Re: Hypothetical question: Cost of a new K1000
Probably not any cheaper. At 01:18 PM 3/10/2003 -0500, you wrote: Here's an interesting question. Suppose that Pentax made a brand new K1000, metal body and all> What would they have to charge for such a beast? Could it be made much cheaper than the Nikon FMA3? Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: Hypothetical question: Cost of a new K1000
It would be better to use the FM2n, since that was in production for a long time with a price history. I would not be surprised if the price ratio difference between the K1000 and FM/FM2n was pretty constant over time. When the FM2n stopped being sold last year it sold for $400-$500. The K1000 price was probably in the 2:3 ratio range (?) That would be a reasonable guess as to what a K1000 would cost today. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here's an interesting question. Suppose that Pentax made a brand new K1000, metal body and all> What would they have to charge for such a beast? Could it be made much cheaper than the Nikon FMA3?
Re: Hypothetical question: Cost of a new K1000
Or take the features of the ZX-M and put it in the K1000 metal body, now that would be a very attractive camera to me. The ZX-M has been compared as the K1000 replacement. > Here's an interesting question. Suppose that Pentax made a brand new > K1000, metal body and all> What would they have to charge for such a > beast? Could it be made much cheaper than the Nikon FMA3? > > > Steven Desjardins > Department of Chemistry > Washington and Lee University > Lexington, VA 24450 > (540) 458-8873 > FAX: (540) 458-8878 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
Re: Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and shoddy? [was: RE: Hypothetical Question]
Rick wrote: Some may argue that film sales has declined over the past few years and this may signalled the end of analog photography. This is hardly from the truth as if you look at the recent photo industry's sales survey, film is starting to make a come back again. REPLY: Here in Norway we are in the front runners of digital camera market share. Still, film sales this year breaks all records. Go figure... Most analyst thinks film and digital will coexist for the foreseeable future. Kodak and Fuji think so too. Pål
Re: Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and shoddy? [was: RE: Hypothetical Question]
I am usually a lurker on the list, but reading all the posts from everyone here on Pentax digital, I find that most people have their facts misplaced. First of all, the market isn't going full digital yet and it may not be for many years. The fact is, people still want good old fashioned "prints". The really interesting part is that, we may all think that men command the photographic market, while in fact, almost more than 46% of photo consumers are women! They spend the money and they still spent it on good old fashioned film. Some may argue that film sales has declined over the past few years and this may signalled the end of analog photography. This is hardly from the truth as if you look at the recent photo industry's sales survey, film is starting to make a come back again. It seems that when digital came into the market, everyone was fascinated by the opportunity for anyone to do their own photo finishing at home with their computer. This is indicative of the good old B&W darkroom days of some 30-50 years ago. But eventually, people are going back to their photo finisher for digital print processing, just like how the majority of us gave up B&W and color printing and let the finisher do the job. Last but not least, no digital camera today that is affordable to the common person is any superior than a 35mm negative. Now, to digital sales.. I guess, most of you have read Pal's comment on digital sales and unfortunately, he *IS* telling the truth. The only people who are making money on digital are probably the photo stores. And why is that? That is because, the 35mm market is for now totally saturated. There isn't any growth in the 35mm market anymore. North American families typically have 1-2 cameras in their household and that usually compromise of a point & shoot and or a dated SLR system. And like a computer, the 35mm system has become commodotized. Most stores usually make most of their money not on cameras, but on accessories they sell because margins are a little better there. On the other hand, the digital market still has room to grow, because not every household has it. Now, what does it all have to do with Pentax? I think Pentax knows this. From the mid 80s to the late 90s, as Pal had indicated on his previous post, Pentax was a strong zoom compact maker and still is. While Pentax designed most of their compacts in house, other makers farm out their compacts to someone else. There is also a little known fact, but Pentax also has the expertise to design and manufacture their own lens shutter for zoom compacts, something other makers do not. There are also many first technologies employed by Pentax in their zoom compacts that received little recognition. Suffice to say, they are king in their business and still is. On the SLR front, Pentax sells the MZ series very well, though probably not as well as they liked these days. But keep in mind that Pentax is targetting a different market than Nikon and Canon and that market is very well received. But when it comes to digital or any other innovations however, Pentax does fare well against its competitors. They just don't want to bleed money profusely like their competitors do, and that's why they're a little slow in putting things out. That should also explain why they don't put out many of their secret weapons. And besides, being first in any digital innovation does not always "ENSURE" you to be the leader of that field in the future. And that reminds me of a little history about personal computers. During the early 70s to the mid 90s, the personal computer industry suffered from the same fate as the digital market we are experiencing today. There were so many computer makers, so many innovations, too many to list. Ti, Tandy, Commodore, Atari, Sinclair and the list goes on and on. I also remembered how people immediately wrote obituaries of both Apple and the PC when the Commodore Amiga and the Atari ST computers were kings of their day. Today, Apple G4s and Pentium 4 PCs are kings, the very platform that people in those days said would not survive. All I am saying is that, do not write off Pentax so easily, because I believe that when all this nonsense subside, you'll see only a few handful of digital makers survive. And Pentax will be one of them. That's my 2 cents worth.Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
Re: Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and shoddy? [was: RE: Hypothetical Question]
- Original Message - From: Brad Dobo Subject: Re: Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and shoddy? [was: RE: Hypothetical Question] > Hey Bill, when you looked at the Canadian site, did you notice something > odd? Nice new site, but they don't list a single flash unit!!! Some stupid > over-sight I suppose. Yer right. The repair department must have taken over website design. William Robb
Re: Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and shoddy? [was: RE: Hypothetical Question]
Hey Bill, when you looked at the Canadian site, did you notice something odd? Nice new site, but they don't list a single flash unit!!! Some stupid over-sight I suppose. Brad - Original Message - From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2002 10:31 AM Subject: Re: Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and shoddy? [was: RE: Hypothetical Question] > > - Original Message - > From: Pål Jensen > Subject: Re: Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and > shoddy? [was: RE: Hypothetical Question] > > > > Dan wrote: > > > > > I just looked at Pentax's lenses on B&H, are there more > lenses than > > > they list? They show 8 pages of lenses for Nikon, 6 pages > each for > > > Canon and Minolta, and then 3 pages for Pentax (Leica and > Contax also > > > have 3 pages each). > > > > > > Pentax is currently offering about 60 lenses. I have no idea > how many of those B+H list. > > I just counted 55 lenses on Pentax Canada's website. More than > enough for any user, I would think, and they don't include older > lenses (the 43mm LTD is no longer listed, for example). > > William Robb > >
Re: Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and shoddy? [was: RE: Hypothetical Question]
Ok, but how does that relate to North Americans? I hope we get them all too. I like AF TC's although I've *just* bought one that is not..I like a FA 17mm f/2.8 (non-fisheye) but that would cost a bundle I'm sure. Ya, drop the power zooms, save batteries! Kill Tameron definitely. And stock the stuff in Canada Brad - Original Message - From: "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2002 9:09 AM Subject: Re: Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and shoddy? [was: RE: Hypothetical Question] > >Pentax is currently offering about 60 lenses. I have no idea how many of > >those B+H list. > > Couldn't sleep and got nothing to do. I just counted from the Pentax Japan > web site. The results are as follow. > > - 57 lenses & 5 TCs in total > - 37 AF lenses (excluding 2 soft focus lenses) > - 25 supposed-to-be-good AF lenses ranged from 20mm to 600mm (fisheye > excluded) to choose from (including F17-28, FA20-35 & FA24-90, but excluding > all consumer zooms, based on my very own & subjective standard). > > Anything missing or should-be-made lenses based on my very subjective > opinion? > - FA 17mm prime or zoom (non-fisheye) > - FA* 70-210/4 ED [IF] (power-zoom-less) > - FA 100/2 [IF] (optimized for portrait) > - FA* 500/4 or 4.5 ED [IF] > - make all TCs AF > - replaced all power-zoom to power-zoom-less > - drop all Tamron cones and redesign all current consumers to better built > - ??? > > regards, > Alan Chan > > _ > Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 3 months FREE*. > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&D I=7474&SU= > http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_addphotos_3 mf > >
Re: Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and shoddy? [was: RE: Hypothetical Question]
- Original Message - From: Pål Jensen Subject: Re: Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and shoddy? [was: RE: Hypothetical Question] > Dan wrote: > > > I just looked at Pentax's lenses on B&H, are there more lenses than > > they list? They show 8 pages of lenses for Nikon, 6 pages each for > > Canon and Minolta, and then 3 pages for Pentax (Leica and Contax also > > have 3 pages each). > > > Pentax is currently offering about 60 lenses. I have no idea how many of those B+H list. I just counted 55 lenses on Pentax Canada's website. More than enough for any user, I would think, and they don't include older lenses (the 43mm LTD is no longer listed, for example). William Robb
Re: Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and shoddy? [was: RE: Hypothetical Question]
Oh, just an FYI for Canadians. I cannot remember, but one member I've discussed with on previous occasions. I bitched loudly at Pentax Canada, and probably just from luck, they got *new* brochures for 35mm lenses. It looks like the same old one, until you look closer and see the additional new lenses. About time, way to go Pentax! > Pentax is currently offering about 60 lenses. I have no idea how many of those B+H list. > > Pål
Re: Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and shoddy? [was: RE: Hypothetical Question]
I like that opinion. I also have a question of sorts, I thought a good 14MP full frame sensor would meet or defeat the finest grain 35mm films? If not, it's close. So if, as Glen says, 30MP+ come out (will they be like computer CPUs?) when and what will be enough? Unless you want something for a board in Times Square, isn't anything much more complete and utter overkill? How many of use just like slides, or 4x6, 5x7, 8x10, 11x14. I think we'll see a large gap, consumer and pro. They'll get the monsters in case, and we will never get them due to the price. And RAW format with these things? Computer companies are loving this, oh the profits!! Perhaps the 35mm DSLRs will be consumer only and top out at not much more than 14MP. Consumer, amateur. All pros will go for new high tech and big sensors, of a medium format/large format type? Brad - Original Message - From: "Glen O'Neal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2002 1:49 AM Subject: RE: Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and shoddy? [was: RE: Hypothetical Question] > One point to remember. We heard quite a few months ago (before Photokina) > that along with the new digital SLR they were developing new wide angle > lenses for the new line. With the APS sized sensor cropping of the image > this makes sense as well as new technology to reduce chromatic aberrations > (also a problem with APS sized sensors). This would indicate to me that, > even if Pentax does actually get a DSLR to market next spring it will most > like not be a full frame sensor. I think the next step for the digital world > will be full frame sensors for medium format cameras as well as more > sophisticated technology for the 35mm full frame sensors and imaging engine. > Perhaps a 645 sensor first. By the time these 30MP+ monsters come out the > APS sensor that we are so anxiously waiting for in our DSLR will be no more > than a toy that is used mostly in point and shoot cameras and low end > DSLR's. > > Just my humble opinion > > Glen > > -Original Message- > From: Alexander Krohe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 2:43 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and shoddy? [was: > RE: Hypothetical Question] > > > Pål wrote: -- > > Sure, but I don't think LX with AF should be > interpreted litterally; more of an AF > > camera that occupies the LX place in the line-up. > > Yes, that is how I have meant it. > > >Both Nikon and Canon sell well of > > their upper level bodies. When a company like > Kyocera could manage to keep four (or > > was it more) upper end bodies in the market > simultaneously, neither of them selling in > > volumes, it is nothing but a total disgrace that > Pentax didn't manage a single one > > during the 90's. > > Pentax' entire product line seems to be centered > around P&S cameras. I was told by a pentax rep that in > the early 90s (before they introduced the FA-series), > Pentax had almost dicontinued the 35mm SLR system. At > that time Pentax dramatically lost market share (35mm > SLR), but on the other side, their P&S zoom cameras > became extremely succesful. They continued their 35mm > system because they thought > - that making a 35mm system will boost the sales of > P&S cameras (as it shows their expertise as a camera > maker) and > - they will get new customers from those who want to > upgrade from a P&S camara to a SLR system. > > I think this strategy was quite successful.They > survived and regained lost market share. It also > explains the product philosophy behind the MZ-cameras: > They are all either entry level cameras or for > students. Similar to the espio/iqz P&S cameras, they > make a large variation of MZ cameras that are all > based on one single platform. So they can appeal a > variation of different customers while keeping costs > low. > > However, in this line up is no room for an expensive > model. You need another camera platform (expensive), > and such a model is much more difficult to sell with a > different marketing stategy and a higher risk. > > > True, the LX was still around but it was beyond its > selling date. So > > Pentax deserve the reputation they now have; entry > level cameras there are no point in > > buying because if you buy a Nikon or a Canon, or > even a Minolta, you have something to > > upgrade to. > > > I think in the 90s the product management was even > hostile against high quality 35mm gear as they also > ditched the successor to the PZ-1p without any > replacement. Instead they ke
RE: Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and shoddy? [was: RE: Hypothetical Question]
