chip.
>
> I suspect it doesn't.
>
> In my mind, at least, a MedF digital makes more sense in
and how did people managed that with 36 exposures per fim?
mishka
On 6/2/05, Herb Chong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> the proper moment might be 10-20 times a minute for a few
> minutes
then perhaps you should shoot on (mini-)DV and print the stills?
mishka
On 6/2/05, Leon Mlakar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >Here's another - taking candid portraits of a young kid who is
> >moving around and you are catching some great facial
> >expressions. Click, click, click as you go
I review at least a dozen pro portfolios every month. These run the
range from studio table top shooters to fashion shooters, and outdoor
location shooters. At least eleven out of twelve are shooting digital.
Paul
On Jun 2, 2005, at 8:53 PM, Pål Jensen wrote:
Alan wrote:
However, the market h
not at a price anyone on this list is willing to pay. it would have to be
completely in the lens with no body feedback or power.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: "Thibouille" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 6:07 PM
Subject: Re: Why choose *i
al Message -
From: "Leon Mlakar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 5:31 PM
Subject: RE: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon
competitors?)
That's a long time, indeed. Something you do not think about with film
camera. But, if the figure
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
This little dialogue brings up an interesting, to me, point. First, I
would have no qualms about giving up features (like a built-in toaster oven
and wide screen TV) that are found in many "pro" cameras for a simplified
feature set and a smaller, lighter, easier-to-carry s
ssage -
From: "John Dallman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 4:30 PM
Subject: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon
competitors?)
Higher resolution is fine, but I'm baffled by the need for a faster
buffer. I spot the potential pictu
Christian wrote:
To keep the oddball customers coming back, they had better come out with
something to keep the fans of the LX, PZ-1, MZ-S type cameras around. ...
Although the interesting thing, to me, is that the LX, the PZ-1 and the
MZ-S were three very different cameras -- I can't quite
hursday, June 02, 2005 9:58 AM
Subject: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
I've heard that said. However, except for the LX which I understand
continued to be available in Japan Pentax has not offered a high end
camera since about 1990. The MZ/S was a step in the righ
--- Pål Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe. But very few Professional (or non-professional) Pentax MF shooters have
> switched to digital at all. The larger than 35mm format outdoor photography
> marlket that dominates Pentax MF sales haven't change wholesale to digital
> yet.
The 120 gear
--- Pål Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Neither the F3 or the F1 made any money. They were expensive to built and
> built by
> hand.
> Sales volume. 5000 units a month was a LOT for the most expensive 35mm slr
> money
> could buy.
I don't have any figure so I am not going to argue, though
S...
20 years ago I needed to replace my Mamiya/Sekor
DLX500. I went to the largest camera store in Philly,
which stocked Nikon, Canon, Pentax, and Minolta, and
shopped slowly and carefully.
In the price range I was interested in, there was the
Nikon N2000, the Canon AE-1 Program, the Minolt
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 21:30 +0100 (BST), John Dallman wrote:
> [...] I'm baffled by the need for a faster buffer. I spot the potential
> picture, get ready, and take it. If it's a moving or changing subject
> I wait for the right moment, near as I can guess, and press the button.
Sometimes a machin
On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 14:52:55 -0400, P. J. Alling wrote:
> As they strip features out of the body, manual control seems to be short
> changed these days.
Like they might take away the hyper mode(s) and dial(s) and add more
"picture modes".
TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Alan wrote:
> Well, the LX failed to generate cash flow and failed to compete with Canon
> F-1 &
> Nikon F3.
Neither the F3 or the F1 made any money. They were expensive to built and built
by hand.
>What made the LX successful?
Sales volume. 5000 units a month was a LOT for the most expensi
Alan wrote:
> However, the market has changed. Many 120 commerical shooters have moved to
> high-end
> Canon. Canon play one game, and they play it well. Pentax, however, are
> playing 2
> games, and both are lossing at the moment.
