Re: Pentax 645 system site???
- Original Message - From: Pedro Oliveira [EMAIL PROTECTED] Another link: http://www.chrysis.net/photo/pentax/pentax645n.htm One lens is missing on that page; the 150-300 ED IF zoom lens. An excellent optic BTW. PÅL
Re: Galen Rowell (WAS: PESO: Velvia example for Kostas)
- Original Message - From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] Inner Game of Outdoor Photography is effing brilliant. Haven't read the other one. Yet. Then you would certainly find vision equally brilliant as it is exactly in the same vein... PÅL
Re: AA bis
- Original Message - From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] I was going to tell you that you are full of shit, but I think it is enough to say that I think you are quite wrong. What the hell is creative in standing in another person tripod holes? You seem to miss the point. This is the equivalent of putting a piece of transparent paper over a Picasso and trace the drawing underneath. You learn nothing from it. This is not about paying homage to an artist but pure plagiarism. To pay homage you could find another mountain. Another moon rise, and try to make something Ansel may have done if he was in your place. The photographers on the image is the most patethic bunch of sad bastards I've ever seen. Pål
Re: Pentax 645 system site???
- Original Message - From: Sylwester Pietrzyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] does anybody know site with comprehensive 645 information about bodies, lenses, accessories? Something like KMP??? I was searching for that, but couldn't find anything :-( TIA for any help! :-) Is there anything in particular you want to know? I've got a pretty good overview in my head Pål
Re: AA bis
- Original Message - From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you knew anything about AA's working process from start to finish, you would have shut up about five posts ago. I know enough after owning and reading his three books the camera, the negative and the print This isn't about technique but the creative process of taking an image. The are litterally billions of images not yet shot, many of them surpassing what Ansel did. Why not try to shoot on of those? You'll never be a good photographer by copying someone elses work. You may learn technique but that can be learned without copying the creative process. I read somewhere a story about images submitted to National Geographic. They were all carbon copies of well known images from well known photographers shot in the very tripod holes in the same light. They were all returned with a stern note that they were all crap in spite of being technically perfect. Pål
Re: AA bis
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Pal, don't be silly. A photogapher doesn't own a particular spot in nature. A particular place they parked their tripod. Another photographer can park their tripod in the exact same place, but it is unlikley they will get the exact same shot. A little more is involved than that. Sure, like no author owns a story line. Even persons names. You could always write the same book over again by using (slightly) different words. The permutation must be endless. Still, the first book reviewer (if you get it published at all) will probably call it worthless and name the author a sad, pathetic bastard. Pål
Re: AA bis
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net I don't see it as the same thing at all -- tripod spot and story line. Although boy gets girl boy loses girl boy gets girl -- if you are broad and inclusive enough when talking about a story line --- sure. I think someone said once there are only seven different stories anyway. My point is that this goes far beyond that. These people try to recreate the exact image. To the extent of standing in the same tripod holes, exactly the same light; exactly the same time of day - they even try to get the moon in exactly the same place in the sky! Theres nothing wrong trying to shoot varioations of this scene - even stanting near or in the tripod holes. But this is obviously something else. Pål
Re: AA bis
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 4:24 PM Subject: Re: AA bis In a message dated 12/16/2005 7:18:37 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think someone said once there are only seven different stories anyway. How many different photographs? Hehehehe. Good question. There are endless photographs. There are even endless photo oportunities that would appear similar to Adams work even by including personal vision from the photographers. There are no point in copying unless you are really sad. There are endless number of mountan ridges and moon rises globally and even locally. Pål
Re: PESO: Velvia example for Kostas
- Original Message - From: Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 7:25 PM Subject: RE: PESO: Velvia example for Kostas OKAY! So there is someone else color challenged. Personally, I think anyone liking ProviaF to be color challenged. In my color vision that film is truly bizarre. I find Velvia saturated but accurate in the way that it doesn't display colors that wasn't there. Kodachrome is also weird but I eventually learned to believe that the world was supposed to look Kodachrome-like after being exposed to it for years through the printed media. I just don't buy that argument that Velvia is different from other films in picturing reality. It is a matter of taste. Galen Rowell: The truth is that a film can no more match the way our visual system constructs color than a silicon chip can match the way our carbon-based brain cells construct consciousness. Pål
Re: AA bis
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yes, it's trying to duplicate the master. Do you seriously imagine anyone succeeded? Got a shot that looked exactly like his? No. But that isn't the point and doesn't making the least less pathetic. Truly creative people don't worry about stealing overmuch. Look at all the painters that said they stole. Why did they say that? Because there are only so many images, so many ideas. And they were secure in their own creativity and style and skill enough to know what they turned out was unique anyway. But this isn't the same thing. Stealing isn't meant litterally here. We don't have thousands of Mona Lisa's from well known artists. Lots of people have stolen from Ansel Adams but few have gone to the extent of these people. I find this pretty obvious so I suspect there must be some cultural gap here Pål
I use film....
