On 23/8/13, Chris Mitchell, discombobulated, unleashed:
>You'll need an aperture simulator of course (stands back having lit
>blue touch paper)
To be honest I'm not that bothered about restoring it's open-aperture
metering functionality. The A*85/1.4 is best used wide open for full
minimal DoF ef
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 08:47:45PM -0400, P.J. Alling wrote:
> I was just wondering what you were getting at because it almost made sense.
Mark!
--
Larry Colen l...@red4est.com http://red4est.com/lrc
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailm
Well, I've changed position on a 24x36mm sensor, since it's unlikely
that Pentax will release a camera that will allow open aperture metering
with my K and M lenses, I realized I don't really care. I get better
quality images now than I got with 35mm when I do everything right so if
Ricoh cont
I was just wondering what you were getting at because it almost made sense.
On 8/22/2013 8:12 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
Damn spell checker. I'm not imposing a deadline.
Paul via phone
On Aug 22, 2013, at 7:36 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
On Aug 22, 2013, at 5:20 PM, Tom C wrote:
Paul Stenqu
On Aug 23, 2013, at 1:39 PM, John wrote:
> On 8/22/2013 1:01 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 22, 2013, at 12:39 PM, John wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/22/2013 5:58 AM, Chris Mitchell wrote:
>
> I can certainly understand your feelings. Frankly, I'd counsel waiting
> until the next r
Here's a little write upon on the OM-707/OM-77. Like so many first attempts at
an AF SLR, it didn't succeed.
http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Olympus_OM-707_/_OM-77
Olympus essentially had made the OM system into a high-end niche player, like
the Leica R and Contax systems, by the end of the
They might. However the OM lens mount system never really evolved
beyond the solid machined metal stage of the original K and M lenses.
There was no Olympus lens series equivalent to the Pentax A lenses and
though I have no direct experience with then, the few autofocus lenses
that they produ
The upshot of it all is that "Shoeless Joe" *DID* say it wasn't so for
the rest of his life, not that doing so did him any good.
On 8/23/2013 11:15 AM, P.J. Alling wrote:
I think it was the entire starting lineup exclusive of one man, that
threw the world series, thus becoming the Chicago "Black
I worked with Olympus cameras, half-frame and full-frame 35mm film models, 30+
years before the E-System and FourThirds existed.
Godfrey
On Aug 23, 2013, at 10:43 AM, John wrote:
> I wonder how many of those who want Olympus to build a 35mm film format
> camera once shot with Olympus 35mm fil
I wonder how many of those who want Olympus to build a 35mm film format
camera once shot with Olympus 35mm film cameras?
They might see things differently than someone who came to Olympus after
Olympus committed to the 4/3 format.
On 8/23/2013 11:27 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Yes indeed. Olym
On 8/22/2013 1:01 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
On Aug 22, 2013, at 12:39 PM, John wrote:
On 8/22/2013 5:58 AM, Chris Mitchell wrote:
I can certainly understand your feelings. Frankly, I'd counsel waiting
until the next round of product announcements before doing anything that
involves transac
Yes indeed. Olympus and Panasonic FourThirds and Micro-FourThirds cameras and
lenses were designed specifically for the format size.
That doesn't stop people from insisting that Olympus should build a larger,
35mm film format camera, unfortunately.
Godfrey
On Aug 23, 2013, at 8:05 AM, "P.J.
I think it was the entire starting lineup exclusive of one man, that
threw the world series, thus becoming the Chicago "Black Socks", or
maybe "Sox", can't remember, no one seems to remember the name of the
guy not implicated, but everyone remembers "Shoeless" Joe Jackson.
On 8/22/2013 5:45 PM
Aren't they already full frame?
On 8/22/2013 2:58 PM, Bruce Walker wrote:
Me too, Paul. How come nobody ever asks when the four-thirds companies
(like Olympus) are going to come out with a FF?
