Re: Old lenses and *ist D
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 SMCK 400mm f5.6 on Friday. If I've been following things correctly that's a 600mm f5.6 on the *istD. And this model is a straight manual aperture type, so theres no wierd metering ritual involved. ... ah well Bill - Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
RE: Old lenses and *ist D
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 the package, swipe one across your sensor *only once*, and repeat with another package if necessary. Never used them myself, as I don't have a DSLR yet. chris
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
Makes you wonder if sooner or later they will probably be driven by a linear or USM motor, with some type of feedback, like a shaft encoder or similar. This would make it extremely precise and consistent. It might actually be cheaper than a mechanical linkage, but it would necessitate a completely new interface that powered the lens. Thats when we better get IS and maybe some other goodies to make it worthwhile, but it would still make people feel even more screwed than they do now, since it would be more difficult to keep any compatibility with older lenses. Since they would yet again force people to buy new lenses, which means it will probably happen at some point! Peter Alling wrote: It's still a mechanical linkage. It would take statistical measurement of thousands of lenses to make a determination. In a perfect world the electronically controlled system should 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 the harder it saturates the more nasty aberrations (coloured edges etc.) you'll see around the areas of saturation. Most digicams have more exposure latitude into the shadow than slide film however but a couple of stops short of the better print films. Next question, how much more accurately (if at all) is the diaphram controlled on an A lens rather than a K lens. William Robb I drink to make other people interesting. -- George Jean Nathan
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
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 would be in the camera makers best interest to let this and make this happen. They would be pleasantly surprised by the creativity of their user base. Then we would have no one to blame but ourselves for any missing features!! ROTLF, I can imagine the expressions on the faces of the Pentax service imps reading this :-) He he, they'd have to hire double the service reps to keep up!! Think of the revenue potential! This might even make Pentax more money than the crippled mount tactic.
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
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 focussing than currently complain about loss of metering. Not that what I think matters; Pentax had to choose one, and they chose to keep full aperture for a brighter viewfinder. This is the silliest thing I've yet heard in this argument. You get a brighter viewfinder when focusing and composing by leaving the lens aperture at maximum. Then stop down set your shutter speed, (Just like an old Spotmatic), or let the camera set it and take the picture. Exactly my point. You'd be back to that mode of operation. Apparently most camera manufactures feel that their customers don't like working like that - everybody seems to feel that full-aperture composition and focussing, with the lens only stopping down while the picture was being taken, was a desirable feature. If it isn't a desirable feature, then why has practically every camera made since the Spotmatic F (and not just from Pentax) worked that way? And if it *is* a desirable feature, then why do you seem to believe that nobody would complain if that ability were removed?
RE: Old lenses and *ist D
Openapeture3 metering nad AE with K/M lenses is a very desireable and cheap feature to implement nad Pentax has neglected that for dubious reasons... J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -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 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 focussing than currently complain about loss of metering. Not that what I think matters; Pentax had to choose one, and they chose to keep full aperture for a brighter viewfinder. This is the silliest thing I've yet heard in this argument. You get a brighter viewfinder when focusing and composing by leaving the lens aperture at maximum. Then stop down set your shutter speed, (Just like an old Spotmatic), or let the camera set it and take the picture. Exactly my point. You'd be back to that mode of operation. Apparently most camera manufactures feel that their customers don't like working like that - everybody seems to feel that full-aperture composition and focussing, with the lens only stopping down while the picture was being taken, was a desirable feature. If it isn't a desirable feature, then why has practically every camera made since the Spotmatic F (and not just from Pentax) worked that way? And if it *is* a desirable feature, then why do you seem to believe that nobody would complain if that ability were removed?
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
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 can leave the software development to us, its loyal users, and get back to what they know best - making cameras and lenses. According to our specifications of course. No FAJ please. And btw, I'll write the K/M module myself. Just let me know if you need a downloadable MTF database for those darn old lenses. ;o) Servus, Alin Actually, it seems to me this should be quite doable. Really. It's been done in other arenas. Like DVD players, etc. The Net has a long tradition of hacking and sharing code, too. 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? Someone on this list must know. Marnie aka Doe
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
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 read-only memory chips, called PROMs or EPROMs. The operating system is stored on them by a process called 'PROM-blowing'. When you switch the device's power on the operating system starts to, well, operate. It's called firmware because it's considered half-way between software and hardware. Some firmware operating systems will also have some sort of loader which would let you load additional programs from an external device, such as a USB port, and then run them. As far as I know most suppliers of firmware for consumer devices don't let the consumer do any upgrades, certainly not in the way that's been discussed here. However, some do and I expect it will happen more and more, with suitable constraints to stop people wiping the entire operating system. If you know what PROM the device contains, and you know the details of the hardware interfaces, there's no reason (in theory) why you couldn't write your own little operating system to replace the one the vendor provides, then the entire device is yours to make behave as you see fit. -- Cheers, Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
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 them anyway.
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
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 happen. They would be pleasantly surprised by the creativity of their user base. Then we would have no one to blame but ourselves for any missing features!! ;) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 can leave the software development to us, its loyal users, and get back to what they know best - making cameras and lenses. According to our specifications of course. No FAJ please. And btw, I'll write the K/M module myself. Just let me know if you need a downloadable MTF database for those darn old lenses. ;o) Servus, Alin Actually, it seems to me this should be quite doable. Really. It's been done in other arenas. Like DVD players, etc. The Net has a long tradition of hacking and sharing code, too. 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? Someone on this list must know. Marnie aka Doe
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
- 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 it. William Robb
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
- 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 around the areas of saturation. Most digicams have more exposure latitude into the shadow than slide film however but a couple of stops short of the better print films. Next question, how much more accurately (if at all) is the diaphram controlled on an A lens rather than a K lens. William Robb
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
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 this use [erasable] programmable read-only memory chips, called PROMs or EPROMs. The operating system is stored on them by a process called 'PROM-blowing'. When you switch the device's power on the operating system starts to, well, operate. It's called firmware because it's considered half-way between software and hardware. Some firmware operating systems will also have some sort of loader which would let you load additional programs from an external device, such as a USB port, and then run them. As far as I know most suppliers of firmware for consumer devices don't let the consumer do any upgrades, certainly not in the way that's been discussed here. However, some do and I expect it will happen more and more, with suitable constraints to stop people wiping the entire operating system. If you know what PROM the device contains, and you know the details of the hardware interfaces, there's no reason (in theory) why you couldn't write your own little operating system to replace the one the vendor provides, then the entire device is yours to make behave as you see fit. Assuming it has the hardware to do so mike
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
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 lens stop down to the aperture selected on the aperture ring when the mechanism is actuated (within a given maximum angle of travel). In practice most of the K (and M) lenses seem to share the same basic mechanism, so the response is somewhat uniform across the range. But there could well be a small number of lenses that behave differently. There was also no requirement that the lens actuation mechanism had to be at exactly the same place on the lens mount, as long as it was capable of stopping the lens all the way down within the permitted angle of operation. Again most K and M lenses do seem to be the same. Only with the introduction of the A lenses was there any requirement for a systematic uniform response across the range. A bodies do not use bang-bang push-it-to-the-limit diaphragm controls; in program or shutter-priority modes they position the diaphragm control lever to intermediate positions, and expect any A lens to stop down to the same f stop (if possible) for a given position of the control lever. The response curve that the A mount specified was not the same as the empirically-observed behaviour of the K lenses; the A mount required the same angle of travel to change the aperture by one stop from any aperture. This is not how the K lenses behaved, but it did greatly simplify the actuating mechanism in the A-enabled bodies. It also allowed more precise control of smaller apertures; half the travel of the actuating lever on the K lenses was spent on the first two clickstops down from full aperture, and so on. If the A lenses had followed this pattern it would have been very hard to accurately control the smaller apertures. With the design chosen more of the range of actuation is available at the higher-numbered f-stops, and any error (due to misalignment, etc.) will be uniform across the whole range of apertures. Now I've actually done the calculations, it appears to me that the actuating lever of an A body in automatic mode does *not* move far enough to stop down a typical K lens to the right position at any aperture except wide open and stopped all the way down, so trying to fool the *ist-D into thinking that an old K lens is, in fact, an A lens on the A setting will result in overexposure.
