On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 16:22:50 +0100, P. J. Alling
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well yes it was a pissing match. But I'm not mad a Adam because he
wouldn't back down. In fact I learned a few things from him. I just
don't agree that they're the whole reason for the high ISO improvements.
WW has
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 18:31:28 +0100, Bob Blakely [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...and the Brits claim that English hasn't been spoken in the Americas
for
years...
Or in Britain these days, unfortunately.
John
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
--
PDML
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 03:42:16 +0100, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Kings have always sacrificed their pawns, and generally their pawns
go
willingingly because they have been convinced it is the noble thing to
do.
Dulce et decorum est, pro patria mori.
They go willingly, and once
Really? Where is it under £400.00? Or do you mean before VAT?
John
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 22:51:00 +0100, Peter Fairweather
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The K10D body has dropped from £550 a month ago to under £400 in the
UK. Sounds like a major new camera release is about to happen.
I'll hang
The necks look shorter than a pure Arab's.
John
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 07:26:23 +0100, Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I like way you've caught the sheen and beautiful colour of the horses.
Are they some sort of cowboy horse? They look different to the horses
people ride over here. The picture
You seem to be ruling out the best Pentax DSLR before the K10D. Why?
John
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 13:07:08 +0100, Thibouille [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
If anyone from Europe wants to part with his/her DSLR...
I can get a K110D at 350 euros so obviously, I need something less
expensive if
You two should swap names. Christian isn't one, and Thomas has no doubts.
John
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 23:37:06 +0100, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's fine Christian. I'm not trying to convince you, or anyone, of
anything. :-)
Tom C.
From: Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 01:59:20 +0100, P. J. Alling
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The major limiter on population growth will be clean water, unless of
course we find an unlimited supply of energy, with enough energy nothing
is impossible.
Ever-lasting life? A cure for cancer? An honest
a lot to me.
Regards,
Bob Blakely
From: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I agree, Peter, but it's not a specifically digital breakthrough.
Theoretically it would be possible to build a film body with anti-shake.
The energy to move an entire film plane, spools, pressure plate, frame
and
all
On Fri, 25 May 2007 15:07:35 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 5/25/2007 7:04:02 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This release has a bit more positive tone than some. Hope it's
warranted.
Jack
=
Actually, about 1/2 of them have been
With respect, Hoya has no authority to do anything.
Sparxx have clearly persuaded another 25% of the shareholders to support
them. That is the origin of their power. They have no authority.
John
On Fri, 25 May 2007 18:40:03 +0100, Joseph Tainter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Earlier:
Sparx
PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually if the Anti Shake works the way Pentax claims it is a
breakthrough. It may not be apparent in any flashy way but it's there.
John Forbes wrote:
On Wed, 23 May 2007 15:47:24 +0100, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was simply being kind and was at a loss for words
On Wed, 23 May 2007 00:04:03 +0100, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
He bought a K10D a long time after he was predicting Pentax's demise on
here, and he did so because his predictions about Pentax going belly up
were proved wrong.
Do you consider two years a long time? John. What is a
On Wed, 23 May 2007 15:47:24 +0100, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was simply being kind and was at a loss for words. If I knew a
camera
company was going out of business I certainly would not run out and
buy
more
of the same because it will eventually stop working, likely not
On Wed, 23 May 2007 18:45:21 +0100, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom, you're nearly there. It's because bodies are more likely to fail
that I would be keen to buy a couple and that way ensure that my lenses
could still be used. I wouldn't buy more lenses because eventually
there
would
On Mon, 21 May 2007 18:29:11 +0100, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 21/05/07, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm just tired of all those who spend so much time watching the sky
to see if it's falling. If I were inclined to dump my Pentax gear, I
would do it now. But I'm not
When I have a pee in a passage, I hide my face.
John
On Tue, 22 May 2007 14:42:27 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nice composition. Great moment -- I thinkk. But the pic is so small I
can't really see the man.