I use film cause I can't figure out why not... Pål
Re: PESO: Velvia example for Kostas
- Original Message - From: Colin J [EMAIL PROTECTED] If I say I like Provia F, it seems I am 'color challenged'. But when you say you like Velvia, that is just 'a matter of taste'. Thank you for making that so very, very clear. I was trying to turn the argument stated the other way around showing how meaningless it was. Anyway, I do personally think that off colors are more objectionable than saturated colors. Others may be of a different opinion. Pål
Re: PESO: Velvia example for Kostas
- Original Message - From: Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] My reality is set, as stated, and the redundant offering of your reality continues as an exercise in futility. The point is that it has nothing to do with reality. It is your taste you hint at representing some universal truth that is an excercise in futility. The truth, however, is that Velvia isn't more off a reality than any other film. The fact that some doesn't like Velvia, or any other film for that matter, is fine by me. It is after all a matter of taste. What is rather tiring is that reality is used as some justification for this view indicating that is based on something more worthwhile than mere taste. This is of course nonsense as your color vision or view of reality isn't anymore valid than any others. Pål
Re: H1 Blad - some gains, some loses
I believe it is 18,6P. J. AllingSat, 03 Dec 2005 10:59:14 -0800Yes, the Kodak 16mp sensor... Jostein wrote: Quoting P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Since you can change backs on the H1 you can always get the Kodak 16mp MP back for it. Sure. In case you don't know, the announced Pentax MedF digital will have a 16 mPix sensor. That's my reason for pulling that figure out of the hat. Jostein This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Re: Galen Rowell (WAS: PESO: Velvia example for Kostas)
- Original Message - From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm with you there. I liked his photographic work much more than his writing. He struck me, IIRC, as a little too above it all. Maybe I was just jealous. I like his writing even better than his photography. Considering how much I like his photography that says a lot! In my opinion he was the best writer on outdoor photography ever and his death was a great tragic loss for outdoor photographers everywhere. Pål
Re: AA bis
- Original Message - From: Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is not true. It is a very common technique for people who are learning to draw, and recommended in most decent books about drawing. It helps you to understand how the other person worked, how their arm moved, what the pressure was like, how it feels to make a line in a certain way that you might not do by yourself. Try it sometime. Sure. You don't learn photography by copying someone elses work in the minutest details. You don't learn how Cartier-Bresson worked by arranging the same scenes he shot. You don't learn photographic techniques either by copying someone elses work. You won't learn faster to operate a camera by shooting Ansel Adams scenes. You may copy Adams techniques but you don't need his exact images to learn the zone system. The drawing analogy was to illustrate the copying. You could just as well take a picture of a Picasso and claimed you made the image. But that doesn't make you a painter, and certainly not a creative one. Nobody was on that mountain to learn photography. I won't even call them photographers because there were zero creative input. They are just camera operators. You don't learn Ansels choiches by simply walk up to his tripod holes. You could learn something if you do not step in his tripod holes but were in the general area. See what options you had and you would almost certainly come out with something very different. Pål
Re: Pentax 645D (WAS: H1 Blad - some gains, some loses)
- Original Message - From: Kevin Waterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] This one time, at band camp, Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In case you don't know, the announced Pentax MedF digital will have a 16 mPix sensor. No, I did not know. Very interesting. Do we know what make of sensor or the size of it? Well, I was actually trying to say that it is an 18,6Mp sensor. The make is Kodak but I don't remember the precise size but it is slightly smaller than 6X4,5 Pål
Re: I use film....
- Original Message - From: Pat White [EMAIL PROTECTED] Then there's the philosophical objection: a negative is an image, a digital file is a description of an image. I'm still happily using my MZ-S. Some people find it fascinating that the piece of film was actually there witnessing the scene... Pål
Re: I use film....
- Original Message - From: Pat White [EMAIL PROTECTED] Then there's the philosophical objection: a negative is an image, a digital file is a description of an image. Personally, I don'æ have a philosophical ojection towards digital or any philosophical connections to film. I mean it quite literally; I don't know why I should go digital. I'm happy with my current cameras and lenses. I have ordered a scanner so that I can get my images easily into digital form. In that way I get all the benefits from digital image handling. I don't need instant gratification although it certainly has it advantages. I actually like waiting for the film from the lab and seeing it on a light table for the first time. In addition, film give me a hard copy I can keep in addition to a copy of the image in digital form. I'm also familiar with all my equipment and I don't need to buy another camera (or lens). I don't use so much film that cost for film and processing becomes a problem. In short, I'm quite happy... Pål
Re: AA bis
- Original Message - From: Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] interesting shot for Ansel Adams fans: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html follow the last link for a related story. Why would anyone want to copy Ansel Adams (or any other photographer/photograph)? Seems to me to be the ultimate in creative bankrupcy... Pål
Re: AA bis
- Original Message - From: Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why? Imitation is the highest form of flattery. Ansel Adams is dead so he is not easily flattered anymore... Pål
Re: AA bis
- Original Message - From: Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Copy is a big word. Being influenced by the work of others is impossible to control. Theres nothing wrong with influende and inspiration. Hpwever, standing litterally in someones tripod holes under the same (rare) circumstances is surely the least flattering form of copying. Pål
B+H
Anyone knows how quick B+H are to ship the orders? My order has been under processing for three days now. The item is still listed as in stock and my card has been charged I had hoped to get the scanner til christmas Pål
Re: B+H
- Original Message - From: Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED] Speed of delivery will depend a lot on which company they use here. If it's the post office, it takes ages to get it through customs. Linjegods and particularly Tollpost have much more effective routines. The problem is that they haven't shipped it yet. It will be shipped by UPS and that shouldn't take more than 3 days in shipping time according to my previous experiences. I have had no problems with the post and customs BTW. Pål
RE: PESO: Velvia example for Kostas
Tom wrote: OK... Jack... now show us a shot that's in focus or where there's not a breeze... I think the colors of the leaves and such are just fine... obviously shot in low light with a lot of contrast, hence the very dark almost silhouette... but I don't find the colors, which are supposed to be bright and vibrant based on the subject, unnatural or unappealing. The fact that Velvia has been by far and away the leading landscape nature film for just about the last 15 years says that many people, including those making a living, and 'pros' don't agree. I was expecting you'd show us a picture where the colors are grossly distorted. This doesn't look that way to me. I've been using Velvia since it came out and can display quite a number of shots that have had widespead appeal (from those who have viewed them). REPLY: Right. One of the reason Velvia became the benchmark for outdoor use is that it actually convey the concept or green or yellow for that matter, something that is not always true for other films. There are no film known to man that copy the world as it is. Our brain doesn't see the world as it is either. We do heavy processing of the image in the brain. Velvia is saturated, true, but it isn't off (like many other realistic films - eg Provia whose skies can be found nowhere on Earth!). And if saturated colors are so bad, what do we make out of black and white? It is certanly not real! Photography is such an artifical input that you cannot make an sucessful image by just copying reality... Pål
RE: Who's Not Using Digital
I'm not using digital. I've just ordered an Nikon 9000ED scanner and plan to stick with film for a few more years. Besides, Pentax digital offerings are quite underwhelming in my opinion, and doesn't trigger a hint of gearlust in me at least... Pål
Re: PESO: Velvia example for Kostas
- Original Message - From: Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] You're, of course, right in your statement that no image capture will exactly replicate nature as presented to one's eye. All is relative. 'Close to honest' is my standard in this medium. I, also, agree that Velvia's greens and yellows are less offensive than others in this film's unique spectrum. I'm re-posting the original image requested by Kostas. This gives you the chance to review the offending hues mentioned. Saturation, in it's self, shouldn't be condemned, but the eye can not be tricked beyond a point frequently ignored by many shooters unable to resist the 'power' offered through PS. http://photolightimages.com/aspupload/detail.asp?ID=96 Theres seem to be a magenta cast in this image. It is, however, impossible to say if it is supposed to be there or not. Remember that the brain filters out (most) color cast of the light while film doesn't. There might have been magenta cast to the clouds (hence the light) for all we know. Anyway, Velvia do not suffer from magenta cast and if it does there might be something with the processing. It is basically impossible to tell. The fact is that Velvia dosn't really display color cast. Kodachrome are often magentaish or greenish. Provia often steel blue etc...but Velvia is just saturated. However, due to its high saturation the color of the light, often invisible to human eyes, might get accentuated. Pål
Re: PESO: Velvia example for Kostas
- Original Message - From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] Interesting... I don't recall having a color cast problem. There is no color cast problem with Velvia. Interestingly, there is indeed one for Provia F (at least the first few years - maybe they've fixed it now); a rather unpleasant (in my opinion) greyish bluish cast. Pål
Re: PESO: Velvia example for Kostas
- Original Message - From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] But only to the detriment of subtle detail lost in the saturation. True. In addition, Velvias high contrast and narrow latitude is a problem. I have no problems with the colors however, although high saturations isn't suitable for all subjects...
