That's actuator, not activator, get it right...
Cotty wrote:
On 2/11/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed:
it would be nice not to worry
about the iris actuator hanging out the back end.
That an actual iris activator, or a simulated iris activator?
--
PDML
On 2006-11-01 19:25, K.Takeshita wrote:
Q; How about the weather proofing of lenses?
A: We cannot claim weather-proof for the current line up of lenses. However,
as we expressed in the case of LX, which was dust sealed, it is difficult
for water to seep into the lens because of its
Hi Martin,
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 16:11:42 +0100, Martin Trautmann wrote:
The lenses which we can formally claim as water-proof are those 3 DA* lenses
that we announced in Photokina this year.
Do those new lenses have a fixed outer size?
Yes, they use internal zooming/focusing as far
as I could
John Forbes wrote:
On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 22:20:38 -, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Christian
Subject: Re: Pentax's Tatamiya Interview Part II, #1
That an actual iris activator, or a simulated iris activator?
Is that an iris actuator
On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 03:13:33 -, Joseph Tainter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ken, thanks very much again. We are in your debt.
Q: 'K10D can utilize the built-in SSM lenses, i.e., DA* lenses. Does
this mean faster AF speed?'
A: 'I do not believe Pentax¹s AF has been slow even on the current
From: Joseph Tainter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2006/11/02 Thu AM 03:13:33 GMT
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Pentax's Tatamiya Interview Part II, #1
Ken, thanks very much again. We are in your debt.
Q: 'K10D can utilize the built-in SSM lenses, i.e., DA* lenses. Does
this mean faster AF
What a nitwit you are, Joe. You will always take the most negative
interpretation. Perhaps he thought that a sensible audience would
assume SSM would be faster as there would be no point in all that
complexity just to reduce noise.
John
-
Mr. Tatamiya was asked a direct question, as
Shel, a few weeks ago I posted a query here about SSM lenses. I didn't
understand the excitement about them. My query was basically: What am I
not getting? The response was that SSM lenses will autofocus faster.
Joe
-
Joe, every silver lining has its cloud, eh ;-))
Shel
[Original
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
From: Joseph Tainter
He was given the opportunity to claim that SSM would be faster, and he
didn't bite. So the only advantage is that it will be quieter.
Joe, every silver lining has its cloud, eh ;-))
You know, I've been reading for years, from people I trust on
On 11/2/06, Joseph Tainter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What a nitwit you are, Joe. You will always take the most negative
interpretation. Perhaps he thought that a sensible audience would
assume SSM would be faster as there would be no point in all that
complexity just to reduce noise.
John
- Original Message -
From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You know, I've been reading for years, from people I trust on this list
and elsewhere, that the primary advantage of USM/HSM/SSM/whatever is
that it's quiet rather than faster. No one should be surprised at this
point.
How
On 11/02/06 11:03 AM, Mark Roberts, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You know, I've been reading for years, from people I trust on this list
and elsewhere, that the primary advantage of USM/HSM/SSM/whatever is
that it's quiet rather than faster. No one should be surprised at this
point.
And perhaps
I've only used a couple-three Pentax AF lenses, and only on two or three
camera bodies. I've used one Nikon lens and one Canon lens, on their
respective bodies. In similar light (daylight, normal contrasts, etc.) I
didn't notice that one lens or another was faster than others. Far from a
real
Faster than what? Faster than current lenses on pre-K100D bodies? Faster
than current lenses on the new bodies? Faster than Canon or Nikon? Faster
than a speeding bullet LOL? How important is AF speed compared to
focusing accuracy, especially at wide apertures, or the ability to focus in
poor
On Nov 2, 2006, at 8:31 AM, K.Takeshita wrote:
You know, I've been reading for years, from people I trust on this
list
and elsewhere, that the primary advantage of USM/HSM/SSM/whatever is
that it's quiet rather than faster. No one should be surprised at
this
point.
And perhaps the
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 11:03:09AM -0500, Mark Roberts wrote:
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
From: Joseph Tainter
He was given the opportunity to claim that SSM would be faster, and he
didn't bite. So the only advantage is that it will be quieter.
Joe, every silver lining has its cloud, eh
My expectation (hope) is that on long lenses, USM will be significantly
faster. On short lenses I don't need or expect much difference.
