Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Pentax question
51 views
Skip to first unread message
Lyndon
Feb 6, 2013, 2:46:14 PM2/6/13
to
I have been using Pentax film cameras for all of my photography life
(from the H-1a screw mounts). I currently have the MX camera with many
Kmount lenses. I have noticed the K30 pentax camera and am wondering if
it will take the K mount lenses and get approx the same results with
them. For instance, I have a 24mm lens which is a very wide angle
lens. I have been told that earlier dslr cameras could be modified to
take such a lens, but it would no longer give 24mm film comparable
pictures. Hope this isn't too confusing. But I would like to keep using
all my older K mount lens if possible with similar digital result.
Lyndon
(from the H-1a screw mounts). I currently have the MX camera with many
Kmount lenses. I have noticed the K30 pentax camera and am wondering if
it will take the K mount lenses and get approx the same results with
them. For instance, I have a 24mm lens which is a very wide angle
lens. I have been told that earlier dslr cameras could be modified to
take such a lens, but it would no longer give 24mm film comparable
pictures. Hope this isn't too confusing. But I would like to keep using
all my older K mount lens if possible with similar digital result.
Lyndon
nospam
Feb 6, 2013, 3:33:39 PM2/6/13
to
In article <lyndon-23F3CA....@d90-136-209-74.cust.tele2.de>,
the lenses will fit but how well they work will vary. lenses from the
mx era (1980s) are not auto-focus, so you'll need to manually focus.
autofocus slrs are optimized for the camera to do the focusing (i.e.,
no split image or microprism focusing aids), but there might be an
electronic indication of focus. lenses without an 'a' setting won't be
able to fully support auto-exposure.
another issue is the crop factor of the sensor. pentax slrs have a
sensor that's smaller than a 35mm film frame with a crop factor of
1.5x, which means the effective focal length of any lens you use will
be 1.5x whatever is on the lens. thus, your 24mm will work as if it's a
36mm lens on 35mm film. to get a similar view of 24mm on 35mm film with
a pentax digital slr, you would need a 16mm lens. on the other hand,
you get a free bonus for telephoto. an 80-200mm works as a 120-300mm.
mx era (1980s) are not auto-focus, so you'll need to manually focus.
autofocus slrs are optimized for the camera to do the focusing (i.e.,
no split image or microprism focusing aids), but there might be an
electronic indication of focus. lenses without an 'a' setting won't be
able to fully support auto-exposure.
another issue is the crop factor of the sensor. pentax slrs have a
sensor that's smaller than a 35mm film frame with a crop factor of
1.5x, which means the effective focal length of any lens you use will
be 1.5x whatever is on the lens. thus, your 24mm will work as if it's a
36mm lens on 35mm film. to get a similar view of 24mm on 35mm film with
a pentax digital slr, you would need a 16mm lens. on the other hand,
you get a free bonus for telephoto. an 80-200mm works as a 120-300mm.
peter.n...@verizon.net
Feb 6, 2013, 3:44:00 PM2/6/13
to
is slightly different from film. Old lenses that were optimized for film
may or may not be OK for digital. Just because the lens mount fits,
doesn't mean the lens will function as with your old camera. You may
want to check for compatibility of features, if they are imp9ortant to
you, such as autofocus & autoexposure. When I switched to digital I
verified the functionality of the lenses I cared about and brought them
to the store so I could check for myself and see how comfortable i was.
HTH
--
PeterN
me
Feb 6, 2013, 4:05:36 PM2/6/13
to
First hit:
http://www.robertstech.com/compat.htm
Alex Monro
Feb 6, 2013, 5:23:53 PM2/6/13
to
nospam wrote:
> In article <lyndon-23F3CA....@d90-136-209-74.cust.tele2.de>,
> Lyndon <lyn...@someisp.com> wrote:
>
>> I have been using Pentax film cameras for all of my photography life
>> (from the H-1a screw mounts). I currently have the MX camera with many
>> Kmount lenses. I have noticed the K30 pentax camera and am wondering if
>> it will take the K mount lenses and get approx the same results with
>> them. For instance, I have a 24mm lens which is a very wide angle
>> lens. I have been told that earlier dslr cameras could be modified to
>> take such a lens, but it would no longer give 24mm film comparable
>> pictures. Hope this isn't too confusing. But I would like to keep using
>> all my older K mount lens if possible with similar digital result.
>
> the lenses will fit but how well they work will vary. lenses from the
> mx era (1980s) are not auto-focus, so you'll need to manually focus.
> autofocus slrs are optimized for the camera to do the focusing (i.e.,
> no split image or microprism focusing aids), but there might be an
> electronic indication of focus. lenses without an 'a' setting won't be
> able to fully support auto-exposure.
>
You can get split image focussing screens for Pentax and other makes
> In article <lyndon-23F3CA....@d90-136-209-74.cust.tele2.de>,
> Lyndon <lyn...@someisp.com> wrote:
>
>> I have been using Pentax film cameras for all of my photography life
>> (from the H-1a screw mounts). I currently have the MX camera with many
>> Kmount lenses. I have noticed the K30 pentax camera and am wondering if
>> it will take the K mount lenses and get approx the same results with
>> them. For instance, I have a 24mm lens which is a very wide angle
>> lens. I have been told that earlier dslr cameras could be modified to
>> take such a lens, but it would no longer give 24mm film comparable
>> pictures. Hope this isn't too confusing. But I would like to keep using
>> all my older K mount lens if possible with similar digital result.
>
> the lenses will fit but how well they work will vary. lenses from the
> mx era (1980s) are not auto-focus, so you'll need to manually focus.
> autofocus slrs are optimized for the camera to do the focusing (i.e.,
> no split image or microprism focusing aids), but there might be an
> electronic indication of focus. lenses without an 'a' setting won't be
> able to fully support auto-exposure.
>
of DSLRs from various third parties, such as KatzEye:
http://www.katzeyeoptics.com
There are other less expensive suppliers, but I don't have details to
hand.
Also, the K30 has a focussing aid called focus peaking when using live
view to compose using the rear LCD screen. This in some ways makes the
area in focus even more clear than a microprism screen.
Pentax probably have the best backwards compatibility with old lenses
of any current make of DSLR cameras. Even non-A lenses can be supported
for metering via a stop down metering method. Stabilisation (Anti-Shake)
is supported if you enter the focal length manually at switch on. Even
screw-mount lenses are supported via a simple adapter.
