I had thought MP might stand for 'Magnum Photos', but probably not. So
what does the P stand for? Pretty? Professional? Primitive?
Pretentious?
Photojournalist.
--Mike
That's why I
say, that these lenses presented by Olympus aren't as small as they could
be, taking in consideration, that they produce smaller circle of light.
My guess is that these Olympus lenses will cover APS and probably 35mm as
well. Olympus is hedging its bets. If it commits an entire
That's exactly why I fear that the ISO range will top out at 400: If it were
higher, Pentax would have said so.
It isn't determined yet. As I said elsewhere, don't read tea leaves...lots
about this camera is not yet set in stone one way or the other. Wait for the
production models.
--Mike
I honestly think that Pentax would be shooting themselves in the foot
with a lens mount which is not backwards compatible.
They've already announced that it will be compatible. They even specified
that it will be compatible with _screwmount_ lenses, which I got a real kick
out of (the average
Not this one - the original MP was professional, though. From the Leica list I
remember it means Maximum Precision or something like that.
All the best!
Raimo
Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
-Alkuperäinen viesti-
Lähettäjä: Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED
My favourite lens for use with a 35mm SLR is a 35mm F2.
From the Pentax prime lenses available at present which is the most
suitable for use with the *ist D that will give me more or less a 35mm
equivalent.?
About a 24mm. But if you don't want to buy the 24/2 FA, wait till next
The equipment is periodically inventoried by forces outside of our group.
But it doesn't have a NIST number, it has an NBS number (the National
Institute of Standards and Technology used to be the National Bureau of
Standards), and a tech I talked to said she thinks they threw out the NBS
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemcategory=15240item=2914332704
rd=1
See center photo.
There's a big ol' Asahi logo on the front of the prism !
How can you tell?
I swear, it's AMAZING to me how people selling PHOTOGRAPHIC equipment can do
such a God-awful job taking simple
1. I can probably use an Asahiflex lens on the DSLR. If not, it will work
fine on an MZ-S.
2. The joy of focusing almost any Pentax M, K, or screwmount lens.
3. The LX. 'Nuff said.
4. The 6x7II. Wow.
5. The Limited lenses. I don't shoot AF any more, but *someone* should
make
Yeah, Nikon hasn't made a good 50mm for many years. That's what drove me to
Pentax, incidentally.
--Mike
The bokeh on my 50mm AF f/1.8 Nikkor made my eyes hurt.
Mike Johnston wrote:
yellow varnish over the Nikon's viewfinder screen.
Too bad I'd have to use Nikkors on the darn thing. I
How can you call it original when it looks exactly like its ZLR models?
Whether the lens is interchangeable or not, people can't tell without
close examination. To most people's eyes, this is NOT an original design.
We saw it before in Minolta Dimage 7, Nikon Coolpix 5700, FujiFilm S602...
I also need cameras that I can shoot with
when I just want to play with something wonderful.
Man, isn't the Leica MP simply the apotheosis of that? What a lovely thing.
I'd kill for a black one.
Well, not really, but you know what I mean. s
--Mike
That I agree with. For Pentax to go anywhere with this digital, it
must be SIGNIFCANTLY cheaper than the Canon 10D.
PJ But I don't agree with it! I don't think pentax will be cheaper than the
Canon unless Canon deliberately would want to rip their customers off. Canon
have far larger
There was and continues to be a large German population in
Berlin/Kitchener. I had many friends whose families originated in
Schwabia. Economical is a very polite description of them. g And
yes, more economical than the Scots, I'd say...
I feel compelled to defend the ethic honor of
i see you haven't made it to the $1K/meter pairs yet.
Herb.
Yeah, I know what you mean. I'm connecting two computers to our good
speakers. The setup requires several pairs of cables, and the more I read,
the more I realize that a cheap cable can nullify my investment in good
speakers
Friends,
I have to tell you something. Sometimes I just get so fed up with the level
of CRAP all around us that I start to melt down. I spent a good hour tonight
on a thing called PhotoSig.com, where I was subjected to near-fatal doses of
treacle in the form of endless #$%! cat pictures, sunsets,
i currently use the 43mm limted and love it
however it becomes a 65mm with 43mm perspective on the new dslr.
