Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > New Pentax is a piece of junk

Reply
Thread Tools

New Pentax is a piece of junk

 
 
Trevor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-31-2012

"nospam" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:310320122358462090%(E-Mail Removed)...
>> > no, it's because some ef-s lenses protrude farther into the mirror box
>> > than ef-s lenses do.

>>
>> What ????

>
> which words did you not understand?


That would be "some ef-s lenses protrude farther into the mirror box than
ef-s lenses do"
Individually the words are OK of course. Perhaps you meant to say "... than
some other ef-s lenses do", which is hardly a revelation to anyone!


>> >(crop sensor cameras have smaller mirror boxes).

>>
>> Smaller mirrors (not mirror boxes),

>
> smaller mirrors means smaller mirror boxes.


Nope, just less mirror in them.


>> the lens mount to sensor distance must
>> be the same or FF lenses won't work, and they do. And the lens mount is
>> the
>> same size of course.

>
> i didn't say the flange distance changed.


You said the mirror box is smaller, so if the mount size is the same, and
distance is the same, WHAT part of the mirror box is smaller?


>> > you were able to mount those lenses on a full frame camera, the mirror
>> > would hit the rear element of the lens when it flips.
>> >
>> > nikon's dx lenses don't have this ridiculous limitation

>>
>> Because Nikon have a greater lens mount to sensor distance,

>
> wrong. in fact, it's the other way around. having a greater flange
> distance means protruding elements are *more* likely,
>yet nikon managed to avoid the problem entirely.


Are you for real!? Having more distance between mirror and lens mount allows
for additional lens clearance. Thats the main difference.


>> making them
>> unable to use many other lenses with adapters that Canon can. I prefer
>> Canon
>> for that just that reason, even if YOU think it ridiculous. Swings and
>> roundabouts!

>
> what does using lenses with adapters have to do with the shortcomings
> of ef-s lenses?


There are no shortcomings, only in YOUR brain.

> try to stay on topic.


And you don't of course.

Trevor.




 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Trevor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-31-2012

"nospam" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:010420120110109084%(E-Mail Removed)...
> In article <jl8kpj$uvt$(E-Mail Removed)>, Trevor <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>> >> > no, it's because some ef-s lenses protrude farther into the mirror
>> >> > box
>> >> > than ef-s lenses do.
>> >>
>> >> What ????
>> >
>> > which words did you not understand?

>>
>> That would be "some ef-s lenses protrude farther into the mirror box than
>> ef-s lenses do"
>> Individually the words are OK of course. Perhaps you meant to say "...
>> than
>> some other ef-s lenses do", which is hardly a revelation to anyone!

>
> actually, i meant to say some ef-s lenses protrude more than ef lenses
> do, but given the context (ef-s versus ef) it should have been obvious
> what was meant.


It's obvious you can't write, or read what you've written anyway.


>> >> >(crop sensor cameras have smaller mirror boxes).
>> >>
>> >> Smaller mirrors (not mirror boxes),
>> >
>> > smaller mirrors means smaller mirror boxes.

>>
>> Nope, just less mirror in them.

>
> nope. there's no need to keep the box the same size if the mirror is
> smaller. think about it.


Yes I have, what part of the lens mount is the same size, and the distance
between lens mount and sensor/film plane is the same are YOU having trouble
with?
The mirror box *IS* smaller in CSC cameras of course, not what is being
talked about however.


>> >> the lens mount to sensor distance must
>> >> be the same or FF lenses won't work, and they do. And the lens mount
>> >> is
>> >> the
>> >> same size of course.
>> >
>> > i didn't say the flange distance changed.

>>
>> You said the mirror box is smaller, so if the mount size is the same, and
>> distance is the same, WHAT part of the mirror box is smaller?

>
> all of it.


Obviously you are a complete loon or a stupid troll.

Trevor.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-31-2012
On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 13:41:59 +1100, "Trevor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
:
: "Bruce" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
: news:(E-Mail Removed)...
: >
: > But Pentax is already designing a system of compact lenses for the K
: > mount K-01 which will not work on the K mount DSLRs because the rear
: > elements would strike the reflex mirror.
:
: Right, just as Canon uses one lens mount these days, but EF-S lenses
: won't necessarily fit on FF bodies without problems.

I was under the impression that that's an intentional incompatibility, to keep
users from mounting an EF-S lens on a FF body and then complaining about
vignetting, optical falloff, etc. There is, of course, no problem with
mounting an EF lens on a crop body.

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-01-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Robert Coe
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> : Right, just as Canon uses one lens mount these days, but EF-S lenses
> : won't necessarily fit on FF bodies without problems.
>
> I was under the impression that that's an intentional incompatibility, to keep
> users from mounting an EF-S lens on a FF body and then complaining about
> vignetting, optical falloff, etc. There is, of course, no problem with
> mounting an EF lens on a crop body.


no, it's because some ef-s lenses protrude farther into the mirror box
than ef-s lenses do (crop sensor cameras have smaller mirror boxes). if
you were able to mount those lenses on a full frame camera, the mirror
would hit the rear element of the lens when it flips.

nikon's dx lenses don't have this ridiculous limitation and can be
mounted on full frame cameras without any issue. the camera will
automatically go into dx mode or that can be manually overridden since
some dx lenses will cover the full frame at some focal lengths.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-01-2012
In article <jl8gup$oap$(E-Mail Removed)>, Trevor <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

> >> : Right, just as Canon uses one lens mount these days, but EF-S lenses
> >> : won't necessarily fit on FF bodies without problems.
> >>
> >> I was under the impression that that's an intentional incompatibility, to keep
> >> users from mounting an EF-S lens on a FF body and then complaining about
> >> vignetting, optical falloff, etc. There is, of course, no problem with
> >> mounting an EF lens on a crop body.