One point to remember. We heard quite a few months ago (before Photokina) that along with the new digital SLR they were developing new wide angle lenses for the new line. With the APS sized sensor cropping of the image this makes sense as well as new technology to reduce chromatic aberrations (also a problem with APS sized sensors). This would indicate to me that, even if Pentax does actually get a DSLR to market next spring it will most like not be a full frame sensor. I think the next step for the digital world will be full frame sensors for medium format cameras as well as more sophisticated technology for the 35mm full frame sensors and imaging engine. Perhaps a 645 sensor first. By the time these 30MP+ monsters come out the APS sensor that we are so anxiously waiting for in our DSLR will be no more than a toy that is used mostly in point and shoot cameras and low end DSLR's. Just my humble opinion Glen -Original Message- From: Alexander Krohe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 2:43 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and shoddy? [was: RE: Hypothetical Question] Pål wrote: -- > Sure, but I don't think LX with AF should be interpreted litterally; more of an AF > camera that occupies the LX place in the line-up. Yes, that is how I have meant it. >Both Nikon and Canon sell well of > their upper level bodies. When a company like Kyocera could manage to keep four (or > was it more) upper end bodies in the market simultaneously, neither of them selling in > volumes, it is nothing but a total disgrace that Pentax didn't manage a single one > during the 90's. Pentax' entire product line seems to be centered around P&S cameras. I was told by a pentax rep that in the early 90s (before they introduced the FA-series), Pentax had almost dicontinued the 35mm SLR system. At that time Pentax dramatically lost market share (35mm SLR), but on the other side, their P&S zoom cameras became extremely succesful. They continued their 35mm system because they thought - that making a 35mm system will boost the sales of P&S cameras (as it shows their expertise as a camera maker) and - they will get new customers from those who want to upgrade from a P&S camara to a SLR system. I think this strategy was quite successful.They survived and regained lost market share. It also explains the product philosophy behind the MZ-cameras: They are all either entry level cameras or for students. Similar to the espio/iqz P&S cameras, they make a large variation of MZ cameras that are all based on one single platform. So they can appeal a variation of different customers while keeping costs low. However, in this line up is no room for an expensive model. You need another camera platform (expensive), and such a model is much more difficult to sell with a different marketing stategy and a higher risk. > True, the LX was still around but it was beyond its selling date. So > Pentax deserve the reputation they now have; entry level cameras there are no point in > buying because if you buy a Nikon or a Canon, or even a Minolta, you have something to > upgrade to. I think in the 90s the product management was even hostile against high quality 35mm gear as they also ditched the successor to the PZ-1p without any replacement. Instead they kept the PZ-1p in the product line for a IMO give away price (but nevertheless couldn't sell much of them). As a result everybody expects Pentax to be cheap. There was (is?) no long-term marketing strategy for high end 35mm gear. They did not even market the 35mm SLrs as a system, they rather marketed single products. Even up to now Pentax USA and Pentax Europe do not bother with black limited lenses. Still no ultra-wide Af lens. > There are, however, signs that Pentax have gotten the message. I take the introduction of the MZ-S as an indication that you are right. But things are slowly moving. After the introduction of the MZ-S two years ago there has been silence again. The photokina no-show must have sent a desastrous message as they decided to "semi-announce" the upcomming APS D-SLR through internet groups (normally they remain tight-lipped about news releases). To be honest I think the product management has still a long way to go. They don't communicate to the customer in which direction they will go and what the selling points of their products are. E.g. you have to go to the Japanese web page to find out what the complete product line is. And when the MZ-S was introduced, they left it to the customer to find out if it is made of die-cast parts or just of metal-coated/plated plastic (due to an error in translation). > Also, I believe that > digital will force higher end cameras from Pentax. With some luck, we wil see film > versions of the as well. If for nothing else, then as a me
Re: Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and shoddy? [was: RE: Hypothetical Question]
Alexander wrote: > I think in the 90s the product management was even > hostile against high quality 35mm gear as they also > ditched the successor to the PZ-1p without any > replacement. Instead they kept the PZ-1p in the > product line for a IMO give away price (but > nevertheless couldn't sell much of them). As a result > everybody expects Pentax to be cheap. But here is the big mystery; why did they bother with the huge lens line-up. I believe they are still second only to Nikon in the sheer number of lenses available. Why keep all those special lenses in production? For the MZ-5 customers? Hardly. > There was (is?) no long-term marketing strategy for > high end 35mm gear. They did not even market the 35mm > SLrs as a system, they rather marketed single > products. Even up to now Pentax USA and Pentax Europe > do not bother with black limited lenses. Still no > ultra-wide Af lens. I believe the lack of long term strategy is the culprit. Not engineering ambitions or product development. The frustrated (yes they are!) Pentax engineers have developed several interesting high end bodies that didn't get the go ahead. This incudes the "Z-2"; nickname for the Z-1p sucessor and the unnamed LX sucessor described by Pentax head of camera division at Photokina '96 as "a professional body closer to the LX than the Z-1p but without interchangeable finders". Meanwhile, several extremely strategically placed Pentax people have made no secret of the fact that they are working on a "flagship". > I take the introduction of the MZ-S as an indication > that you are right. But things are slowly moving. > After the introduction of the MZ-S two years ago there > has been silence again. The MZ-S was an anomaly. Whatever long-term plan Pentax had, the MZ-S wasn't part fo it. The MZ-S and it's digital sibling was developed at expense of the projects they were already working on to much dismay. I have no idea what they were working on, but signals clearly states that the MZ-S showed nothing of the good things to come. With the latest filing of patents I have no doubt that it includes color matrix metering, IS, USM and the KAF3 mount. How these plans figure today is unknown to me. > According to a rumor spread on the luminous landscape > forum, Pentax is still committed to a full frame D-SLR > (with FOVEON sensor). No idea if that is true, did you > hear anything about that? I haven't heard anything about it apart from the message posted by William and the one you're refering to. However, if the sorce is Foveon, something thats likelay as the rumor apparently has originated outside the "usual" Pentax channnels, then it might be true. Whatever, the rumor has long circulated that a major manufacturer is going to release a full-frame Foveon chipped DSLR. > I hope you are right but it will be expensive and > there is no guarantee that this will pay off in the > future. I fear that this is exactly not what they are > prepared to do. So far, I do not see a long therm > product strategy. The MZ-S looks to me as a temporary > solution rather than as the base to a series of new > high end digital and film cameras. > It took Canon more than 20 years of a consequent > product policy to get into their present dominant > position on the market. When the typical slr buyer, the one who wanted a "good camera" went to the advanced P&S camera, Pentax was there. In fact, they led the way with their pioneering zoom compacts. Pentax dominated this market. What they failed to see with this move, was that the remaining slr buying public changed. Pentax did still try to make another Spotmatic, not realising that the buiyng public couldn't care less and their most important priority was to be seen with the brands the pros are using. During the 90's Pentax has been living well of their huge P&S market share. However, Pentax core market, the zoom compact, is being eaten alive by digital. Pentax can never achieve the same position in P&S digital as they had in the zoom compact segment. The digital P&S market has far more competitors; among them several electronic giants. Pentax need to look to their traditional stronghold; they are among the few manufacturers who does have a complete slr lens line in place. So basically, they need to do something serious in the slr area as this is a market they can expand in. Also, the MF cameras are under pressure from digital although I doubt MF has much importance in Pentax overall: it could be sacrificed. Whats interesting with DSLR is that the game is not only about fancy AF and FPS anymore, but will center more around sensor type and quality, and of course, price. This field will also draw many new users not previously into SLR photography. All this makes this field interesting and hard to predict. A full frame camera makes sense. Would you buy a digital slr from someone who didn't provide an upgrade path? Even if you knew you wasn't going to buy th
Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and shoddy? [was: RE: Hypothetical Question]
Pål wrote: -- > Sure, but I don't think LX with AF should be interpreted litterally; more of an AF > camera that occupies the LX place in the line-up. Yes, that is how I have meant it. >Both Nikon and Canon sell well of > their upper level bodies. When a company like Kyocera could manage to keep four (or > was it more) upper end bodies in the market simultaneously, neither of them selling in > volumes, it is nothing but a total disgrace that Pentax didn't manage a single one > during the 90's. Pentax' entire product line seems to be centered around P&S cameras. I was told by a pentax rep that in the early 90s (before they introduced the FA-series), Pentax had almost dicontinued the 35mm SLR system. At that time Pentax dramatically lost market share (35mm SLR), but on the other side, their P&S zoom cameras became extremely succesful. They continued their 35mm system because they thought - that making a 35mm system will boost the sales of P&S cameras (as it shows their expertise as a camera maker) and - they will get new customers from those who want to upgrade from a P&S camara to a SLR system. I think this strategy was quite successful.They survived and regained lost market share. It also explains the product philosophy behind the MZ-cameras: They are all either entry level cameras or for students. Similar to the espio/iqz P&S cameras, they make a large variation of MZ cameras that are all based on one single platform. So they can appeal a variation of different customers while keeping costs low. However, in this line up is no room for an expensive model. You need another camera platform (expensive), and such a model is much more difficult to sell with a different marketing stategy and a higher risk. > True, the LX was still around but it was beyond its selling date. So > Pentax deserve the reputation they now have; entry level cameras there are no point in > buying because if you buy a Nikon or a Canon, or even a Minolta, you have something to > upgrade to. I think in the 90s the product management was even hostile against high quality 35mm gear as they also ditched the successor to the PZ-1p without any replacement. Instead they kept the PZ-1p in the product line for a IMO give away price (but nevertheless couldn't sell much of them). As a result everybody expects Pentax to be cheap. There was (is?) no long-term marketing strategy for high end 35mm gear. They did not even market the 35mm SLrs as a system, they rather marketed single products. Even up to now Pentax USA and Pentax Europe do not bother with black limited lenses. Still no ultra-wide Af lens. > There are, however, signs that Pentax have gotten the message. I take the introduction of the MZ-S as an indication that you are right. But things are slowly moving. After the introduction of the MZ-S two years ago there has been silence again. The photokina no-show must have sent a desastrous message as they decided to "semi-announce" the upcomming APS D-SLR through internet groups (normally they remain tight-lipped about news releases). To be honest I think the product management has still a long way to go. They don't communicate to the customer in which direction they will go and what the selling points of their products are. E.g. you have to go to the Japanese web page to find out what the complete product line is. And when the MZ-S was introduced, they left it to the customer to find out if it is made of die-cast parts or just of metal-coated/plated plastic (due to an error in translation). > Also, I believe that > digital will force higher end cameras from Pentax. With some luck, we wil see film > versions of the as well. If for nothing else, then as a means for Pentax to cover > developing costs. Full-frame higher-end 35mm digital slr's will start competing with > Pentax MF cameras. Also, MF need an upgrade path to digital uless they want their > whole MF line to be a dead end. According to a rumor spread on the luminous landscape forum, Pentax is still committed to a full frame D-SLR (with FOVEON sensor). No idea if that is true, did you hear anything about that? (for my part, I will be glad if that APS sized D-SLR materializes in foreseeable future). > Codeveloping 35mm and MF digital slr's makes sense as > they can be made similar except for sensor size and physical size. Although for > digital the sensor will be a strong selling point, Pentax need to update their > features as well in order to be seen as competitive. They also will have to expect > quite a few years with lossleaders in order to build up their eroded image. I hope you are right but it will be expensive and there is no guarantee that this will pay off in the future. I fear that this is exactly not what they are prepared to do. So far, I do not see a long therm product strategy. The MZ-S looks to me as a temporary solution rather than as the base to a series of new high end digital and film
Re: Hypothetical Question
How about the FM10? That should fit the typical Pentax Pocketbook. Pentax mostly sells cheap cameras, because most Pentax buyers are cheap. Pentax figured this out years ago and then fired their market research department, because they're cheap too. BR From: frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> BUT, just in case Big Brother Pentax is watching, how about a Pentax equivalent to the N FM3 (but way cheaper)? I guess it could hurt to try, eh?
Re: Hypothetical Question
Big surprise! The F100 just about nails all your specs. It misses the viewfinder by 2% (96%), and I guess makes the weight (27.7 oz). The problem with Pentax is that what Pentax users wish for, other manufacturers already make and sell. BR From: Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> After all, Nikon sells plenty of F100s. Now speaking just for myself, I'd say that my tastes and requirements are so highly evolved that I probably wouldn't be interested in such a camera unless it had all the main features I'm personally looking for. Those are: 1. A 98% or 100% viewfinder with good "snap" for easy manual focusing 2. Quiet operation 3. Short shutter lag (i.e., good responsiveness) 4. Ability to use manual focus as well as AF lenses 5. Aperture-priority AE 6. AE lock 7. Non-resetting ISO 8. Diopter adjustment or add-on diopters 9. Moderate size and light to medium weight (say, up to 26 oz. or so) for decent portability 10. General straightforwardness of controls and ease of operation, and not too many extra controls and features confusing everything.
RE: Hypothetical Question
If you can't mix and match, there is no reason to buy Pentax AF gear. BR From: Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you couldn't mix and match and you couldn't use both--which would it be?
Re: Hypothetical Question taken further...
> Bought new: > > Pentax K2 > Pentax ME (black) > Pentax ME winder > Pentax LX (three) > Pentax LX finders (most of them) > Pentax LX winder > Pentax Z-1p > Pentax MZ-S > Pentax 280T flash > Pentax 400T Flash > Pentax 500FTZ(?) flash > > Pentax 18/3.5 > Pentax A 24/2.8 > Pentax FA Limited 31/1.8 > Pentax A 35/2.8 > Pentax FA Limited 43/1.9 > Pentax M 50/1.7 > Pentax A 50/1.2 > Pentax FA Limited 77/1.8 > Pentax FA* 85/1.4 > Pentax A* 200/4 Macro > Pentax FA* 200/4 Macro > Pentax A* 300/2.8 > Pentax A 400/5.6 > Pentax FA* 600/4 > Pentax 1000/11 Reflex > Pentax M 28-50/3.5 > Pentax M 80-200/4.5 > Pentax A 35-135/4.5 > Pentax FA* 28-70/2.8 > > > Pentax 645N > Pentax FA645 33-55/4.5 > Pentax FA645 45/2.8 > Pentax FA 75/2.8 > Pentax FA 120/4 Macro Awesome! --Mike
Re: Hypothetical question
Hi, Ronald, Well, the lens changing thing is a matter of practise, maybe! The Spotmatics are very sturdy cameras, as evidenced by the number of people on this list who still use them! The meters tend to go on them (I doubt that they were designed to last 30 or 40 years), but they can be replaced from parts cameras, or with slight modification, with K1000 meters, by a competent repair shop (one of my Spots has a K1000 meter in it, and it works just fine). I still use my Spotmatics on a regular basis, and other than the odd CLA and replacement of seals, I don't see any reason why they won't go on for another 30 or 40 years (assuming parts can be gotten, but I'm lucky in that my repair shop is pretty good at scrounging used parts). The K1000 is basically a Spotmatic F, without self-timer and with a bayonet mount, so I'd say yes, Spotmatics are as "eternal" as the early k-mounts. cheers, frank Ronald Arvidsson wrote: > Hi Frank, > > Maybe I made a mistake. Good to hear that your old gear is adequate. > It is true that one seldom need the one or two extra seconds. For me > it would only arise in photographing wildlife or birds when my two > bodies I would bring don't have the lens I want. Then, due to the very > fast changing distances angle and thus motif it might might be needed > otherwise not. Granted that there is a significant time difference of > a second or so in the change of lenses when comparing screwmount to K > mount. One can actually loose a lot of time by not being properly > prepared - thus mount doesnt matter. > > I have a question about the cameras though, I used a lot old Konica > gear but found that the cameras didn't last as well as the lenses, are > Pentax screwmount bodies as eternal as the somewhat younger first > generation K mount cameras? > > Cheers, > > Ronald > -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: Hypothetical Question taken further...
