Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
- Original Message - From: "P. J. Alling" Subject: Re: Financal Condition of Pentax Herb is a financial analyst, if he were really good at it he wouldn't be working for someone else. You are being a more than a lttle mean spirited, and I think, wrong as well. Look at it the other way, if he was bad at it, he would't be employed. Were Pentax doing as well as you would like to believe, they'd have told Samsung to go piss in a bucket. Shooting the messenger may make you feel better, but it doesn't change the veracity of the message. William Robb
Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
A problem for analysts may be that family controlled businesses are much more unpredictable than others. A rich enthusiast may be better at keeping an otherwise doomed department alive long enough to make it profitable, while the ordinary investor looses his interest long before that. DagT > fra: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > dato: 2006/01/27 fr AM 08:35:16 CET > til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > emne: Re: Financal Condition of Pentax > > Herb is a financial analyst, if he were really good at it he wouldn't be > working for someone else. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >In a message dated 1/24/2006 3:03:26 AM Pacific Standard Time, > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > > >>>On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, John Forbes wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>As for the rest, I think you underestimate the power of your own voice. > >>>>The person who started this thread said he had read that Pentax was in > >>>>financial difficulties. How many other people have read one of Herb's > >>>>posts and believed it? According to Herb's prognostications, Pentax went > >>>>bust six months ago. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>Let me tried to understand this: is the imaging division of Pentax now > >>>making profit? That's the one Herb was saying was a loss-maker. He always > >>>said that the company, as a whole, was making money. > >>> > >>> > >>According to their latest report (2005.11.09: Interim Report on Settlement > >> > >> > >of > > > > > >>Accounts ( Consolidated ) for Business Year Ending March 31, 2006), the > >>imaging division made an operating loss. > >> > >>The company as a whole is profitable. > >> > >> > > > >Which is what Herb has always said. Of course he guessed whether the > >company would close down the loss-making division, but of course all > >anyone can do about that is guess. > > > >Kostas > > > >Yes, I agree. Herb may have been dubious about Pentax's future, but he did > >not distort the figures. He reported the financial facts accurately. > > > >Marnie aka Doe > > > > > > > > > > > -- > When you're worried or in doubt, > Run in circles, (scream and shout). > > >
Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
Herb is a financial analyst, if he were really good at it he wouldn't be working for someone else. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 1/24/2006 3:03:26 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, John Forbes wrote: As for the rest, I think you underestimate the power of your own voice. The person who started this thread said he had read that Pentax was in financial difficulties. How many other people have read one of Herb's posts and believed it? According to Herb's prognostications, Pentax went bust six months ago. Let me tried to understand this: is the imaging division of Pentax now making profit? That's the one Herb was saying was a loss-maker. He always said that the company, as a whole, was making money. According to their latest report (2005.11.09: Interim Report on Settlement of Accounts ( Consolidated ) for Business Year Ending March 31, 2006), the imaging division made an operating loss. The company as a whole is profitable. Which is what Herb has always said. Of course he guessed whether the company would close down the loss-making division, but of course all anyone can do about that is guess. Kostas Yes, I agree. Herb may have been dubious about Pentax's future, but he did not distort the figures. He reported the financial facts accurately. Marnie aka Doe -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: Fwd: Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
It depends on the price. The Mamiya ZD which I see as the most direct competitor is still not shipping, if the Pentax undersells with equivalent capability, and they get to market fast enough, they may sell enough of them. On the other hand the Canon full frame 35mm DSLR's are a viable alternative to relatively low resolution MF DSLR's so Pentax will have to take them into account in their pricing as well. John Forbes wrote: On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 01:27:38 -, Pål Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: - Original Message - From: "John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I don't know. It seems crazy to you, and I have to say it seems crazy to me, too. I am sure it would have been a good thing to have done three or four years ago, but now it seems too late. Whats crazy about making a camera with twize the size of the sensor as a Canon and at a similar price (according to rumors)? It is also smaller and lighter than the said Canon and the lenses are similar in size to Canon L-lenses. Seems pretty amazing to me. It's the timing that's crazy. Three years ago it might have swept the board. Now, many MF users will have bought into FF Canon, or gone to Hasselblad. John -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: Fwd: Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
Adam Maas wrote: Pål Jensen wrote: - Original Message - From: "Adam Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 3:30 AM Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Financal Condition of Pentax Pål Jensen wrote: - Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> They may sell to a handful of crazy Pentax enthusiasts and equipment collectors but beyond that who do you really expect would be interested? Everyone who want better image quality that can be provided by a Canon and doesn't have (really) unlimted funds. You mean everybody who's buying the Mamiya ZD right now? (22MP MF DSLR, $12,500USD) No. That is for those with really unlimited funds. You expect the P645 to be significantly cheaper? I certainly don't. It's going to come in between the Canon (At $8000 or so) and the ZD and likely closer to the ZD, and the ZD is higher resolution. Compared to a H2D, the ZD is extremely inexpensive. -Adam I'd really prefer you use a term like "less costly than", rather than "extremely inexpensive." Any camera that costs US$12,500 is in no way what so ever "extremely inexpensive!" The word "inexpensive' loses all meaning in that rarified atmosphere of high prices... Offered sort of joking, sort of not! keith whaley
Re: Fwd: Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
There's one rumor on a hungarian site that the ZD will be shipping these days: http://mamiya.hu/index.php?newlang=english There's no news since february last year on the japanese company site, though: http://www.mamiya-op.co.jp/home/camera/eng/index.html Jostein - Original Message - From: "Mishka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 3:53 AM Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Financal Condition of Pentax at least here, in usa, mamiya zd seems to be as available as pentax 645d. best, mishka On 1/24/06, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You mean everybody who's buying the Mamiya ZD right now? (22MP MF DSLR, $12,500USD) -Adam
Re: Fwd: Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
On 1/24/06, Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 24 Jan 2006 at 21:49, Mishka wrote: > > > it's fun to speculate... but my crystal ball seems to be running out > > of batteries > > May your batteries never fail. I miss my old, mechanical crystal ball... they sure don't make'em like they used to. best, mishka
Re: Fwd: Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
On 24 Jan 2006 at 21:49, Mishka wrote: > also, to buy into C., you have to add the cost of the L glass, which > would add (quite) a few grands... > unlike p645, whose older lenses are dirt cheap right now. Well if you are in the habit of shooting wide I guess you'd still have to pay money out for new P645 reduced coverage wide angle lenses :-) > it's fun to speculate... but my crystal ball seems to be running out > of batteries May your batteries never fail. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Fwd: Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
at least here, in usa, mamiya zd seems to be as available as pentax 645d. best, mishka On 1/24/06, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You mean everybody who's buying the Mamiya ZD right now? (22MP MF DSLR, > $12,500USD) > > -Adam > >
Re: Fwd: Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
> > I'd take a little survey to see who of us on the PDML would even remotely > consider investing in a Pentax 645 DSLR even if it came in only US$1000 more > expensive than a Canon 5D. for $4K, i would in a heartbeat. > It still wouldn't interest me. > > However Pentax could probably sell me a K-mount DSLR at the same price as a > Canon 5D though (assuming it contained better than the standard 6MP Sony > sensor). of course, assuming it has similar qualities (sensor mostly), but not someone who already has 5D. otoh, 645D would be an obvious choice for those not ready to fork out $20-30K for a digital back, and want better quality that small format can provide. i am sure, there are a few of those. also, to buy into C., you have to add the cost of the L glass, which would add (quite) a few grands... unlike p645, whose older lenses are dirt cheap right now. it's fun to speculate... but my crystal ball seems to be running out of batteries best, mishka
Re: Fwd: Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
Pål Jensen wrote: - Original Message - From: "Adam Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 3:30 AM Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Financal Condition of Pentax Pål Jensen wrote: - Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> They may sell to a handful of crazy Pentax enthusiasts and equipment collectors but beyond that who do you really expect would be interested? Everyone who want better image quality that can be provided by a Canon and doesn't have (really) unlimted funds. You mean everybody who's buying the Mamiya ZD right now? (22MP MF DSLR, $12,500USD) No. That is for those with really unlimited funds. You expect the P645 to be significantly cheaper? I certainly don't. It's going to come in between the Canon (At $8000 or so) and the ZD and likely closer to the ZD, and the ZD is higher resolution. Compared to a H2D, the ZD is extremely inexpensive. -Adam
Re: Fwd: Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
- Original Message - From: "Adam Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 3:30 AM Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Financal Condition of Pentax Pål Jensen wrote: - Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> They may sell to a handful of crazy Pentax enthusiasts and equipment collectors but beyond that who do you really expect would be interested? Everyone who want better image quality that can be provided by a Canon and doesn't have (really) unlimted funds. You mean everybody who's buying the Mamiya ZD right now? (22MP MF DSLR, $12,500USD) No. That is for those with really unlimited funds.
