ManualMinoltaFree at Yahoo! Groups

Re: Cheapness - was Compactness - was RF 250mm

Rick Jack — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:01:50 GMT

Hi Vince, I haven't tried either of those cameras. Digital cameras are getting better everyday. I used to own a black Pen FT2 when I worked for Olympus

Re: Cheapness - was Compactness - was RF 250mm

Rick Jack — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:52:13 GMT

It's better than using their lenses with film and the best scanner. I can't afford one anyway. ... From: Michael Stewart

Minimalizing

edriceus — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:22:03 GMT

Speaking of minimalist systems, I've recently been downsizing redundant capability. For instance over the years I've wound up who knows how many lenses that

Re: Cheapness - was Compactness - was RF 250mm

Geoff Howard — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:21:59 GMT

In response to Vinces message in this thread, Olympus has no announced the E-P2 another digital Pen same body as E-P1 but with an interface for a digital VF

Re: Cheapness - was Compactness - was RF 250mm

Vince — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:28:55 GMT

Rick I think you are quite right about the next trend being toward compactness in DSLRs. It feels as if the M9 is having a huge impact already, though few can

Re: Cheapness - was Compactness - was RF 250mm

Michael Stewart — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:12:50 GMT

The Leica M9 is only 18 megapixels. That doesn't do justice to their lenses. Keep your powder dry. Michael P.S. Wondering out loud, do you think their hot shoe

Re: Cheapness - was Compactness - was RF 250mm

Rick Jack — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:46:17 GMT

Michael, I agree in full. I felt Minolta left it's loyal users flat when they introduced the Maxxum with a different mount. With bigger AF lenses and

Re: Cheapness - was Compactness - was RF 250mm

Michael Stewart — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 06:17:47 GMT

I remember the Torrance facility warmly. I didn't live in Southern California, but when I was in town I would always stop by Torrance in the 1970's to get

Re: Cheapness - was Compactness - was RF 250mm

Lightspirit photography — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:29:10 GMT

LOL, RL. My minimalist 'system' was an SRT 100 with a 50/1.7 and later a 135/2.8, for the same reason, cost, and, honestly, I had no idea of what was capable

Cheapness - was Compactness - was RF 250mm

sybersitizen — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:32:58 GMT

I too had a minimalist system in the old days; but mostly because of cost rather than bulk. My best stuff was shot first with an XD5 and later with an X-700.

Compactness - was Re: RF 250mm F5.6

edriceus — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:56:20 GMT

The reason the 250mm RF was part of my system was the need for a minimal, lightweight system. Spending as much time as I did on trails going up high mountains,

Re: RF 250mm F5.6

Chuck Cole — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 02:14:58 GMT

Donuts can be avoided by learning, and/or by using aperture masks that don't reduce speed much. Chuck

Re: RF 250mm F5.6

rickevt604 — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 21:23:10 GMT

I regard the mirror lenses as semi-specialist lenses because of the toroidal bokeh . . . if you can avoid out-of-focus highlights, they're quite good and much

Re: RF 250mm F5.6

edriceus — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 22:57:06 GMT

You're probably very right about that. I don't remember getting any outstanding results but I thought it was just me. Ed

Re: RF 250mm F5.6

sybersitizen — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 17:08:45 GMT

I already offered my (opposite) opinion of the lens last month: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ManualMinoltaFree/message/18994 I didn't think it was worth