> On Wednesday, December 18, 2002, at 05:05 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote: > > > > > I can assure you, that as each product is contemplated, careful > > consideration is given to it's ability to make money. Consumer demand > > comes from people who buy new things. So if we list all the stuff we > > bought new, how many would actually be Pentax consumers? I'll be a danmed good customer Bought new: Pentax K2 Pentax ME (black) Pentax ME winder Pentax LX (three) Pentax LX finders (most of them) Pentax LX winder Pentax Z-1p Pentax MZ-S Pentax 280T flash Pentax 400T Flash Pentax 500FTZ(?) flash Pentax 18/3.5 Pentax A 24/2.8 Pentax FA Limited 31/1.8 Pentax A 35/2.8 Pentax FA Limited 43/1.9 Pentax M 50/1.7 Pentax A 50/1.2 Pentax FA Limited 77/1.8 Pentax FA* 85/1.4 Pentax A* 200/4 Macro Pentax FA* 200/4 Macro Pentax A* 300/2.8 Pentax A 400/5.6 Pentax FA* 600/4 Pentax 1000/11 Reflex Pentax M 28-50/3.5 Pentax M 80-200/4.5 Pentax A 35-135/4.5 Pentax FA* 28-70/2.8 Pentax 645N Pentax FA645 33-55/4.5 Pentax FA645 45/2.8 Pentax FA 75/2.8 Pentax FA 120/4 Macro
Re: Hypothetical Question
See interspersed comments below Pål wrote:-- >> I think at the end of it's life time the LX was 3x as >> expensive as it initially was. >> Too expensive. >> The desire for ultimate quality vanishes as prices >> increase. > Yes, but also the fact that there are limits on how long you can sell the same > product. At a certain point the market becomes saturated and the used price is so much > lower than new price that few are willing to pay for a brand new one. When a product > get old enough initial buyers can sell the thing for the same they gave for it 10-15 > years earlier, something they are happy to do, maintaining a "low" used priced > compared to new price. This happened also with the 67; the used market was so full of > it that few bought new ones anymore as good second-hand samples were plentiful at > significant savings. > > Pål Yes this is true. But Pentax did not decide to keep LX sales going over a longer time by releasing upgrades of the LX or a successor model to the LX. OTOH they did this with the 67 system by introducing the 67II. My point is that (sure I am only guessing here) that an "AF" LX with modern electronics would be too expensive to find enough customers. This would be, although such a camera would probably not be much more expensive than the old LX would cost today (basically the mechanics are the more expensive parts). Camera reviewers have even complained about the MZ-S being too expensive though it is actually moderately priced for what it is. This is basically because you can buy cheaper, but less well-made bodies that are laden with more features. Mike wrote: >> If there was a modern Af camera that was built >> according to the same quality level as the LX and that >> was accordingly priced (hint: where I live the >> 31mm/1.8 ltd. lens is almost 4x as expensive as was >> the K-series 28mm/2), and if your only option was to >> buy new, what would you choose: this one or a cheap >> ZX/MZ-something plastic body? I think the market has >> already given the answer. >> > >Alexander, > I don't think the market has given the answer because the market has not > been given the actual choice. Yes, Pentax would rather build ZX-5's and > ZX-7's, and this probably means that it thinks it can do so more profitably > than it could build a camera such as you describe. But that doesn't mean > that the market wouldn't support an "AF LX" if one were available. After > all, Nikon sells plenty of F100s. Yes, but I assume Pentax made their choice not releasing a LX successor based on marketing research. And it's market is not comparable to Nikon's. Nikon's present share on the 35mm SLR world market is about 35% (if I am not wrong) while that of Pentax is only 10%. So there are much more potiential customers who will likely upgrade to a F5-like camera (only few beginners will start with a F5). When the LX was introduced Pentax' market share was about 20%. > Now speaking just for myself, I'd say that my tastes and requirements are so > highly evolved that I probably wouldn't be interested in such a camera > unless it had all the main features I'm personally looking for. > > This perfectly shows how much more difficult it is to sell high end gear. Regardles how such a hypothetical "AF-LX" will look like, they will convice only a fraction of Pentax useres to buy one. (BTW I would like to see a "AF"-LX) Enjoy, Alexander > Those are: > > 1. A 98% or 100% viewfinder with good "snap" for easy manual focusing > 2. Quiet operation > 3. Short shutter lag (i.e., good responsiveness) > 4. Ability to use manual focus as well as AF lenses > 5. Aperture-priority AE > 6. AE lock > 7. Non-resetting ISO > 8. Diopter adjustment or add-on diopters > 9. Moderate size and light to medium weight (say, up to 26 oz. or so) for > decent portability > 10. General straightforwardness of controls and ease of operation, and not > too many extra controls and features confusing everything. > > I'd *certainly* be using an LX if only it had #2, > and I'd probably be using > an MZ-S if it had #1. > > The problem for a camera designer would be that in order to satisfy the "top > ten" features lists of a LARGE number of photographers, they have to have a > great deal of capability and it has to be very see-through, i.e., it > couldn't be very confusing or feature-laden and it couldn't "dictate" the > way it had to be used, but it would have to be able to satisfy ALL of any > particular advanced photographer's wants. This is a very large order, and > it's got to be damnably tough for a camera designer to accommodate. > > For instance, one thing I didn't list is flash capability or high sync > speed, because I don't use flash and I don't give a damn about it. But it's > very easy to anticipate that many, if not most, photographers would demand > excellent flash capability. I haven't specified mirror lock-up or low > vibration because I don't do closeup work or astrophotog
Re: Hypothetical Question
That probably describes the average photographer in any developed country. At 07:06 AM 12/19/2002 -0500, you wrote: If I had to guess, I'd say the "average" USA Pentax enthusiast got the camera and lens as a gift and uses it 3 times a year. I don't think that fits this group. Lon frank theriault wrote: > > Even if they do "monitor" us once in a while, or even all the time, I can't > believe that they put much stock in our opinions. We're what, a couple of hundred > enthusiasts? That's a pretty small sample, and hardly representative of the > market as a whole. We don't have much influence beyond our group (or even within > it ). They may watch us once in a while, but I can't believe that too many > decisions are made based on what we think. > > BUT, just in case Big Brother Pentax is watching, how about a Pentax equivalent to > the N FM3 (but way cheaper)? I guess it could hurt to try, eh? > > cheers, > frank > > Paul Stenquist wrote: > > > I work in advertising and have had a lot of contact with the marketing > > departments of various companies for the last quarter century. They all > > monitor every bit of information they can find. Why not? It's a no > > brainer. More information is always a good thing. > > Paul > > > > -- > "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears > it is true." -J. Robert > Oppenheimer Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: Hypothetical Question
If I had to guess, I'd say the "average" USA Pentax enthusiast got the camera and lens as a gift and uses it 3 times a year. I don't think that fits this group. Lon frank theriault wrote: > > Even if they do "monitor" us once in a while, or even all the time, I can't > believe that they put much stock in our opinions. We're what, a couple of hundred > enthusiasts? That's a pretty small sample, and hardly representative of the > market as a whole. We don't have much influence beyond our group (or even within > it ). They may watch us once in a while, but I can't believe that too many > decisions are made based on what we think. > > BUT, just in case Big Brother Pentax is watching, how about a Pentax equivalent to > the N FM3 (but way cheaper)? I guess it could hurt to try, eh? > > cheers, > frank > > Paul Stenquist wrote: > > > I work in advertising and have had a lot of contact with the marketing > > departments of various companies for the last quarter century. They all > > monitor every bit of information they can find. Why not? It's a no > > brainer. More information is always a good thing. > > Paul > > > > -- > "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears > it is true." -J. Robert > Oppenheimer
Re: Hypothetical Question
And, gathering from what I read here: Flash will not fire if the LX "thinks" it can do the exposure without flash. "Sticky mirror" would not have been a complaint when the LX was released, at least, I hope not. -Lon Pål Jensen wrote: > > Mark wrote: > > > It's a pity the PDML didn't exist when the LX was introduced. It would have > > been interesting to read the inevitable complaints. > > I remember the compaints: it was too big and bulky, used batteries, and had useless >features like automatic mode. It was essentially a tool for family snapshooters. >Sounds familiar? > > Pål
Re: Hypothetical Question
That's nice, I'm in North America, If I bore a hole straight down I'll only have to travel about 7900 miles or so to see and hold an MZ-S. I'm sure that I could find one in Mew York City, but I think I'd rather bore that hole. At 04:41 PM 12/19/2002 +1100, Bob Rap wrote: Hi Peter, I saw and held one in Sydney at a camera store near Martin Place on George street. Bob - Original Message - From: "Peter Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 4:17 AM Subject: Re: Hypothetical Question > The fact that the LX was only available in Japan made it rather difficult > for most of us to buy. Hell I can't see a MZ-S in the proverbial flesh despite > having two relatively well stocked camera stores which both carry Pentax > within easy driving distance. > > At 09:19 AM 12/18/2002 -0600, you wrote: > > > My question is this: Could Pentax actually use this list for advice > > > and stay in business? We may be too eclectic a group to be a good > > > source of market research. We still argue over the PZ-1p vs the MZ-S. > > > Many here don't even want autofocus. > > > > > >This is pretty much what I was wondering about when I wrote the original > >"Hypothetical Question." People here wonder whether Pentax monitors this > >list (they do), and whether they listen to our advice when advising Japan > >about product development...I don't know whether they do that or not, but I > >have to wonder if it would be productive if they did. > > > >I know that one Pentax person has told me privately that despite all the > >gushing and lauding of the LX on this list, even diehards weren't buying new > >LX's at the end of its lifespan. Most were buying used, or were using LXen > >purchased many years previously. > > > >Some of the comments about a digital SLR would probably be of value to them, > >especially from the perspective of not alienating longtime Pentax > >aficionados. But of course that's only going to be one consideration out of > >many in the design and concept of the new camera. > > > >We're only a few months away now...the Pentax DSLR is coming, > > > >--Mike > > Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. > Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx > Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: Hypothetical Question
Hi Peter, I saw and held one in Sydney at a camera store near Martin Place on George street. Bob - Original Message - From: "Peter Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 4:17 AM Subject: Re: Hypothetical Question > The fact that the LX was only available in Japan made it rather difficult > for most of us to buy. Hell I can't see a MZ-S in the proverbial flesh despite > having two relatively well stocked camera stores which both carry Pentax > within easy driving distance. > > At 09:19 AM 12/18/2002 -0600, you wrote: > > > My question is this: Could Pentax actually use this list for advice > > > and stay in business? We may be too eclectic a group to be a good > > > source of market research. We still argue over the PZ-1p vs the MZ-S. > > > Many here don't even want autofocus. > > > > > >This is pretty much what I was wondering about when I wrote the original > >"Hypothetical Question." People here wonder whether Pentax monitors this > >list (they do), and whether they listen to our advice when advising Japan > >about product development...I don't know whether they do that or not, but I > >have to wonder if it would be productive if they did. > > > >I know that one Pentax person has told me privately that despite all the > >gushing and lauding of the LX on this list, even diehards weren't buying new > >LX's at the end of its lifespan. Most were buying used, or were using LXen > >purchased many years previously. > > > >Some of the comments about a digital SLR would probably be of value to them, > >especially from the perspective of not alienating longtime Pentax > >aficionados. But of course that's only going to be one consideration out of > >many in the design and concept of the new camera. > > > >We're only a few months away now...the Pentax DSLR is coming, > > > >--Mike > > Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. > Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx >
Re: Hypothetical Question
The fact that the LX was only available in Japan made it rather difficult for most of us to buy. Hell I can't see a MZ-S in the proverbial flesh despite having two relatively well stocked camera stores which both carry Pentax within easy driving distance. At 09:19 AM 12/18/2002 -0600, you wrote: > My question is this: Could Pentax actually use this list for advice > and stay in business? We may be too eclectic a group to be a good > source of market research. We still argue over the PZ-1p vs the MZ-S. > Many here don't even want autofocus. This is pretty much what I was wondering about when I wrote the original "Hypothetical Question." People here wonder whether Pentax monitors this list (they do), and whether they listen to our advice when advising Japan about product development...I don't know whether they do that or not, but I have to wonder if it would be productive if they did. I know that one Pentax person has told me privately that despite all the gushing and lauding of the LX on this list, even diehards weren't buying new LX's at the end of its lifespan. Most were buying used, or were using LXen purchased many years previously. Some of the comments about a digital SLR would probably be of value to them, especially from the perspective of not alienating longtime Pentax aficionados. But of course that's only going to be one consideration out of many in the design and concept of the new camera. We're only a few months away now...the Pentax DSLR is coming, --Mike Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: Hypothetical Question
But the important thing to remember is that we wouldn't like the brand if they didn't meed our needs, at least as some time weather today or in the past. At 07:20 PM 12/18/2002 -0600, you wrote: > But the people on this is are not a couple hundred users, they are a couple > of hundred flag wavers. Bingo! Excellent point. We're the people who LIKE Pentax, so we support the brand and proselytize for it, defend it, publicize it. For instance, I've written several web columns about Pentax equipment, and when I was Editor of _PT_ I published a cover about a Pentax feature (trap focus). So, supposedly, I have more influence that "just" as a consumer of the company's products. --Mike
Re: Hypothetical Question
I remember those... At 08:20 PM 12/18/2002 -0500, you wrote: Pål Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Mark wrote: > >> It's a pity the PDML didn't exist when the LX was introduced. It would have >> been interesting to read the inevitable complaints. > > >I remember the compaints: it was too big and bulky, used batteries, and had useless features like automatic mode. It was essentially a tool for family snapshooters. Sounds familiar? And I assume there were complaints that it wasn't automated *enough* also? (Only aperture-preferred autoexposure) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Hypothetical Question
>> 1. A 98% or 100% viewfinder with good "snap" for easy manual focusing > > I really wanted #1 (or part of) for the MZ-S, but I was told that to get > 100% it was expensive, like doubling the cost. I can see why Pentax didn't > bother with it given their market. Too bad. Not sure what you mean by snap > with manual focus. Well, some viewfinders with coarser groundglass make it easier to see when the image is in focus and when it isn't. The new super-bright focusing screens made it very difficult to see when the image is in focus and when it isn't. It isn't an issue on most AF cameras, since the AF does the focusing, but if you like to focus manually, it makes a difference. Take a look at the screen in the Contax Aria sometime for an example of an acceptably bright frame that "snaps" into focus well. >> 7. Non-resetting ISO > > Can you explain this further and why it's a problem? I don't use the ISO rating for films, so I dislike cameras that default to the ISO / DX speed rating whenever the camera is turned off and on again. I like to be able to set the camera for E.I. 200 with Tri-X, for instance, and then leave it there, confident that it will remain on 200 until I reset it. --Mike
Re: American Beer, was Re: Hypothetical Question
A wire canoe at that! Pål Jensen wrote: Amercan beer is like making love in a canoe . -- Shaun Canning Cultural Heritage Services High Street, Broadford, Victoria, 3658. www.heritageservices.com.au/ Phone: 0414-967644 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] My images can be seen at www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=238096
Re: Hypothetical Question
It also helps that around here at least, you can't find Pentax SLR's in any of the large discount retailers. Local Wal-Mart's for example carry a couple of Canon Models a Nikon model and a Minolta Model, Pentax is represented by IQZooms. Pentax probably won't put up with Wal-Mart's extortion demands, I mean marketing requirements. But once again you can't buy what's not available. At 06:57 PM 12/18/2002 -0500, you wrote: Nah, I think he bought it because some camera freak buddy said Canon's are the best camera made. Of course, all those TV ads meant that he had already heard of Canon. All I am saying is that the people in Pentaxes marketing department seem to be pretty good engineers . Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > My bet is that the vast majority of Rebel users have no idea that all those big > white lenses on the sidelines of NFL football games are C lenses. They > probably bought their Rebels because Andre Agassi's mug is on the tube, trying > to tell us that he uses one (yeah, right!). That's ~real~ marketing! > > And, of hundreds of thousands of Rebels that are sold, do you really think that > many are bought because some neophyte was chatting with a member of CDML (if > such a thing exists), who enthusiastically told him to buy one? I have my > doubts. > > Nah, TV ads, magazine ads, promotional deals in the local paper selling the > ubiquitous starter kit with a 28-70 (or whatever) plus strap and camera bag for > $200 - that's what does it, imho. > > But, as always, I could be wrong.