Again, where did this idea come from? Perspective doesn't change as long as
you're standing in the same place. The 43mm on the DSLR becomes a 65mm,
period. There is no change in
Well it's like it's always is on the PDML. People asks for a DSLR, otherwise
they're going to jump the ship. Pentax shows the DSLR, and people still
consider to jump the ship, because the *ist D can't compete with Canon
anyway. Come on, the product isn't finished yet. The final specification
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=2915319475category=4688
Wow, that's interesting. Could be a very rare transition sample from the
changeover to the rubberized ring.
More likely, it's just had its front ring replaced
--Mike
I thought his major assumption was that consumers won't buy a product if
something else out there looks kind of the same.
I suppose it's unfair of Pentax to make the think look like a camera.
It's so unfair to confuse people that way.
The thing that gets me is that Pål is flooding the list
Dodger/Chrysler who have attempted to
make such radically different looking cars are not
doing so well now in the market. Why? All show no
go. The quality of Dodge stinks, and people catch on
quick. A funky image can only go so far.
Amen, brother. I bought a Dodge Neon Sport on the basis of
Nope. Some of the most respected Car magazines world-wide call these cars
utterly pointless and only for those with aversion to money. This is of course
taking it a bit too far, but according to the japanese car manufacturers what
sell well Europe sells well everywhere. Nobody in their right
Oh, oh, oh, I know exactly how you feel!
I have a 77 ltd an M85/2 and an 85/1.8
I know that one has to go and that it has to be the 85/1.8 but I just can't
make myself do it.
Well then DON'T! It's not a _sin_ to have three different medium telephotos,
you know.
--Mike
I am considering selling the following lenses; most in very good condition
unless otherwise noted:
[snip]
85/1.8 TBD Still not sure I can bear to part with it.
Johnston's Seventh Law of Photography: Never sell a good lens.
--Lawbreaker Mike
When Canon introduced the EOS, it
was VERY ground breaking; no one had anything like it,
and AF was in it's infancy.
No it wasn't. The first EOS was the EOS 650, introduced in March 1987. Canon
was the third major manufacturer to switch to AF, after Minolta and Nikon,
not the first. I would
Mike,
I beg to differ. Having taken two photograph classes
recently, everyone is
interested in digital. Why? It's new. The color
comes out sharp. And one can
print one's own prints -- that is extremely
attractive. Not just women are
interested in that.
Again, I didn't write that.
I'm old enough to remember when the Canon EF system was released. There
was no pro body. Only two amateur bodies that was in no manner better than
the competition. And only 12 lenses.
Utter nonsense. You need a fact checker on this one.
The EOS 650 was the first of the EOS cameras.
You may think what you like but the fact is that never have there been
released a DSLR that created less interest.
That's just not true. It's creating a LOT of interest.
--Mike
Hm, not a sin...
In my case I'm not shure about that. I've long been using the M 85/2.0
and now have the FA*85/1.4 - do I still need the M 85/2?
Not shure...
What would one get for such lens?
One could get as much as $50! Send me your M85, I'll send you a check
immediately!
No?
It's 'the dog's bollocks' as we also say.
As opposed to the Contax N1 which is the dog's dinner.
:-)
Cotty,
[insert secret Hundred Percenter handshake here]
Isn't a bollock a large lumpen bovine creature of some sort? How can a dog
have one of those?
There are two cameras
http://www.imaging-resource.com/EVENTS/PMAS03/1046271605.html
--Mike
(And thanks again, Ken T.!)
Yup. I am thinking of trying my hand at hand coating my own sheet film this
year.
...While wearing his hair shirt and flagellating himself with a cat o' nine
tails. And every now and then, bonking himself on the forehead with a wooden
psalter tablet
--Mike
soft focus lenses as well as shift lenses are obsolete
due to photoshop IMHO.
