DA70 and 24x36 coverage

[J. C. O'Connell]

you seem to not comprehend what a lens series designator is for.
Its so you KNOW by the designations exactly what type of lens
you are using, not just buying. i.e. you dont have to remember
the characteristics for every lens of possibly dozens, just every series
which is a few.
jco

-----Original Message-----
From: pdml-bounces at pdml.net [mailto:pdml-bounces at pdml.net] On Behalf Of
Tom C
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 2:22 PM
To: pdml at pdml.net
Subject: RE: DA70 and 24x36 coverage


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" <hifisapi at gate.net>
>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml at pdml.net>
>To: "'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'" <pdml at pdml.net>
>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: pdml-bounces at pdml.net [mailto:pdml-bounces at pdml.net] 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: pdml-bounces at pdml.net [mailto:pdml-bounces at pdml.net] 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: pdml-bounces at pdml.net [mailto:pdml-bounces at pdml.net] 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
>PDML at pdml.net
>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
>PDML at pdml.net
>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
PDML at pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.