Paul
-- Original message --
From: frank
That was back in the days when the deal was announced as a merger, and the
stated plan was to continue to make cameras.
John
On Tue, 22 May 2007 13:09:15 +0100, Digital Image Studio
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 22/05/07, John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My guess is that it has already
On Tue, 22 May 2007 17:27:02 +0100, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom,
Neither you nor Herb had or have the slightest idea what you are talking
about.
Pentax is in better shape now than it was two years ago. What has
changed
is that it has a major shareholder that owns enough shares
So who doesn't know what they're talking about?
Tom C.
Quote: Well, guess what? The sky IS falling. Two or more years ago
those
taunts
were voiced when Herb (who has in depth knowledge of the camera industry
financials), Rob Studdert, and myself were discussing Pentax's future.
DP Review's tests work fine for people who buy the camera body with the
tested lens, and who never buy another lens. In other words, people who
don't take advantage of the single most important characteristic of an SLR
camera.
In addition to that, the camera buyer must never change the
As an accountant, I can't help wondering whether there hasn't been a
little bit of creativity with the figures going on here.
Sparxx think that cameras are bad and endoscopes good. So, Pentax produce
a set of figures that show that cameras are good and endoscopes bad.
Where does that
If they buy back more of their stock, Sparxx will be left with a larger
percentage of the total that remains.
I doubt if that is what Pentax wants.
John
On Thu, 10 May 2007 11:15:17 +0100, Paul Stenquist
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Buying back your stock is seen as a healthy move by most
% (approx).
John
On Thu, 10 May 2007 16:10:58 +0100, Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It'll still be a percentage of the total shares available.(?)
Jack
--- John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If they buy back more of their stock, Sparxx will be left with a
larger
percentage of the total
Just a tank. A Sherman tank.
John
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 10:44:51 +0100, Peter Jordan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, but think of the hours of endless pleasure he gives us all.
I think he is a national treasure who should be preserved for all time.
Shall I order a tank and some
This company is based in Chiswick, where I used to live, and I hired them
to move a slightly less expensive piano a few years ago. No problem at
all.
The interesting thing is whether this will damage their reputation, or
bring them more business. The publicity (BBC, national newspapaers,
The gaff is good for down-wind sailing, but it's main appeal is to
traditionalists. There is a practical advantage to the two foresails -
they are smaller than one big one, and thus easier to handle by a small or
elderly crew.
John
On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 10:42:54 +0100, Cotty [EMAIL
atrocities
from both sides, mostly in the Carolinas. The British perpetrated ones
are better known, possibly because they were actually worse, possibly
not.
John Forbes wrote:
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 15:51:52 +0100, graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
One side's patriot is the other side's
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 15:51:52 +0100, graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One side's patriot is the other side's traitor. One side's freedom
fighter is the other side's terrorist*. However, old Ben was never a
combatant. Much worse, he was a diplomat encouraging the King's more
dangerous enemies,
Yes, but the ordinary hotshoe adapter F also works, as long as you don't
want to use the pop-up flash.
Alternatively, buy a second 360.
John
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 12:07:22 -, John Whittingham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Would I be right in assuming that all I need for off camera flash with
Whoops. Quite right. The recent firmware update added that facility. The
manual, however, says it isn't possible.
John
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 12:31:12 -, David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
You could use all that, or you could set the AF-360 FGZ to slave and
use the on board flash as
On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 23:17:37 -, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
- Original Message -
From: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If every other manufacture brings out a FF body Pentax will as well or
they _will_ _die_. Simple as that.
But the others won't. Simple
Technikdirekt is usually cheap and efficient.
http://www.technikdirekt.de/
John
On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 11:55:09 -, Antti-Pekka Virjonen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ooops. That was meant to be sent as an email. Mes excuses. :-)
Ralf
Oh my, I thought it *was* sent as an email ;-).
When an English speaker talks about moving to a place, he means that he is
going to move all his possessions and live there.
