graywolf wrote:
The ideal format for landscapes is at least 20x24. However most
landscape photographers are wimps, and refuse to backpack one of them
about. GRIN
You know someone alive today who's not a wimp? Grinning too
Jostein
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
On Sep 29, 2006, at 1:54 AM, Jostein Øksne wrote:
On a completely different track, I think that a outdoor-friendly
MedF-D will actually compete with stitching software when it comes to
landscapes.
It certainly would from my point of view. I'm never going to bother
with stitching when I
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Canada is a big country.
I _so_ want to say the M word.
-
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006, William Robb wrote:
Thanks for the link, but not many people consider the internet as a
place to buy batteries.
Is that the same people that will shell out 1,000 USD for a DSLR and
lens?
Kostas
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006, John Celio wrote:
Whatever...
So eloquent!
Even better, he quoted your whole message underneath.
Kostas
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006, Paul Crovella wrote:
Adam Maas wrote:
Pentax lenses, which are in lower supply and demand, have a restricted
number of sellers
Adam, yes, *that* is supply and demand. The supply is low and while the
demand isn't huge, it's big enough in relation to supply to keep prices
Adam Maas wrote:
The costs aren't due to limited supply of
lenses compared to demand, but due to the inherently higher costs of
doing short production runs and higher per-unit profit requirements to
make the product viable.
Mike J wrote very cogently about this just a couple of weeks ago:
Mark Roberts wrote:
Adam Maas wrote:
The costs aren't due to limited supply of
lenses compared to demand, but due to the inherently higher costs of
doing short production runs and higher per-unit profit requirements to
make the product viable.
Mike J wrote very cogently about this
Non-alakaline AAs are the lowest common denominators. I've even used those
in a pinch. :-)
Tom C.
From: K.Takeshita [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Interview w/Pentax exec
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 20
The existence of Lithium AAs blows away their theory. Cheap, light,
durable, easy-care (actually non-care), with half a decade of
shelf-life.
True, but Pentax have to assume that customers might use AA Alkalines
and claim that things won't work. They could specify not to use
Alkalines
The DA18-55 and DA50-200 are definitely lower spec on build if not
performance.
When Pop Photo reviewed the Samsung version of the DA 50-200, they said
that in some ways it outperforms some constant F2.8 telezooms. But they
wondered if it will retain that performance, or if the optical elements
On Sep 29, 2006, at 10:25 AM, Joseph Tainter wrote:
The DA18-55 and DA50-200 are definitely lower spec on build if not
performance.
When Pop Photo reviewed the Samsung version of the DA 50-200, they
said
that in some ways it outperforms some constant F2.8 telezooms. But
they
wondered
http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=002KFdtag=
Sabastio Salgado also uses a 645
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi
I'm not sure about that, Rob. I seem to recall at least three photo
books published in the past 12 months which listed in the technical
credits
Thanks for posting this, Ken.
Things seem to be looking up for Pentax. It's nice to know that staff
motivation is one of the driveing forces in the company. Afterall, it's
often people, rather than organizations the create progress.
regards
Jens
Jens Bladt
http://www.jensbladt.dk
+45 56 63 77 11
They are certainly in the Boone store.
--
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: P. J. Alling
Subject: Re: Interview w/Pentax exec
: Interview w/Pentax exec
The ideal format for landscapes is at least 20x24. However most
landscape photographers are wimps, and refuse to backpack one of them
about. GRIN
I would like to get an 11x14, since this is the size of print I tend to
make most of the time.
I always wondered why 5x7
On 28/09/06, Gonz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Its pretty clear that Pentax does not have the either the resources or
the incentive to pull off a FF camera.
First of all it would require two different lens lines, one for the
smaller image circle, one for the larger. Even Canon, with their much
On 27/9/06, K.Takeshita, discombobulated, unleashed:
(quoting Head Honcho)
Q. K series digital is the main line, right?
A. K series digital will continue to high end.
Q. Does that mean the MF (645) Digital?
A. No. It is going to be the K mount. But I wish to pre-empt you.
High-end does not
While you may be right, Rob, we'll really have to wait and see. It's quite
possible Samsung money has been very helpful to Pentax, and will continue
to be over some time. There's clearly a market for the larger format
digital cameras ... I don't know if it's where Pentax should be or not,
but,
On 28/9/06, Gonz, discombobulated, unleashed:
Its pretty clear that Pentax does not have the either the resources or
the incentive to pull off a FF camera.
