Op Wed, 13 Sep 2006 00:05:42 +0200 schreef K.Takeshita
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
snip
When gazing at the picture of the K10D with a lens attached, mounting
surface does not appear visible (lens looks like attached close to body
surface). If that's the case, as someone pointed out, only new lenses
O ring seals that caused the Challenger to explode...
(Sort of non sequitur in this context thought).
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 9/12/2006 12:25:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From the diagram in Steve's digicam, lens mount appears to have an O ring
Actually, it was the lack of them that caused it (Seal failure).
-Adam
P. J. Alling wrote:
O ring seals that caused the Challenger to explode...
(Sort of non sequitur in this context thought).
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 9/12/2006 12:25:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
On Sep 13, 2006, at 12:10, P. J. Alling wrote:
O ring seals that caused the Challenger to explode...
(Sort of non sequitur in this context thought).
Well incorrectly-used O-ring seals, in any case. They were being
asked to do much more than an o-ring ought to do.
-Charles
--
On 9/12/06, Mike Hamilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shel, I wasn't complaining by any stretch!
snip
You were so!
Stop tapdancing.
cheers,
frank
g
--
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
What is the purpose of a weather sealed body without any sealed
lenses? I imagine that the two upcoming lenses (16-50/2.8 being one)
will be weather sealed. If so, that's going to be an expensive lens,
given the super-sonic motor and fast aperture... Perhaps Pentax's
most expensive zoom
Where has that be said ... can you provide a pointer?
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Thibouille
16-50/2.8 is said to be about 1000 dollars.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
that announced anywhere?
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Mike Hamilton
What is the purpose of a weather sealed body without any sealed
lenses? I imagine that the two upcoming lenses (16-50/2.8 being one)
will be weather sealed. If so, that's going to be an expensive lens,
given the super-sonic motor
16-50/2.8 is said to be about 1000 dollars.
2006/9/12, Mike Hamilton [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
What is the purpose of a weather sealed body without any sealed
lenses? I imagine that the two upcoming lenses (16-50/2.8 being one)
will be weather sealed. If so, that's going to be an expensive lens
I remember it being said before on this list... '-)
G
On Sep 12, 2006, at 9:44 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Where has that be said ... can you provide a pointer?
16-50/2.8 is said to be about 1000 dollars.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
Mail List
Subject: RE: Weather-sealed body
Y'gotta start somewhere.
You've won the prize for being the first person to complain about the new
camera. I wondered how long it would take before complaints and criticisms
started.
What makes you think the upcoming 16-50/2.8 will have a super-sonic
On Sep 12, 2006, at 9:11 AM, Mike Hamilton wrote:
What is the purpose of a weather sealed body without any sealed
lenses? I imagine that the two upcoming lenses (16-50/2.8 being one)
will be weather sealed. ...
I fully expect that if they have gone the distance to a weather
sealed body
On 9/12/06 12:36 PM, Thibouille, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
16-50/2.8 is said to be about 1000 dollars.
2006/9/12, Mike Hamilton [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
What is the purpose of a weather sealed body without any sealed
lenses? I imagine that the two upcoming lenses (16-50/2.8 being one
Mike Hamilton wrote:
What is the purpose of a weather sealed body without any sealed
lenses? I imagine that the two upcoming lenses (16-50/2.8 being one)
will be weather sealed. If so, that's going to be an expensive lens,
given the super-sonic motor and fast aperture... Perhaps Pentax's
will have a super-sonic motor
- I don't recall seeing that announced anywhere?
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Mike Hamilton
What is the purpose of a weather sealed body without any sealed
lenses? I imagine that the two upcoming lenses (16-50/2.8 being one)
will be weather sealed
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 10:11:26AM -0600, Mike Hamilton wrote:
What is the purpose of a weather sealed body without any sealed
lenses? I imagine that the two upcoming lenses (16-50/2.8 being one)
will be weather sealed. If so, that's going to be an expensive lens,
given the super-sonic motor
Actually, I do enjoy all the discussion and anticipation that surrounds
rumors. More interesting reading than some purely technical discussions,
such as how many photons can fit on the head of a pixel LOL
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Tim Øsleby
Rumours and/or documents being circulated
On 9/12/06 12:44 PM, Shel Belinkoff, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Where has that be said ... can you provide a pointer?
