Mark Roberts wrote on 06.10.05 3:12:
Bah! What have the Romans ever done for us?
Well, besides the roads...
Education? Aqueducts? ;-)))
--
Balance is the ultimate good...
Best Regards
Sylwek
Tom C wrote on 06.10.05 4:37:
P*ist?
Too ambiguous :-)))
--
Balance is the ultimate good...
Best Regards
Sylwek
P. J. Alling wrote on 06.10.05 4:41:
It's like the * in *ist, it can mean anything you want it to, as long as
it begins with P...
Just like T*ist - for instance Tennisist? :-P
--
Balance is the ultimate good...
Best Regards
Sylwek
From: P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2005/10/06 Thu AM 02:34:11 GMT
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...
Must be your batteries, I find that 2500mAh AA NiMH cells equalize the
weight quite nicely.
Not mine, so I don't know. Can't
From: Sylwester Pietrzyk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2005/10/06 Thu AM 07:49:27 GMT
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...
Mark Roberts wrote on 06.10.05 3:12:
Bah! What have the Romans ever done for us?
Well, besides
On 5/10/05, Bob Shell, discombobulated, unleashed:
Nikon was the camera of choice for pros in the USA for one reason, and
one reason only, a man named Joe Ehrenreich. Ehrenreich was the best
marketer who has ever come along in the photo industry. He was the
first to think of giving camera
On 5/10/05, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:
Bah! What have the Romans ever done for us?
Well, besides the roads...
Open aperture metering?
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
Yep. If someone wrote an accurate history of the photo industry in the
USA it would be a lot more about the personalities than the products.
Prominent names would be Joe Ehrenreich, Paul Klingenstein, Henry
Froehlich, and a number of others. Henry is still living and is
President of The MAC
On Thursday, October 6, 2005, at 08:32 AM, Cotty wrote:
Bah! What have the Romans ever done for us?
Well, besides the roads...
Open aperture metering?
The Romans gave us the numbering for the Zone System.
Bob
OTOH, if you buy a new body, you just updated all your old lenses.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---
William Robb wrote:
If you have an original EOS lens, and buy a new lens, you have just
updated your AF technology.
If
On 6 Oct 2005 at 9:55, graywolf wrote:
OTOH, if you buy a new body, you just updated all your old lenses.
And if the lens was originally built using an optimised AF motor then it's
ready to utilize whatever new AF technology is embedded in the new body.
:-)
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:
Mark Roberts wrote on 06.10.05 3:12:
Bah! What have the Romans ever done for us?
Well, besides the roads...
Education? Aqueducts? ;-)))
The enduring misuse of their word decimate
by American media types, politicians, and
assorted other scoundrels? ;-)
gdr
Those types misuse words as a way of life. The problem exists only if
you don't realize that and take their statements at face value..
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---
Stephen Moore wrote:
Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:
On Wed, 5 Oct 2005, Rob Studdert wrote:
What gets me is (if you've been watching the *ist D grip thread) that the *ist
D sans grip is apparently too small for many people which is counter to the
general Pentax DSLRs are great because they're small discussions.
In addition to it being
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: Toralf Lund
Subject: Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...
Except, perhaps, you have one motor instead of one in each and every
lens? Seems more sensible to me... And if you update the motor,
you'll see an improvement
Pentax could do that, if they wanted to.
Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote on 04.10.05 12:10:
I am also wondering of it additonally ensures that the mount stays the
same.
Nikon mount negates this. You've got both - traditional screw type AF
drive and possibility
From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2005/10/05 Wed AM 04:59:16 GMT
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...
On 5 Oct 2005 at 6:48, DagT wrote:
I was referring to the fact that the 1Ds mkII is about the same size
and weight
I think it has more to do with the *ist-D's built in grip, that the size
of the camera. While I don't have any
real gripes with the grip, I do sometimes wish it were deeper like the
one on the Ds...
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 5 Oct 2005 at 6:48, DagT wrote:
I was referring to the fact that
Supposedly...