Except soft-focus lenses and shift lenses have ALWAYS been obsolete.
Well, actually, soft-focus lenses have only been obsolete since about 1910.
But view cameras have always been better than shift lenses.
--Mike
I would say there's no reason to be afraid of a lens
with fungus (as long as the shop knows what they're
doing). Just my thoughts...
Steve,
Just your thoughts for NOW. Talk to us in another two years when the fungus
is coming back...and four of your other lenses also have itg
Be
...For those of you who may not know, I was responsible for introducing
the term _bokeh_ to photographers in America
WoW! Blow me down! That's GREAT minutia, Mike! Bless you - I'll
treasure this knowledge till I die!
Thanks, John, it was my forty-five seconds of fame. g
--Mike
Many years ago (1978) I got my first camera - Pentax MX. (This was love at
first sight.) Then came the 6x7. Initially I used transparencies almost
exclusively until I discovered Fred Picker and took his Zone VI workshop in
Vermont. Since then I have been photographing and printing in BW
You missed the 90/3.5. http://www.cosina.co.jp/90sl/
I think Rob is the only one the PDML has one of this lenses. You want one?
Try this http://www.cameraquest.com/.
Nope, I owned the 75/2.5 SL in Pentax K mount. Sold it to a PDMLer, although
I regret I've forgotten who.
--Mike
Again, this is from Marnie, not from me:
In a message dated 3/2/2003 7:59:48 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So here my thoughts.. People who buy a digital *ist
would already have a net connection as a minimum
reason, have a Pentax film body with several Pentax
lenses and
Observation: the more famous the organization/publication, the worse the
loupes are that they use there. I remember visiting a studio in NYC where
they must have had $400,000 worth of equipment, and they were using cheap
$8
Agfa loupes to check transparencies. g
Could it be people were
21,000 Optio S' ordered already? Holy *ist!
I'd be curious how many *ist film digital cameras
get ordered after the PMA.
Well, for the *ist D, the number will be none. The *ist D's aren't
available for ordering. It's announced only, with release for July. I don't
know about the *ist film
What percentage of film do you use in BW?
100%
--Mike
Must be over ten years ago but Radio shack one year sold a portable CD
player. Some one noticed that it came with a digital output. Soon enough
this $100 player got written up in the high end audio rags. Radio Shack
stores all across North America sold out. All over high end setups used a
Almost totally BW. Agfa APX 100 maining. Other then the fact it's almost
free here in Canada it also looks great.
I haven't shot that film in years, but it really does look great.
Oddly, it makes a really nice match with Kodak T-Max P3200 shot at E.I. 1000
and processed in T-Max Developer.
Let's wait and see how thongs pan outshall we?
I love typos.
The other day a friend of mine wrote to me about a new limited-edition Leica
and he typed costmetics instead of cosmetics. Talk about an appropriate
mistake!
--Mike
Not to ignore the content of Shaun's message, however--I agree with you
Shaun. The fact is, when you have only one product, you need to make sure it
is mainstream. If you try to make it too different, it will probably
appeal to too few people. The *ist D looks to be very well-judged in this
You aren't going to get
full-frame quality from an APS-sized sensor no matter what lens you
stick on it.
This statement contains a premise that I don't think has been demonstrated
yet. It's still an assumption, and may not be correct. We only have two
full-frame DSLRs. One is 11 mp and the
Bokeh, as I understand it, is controlled mainly
by the aperture blades
No, not really. The aperture blades have an effect on the shape of specular
out-of-focus highlights, but the essential characteristics of _bokeh_ have
more to do with off-axis aberrations and correction of spherical
Peter Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 05:14 PM 3/1/2003 -0500, you wrote:
Peter Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 10:27 PM 2/28/2003 -0600, you wrote:
A Pentax LX, adapted to a Nikkor lens. It does take pictures.
http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/pentikon.html
It's amazing what you
Sometimes, they drop a couple of
features from the U.S. models, although I do not know how much they could
save the money by doing so, and they might lose some markets by doing so, I
do not know.
