Re: Good-bye Pentax (2)
Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >FK> For the life of me Boz I cannot see any reason for you to leave the PDML, I >FK> for one would never ask you too just because you using canon gear, and I >FK> don't think anyone else here would either. > >FK> Feroze > >FK> Boz wrote >FK> and I must say good-bye to this group. It's like being forced to abandon >FK> your domicile... > >I'd second that opinion, or is it like n+1 here. Indeed, especially if >Boz is going to keep KMP alive... And if he's not going to keep it alive I hope he gives someone the opportunity to mirror it. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Good-bye Pentax (2)
HI! FK> For the life of me Boz I cannot see any reason for you to leave the PDML, I FK> for one would never ask you too just because you using canon gear, and I FK> don't think anyone else here would either. FK> Feroze FK> Boz wrote FK> and I must say good-bye to this group. It's like being forced to abandon FK> your domicile... I'd second that opinion, or is it like n+1 here. Indeed, especially if Boz is going to keep KMP alive... --- Boris Liberman www.geocities.com/dunno57 www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=38625
Re: Good-bye Pentax (2)
In a message dated 20/03/03 04:36:58 GMT Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << I got the "greatest MF camera ever", the T90 because of the descriptions I read in the old Modern Photography. The feature that I liked the best in the T90 was the AA battery power it uses. Had to have the shutter replaced recently. Expensive, but now I have a great camera again. Still a Pentax fan, however. Probably will never get the *ist D. Now if only Pentax would copy the Canon Powershot Pro 90 IS. Jim A. > From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:47:45 -0600 > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Good-bye Pentax (2) > Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:59:21 -0500 > > > ----- Original Message - > From: "Andre Langevin" > Subject: Re: Good-bye Pentax (2) > > >>> I recall the FD lens mount users gave a great big shit about it when the > EOS >>> system came out, Bruce. As a matter of fact, they were extremely pissed > that >>> they, and their equipment was being orphaned. >>> I recall also, Canon had a pretty classy camera out at the time, was it > the >>> F1? They were trying to be "pro" when they orphaned the mount. >> >> The T-90... Still one of the greatest MF camera ever. Like the LX >> with its mirror syndrome, it has its "classic" bug that shows with an >> EEE (error) message and ask for magnet cleaning or a shutter rebuild. >> Just by the way... > > Actually, the T90 was the template for the EOS system, stylewise, but the F1 > was the premier Canon body of the day. > > William Robb > > >> Good men after my own heart. F1s worked in the rain, T90s didn't. The reason I changed to Canon - spotmetering gave a lower failure rate and fast teles were available to hire. Plus I started work for a sports agency who used Canon so it just made sense. If Pentax had pulled out an equivalent back then to the F1 it might have been a more considered move, I suppose. Kind regards Peter
Re: Crippled mount; was Re: Good-bye Pentax (2)
My guess is the *ist is a new series that will eventually replace the MZ/ZX series. IIRC, the MZ/ZX replaced the Z/PZ series and the Z/PZ replaced.something. Bill - Original Message - From: "Doug Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 6:05 PM Subject: Re: Crippled mount; was Re: Good-bye Pentax (2) > On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 09:35:31 US/Central, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > What bothers me, (I am not Boz, and I am not switching to Canon anytime soon) > > is that the film *ist is now the FOURTH entry-level body they've introduced > > with this mount. > > I have a suspicion that there's a translation problem going on here. I > think it may be that the term we've translated to "entry level" may > actually be a term that means "first of a new series entering the > market". > > TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ > >
Re: Good-bye Pentax (2)
That's cause you're such a jerk most of the time nobody can stand you. c. On Wednesday, March 19, 2003, at 10:57 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:29:07 -0500 From: Bruce Rubenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Good-bye Pentax (2) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit That's because the un-satisfied ones left (for the most part). There are about half the number of people on this list now as there were when I first joined about 6 years ago.
Re: Good-bye Pentax (2)
Yep, the style strap that is on the ZX-5 is nice. I have them on my F100 and N80. Pentax wipes right off with a little acetone. Don't like any brand names on my straps. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a Pentax strap on my D100. Much more sexy than the Nikon strap, and it makes better pictures.