I think if you were a landscape photographer shooting wall-size murals
you'd be best served with a 645
On 22 August 2013 22:09, Steve Cottrell wrote:
> On 22/8/13, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
>>Why exactly do you need full frame? Just curious.
>
> I'm not, nor ever could be, John, but for me - so I can mount my
> A*85/1.4 onto it and have it behave like an A*85/1.4 ;-)
>
> Which b
Paul Stenquist wrote:
>I don't spend enough time here to be as well informed as you.. Too many other
>things to occupy my time. But I find it hard to
>resist responding to our resident Nikon shooter, who chimes in every time the
>importance of 24 x 36 is taken less than seriously.
Hi Paul,
I h
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 06:38:22PM -0700, Aahz Maruch wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013, Christine Aguila wrote:
> >
> > Oh, dear! Say it ain't so. :-) Cheers, Christine
> >
> > P.S. I should probably explain: When Michael Jordon retired from
> > the Chicago Bulls basketball team, a Chicago newspaper
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013, Christine Aguila wrote:
>
> Oh, dear! Say it ain't so. :-) Cheers, Christine
>
> P.S. I should probably explain: When Michael Jordon retired from
> the Chicago Bulls basketball team, a Chicago newspaper ran this
> headline: "Say it ain't so, Michael." So I'm referencing th
I'm going to flip-flop just to decrease the entropy.
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 8:44 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
> If I were paying attention, I could probably recite the feelings about
> a 24x36 sensor of just about every person on this list.
> At this point about the only interesting thing about full f
I don't spend enough time here to be as well informed as you.. Too many other
things to occupy my time. But I find it hard to resist responding to our
resident Nikon shooter, who chimes in every time the importance of 24 x 36 is
taken less than seriously.
Paul
On Aug 22, 2013, at 8:44 PM, Larry
If I were paying attention, I could probably recite the feelings about
a 24x36 sensor of just about every person on this list.
At this point about the only interesting thing about full frame sensor
Pentax discussions are new hat recipes.
--
Larry Colen l...@red4est.com h
Damn spell checker. I'm not imposing a deadline.
Paul via phone
On Aug 22, 2013, at 7:36 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>
> On Aug 22, 2013, at 5:20 PM, Tom C wrote:
>
>> Paul Stenquist wrote:
>>
>>> I'm always mystified in regard to the urgency of FF. My camera works great.
>>> If I were a lan
On Aug 22, 2013, at 5:20 PM, Tom C wrote:
> Paul Stenquist wrote:
>
>> I'm always mystified in regard to the urgency of FF. My camera works great.
>> If I were a landscape photographer shooting wall-size murals I might think
>> otherwise, but I don't plan on > going there.
>
> Paul, this my
The first lens I ever bought (the 18-55 kit came with the camera) was
the Sigma 70-300 APO. I read specs and looked at comparisons for
weeks. Should I get the Sigma or the 50-200. I waffled back and
forth. I finally pulled the trigger on the Sigma.
I got a few days later and the thing was mass
Roger that :-)! Cheers, Christine
On Aug 22, 2013, at 4:45 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
> And the original is from a Chicago newspaper as well: "Say it ain't so, Joe."
> Directed at Shoeless Joe Jackson when he was indicted for throwing the World
> Series.
>
> Paul via phone
>
> On Aug 22, 20
And the original is from a Chicago newspaper as well: "Say it ain't so, Joe."
Directed at Shoeless Joe Jackson when he was indicted for throwing the World
Series.
Paul via phone
On Aug 22, 2013, at 5:20 PM, Christine Aguila wrote:
> Oh, dear! Say it ain't so. :-) Cheers, Christine
>
> P.S
Oh, dear! Say it ain't so. :-) Cheers, Christine
P.S. I should probably explain: When Michael Jordon retired from the Chicago
Bulls basketball team, a Chicago newspaper ran this headline: "Say it ain't
so, Michael." So I'm referencing that headline. Everyone in the city was so
sad our sh
Paul Stenquist wrote:
> I'm always mystified in regard to the urgency of FF. My camera works great.