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: Tom C
Subject: Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...
PENTAX, Official camera of women, and men with small hands...
Trying to be funny at 10:35 PM PDT.
I know what they say about how foot size relates to other
P. J. Alling wrote on 05.10.05 9:43:
Pentax could do that, if they wanted to.
They did. At least in patent filed a few years ago. I have even made a PDF
from that patent, we called it KAF3 mount. It used current digital contact
for communication and powerzoom contacts to provide voltage supply
I know what they say about how foot size relates to other body parts,
does hand size work the same way?
William Robb
P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 2005.10.05 11:43:19:
Supposedly...
I've got really long fingers plus really large feet and no it doesn't :)
I wish it would,
Krisjanis Linkevics wrote on 05.10.05 12:08:
I've got really long fingers plus really large feet and no it doesn't :)
I wish it would, though :), although my SO says it's exactly the right
size :)
After reading the last posts in this thread, I'am wondering whether first
letter in PDML
I've got really long fingers plus really large feet and no it doesn't
:)
I wish it would, though :), although my SO says it's exactly the right
size :)
After reading the last posts in this thread, I'am wondering whether
first
letter in PDML abbreviation really means Pentax? :-)))
Krisjanis Linkevics wrote on 05.10.05 12:31:
I meant the *istD :) she says it's purrfect. Wants one of her own. I have
to constantly remind her that the gear really doesn't matter, that it's
all about the operator :)
Ah, so that's OK, I was thinking of foot size relates to other body parts
as
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: Tom C
Subject: Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...
PENTAX, Official camera of women, and men with small hands...
Trying to be funny at 10:35 PM PDT.
I know what they say about how foot size relates to other body parts,
does
Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:
P. J. Alling wrote on 05.10.05 9:43:
Pentax could do that, if they wanted to.
They did. At least in patent filed a few years ago. I have even made a PDF
from that patent, we called it KAF3 mount. It used current digital contact
for communication and
Toralf Lund wrote:
Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:
P. J. Alling wrote on 05.10.05 9:43:
Pentax could do that, if they wanted to.
They did. At least in patent filed a few years ago. I have even made
a PDF
from that patent, we called it KAF3 mount. It used current digital
contact
for
Toralf Lund wrote on 05.10.05 13:18:
But what if the contacts were missing? Would you still be able to do AF
the other way?
Then they'd have problems supplying power to USM motor in the lens. Minolta
has left power zoom contacts in their mount, and that's why they didn't have
any problems
Adam Maas wrote:
Toralf Lund wrote:
Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:
P
Have they really removed it, or just used the KAF mount instead of
KAF2? As far as I can tell, KAF2 has been used only for relative
higher-end cameras; KAF ones have always been produced along with
them. For instance,
Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:
Have they really removed it, or just used the KAF mount instead of KAF2?
As far as I can tell, KAF2 has been used only for relative higher-end
cameras; KAF ones have always been produced along with them. For
instance, while the MZ-5n/MZ-3 and MZ-S have KAF2 mounts,
- Original Message -
From: Toralf Lund
Subject: Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...
Except, perhaps, you have one motor instead of one in each and every
lens? Seems more sensible to me... And if you update the motor, you'll
see an improvement for *all* lenses.
If you
On 10/5/05, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Toralf Lund
Subject: Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...
If you have an original EOS lens, and buy a new lens, you have just updated
your AF technology.
If you are using a 20 year old camera
Except, perhaps, you have one motor instead of one in each and every
lens? Seems more sensible to me... And if you update the motor, you'll
see an improvement for *all* lenses.
If you have an original EOS lens, and buy a new lens, you have just
updated your AF technology.
Not really. You
On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 14:30:47 +0200, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Toralf Lund
Subject: Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...
Except, perhaps, you have one motor instead of one in each and every
lens? Seems more sensible to me... And if you
On 5 Oct 2005 at 13:30, Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:
Then they'd have problems supplying power to USM motor in the lens. Minolta
has
left power zoom contacts in their mount, and that's why they didn't have any
problems implementing their SSM lenses.
