On 5/10/14, P.J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed:
>Just plane X100, but I checked the Amazon price and they're still
>selling if for about $1000. Well they were a couple of days ago.
Meh.
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__Broadcast, Corporate,
|| (O) |Web Video Production
--
I have two of those Zoom 90WRs. Excellent cameras, for their ilk.
Better than an LX for fending off muggers, too, as they are much
cheaper.
On 4 October 2014 08:42, Christine Aguila wrote:
> Hi Everyone:
>
> Had some camera spotting today. Check that old Pentax point and shoot &
I mean plain, damned spell checker...
On 10/5/2014 12:30 PM, P.J. Alling wrote:
Just plane X100, but I checked the Amazon price and they're still
selling if for about $1000. Well they were a couple of days ago.
On 10/5/2014 8:07 AM, Steve Cottrell wrote:
On 4/10/14, P.J. Alling, discombobula
Just plane X100, but I checked the Amazon price and they're still
selling if for about $1000. Well they were a couple of days ago.
On 10/5/2014 8:07 AM, Steve Cottrell wrote:
On 4/10/14, P.J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed:
In the Pink Polaroid picture below and to the left of "Pinky" is
On 4/10/14, P.J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed:
>In the Pink Polaroid picture below and to the left of "Pinky" is a box
>for a recently released FujiFilm X100 Current list price new is $1100 or
>more. If they know what they've got they wouldn't sell it for a lot less.
Didn't see the origi
wrote:
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Christine Aguila wrote:
Hi Everyone:
Had some camera spotting today. Check that old Pentax point and shoot & the
pink Polaroid.
If it comes with a matching lipstick you're all set:) But how could
you resist taking home the Fuji?
--
P
tila Boros wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Christine Aguila
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Everyone:
>>
>> Had some camera spotting today. Check that old Pentax point and shoot & the
>> pink Polaroid.
>
> If it comes with a matching lipstick you're
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 6:37 PM, P.J. Alling wrote:
> I don't know about Christine but the likely over $1000 price tag would slow
> me down a bit.
Sorry, I thought we are looking at the used cameras section. Over
$1000 is no deal.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/m
I don't know about Christine but the likely over $1000 price tag would
slow me down a bit.
On 10/4/2014 4:29 AM, Attila Boros wrote:
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Christine Aguila wrote:
Hi Everyone:
Had some camera spotting today. Check that old Pentax point and shoot &
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Christine Aguila wrote:
> Hi Everyone:
>
> Had some camera spotting today. Check that old Pentax point and shoot & the
> pink Polaroid.
If it comes with a matching lipstick you're all set:) But how could
you resist taking home the F
Hi Everyone:
Had some camera spotting today. Check that old Pentax point and shoot & the
pink Polaroid. I guess color cameras isn’t such a novel idea after all. Also,
Central Camera had a red Pentax Q—was it cute. First time I was able to play
with one! Very fun!
http://www.caguila
Thu Dec 16 08:54:22 CST 2010
David J Brooks wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 8:37 AM, Bruce Walker
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Larry, practice and use this technique ...
> >
> > http://www.speedlighter.ca/2010/12/13/party-recipe/
>
> Did Frank write rule #4: # Tilt whenever you like.
>
In my workshop
- Mensaje original
> De: Larry Colen
>
> I was at a party tonight and some of the girls wanted a group photo. So they
>grabbed me and handed me their point and shoot. We went into a back room with
>a
>better wall for a background, I took a shot or two, but t
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 8:37 AM, Bruce Walker wrote:
>
> Larry, practice and use this technique ...
>
> http://www.speedlighter.ca/2010/12/13/party-recipe/
Did Frank write rule #4: # Tilt whenever you like.
Dave
>
> Still doesn't solve the Point&Shit vexation. I like Jack's hit'n'run
> techniqu
On 10-12-16 5:42 AM, Larry Colen wrote:
I was at a party tonight and some of the girls wanted a group photo. So they
grabbed me and handed me their point and shoot. We went into a back room with a
better wall for a background, I took a shot or two, but the flash just made the
shots look
nd melt away.