Re: Nikon Coolscan 9000 ED
- Original Message - From: David Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] What does your local distributor charge? It cost 26 000 + Nkr discount price. From B+ H including shipping and VAT it will come around 16 000 + Nkr. The saving is in the order of ~1500USD! Pål
Re: H1 Blad - some gains, some loses
- Original Message - From: Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED] In case you don't know, the announced Pentax MedF digital will have a 16 mPix sensor. Isn't it 18? Pål
Re: H1 Blad - some gains, some loses
- Original Message - From: Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED] Not much substance provided to that opinion? I know a professional nature photographer using H1 for his work. You can have a look at his work on the Samfoto website; his name is Svein Grønvold. Since he's dependent on his tool for his income, he'd be out of business if it was strictly a studio item. Most of the film-based MedFs had a problem with sealing around the detachable magazines. The Pentax 645 insert solution was much better in this respect, and also providing more rigor to the body itself compared to the competition. I was curious to hear if the H1 was somewhat better in this respect than was the old 6x6 'Blad systems, but apparently it's neither worse nor better. Probably every camera conceived is used by somebody outdoors. However, it is obvious that the Hasselblad was designed for studio and indoor shooters like wedding photographers etc (BTW like most MF equipment). Another camera that comes to mind is the Contax 645. Perhaps the only MF equipment that is meant for and marketed towards outdoor use is the Pentax MF cameras Pål
Re: Nikon Coolscan 9000 ED
- Original Message - From: Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Don't you pay import taxes? Or have you included them? They are incuded
Re: H1 Blad - some gains, some loses
- Original Message - From: Ronald Arvidsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 5:47 PM Subject: Re: H1 Blad - some gains, some loses It is not true that the main focus of Hasselblad was indoor wedding. Victor Hasselblads aim with the first camera was to produce a versatile camera for outdoor photography as this was his main interest. Sure, but this was about the H1 whose main target is no secret... Pål
Re: H1 Blad - some gains, some loses
- Original Message - From: Kevin Waterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] What Auto Focus system does the 645Nii use? Is it the same as the 35mm offerings? SAFOX V. The same as on the MZ-5. Pål
Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched
- Original Message - From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] I agree, and add to that the inane use of polarizers and graduated tobacco filters and the hideous picture is complete. There is a solution though, don't use Velvia and educate those you can. I know it's depressing to witness all the non-photogs that ooh and ahh over these departures from reality but hyper- reality tends to sell unfortunately. I disagree. I find Velvia to be close to reality. In fact, the standard film in the pre-Velvia days, Kodachrome, is far weirder and further from reality than Velvia but people become so used to it that they actually believed that was how reality looks. I tried once. I took one Kodachrome 25 and one Velvia 50 shot of the same scene (forest interior) and went back in the field at the same place with the slides and compared it to reality. The Velvia was far closer to the real thing Pål
Re: Nikon Coolscan 9000 ED
- Original Message - From: Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 1:46 PM Subject: Nikon Coolscan 9000 ED This MF film scanner can be had at a price from Amazon of no more than a decent DSLR ($1800). Too good to be true it seems. Amazon refuse to ship it internationally and B+H wants $200 in shipping costs! Pål
Re: Nikon Coolscan 9000 ED
- Original Message - From: Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Too good to be true it seems. Amazon refuse to ship it internationally and B+H wants $200 in shipping costs! If the B+ H web page says something is in stock can one assume it really is in stock? Reputedly, this scanner is hard to get hold of... Pål
Re: H1 Blad - some gains, some loses
- Original Message - From: Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED] Also, do you have any thoughts about the ruggedness of the H1 system? Would it be possible to expose a H1 to more hostile environments, like shorelines, deserts or wet conditions? In my opinion the Hasselblad is strictly a studio item... Pål
Re: Nikon Coolscan 9000 ED
- Original Message - From: Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] My feeling is that if any of the many back of the photo magazine photo (etc) houses accurately represents their stock, it would be BH. Now someone can relate their BH horror story. I'm currently going through one with Adorama. They certainly are reputable and I have dealt with them before but that was over 10 years ago. Does anyone know if they still insist that you fax a copy of your credit card to them before they accept the order? It is an incredible hassle as I have neither a copy machine or a fax at hand. I would have preferred to shop at Amazon though... Pål
Nikon Coolscan 9000 ED
This MF film scanner can be had at a price from Amazon of no more than a decent DSLR ($1800). So I wonder if I should buy this one and rather postpone switching to digital cameras about five years or so. I'm in fact quite happy with film and my LX, MZ-S and 645NII fit my needs perfectly. The instant gratification of digital is nice of course but I actually enjoy waiting for the film from the lab and viewing the result on a light table. I have tried a Nikon Coolscan 5000ED and I noticed than on the back it said 100-240V. Does this mean that a scanner bought from the US (110V) can be plugged directly into the mains in Europe (230V) without any modification except replacing the power cord? The saving buying from Amazon is substantial - about $1500! Pål
Problems with Epson R2400
I seem to be unable to get decent prints from my brand new Epson R2400 printer. There are stripes a few millimeters apart on all prints. I've made sure that the right paper type is selected (I use Epson glossy photo paper). I've gone through all the various head cleaning precedures. The tests show everything is OK but the prints still turn out with stripes. The right printer driver is installed. The colors are dead on accurate with no adjustments needed (I thought this would be the biggest hassle). Any ideas? Pål
Re: Problems with Epson R2400
- Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2005 5:14 PM Subject: RE: Problems with Epson R2400 http://www.wellesley.edu/Computing/Epson/epson.html#badquality Thanks Shel. I've tried all this but it doesn't help Pål
Re: Problems with Epson R2400
Jostein wrote: Have you turned off fast printing in the driver? If not, that could be one thing to try. To do this, you must set the colour adjustment mode (main tab in print settings; utskriftsinnstillinger if your Windows is in Norwegian). Change the setting to custom, then click advanced..., and remove the ticks for high speed and edge smoothing. Thanks. I've tried this too but it doesn't help either. I've also tried setting dpi all over the place to no effect. If anything the problem seems to be getting progressively worse... There must be something wrong with the printer... Pål
Re: A3 photo printer