Re: American Beer, was Re: Hypothetical Question
Amercan beer is like making love in a canoe
Re: OT: Beer -- re: Hypothetical Question
Struthwater in the beer! That would cause a general strike and riots where I live. You don't mess with a blokes wife, cars, sheds, dogs or beer, although the first one is optional. Cheers Shaun T Rittenhouse wrote: Also, I resent the implication, I drink that stuff they make over here. Grolsh, Pilsner Urquel, and occassionally some of your english ale are my usual choices. Though I have heard that that stuff is only for export because you guys only drink Bud & Coors nowadays. A related anecdote: I was sitting in the bar next to L. L. Bean's in Freeport Maine several years back when the gentleman next to me, apparently a Canadian, said, "I didn't realize our export was quite this bad", refering to the Labatt's he was drinking. I explained to him about Town laws in Maine, and 3.2 beer, therein. He sputtered, "You mean they water the beer?" Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I'll bet you a bottle of Wychwood's Hobgoblin against a tin of that sudsy bathwater you Americans call beer that you will not see a full frame DSLR from Pentax before Jan 1st 2005 :-) http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ . -- Shaun Canning Cultural Heritage Services High Street, Broadford, Victoria, 3658. www.heritageservices.com.au/ Phone: 0414-967644 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] My images can be seen at www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=238096
Re: Hypothetical Question
Mark wrote: > It's a pity the PDML didn't exist when the LX was introduced. It would have > been interesting to read the inevitable complaints. I remember the compaints: it was too big and bulky, used batteries, and had useless features like automatic mode. It was essentially a tool for family snapshooters. Sounds familiar? Pål
Film vs. Digital (WAS: Re: RE: Hypothetical Question)
Glen wrote: > For a very impressive review including image comparisons of the EOS D1s and > 35mm and 645 (buy the way he uses the Pentax 645) see this page below. > > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/1ds/1ds-field.shtml He isn't. He is comparing his digital camera with another digital camera; the latter take pictures of film. For judging these two digital cameras he create a copy. Then he make conclusion about the original. Or in other words: He is comparing a second generation copy with a third generation copy. Both copying processes has a resolution below even the most rotten third party lens. Then he make conclusions about the original. He could just as well be comparing apple and oranges. Pål
Re: Hypothetical Question
Alexander wrote: > Interestingly, a majority here confesses how they > prefer manual focus and even all-manual bodies over > the new AF-bodies. In the real world however, exactly > the contrary has happened: Obviously because of a lack > of demand, most manual focus and all all-manual 35mm > SLRs disappeared from the market. It's not only the equipment in itself that matters, but the fact that it is "old" and not longer available brand new. It is also about the "thrill" of finding an elusive item at a great price. > I think at the end of it's life time the LX was 3x as > expensive as it initially was. > Too expensive. > The desire for ultimate quality vanishes as prices > increase. Yes, but also the fact that there are limits on how long you can sell the same product. At a certain point the market becomes saturated and the used price is so much lower than new price that few are willing to pay for a brand new one. When a product get old enough initial buyers can sell the thing for the same they gave for it 10-15 years earlier, something they are happy to do, maintaining a "low" used priced compared to new price. This happened also with the 67; the used market was so full of it that few bought new ones anymore as good second-hand samples were plentiful at significant savings. Pål
OT: American Beer, was Re: Hypothetical Question
You must be thinking about the big manufacturers, Bud, Coors, Miller, stuff not fit to swill for pigs. There's lots of good Beer made in America, just not these. At 03:26 PM 12/18/2002 -0800, you wrote: Cotty wrote: > > >If God loves me there is a full-frame digital SLR with fast imaged stablized > >lenses in my future. I am betting Pentax won't have one out by then. Anyone > >want to wager a beer or two on that. I like free beer! > > I'll bet you a bottle of Wychwood's Hobgoblin against a tin of that sudsy > bathwater you Americans call beer that you will not see a full frame DSLR > from Pentax before Jan 1st 2005 :-) > > You in? > > Cotty > > ref: > > http://www.wychwood.co.uk/ Hell no! But... I'd love to join you for making that case of Wychwood become smaller! I'm ALWAYS up for that, Cotty! I'll even bring my magic MX to see you! keith whaley P.S. Americans don't MAKE beer! IMMHO...
Re: Hypothetical Question
Hee-hee! It's because of these sorts of posts that we're all so glad you're back, Tom! cheers, frank T Rittenhouse wrote: > All I am saying is that the people in Pentaxes marketing > department seem to be pretty good engineers . > > Ciao, > Graywolf > http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto > -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: Hypothetical Question
Nah, I think he bought it because some camera freak buddy said Canon's are the best camera made. Of course, all those TV ads meant that he had already heard of Canon. All I am saying is that the people in Pentaxes marketing department seem to be pretty good engineers . Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > My bet is that the vast majority of Rebel users have no idea that all those big > white lenses on the sidelines of NFL football games are C lenses. They > probably bought their Rebels because Andre Agassi's mug is on the tube, trying > to tell us that he uses one (yeah, right!). That's ~real~ marketing! > > And, of hundreds of thousands of Rebels that are sold, do you really think that > many are bought because some neophyte was chatting with a member of CDML (if > such a thing exists), who enthusiastically told him to buy one? I have my > doubts. > > Nah, TV ads, magazine ads, promotional deals in the local paper selling the > ubiquitous starter kit with a 28-70 (or whatever) plus strap and camera bag for > $200 - that's what does it, imho. > > But, as always, I could be wrong.
OT: Beer -- re: Hypothetical Question
Also, I resent the implication, I drink that stuff they make over here. Grolsh, Pilsner Urquel, and occassionally some of your english ale are my usual choices. Though I have heard that that stuff is only for export because you guys only drink Bud & Coors nowadays. A related anecdote: I was sitting in the bar next to L. L. Bean's in Freeport Maine several years back when the gentleman next to me, apparently a Canadian, said, "I didn't realize our export was quite this bad", refering to the Labatt's he was drinking. I explained to him about Town laws in Maine, and 3.2 beer, therein. He sputtered, "You mean they water the beer?" Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I'll bet you a bottle of Wychwood's Hobgoblin against a tin of that sudsy > bathwater you Americans call beer that you will not see a full frame DSLR > from Pentax before Jan 1st 2005 :-) > http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ > >
Re: Hypothetical Question
On Wednesday, December 18, 2002, at 04:40 PM, frank theriault wrote: Even if they do "monitor" us once in a while, or even all the time, I can't believe that they put much stock in our opinions. We're what, a couple of hundred enthusiasts? That's a pretty small sample, and hardly representative of the market as a whole. We don't have much influence beyond our group (or even within it ). They may watch us once in a while, but I can't believe that too many decisions are made based on what we think. BUT, just in case Big Brother Pentax is watching, how about a Pentax equivalent to the N FM3 (but way cheaper)? I guess it could hurt to try, eh? cheers, frank How about a ZX-5n dslr equivalent to whatever that Canon thing is Cotty's got? Bet they'd sell a bazillion more of those than a cheap FM3 knock off. Anyway, as previously mentioned, the demand for new, mechanical Pentax slrs is next to non-existent. The people buying Pentax mechanicals now have a huge supply of high quality mechanicals already available to them at prices that Pentax would find impossible to beat. Dan Scott
Re: Hypothetical Question
Hey, I am the one who was trying to find a sucker to bet me. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 6:14 PM Subject: Re: Hypothetical Question > >If God loves me there is a full-frame digital SLR with fast imaged stablized > >lenses in my future. I am betting Pentax won't have one out by then. Anyone > >want to wager a beer or two on that. I like free beer! > > I'll bet you a bottle of Wychwood's Hobgoblin against a tin of that sudsy > bathwater you Americans call beer that you will not see a full frame DSLR > from Pentax before Jan 1st 2005 :-) > > You in? > > Cotty > > ref: > > http://www.wychwood.co.uk/ > > > Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at > http://www.macads.co.uk/ > > Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! > http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ > >
Re: RE: Hypothetical Question
>Just not sure how the CMOS works vs the CCD.I always associated CMOS >as start up computer programing.I have seen the Canon 1D and it looks >nice and its cheaper than the Dxx series from Nikon. >Any CMOS commentsCotty? >From what I gather, the CMOS uses vastly less power than a comparable CCD. This seems to bear out in practice. I have the grip with provision for 2 Liithium Ion battery packs, and the 2 packs. Charged up, with occasional snapping and say a good couple of hours shooting on a Saturday, so say about 400 exposures, maybe 450 in all, I can go a good 2 WEEKS before they're exhausted. I have disabled auto-shut-off. The camera stays on all the time when shooting unless I switch it off manually. The packs are amazing. Personally I wouldn't dally with AA-anything. .02pixels :-) Cot Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/ Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/
Re: Hypothetical Question
Cotty wrote: > > >If God loves me there is a full-frame digital SLR with fast imaged stablized > >lenses in my future. I am betting Pentax won't have one out by then. Anyone > >want to wager a beer or two on that. I like free beer! > > I'll bet you a bottle of Wychwood's Hobgoblin against a tin of that sudsy > bathwater you Americans call beer that you will not see a full frame DSLR > from Pentax before Jan 1st 2005 :-) > > You in? > > Cotty > > ref: > > http://www.wychwood.co.uk/ Hell no! But... I'd love to join you for making that case of Wychwood become smaller! I'm ALWAYS up for that, Cotty! I'll even bring my magic MX to see you! keith whaley P.S. Americans don't MAKE beer! IMMHO...