Re: Good-bye Pentax (2)
>> For the life of me Boz I cannot see any reason for you to leave the PDML, I >> for one would never ask you too just because you using canon gear, and I >> don't think anyone else here would either. > >Hey, we let Cotty hang around... > >(why does it seem like all my input of late have been Cotty jokes? :) LOL. Boz, as of this moment I have 2 MXs, and 4 lenses. I consider myself a Pentax user with some Canon gear. You shoudl do the same Cot Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/
Re: Good-bye Pentax (2)
On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:02:37 -0500, you wrote: >I might invest in a strap, but that's a big decision. I'll have to >think about it. > >tv I have a Pentax strap on my D100. Much more sexy than the Nikon strap, and it makes better pictures. -- John Mustarde www.photolin.com
Re: Good-bye Pentax (2)
On 03.3.19 5:47 PM, "Carlos Royo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > By the way, as this thread started with Boz's message saying he will > leave the list, I join the chorus to ask him to stay. I'm sure that all > the info he can give us about his experience using Canon cameras and > lenses will be welcomed. I know he will not be sending F.U.D. messages > to the list like some others who have switched to other brands have > done. Hi folks, I think the same way. I am sad that Boz, one of the institutions of the PDML, is going to leave for another brand but that's his decision. But I do appreciate his dropping in here from time time as his time permits and giving us his "honest" opinion about Pentax and Canon too. THAT, I believe, would be very invaluable to all of us, as we all know that he is the expert on K-mount and can give us objective opinions about different brand of cameras and/or comparison with Pentax based on his own experiences, not taken from other internet sites. That will make our discussion more interesting, enjoyable and informative, than just a lot of unfounded slanders with no credibility or authority because of it. However, I do understand that Boz might be too busy to drop by here. Boz, I thank you for giving us such an informative bible site which I hope will be updated and maintained somehow. Cheers, Ken
Re: Crippled mount; was Re: Good-bye Pentax (2)
On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 09:35:31 US/Central, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > What bothers me, (I am not Boz, and I am not switching to Canon anytime soon) > is that the film *ist is now the FOURTH entry-level body they've introduced > with this mount. I have a suspicion that there's a translation problem going on here. I think it may be that the term we've translated to "entry level" may actually be a term that means "first of a new series entering the market". TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: Good-bye Pentax (2)
- Original Message - From: "Andre Langevin" Subject: Re: Good-bye Pentax (2) > >I recall the FD lens mount users gave a great big shit about it when the EOS > >system came out, Bruce. As a matter of fact, they were extremely pissed that > >they, and their equipment was being orphaned. > >I recall also, Canon had a pretty classy camera out at the time, was it the > >F1? They were trying to be "pro" when they orphaned the mount. > > The T-90... Still one of the greatest MF camera ever. Like the LX > with its mirror syndrome, it has its "classic" bug that shows with an > EEE (error) message and ask for magnet cleaning or a shutter rebuild. > Just by the way... Actually, the T90 was the template for the EOS system, stylewise, but the F1 was the premier Canon body of the day. William Robb
Re: Good-bye Pentax (2)
- Original Message - From: "Greene" Subject: Re: Good-bye Pentax (2) > Canon #1 eh? > > Not Nikon? Definitely not Nikon. William Robb
RE: Good-bye Pentax (2)
Just for the record, I've never broken a camera, just lenses and flashes. Mostly flashes, which almost invariably cost $93 to fix. The PZ-1p's took a serious beating, no problem. The MZ-S's never really got tested, the 645n's have survived some dings. tv > -Original Message- > From: collinb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 3:45 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Good-bye Pentax (2) > > > > Or at least his assistants will. :) > > * > Ahhh, but that is the beauty of the LX - at least the ones > I own - they can > take a beating. A couple of them have fallen quite a > distance with no > complaints. People on this list can attest to my original > 'beat to hell' > LX's appearance. It has gone in for a CLA once, and then > another time when > the rewind shaft got bent. Not bad for over fifteen years > of hard service. > But knowing TV he will find ingenious ways to test the LX... > César > Panama City, Florida > * >
Re: Good-bye Pentax (2)
On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Feroze Kistan wrote: > For the life of me Boz I cannot see any reason for you to leave the PDML, I > for one would never ask you too just because you using canon gear, and I > don't think anyone else here would either. Hey, we let Cotty hang around... (why does it seem like all my input of late have been Cotty jokes? :) -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
Re: Good-bye Pentax (2)
Come on, what do the rest of you say, I think Boz should stay Feroze - Original Message - From: "Paul Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 11:57 PM Subject: Re: Good-bye Pentax (2) > Agree'd > > > From: "Feroze Kistan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > For the life of me Boz I cannot see any reason for you to leave the PDML, > I > > for one would never ask you too just because you using canon gear, and I > > don't think anyone else here would either. > > > > Feroze > > > > Boz wrote > > and I must say good-bye to this group. It's like being forced to abandon > > your domicile... > > > > > >
Re: Good-bye Pentax (2)
Agree'd From: "Feroze Kistan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For the life of me Boz I cannot see any reason for you to leave the PDML, I > for one would never ask you too just because you using canon gear, and I > don't think anyone else here would either. > > Feroze > > Boz wrote > and I must say good-bye to this group. It's like being forced to abandon > your domicile... > >
Re: Good-bye Pentax (2)
For the life of me Boz I cannot see any reason for you to leave the PDML, I for one would never ask you too just because you using canon gear, and I don't think anyone else here would either. Feroze Boz wrote and I must say good-bye to this group. It's like being forced to abandon your domicile...
