Alin wrote:
If the existing Pentax users are present in their *istD sales
projection then I expect them to be very, very scrupulous about
the support for K/M lenses.
Even the incompatibility of new KAF3 lenses with old cameras will
be almost inconsequential compared to the
From: Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:38:11 +0100
I'm sure many disagree with this but I'm certain that the numbers of
owners of K and M lenses that are going to buy a new DSLR is limited
indeed.
But Pentax has some special lenses and accessories that requires a
Peter Jansen escribió:
Definitely two types of Pentax users.
It is not so easy to draw a dividing line between two different types of
Pentax users. I have 14 different lenses and 3 teleconverters in Pentax
K mount. 10 of the lenses are AF (F, FA or FA*) and 4 MF (K, M and A).
And 3 of the
Note: The following comments apply more to the film *ist than to the
*ist D
Just over a year ago I was inspired to finally take up photography,
something I had always wanted to do but never seemed to have the time
or money for. Unfortunately, I still didn't have the money, so I
looked
From: Matt Bevers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:19:14 -0500
If I were to buy right now, my choices based on price would be a ZX-L,
ZX-5n or an *ist. Of these, the *ist definitely seems to be the best
feature-wise, but if it can't use K and M lenses (and it seems like it
won't be
I have a couple of questions and observations re the K mount compatability,
for which i invite discussion:
In no particular order:
Is there anything in the *ist film body to prevent another, more upscale
model from having full lens compatability?
My thought is that this sounds like a very full
Fred I have to agree with you again here. I seem to agree with everything you
say... I guess it's the voice of reason (LOL)
Vic
In a message dated 3/17/03 2:31:07 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, I think there is more overlap than you might realize.
If Pentax were to drop K-mount
, March 17, 2003 23:34
Subject: Re: K/M lens compatibility really needed? (Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?)
Is there anything in the *ist film body to prevent another, more upscale
model from having full lens compatability?
-- -Original Message-
-- From: Carlos Royo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 3:45 PM
--
--
--
-- Peter Jansen escribió:
--
-- Definitely two types of Pentax users.
--
--
-- It is not so easy to draw a dividing line between two
-- different types of
-- Pentax
Pål
Consider a previous recent discussion on this list about the inaccuracy of
some lenses in the A position. Consider for a moment that fact that
bodies that do NOT support the older K lense also will not have the
invaluable tool(IMHO) of switching to the old reliable manual aperature
settings
- Original Message -
From: Herb Chong
Subject: Re: K/M lens compatibility really needed? (Re: KAF3 lens mount
already here?)
nothing. that is why this thread is so ridiculous. nothing about the entry
level body suggest anything about the limits of the next two up in the line
other than
My understanding is that you would have to calculate the metering, based on
what the camera states fully open, or use an external meter.
I have found myself using an incident meter quite often lately.
Not looking for an *ist since I have the MZ-S and the LXen to keep me happy,
César
Panama
Hi Matti,
Matti Etelapera wrote:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0303/pma2003/pentax/istd-lensmount.jpg
In this picture the FAJ 18-35mm seems to have atleast a mechanical
diaphragm actuator.
Yes, but this is an absolute must. We are talking about the diaphragm
coupling, which enables
Hi Mark,
Mark Roberts wrote:
Boz must have incredibly powerful leg muscles by now...
From jumping to conclusions, ya know.
Hey, how'd ya know?
Please see my previous mail to Arnold Stark where I list the reasons why
I beliebe what I believe.
Cheers,
Boz
Hi,
Pål Jensen wrote:
Mark wrote:
Boz must have incredibly powerful leg muscles by now...
From jumping to conclusions, ya know.
Well maybe he doesn't jump to conclusion but have gotten the same
information I have.
Actually, I have not gotten any information from anyone. I was
Hi,
Bruce Rubenstein wrote:
In the most recent 15 year period (1987 - 2003), Canon has had
complete, and better compatibility, than Nikon, Minolta or Pentax.
The Canon EF mount was designed to transfer information
electronically and not back fitted to do so. There is no reason
to think
Hi Arnold,
Arnold Stark wrote:
One more thought: Maybe we are all right, and the *ist works with
K- and M-lenses, but only with stop-down metering?