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. 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 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) That would be the same % of users that only watch PBS. Personally, I think Pentax has just decided to move forwards, and stop looking backwards. I am curious, perhaps the more knowedgable people on the list will have an answer to this: What is the exposure accuracy requirement of a digital sensor as compared to film? William Robb I drink to make other people interesting. -- George Jean Nathan
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
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 Automatic sensitivity correction when the exposure is out of range. I haven't used this feature, it defaults to off and I left it there. alex
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
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 control the aperture. So the camera has stop down metering. It's a software feature. At 04:25 PM 10/12/03, you wrote: On 12/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: 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 doesn't have an A setting, (if properly written that should be the same code, it's looking at the same sensor), or b.) Overrides that function to turn off the meter and allow the shutter to fire, could be re-written to call the module to stop down the lens and the module to turn the meter on, thus giving K/M lenses stop down metering at least. This is interesting. To get the D60 to fire with the M42/EOS adapter aboard, I had to physically grind off a small bit of flange where it contacts a small 'pin' on the camera. Presumably this pin on the camera tells the electronics that there is a lens in place and can it detect the electrical contacts on the lens? If it can (EOS lens) it allows the shutter to work. If it can't (M42/EOS adapter) it won't allow the shutter to fire. Knowing that the camera will fire with no lens, no nothing in the bayonet, I figured that to remove the 'pin' on the camera would be out, cuz I obviously want to use other EOS lenses, or lose the bit of metal that contacts the pin. This I did and hey presto it fires, and allows stop down metering in manual and AV modes. This was the basis of my idea to construct an EOS mount on the back of a Pentax lens. 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? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk I drink to make other people interesting. -- George Jean Nathan
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
- 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 functions. William Robb
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
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 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 can leave the software development to us, its loyal users, and get back to what they know best - making cameras and lenses. According to our specifications of course. No FAJ please. And btw, I'll write the K/M module myself. Just let me know if you need a downloadable MTF database for those darn old lenses. ;o) Servus, Alin Actually, it seems to me this should be quite doable. Really. It's been done in other arenas. Like DVD players, etc. The Net has a long tradition of hacking and sharing code, too. 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? Someone on this list must know. Marnie aka Doe I drink to make other people interesting. -- George Jean Nathan
RE: Old lenses and *ist D
What interests me is how the hell you clean the sensor when the inevitable happens and something gets stuck to it - a piece of eyebrow dander, etc. It won't take much residue to seriously screw up your images. I would gather that you can use a mild breeze, but that canned air stuff that's not really air would seem to be a bad idea. This is something that seems to me to have the potential to be a big PITA - with film, you were replacing the medium each frame. With digital, it's the same thing each time, and it's gonna get dirty sooner or later. Is there any way to actually clean 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 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 functions. William Robb
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
It's still a mechanical linkage. It would take statistical measurement of thousands of lenses to make a determination. In a perfect world the electronically controlled system should 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 the harder it saturates the more nasty aberrations (coloured edges etc.) you'll see around the areas of saturation. Most digicams have more exposure latitude into the shadow than slide film however but a couple of stops short of the better print films. Next question, how much more accurately (if at all) is the diaphram controlled on an A lens rather than a K lens. William Robb I drink to make other people interesting. -- George Jean Nathan
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
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 doesn't have an A setting, (if properly written that should be the same code, it's looking at the same sensor), or b.) Overrides that function to turn off the meter and allow the shutter to fire, could be re-written to call the module to stop down the lens and the module to turn the meter on, thus giving K/M lenses stop down metering at least. At 07:54 AM 10/9/03 -0500, you wrote: 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. But that's one small, simple piece of code. Code to support K/M lenses would reqire significantly more code to be written. As there is no mechanical aperture sensor the only functionality that could be provided would be stop-down metering. That's not code that is needed for anything else, so it would have to be specifically written. That is true, they had to write a *small* bit of code to support the flag that the user can turn on if he wants to use manual with non-A lenses. The very presence of that flag is pretty much proof that they took the attitude user beware, and probably didn't test this area very much. I drink to make other people interesting. -- George Jean Nathan
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 for that 300mm lens) At 04:23 PM 10/9/03 +0200, you wrote: 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 dubious benefit wouldn't have been very smart. Absolutely right. Another aspect: Most users will use actual AF-lenses and - in addition - Pentax wants to attract new users. They would all have to pay for a feature that makes sense only for some old hands like us. Cheers, Heiko I drink to make other people interesting. -- George Jean Nathan
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
- 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 for that 300mm lens) That would be the same % of users that only watch PBS. Personally, I think Pentax has just decided to move forwards, and stop looking backwards. I am curious, perhaps the more knowedgable people on the list will have an answer to this: What is the exposure accuracy requirement of a digital sensor as compared to film? William Robb
RE: Old lenses and *ist D
Should be possible - just hack one of the short extension tubes surely so that the lens always stops down? Build in a 0.7 teleconvertor with a lever to control the stop down and everyone will be happy - except that outside Japan you will probably only be able to buy the grren one which doesn't 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. 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 doesn't have an A setting, (if properly written that should be the same code, it's looking at the same sensor), or b.) Overrides that function to turn off the meter and allow the shutter to fire, could be re-written to call the module to stop down the lens and the module to turn the meter on, thus giving K/M lenses stop down metering at least. This is interesting. To get the D60 to fire with the M42/EOS adapter aboard, I had to physically grind off a small bit of flange where it contacts a small 'pin' on the camera. Presumably this pin on the camera tells the electronics that there is a lens in place and can it detect the electrical contacts on the lens? If it can (EOS lens) it allows the shutter to work. If it can't (M42/EOS adapter) it won't allow the shutter to fire. Knowing that the camera will fire with no lens, no nothing in the bayonet, I figured that to remove the 'pin' on the camera would be out, cuz I obviously want to use other EOS lenses, or lose the bit of metal that contacts the pin. This I did and hey presto it fires, and allows stop down metering in manual and AV modes. This was the basis of my idea to construct an EOS mount on the back of a Pentax lens. 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? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
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 aberrations (coloured edges etc.) you'll see around the areas of saturation. Most digicams have more exposure latitude into the shadow than slide film however but a couple of stops short of the better print films. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: Old lenses and *ist D
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 about leaving the exposure compensation 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 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 aberrations (coloured edges etc.) you'll see around the areas of saturation. Most digicams have more exposure latitude into the shadow than slide film however but a couple of stops short of the better print films. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/ ~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
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 where the ISO rating has been turned up). Not as much noise as push processing introduces, though.
RE: Old lenses and *ist D
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 about leaving the exposure compensation permanently set to a negative value - not decided how much yet... This is more to do with your system gamma, it's important to use all the available latitude in camera then expand it compress it or change the gamma (effectively where your middle exposure point lies) after the fact. Digital camera outputs are pretty linear so if you don't like the look why not write an action that transforms the file to replicate the look of your favourite film? Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
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. 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. --jc
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
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: 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. 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. --jc
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
for the *istD, it was a matter of tradition, i think. on my Nikon Coolpix 5000, the lens has 10 aperture steps. they don't really correspond to any traditional setps. however, they are shown as such in the display. Herb... - Original Message - From: Juey Chong Ong [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
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 weaning strategy. It's better to take the hit on the camera that gives the advantage, e.g., IS lenses or something. 2. I don't think the economic argument, i.e., it adds $10-100 to the price, is very strong unless you feel that group that has a lot of K/M lenses is too samll to matter. It's this latter point that bothers many of us. We kind of assumed that we were the group the *ist D was aimed at. 3. There actually is apro market that the *ist D could attract, i.e., the ones using Pentax MF equipment, especially 645. These folks may decide that 6 MP DSLR's are good enough fro some apps. They do hold certain advantages over 35, but most of these usages involve AF, so K/M lenses don't matter. 4. I think that we are actually seeing Pentax (and everyone else) abandon 35mm. I suspect that Pentax wants to conetrate on the folks who want AF, and that those that don't will have no where to go. Further, I suspect they feel that those whose switch to Canon over this were probably going to do so anyway. Yeah, it's a cold business decision. But, they are a business afterall, and they may have decided that their current approach wasn't working. Sales will tell if there decision was correct. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
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. But that's one small, simple piece of code. Code to support K/M lenses would reqire significantly more code to be written. As there is no mechanical aperture sensor the only functionality that could be provided would be stop-down metering. That's not code that is needed for anything else, so it would have to be specifically written. That is true, they had to write a *small* bit of code to support the flag that the user can turn on if he wants to use manual with non-A lenses. The very presence of that flag is pretty much proof that they took the attitude user beware, and probably didn't test this area very much.
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
[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 K/M lenses would reqire significantly more code to be written. As there is no mechanical aperture sensor the only functionality that could be provided would be stop-down metering. That's not code that is needed for anything else, so it would have to be specifically written. Good explanation, but don't try to be reasonable about this. ;-) Marnie aka Doe Still wondering if anyone has ever contacted Pentax to ASK. 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.