RE: Good-bye Pentax (2)
Or at least his assistants will. :) * Ahhh, but that is the beauty of the LX - at least the ones I own - they can take a beating. A couple of them have fallen quite a distance with no complaints. People on this list can attest to my original 'beat to hell' LX's appearance. It has gone in for a CLA once, and then another time when the rewind shaft got bent. Not bad for over fifteen years of hard service. But knowing TV he will find ingenious ways to test the LX... César Panama City, Florida *
Re: Good-bye Pentax (2)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:27:57 EST Roland. Absolutely. Minolta too, after all they were first. Wasn't the >650 the first Canon? Hm, I don't think so but, you know, it was a long time ago. :-) Memories seems to fade away... :-) When I started with SLR photography in 1988, I choosed a P30 because it was manual and Pentax had a nice system back then. I didn't want to pay for things that I wouldn't use. At that time, I saw autofocus as something very useless. The P30 felt more tempting, and it had depth-of-field preview. I remember visiting a shop and they recommended me a Nikon F501 (I believe it was called so). More expensive but "the glass is better, you can clearly see the difference between Nikon and the others.". Well, we all know that Pentax has some nice glass too. :-) I jumped onto the AF-train with the MZ-5. I was never really temped by the Z-serie. I liked the Z-20 but, well... I liked my P30 more. But the MZ-5 felt just right. I changed it to MZ-5n only because I wanted to have depth-of-field preview. Best wishes, Roland _ Hitta rätt på nätet med MSN Sök http://search.msn.se/
Re: Good-bye Pentax (2)
<< I remember when Canon changed from FD to EOS. Many users were not happy about this, since they couldn't use their old equipment any more. They had to have twin systems, or they had to sell all their manual focus gear if they wanted to stay with Canon. The EOS system was a slow starter, a slow seller - in the beginning. It wasn't until the release of the EOS 650 that sales started to take off, and the rest - as they say - are history. >> Roland. Absolutely. Minolta too, after all they were first. Wasn't the 650 the first Canon? I did have a 620 for a while, that was a cool camera apart from the slow af. Kind regards Lord Mayor the Rt. Honorable Peter of Brighton
Re: Good-bye Pentax (2)
From: Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:14:55 +0200 I am not sure about Canon since I think I never actually held any Canon SLR camera for more than one minute. A friend of mine, who is a professional photographers, has an EOS 3. For me, it simply feels like a big, bulky and empty tank. The build quality is very low, my MZ-5n feels much better built. And the shutter noise... Hard to describe, but it's annoying. But it has a chassi of aluminium. I know this because the thin plastic has scratches so one can see the bare aluminium. Everything about it feels so cheap. As for the discussion about *ist*. I think it is indeed a little too early to arrive to any conclusion. Though the number of crippled mount cameras grows dangerously. And now the new lenses. There has always been one MZ-body with crippled mount (MZ-50 became MZ-30 which became MZ-60). And it will exist one *ist with crippled mount. So I can't say that the numbers are increasing. I'm not worried about the new lenses. They're entry level. My MZ-5n would be angry at me if I put entry level el cheapo plastique lenses on it. It deserves better than that. :-) Best wishes, Roland _ Hitta rätt köpare på MSN Köp & Sälj http://www.msn.se/koposalj
RE: Good-bye Pentax (2)
-Original Message- > From: Bruce Rubenstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Don't I owe you a Program Plus body if the Ick D ships by > Sept.? The PP > is probably more reliable than the LX. Doubt it, I've owned 3 Program bodies, and each one developed a wonky meter. But I'll still take it... tv
RE: Good-bye Pentax (2)