I don't think so. Stop-down metering indicates that the lens lacks the
mechanical aperture coupling. For example, if the aperture is deep into
Hi Valentin,
Caveman wrote:
So where's that killer portrait lens? I was looking hard and my
best bet was the 100/2.8 macro.
Does it have to be Pentax? If not, try the Canon EF 100/2 USM. Killer
performance, and available twice a week from eBay.de for about EUR 375.
Cheers,
Boz
Hi Arnold et al,
Boz wrote:
Conclusion: K and M equipment is obsolete.
K and M buyers should buy Limited equipment
(these people want good mechanical build,
and nowadays that costs money). :-(
I wrote the above as a SPECULATION, and I ask you to treat it as such.
Until this time noone
Hi Boz,
I wrote the above as a SPECULATION, and I ask you to treat it as such. Until this time noone has solid facts, so your guess is as good as mine.
Agreed. :-)
- the *ist is designed from the ground up to be as small and light as possible, and probably as cheap as posible. I hold it for
Hi again,
One more thought: Maybe we are all right, and the *ist works with K- and M-lenses, but only with stop-down metering?
Let me explain my idea a little more: If a camera (not necessarily the
*ist) has no aperture simulator, it can still properly measure the
amount of light provided
Hi again, Boz,
thanks for your excellent summary on DOF preview. However, all you write
is in accordance with my idea: A camera capable of DOF preview that has
the information that the aperture ring is not in A position could in
principle stop down the lens by fully releasing the aperture
Hi Arnold,
The lens then would stop down to the selected aperture and the camera
could measure the amount of light regardless of what the selected
f-number is. If this would only happen while the release button of the
camera were pressed half-way down, you would get shutter speed and
Alin wrote:
Until they come up with serious technological propositions like
IS/USM that really tempt the users to buy new lenses, abandoning
full K mount compatibility is not an option.
Well put, I totally agree.
Nikon introduced the manually challenged F80 in 2000 and the lens it
That's the way pre esII and spotmatic F's worked.
At 04:39 PM 3/12/2003 +0100, you wrote:
Hi Arnold,
The lens then would stop down to the selected aperture and the camera
could measure the amount of light regardless of what the selected
f-number is. If this would only happen while the release
Hi Ken,
Are you still talking to me?3:-)
KT Takeshita wrote:
When Pentax try to make camera bodies as small as possible, as they
seem to be doing now, focus motor and mechanical aperture coupling
etc would have nowhere to go and might be squeezed out of the body,
ending up somewhere in
Bojidar Dimitrov wrote:
Boz,
Did you get my email with the catalog number of the Takumar-A 70-200 zoom?
--
Later,
Gary
--- KT Takeshita [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If Pentax would stick to APS size CCD while maintaining the K-mount
diameter, they could produce very sharp, compact and FAST lenses. And when
this new series of lenses are equipped with USM and/or IS, mmh, it's
yummy.
That's exactly what I'm
Arnold wrote:
Boz, you keep repeating the same wrong speculation, so I will quote
again what Pentax USA writes:
This is what they write on the *ist: Usable lenses - Pentax KAF2-(power
zoom not available), KAF-, KA- and K-mount lenses (Autofocus possible
with KA- and K-mount lenses using
Hi Arnold,
on 10 Mar 03 you wrote in pentax.list:
Let's go to CeBit and put an end to all this speculation!
Good idea! I might be there on thursday (13.), but that's not sure at
the moment. Anyone else?
Cheers, Heiko
Heiko Hamann schrieb:
Hi Arnold,
on 10 Mar 03 you wrote in pentax.list:
Let's go to CeBit and put an end to all this speculation!
Good idea! I might be there on thursday (13.), but that's not sure at
the moment. Anyone else?
Are students cards or cards for university members
Hi Thomas,
on 11 Mar 03 you wrote in pentax.list:
Are students cards or cards for university members available?
Yes. All prices can be found here: http://www.cebit.de/21541
Cheers, Heiko
Come on, K mount compatibility is one of the very few Pentax
trumps, and they need to play them all. Even if few posses both old
lenses and new equipment Pentax still has to proclaim loud and
clear our dslr takes whatever glass caries the Pentax name!.
Until they come up with
Why would you want a sharp portrait lens anyway ?