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
- 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. 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 (dozen) film cameras that I can use, if I want to, and I can use my older lenses on bodies that they are contemporaneous with. Life is far too short to worry about things of little importance. K/M lens compatability falls into that category. For me it became a so what? issue when I picked up the ist D. William Robb
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
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 (dozen) film cameras that I can use, if I want to, and I can use my older lenses on bodies that they are contemporaneous with. Life is far too short to worry about things of little importance. K/M lens compatability falls into that category. For me it became a so what? issue when I picked up the ist D. William Robb I'm with you on this Wheatfield. Although my *ist D may have to be replaced under warranty, I find it to be a great little camera. Also, since I'm old enough to know how to use a hand held meter, I find the K/M compatability issue to be a non-issue. The few I have work just fine in manual mode. I can hardly wait for a chance to try out my M100/4.0 Macro on it. Bill
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
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. 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 authourity has actually come up with a real hard and accurate number for how much extra, overall, this camera would have had to cost with K/M compatability. 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 dubious benefit wouldn't have been very smart. Isn't the *ist D based on the *ist film body? The Nikon D100 is, for all that nikon would have you believe, basically just a digital back on an N80 film body. Obviously, this sort of thing saves a lot of development and production costs compared to creating an entirely new camera just for digital (which only Nikon and Olympus have done, really). Problem is, basing a digital on the top-of-the-line film camera means that it costs an awful lot, and is often big and heavy. Only the canon EOS-1D/Ds cameras are based on top-of-the-line film cameras (EOS1Vs), and they were at the time of introduction the most expensive things out there in their class. Basing a digital on the middle and bottom-of-the-line cameras means that you don't get all the features that might be nice. A $20 or whatever feature is a trivial addition to a $1700 digital but probably a noticeable addition to the $200-$300 film camera it is based on. Price competition is pretty tight down there at the entry level. DJE
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
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
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
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 dubious benefit wouldn't have been very smart. Absolutely right. Another aspect: Most users will use actual AF-lenses and - in addition - Pentax wants to attract new users. They would all have to pay for a feature that makes sense only for some old hands like us. Cheers, Heiko
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
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 based on. Price ein competition is pretty tight down there at the entry level. If the K/M incompatibility and aperture ring drop are just an accident as you describe it, then P should reassure its user base more or less officially that other bodies above current *ists will still support them. The fact they don't - despite the hard to ignore whining (Japan user communities included) - simply shows this is where P is heading. Servus, Alin
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
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 actually labeled Allow shutter to fire with lens off A setting, or something very close to that. You needd to set it to use a newer lens with the aperture ring set to any thing other than A as well. I have come to think the fact you can use older lenses at all is not a design feature so much as a lucky accident. Rob Studdert wrote: 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 economics directly. The discussion keeps slipping sideways. So if we rule out lenses which require mechanical aperture ring feedback and its associated stratospheric costs we are left with the potential for aperture ring operation with F/FA and LTD lenses. All of which provide aperture feedback via electronic signalling (?) So why was aperture ring operation disabled when it would likely have been simply be a matter of a software I/O routine? (I assume that information such as MTF etc. is still being read when using these lenses) The expense to develop the software argument is getting thinner too, how much time and effort was invested in the software multi-exposure function? Who is going to seriously use this function (which is found on virtually no other DSLRs) over an external image editor? Really a waste of time but an interesting spec to quote for a marketing guru or a gizmo freak. So I guess they had the opportunity but not the impetus to implement aperture ring control. Why is the question? Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway.
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
- 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 air. Sometimes it's ten bucks, sometimes it's twenty, but no one with any authourity has actually come up with a real hard and accurate number for how much extra, overall, this camera would have had to cost with K/M compatability. 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 dubious benefit wouldn't have been very smart. William Robb
RE: Old lenses and *ist D
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 to save potential buyers $10. Do you really think raising the price to $1510 is going to make a sales dent? Not only that if it had K/M functions owners might be tempted to buy a fine used lens. Pentax cant have any of that can they? Face it , they are screwing their previous customers AND their new ones by not allowing them to use lenses that could work fine on the camera. They have timed it with digital capture but that has nothing to do with it It's obvious, the RD costs to implement multiple exposures blew out :-) Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Old lenses and *ist-D
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 lets assume someone's correct, but you haven't disposed of the opposing argument by a long shot. Maybe not. But I've at least shown *some* evidence to support my position. And in any case I think the burden of proof lies with the original claimant; he was the one to put forward a supposed 'explanation'; I sugested that it was at least arguable, if not just plain incorrect. I drink to make other people interesting. -- George Jean Nathan
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 air. Sometimes it's ten bucks, sometimes it's twenty, but no one with any authourity has actually come up with a real hard and accurate number for how much extra, overall, this camera would have had to cost with K/M compatability. 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 dubious benefit wouldn't have been very smart. William Robb No offence taken. I used the $10 figure because it was the lowest one I had seen quoted; other posts have talked about a $20 part, etc. Personally I think the cost would be significantly higher by the time you factor in all the development, testing support costs.
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
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 reason the MZ-D never made it to the market so Pentax users are having to accept something less than the top of the line camera. Since it is common knowledge that Pentax was tweaking the design right up to the time they started shipping any basic design changes would have held the camera back much longer. All this is just simply a basic engineering fact of life. I still expect an all plastic camera similar to the *ist with even less features than the *istD, and a camera similar to the MZ-D to appear in the not too distant future. (And no, I am not going to make any bets for folks to renege upon (GRIN)). John Francis wrote: Hogwash, they have been making bodies supporting K/M/A/F/FA ALL FULLY, ALL in same body, and all in cheap $300 bodies. they didnt have to reinvent that stuff for the istD. Pure marketing decision IMHO. All they needed was a cheap aperture sensing cam, about a $10 part at most and a few lines of code to adjust the shutter speed slower as the aperture ring gets stopped down 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. Tell you what - why don't you send me $1 for every $100 you spend on photographic equipment? It's only a small increase, so you'll never miss it, and if you (and all the other Pentax photographers) do this it will enable me to have a greatly improved photographic experience. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway.
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
But they have to support the newer FAJ lenses too. This translates to more code to differentiate between the two, and more testing at the back end to ensure compatibility. Haven't you ever done a testing matrix to make sure that your test coverage is complete? Adding this feature to the matrix has a multiplicative effect. J. C. O'Connell wrote: Hogwash, they have been making bodies supporting K/M/A/F/FA ALL FULLY, ALL in same body, and all in cheap $300 bodies. they didnt have to reinvent that stuff for the istD. Pure marketing decision IMHO. All they needed was a cheap aperture sensing cam, about a $10 part at most and a few lines of code to adjust the shutter speed slower as the aperture ring gets stopped down J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -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 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 both ends open, as in green mode, the program line can pick a combination that is not possible to select by hand. I find this desirable, don't you? Why limit yourself to fixed f-stop buckets when you have a continuum between wide-open and min aperture?? Not wanting it is like a grade schooler saying I like Whole numbers, I'm scared of Real numbers. I initially felt betrayed by the lack of full support for KM lenses on the new digital body, but I've gotten good use out of them, and they could still be used on that body with a little extra work. Adding the support for the older lenses is more expensive than people realize, with the extra development, manufacturing, and testing required, this incremental change propagates throughout the organization and affects the bottom line. If they do add this to a future body, it will probably be more expensive and/or they will have amortized their RD costs so that they can balance the benefits/costs better and come out ahead. :) Rob Studdert wrote: 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 understanding of the underlying concepts and dilemmas. :-( Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
Actually, there is (somewhat). As told to me by a Pentax rep, who was told by a Pentax engineer, the cost would have been about $50 per unit. Whether that is manufacturing cost or sales cost, I do not know. However, see my other post in this thread about engineering timelines, etc. 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. 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 authourity has actually come up with a real hard and accurate number for how much extra, overall, this camera would have had to cost with K/M compatability. 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 dubious benefit wouldn't have been very smart. William Robb -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway.
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
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 example. Fortunately for me I shoot mostly in shutter priority, so that's less of a problem for me when switching between the PZ-1p MZ-S. Actually I find the MZ-S to be a very strange beast. It has some wonderful ergonomic features (the slanted top makes checking the settings very easy, and the choice of rotational direction on the control wheel is great), but it has this strange control dial which just doesn't seem easy to operate; it doesn't spin easily enough for it to be used while I'm looking through the viewfinder. The camera had too many good features (metal chassis; improved AF; vertical shutter release on grip) for me to pass it by, but I'd still rather have had a PZ-2 :-) And, of course, the MZ-S would have been the perfect companion to an MZ-D. Oh, well ... I should find out how much I like the *ist-D fairly soon now; Adorama tell me that they expect to ship it out tomorrow. I can hardly wait. In the meantime: what will the next digital body offer us? Will we see a full-frame sensor? (I doubt it). I doubt we'll see a mechanical aperture sensor, either. Perhaps Pentax will release a digital body akin to the MZ-M; no auto-focus, just a basic digital KA2-mount body. But I expect pretty much everything else from now on to be fly-by-wire. I'd like to see a body woth support for USM and/or IS lenses, too.