Ken,
This is done for patent reasons. Features that infringe on U.S.
patentholders' rights have
Hi Malcolm,
100% black and white film. Ilford Delta 400.
Cotty,
We should form a Hundred Percenters club.
I already belong to a club called the Blackliner Society (we like the
initials) here in Milwaukee. This consists of me and my friend Nick meeting
for lunch every so often to chat about
NOW FORMING
The PDML Hundred Percenters Club, for those netizens who shoot 100%
black-and-white.
We have two members already. Anybody else wanna join?
--Mike
Lets just assume that in the case of APS vs 35mm sized sensors similar physics
pixies are at work that make 67 a more resolute and higher quality yielding
media than 35mm film (all else being equal of course).
But I'm saying, let's not assumebecause all things are never equal. With
I don't think that you'd find it was the case if you check back the E forum
histories of the time. For obvious reasons I was watching these lists and it
was generally suggested that there wasn't sufficient advantage in the E-20 to
make most realistic E-10 owners too concerned.
Not only that,
First of all, re this thread title, it's not D10, it's 10D. Pendant I may
be, but these errors are potentially confusing. (For instance, the D1 is a
Nikon, the 1D is a Canon.)
And then there will be the interminable PDML threads a year or so
from now when we will all (some more than others) be
think the Pentax team that put this together did an
outstandingly good job.
--Mike
Mike Johnston
See The Sunday Morning Photographer, my weekly online column about
photography at any of these three locations:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sunday1.shtml
http://www.steves
Well, for one the Pentax users who doesn't mind a Pentax looking like a Nikon
would probably bite. Fine.
I think you're overreacting in your contention that the *ist D looks like a
Nikon. You could just as easily say that an ZX-7 looks like an N65, or that
a PZ-1p looks like an EOS-1. Many
Ultraradical styling is really
dangerous. Inevitably, more hate it than like it.
Steve,
I agree.
--Mike
I didn't expect a Nikon copy. I expected something with built in lust factor.
Something that made peole say wow! with first sight. Something sexy that they
had to check out.
Pål,
One little thing you're overlooking--it *has* a built-in lust factor, it
*is* causing people to say wow at first
I'm a newbie to the list. Why? - the ist-D of course.
Greg,
That's cool!
Welcome.
--Mike
Mike what do you know that we don't ( we all know you
know )
Well, I think it's okay to say this now, that Olympus will be debuting the
4/3rds system at the PMA show, with several new purpose-built lenses,
including a 600mm-equivalent fast telephoto. Since the 4/3rds sensor size is
smaller
If there is sufficient light, I usually stop down to somewhere between f2.8
and f5.6 with the 85mm lenses. Wide open the depth of field often is simply
too shallow. Also there is light fall-off at open aperture, and some lack of
contrast - which on the other hand is nice with kids and
Am I the only one wondering when $2k became a budget camera? If I was going
to spend $1500 right now [forget $2k] I'd be trying to decide between the
Pentax 6x7, the Mamiya 645e and the Fuji 6x9 and not really thrilled with any
of them. I wouldn't be looking at a camera that on a good day
I disagree (respectfully). Canon changes their body line too fast for out of
date equipment to be worth anything in more than a couple of years. Add to
that their history of orphaning their customer base entirely, and their junk
optics (bokeh that makes Yassir Arafat look like a beauty queen),
The way it makes the most sense to me is to think in terms of the film
moving. You've got a cone coming out of the back. The further back the film
plane the wider the lens.
x
x x
x x
xx
x x
Hardly intuitive, is it.
In what parlance/language does 1 stand for on? Binary? On an A/C
line power switch?
And, if it was meant to be a zero, it should have had the slant bar
thru it, like '0', to avoid just this sort of ambiguity.
Hmmm. The electrical symbol for current is 'I'...