These days it would be very easy to supply
Rob Studdert wrote on 05.10.05 14:57:
These days it would be very easy to supply power and control all lens
functions
plus provide feedback using a pair of contacts, just line power over LAN (IEEE
802.3af).
Yes, but I'm not sure if contacts (other than powerzoom) on KAF2 mount can
handle
fra: Sylwester Pietrzyk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rob Studdert wrote on 05.10.05 14:57:
These days it would be very easy to supply power and control all lens
functions
plus provide feedback using a pair of contacts, just line power over LAN
(IEEE
802.3af).
Yes, but I'm not sure if
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: Toralf Lund
Subject: Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...
The most important factor is how efficienty the overall system works.
Lens driven AF is more efficient than body driven AF.
I very much doubt that this holds
On Oct 5, 2005, at 7:25 AM, Adam Maas wrote:
The most important factor is how efficienty the overall system works.
Lens driven AF is more efficient than body driven AF.
I very much doubt that this holds as a general claim.
This is a general truth in the mechanical engineering of servo
On 4 Oct 2005 at 11:59, graywolf wrote:
snip In comparison you could say Pentax uses a Hemi Motor for focusing.
Old,
big, but powerful. snip
There's no replacement for displacement...
LOL
-frank
--
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Oct 5, 2005, at 7:25 AM, Adam Maas wrote:
The most important factor is how efficienty the overall system works.
Lens driven AF is more efficient than body driven AF.
I very much doubt that this holds as a general claim.
This is a general truth in the
It's the same as the one that says that people like big motorcycles
because they like to have a beast between their legs...
Then again, there is also a theory saying that big toys may be a
compensation for small size in certain other areas...
- T
Toralf wrote:
Then again, there is also a theory saying that big toys may be a
compensation for small size in certain other areas...
Thats why you'll never see me with a Canon; their marketing is full of phallic
symbolism..
Pål
On Oct 5, 2005, at 7:59 AM, Toralf Lund wrote:
The most important factor is how efficienty the overall system
works.
Lens driven AF is more efficient than body driven AF.
I very much doubt that this holds as a general claim.
This is a general truth in the mechanical engineering of servo
Toralf wrote:
Furthermore, I suspect Canon chose in-lens motors because they had
decided that there would be no mechanical coupling whatsoever between
the lens an body, i.e. not based on AF considerations as such. May or
may not have been a good idea; that's really a different discussion.
Lucas wrote:
Currently. That still does not prove an in-lens system is better in
principle. As a simile, public radio shifted from wireless technology to
wired and back at least two times in the last 100 years...
Right. Basically Canon had no choice being stucked with the in lens motor.
Godfrey wrote:
Canon's lenses are state of the art mechanically. The ring motor USM
mounts are excellent.
Thats debatable. Some of their lenses are crap mechanically. Every Leica lens
surpass them and their best are no better than the competition from Nikon,
Minolta, Pentax and Olympus.
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: Christian
Subject: Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...
I'm not being negative about Pentax quality. I used their gear for
20 years and it always performed great. I was only clarifying what I
think Mr. Robb was referring
The only experience I have with other brands AF is when examining them in
the store. Back when I bought the PZ-1p in 97, I could not discern a
difference in AF Speed between it and any other camera I was interested in,
mainly the N90.
I think often the comparisons and judgements are a
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Oct 5, 2005, at 7:59 AM, Toralf Lund wrote:
The most important factor is how efficienty the overall system
works.
Lens driven AF is more efficient than body driven AF.
I very much doubt that this holds as a general claim.
This is a general truth in the
On Oct 5, 2005, at 9:49 AM, Toralf Lund wrote:
...
I still get a bit shaky when I hear about this high frequency
thing. And all the electric contacts are quite very likely failure
points. 21st century equipment actually has a quite annoying habit
of failing or becoming unreliable because
William wrote:
I like quality camera equipment. In 1975, I bought a Nikon F2s for
professional use. The cameras that Pentax was offering at the time
were a joke by comparison, and the F2 had been around for six years
already.