I might invest in a strap, but that's a big decision. I'll have to think about it. tv > -Original Message- > From: Bill Owens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 12:49 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Good-bye Pentax (2) > > > Can you imagine the expense involved when he drops one of > these things! > > Bill > > > For now I'll still be shooting the 645n mostly, but for > things I would > > shoot 35mm with, I'll be switching to Canon digital. > > > > Once I get my workflow down, I'll stop shooting the 645 > in favor of > > the 1DS. > > > > Maybe I'll get an LX so I can stick around here... > > > > tv > >
Re: Good-bye Pentax (2)
Hi! All I can say is that you probably made a right choice. I am not sure about Canon since I think I never actually held any Canon SLR camera for more than one minute. But your reasons for abandoning Pentax seem pretty sound. That's exactly the point that seems to be worth repeating over and over. Once one's equipment cannot satisfy one's technical demands, and once the hit rate, so to say, becomes forbiddingly low, one should make a global change. As for the discussion about *ist*. I think it is indeed a little too early to arrive to any conclusion. Though the number of crippled mount cameras grows dangerously. And now the new lenses. I hope no one would add me to their kill file if I were to say that in time, say several years, if and when I become a better photographer than I am now, I may repeat your reasoning... Or may by that time Pentax will simply grow enough to buy Canon so that we again would be on the same side of the fence . I wish you all the best with your new endeavor. --- Boris Liberman ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Good-bye Pentax (2)
- Original Message - From: "Bruce Rubenstein" Subject: Re: Good-bye Pentax (2) > For anyone who has started photography with the EOS system since 1988, > and that's millions of people it's a total "who gives a shit?" Pentax > users put great importance on things about the Pentax system that other > folks couldn't care less about. I recall the FD lens mount users gave a great big shit about it when the EOS system came out, Bruce. As a matter of fact, they were extremely pissed that they, and their equipment was being orphaned. I recall also, Canon had a pretty classy camera out at the time, was it the F1? They were trying to be "pro" when they orphaned the mount. William Robb
Re: Good-bye Pentax (2)
For anyone who has started photography with the EOS system since 1988, and that's millions of people it's a total "who gives a shit?" Pentax users put great importance on things about the Pentax system that other folks couldn't care less about. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pentax does not abandon compatibility. You can use A-mount lenses since 1982 on the *ist. Can you use manual focus lenses on a Canon EOS?
Re: Good-bye Pentax (2)
Can you imagine the expense involved when he drops one of these things! Bill > For now I'll still be shooting the 645n mostly, but for things I would > shoot 35mm with, I'll be switching to Canon digital. > > Once I get my workflow down, I'll stop shooting the 645 in favor of > the 1DS. > > Maybe I'll get an LX so I can stick around here... > > tv
Re: Good-bye Pentax (2)
Don't I owe you a Program Plus body if the Ick D ships by Sept.? The PP is probably more reliable than the LX. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe I'll get an LX so I can stick around here...
Re: Good-bye Pentax (2)
Boz, Welcome to the world of modern photography! BR
Re: Good-bye Pentax (2)
That's because the un-satisfied ones left (for the most part). There are about half the number of people on this list now as there were when I first joined about 6 years ago. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think there are many satisfied "serious amateurs" on this list.
Re: Good-bye Pentax (2)
Still my favorite camera and lens combo. There's just something therapeutic about loading up a roll of TriX and taking a walk with it... -Mat Caveman wrote: I'd suggest a ME Super with a 50/1.4 lens. You won't burry too much money into that combo, so you won't be tempted to sell it. And when you get angry on the world or pissed off by some quirks of the digital, take that one out and spend an afternoon in a nice place. Works miracles.