> another issue is the crop factor of the sensor. pentax slrs have a
> sensor that's smaller than a 35mm film frame with a crop factor of
> 1.5x, which means the effective focal length of any lens you use will
> be 1.5x whatever is on the lens. thus, your 24mm will work as if it's a
> 36mm lens on 35mm film. to get a similar view of 24mm on 35mm film with
> a pentax digital slr, you would need a 16mm lens. on the other hand,
> you get a free bonus for telephoto. an 80-200mm works as a 120-300mm.
film because a digital sensor is sensitive to the angle at which light
reaches it. This is likely to be a more frequent problem with wide
angle lenses. Vignetting and apparent chromatic aberration (actually
sensor blooming or optical crosstalk) are the main symptoms.
nospam
Feb 6, 2013, 5:34:46 PM2/6/13
to
In article <keul4u$r62$1...@dont-email.me>, Alex Monro
those problems existed with film, but often went unnoticed. many old
lenses just weren't that good.
the only issue that *might* be a problem is film lenses have little to
no coating on the rear elements and a digital sensor being perfectly
flat and very reflective (unlike film), can cause problems if the rear
element is also uncoated. however, it's rare.
<al...@argaty.org.uk.invalid> wrote:
> Some lenses may not perform as well on digital sensors as they did on
> film because a digital sensor is sensitive to the angle at which light
> reaches it. This is likely to be a more frequent problem with wide
> angle lenses. Vignetting and apparent chromatic aberration (actually
> sensor blooming or optical crosstalk) are the main symptoms.
that's a myth.
> Some lenses may not perform as well on digital sensors as they did on
> film because a digital sensor is sensitive to the angle at which light
> reaches it. This is likely to be a more frequent problem with wide
> angle lenses. Vignetting and apparent chromatic aberration (actually
> sensor blooming or optical crosstalk) are the main symptoms.
those problems existed with film, but often went unnoticed. many old
lenses just weren't that good.
the only issue that *might* be a problem is film lenses have little to
no coating on the rear elements and a digital sensor being perfectly
flat and very reflective (unlike film), can cause problems if the rear
element is also uncoated. however, it's rare.
Fred McKenzie
Feb 6, 2013, 6:58:46 PM2/6/13
to
As others have mentioned, you will be able to use all of your old Pentax
lenses one way or another. There is a screw-mount adapter if you still
have any of these older lenses. I suggest you download the owner's
manual for the K30. It probably has a section that tells you how to use
older lenses.
I do not consider 24mm to be "very" wide, but it was great for taking
pictures when you could not back up any further! With the smaller K30
sensor, it will be more like a 35mm lens was on your MX. For the wide
angle case, go ahead and get the K30 with a kit lens. My Pentax *ist DS
DSLR came with a 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens, equivalent to 27-82.5mm on
your MX.
I have tried using my older K-mount lenses with the *ist DS. Yes, it
can be done. However, it is not very convenient except with the "A"
lenses. In other words, you can use the old lenses but you may not like
it!
The KA lenses only need you to set the body for manual focus.
Everything else is automatic. (I can not speak for the anti-shake
feature. I do not think mine has that.)
Fred
Message has been deleted
Wally
Feb 7, 2013, 3:30:01 PM2/7/13
to
On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 15:33:39 -0500, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
I too was a Pentax man, and had a very nice collection of screw mount
lenses, all Super Multi Coated and in excellent condition, ranging
from 20mm to 500mm. These all metal and glass lenses were worshipped
in their day and still look and feel very impressive.
When it came time to go digital, I considered getting a system so I
could keep using these cherished lenses. (Couldn't figure out why
Pentax wouldn't release a Spotmatic with a digital back!) But after
due consideration, I opted instead for a whole new start (with Canon).
The main reason at the time was that the Canon lenses and bodies work
so well together, with features like autofocus (which I shunned
before). I was ready to embrace the new technologies. (Same reasoning
if I had chosen for Nikon.)
What I found out later was that the new Canon zoom lenses way
outperformed the old Takumar primes. See, I bought a low-cost adapter
and was able to use all those old lenses on the Canon body. And the
results were not good. The 500mm, which was VERY expensive in its day
and looks very impressive, had terrible chromatic aberration, poor
sharpness and low contrast. Even my consumer grade 70-300mm Canon zoom
with the 500D closeup attachment outperformed my 100mm Takumar Macro
prime.
I still love the Pentax Spotmatic system and will keep my core system
(body and 3 lenses), but it's because I'm a collector, and they were
fine items in their day. Everything is usable and I could go out and
shoot a roll of IR film, or shoot without a battery in sub-zero
weather no problem... but mostly it will sit on a shelf.
If good files are your goal, I suggest you select a good modern
system, whether Canon, Nikon, Sony, or other. I'm pretty sure your
photography will benefit.
W
wrote:
lenses, all Super Multi Coated and in excellent condition, ranging
from 20mm to 500mm. These all metal and glass lenses were worshipped
in their day and still look and feel very impressive.
When it came time to go digital, I considered getting a system so I
could keep using these cherished lenses. (Couldn't figure out why
Pentax wouldn't release a Spotmatic with a digital back!) But after
due consideration, I opted instead for a whole new start (with Canon).
The main reason at the time was that the Canon lenses and bodies work
so well together, with features like autofocus (which I shunned
before). I was ready to embrace the new technologies. (Same reasoning
if I had chosen for Nikon.)
What I found out later was that the new Canon zoom lenses way
outperformed the old Takumar primes. See, I bought a low-cost adapter
and was able to use all those old lenses on the Canon body. And the
results were not good. The 500mm, which was VERY expensive in its day
and looks very impressive, had terrible chromatic aberration, poor
sharpness and low contrast. Even my consumer grade 70-300mm Canon zoom
with the 500D closeup attachment outperformed my 100mm Takumar Macro
prime.
I still love the Pentax Spotmatic system and will keep my core system
(body and 3 lenses), but it's because I'm a collector, and they were
fine items in their day. Everything is usable and I could go out and
shoot a roll of IR film, or shoot without a battery in sub-zero
weather no problem... but mostly it will sit on a shelf.
If good files are your goal, I suggest you select a good modern
system, whether Canon, Nikon, Sony, or other. I'm pretty sure your
photography will benefit.
W
RichA
Feb 7, 2013, 9:22:46 PM2/7/13
to
share that makes Olympus's look big. I can only surmise they have
reasonable margins on what they sell.
Message has been deleted
David Hare-Scott
Feb 9, 2013, 3:57:39 PM2/9/13
to
John A. wrote:
> Maybe...
> http://www.petapixel.com/2012/06/30/pentax-crowned-best-in-dslr-online-buyer-satisfaction/
You will note that the ratings of the top three are very close together.
Without some assessment of the statistical spread of the ratings in the
sample saying 899 is better than 891 is better than 888 cannot be justified,
they might all be within the spread and the differences of no significance.
I couldn't see such a measure of significance in the linked full report
which doesn't even say what the sample size was, nor is the sampling
methodology explained. The footnote to the chart says "rankings were based
on numerical scores not statistical significance". A proper survey would be
the contrary.