They have been consistently outclassed in real world
Pål Jensen wrote:
Lucas wrote:
Currently. That still does not prove an in-lens system is better in
principle. As a simile, public radio shifted from wireless technology to
wired and back at least two times in the last 100 years...
Right. Basically Canon had no choice being
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Oct 5, 2005, at 9:49 AM, Toralf Lund wrote:
...
No, I don't think they necessarily are that important *as such*.
Once you can move the parts precisely enough to be within the
tolerance of (in this case) the rest of the AF system, and quickly
enough for the
Toralf wrote:
I don't know much about the cameras of 1975,
I do.
I bought my first slr at that time and checked out every camera system. Nikon
was ultra conservative, crude and based on 60' technology. No one who wanted
the latest bought Nikon at that time. They sure had some respect but
Hmm... Makes me wonder why the Simon and Garfunkel song Kodachrome
mentioned having a Nikon camera...
Tom C.
From: Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 19:27
On 10/5/05, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm... Makes me wonder why the Simon and Garfunkel song Kodachrome
mentioned having a Nikon camera...
It sounded right.
Olympus, Minolta had too many syllables. What's left? Most PJ's
still used Nikon, as Canon really hadn't made it's big impact
By the same token, one might ask why the Michael Franks song, Popsicle
Toes, made quite popular by Diana Krall, mentions a Pentax camera.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Tom C
Hmm... Makes me wonder why the Simon and Garfunkel song Kodachrome
mentioned having a Nikon camera...
Tom C.
On Wednesday, October 5, 2005, at 01:20 PM, Pål Jensen wrote:
In fact, most Nikons were in fact Pentax copies apart from those
inspired by Topcon.
I've never heard that assertion before. It is completely false.
Bob
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
By the same token, one might ask why the Michael Franks song, Popsicle
Toes, made quite popular by Diana Krall, mentions a Pentax camera.
I'm now reminded of Norwegian singer-songwriter Lillebjørn Nilsen
(http://www.lillebjorn.no), who has this weird song about Nikon
On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 19:57:59 +0200, Shel Belinkoff
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
By the same token, one might ask why the Michael Franks song, Popsicle
Toes, made quite popular by Diana Krall, mentions a Pentax camera.
I think people with other brands aren't that interested in nudes. Or the
On Wednesday, October 5, 2005, at 01:57 PM, frank theriault wrote:
Pentax wasn't considered a pro camera, so of those two syllable
manufacturers, Nikon won.
And pronounced wrong at that!
Bob
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 19:27:54 +0200
Toralf wrote:
I don't know much about the cameras of 1975,
I do.
I bought my first slr at that time
Bob wrote:
On Wednesday, October 5, 2005, at 01:20 PM, Pål Jensen wrote:
In fact, most Nikons were in fact Pentax copies apart from those
inspired by Topcon.
I've never heard that assertion before. It is completely false.
Really? It is no secret that the japanese were good at
Tom wrote:
Hmm... Makes me wonder why the Simon and Garfunkel song Kodachrome
mentioned having a Nikon camera...
Nikon was the camera mans camera and the choice of pros. However, back then
the pros didn't want the latest gizmos. If you discussed with those who
wanted pro cameras they
On 10/5/05, Bob Shell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And pronounced wrong at that!
Bob
LOL
I think North America is the only place that pronounces it like Paul
Simon did in the famous song. Even in England, don't they pronounce
it Nee-kahn?
cheers,
frank
--
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept.
On 5/10/05, Pål Jensen, discombobulated, unleashed:
I've seen an EF 100 Macro where the contacts was litterally worn away
after about 2 years of use
Don't you think that would depend on the use? i get a brand new car every
3.5 years because at that point in time, it is literally worn out
On Oct 5, 2005, at 10:27 AM, Toralf Lund wrote:
Hell, this is one of the few things I've discussed here that I
actually know something about. Not really that fun having strong
opinions, then
- Are you a mechanical engineer?