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
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. Sorry, I meant for shutter priority modes. You can compensate for problems with non-constant aperture zooms this way, as well as get the perfect aperture for a given shutter speed. This seems less than possible if you let the camera set both shutter and aperture for you, Which is the only way this is really possible. Why spend all this money on an SLR. If your going to let the exposure system do all your thinking for you Actually I use hyper manual on my PZ most of the time, but when there is fast action, I don't have time to fiddle with it, so the automation comes in handy. get a PS. You don't need computerized control to compensate for variable aperture zooms by the way, purely analog metering systems have been doing it quite well for a very long time. Its a guestimate based on wide open reading, which is not too bad actually. One based on the electronic data is better. Of course it's one more thing that can break. :( Sometimes simple is better. With both ends open, as in green mode, the program line can pick a combination that is not possible to select by hand. I find this desirable, don't you? Why limit yourself to fixed f-stop buckets when you have a continuum between wide-open and min aperture?? Not wanting it is like a grade schooler saying I like Whole numbers, I'm scared of Real numbers. You seem to like having a robot make your decisions for you. I'm not afraid of real numbers but imaginary numbers give me hives. Yea, I never liked the whole imaginary number games used to solve electrical engineering problems. Like I mentioned though, I use Hyper-manual most of the time, so I like having the control. I do like the concept of doing away with fixed buckets. Its useful as a reference to get a grasp of the general lighting conditions, but that's all. I initially felt betrayed by the lack of full support for KM lenses on the new digital body, but I've gotten good use out of them, and they could still be used on that body with a little extra work. Adding the support for the older lenses is more expensive than people realize, with the extra development, manufacturing, and testing required, There is a kernel of truth here it would be more expensive, probably $20.00 per unit. That would make each *ist-D cost 1% more if they passed the whole cost on to the consumer. If they didn't they could make up for that cost by selling 100 to 1000 more units world wide, depending on their current gross profit per unit. I think with a world wide population of several billion people Pentax might find that many more to buy an *ist-D if they kept faith with their past. I honestly think for the *istD it would have cost a whole lot more money than that. Mainly because of software and testing. We go through this with software all the time. Should we support the xxx version of the operating system for customers who are still on it? Adding the support sometimes takes your testing matrix beyond the resources available and do not make sense *at that time*. It may be the case that they have postponed this to the next body. this incremental change propagates throughout the organization and affects the bottom line. If they do add this to a future body, it will probably be more expensive and/or they will have amortized their RD costs so that they can balance the benefits/costs better and come out ahead. Most of us who have been complaining have already said we would be willing to pay more for this compatibility in a high end unit. Yup. But we are less than the critical mass needed to make it happen. :) Your smilie doesn't stop your post from having a distinctly condescending tone. Sadly you set up several straw men to knock down and failed to do even that. Huh? Where? My apologies if I offended anyone.
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
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 don't have any lenses which will be a problem. What I am slightly annoyed about is the lack of consistency. I have to switch mentally when I go from one body to another. 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 example. 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*?
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
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 had a vertical shutter release) Exposure data imprinting PC socket [Anticipation of the MZ-D] In many cases it wasn't a move from the PZ-1; many folks kept both.
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
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 chassis Battery grip that took AAs (and had a vertical shutter release) Exposure data imprinting PC socket [Anticipation of the MZ-D] Also: Better flash capability with the AF360FGZ (though I'm still waiting for an AF500FGX) Great ergonomics (that slanted top panel and the nifty DOF preview) I have to admit that I find turning the main control wheel difficult, but it doesn't affect me much because I usually shoot in aperture-preferred mode. Changing AF points is the biggest inconvenience for me. In many cases it wasn't a move from the PZ-1; many folks kept both. I did. The PZ-1p is an incredibly versatile camera. Still, based mostly on the intangible pleasurable to use factor, it's the MZ-S that gets into my camera bag most often. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
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... J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -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 was told by a Pentax engineer, the cost would have been about $50 per unit. Whether that is manufacturing cost or sales cost, I do not know. However, see my other post in this thread about engineering timelines, etc. 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. 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 authourity has actually come up with a real hard and accurate number for how much extra, overall, this camera would have had to cost with K/M compatability. 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 dubious benefit wouldn't have been very smart. William Robb -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway.
RE: Old lenses and *ist D
see my last post, the cam could not be adding 100 to selling price, a K1000 could have never existed if that were true. JCO J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -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 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 reason the MZ-D never made it to the market so Pentax users are having to accept something less than the top of the line camera. Since it is common knowledge that Pentax was tweaking the design right up to the time they started shipping any basic design changes would have held the camera back much longer. All this is just simply a basic engineering fact of life. I still expect an all plastic camera similar to the *ist with even less features than the *istD, and a camera similar to the MZ-D to appear in the not too distant future. (And no, I am not going to make any bets for folks to renege upon (GRIN)). John Francis wrote: Hogwash, they have been making bodies supporting K/M/A/F/FA ALL FULLY, ALL in same body, and all in cheap $300 bodies. they didnt have to reinvent that stuff for the istD. Pure marketing decision IMHO. All they needed was a cheap aperture sensing cam, about a $10 part at most and a few lines of code to adjust the shutter speed slower as the aperture ring gets stopped down 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. Tell you what - why don't you send me $1 for every $100 you spend on photographic equipment? It's only a small increase, so you'll never miss it, and if you (and all the other Pentax photographers) do this it will enable me to have a greatly improved photographic experience. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway.
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
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 economics directly. J. C. O'Connell wrote: see my last post, the cam could not be adding 100 to selling price, a K1000 could have never existed if that were true. JCO J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -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 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 reason the MZ-D never made it to the market so Pentax users are having to accept something less than the top of the line camera. Since it is common knowledge that Pentax was tweaking the design right up to the time they started shipping any basic design changes would have held the camera back much longer. All this is just simply a basic engineering fact of life. I still expect an all plastic camera similar to the *ist with even less features than the *istD, and a camera similar to the MZ-D to appear in the not too distant future. (And no, I am not going to make any bets for folks to renege upon (GRIN)). John Francis wrote: Hogwash, they have been making bodies supporting K/M/A/F/FA ALL FULLY, ALL in same body, and all in cheap $300 bodies. they didnt have to reinvent that stuff for the istD. Pure marketing decision IMHO. All they needed was a cheap aperture sensing cam, about a $10 part at most and a few lines of code to adjust the shutter speed slower as the aperture ring gets stopped down 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. Tell you what - why don't you send me $1 for every $100 you spend on photographic equipment? It's only a small increase, so you'll never miss it, and if you (and all the other Pentax photographers) do this it will enable me to have a greatly improved photographic experience. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway.
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
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 economics directly. The discussion keeps slipping sideways. So if we rule out lenses which require mechanical aperture ring feedback and its associated stratospheric costs we are left with the potential for aperture ring operation with F/FA and LTD lenses. All of which provide aperture feedback via electronic signalling (?) So why was aperture ring operation disabled when it would likely have been simply be a matter of a software I/O routine? (I assume that information such as MTF etc. is still being read when using these lenses) The expense to develop the software argument is getting thinner too, how much time and effort was invested in the software multi-exposure function? Who is going to seriously use this function (which is found on virtually no other DSLRs) over an external image editor? Really a waste of time but an interesting spec to quote for a marketing guru or a gizmo freak. So I guess they had the opportunity but not the impetus to implement aperture ring control. Why is the question? Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
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 guess from a wide open test. 3.) If you think that they didn't have to write special software routines to keep the *ist-D from working with K/M and test them then you're simply naive. At 01:23 PM 10/8/03 -0500, you wrote:m 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. Sorry, I meant for shutter priority modes. You can compensate for problems with non-constant aperture zooms this way, as well as get the perfect aperture for a given shutter speed. This seems less than possible if you let the camera set both shutter and aperture for you, Which is the only way this is really possible. Why spend all this money on an SLR. If your going to let the exposure system do all your thinking for you Actually I use hyper manual on my PZ most of the time, but when there is fast action, I don't have time to fiddle with it, so the automation comes in handy. get a PS. You don't need computerized control to compensate for variable aperture zooms by the way, purely analog metering systems have been doing it quite well for a very long time. Its a guestimate based on wide open reading, which is not too bad actually. One based on the electronic data is better. Of course it's one more thing that can break. :( Sometimes simple is better. With both ends open, as in green mode, the program line can pick a combination that is not possible to select by hand. I find this desirable, don't you? Why limit yourself to fixed f-stop buckets when you have a continuum between wide-open and min aperture?? Not wanting it is like a grade schooler saying I like Whole numbers, I'm scared of Real numbers. You seem to like having a robot make your decisions for you. I'm not afraid of real numbers but imaginary numbers give me hives. Yea, I never liked the whole imaginary number games used to solve electrical engineering problems. Like I mentioned though, I use Hyper-manual most of the time, so I like having the control. I do like the concept of doing away with fixed buckets. Its useful as a reference to get a grasp of the general lighting conditions, but that's all. I initially felt betrayed by the lack of full support for KM lenses on the new digital body, but I've gotten good use out of them, and they could still be used on that body with a little extra work. Adding the support for the older lenses is more expensive than people realize, with the extra development, manufacturing, and testing required, There is a kernel of truth here it would be more expensive, probably $20.00 per unit. That would make each *ist-D cost 1% more if they passed the whole cost on to the consumer. If they didn't they could make up for that cost by selling 100 to 1000 more units world wide, depending on their current gross profit per unit. I think with a world wide population of several billion people Pentax might find that many more to buy an *ist-D if they kept faith with their past. I honestly think for the *istD it would have cost a whole lot more money than that. Mainly because of software and testing. We go through this with software all the time. Should we support the xxx version of the operating system for customers who are still on it? Adding the support sometimes takes your testing matrix beyond the resources available and do not make sense *at that time*. It may be the case that they have postponed this to the next body. this incremental change propagates throughout the organization and affects the bottom line. If they do add this to a future body, it will probably be more expensive and/or they will have amortized their RD costs so that they can balance the benefits/costs better and come out ahead. Most of us who have been complaining have already said we would be willing to pay more for this compatibility in a high end unit. Yup. But we are less than the critical mass needed to make it happen. :) Your smilie doesn't stop your post from having a distinctly condescending tone. Sadly you set up several straw men to knock down and failed to do even that. Huh? Where? My apologies if I offended anyone. I drink to make other people interesting. -- George Jean Nathan
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
That's true, but to get people to buy their new lenses they should offer better lenses not make the used lenses un-usable. At 05:52 PM 10/8/03 -0400, you wrote: Duh! Of course not. They're in business to make a profit. They cannot make a profit with people buying used lenses. Bill - 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... -- -- J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -- -- -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 was told by a Pentax engineer, the cost would have been about $50 per unit. Whether that is manufacturing cost or sales cost, I do not know. However, see my other post in this thread about engineering timelines, etc. 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. 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 authourity has actually come up with a real hard and accurate number for how much extra, overall, this camera would have had to cost with K/M compatability. 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 dubious benefit wouldn't have been very smart. William Robb -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway. I drink to make other people interesting. -- George Jean Nathan
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
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 digital is still a guess from a wide open test. 3.) If you think that they didn't have to write special software routines to keep the *ist-D from working with K/M and test them then you're simply naive. Actually I do think that. But I've been in the software business for 23 years and believe me, its not that they wrote special code to do anything. They just didn't write the code to support it. Its alot easier to test when you have less things to test. Maybe your just too jaded.