There are all sorts of info floating around, accurate or false, but I do not
think people are posting the complete fabrication etc. Each person must
have reasons to tell things
From the diagram in Steve's digicam, lens mount appears to have an O ring
type seal.
Ken
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
My mistake just seemed that way from here ... glad to know that you
weren't 'cause the prize is on back order LOL
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Mike Hamilton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Date: 9/12/2006 10:31:49 AM
Subject: Re: RE: Weather-sealed body
I didn't deny the presence of that, just questioned where/what the source
was.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Mike Hamilton
As for the SSM, that was based on the speculation that has been
circulating the list for some time. Aside from you, has anyone denied
the presence of that?
--
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Mike Hamilton wrote:
replacing the fairly recent 16-45/4 lens with a 16-50/2.8 (aside from
the minor aperture and focal length differences). Don't you think?
Minor? Pentax had a 28-70/4 and a 28-70/2.8 selling at the same time
in the recent past. I can't believe one was
On 12/9/06, K.Takeshita, discombobulated, unleashed:
From the diagram in Steve's digicam, lens mount appears to have an O ring
type seal.
Indeed it does. That's interesting. Canon put the seal on the back of
the lenses (L). With the K10D you can seal camera to any lens.
(calm down, I'm not
--- Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Indeed it does. That's interesting. Canon put the
seal on the back of the lenses (L). With the K10D you
can seal camera to any lens.
I'm not so sure about that.
I think you will find that the 1-series D-SLRs (and
the EOS-1V) have gaskets on the lens mount,
In a message dated 9/12/2006 12:25:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From the diagram in Steve's digicam, lens mount appears to have an O ring
type seal.
Indeed it does. That's interesting. Canon put the seal on the back of
the lenses (L). With the K10D you can seal camera
On 9/12/06 4:32 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please clarify. I clueless about what an O ring type seal is.
O ring is usually made of rubber (for most low presure applications.
sometimes a thin tubular metal etc) with a circular cross section. It is
used to seal the circular
On 9/12/06 4:57 PM, K.Takeshita, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If it's on the mount surface, any lens can be sealed. It may be bit harder to
retain the ring in place but O rings are usually very easy to replace.
If it's on the mount surface, it could be a very thin rubber ring, like 1mm
dia which
On 9/12/06 5:03 PM, K.Takeshita, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It would be a dovetail-like groove to which the rubber O ring is pushed in and
only a very slight amount is protruding outside.
Someone questioned if all lenses could be sealed. That's a good question
because the retaining the O ring
On 12/9/06, Douglas Newman, discombobulated, unleashed:
I think you will find that the 1-series D-SLRs (and
the EOS-1V) have gaskets on the lens mount, as well:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1dsmkii/page5.asp
Aha. The Pentax K10D seal is around the lens mount-to-body position,
then.
On 12/9/06, K.Takeshita, discombobulated, unleashed:
I wonder how canon is doing it.
There's a rubber seal on the back of L lenses that fits flush with the
lens mount.
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
On 13/09/06, K.Takeshita [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/12/06 5:03 PM, K.Takeshita, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It would be a dovetail-like groove to which the rubber O ring is pushed in
and
only a very slight amount is protruding outside.
Someone questioned if all lenses could be sealed.
On 9/12/06 5:19 PM, Cotty, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder how canon is doing it.
There's a rubber seal on the back of L lenses that fits flush with the
lens mount.
Hmm, that's interesting. I wondered why they did not seal the body side but
when taking a look at my canon body, I can see
On 9/12/06 5:53 PM, Digital Image Studio, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I didn't get to see this famed leaky release but looking at the huge
press kit photos I see no gasket of any kind on the very visible
mount.?
You are probably right. See my later post. IMO, Pentax cannot possibly put
any
The LX has a seal between the mount and the body, so Pentax has been
there before.
Paul
On Sep 12, 2006, at 5:15 PM, Cotty wrote:
On 12/9/06, Douglas Newman, discombobulated, unleashed:
I think you will find that the 1-series D-SLRs (and
the EOS-1V) have gaskets on the lens mount, as well:
Just tell them to take the back off their Rolex and look at it. Then
send the watch back to Rolex, or take it to a good dive shop, to have it
recertified grin.
--
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
35 matches
Mail list logo
