Pentax is Dying?
The DA 14 has still not reached the U.S. Like the DA 16-45, Pentax cannot seem to produce enough to meet demand, or for some reason does not want to. Pentax USA told us it would be available here by mid June. I have had my order placed since 3 June. I was also just about ready to order the FA 77. B&H had listed it for several weeks as a special-order item. Now B&H lists it as backordered (yet again). I am frustrated beyond description about being unable to buy the lenses I want. I need them soon. Why is Pentax doing this? I am puzzled that few on the list seem to think this is something worth discussing. If Pentax is unwilling or unable to produce gear that we want, it seems to me that topic should be pretty important. What does it signify? Is Pentax melting down, or regrouping to be a much smaller player? I am beginning to wonder if I will have to get out of Pentax and buy Canon. Financially it would be hard for me, but if Pentax cannot supply lenses, what reason is there to stick with them? Joe
Re: Pentax is Dying?
- Original Message - From: "Joseph Tainter" Subject: Pentax is Dying? > I am frustrated beyond description about being unable to buy the lenses > I want. I need them soon. Why is Pentax doing this? I have bought three lenses recently. The A 15mm f/3.5 was a special order, and I was told there would be an extensive wait. The wait ended up being about 3 months. I also bought a 31mm LTD, which took around 3 days to arrive, and an FA 50mm f/1.4, which was a week or so. All in all, I have no complaints with lens delivery times. I can't explain what is happening outside of Canada, though. Perhaps you should be looking at Canada as a source, if Pentax USA isn't interested. William Robb
Re: Pentax is Dying?
Joe, I suspect that not many people buy lenses all that often and when they do, it is quite common to buy used. Because of that, the reality of the situation my not really be that noticeable. I think the other big issue besides being able to deliver products that are released, is filling in the holes in the lineup. The 1.5 mag factor on the *istD makes it so that the old lens lineup is not exactly right for the camera. They are slowly getting things out, but not near fast enough. I'd really like to see a DA 55-200/4 lens as a companion to the DA 16-45/4. That would be a dynamite combo for packing around. Bruce Thursday, July 15, 2004, 8:06:13 PM, you wrote: JT> The DA 14 has still not reached the U.S. Like the DA 16-45, Pentax JT> cannot seem to produce enough to meet demand, or for some reason does JT> not want to. Pentax USA told us it would be available here by mid June. JT> I have had my order placed since 3 June. JT> I was also just about ready to order the FA 77. B&H had listed it for JT> several weeks as a special-order item. Now B&H lists it as backordered JT> (yet again). JT> I am frustrated beyond description about being unable to buy the lenses JT> I want. I need them soon. Why is Pentax doing this? JT> I am puzzled that few on the list seem to think this is something worth JT> discussing. If Pentax is unwilling or unable to produce gear that we JT> want, it seems to me that topic should be pretty important. What does it JT> signify? Is Pentax melting down, or regrouping to be a much smaller player? JT> I am beginning to wonder if I will have to get out of Pentax and buy JT> Canon. Financially it would be hard for me, but if Pentax cannot supply JT> lenses, what reason is there to stick with them? JT> Joe
Re: Pentax is Dying?
Joseph Tainter checked his mailbox everyday for four months for lenses that never came then wrote: "I am frustrated beyond description about being unable to buy the lenses I want. I need them soon. Why is Pentax doing this?" "I am puzzled that few on the list seem to think this is something worth discussing. If Pentax is unwilling or unable to produce gear that we want, it seems to me that topic should be pretty important. What does it signify? Is Pentax melting down, or regrouping to be a much smaller player?" "I am beginning to wonder if I will have to get out of Pentax and buy Canon. Financially it would be hard for me, but if Pentax cannot supply lenses, what reason is there to stick with them?" I've had some of the same thoughts. I am beginning to suspect that Pentax is not shipping any lenses and their entire lens line is going on backorder as current inventory is depleted. B&H and Adorama both show numerous Pentax lenses as being backordered and they have been for quite some time. The only new Pentax lens KEH lists at all is the 28-80 FA J zoom. They've apparently sold off their entire inventory of new Pentax lenses except that unit. Possible explanations that come to mind: demand has suddenly skyrocked and Pentax can't ship fast enough (yeah right) labor troubles, political troubles at their lens assembly plant withholding supply from US until currency exchange rates improve Pentax is having cash flow problems Pentax has a problem with parts supply (plausible if K mount hardware is the issue) Pentax is in the process of moving their assembly operations and the move has disrupted operations Pentax is failing as a company there are probably other equally plausible explanations. I share your frustration. Tom Reese
Re: Pentax is Dying?
Another: Pentax is doing fine as a company but is beginning to de-emphasize their photo division, or at least moving to a leaner photo division.. Possible explanations that come to mind: demand has suddenly skyrocked and Pentax can't ship fast enough (yeah right) labor troubles, political troubles at their lens assembly plant withholding supply from US until currency exchange rates improve Pentax is having cash flow problems Pentax has a problem with parts supply (plausible if K mount hardware is the issue) Pentax is in the process of moving their assembly operations and the move has disrupted operations Pentax is failing as a company
Re: Pentax is Dying?
Or Pentax is about to bring out a whole new line of lenses and cameras and is depleting current stock in the run up... A. On 16 Jul 2004, at 15:37, Tom Reese wrote: Joseph Tainter checked his mailbox everyday for four months for lenses that never came then wrote: "I am frustrated beyond description about being unable to buy the lenses I want. I need them soon. Why is Pentax doing this?" "I am puzzled that few on the list seem to think this is something worth discussing. If Pentax is unwilling or unable to produce gear that we want, it seems to me that topic should be pretty important. What does it signify? Is Pentax melting down, or regrouping to be a much smaller player?" "I am beginning to wonder if I will have to get out of Pentax and buy Canon. Financially it would be hard for me, but if Pentax cannot supply lenses, what reason is there to stick with them?" I've had some of the same thoughts. I am beginning to suspect that Pentax is not shipping any lenses and their entire lens line is going on backorder as current inventory is depleted. B&H and Adorama both show numerous Pentax lenses as being backordered and they have been for quite some time. The only new Pentax lens KEH lists at all is the 28-80 FA J zoom. They've apparently sold off their entire inventory of new Pentax lenses except that unit. Possible explanations that come to mind: demand has suddenly skyrocked and Pentax can't ship fast enough (yeah right) labor troubles, political troubles at their lens assembly plant withholding supply from US until currency exchange rates improve Pentax is having cash flow problems Pentax has a problem with parts supply (plausible if K mount hardware is the issue) Pentax is in the process of moving their assembly operations and the move has disrupted operations Pentax is failing as a company there are probably other equally plausible explanations. I share your frustration. Tom Reese
Re: Pentax is Dying?
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004, Tom Reese wrote: > demand has suddenly skyrocked and Pentax can't ship fast enough (yeah right) I think this might actually be the case for some of the popular lenses. I ordered my FA 35/2 in Feb or March and it showed up in April. During that time everyone showed it as backordered. It was still shown as backordered when it finally arrived from Adorama. I expect that the *ist D is causing people to change their lens lineup. It has for me. Before purchasing the *ist D I didn't own any of the lenses except for my 50/1.7 that I now carry on a regular basis. The 35/2 is a pretty obvious normal lens choice for the *ist D (28/2.8 is another, but a stop slower). I'm making the wild guess that most of the 35/2s which are being sold now, and forcing them into backordered status, are being used on the *ist D. alex
Re: Pentax is Dying
Collin wrote: It's been stated that they have large back-orders on istD bodies. If true it may likely be the same scenario for the lenses. No, not dying. Just unable to adjust to the volume of growth that's coming with popular new products. They may need an influx of cash in order to manage the growth better. -- B&H lists the *ist D as in stock, but not the *ist D/DA 16-45 combo. Pentax, as I understand it, has sold many fewer *ist Ds than they had hoped to. It is lenses that they cannot/will not produce. I speculate as follows: 1. All lens assembly is being moved to Vietnam (poor Nguyen), or elsewhere, and we are in the middle of this transition. 2. While there may still be demand for some higher-quality lenses, that demand is not high enough to warrant a production run. (Well, this wouldn't explain why the DA lenses are unavailable.) 3. Pentax is scaling back. They will produce new lenses, like the DAs, at a steady pace, but will not produce enough to meet sudden surges in demand. (Foolish, if you ask me, since the demand is now. If not met now, the demand may not exist when production becomes adequate.) 4. Pentax's remaining manufacturing capacity is going into digital point-and-shoot cameras. Are the lenses for these also assembled in Vietnam? Pål's informant claimed that Pentax would produce only five DA lenses. Pentax has stated that some of these will be "consumer-friendly." A DAJ 18-55 to go with the baby D would be essential. Back when I got an early DA 16-45, then my lab ordered two more, I checked the serial numbers against when the lenses arrived. I suggested that Pentax was producing the DA 16-45 at a rate of about 500 per month. Someone protested that such a production number was way too low. To the contrary, the evidence suggests that Pentax is indeed producing very few SLR lenses. The bottom line is that Pentax is shafting us serious photographers. And if they lack a full lens line-up, what serious photographers will buy Pentax? I was not doing photography in the late 1980s when the F lenses were being introduced. I wonder if the situation then was similar. Joe
Re: Pentax is Dying
3. Pentax is scaling back. They will produce new lenses, like the DAs, at a steady pace, but will not produce enough to meet sudden surges in demand. (Foolish, if you ask me, since the demand is now. If not met now, the demand may not exist when production becomes adequate.) Some news from Taiwan retailers (or just rumour) suggested some Pentax FA lenses were not manufactured anymore (like FA100/2.8 & FA50/2.8 etc) because they are expecting new lenses to replace them. But then again, nobody can confirm. Back when I got an early DA 16-45, then my lab ordered two more, I checked the serial numbers against when the lenses arrived. I suggested that Pentax was producing the DA 16-45 at a rate of about 500 per month. Someone protested that such a production number was way too low. To the contrary, the evidence suggests that Pentax is indeed producing very few SLR lenses. Maybe they were uncertain about the actual demand prior to the introduction so they were playing safe not to oversizing their production line? The bottom line is that Pentax is shafting us serious photographers. And if they lack a full lens line-up, what serious photographers will buy Pentax? In Pentax sense, serious mean 120 (or at least what they said). :-) I was not doing photography in the late 1980s when the F lenses were being introduced. I wonder if the situation then was similar. Ironically, by the time they introduced FA* lenses, the demand was still very low (except the FA*24 & the FA*85). Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan _ Free yourself from those irritating pop-up ads with MSn Premium. Get 2months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: Pentax is Dying?
there are probably other equally plausible explanations. I share your frustration. Maybe they have been in the process of replacing the FA lenses? Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan _ STOP MORE SPAM with the MSN Premium and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: Pentax is Dying?
På 16. jul. 2004 kl. 22.48 skrev Alan Chan: there are probably other equally plausible explanations. I share your frustration. Maybe they have been in the process of replacing the FA lenses? That would be nice, a set of DA prime lenses with the Quick shift focus and the 14mm build. Let´s face it, the FF sensor is for the 645 :-) DagT
Re: Pentax is Dying?
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004, Alan Chan wrote: > >there are probably other equally plausible explanations. I share your > >frustration. > > Maybe they have been in the process of replacing the FA lenses? Pentax usually isn't full of surprises. We heard about the DA lenses 4-6 months before they were released, and the new Baby-D was announced almost 6 months before it will be released (with rumors coming much earlier). They've been eliminating or having on backorder many more FA lenses than the number of DA lenses that they have announced. It would be really nice to see a roadmap of what is coming, along the lines of the one that Olympus released after the E-1 came out. alex
Re: Pentax is Dying?