Re: Hypothetical Question
Hi, Tom, My bet is that the vast majority of Rebel users have no idea that all those big white lenses on the sidelines of NFL football games are C lenses. They probably bought their Rebels because Andre Agassi's mug is on the tube, trying to tell us that he uses one (yeah, right!). That's ~real~ marketing! And, of hundreds of thousands of Rebels that are sold, do you really think that many are bought because some neophyte was chatting with a member of CDML (if such a thing exists), who enthusiastically told him to buy one? I have my doubts. Nah, TV ads, magazine ads, promotional deals in the local paper selling the ubiquitous starter kit with a 28-70 (or whatever) plus strap and camera bag for $200 - that's what does it, imho. But, as always, I could be wrong. cheers, frank T Rittenhouse wrote: > But the people on this is are not a couple hundred users, they are a couple > of hundred flag wavers. If word of mouth is worth anything, they would be > trying to please these people. Canon & Nikon have thousands of flag wavers, > simply because they do try to please that segment of their market. The Rebel > is the best selling SLR in the world because of all the white lenses that > are seen at sporting events. Canon does not sell a heck of a lot of white > lenses, but giving them away sells a heck of a lot of Rebels cameras. That > is called marketing. > -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: Hypothetical Question
An interesting aside: of the current crop of $2K DSLRs the Nikon seems to produce the cleanest image. I is, I think, the only one using a CCD. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: "Mark Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 6:07 PM Subject: Re: Hypothetical Question > "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >CMOS is a far better option than CCD however it has only recently been > >developed to a point where it would be suitable for professional photographic > >applications. CCD sensors will displaced completely in the not to distant > >future. > > > >See: > > > >http://kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/cameras/dcsPro14n/cmos.jht ml?id > >=0.3.6.30.5.8.3.18.3&lc=en > > Kodak is currently pushing their CMOS stuff heavily (their new 14 megapixel > camera is CMOS). For a bit less biased opinion (they do *both* CMOS and CCD > technology), see http://www.dalsa.com/markets/ccd_vs_cmos.asp > > -- > Mark Roberts > Photography and writing > www.robertstech.com >
Re: Hypothetical Question
"Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >CMOS is a far better option than CCD however it has only recently been >developed to a point where it would be suitable for professional photographic >applications. CCD sensors will displaced completely in the not to distant >future. > >See: > >http://kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/cameras/dcsPro14n/cmos.jhtml?id >=0.3.6.30.5.8.3.18.3&lc=en Kodak is currently pushing their CMOS stuff heavily (their new 14 megapixel camera is CMOS). For a bit less biased opinion (they do *both* CMOS and CCD technology), see http://www.dalsa.com/markets/ccd_vs_cmos.asp -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Hypothetical Question
>The do not "officially" monitor this list. Therefore, what you are asking is >silly. Some of us on the list know people who work for Pentax. We know what >they say. However, I can almost guaranty they if you post a question to >Pentax on this list, it will not be answered. All companies that have press and public relations departments ensure that press clippings and relevant reaction is catalogued and filtered for use by market research and others within. Of course, it depends on the size and disposition of said PR Dept as to how far they go in gaining reaction and from what source, and how far they take it. I know for a fact that various personnel working for Pentax in various parts of the world have been known to monitor the list, whether through choice or instruction, and whether through their own research or through being provided with the relevant info. I won't back up my claim (for obvious reasons) with any hard evidence, you'll just have to trust me on that, or not. It should not be any great surprise. After all, knowledge is power, huh? I wouldn't place too high a priority on this as a hotline to the top Pentax brass though :-) Regards, Cotty Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/ Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/
Re: RE: Hypothetical Question
On 18 Dec 2002 at 16:27, David Brooks wrote: > Just not sure how the CMOS works vs the CCD.I always associated CMOS > as start up computer programing.I have seen the Canon 1D and it looks > nice and its cheaper than the Dxx series from Nikon. > Any CMOS commentsCotty? CMOS is a far better option than CCD however it has only recently been developed to a point where it would be suitable for professional photographic applications. CCD sensors will displaced completely in the not to distant future. See: http://kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/cameras/dcsPro14n/cmos.jhtml?id =0.3.6.30.5.8.3.18.3&lc=en Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
RE: Hypothetical Question
On 18 Dec 2002 at 14:45, Len Paris wrote: > I hope they listen now. I would buy a 6MP CCD or CMOS DSLR and would > not mind if the chip is APS sized. If they could manage a CMOS chip like > the Foveon, with some enhancements over the one used in the Sigma SD-9, > I'd be very happy. I don't need anything a lot larger than that. Keep > the price $2200 or less and they've got me hooked. Yay, I'd be in it to and my second body would be the later full frame 14mpix. Pentax have extracted plenty on money out of me in new lenses very recently and mostly bases on the premise that they would soon deliver a DSLR, thank god (or your favourite deity) for K-mount backwards compatibility. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: Hypothetical Question
On 18 Dec 2002 at 14:27, Brad Dobo wrote: > So it looks to me like most won't be happy unless they release a DSLR on the > traditional LX body, make it steel and heavy, and use as much mechanical parts > as possible. A mechanical analog digital...interesting :) A rigid chassis is just as important for a DSLR as a film SLR so a metal body would be desirable bear in mid too that modern cast alloys are near as light as polycarbonate for the same strength. Also the sensors in top end DSLRs require shutters and mirrors just like conventional SLRs therefore the mechanical requirements of the systems are similar. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: Hypothetical Question
Even if they do "monitor" us once in a while, or even all the time, I can't believe that they put much stock in our opinions. We're what, a couple of hundred enthusiasts? That's a pretty small sample, and hardly representative of the market as a whole. We don't have much influence beyond our group (or even within it ). They may watch us once in a while, but I can't believe that too many decisions are made based on what we think. BUT, just in case Big Brother Pentax is watching, how about a Pentax equivalent to the N FM3 (but way cheaper)? I guess it could hurt to try, eh? cheers, frank Paul Stenquist wrote: > I work in advertising and have had a lot of contact with the marketing > departments of various companies for the last quarter century. They all > monitor every bit of information they can find. Why not? It's a no > brainer. More information is always a good thing. > Paul > -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: Hypothetical Question taken further...
Sorry, Brad, But, I think you've got the whole marketing thing backwards (I'm saying this from the viewpoint of someone who knows ~nothing~ about marketing, btw). I shouldn't have to buy the "latest and greatest" equipment, to support my favourite company, so they can bring out something that I don't really care about right now (ie: a dslr), so the company can stay solvent. I'm the consumer, dammit! They (Pentax or anyone else) should cater to ~me~! If they don't, I don't buy new stuff from them. Simple as that. Pentax doesn't make the type of camera that I prefer, being an affordable, nicely featured mechanical metal-bodied camera. But, who does? No one, at least not a 35mm slr - and I don't count the N FM3, since it ain't exactly affordable. Mind you, I'm not saying that Pentax ~should~ make what I want. They stuck with the K1000 for almost 25 years, and made it as cheaply as they could, eventually making it in 3rd world countries, and substituting much plastic for what was once metal, both inside and out. They obviously weren't making money off it, so they stopped making it - and that's fine. The only camera I can think of offhand that fits the bill right now is the Voigtlander Bessa R (the top plate isn't metal, but the chassis is, so I'll forgive them for that). I might have bought one, but Dave Chang-Sang sold me his Leica CL for about 1/2 the price of a new Bessa and lens. So, I'll keep buying used, until Pentax comes up with something new that I want, and I ain't holding my breath. Of course, I'm now invested in k mount and m42 gear, so I can't afford to change systems - not that I want to, 'cause I like what I have. But I certainly will make no apologies for sticking with the used market, nor should I have to. cheers, frank Brad Dobo wrote: > Just a thought. Many here (but not all) like and use the older gear, to get > additional items, or replacements, they buy used equipment (not all the > time, but most I assume). What do I think? To each his own. More power to > you if you can really 'work' the older equipment. Now, I'm not a perfect > example, since I've now bought 2 items used, including a manual focus lens. > However, we all talk about Pentax and their position, rank and financial, > and what they will be in the future, and really..what about that darned > DSLR? What I'm thinking is, we as a whole group are the serious amateurs, > or professionals using Pentax. We are somewhat representative. If we don't > buy all the latest and greatest from Pentax, how can we expect them to > develop for us, a DSLR. We'd be the ones with the want and money to buy > one. But Pentax needs money and a reason to develop and manufacture and > sell worldwide a DSLR. Are we, in general terms, helping them do that? If > they know their real fans like the old over the new, and buy used, why put > the effort into a DSLR? Or a better new 35mm flagship for that matter? > Just something to toss about. > > [The opinions represented in this email are by no means that of the > originator of the email. ] > > Happy Holidays! > -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: Hypothetical Question
I work in advertising and have had a lot of contact with the marketing departments of various companies for the last quarter century. They all monitor every bit of information they can find. Why not? It's a no brainer. More information is always a good thing. Paul Brad Dobo wrote: > > I'm not saying it's impossible. Far from it. Just not likely. I doubt > Pentax Japan does. Perhaps someone from Pentax USA? They don't carry much > weight in Japan however. I do know that no one at Pentax Canada watches > this list, if some are members, they are just like most of us, they don't > write reports to anyone. > > Anyhow, silly topic that no one will change opinions on, not quite but > getting up there with Big Brother, CIA, etc. If anything, we just confuse > the hell out of them! > > So it looks to me like most won't be happy unless they release a DSLR on the > traditional LX body, make it steel and heavy, and use as much mechanical > parts as possible. A mechanical analog digital...interesting :) > > Brad (who loves the MZ-S, the 360 flash, the FA lenses, and autofocus! No > need for a new 35mm flagship when when we have a wonderful one now!) > > Brad (who also loves his A 400mm 5.6 MF lens and A1.4x-L converter that's in > the mail!) > > Brad (who won't buy a DSLR for a long long time!) > > (There, that's got 'em confused! ) > > - Original Message - > From: "T Rittenhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 1:56 PM > Subject: Re: Hypothetical Question > > > The do not "officially" monitor this list. Therefore, what you are asking > is > > silly. Some of us on the list know people who work for Pentax. We know > what > > they say. However, I can almost guaranty they if you post a question to > > Pentax on this list, it will not be answered. > > > > Ciao, > > Graywolf > > http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Brad Dobo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > Of course, that is assuming they watch the list. Just who is? This was > > > originally a Pentax USA thing, right? Well, Japan doesn't think much of > > > North America. So who is looking? Why? Have we looked at the content > > > lately? I'm sure they left after all the insults, swearing and gun > talk. > > > Can someone give me concrete proof that Pentax monitors this? (again, > what > > > is Pentax?) Realistically, you cannot expect me to take someones word > for > > > it. If you cannot prove it, it's immediately suspect. Fishy, > > screwyya > > > know! > > > > > >
Re: Hypothetical question
Hi, Ronald, I keep hearing that bayonet mount is so much faster to change lenses than screwmount, but my experience doesn't agree. I just now walked over to my cameras, and timed a lens exchange with both bayonet and screwmount. Under 5 seconds for each. Even if I'm off by a second or two, the difference is truly inconsequential, imho. cheers, frank Ronald Arvidsson wrote: > Sorry: I wouldn't use screw mount simply because I use single focal > lengths and they are too slow to exchnage on the camera. > > Cheers, > > Ronald -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
RE: RE: Hypothetical Question
For a very impressive review including image comparisons of the EOS D1s and 35mm and 645 (buy the way he uses the Pentax 645) see this page below. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/1ds/1ds-field.shtml -Original Message- From: David Brooks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 3:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: RE: Hypothetical Question Two thinks i like about the D1 even with the 80-200 f2.8 on it,is its well balanced even with the weight.The Pentax DSLR would have to ,for me,be aswell. Also the shutter"lag" is that of an slr,meaning its good for capturing high speed sports with out panning(not to say panning is bad) Just not sure how the CMOS works vs the CCD.I always associated CMOS as start up computer programing.I have seen the Canon 1D and it looks nice and its cheaper than the Dxx series from Nikon. Any CMOS commentsCotty? Dave Begin Original Message From: "Glen O'Neal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 14:56:27 -0600 To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Hypothetical Question Personally although I love Pentax gear I am considering a move to C. I have done a lot of research on the EOS 1Ds and am really impressed with the images produced by the full frame CMOS sensor as well as the other features. So if Pentax is listening, my desire is for an 11 MP CMOS full frame sensor DSLR that can give me nearly the same quality as my 645n. If I do decide to move over I will be selling off all my Pentax gear in one fell swoop. I am already putting together a price list but want to sell it all in one transaction. Come on Pentax ... get it together. Glen -Original Message- From: Len Paris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 2:45 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Hypothetical Question I hope they listen now. I would buy a 6MP CCD or CMOS DSLR and would not mind if the chip is APS sized. If they could manage a CMOS chip like the Foveon, with some enhancements over the one used in the Sigma SD- 9, I'd be very happy. I don't need anything a lot larger than that. Keep the price $2200 or less and they've got me hooked. Len --- > I hear they listened to the list on the MZ-D though. > All you guys said you would never, pay that much for a > camera. They believed you. > > Ciao, > Graywolf End Original Message Pentax User Stouffville Ontario Canada http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/ http://brooks1952.tripod.com/myhorses Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail
Re: RE: Hypothetical Question