> If I were a landscape photographer shooting wall-size murals I might think
> otherwise, but I don't plan on > going there.
Paul, this my cheeky, yet respectful response, and I know I don't need
On 22/8/13, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed:
>Why exactly do you need full frame? Just curious.
I'm not, nor ever could be, John, but for me - so I can mount my
A*85/1.4 onto it and have it behave like an A*85/1.4 ;-)
Which brings about an interesting proposition. My A*85/1.4 is neute
Ditto.
Rick
http://photo.net/photos/RickW
- Original Message -
From: Paul Stenquist
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 2:05 PM
Subject: Re: Giving up on Pentax (probably)
On Aug 22, 2013, at 1:05 PM, Bruce Walker wrote:
> Uh-oh. Popcorn t
Guess I'm not the only one not running a temperature anxiously awaiting a
Pentax FF.
Jack
- Original Message -
From: Paul Stenquist
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 11:05 AM
Subject: Re: Giving up on Pentax (probably)
On Aug 22, 2013, at 1:
I think Pentax doesn't get enough credit for the lens system built
around the aps-c sensor size. Taken as a whole it's a very nice,
rational offering. Extremely functional, small and lightweight
compared to lenses designed for FF.
On the projects where I use the FF Nikon, I really feel it in my
Me too, Paul. How come nobody ever asks when the four-thirds companies
(like Olympus) are going to come out with a FF?
I think if you were a landscape photographer shooting wall-size murals
you'd be best served with a 645D, which you _can_ actually get.
Personally I'd rather see Pentax develop imp
On Aug 22, 2013, at 1:05 PM, Bruce Walker wrote:
> Uh-oh. Popcorn time! :-)
I'm always mystified in regard to the urgency of FF. My camera works great. If
I were a landscape photographer shooting wall-size murals I might think
otherwise, but I don't plan on going there.
>
> On Thu, Aug 22,
DM
>>>>>> motor failure on my three DA* lenses after at least 70,000 frames.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 7:42 AM, SV Hovland wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>> motor failure on my three DA* lenses after at least 70,000 frames.
> >>>>
> >>>> Paul
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 7:42 AM, SV Hovland wrote:
> >>>>>> I have tested this on my own K-7 and DA*16-50. I wanted t
I'd expect it will happen sometime this millennium.
On 8/22/2013 5:58 AM, Chris Mitchell wrote:
I can certainly understand your feelings. Frankly, I'd counsel waiting
until the next round of product announcements before doing anything that
involves transactions of large amounts of cash.
Good p
Uh-oh. Popcorn time! :-)
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>
> On Aug 22, 2013, at 12:39 PM, John wrote:
>
>> On 8/22/2013 5:58 AM, Chris Mitchell wrote:
I can certainly understand your feelings. Frankly, I'd counsel waiting
until the next round of product an
On Aug 22, 2013, at 12:39 PM, John wrote:
> On 8/22/2013 5:58 AM, Chris Mitchell wrote:
>>>
>>> I can certainly understand your feelings. Frankly, I'd counsel waiting
>>> until the next round of product announcements before doing anything that
>>> involves transactions of large amounts of cash
s
Stig Vidar Hovland
Fra: PDML [pdml-boun...@pdml.net] på vegne av Boris Liberman
[bori...@gmail.com]
Sendt: 22. august 2013 09:09
Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Emne: Re: Giving up on Pentax (probably)
Well, it was easier than I thought.
Here is the link:
http://www.pentaxforums.com/fo
On 8/22/2013 5:58 AM, Chris Mitchell wrote:
I can certainly understand your feelings. Frankly, I'd counsel waiting
until the next round of product announcements before doing anything that
involves transactions of large amounts of cash.
Good point - I guess that the F* and FA lenses would beco
I'd look at KEH & try to undercut their prices just a little.