On 16 Jul 2004 at 22:59, DagT wrote: > > På 16. jul. 2004 kl. 22.48 skrev Alan Chan: > > >> there are probably other equally plausible explanations. I share your > >> frustration. > > > > Maybe they have been in the process of replacing the FA lenses? > > That would be nice, a set of DA prime lenses with the Quick shift focus > and the 14mm build. > > Let´s face it, the FF sensor is for the 645 :-) If they do that and replace the FA lenses with DA or something of their ilk I'll definitely do a Cotty. 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: Pentax is Dying
that's not what they are telling shareholders in Japan. they are saying that moving to high end P&S and DSLRs are where they hope to boost total market share. Herb - Original Message - From: "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 6:29 PM Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying > I've been told (by Pentax distributors) that Pentax have no plans of meeting demand for the *istD. Maybe the same is the case for the DA lenses (at least initially)?
RE: Pentax is Dying?
Man you people are ridiculous Pentax will have 3 DSLR's including a unique in the world of photography FF medium format digital camera based on the well loved 645 camera system. Certainly they are not failing as a company. I tried winning a DA 16-45 on Ebay, but once it got within 95% of retail I gave up on it. The assumption I have to make about that is, there is serious demand for this lens. And most owners seem completely satisfied by the lens as well. $420 for performance that equals the Canon L series, I can hardly call that a failure. Be patient. Pentax is not huge, they cant work miracles, if the new DSLR sucks then bitch. But until then, lets put a hold on the rampant negative speculation, it helps nothing. I am excited as heck about the changes Pentax is making, and I look forward to being a user of the new emerging Pentax system. -el gringo -Original Message- From: Steve Desjardins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 8:38 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying? Another: Pentax is doing fine as a company but is beginning to de-emphasize their photo division, or at least moving to a leaner photo division.. Possible explanations that come to mind: demand has suddenly skyrocked and Pentax can't ship fast enough (yeah right) labor troubles, political troubles at their lens assembly plant withholding supply from US until currency exchange rates improve Pentax is having cash flow problems Pentax has a problem with parts supply (plausible if K mount hardware is the issue) Pentax is in the process of moving their assembly operations and the move has disrupted operations Pentax is failing as a company
RE: Pentax is Dying?
I think it is quite pointless to brag about something which might but does not exist yet. Not to mention the inability to satisfy immediate demand. Also, DA16-45 does not meet the built quality of Canon L lenses. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan Man you people are ridiculous Pentax will have 3 DSLR's including a unique in the world of photography FF medium format digital camera based on the well loved 645 camera system. Certainly they are not failing as a company. I tried winning a DA 16-45 on Ebay, but once it got within 95% of retail I gave up on it. The assumption I have to make about that is, there is serious demand for this lens. And most owners seem completely satisfied by the lens as well. $420 for performance that equals the Canon L series, I can hardly call that a failure. Be patient. Pentax is not huge, they cant work miracles, if the new DSLR sucks then bitch. But until then, lets put a hold on the rampant negative speculation, it helps nothing. I am excited as heck about the changes Pentax is making, and I look forward to being a user of the new emerging Pentax system. _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN Premium. Get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: Pentax is Dying
And, when is this supposed to happen? I hear all these promises about how good its going to be... you know the rest of the story.. Otis Wright Herb Chong wrote: that's not what they are telling shareholders in Japan. they are saying that moving to high end P&S and DSLRs are where they hope to boost total market share. Herb - Original Message - From: "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 6:29 PM Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying I've been told (by Pentax distributors) that Pentax have no plans of meeting demand for the *istD. Maybe the same is the case for the DA lenses (at least initially)?
Re: Pentax is Dying?
Pentax isn't Dying. Film is, increasingly slowly at some stage perhaps, but it's still going down. As Pentax has/had a pro-market in MF, they have to upgrade this (Hasselblad and Rollei did) or/and try to dig further into/stay alive in consumer DSLR/D-P&S markets. Sadly this could have been done quite nicely with the DMZ-S (digital MZ-S version) or a new full-frame 8-12MP DSLR (I'm probably draeaming). The latter may never come or at least be long after the (Canon)train has reached the next station. What's left is the consumer diggies and gimmick- and gadget-market. I guess Baby *ist D and the Optio MX are good excamples of these lines of future Pentax cameras. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: El Gringo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 17. juli 2004 07:04 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: RE: Pentax is Dying? Man you people are ridiculous Pentax will have 3 DSLR's including a unique in the world of photography FF medium format digital camera based on the well loved 645 camera system. Certainly they are not failing as a company. I tried winning a DA 16-45 on Ebay, but once it got within 95% of retail I gave up on it. The assumption I have to make about that is, there is serious demand for this lens. And most owners seem completely satisfied by the lens as well. $420 for performance that equals the Canon L series, I can hardly call that a failure. Be patient. Pentax is not huge, they cant work miracles, if the new DSLR sucks then bitch. But until then, lets put a hold on the rampant negative speculation, it helps nothing. I am excited as heck about the changes Pentax is making, and I look forward to being a user of the new emerging Pentax system. -el gringo -Original Message- From: Steve Desjardins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 8:38 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying? Another: Pentax is doing fine as a company but is beginning to de-emphasize their photo division, or at least moving to a leaner photo division.. Possible explanations that come to mind: demand has suddenly skyrocked and Pentax can't ship fast enough (yeah right) labor troubles, political troubles at their lens assembly plant withholding supply from US until currency exchange rates improve Pentax is having cash flow problems Pentax has a problem with parts supply (plausible if K mount hardware is the issue) Pentax is in the process of moving their assembly operations and the move has disrupted operations Pentax is failing as a company
Re: Pentax is Dying?
On 17/7/04, Rob Studdert, discombobulated, offered: >> > Maybe they have been in the process of replacing the FA lenses? >> >> That would be nice, a set of DA prime lenses with the Quick shift focus >> and the 14mm build. >> >> Let´s face it, the FF sensor is for the 645 :-) > >If they do that and replace the FA lenses with DA or something of their ilk >I'll definitely do a Cotty. You'd be joining a growing line of PDMLers, sigh. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: Pentax is Dying?
Given recent discussions, it might offend someone to describe him as Canonized...:-) No brand glorification intended, though... Jostein - Original Message - From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 10:30 AM Subject: RE: Pentax is Dying? What's a Cotty? Did he convert to Canonism? Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 17. juli 2004 09:34 Til: pentax list Emne: Re: Pentax is Dying? On 17/7/04, Rob Studdert, discombobulated, offered: >> > Maybe they have been in the process of replacing the FA lenses? >> >> That would be nice, a set of DA prime lenses with the Quick shift focus >> and the 14mm build. >> >> Let´s face it, the FF sensor is for the 645 :-) > >If they do that and replace the FA lenses with DA or something of their ilk >I'll definitely do a Cotty. You'd be joining a growing line of PDMLers, sigh. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: Pentax is Dying
This could mean the Baby D. Pentax also needs EVF camera like the Nikon 5700 or 8700. >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/16/04 10:37PM >>> that's not what they are telling shareholders in Japan. they are saying that moving to high end P&S and DSLRs are where they hope to boost total market share. Herb - Original Message - From: "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 6:29 PM Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying > I've been told (by Pentax distributors) that Pentax have no plans of meeting demand for the *istD. Maybe the same is the case for the DA lenses (at least initially)?
Re: Pentax is Dying
- Original Message - From: "Otis Wright" Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying > And, when is this supposed to happen? I hear all these promises about > how good its going to be... you know the rest of the > story.. I've heard that there will be wonderful things announced, though not necessarily shown, at the Ulan Bator show. WW
Re: Pentax is Dying?
- Original Message - From: "Alan Chan" Subject: RE: Pentax is Dying? > > Also, DA16-45 does not meet the built quality of Canon L lenses. > I don't think it meets the price point of the Canon L lenses either. William Robb
Re: Pentax is Dying?
Unique? What about the Hasselblad H1 - isn't that a 645 that will take both film and digital backs? Or the Mamiya 645? I guess if the rumored new digital Pentax 645 is a dedicated digital body then that will be kinda of unique, although not as flexible or indeed desirable as the other systems on the market. Antonio On 17 Jul 2004, at 07:03, El Gringo wrote: Pentax will have 3 DSLR's including a unique in the world of photography FF medium format digital camera based on the well loved 645 camera system.
RE: Pentax is Dying?
Its also almost half the price of Canon L lens. I'm not bragging, I'm saying WAIT AND SEE. -el gringo -Original Message- From: Alan Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 12:29 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Pentax is Dying? I think it is quite pointless to brag about something which might but does not exist yet. Not to mention the inability to satisfy immediate demand. Also, DA16-45 does not meet the built quality of Canon L lenses. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan >Man you people are ridiculous Pentax will have 3 DSLR's including a >unique in the world of photography FF medium format digital camera based on >the well loved 645 camera system. Certainly they are not failing as a >company. I tried winning a DA 16-45 on Ebay, but once it got within 95% of >retail I gave up on it. The assumption I have to make about that is, there >is serious demand for this lens. And most owners seem completely satisfied >by the lens as well. $420 for performance that equals the Canon L series, >I >can hardly call that a failure. Be patient. Pentax is not huge, they cant >work miracles, if the new DSLR sucks then bitch. But until then, lets put >a >hold on the rampant negative speculation, it helps nothing. I am excited >as >heck about the changes Pentax is making, and I look forward to being a user >of the new emerging Pentax system. _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN Premium. Get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=htt p://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
RE: Pentax is Dying?
Antonio... It's more felxible because it's a fully self contained system. Digital backs largely require external power sources, and the ones that don't are huge and cumbersome. Yes the Pentax system will be quite unique, and very flexible in that it will allow MF field photography. -el gringo -Original Message- From: Antonio Aparicio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 7:30 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying? Unique? What about the Hasselblad H1 - isn't that a 645 that will take both film and digital backs? Or the Mamiya 645? I guess if the rumored new digital Pentax 645 is a dedicated digital body then that will be kinda of unique, although not as flexible or indeed desirable as the other systems on the market. Antonio On 17 Jul 2004, at 07:03, El Gringo wrote: > Pentax will have 3 DSLR's including a > unique in the world of photography FF medium format digital camera > based on > the well loved 645 camera system. >
RE: Pentax is Dying
Do you know when this show does take place ? Thibouille -Message d'origine- De : William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Envoyé : samedi 17 juillet 2004 15:22 À : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Objet : Re: Pentax is Dying - Original Message - From: "Otis Wright" Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying > And, when is this supposed to happen? I hear all these promises about > how good its going to be... you know the rest of the > story.. I've heard that there will be wonderful things announced, though not necessarily shown, at the Ulan Bator show. WW
Re: Pentax is Dying?
Well Gringo, given that nobody knows anything about it you make some big statements. My point about flexibility related to the Hasselblad and Mamiya systems ability to take film and digital backs. Antonio On 17 Jul 2004, at 18:43, El Gringo wrote: Antonio... It's more felxible because it's a fully self contained system. Digital backs largely require external power sources, and the ones that don't are huge and cumbersome. Yes the Pentax system will be quite unique, and very flexible in that it will allow MF field photography. -el gringo -Original Message- From: Antonio Aparicio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 7:30 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying? Unique? What about the Hasselblad H1 - isn't that a 645 that will take both film and digital backs? Or the Mamiya 645? I guess if the rumored new digital Pentax 645 is a dedicated digital body then that will be kinda of unique, although not as flexible or indeed desirable as the other systems on the market. Antonio On 17 Jul 2004, at 07:03, El Gringo wrote: Pentax will have 3 DSLR's including a unique in the world of photography FF medium format digital camera based on the well loved 645 camera system.