What you meant to say was that you can travel to France, Germany, etc., to
buy your camera.
John
On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 17:09:16 -, Thibouille [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I used to know somebody who was perhaps the best birder in East Africa.
He used green Leitz rubber-armoured (and waterproof) 8*40 binoculars,
and said that the lack of magnification compared to 10*50 was not very
much, and the slight disadvantage was more than offset by the bins being
Not a bad collection.
Just to mention a few:
I especially liked Bob Gesselin's Quiet Time, which strongly suggested
the small, private world of the child.
Thrainn Vigfusson's Winter horses seemed rather dark and dreary on my
monitor, which was a pity because I liked it otherwise.
Mark
On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 20:18:37 -, Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
and since we're going forwards anyway, what's the point?
So that we can miss Gordon Brown being Prime Minister.
John
Bob
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Godfrey
On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 12:31:13 -, Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Again, I am not trying to say that DA lenses are not good. I am saying
that FA Limited are excellent enough for me.
They may be excellent enough, but are they available in the focal lengths
you require? (The
On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 05:11:07 -, Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
My immediate sensation was - sans the cell phone the girl on the right
is holding, this photo could have been made back in 70s... Julia seems
to approve.
Cell-phone? It's obviously a Sinclair electronic
I think Jens means that we, the users, make a Pentax a Pentax. We buy
what we like, and not what we don't. The fact that Pentax is still in
business means that they are producing what we like (more or less).
John
On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 12:19:58 -, David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 14:01:56 -, Bob Shell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 31, 2006, at 7:49 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/hygenic_df.html
Saw this while taking a short cut this afternoon. I may go back
with a
tripod and photograph the scene a little
be
much more expensive, and therefore in a separate market segment that
Pentax doesn't address. Canon would suffer from the competition, not
Pentax.
John
John Forbes wrote:
On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 12:31:13 -, Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Again, I am not trying to say that DA
On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 15:47:32 -, mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
John Forbes wrote:
I used to know somebody who was perhaps the best birder in East
Africa.
He used green Leitz rubber-armoured (and waterproof) 8*40 binoculars,
and said that the lack of magnification compared
I think Rob Studdert can explain better than I why larger sensors cost
disproportionately more than smaller ones. I believe the failure rate for
large sensors is much higher.
The point is that if big sensors become cheaper to produce, then so will
smaller ones. There will always be a
Thank you, Adam.
Pentax have made the right decision here.
John
On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 19:40:46 -, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Economics. Sensor cost is relative to area. This is because there's a
fixed size to the silicon wafers that sensors are made from (which
affects yields
On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 12:17:01 -, Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi!
They may be excellent enough, but are they available in the focal
lengths you require? (The answer, of course, is No).
John, do you really *know* what focal lengths I do require?
That is not the right
It's eat your hat time again. I think we have plateaued (?) with regard
to DSLR functionality, and further improvements will be incremental.
Certainly nothing like the leap from the *ist D to the K10D.
John
On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 20:52:49 -, Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
4-5
On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 22:18:04 -, P. J. Alling
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Horrors, what did we do without it!
Ask Frank.
John
Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:
But we would lose image stabilisation in Pentax system.
On 01.01.07, at 22:44 , J. C. O'Connell wrote:
Jump from APS to FF sensor
OK. Thanks for the clarification.
Incidentally, I am also one of those who think that the 18-35 is not a bad
lens given its price.
John
On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 05:26:53 -, Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi!
Very well, John, now that you have thoroughly explained yourself I see
The largest camera chain in he UK is called Jessops. At the Isle of Man
branch over Christmas they had four DSLRs in the window. One was a Canon,
the others were Pentax. You had to go inside to see a Nikon.
John
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 04:49:43 -, Paul Stenquist
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subash,
If you enjoyed that, try (if you haven't already) Chichester's Along the
Clipper Way. It's derived from the research he undertook (ie: books he
read) while preparing for his circumnavigation.