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
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 digital is still a guess from a wide open test. 3.) If you think that they didn't have to write special software routines to keep the *ist-D from working with K/M and test them then you're simply naive. Actually I do think that. But I've been in the software business for 23 years and believe me, its not that they wrote special code to do anything. They just didn't write the code to support it. Its alot easier to test when you have less things to test. Maybe your just too jaded. 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 K/M lenses would reqire significantly more code to be written. As there is no mechanical aperture sensor the only functionality that could be provided would be stop-down metering. That's not code that is needed for anything else, so it would have to be specifically written.
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
[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
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? Mark Roberts wrote: You do have such an option: Meter wide open in manual, stop down to shooting aperture and adjust the shutter speed accordingly. It's slow but you can always get an AF lens for when speed is important.
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
- 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 can be varied in either half stop or 1/3 stop increments, depending on custom function setting. In any of the automatic modes where the camera is setting shutter speed, the speeds are continuously variable. William Robb
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
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 lens/camera that would be one thing, but they havent. All they have done is dropped key camera functions without any technical problems causing the drop. Face it, it sucks and wasnt necessary in the name of progress to digitalTotally unrelated marketing decision. JCO I keep wondering how many people have complained to Pentax directly. And what they heard back, if anything about the reasons. Marnie aka Doe
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
[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 are ;-) 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, and they're trying to wean us off it gradually. (weaning being a very appropriate turn of phrase given the nature of much of the complaining!) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
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 thing that made the SLR a general purpose camera. Given the choice of auto-diaphragm or behind the lens metering I will take auto-diaphragm every time. I notice very Van Gogh like attitude here on the list. If she doesn't love me, I will cut off my ear. Or, if I have to replace 1/2 my lenses, I will switch to Canon and replace all of them. But then serious Pentax users have always been crazy anyway. Arnold Stark wrote: Now this really is some consolation! So if I were to screw a new locking hole into the mount of a K or M lens so that the aperture levers of lens and *ist D disengage, I would have two modes of operation: 1.) Aperture priority mode with real aperture metering. 2.) Manual mode: Hit the green button to meter (real aperture metering) and to automatically adjust the shutter speed. Not too bad. If and only if one is ready to modify the lens's mount. Of course it would have been much much better if Pentax had not modified (crippled) the body's bayonet mount first. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway.
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
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. Auto-diaphragm is the thing that made the SLR a general purpose camera. Given the choice of auto-diaphragm or behind the lens metering I will take auto-diaphragm every time. I sort of grew up with pre-sets. I was truly glad to move on... g keith I notice very Van Gogh like attitude here on the list. If she doesn't love me, I will cut off my ear. Or, if I have to replace 1/2 my lenses, I will switch to Canon and replace all of them. But then serious Pentax users have always been crazy anyway. Arnold Stark wrote: Now this really is some consolation! So if I were to screw a new locking hole into the mount of a K or M lens so that the aperture levers of lens and *ist D disengage, I would have two modes of operation: 1.) Aperture priority mode with real aperture metering. 2.) Manual mode: Hit the green button to meter (real aperture metering) and to automatically adjust the shutter speed. Not too bad. If and only if one is ready to modify the lens's mount. Of course it would have been much much better if Pentax had not modified (crippled) the body's bayonet mount first. -- graywolf
Re: Old lenses and *ist-D
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 secondhand market to soak up their cast-offs. There aren't many people like pentax-fan from Japan, with rooms piled to the ceiling. I wondered if somebody would raise this justification. Unfortunately it is based on an unwarranted assumption; that the seller of the used Pentax equipment was using the money to buy more (new) Pentax gear. In many of the cases where I know the reason for sale, that hasn't been the case. In fact two of my most expensive used purchases were one from a photographer who was dumping Pentax and switching to Nikon, and one from an estate sale where the money wasn't being for photographic gear at all. And we've seen several postings, even on this group of Pentax die-hards, of equipment being (reluctantly) offered for sale simply to raise money.
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
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 probably make mounting *all* existing lenses impossible. I think the mechanical aperture sensor was dropped for purely pragmatic reasons; it wasn't necessary - there was already an alternative control on the body which was just as good as the aperture ring (and, in fact, superior in the case of variable-aperture zoom lenses). This meant that all exposure settings were directly made on the body using electronic controls, rather than physical settings. I wouldn't be totally amazed to see a bidirectional remote control that replicated the info display thumbwheels, and talked to the camera using a bluetooth-enabled grip. One thing that argues aginst this scenario, though, is that they've dropped the power zoom contacts from the mount. While I personally won't miss them I'd have thought it might have been something you'd want in an electronic remote. There again, though, that would really need a remote viewfinder to see the framing - not really feasible, even at the pixel count of the LCD display.
Re: Old lenses and *ist-D
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 those lenses! Some of the lenses were bought new. As were both PZ-1p bodies, one of the MZ-S bodies, and the Optio 330rs. The used market allows me to rent lenses that I could not possibly justify the cost of as a new lens. If I had never found eBay or KEH, I would probably not own the FA lenses I have bought new (20-35/4, 28-105pz, 80-320, the Limiteds). My rentals gave me an appreciation for what I wanted, and also allowed me to purchase the more expensive glass, knowing I had a safety net in the Used market if I made a purchase I later regretted. Stan on 10/07/03 12:45 PM, John Francis at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 secondhand market to soak up their cast-offs. There aren't many people like pentax-fan from Japan, with rooms piled to the ceiling. I wondered if somebody would raise this justification. Unfortunately it is based on an unwarranted assumption; that the seller of the used Pentax equipment was using the money to buy more (new) Pentax gear. In many of the cases where I know the reason for sale, that hasn't been the case. In fact two of my most expensive used purchases were one from a photographer who was dumping Pentax and switching to Nikon, and one from an estate sale where the money wasn't being for photographic gear at all. And we've seen several postings, even on this group of Pentax die-hards, of equipment being (reluctantly) offered for sale simply to raise money.