This survey is well worth ignoring.
David
> http://www.petapixel.com/2012/06/30/pentax-crowned-best-in-dslr-online-buyer-satisfaction/
You will note that the ratings of the top three are very close together.
Without some assessment of the statistical spread of the ratings in the
sample saying 899 is better than 891 is better than 888 cannot be justified,
they might all be within the spread and the differences of no significance.
I couldn't see such a measure of significance in the linked full report
which doesn't even say what the sample size was, nor is the sampling
methodology explained. The footnote to the chart says "rankings were based
on numerical scores not statistical significance". A proper survey would be
the contrary.
This survey is well worth ignoring.
David
John Turco
Feb 9, 2013, 11:08:00 PM2/9/13
to
Nikon equipment. Even its entry-level DSLR cameras blow away the
competition, in this particular respect.
(I own a Pentax "K100D" and have always been impressed with its fine
feel and sturdiness.)
John
nospam
Feb 9, 2013, 11:40:02 PM2/9/13
to
In article <kf76gb$4b5$6...@dont-email.me>, John Turco
> (I own a Pentax "K100D" and have always been impressed with its fine
> feel and sturdiness.)
nikon and canon have always had a better build than pentax, especially
on the higher end bodies, except perhaps for the pentax lx film slr.
<jt...@concentric.net> wrote:
> Pentax bodies boast much better build quality, than either Canon or
> Nikon equipment. Even its entry-level DSLR cameras blow away the
> competition, in this particular respect.
definitely not.
> Pentax bodies boast much better build quality, than either Canon or
> Nikon equipment. Even its entry-level DSLR cameras blow away the
> competition, in this particular respect.
> (I own a Pentax "K100D" and have always been impressed with its fine
> feel and sturdiness.)
on the higher end bodies, except perhaps for the pentax lx film slr.
Message has been deleted
Neil Ellwood
Feb 10, 2013, 4:51:58 AM2/10/13
to
--
Neil
Reverse ‘a’ and ‘r’
Remove ‘l’ to get address.
David Hare-Scott
Feb 10, 2013, 4:53:33 AM2/10/13
to
John A. wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 07:57:39 +1100, "David Hare-Scott"
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 07:57:39 +1100, "David Hare-Scott"
> leading brands, that's still significant enough.
>
I don't want to beat this to death but as it stands this survey doesn't tell
us even that much.
> "Equal" is just as valid a result as "better" and not at all something
> to be ignored when considering which brand to go with.
It could be equal, better or worse, we don't know. I agree that customer
satisfaction ought not be ignored but the survey doesn't say anything useful
about it.
D
David Hare-Scott
Feb 10, 2013, 5:36:59 AM2/10/13
to
criterion. I am saying the results are of no significance on the data
published.
D
Trevor
Feb 11, 2013, 4:43:41 AM2/11/13
to
"David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:kf7qli$e4i$1...@news.albasani.net...
statistical difference, but since they appear to be based on a small sample,
you are also correct in ignoring them. I certainly wouldn't base my camera
choice on such a survey, even one that was properly conducted.
Trevor.
John Turco
Feb 11, 2013, 8:08:14 PM2/11/13
to
On 2/9/2013 10:40 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <kf76gb$4b5$6...@dont-email.me>, John Turco
> <jt...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
>> Pentax bodies boast much better build quality, than either Canon or
>> Nikon equipment. Even its entry-level DSLR cameras blow away the
>> competition, in this particular respect.
>
> definitely not.
I bought my K100D in September of 2007. At the time, and ever since,
> In article <kf76gb$4b5$6...@dont-email.me>, John Turco
> <jt...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
>> Pentax bodies boast much better build quality, than either Canon or
>> Nikon equipment. Even its entry-level DSLR cameras blow away the
>> competition, in this particular respect.
>
> definitely not.
I've occasionally handled Canon and Nikon display models, in stores.
They're surprisingly light and shockingly plasticky, from everything
I've seen.
In fact, one of them (I forgot which brand) had a fairly large zoom lens
attached. Even so, the entire body/lens combo was practically weightless.
>> (I own a Pentax "K100D" and have always been impressed with its fine
>> feel and sturdiness.)
>
> nikon and canon have always had a better build than pentax, especially
> on the higher end bodies, except perhaps for the pentax lx film slr.
Canon's, at the very least. (Not that it truly matters, anymore, as
Pentax has been reduced to relative obscurity.)
John
nospam
Feb 11, 2013, 8:25:58 PM2/11/13
to
In article <kfc4ms$el8$5...@dont-email.me>, John Turco
the nikon d3, d4, d3x and canon 1d, 1ds are *not* surprisingly light
nor are they shockingly plastic. they're actually rather big and heavy.
> In fact, one of them (I forgot which brand) had a fairly large zoom lens
> attached. Even so, the entire body/lens combo was practically weightless.
some people like lightweight cameras. others don't.
> >> (I own a Pentax "K100D" and have always been impressed with its fine
> >> feel and sturdiness.)
> >
> > nikon and canon have always had a better build than pentax, especially
> > on the higher end bodies, except perhaps for the pentax lx film slr.
>
> Really? I'd read that Pentax's optics are the equal of Nikon's and
> Canon's, at the very least.
i thought this was about the bodies.
anyway, that used to be true. some of the old takumars were excellent.
i still have a couple collecting dust.
these days, nikon and canon have some amazing lenses, such as the nikon
14-24mm which nikon claims is better than any fixed focal length lens
in that range that they made, and tests confirm it.
> (Not that it truly matters, anymore, as
> Pentax has been reduced to relative obscurity.)
that part is true, unfortunately.
<jt...@concentric.net> wrote:
> >> Pentax bodies boast much better build quality, than either Canon or
> >> Nikon equipment. Even its entry-level DSLR cameras blow away the
> >> competition, in this particular respect.
> >
> > definitely not.
>
> I bought my K100D in September of 2007. At the time, and ever since,
> I've occasionally handled Canon and Nikon display models, in stores.
> They're surprisingly light and shockingly plasticky, from everything
> I've seen.
maybe the low end models are, but the midrange and high end, such as
> >> Pentax bodies boast much better build quality, than either Canon or
> >> Nikon equipment. Even its entry-level DSLR cameras blow away the
> >> competition, in this particular respect.
> >
> > definitely not.
>
> I bought my K100D in September of 2007. At the time, and ever since,
> I've occasionally handled Canon and Nikon display models, in stores.
> They're surprisingly light and shockingly plasticky, from everything
> I've seen.
the nikon d3, d4, d3x and canon 1d, 1ds are *not* surprisingly light
nor are they shockingly plastic. they're actually rather big and heavy.
> In fact, one of them (I forgot which brand) had a fairly large zoom lens
> attached. Even so, the entire body/lens combo was practically weightless.