- Have you assisted in the design, manufacture or servicing
On 5/10/05, frank theriault, discombobulated, unleashed:
I think North America is the only place that pronounces it like Paul
Simon did in the famous song. Even in England, don't they pronounce
it Nee-kahn?
Nikon.
Nih ' kon
Like 'the knights who say nih' and like a convicted criminal - 'con'.
On Oct 5, 2005, at 10:40 PM, Cotty wrote:
Don't you think that would depend on the use? i get a brand new car
every
3.5 years because at that point in time, it is literally worn out
from use.
Jeez Cotty, I thought that roads are that bad only in Poland ;-)
--
Best regards
Sylwek
On 5/10/05, Sylwester Pietrzyk, discombobulated, unleashed:
Jeez Cotty, I thought that roads are that bad only in Poland ;-)
Roads? Who needs roads?!?! g
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
On Oct 5, 2005, at 10:48 PM, Cotty wrote:
Roads? Who needs roads?!?! g
Almost nobody. Actually it was only a whim of ancient Romans ;-)
--
Best regards
Sylwek
On Wednesday, October 5, 2005, at 03:01 PM, Pål Jensen wrote:
Really? It is no secret that the japanese were good at copying after
the war. Not only did they copy the germans but in the 60's and 70's
they copied each other. It is also noteworthy that Nikon and Pentax
are perhaps the two
On Wednesday, October 5, 2005, at 03:04 PM, frank theriault wrote:
I think North America is the only place that pronounces it like Paul
Simon did in the famous song. Even in England, don't they pronounce
it Nee-kahn?
It's more like Nick - on. I was at a press conference at photokina
one
It also depends how you drive!
Tom C.
Don't you think that would depend on the use? i get a brand new car every
3.5 years because at that point in time, it is literally worn out from
use.
Jeez Cotty, I thought that roads are that bad only in Poland ;-)
--
Best regards
Sylwek
Bob Shell wrote:
On Wednesday, October 5, 2005, at 01:57 PM, frank theriault wrote:
Pentax wasn't considered a pro camera, so of those two syllable
manufacturers, Nikon won.
And pronounced wrong at that!
Usually is, I understand.
Pål Jensen wrote:
Nikon was the camera mans camera and the choice of pros. However, back
then the pros didn't want the latest gizmos. If you discussed with
those who wanted pro cameras they would tell you that pros couldn't
use cameras dependent on batteries and that pros didn't need meters
On 5 Oct 2005 at 10:04, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Debating against beliefs and opinions is a total waste of time.
This is the point when I drop out of the conversation too, it should get
interesting from here. Geologists arguing with programmers about cameras,
mechanics and electronics :-)
Pål Jensen wrote:
Bob wrote:
On Wednesday, October 5, 2005, at 01:20 PM, Pål Jensen wrote:
In fact, most Nikons were in fact Pentax copies apart from those
inspired by Topcon.
I've never heard that assertion before. It is completely false.
Really? It is no secret
This one time, at band camp, Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5 Oct 2005 at 10:04, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Debating against beliefs and opinions is a total waste of time.
This is the point when I drop out of the conversation too,
Oh come on, thats not the PDML way, although, I
Nikon was the camera of choice for pros in the USA for one reason, and
one reason only, a man named Joe Ehrenreich. Ehrenreich was the best
marketer who has ever come along in the photo industry. He was the
first to think of giving camera outfits to well-known photographers so
they would be
- Original Message -
From: Pål Jensen
Subject: Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...
Apart from the fact that Pentax didn't have a camera in the F2 class at
the time, the Nikon of the times was outclassed by everyone else except
Topcon. The lenses need to be set at F:5.6
- Original Message -
From: Tom C
Subject: Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...
Hmm... Makes me wonder why the Simon and Garfunkel song Kodachrome
mentioned having a Nikon camera...