They are quite reserved after the warm welcome they made to the
- later aborted - digital MZ-S. We should all take example.
I'll tell ya, if the *ist D never materializes, Pentax is going to buy
itself some real problems. In fact, if I were them, I'd make sure it hit the
market BEFORE its
There are certainly a lot of us who'll be royally p*ist off if our huge
investment in glass (including my 15mm f/3.5) is made obsolete or
irrelevant; that is, if we have to have two different lenses to serve
the same purpose on a DSLR and a film SLR. Not everyone is going to
*abandon* film
Who the hell cares?!?!?! We got a DLSR to use with Pentax
lenses!!! WAHOOO!
This has been my number one (photo) thought for the last day or so.
;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)
Wow, thirteen winks! That's gotta be a new record!
--Mike
It wouldn't be half bad if it sold like F80s.
But why should it? It is not that the *Ist D is bad in any way. But it is an
also ran looking like a F80 with sensor of a one year old Nikon DSLR. The only
selling point will be price. Lets just hope that the compettition does not put
out
So, how many of you merry people are going to get an *ist-D and if not why
not?
I would if I could afford to. Probably won't, though, the reason being cost.
--Mike
Har! Good one.
What damned error, but some sober brow
Will bless it and approve it with a text,
Hiding the grossness with fair ornament?
--W.S.
--Mike
Pendant.
Since we're the Pentax list, we should probably get this correct from the
start.
The
Sorry that should be:
Pedant.
I liked pendant much better. g
--Mike
The issue isn't quality, it's lenses. All of a sudden that nice 24mm lens
is a 36mm lens, and if you want a lens that gives you the field of view
that a 24mm lens on a film body does, you're going to need to get a 16mm
rectilinear lens, which don't come cheap.
That's just the point, Chris.
I think it is very well specified camera in small body but its presentation
and design is very derivative. You could remove the Pentax name with Nikon or
perhaps Minolta and no one would have noticed. In this is the real point; no
one except those with K-mount lenses will notice. I had
And
It's
HERE!
http://www.letsgodigital.nl/webpages/events/PMA-2003/news/pentax/SLR-IST_uk.
html
More on the DSLR--
I haven't gotten a Digest this morning so I'm assuming I'm incommunicado
from the PDML again, really piss-poor timing for THAT.
http://www.steves-digicams.com/pr/pentax_02262003_istD_pr.html
Unfortunately - still no photos...
One thing at a time, gang. You only have to wait a few more days for the
photos. The prototype will be showed under glass at PMA, and we will get
photos from the show floor to share with the PDML. I'm sure the reason there
are no official photos with the press
I'm sure y'all have noticed this little codicil on dpreview.com:
In its quest for ever higher performance combined with compact dimensions,
PENTAX has been developing lenses compatible with the new PENTAX digital SLR
camera. PENTAX aims to launch these in fall 2003.
Oh, goody, goody, yummy,
Does this mean no more flower/cat photos?
*whew*
--Mike
I suspect this means lenses with less-than-full-frame coverage, made
specifically for the DSLR. Hope this doesn't affect plans for the
full-frame digicam so many of us are holding out for.
I'm sure not holding out for it. A smaller-than-35mm sensor is one of the
primary advantages of the new
Re: What the D*ist REALLY MEANS...
Since we're the Pentax list, we should probably get this correct from the
start.
The camera is apparently called:
*ist D (lower-case i, since it's a suffix)
Not
D *ist (which would sound like deist, a believer in deism, the
rational belief in the
I hear ya Cotty.I have to much money
Brendan and Dave are trying to get back at me for teasing everybody
yesterday.
It's _too_.
--Mike
Throwing away compatibility to a really huge extent, like building
small-image-circle lenses for the DSLR, would *really* go against Pentax
history. I'm feeling more confident they won't do something that dumb.
Mark,
I really beg to differ. This would not be dumb at all, it would be SMART.
I'd kick the tyres of that 'effective' word in front
of megapixels, though.