> >> (I own a Pentax "K100D" and have always been impressed with its fine
> >> feel and sturdiness.)
> >
> > nikon and canon have always had a better build than pentax, especially
> > on the higher end bodies, except perhaps for the pentax lx film slr.
>
> Really? I'd read that Pentax's optics are the equal of Nikon's and
> Canon's, at the very least.
anyway, that used to be true. some of the old takumars were excellent.
i still have a couple collecting dust.
these days, nikon and canon have some amazing lenses, such as the nikon
14-24mm which nikon claims is better than any fixed focal length lens
in that range that they made, and tests confirm it.
> (Not that it truly matters, anymore, as
> Pentax has been reduced to relative obscurity.)
Trevor
Feb 11, 2013, 11:33:55 PM2/11/13
to
"John Turco" <jt...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:kfc4ms$el8$5...@dont-email.me...
> I bought my K100D in September of 2007. At the time, and ever since, I've
> occasionally handled Canon and Nikon display models, in stores. They're
> surprisingly light and shockingly plasticky, from everything I've seen.
>
> In fact, one of them (I forgot which brand) had a fairly large zoom lens
> attached. Even so, the entire body/lens combo was practically weightless.
Nice combination then if you have to carry it around, and don't intend to
> occasionally handled Canon and Nikon display models, in stores. They're
> surprisingly light and shockingly plasticky, from everything I've seen.
>
> In fact, one of them (I forgot which brand) had a fairly large zoom lens
> attached. Even so, the entire body/lens combo was practically weightless.
use it as a hammer. None of my Canons has yet broken down on me (from 1DS
level down to IXUS and video) but the only Pentax I ever bought packed it in
with *very* little use. Perhaps bad luck, but didn't impress me much!
>>> (I own a Pentax "K100D" and have always been impressed with its fine
>>> feel and sturdiness.)
>>
>> nikon and canon have always had a better build than pentax, especially
>> on the higher end bodies, except perhaps for the pentax lx film slr.
>
> Really? I'd read that Pentax's optics are the equal of Nikon's and
> Canon's, at the very least. (Not that it truly matters, anymore, as Pentax
> has been reduced to relative obscurity.)
Minolta etc is they come and go at whim, often leaving their users stuck
with lenses and accessories and no upgrade path. All have produced some good
camera's and lenses over the years, but the only ones I'd bet my money on
being around in 10+ years are Nikon and Canon.
Too expensive to swap all my lenses and flashes every few years :-(
Trevor.
John Turco
Feb 12, 2013, 6:41:40 PM2/12/13
to
(e.g., Polaroid).
John
John Turco
Feb 12, 2013, 6:42:07 PM2/12/13
to
Recall what happened to Kodak, though -- nothing lasts forever!
John
Savageduck
Feb 12, 2013, 7:12:04 PM2/12/13
to
On 2013-02-12 15:42:07 -0800, John Turco <jt...@concentric.net> said:
>
>
> Canon and Nikon are on top, both now and in the foreseeable future.
> Recall what happened to Kodak, though -- nothing lasts forever!
>
> John
You don't see too many Henderson or Sears motorcycles around today either.
>
>
> Canon and Nikon are on top, both now and in the foreseeable future.
> Recall what happened to Kodak, though -- nothing lasts forever!
>
> John
< http://db.tt/COhBnhIE >
< http://db.tt/sGZmgOVu >
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Trevor
Feb 12, 2013, 10:11:27 PM2/12/13
to
news:kfek1i$jnh$2...@dont-email.me...
just won't care by then! :-)
And will Paul Simon ever bring out an update to "Kodachrome" I wonder? :-)
Trevor.
>>> Really? I'd read that Pentax's optics are the equal of Nikon's and
>>> Canon's, at the very least. (Not that it truly matters, anymore, as
>>> Pentax
>>> has been reduced to relative obscurity.)
>>
>> Exactly, the real problem with once big manufacturers like Pentax,
>> Olympus,
>> Minolta etc is they come and go at whim, often leaving their users stuck
>> with lenses and accessories and no upgrade path. All have produced some
>> good
>> camera's and lenses over the years, but the only ones I'd bet my money on
>> being around in 10+ years are Nikon and Canon.
>> Too expensive to swap all my lenses and flashes every few years :-(
>
>>> Canon's, at the very least. (Not that it truly matters, anymore, as
>>> Pentax
>>> has been reduced to relative obscurity.)
>>
>> Exactly, the real problem with once big manufacturers like Pentax,
>> Olympus,
>> Minolta etc is they come and go at whim, often leaving their users stuck
>> with lenses and accessories and no upgrade path. All have produced some
>> good
>> camera's and lenses over the years, but the only ones I'd bet my money on
>> being around in 10+ years are Nikon and Canon.
>> Too expensive to swap all my lenses and flashes every few years :-(
>
> Canon and Nikon are on top, both now and in the foreseeable future. Recall
> what happened to Kodak, though -- nothing lasts forever!
Right, I'm not betting on even Canon or Nikon to be around in 50 years, I
> what happened to Kodak, though -- nothing lasts forever!
just won't care by then! :-)
And will Paul Simon ever bring out an update to "Kodachrome" I wonder? :-)
Trevor.
Trevor
Feb 12, 2013, 10:22:47 PM2/12/13
to
"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2013021216120425228-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2013-02-12 15:42:07 -0800, John Turco <jt...@concentric.net> said:
>> Canon and Nikon are on top, both now and in the foreseeable future.
>> Recall what happened to Kodak, though -- nothing lasts forever!
>>
>
>> Canon and Nikon are on top, both now and in the foreseeable future.
>> Recall what happened to Kodak, though -- nothing lasts forever!
>>
>
> You don't see too many Henderson or Sears motorcycles around today either.
You don't see many photographers still making their own glass plates for
their view camera's either, so what?
You will see lots of veteran and vintage motorcycles at many club days
though, even a couple in my shed :-)
A similar thing applies as to camera manufacturers though, the more popular
ones are easier to get parts for than the obscure ones. Collectors may
prefer the obsure ones simply for their rarity of course. Same applies to
camera's if you don't intend to actually take pictures with them. I'd hardly
buy a new Pentax with the purpose of it becoming a collectors item one day,
but other may I guess.
Trevor.
Savageduck
Feb 12, 2013, 11:50:31 PM2/12/13
to
thread is, that you have a shed.
...and that you missed the point of my comment illustrated by two
obviously restored vintage motorcycles whose manufacturers have long
faded into corporate obscurity. (Yup! Even Sears. Whatever happened to
Roebuck?)
My point could have just as easily been illustrated by saying, you
don't see too many Blair Camera Co. Cincinnati Reversible Back Cameras
now-a-days, and adding an image to punctuate.