Well, ~I~ like sharp portraits, as a rule. My subjects don't always
like 'em, so I have to be flexible. However (as has been said here
before on the PDML when discussing portrait lenses), you can always
soften a sharp lens, but you just can't
Bruce wrote:
I'm beginning to strongly suspect a bit of translation/terminology
confusion going on here. What was originally meant in Japanese may not
have properly come through in English. If $300 is the cheapest body to
be sold in the US, then Pentax is dropping the biggest part of
This was my chain of reasoning, and hence I have the FA 100 2.8. It's a
heavy lens, but it's sharp and has a very solid feel. The adjustable
feel of the focus ring is very good for manual work (macro of portrait).
Unless money or weight is a real problem, save up and go for this one.
It
Hi,
never owning an 85 or similar lens before and been used to several 135
lenses I've had in my bag, I was afraid 77 would be to short. Finally, I've
bought an 77 and boy am I glad I did. Love it. It seems just perfect for
portraits.
Matjaz
They would tempt me with a nice AF portrait
Hi!
The EOS Rebel Ti 35mm SLR Autofocus Camera Body sells for $240 at BH
(Canon's latest, greatest, current body). If Pentax doesn't have
anything at this, or a lower price, in their line up they're screwed.
Digital PS cameras are irrelevant: they are already the same price as
an entry SLR
I AGREE WITH THIS 1000% If they do abandon the K
mount on the *ist D, I think it would be a huge
mistake. Not only to current Pentax glass owners, but
non-owners as well. If they do abandon the K mount, I
will abandon Pentax...
--- Alin Flaider [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Come on, K
One of our local dealers' (Citizen's Photo) salesman was at PMA and handled the
D *ist and said all current lenses would fit as well as the screw mounts. tomM
I AGREE WITH THIS 1000% If they do abandon the K
mount on the *ist D, I think it would be a huge
mistake. Not only to current
At 10:05 11.3.2003 -0500, caveman wrote:
Antti-Pekka Virjonen wrote:
Why would you want a sharp portrait lens anyway ? I bet the FA 135/2.8 is too sharp
for those really good portraits...
My reasoning is that there are many ways to soften a sharp image (optical filters
on lens, photoshop, lab
Sharp lenses make the models so alive...
Yet so angry...
regards,
Alan Chan
_
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
At 23:19 11.3.2003 -0800, you wrote:
Sharp lenses make the models so alive...
Yet so angry...
regards,
Alan Chan
:-)
Antti-Pekka
---
* Antti-Pekka Virjonen * Fiskarsinkatu 7 D * GSM: +358 500 789 753 *
* Computec Oy Turku* FIN-20750 Turku Finland * Fax: +358 10 264 0777 *
According to someone who are into the technicalities of the Pentax lens mounts the
mount of the new FA J lenses is not KAF2 as it uses a completely different way of
aperture control. Is this the first lenses with KAF3 mount?
Pål
on 10.03.03 13:16, Pål Jensen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
According to someone who are into the technicalities of the Pentax lens mounts
the mount of the new FA J lenses is not KAF2 as it uses a completely different
way of aperture control. Is this the first lenses with KAF3 mount?
Sylwester wrote:
Electronically controlled aperture a'la EF mont?
Yes, electronically controlled. Apparently a motor in the lens do the stopping down.
It is a completely new protocol and new protocol was what the KAF3 was all about.
Pål
Hi,
Pål Jensen wrote:
According to someone who are into the technicalities of the Pentax
lens mounts the mount of the new FA J lenses is not KAF2 as it uses
a completely different way of aperture control. Is this the first
lenses with KAF3 mount?
Yesterday I sent a mail with long Kaf3
on 10.03.03 13:43, Pål Jensen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sylwester wrote:
Electronically controlled aperture a'la EF mont?
Yes, electronically controlled. Apparently a motor in the lens do the stopping
down. It is a completely new protocol and new protocol was what the KAF3 was
all
Boz wrote:
Conclusion: K and M equipment is obsolete. K and M buyers should buy
Limited equipment (these people want good mechanical build, and nowadays
that costs money). :-(
Very likely scenario. Maybe we can hope for a high-end KAF3 lens series in the fall
that maintain the aperture
Work, work, work.
According to this page (http://www.nikonlinks.com/unklbil/bodylens.htm)
AF-S will work on F4, N70, N90 and newer bodies.