Course it does Gonz. What it does not have is the customers to buy it.
That became clear after the demise of the LX.
--
Cheers,
Cotty
On 27/9/06, John Celio, discombobulated, unleashed:
I've yet to see a wide-angle shot taken with
a FF sensor that doesn't have soft or dark edges and corners.
Sorry John, but this sentence is meaningless.
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 08:39:09 +0100, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 27/9/06, John Celio, discombobulated, unleashed:
I've yet to see a wide-angle shot taken with
a FF sensor that doesn't have soft or dark edges and corners.
Sorry John, but this sentence is meaningless.
Cotters,
Your
Pentax's pro users have been largely medium format for many years.
Whether they can retain a share of this market is uncertain, but they
probably have a better chance in MF than in pro grade FF SLR.
Paul
On Sep 28, 2006, at 3:16 AM, Digital Image Studio wrote:
On 28/09/06, Gonz [EMAIL
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006, Digital Image Studio wrote:
On 28/09/06, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seriously, if you're sure Pentax can't meet your needs, why not
switch now? If you're not going to stick with Pentax, money spent on
the K10D will be wasted. I can understand someone wanting
On 28/09/06, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pentax's pro users have been largely medium format for many years.
Whether they can retain a share of this market is uncertain, but they
probably have a better chance in MF than in pro grade FF SLR.
I understand where you're coming from Paul
Joseph Tainter wrote:
Going to 12MP from 10 will be an even smaller step than going to 8MP
from 6, so they'll have to throw lots of other nice stuff into the
equation :) I'm thinking cast magnesium chassis, higher frame-rate, CF
and SD cards, bluetooth, etc. grin
-
This is a puzzle.
John Forbes wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 08:39:09 +0100, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 27/9/06, John Celio, discombobulated, unleashed:
I've yet to see a wide-angle shot taken with
a FF sensor that doesn't have soft or dark edges and corners.
Sorry John, but this sentence is meaningless.
I will argue with that. MF users are: a. Wedding Photographers many who
have gone digital, but some of them are actually going back to film; and
b. Studio Photographers who have probably only gone 50% digital, some of
them actually shoot digital and film in parallel. Actually the only area
The vast majority of upper echelon commercial photographers are
shooting digital. Some who do a lot of location work and went to the
full frame Canons early on may well be upgrading soon to 20 to 30
megapixel MF.
On Sep 28, 2006, at 8:15 AM, graywolf wrote:
I will argue with that. MF users
of these on price, but not sure
how many.
Just my 2c
Rob
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
graywolf
Sent: 28 September 2006 13:15
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Interview w/Pentax exec
I will argue with that. MF users are: a. Wedding
: Interview w/Pentax exec
I will argue with that. MF users are: a. Wedding Photographers many who
have gone digital, but some of them are actually going back to film; and
b. Studio Photographers who have probably only gone 50% digital, some of
them actually shoot digital and film in parallel
I thought the angle of light affected things like chromatic aberration.
Are you saying that some light just bounces off the filter on the sensor
and never gets recorded at all?
John
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 13:19:21 +0100, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Forbes wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep
On 9/28/06, John Celio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've yet to see a wide-angle shot taken with
a FF sensor that doesn't have soft or dark edges and corners.
Nate says that this is how wide-angle lenses behave on film bodies
anyway, and he enjoys it because it is more of a film-like experience.
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Interview w/Pentax exec
On 9/28/06, John Celio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've yet to see a wide-angle shot taken with
a FF sensor that doesn't have soft or dark edges and corners.
Nate says that this is how wide-angle lenses behave on film bodies
- Original Message -
From: Rob Brigham
Subject: RE: Interview w/Pentax exec
Add to that list:
C. Landscape photographers -
I shot some landscapes this last trip with my istD that I normally think
of as large format type pictures.