< http://piercevaubel.com/cam/images/blair1888rb6x8a337.jpg >
Getting back to Pentax, my Spotmatic has been gone for some 40+ years
now, but my weathered, and battered K1000 is still very functional. I
just haven't been able to kill that thing.
< https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/K1000.jpg >
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Chris Malcolm
Feb 13, 2013, 11:47:46 AM2/13/13
to
Trevor <tre...@home.net> wrote:
> "John Turco" <jt...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> news:kfc4ms$el8$5...@dont-email.me...
>> I bought my K100D in September of 2007. At the time, and ever since, I've
>> occasionally handled Canon and Nikon display models, in stores. They're
>> surprisingly light and shockingly plasticky, from everything I've seen.
>>
>> In fact, one of them (I forgot which brand) had a fairly large zoom lens
>> attached. Even so, the entire body/lens combo was practically weightless.
> Nice combination then if you have to carry it around, and don't intend to
> use it as a hammer. None of my Canons has yet broken down on me (from 1DS
> level down to IXUS and video) but the only Pentax I ever bought packed it in
> with *very* little use. Perhaps bad luck, but didn't impress me much!
>>>> (I own a Pentax "K100D" and have always been impressed with its fine
>>>> feel and sturdiness.)
>>>
>>> nikon and canon have always had a better build than pentax, especially
>>> on the higher end bodies, except perhaps for the pentax lx film slr.
>>
>> Really? I'd read that Pentax's optics are the equal of Nikon's and
>> Canon's, at the very least. (Not that it truly matters, anymore, as Pentax
>> has been reduced to relative obscurity.)
> Exactly, the real problem with once big manufacturers like Pentax, Olympus,
> Minolta etc is they come and go at whim, often leaving their users stuck
> with lenses and accessories and no upgrade path.
Often leaving their users stuck with lenses etc. and no upgrade path?
> "John Turco" <jt...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> news:kfc4ms$el8$5...@dont-email.me...
>> I bought my K100D in September of 2007. At the time, and ever since, I've
>> occasionally handled Canon and Nikon display models, in stores. They're
>> surprisingly light and shockingly plasticky, from everything I've seen.
>>
>> In fact, one of them (I forgot which brand) had a fairly large zoom lens
>> attached. Even so, the entire body/lens combo was practically weightless.
> Nice combination then if you have to carry it around, and don't intend to
> use it as a hammer. None of my Canons has yet broken down on me (from 1DS
> level down to IXUS and video) but the only Pentax I ever bought packed it in
> with *very* little use. Perhaps bad luck, but didn't impress me much!
>>>> (I own a Pentax "K100D" and have always been impressed with its fine
>>>> feel and sturdiness.)
>>>
>>> nikon and canon have always had a better build than pentax, especially
>>> on the higher end bodies, except perhaps for the pentax lx film slr.
>>
>> Really? I'd read that Pentax's optics are the equal of Nikon's and
>> Canon's, at the very least. (Not that it truly matters, anymore, as Pentax
>> has been reduced to relative obscurity.)
> Exactly, the real problem with once big manufacturers like Pentax, Olympus,
> Minolta etc is they come and go at whim, often leaving their users stuck
> with lenses and accessories and no upgrade path.
But Pentax are still the obvious upgrade path for old Pentax lenses,
Olympus of old Olympus lenses, and Sony of old Minolta lenses. Plus
the mirrorless Sony Nex and the several 4/3 systens cameras can accept
lenses with glassless converters from pretty much any old make of 35mm
film camera.
Where's this "often leaving their users stuck?" In the "expert" advice
of the Canonikon salesdroid panting afer commission in your local
camera shop?
--
Chris Malcolm
John Turco
Feb 13, 2013, 6:06:42 PM2/13/13
to
Incidentally, if there's one machine that might possibly outlast Nikon,
Canon (and maybe, everything else), the Boeing B-52 "Stratofortress"
will probably be it.
John
John Turco
Feb 13, 2013, 6:14:11 PM2/13/13
to
John
Peter Chant
Feb 13, 2013, 5:55:12 PM2/13/13
to
One thing I will add. I bought a K20d a few years back and overall I've
been very happy with it. However, I've not had luck with old Pentax K
manual focus lenses. Happy with the results from auto-focus.
I wondered if AF was fine but my focus screen was somehow regardless of
this out of alignment for manual focus. However, when I tested the
focus seemed to fall at random in-front of and behind where intended.
So I could not say I had a camera issue.
I've just had another go and all seems fine - so perhaps it was a
technique thing.
been very happy with it. However, I've not had luck with old Pentax K
manual focus lenses. Happy with the results from auto-focus.
I wondered if AF was fine but my focus screen was somehow regardless of
this out of alignment for manual focus. However, when I tested the
focus seemed to fall at random in-front of and behind where intended.
So I could not say I had a camera issue.
I've just had another go and all seems fine - so perhaps it was a
technique thing.
Savageduck
Feb 13, 2013, 6:42:22 PM2/13/13
to
There are two others the C47/DC3 many of which are still workhorse
aircraft all over the world, and the C130.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Trevor
Feb 13, 2013, 10:58:44 PM2/13/13
to
"Chris Malcolm" <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:ao1udi...@mid.individual.net...
>> Exactly, the real problem with once big manufacturers like Pentax,
>> Olympus,
>> Minolta etc is they come and go at whim, often leaving their users stuck
>> with lenses and accessories and no upgrade path.
>
> Often leaving their users stuck with lenses etc. and no upgrade path?
>
> But Pentax are still the obvious upgrade path for old Pentax lenses,
> Olympus of old Olympus lenses,
Funny that, I have many OM lenses (plus 4 bodies, 3 flashes etc), and bought
>> Olympus,
>> Minolta etc is they come and go at whim, often leaving their users stuck
>> with lenses and accessories and no upgrade path.
>
> Often leaving their users stuck with lenses etc. and no upgrade path?
>
> But Pentax are still the obvious upgrade path for old Pentax lenses,
> Olympus of old Olympus lenses,
a Canon DSLR because it can use those lenses far better than anything
Olympus make. :-) But more importantly, didn't want to get stuck again :-(
Trevor.
Usenet Account
Feb 14, 2013, 7:44:57 AM2/14/13
to
continuous production since 1967 (46 years)
--
This space intentionally left blank.
Message has been deleted
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Mar 1, 2013, 5:00:02 PM3/1/13
to
John Turco <jt...@concentric.net> wrote:
> I bought my K100D in September of 2007. At the time, and ever since,
> I've occasionally handled Canon and Nikon display models, in stores.
> They're surprisingly light and shockingly plasticky, from everything
> I've seen.
