Mark Roberts wrote:
Y'know, if some people put as much effort into working with the
limitations of the *ist-D as they do into whining, they'd be able to
take a lot of great photos - even with K and M lenses.
Yeah, that's what I thought when I offered up a real
nice older
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Bucky wrote:
What interests me is how the hell you clean the sensor when the inevitable
happens and something gets stuck to it
We sell things called sensor swabs. They're supposed to have been
packaged in sterile rooms by 21 year old virgins or something like that.
Open
be more accurate. However it isn't a perfect world.
At 01:03 PM 10/13/03, you wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Rob Studdert
Subject: Re: Old lenses and *ist D
?
General consensus appears to be to treat exposure like slide, once
saturation
occurs it's a brick wall however generally
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 13 Oct 2003 at 11:54, Robert Gonzalez wrote:
Me and another guy here thought of this very thing as a viable
alternative to manufacturer software. Create open source based
on-camera and off-camera software that completely blows the socks off
the typical offerings. It
At 01:41 AM 10/14/03, you wrote:
Given the above info, is there any way that the back of a K mount lens
could be modified to let the *ist D fire using stop down metering in
similar modes?
snip
I suspect that more people would complain about the loss of full-
aperture
-Original Message-
From: John Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 12:11 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Old lenses and *ist D
At 01:41 AM 10/14/03, you wrote:
Given
Well, we may start a plea to Pentax to make open source of *istd
code. Then found the Pentax Users Development Group and take over the
job of stripping their bugs off. We'll publish free monthly OS
updates and use PDML for testing (on real units donated by Pentax of
course). Then Pentax
Hi,
Monday, October 13, 2003, 1:43:59 PM, you wrote:
The only thing I can't figure out (not having seen a *istD) is how can one
upload new software to it? Or any DSLR for that matter?
Same way as you'd upload software to your washing machine. Devices
like this use [erasable] programmable
Via the USB port.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only thing I can't figure out (not having seen a *istD) is how can one
upload new software to it? Or any DSLR for that matter?
--
graywolf
http://graywolfphoto.com
You might as well accept people as they are,
you are not going to be able to change
Me and another guy here thought of this very thing as a viable
alternative to manufacturer software. Create open source based
on-camera and off-camera software that completely blows the socks off
the typical offerings. It would be in the camera makers best interest
to let this and make this
- Original Message -
From: Cotty
Subject: Re: Old lenses and *ist D
Given the above info, is there any way that the back of a K mount lens
could be modified to let the *ist D fire using stop down metering in
similar modes?
JCO said take the linkage off the lens.
That should do
- Original Message -
From: Rob Studdert
Subject: Re: Old lenses and *ist D
?
General consensus appears to be to treat exposure like slide, once
saturation
occurs it's a brick wall however generally the harder it saturates the
more
nasty aberrations (coloured edges etc.) you'll see
Hi,
Bob Walkden wrote:
Hi,
Monday, October 13, 2003, 1:43:59 PM, you wrote:
The only thing I can't figure out (not having seen a *istD) is how can one
upload new software to it? Or any DSLR for that matter?
Same way as you'd upload software to your washing machine. Devices
like
Next question, how much more accurately (if at all) is the diaphram
controlled on an A lens rather than a K lens.
Simple question, tricky answer.
First of all: there's no requirement for the aperture response of any
K lens to be the same as a different lens; all that is required is that
the
The sensor could, (I don't know if it does), actually adjust it's
sensitivity on
the fly to insure a better exposure. I'm not sure I'd like that.
At 02:10 PM 10/12/03, you wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Peter Alling
Subject: Re: Old lenses and *ist D
Unless the new users might just
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Peter Alling wrote:
The sensor could, (I don't know if it does), actually adjust it's
sensitivity on the fly to insure a better exposure. I'm not sure
I'd like that.