Two thinks i like about the D1 even with the 80-200 f2.8 on it,is its well balanced even with the weight.The Pentax DSLR would have to ,for me,be aswell. Also the shutter"lag" is that of an slr,meaning its good for capturing high speed sports with out panning(not to say panning is bad) Just not sure how the CMOS works vs the CCD.I always associated CMOS as start up computer programing.I have seen the Canon 1D and it looks nice and its cheaper than the Dxx series from Nikon. Any CMOS commentsCotty? Dave Begin Original Message From: "Glen O'Neal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 14:56:27 -0600 To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Hypothetical Question Personally although I love Pentax gear I am considering a move to C. I have done a lot of research on the EOS 1Ds and am really impressed with the images produced by the full frame CMOS sensor as well as the other features. So if Pentax is listening, my desire is for an 11 MP CMOS full frame sensor DSLR that can give me nearly the same quality as my 645n. If I do decide to move over I will be selling off all my Pentax gear in one fell swoop. I am already putting together a price list but want to sell it all in one transaction. Come on Pentax ... get it together. Glen -Original Message- From: Len Paris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 2:45 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Hypothetical Question I hope they listen now. I would buy a 6MP CCD or CMOS DSLR and would not mind if the chip is APS sized. If they could manage a CMOS chip like the Foveon, with some enhancements over the one used in the Sigma SD- 9, I'd be very happy. I don't need anything a lot larger than that. Keep the price $2200 or less and they've got me hooked. Len --- > I hear they listened to the list on the MZ-D though. > All you guys said you would never, pay that much for a > camera. They believed you. > > Ciao, > Graywolf End Original Message Pentax User Stouffville Ontario Canada http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/ http://brooks1952.tripod.com/myhorses Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail
Re: Hypothetical Question
> It's a pity the PDML didn't exist when the LX was introduced. It would have > been interesting to read the inevitable complaints. Now that is really interesting
Re: Hypothetical Question
> 1. A 98% or 100% viewfinder with good "snap" for easy manual focusing I really wanted #1 (or part of) for the MZ-S, but I was told that to get 100% it was expensive, like doubling the cost. I can see why Pentax didn't bother with it given their market. Too bad. Not sure what you mean by snap with manual focus. > 7. Non-resetting ISO Can you explain this further and why it's a problem? > No matter WHAT an AF LX would look like, there would still be people who > would find fault with it, be disappointed with it, or loudly complain that > it is missing the one essential feature they wanted. Designing cameras must > be a pretty thankless task. So true. It no doubt is a very thankless task. I suppose that is why we have other companies to choose from. My worry is everyone is so pumped about a Pentax DSLR, and it won't be want they expected after all this time, or not quite good enough, or too good (making it too expensive) I also wanted one 'cheap' addition, dropping the finder cap and putting in a switch you can toggle to block the viewfinder. I didn't get that either. But, all in all, I'm very happy with my camera and the rest of my gear. > > --Mike > >
RE: Hypothetical Question
Personally although I love Pentax gear I am considering a move to C. I have done a lot of research on the EOS 1Ds and am really impressed with the images produced by the full frame CMOS sensor as well as the other features. So if Pentax is listening, my desire is for an 11 MP CMOS full frame sensor DSLR that can give me nearly the same quality as my 645n. If I do decide to move over I will be selling off all my Pentax gear in one fell swoop. I am already putting together a price list but want to sell it all in one transaction. Come on Pentax ... get it together. Glen -Original Message- From: Len Paris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 2:45 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Hypothetical Question I hope they listen now. I would buy a 6MP CCD or CMOS DSLR and would not mind if the chip is APS sized. If they could manage a CMOS chip like the Foveon, with some enhancements over the one used in the Sigma SD-9, I'd be very happy. I don't need anything a lot larger than that. Keep the price $2200 or less and they've got me hooked. Len --- > I hear they listened to the list on the MZ-D though. > All you guys said you would never, pay that much for a > camera. They believed you. > > Ciao, > Graywolf
RE: Hypothetical Question
I hope they listen now. I would buy a 6MP CCD or CMOS DSLR and would not mind if the chip is APS sized. If they could manage a CMOS chip like the Foveon, with some enhancements over the one used in the Sigma SD-9, I'd be very happy. I don't need anything a lot larger than that. Keep the price $2200 or less and they've got me hooked. Len --- > I hear they listened to the list on the MZ-D though. > All you guys said you would never, pay that much for a > camera. They believed you. > > Ciao, > Graywolf
Re: Hypothetical Question
Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >No matter WHAT an AF LX would look like, there would still be people who >would find fault with it, be disappointed with it, or loudly complain that >it is missing the one essential feature they wanted. Designing cameras must >be a pretty thankless task. It's a pity the PDML didn't exist when the LX was introduced. It would have been interesting to read the inevitable complaints. -- "People who like this sort of thing will find that this is the sort of thing they like." - Abe Lincoln
Re: Hypothetical Question
Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The PDML might be viewed in aggregate to evaluate general >> perceptions and trends. >One thing I'm saying is that we may _not_ be an accurate reflection of >general perceptions and trends. We're an enthusiast group with very >"non-general" attitudes and tastes. Just the fact that so many of us prefer >older bodies and manual-focus lenses seems to bear that out. I think if you look at what we're *doing* as opposed to saying we're closer to mainstream than you might think ;-) It is, after all, the vocal members whom I suggested Pentax would ignore that are the biggest manual focus proponents. Look at how much discussion has been devoted to DSLRs, hardly a topic for manual focus purists. I think that if you filter out a few irrational rants you could see a trend toward consensus on DSLR issues: Pentax distinguishes itself from other brands with unsurpassed lens-body compatibility, so it's not surprising that this is regarded as essential in a DSLR body (and I think the PDML is an accurate representation that, thought it might not figure into a new user's decision to buy Pentax, that same person will appreciate it greatly *after* buying a Pentax). Another common feeling I detect is that a full-frame sensor is essential *eventually* (Canon has pretty much made that a given with the EOS-1Ds - have you read the reviews at Luminous Landscape or http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1ds/ yet?), but most would accept a smaller sensor now if the price is reasonable (under $2000.00 or so). Another - accurate, I think - impression you get from the PDML is that Pentax needs a DSLR not so much for the people who would buy it but for the people who fear that Pentax will be left behind if they don't introduce one. So for SLR users, I think the PDML (with judicious filtering) is closer to mainstream than commonly perceived. That said, isn't the bulk of Pentax's camera sales P&S now? So you're probably right and I guess you can pretty much ignore everything I just wrote. :-P Carry on. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Hypothetical Question
> If there was a modern Af camera that was built > according to the same quality level as the LX and that > was accordingly priced (hint: where I live the > 31mm/1.8 ltd. lens is almost 4x as expensive as was > the K-series 28mm/2), and if your only option was to > buy new, what would you choose: this one or a cheap > ZX/MZ-something plastic body? I think the market has > already given the answer. Alexander, I don't think the market has given the answer because the market has not been given the actual choice. Yes, Pentax would rather build ZX-5's and ZX-7's, and this probably means that it thinks it can do so more profitably than it could build a camera such as you describe. But that doesn't mean that the market wouldn't support an "AF LX" if one were available. After all, Nikon sells plenty of F100s. Now speaking just for myself, I'd say that my tastes and requirements are so highly evolved that I probably wouldn't be interested in such a camera unless it had all the main features I'm personally looking for. Those are: 1. A 98% or 100% viewfinder with good "snap" for easy manual focusing 2. Quiet operation 3. Short shutter lag (i.e., good responsiveness) 4. Ability to use manual focus as well as AF lenses 5. Aperture-priority AE 6. AE lock 7. Non-resetting ISO 8. Diopter adjustment or add-on diopters 9. Moderate size and light to medium weight (say, up to 26 oz. or so) for decent portability 10. General straightforwardness of controls and ease of operation, and not too many extra controls and features confusing everything. I'd *certainly* be using an LX if only it had #2, and I'd probably be using an MZ-S if it had #1. The problem for a camera designer would be that in order to satisfy the "top ten" features lists of a LARGE number of photographers, they have to have a great deal of capability and it has to be very see-through, i.e., it couldn't be very confusing or feature-laden and it couldn't "dictate" the way it had to be used, but it would have to be able to satisfy ALL of any particular advanced photographer's wants. This is a very large order, and it's got to be damnably tough for a camera designer to accommodate. For instance, one thing I didn't list is flash capability or high sync speed, because I don't use flash and I don't give a damn about it. But it's very easy to anticipate that many, if not most, photographers would demand excellent flash capability. I haven't specified mirror lock-up or low vibration because I don't do closeup work or astrophotography. But for someone who did either of those things, those features would be mandatory. Slide photographers may not give a hoot for a 100% viewfinder; others would be very concerned with motor drive capability; landscape photographers may well not care about quiet operation; and the list goes on and on. What Abe Lincoln said really holds true here. "You can satisfy some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't satisfy all of the people all of the time." No matter WHAT an AF LX would look like, there would still be people who would find fault with it, be disappointed with it, or loudly complain that it is missing the one essential feature they wanted. Designing cameras must be a pretty thankless task. --Mike
Re: Hypothetical Question
Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >People here wonder whether Pentax monitors this >list (they do), and whether they listen to our advice when advising Japan >about product development...I don't know whether they do that or not, but I >have to wonder if it would be productive if they did. Now *that's* an interesting question! Having been involved in a little market research years ago, I'd say that it *would* be productive as long as they avoided the most fanatical (and most outspoken) Pentax devotees as far as specific ideas/suggestions go. Newbies (to Pentax and/or photography) are likely to be the most valuable source of information from a marketing standpoint. The PDML might be viewed in aggregate to evaluate general perceptions and trends. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Hypothetical Question taken further
On Wednesday, December 18, 2002, at 09:05 AM, Steve Desjardins wrote: To support the upcoming Pentax DSLR release, I enclose $50___$100 $6000__ Please send me the free T-Shirt and my PDML membership for the next year. That had better be a 14 Mp T-shirt for $6K . . . To support the upcoming Pentax DSLR release, I enclose Best Wishes $50___$100 $6000__ Please send me the free T-Shirt and my PDML membership for the next year. Dan Scott
Re: Hypothetical Question
Find an old Encyclopedia Britannica published around 1890, it contains detailed instructions on the chemical basics to make your own nitrate based film, you will have to adopt the nitrocellulose film stock from the explosive's section however, (well nothing's perfect I guess). At 11:02 PM 12/17/2002 -0500, you wrote: Well, I don't have a lot of experience to speak from, but I do have both the K-1000 and MZ-5n now. Both camera bodies have pluses and minuses. Neither is exactly what I want. But considering the fact that I lost a lot of shots with the K-1000 because cranking the film to advance it for the next shot took too long, or I missed a shot because I setting the exposure took too long, or I missed a shot because focusing took too long -- well, I'd have to go with the modern camp. But if I was traveling in a third world country where I wanted real reliability, I'd take the K-1000 along. And if the world ended (like in a nuclear war), then I'd want the K-1000 because I could still use it even if I couldn't find a lithium battery anywhere. Course then, I'd still have to be able to find film that had not been x-rayed to death. Reminds me somehow of that old Twilight Zone episode with Burgess Meredith. Actually, somehow the whole question reminds me of that. Later, Doe aka Marnie Hehehe.
Re: Hypothetical question
I would use the camera that suits my needs. Kids: can't cope without autofocus MZ-5 Birds - hummingbirds e.g., give me an MZ-S Travel photo into poorer areas: take my cheapest ME or whatever Otherwise: LX Blowups and high quality pictures: Medium Format As written here before - what is good quality is subjective and sometimes a perfect picture with the cheapest of pentax lenses my render a fantastic photo. Sorry: I wouldn't use screw mount simply because I use single focal lengths and they are too slow to exchnage on the camera. Cheers, Ronald
Re: Re: Hypothetical Question
So we will see what happens! I think Pentax knows that many users sticks to them since they have great compatibility. But not many people start with Pentax since they have no silent and ultra fast quit cheap motors and plenty of gear not mentioning that sale assistants usual advise "new buyers" to choose Canon/Nikon. Moreover, some people want to use gear which is used by pros. So we will see. Alek Użytkownik Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał: Użytkownik Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał: >> My question is this: Could Pentax actually use this list for advice >> and stay in business? We may be too eclectic a group to be a good >> source of market research. We still argue over the PZ-1p vs the MZ-S. >> Many here don't even want autofocus. > > >This is pretty much what I was wondering about when I wrote the original >"Hypothetical Question." People here wonder whether Pentax monitors this >list (they do), and whether they listen to our advice when advising Japan >about product development...I don't know whether they do that or not, but I >have to wonder if it would be productive if they did. > >I know that one Pentax person has told me privately that despite all the >gushing and lauding of the LX on this list, even diehards weren't buying new >LX's at the end of its lifespan. Most were buying used, or were using LXen >purchased many years previously. > >Some of the comments about a digital SLR would probably be of value to them, >especially from the perspective of not alienating longtime Pentax >aficionados. But of course that's only going to be one consideration out of >many in the design and concept of the new camera. > >We're only a few months away now...the Pentax DSLR is coming, > >--Mike >
Re: Hypothetical Question
Thing I like about the Pentax system is not having to choose ... I wouldn't want to lose either my LX or my ZX-5n. I think I use both about equally.
Re: Hypothetical Question
> My question is this: Could Pentax actually use this list for advice > and stay in business? We may be too eclectic a group to be a good > source of market research. We still argue over the PZ-1p vs the MZ-S. > Many here don't even want autofocus. This is pretty much what I was wondering about when I wrote the original "Hypothetical Question." People here wonder whether Pentax monitors this list (they do), and whether they listen to our advice when advising Japan about product development...I don't know whether they do that or not, but I have to wonder if it would be productive if they did. I know that one Pentax person has told me privately that despite all the gushing and lauding of the LX on this list, even diehards weren't buying new LX's at the end of its lifespan. Most were buying used, or were using LXen purchased many years previously. Some of the comments about a digital SLR would probably be of value to them, especially from the perspective of not alienating longtime Pentax aficionados. But of course that's only going to be one consideration out of many in the design and concept of the new camera. We're only a few months away now...the Pentax DSLR is coming, --Mike
Re: Hypothetical Question taken further
To support the upcoming Pentax DSLR release, I enclose $50___$100 $6000__ Please send me the free T-Shirt and my PDML membership for the next year. That had better be a 14 Mp T-shirt for $6K . . . Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Hypothetical Question
In theory, I prefer my manual focus cameras, especially my Spotmatics, two of which still work, and my Non-MLU 6x7, or my SuperProgram, when I need a camera with a motor drive, to set up on the tripod and trigger with a long cable. My eyesight has faded a bit with age, however, so when I'm on vacation or at an event, when I need to take the shots more quickly, I usually take my MZ-5, because the autofocus helps a lot.