Thankfully, an infrequent event. Ah, fame! ;))
Jack
--- On Thu, 12/16/10, Larry Colen wrote:
> From: Larry Colen
> Subject: Like I'm supposed to know how to use a point and shoot?
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
> Date: Thursday, December 16, 2010, 2:42 AM
&
e and handed me their point and shoot. We went into a back room with
> a better wall for a background, I took a shot or two, but the flash just made
> the shots look terrible. So I grabbed my camera bag, pulled out the K-x and
> took a couple of shots, but at 6400 and 1/20 f/2.8 I just
I was at a party tonight and some of the girls wanted a group photo. So they
grabbed me and handed me their point and shoot. We went into a back room with a
better wall for a background, I took a shot or two, but the flash just made the
shots look terrible. So I grabbed my camera bag, pulled
entax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Close encounter with a point and shoot
On 23 August 2010 03:32, J.C. O'Connell wrote:
> I recently bought a vivitar p&s digicam from radioshack.
> I was a 12 MP marked down from $129 to $29 so I figured
> what the heck. It was a horrible cam
On 23 August 2010 03:32, J.C. O'Connell wrote:
> I recently bought a vivitar p&s digicam from radioshack.
> I was a 12 MP marked down from $129 to $29 so I figured
> what the heck. It was a horrible camera. When you took
> a pic, you didn't get the review image to show up without
> digging thru me
I recently bought a vivitar p&s digicam from radioshack.
I was a 12 MP marked down from $129 to $29 so I figured
what the heck. It was a horrible camera. When you took
a pic, you didn't get the review image to show up without
digging thru menus. Outdoors it was nearly impossible
to compose with onl
In a message dated 4/2/2009 11:06:43 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
pentax...@mac.com writes:
On Apr 2, 2009, at 10:10 , eactiv...@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 4/2/2009 8:10:46 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> ann...@nyc.rr.com writes:
> AND ---
> home electronics which have teeny tiny con
On Apr 2, 2009, at 10:10 , eactiv...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 4/2/2009 8:10:46 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
ann...@nyc.rr.com writes:
AND ---
home electronics which have teeny tiny control buttons that are
black on
a black surface to make sure you can't
see what you are doing.
ann
In a message dated 4/2/2009 8:10:46 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
ann...@nyc.rr.com writes:
AND ---
home electronics which have teeny tiny control buttons that are black on
a black surface to make sure you can't
see what you are doing.
ann
Yes. This has annoyed me for years. They
On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 11:10:37AM -0400, ann sanfedele wrote:
> home electronics which have teeny tiny control buttons that are black on
> a black surface to make sure you can't
> see what you are doing.
That's what you get when you have Hotblack Desiatto design home
electronics for you.
--
Scott Loveless wrote:
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 1:52 PM, frank theriault
wrote:
Okay, I'm the other person (so it's nice to know there are at least
two of us, although it scares me that I'm in a group with you...).
;-)
Who wouldn't be scared?
I mean seriously, that's why I posted l
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 06:56:43PM -0700, Larry Colen wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 08:54:16PM +0100, mike wilson wrote:
> > Larry Colen wrote:
> >
> >
> > >Writing software is a development cost not a production cost. NRE,
> > >Non-Recurring Expense.
> >
> > All I believe about Adobe is tru
2009/4/1 John Sessoms :
> Actually, I think Canon cameras are ok. It's the Canon users that give me a
> pain.
MARK!
--
MaritimTim
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 03:04:03AM -0400, John Francis wrote:
>
> How many copies? Have you still got friends there?
Only two copies of the big suites, I don't know how many of the
smaller ones. I've only got one friend there at the moment, and having
just bought some stuff through him I don't
Larry Colen wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 08:54:16PM +0100, mike wilson wrote:
> > Larry Colen wrote:
> >
> >
> > >Writing software is a development cost not a production cost. NRE,
> > >Non-Recurring Expense.
> >
> > All I believe about Adobe is true then?
>
> What do you believe a
touche
On Apr 1, 2009, at 12:49 AM, William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From:
Subject: Re: point and shoot
How strange. Did I really need a smiley?