There is a custom function to select that feature. It is called
Sensitivity Correction. The manual says
The problem with the *ist D, as far as I know, is that if it doesn't sense that
the lens is in A position it locks the lens aperture wide open but leaves the
meter on. With Stop down metering lenses, i.e. those without the K stop
down lever
such as a M42 lens using an adapter the Camera cannot
- Original Message -
From: Peter Alling
Subject: Re: Old lenses and *ist D
The sensor could, (I don't know if it does), actually adjust it's
sensitivity on
the fly to insure a better exposure. I'm not sure I'd like that.
It does. Or at least it can.
It's one of the custom
If it's designed to allow updates it probably loads software through the
same port you'd download pictures through. You would need software to
to do the uploads from a computer.
At 08:43 AM 10/13/03, you wrote:
Well, we may start a plea to Pentax to make open source of *istd
code. Then found
it properly aside from taking it in to
the service depot?
-Original Message-
From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 13-Oct-03 21:45
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Old lenses and *ist D
- Original Message -
From: Peter Alling
Subject: Re: Old lenses and *ist D
-
From: Rob Studdert
Subject: Re: Old lenses and *ist D
?
General consensus appears to be to treat exposure like slide, once
saturation
occurs it's a brick wall however generally the harder it saturates the
more
nasty aberrations (coloured edges etc.) you'll see around the areas
No extra code is required for stopdown metering with M42 lenses. If the code
for the camera is properly written, (I'll make no bets on that, I've seen
some awful code,
but assuming they did a good job) then the amount of code used a.) to make
the camera not
fire when a lens isn't set to A, or
Unless the new users might just want to try some extreme telephoto's to see
if they might like them on the cheep. (Let's see now, I paid an extra $100 for
a feature I might not use vs. You want how much for that 300mm lens)
At 04:23 PM 10/9/03 +0200, you wrote:
Hi William,
on 08 Oct 03 you
- Original Message -
From: Peter Alling
Subject: Re: Old lenses and *ist D
Unless the new users might just want to try some extreme telephoto's to
see
if they might like them on the cheep. (Let's see now, I paid an extra
$100 for
a feature I might not use vs. You want how much
match any lenses or bodies!
-Original Message-
From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 12 October 2003 21:26
To: pentax list
Subject: Re: Old lenses and *ist D
On 12/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
No extra code is required for stopdown metering with M42 lenses
On 12 Oct 2003 at 12:10, William Robb wrote:
What is the exposure accuracy requirement of a digital sensor as compared to
film?
General consensus appears to be to treat exposure like slide, once saturation
occurs it's a brick wall however generally the harder it saturates the more
nasty
permanently set to a negative value - not decided how much
yet...
-Original Message-
From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 12 October 2003 23:08
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Old lenses and *ist D
On 12 Oct 2003 at 12:10, William Robb wrote:
What is the exposure
What is the exposure accuracy requirement of a digital sensor as compared to
film?
Well, just like slide film, you really don't want to overexpose; blow out the
highlights and there's nothing you can do about it. Underexposure introduces
noise (pretty much as can be seen by looking at shots
On 12 Oct 2003 at 23:15, Rob Brigham wrote:
More lattitude into shadow yes, but highlights get blown faster than
almost any slide film I have used. I never liked Sensia because I felt
it did this too easily. Better to deliberately under-expose digital a
fraction IMHO. In fact I am thinking
On 7/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
The mechanical aperture ring is a thing of
the past. A continuously variable, microprocessor operated aperture
control is a much more desirable form of adjustment. You can
compensate
for focal-length/aperture variations much more accurately this way.
Yea, I agree that it would be nice to make the aperture and speed dials
more analogish, the fixed position thing is really an artifact of
older technology and historical reference points. Someone is eventually
going to do this.
Juey Chong Ong wrote:
On 7/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 9:44 AM
Subject: Re: Old lenses and *ist D
I'd be better convinced by this statement if I could also continuously
vary the aperture (and shutter speed) in manual mode like I can do on a
large-format lens.