Re: Hypothetical Question taken further
Dear Sir: To support the upcoming Pentax DSLR release, I enclose $50___$100 $6000__ Please send me the free T-Shirt and my PDML membership for the next year. best, mishka > From: Brad Dobo > Subject: Hypothetical Question taken further... > Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 20:51:11 -0800 > > --- (...) > If we don't buy all the latest and greatest from > Pentax, how can we expect them to develop for us, a > DSLR. We'd be the ones with the want and money to > buy one. But Pentax needs money and a reason to > develop and manufacture and sell worldwide a DSLR. > Are we, in general terms, helping them do that?
Re: Hypothetical Question
Since my usage went from an sp500 to an MV to ZX-7 to an MZ-S I'm not really knowledgeable enough to compare. I didn't use many of the older cameras folks here rave about. I do like the feel of the SP500 over the ZX-7 but not the MZ-S. My question is this: Could Pentax actually use this list for advice and stay in business? We may be too eclectic a group to be a good source of market research. We still argue over the PZ-1p vs the MZ-S. Many here don't even want autofocus. I think if Pentax had made "good" marketing/economic decisions the F100 would have "Pentax" on the prism housing. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Hypothetical Question
That about says it all, Paul! keith whaley Paul Stenquist wrote: > > The older bodies, without a doubt. LX, MX, and Spotmatic F are my > favorites. Focus and exposure control are part of the fun. To leave that > up to the machine would be like taking the bus instead of driving a > sports car. > Paul Stenquist
RE: Hypothetical Question
Until they make a digi, eh Cotty? > -Original Message- > From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > I have no doubts. Metal bodied, LX and MX. > > > Cheers, > > Cotty > > > Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at > http://www.macads.co.uk/ > > Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! > http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ > > >
Re: Hypothetical Question
>So let me ask a hypothetical question here. Asked of everyone. IF you have >to choose between EITHER the older, metal bodied, manual focus Pentax family >(Spotmatics, M series, A series, up to LX) ***OR*** the >polycarbonate-bodied, AF Pentax family (P series, ZX series, up to >MZ-S)--and you couldn't mix and match and you couldn't use both--which would >it be? I have no doubts. Metal bodied, LX and MX. Cheers, Cotty Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/ Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/
Re: Hypothetical Question
Leon Altoff a écrit: I'd shoot the MZ-S - as I do now. The only thing I want that it doesn't have is flash compensation with the older flashes. I have a fairly light weight macro flash built out of a broken AF240FT and with my Z1p I can adjust flash compensation, with the MZ-S I can't. Yes, it can ! The MZ-S can flash compensation (and bracketing too), this is a undocumented feature (and many others MZ-xx bodies). Bracketing flash is documented in MZ-6(ZX-L) owner manual. Wen you use compensation (or bracketing) with flash, time or aperture dont change. You can verify with an AF360FGZ (or 330/500FTZ ?): the useful distance varies. To verify if also works in wireless mode ! Michel
RE: Hypothetical Question
I already use AF lenses with my MF bodies. At 10:09 PM 12/17/2002 -0500, you wrote: Older, metal, for sure, for their simplicity and larger viewfinders more than anything else. To paraphrase a Harvard professor's remark about reading new books, "Whenever a new camera body comes out, I buy two old ones." I assume I could still mix old bodies with new lenses, and vice versa. Yes? Not that I would. Which raises a variant question: If you could use either "old (metal manual-focus) bodies with AF lenses" or "new (AF) bodies with old (manual focus) lenses," which would you choose? [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Hypothetical Question
>I have seen many Spotmatics >which have died, and I know while it would be true to say that we won't know >how long any camera will last until it reaches the same vintage, my guess is >that the fewer mechanical parts a camera has to wear out, and the more >modular it is in construction, the longer it will be around. The only thing I would add is that from my experience with increasingly electronic as opposed to mechanical devices repair becomes impossible when the custom 'chips' are no longer made. These chips are usually made out-of-house and the company that makes them may stop production when new models appear. You may argue that the same is true for mechanical cameras but these tend to simply go out of alignment with wear and can be adjusted. When something finally breaks, a good repairman can often find a way to fix it, even if it means fashioning a custom part. To answer the original question. I don't like battery dependance. I borrowed a N***N 801 with 35-80 in fact I was offered it free! I played with it for a while but it felt like plastic, it made attention grabbing whirring noises, it wouldn't let me take a shot when I wanted because it decided otherwise, it wound on after each shot (more whirring noises), it re-wound the film at indiscreet moments (prolonged whirring noise), it failed to focus too often (accompanied by repeated whirring noises), it weighed a ton, partly because it needed four (or possibly six - can't remember AA batteries) to wake up. I could see that there can be advantages and things have probably improved since the 801 and if/when Pentax bring out a decent DSLR it will probably be plastic etc. and I will probably get one to run alongside my LX's/MX/KX... Hey! I enjoy focussing. I enjoy considering the exposure. Call me mad but I even enjoy winding on and re-winding... question answered. Anton ___ Freeserve AnyTime, only £13.99 per month with one month's FREE trial! For more information visit http://www.freeserve.com/time/ or call free on 0800 970 8890
Re: Hypothetical Question
On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 15:30:54 -0600, Mike Johnston wrote: >So let me ask a hypothetical question here. Asked of everyone. IF you have >to choose between EITHER the older, metal bodied, manual focus Pentax family >(Spotmatics, M series, A series, up to LX) ***OR*** the >polycarbonate-bodied, AF Pentax family (P series, ZX series, up to >MZ-S)--and you couldn't mix and match and you couldn't use both--which would >it be? I'd shoot the MZ-S - as I do now. The only thing I want that it doesn't have is flash compensation with the older flashes. I have a fairly light weight macro flash built out of a broken AF240FT and with my Z1p I can adjust flash compensation, with the MZ-S I can't. Leon http://www.bluering.org.au http://www.bluering.org.au/leon
Re: Hypothetical Question taken further...
In a message dated 12/18/2002 1:28:19 AM Eastern Standard Time, MAILER-DAEMON writes: > In a message dated 12/17/2002 11:50:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > What I'm thinking is, we as a whole group are the serious amateurs, > > or professionals using Pentax. We are somewhat representative. If we don't > > buy all the latest and greatest from Pentax, how can we expect them to > > develop for us, a DSLR. We'd be the ones with the want and money to buy > > one. But Pentax needs money and a reason to develop and manufacture and > > sell worldwide a DSLR. Are we, in general terms, helping them do that? If > > they know their real fans like the old over the new, and buy used, why put > > the effort into a DSLR? Or a better new 35mm flagship for > > that matter? > > Just something to toss about. > > Good point. I think the thing is about "feel" -- essentially the difference between >metal and plastic (although I choose the new camp). > > But the other point is price. > > I am a newbie, but one of the things it looks like Pentax has also been known for is >being mid-priced. So if they produce something almost as good as what is already out >there and retain their price reputation -- i.e. price it substantially lower than >others' current prices -- then they will definitely be noticed. Definitely. > > However, if they just match current prices, then it > probably will be a matter of "a day late and a dollar short." > > Doe aka Marnie
Re: Hypothetical Question taken further...
Trouble is Jim, unless any newly launched Pentax DSLR is earth shatteringly teeth clatteringly revolutionary, then it will be too little too late. Many of us will hang around because we know what we want (i.e. lenses) or we have heaps of money tied up in systems. But the one's a company needs are not just the repeat offenders like us! they need newbies (pro or otherwise). One day we'll all have gone to the big film lab in the sky, which I fear is where Pentax are heading as well, and there'll be no one lining up to buy into camera systems that average 4-6 years behind the market leaders... C'est La Vie... Cheers Shaun Jim Apilado wrote: Brad, I'm one of those older Pentax users who bought stuff during the screw mount days. I have lots of SMC Takumars that I use with my old Spotmatic and a couple of ESII bodies. I have some K-mount lenses to use with an old LX and a K2DMD. After playing with my Optio 230 I can see getting a dslr Pentax that might retro enough to allow use of the Takumars and K-mounts. Pentax needs to advertise more to get people to take notice of them. They will be a late player on the market with a dslr and need to get the word out that it can compete. Jim A. From: "Brad Dobo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 23:50:36 -0500 To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Hypothetical Question taken further... Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 23:50:32 -0500 Just a thought. Many here (but not all) like and use the older gear, to get additional items, or replacements, they buy used equipment (not all the time, but most I assume). What do I think? To each his own. More power to you if you can really 'work' the older equipment. Now, I'm not a perfect example, since I've now bought 2 items used, including a manual focus lens. However, we all talk about Pentax and their position, rank and financial, and what they will be in the future, and really..what about that darned DSLR? What I'm thinking is, we as a whole group are the serious amateurs, or professionals using Pentax. We are somewhat representative. If we don't buy all the latest and greatest from Pentax, how can we expect them to develop for us, a DSLR. We'd be the ones with the want and money to buy one. But Pentax needs money and a reason to develop and manufacture and sell worldwide a DSLR. Are we, in general terms, helping them do that? If they know their real fans like the old over the new, and buy used, why put the effort into a DSLR? Or a better new 35mm flagship for that matter? Just something to toss about. [The opinions represented in this email are by no means that of the originator of the email. ] Happy Holidays! Brad . -- Shaun Canning Cultural Heritage Services High Street, Broadford, Victoria, 3658. www.heritageservices.com.au/ Phone: 0414-967644 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] My images can be seen at www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=238096
Re: Hypothetical question
Hi tech v manual and mechanical? That's exactly the quandary I've faced lately. My reponse, as coincidentally noted in another post today, is to swing both ways, as explained here: http://www.bkpix.com/gear.htm Bob
Re: Hypothetical Question taken further...
--- Brad Dobo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > However, we all talk about Pentax and their > position, rank and financial, > and what they will be in the future, and > really..what about that darned > DSLR? What I'm thinking is, we as a whole group are > the serious amateurs, > or professionals using Pentax. We are somewhat > representative. If we don't > buy all the latest and greatest from Pentax, how can > we expect them to > develop for us, a DSLR. We'd be the ones with the > want and money to buy > one. But Pentax needs money and a reason to develop > and manufacture and > sell worldwide a DSLR. Are we, in general terms, > helping them do that? If > they know their real fans like the old over the new, > and buy used, why put > the effort into a DSLR? Or a better new 35mm > flagship for that matter? Hey Brad, That point has been made before on this list and it's a good one. One idea is that Pentax didn't really do a good job throughout the series of cameras they released. The K, M, and A series seem to have been rather well received. The P, SF, and to a large extent PZ series camera were not so well received. When comparing specs, I've often wondered why they even bothered with the P series. The SF cameras are rather ungainly with poor to mediocre autofocus and loud shutters. The PZ-1p stands out as a good/popular body though most would agree it was kept around far too long. Between the Super Program and the ZX-5n, we're talking about 10 years and around 10 bodies that were...well, blech! So I think there's a fan base that never moved along with Pentax through the series of bodies. I've met several Nikon photographers who talk of going from F3 to F4s to F5/F100 or FM/FE to FM2/FE2 to N8008 to N90s to F100. All the while, they progressed with the manufacturer. Nikon and Canon have earned their fan base through the years. I think Pentax lost alot of people after the ME Super/Super Program/LX years. They just stayed put with the cameras they had. Mark __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: Hypothetical Question taken further...
Brad, I'm one of those older Pentax users who bought stuff during the screw mount days. I have lots of SMC Takumars that I use with my old Spotmatic and a couple of ESII bodies. I have some K-mount lenses to use with an old LX and a K2DMD. After playing with my Optio 230 I can see getting a dslr Pentax that might retro enough to allow use of the Takumars and K-mounts. Pentax needs to advertise more to get people to take notice of them. They will be a late player on the market with a dslr and need to get the word out that it can compete. Jim A. > From: "Brad Dobo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 23:50:36 -0500 > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Hypothetical Question taken further... > Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 23:50:32 -0500 > > Just a thought. Many here (but not all) like and use the older gear, to get > additional items, or replacements, they buy used equipment (not all the > time, but most I assume). What do I think? To each his own. More power to > you if you can really 'work' the older equipment. Now, I'm not a perfect > example, since I've now bought 2 items used, including a manual focus lens. > However, we all talk about Pentax and their position, rank and financial, > and what they will be in the future, and really..what about that darned > DSLR? What I'm thinking is, we as a whole group are the serious amateurs, > or professionals using Pentax. We are somewhat representative. If we don't > buy all the latest and greatest from Pentax, how can we expect them to > develop for us, a DSLR. We'd be the ones with the want and money to buy > one. But Pentax needs money and a reason to develop and manufacture and > sell worldwide a DSLR. Are we, in general terms, helping them do that? If > they know their real fans like the old over the new, and buy used, why put > the effort into a DSLR? Or a better new 35mm flagship for that matter? > Just something to toss about. > > [The opinions represented in this email are by no means that of the > originator of the email. ] > > Happy Holidays! > > Brad > > >
Re: Hypothetical Question
Well, I don't have a lot of experience to speak from, but I do have both the K-1000 and MZ-5n now. Both camera bodies have pluses and minuses. Neither is exactly what I want. But considering the fact that I lost a lot of shots with the K-1000 because cranking the film to advance it for the next shot took too long, or I missed a shot because I setting the exposure took too long, or I missed a shot because focusing took too long -- well, I'd have to go with the modern camp. But if I was traveling in a third world country where I wanted real reliability, I'd take the K-1000 along. And if the world ended (like in a nuclear war), then I'd want the K-1000 because I could still use it even if I couldn't find a lithium battery anywhere. Course then, I'd still have to be able to find film that had not been x-rayed to death. Reminds me somehow of that old Twilight Zone episode with Burgess Meredith. Actually, somehow the whole question reminds me of that. Later, Doe aka Marnie Hehehe.