BR
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For instance Nikon's AF-S lenses
work using ultrasonic motors even with such a venerable bodies like F4 (but
I am not sure of
Boz wrote:
Conclusion: K and M equipment is obsolete. K and M buyers should buy
Limited equipment (these people want good mechanical build, and nowadays
that costs money). :-(
It might be that Pentax will maintain compatibility on higher end KAF3 bodies. Anyway,
one cannot really expect a
Hi Pål,
on 10 Mar 03 you wrote in pentax.list:
Electronically controlled aperture a'la EF mont?
Yes, electronically controlled. Apparently a motor in the lens do the
stopping down. It is a completely new protocol and new protocol was what the
KAF3 was all about.
I don't believe that Pentax
Boz wrote:
Conclusion: K and M equipment is obsolete.
K and M buyers should buy Limited equipment
(these people want good mechanical build,
and nowadays that costs money). :-(
Boz, you keep repeating the same wrong speculation, so I will quote again what Pentax USA writes:
This is what
Sigh, this whole thing has caused me to eye up a Nikon N80 for sale that I
know ofgrr
Are you saying that K M lenses will not work with
the *ist D?
If so, I can start selling now and make the switch to
another brand for digital.
--- Pål_Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Taz,
The Nikon N80 will not meter with nearly all Nikkor manual focus lenses.
Michael Cross
Taz wrote:
Sigh, this whole thing has caused me to eye up a Nikon N80 for sale that I
know ofgrr
Are you saying that K M lenses will not work with
the *ist D?
If so, I can start
Well that will just piss off a lot of people after the assurance that the
*ist D is compatible with K/M mount lenses. I'd be considerably more pissed
off than I was with the cancelation of the MZ-D.
At 04:09 PM 3/10/2003 +0100, you wrote:
Steve wrote:
Are you saying that K M lenses will not
Thanks for that update Michael, that would have really erked me to have
fallen into that trap again(remembers trying very hard not to use a zx-50
for a throwing object.)
Taz,
The Nikon N80 will not meter with nearly all Nikkor manual focus lenses.
Michael Cross
Arnold Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Boz wrote:
Conclusion: K and M equipment is obsolete.
K and M buyers should buy Limited equipment
(these people want good mechanical build,
and nowadays that costs money). :-(
Boz, you keep repeating the same wrong speculation, so I will quote
On March 10, 2003 12:38 pm, Taz wrote:
Surely not even Pentax can ignore the impact that Ebay has on the camera
industry. Old lenses as long as they are clean are like little gold mines.
It's a gold mine for you and me. It can't be a postive for the camera makers.
Nick
Peter wrote:
PA Well that will just piss off a lot of people after the assurance that the
PA *ist D is compatible with K/M mount lenses. I'd be considerably more pissed
PA off than I was with the cancelation of the MZ-D.
If the existing Pentax users are present in their *istD sales
Arnold Stark wrote:
Let's go to CeBit and put an end to all this speculation!
BTW: Have you seen the new design of the Pentax Germany pages at
www.pentax.de?
What ? Nudity ? Without a warning ? Without having to click I am a
consenting adult ? I am deeply offended. I will sell all my Pentax
On March 10, 2003 12:38 pm, Taz wrote:
Surely not even Pentax can ignore the impact that Ebay has on the camera
industry. Old lenses as long as they are clean are like little gold
mines.
It's a gold mine for you and me. It can't be a postive for the camera
makers.
Nick
True, but to
Alin wrote:
If the existing Pentax users are present in their *istD sales
projection then I expect them to be very, very scrupulous about
the support for K/M lenses.
Even the incompatibility of new KAF3 lenses with old cameras will
be almost inconsequential compared to the
Taz wrote:
I still say if Pentax doesn't make a body to
support these old lenses they are shooting themselves in the foot.
I think that from the manufacturers point of view it is actually the other way around.
Pentax need to give reason for consumers to stop using old lenses and start buying
Arnold wrote:
Boz, you keep repeating the same wrong speculation, so I will quote again what
Pentax USA writes:
Again I have to repeat that the *ist and ist D was designed with limitation from K and
M lenses. As the *ist D is not finalized yet, things may change. Perhaps they have
changed
Michael wrote:
The Nikon N80 will not meter with nearly all Nikkor manual focus lenses.
Not to mention how bad it works with Pentax K and M lenses...
Pål
- Original Message -
From: Taz
Subject: Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
Thanks for that update Michael, that would have really erked me to have
fallen into that trap again(remembers trying very hard not to use a zx-50
for a throwing object.)
