k mount lensses wont normally mount on a 645 will they? jco -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mishka Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 9:56 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: DA70 and 24x36 coverage
would someone also be upset about designation if it turned out that some K (M,A,FA...) lens covers 6x45 format? doesn't K500/4.5? why it isn't labeled as such? besides, although it is labeled as K, it has preset aperture! burn 'em! best, mishka On 10/2/07, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > the more functional variables a lens has, the more important the > designation becomes. jco > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Tom C > Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 2:39 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: DA70 and 24x36 coverage > > > It could be. Wasn't intended as such though. I apologize. > > My point was that if nomenclature on a lens is a big issue, then I > want to be in your (whoever's) shoes, because you're living pretty > charmed lives. > :-) > > Tom C. > > > >From: Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> > >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> > >Subject: Re: DA70 and 24x36 coverage > >Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 20:23:39 +0200 > > > >Tom, with all honesty and due respect - this is rather impolite > >remark. > > > >Respectfully. > > > >Boris > > > >Tom C wrote: > > > Who cares? If you can't think for a couple of milliseconds or > > > can't be troubled to research a product you're going to plunk > > > money down for, you probably shouldn't be allowed to press the > > > shutter release. > > > > > > Maybe they should have gone to an incompatible mount just to make > > > sure > >that > > > people that can't read don't have this problem. > > > > > > Tom C. > > > > > > > > >> From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> > > >> To: "'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'" <[email protected]> > > >> Subject: RE: DA70 and 24x36 coverage > > >> Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 14:11:20 -0400 > > >> > > >> LETS CLEAR THIS UP. IMHO, a lens series designation should cover > > >> all functionalities like coverage, AF, aperture rings, > > > >> optimized for digital etc. They should be all the same within a > > >> given designation. This is how is was for K/M, A, F lenses so it > > >> was very clear what you were getting. Now its getting very > > >> unclear. jco > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > >> Behalf Of P. J. Alling > > >> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 1:39 PM > > >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > >> Subject: Re: DA70 and 24x36 coverage > > >> > > >> > > >> Why? So that you can curse that they don't have aperture rings? > > >> Give me a break. If a lens incidentally covers a larger format > > >> but doesn't do > >it > > >> > > >> well, or doesn't have the mechanics to make it useful, then to do > > >> what you suggest would be a disservice, as well as asking for > > >> complaints and bad publicity. > > >> > > >> > > >> J. C. O'Connell wrote: > > >>> I disagree, the lenses that fully cover 24x36 should be marked > > >>> so so there is confusion if you are using both aps and ff > > >>> bodies. jco > > >>> > > >>> -----Original Message----- > > >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > >>> Behalf Of P. J. Alling > > >>> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 6:52 PM > > >>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > >>> Subject: Re: DA70 and 24x36 coverage > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> No it's not bad. DA lenses are guaranteed to cover 16x24 but may > > >>> cover a > > >>> > > >>> larger format. That's the only guaranteed there is. It hurts > > >>> nothing if they cover a larger format. > > >>> > > >>> J. C. O'Connell wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> If the comments below are true, it's bad. The lens designation > > >>>> should convey if a lens wont cover 24x36mm IMHO. A APS-C only > > >>>> lens is not > > >> the > > >>> > > >>>> same thing as a 24x36 lens and there should be an easy way to > > >>>> know by the lens designation IMHO. jco > > >>>> > > >>>> -----Original Message----- > > >>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > >>>> Behalf Of Godfrey DiGiorgi > > >>>> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 3:37 PM > > >>>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > >>>> Subject: Re: DA70 and 24x36 coverage > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On Oct 1, 2007, at 11:46 AM, Boris Liberman wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> I am asking my question mainly because if it indeed covered > > >>>>> full > > > >>>>> frame > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> and there were no image deterioration past the APC frame, > > >>>>> Pentax > > > >>>>> probably would have given it FDA designation instead of DA. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> The D-FA mount includes an aperture ring control. DA lenses do > > >>>> not. > > >>>> > > >>>> The DA70 has no aperture ring control, it was design for use > > >>>> with > > > >>>> the digital SLR bodies. Whether it actually covers 24x36 mm > > >>>> format isn't really relevant to the mount designation. > > >>>> > > >>>> Godfrey > > >>>> > > >>>> --- > > >>>> Not really relevant but interesting: > > >>>> > > >>>> In the course of researching my latest lens acquisition, I saw > > >>>> an > > > >>>> article about someone who took an M42 mount Pentax > > >>>> Fish-Eye-Takumar 17mm lens and cobbled up a mount to fit it on > > >>>> a 6x6 rollfilm folder with behind-lens leaf shutter. His goal > > >>>> was to make circular fish eye > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>>> images inexpensively ... it produced an image circle ~ 45mm in > > >>>> diameter on the 6x6 format film, which suited his needs > > >>>> perfectly. > > >>>> --- > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Remember, it's pillage then burn. > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > >> [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly > > >> above > and > > >> follow the directions. > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > >> [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above > and > > >> follow the directions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >[email protected] > >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > >to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above > >and follow the directions. > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