I've been reading this thread for a while, and I can't resist anymore:
1. Sure they could have put the mechnaical coupler in the *ist D. Mark
may very well be right that they have future elctrical coupling desings
where the mechnaics must go, but it's not in this camera. I also dont'
buy the
John Francis wrote:
Peter Alling wrote:
I have three things to say, if simpler is better 1.) Don't use
Actually they *did* have to write one piece of code - the piece that checks
to see if a pre-A lens is mounted, and won't trip the shutter unless the
appropriate Pentax function is set.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Francis wrote:
Actually they *did* have to write one piece of code - the piece that checks
to see if a pre-A lens is mounted, and won't trip the shutter unless the
appropriate Pentax function is set. But that's one small, simple piece of
code. Code to support
- Original Message -
From: Robert Gonzalez
Subject: Re: Old lenses and *ist D
You're right, we'll just keep arguing here over what Pentax's real
motivation was and never know until Pentax decides to tell us, if ever.
Basically we'll never know.
Personally, I don't care either
Personally, I don't care either. The camera is nice, though not perfect. I
have plenty of lenses to use, and if I can't use a few of my K/M lenses,
so
what?
I went through many years as a photographer with just a 50mm lens, and did
some of my very best work with it.
I still have a few
On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: John Francis
Subject: Re: Old lenses and *ist D
This still comes down to demanding that everybody pay
the extra $10 or so, even if this is for functionality
they don't want and will never use
Hi Edwin,
on 09 Oct 03 you wrote in pentax.list:
Isn't the *ist D based on the *ist film body?
No, it isn't.
Cheers, Heiko
Hi William,
on 08 Oct 03 you wrote in pentax.list:
...
Since, as JCO pointed out, the camera is already more expensive than a
Canon 10D (whatever), and is way more expensive than the Rebel digital
(like about 500 bucks), it seems to me that adding even more to the
cost of the camera for a
edwin wrote:
ein Basing a digital on the middle and bottom-of-the-line cameras means
ein that you don't get all the features that might be nice. A $20 or
ein whatever feature is a trivial addition to a $1700 digital but probably a
ein noticeable addition to the $200-$300 film camera it is
Rob, the mechanical linkage needed to feedback the aperature ring
position from the K and M lenses is simply not there on the *istD. All
there is at that part of the mount is a bit of open space. This I know
from actually comparing the *istD with my MX at GFM.
The so called K/M function is
- Original Message -
From: John Francis
Subject: Re: Old lenses and *ist D
This still comes down to demanding that everybody pay
the extra $10 or so, even if this is for functionality
they don't want and will never use.
No offence, but everyone keeps pulling numbers out of thin
On 8 Oct 2003 at 2:25, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
there are always feaures in cameras that someone
doesnt want or use. the decision to add them
depends on the cost of implementation and
the added value to the customers. K/M is a
HUGE value to K/M lens owners. The ploy is to sell
new lenses, not
Anecdotal information when dealing with a statistical problem is not prima
facie evidence.
At 01:58 AM 10/8/03 -0400, you wrote:
Ah yes anecdotal information used to fight supposed anecdotal information.
Not much of an argument for the statistician in me. The economist in me
wants to say
This still comes down to demanding that everybody pay
the extra $10 or so, even if this is for functionality
they don't want and will never use.
No offence, but everyone keeps pulling numbers out of thin air. Sometimes
it's ten bucks, sometimes it's twenty, but no one with any
Also unfortunately a $10 increase in manufacturing cost tends to work
out to a $100 increase in selling price.
Also, this camera was also probably well into the design stage when the
MZ-D was announced and was and is intended to be a cheaper, less
versatile camera. Unfortunately for whatever
-Original Message-
From: Robert Gonzalez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 11:27 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Old lenses and *ist D
Continuously variable shutter speed was the first big advancement
Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: John Francis
Subject: Re: Old lenses and *ist D
This still comes down to demanding that everybody pay
the extra $10 or so, even if this is for functionality
they don't want and will never use.