RE: Pentax is Dying?
I already know all about the Hasselblad and Mamiya systems ability to take both, I used a Mamiya RB67 in college (it was a friend of mines), though I wasn't a photography major. My friend worked as an assistant to a pro photographer and she got me hired to do some computer work for them, while I was there she showed me some of the cool equipment they had, including a big MF setup with a digital back. What struck me about it was the cord running from the digital back to the outlet in the wall. Not exactly the best camera to take in the mountains... And Antonio, people do know things about it, for one, it's supposed to be out in early 2005. For another, the things I've said are straight from the mouth of an executive at Pentax. -el gringo -Original Message- From: Antonio Aparicio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 11:50 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying? Well Gringo, given that nobody knows anything about it you make some big statements. My point about flexibility related to the Hasselblad and Mamiya systems ability to take film and digital backs. Antonio On 17 Jul 2004, at 18:43, El Gringo wrote: > Antonio... It's more felxible because it's a fully self contained > system. > Digital backs largely require external power sources, and the ones that > don't are huge and cumbersome. Yes the Pentax system will be quite > unique, > and very flexible in that it will allow MF field photography. > > -el gringo > > -Original Message- > From: Antonio Aparicio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 7:30 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying? > > > Unique? What about the Hasselblad H1 - isn't that a 645 that will take > both film and digital backs? Or the Mamiya 645? I guess if the rumored > new digital Pentax 645 is a dedicated digital body then that will be > kinda of unique, although not as flexible or indeed desirable as the > other systems on the market. > > Antonio > > > On 17 Jul 2004, at 07:03, El Gringo wrote: > >> Pentax will have 3 DSLR's including a >> unique in the world of photography FF medium format digital camera >> based on >> the well loved 645 camera system. >> >
Re: Pentax is Dying
- Original Message - From: "Thibouille" Subject: RE: Pentax is Dying > Do you know when this show does take place ? I think the next one is April 1st, 2014 It's a joke. William Robb > > - Original Message - > From: "Otis Wright" > Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying > > > > And, when is this supposed to happen? I hear all these promises > about > > how good its going to be... you know the rest of the > > story.. > > I've heard that there will be wonderful things announced, though not > necessarily shown, at the Ulan Bator show. > > WW > > > > > >
Re: Pentax is Dying?
Not being inmate with the finances of Leica and Co. cant comment on whether they could have afforded to produce their own digital backs - sounds like they must really be in the financial doldrums if true. Personally it is a solution I like (apart from the cable). Lets hope that the 645 DSLR at least supports the old lenses and that this isnt an afterthought like on the ist. A. On 17 Jul 2004, at 21:58, Pål Jensen wrote: Antonio wrote: Unique? What about the Hasselblad H1 - isn't that a 645 that will take both film and digital backs? Or the Mamiya 645? I wonder The only reason digital back solutions exist (yeah. I know some think its a good idea but still...) is that the manufacturers cannot afford developing a dedicated digital body. It is no coincidence that Leica is the first (and only?) to develp a digital back for a 35mm system camera. They cannot afford developing a DSLR either. Neither Leca SLR's or MF cameras sell in large enough quantities.What these companies does is at best slightly modifying existing cameras and let somebody else develop the digital solution. This, I believe, is the reason why Pentax so far have said no to those who want to develop and sell digital backs for their MF system. I think Pentax will develop it themselves. Digital back is one of those things that seems like a good idea in theory but upon further thinking is seems like a solution answering question nobody asked. You end up with a hybrid thats going to be more expensive and not doing things as well as dedicated solutions. After all, most people buy digital in order not to use film. Those who do want to use film already own a film body (which apparently is worthless anyway on the used market) and the digital back cost as much, if not more, than a comparable DSLR. I mean, how many owners of the *istD wish that they could put a roll of film in it as well? I guess if the rumored new digital Pentax 645 is a dedicated digital body then that will be kinda of unique, although not as flexible or indeed desirable as the other systems on the market. If Pentax base a MF DSLR upon the back solution for existing models then they are definitely choosing a cheap solution. The real possibility for Pentax is to design a DSLR from ground up that take MF lenses (say 645 system lenses). If you remove the film transport from the 645, you not only free lots of space but also remove abot 35% of the cameras depth occupied by the film path, no longer needed. The box shape is rather pointless without a film transport. In short, a Pentax "MF" DSLR could be completely simlar to, say, the *ist D but with a larger mirror box and prism. This camera could in fact be made smaller than a Canon D10. Whats more, savings in developing cost could be tremendous as all their DSLR's could share camera electronics including metering, AF system etc, and basically be the same camera with various built quality and sensor size. If Pentax could make, say, a 22Mpix DSLR with Pentax 645 mount at a size smaller than Nikon and Canon mid level DSLR, it would be! a bomb. It is perfectly possible. Remember too that Pentax 645 lenses are smaller than Canon L-lenses. Pål
Re: Pentax is Dying
The next installments of DSLR's from Pentax is perhaps the "real" thing developed to sell in quantities. It is possible considered Pentax used to be slow to upgrade their cameras. K series, (the 1st bayonet K mount system), MX (fully mechanical high end body when everyone was doing electronics), A series (program mode) were all one step behind the competition when they were introduced. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN Premium http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: Pentax is Dying?
On 17/7/04, Jens Bladt, discombobulated, offered: >What's a Cotty? Did he convert to Canonism? Fraid so. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: Pentax is Dying
Hi, >> >> I've heard that there will be wonderful things announced, though not >> necessarily shown, at the Ulan Bator show. > Mongolia? Is this a first? Sounds liike it might be... Pentax announce hordes of new products there. The local people have a real 'khan do' attitude. I'm hoping to make it to next year's show. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: Pentax is Dying
like i said in other posts, what they say, what they promised last year, and what they are doing, seem to be three different things. Herb... - Original Message - From: "Otis Wright" <"rusty."@att.net> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 1:40 AM Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying > And, when is this supposed to happen? I hear all these promises about > how good its going to be... you know the rest of the > story.. > > Otis Wright > > Herb Chong wrote: > > >that's not what they are telling shareholders in Japan. they are saying that > >moving to high end P&S and DSLRs are where they hope to boost total market > >share.
Re: Pentax is Dying
i'm giving them until October to promise a high end DSLR body and a couple of lenses of FA* quality with DA features. if not then, i can't wait and continue to lose photos that i haven't been able to get purely because of hardware limitations. Herb - Original Message - From: "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 8:08 AM Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying > I think the *ist D main purpose is to provide Pentax with a DSLR (like the MD-S function) and thereby signalize to the market that the company will be a DSLR manufacturer and that the K-SLR line will continue into digital. Also providing the loyal Pentax users with a DSLR. > The next installments of DSLR's from Pentax is perhaps the "real" thing developed to sell in quantities.
Re: Pentax is Dying
the baby D is so far the only concrete move in that direction that has been formally announced. Herb... - Original Message - From: "Steve Desjardins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 9:19 AM Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying > This could mean the Baby D. Pentax also needs EVF camera like the Nikon 5700 or 8700. > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/16/04 10:37PM >>> > that's not what they are telling shareholders in Japan. they are saying that > moving to high end P&S and DSLRs are where they hope to boost total market > share.
RE: Pentax is Dying?
You're so negative Rob, why is that?? It's scheduled for early 2005, not exactly that far off now is it? A couple other posters provided some interesting ideas as to what Pentax might actually be making. People want a "pro" solution, Pentax discusses said solution, and then people like you complain, and complain. My prediction is that neither Nikon or Canon will come out with a full frame MF format digital camera body unless Pentax has some serious success with theirs. So you can count them out of contention for now. As for the other companies, I don't think they can compete with Pentax. The only MF camera that is interesting to me at all outside of Pentax's offerings is the Mamiya 7. If there was a digital version of that camera with a digital viewfinder I would sell all my camera equipment in a heartbeat and buy that. Two things keep people from buying the 7 though, MF rolls are too cumbersome for action photography, and the viewfinder is not convenient at all. In fact, I simply don't do the type of shooting where I can afford to not have a TTL viewfinder. The 645 digital on the other hand has massive potential. It could be made smaller than it is, more in the range of a large 35mm, it could burst faster than any film MF camera, and it has a real viewfinder, unlike the Mamiya 7. Not to mention that it has a nice range of high quality Pentax 645 lenses. This could be THE camera to own if Pentax pulls out all the stops. It's sad that Pentax gave up their 35mm dominance, but, I think it gives them a small advantage now. If they can convince people that 35mm is more for amateurs or specialized pros, and that newer, dedicated MF digital cameras are the choice for any pros whose major concern is image quality and then respectable portability, they will be sitting in a winning position, with very little investment in a dying market, i.e. the 35mm market. While the major 35mm competitors will be left with a shrinking market, and a huge investment in that market. Now, I'm not saying the 35mm market is dying, or going to die, but I think it's looking a bit more and more out of place... The increasing quality and affordability of digital P&S cameras are attacking from the low end, and the increasing affordability, and decreasing size of MF digitals will be attacking it from the high-end. People talk about FF sensors having advantages, well, what about MF sensors?? Wouldn't every 35mm shooter love to have MF quality with the same features and portability of 35mm systems?? I would. And that could happen with Pentax's new 645 digital... I'm reminded by captain Kirk's quote in the first Star Trek movie: "If you can't win a game by the rules, change the rules of the game." Or something to that effect. Basically, Pentax would have a heck of a time beating Nikon and Canon in 35mm, so what do you do?? You don't beat them at 35mm, you beat them where they have no presence. MF. Think about it, it works, it could be big. IF sensors just get bigger and cheaper as the years go by, why stop at 35mm?? MF could be the future of pro and serious amateur photography. There will always be a place for portable systems, but for those who want the UTMOST quality, MF is the promised land. -el gringo -Original Message- From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 7:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Pentax is Dying? On 17 Jul 2004 at 12:08, El Gringo wrote: > And Antonio, people do know things about it, for one, it's supposed to be > out in early 2005. For another, the things I've said are straight from the > mouth of an executive at Pentax. This bothers me greatly. Sure it would be nice to have a full frame MF digi- solution but the whole concept strikes me as a severe misapplication of funds/development considering how badly their K-format kit is dragging its knuckles. Let alone the fact that by the time Pentax actually delivers such an MF-digi product to market everyone else in contention will already have products to market, we've seen it all before. 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: Pentax is Dying?
It wont happen. What you guys forget, is that film is limited by chemistry, digital sensors are limited by the technology itself, which is ever advancing. In 5 years the question of putting film in a digital camera will be like putting diesel fuel in the space shuttle, a serious waste of powerful hardware. -el gringo -Original Message- From: David Miers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 8:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Pentax is Dying? I mean, how many owners of the *istD wish that they could > put a roll of film in it as well? > I don't own one, but to tell the truth that would be attractive to me. Film still has better exposure latitude and/or film cameras seem to have more accurate metering or something. There's certainly been enough comments on this list to prove that issue exists. If I ran across a half to have shot with tricky lighting or needed to use flash, that's exactly what I would do, put a roll of film in a digital camera if I could figure out how! and the accurate film metering still existed. When I eventually get a DSLR I still anticipate carrying a film kit too. Time will tell. Dave
Re: Pentax is Dying?
Boy, do I have news for you. -- El Gringo wrote: will be like putting diesel fuel in the space shuttle, a serious waste of powerful hardware. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: Pentax is Dying
On 17/7/04, Herb Chong, discombobulated, offered: >i'm giving them until October to promise a high end DSLR body and a couple >of lenses of FA* quality with DA features. if not then, i can't wait and >continue to lose photos that i haven't been able to get purely because of >hardware limitations. > >Herb Ain't gonna happen Herb. I reckon the best you can hope for is the *ist D 2. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: Pentax is Dying
well, let's just say that i'm not optomistic either. Herb - Original Message - From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "pentax list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 6:23 AM Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying > Ain't gonna happen Herb. I reckon the best you can hope for is the *ist D 2.