And, of course, the all time classic of circumnavigation books is the
original - Joshua
Television is a real friend, to people with no real friends.
John
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 02:28:58 -, David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally, 5 hours a day in front of the boob tube is way too much. I
think the 2-3 hours average I spend in front of the box is too much.
I'd be
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 03:05:21 -, Tim Øsleby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When?
When everybody who wants a K10D has got one ion their hands? ;-)
Not in Merrie England, they haven't.
Every week, it is promised for next week. I think it is Pentax's way of
punishing the country that produced
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 02:50:31 -, Tim Øsleby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I totally agree.
But there is always somebody responding, keeping the flames alive. Some
times that somebody is me, some times it is you, and so on.
Therein lies the problem. Discipline is required.
John
Tim
Mostly
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 19:29:55 -, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I personally find the list to be largely self-congratulatory.
In
other words the vast majority of shots are praised whether they possess
merit or not.
I disagree. Most photos don't get many comments, and often those
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 01:57:34 -, Digital Image Studio
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 17/12/06, John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh God, another one. When you have used your camera for a couple of
months, and fully understood how it works, then please report your
problems
That's a super picture, Boris. Your best yet - IMHO.
John
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 14:14:10 -, Tim Øsleby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not bad. Pretty good in fact :-)
I like the delicate colours, the tones in the back/middle ground, the
tree
is well placed.
I'm not sure about this. But, I
I suspect that people who don't shoot RAW don't realise that it is not
very time-consuming at all once you get the hang of it, and provided you
use good software.
I use Silkypix, having changed over from Capture One LE. I find that I
can get better colour balance with Silkypix than I could
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 13:11:35 -, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Especially if you resize for web as part of your process.
Absolutely.
John
-Adam
John Forbes wrote:
I suspect that people who don't shoot RAW don't realise that it is not
very time-consuming at all once you get
assumptions are correct.
But don't worry Richard. No harm done.
Tim
Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
John
Forbes
Sent: 16. desember 2006 04:41
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: K10D review
Actually, Shel, your recent comments on handling the K10D have been most
informative. Good reading while I wait for Pentax UK to start supplying
the UK.
Tom C is Tom C, and JCO is JCO. Don't let 'em get to you.
John
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 13:27:28 -, Shel Belinkoff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 15:57:53 -, David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
All thoughts comments a while back, about only submitting images of
the utmost quality to the PUG are a crock IMHO. Post the best you can
do, and await any constructive criticism.
If I relied on the comments of
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 22:15:10 -, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 16/12/06, Adam Maas, discombobulated, unleashed:
You'd be shocked how often I get asked if I'm a pro, just because of my
(rather small) K100D and 16-45 DA zoom which is my standard carry
config.
Yeah but Adam, when I'm
Oh God, another one. When you have used your camera for a couple of
months, and fully understood how it works, then please report your
problems. As it is, most problems reported so far have been by people who
were doing something wrong.
John
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 23:24:31 -, J and K
Note to John Francis. I am sorry for the enigmatic title.
I haven't been keeping up very well recently, so if somebody has already
posted this link, I apologise profoundly.
http://www.photographyblog.com/index.php/weblog/comments/pentax_k10d/
Scroll down to Comments. I'm not sure if this is
Just remember who puts the butter on Phil Askey's bread. Hint: It ain't
Pentax.
And I would think/hope you are wrong about a majority of K10D users
shooting JPEG.
As Godfrey says, Askey takes nice pictures of equipment. And also
watch-faces, and crayons and resolution charts. So if you
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 03:27:53 -, Richard Bellavance
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 2006-12-16 at 00:33 +0100, Tim Øsleby wrote:
Phil is not a jamoke half way around the world. He is a jamoke in my
part of
the world. Hrmp, those Americans.
Phil Askey is English.
I suspect Tim knows
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 03:27:58 -, Richard Bellavance
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 22:57 +, John Forbes wrote:
And I would think/hope you are wrong about a majority of K10D users
shooting JPEG.