Re: Fwd: Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
Pål Jensen wrote: - Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> They may sell to a handful of crazy Pentax enthusiasts and equipment collectors but beyond that who do you really expect would be interested? Everyone who want better image quality that can be provided by a Canon and doesn't have (really) unlimted funds. You mean everybody who's buying the Mamiya ZD right now? (22MP MF DSLR, $12,500USD) -Adam
Re: Fwd: Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
- Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> They may sell to a handful of crazy Pentax enthusiasts and equipment collectors but beyond that who do you really expect would be interested? Everyone who want better image quality that can be provided by a Canon and doesn't have (really) unlimted funds.
Re: Fwd: Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
- Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> At this stage are you guessing as to the component basis of and development costs for the 645D or have you been privy to information direct from Pentax engineering sources? Also marketability is highly dependent on cost, you seem to think that its price will be on par with comparable Canon FF bodies I hope so but again from where have you gleaned this information or is it purely conjecture? It is purely a rumor and therefore might be bullshit But regardless, I don't think the camera would be "crazy"... Pål
Re: Fwd: Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
On 25 Jan 2006 at 3:04, Pål Jensen wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > It's the timing that's crazy. Three years ago it might have swept the > > board. Now, many MF users will have bought into FF Canon, or gone to > > Hasselblad. > > > I've found the assumption that Pentax is a brand one can only switch from, > not to, weird. You can't seriously that any working photographer who has sunk cash into either FF Canon or Hasselblad would consider migrating to a Pentax 645 DSLR? :-) They may sell to a handful of crazy Pentax enthusiasts and equipment collectors but beyond that who do you really expect would be interested? Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Fwd: Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
On 24 Jan 2006 at 20:51, Mishka wrote: > it doesn't sound crazy at all to me. > let's see: > -- P. dslr has zero chance of competing against C & N (just C, really) > in "pro 35mm" market > -- P. dslr would have very little competition in pro 645 market (contax gone) > -- P. needs to regain its position and reputation w/ pro audience badly. > -- a serious chunk MF is being taken by C., so if it waits, it misses > its only chance > > what would you do? I'd take a little survey to see who of us on the PDML would even remotely consider investing in a Pentax 645 DSLR even if it came in only US$1000 more expensive than a Canon 5D. It still wouldn't interest me. However Pentax could probably sell me a K-mount DSLR at the same price as a Canon 5D though (assuming it contained better than the standard 6MP Sony sensor). Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Fwd: Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
On 25 Jan 2006 at 2:33, Pål Jensen wrote: > I don't think the 645D is extremely costly to develop. As high-end DSLR's > goes, it is probably dirt cheap to develop. The chassis and mechanics is > from a more than 20 year old camera. The electronics are from the *istD. The > sensor is bought in from Kodak and the digital parts are probably to a very > large extent similar to whats used in other pentax DSLR's. > The cameras marketability is probably very much larger than any MF camera > using film. At this stage are you guessing as to the component basis of and development costs for the 645D or have you been privy to information direct from Pentax engineering sources? Also marketability is highly dependent on cost, you seem to think that its price will be on par with comparable Canon FF bodies I hope so but again from where have you gleaned this information or is it purely conjecture? Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Fwd: Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
- Original Message - From: "John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> It's the timing that's crazy. Three years ago it might have swept the board. Now, many MF users will have bought into FF Canon, or gone to Hasselblad. I've found the assumption that Pentax is a brand one can only switch from, not to, weird.
Re: Fwd: Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
it doesn't sound crazy at all to me. let's see: -- P. dslr has zero chance of competing against C & N (just C, really) in "pro 35mm" market -- P. dslr would have very little competition in pro 645 market (contax gone) -- P. needs to regain its position and reputation w/ pro audience badly. -- a serious chunk MF is being taken by C., so if it waits, it misses its only chance what would you do? best, mishka On 1/24/06, John Forbes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > OK, Rob, > > I don't know. It seems crazy to you, and I have to say it seems crazy to > me, too. I am sure it would have been a good thing to have done three or > four years ago, but now it seems too late. > > It doesn't detract from my argument that Pentax has limited funds. > Indeed, it makes them more limited. Sadly. > > John > > > On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:50:49 -, Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > On 24 Jan 2006 at 22:36, John Forbes wrote: > > > >> There is no dispute that Pentax has been slow to produce a high-spec > >> DSLR. However, following the disaster of the MZ-D, they have not had > >> unlimited resources to put into further bodies. Rightly or wrongly, > >> they > >> are now being more cautious. > > > > This reply has to be made publicly. Why would you say such a thing > > knowing full > > well Pentax is off on a tangent pouring funds into a digital 645 body > > which > > will be extremely costly to develop and have very limited appeal and > > marketability? I'd hardly call that cautious. And all the while they are > > loosing people who require higher spec bodies to Canon and Nikon. :-( > > > > > > > > Rob Studdert > > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ > > Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ > >
Re: Fwd: Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 01:27:38 -, Pål Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: - Original Message - From: "John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I don't know. It seems crazy to you, and I have to say it seems crazy to me, too. I am sure it would have been a good thing to have done three or four years ago, but now it seems too late. Whats crazy about making a camera with twize the size of the sensor as a Canon and at a similar price (according to rumors)? It is also smaller and lighter than the said Canon and the lenses are similar in size to Canon L-lenses. Seems pretty amazing to me. It's the timing that's crazy. Three years ago it might have swept the board. Now, many MF users will have bought into FF Canon, or gone to Hasselblad. John -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: Fwd: Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
- Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> This reply has to be made publicly. Why would you say such a thing knowing full well Pentax is off on a tangent pouring funds into a digital 645 body which will be extremely costly to develop and have very limited appeal and marketability? I don't think the 645D is extremely costly to develop. As high-end DSLR's goes, it is probably dirt cheap to develop. The chassis and mechanics is from a more than 20 year old camera. The electronics are from the *istD. The sensor is bought in from Kodak and the digital parts are probably to a very large extent similar to whats used in other pentax DSLR's. The cameras marketability is probably very much larger than any MF camera using film. Pål
Re: Fwd: Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
- Original Message - From: "John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I don't know. It seems crazy to you, and I have to say it seems crazy to me, too. I am sure it would have been a good thing to have done three or four years ago, but now it seems too late. Whats crazy about making a camera with twize the size of the sensor as a Canon and at a similar price (according to rumors)? It is also smaller and lighter than the said Canon and the lenses are similar in size to Canon L-lenses. Seems pretty amazing to me. It doesn't detract from my argument that Pentax has limited funds. Indeed, it makes them more limited. Sadly. All camera manufacturers have limited funds... Pentax will release the 645D shortly and the D200 competitor. Thats funding enough for me Pål
Re: Fwd: Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
OK, Rob, I don't know. It seems crazy to you, and I have to say it seems crazy to me, too. I am sure it would have been a good thing to have done three or four years ago, but now it seems too late. It doesn't detract from my argument that Pentax has limited funds. Indeed, it makes them more limited. Sadly. John On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:50:49 -, Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 24 Jan 2006 at 22:36, John Forbes wrote: There is no dispute that Pentax has been slow to produce a high-spec DSLR. However, following the disaster of the MZ-D, they have not had unlimited resources to put into further bodies. Rightly or wrongly, they are now being more cautious. This reply has to be made publicly. Why would you say such a thing knowing full well Pentax is off on a tangent pouring funds into a digital 645 body which will be extremely costly to develop and have very limited appeal and marketability? I'd hardly call that cautious. And all the while they are loosing people who require higher spec bodies to Canon and Nikon. :-( Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: Fwd: Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