If you want full backwards lens
- Original Message -
From: Peter Alling
Subject: Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
Well that will just piss off a lot of people after the assurance that the
*ist D is compatible with K/M mount lenses. I'd be considerably more
pissed
off than I was with the cancelation of the MZ-D
Only partial. Less than you'd see on German Billboards.
At 01:21 PM 3/10/2003 -0500, you wrote:
Arnold Stark wrote:
Let's go to CeBit and put an end to all this speculation!
BTW: Have you seen the new design of the Pentax Germany pages at
www.pentax.de?
What ? Nudity ? Without a warning ?
DUH! You would wind up doing exactly what you don't want for Pentax!
(Not being able to use old lenses on new bodies.) The deal with Nikon is
that you can get a full sized/cost body like the F100 and use all the
new AF and AI MF lenses. Get a new compact AF body (N80) and only be
able to
snip
BTW: Have you seen the new design of the Pentax Germany pages at www.pentax.de?
All the nice product-pdf to download are gone ... :.-(
Thomas
See comments below (long):
On Monday, March 10, 2003, at 02:14 PM, Pål Jensen wrote:
But then you get worse compatibility with older lenses. Frankly, I
can't see any K and M lens owner going to buy an *ist, just like they
don't buy the MZ-60.
I own three M lenses and I might buy an *ist. I
Part of that possibility is further fostered by the existing DSLR's in both
camps stables. However the *ist D appearance on the horizon has changed
that idea to a point. However my buying any DSLR at this time is not going
to happen, I'm rather trying to position myself in the best possible
Why on Earth would you hand hold 1000mm?
At 02:30 PM 3/10/03, you wrote:
I didn't appreciate before I'd tried it how much the image shakes when
you're holding 1000mm of telephoto by hand.
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
They need to tempt users to new lenses, not introduce compatibility
issues.
They would tempt me with a nice AF portrait lens. Let's see:
FA 77 - greta lens, but too short focal length
FA 85 - too expensive, a little bit short, great for indoor only
FA 100/2.8 macro -
Matt,
Three of the most recurrent expressions in Paal's writing are cheap,
entry level and flagship. Anything that's not flagship is cheap
and entry level.
cheers,
caveman
Matt Bevers wrote:
I own three M lenses and I might buy an *ist. I know that Pål insists
that the *ist is entry level
In the most recent 15 year period (1987 - 2003), Canon has had complete,
and better compatibility, than Nikon, Minolta or Pentax. The Canon EF
mount was designed to transfer information electronically and not back
fitted to do so. There is no reason to think that they will change their
mount
-Original Message-
From: Caveman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
FA 135/2.8 - nice focal length, would be great except it's
quite soft.
Huh?
I've never heard anyone make this claim. Mine was very sharp.
So where's that killer portrait lens ? I was looking hard
and my best
bet
I wrote:
Well maybe he doesn't jump to conclusion but have gotten the same information I
have. I also originally believed that the *ist and *ist D was fully compatible but
was told that only lenses with electroning contacts will work fully on the *ist.
Actually, I've received contra
Matt wrote:
If you walk into the average US camera store, you see two pentax models
on the shelf: The ZX-60 and the ZX-L. The *ist will probably take the
ZX-L's shelf space, but I just don't see people looking for a $150
camera paying $300 just because somebody claims the *ist is entry
- Original Message -
From: Caveman
Subject: Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
Matt,
Three of the most recurrent expressions in Paal's writing are cheap,
entry level and flagship. Anything that's not flagship is cheap
and entry level.
You get to choose any two of cheap, entry
Bruce wrote:
In the most recent 15 year period (1987 - 2003), Canon has had complete,
and better compatibility, than Nikon, Minolta or Pentax. The Canon EF
mount was designed to transfer information electronically and not back
fitted to do so. There is no reason to think that they will
On 03.3.10 1:35 PM, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you want it from Pentax, avoid the very bottom end models, as they are
for people who glue their lens on so they won't lose it.
No kidding! :-)
Reports from Pentax Roadshow indicate that the lens release button on *ist
(film) is
It all makes sense ... there is no middle ground. I feel much better
now.