Why would you hope such a thing ?
First, what does it change in your
for all the parts of the sensor
(and does not depend on sensor size). There is no fulcrum.
On Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 11:54:28AM -, John Forbes wrote:
The sensor will move through the same angle for any given lens, but as
the
APS-C sensor is smaller than a 35mm sensor, the distance travelled
I don't think you are correct. Canon says SR doesn't work with long
lenses. :-)
John
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 00:55:22 -, Paul Stenquist
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have not tried the 300 (don't own one), but I have tried the A
400/5.6, and the SR works magnificently with that lens.
Paul
that in-lens image stabilsation can't do. But
this is a much smaller contributor to camera shake; almost
all the corection consists of up/down/left/right motion).
On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 10:15:05AM -, John Forbes wrote:
So are you saying that the sensor moves vertically or horizontally
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 19:41:37 -, Peter Lacus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On page 6 in the recent issue (67) of BlackWhite Photography magazine
(UK) Mike Johnston writes:
Favourite books:
Street photographs
By Juan Buhler
This is privately printed, but still one of my favourites of the
http://www.srsmicrosystems.co.uk/index3.asp?id=48section=Pentaxset=3
(and scroll down)
Body only, £599.
They are expecting supplies this week, and have enough for their
pre-orders. They may also have a few extra, if you are lucky.
John
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 23:17:13 -, mike wilson
MJ quotes Canon claiming that in-body SR is no good for long lenses,
because it would require the sensor to move by 1/4 of an inch.
They are talking of course about full frame 35mm. The required movement
would presumably be rather less on an APS-C sensor.
John
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 23:04:31
The sensor will move through the same angle for any given lens, but as the
APS-C sensor is smaller than a 35mm sensor, the distance travelled by the
edge that is furthest from the fulcrum will be shorter.
John
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 11:00:23 -, Digital Image Studio
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nor do you make money by sticking a high price on something and watching
it sit on the shelf 'til it rusts away.
Either somebody ordered too many, or Pentax made too many. Mistakes do
happen. Somebody has lost out.
John
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 09:12:26 -, P. J. Alling
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Did you compare the cost of the extended warranty with the cost of the
repair?
As a general rule, never insure against any risk you can afford to pay
for. Over your life you will spend two or three times as much on premiums
as you would on repairs and replacements. Who do you think is
On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 02:48:26 -, Joseph Tainter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yet Pentax managed it well. They delayed introduction. Provided a
sufficient number of cameras to get everyone talking and have now
delivered a second batch. They're getting it right.
Paul
-
Part of what
The K10D is actually a pretty good fit for almost everybody (provided they
can afford it), other than those who still hope against hope for a
full-frame Pentax camera which is never going to come.
John
On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 10:52:22 -, Paul Stenquist
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It has
Can't think how you managed such a gorgeous shot with such a problematic
camera. :-)
John
On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 04:15:07 -, Joseph Tainter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.fotocommunity.com/pc/pc/mypics/535671/display/7358516
Taken today at the Desert Botanical Garden in Phoenix.
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 08:01:00 -, mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
From: Brendan MacRae [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ya know, I've been testing this out. I've been trying
some non traditional framing, Dutch Angle stuff and so
forth, and it looks like the camera sometimes puts
them in portrait
Since you ask, here are a few poor scans of some old negs from 1973 that
might appeal to car fans. I was strolling in Hyde Park with my then brand
new SPII, and came across a rally of the Bentley Owners Club (or some
such).
Lens was the 55mm 1.8, and film was probably HP3.
The pics (as
Newer than mine, too, or some of it. My Quad 303 dates back to 1976, and
has been serviced once. They don't make 'em like that any more.
http://www.polmed.co.uk//Misc/IMGP9632.html
John
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 21:19:43 -, graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That stuff is new than what I
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 23:43:51 -, mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
John Forbes wrote:
Since you ask, here are a few poor scans of some old negs from 1973 that
might appeal to car fans. I was strolling in Hyde Park with my then
brand
new SPII, and came across a rally
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 23:12:41 -, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 27/11/06, Peter Lacus, discombobulated, unleashed:
P.S. I almost made it to the last London PDML meeting in Camden.