On 24 Jan 2006 at 22:36, John Forbes wrote: > There is no dispute that Pentax has been slow to produce a high-spec > DSLR. However, following the disaster of the MZ-D, they have not had > unlimited resources to put into further bodies. Rightly or wrongly, they > are now being more cautious. This reply has to be made publicly. Why would you say such a thing knowing full well Pentax is off on a tangent pouring funds into a digital 645 body which will be extremely costly to develop and have very limited appeal and marketability? I'd hardly call that cautious. And all the while they are loosing people who require higher spec bodies to Canon and Nikon. :-( Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Fwd: Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 21:33:34 -, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: - Original Message - From: "John Forbes" Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Financal Condition of Pentax Yes, he had quite a valid reason for wanting the higher spec body... Lots of people would like a higher-spec body. Trying to destroy the manufacturer is perhaps not the cleverest way to go about it. Selling people lenses that are well suited to a particular type of work, then not making a camera able to to do that work is a poor way to keep customers. Lets not forget, this is a mailing list. Pentax may or may not read it, but they sure the hell aren't going to go broke because of it. William Robb There is no dispute that Pentax has been slow to produce a high-spec DSLR. However, following the disaster of the MZ-D, they have not had unlimited resources to put into further bodies. Rightly or wrongly, they are now being more cautious. Clearly, Herb has been unable to make Pentax go broke. But it's not for want of trying, and even now he is haunting DPReview, and putting in his little barbs whenever he gets a chance. As Marnie confirms, people ARE influenced by what other people say, and Herb's endless posts, dressed up to look authorititive with carefully selected negative statistics, have undoubtedly caused harm. I don't blame Herb, or anyone else, for switching. If someone else offers a better product for your needs, go for it. But there is no need to try to damage Pentax, which is what I believe Herb has been trying to do. But perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps Herb, in his own weird way, was trying to boost Pentax. Perhaps. But probably not. I don't want to start another endless public thread over this, so if somebody wants to discuss/argue with anything I've said, please email me privately. John -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: Fwd: Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
- Original Message - From: "John Forbes" Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Financal Condition of Pentax Yes, he had quite a valid reason for wanting the higher spec body... Lots of people would like a higher-spec body. Trying to destroy the manufacturer is perhaps not the cleverest way to go about it. Selling people lenses that are well suited to a particular type of work, then not making a camera able to to do that work is a poor way to keep customers. Lets not forget, this is a mailing list. Pentax may or may not read it, but they sure the hell aren't going to go broke because of it. William Robb
Re: Fwd: Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 19:14:04 -, Lucas Rijnders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 13:39:50 +0100, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Or at least cut back investments. Herb's (and other's) problem was that he wanted a higher spec body, one even over the *ist-D. Herb's problem was (is) that Pentax was (is) showing no interest in producing a DSLR body that was (is) up to the capabilities of the glass he was using. The Nikon D2X seems to be doing what he wants it to do. Yes, he had quite a valid reason for wanting the higher spec body... Lots of people would like a higher-spec body. Trying to destroy the manufacturer is perhaps not the cleverest way to go about it. John -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 11:12:54 -, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In a message dated 1/24/2006 3:03:26 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, John Forbes wrote: As for the rest, I think you underestimate the power of your own voice. The person who started this thread said he had read that Pentax was in financial difficulties. How many other people have read one of Herb's posts and believed it? According to Herb's prognostications, Pentax went bust six months ago. Let me tried to understand this: is the imaging division of Pentax now making profit? That's the one Herb was saying was a loss-maker. He always said that the company, as a whole, was making money. According to their latest report (2005.11.09: Interim Report on Settlement of Accounts ( Consolidated ) for Business Year Ending March 31, 2006), the imaging division made an operating loss. The company as a whole is profitable. Which is what Herb has always said. Of course he guessed whether the company would close down the loss-making division, but of course all anyone can do about that is guess. Kostas Yes, I agree. Herb may have been dubious about Pentax's future, but he did not distort the figures. He reported the financial facts accurately. And selectively. John Marnie aka Doe -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: Fwd: Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 11:01:54 -, Kostas Kavoussanakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Lucas Rijnders wrote: On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:30:51 +0100, Kostas Kavoussanakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, John Forbes wrote: As for the rest, I think you underestimate the power of your own voice. The person who started this thread said he had read that Pentax was in financial difficulties. How many other people have read one of Herb's posts and believed it? According to Herb's prognostications, Pentax went bust six months ago. Let me tried to understand this: is the imaging division of Pentax now making profit? That's the one Herb was saying was a loss-maker. He always said that the company, as a whole, was making money. According to their latest report (2005.11.09: Interim Report on Settlement of Accounts ( Consolidated ) for Business Year Ending March 31, 2006), the imaging division made an operating loss. The company as a whole is profitable. Which is what Herb has always said. Of course he guessed whether the company would close down the loss-making division, but of course all anyone can do about that is guess. Kostas I don't why you feel a need to defend the indefensible, but Herb's "guesses" were dressed up as expert advice. Anyway, he's gone. RIP. John -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: Fwd: Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 13:39:50 +0100, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Or at least cut back investments. Herb's (and other's) problem was that he wanted a higher spec body, one even over the *ist-D. Herb's problem was (is) that Pentax was (is) showing no interest in producing a DSLR body that was (is) up to the capabilities of the glass he was using. The Nikon D2X seems to be doing what he wants it to do. Yes, he had quite a valid reason for wanting the higher spec body... -- Regards, Lucas
Re: Fwd: Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 17:55:48 +0100, Mishka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ...which would make it probably the most advanced 645 digital body on the market :) Yup, I think that's the trick they pulled three times so far :o) However, this time I'm not sure: how about that Mamiya monster? On 1/24/06, Lucas Rijnders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: won't abandon that strategy now and the 645D will simply be an *ist-D with a large sensor. It'll feature P-TTL, SAFOX VIII, the *ist's lightmeter, etc, but no innovations that require large investments... -- Regards, Lucas
Re: Fwd: Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
...which would make it probably the most advanced 645 digital body on the market :) best, mishka On 1/24/06, Lucas Rijnders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > won't abandon that strategy now and the 645D will simply be an *ist-D with > a large sensor. It'll feature P-TTL, SAFOX VIII, the *ist's lightmeter, > etc, but no innovations that require large investments...
Re: Fwd: Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
- Original Message - From: "Kostas Kavoussanakis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Which is what Herb has always said. Of course he guessed whether the company would close down the loss-making division, but of course all anyone can do about that is guess. Closing down 50% of your business is pretty drastic Pål
Re: Fwd: Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
- Original Message - From: "Lucas Rijnders" Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Financal Condition of Pentax Or at least cut back investments. Herb's (and other's) problem was that he wanted a higher spec body, one even over the *ist-D. Herb's problem was (is) that Pentax was (is) showing no interest in producing a DSLR body that was (is) up to the capabilities of the glass he was using. The Nikon D2X seems to be doing what he wants it to do. William Robb
Re: Fwd: Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
Op Tue, 24 Jan 2006 12:01:54 +0100 schreef Kostas Kavoussanakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Lucas Rijnders wrote: On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:30:51 +0100, Kostas Kavoussanakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, John Forbes wrote: read one of Herb's posts and believed it? According to Herb's prognostications, Pentax went bust six months ago. According to their latest report (2005.11.09: Interim Report on Settlement of Accounts ( Consolidated ) for Business Year Ending March 31, 2006), the imaging division made an operating loss. The company as a whole is profitable. Which is what Herb has always said. Yes. I never doubted his numbers. I would like to know his source, though :) Of course he guessed whether the company would close down the loss-making division, Or at least cut back investments. Herb's (and other's) problem was that he wanted a higher spec body, one even over the *ist-D. With some serious innovations (better AF, HSM, IS). It was/is highly unlikely that Pentax would deliver that, given the small and difficult market for such a body, and the neccessary high investments to develop it. Even worse for those waiting for a pro K-mount body: If I look at previous 645's (spec's and interface) Pentax seems to take the current top K-mount body and give it a larger sensor. That way they have a professional offering, without much added cost. If they did that in their heyday, they won't abandon that strategy now and the 645D will simply be an *ist-D with a large sensor. It'll feature P-TTL, SAFOX VIII, the *ist's lightmeter, etc, but no innovations that require large investments... but of course all anyone can do about that is guess. Indeed. The above is just that :) -- Regards, Lucas
Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
In a message dated 1/24/2006 3:03:26 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, John Forbes wrote: >> >>> As for the rest, I think you underestimate the power of your own voice. >>> The person who started this thread said he had read that Pentax was in >>> financial difficulties. How many other people have read one of Herb's >>> posts and believed it? According to Herb's prognostications, Pentax went >>> bust six months ago. >> >> Let me tried to understand this: is the imaging division of Pentax now >> making profit? That's the one Herb was saying was a loss-maker. He always >> said that the company, as a whole, was making money. > > According to their latest report (2005.11.09: Interim Report on Settlement of > Accounts ( Consolidated ) for Business Year Ending March 31, 2006), the > imaging division made an operating loss. > > The company as a whole is profitable. Which is what Herb has always said. Of course he guessed whether the company would close down the loss-making division, but of course all anyone can do about that is guess. Kostas Yes, I agree. Herb may have been dubious about Pentax's future, but he did not distort the figures. He reported the financial facts accurately. Marnie aka Doe