Pal is in Europe. Over here, the progressive and exciting photographers were
using Nikons
- Original Message -
From: Adam Maas
Subject: Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...
3 out of 4. Canon, Nikon and KM all do Lens-driven AF (USM, AF-S, SSM)
I didn't realize KM was moving that way as well.
William Robb
- Original Message -
From: E.R.N. Reed
Subject: Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...
LX was better though ;-) with more mechanical speeds and a standard hot
shoe available in some of the finders. Nikon did produce a
not-dissimilar-to-the-LX camera, the FM3a, several
- Original Message -
From: Toralf Lund
Subject: Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...
I like quality camera equipment. In 1975, I bought a Nikon F2s for
professional use. The cameras that Pentax was offering at the time were a
joke by comparison, and the F2 had been around
- Original Message -
From: Toralf Lund
Subject: Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...
Furthermore, I suspect Canon chose in-lens motors because they had decided
that there would be no mechanical coupling whatsoever between the lens an
body, i.e. not based on AF
E.R.N. Reed wrote:
I thought what happened was the ones who said pros couldn't use
battery-dependent cameras and didn't need meters have now retired, and the new
generation insists upon USM, multipoint metering etc.
REPLY:
Not necessarily. In the days before Nikon offered USM, Nikon users
- Original Message -
From: Pål Jensen
Subject: Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...
I thought what happened was the ones who said pros couldn't use
battery-dependent cameras and didn't need meters have now retired, and the
new generation insists upon USM, multipoint
And maintain it.
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 5:01 PM
Subject: Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...
It also depends how you drive!
Tom C.
Don't you think that would
E.R.N. Reed wrote:
Additionally, the Nikon F100 is a *lot* like the PZ-1p, only a few years later
and with the added technology those few years brought. The main difference
seems to be that everybody and their dawg knew about the F100 when it came out,
and they still haven't heard of the
William wrote:
It is immaterial whether they could, or couldn't, or anything else.
In the mid 1960s. they made world class cameras, as good as just about
anything else out there.
By the early 1970s, they had been left in the dust by their competition.
Really? The ES and ESII was at time
PROTECTED]
To: Pentax Discuss pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 8:30 AM
Subject: Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...
Sure, but you have quite likely updated some of the control circuitry and
are taking advantage of improvements in AF motor technology. If you have
- Original Message -
From: Pål Jensen
Subject: Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...
William wrote:
It is immaterial whether they could, or couldn't, or anything else.
In the mid 1960s. they made world class cameras, as good as just about
anything else out
- Original Message -
From: Pål Jensen
Subject: Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...
Actually, the Nikon F/N 90 is more similar. The Nikon predated the Pentax.
Howewver, the Pentax mount doesn't flex with a 80-200/2.8 lens (see user
comments on photo.net) like the Nikon
That left more for the rest of us, silly man.
I don't like the Z1p either.
William Robb
Pål Jensen wrote:
E.R.N. Reed wrote:
Additionally, the Nikon F100 is a *lot* like the PZ-1p, only a few years later and with the added technology those few years brought. The main difference seems to be that everybody and their dawg knew about the F100 when it came out, and they still
Really? They had interchagable prisms and screens?
pentax had interchangeble finders in their very first asahiflex. so
had russian zenit.
apparently f100 and f6 don't. so?
They had shutter preferred auto?
does F2 have? mine surely doesn't.
I presume the light meter was visible without
Sylwester Pietrzyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 5, 2005, at 10:48 PM, Cotty wrote:
Roads? Who needs roads?!?! g
Almost nobody. Actually it was only a whim of ancient Romans ;-)
Bah! What have the Romans ever done for us?
Well, besides the roads...
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and
So they didn't want to, unfortunately.
Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:
P. J. Alling wrote on 05.10.05 9:43:
Pentax could do that, if they wanted to.
They did. At least in patent filed a few years ago. I have even made a PDF
from that patent, we called it KAF3 mount. It used current
1 - 100 of 419 matches
Mail list logo