There is a reason why a common film camera scam was showing the
> I bought my K100D in September of 2007. At the time, and ever since,
> I've occasionally handled Canon and Nikon display models, in stores.
> They're surprisingly light and shockingly plasticky, from everything
> I've seen.
mark a fairly good compact camera and, if they fell for it,
selling them an absolutely crap camera[1] in a box (claimed,
of course, to be the same one) --- with a hefty bit of lead
in the body of that crap camera, to make it feel like quality.
[1] as in "one aperture, one shutter speed, lens to match
that"
Yep, the entry models are small, light and plastic. For a
lot of people that means less space needed and less weight to
lug around all day! A major selling point, that one.
As to plastic, RichA might be allergic, but in many use cases
the right quality plastic is better or much better than
metal, and not only in weight savings.
> In fact, one of them (I forgot which brand) had a fairly large zoom lens
> attached. Even so, the entire body/lens combo was practically weightless.
lifting.
>> nikon and canon have always had a better build than pentax, especially
>> on the higher end bodies, except perhaps for the pentax lx film slr.
> Really? I'd read that Pentax's optics are the equal of Nikon's and
> Canon's, at the very least.
Where are the exceptional tele lenses from Pentax and the
exceptional wide angle lenses from Pentax?
-Wolfgang
John Turco
Mar 4, 2013, 6:07:41 PM3/4/13
to
John Turco <jt...@concentric.net> wrote:
that of its Nikon and Canon entry-level counterparts.
>> In fact, one of them (I forgot which brand) had a fairly large zoom lens
>> attached. Even so, the entire body/lens combo was practically weightless.
>
> As I said, a major selling point, unless you're in for the weight
> lifting.
I'm not a 98-pound weakling...are you?
>>> nikon and canon have always had a better build than pentax, especially
>>> on the higher end bodies, except perhaps for the pentax lx film slr.
>>
>> Really? I'd read that Pentax's optics are the equal of Nikon's and
>> Canon's, at the very least.
>
> Equal in what? Weight? Zoom factor? Build?
> Where are the exceptional tele lenses from Pentax and the
> exceptional wide angle lenses from Pentax?
>
> -Wolfgang
My impression had been that, Pentax's actual >glass< was
a match for its vaunted competitors' optical prowess.
John
"nospam" wrote:
>> I bought my K100D in September of 2007. At the time, and ever since,
>> I've occasionally handled Canon and Nikon display models, in stores.
>> They're surprisingly light and shockingly plasticky, from everything
>> I've seen.
>
> There is a reason why a common film camera scam was showing the
> mark a fairly good compact camera and, if they fell for it,
> selling them an absolutely crap camera[1] in a box (claimed,
> of course, to be the same one) --- with a hefty bit of lead
> in the body of that crap camera, to make it feel like quality.
>
> [1] as in "one aperture, one shutter speed, lens to match
> that"
>
> Yep, the entry models are small, light and plastic. For a
> lot of people that means less space needed and less weight to
> lug around all day! A major selling point, that one.
>
> As to plastic, RichA might be allergic, but in many use cases
> the right quality plastic is better or much better than
> metal, and not only in weight savings.
Well, apparently, the K100D's metal frame is sturdier than
>> I bought my K100D in September of 2007. At the time, and ever since,
>> I've occasionally handled Canon and Nikon display models, in stores.
>> They're surprisingly light and shockingly plasticky, from everything
>> I've seen.
>
> There is a reason why a common film camera scam was showing the
> mark a fairly good compact camera and, if they fell for it,
> selling them an absolutely crap camera[1] in a box (claimed,
> of course, to be the same one) --- with a hefty bit of lead
> in the body of that crap camera, to make it feel like quality.
>
> [1] as in "one aperture, one shutter speed, lens to match
> that"
>
> Yep, the entry models are small, light and plastic. For a
> lot of people that means less space needed and less weight to
> lug around all day! A major selling point, that one.
>
> As to plastic, RichA might be allergic, but in many use cases
> the right quality plastic is better or much better than
> metal, and not only in weight savings.
that of its Nikon and Canon entry-level counterparts.
>> In fact, one of them (I forgot which brand) had a fairly large zoom lens
>> attached. Even so, the entire body/lens combo was practically weightless.
>
> As I said, a major selling point, unless you're in for the weight
> lifting.
>>> nikon and canon have always had a better build than pentax, especially
>>> on the higher end bodies, except perhaps for the pentax lx film slr.
>>
>> Really? I'd read that Pentax's optics are the equal of Nikon's and
>> Canon's, at the very least.
>
> Equal in what? Weight? Zoom factor? Build?
> Where are the exceptional tele lenses from Pentax and the
> exceptional wide angle lenses from Pentax?
>
> -Wolfgang
a match for its vaunted competitors' optical prowess.
John
Alex Monro
Mar 10, 2013, 6:13:14 PM3/10/13
to
Lyndon wrote:
> I have been using Pentax film cameras for all of my photography life
> (from the H-1a screw mounts). I currently have the MX camera with many
> Kmount lenses. I have noticed the K30 pentax camera and am wondering if
> it will take the K mount lenses and get approx the same results with
> them. For instance, I have a 24mm lens which is a very wide angle
> lens. I have been told that earlier dslr cameras could be modified to
> take such a lens, but it would no longer give 24mm film comparable
> pictures. Hope this isn't too confusing. But I would like to keep using
> all my older K mount lens if possible with similar digital result.
>
The K30, like all current Pentax DSLRs, has a sensor smaller than a
> I have been using Pentax film cameras for all of my photography life
> (from the H-1a screw mounts). I currently have the MX camera with many
> Kmount lenses. I have noticed the K30 pentax camera and am wondering if
> it will take the K mount lenses and get approx the same results with
> them. For instance, I have a 24mm lens which is a very wide angle
> lens. I have been told that earlier dslr cameras could be modified to
> take such a lens, but it would no longer give 24mm film comparable
> pictures. Hope this isn't too confusing. But I would like to keep using
> all my older K mount lens if possible with similar digital result.
>
standard 35mm film frame, approx 16x24mm. The effect of this is that
pictures taken on that camera will have a field of view similar to
pictures taken on film with a lens of about 1.5 times the focal length.
So your 24mm lens on a K30 will cover an angle of view similar to a
35mm lens on your MX.
If you get a K30, I'd suggest you get a new wide angle - the 18-55mm
kit lens will be equivalent to 27-82mm on the MX. You will benefit
from longer reach of your telephoto lenses, as well as image
stabilisation. Any lenses with an "A" setting on the aperture ring
will support all autoexposure modes, other lenses will only have stop
down metering.
RichA
Mar 10, 2013, 9:45:50 PM3/10/13
to
On Feb 10, 12:40 am, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <kf76gb$4b...@dont-email.me>, John Turco
better than Nikon's D7000.