Re: Fwd: Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Lucas Rijnders wrote: On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:30:51 +0100, Kostas Kavoussanakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, John Forbes wrote: As for the rest, I think you underestimate the power of your own voice. The person who started this thread said he had read that Pentax was in financial difficulties. How many other people have read one of Herb's posts and believed it? According to Herb's prognostications, Pentax went bust six months ago. Let me tried to understand this: is the imaging division of Pentax now making profit? That's the one Herb was saying was a loss-maker. He always said that the company, as a whole, was making money. According to their latest report (2005.11.09: Interim Report on Settlement of Accounts ( Consolidated ) for Business Year Ending March 31, 2006), the imaging division made an operating loss. The company as a whole is profitable. Which is what Herb has always said. Of course he guessed whether the company would close down the loss-making division, but of course all anyone can do about that is guess. Kostas
Re: Fwd: Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:30:51 +0100, Kostas Kavoussanakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, John Forbes wrote: As for the rest, I think you underestimate the power of your own voice. The person who started this thread said he had read that Pentax was in financial difficulties. How many other people have read one of Herb's posts and believed it? According to Herb's prognostications, Pentax went bust six months ago. Let me tried to understand this: is the imaging division of Pentax now making profit? That's the one Herb was saying was a loss-maker. He always said that the company, as a whole, was making money. According to their latest report (2005.11.09: Interim Report on Settlement of Accounts ( Consolidated ) for Business Year Ending March 31, 2006), the imaging division made an operating loss. The company as a whole is profitable. Hope this helps, -- Regards, Lucas
Re: Fwd: Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, John Forbes wrote: As for the rest, I think you underestimate the power of your own voice. The person who started this thread said he had read that Pentax was in financial difficulties. How many other people have read one of Herb's posts and believed it? According to Herb's prognostications, Pentax went bust six months ago. Let me tried to understand this: is the imaging division of Pentax now making profit? That's the one Herb was saying was a loss-maker. He always said that the company, as a whole, was making money. Kostas
Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > In a message dated 1/23/2006 4:19:02 PM Pacific Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >As for the rest, I think you underestimate the power of your own voice. > >The person who started this thread said he had read that Pentax was in > >financial difficulties. How many other people have read one of Herb's > >posts and believed it? According to Herb's prognostications, Pentax went > >bust six months ago. > > Actually, a lot of negative talk on this list, doubts about Pentax's > survival, agonizing over the next camera upgrade, and the delayed release of > a DSLR, > etc. is partly why I switched to Canon a couple of years ago. It wasn't the > only reason, but it definitely was a factor. > > Of course, there are fewer negative commentators on list now. Most of them > switched to another brand and left. > > Marnie aka Doe ;-) Strangely, I like it here. > I think that there are three groups of customers. Happy ones, unhappy but silent ones, and unhappy and vocal. You want lots of the first group, because they keep coming back to buy more from you. You want as few of the second because they go away, grumble, tell their a few of their friends but not you, and you never know until it is too late. The third are the most valuable. They give you an indication of what to do to make your company better and grow. Each unhappy-vocal customer must be worth dozens of happy ones. PDML, besides the entertainment afforded by bizarre flame wars, is good reading because there are articulate U-V's posting their thoughts. As long as the complaints are deeper than "I like blue instead of green lenses" (oh, wait, that was me). D
Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
In a message dated 1/23/2006 4:19:02 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >As for the rest, I think you underestimate the power of your own voice. >The person who started this thread said he had read that Pentax was in >financial difficulties. How many other people have read one of Herb's >posts and believed it? According to Herb's prognostications, Pentax went >bust six months ago. Actually, a lot of negative talk on this list, doubts about Pentax's survival, agonizing over the next camera upgrade, and the delayed release of a DSLR, etc. is partly why I switched to Canon a couple of years ago. It wasn't the only reason, but it definitely was a factor. Of course, there are fewer negative commentators on list now. Most of them switched to another brand and left. Marnie aka Doe ;-) Strangely, I like it here.
RE: Fwd: Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
Tom wrote: I tend to sense Pentax/Samsung edging towards and being deeply entrenched in mediocrity, or the Pentax camera division becoming Samsung altogether. REPLY: Highly unlikely. The Samsung deal may make Pentax able to set into production a lot of their patented technology like image stabilization and USM. With Minolta soon out of the way and Sony only concentrating on the lower market segments, theres certainly an opening for a third manufacturer at the higher-end offering a different solution (small size) to the higher-end DSLR. Pentax becoming part of Samsung is as likely as for BMW to become part of Toyota. Both companies are controlled by families that so far have shown no interest in selling, making them difficult objects for takeover. Pål
Re: Fwd: Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
From: "John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The "nameplate" as you call it, IS the brand. That's what a brand is. It's the name under which the product is sold. So we have one mount, and two (AF) brands. I knew you would say that! :-) And I have to agree you're correct. As for the rest, I think you underestimate the power of your own voice. The person who started this thread said he had read that Pentax was in financial difficulties. How many other people have read one of Herb's posts and believed it? According to Herb's prognostications, Pentax went bust six months ago. My memory may not be too good, but I honestly don't remember Herb saying what you just wrote. He was negative in outlook but I think there was a lot of overreacting to his viewpoint. Tom C.
Re: Fwd: Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 23:48:01 -, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: From: "John Forbes" I take your point, Tom. I am guilty of judging you by association. That's forgiveable John... :-) Not a problem. Thank you. To date, 1 brand two different nameplates... depends on the way you look at it. The "nameplate" as you call it, IS the brand. That's what a brand is. It's the name under which the product is sold. So we have one mount, and two (AF) brands. As for the rest, I think you underestimate the power of your own voice. The person who started this thread said he had read that Pentax was in financial difficulties. How many other people have read one of Herb's posts and believed it? According to Herb's prognostications, Pentax went bust six months ago. John -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
RE: Fwd: Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
From: "John Forbes" I take your point, Tom. I am guilty of judging you by association. That's forgiveable John... :-) Not a problem. However, I happen to believe that the message put out by Pentax users can, does, and will, have a profound effect on the future success or otherwise of the brand, or rather, the mount, as there are now two brands using the K-mount for digital cameras. To date, 1 brand two different nameplates... depends on the way you look at it. Your argument that one person doesn't make a difference (which I think you put forward on a previous occasion) is an argument for not voting in elections, or for not doing anything which requires collective effort. On the contrary, provided enough people do something, they can have an enormous influence. I'm not saying we should mislead people. But I do think it is sensible (to preserve our investment) to present a positive image to the world. I know what you are saying, but I disagree simply because my one little voice cannot outweigh Pentax's own moves, advertising, other review pages, competitors, etc. I greatly doubt that all list members combined could realistically make an impact. If a collective effort is needed by Pentax customers to somehow 'preserve the marque', I would be thinking it's too late. In any case, I'm not attempting to be pugnacious... I do understand the "Horton Hears a Who" principle. And there is much to be positive about. Samsung has embraced the K-mount, and Samsung is on its way to becoming the world's largest electronics company at a time when still cameras are on their way to being subsumed into the world of electronics, just like movie cameras before them. There was a time when Pentax, Nikon, Minolta, et al, made cine cameras or camcorders. Now it's just Somy, Canon, Panasonic, JVC, Hitachi, Sharp, and, of course, Samsung. The fact that the K-mount has been sponsored by a major electronics company is therefore very significant. What's also good news is that further developments in sensor technology reinforce the idea that there is no need for a 35mm sized chip in order to produce better than 35mm quality. This makes it more likely that the dominant chip in the future will be smaller than 24x36, and within the image circle of DA lenses. So not only is the future of the K-mount looking pretty good, so is the future of DA lenses. Time will tell... I understand your points and agree there could be positive developments. I tend to sense Pentax/Samsung edging towards and being deeply entrenched in mediocrity, or the Pentax camera division becoming Samsung altogether. Cheers! Tom C.
Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
Sent again, as it again seems not to have gone through. --- Forwarded message --- From: "John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Financal Condition of Pentax Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 00:12:38 - I agree with you that Samsung is likely to aim for the high volume end of the market. But whether Pentax makes the gear for them, or whether they pay Pentax a royalty, Pentax will end up richer, and that will enable them to step up R&D at the higher end of the market. It might also provide the impetus to re-release some of the glass that has recently disappeared. Broadening the user base is valuable in itself. A user base of many millions of customers is worth holding onto. Incidentally, I was taking issue more with Tom's post than yours. I thought yours was fair, even if it was less supportive of Pentax than I would have been. There's plenty of room for different views. Herb's take on things, however, was extreme, and I think Tom's is rather negative - as he himself admits. I do sympathise with the frustration you both feel; things might have been rather different if the Philips chip had proved to be viable. John On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 00:51:56 -, Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 22 Jan 2006 at 23:30, John Forbes wrote: However, I happen to believe that the message put out by Pentax users can, does, and will, have a profound effect on the future success or otherwise of the brand, or rather, the mount, as there are now two brands using the K-mount for digital cameras. I'm really not sure what you expect of the Samsung involvement for Pentax users, they may assist in perpetuating the mount but may also be the catalyst that pushes Pentax into a new tier of SLR cameras priced between the serious stuff and P&S. IOW the partnership with Samsung doesn't guarantee great new lenses nor top end bodies from either party. All it means practically is that there may be a greater sales volume (assuming Pentax can supply to demand). Samsung is a savvy business, they don't have top end tiered products they only have stuff that sells in big volumes. So do you think that they will make an exception for Pentax and do you think that Pentax will be able to wind up it's production capabilities to be able to deliver the volume to Samsung and a new line for Pentax buyers? How is this going to work? Where will the profits go? Will Samsung end up manufacturing Pentax product? Don't you think that users here saying publicly what they think needs improving and what would keep them buying Pentax is a good thing? I'm glad that there are a few of us here honest enough to really question what Pentax do, at least then newbies have a chance to make up their minds rather than being falsely lead into thinking everything is rosy in the Pentax camp. BTW Samsung seems to have had very little experience in producing image sensors beyond 1600x1200 pixels, I'm not sure that I want to be one of their guinea pigs practically speaking. http://www.samsung.com/Products/Semiconductor/SystemLSI/ImagingSolutions/index.h tm Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: Fwd: Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
I agree with you that Samsung is likely to aim for the high volume end of the market. But whether Pentax makes the gear for them, or whether they pay Pentax a royalty, Pentax will end up richer, and that will enable them to step up R&D at the higher end of the market. It might also provide the impetus to re-release some of the glass that has recently disappeared. Broadening the user base is valuable in itself. A user base of many millions of customers is worth holding onto. Incidentally, I was taking issue more with Tom's post than yours. I thought yours was fair, even if it was less supportive of Pentax than I would have been. There's plenty of room for different views. Herb's take on things, however, was extreme, and I think Tom's is rather negative - as he himself admits. I do sympathise with the frustration you both feel; things might have been rather different if the Philips chip had proved to be viable. John On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 00:51:56 -, Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 22 Jan 2006 at 23:30, John Forbes wrote: However, I happen to believe that the message put out by Pentax users can, does, and will, have a profound effect on the future success or otherwise of the brand, or rather, the mount, as there are now two brands using the K-mount for digital cameras. I'm really not sure what you expect of the Samsung involvement for Pentax users, they may assist in perpetuating the mount but may also be the catalyst that pushes Pentax into a new tier of SLR cameras priced between the serious stuff and P&S. IOW the partnership with Samsung doesn't guarantee great new lenses nor top end bodies from either party. All it means practically is that there may be a greater sales volume (assuming Pentax can supply to demand). Samsung is a savvy business, they don't have top end tiered products they only have stuff that sells in big volumes. So do you think that they will make an exception for Pentax and do you think that Pentax will be able to wind up it's production capabilities to be able to deliver the volume to Samsung and a new line for Pentax buyers? How is this going to work? Where will the profits go? Will Samsung end up manufacturing Pentax product? Don't you think that users here saying publicly what they think needs improving and what would keep them buying Pentax is a good thing? I'm glad that there are a few of us here honest enough to really question what Pentax do, at least then newbies have a chance to make up their minds rather than being falsely lead into thinking everything is rosy in the Pentax camp. BTW Samsung seems to have had very little experience in producing image sensors beyond 1600x1200 pixels, I'm not sure that I want to be one of their guinea pigs practically speaking. http://www.samsung.com/Products/Semiconductor/SystemLSI/ImagingSolutions/index.h tm Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: Fwd: Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
On 22 Jan 2006 at 23:30, John Forbes wrote: > However, I happen to believe that the message put out by Pentax users can, > does, and will, have a profound effect on the future success or otherwise > of the brand, or rather, the mount, as there are now two brands using the > K-mount for digital cameras. I'm really not sure what you expect of the Samsung involvement for Pentax users, they may assist in perpetuating the mount but may also be the catalyst that pushes Pentax into a new tier of SLR cameras priced between the serious stuff and P&S. IOW the partnership with Samsung doesn't guarantee great new lenses nor top end bodies from either party. All it means practically is that there may be a greater sales volume (assuming Pentax can supply to demand). Samsung is a savvy business, they don't have top end tiered products they only have stuff that sells in big volumes. So do you think that they will make an exception for Pentax and do you think that Pentax will be able to wind up it's production capabilities to be able to deliver the volume to Samsung and a new line for Pentax buyers? How is this going to work? Where will the profits go? Will Samsung end up manufacturing Pentax product? Don't you think that users here saying publicly what they think needs improving and what would keep them buying Pentax is a good thing? I'm glad that there are a few of us here honest enough to really question what Pentax do, at least then newbies have a chance to make up their minds rather than being falsely lead into thinking everything is rosy in the Pentax camp. BTW Samsung seems to have had very little experience in producing image sensors beyond 1600x1200 pixels, I'm not sure that I want to be one of their guinea pigs practically speaking. http://www.samsung.com/Products/Semiconductor/SystemLSI/ImagingSolutions/index.h tm Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Fwd: Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
Sent this before, but it didn't seem to make it. J --- Forwarded message --- From: "John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Financal Condition of Pentax Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2006 12:14:15 - I take your point, Tom. I am guilty of judging you by association. However, I happen to believe that the message put out by Pentax users can, does, and will, have a profound effect on the future success or otherwise of the brand, or rather, the mount, as there are now two brands using the K-mount for digital cameras. Your argument that one person doesn't make a difference (which I think you put forward on a previous occasion) is an argument for not voting in elections, or for not doing anything which requires collective effort. On the contrary, provided enough people do something, they can have an enormous influence. I'm not saying we should mislead people. But I do think it is sensible (to preserve our investment) to present a positive image to the world. And there is much to be positive about. Samsung has embraced the K-mount, and Samsung is on its way to becoming the world's largest electronics company at a time when still cameras are on their way to being subsumed into the world of electronics, just like movie cameras before them. There was a time when Pentax, Nikon, Minolta, et al, made cine cameras or camcorders. Now it's just Somy, Canon, Panasonic, JVC, Hitachi, Sharp, and, of course, Samsung. The fact that the K-mount has been sponsored by a major electronics company is therefore very significant. What's also good news is that further developments in sensor technology reinforce the idea that there is no need for a 35mm sized chip in order to produce better than 35mm quality. This makes it more likely that the dominant chip in the future will be smaller than 24x36, and within the image circle of DA lenses. So not only is the future of the K-mount looking pretty good, so is the future of DA lenses. John On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 06:23:31 -, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: John, With all doo respect... :-) Your categorization of Rob Studdert and myself as doom-mongers is way off-base. We are not predicting the future... we are not predicting or saying or proclaiming that Pentax will 'bite the dust'. What we are doing is observing the long term trend and stating that it does little to inspire confidence. Many of us have much invested in Pentax. For my part, and I think I can safely say this for Rob as well, if I did not have a considerable investment in Pentax gear, and I were just starting out... or almost just starting out... I would not buy Pentax... others don't consider gear an investment... so I'll also term it as "outlay of capital". Anyway... I would say we know where each other stands on the matter... but you continue to either accidentally or deliberately miss the big clues, that I (we) are not prophesying doom. We are however observing, and saying that we lack confidence that Pentax will perform in the way we hope in the future. It's as simple as that. Tom C. From: "John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Financal Condition of Pentax Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 05:02:04 - James, You've now heard from the two remaining doom-mongers who frequent this list. A third has gone off in a rage, but we are fortunate that we can still enjoy Rob's photographic erudition, and Tom's incomparable puns. Pentax is a company with several irons in the optical fire, which has enabled it to survive at a time when other camera manufacturers have had to call it a day. At the same time, it is not a huge conglomerate like Canon, with unlimited financial resources, and it suffered a major blow when it was forced to abandon its first digital SLR, the MZ-D, because the Philips sensor proved to be a failure. However, Pentax fought back with a camera, the *ist D, which (with its derivatives) compares extremely well with the competition, and has developed a new range of lenses designed for the commonly used APS-C sized sensor. Several of these have won high praise, especially the 16-45mm zoom. Contrary to what others have written, Pentax has a clear strategy which has been articulated by its management, and which is supported by a lens road-map which it published a year ago. As a result, we know that this year Pentax will produce a sixth new "DA" (digital) lens, along with a digital 645 for the Medium Format market and a higher spec K-mount DSLR body. The latter is the subject of great speculation concerning its pixel-count and other features. Recently Pentax announced an agreement with Samsung, which is the world's fastest-growing large elect
Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
John, With all doo respect... :-) Your categorization of Rob Studdert and myself as doom-mongers is way off-base. We are not predicting the future... we are not predicting or saying or proclaiming that Pentax will 'bite the dust'. What we are doing is observing the long term trend and stating that it does little to inspire confidence. Many of us have much invested in Pentax. For my part, and I think I can safely say this for Rob as well, if I did not have a considerable investment in Pentax gear, and I were just starting out... or almost just starting out... I would not buy Pentax... others don't consider gear an investment... so I'll also term it as "outlay of capital". Anyway... I would say we know where each other stands on the matter... but you continue to either accidentally or deliberately miss the big clues, that I (we) are not prophesying doom. We are however observing, and saying that we lack confidence that Pentax will perform in the way we hope in the future. It's as simple as that. Tom C. From: "John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Financal Condition of Pentax Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 05:02:04 - James, You've now heard from the two remaining doom-mongers who frequent this list. A third has gone off in a rage, but we are fortunate that we can still enjoy Rob's photographic erudition, and Tom's incomparable puns. Pentax is a company with several irons in the optical fire, which has enabled it to survive at a time when other camera manufacturers have had to call it a day. At the same time, it is not a huge conglomerate like Canon, with unlimited financial resources, and it suffered a major blow when it was forced to abandon its first digital SLR, the MZ-D, because the Philips sensor proved to be a failure. However, Pentax fought back with a camera, the *ist D, which (with its derivatives) compares extremely well with the competition, and has developed a new range of lenses designed for the commonly used APS-C sized sensor. Several of these have won high praise, especially the 16-45mm zoom. Contrary to what others have written, Pentax has a clear strategy which has been articulated by its management, and which is supported by a lens road-map which it published a year ago. As a result, we know that this year Pentax will produce a sixth new "DA" (digital) lens, along with a digital 645 for the Medium Format market and a higher spec K-mount DSLR body. The latter is the subject of great speculation concerning its pixel-count and other features. Recently Pentax announced an agreement with Samsung, which is the world's fastest-growing large electronics company, that will enable them both to sell many more K-mount cameras and lenses in the future. In the opinion of more optimistic souls than Tom & Rob, this virtually guarantees the future of the K mount. Samsung is comparable in size to Canon and Sony, and is growing much faster than either. Unlike the other two, which have become staid and complacent, Samsung is hungry, and has already, within three months of joining up with Pentax, produced a re-badged Pentax under its own name. The whole camera industry is in a state of flux as cameras become just another form of computer input. The mystique has gone, and it is almost inevitable (IMHO) that within the next five years all the old camera makers will either disappear or become divisions of major electronics companies. And of the major players in that industry, based on past performance, Samsung seems likely to emerge as the dominant one. Nobody can predict the future. But it is pretty certain that K-mount cameras and lenses will continue in production, and that the range of K-mount camera bodies will increase substantially. The future is bright for the K-mount. John On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 03:09:11 -, Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 20 Jan 2006 at 16:06, James Fellows wrote: Hi, I have been off the list for a couple of years. I am hoping to jump into the DSLR world soon. Using a Pentax DSLR seems to be the way to go based on the lenses and flashes I own. But now I hear Pentax is in rough shape financially and I wonder if I should not invest in Pentax if they will be out of the DSLR market soon. What does everybody else hear. Like otters have said there is nothing wrong with buying a Pentax DSLR right now especially if you intend to employ older lenses however their future as a DSLR camera company is far from certain. They are profitable at the moment however they have just entered into a financial arrangement with a company that could potentially swallow them up and no matter how positive you are you will never see financial figures like those being produced by Canon at the m
Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
Also well put! I've been skiing in McCall, Idaho at Brundage... just looked at the list again. :-) Tom C. From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Financal Condition of Pentax Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 13:09:11 +1000 On 20 Jan 2006 at 16:06, James Fellows wrote: > Hi, > > I have been off the list for a couple of years. I am hoping to jump into > the DSLR world soon. Using a Pentax DSLR seems to be the way to go based on > the lenses and flashes I own. But now I hear Pentax is in rough shape > financially and I wonder if I should not invest in Pentax if they will be > out of the DSLR market soon. What does everybody else hear. Like otters have said there is nothing wrong with buying a Pentax DSLR right now especially if you intend to employ older lenses however their future as a DSLR camera company is far from certain. They are profitable at the moment however they have just entered into a financial arrangement with a company that could potentially swallow them up and no matter how positive you are you will never see financial figures like those being produced by Canon at the moment. So if you are looking at buying a very usable DSLR now then Pentax is a relatively inexpensive option. If you are young and looking to pour money into a kit that you definitely wish to be able to update and build on into the future then you may have to consider pushing your purchase in another direction. http://www.canon.com/ir/annual/2004/p01.html http://www.pentax.co.jp/english/news/information/200505241.html Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
Perry Pellechia wrote: On 1/21/06, Keith McGuinness <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Perry Pellechia wrote: Like otters have said Is this fur real? If you musk ask that question, you don't wanter know the answer. He isn't just asking questions, he's pelting us with them! These puns just make me want to go hide. You're too thin-skinned. You stole that line from someone else. Oh no, all my bad jokes ermine and mine alone. You are not weaseling out of this one. I trapped you this time. I would like to seal you guys in a small room, hide in a corner and watch the fur fly... ...on the other hand, the sky is clearing outside, so I think I'll let the PC hibernate and go work on my tan... Keith McG Keith, Don't you know the sun is not good for your skin? Beavery careful this weekend. There is a high UV ratting in Sydney. D -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc
Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
On 1/21/06, Keith McGuinness <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Perry Pellechia wrote: > >Like otters have said > > Is this fur real? > > >>> > >>>If you musk ask that question, you don't wanter know the answer. > >> > >>He isn't just asking questions, he's pelting us with them! > > > >These puns just make me want to go hide. > > You're too thin-skinned. > >>> > >>>You stole that line from someone else. > >> > >>Oh no, all my bad jokes ermine and mine alone. > > > > You are not weaseling out of this one. I trapped you this time. > > > > I would like to seal you guys in a small room, hide in a corner > and watch the fur fly... > > ...on the other hand, the sky is clearing outside, so I think > I'll let the PC hibernate and go work on my tan... > > Keith McG Keith, Don't you know the sun is not good for your skin? <> Perry Pellechia Primary email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Alternate email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home Page: http://homer.chem.sc.edu/perry <>
Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
Perry Pellechia wrote: Like otters have said Is this fur real? If you musk ask that question, you don't wanter know the answer. He isn't just asking questions, he's pelting us with them! These puns just make me want to go hide. You're too thin-skinned. You stole that line from someone else. Oh no, all my bad jokes ermine and mine alone. You are not weaseling out of this one. I trapped you this time. I would like to seal you guys in a small room, hide in a corner and watch the fur fly... ...on the other hand, the sky is clearing outside, so I think I'll let the PC hibernate and go work on my tan... Keith McG
Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
> >> >> >> > >> >> >>>Like otters have said > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Is this fur real? > >> >> >> > >> >> >If you musk ask that question, you don't wanter know the answer. > >> >> > >> >> He isn't just asking questions, he's pelting us with them! > >> >> > >> >These puns just make me want to go hide. > >> > >> You're too thin-skinned. > >> > >You stole that line from someone else. > > Oh no, all my bad jokes ermine and mine alone. > You are not weaseling out of this one. I trapped you this time. <> Perry Pellechia Primary email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Alternate email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home Page: http://homer.chem.sc.edu/perry <>
Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
Perry Pellechia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On 1/21/06, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Perry Pellechia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >Cotty wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On 21/1/06, Rob Studdert, discombobulated, unleashed: >> >> >> >> >> >>>Like otters have said >> >> >> >> >> >> Is this fur real? >> >> >> >> >> >If you musk ask that question, you don't wanter know the answer. >> >> >> >> He isn't just asking questions, he's pelting us with them! >> >> >> >These puns just make me want to go hide. >> >> You're too thin-skinned. >> >You stole that line from someone else. Oh no, all my bad jokes ermine and mine alone. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
Mark Roberts wrote: mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Cotty wrote: On 21/1/06, Rob Studdert, discombobulated, unleashed: Like otters have said Is this fur real? If you musk ask that question, you don't wanter know the answer. He isn't just asking questions, he's pelting us with them! Must be just a whisker away from the answer, then.
Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
On 1/21/06, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Perry Pellechia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> >Cotty wrote: > >> > > >> >> On 21/1/06, Rob Studdert, discombobulated, unleashed: > >> >> > >> >>>Like otters have said > >> >> > >> >> Is this fur real? > >> >> > >> >If you musk ask that question, you don't wanter know the answer. > >> > >> He isn't just asking questions, he's pelting us with them! > >> > >These puns just make me want to go hide. > > You're too thin-skinned. > You stole that line from someone else. <> Perry Pellechia Primary email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Alternate email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home Page: http://homer.chem.sc.edu/perry <>
Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
Perry Pellechia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >Cotty wrote: >> > >> >> On 21/1/06, Rob Studdert, discombobulated, unleashed: >> >> >> >>>Like otters have said >> >> >> >> Is this fur real? >> >> >> >If you musk ask that question, you don't wanter know the answer. >> >> He isn't just asking questions, he's pelting us with them! >> >These puns just make me want to go hide. You're too thin-skinned. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
These puns just make me want to go hide. On 1/21/06, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Cotty wrote: > > > >> On 21/1/06, Rob Studdert, discombobulated, unleashed: > >> > >>>Like otters have said > >> > >> Is this fur real? > >> > >If you musk ask that question, you don't wanter know the answer. > > He isn't just asking questions, he's pelting us with them! > > > -- > Mark Roberts > Photography and writing > www.robertstech.com > > -- <> Perry Pellechia Primary email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Alternate email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home Page: http://homer.chem.sc.edu/perry <>
Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
Here's what Sony thinks of the DSLR market... Bob S. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060120/tc_nm/japan_sony_dc On 1/21/06, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm at least thinking about how I'm going to finance the new D. > Paul > On Jan 21, 2006, at 1:08 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: > > > "John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> The future is bright for the K-mount. > > > > I'm already selling extra stuff (camera bags, my JVC camcorder, etc.) > > and stashing away money for the new DSLR that's going to be announced > > at > > PMA :) > > > > I don't think it'll actually be available until summer, but I want to > > be > > ready. > > > > > > -- > > Mark Roberts > > Photography and writing > > www.robertstech.com > > > >
Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Cotty wrote: > >> On 21/1/06, Rob Studdert, discombobulated, unleashed: >> >>>Like otters have said >> >> Is this fur real? >> >If you musk ask that question, you don't wanter know the answer. He isn't just asking questions, he's pelting us with them! -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
I'm at least thinking about how I'm going to finance the new D. Paul On Jan 21, 2006, at 1:08 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: "John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The future is bright for the K-mount. I'm already selling extra stuff (camera bags, my JVC camcorder, etc.) and stashing away money for the new DSLR that's going to be announced at PMA :) I don't think it'll actually be available until summer, but I want to be ready. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
"John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >The future is bright for the K-mount. I'm already selling extra stuff (camera bags, my JVC camcorder, etc.) and stashing away money for the new DSLR that's going to be announced at PMA :) I don't think it'll actually be available until summer, but I want to be ready. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
It gets the Fur Seal of approval Cotty wrote: On 21/1/06, Rob Studdert, discombobulated, unleashed: Like otters have said Is this fur real? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
Cotty wrote: On 21/1/06, Rob Studdert, discombobulated, unleashed: Like otters have said Is this fur real? If you musk ask that question, you don't wanter know the answer.
Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
On 21/1/06, Rob Studdert, discombobulated, unleashed: >Like otters have said Is this fur real? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
E.R.N. Reed wrote: James Fellows wrote: Hi, I have been off the list for a couple of years. I am hoping to jump into the DSLR world soon. Using a Pentax DSLR seems to be the way to go based on the lenses and flashes I own. But now I hear Pentax is in rough shape financially and I wonder if I should not invest in Pentax if they will be out of the DSLR market soon. What does everybody else hear. I hear a very nice, discreet, unobtrusive hamster-sneeze shutter sound on my Pentax *istD. A Pentax DSLR seemed to me to be the way to go because of my lenses and flashes, too, and a year and a half later that still makes perfect sense to me. ERNR Eleanor, I really got such a laugh from your response. I recall thinking that when I first shot the MZ-S. Shooting the LX regularly, everything seems to be more quiet. Actually thinking of getting a screwmount Leica, César Panama City, Florida
Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
James, You've now heard from the two remaining doom-mongers who frequent this list. A third has gone off in a rage, but we are fortunate that we can still enjoy Rob's photographic erudition, and Tom's incomparable puns. Pentax is a company with several irons in the optical fire, which has enabled it to survive at a time when other camera manufacturers have had to call it a day. At the same time, it is not a huge conglomerate like Canon, with unlimited financial resources, and it suffered a major blow when it was forced to abandon its first digital SLR, the MZ-D, because the Philips sensor proved to be a failure. However, Pentax fought back with a camera, the *ist D, which (with its derivatives) compares extremely well with the competition, and has developed a new range of lenses designed for the commonly used APS-C sized sensor. Several of these have won high praise, especially the 16-45mm zoom. Contrary to what others have written, Pentax has a clear strategy which has been articulated by its management, and which is supported by a lens road-map which it published a year ago. As a result, we know that this year Pentax will produce a sixth new "DA" (digital) lens, along with a digital 645 for the Medium Format market and a higher spec K-mount DSLR body. The latter is the subject of great speculation concerning its pixel-count and other features. Recently Pentax announced an agreement with Samsung, which is the world's fastest-growing large electronics company, that will enable them both to sell many more K-mount cameras and lenses in the future. In the opinion of more optimistic souls than Tom & Rob, this virtually guarantees the future of the K mount. Samsung is comparable in size to Canon and Sony, and is growing much faster than either. Unlike the other two, which have become staid and complacent, Samsung is hungry, and has already, within three months of joining up with Pentax, produced a re-badged Pentax under its own name. The whole camera industry is in a state of flux as cameras become just another form of computer input. The mystique has gone, and it is almost inevitable (IMHO) that within the next five years all the old camera makers will either disappear or become divisions of major electronics companies. And of the major players in that industry, based on past performance, Samsung seems likely to emerge as the dominant one. Nobody can predict the future. But it is pretty certain that K-mount cameras and lenses will continue in production, and that the range of K-mount camera bodies will increase substantially. The future is bright for the K-mount. John On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 03:09:11 -, Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 20 Jan 2006 at 16:06, James Fellows wrote: Hi, I have been off the list for a couple of years. I am hoping to jump into the DSLR world soon. Using a Pentax DSLR seems to be the way to go based on the lenses and flashes I own. But now I hear Pentax is in rough shape financially and I wonder if I should not invest in Pentax if they will be out of the DSLR market soon. What does everybody else hear. Like otters have said there is nothing wrong with buying a Pentax DSLR right now especially if you intend to employ older lenses however their future as a DSLR camera company is far from certain. They are profitable at the moment however they have just entered into a financial arrangement with a company that could potentially swallow them up and no matter how positive you are you will never see financial figures like those being produced by Canon at the moment. So if you are looking at buying a very usable DSLR now then Pentax is a relatively inexpensive option. If you are young and looking to pour money into a kit that you definitely wish to be able to update and build on into the future then you may have to consider pushing your purchase in another direction. http://www.canon.com/ir/annual/2004/p01.html http://www.pentax.co.jp/english/news/information/200505241.html Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
On 20 Jan 2006 at 16:06, James Fellows wrote: > Hi, > > I have been off the list for a couple of years. I am hoping to jump into > the DSLR world soon. Using a Pentax DSLR seems to be the way to go based on > the lenses and flashes I own. But now I hear Pentax is in rough shape > financially and I wonder if I should not invest in Pentax if they will be > out of the DSLR market soon. What does everybody else hear. Like otters have said there is nothing wrong with buying a Pentax DSLR right now especially if you intend to employ older lenses however their future as a DSLR camera company is far from certain. They are profitable at the moment however they have just entered into a financial arrangement with a company that could potentially swallow them up and no matter how positive you are you will never see financial figures like those being produced by Canon at the moment. So if you are looking at buying a very usable DSLR now then Pentax is a relatively inexpensive option. If you are young and looking to pour money into a kit that you definitely wish to be able to update and build on into the future then you may have to consider pushing your purchase in another direction. http://www.canon.com/ir/annual/2004/p01.html http://www.pentax.co.jp/english/news/information/200505241.html Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: Financal Condition of Pentax
Hi James, After I write what I'm about to write I'll probably get called Chicken Little and the sort. I don't care... I'm a man and I can take it. I have not been following the financial condition of Pentax per se... I have a rather negative outlook based on the way Pentax has performed in releasing products to market. As examples, they flopped and never produced the 1st DSLR they were going to make. The *ist D was around 2 years later. Since then they have churned out a number of variant models, which for the most part was the *ist D with fewer features, albeit at a lower price. At the same time they were churning out meaningless variations of Optio P&S cameras. The 645D medium format camera that has been talked about will probably have a hard time being competitive unless the price is competitive as well. Little has been done to assure it's customers that it plans to continue releasing competitive products in a timely manner. I'm not saying the *ist D (x)'s are a bad camera or that Pentax will go belly up. On the other hand they have not inspired a lot of confidence in me and mo one knows the future. I have no desire to buy digital lenses, and with this being said have little incentive to spend a few thousand dollars more on addtional non-digital lenses, when I'm lacking confidence in the brand itself. I have no desire to liquidate my Pentax gear, but my next DSLR may not be a Pentax. Tom C. From: "James Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: Subject: Financal Condition of Pentax Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 16:06:14 -0500 Hi, I have been off the list for a couple of years. I am hoping to jump into the DSLR world soon. Using a Pentax DSLR seems to be the way to go based on the lenses and flashes I own. But now I hear Pentax is in rough shape financially and I wonder if I should not invest in Pentax if they will be out of the DSLR market soon. What does everybody else hear. Jim - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 3:36 PM Subject: Re: Pixel Cramming > And me to. > > Dave > >> It's there for me as well ... > > > > Shel > > > > > > > > > [Original Message] > > > From: Adam Maas > > > > > Flickr changed something, those links previously didn't require signing > > > in. Since I'm always signed in (Flickr, unlike most sites, doesn't log > > > me out unless I ask it to) I don't see a login page. > > > > > > > > >
Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
Far as I can tell, Pentax is holding their own for the present with no indication that they are considering dropping out of the DSLR market. If you already have a fair investment in Pentax lenses and flash units, the additional cost of a DSLR body is not that enormous. The *ist DS2 and DL bodies doesn't cost that much in DSLR terms and are both good performers. Godfrey On Jan 20, 2006, at 1:06 PM, James Fellows wrote: I have been off the list for a couple of years. I am hoping to jump into the DSLR world soon. Using a Pentax DSLR seems to be the way to go based on the lenses and flashes I own. But now I hear Pentax is in rough shape financially and I wonder if I should not invest in Pentax if they will be out of the DSLR market soon. What does everybody else hear.
Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
James, Same people who were saying two years ago that Pentax was doomed because they lacked a digital SLR are the gloom and doom mavens of today. Buy an *ist digital and use it with your Pentax glass. Bigger and better digital stuff will come along every 6 to 18 months. You won't want to spend your money on it. In 5 years, the *ist Ds really will be obsolete and you can change brands them. My bet is you will replace it with a newer Pentax digital because the value is in the brand. This market is still very fluid and you don't need to chase it. I get a big smile on my face when people here talk about puting their screwmount Pentax lenses on their digitals. It's still about the glass... Regards, Bob S. On 1/20/06, James Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > I have been off the list for a couple of years. I am hoping to jump into > the DSLR world soon. Using a Pentax DSLR seems to be the way to go based on > the lenses and flashes I own. But now I hear Pentax is in rough shape > financially and I wonder if I should not invest in Pentax if they will be > out of the DSLR market soon. What does everybody else hear. > > Jim > - Original Message - > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 3:36 PM > Subject: Re: Pixel Cramming > > > > And me to. > > > > Dave > > > >> It's there for me as well ... > > > > > > Shel > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Original Message] > > > > From: Adam Maas > > > > > > > Flickr changed something, those links previously didn't require > signing > > > > in. Since I'm always signed in (Flickr, unlike most sites, doesn't log > > > > me out unless I ask it to) I don't see a login page. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
Jens Bladt wrote: Nothing wrong with the *ist D shutter sound. Sounds great to me. The "hamster sneeze" sound is a property of the MZ-S. I happen to like the sound, too. But I thought "hamster sneeze" term sounded quite descriptive of the nice quiet shutters on the ZX-5n and *istD, as well as the MZ-S. (Though I only got to play with an MZ-S once.)
Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
Pentax made money the last couple of years. If you want to keep your lenses and flash and not cost yourself a whole ton of money they are the only way to go. If on the other hand you want the highest specified current equipment you'll have to look elsewhere. (Pentax has just entered a joint deal with Samsung so you can buy a Samsung branded Pentax DSL:R, real soon now). James Fellows wrote: Hi, I have been off the list for a couple of years. I am hoping to jump into the DSLR world soon. Using a Pentax DSLR seems to be the way to go based on the lenses and flashes I own. But now I hear Pentax is in rough shape financially and I wonder if I should not invest in Pentax if they will be out of the DSLR market soon. What does everybody else hear. Jim - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 3:36 PM Subject: Re: Pixel Cramming And me to. Dave > It's there for me as well ... Shel [Original Message] From: Adam Maas Flickr changed something, those links previously didn't require signing in. Since I'm always signed in (Flickr, unlike most sites, doesn't log me out unless I ask it to) I don't see a login page. -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
RE: Financal Condition of Pentax
Nothing wrong with the *ist D shutter sound. Sounds great to me. The "hamster sneeze" sound is a property of the MZ-S. Regards Jens Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: E.R.N. Reed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 20. januar 2006 23:09 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: Financal Condition of Pentax James Fellows wrote: >Hi, > >I have been off the list for a couple of years. I am hoping to jump into >the DSLR world soon. Using a Pentax DSLR seems to be the way to go based on >the lenses and flashes I own. But now I hear Pentax is in rough shape >financially and I wonder if I should not invest in Pentax if they will be >out of the DSLR market soon. What does everybody else hear. > > I hear a very nice, discreet, unobtrusive hamster-sneeze shutter sound on my Pentax *istD. A Pentax DSLR seemed to me to be the way to go because of my lenses and flashes, too, and a year and a half later that still makes perfect sense to me. ERNR
RE: Financal Condition of Pentax
Hello Jim I'm not a Financial expert - in fact I know nothing about it. But as far as I can tell, Pentax doesn't show signs of getting out of the market. The fact, that Pentax has released 4 DSLRs during the last three years sounds promising to me, taken into consideration that there was often several years between new analogue models in the past. The recently announced cooperation with Samsung also makes promises for the future - they may get help developing/producing the electronic stuff, including maybe sensors to replace the current ones from SONY. Pentax can then concentrate on what they are good at: User-friendly design and user interface as well as excellent glass. If this is a correct "assessment" I believe it looks pretty promising. Regards Jens Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: James Fellows [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 20. januar 2006 22:06 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Financal Condition of Pentax Hi, I have been off the list for a couple of years. I am hoping to jump into the DSLR world soon. Using a Pentax DSLR seems to be the way to go based on the lenses and flashes I own. But now I hear Pentax is in rough shape financially and I wonder if I should not invest in Pentax if they will be out of the DSLR market soon. What does everybody else hear. Jim - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 3:36 PM Subject: Re: Pixel Cramming > And me to. > > Dave > >> It's there for me as well ... > > > > Shel > > > > > > > > > [Original Message] > > > From: Adam Maas > > > > > Flickr changed something, those links previously didn't require signing > > > in. Since I'm always signed in (Flickr, unlike most sites, doesn't log > > > me out unless I ask it to) I don't see a login page. > > > > > > > > >
Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
James Fellows wrote: Hi, I have been off the list for a couple of years. I am hoping to jump into the DSLR world soon. Using a Pentax DSLR seems to be the way to go based on the lenses and flashes I own. But now I hear Pentax is in rough shape financially and I wonder if I should not invest in Pentax if they will be out of the DSLR market soon. What does everybody else hear. I hear a very nice, discreet, unobtrusive hamster-sneeze shutter sound on my Pentax *istD. A Pentax DSLR seemed to me to be the way to go because of my lenses and flashes, too, and a year and a half later that still makes perfect sense to me. ERNR
Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
On 20/1/06, James Fellows, discombobulated, unleashed: >I have been off the list for a couple of years. I am hoping to jump into >the DSLR world soon. Using a Pentax DSLR seems to be the way to go based on >the lenses and flashes I own. But now I hear Pentax is in rough shape >financially and I wonder if I should not invest in Pentax if they will be >out of the DSLR market soon. What does everybody else hear. This is not true. Pentax is in profit and in bed with Samsung. This is seen as a Good Thing (TM). However, I wold not know as I am in bed with the devil. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
On 1/20/06, James Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > I have been off the list for a couple of years. I am hoping to jump into > the DSLR world soon. Using a Pentax DSLR seems to be the way to go based on > the lenses and flashes I own. But now I hear Pentax is in rough shape > financially and I wonder if I should not invest in Pentax if they will be > out of the DSLR market soon. What does everybody else hear. You could always ask Herb Chong ... -frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Financal Condition of Pentax
Rough shape? They made a profit last year. Only issue they had was sales of P&S digitals were down, but that goes for everybody in that market, it's hit saturation. -Adam James Fellows wrote: Hi, I have been off the list for a couple of years. I am hoping to jump into the DSLR world soon. Using a Pentax DSLR seems to be the way to go based on the lenses and flashes I own. But now I hear Pentax is in rough shape financially and I wonder if I should not invest in Pentax if they will be out of the DSLR market soon. What does everybody else hear. Jim - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 3:36 PM Subject: Re: Pixel Cramming And me to. Dave > It's there for me as well ... Shel [Original Message] From: Adam Maas Flickr changed something, those links previously didn't require signing in. Since I'm always signed in (Flickr, unlike most sites, doesn't log me out unless I ask it to) I don't see a login page.
Financal Condition of Pentax
Hi, I have been off the list for a couple of years. I am hoping to jump into the DSLR world soon. Using a Pentax DSLR seems to be the way to go based on the lenses and flashes I own. But now I hear Pentax is in rough shape financially and I wonder if I should not invest in Pentax if they will be out of the DSLR market soon. What does everybody else hear. Jim - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 3:36 PM Subject: Re: Pixel Cramming > And me to. > > Dave > >> It's there for me as well ... > > > > Shel > > > > > > > > > [Original Message] > > > From: Adam Maas > > > > > Flickr changed something, those links previously didn't require signing > > > in. Since I'm always signed in (Flickr, unlike most sites, doesn't log > > > me out unless I ask it to) I don't see a login page. > > > > > > > > >