- Original Message - From: Antti-Pekka Virjonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Take a look at the Epson 2400 as well as the 4800 (which is an A2 printer). I am seriously considering the 4800 as my next printer to replace my current 2000 with CIS (continuous inking system). A3+ size is a bit too small at times. I've just ordered the R2400 + a new HP computer with 2Gigabyte RAM (is that enough?). I hope to get my own web page up soon... Pål
A3 photo printer
Anyone who can recommend an A3 quality photo printer. A while back an Epson model (was it called 7500?) was recommended. Is it still the one to have? Pål
Re: Pentax DSLR future
Dario wrote: Today, digital FF is more than enough for at least 99% of the pro market. For that reason I think of digital MF as a niche. But these kind of arguments are absurd! It they made any kind of sense we would still be driving Ford model T's. Kodachrome was good enough for 99% of all 35mm outdoor shooters but still virtually all of them switched to Velvia because it was better. The fact is that people will buy the best there is as long as it is within reasonable cost/hassle constraints. Whats good enough doesn't enter the equation. Pål
Re: Pentax DSLR future
Paul wrote: Yes you will. But there are a lot of shooters who will want medium format. If someone, say Pentax for example, can produce medium format at a price that is competitive with FF digital, it will sell. It's a wide-open market niche that seems to be a custom fit for Pentax. The resolution and relatively low noise of a large sensor will more than compensate for any difference in lens quality. And of course you can expect Pentax to follow through with custom tailored DA 645 lenses. Why wouldn't they? Paul Yep. Let me just add that I suspect that the first 645D will work like an entry for the system, much like the *istD's for K-mount. The larger format give room for far more megapixels in the future... Pål
Re: Pentax DSLR future
Dario wrote: So I think the 645D to make sense only for the owners of a complete 645 outfit. Once again, a strategy for keeping some of the existing customers from switching, not a strategy for gaining new customers. I think that the first manufacturer who can make an MF based DSLR that seriously outperform whats available within the constraints of 35mm at a (semi) affordably price, will find a large market indeed. Pål
Re: Pentax DSLR future
Jens wrote: As sensors get better and better it seems to me it's a matter of time, when there's really no need for medium format anymore. If this is true, Canon will(again) come out ahead of the competition. I mean, what's the point in making huge MF sensors if 35mm format is getting better and better. Well, film was getting better and as well. That didn't prevent the existence of medium format. And MF didn't prevent some to use large format. There is no such thing as good enough. Pål
Re: Pentax DSLR future
Dario wrote: I never said to buy a Ford T after a Ford T, and I never said to buy a *istD after an *istD. Where do you get such an idea from? The point I was trying to make was virtually everything have once been regarded as good enough, including the T Ford I think a 16MP DSLR in a 35mm size (body and lenses) can offer more or less the same advantages when compared to a 18MP 645 system, both being a good step over current 6MP DSLR's. I think we all can agree that an MF DSLR that don't give better image quality than a 35mm based DSLR don't make much sense I just don't think it will happen... The fact is that people will buy the best there is as long as it is within reasonable cost/hassle constraints. Whats good enough doesn't enter the equation. So everyone is driving Ferrari and Porsche cas over there? No one is still buying current Fords, Volkswagens and Toyotas? Despite being just 100Kms far from Maranello, I don't see Ferraris all the time. I DID say reasonable cost/hassle constraint. I don't find Ferrari prices particularly reasonable I do, however, expect prices to come down... Pål
Re: Pentax DSLR future
Christian wrote: Except that right now, as it stands, the D is the TOP Pentax model. The DL would be the entry point into the system. Based on Pentax's strategy, I'd expect (assuming there is a first 645D released) the 2nd 645D to be a lesser-speced body... 645Ds()? :-) According to Pentax all *ist cameras are entry level products. They are meant as typically someone first DSLR. Thats the marketing idea behind it. The various *isD models at sucessively lower prices simply makes entry level Pentax DSLR's within reach for more people. Pål
Re: Pentax DSLR future
Dario wrote: Paal, apparently you always forget money. Can you afford anything you can dream of? Prices will drop. I have a magazine article from over 20 years ago at the introduction of the CD. All industry expert claimed that due to the very low yield rate of CD manufacture (less than 10%!), CD's would continue to be expensive and only mayor artist could hereafter expect to be released by the record companies. There were no signs that this fact would change. CD's needed to be manufactured at incredibly expensive high-tech factories. Technology usually fix the yield rate problem and nowadays CD's can even be burned at home. And almost every obscure recording have been released on CD. Even those who sold less than a 100 copies originally on LP proving the expert wrong. This just to show how dangerous it is to use the present situation as a guide to the future when it comes to technology. Pål
Re: Pentax DSLR future
Dario wrote: Just a niche I won't negate the existence of. Yes, but at present full frame 35mm DSLR is a niche and two years ago DSLR's were a niche Pål
Re: Pentax DSLR future
William wrote: That has more to do with Canon's manufacturing prowess than anything else. Pentax is a small company with limited resources. Canon is a large company willing to put unlimited resources into buying whatever market they choose to go after. REPLY: Very unlikely in my opinion. I think it has more to do with market position. Pentax don't think they can sell a high-end DSLR at present because the customer base simply isn't there. It doesn't really matter that it is ever a bit as good as any Canon. It basically is down the prospect of making money, not technology. Note that hardly anyone challnge Canon at present but that is not because Sony, Matsushita, Samsung and of course Pentax Olympus and the rest don't have the money. This is, however, expected to change. However, what Pentax have been saying, and what is apparently their strategy, is that they need a user base of DSLR's first. This user base start with the *istD's in all their variations (Pentax seem to consider them they same camera so that all *ist cameras are *istD replacement of some sort). From then on they will make successively higher-end bodies thereby creating an upgrade path for their existing DSLR users. The MF DSLR is another matter for another market segment. Pål
Re: Pentax DSLR future
Tom wrote: So the question becomes in many respects, if one WANTS to purchase the new Pentax body (assuming there's one forthcoming... I mean I actually expect to see one, but has Pentax officially let us know?), REPLY: According to press releases, leakage, magazine articles Pentax will release high-end DSLR next year. One magazine said one after another. Pål
Re: Sony Nikon Konica Minolta Zeiss news
Bob wrote: I was told weeks ago by an insider that Sony was determined to make the Lexus of DSLRs, REPLY: You mean something that only sells in north America and Japan? Pål
Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...