This is standard digital sensor terminology. It refers to the fact that not
all of the megapixels of any sensor are used for capturing the image-forming
light. It has nothing to do with Pentax in particular. All the
* Convenient playback functions, such as nine imageand 12X
magnification-display
gimmicks
Far from it (have you used a digital camera yet?). What this refers to is
that in replay mode, you can view nine frames at once on the LCD screen,
which greatly speeds up editing and reviewing, and
* Choice of JPEG, TIFF and RAW recording formats
* Comes complete with software compatible with RAW format data
* Special battery grip (expected to go on sale at the same time as
the *ist D)
One would hope so, the biggest expense with digitals is batteries.
It is?? No, it
:))
Admit
It:))
Regards
Artur
- Original Message -
From: Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 4:23 PM
Subject: And it's HERE!
And
It's
I know. Really now, K-mount lenses and bodies are _already_ less than
100% compatible: I've heard about old Ricoh lenses that will
permanently jam into place on a new AF body
Whoa, whoa, whoa. That's NOT an incompatibility. I'm not saying your overall
point is wrong, but Pentax is under NO
Comrades!
http://www.digitalcamera.jp/html/HotNews/image/2003-02/27/ist-D-1L.jpg
http://www.digitalcamera.jp/html/HotNews/image/2003-02/27/ist-D-2L.jpg
Wow!
Wow is right--it's a lot better looking than I thought it would be.
Satisfied now, Bob B.? They must have heard you talking. s
Mike I have not even started, but I'll refrain since
you did ome thru.
Now whats the word on it's image quality? I know you
know.
It's absolutely stunning, capable of outstanding capture at ISO 400 even on
HQ type .jpeg compression; eminently usable at 800; noise suppression for
long
Not really. The fact that the 50 has a field of view more like a 75 is
created by cropping, not optical zooming. In effect, the
less-than-24x36 image sensor size means that there's a permanently
enabled digital zoom feature on the camera.
All you're doing is cropping. The
Don't count on ISO 50 - if this is the same chip as the D100 slowest
ISO is 200. But I believe it does go to 1600.
That's not chip-dependent, that's circuitry-dependent, I'm pretty sure.
--Mike
Canon has a 28mm f/1.8. A nice, small Pentax version of that lens would
be perfect (42mm f/1.8)
Michael
Mike Johnston wrote:
I already have the perfect portrait lens--the 75mm effective (a.k.a. 50mm)
f/1.4 lens. Now just give me a good fast moderate wide-angle for the *ist D
and I'm
Canon has announced EOS 10D.
I'll go look at it tomorrow. Today I'm just going to enjoy the news about
the *ist D.
--Mike
Everybody should read this:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/canon_i950.html
Skip to the conclusion if you're bored by the details.
--Mike
I asked this before but got no response.
What is the ACTUAL EXPOSED dimensions
of the Pentax 645 frame?
I think it's 56 x 41mm. That's going by a very old memory, but if memory
serves
--Mike
Would that be by some mischance the second issue of your revered organ, Sir?
I only seem to have received one ish, and a good deal longer ago than 3
months.
That too.
But that's not what I was talking about.
It
**IS**
Coming..
Jumping Jehosaphat! Michael, if you know something, kindly spit it out,
or you may find a few PDMLers on your doorstep with an Anti-Embargo
Information Extraction Device - namely a film cassette opener, and we
won't leave you in a pretty state.!!!
Spill it now, scribe!
Old
Sounds like an excellent printer but was cunfused by a mention of the PC
cartridge. He showed a picture of this cart. being almost empty after
printing but was not sure how many prints they did. From what I
remember, it sounded like just one 8x10. If that's the case, that could
get real
Tom van Veen the Cruel wrote:
Here it is:
http://www.bigdayphoto.com/tom/images/bw_ollie_1.jpg
Hey, at least it's the right color. And nice bokeh. (What lens?)
--Mike
1 - 100 of 1471 matches
Mail list logo