Unfortunately I hadn't internet at home so I was accustomed to read PDML
in batches (I've downloaded a
] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Auftrag von
John Forbes
Gesendet: Montag, 27. November 2006 23:43
An: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Betreff: Re: PESO:High Fidelity 1984
Newer than mine, too, or some of it. My Quad 303 dates back to 1976, and
has been serviced once. They don't make 'em like that any
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 23:50:17 -, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Doug Franklin wrote:
Markus Maurer wrote:
Hi Pentaxians
Would you mind supporting my nostalgic feelings by showing me some of
your
first or just very old Pentax photographs
right now?
My earliest are from about
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 22:38:26 -, Digital Image Studio
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 26/11/06, John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DPReview is the Domain of Pixel-peepers. How many people are reporting
these problems? How many know what they are talking about? How many
actually need
.
Maybe JCO is incapable of forming a coherent thought when he's angry,
and he's easy to anger Maybe you think it's fun to bait him. Why
don't you pick on someone your own size for a change.
With all due respect
P. J. Alling
John Forbes wrote:
As far as I can recall, nobody here has ever said
DPReview is the Domain of Pixel-peepers. How many people are reporting
these problems? How many know what they are talking about? How many
actually need 1600 ISO, given that the camera has shake-reduction built-in.
I haven't yet got my K10D, but I suspect this is all a load of rubbish
cameras is
probably not a good way to go about evaluation the camera for strengths
and
weaknesses, especially if you're making some important pics.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: John Forbes
DPReview is the Domain of Pixel-peepers. How many people are reporting
these problems? How
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 13:09:18 -, cbwaters [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Can one of the lucky few take some shots of a K10 next to the *ist D for
size comparison? With Without grips if possible
I've seen the shots of the K10 next to the K110 but nothing with the D.
Thanks,
CW
Just
Congratulations
John
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 20:25:40 -, Markus Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Cold as ice Tim.
congratulations.
greetings
Markus
-Ursprungliche Nachricht-
Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Auftrag von
Tim Osleby
Gesendet: Freitag, 24. November
As far as I can recall, nobody here has ever said that the aperture
simulator is
totally unnecessary. Almost everybody here would like to have it on a
DSLR. Nobody is arguing against the AP; they are simply fed up with a
million posts reiterating the same old argument.
But, like JCO, you
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 21:52:20 -, Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I note that the new K10D is stocked by Tesco.
Soon they'll put all the small local firms out of busines and
then they can
charge what they want and you'll have no alternative but to buy.
John
Yes, and no. On
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 10:41:53 -, John Whittingham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
So many small stores have to face massive competition from internet
giants, operating from warehouses but I wonder in the UK if the
biggest threat is now from supermarkets.
A couple of months ago I visited the
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 12:57:47 -, mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
From: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
People like Tom C were predicting Pentax's demise a couple of years ago.
It hasn't happened. On the contrary, Pentax have just released a great
camera which, apart from not being
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 17:14:14 -, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
People like Tom C were predicting Pentax's demise a couple of years ago.
It hasn't happened. On the contrary, Pentax have just released a great
camera which, apart from not being full-frame and not having an aperture
I have to say, Peter, that I still don't like what you are doing with
these pictures. Again, this one looks like a bad scan, which is a pity
because the composition is OK.
John
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 05:03:32 -, P. J. Alling
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I guess a slice of still life shot,
Peter,
I didn't comment on the other two because I normally only comment on
pictures I like.
The reason I didn't particularly like the other two, or this, is that they
seem very flat on my monitor, rather like a poor scan of a faded print.
I'm not saying my monitor is superbly
1 - 100 of 1855 matches
Mail list logo
