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
||=|
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 padawan
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 the image
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 familiar sad
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.
I made that mistake
- 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 and look what happened to me
Lost yer hair
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.net
Subject: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm
In a message dated 11/24/2006 11:29:31 AM Pacific
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 Cotty's camera for just a
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 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
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
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.
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 is
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
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. We
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 (most
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.net
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
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
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 pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 09:35:45 +1100
Subject: Re: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm
On 25
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]
- 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.
Sorry, I mean FuckFace (t).
Fuckface is the registered trademark
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.
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 earned
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
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
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)
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
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 ;-)))
it in the future.
John
-- Original Message ---
From: Digital Image Studio [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 09:35:45 +1100
Subject: Re: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm
On 25/11/06, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
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
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.
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
jco
: 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
- 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 is
that the image tracks
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 with lenses,
but the net effect of all of the them
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,
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 some were done
with bodies
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: 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 still
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
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
- 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
- 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 viewfinder of an inlens IS system
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 because the
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.
LOL
I had to
I exchanged my A70-210 + 20EUR for a K85 1.8 in a store.
My best deal so far.
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.
Regards,
Jaume
- Mensaje original
De: Jens Bladt [EMAIL
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So the $5 part is now a $50 part?
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 $25.00-35.00 to the cost of a camera.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
William Robb
Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 10:49 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm
- Original Message -
From: Shel Belinkoff
Subject: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm
Once more into the breach
Paul, stop encouraging
: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm
I would not.
- Original Message -
From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 10:31 PM
Subject: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm
A HAR! does not answer the question. Would you
pay $50 more for full K/M
Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 1:30 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm
Read between the lines ...
John, why do you insist on continuing this stupidity. We all know your
position on this, and for those of us who buy and use Pentax DSLR's, we
have either accepted
] On Behalf Of
Paul Stenquist
Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 10:41 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm
I wouldn't pay a nickel more for it if I had a choice. Apparently
Pentax agrees. Your opinion is irrelevant. You don't buy new cameras
or new lenses. You've never tried
: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm
But you're forgetting that no one cares. The K 10D sold out in one
day at BH. Retailers I've talked to say the demand is amazing. Only
JCO cares about the aperture simulator piece of shot. GET OVER IT!!
You're an anachronism. Only you care. Shut up about it.
Paul
On Nov
-Original Message-
From: [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?
For the record, it's several
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006, William Robb wrote:
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.
I know you think killfiles are
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
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?
For the record, it's several parts, not one. The people at Pentax I've
heard from estimate that the parts and associated
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
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
, 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 the lenses
work on the DSLR's. Yes, it would
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
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 subjects due
that the IS is 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
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
From: Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2006/11/24 Fri PM 02:56:25 GMT
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Pentax 1.8 85mm
Actually, its much more complex mechanically than Pentax's SR system
(although it's less complex than Sony/Minolta's). The Pentax SR system is two
WILL NOT reply.
John
John Whittingham
-- Original Message ---
From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 07:32:59 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So the $5 part is now a $50 part
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 Pentax
...
JCO
-Original Message-
From: [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
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
meet a
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
-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
You have
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.net/mailman/listinfo
: 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 stated that the K/M
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: Pentax 1.8 85mm
J. C
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 an assembly, not a part.
And its way way simpler than IS
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net
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 obsolete lenses and then proceed later to rave about lenses
like the K85, etc. I say if these old lenses were no
good, that would be one thing
-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 and the concepts are different.
Shel
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 email:
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 obsolete lenses and then proceed later to rave about lenses
like the K85, etc. I say if these old lenses were no
good, that would be one thing
- 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 $25.00-35.00 to the cost of a camera
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
/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
the term IS came first, its more like a COKE than
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 pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 09:35:45 +1100
Subject: Re: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm
On 25/11/06, William Robb
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
it in the future.
John
-- Original Message ---
From: Digital Image Studio [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 09:35:45 +1100
Subject: Re: RE: Pentax 1.8 85mm
On 25/11/06, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That $35.00
Not 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 different formulas and
taste
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, I
: 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 $25.00-35.00 to the cost
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 as
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
:45 +1100
Subject: 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
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, BTW, has
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
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
- 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.
From: William
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 reason,
Sent: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 09:35:45 +1100
Subject: 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
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. O'Connell
Subject: RE
, 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 that will
make you give it up...
Mark!
I
- 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 the $35 as profit
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
1 - 100 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