Paul
Did I? ;-)
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to
Scott Loveless wrote:
I have the same problem with mobile phones. I don't want to check my
email, surf the web, download music/movies/ringtones, text, take
pictures or wipe my butt with it. I want to talk to people on the
phone. I want an address book and voice mail. That's about it. No
one
From: Scott Loveless
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Jaume Lahuerta wrote:
>
The Canon A series used to be a great compromise between features
and price...at a cost, that in this case was its size.
I've been looking at the A series. I just have to bottle my
conscience long enough to actu
- Original Message -
From:
Subject: Re: point and shoot
How strange. Did I really need a smiley?
Paul
Did I? ;-)
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 08:54:16PM +0100, mike wilson wrote:
> Larry Colen wrote:
>
>
> >Writing software is a development cost not a production cost. NRE,
> >Non-Recurring Expense.
>
> All I believe about Adobe is true then?
What do you believe about Adobe?
They seem to treat their employees
How strange. Did I really need a smiley?
Paul
- "William Robb" wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Paul Stenquist"
> Subject: Re: point and shoot
>
>
> > Yes, relying on technology sucks completely. The true purist would
>
>
- Original Message -
From: "Paul Stenquist"
Subject: Re: point and shoot
Yes, relying on technology sucks completely. The true purist would
disable all the features of his camera with a sledgehammer. He could
then draw his pictures, unburdened by any assistance from
On Mar 31, 2009, at 14:34 , frank theriault wrote:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Paul Stenquist > wrote:
Yes, relying on technology sucks completely. The true purist would
disable
all the features of his camera with a sledgehammer. He could then
draw his
pictures, unburdened by any assis
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Bob W wrote:
> It would be a matter of designing a suitably minimal framework with
> scalability that people could use to add components ('plug-ins' I believe is
> the modern term for such things), then providing a way for people to supply
> the additional componen
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 08:58:59PM +0100, Bob W scripsit:
> Hands up all the software developers on this list who have read the
> aforementioned paper, and ever put the principles into practice?
Well, both, but that's kinda cheating.
-- Graydon
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 05:34:49PM -0400, frank theriault scripsit:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Paul Stenquist
> wrote:
> > Yes, relying on technology sucks completely. The true purist would disable
> > all the features of his camera with a sledgehammer. He could then draw his
> > pictures
Bob,
With all kidding aside, your observation is - unfortunately - true.
Many folks cut corner for the sake of short-term gain.
Sigh...
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Bob W wrote:
>
> I know it's ancient. That's my point. And very few people use those
> principles or have even heard of them,
>
> > Hands up all the software developers on this list who have read the
> > aforementioned paper, and ever put the principles into practice?
>
> Read the paper, but that was many years ago. Have used the
> concepts in
> nearly every piece of "for release" software I've ever worked on. As
>
Bob W wrote:
Hands up all the software developers on this list who have read the
aforementioned paper, and ever put the principles into practice?
Read the paper, but that was many years ago. Have used the concepts in
nearly every piece of "for release" software I've ever worked on. As
oppo
I know it's ancient. That's my point. And very few people use those
principles or have even heard of them, in my experience.
>
> Bob,
>
> That is an ancient paper. :)
>
> Of course, people do use these principles.
>
> -Pasvorn
>
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Bob W wrote:
> > It has b
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
> Yes, relying on technology sucks completely. The true purist would disable
> all the features of his camera with a sledgehammer. He could then draw his
> pictures, unburdened by any assistance from mechanical or electronic
> devices. What co
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 02:17:15PM -0400, Mark Roberts wrote:
> William Robb wrote:
> >
> >From: "Larry Colen" Subject: Re: point and shoot
> >
> >>>This really sucks. I just want something simple that I can pull up to
> >>>my eye and the
nburdened by any assistance from mechanical
PS> or electronic devices. What could be more pure?
PS> Paul
PS> On Mar 31, 2009, at 2:25 PM, William Robb wrote:
>>
>> - Original Message - From: "Mark Roberts" Subject: Re: point
>> and shoot
>>
>
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
> Yes, relying on technology sucks completely. The true purist would disable
> all the features of his camera with a sledgehammer. He could then draw his
> pictures, unburdened by any assistance from mechanical or electronic
> devices. What co
, William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: "Mark Roberts" Subject: Re: point
and shoot
What also wouldn't cost a lot more would be to have a feature which
disabled all the other "features" so that we purists could also
enjoy the camera. Perhaps some ma
In a message dated 3/31/2009 11:24:57 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
war...@gmail.com writes:
Didn't Canon do that already?