> >
> > no, it's because some ef-s lenses protrude farther into the mirror box
> > than ef-s lenses do.

>
> What ????


which words did you not understand?

> >(crop sensor cameras have smaller mirror boxes).

>
> Smaller mirrors (not mirror boxes),


smaller mirrors means smaller mirror boxes.

> the lens mount to sensor distance must
> be the same or FF lenses won't work, and they do. And the lens mount is the
> same size of course.


i didn't say the flange distance changed.

> > you were able to mount those lenses on a full frame camera, the mirror
> > would hit the rear element of the lens when it flips.
> >
> > nikon's dx lenses don't have this ridiculous limitation

>
> Because Nikon have a greater lens mount to sensor distance,


wrong. in fact, it's the other way around. having a greater flange
distance means protruding elements are *more* likely, yet nikon managed
to avoid the problem entirely.

> making them
> unable to use many other lenses with adapters that Canon can. I prefer Canon
> for that just that reason, even if YOU think it ridiculous. Swings and
> roundabouts!


what does using lenses with adapters have to do with the shortcomings
of ef-s lenses?

try to stay on topic.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-01-2012
In article <jl8kpj$uvt$(E-Mail Removed)>, Trevor <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

> >> > no, it's because some ef-s lenses protrude farther into the mirror box
> >> > than ef-s lenses do.
> >>
> >> What ????

> >
> > which words did you not understand?

>
> That would be "some ef-s lenses protrude farther into the mirror box than
> ef-s lenses do"
> Individually the words are OK of course. Perhaps you meant to say "... than
> some other ef-s lenses do", which is hardly a revelation to anyone!


actually, i meant to say some ef-s lenses protrude more than ef lenses
do, but given the context (ef-s versus ef) it should have been obvious
what was meant.

> >> >(crop sensor cameras have smaller mirror boxes).
> >>
> >> Smaller mirrors (not mirror boxes),

> >
> > smaller mirrors means smaller mirror boxes.

>
> Nope, just less mirror in them.


nope. there's no need to keep the box the same size if the mirror is
smaller. think about it.

> >> the lens mount to sensor distance must
> >> be the same or FF lenses won't work, and they do. And the lens mount is
> >> the
> >> same size of course.

> >
> > i didn't say the flange distance changed.

>
> You said the mirror box is smaller, so if the mount size is the same, and
> distance is the same, WHAT part of the mirror box is smaller?


all of it.

> >> > you were able to mount those lenses on a full frame camera, the mirror
> >> > would hit the rear element of the lens when it flips.
> >> >
> >> > nikon's dx lenses don't have this ridiculous limitation
> >>
> >> Because Nikon have a greater lens mount to sensor distance,

> >
> > wrong. in fact, it's the other way around. having a greater flange
> > distance means protruding elements are *more* likely,
> >yet nikon managed to avoid the problem entirely.

>
> Are you for real!?


yes.

> Having more distance between mirror and lens mount allows
> for additional lens clearance. Thats the main difference.


that's also the main problem. if you have a greater flange distance,
the need to have a shorter back focus distance for shorter focal
lengths is *higher*. if anything, nikon should have this problem, not
canon, for the very reason you specify.

> >> making them
> >> unable to use many other lenses with adapters that Canon can. I prefer
> >> Canon for that just that reason, even if YOU think it ridiculous. Swings and
> >> roundabouts!

> >
> > what does using lenses with adapters have to do with the shortcomings
> > of ef-s lenses?

>
> There are no shortcomings, only in YOUR brain.


everything has shortcomings. nothing is perfect.

the fact that ef-s lenses cannot be used on an ef camera *is* a
shortcoming.

nikon dx lenses do not have this limitation. someone who upgrades from
a nikon dx system to an fx system won't have a pile of obsolete lenses.
they can continue to them in dx mode and in the case of a d800, it
might even be an upgrade from what they had, even in dx mode (15 mp).

speaking of which, what will you be doing with your ef-s lenses when
you buy that $500 full frame canon slr you so desperately want? they're
not going to fit.

> > try to stay on topic.

>
> And you don't of course.


i'm not the one bringing up lens flange distances and offbrand lenses &
adapters.

the subject is ef-s versus ef. period.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Yahoo Answers is a piece of Junk Wereo_SUPREME Computer Support 4 01-15-2007 02:41 PM
Download a file piece by piece Patrick Plattes Ruby 2 11-30-2006 07:48 PM
Transcender is a piece of Junk MCSA 4 12-10-2004 06:38 PM
Transcender is a piece of Junk MCAD 4 11-13-2004 03:19 AM
Transcender is a piece of Junk MCDST 1 10-20-2004 12:59 AM



Advertisments