Maybe. But very few Professional (or non-professional) Pentax M
On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 13:49:00 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> By the time we earn enough to live somewhat decadently, we no longer
> have the energy or inclination. That's nature's way of making us older
> folk behave :-).
Youth is wasted on the young. Money is wasted on the aged. :-)
TTYL, Dou
le of
> models to choose from, but heck...:-)
>
> Cheers,
> Jostein
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 7:13 PM
> Subject: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon com
They also sponsor a number of PBS shows, such as nature, where the audience
demographics are terrific. The most often seen commercial is one in which
a number of animals are shown in close shots, at the peak of some action,
and the voice over is something like "Canon ... know how." Simple, to the
--- Pål Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem is this is touted to a large extent by people who doesn't use
> Pentax...
Right, like the famous Ken who reviews products w/o ever touching one. LOL.
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
_
--- Thibouille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But why isn't "stupid SIGMA"making IS lienses for Pentax?
> They really could if they wanted it
How? No Pentax body supports IS. Perhaps the Sigma ad would be like this?
"IS lenses for the future?"
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
On 2/6/05, Alan Chan, discombobulated, unleashed:
>Couldn't get any funkier than this.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?
O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=336238&is=REG
Hey that's not half bad.
No really.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||==
--- Christian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, then, how does Canon or Nikon get attention for their boring, "me too"
> products? They advertise. They have really bad TV commercials showing some
> dope in the stands at a football game getting gorgeous shots with the kit
> lens on the RebelD. Pen
--- Pål Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That is really not the point. If the camera doesn't get peoples attention in
> the
> first place then they will not find out about its ergonomics.
Couldn't get any funkier than this.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=deta
such cases may be helpful..
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Dallman)>
> To:
> Date: 6/2/2005 1:30:58 PM
> Subject: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon
competitors?)
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PRO
--- "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> They didn't give their users a choice.
They didn't, but they do. Look what lenses they have been able to offer now?
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
__
Discover Yahoo!
Use Yahoo! to plan a w
--- Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But that's just me ... or is it? From what I've seen there are quite a few
> istD owners here who use their cameras pretty much like standard manual
> cameras most of the time, sometimes with a concession to auto focus, and
> rarely use many of the m
On 2/6/05, Alan Chan, discombobulated, unleashed:
>Are Pentax people blind?
Only in one eye, apparently.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
You raise a good point. I do have two *istD's and sometimes use both
of them. Sometimes that works and sometimes it doesn't. I don't have
identical lenses at all focal lengths so it can work if there is
enough crossover with the lenses I have. Times it hasn't worked too
well is when I have the
--- Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> but really my guess is that through
> poor management it stifled many great opportunities in the market.
Something that even we average consumers see...
Are Pentax people blind?
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
--- Pål Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pentax
> high-end market is strictly in medium format. This market is in addition
> virtually
> unexploited and no Canon equivalent competition is in sight in this segment.
> The
> 645D proves that Pentax is serious about high-end digital and theres not
Alan wrote:
> LOL. It is because there is nothing else to brag about. I don't want to name
> names,
> but I think the whole "Pentax lenses have Zeiss or Leica like quality" is
> just a
> myth. Most people like to idealize the products they are using, Pentax fans
> are no
> different.
The pro
Isn't that why you have two cameras? Swapping them every few shots? In the old days
we did not carry a second camera because we were afraid one might break. But so we
would not have to stop and change film. Sometimes we would have slide film in one
and B&W in the other, but often we loaded the
--- "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Of course, Canon said we're going to change the lens mount, you want
> that don't you...
Didn't they say "bigger is better"? I mean the EOS mount btw, what were you
thinking? :-)
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
--- Pål Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The LX a failure?
Well, the LX failed to generate cash flow and failed to compete with Canon F-1 &
Nikon F3. What made the LX successful? I would not even go into the on-going
reliability issue. It has however become a cult where many fans love to brag
On 2/6/05, DagT, discombobulated, unleashed:
>> Your smiley lost an eye. or are you half-blind?
>>
>>
>> note! > :-)
>
>I only use one eye at the time, thus ---> .-)
>
>
>DagT
LOL!