William Robb
==
Yes. I used to have the 300D (first digital rebel). It basically used 10D
software with features disabled. Then a Russian hacker came up with "pa
Bob,
That is an ancient paper. :)
Of course, people do use these principles.
-Pasvorn
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Bob W wrote:
> It has been a solved problem since probably the invention of the subroutine,
> certainly since Parnas wrote his famous paper about designing for ease of
> exte
>
> No!
>
> That's not pure enough!
>
> You're not looking at it from a purist's POV, Mark.
>
> The TRUE purist would look at that button as an "enabling" button,
> allowing one to turn ON the "features" at will. The true purist would
> see that as pandering and therefore unacceptable. The pu
Larry Colen wrote:
Writing software is a development cost not a production cost. NRE,
Non-Recurring Expense.
All I believe about Adobe is true then?
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the l
- Original Message -
From: "Adam Maas"
Subject: Re: point and shoot
That little operating system that Linus wrote is the second most
popular OS on the planet (Linux). The third (Mac OS X) also relies
heavily on code written by people working for free (As it's base
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 2:13 PM, William Robb wrote:
>
> - Original Message - From: "Larry Colen"
> Subject: Re: point and shoot
>
>
>
>>
>>> >Most of those features are purely software, so don't add anything to
>>> >product
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 1:42 PM, frank theriault
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
>
>>
>> A lot do. A lot of software is being written for reasons other than
>> financial motivation. For example a Finnish college kid named Linus
>> Torvalds wrote the basis of an operat
Actually there is an opensource camera firmware.
I am very tempt to give it a try:
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ#Q._What_camera_models_are_supported_by_the_CHDK_program.3F
Too bad they are all Canon Digicam. If I can get some cheap enough, I
might try it out.
-Pasvorn
--
PDML Pentax-Discus
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
> What also wouldn't cost a lot more would be to have a feature which disabled
> all the other "features" so that we purists could also enjoy the camera.
> Perhaps some manufacturer will implement this someday...
No!
That's not pure enough!
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Roberts"
Subject: Re: point and shoot
What also wouldn't cost a lot more would be to have a feature which
disabled all the other "features" so that we purists could also enjoy
the camera. Perhaps some manufacturer wi
William Robb wrote:
From: "Larry Colen" Subject: Re: point and shoot
This really sucks. I just want something simple that I can pull up to
my eye and then throw the photos out on the web when I get home. But
all I see is chimp-approved plastic junk with smile recognition. WTF
h
- Original Message -
From: "Larry Colen"
Subject: Re: point and shoot
>Most of those features are purely software, so don't add anything to
>production cost.
>
Software writers work for free?
A lot do. A lot of software is being written for reas
Larry, don't forget viruses - not only they're written for free, the
critters face jail for their distribution.
LF
Larry Colen escreveu:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 11:10:27AM -0600, William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Larry Colen"
Subject: Re: point
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 1:50 PM, William Robb wrote:
> I expect that pretty much every new camera has to have new software written
> for it, but I could be wrong.
> I don't know much about software writing.
That's kind of what I'd think too.
cheers,
frank
--
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concep
- Original Message -
From: "frank theriault"
Subject: Re: point and shoot
I can't imagine that many cameras have features being "powered" by
freeware.
I expect that pretty much every new camera has to have new software written
for it, but I could be
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
>
> A lot do. A lot of software is being written for reasons other than
> financial motivation. For example a Finnish college kid named Linus
> Torvalds wrote the basis of an operating system for the fun of it. The
> upside of this is there is a
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 11:10:27AM -0600, William Robb wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Larry Colen"
> Subject: Re: point and shoot
> >Most of those features are purely software, so don't add anything to
> >production cost.
> >
>
- Original Message -
From: "Larry Colen"
Subject: Re: point and shoot
This really sucks. I just want something simple that I can pull up to
my eye and then throw the photos out on the web when I get home. But
all I see is chimp-approved plastic junk with smile recogni
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 01:23:24PM -0400, Scott Loveless wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
> > The Sigma DP2 has a 24mm f/2.8 prime (roughly the angle of view of 50mm on
> > FF) and you can get an accessory optical viewfinder.