No offence, but everyone keeps pulling numbers out
Yeah, this is my problem. I bemoaned the lack of aperture control on the
body with the MZ-S because I liked using the TV wheel on the PZ-1p to
set the aperture. It's a real pain having to change the lens setting
when switching a lens from a PZ-1p (or *ist/*ist-D) to an MZ-S or MX,
for
Continuous variable aperture has always been possible. It's especially
easy to do with a Spot F with an analog needle meter. I've used it many
times when shooting evenly lit scenes, turn the aperture ring until the
needle is centered. It hardly ever happens on a particular f-stop detent.
Mark Roberts wrote:
Rob Brigham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Funny thing is, I moaned about not having body control on the MZ-S - but
I adjusted. Now I have to adjust back and have not found the transition
quite as easy in this direction. No problem though, I will cope - but
then I am lucky I
I never got the MZ-S, so I'm going from the PZ series to the *D, which
should prove to be an easier transition than if I had. What was it
about the MZ-S that made people move from the PZ-1*?
Far, *far* better autofocus
Extremely rigid metal chassis
Battery grip that took AAs (and
John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I never got the MZ-S, so I'm going from the PZ series to the *D, which
should prove to be an easier transition than if I had. What was it
about the MZ-S that made people move from the PZ-1*?
Far, *far* better autofocus
Extremely rigid metal
-Original Message-
From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 2:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Old lenses and *ist D
Actually, there is (somewhat). As told to me by a Pentax rep, who
-Original Message-
From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 1:54 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Old lenses and *ist D
Also unfortunately a $10 increase in manufacturing cost tends to work
out
-Original Message-
From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 1:54 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Old lenses and *ist D
Also unfortunately a $10 increase in manufacturing cost tends to work
out to a $100
On 8 Oct 2003 at 21:14, graywolf wrote:
Over the years mechnical things have gotten more expensive, and
electronic things have gotten less expensive. We are talking a moving
target here not something set in concrete. You can not compare 1983
manufacturing economics and 2003 manufacturing
I have three things to say, if simpler is better 1.) Don't use auto-focus
don't use digital neither is simple. 2.) If you insist in using a camera
that sets exposures that are not guestimates then you have one choice, the
LX. Everything else is just that even your best digital is still a
- Original Message -
From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 5:26 PM
Subject: RE: Old lenses and *ist D
If this were true, K/M would have disappered
it the film SLRs years ago, it didnt,,,
Pentax doesnt want you buying used KM lenses
Peter Alling wrote:
I have three things to say, if simpler is better 1.) Don't use
auto-focus don't use digital neither is simple. 2.) If you insist in
using a camera that sets exposures that are not guestimates then you
have one choice, the LX. Everything else is just that even your best
Peter Alling wrote:
I have three things to say, if simpler is better 1.) Don't use
auto-focus don't use digital neither is simple. 2.) If you insist in
using a camera that sets exposures that are not guestimates then you
have one choice, the LX. Everything else is just that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
KEH.com is knee-deep in M lenses.
But they can't keep later lenses in stock. This should tell us
something.
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
When shooting the IstD this way, can you adjust shutter speed
in fractions of a stop? Or does it work the way that, say,
a K1000 does: full stop shutter speed changes only?
Mark Roberts wrote:
You do have such an option: Meter wide open in manual, stop down to
shooting aperture and adjust the
- Original Message -
From: Lon Williamson
Subject: Re: Old lenses and *ist D
When shooting the IstD this way, can you adjust shutter speed
in fractions of a stop? Or does it work the way that, say,
a K1000 does: full stop shutter speed changes only?
In manual or Tv, shutter speed
You are still confusing the image capture with the
lensmount. Digital has nothing to do with the lensmount.
What the istD has is a disabled K mount that has
absolutely nothing to do with digital capture...
If they went to a new lensmount like olympus just
did in order to improve performance of the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I keep wondering how many people have complained to Pentax directly.
And what they heard back, if anything about the reasons.
