DA70 and 24x36 coverage

[J. C. O'Connell]

the more functional variables a lens has, the more important the
designation becomes.
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 2:39 PM
To: pdml at pdml.net
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 <boris71 at gmail.com>
>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, 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" <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.



-- 
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.