RE: Pentax is Dying?
Sorry, Thats bullshit. What you get from a digital P&S camera easily exceeds low end 35mm systems using the cheap Kodak film you buy at Walgreen's... The high-end APS systems, such as the istD, are better than color film period. My father has been an amateur for many years and when he saw the first istD images he said it was clearly better than film, and it is as long you play to its strengths, but, in the future you won't even have to do that. Also, digital sensors are limited by physics, but there may be a day when there is a sensor for every photon of light. It's theoretically possible... Science has already said a single electron transistor is possible... That kind of fine detail is beyond what chemistry could ever hope for and is infinite to the human eye... Heck, sensors could be made to resolve so finely that you need a microscope to see the resolution limit... Eventually sensors will resolve beyond the power of the lenses, and new lenses will be designed. The point is, technology is unstoppable right now, it's progression is inexorable, film stopped progressing a long time ago on the other hand... The chemicals are still toxic, still clumsy, still the same as always. When was the last true "revolution" in film quality?? A hundred years ago?? When did the resolution limit of 35mm last get bumped up significantly?? Decades ago?? What about digital?? A few months ago, and not only was the resolution increased, but the noise levels were reduced, the color was improved, the speed of capture was improved, everything got a little better. And a few months from now, it will happen again, and again, and again, and again... Maybe a thousand years from now, science will invent a gravity generator, then a portable gravity generator, then tiny gravity generators and anti-gravity generators, then maybe cameras in the future will focus with perfectly formed gravity lenses... -el gringo -Original Message- From: Antonio Aparicio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 11:11 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying? Gringo, So film is limited by chemistry and digital sensors are limited by physics. So what? At the end of the day they are just capture mediums, and I have yet to see a digital sensor captures something that film cannot. Plus, as the market currently stands you have to use a hell of a LOT of film to equal the cost of even an APS sized digital sensor that is not its equal in terms of image quality. As to environmental concerns I doubt digital sensor production and disposal/recycling is a cost free exercise either. A. On 18 Jul 2004, at 17:35, George Sinos wrote: > Earlier "El Gringo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> It wont happen. What you guys forget, is that film is limited by >> chemistry, >> digital sensors are limited by the technology itself, which is ever >> advancing. In 5 years the question of putting film in a digital >> camera will >> be like putting diesel fuel in the space shuttle, a serious waste of >> powerful hardware. >> >> -el gringo > > > Chemicals are something most companies would rather not mess with. An > individual photographer may get by with dumping his spent chemicals > down the drain, but any commercial facility will be regulated in some > way or another. > > Proper disposal of waste water and spent chemicals is an expense that > most companies would rather eliminate. > > I'm not arguing that digital is overall environmentally better or > worse. It just gets rid of an expensive problem for a lot of people. > > The chemical problem is just one more side issue that will eventually > hasten the demise of film. > > See you later, gs > >
RE: Pentax is Dying?
Bullshit? You're the one dispensing it. there is one major flaw with your argument, this is NOW not the future and you cannot get affordable digital that equals or exceeds large format film that is available NOW. To say the *istD is "clearly better than film" is silly. Film goes beyond 35mm format. Way, way, way, beyond and the istD cant approch what my $125 4x5 speed graphic can do with film, color or BW, NOW. JCO -Original Message- From: El Gringo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 1:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Pentax is Dying? Sorry, Thats bullshit. What you get from a digital P&S camera easily exceeds low end 35mm systems using the cheap Kodak film you buy at Walgreen's... The high-end APS systems, such as the istD, are better than color film period. My father has been an amateur for many years and when he saw the first istD images he said it was clearly better than film, and it is as long you play to its strengths, but, in the future you won't even have to do that. Also, digital sensors are limited by physics, but there may be a day when there is a sensor for every photon of light. It's theoretically possible... Science has already said a single electron transistor is possible... That kind of fine detail is beyond what chemistry could ever hope for and is infinite to the human eye... Heck, sensors could be made to resolve so finely that you need a microscope to see the resolution limit... Eventually sensors will resolve beyond the power of the lenses, and new lenses will be designed. The point is, technology is unstoppable right now, it's progression is inexorable, film stopped progressing a long time ago on the other hand... The chemicals are still toxic, still clumsy, still the same as always. When was the last true "revolution" in film quality?? A hundred years ago?? When did the resolution limit of 35mm last get bumped up significantly?? Decades ago?? What about digital?? A few months ago, and not only was the resolution increased, but the noise levels were reduced, the color was improved, the speed of capture was improved, everything got a little better. And a few months from now, it will happen again, and again, and again, and again... Maybe a thousand years from now, science will invent a gravity generator, then a portable gravity generator, then tiny gravity generators and anti-gravity generators, then maybe cameras in the future will focus with perfectly formed gravity lenses... -el gringo -Original Message- From: Antonio Aparicio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 11:11 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying? Gringo, So film is limited by chemistry and digital sensors are limited by physics. So what? At the end of the day they are just capture mediums, and I have yet to see a digital sensor captures something that film cannot. Plus, as the market currently stands you have to use a hell of a LOT of film to equal the cost of even an APS sized digital sensor that is not its equal in terms of image quality. As to environmental concerns I doubt digital sensor production and disposal/recycling is a cost free exercise either. A. On 18 Jul 2004, at 17:35, George Sinos wrote: > Earlier "El Gringo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> It wont happen. What you guys forget, is that film is limited by >> chemistry, digital sensors are limited by the technology itself, >> which is ever advancing. In 5 years the question of putting film in >> a digital camera will >> be like putting diesel fuel in the space shuttle, a serious waste of >> powerful hardware. >> >> -el gringo > > > Chemicals are something most companies would rather not mess with. An > individual photographer may get by with dumping his spent chemicals > down the drain, but any commercial facility will be regulated in some > way or another. > > Proper disposal of waste water and spent chemicals is an expense that > most companies would rather eliminate. > > I'm not arguing that digital is overall environmentally better or > worse. It just gets rid of an expensive problem for a lot of people. > > The chemical problem is just one more side issue that will eventually > hasten the demise of film. > > See you later, gs > >
Re: Pentax is Dying?
Perhaps but I wasnt talking low end 35mm systems. I was talking 35mm SLR vs digital APS SLR. Pentax *ist Film vs Pentax *istD, for arguments sake each with the same glass. A. On 18 Jul 2004, at 19:39, El Gringo wrote: Sorry, Thats bullshit. What you get from a digital P&S camera easily exceeds low end 35mm systems using the cheap Kodak film you buy at Walgreen's...
Re: Pentax is Dying?
Thats right - and I would say that 35mm film shot with a half decent camera and lens is still better quality wise than a digital SLR such as the *ist. Not to mention the poor quality of those digital prints. A. On 18 Jul 2004, at 19:50, J. C. O'Connell wrote: Bullshit? You're the one dispensing it. there is one major flaw with your argument, this is NOW not the future and you cannot get affordable digital that equals or exceeds large format film that is available NOW. To say the *istD is "clearly better than film" is silly. Film goes beyond 35mm format. Way, way, way, beyond and the istD cant approch what my $125 4x5 speed graphic can do with film, color or BW, NOW. JCO -Original Message- From: El Gringo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 1:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Pentax is Dying? Sorry, Thats bullshit. What you get from a digital P&S camera easily exceeds low end 35mm systems using the cheap Kodak film you buy at Walgreen's... The high-end APS systems, such as the istD, are better than color film period. My father has been an amateur for many years and when he saw the first istD images he said it was clearly better than film, and it is as long you play to its strengths, but, in the future you won't even have to do that. Also, digital sensors are limited by physics, but there may be a day when there is a sensor for every photon of light. It's theoretically possible... Science has already said a single electron transistor is possible... That kind of fine detail is beyond what chemistry could ever hope for and is infinite to the human eye... Heck, sensors could be made to resolve so finely that you need a microscope to see the resolution limit... Eventually sensors will resolve beyond the power of the lenses, and new lenses will be designed. The point is, technology is unstoppable right now, it's progression is inexorable, film stopped progressing a long time ago on the other hand... The chemicals are still toxic, still clumsy, still the same as always. When was the last true "revolution" in film quality?? A hundred years ago?? When did the resolution limit of 35mm last get bumped up significantly?? Decades ago?? What about digital?? A few months ago, and not only was the resolution increased, but the noise levels were reduced, the color was improved, the speed of capture was improved, everything got a little better. And a few months from now, it will happen again, and again, and again, and again... Maybe a thousand years from now, science will invent a gravity generator, then a portable gravity generator, then tiny gravity generators and anti-gravity generators, then maybe cameras in the future will focus with perfectly formed gravity lenses... -el gringo -Original Message- From: Antonio Aparicio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 11:11 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying? Gringo, So film is limited by chemistry and digital sensors are limited by physics. So what? At the end of the day they are just capture mediums, and I have yet to see a digital sensor captures something that film cannot. Plus, as the market currently stands you have to use a hell of a LOT of film to equal the cost of even an APS sized digital sensor that is not its equal in terms of image quality. As to environmental concerns I doubt digital sensor production and disposal/recycling is a cost free exercise either. A. On 18 Jul 2004, at 17:35, George Sinos wrote: Earlier "El Gringo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It wont happen. What you guys forget, is that film is limited by chemistry, digital sensors are limited by the technology itself, which is ever advancing. In 5 years the question of putting film in a digital camera will be like putting diesel fuel in the space shuttle, a serious waste of powerful hardware. -el gringo Chemicals are something most companies would rather not mess with. An individual photographer may get by with dumping his spent chemicals down the drain, but any commercial facility will be regulated in some way or another. Proper disposal of waste water and spent chemicals is an expense that most companies would rather eliminate. I'm not arguing that digital is overall environmentally better or worse. It just gets rid of an expensive problem for a lot of people. The chemical problem is just one more side issue that will eventually hasten the demise of film. See you later, gs
Re: Pentax is Dying?
And maybee pigs will fly. A. On 18 Jul 2004, at 19:39, El Gringo wrote: Maybe a thousand years from now, science will invent a gravity generator, then a portable gravity generator, then tiny gravity generators and anti-gravity generators, then maybe cameras in the future will focus with perfectly formed gravity lenses...
RE: Pentax is Dying?
El Gringo wrote: The 645 digital on the other hand has massive potential. It could be made smaller than it is, more in the range of a large 35mm, it could burst faster than any film MF camera, and it has a real viewfinder, unlike the Mamiya 7. Not to mention that it has a nice range of high quality Pentax 645 lenses. This could be THE camera to own if Pentax pulls out all the stops. REPLY: Exactly! Provided that Pentax have any future in mind for their MF system(s) this is the natural path to take. Mind you, Pentax have previously shown interest in the high-end DSLR market with the MD-S. This camera was mainly intended for their pro MF user base who could use their lenses on a K-mount slr. At that time a wholly MF bases DSLR wasn't viable (nor the MD-S apparently). I don't think Pentax have changed their basic policy since. El Gringo: There will always be a place for portable systems, but for those who want the UTMOST quality, MF is the promised land. REPLY: Lets not forget that the Pentax 645 system IS portable. In fact it weights no more than comparable Nikon/Canon high-end slr systems. The 645 is down right small compared to EOS-1Ds or similar! I'm sure Pentax will make a 645 DSLR even smaller. Pål
Re: Pentax is Dying?
