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
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
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
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
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
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
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
40 matches
Mail list logo