I really don't see the point of USM on short lenses (because they focus
fast enough), and I don't see the point on long lenses if it doesn't yield
a speed
The advantage I do see to using in-lens servos on every lens is that
it helps minimizes the number of mechanical couplings from lens to
body. I don't know about anyone else's experience, but I know from my
own that I've never once had a problem with an electrical coupling
from lens to
On 2/11/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed:
it would be nice not to worry
about the iris actuator hanging out the back end.
That an actual iris activator, or a simulated iris activator?
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|
On 03/11/06, Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How fast is fast enough? In the pre-digital age AF speed was the holy goal
of photography; the single most, perhaps the only important factor in camera
choice if various newsgroups postings are to be believed. Nowadays it is
high ISO
On Nov 2, 2006, at 1:46 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote:
The obvious difference between digital and film bodies is of course
with a digital body you are stuck with the sensitivity/capabilities of
the sensor for the lifetime of the camera whereas for film bodies you
could select from a vast
Cotty wrote:
On 2/11/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed:
it would be nice not to worry
about the iris actuator hanging out the back end.
That an actual iris activator, or a simulated iris activator?
Is that an iris actuator or are you just happy to see me?
--
Oh, a revival of all times greatest trends !!
After 'Pentax DSLR support for old lenses', now playing 'is digital better than
film?'
;-)
- Mensaje original
De: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Para: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
On Nov 2, 2006, at 1:46 PM, Digital Image
- Original Message -
From: Christian
Subject: Re: Pentax's Tatamiya Interview Part II, #1
That an actual iris activator, or a simulated iris activator?
Is that an iris actuator or are you just happy to see me?
It could be simulated happiness.
William Robb
--
PDML Pentax
On Thu, 2 Nov 2006, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Nov 2, 2006, at 1:46 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote:
The obvious difference between digital and film bodies is of course
with a digital body you are stuck with the sensitivity/capabilities of
the sensor for the lifetime of the camera whereas for
On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 22:20:38 -, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Christian
Subject: Re: Pentax's Tatamiya Interview Part II, #1
That an actual iris activator, or a simulated iris activator?
Is that an iris actuator or are you just happy
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Of course, if the vast number of film types dwindles to two or
three
if?
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
William Robb wrote:
From: Christian
That an actual iris activator, or a simulated iris activator?
Is that an iris actuator or are you just happy to see me?
It could be simulated happiness.
How would that affect people who are only happy when they're miserable
(you know the type)? Would
- Original Message -
From: Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Pentax's Tatamiya Interview Part II, #1
Cotty wrote:
On 2/11/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed:
it would be nice not to worry
about the iris actuator hanging out the back end.
That an actual
On Nov 2, 2006, at 4:10 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Of course, if the vast number of film types dwindles to two or
three
if?
LOL!
G
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
On Nov 2, 2006, at 2:27 PM, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
The obvious difference between digital and film bodies is of course
with a digital body you are stuck with the sensitivity/
capabilities of
the sensor for the lifetime of the camera whereas for film bodies
you
could select from a
- Original Message -
From: K.Takeshita [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A: I do not believe Pentax¹s AF has been slow even on the current lenses.
Mechanical noise during AF might give impression of slow AF, but it is on
par with competitions using the benchmark test.
REPLY:
Spot on. Thats what I've
Q: How secure is the weather proofing?
A: It is usually difficult to guarantee the weather sealing performance for
SLRs which inherently require lens changes. However, the level of
performance we aimed at is this. As possible environment that users might
encounter, it was tested and confirmed
Quoting K.Takeshita [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Has anyone ever told you Ken that you are a dead set legend? What would we
do without you? Great stuff, thanks!
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Ken, thanks very much again. We are in your debt.
Q: 'K10D can utilize the built-in SSM lenses, i.e., DA* lenses. Does
this mean faster AF speed?'
A: 'I do not believe Pentax¹s AF has been slow even on the current
lenses. Mechanical noise during AF might give impression of slow AF, but
it is
Joseph Tainter wrote:
Ken, thanks very much again. We are in your debt.
Q: 'K10D can utilize the built-in SSM lenses, i.e., DA* lenses. Does
this mean faster AF speed?'
A: 'I do not believe Pentax¹s AF has been slow even on the current
lenses. Mechanical noise during AF might give
Joe, every silver lining has its cloud, eh ;-))
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Joseph Tainter
Q: 'K10D can utilize the built-in SSM lenses, i.e., DA* lenses. Does
this mean faster AF speed?'
[...]
He was given the opportunity to claim that SSM would be faster, and he
didn't bite. So
37 matches
Mail list logo