Have you seen the new (?) Mamiya 7 II? Popular Photography July 2004 adv., page 7. I have not yet compared to the model 7 (basic) but it does seem comparatively small for a 6x7 cm camera... They must be very expensive, as I can't find a hint of a price on their web site. keith whaley Pål Jensen wrote: El Gringo wrote: The 645 digital on the other hand has massive potential. It could be made smaller than it is, more in the range of a large 35mm, it could burst faster than any film MF camera, and it has a real viewfinder, unlike the Mamiya 7. Not to mention that it has a nice range of high quality Pentax 645 lenses. This could be THE camera to own if Pentax pulls out all the stops. REPLY: Exactly! Provided that Pentax have any future in mind for their MF system(s) this is the natural path to take. Mind you, Pentax have previously shown interest in the high-end DSLR market with the MD-S. This camera was mainly intended for their pro MF user base who could use their lenses on a K-mount slr. At that time a wholly MF bases DSLR wasn't viable (nor the MD-S apparently). I don't think Pentax have changed their basic policy since. El Gringo: There will always be a place for portable systems, but for those who want the UTMOST quality, MF is the promised land. REPLY: Lets not forget that the Pentax 645 system IS portable. In fact it weights no more than comparable Nikon/Canon high-end slr systems. The 645 is down right small compared to EOS-1Ds or similar! I'm sure Pentax will make a 645 DSLR even smaller. Pål I'm waiting, Pentax... keith
Re: Pentax is Dying?
> > Antonio wrote: > > >Not to mention the poor quality of those digital prints. > > Here I must disagree. A properly printed digital print is equal in quality > to an average film print, up to 8x10 at least. Above 8x10 and for severe > crops I'll agree with you. Our Frontier 375 minilab does a surprisingly > good job on Fuji Crystal Archive paper. > > Bill A few years ago many of the best 16x20 and 20x30 prints were digitally produced on a lighjet printer (205ppi R/G/B lasers on photographic paper). I don't know what the current state of the art is, but I'd expect there to be something even better by now.
Re: Pentax is Dying?
The Mamiya 7II is the current model, the 7 was replaced by it about 3-4 years ago. A 6x7 range finder camera with fabulous (by all reports) lenses. Yes it is expensive, ridiculously so in the US, but many people think the image quality is worth the money. Some think of it as a decendant of the Mamiya Press, but I would call it more of a direct decendant of the Simon Omega Rapid, Koni-Omega, Rapid Omega 100 (made by Mamiya) line of cameras. As for a real viewfinder..? Some think the 7II has the best viewfinder/rangefinder ever made, even better the the Leica M series. IIRC Rob Studdert uses these cameras. Have you replaced them with digital yet, Rob? -- Keith Whaley wrote: Have you seen the new (?) Mamiya 7 II? Popular Photography July 2004 adv., page 7. I have not yet compared to the model 7 (basic) but it does seem comparatively small for a 6x7 cm camera... They must be very expensive, as I can't find a hint of a price on their web site. keith whaley Pål Jensen wrote: El Gringo wrote: The 645 digital on the other hand has massive potential. It could be made smaller than it is, more in the range of a large 35mm, it could burst faster than any film MF camera, and it has a real viewfinder, unlike the Mamiya 7. Not to mention that it has a nice range of high quality Pentax 645 lenses. This could be THE camera to own if Pentax pulls out all the stops. REPLY: Exactly! Provided that Pentax have any future in mind for their MF system(s) this is the natural path to take. Mind you, Pentax have previously shown interest in the high-end DSLR market with the MD-S. This camera was mainly intended for their pro MF user base who could use their lenses on a K-mount slr. At that time a wholly MF bases DSLR wasn't viable (nor the MD-S apparently). I don't think Pentax have changed their basic policy since. El Gringo: There will always be a place for portable systems, but for those who want the UTMOST quality, MF is the promised land. REPLY: Lets not forget that the Pentax 645 system IS portable. In fact it weights no more than comparable Nikon/Canon high-end slr systems. The 645 is down right small compared to EOS-1Ds or similar! I'm sure Pentax will make a 645 DSLR even smaller. Pål I'm waiting, Pentax... keith -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
RE: Pentax is Dying?
In my experience most Inkjets are great for color, poor for black and white. There may be some exceptions but I have never seen a BW inkjet print that looks as good as a good wet one. Not true for color, the best inkjets I have seen look BETTER than the best wet ones I have seen... JCO -Original Message- From: John Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 3:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying? > > Antonio wrote: > > >Not to mention the poor quality of those digital prints. > > Here I must disagree. A properly printed digital print is equal in > quality to an average film print, up to 8x10 at least. Above 8x10 and > for severe crops I'll agree with you. Our Frontier 375 minilab does a > surprisingly good job on Fuji Crystal Archive paper. > > Bill A few years ago many of the best 16x20 and 20x30 prints were digitally produced on a lighjet printer (205ppi R/G/B lasers on photographic paper). I don't know what the current state of the art is, but I'd expect there to be something even better by now.
Re: Pentax is Dying?
I think the 7 is a follow on from the Mamiya 6 actually. Antonio On 18 Jul 2004, at 21:19, graywolf wrote: Some think of it as a decendant of the Mamiya Press, but I would call it more of a direct decendant of the Simon Omega Rapid, Koni-Omega, Rapid Omega 100 (made by Mamiya) line of cameras.
Re: Pentax is Dying?
Hi, El Gringo wrote: do that. Also, digital sensors are limited by physics, but there may be a day when there is a sensor for every photon of light. I'm not sure you are saying what you mean. up significantly?? Decades ago?? What about digital?? A few months ago, and not only was the resolution increased, but the noise levels were reduced, the color was improved, the speed of capture was improved, everything got a little better. And a few months from now, it will happen again, and again, and again, and again... So, if I don't _need_ one, why should I buy one now if a better one will come along next month? That would be a remarkably stupid action by your predictions. Except, if I and many others don't, what you prophesy will not come to pass. I managed to destroy APS and disc film cameras. Never bought one of those and look what happened. Digital could be doomed.. Ned Ludd
Re: Pentax is Dying?
I stand corrected. Not having seen one of the prints you refer to i was guided by poor quality stuff you get on the high-street. Obviously there is more to it than that. A. On 18 Jul 2004, at 20:08, Bill Owens wrote: Antonio wrote: Not to mention the poor quality of those digital prints. Here I must disagree. A properly printed digital print is equal in quality to an average film print, up to 8x10 at least. Above 8x10 and for severe crops I'll agree with you. Our Frontier 375 minilab does a surprisingly good job on Fuji Crystal Archive paper. Bill
Re: Pentax is Dying?
LOL! mike wilson wrote: So, if I don't _need_ one, why should I buy one now if a better one will come along next month? That would be a remarkably stupid action by your predictions. Except, if I and many others don't, what you prophesy will not come to pass. I managed to destroy APS and disc film cameras. Never bought one of those and look what happened. Digital could be doomed.. Ned Ludd -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: Pentax is Dying?
Hi, Sunday, July 18, 2004, 9:33:52 PM, Antonio wrote: > I stand corrected. Not having seen one of the prints you refer to i was > guided by poor quality stuff you get on the high-street. Obviously > there is more to it than that. You should pay attention at exhibitions. There are some fantastically good digital prints out there. Next time you're in London have a look at eyestorm on Maddox Street, W1 (just off Regent's St. by Oxford Circus). http://www.eyestorm.com/artists/photography.aspx -- Cheers, Bob
RE: Pentax is Dying?
How was your flight?? I only wrote that to have a little fun, glad to see the idea of a little fun is totally lost on you. *Keep hanging on to your film you backwards fools, the rest of us are moving forward.* -el gringo -Original Message- From: Antonio Aparicio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 1:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying? And maybee pigs will fly. A. On 18 Jul 2004, at 19:39, El Gringo wrote: > Maybe a thousand years from now, > science will invent a gravity generator, then a portable gravity > generator, > then tiny gravity generators and anti-gravity generators, then maybe > cameras > in the future will focus with perfectly formed gravity lenses...
Re: Pentax is Dying?
Hi, > Digital could be doomed.. Absolutely! I mean, the best they've been able to come up with so far is the one on Hubble, and that can't resolve anything smaller than a galaxy. Crap! -- Cheers, Bob
RE: Pentax is Dying?
Thats like saying the typewriter is going to make a comeback against MS Word. I mean, MS word could be doomed, it really could be, probably not, but it could be. -el gringo -Original Message- From: mike wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 3:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying? Hi, El Gringo wrote: > do that. Also, digital sensors are limited by physics, but there may be a > day when there is a sensor for every photon of light. I'm not sure you are saying what you mean. up significantly?? Decades ago?? What about digital?? A few months ago, > and not only was the resolution increased, but the noise levels were > reduced, the color was improved, the speed of capture was improved, > everything got a little better. And a few months from now, it will happen > again, and again, and again, and again... So, if I don't _need_ one, why should I buy one now if a better one will come along next month? That would be a remarkably stupid action by your predictions. Except, if I and many others don't, what you prophesy will not come to pass. I managed to destroy APS and disc film cameras. Never bought one of those and look what happened. Digital could be doomed.. Ned Ludd
RE: Pentax is Dying?
For the application Rob, it might be a great viewfinder... 35mm cameras I'm sure you know, have as part of their convenience factor the TTL viewfinder. Something I appreciate more than anything. The beautiful thing is, you can have your cake and eat it to with digital... You don't need a mirror to do TTL view finding with digital quite obviously... Thats my point really, I would love to see a Mamiya 7 III with a 14+ MP sensor. -el gringo -Original Message- From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 2:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying? The Mamiya 7II is the current model, the 7 was replaced by it about 3-4 years ago. A 6x7 range finder camera with fabulous (by all reports) lenses. Yes it is expensive, ridiculously so in the US, but many people think the image quality is worth the money. Some think of it as a decendant of the Mamiya Press, but I would call it more of a direct decendant of the Simon Omega Rapid, Koni-Omega, Rapid Omega 100 (made by Mamiya) line of cameras. As for a real viewfinder..? Some think the 7II has the best viewfinder/rangefinder ever made, even better the the Leica M series. IIRC Rob Studdert uses these cameras. Have you replaced them with digital yet, Rob? -- Keith Whaley wrote: > Have you seen the new (?) Mamiya 7 II? Popular Photography July 2004 > adv., page 7. > I have not yet compared to the model 7 (basic) but it does seem > comparatively small for a 6x7 cm camera... > They must be very expensive, as I can't find a hint of a price on their > web site. > > keith whaley > > Pål Jensen wrote: > >> El Gringo wrote: >> >> The 645 digital on the other hand >> has massive potential. It could be made smaller than it is, more in the >> range of a large 35mm, it could burst faster than any film MF camera, >> and it >> has a real viewfinder, unlike the Mamiya 7. Not to mention that it has a >> nice range of high quality Pentax 645 lenses. This could be THE >> camera to >> own if Pentax pulls out all the stops. > > >> REPLY: >> >> Exactly! Provided that Pentax have any future in mind for their MF >> system(s) > > this is the natural path to take. Mind you, Pentax have previously shown > interest > in the high-end DSLR market with the MD-S. This camera was mainly intended > for their pro MF user base who could use their lenses on a K-mount slr. > At that > time a wholly MF bases DSLR wasn't viable (nor the MD-S apparently). I > don't > think Pentax have changed their basic policy since. > >> El Gringo: >> >> There will always be a place for portable systems, but for >> those who want the UTMOST quality, MF is the promised land. > > >> REPLY: >> >> Lets not forget that the Pentax 645 system IS portable. In fact > > it weights no more than comparable Nikon/Canon high-end slr > systems. The 645 is down right small compared to EOS-1Ds or > similar! I'm sure Pentax will make a 645 DSLR even smaller. > >> >> >> Pål > > > I'm waiting, Pentax... > > keith > > -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: Pentax is Dying?