Fascinating point. I really doubt that Pentax would tell anyone what the
real reasons are. But I'd be interested in what they *say* the reasons
But then you lose the auto-diaphragm, Arnold. You younger guys who never
had to use SLRs without an auto-diaphragm don't know what that was like.
To give you an idea, before auto-diaphragm became the standard SLRs were
only used for specialized technical photography. Auto-diaphragm is the
graywolf wrote:
But then you lose the auto-diaphragm, Arnold. You younger guys who never
had to use SLRs without an auto-diaphragm don't know what that was like.
To give you an idea, before auto-diaphragm became the standard SLRs were
only used for specialized technical photography.
Hi,
John F wrote:
I've spent far more than that, over the same period, in picking
up used equipment. Nice for me, but it doesn't support Pentax.
I disagree. Although indirect, it does support Pentax. Buyers of new
equipment would do so at a much(?) lower rate if there was no
As I've said before, I think Pentax has plans for electrical contacts
(for USM, electronic aperture control, etc.) in places where the
aperture simulator is located on the original K mount . . .
I'd be very surprised if they used that part of the lens mount for new
purposes; it would
And then there are those of us that like to try things out. I have bought
and sold dozens of Pentax lenses over the last 5 years; except for the super
wide or super long, I have owned most of the K-mount lenses made. If were
more organized, I would have a great collection of photos of and with
On 7 Oct 2003 at 23:03, Rob Brigham wrote:
Funny thing is, I moaned about not having body control on the MZ-S - but
I adjusted. Now I have to adjust back and have not found the transition
quite as easy in this direction. No problem though, I will cope - but
then I am lucky I don't have any
On 7 Oct 2003 at 17:49, Robert Gonzalez wrote:
A continuously variable, microprocessor operated aperture
control is a much more desirable form of adjustment.
Desirable to whom?
Everyone but a few whiners it seems.
A great retort indeed, indicating that the author has a deep
Its a matter of coming out of the cave. Haven't you ever seen 2001 a
space odyssey? Technology moves forward, you adjust. Don't worry,
you'll get used to it...
:)
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 7 Oct 2003 at 23:03, Rob Brigham wrote:
Funny thing is, I moaned about not having body control on the
Continuously variable shutter speed was the first big advancement. With
the A lenses, continously variable aperture adjustment became possible.
You can compensate for problems with non-constant aperture zooms
this way, as well as get the perfect aperture for a given shutter speed.
With
-Original Message-
From: Robert Gonzalez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 11:14 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Old lenses and *ist D
Its a matter of coming out of the cave. Haven't you ever seen 2001 a
space odyssey
-Original Message-
From: Robert Gonzalez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 11:27 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Old lenses and *ist D
Continuously variable shutter speed was the first big advancement. With
the A lenses, continously variable aperture
With digital they could use the existing contacts or for that matter
the power zoom contacts and piggyback a signal on it and not compromise
current functionality, (OK I did notice the pun).
At 11:41 AM 10/7/03 -0400, you wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I keep wondering how many people have
Ah yes anecdotal information used to fight supposed anecdotal information.
Not much of an argument for the statistician in me. The economist in me
wants to say lets assume someone's correct, but you haven't disposed of
the opposing argument by a long shot.
At 01:45 PM 10/7/03 -0400, you wrote:
They're not. It's pure sophistry.
At 08:54 AM 10/8/03 +1000, you wrote:
On 7 Oct 2003 at 23:03, Rob Brigham wrote:
Funny thing is, I moaned about not having body control on the MZ-S - but
I adjusted. Now I have to adjust back and have not found the transition
quite as easy in this
I own over a dozen PENTAX KM lenses, all superb.
So if you like your superb KM lenses, then why should you change to
Canon??? I can't follow this argumentation. Can you use those lenses at
a 10D? No. But you can use them with a *istD. How much would it be to
buy comparable lenses for a 10D?
I own over a dozen PENTAX KM lenses, all superb.