They looked great on the computer screeen, not so
Adam Maas wrote:
1/250 flash sync, 1/8000 shutter,
Oh yes, I'd forgotten flash sync and shutter speed!
5-8fps, buffer of at least 20 RAW's, all shooting controls on
physical buttons,
I'd love the controls to work that way.
~2500mAh battery, (hopefully) an aperture simulator,
Nope,
On 28/09/06, John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I thought the angle of light affected things like chromatic aberration.
Are you saying that some light just bounces off the filter on the sensor
and never gets recorded at all?
CA is exaggerated due to the Bayer topology of the sensor, some
On 28/09/06, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The more pronounced the difference will beI don't think this is
A fault of FF DSLRS whatsoever
No it's simply an exaggeration by the cheerleaders of the APS formats.
The APS digital format was something I never asked for or really
Op Thu, 28 Sep 2006 15:11:20 +0200 schreef John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I thought the angle of light affected things like chromatic aberration.
Are you saying that some light just bounces off the filter on the sensor
and never gets recorded at all?
No. The light-sensitive part of the sensor
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
I have never used ANY wide angle lens on film (24mm equiv or wider)
On ANY film format (35mm thru 8x10) that didn't have softer corners
And edges than in the center. That is simply the nature/physics
Of optics. Even the very best W.A. optics always perform better in
, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Rob Brigham
Subject: RE: Interview w/Pentax exec
Add to that list:
C. Landscape photographers -
I shot some landscapes this last trip with my istD that I normally think
of as large format type pictures.
They looked
The currenly widest lens in the 645 lineup is the 35mm, which is very
good. I don't think there needs to be more than two lenses added on
the wide side; a prime at say, 28mm, and a WA zoom to match.
That said, I believe both the 45mm and the 55mm will need to be
replaced for quality issues (the
Can't they stick with AA NiMH rechargeables (why do we need *another*
dedicated battery?) and make it compatible with CF cards, too (the SD
cards are just too small and easy to misplace) ??? Please!
Tom Lesser
Frederick MD
And YES, YES, YES to the things below:
On Sep 28, 2006, at 8:15 AM,
On 28/09/06, Lucas Rijnders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The obvious solution would be to do away with these cavities, and have the
photosensitive part of the sensor flush with the surface. Apparently this
is not feasible or desireable. Does anyone know why?
Very very basically, there has to be
Mark Roberts wrote:
Adam Maas wrote:
1/250 flash sync, 1/8000 shutter,
Oh yes, I'd forgotten flash sync and shutter speed!
5-8fps, buffer of at least 20 RAW's, all shooting controls on
physical buttons,
I'd love the controls to work that way.
~2500mAh battery, (hopefully)
Thanks for the education, all who replied.
I may not be wiser, but I am better informed.
John
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 14:48:49 +0100, Digital Image Studio
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 28/09/06, Lucas Rijnders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The obvious solution would be to do away with these
On 28/09/06, Rob Brigham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Add to that list:
C. Landscape photographers - many of whom havent gone digital because (I
think) most MedF solutions need to be tethered to a PC, need mains
power, or are just too bulky to use in the field. Some of these may have
gone
Gonz wrote:
Second, in body SR is not going to work in the FF because of image
circle limitations. Canon has the upper hand here because of the lens
based IS, which is independent of the sensor size. But have you priced
an IS lens lately?
Interesting question.
from BH Photo:
Canon
On 9/28/06 9:59 AM, Tom Lesser, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can't they stick with AA NiMH rechargeables (why do we need *another*
dedicated battery?)
Someone is Japan asked Pentax on this and he got a fairly detailed reply.
Unfortunately, I do not remember all of it, but essentially;
1. It was
I'd pay $500 more for a FF sensor body at 12MP.
Tom C.
From: Joseph Tainter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Interview w/Pentax exec
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 20:13:06 -0700
Going to 12MP from 10 will be an even smaller step than
On 28/9/06, John Forbes, discombobulated, unleashed:
Your experience might differ, but the sentence is not meaningless.