RE: Old lenses and *ist D
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 lenses which will be a problem. What I am slightly annoyed about is the lack of consistency. I have to switch mentally when I go from one body to another. As I said, I will copy, but I really liked the idea of having a twin film/digital interface so that my work was identical on whichever body. This was part of why I bought an MZ-S because I thought I was gonna get its twin when I went digital. Still lament that one slightly. Well said. I don't have any lenses which will be a problem either but hell I'd like to be able to use their bloody aperture rings. I bought my MZ-S for the same reasons as yourself and now all I see is total inconsistency from Pentax regarding operation, compatibility, delivery, body design and yes even lens/body finish and colour. What I can't understand is how people here seem to view these moves as positive advancement? Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
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 understanding of the underlying concepts and dilemmas. :-( Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
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 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 lenses which will be a problem. What I am slightly annoyed about is the lack of consistency. I have to switch mentally when I go from one body to another. As I said, I will copy, but I really liked the idea of having a twin film/digital interface so that my work was identical on whichever body. This was part of why I bought an MZ-S because I thought I was gonna get its twin when I went digital. Still lament that one slightly. Well said. I don't have any lenses which will be a problem either but hell I'd like to be able to use their bloody aperture rings. I bought my MZ-S for the same reasons as yourself and now all I see is total inconsistency from Pentax regarding operation, compatibility, delivery, body design and yes even lens/body finish and colour. What I can't understand is how people here seem to view these moves as positive advancement? Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
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 both ends open, as in green mode, the program line can pick a combination that is not possible to select by hand. I find this desirable, don't you? Why limit yourself to fixed f-stop buckets when you have a continuum between wide-open and min aperture?? Not wanting it is like a grade schooler saying I like Whole numbers, I'm scared of Real numbers. I initially felt betrayed by the lack of full support for KM lenses on the new digital body, but I've gotten good use out of them, and they could still be used on that body with a little extra work. Adding the support for the older lenses is more expensive than people realize, with the extra development, manufacturing, and testing required, this incremental change propagates throughout the organization and affects the bottom line. If they do add this to a future body, it will probably be more expensive and/or they will have amortized their RD costs so that they can balance the benefits/costs better and come out ahead. :) Rob Studdert wrote: 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 understanding of the underlying concepts and dilemmas. :-( Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: Old lenses and *ist D
While technology moves forward in the long run, unfortunately it often has retrograde steps along the way J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -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? 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 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 lenses which will be a problem. What I am slightly annoyed about is the lack of consistency. I have to switch mentally when I go from one body to another. As I said, I will copy, but I really liked the idea of having a twin film/digital interface so that my work was identical on whichever body. This was part of why I bought an MZ-S because I thought I was gonna get its twin when I went digital. Still lament that one slightly. Well said. I don't have any lenses which will be a problem either but hell I'd like to be able to use their bloody aperture rings. I bought my MZ-S for the same reasons as yourself and now all I see is total inconsistency from Pentax regarding operation, compatibility, delivery, body design and yes even lens/body finish and colour. What I can't understand is how people here seem to view these moves as positive advancement? Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: Old lenses and *ist D
Hogwash, they have been making bodies supporting K/M/A/F/FA ALL FULLY, ALL in same body, and all in cheap $300 bodies. they didnt have to reinvent that stuff for the istD. Pure marketing decision IMHO. All they needed was a cheap aperture sensing cam, about a $10 part at most and a few lines of code to adjust the shutter speed slower as the aperture ring gets stopped down J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -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 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 both ends open, as in green mode, the program line can pick a combination that is not possible to select by hand. I find this desirable, don't you? Why limit yourself to fixed f-stop buckets when you have a continuum between wide-open and min aperture?? Not wanting it is like a grade schooler saying I like Whole numbers, I'm scared of Real numbers. I initially felt betrayed by the lack of full support for KM lenses on the new digital body, but I've gotten good use out of them, and they could still be used on that body with a little extra work. Adding the support for the older lenses is more expensive than people realize, with the extra development, manufacturing, and testing required, this incremental change propagates throughout the organization and affects the bottom line. If they do add this to a future body, it will probably be more expensive and/or they will have amortized their RD costs so that they can balance the benefits/costs better and come out ahead. :) Rob Studdert wrote: 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 understanding of the underlying concepts and dilemmas. :-( Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
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 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 are ;-) 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, and they're trying to wean us off it gradually. (weaning being a very appropriate turn of phrase given the nature of much of the complaining!) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com I drink to make other people interesting. -- George Jean Nathan
Re: Old lenses and *ist-D
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: 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 secondhand market to soak up their cast-offs. There aren't many people like pentax-fan from Japan, with rooms piled to the ceiling. I wondered if somebody would raise this justification. Unfortunately it is based on an unwarranted assumption; that the seller of the used Pentax equipment was using the money to buy more (new) Pentax gear. In many of the cases where I know the reason for sale, that hasn't been the case. In fact two of my most expensive used purchases were one from a photographer who was dumping Pentax and switching to Nikon, and one from an estate sale where the money wasn't being for photographic gear at all. And we've seen several postings, even on this group of Pentax die-hards, of equipment being (reluctantly) offered for sale simply to raise money. I drink to make other people interesting. -- George Jean Nathan
RE: Old lenses and *ist D
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 direction. No problem though, I will cope - but then I am lucky I don't have any lenses which will be a problem. What I am slightly annoyed about is the lack of consistency. I have to switch mentally when I go from one body to another. As I said, I will copy, but I really liked the idea of having a twin film/digital interface so that my work was identical on whichever body. This was part of why I bought an MZ-S because I thought I was gonna get its twin when I went digital. Still lament that one slightly. Well said. I don't have any lenses which will be a problem either but hell I'd like to be able to use their bloody aperture rings. I bought my MZ-S for the same reasons as yourself and now all I see is total inconsistency from Pentax regarding operation, compatibility, delivery, body design and yes even lens/body finish and colour. What I can't understand is how people here seem to view these moves as positive advancement? Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 I drink to make other people interesting. -- George Jean Nathan
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 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? Expensive. I have read this statement several times now: the *istD isn't fully compatible, so I will change to Canon an buy new lenses. Why don't you buy Pentax SMC-FA lenses??? Sorry, but for me this all sounds like the reaction of an insulted child. BTW - you _can_ use your KM lenses with a *istD. It might be a bit tricky, but for me this uncomfortability seems to be less important compared to changing to another system and buying all lenses and accessories new. Cheers, Heiko
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 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 been any better - since the Super Program pretty much the only stuff I've bought new has been a couple of bodies, a flash, and two power zoom lenses; one first rate (the 28-105), and one I no longer own (the original 100-300). 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. But, there again, I'm not complaining Pentax isn't supporting me. Pentax had already dropped support for the early K-mount lenses some time before the *ist-D was released; send one of those early lenses back to Pentax for repair and it's almost certain to come back marked 'service is no longer provided for this item'. All that being said, though, I feel that the *ist-D could have done a little more in the name of compatibilty. Not by adding the mechanical aperture sensor, perhaps - we'll disagree about whether it's reasonable to require that. But adding stop-down metering in manual mode would be possible without extra hardware. Perhaps, if we're really lucky, we'll see that in a firmware fix.
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 and go with the most modern lensmount there is at this time, the canon EOS. It was designed as AF, unlike pentax and nikon, bigger throat, and better selection of lenses both new and used I'm not insulted, I'm in disbelief that Pentax would abandon the BASIC functionality of the K/M lenses. Reading the aperture setting of the lens for open aperture metering and AE was achieved over 30 years ago in the ES screwmount era for christ's sake. To act like its not that important now is mystifying, not insulting. JCO J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -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 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? Expensive. I have read this statement several times now: the *istD isn't fully compatible, so I will change to Canon an buy new lenses. Why don't you buy Pentax SMC-FA lenses??? Sorry, but for me this all sounds like the reaction of an insulted child. BTW - you _can_ use your KM lenses with a *istD. It might be a bit tricky, but for me this uncomfortability seems to be less important compared to changing to another system and buying all lenses and accessories new. Cheers, Heiko
RE: Old lenses and *ist D