Re: Hypothetical Question
On Tuesday, December 17, 2002, at 03:30 PM, Mike Johnston wrote: So let me ask a hypothetical question here. Asked of everyone. IF you have to choose between EITHER the older, metal bodied, manual focus Pentax family (Spotmatics, M series, A series, up to LX) ***OR*** the polycarbonate-bodied, AF Pentax family (P series, ZX series, up to MZ-S)--and you couldn't mix and match and you couldn't use both--which would it be? I guess since my main Pentax is an ESII you know which way I lean. --Mike I read, awhile back, an article about the 25 best cameras, and the Pentax ZX-5n was one of them. Since I'd already figured out which lens I most wanted (which happened to be a Pentax), picking a Pentax body to go with it seemed wise. ;-) The ZX-5n also had the plus of looking/operating the least like the only other 35mm AF slr I'd ever trieda Canon Rebel belonging to my ex-brother in law. Having used the ZX-5n for a few years now, I have to say it still looks as beautiful as it did the day I first pulled it out of the box. I use it almost daily, carrying it 75-85 % of my trips out of the house, and usually with just a single prime lens (I try to use 6 of the 7 focal lengths I own on a regular basis). The only *metal slr I've ever owned was a new K-1000 w/50mm (guess which focal length I almost never use?) I bought new in the early '80s. I used it for a few years then, when finances dictated, sold it. While it had done everything I asked it towith great reliability and successit never grew on me. Once I sold it, I didn't miss it. Still don't. I think that puts me in the modern camp (though not the plastic zoom camp). Dan Scott (* workingI have the second of my two dead ME Supers on the desk next to me.)
Re: Hypothetical Question
> If you could use either "old (metal manual-focus) bodies with AF > lenses" or "new (AF) bodies with old (manual focus) lenses," which > would you choose? Ooh, that's cruel, Paul, very cruel... Fred
RE: Hypothetical Question
Older, metal, for sure, for their simplicity and larger viewfinders more than anything else. To paraphrase a Harvard professor's remark about reading new books, "Whenever a new camera body comes out, I buy two old ones." I assume I could still mix old bodies with new lenses, and vice versa. Yes? Not that I would. Which raises a variant question: If you could use either "old (metal manual-focus) bodies with AF lenses" or "new (AF) bodies with old (manual focus) lenses," which would you choose? [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Hypothetical Question
Mike - you say "...and you couldn't mix and match..." If your hypothetical situation allows me to mix and match lenses from different generations on the one generation body, I will go with the MZ-S every time. I have been giving serious thought to downsizing my collection of bodies and lenses; I have about decided that the good features of the LX just don't get used by me all that often, and I should sell them. On the other hand, mostly I am using K or A series lenses on my MZ-S. If your situation required me to use F and FA lenses on the MZ-S, I would go back to the LX. Stan -- on 12/17/02 3:30 PM, Mike Johnston at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> If Pentax...would >> have applied advances in autofocus, image >> stabilization...how many of you would >> be still shooting with Pentax (a majority brand)? Or >> would you be shooting Canon FD and poking jealous fun >> at Pentax snobs ? > > > Hah! Great point. > > Canon is so good at being Canon, nobody else has to be Canon > > So let me ask a hypothetical question here. Asked of everyone. IF you have > to choose between EITHER the older, metal bodied, manual focus Pentax family > (Spotmatics, M series, A series, up to LX) ***OR*** the > polycarbonate-bodied, AF Pentax family (P series, ZX series, up to > MZ-S)--and you couldn't mix and match and you couldn't use both--which would > it be? > > I guess since my main Pentax is an ESII you know which way I lean. > > --Mike > >
Re: Hypothetical Question
I didn't grow up with screwmount and MF stuff too, but I'd choose easily today the old stuff. I took my first pictures and learned with an old leica rangefinder from my family in the late 80s till I got it robbed in 96 and got the Mz-5N. As my lenses were expanding, I started using manual focus stuff in 2000. I don't know why I bought this MX one rainy day, but since I had it in my hands, the Mz-5n ended up in the shelf, only being used for TTL flash (that is : almost never - and most of the times I decided to take it out the batteries where dead) and now the shelf is full of manual focus lenses and bodies. I like the simplicity, reliability and compactness of the MX. I also like the viewfinder a lot. I like K series lenses from the mid seventies. I rented the Mz-5N + FA 43mm to a friend last week and sadly all her prints where overlapped (about 1mm on the neg, for almost every single picture). Sad to see the MZ is only 6 year old and the winding mechanism is no longer accurate. Not having a reliable AF camera today really isn't a concern for me and I think I'll just be happy to shoot MXes for a long time. Maybe an LX one day though... Thibault Grouas. « Brad Dobo » <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote : > Easy for me, the new stuff. I'm different because I didn't grow up with the > stuff many of you did. Next it'll be 'A' flash units vs cube flash, or cube > vs flash powder I think it all depends on the generation, and nothing > to do with the quality (not saying one is better than another). Perhaps the > best photographers were those that didn't have any metering of any sort, > used their brains to figure out what was best, and mixed their own powder to > get the correct flash? > > Brad > > - Original Message - > From: "Mike Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 4:30 PM > Subject: Hypothetical Question > >>> If Pentax...would >>> have applied advances in autofocus, image >>> stabilization...how many of you would >>> be still shooting with Pentax (a majority brand)? Or >>> would you be shooting Canon FD and poking jealous fun >>> at Pentax snobs ? >> >> >> Hah! Great point. >> >> Canon is so good at being Canon, nobody else has to be Canon >> >> So let me ask a hypothetical question here. Asked of everyone. IF you have >> to choose between EITHER the older, metal bodied, manual focus Pentax > family >> (Spotmatics, M series, A series, up to LX) ***OR*** the >> polycarbonate-bodied, AF Pentax family (P series, ZX series, up to >> MZ-S)--and you couldn't mix and match and you couldn't use both--which > would >> it be? >> >> I guess since my main Pentax is an ESII you know which way I lean. >> >> --Mike >> >> >
Re: Hypothetical Question
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Mike, > > Found myself using/mixing the PZ-1p with manual lenses and some autofocus at my >daughter's gym meets. This week I switched back to the LX with a winder. Two >advantages were apparent. 1. The shutter lag was shorter with the LX. This is not >a surprise, but I'm surprised that I noticed. 2. The manual lenses snap into focus >better on the LX than on the PZ-1p. This is what I was hoping for. Now I've got to >check the prints. > > The manual focus is still a winner. I'm not looking forward to being forced to >autofocus. Oh, that's funny, Bob! Me, with 10 or 12 cameras and not an autofocus among 'em... That doesn't count my forensic Polaroid Spectra 2, of course. That's not a camera, it's a tool... But some would go thru withdrawal, if forced to! keith P.S. Apropos of nothing in particular, I keep wondering how it would be to own a Voigtlander Bessa R. There's a body on eBay, and it's really, really tempting. Except for...all those lenses I'd have to buy! It would break me in a couple of months! Mainly because I wouldn't sell any Pentax stuff to buy it! > Regards, Bob S. > > In a message dated 12/17/2002 4:30:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > So let me ask a hypothetical question here. Asked of everyone. IF you have > > to choose between EITHER the older, metal bodied, manual focus Pentax family > > (Spotmatics, M series, A series, up to LX) ***OR*** the > > polycarbonate-bodied, AF Pentax family (P series, ZX series, up to > > MZ-S)--and you couldn't mix and match and you couldn't use > > both--which would it be?
RE: Hypothetical Question
I like the polycarbonate bodies. AF, TTL, and other features. Warrantees, service, availability of current accessories, etc. Len --- > So let me ask a hypothetical question here. Asked of > everyone. IF you have to choose between EITHER the older, > metal bodied, manual focus Pentax family (Spotmatics, M > series, A series, up to LX) ***OR*** the > polycarbonate-bodied, AF Pentax family (P series, ZX series, > up to MZ-S)--and you couldn't mix and match and you couldn't > use both--which would it be? > > I guess since my main Pentax is an ESII you know which way I lean. > > --Mike > >
Re: Hypothetical Question
Brad, how old are you? I'm 34 and "grew up" with photography in the '80s and '90s. Autofocus was newish when I received my first camera as a gift (Ricoh KR5 Super) in the early '80s. I lusted after Nikon F4's, 5's and N90's when I began to seriously learn photography. Never having actually even held one I cannot comment on them. However, I do know that for me and my type of photography an early '80s vintage manual focus camera is my first choice (LX). It has nothing to do with the available technology during my formative years or whatever as AF and major bells and whistles have always been available to me. It has to do with what I like: Simple, easy, manual focus bodies. Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "Brad Dobo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 5:57 PM Subject: Re: Hypothetical Question > Easy for me, the new stuff. I'm different because I didn't grow up with the > stuff many of you did. Next it'll be 'A' flash units vs cube flash, or cube > vs flash powder I think it all depends on the generation, and nothing > to do with the quality (not saying one is better than another). Perhaps the > best photographers were those that didn't have any metering of any sort, > used their brains to figure out what was best, and mixed their own powder to > get the correct flash? > > Brad > > - Original Message - > From: "Mike Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 4:30 PM > Subject: Hypothetical Question > > > > > If Pentax...would > > > have applied advances in autofocus, image > > > stabilization...how many of you would > > > be still shooting with Pentax (a majority brand)? Or > > > would you be shooting Canon FD and poking jealous fun > > > at Pentax snobs ? > > > > > > Hah! Great point. > > > > Canon is so good at being Canon, nobody else has to be Canon > > > > So let me ask a hypothetical question here. Asked of everyone. IF you have > > to choose between EITHER the older, metal bodied, manual focus Pentax > family > > (Spotmatics, M series, A series, up to LX) ***OR*** the > > polycarbonate-bodied, AF Pentax family (P series, ZX series, up to > > MZ-S)--and you couldn't mix and match and you couldn't use both--which > would > > it be? > > > > I guess since my main Pentax is an ESII you know which way I lean. > > > > --Mike > > > > > >
Re: Hypothetical Question
Mike Johnston wrote: quoting someone else > > If Pentax...would > > have applied advances in autofocus, image > > stabilization...how many of you would > > be still shooting with Pentax (a majority brand)? Or > > would you be shooting Canon FD and poking jealous fun > > at Pentax snobs ? > Then MIke J wrote (I snipped stuff from above) > So let me ask a hypothetical question here. Asked of everyone. IF you have > to choose between EITHER the older, metal bodied, manual focus Pentax family > (Spotmatics, M series, A series, up to LX) ***OR*** the > polycarbonate-bodied, AF Pentax family (P series, ZX series, up to > MZ-S)--and you couldn't mix and match and you couldn't use both--which would > it be? > > I guess since my main Pentax is an ESII you know which way I lean. > > --Mike annsan comments: Well, I would if I knew what an ESII was I love my LX I love my LX I hated my Zx-5 I hated my Z-5 EXCEPT - if they made an LX that was a little lighter weight I'd be happier... -ann
Re: Hypothetical Question
Mike wrote > So let me ask a hypothetical question here. Asked of everyone. IF you have > to choose between EITHER the older, metal bodied, manual focus Pentax family > (Spotmatics, M series, A series, up to LX) ***OR*** the > polycarbonate-bodied, AF Pentax family (P series, ZX series, up to > MZ-S)--and you couldn't mix and match and you couldn't use both--which would > it be? Thats an easy one: the LX Pål
Re: Hypothetical Question
After having owned and used a K1000, MV, ME, Me Super, LX, MX, z-10, z-1 , and now a z-1p, my favorites are still the LX and the z-1p. It's horses for courses stuff though folks. I love using the LX for ambient light stuff...and the z-1p with an AF500FTZ kicks butt for TTL flash (especially fill with -1 or -1 1/2 stops compensation). I regularly use MF lenses on my z-1p and AF on the LX...it makes no difference to the image which body the lens is on. One of the most popular Pentax 35mm SLR's of all time is the much underrated and maligned ME Super. I gave one to my other half for xmas last year, and she loves it. I quite often pinch it off her and take a few shots with it. They are still a lovely quiet little camera. Great for stealth photography...like inside churches with a fast lens (not that I'm inside a church more than I have to be). I would still probably favor (just) the z-1p in an outright decision, but only because it can do just about everything any camera ever built can do. There is nothing that I could ever see myself doing that couldn't be handled by the z-1p and my stable of lenses and accessories. The LX is just so damn nice though. Cheers Shaun Mike Johnston wrote: If Pentax...would have applied advances in autofocus, image stabilization...how many of you would be still shooting with Pentax (a majority brand)? Or would you be shooting Canon FD and poking jealous fun at Pentax snobs ? Hah! Great point. Canon is so good at being Canon, nobody else has to be Canon So let me ask a hypothetical question here. Asked of everyone. IF you have to choose between EITHER the older, metal bodied, manual focus Pentax family (Spotmatics, M series, A series, up to LX) ***OR*** the polycarbonate-bodied, AF Pentax family (P series, ZX series, up to MZ-S)--and you couldn't mix and match and you couldn't use both--which would it be? I guess since my main Pentax is an ESII you know which way I lean. --Mike . -- Shaun Canning Cultural Heritage Services High Street, Broadford, Victoria, 3658. www.heritageservices.com.au/ Phone: 0414-967644 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] My images can be seen at www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=238096