Will do, living in small village surrounded by the sea on one side and by desert on the other on the south-eastern spanish coast its not that easy to do - but will watch out for the prints next time I am at one in London. A. On 18 Jul 2004, at 23:29, Bob W wrote: Hi, Sunday, July 18, 2004, 9:33:52 PM, Antonio wrote: I stand corrected. Not having seen one of the prints you refer to i was guided by poor quality stuff you get on the high-street. Obviously there is more to it than that. You should pay attention at exhibitions. There are some fantastically good digital prints out there. Next time you're in London have a look at eyestorm on Maddox Street, W1 (just off Regent's St. by Oxford Circus). http://www.eyestorm.com/artists/photography.aspx -- Cheers, Bob
Re: Pentax is Dying?
Ah, but isn't the Galaxy doomed? A. On 18 Jul 2004, at 23:53, Bob W wrote: Hi, Digital could be doomed.. Absolutely! I mean, the best they've been able to come up with so far is the one on Hubble, and that can't resolve anything smaller than a galaxy. Crap! -- Cheers, Bob
Re: Pentax is Dying?
Funny enough I end up feeling like some stacked livestock every time I fly lately! A. On 18 Jul 2004, at 23:48, El Gringo wrote: How was your flight?? I only wrote that to have a little fun, glad to see the idea of a little fun is totally lost on you. *Keep hanging on to your film you backwards fools, the rest of us are moving forward.* -el gringo -Original Message- From: Antonio Aparicio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 1:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying? And maybee pigs will fly. A. On 18 Jul 2004, at 19:39, El Gringo wrote: Maybe a thousand years from now, science will invent a gravity generator, then a portable gravity generator, then tiny gravity generators and anti-gravity generators, then maybe cameras in the future will focus with perfectly formed gravity lenses...
RE: Pentax is Dying?
Lets not forget that the Pentax 645 system IS portable. In fact it weights no more than comparable Nikon/Canon high-end slr systems. The 645 is down right small compared to EOS-1Ds or similar! I'm sure Pentax will make a 645 DSLR even smaller. Without the film transport mechanisms, it is quite possible. Don't know how they will deal with the power supply though. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan _ Free yourself from those irritating pop-up ads with MSn Premium. Get 2months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
RE: Pentax is Dying?
By then time viewers will have been invented so there won't be a need for photographs as you can just set your picture frame to show any scene from any viewpoint at any time. Nick -Original Message- On 18 Jul 2004, at 19:39, El Gringo wrote: > Maybe a thousand years from now, > science will invent a gravity generator, then a portable gravity > generator, > then tiny gravity generators and anti-gravity generators, then maybe > cameras > in the future will focus with perfectly formed gravity lenses...
Re: Pentax is Dying?
Hah! The same way they dealt with power supply issues with the *ist Dlet the owners worry about it! Many other DSLR's come with rechargeable batteries (or they are at least available for them), but not the *ist D. This is a major let down IMHO. The ability to use of AA's is great, but not so great when you need half a dozen sets of batteries to keep the thing going. There's another thread on this very topic I started yesterday regarrding possible alternative methods of powering the *ist D. Cheers Shaun Alan Chan wrote: Lets not forget that the Pentax 645 system IS portable. In fact it weights no more than comparable Nikon/Canon high-end slr systems. The 645 is down right small compared to EOS-1Ds or similar! I'm sure Pentax will make a 645 DSLR even smaller. Without the film transport mechanisms, it is quite possible. Don't know how they will deal with the power supply though. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan _ Free yourself from those irritating pop-up ads with MSn Premium. Get 2months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines -- _ Dr. Shaun Canning P.O. Box 21, Dampier, WA, 6714, Australia. m: 0414 967644 http://www.heritageservices.com.au [EMAIL PROTECTED] _
Re: Pentax is Dying?
Hi, I just logged on to the list earlier today and this is my first message. Can you explain what a wet mount is, why or how it is better than the standard setup, and how you go about making such a modification. I've an LS-9000 on order, and based on results I've gotten with a Tango drum scanner (which uses some sort of liquid for the mounting based on what I've been told), this sounds very interesting. By the way, just to jump into the digital versus film discussion, I use both in my studio and outdoor work. I do not see one as inherently better than the other. Jerry Todd Dancing Frog Studios Calaveras, California From: Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I want to set up my LS-8000 with a wet mount as > I'm not extracting near the potential in the films > with dry mount holders.
Re: Pentax is Dying?
On 18 Jul 2004 at 20:24, Jerry Todd wrote: > Hi, > > I just logged on to the list earlier today and this is my first message. > Can you explain what a wet mount is, why or how it is better than the > standard setup, and how you go about making such a modification. Hi Jerry, Wet mounting isn't a manufacturers option, it's only available through third party vendors. Wet mounting eliminates interference patterns where the film touches the glass, reduces the visibility of scratches, ensures that the film remains flat over its entire surface and softens the grain slightly. See: http://www.d-65.com/downloads/scanner.html You might consider subscribing to [EMAIL PROTECTED] if you wish to discuss these issues with users. Cheers, 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: Pentax is Dying?
OMG, Rob, did you just say something *positive* about the *istD?!!? Or was I just hallucinating? Maybe I've been eating too many choc chip cookies... (I've been on a bit of a baking binge the last few days...) *GASP* Could it be, that Mr Studdert is starting to *like* his *istD?!? ;-) tan. -Original Message- From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, 19 July 2004 10:15 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying? On 19 Jul 2004 at 6:40, Dr. Shaun Canning wrote: > Hah! The same way they dealt with power supply issues with the *ist > Dlet the owners worry about it! Many other DSLR's come with > rechargeable batteries (or they are at least available for them), but > not the *ist D. This is a major let down IMHO. The ability to use of > AA's is great, but not so great when you need half a dozen sets of > batteries to keep the thing going. It must be the way you shoot as I don't get though batteries very fast at all. My old E-10 used to gobble them up at about 5x the rate that the *ist D does so when I my first set in the *ist D kept going and going I was truly amazed. I am so glad that the *ist D doesn't rely on some proprietary Li-ion technology. My X-Drive does and it's a real pain, it it only used AA cells. 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: Pentax is Dying?
RCR-V3's. It's the best way possible to run the istD. Only problem with them is, I haven't seen any RCR-V3 battery chargers that can charge more than one at a time With the battery grip attached a guy needs for of the suckers so it would be nice to have a charger that can at least do 2 at a time. -el gringo -Original Message- From: Dr. Shaun Canning [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 5:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying? Hah! The same way they dealt with power supply issues with the *ist Dlet the owners worry about it! Many other DSLR's come with rechargeable batteries (or they are at least available for them), but not the *ist D. This is a major let down IMHO. The ability to use of AA's is great, but not so great when you need half a dozen sets of batteries to keep the thing going. There's another thread on this very topic I started yesterday regarrding possible alternative methods of powering the *ist D. Cheers Shaun Alan Chan wrote: >> Lets not forget that the Pentax 645 system IS portable. In fact it >> weights no more than comparable Nikon/Canon high-end slr systems. The >> 645 is down right small compared to EOS-1Ds or similar! I'm sure >> Pentax will make a 645 DSLR even smaller. > > > Without the film transport mechanisms, it is quite possible. Don't > know how they will deal with the power supply though. > > Alan Chan > http://www.pbase.com/wlachan > > _ > Free yourself from those irritating pop-up ads with MSn Premium. Get > 2months FREE* > http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=htt p://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines > > > -- _ Dr. Shaun Canning P.O. Box 21, Dampier, WA, 6714, Australia. m: 0414 967644 http://www.heritageservices.com.au [EMAIL PROTECTED] _
RE: Pentax is Dying?
On 19 Jul 2004 at 14:05, Tanya Mayer Photography wrote: > OMG, Rob, did you just say something *positive* about the *istD?!!? Or was I > just hallucinating? Maybe I've been eating too many choc chip cookies... (I've > been on a bit of a baking binge the last few days...) Sort of, in a round-about way. > *GASP* Could it be, that Mr Studdert is starting to *like* his *istD?!? I like the concept and all that's good about digital and that I can now shoot digital with K-mount lenses but I definitely don't think the *ist D represents the pinnacle of DSLR development if you get my drift. 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: Pentax is Dying?
John Francis wrote: A few years ago many of the best 16x20 and 20x30 prints were digitally produced on a lighjet printer (205ppi R/G/B lasers on photographic paper). I remember that. LaserPhoto or something like that, out of Florida. Amazing prints. They had some type of process where they characterized emulsions and compensated (digitally) for their characteristics. Kodachrome came out beautifully, almost life-like. I think they went out of business, can't seem to find them anywhere. rg
Re: Pentax is Dying?
Hmmm...I remember a little ;) company named Wang making the same statement back in the 80's. El Gringo wrote: Thats like saying the typewriter is going to make a comeback against MS Word. I mean, MS word could be doomed, it really could be, probably not, but it could be. -el gringo -Original Message- From: mike wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 3:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying? Hi, El Gringo wrote: do that. Also, digital sensors are limited by physics, but there may be a day when there is a sensor for every photon of light. I'm not sure you are saying what you mean. up significantly?? Decades ago?? What about digital?? A few months ago, and not only was the resolution increased, but the noise levels were reduced, the color was improved, the speed of capture was improved, everything got a little better. And a few months from now, it will happen again, and again, and again, and again... So, if I don't _need_ one, why should I buy one now if a better one will come along next month? That would be a remarkably stupid action by your predictions. Except, if I and many others don't, what you prophesy will not come to pass. I managed to destroy APS and disc film cameras. Never bought one of those and look what happened. Digital could be doomed.. Ned Ludd
Re: Pentax is Dying?
På 19. jul. 2004 kl. 19.11 skrev Gonz: El Gringo wrote: Maybe a thousand years from now, science will invent a gravity generator, then a portable gravity generator, then tiny gravity generators and anti-gravity generators, then maybe cameras in the future will focus with perfectly formed gravity lenses... LOL. Do you even know what a gravity lens is? As we know it works well for very long lenses - veery long :-) DagT
RE: Pentax is Dying?
Yes, I do know what it is. In space it can be a phenomenon, essentially however, all a gravity lens does is bend light, the same way glass would, except, without diffusion, without any kind of degradation. Just a fun thing I was hoping would capture someone's imagination, but I forget about the idiots in the world all to often... Thanks for reminding me. -el gringo -Original Message- From: Gonz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 12:12 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying? El Gringo wrote: > Maybe a thousand years from now, > science will invent a gravity generator, then a portable gravity generator, > then tiny gravity generators and anti-gravity generators, then maybe cameras > in the future will focus with perfectly formed gravity lenses... > LOL. Do you even know what a gravity lens is?
Re: Pentax is Dying?
Once again I must ask, Why. It makes more sense to put the FF sensor in a 35mm size body, maybe with a dual lens mount 645 and K mount but the 35mm lenses have a major advantage in resolution. DagT wrote: På 16. jul. 2004 kl. 22.48 skrev Alan Chan: there are probably other equally plausible explanations. I share your frustration. Maybe they have been in the process of replacing the FA lenses? That would be nice, a set of DA prime lenses with the Quick shift focus and the 14mm build. Let´s face it, the FF sensor is for the 645 :-) DagT
RE: Pentax is Dying?