-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 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. 8 If they made their DSLR a K MOUNT camera instead of a KA mount camera I would consider buying one NEW but why should I if it doesnt support the basic functions of my K/M lenses? They LOST me when they could have gained a customer.. 8 Not that I've been any better - since the Super Program pretty much the only stuff I've bought new has been a couple of bodies, a flash, and two power zoom lenses; one first rate (the 28-105), and one I no longer own (the original 100-300). 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. But, there again, I'm not complaining Pentax isn't supporting me. Pentax had already dropped support for the early K-mount lenses some time before the *ist-D was released; send one of those early lenses back to Pentax for repair and it's almost certain to come back marked 'service is no longer provided for this item'. All that being said, though, I feel that the *ist-D could have done a little more in the name of compatibilty. Not by adding the mechanical aperture sensor, perhaps - we'll disagree about whether it's reasonable to require that. But adding stop-down metering in manual mode would be possible without extra hardware. Perhaps, if we're really lucky, we'll see that in a firmware fix. 8 Absurd. The aperture cam sensor is a simple device that they have been using even in their dirt cheap SLRs for decades. Go back to stop down metering of the 1960's in 2003? DUMB DUMB DUMB in a nearly $2K body... This decision which is purely a marketing one, not a technical problem, has made me lose all respect and faith in Pentax as a company. They always attempted to maintain as much compatiblity as possible with their systems over the years and only dropped it in the name of progress. They have not added anything new to their latest lenses which is causing this compatiblity issue. It is total BS and I find it hard to believe that anyone in this forum finds what they are doing in the istD acceptable for K/M lens owners. I will not be surprised if they or someone else offers a true K MOUNT DSLR in the future.That is a DSLR that supports all the functions of the K/M lenses. JCO 8
RE: Old lenses and *ist D
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 manual mode, with the lens disengaged, you get a new meter reading every time you hit the green button, so if you change the aperture (via the aperture ring on the lens) and then hit the green button you will get the correct reading and the shutter speed changes accordingly. So drilling a new locking hole IS a workable solution (for some people). It doesn't work with the DOF preview button however. When you operate that the display is turned off and the green button doesn't operate. Regards, Paul Ewins Melbourne, Asutralia
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
I own a Pentax 645. I own 5 lenses for that camera that I guess I could use on the newer 645s. I would hate to get screwed (sorry M42 fans) if Pentax came out with a digital 645 type camera that had an entirely different lens mount. Jim A. From: Collin Brendemuehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-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 components: 1. Pentax should change. 2. Pentax should not change. In their history Pentax has shown a penchant for trying to do both. In the 80s we got the A and AF interfaced but kept K-mounting of lenses. COMPROMISE. In the ist/compu-bodies we get electronic aperture control and also K-mounting of lenses. COMPROMISE again! 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. What might Nikon have to offer a person to change? More-solid PJ-grade bodies. If one needs/wants this then there would be cause to change. What does Pentax have to offer? Best optics. Limited, FA*. Pretty much all in the shorter focal lengths. (Nikon users might argue some specifics, but the whole range of Pentax optics, both current and past, are clearly outstanding.) If this is what one needs/wants, Pentax is a consideration. In these 2 newest bodies they've also provided a fine AF system. That's been requested for a LONG time. And from what I've read it's probably as good or better then the similarly-priced Canon Nikon offerings. I think Pentax has done fine job of establishing a place in the top 3, with Olympus Minolta continually fading into photographic oblivion. Pentax has survived a rough marketplace. It'll be interesting to see what they do in medium format in the next 2 years. mnsho, CRB 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 designed to be used, I would rather sell them and go with the most modern lensmount there is at this time, the canon EOS. It was designed as AF, unlike pentax and nikon, bigger throat, and better selection of lenses both new and used I'm not insulted, I'm in disbelief that Pentax would abandon the BASIC functionality of the K/M lenses. Reading the aperture setting of the lens for open aperture metering and AE was achieved over 30 years ago in the ES screwmount era for christ's sake. To act like its not that important now is mystifying, not insulting. So go John. Perhaps you forget that Canon completely abandoned their customer base some 15 years ago. Go hard, but have the decency to go with dignity. William Robb
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
I think Pentax built those old K/M lenses better than the new FA lenses. It's ashame that one has to resort to tricks to use them on the *istD. Right now I am wondering if my old 645 lenses would work on a new 645 body that would support digital. Or would I have to go out and buy all new 645 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 -0400 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? Expensive. I have read this statement several times now: the *istD isn't fully compatible, so I will change to Canon an buy new lenses. Why don't you buy Pentax SMC-FA lenses??? Sorry, but for me this all sounds like the reaction of an insulted child. BTW - you _can_ use your KM lenses with a *istD. It might be a bit tricky, but for me this uncomfortability seems to be less important compared to changing to another system and buying all lenses and accessories new. Cheers, Heiko
RE: Old lenses and *ist D
Yes but Canon abandoned the FD mount for many valid technical reasons. It was similar to the way pentax abandoned the screwmount. Pentax abandoning the K/M aperture sensor has nothing to do with improvement of their lenses or bodies. It is pure screwing of their customers previous purchases for zero technical reasons or improvements.. I do not think this is the end of the K/M line however. Pentax still can offer advanced models over the *istD that arent needlessly crippled with K/M lenses.Very simple to implement. JCO J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 8:45 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 and go with the most modern lensmount there is at this time, the canon EOS. It was designed as AF, unlike pentax and nikon, bigger throat, and better selection of lenses both new and used I'm not insulted, I'm in disbelief that Pentax would abandon the BASIC functionality of the K/M lenses. Reading the aperture setting of the lens for open aperture metering and AE was achieved over 30 years ago in the ES screwmount era for christ's sake. To act like its not that important now is mystifying, not insulting. So go John. Perhaps you forget that Canon completely abandoned their customer base some 15 years ago. Go hard, but have the decency to go with dignity. William Robb
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
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 Im not refering to the cheapie Canon Rebel digital, the D60 is also less expensive than the Pentax and is a highly rated camera. I am a pentax fan for sure but I am not unaware that Canon makes some of the most highly regarded lenses made by anyone for 35mm. I dont think Pentax makes nearly as many high end lenses as Canon does. As far as K M go, Pentax has been fully supporting them with AE and METERED manual on sub $300 SLR cameras for the last 25 years, no EXCUSE for a $1500 model!!! Maybe a $150 entry level film camera, certainly not a cutting edge camera costing over 10 times as much I own over a dozen PENTAX KM lenses, all superb. I own 1 (ONE) A type or later lens which will work as it was designed on the istD. If I cant buy a Pentax DSLR that wont cripple my K/M lenses, then there is really no ecomonic reason to stick with pentax in my mind. I would rather switch brands than stick with a company that abandons their loyal customers with a ridiculous lack of the basic aperture cam sensor which has been on nearly every camera they have made for the last 25 years, even the very low end models. NO EXCUSES for a $1500 camera with a K mount on it. If a K series lens aperture setting cant be read by the camera, IT ISNT A KMOUNT lensmount. Even the ancient late screwmount cameras had aperture sensing in the body. I dont need to touch an istD to know that the absurd abandonment of the K/M full functionality exists. I dont care how good it feels if my K/M lenses wont work AS DESIGNED on it. Hopefully, pentax will come to their senses and offer the full K/M compatiblity in future models ( At a higher price of course). It seems that pentax has offered a budget model at a premium price in the istD IMHO. Full frame, higher res., and K/M use will be something I would pay a premium for thats for sure. Maybe by the time that comes out, it will be same price as the istD is now... J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 12:22 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Old lenses and *ist D - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: Old lenses and *ist D Secondly, isnt the whole point of buying a PENTAX DSLR the ability to use a large quantity of PENTAX lenses one already owns? If not, why buy pentax DSLR??? I would rather go with Canon which is cheaper and has a much better selection of AF lenses on both the new and used market to select from Spoken by a man who has touched neither. I never intended to buy an *ist D. I found that after I had picked the camera up, the only reason I put it down was because I had to pull my wallet out of my pocket and pay for the thing. After comparing the *ist D to the Rebel D, I can say for certainty that the Pentax is the better camera. I felt no envy for my friend's Canon, though he sure liked my Pentax. A lot. The K and M lenses are perfectly usable on the *istD, but you do have to be willing to shoot in unmetered manual, or go through that whole kludge thing with partially dismounting the lens. Really, all that is lost from the usage of the pre A series lenses is aperture preferred automatic, and the ability to meter with the built in meter. I can't (and won't) argue with you about the Canon lenses, I don't know if the selection is better or not. I do wonder though if the better selection is going to be a whole bunch of their cheap and cheerful consumer grade zooms, rather than quality glass. I don't care, I bought Pentax for the lenses. I don't like Canon lenses anywhere near as much. William Robb
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
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 seriously doubt it. Pentax is going for the volumes nowadays, it's not interested in the niche products anymore. All we're going to see are well made Canon clones. Perhaps a full-frame if we're lucky. :oT Servus, Alin
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
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. Oh, grow up. They chose not to support a particular technique because there was a perfectly reasonable alternative. Live with it. It's not a reasonable alternative if your older lenses don't support it. If Pentax still made some of its K series optics like the 18mm 3.5 or the 200mm 2.5 then at least you'd have the option of buying lenses that would talk to the camera. As it is, Pentax no longer makes those lenses or anything like them so the camera really ought to talk to the lenses. You want to set the aperture on the *ist-D? Use the body control. Period. No complications introduced by using different techniques for different series of lenses. This is a valid point--I'm about to buy a Nikon G lens which requires aperture to be set from the camera. All my other AF Nikkors have the option of being set from the camera, but I have the camera set to use lens-based aperture control because my MF Nikkors need it. When I add the G lens to my kit I'll have to reset the camera every time I switch to an MF lens. At least the D1h allows me to use the old MF lenses, with almost full capability (no matrix meter). There's no need to bother with reading the aperture from the lens, because there's no need to turn the lens off the A position. If you can't live with that technique, then don't buy a *ist-D. It's not as though Pentax are the first manufacturer to switch to body-mounted controls. So tell us again just how many 20-year old lenses work on a EOS-10d? And is the D100 that much better? If I recall correctly, canon AF lenses are not 20 years old, so of course NO 20 year old canon lenses work on the EOS-10D. On the other hand, since canon made its switch from old tech to new tech all in one go as opposed to the evolution that Pentax and Nikon are going through EVERY canon AF lens ever made will work on the EOS-10d if I understand it correctly. The Nikon D100 is WORSE, in that it will not meter non-CPU lenses at all, even wide open in Aperture Priority mode. Why Nikon couldn't have at least turned the meter ON in this case I don't know. It is interesting to note that the new Nikon D2H re-introduces matrix metering with older MF lenses, something that the F5 and D1H didn't have but the F4 did. It's certainly just a connection or a firmware tweak, and wasn't that big a deal. It is also maddening that I'd get MORE functionality meter-wise from my old screw-mount lenses on an adapter with the *istD than I would with the equivalent K lenses precisely because the K lenses do talk to the camera physically. Pro and older amateur Nikons allow the mechanical aperture-follower lever to be disengaged to use lenses in stop-down metering mode, and I wish Pentax could do the same. DJE