Yes it is.
Let's take a look at it in detail.
I've yet to see a wide-angle shot taken with
a FF sensor that doesn't have soft or dark edges and corners.
Right, I have some
I'd pay $500 more for wireless via RTF!!!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Tom C
Sent: 28 September 2006 16:38
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Interview w/Pentax exec
I'd pay $500 more for a FF sensor body at 12MP.
Tom C.
From
I'm yet to be convinced that the Pentax DA lens line is real quality glass
like the FA and older Pentax primes. They strike me as being cheap, light,
and plastic. I have not read or seen any real scientific lens tests on
them. I have not heard anything other than anecdotal subjective opinions
The DA 12-24 is excellent, and for $900 it should be. I don't shoot brick
walls, I make photographs, so I don't have scientific evidence. But I know a
good photo when I see one.
Paul
-- Original message --
From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm yet to be convinced
Substitute FF for 645 in your discussion above. They 645 is the camera
that should not have been developing, the resources that is has
consumed could have been better utilized in serving Pentax's core SLR
market.
Exactly. Why are you always so negative Rob? :-)
Tom C.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Digital Image Studio
Sent: September 27, 2006 8:32 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Interview w/Pentax exec
I've got no idea if his expectations are unrealistic but I've read and
seen enough
On 27/9/06, John Celio, discombobulated, unleashed:
I've yet to see a wide-angle shot taken with
a FF sensor that doesn't have soft or dark edges and corners.
Sorry John, but this sentence is meaningless.
Cheers,
Cotty
Some people here would prefer to totally ignore the very very
You're equating a person's account of first hand experience with
unsupported conjecture.
Cotty wrote:
On 28/9/06, John Forbes, discombobulated, unleashed:
I've yet to see a wide-angle shot taken with
a FF sensor that doesn't have soft or dark edges and corners.
snip /
The sentence is as
On Sep 28, 2006, at 4:45 AM, Digital Image Studio wrote:
I understand where you're coming from Paul but I sincerely expect that
any pro who used Pentax medium format equipment has likely moved on to
a new digital system of some type. I can't help but believe that the
vast majority of Pentax
pixels for the
entire image when printed at 4X6.
My 2 cents.
Tom C.
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Interview w/Pentax exec
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 07:12:46 -0600
- Original Message
No it's simply an exaggeration by the cheerleaders of the APS formats.
The APS digital format was something I never asked for or really ever
appreciated.
--
Some of these guys wear dresses?
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Some of the DA glass is quite good, although I've not done direct
comparisons between some lenses and their FA and earlier equivalents (like
the DA 14/2.8 and the A15/3.5). Some, contrary to what others here say,
seem to be over rated, or better suited for some types of photography or
images than
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Sep 28, 2006, at 4:45 AM, Digital Image Studio wrote:
I understand where you're coming from Paul but I sincerely expect that
any pro who used Pentax medium format equipment has likely moved on to
a new digital system of some type. I can't help but believe that the
Interesting question.
from BH Photo:
Canon 300/2.8 ISUS$3900 (in stock)
Pentax FA 300/2.8 non-is $US4550 (accepting orders)
Don't let the cat out of the bag now,
Tom C.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
I agree 176% .
Tom C.
From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: pentax list PDML@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Interview w/Pentax exec
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 16:46:13 +0100
On 28/9/06, John Forbes, discombobulated, unleashed:
Your experience might differ
Very very basically, there has to be depth to the photo sensor, that's
the nature of current sensor technology and if they removed the
condenser lens then the sensitivity would fall as not all of the pixel
area is light sensitive. They can however offset the condenser lenses
(as they have done in
I'm expecting a higher price, probably $2000-2500. But I'm hoping for a
real _FLAGSHIP_ like the LX, which is competetive with the other
flasgships not a semi-pro body masquerading as one like the PZ-1p and MZ-S.
-Adam
I'm wishing not expecting, but I'm with you.
Tom C.