> >
> > The camera is about $650.00, though
I use the vf on my G3 sometimes, mostly if its to bright to see the
lcd screen. I hate seeing the len stuck out in the finder, it just
makes it a tad harder to compose.
Much like Nurvana
Dave
--
Equine Photography
www.caughtinmotion.com
http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/
Ontario Canada
Some one is going to be very grumpy at GFM this year, me thinks.
Dave
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Scott Loveless wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 1:52 PM, frank theriault
> wrote:
>> Okay, I'm the other person (so it's nice to know there are at least
>> two of us, although it scares me tha
Well, P50 it is. Remember reading about it on PopPhoto. I wouldn't
challenge your statement about avoiding it, but since the order is about
some compact (not really, but still smaller than a DSLR) and not so
expensive (one bill, $100) camera with an optic viewfinder, I tried to
increase the number
Nope.
http://photo.net/photos/RickW
--- On Mon, 3/30/09, Scott Loveless wrote:
> Am I the only person in the whole
> wide world
> that doesn't want a zillion worthless features at the
> expense of
> something functional?
>
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Doug Brewer wrote:
> Scott Loveless wrote:
>
>>
>> I have the same problem with mobile phones. I don't want to check my
>> email, surf the web, download music/movies/ringtones, text, take
>> pictures or wipe my butt with it. I want to talk to people on the
>> pho
Scott Loveless wrote:
I have the same problem with mobile phones. I don't want to check my
email, surf the web, download music/movies/ringtones, text, take
pictures or wipe my butt with it. I want to talk to people on the
phone. I want an address book and voice mail. That's about it. No
on
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Scott Loveless wrote:
> I'm a curmudgeon at 33.
That's okay, you look 45...
cheers,
frank
;-)
--
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UN
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Scott Loveless wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
>> Optical viewfinder yes, compact no. The D50 is an older Nikon DSLR. I
>> suspect you're referring to the P50, which should be avoided. Nikon's
>> P&S production of the last few years star
Scott Loveless wrote:
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
The Sigma DP2 has a 24mm f/2.8 prime (roughly the angle of view of 50mm on
FF) and you can get an accessory optical viewfinder.
The camera is about $650.00, though. Not available yet, but should be very
soon. Amazon is
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 1:52 PM, frank theriault
wrote:
> Okay, I'm the other person (so it's nice to know there are at least
> two of us, although it scares me that I'm in a group with you...).
>
> ;-)
Who wouldn't be scared?
> I mean seriously, that's why I posted like a week and a half ago,
>
No potical VF and not pocketable, but 10x optical zoom, aperature and
shutter priority, super macro and my real "dinosaur" Optio MX
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 1:46 PM, frank theriault
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Scott Loveless wrote:
> Am I the only person in the whole wide world
>>
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
> Optical viewfinder yes, compact no. The D50 is an older Nikon DSLR. I
> suspect you're referring to the P50, which should be avoided. Nikon's
> P&S production of the last few years start at bad and get rapidly
> worse.
>
> Optical finders are dyi
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 1:46 PM, frank theriault
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Scott Loveless wrote:
> Am I the only person in the whole wide world
>> that doesn't want a zillion worthless features at the expense of
>> something functional?
>
> Apparently you are...
Okay, I'm the ot
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Scott Loveless wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 12:49 PM, frank theriault
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Pasvorn Boonmark
>> wrote:
>>> Frank,
>>>
>>> The CL is nice, but it is not exactly "inexpensive", at least to me. :)
>>>
>>> May be Olympus
Optical viewfinder yes, compact no. The D50 is an older Nikon DSLR. I
suspect you're referring to the P50, which should be avoided. Nikon's
P&S production of the last few years start at bad and get rapidly
worse.
Optical finders are dying off. Mostly because P&S finders are typically horrid.
-Ada
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Scott Loveless wrote:
Am I the only person in the whole wide world
> that doesn't want a zillion worthless features at the expense of
> something functional?