Toralf wrote: Then again, there is also a theory saying that big toys may be a compensation for small size in certain other areas... Thats why you'll never see me with a Canon; their marketing is full of phallic symbolism.. Pål
Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...
Toralf wrote: Furthermore, I suspect Canon chose in-lens motors because they had decided that there would be no mechanical coupling whatsoever between the lens an body, i.e. not based on AF considerations as such. May or may not have been a good idea; that's really a different discussion. Right. Canon developed their AF for the old FD system. There was no space for a drivuing shaft on this mount so Canon development work took a different direction from the competition. So the fact that Canon had a horrid lens mount actually worked for the good for the company forcing them to choose different technical solutions and eventually ditch the lensmount alltogether... Pål
Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...
Godfrey wrote: Canon's lenses are state of the art mechanically. The ring motor USM mounts are excellent. Thats debatable. Some of their lenses are crap mechanically. Every Leica lens surpass them and their best are no better than the competition from Nikon, Minolta, Pentax and Olympus. Also, their lens mount contacts don't stand up to wear very well. I've seen an EF 100 Macro where the contacts was litterally worn away after about 2 years of use Pål
Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...
Bob wrote: On Wednesday, October 5, 2005, at 01:20 PM, Pål Jensen wrote: In fact, most Nikons were in fact Pentax copies apart from those inspired by Topcon. I've never heard that assertion before. It is completely false. Really? It is no secret that the japanese were good at copying after the war. Not only did they copy the germans but in the 60's and 70's they copied each other. It is also noteworthy that Nikon and Pentax are perhaps the two closest SLR manufacturers in design philosophy. Minolta for instance is closer to Canon. Regardless if you've heard of it or not, the Nikon F copied the Asahi Pentax in every detail but added interchangeable finders. In fact, most subsequent Nikons (and many other brands for that matter) interface was based on that very Pentax camera. Canon at the time had the winding lever at the bottom of the camera! The Nikkormat was clearly Nikons Spotmatic. The EL was totally indentical to the Pentax ES in features and technology but released years after. The Nikon FE was identical of the Pentax K2. The Nikon EM was a direct respons to the popularity of the Pentax ME but three years later. Incidentally, the LX and the F3 were released simultaneously but they are as similar one could with reason expect of two professional cameras for the time; they have the same features set but use different technical solutions. In additions, Nikon have used many Pentax lens designs. The Pentax/Nikon relation isn't only about copying. Even today there are collaborations of some sort between the companies. The 11 point AF system layout in the latest Nikon AF system is in fact developed by Pentax and used in the *ist's (SAFOX8)(Nikon may have modified it but the AF sensor design of the system are totally identical). This is according to Pentax engineers. Whether this is due to licensing or outsourcing is probably a business secret. Oh.. and the fact that both Pentax and Nikon use the same sensor in some DSLR's is probably not a coincidence either... Pål
Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...
Tom wrote: Hmm... Makes me wonder why the Simon and Garfunkel song Kodachrome mentioned having a Nikon camera... Nikon was the camera mans camera and the choice of pros. However, back then the pros didn't want the latest gizmos. If you discussed with those who wanted pro cameras they would tell you that pros couldn't use cameras dependent on batteries and that pros didn't need meters either; any real pro could calculate exposure by looking at the sceneNowadays the same people will tell you that you need USM and multipoint metering in order to cut it. I'm cynical enough to realize that whats essential features for a pro is what the pro brand happens to offer at the time. Pål
Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...
E.R.N. Reed wrote: I thought what happened was the ones who said pros couldn't use battery-dependent cameras and didn't need meters have now retired, and the new generation insists upon USM, multipoint metering etc. REPLY: Not necessarily. In the days before Nikon offered USM, Nikon users spent time arguing why it wasn't such a nice feature after all and in fact was probably inferior anyway to whatever Nikon was offering. Now the same people claim it is indespensable. I guess such arguments are human nature... Pål
Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...
E.R.N. Reed wrote: Additionally, the Nikon F100 is a *lot* like the PZ-1p, only a few years later and with the added technology those few years brought. The main difference seems to be that everybody and their dawg knew about the F100 when it came out, and they still haven't heard of the PZ-1p. REPLY: Actually, the Nikon F/N 90 is more similar. The Nikon predated the Pentax. Howewver, the Pentax mount doesn't flex with a 80-200/2.8 lens (see user comments on photo.net) like the Nikon does. Nor does its tripod socket flex like the Nikon (see Galen Rowells comments). Still the Nikon is the semi pro body while the Pentax is strictly for amateurs according to urban legend. Incidentally, the camera shares exactly the same shutter unit. I don't even like the Z-1p Pål
Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request)
- Original Message - From: Mark Erickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] The idea behind my message above was to provide something to adjust and tweak. If you really think that Pentax is losing out as a company by not providing full K/M compatibility, it shouldn't be too hard to see which of my above estimates are off and adjust them. My guess regarding your thinking is that you might argue that the 1200 lost sales per year is low. What do you think? 12000? 10% of the 120K total hoped-for sales? That would yield something like $600K in lost earnings, which starts to get large enough to matter on a corporate level. But in addition an number of users will upgrade to FA lenses in order to get the added functions. Judging from the PDML this is pretty common. So the *istD generate new lenses sales perhaps more than compensating any loss... Pål
Re: Camera engineering ( GREEN BUTTON has just officially DIED...)
- Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] the comment wasn't personal its PENTAX treating YOU like a monkey boy or ANYONE ELSE they make jump thru those hoops to take a picture. I find your posts increasingly nutty but very entertaining Pål
Re: Irrelevant Poll: What do you WANT in a digital camera?
1. Ultra compact magnesium weather sealed body. 2. Ultra compact weather sealed lenses made of magnesium (and glass of course!) too. 3. Lots of megapixels giving image quality better than whats achieveable with film (which ever way you measure) 4. Possible to switch from manual mode to aperture priority with the green button like on the MZ-S. 5. Significantly larger dynamic range than whats possible on any film known to man. Something that make graduated nd filters redundant. Pål
Re: Irrelevant Poll: What do you WANT in a digital camera?