RE: Old lenses and *ist D
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. 8 I think that canon offers more high end lenses than Pentax does and there are more possible optical designs with the EOS lensmount specification, it is a much larger throat They also are a few years ahead of pentax in DSLR development, which is an asset if your cosidering one of those bodiesThey are already in the 3rd or 4th generation bodies. 8 What might Nikon have to offer a person to change? More-solid PJ-grade bodies. If one needs/wants this then there would be cause to change. 888 If I had to start from scratch, I would probably go with EOS mount over Nikon. EOS was/is more capable and Canon/Nikon are both pretty capable in terms of the optics. This brings up an interesting question. NIKON has offered reasonably affordable DSLRs for a few years. DID THEY abandon basic features of their earlier F mount lenses for zero technical reasons or improvements like Pentax has just done with the ist D when they introduced their DSLRs? I doubt it. 888 What does Pentax have to offer? Best optics. Limited, FA*. Pretty much all in the shorter focal lengths. (Nikon users might argue some specifics, but the whole range of Pentax optics, both current and past, are clearly outstanding.) If this is what one needs/wants, Pentax is a consideration. 88 While Pentax certainly makes some very fine optics and has for a long time, I beleive that Canon and Nikon are both committed to and have been producing some very fine optics also. Pentax does not have any real advantage in this dept. as far as I am concerned. Yes, the older KM lenses were and are fantastic quality and for pentax to discontinue support of these fine lenses for no technical reason or improvement is absurd if they are not changing the mount. I contend any camera that doesnt support basic aperture sensing of K/M lenses is not a KMOUNT camera. If it is no longer KMOUNT, why??? OMISSION, no technical or economic reasons as that has been proven 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 designed to be used, I would rather sell them and go with the most modern lensmount there is at this time, the canon EOS. It was designed as AF, unlike pentax and nikon, bigger throat, and better selection of lenses both new and used I'm not insulted, I'm in disbelief that Pentax would abandon the BASIC functionality of the K/M lenses. Reading the aperture setting of the lens for open aperture metering and AE was achieved over 30 years ago in the ES screwmount era for christ's sake. To act like its not that important now is mystifying, not insulting. So go John. Perhaps you forget that Canon completely abandoned their customer base some 15 years ago. Go hard, but have the decency to go with dignity. William Robb
RE: Old lenses and *ist D
Bad Argument. There is no reason to abandon metered manual or AE on K/M just because it is possible to sort of work around those losses. I actually like full manual but digital is less forgiving than neg. film with respect to exposure and having AE with bracking is a huge plus for digital IMHO. Bracketing with AE makes far more sense with digital as there is no loss of film costs/waste. Far faster than any manual technique and sometimes working speed is of the essence. There has been NOTHING GAINED technically by not supporting KM AE and metered manual. It's all LOSS. It is unlike every other compatibily loss Pentax has ever done. At least on other losses, it was done in the name of some other gain. There is no gain in this case. J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -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 to take pictures. Use a separate light meter or a backup body, or take a light meter reading with an A, FA, lens on the istD and then pop on the equivalent K or M lens and shoot away.. Maybe if photographers learned to use their equipment or their brains we would not be so dependent on our in-camera light meter. There was a time not long ago when photographers used external meters, many still do. So go out and buy some new OLD KA lenses or an external light meter and take pictures... and stop complaining. Find a way around the problem instead of dwelling on it... That what GOOD photographers do Vic
RE: Old lenses and *ist D
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 elses. Better pro digital. Better selection of third-party lenses if that matters to you. What might Nikon have to offer a person to change? More-solid PJ-grade bodies. If one needs/wants this then there would be cause to change. Bazillions of great lenses on the used market that still work with some currently availible cameras. Very durable gear. IS USM like canon's, for what it's worth. Wider array of lenses present and past than Pentax. What does Pentax have to offer? Best optics. Limited, FA*. Pretty much all in the shorter focal lengths. (Nikon users might argue some specifics, but the whole range of Pentax optics, My tests show that Nikons are sharper in the corners than Pentax, whereas Pentax is sharper in the center than Nikons. In fairness to Pentax, I haven't had the opportunity to test any of their newer FA* and Limited lenses. I did at one time own a number of A* lenses that were for the most part at least on par with Nikon. Ironically, the old screw-mount lenses test as better than Pentax M and K lenses and often better than pro Nikkors except at the extremes of focal length. both current and past, are clearly outstanding.) Many of the past lenses now have limited functionality, however. It can be worked around, but in some shooting situations you don't want to be working around limited functionality. Also, many of the pentax greats are basically impossible to find now as they are only availible used and are hoarded by collectors--things like the A* lenses and early K lenses. The fact that Pentax made great lenses only helps right now if you already HAVE them. If this is what one needs/wants, Pentax is a consideration. Smaller cameras and lenses--most Nikon and Canon pro and mid-level cameras and lenses are very big and heavy. Bazillions of decent lenses on the used market that DON'T work with many of the currently availible cameras. Lower price for equivalent functionality in most cases. I think Pentax has done fine job of establishing a place in the top 3, with Olympus Minolta continually fading into photographic oblivion. Minolta makes some pro lenses that consistently test at the top of the heap, but I wonder who uses them? Olympus just threw in the towel on traditional SLRs and may have a tough time making its digital line competitive. Pentax has survived a rough marketplace. It'll be interesting to see what they do in medium format in the next 2 years. It'll be interesting to see if medium format survives the next 2 years. As digital technology matures, image quality is less tied to camera size. Sure, a bigger camera will always give a higher quality image with equivalent technology, but at some point the 35mm digitals will be as good as is reasonably needed for most uses, and are smaller, cheaper, and more flexible than larger formats. I don't see all larger formats dying immediately any more than I see 35mm film dying immediately, but I suspect more guys are buying EOS 1DSs now than Hasselblads. DJE
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
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 list so I'll list them, F 4-5.6 70-210 which is a very good lens indeed, FA 4.0 28-70 which makes excellent images but I'm always afraid I'll break, 43mm LTD which most on this list have more than passing knowledge of, and finally the FA 28-200 a lens I've been thinking of starting a thread about, Most liked and at the same time disliked lens. All except the last are very well thought of and are capable of making great pictures. The majority of my lenses are K and M lenses carefully selected over the years for their unique qualities and picture taking abilities and it just galls me that Pentax has made the marketing decision, and make no mistake it is a marketing decision, to remove compatibility with these great lenses. In point of fact I often had the opportunity to get the KA version of a M or K lens that I now own, the M* 300MM for example but I chose the M for it's better, (marginally I know), build. By the way when I learned photojournalism most PJ's and their editors thought Light Meters were for wimps. On a digital camera the concept of not using one just seems so stupid. At 10:09 AM 10/6/03 -0400, you wrote: We should not be so dependent on built-in meters to take pictures. Use a separate light meter or a backup body, or take a light meter reading with an A, FA, lens on the istD and then pop on the equivalent K or M lens and shoot away.. Maybe if photographers learned to use their equipment or their brains we would not be so dependent on our in-camera light meter. There was a time not long ago when photographers used external meters, many still do. So go out and buy some new OLD KA lenses or an external light meter and take pictures... and stop complaining. Find a way around the problem instead of dwelling on it... That what GOOD photographers do Vic I drink to make other people interesting. -- George Jean Nathan
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
[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.
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 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 and adjust the shutter speed accordingly. It's slow but you can always get an AF lens for when speed is important. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
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 will be able to mount it on my D60, and it will be fully useable (in stop-down metering) with manual and aperture- priority modes. A very nice man is going to machine an adapter to my design and I am going to bolt it onto the back of the lens. It's a superb lens, it has manual focus and will be effectively an 80mm 1.2 lens. The Canon 85 f1.8 is okay optically, but has a horrible plastic feel and the manual focus is sheee-yite. It's my one Canon lens, and I'm not keen on it. I considered a Canon 50mm 1.8, but I hate the feel of it. That's why I'm adapting a Pentax lens. In fact all my other lenses are either Sigma or Tokina. If I could afford the EF 'L' lenses, I would be a lot happier, but they are VERY expensive. In this respect Heiko is spot-on. Switching brands may be vfine once you've got the camera, but start building up a collection of good lenses and you might find yourself breaking the bank. More soon. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
RE: Old lenses and *ist D
AE with autobracket is what I want. No Go with the K/M lenses J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -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 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 and adjust the shutter speed accordingly. It's slow but you can always get an AF lens for when speed is important. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