On 17 Jul 2004 at 21:05, El Gringo wrote: Sorry if this is old news but only came though a moment ago: > You're so negative Rob, why is that?? I guess I'm just older and wiser than yourself, give it time, you'll get there, just don't be impatient :-) > It's scheduled for early 2005, not > exactly that far off now is it? It's just not needed and will find no place in the market but for a few die hards. > A couple other posters provided some > interesting ideas as to what Pentax might actually be making. People want a > "pro" solution, Pentax discusses said solution, and then people like you > complain, and complain. It's not a solution to a problem. A wanted solution is a 35mm FF sensor which offers higher absolute resolution, this will put anyone with a practical perspective off the idea of an MF digi. > My prediction is that neither Nikon or Canon will come > out with a full frame MF format digital camera body unless Pentax has some > serious success with theirs. I predict they they will both still retain viable businesses which is what will count to them. > The > only MF camera that is interesting to me at all outside of Pentax's offerings is > the Mamiya 7. If there was a digital version of that camera with a digital > viewfinder I would sell all my camera equipment in a heartbeat and buy that. I predict that you will never see such a beast from Mamiya, not based on their Mamiya 7 or lenses for that system in any case. > Two things keep people from buying the 7 though, MF rolls are too cumbersome for > action photography, and the viewfinder is not convenient at all. In fact, I > simply don't do the type of shooting where I can afford to not have a TTL > viewfinder. The Mamiya 7 was not designed with action photography in mind, nor close focus or hand held low light or precision focus with fast lenses. > People talk about FF sensors having advantages, well, > what about MF sensors?? Wouldn't every 35mm shooter love to have MF quality > with the same features and portability of 35mm systems?? I would. And that > could happen with Pentax's new 645 digital... I'm not interested in any less than FF solutions in any case and likely not 645 solutions at all, the lenses are too cumbersome and limited for me. 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: Pentax is Dying?
What's a Cotty? Did he convert to Canonism? Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 17. juli 2004 09:34 Til: pentax list Emne: Re: Pentax is Dying? On 17/7/04, Rob Studdert, discombobulated, offered: >> > Maybe they have been in the process of replacing the FA lenses? >> >> That would be nice, a set of DA prime lenses with the Quick shift focus >> and the 14mm build. >> >> Let´s face it, the FF sensor is for the 645 :-) > >If they do that and replace the FA lenses with DA or something of their ilk >I'll definitely do a Cotty. You'd be joining a growing line of PDMLers, sigh. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: Pentax is Dying?
Gringo, the rumor on canon/nikon lists is that they are expecting a MF digital solution too. A. On 18 Jul 2004, at 04:05, El Gringo wrote: You're so negative Rob, why is that?? It's scheduled for early 2005, not exactly that far off now is it? A couple other posters provided some interesting ideas as to what Pentax might actually be making. People want a "pro" solution, Pentax discusses said solution, and then people like you complain, and complain. My prediction is that neither Nikon or Canon will come out with a full frame MF format digital camera body unless Pentax has some serious success with theirs. So you can count them out of contention for now. As for the other companies, I don't think they can compete with Pentax. The only MF camera that is interesting to me at all outside of Pentax's offerings is the Mamiya 7. If there was a digital version of that camera with a digital viewfinder I would sell all my camera equipment in a heartbeat and buy that. Two things keep people from buying the 7 though, MF rolls are too cumbersome for action photography, and the viewfinder is not convenient at all. In fact, I simply don't do the type of shooting where I can afford to not have a TTL viewfinder. The 645 digital on the other hand has massive potential. It could be made smaller than it is, more in the range of a large 35mm, it could burst faster than any film MF camera, and it has a real viewfinder, unlike the Mamiya 7. Not to mention that it has a nice range of high quality Pentax 645 lenses. This could be THE camera to own if Pentax pulls out all the stops. It's sad that Pentax gave up their 35mm dominance, but, I think it gives them a small advantage now. If they can convince people that 35mm is more for amateurs or specialized pros, and that newer, dedicated MF digital cameras are the choice for any pros whose major concern is image quality and then respectable portability, they will be sitting in a winning position, with very little investment in a dying market, i.e. the 35mm market. While the major 35mm competitors will be left with a shrinking market, and a huge investment in that market. Now, I'm not saying the 35mm market is dying, or going to die, but I think it's looking a bit more and more out of place... The increasing quality and affordability of digital P&S cameras are attacking from the low end, and the increasing affordability, and decreasing size of MF digitals will be attacking it from the high-end. People talk about FF sensors having advantages, well, what about MF sensors?? Wouldn't every 35mm shooter love to have MF quality with the same features and portability of 35mm systems?? I would. And that could happen with Pentax's new 645 digital... I'm reminded by captain Kirk's quote in the first Star Trek movie: "If you can't win a game by the rules, change the rules of the game." Or something to that effect. Basically, Pentax would have a heck of a time beating Nikon and Canon in 35mm, so what do you do?? You don't beat them at 35mm, you beat them where they have no presence. MF. Think about it, it works, it could be big. IF sensors just get bigger and cheaper as the years go by, why stop at 35mm?? MF could be the future of pro and serious amateur photography. There will always be a place for portable systems, but for those who want the UTMOST quality, MF is the promised land. -el gringo -Original Message- From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 7:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Pentax is Dying? On 17 Jul 2004 at 12:08, El Gringo wrote: And Antonio, people do know things about it, for one, it's supposed to be out in early 2005. For another, the things I've said are straight from the mouth of an executive at Pentax. This bothers me greatly. Sure it would be nice to have a full frame MF digi- solution but the whole concept strikes me as a severe misapplication of funds/development considering how badly their K-format kit is dragging its knuckles. Let alone the fact that by the time Pentax actually delivers such an MF-digi product to market everyone else in contention will already have products to market, we've seen it all before. 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: Pentax is Dying?
Actually, I was thinking about this rumour: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1028&message=9474786 a REAL full frame 645... DagT > Fra: "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Once again I must ask, Why. It makes more sense to put the FF sensor in > a 35mm size body, maybe with a dual > lens mount 645 and K mount but the 35mm lenses have a major advantage in > resolution. > > DagT wrote: > > > > > På 16. jul. 2004 kl. 22.48 skrev Alan Chan: > > > >>> there are probably other equally plausible explanations. I share your > >>> frustration. > >> > >> > >> Maybe they have been in the process of replacing the FA lenses? > > > > > > That would be nice, a set of DA prime lenses with the Quick shift > > focus and the 14mm build. > > > > Let´s face it, the FF sensor is for the 645 :-) > > > > DagT > >
Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?)
On 17 Jul 2004 at 9:34, Jens Bladt wrote: > Pentax isn't Dying. Film is, increasingly slowly at some stage perhaps, but it's > still going down. As Pentax has/had a pro-market in MF, they have to upgrade > this (Hasselblad and Rollei did) or/and try to dig further into/stay alive in > consumer DSLR/D-P&S markets. So who here has shed their excess film bodies in view of the pending fate of film? I have, I'm down to the smallest number of film bodies I've had for many years and I don't expect the number to ever increase either. Cheers, 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
Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?)
Rob Studdert wrote: > So who here has shed their excess film bodies in view of the > pending fate of film? Not me. > I have, I'm down to the smallest number of film bodies I've > had for many years and I don't expect the number to ever > increase either. I caught myself looking at another LX last night :-( I *like* digital a great deal, but for the photographs I really want, they will most likely be done on film. Often the digital has been highly useful in looking at pictures the same evening on the computer, which lead me to re-taking certain scenes on film. I see digital as a means to an end, whereas I enjoy my film cameras whilst using them as well. Judging from the number here who have downsized or eliminated their film camera bodies, I know I am very much in the minority. I wish I could quantify why the results from the developers dropping on the doormat via the post are more special to me than instant digital images, but I can't. I suppose I'll have to make the most out of film whilst I can. Malcolm
Power Options - (was Re Pentax is Dying?)
I'm cery pleased with the *istD's power options. The first set of CRV3s lasted for 999 shots and the second set are going strong with a further 600+. Look Mum, no mains required! There's always the option of the RCRV3s if required, and totally non-proprietary. Won't get stuffed for huge battery replacement costs when the camera is getting on a bit and no l9nger supported. Nick -Original Message- From: "Dr. Shaun Canning"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: 18/07/04 23:40:11 To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying? Hah! The same way they dealt with power supply issues with the *ist Dlet the owners worry about it! Many other DSLR's come with rechargeable batteries (or they are at least available for them), but not the *ist D. This is a major let down IMHO. The ability to use of AA's is great, but not so great when you need half a dozen sets of batteries to keep the thing going. There's another thread on this very topic I started yesterday regarrding possible alternative methods of powering the *ist D. Cheers Shaun Alan Chan wrote:
Re: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?)
- Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" Subject: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?) > On 17 Jul 2004 at 9:34, Jens Bladt wrote: > > > Pentax isn't Dying. Film is, increasingly slowly at some stage perhaps, but it's > > still going down. As Pentax has/had a pro-market in MF, they have to upgrade > > this (Hasselblad and Rollei did) or/and try to dig further into/stay alive in > > consumer DSLR/D-P&S markets. > > So who here has shed their excess film bodies in view of the pending fate of > film? > > I have, I'm down to the smallest number of film bodies I've had for many years > and I don't expect the number to ever increase either. You and a whole bunch of other people. The only segment of the film market that is still strong is the single use cameras. We are literally down 50% on film processing over last years numbers. Last year was the last year we saw growth in film processing, and the % was less than half of what it had been the year before. On the pro side of things, a lot of the volume shooter pro boys are switching to digital, and are selling their Hasselblads (and everything else medium format) to finance the move. It's a natural progression. Two decades ago, the marketplace determined that one hour photo labs were more desirable than full service labs. Convenience took precedence over quality and product diversity, and the demise of the full service lab began. Ten years ago, the marketplace decided that putting one hour labs into discount department stores. More convenience, and cheaper pricing, but also lowered quality, and even less service is the result, but it didn't matter, the fate of the stand alone camera store/ photo lab was sealed. Digital is, after the initial investment, pretty much cost free, and is very convenient. The fact that the quality just isn't there doesn't matter. The marketplace has continually shown that it is not quality driven, and film doesn't have what it takes anymore to stay in the game. I think this is very sad, but it is, unfortunatley, true. William Robb
Re: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?)
On 17 Jul 2004 at 14:34, Antonio Aparicio wrote: > I dunno, I think film is doing fine considering. Sure a lot of people > will switch to digital for the convenience factor, but it is a bit > extreme to say film is dying (i.e. that it will eventually completely > disappear) - the results you get from film are just too good. Anyway we > are talking just 35mm here - in MF and LF film still rules the roost, > and apart from say sport and newspaper photogs, most pro's use MF > anyway. My *ist D seems to be teamed up with my Mamiya MF gear quite often but 35mm film holds little appeal for me these days but for the full frame coverage it offers. 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: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?)
This one time, at band camp, "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So who here has shed their excess film bodies in view of the pending fate of > film? > > I have, I'm down to the smallest number of film bodies I've had for many years > and I don't expect the number to ever increase either. On the contrary, I am buying up film bodies. I agree that market forces will be the demise of film. But I think film will survive, albeit on a smaller scale. Ilford are reporting an increase in sales of Black and White products. I think as the lemming consumers gobble up the latest fad-gadgets and digital P and S, the demand for film photographers will increase. These home point and shoot folks are revelling in the idea of 'free' photos. These are the same snappers who know little of photography and are happy with the results the super-market labs churn out. Digital is in its infancy and there is still no solution for achiving digital. Perhaps when it reaches adultery we may see folks coming back to film, when they realise they have been duped into a 'better' solution. Kind regards Kevin -- __ (_ \ _) ) | / / _ ) / _ | / ___) / _ ) | | ( (/ / ( ( | |( (___ ( (/ / |_| \) \_||_| \) \) Kevin Waterson Port Macquarie, Australia
Re: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?)