On Monday, March 10, 2003, at 03:05 PM, Caveman wrote:
Matt,
Three of the most recurrent expressions in Paal's writing are cheap,
entry level and flagship. Anything that's not flagship is
cheap and entry level.
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:08:22 -0500, Bruce Rubenstein wrote:
In the most recent 15 year period (1987 - 2003), Canon has had complete,
and better compatibility, than Nikon, Minolta or Pentax. The Canon EF
mount was designed to transfer information electronically and not back
fitted to do so.
On 03.3.10 2:40 PM, Matt Bevers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I own three M lenses and I might buy an *ist. I know that Pål insists
that the *ist is entry level and therefore in the same class as the
MZ-60 (despite the fact that at BH the *ist is $299 and the MZ-60
$149). There are, however, a
On Monday, March 10, 2003, at 03:15 PM, Pål Jensen wrote:
The MZ/ZX series is 8 years old. According to Pentax sources and
official info in Japan, Pentax regards the *ist as entry level. It was
not my invention. The *ist is the first in a new generation of Pentax
bodies.
Are all the new
tom wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Caveman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
FA 135/2.8 - nice focal length, would be great except it's
quite soft.
Huh?
I've never heard anyone make this claim. Mine was very sharp.
I was reading Stan Halpin's site, Yoshihiko's comments and the photodo
MTF
No where did I say never. It has proven to be the most forward looking
mount. The lens mount doesn't have to be changed for a lens with smaller
area of coverage. Anyway, it's Canon and they can pretty much call
whatever tune they like.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruce wrote:
In the most
Doug Brewer said:
Why on Earth would you hand hold 1000mm?
At 02:30 PM 3/10/03, you wrote:
I didn't appreciate before I'd tried it how much the image shakes when
you're holding 1000mm of telephoto by hand.
All the usual reasons. Faster maneuvering, faster setup time when I go
from a
KT Takeshita wrote:
1. *ist is indeed an entry level body. It has to be considered a PS
camera with a mirror box(!).
That's great news. It hints that Pentax has abandoned the idea of using
plastic lens mount.
BTW, which company was the first to manufacture cameras with plastic
lens mounts ?
And here we go again
Pål Jensen schrieb:
I also originally believed that the *ist and *ist D was fully
compatible but was told that only lenses with electroning contacts will
work fully on the *ist.
Well, of course you need electronic contacts to have the camera works
fully with the
-Original Message-
From: Caveman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
tom wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Caveman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
FA 135/2.8 - nice focal length, would be great except it's
quite soft.
Huh?
I've never heard anyone make this claim. Mine was very
On March 10, 2003 03:40 pm, KT Takeshita wrote:
According to Pentax;
1. *ist is indeed an entry level body. It has to be considered a PS
camera with a mirror box(!).
To be honest I don't care what they call it-)) Call it a moose if they want.
If it fits my needs then it's my flagship.
- Original Message -
From: Caveman
Subject: Film *ist (was Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?)
BTW, which company was the first to manufacture cameras with plastic
lens mounts ? They really deserve the first place in the Infamous Top
10 list.
I think that was Canon
I don't actually care about the focus ring, I intend to use it as an AF
lens anyway. What bothered me was the doubt that it ain't sharp. I was
thinking of getting the FA 100/3.5 as an you can't get wrong at that
price substitute. Any info on the 100/3.5 macro that could decide me to
go in
Subject: Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
All the usual reasons. Faster maneuvering, faster setup time when I go
from a shorter lens to 1000mm, one less thing to carry, especially when
I'm mainly going from point A to point B and bring a camera along for
opportunity shots.
On the IS issue
On 03.3.10 4:28 PM, Nick Zentena [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. *ist is indeed an entry level body. It has to be considered a PS
camera with a mirror box(!).
To be honest I don't care what they call it-)) Call it a moose if they want.
If it fits my needs then it's my flagship.
Some people
I'm assuming you want usable (sharp) shots from 1000mm. Hand-holding it
won't result in usable shots.
The single most important purchase you can make if you want to shoot
birdies, which I seem to recall is your ambition, is a good tripod.
Holding up 1000mm requires a hefty tripod.
At 04:04
Arnold wrote:
You write as if this were fact., however there is not a single proof
that things are as you say. On the other hand we do have Pentax press
releases claiming the compatibilty of the *ist with K lenses, and I have
been told by a good source at Pentax Germany that the *ist IS
1 - 100 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