> In article <kf76gb$4b...@dont-email.me>, John Turco
>
> <j...@concentric.net> wrote:
> > Pentax bodies boast much better build quality, than either Canon or
> > Nikon equipment. Even its entry-level DSLR cameras blow away the
> > competition, in this particular respect.
>
> definitely not.
>
> <j...@concentric.net> wrote:
> > Pentax bodies boast much better build quality, than either Canon or
> > Nikon equipment. Even its entry-level DSLR cameras blow away the
> > competition, in this particular respect.
>
> definitely not.
>
> > (I own a Pentax "K100D" and have always been impressed with its fine
> > feel and sturdiness.)
>
> > feel and sturdiness.)
>
> nikon and canon have always had a better build than pentax, especially
> on the higher end bodies, except perhaps for the pentax lx film slr.
Anything below Nikon's D800 now is mediocre. Pentax's K5 body is FAR
> on the higher end bodies, except perhaps for the pentax lx film slr.
better than Nikon's D7000.
RichA
Mar 10, 2013, 9:56:12 PM3/10/13
to
etc., through a nostalgic haze. But the average cheap kit lens with
its molded aspherical elements, hybrid elements and modern coatings
will generally beat the old lenses. This isn't always the case, but
more often than not. In addition, the cameras themselves in some
cases correct residual aberrations of new lenses, producing even
better shots. So unless you are after the two main characteristics of
old lenses (certain effects or "cheap speed") you are better off with
new ones. Pentax's 35mm f/2.4 (I think that's it) will no doubt beat
an old Takumar or K lens. I know the slightly older 35mm f/2.0 AF
(discontinued) did.
RichA
Mar 10, 2013, 9:57:34 PM3/10/13
to
primes. It was embarrassing when they did.
RichA
Mar 10, 2013, 9:59:57 PM3/10/13
to
On Mar 1, 6:00 pm, Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgt...@sneakemail.com>
wrote:
magnesium. By the time you double the body wall thickness (which you
must do) and use all those brass inserts for any threaded screws, the
camera's weight is at or close to a metal body weight.
wrote:
> John Turco <j...@concentric.net> wrote:
> > I bought my K100D in September of 2007. At the time, and ever since,
> > I've occasionally handled Canon and Nikon display models, in stores.
> > They're surprisingly light and shockingly plasticky, from everything
> > I've seen.
>
> There is a reason why a common film camera scam was showing the
> mark a fairly good compact camera and, if they fell for it,
> selling them an absolutely crap camera[1] in a box (claimed,
> of course, to be the same one) --- with a hefty bit of lead
> in the body of that crap camera, to make it feel like quality.
>
> [1] as in "one aperture, one shutter speed, lens to match
> that"
>
> Yep, the entry models are small, light and plastic. For a
> lot of people that means less space needed and less weight to
> lug around all day! A major selling point, that one.
>
> As to plastic, RichA might be allergic, but in many use cases
> the right quality plastic is better or much better than
> metal, and not only in weight savings.
There isn't much real weight-savings from using plastic over
> > I bought my K100D in September of 2007. At the time, and ever since,
> > I've occasionally handled Canon and Nikon display models, in stores.
> > They're surprisingly light and shockingly plasticky, from everything
> > I've seen.
>
> There is a reason why a common film camera scam was showing the
> mark a fairly good compact camera and, if they fell for it,
> selling them an absolutely crap camera[1] in a box (claimed,
> of course, to be the same one) --- with a hefty bit of lead
> in the body of that crap camera, to make it feel like quality.
>
> [1] as in "one aperture, one shutter speed, lens to match
> that"
>
> Yep, the entry models are small, light and plastic. For a
> lot of people that means less space needed and less weight to
> lug around all day! A major selling point, that one.
>
> As to plastic, RichA might be allergic, but in many use cases
> the right quality plastic is better or much better than
> metal, and not only in weight savings.
magnesium. By the time you double the body wall thickness (which you
must do) and use all those brass inserts for any threaded screws, the
camera's weight is at or close to a metal body weight.
RichA
Mar 10, 2013, 10:01:29 PM3/10/13
to
On Mar 4, 7:07 pm, John Turco <j...@concentric.net> wrote:
> My impression had been that, Pentax's actual >glass< was
> a match for its vaunted competitors' optical prowess.
>
> John
Pentax's Limited lenses are no match for Nikon's nano-coated FX
> My impression had been that, Pentax's actual >glass< was
> a match for its vaunted competitors' optical prowess.
>
> John
glass.
Peter Chant
Mar 12, 2013, 3:10:09 PM3/12/13
to
On 03/11/2013 01:56 AM, RichA wrote:
>
> It's nearly impossible. People remember these lenses, the Takumars,
> etc., through a nostalgic haze. But the average cheap kit lens with
> its molded aspherical elements, hybrid elements and modern coatings
> will generally beat the old lenses. This isn't always the case, but
> more often than not. In addition, the cameras themselves in some
> cases correct residual aberrations of new lenses, producing even
> better shots. So unless you are after the two main characteristics of
> old lenses (certain effects or "cheap speed") you are better off with
> new ones. Pentax's 35mm f/2.4 (I think that's it) will no doubt beat
> an old Takumar or K lens. I know the slightly older 35mm f/2.0 AF
> (discontinued) did.
>
Well, the point is, I've a bucket load of old (modest) lenses. Nothing
>
> It's nearly impossible. People remember these lenses, the Takumars,
> etc., through a nostalgic haze. But the average cheap kit lens with
> its molded aspherical elements, hybrid elements and modern coatings
> will generally beat the old lenses. This isn't always the case, but
> more often than not. In addition, the cameras themselves in some
> cases correct residual aberrations of new lenses, producing even
> better shots. So unless you are after the two main characteristics of
> old lenses (certain effects or "cheap speed") you are better off with
> new ones. Pentax's 35mm f/2.4 (I think that's it) will no doubt beat
> an old Takumar or K lens. I know the slightly older 35mm f/2.0 AF
> (discontinued) did.
>
really special. However, it would be good to use them as I can't really
justify going out and buying the equivalent of my old 200mm Vivitar for
the odd occasion that I would use it. Probably not the best performer
(reasonable suspicion), but for the occasional use, fine.
J. Clarke
May 8, 2013, 10:57:00 PM5/8/13
to
In article <kff06g$2c9$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, tre...@home.net says...
It, and Kodachrome itself, are of a bygone era. So are a lot of other
good things.
good things.
Wolfgang Weisselberg
May 13, 2013, 4:54:17 PM5/13/13
to
seen from later times through pink glasses, instead of having
to live in it.
| The Earth is degenerating these days. Bribery and corruption abound.
| Children no longer mind their parents, every man wants to write a
| book, and it is evident that the end of the world is fast approaching.