--
PDML
@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Interview w/Pentax exec
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 09:28:56 -0700
Some of the DA glass is quite good, although I've not done direct
comparisons between some lenses and their FA and earlier equivalents (like
the DA 14/2.8 and the A15/3.5
At 10:19 AM -0600 9/28/06, Tom C wrote:
No it's simply an exaggeration by the cheerleaders of the APS formats.
The APS digital format was something I never asked for or really ever
appreciated.
--
Some of these guys wear dresses?
Little short ones? And carry pom-poms?
--
Steve Sharpe
[EMAIL
Scientific evidence is forthcoming. Your patience will be rewarded. :)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm yet to be convinced that the Pentax DA lens line is real quality glass
like the FA and older Pentax primes. They strike me as being cheap, light,
and plastic. I have not read or seen any
On 9/28/06, Gonz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scientific evidence is forthcoming. Your patience will be rewarded. :)
Science is overrated.
cheers,
frank
--
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
In a message dated 9/27/2006 5:24:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Q. Specifically how are you going to increase the lens lineup?
A. In the new lens road map, 10 lenses are shown, which will become
available in 2007. However, we know these are too small a number. We are
First, what do you see wrong?
It seems to me that if the ideal format for landscapes is some large format
(4x5, 5x7) then the digital equivalent should also be a format
substantially larger than APS-C or perhaps even 645. I've seen some
gorgeous work made with larger format digi backs.
Shel
Steve Sharpe wrote:
At 10:19 AM -0600 9/28/06, Tom C wrote:
No it's simply an exaggeration by the cheerleaders of the APS formats.
The APS digital format was something I never asked for or really ever
appreciated.
Some of these guys wear dresses?
Little short ones? And carry
So is everything else...
frank theriault wrote:
On 9/28/06, Gonz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scientific evidence is forthcoming. Your patience will be rewarded. :)
Science is overrated.
cheers,
frank
--
Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler.
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 20:26:54 +0200, P. J. Alling
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So is everything else...
Like full frame?
--
grin, duck and run,
Lucas
frank theriault wrote:
On 9/28/06, Gonz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scientific evidence is forthcoming. Your patience will be rewarded.
:)
On 9/28/06 1:26 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am very glad to hear they realize they need more new lenses. This was my
one major concern in switching back. Of course, talk is one thing, and actual
production is another, but it does sound like they are committed to improving
On 9/28/06, Gonz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scientific evidence is forthcoming. Your patience will be
rewarded. :)
Science is overrated.
Prove it!
Bob
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
On Sep 28, 2006, at 10:58 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Steve Sharpe wrote:
At 10:19 AM -0600 9/28/06, Tom C wrote:
No it's simply an exaggeration by the cheerleaders of the APS
formats.
The APS digital format was something I never asked for or really
ever
appreciated.
Some of these guys
Similarly, both the DA14 and DA21 impress me as much as the FA77,
FA50/1.4 and FA35/2 ... excellent performers, very high quality feel,
etc. These are premium lenses.
The DA18-55 and DA50-200 are definitely lower spec on build if not
performance.
Godfrey
On Sep 28, 2006, at 8:57 AM,
The 18-55 is simply the best cheap kit lens I've seen since the early
(SMC-F) AF era. It's better built, better spec'd and better performing
than anything the competition is selling for similar money. Only the
Nikon 18-70 outperforms it, and that costs 2x as much (And really is far
too much of
- Original Message -
From: Tom C
Subject: Re: Interview w/Pentax exec
Interesting question.
from BH Photo:
Canon 300/2.8 ISUS$3900 (in stock)
Pentax FA 300/2.8 non-is $US4550 (accepting orders)
Don't let the cat out of the bag now,
Some time ago (probably close to 15 years
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Sep 28, 2006, at 10:58 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Steve Sharpe wrote:
At 10:19 AM -0600 9/28/06, Tom C wrote:
No it's simply an exaggeration by the cheerleaders of the APS
formats.
The APS digital format was something I never asked for or really
ever
- Original Message -
From: Jostein Øksne
Subject: Re: Interview w/Pentax exec
Bill,
The K10D may give you 500 more pixels. The 645D is another matter. :-)
I'm not saying that this will be the layout of the chip, but consider
the longest side on *istD sensor: 3000 pixels. Divide
Quite likely I would think... either scenario... economy of scale or
subsidization.