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004, graywolf wrote: > Strangely, there are an increasing number of people who are moving back > to film as they have discovered that their needs are not met by > digital. This is my experience too. I have two (serious published amateur) photographer friends with Canon 10Ds and both of them have independently bought a new medium format film camera recently. They think the DSLR is great, but it just doesn't do everything they want. I hate to use the word 'snaps' but that's just what digi feels like to me. There isn't a picture I have taken on any camera (including digital) that I didn't wish I had taken on the 67, and both these guys confess to very similar feelings. I don't think digital is going away of course, but neither is film just yet. Chris
Re: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?)
I have some Leica screw mount bodies, and Leica copies I am selling soon. My Pentax ES and ESII's I will keep because of all the SMC Takumars I own. I will sell my K2DMD and motor and keep my LX. My 645 I will keep. I have an Optio 230 digital. Jim A. > From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Organization: Digital Image Studio > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 17:50:38 +1000 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?) > Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Resent-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 03:50:42 -0400 > > On 17 Jul 2004 at 9:34, Jens Bladt wrote: > >> Pentax isn't Dying. Film is, increasingly slowly at some stage perhaps, but >> it's >> still going down. As Pentax has/had a pro-market in MF, they have to upgrade >> this (Hasselblad and Rollei did) or/and try to dig further into/stay alive in >> consumer DSLR/D-P&S markets. > > So who here has shed their excess film bodies in view of the pending fate of > film? > > I have, I'm down to the smallest number of film bodies I've had for many years > and I don't expect the number to ever increase either. > > Cheers, > > > 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: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?)
Antonio said: > I dunno, I think film is doing fine considering. Sure a lot of people > will switch to digital for the convenience factor, but it is a bit > extreme to say film is dying (i.e. that it will eventually completely > disappear) - the results you get from film are just too good. Anyway we > are talking just 35mm here - in MF and LF film still rules the roost, > and apart from say sport and newspaper photogs, most pro's use MF > anyway. If you remove "sport and newspaper photogs" from the list of pros, leaving the medium format shooters in the group, you're still left with wedding photogs and I hear & read in various places (can't recall exact references, perhaps others can help here) that lots of those who used to use medium format have already switched or are in the process of switching to digital. I think that then leaves commercial (products, advertising) and landscape/nature/wildlife people, and ... ? Do we know what they're doing? I think some of the gang here might have some idea. (I'm pretty sure I read this here as well as hearing it word-of-mouth, so it should be in the archives -- anyway, some of the folks on this list are in the business and would know if that's the trend. Including at least one wedding photographer who *has* switched from medium format to digital.) In other words, digital is apparently also making some inroads into the medium format market, and although I am not in a position to know how strong a trend this is, that information may well be available to us in this discussion. Of course none of us can know for sure what WILL happen ... ERN
Re: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?)
Yeah, so I here. Even at 20K a digital back still makes economical sense to the serous pro who gets through lot of film. Apparently it pays for itself in no time. A. On 17 Jul 2004, at 17:50, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In other words, digital is apparently also making some inroads into the medium format market, and although I am not in a position to know how strong a trend this is, that information may well be available to us in this discussion. Of course none of us can know for sure what WILL happen ...
Re: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?)
I did say that it would die, in increasingly slower rate - that means I think the curve will flatten and in the end and find a nwe steady level - not deissapear totally. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 17. juli 2004 15:42 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?) On 17 Jul 2004 at 14:34, Antonio Aparicio wrote: > I dunno, I think film is doing fine considering. Sure a lot of people > will switch to digital for the convenience factor, but it is a bit > extreme to say film is dying (i.e. that it will eventually completely > disappear) - the results you get from film are just too good. Anyway we > are talking just 35mm here - in MF and LF film still rules the roost, > and apart from say sport and newspaper photogs, most pro's use MF > anyway. My *ist D seems to be teamed up with my Mamiya MF gear quite often but 35mm film holds little appeal for me these days but for the full frame coverage it offers. 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: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?)
Well "die" means that eventually it will disappear. I think what you mean is that it will ocuppy an ever smaller share of the market. A. On 17 Jul 2004, at 18:18, Jens Bladt wrote: I did say that it would die, in increasingly slower rate - that means I think the curve will flatten and in the end and find a nwe steady level - not deissapear totally. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 17. juli 2004 15:42 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?) On 17 Jul 2004 at 14:34, Antonio Aparicio wrote: I dunno, I think film is doing fine considering. Sure a lot of people will switch to digital for the convenience factor, but it is a bit extreme to say film is dying (i.e. that it will eventually completely disappear) - the results you get from film are just too good. Anyway we are talking just 35mm here - in MF and LF film still rules the roost, and apart from say sport and newspaper photogs, most pro's use MF anyway. My *ist D seems to be teamed up with my Mamiya MF gear quite often but 35mm film holds little appeal for me these days but for the full frame coverage it offers. 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: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?)
I am down to an old ZX-10 of my wife's and an *ist film camera that my daughter uses. I don't expect to buy any other film cameras. The ZX-10 is never used. My daughter uses the *ist right now, but in the fall she is on the yearbook staff of her school - digital is how they do things now. We'll see whether she is willing to scan or not. -- Best regards, Bruce Saturday, July 17, 2004, 12:50:38 AM, you wrote: RS> So who here has shed their excess film bodies in view of the pending fate of RS> film? RS> I have, I'm down to the smallest number of film bodies I've had for many years RS> and I don't expect the number to ever increase either. RS> Cheers, RS> Rob Studdert RS> HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA RS> Tel +61-2-9554-4110 RS> UTC(GMT) +10 Hours RS> [EMAIL PROTECTED] RS> http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ RS> Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?)
Why are people lemmings for buying digital?? Whets wrong with appreciating the lack of development costs, or appreciating the convenience?? Why are people not lemmings when they use the more expensive, less convenient method, the method that does not mesh perfectly with our ever more digital world?? Get a grip man. I don't think most consumers ever really liked film, because they bought cheap film that didn't give them superb results in the first place. And now, you can get a smaller, vastly more convenient, and in the long run, vastly cheaper digital camera, a camera that suits the needs of the average person with a computer far better than film ever will, and you call them lemmings?? How about calling yourself stubborn? I dunno what animal that would be, maybe the buffalo... Ever heard of buffalo stampeding off a cliff?? Happened all the time, often at the hands of the Indians, they would stampede the buffalo then scare them down a gorge and over a cliff where warriors waited to pick the injured brutes off one by one. -el gringo -Original Message- From: Kevin Waterson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 9:04 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?) This one time, at band camp, "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So who here has shed their excess film bodies in view of the pending fate of > film? > > I have, I'm down to the smallest number of film bodies I've had for many years > and I don't expect the number to ever increase either. On the contrary, I am buying up film bodies. I agree that market forces will be the demise of film. But I think film will survive, albeit on a smaller scale. Ilford are reporting an increase in sales of Black and White products. I think as the lemming consumers gobble up the latest fad-gadgets and digital P and S, the demand for film photographers will increase. These home point and shoot folks are revelling in the idea of 'free' photos. These are the same snappers who know little of photography and are happy with the results the super-market labs churn out. Digital is in its infancy and there is still no solution for achiving digital. Perhaps when it reaches adultery we may see folks coming back to film, when they realise they have been duped into a 'better' solution. Kind regards Kevin -- __ (_ \ _) ) | / / _ ) / _ | / ___) / _ ) | | ( (/ / ( ( | |( (___ ( (/ / |_| \) \_||_| \) \) Kevin Waterson Port Macquarie, Australia
Re: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 17 Jul 2004, at 16:03, Kevin Waterson apparently wrote: .. Perhaps when it reaches adultery ... Say WHAT???!! I'm not sure he meant quite that... Sounds like Archie Bunker! keith
RE: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?)
Very good point, Antonio. I'm sure digital photography has inspired a lot of people, who didn't previously took an interest in photography. It's has become SO easy, that some of them might even learn enough to be able to expose some film properly :-). Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Antonio Aparicio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 17. juli 2004 20:53 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?) Also, an angle not mentioned is the renewed interest folks are having in photography generally as a result of digital- perhaps it will be the saviour of film and not the other way around... A. On 17 Jul 2004, at 16:03, Kevin Waterson wrote: > This one time, at band camp, "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> So who here has shed their excess film bodies in view of the pending >> fate of >> film? >> >> I have, I'm down to the smallest number of film bodies I've had for >> many years >> and I don't expect the number to ever increase either. > > On the contrary, I am buying up film bodies. I agree that market > forces will be > the demise of film. But I think film will survive, albeit on a smaller > scale. > Ilford are reporting an increase in sales of Black and White products. > I think > as the lemming consumers gobble up the latest fad-gadgets and digital > P and S, > the demand for film photographers will increase. > > These home point and shoot folks are revelling in the idea of 'free' > photos. > These are the same snappers who know little of photography and are > happy with > the results the super-market labs churn out. > > Digital is in its infancy and there is still no solution for achiving > digital. > Perhaps when it reaches adultery we may see folks coming back to film, > when they > realise they have been duped into a 'better' solution. > > Kind regards > Kevin > > > -- > __ > (_ \ > _) ) > | / / _ ) / _ | / ___) / _ ) > | | ( (/ / ( ( | |( (___ ( (/ / > |_| \) \_||_| \) \) > Kevin Waterson > Port Macquarie, Australia >
Re: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?)
There's still no substitute in quality terms for projecting transparencies. Nick -Original Message- From: "Rob Studdert"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: 17/07/04 14:42:04 My *ist D seems to be teamed up with my Mamiya MF gear quite often but 35mm film holds little appeal for me these days but for the full frame coverage it offers.
Re: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?)
This one time, at band camp, Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>>Perhaps when it reaches adultery ... > > > > > > Say > > WHAT???!! > > I'm not sure he meant quite that... > > Sounds like Archie Bunker! Actually, it was Radar O'rielly from M.A.S.H Kevin -- __ (_ \ _) ) | / / _ ) / _ | / ___) / _ ) | | ( (/ / ( ( | |( (___ ( (/ / |_| \) \_||_| \) \) Kevin Waterson Port Macquarie, Australia
RE: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?)
Not so far fetched actually. I didn't really get interested in photography until the first digitals came out. I bought one and thought it was cool. Then I happened to try a friends 35mm and realized this was much better. I even bought another 4Mb digital after that, but 35mm was still better at that time. They are more advanced now though and if I had bought something like the *ist D I doubt I would have ever gained an interest in film. However with the lower end to even decent 35mm costing less then many digicams, it leaves the door open for interest in the better features of the 35mm SLR. Real autofocus or manual, total exposure control, more then 2 or 3 apertures to choose from, a real viewfinder, powerful add on flash, less battery issues, not to mention the improved picture quality even now as compared to a digicam were all reasons my digicam to this day mostly collects dust. The price tag of a 35mm basic kit even as compared to a digital rebel with accessories is still much lower. It's even lower in many cases then a decent quality digicam. I would take a Walmart 35mm SLR kit(which is what I basically used for 35mm SLR pricing here) for a important shot any day before I would dust off the digicam. I'm not putting down the quality of DSLR at all here. Just comparing available performance dollar for dollar as I know it. Although the very real risk of spending thousands of dollars on lenses could offset this, but they don't know that until they get the photo gear bug. Many might mention here that I did not consider the film and developing costs here. That's true, but I highly doubt most people will shoot as many photos as the folks shooting the *istD's on this list. > -Original Message- > From: Antonio Aparicio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 2:53 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?) > > > Also, an angle not mentioned is the renewed interest folks are having > in photography generally as a result of digital- perhaps it will be the > saviour of film and not the other way around... > > A. > >