On 8/22/2013 2:49 AM, Chris Mitchell wrote:
Hi all
The last straw has been that my DA* 16-50 has stopped auto-focussing
again. The internal motor was replaced a couple of years ago (so out
of warranty) and now it looks like there's a
gt; with more noise of course. So I decided to not send my lens in and complain
>>> about slow SDM after all. I could wait to complete break down and continue
>>> with the "old" focusing instead.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Stig Vidar Hovland
>>>
&g
s on my own K-7 and DA*16-50. I wanted to find out if
>>>>>> this is a good solution for me and I did the test before the warranty
>>>>>> went out. I found it to be perfectly good. It focuses just as fast as
>>>>>> SDM, but
ing instead.
Regards
Stig Vidar Hovland
Fra: PDML [pdml-boun...@pdml.net] på vegne av Boris Liberman
[bori...@gmail.com]
Sendt: 22. august 2013 09:09
Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Emne: Re: Giving up on Pentax (probably)
Well, it was easier than I thought.
Here i
A*16-50. I wanted to find out if
>>>>> this is a good solution for me and I did the test before the warranty
>>>>> went out. I found it to be perfectly good. It focuses just as fast as
>>>>> SDM, but with more noise of course. So I decided to not send m
h the "old" focusing instead.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Stig Vidar Hovland
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Fra: PDML [pdml-boun...@pdml.net] på vegne av Boris Liberman
>>>> [bori...@
;> about slow SDM after all. I could wait to complete break down and continue
>>> with the "old" focusing instead.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Stig Vidar Hovland
>>>
>>> ________
>>> Fra: PDML [pdml-boun...@pdml.net] på vegne av Bori
t] på vegne av Boris Liberman
>> [bori...@gmail.com]
>> Sendt: 22. august 2013 09:09
>> Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> Emne: Re: Giving up on Pentax (probably)
>>
>> Well, it was easier than I thought.
>>
>> Here is the link:
>>
>> http:/
;> Regards
>>> Stig Vidar Hovland
>>>
>>>
>>> Fra: PDML [pdml-boun...@pdml.net] på vegne av Boris Liberman
>>> [bori...@gmail.com]
>>> Sendt: 22. august 2013 09:09
>>> Til: Pentax-Discuss
ue with the
>> "old" focusing instead.
>>
>> Regards
>> Stig Vidar Hovland
>>
>>
>> Fra: PDML [pdml-boun...@pdml.net] på vegne av Boris Liberman
>> [bori...@gmail.com]
>> Sendt: 22. august 2013 09:09
un...@pdml.net] på vegne av Boris Liberman
> [bori...@gmail.com]
> Sendt: 22. august 2013 09:09
> Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Emne: Re: Giving up on Pentax (probably)
>
> Well, it was easier than I thought.
>
> Here is the link:
>
> http://www.pentaxforums.com/f
09:09
Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Emne: Re: Giving up on Pentax (probably)
Well, it was easier than I thought.
Here is the link:
http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/208353-how-deactivate-sdm-silent-autofocus-allow-screw-drive-autofocus-da-16-50mm-f-2-8-a.html
On Thu, Au
>
> I can certainly understand your feelings. Frankly, I'd counsel waiting
> until the next round of product announcements before doing anything that
> involves transactions of large amounts of cash.
Good point - I guess that the F* and FA lenses would become more
desirable should a FF body come
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 07:49:54AM +0100, Chris Mitchell wrote:
> Hi all
>
> The last straw has been that my DA* 16-50 has stopped auto-focussing
> again. The internal motor was replaced a couple of years ago (so out
> of warranty) and now it looks like there's another couple of hundred
> quid to
Well, it was easier than I thought.
Here is the link:
http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/208353-how-deactivate-sdm-silent-autofocus-allow-screw-drive-autofocus-da-16-50mm-f-2-8-a.html
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Chris Mitchell
wrote:
> Hi all
>
> The last straw
Chris, while you're having to go through this, there is a thread on
Pentax Forums (I cannot recall it off the top of my head, but it can
be found) that explains how you could change firmware of your DA*
16-50 to focus by the screwdriver. This change is fully undoable so
that what you have to part w
57 matches
Mail list logo