Assyrian stone tablet, c.2800 BCE
| We are living in a decadent and dying age.
| Youth is corrupt, lacking in respect for elders, impatient of
| restraint. Age-old truth is doubted and the teaching of the fathers
| is questioned. The signs of the time forecast the destruction of the
| world at an early date.
inscribed in an Egyptian tomb 1000 BCE
| Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt
| for authority; they show disrespect for their elders and love
| chatter in place of exercise; they no longer rise when elders
| enter the room; they contradict their parents, chatter before
| company; gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers.
(mis?)attributed to Socrates (470-399 BCE) via Plato,
other sources says it's paraphrased from "The Clouds",
a comedy lampooning the intellectuals of the time and
caricaturating Socrates (423 BCE, revised 420-417 BCE)
-Wolfgang
J. Clarke
May 15, 2013, 2:25:17 PM5/15/13
to
In article <pg086a-...@ID-52418.user.berlin.de>, ozcvgtt02
@sneakemail.com says...
Everything was not better in the past, but a great many things were.
There were also a great many that were worse. The economy was certainy
better in the '50s than it is now, to take one example, but black people
had a lot less opportunity.
@sneakemail.com says...
There were also a great many that were worse. The economy was certainy
better in the '50s than it is now, to take one example, but black people
had a lot less opportunity.
Wolfgang Weisselberg
May 17, 2013, 6:31:22 PM5/17/13
to
J. Clarke <jclark...@cox.net> wrote:
> In article <pg086a-...@ID-52418.user.berlin.de>, ozcvgtt02
people longing for the good old times on the USSR side of the
iron curtain ...
> The economy was certainy
> better in the '50s than it is now, to take one example, but black people
> had a lot less opportunity.
Oh, sure, it was a great time ... an extremely costly (in
terms of money and lifes) world war just behind and worse
looming ahead, with both sides having "the bomb" (both the
atomic *and* the hydrogen one --- and both having similar
ranges with bombers), Korean Conflict, McCarthyism (and what a
nice witchhunt it was) and the Red Scare, Sputnik Crisis (and
yes, the USSR stood up the USA very much in the space race,
except for the bit of getting people to and on the moon),
Sovjet tanks quell the popular uprising in the GDR by force,
making it clear noone would be allowed to split off from
the eastern block, and a bit later another popular uprising
in Hungary (20,000 killed by Soviet troops, 100,000s flee
as the uprising is quelled), Suez crisis, the Vietnam War
beginning, Algerian War, Cuban Revolution, Mau Mau Uprising,
Rwandan Revolution (AKA the wind of destruction which finally
lead to the 1994 Rwandan Genoicide), decolonization, secret
services toppling governments, PRC, the end of radio/rise
of TV as main entertainment at home and massed lobotomy use
(e.g. against homosexuality or communistic leanings).
-Wolfgang
> In article <pg086a-...@ID-52418.user.berlin.de>, ozcvgtt02
>> J. Clarke <jclark...@cox.net> wrote:
>> > In article <kff06g$2c9$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, tre...@home.net says...
>> >> "John Turco" <jt...@concentric.net> wrote in message
>> > In article <kff06g$2c9$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, tre...@home.net says...
>> >> "John Turco" <jt...@concentric.net> wrote in message
>> >> > Canon and Nikon are on top, both now and in the foreseeable future. Recall
>> >> > what happened to Kodak, though -- nothing lasts forever!
>> >> Right, I'm not betting on even Canon or Nikon to be around in 50 years, I
>> >> just won't care by then! :-)
>> >> And will Paul Simon ever bring out an update to "Kodachrome" I wonder? :-)
>> > It, and Kodachrome itself, are of a bygone era. So are a lot of other
>> > good things.
>> Don't forget that everything was better in the past --- when
>> seen from later times through pink glasses, instead of having
>> to live in it.
> Everything was not better in the past, but a great many things were.
> There were also a great many that were worse.
The bad things are ignored, of course. There are a great many
>> >> > what happened to Kodak, though -- nothing lasts forever!
>> >> Right, I'm not betting on even Canon or Nikon to be around in 50 years, I
>> >> just won't care by then! :-)
>> >> And will Paul Simon ever bring out an update to "Kodachrome" I wonder? :-)
>> > It, and Kodachrome itself, are of a bygone era. So are a lot of other
>> > good things.
>> Don't forget that everything was better in the past --- when
>> seen from later times through pink glasses, instead of having
>> to live in it.
> Everything was not better in the past, but a great many things were.
> There were also a great many that were worse.
people longing for the good old times on the USSR side of the
iron curtain ...
> The economy was certainy
> better in the '50s than it is now, to take one example, but black people
> had a lot less opportunity.
terms of money and lifes) world war just behind and worse
looming ahead, with both sides having "the bomb" (both the
atomic *and* the hydrogen one --- and both having similar
ranges with bombers), Korean Conflict, McCarthyism (and what a
nice witchhunt it was) and the Red Scare, Sputnik Crisis (and
yes, the USSR stood up the USA very much in the space race,
except for the bit of getting people to and on the moon),
Sovjet tanks quell the popular uprising in the GDR by force,
making it clear noone would be allowed to split off from
the eastern block, and a bit later another popular uprising
in Hungary (20,000 killed by Soviet troops, 100,000s flee
as the uprising is quelled), Suez crisis, the Vietnam War
beginning, Algerian War, Cuban Revolution, Mau Mau Uprising,
Rwandan Revolution (AKA the wind of destruction which finally
lead to the 1994 Rwandan Genoicide), decolonization, secret
services toppling governments, PRC, the end of radio/rise
of TV as main entertainment at home and massed lobotomy use
(e.g. against homosexuality or communistic leanings).
-Wolfgang
J. Clarke
May 18, 2013, 11:11:07 AM5/18/13
to
In article <qmni6a-...@ID-52418.user.berlin.de>, ozcvgtt02
@sneakemail.com says...
I'm not sure I see your point. You seem to be trying to create a
catalog of horrors but you list "the rise of TV" so I'm not really sure
what you think you're on about.
@sneakemail.com says...
catalog of horrors but you list "the rise of TV" so I'm not really sure
what you think you're on about.
Wolfgang Weisselberg
May 20, 2013, 10:18:12 AM5/20/13
to
J. Clarke <jclark...@cox.net> wrote:
> In article <qmni6a-...@ID-52418.user.berlin.de>, ozcvgtt02
The main concept is change. Change is not always for the
better --- may you live in interesting times.
And TV allows you to see much more bad news live and direct.
-Wolfgang
> In article <qmni6a-...@ID-52418.user.berlin.de>, ozcvgtt02
better --- may you live in interesting times.
And TV allows you to see much more bad news live and direct.
-Wolfgang
0 new messages