- Original Message - From: Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1. Ultra compact magnesium weather sealed body. Actually, this is quite important to me as I had had both the MZ-S and the 645NII at repair due to seawater seeping in to the body. The selector around the release button on the 645NII was totally stucked due to rust! Pål
Re: Camera engineering (This is signifigant)
Ho-Ho. This thread is getting incredibly funny! - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 7:52 AM Subject: RE: Camera engineering (This is signifigant) ARE YOU RETARDED are ARE YOU JUST PLAYING DUMB? because either way you have got to me really dumb to say that since K/M lenses cant do programmed AE (which they don't/cant) , then it makes sense to remove the only AE they do have without cause? That's your postion on the matter? IF it is, you are beyond dumb you are really sick... You have got some major backpeddling or clarifying to do because you have now painted yourself into a corner with your bullheaded stupidity on taking 2 postions that don't agree with each other.. That's called a contradiction. and in this case it's a big one you are pretending doesn't exist. Get real because nobody with half a brain is going ot buy into your BS if you try to argue in opposite directions on the same feature needs and that's exactly what you are doing. JCO -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 1:40 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Camera engineering (This is signifigant) - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: Camera engineering (This is signifigant) answer the question how can you say the program AE is important but COMPLETELY DROPPING AE ALTOGETHER from K/M lenses with zero compatablity issues is fine? Since K/M lenses on their own do not support programmed AE (they lack the all important A setting), I don't see any contradiction. If K/M lenses supported programmed AE, and support for that was dropped, we would have a point of discussion. Meanwhile, you try to create contradictions in your own small, obtuse mind, then call others dumb for not playing your stupid little game. Don't you have a swimming pool to take pictures of? William Robb
Re: PDML 10th anniversary
- Original Message - I can't recall when I first joined, but I remember one post from the early days where you described having your LX breaking down while photographing an airshow or similar. Something about it not working on manually selected shutter speeds, only on auto. Do you remember when that was, Pål? Possibly -96... I was not photographing an air show but my camera broke down when it was 19 years old. It was bought in 1981 so it must have been in 2000. Anyway, I believe that you joined in the fall of '99. Pål
Re: Irrelevant Poll: What do you WANT in a digital camera?
- Original Message - From: Chan Yong Wei I'd want a digital sensor sitting in a manual, mechanical body. Whats the point with that? It won't work without batteries anyway. Pål
Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request)
- Original Message - From: Gonz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Actually, the high price of lenses on ebay, even for K/M versions, indicates that there is high demand for them. Actually it doesn't. It only means that the supply is less than the demand. At a certain point in time there were, say, perhaps 5 lenses of a certain type offered for sale via the net in the US. All it takes is 6 buyers... Pål
Re: anti-shake imminent? we can dream....
- Original Message - From: Mark Erickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] We all know that Pentax has many patents for technologies that they never productized themselves, but this looks like a lot of activity in a short period of time. We can hope, can't we? You can always hope but they've been filing anti-shake patents for 19 years. Are these patent in-body stabilization? Pål
Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request)
- Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Im getting tired of arguing but in my experiences with ebay which are vast, the K/M lenses that are going for big bucks now have always gone for big bucks and most likely because there are lots of them WHERE YOU CANT BUY IT NEW(same specs)EVEN IT YOU WANTED TO. Thats one of the key reasons I feel that K/M support should continue It doesn't mean that lots of people want them. It only means that there are more people that wants to buy them than those who sell them. Hardly anyone wants these lenses. considering its not imcompatible and absurdly low cost to implement in ANY Pentax SLR/DSLR. An argument taken out of thin air. Implementing this feature is expensive and will cost the company thousands if not hundreds of thosands of dollars to implement. At least in one model, even if only the top line model once they have a line...There are too many LNA K/M lenses to disable over such a single cheap part ommisson... There aren't many lenses is use. Most of them sit in people closets and thats where they will stay Pål
Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request)
- Original Message - From: Gonz [EMAIL PROTECTED] I forgot to mention that the demand for these lenses went way up right after the *DS was released. Like I said, I don't think these lenses are going on film cameras. Sure. The demand probably quadrupled from close to zero. It didn't take many buyers to depled KEH's supply of FA lenses. A handful is enough. The fact is that the *istD hasn't been very sucessful saleswise. It is perhaps the least popular DSLR in its class with a considerable margin. In addition, desirable FA lenses have sold precious few because Pentax have concentrated on the lower end the last 15 years. It may indeed seem like theres large demand for this lenses but this is almost certainly an artifact from the factors mentioned above. This would also explain why new lenses seem to be hard to find or in limited stock; they sell so few that even large stores don't stock them on a regular basis. In addition, many distributors don't import them anymore because virtually no one is buying it. The lenses are still available but it is hardly worth exporting it out of Japan anymore. Pål
Re: Camera engineering ( GREEN BUTTON has just officially DIED...)
- Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you are using a variable aperture zoom then EVERY TIME YOU CHANGE ZOOM SETTING you have to do the green button slavery because the real aperture is changing and green button mode doesn't take that into account. How many variable speed K and M zoom lenses are there? If they exist at all, do you really want to use them? Pål
Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request)
- Original Message - I am sorry to inform you but high quality photographic lenses are NOT typical products. They have usable life spans in the decades not years so all your posts are irrelavant because you have no evidence to suggest that its true that nobody wants or uses these anymore. Huh? This isn't about usable life span but actual use. I have a whole bunch of 30-35 year old pentax SCREW lenses which are even older than K lenses that are still in excellent shape and still very desireble to own and use. You basis is flawed. You must be a teenager or something that thinks everything made is disposable and new is always better so nobody wants or uses old.. Where an earth are you living? I though you were american and had some experience with consumer society. The garbage dumbs around here are full of stuff with plenty of usable life left. People are buying several hundreds of thosand of Canon and Nikon DSLR's every month and most buy new lenses with them. No one is mounting a 30 year old lens on their Canon. Pål
Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request)
- Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] The difference is that today CANON bodies and lenses are much BETTER than they would have been if they had kept compatiblity with FD lenses. LOOK AT THEIR SALES. That is not the point. If there is such a demand for using 30 year old lenses as you claim, why isn't there any demand for having a DSLR that takes Canon FD lenses (with full functionality)? Nothing prevents Canon from making an FD mount DSLR that takes the 10 - 20 million FD lenses out there. The answer is that there is no such demand and thats why Canon doesn't bother. pål
Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request)
- Original Message - From: Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm afraid the last is incorrect. Zeiss Biogon 21mm's and OM 21mm's have trebled in value because of the Canon 1Ds mkII and the poor performance of the Canon EF wide-angle lenses on that body. Holy shit man! When I say nobody is using something it isn't absolutely litteral. It means so few are using it that we can safely leave them out of the discussion. Somebody somewehere is using everything. I have a friend who's eccentric (some think his mad). His house is full of vacuum tubes (he suggest that everyone else should do the same thing because you never know when you might need them). He has no space for furniture. He scavenges shop to find dishwasher soap WITH Phosphate, not the modern environmental stuff without it It simply won't do. He have also accumulated Gillete razor blades from the time before they changed the formula of the metal alloy they are using! Naturally his wife have left him... I rest my case... Pål
Re: Camera engineering ( GREEN BUTTON has just officially DIED...)