Apparently you are...
cheers,
frank
--
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
> The Sigma DP2 has a 24mm f/2.8 prime (roughly the angle of view of 50mm on
> FF) and you can get an accessory optical viewfinder.
>
> The camera is about $650.00, though. Not available yet, but should be very
> soon. Amazon is accepting pre-or
Jaume Lahuerta wrote:
- Mensaje original
De: Scott Loveless
"No optical VF" is a deal breaker, unfortunately. Didn't someone
offer a small digital camera with a prime lens not too long ago?
This must be either Sigma DP1/DP2 or Ricoh GR Digital. Not sure about the
Sigma, but at le
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 12:49 PM, frank theriault
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Pasvorn Boonmark
> wrote:
>> Frank,
>>
>> The CL is nice, but it is not exactly "inexpensive", at least to me. :)
>>
>> May be Olympus Stylus Epic is a good choice for a film guy?
>
> I was just jerkin'
...about to attacked...
Scott, the Nikon D50 - I think that's the model - offers a compact with
wide angle zoom and optical viewfinder, around $100. Optical finders are
getting hard to find indeed...
LF (well, if Pentax offered any I'd suggest it)
Scott Loveless escreveu:
On Mon, Mar 30, 200
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Pasvorn Boonmark wrote:
> Frank,
>
> The CL is nice, but it is not exactly "inexpensive", at least to me. :)
>
> May be Olympus Stylus Epic is a good choice for a film guy?
I was just jerkin' Scott's chain.
cheers,
frank
--
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."
Scott.
I bought my daughter the A540, i think it is, for xmas a while back,
and it does a good job, and has a VF.
My G3 has a VF, so maybe look into a G series.
Dave
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Scott Loveless wrote:
> Hi there.
>
> The 750z I've been using the last few years for snapshots
Frank,
The CL is nice, but it is not exactly "inexpensive", at least to me. :)
May be Olympus Stylus Epic is a good choice for a film guy?
-Pasvorn
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:07 AM, frank theriault
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Scott Loveless wrote:
> Hey, Mr. Film Guy:
>
> http:/
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Scott Loveless wrote:
> Hi there.
>
> The 750z I've been using the last few years for snapshots is just
> about shot. Besides losing the charger, I've also managed to break
> the articulating LCD again (Pentax fixed it under warranty the first
> time). So I'm sho
- Mensaje original
> De: Scott Loveless
>
> "No optical VF" is a deal breaker, unfortunately. Didn't someone
> offer a small digital camera with a prime lens not too long ago?
>
This must be either Sigma DP1/DP2 or Ricoh GR Digital. Not sure about the
Sigma, but at least the Ricoh
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Jaume Lahuerta wrote:
>
> The Canon A series used to be a great compromise between features and
> price...at a cost, that in this case was its size.
I've been looking at the A series. I just have to bottle my
conscience long enough to actually buy one. ;) Can
,
and this produces a lag between frames when shooting at full resolution. No
optical VF I am afraid.
Regards,
Jaume
- Mensaje original
> De: Scott Loveless
> Para: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Enviado: lunes, 30 de marzo, 2009 15:51:40
> Asunto: point and shoot
>
>
Hi there.
The 750z I've been using the last few years for snapshots is just
about shot. Besides losing the charger, I've also managed to break
the articulating LCD again (Pentax fixed it under warranty the first
time). So I'm shopping for an inexpensive pocket camera with an
optical viewfinder a
Someone asked about point and shoot cameras that also take movies. I
hadn't tried shooting movies with the 5 megapixel Panasonic DMC-TZ1
at that time, but I did today. I'm quite impressed. It shoots in
either 16x9 or 4x3 format. Speeds from 10fps to 30 fps. In 16x 9,
30fps mo
Dan
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 12:14 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: anyone "shoot" w/a point and shoot?
okay pug-sters, anyone willing to admit that they occasionaly use a poi
On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, Jaros³aw Brzeziñski wrote:
> Sorry, but no manufacturer has as yet been able to make a point-and-
> shoot camera with a 28-105, lens so you must be mistaken
Wrong-o... Pentax came out this year with a 28-105 and a 28-120. For
details, see:
http://www.pentaxcanada.
1 - 100 of 130 matches
Mail list logo