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http:/
Bruce,
I did understand what you meant - I was just trying to make a little joke
out of it.
I apologize if it led to confusion.
Cheers,
Leon
>
>You may have misunderstood, I am not taking consecutive shots
>with a motor drive, these are single shots fairly close
>together - could even be do
På 2. jun. 2005 kl. 18.26 skrev Cotty:
On 2/6/05, DagT, discombobulated, unleashed:
First: see the smiley .-)
Your smiley lost an eye. or are you half-blind?
note! > :-)
I only use one eye at the time, thus ---> .-)
DagT
--- Pål Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My original dissapointment over the *istD was that it wasn't funky enough and
> didn't offer the design flair in order to get attention. I think Pentax need
> to
> design DSLR that looks less "me too".
I thought they did that with Z-1? Well, we all kno
tty much like standard manual
> >> cameras most of the time, sometimes with a concession to auto focus, and
> >> rarely use many of the modes and features and options. Maybe the Pentax
> >> Way really is to simpler, smaller, lighter, more basic cameras
You may have misunderstood, I am not taking consecutive shots with a
motor drive, these are single shots fairly close together - could even
be done without a winder. But you are right in that the kid will grin
when you are not ready. It is just that with the *istD and full
buffer, you are not rea
all very good to excellent.
> For all 5 of the above I paid less than $150.00, I'm very
> pleased with all of them.
>
> Don
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Mishka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 7:26 PM
> > To: pen
>
>Here's another - taking candid portraits of a young kid who is
>moving around and you are catching some great facial
>expressions. Click, click, click as you go. Suddenly you he
>puts on the cutest grin and the BUFFER is FULL.
>
In my personal experience, even with 4.5fps PZ-1P the young
John Dallman wrote:
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Shel Belinkoff) wrote:
Higher resolution and a faster, bigger buffer make sense, shouldn't add
bulk or weight to a camera.
Higher resolution is fine, but I'm baffled by the need for a faster
buffer. I spot the potenti
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > > My original dissapointment over the *istD was that it wasn't funky
enough
> > and didn't offer the design flair in order to get attention. I think
Pentax
> > need to design DSLR that looks less "me too".
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > > My original dissapointment over the *istD was that it wasn't funky
enough
> > and didn't offer the design flair in order to get attention. I think
Pentax
> > need to design DSLR that looks less "me too".
> >
> >
Hello John,
Here is a very simple example. You are shooting a wedding - the party
is coming up the aisle two by two - there are 8-10 groups coming
through in short order. You are shooting raw. You shoot one, wait
about 2-3 seconds, shoot the next, etc. The problem is that the
buffer fills afte
- Original Message -
From: "Christian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
&
Hard to fault this logic
Pål
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 7:01 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
> On 2 Jun 2005 at 10:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
That usually works but sometimes the unexpected happens.
John Dallman wrote:
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Shel Belinkoff) wrote:
Higher resolution and a faster, bigger buffer make sense, shouldn't add
bulk or weight to a camera.
Higher resolution is fine, but
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Shel Belinkoff) wrote:
> Higher resolution and a faster, bigger buffer make sense, shouldn't add
> bulk or weight to a camera.
Higher resolution is fine, but I'm baffled by the need for a faster
buffer. I spot the potential picture, get ready,
Got it, but I had to be half-silly (half? :-)
Dario
- Original Message -
From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "pentax list"
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 6:14 PM
Subject: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
On 2/6/05, Dario Bonazza,
have the money there should be at least a couple of
models to choose from, but heck...:-)
Cheers,
Jostein
- Original Message - From: "P. J. Alling"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 7:13 PM
Subject: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competi
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, P. J. Alling wrote:
> They didn't give their users a choice.
Ah, OK, same as mine :-)
K
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, P. J. Alling wrote:
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Rob Studdert wrote:
The thing is that they got there by listening to their customers, so well they
deserve it IMO.
You mean their customers asked
1 - 100 of 184 matches
Mail list logo