- Original Message - From: P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lets throw a little something on the fire.. I'm sure they made great zoom lenses 30 years ago Pål
Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request)
- Original Message - They're not mounting 30 year old Canon lenses on their EOS because they can't... If it is such a bloody good idea, why can't they? (rethorical question) Pål
Re: Re: How Pentax Could Survive (was:Re: Pentax K 2.5/200mm)
JCO: THEY HAVE BETRAYED THEIR CUSTOMERS if the policy is now to disable older legacy products without cause which is what they have done. They betrayed their customers about 10-15 years ago Pål
Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request)
JCO wrote: Regarding millions of lenses I think that it's often forgotten that SLRS used to be much more popular mainstream photo items before the advent of advanced PS cameras that followed them in the 80's. So back in the K/M era which was ALL THEY MADE from 1975 thru 1983 not only were there many more lens buyers, at that time PENTAX had much more market share too. (years earlier PENTAX made the most popular SLR in the world the spotmatic, boy times have changed) the pentax M cameras in particular were very popular cameras... Those two factors combine to mean that millions of K/M lenses were made and sold during those years. Sure, but most don't want old lenses. They want AF lenses with added functions like metering options and perhaps IS. In addition, most want zoom lenses these days (they count for 99% of lens sales!) wich offers higher speed, better quality, and/or larger zoom range than lenses of the past. The few people cherishing old glass are a minority. I made the statement before that no one questioned which totally surprised me but I wouldn't be surprised if there are MORE K/M lenses in existance than ALL OTHER LATER SERIES COMBINED because by the time A/F/ and FA lenses came out SLR popularity had waned substatially in general and at the same time PENTAX lost a lot of market share on top of that. The A lenses are far rarer than K/M lenses and in my experience so are the rest. Pentax have made 9 400 000 K and M lenses. By the mid/late 90's they hade made 7 200 000 A, F and FA lenses. By now these may have surpassed the K and M lenses in volumes. Both Minolta and canon had AF well before Pentax did and that may have a major reason why pentax lost market share, I don't know, but that's why I said millions of K/M lenses. Nope. Canon released AF about the same time as Pentax (1987). Pentax was inndeed firts of all with AF in 1981 (ME-F) but there was only one lens... Now if anybody wants to argue that matter BRING IT ON because I would love to see some real production data or more info on it but I do know See above... Unfortunately, this isn't a numbers game. People today buy different lenses than 30 years ago. How many lenses that is out there doesn't really count that much... Pål
Re: Pentax future WAS: Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request))
Patrice wrote: While Pentax invented the (mostly) useless PowerZoom, Canon invented USM. Assuming that Pentax is NOW (?) working on USM and/or stabilization, who knows what Nikon/Canon sell by the time it gets to the market? Actually, Pentax invented IS back in 89/90 but they haven't marketed it
PDML 10th anniversary
I made my first post on this forum 18/8-95. Then it was just started... I think I'm the oldest surviving member... Time flies... Pål
Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request)
- Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] I disagree. The K/M lenses are extremely capable high quality manual focus lenses ( If they werent then why do you think they were so popular?) I never said that K or M lenses wasn't capable. What the buying public wants and indeed buy aren't avalable in K or M series lenses... Pål
Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request)
- Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] I don't think AGE has anything to do with lens purchases or utility . You buy for image quality, focal lengths, speeds, coating types, bulky or compactness, features like manual or auto focus, metering capability, etc. You don't buy or not buy a lens based on what year it was made. You buy whats available in the shops Pål
Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request)
Toralf wrote: I still want to take the image view on this, though (surely image is more important to photo companies than most others ;-)) The question is not (only) if people actually want to use these old lenses, but how the lens compatibility issue affects Pentax'es image, i.e. the way people look at Pentax as a brand, or more specifically, whether or not it affects their opinion of the company enough to have a real influence on their selection of brand. The fact is that Pentax have the best backward compatibility in the business. I doubt this fact will hurt the companys image... Pål
Re: JCO is right, so ...
William wrote: The ist film chassis is completely different from the istD chassis. One is not based on the other. I'm sure they share camera electronics circuitry Pål
Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request)
JCO wrote: PENTAX is refusing to support these lenses when they still easily and cheaply can. Theyre not incompatable, that might be reasonable if they were, this is pure non product support of SLR system components that are still fully compatible. We don't know if Pentax is refusing to support older lenses. What we do know is that Pentax isn't supporting them in entry level DSLR's that all sell at bottom level pricewise. I suggest you spare the whining until Pentax release a pro- or semi-pro DSLR without K and M support... Pål
Re: JCO is right, so ...
- Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] A DSLR has massive amounts of electronics that film cameras don't have or need. I don't think it's a fair characterization to say they share electronics circuitry. I didn't say that. I said camera electronics circuitry. Pål
Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request)
- Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you want to join a big thread, READ IT FIRST, then join it. that's how it works. Theres no point in this case as you keep repeating the same argument over and over... Pål
Re: Pentax future WAS: Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request))
William wrote: On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, Bob Sullivan wrote: No, I think John Mustarde (Texdance) would be much more interesting. Did'nt he have a bet with Pal that involved nailing some private parts to a tree if a Pentax digital SLR camera wasn't delivered by a certain date? Bob S. Who won? Pretty sure John did. By the time the istD came out, it was WAY overdue. I won. And it wasn't about a DSLR but the LX 2000. I was within 2 weeks of its release date which is good enough in my book Pål
Re: Petition to Pentax? (was Re: How Pentax Could Survive)
Godfrey: I would find it better to first try to establish a relationship with someone ... does anyone here KNOW anyone at Pentax USA or Japan corporate, for instance? ... and then submit a *short* want list of well justified items per their recommendation of the right timing, etc. REPLY: The answer is yes. There are PDML members with contacts with Pentax Japan. Pentax do already monitor the opinions on this list and others. There are plenty of examples that they have responded to wishes on this list with products or modifications of products. One example is the AF layout of the Safox 8 system. A PDML member delivered an exact outline of an 11-point AF system that was delivered to Pentax Japan about 2 years before the 11-point SAFOX 8 was marketed. Pål
Re: RE: Petition to Pentax? (was Re: How Pentax Could Survive)
JCO: I honestly don't think it would help because I think they ALREADY KNOW what they have done and the decision was made with full knowledge. As to whether they offer a DSLR body with full Pentax lens support, that's another decision but if you think about it , they could probably charge a couple of HUNDRED dollars more AND GET IT, for only a $5 part they took away so REPLY: It is far more than a few dollars. Using the older resitor based lens interface maens totally redesigned electronics. The metering and lens comunication are totally digital with newer bodies. Complete K-mount compatibility means building in two systems. In addition the production cost are much higher with mechanical systems. Theres no way that Pentax will buld in a complete mechanical interface with the lenses (in addition to the electronic) on a product in a price sensitive market. The reason is that the competition doesn't. If Pentax makes full lens compatibility it will be on a high-end body. Pål
Pentax future WAS: Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request))
Mark wrote: J.C., I'm absolutely serious. I agree that full K/M compatibility is more valuable than partial K/M compatibility to K/M lens owners and potential K/M lens owners. That was not my question, however. I asked about the value of adding full K/M compatibility TO PENTAX THE COMPANY. Specifically, I asked about how many more camera body sales Pentax might have lost by not including full K/M compatibility. I also asked for estimates of the costs related to adding the capability. Let me clarify my question and ask you for an estimate of how many camera body sales (of any model) Pentax might have lost (or may lose in the future) by including only partial K/M compatibility across their entire DSLR line. Care to publish some estimates? REPLY: Extremely few are interested in old lenses. Most buy their digital cameras with a couple of new lenses. In addition, many with old lenses are switching to newer ones anyway to get added features like AF and better zoom lenses. Judging from recent Pentax statements they seem to view their DSLR as starting on scratch. This is probably due to the fact that they don't have many loyal customers left. When the likes of Canon and Nikon sells 100 000 DSLR's a month trying to please an extremely limited cult doesn't make any sense at all. Pentax have an incredible tough job ahead getting decent market share in DSLR's. In order to do that they need really compelling products. A feature that increases cost and is of no importance to 99.99% of they buying public won't do. I'm not very optimistic; not because I don't think Pentax can deliver but because of what history tell us: All slr manufacturers that droped below a certain threshold in system acceptance and popularity have lost out. That was in the film days but I think it will be amplified in the digital era. Examples include Ricoh (made great bodies with value for money - some were close to state of the art); Mamiya (in spite of manufacturing the most advanced camera on the market in the early 80's they flopped); Miranda (great mechanical engineering probably better than Nikon - their last electronic camera was on level with the MX); Petri (value fopr money camera but nobody cared so they bought perhaps a Pentax instead); etc etc...The slr buyer have stayed away from niche players and gravitated towards those with large selections and systems. The next year will be crucial for Pentax in the DSLR market. It isn't enough with competitive products. They need to be ultra-compelling... Pål
Re: Tripod heads
Willima wrote: I am wondering what the big lens owners are using to support their large sized glass? I am interested in the advantages and disadvantages of the various heads out there capable of supporting a super telephoto in the 3.3 kilogram range. REPLY: The lens isn't that heavy (the FA* 600/4 weights more than twice as much) so a sturdy ball head or pan/tilt head should be able to do the job. You have to decide if you want something that is the ultimate in stability (pan/tilt - video head) or if you want something that can be pointed in most directions fast (ball head). If it is the latter you're after the larger Manfrotto/Bogen heads should do the job just fine. They are as sturdy as they get but may lack the smootness of the more expensive heads like the Arca-swiss. The problem is the generic quick release plates that will inevitably come loose or twist from time to time due to torque provided with such a long an heavy lens. Some solve this problem with custom plates for the Arca-Swiss system but in mine opinion this is rather pointless unless money is no issue. Gitzo have some really sturdy pan-tild head, but frankly I find them cumbersome to use with such long lenses. If you had an even heavier lens I would recommend a large fluid video head. Here Manfrotto/Bogen have som real nice ones thats affordable. Some use gimbal heads as well, like the Wimberley. Both a video and a gimball head force you to level the tripod in order to work most effectively. A fluid video head could be something to consider if you will use the lens with converters a lot. Pål
Re: Tripod heads
I wrote: Some use gimbal heads as well, like the Wimberley. Both a video and a gimball head force you to level the tripod in order to work most effectively. A fluid video head could be something to consider if you will use the lens with converters a lot. Let me just add that neither a ball head or a gimball head are ultimate in stability regardless of what some folks say. The reason is that a ball head keep up the lens/camera assemblage through a thin stem. On a gimball head the whole mass of the camera/lens system is cantilevered. The ultimate is a heavy duty pan-tilt or a fluid video head. The latter is the best in both stability and usage as the lens will balance in all direction. It is costly though and a heavy duty video head is heavy. Pål
Re: Hank Ansel go head-to-head in desert snapper death struggle
Juan wrote: I do prefer HCB's, although it is far from his best pictures. Adams', as most of his work, is just another postcard, a beautifully rendered, trite image. It is purely in the eye of the beholder. I have no interest whatsoever in any other type of photography other than nature photography. Mind you, in nature photography I include pictures of women with very few cloths on. I do see than HBC is a great photographer but his images doesn't give me anything... Pål
Re: MZ-S
Gautam wrote: I'm thinking of getting an MZ-S and wondered how solidly it's built. Would it be likely to last a few decades of weekend use? Also, how good is it at keeping dust out? I travel a fair bit to dusty places so both things are important. It is very well built. It is the structurally stiffest Pentax body ever (that says a lot). It can take the weight of a 600/4 lens without flexing the mount or the body (the Nikon F90 mount will flex with a 80-200/2.8 lens! So will the tripod socket). The shutter of the MZ-S is a unit with 1/8000s max speed. It has been detuned to 1/6000s in order to increase durability. The camera is not weather sealed but it has less openings where dust can come in than bodies with two command wheels, except for pro bodies from Nikon and Canon. It is certainly the best AF choice from Pentax in terms of built quality and durability. It's long term survival rate is hard to judge at this stage. Pål