Tom C.
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Interview w/Pentax exec
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 13:31:22
- Original Message -
From: Shel Belinkoff
Subject: Re: Interview w/Pentax exec
First, what do you see wrong?
Tonality and detail are the biggies that jump out at me when looking at
a print made from the DSLR.
It seems to me that if the ideal format for landscapes is some large
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 09:49:53AM -0400, Mark Roberts wrote:
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
I have never used ANY wide angle lens on film (24mm equiv or wider)
On ANY film format (35mm thru 8x10) that didn't have softer corners
And edges than in the center. That is simply the nature/physics
William Robb wrote:
I haven't shot with 645 for a very long time, and didn't do much with it
for landscapes, but I have shot a lot of landscapes with 6x7, which uses
moderately longer focal lengths for similar angle of view.
With medium format depth of field is a huge problem, I just can't
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006, K.Takeshita wrote:
Now, they said their concern was on Alkaline which indicates that NiMH
might do, but considering that the whole purpose of going for AA's was the
wide availability of non-rechargeable batteries, I can understand why Pentax
played safe on this.
The
William Robb wrote:
from BH Photo:
Canon 300/2.8 ISUS$3900 (in stock)
Pentax FA 300/2.8 non-is $US4550 (accepting orders)
Some time ago (probably close to 15 years), a friend was looking to get
an 80-200/2.8 lens. He was a long time Pentax user, but he found when
pricing things
On 9/28/06, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do they hang around the Isle of Man thinking about nudity?
I cut down trees. I skip and jump.
I like to press wild flowers.
I put on women's clothing
And hang around in bars.
cheers,
the Canadian Lumberjack
--
Sharpness is a bourgeois
On Sep 28, 2006, at 12:41 PM, keith_w wrote:
OMG! You've already picked up on the accent!
when you come back, we'll have the devil's time recognizing you!
And, what with the blue skin and all...
LOL ... It kinda grows on you ... the accent that is. I've spent a
few weeks of the year here
Second, in body SR is not going to work in the FF because of image
circle limitations. Canon has the upper hand here because of the lens
based IS, which is independent of the sensor size. But have you priced
an IS lens lately?
Interesting question.
from BH Photo:
Canon 300/2.8 IS
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006, K.Takeshita wrote:
Now, they said their concern was on Alkaline which indicates that NiMH
might do, but considering that the whole purpose of going for AA's was the
wide availability of non-rechargeable batteries, I can understand why Pentax
- Original Message -
From: Kostas Kavoussanakis
Subject: Re: Interview w/Pentax exec
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006, K.Takeshita wrote:
Now, they said their concern was on Alkaline which indicates that
NiMH
might do, but considering that the whole purpose of going for AA's
was the
wide
On Sep 28, 2006, at 12:37 PM, William Robb wrote:
First, what do you see wrong?
Tonality and detail are the biggies that jump out at me when
looking at
a print made from the DSLR.
I can't see that tonality is any problem at all: although it takes a
fair bit of rendering skill and work,
On Sep 28, 2006, at 1:34 PM, frank theriault wrote:
Do they hang around the Isle of Man thinking about nudity?
I cut down trees. I skip and jump.
I like to press wild flowers.
I put on women's clothing
And hang around in bars.
cheers,
the Canadian Lumberjack
Canadians are a proud
Last time I spoke to Clint, he was shooting with full-frame Canons almost
exclusively. However, there are a lot of commercial photographers who shoot
large format digital in the studio.
Paul
-- Original message --
From: Jostein Øksne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
William
John Celio wrote:
They can afford to charge more for Pentax because they're not such hot
sellers.
You're saying BH works opposite the principle of supply and demand?
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
On 9/28/06 4:27 PM, Kostas Kavoussanakis, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The existence of Lithium AAs blows away their theory. Cheap, light,
durable, easy-care (actually non-care), with half a decade of
shelf-life.
True, but Pentax have to assume that customers might use AA Alkalines and
claim
1 - 100 of 176 matches
Mail list logo