I own 1 (ONE) A type or later lens . . .
This represents maybe ONE new lens in the last twenty years?
Unless you've bought a whole lot of other stuff, I don't think
that's the sort of customer that keeps a company in business.
Not that I've
-Original Message-
From: Heiko Hamann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 2:19 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Old lenses and *ist D
I own over a dozen PENTAX KM lenses, all superb.
So if you like your superb KM lenses, then why should you
-Original Message-
From: John Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 2:38 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Old lenses and *ist D
I own over a dozen PENTAX KM lenses, all superb.
I own 1 (ONE) A type or later lens . . .
This represents maybe ONE new
Now if you disengage the lens so that it stops down and then hit the
green button you get real aperture metering and automatic shutter
speed adjustment in manual mode?
Yes.
In Av mode, with the lens disengaged, the shutter speed change
automatically as you change the aperture on the lens.
In
-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 09:47:41 -0400
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Old lenses and *ist D
Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Resent-Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 09:47:29 -0400
For the past 3 or so years I've been on the group the
complaints about Pentax have had 2 major
lenses. Have you notice that these 645lenses are not cheap?
Jim A.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Heiko Hamann)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 06 Oct 2003 08:19:00 +0200
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Old lenses and *ist D
Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Resent-Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 02:20:19
]
Subject: Re: Old lenses and *ist D
- Original Message -
From: J. C. O'Connell
Subject: RE: Old lenses and *ist D
Cripped Pentax lenses do not equal uncrippled
lenses from other mfgrs
If I cant use my pentax lenses the way they
were designed to be used, I would rather
sell them
You couldn't have said it any better, J.C.
Jim A.
From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 01:36:27 -0400
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Old lenses and *ist D
Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Resent-Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 01:36:34 -0400
Lon wrote:
LW What does the rumour mill say about the next istD?
LW Will it use K/M lenses? Hell, I can wait
Of course there's always the possibility of a higher end *istd with
a corresponding price tag for full K/M compatibility. Maybe
something along the MZ-S approach.
But I
On Sun, 5 Oct 2003, John Francis wrote:
Well, conspiracy demands the least bit of subtlety, hardly the
case here: Pentax is playing openly and cynically. They chose to
disable an existing control on perfectly usable lenses that had
everything in place to work as before.
in very cheap (ala k1000) film SLRS.
JCO
RE: Old lenses and *ist D
From: J. C. O'Connell
Cripped Pentax lenses do not equal uncrippled
lenses from other mfgrs
If I cant use my pentax lenses the way they
were
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 10:10 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Old lenses and *ist D
We should not be so dependent on built-in meters
So, what does Canon have to offer that might be a
reason to change?
IS USM.
If you need/wants quiet af and is on your long lenses,
that may justify a change.
Faster frame rates, better AF, biggest line of pro lenses.
By reputation the best mid-range teles and long teles on par
with anyone
In a mechanical camera I could see your point. If I'm spending the kind of
money
that this electronic marvel costs I damned well want to at least have the
option of
using my old lenses in some kind of metered mode. I'm not as bad off as
JCO, I do
own some FA/F lenses, they are few enough to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
EVERY canon AF lens ever made will work on the EOS-10d if I understand
it correctly.
Nope, they just made a new lens esp for the 300D, that only works on
that camera. The 10D mirror would actually hit the optics on that lens.
Peter Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I'm spending the kind of money that this electronic marvel costs I
damned well want to at least have the option of using my old lenses in
some kind of metered mode.
You do have such an option: Meter wide open in manual, stop down to
shooting aperture
On 6/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
I own over a dozen PENTAX KM lenses, all superb.
So if you like your superb KM lenses, then why should you change to
Canon??? I can't follow this argumentation. Can you use those lenses at
a 10D? No.
Mutley snigger
When my K50 1.2 is finished, I
-Original Message-
From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 1:20 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Old lenses and *ist D
Peter Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I'm spending the kind of money that this electronic marvel costs I
damned well want to at least
1 - 100 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