Re: Good-bye Pentax (2)
From: Bojidar Dimitrov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:11:29 +0100 Do you remember the time about three weeks? Pentax had said "full compatibility" for the *ist, and everyone was talking about how his personal Pentax sources were confirming that. Pentax-Europe's >marketing director had confirmed it, and I was still not believing it because it was not fitting together with several technical observations of mine. The press release from Pentax U.S stated that K and M lenses could be used. But the press releases from Pentax Canada, Pentax Germany and Pentax Scandinavia didn't. Obviously Pentax U.S made a misstake, they have done this before (in the first press release for the ZX-L, K and M lenses weren't in the lens compatibility chart. This was, as we all know by now, wrong). So, never listen to Pentax U.S. They have a tendency to get things wrong. But everyone, not just Pentax U.S, are stating K and M compatibility with the *ist D. That's why I believe it. I don't believe Pentax U.S, but since Pentax Scandinavia tells it - I listen. You see, when I first read Pentax U.S press release, I asked Pentax Scandinavia. They said that they hadn't got any information about compatibility. They didn't knowed, so they didn't say anything at that time. I believe this is true for Pentax U.S also, I believe that they simply *assumed* that the filmbased *ist were full K mount compatible. But they didn't have any information to back this up. (I don't believe that Pentax Japan tells Pentax U.S more than Pentax Scandinavia). This difference to the situation with the *ist is very important. I have learned not to listen to Pentax U.S, but I do listen to Pentax Scandinavia. They don't release information if they haven't got it confirmed by Pentax Japan. This we have only seen on paper, just like we saw similar texts about the *ist. The only HARD evidence (the early prototypes at PMA and CeBit) show the contrary. Now, I am quite certain that the prototype >at PMA is a different one from the one at CeBit, and both featured the crippled mount. Are you feeling small waves of coldness on your back? I am... No, because I have a strange feeling (not waves of coldness :-) ) that Pentax has things hidden up their sleeves, and this is about the lens mount. They haven't showned the true lens mount on the *ist D, because this would reveal secrets that Pentax are not ready to reveal yet. One can always discuss when to show new technology, to preview and not to preview. Previewing new technology to the public means that the technology is previewed to the competition too, and I believe Pentax doesn't want this. It's better for them to release the secrets when the camera is ready to go on sale. Anyway, don't judge future *ist models by the entry level model. It's not fair. Best wishes, Roland _ Hitta rätt på nätet med MSN Sök http://search.msn.se/
Re: Crippled mount; was Re: Good-bye Pentax (2)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 09:35:31 US/Central What bothers me, (I am not Boz, and I am not switching to Canon >anytime soon) is that the film *ist is now the FOURTH entry-level body >they've introduced with this mount. But it's still entry level. Pentax has not made a mid or pro-market camera without full K and M compatibility. They could have done it with the *ist D, but everything points that the *ist D will have full K and M compatibility. Feel no fear, my friend. Don't worry, be happy. Best wishes, Roland _ Hitta rätt köpare på MSN Köp & Sälj http://www.msn.se/koposalj
Re: Good-bye Pentax (2)
From: Caveman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 10:27:20 -0500 Pentax insisted that the *ist is "entry-level" (much to Paal's pleasure). We also know that the D version has full compatibility. I can see that there's place for a *ist S, with glass pentaprism, full lens compatibility and maybe some other minor mods. It would be the next MZ-5n. We have the answer when we look at the *ist D. *Why*, oh tell me why, does it looks like a filmbased SLR? It's a digital, so it doesn't have to look as a film-SLR. Could it be because it's based upon a filmbased SLR? Could it be possible that Pentax took an existing design and re-made it for digital? So, if this design exist - what is this then? The replacement for the MZ-5n and MZ-3. The design for the *ist D is the evidence. But I don't think that it will be called *ist S. I believe more in *ist L, because the MZ-6 is called MZ-L in Japan, and the MZ-S has the S. So, 'L' fits logically between 'S' and plain *ist. *ist - *ist L - *ist S I like that. :-) Speaking of names, I'm surprised that no one has commented upon the fact that the *ist is *ist everywhere, all over the globe. It's not +ist, or /ist or even ~ist, not to mention 'ist. It's simply *ist. In Europe, Japan and in the U.S. Best wishes, Roland _ Lättare att hitta drömresan med MSN Resor http://www.msn.se/resor/
Re: Good-bye Pentax (was: Pentax needs USM and IS)
It took me 8 weeks to get one, and that was direct from the distributor. Feroze - Original Message - From: "Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 5:37 PM Subject: RE: Good-bye Pentax (was: Pentax needs USM and IS) > Yeah, whenever I go into the big photo stores in my town (Jessops or > LCE) they wonder at my MZ-S and complain that they never get to see them > because all deliveries are taken up by pre-orders from the central mail > order system. They never get enough to go as far as sending them out to > the stores. > > This is a shame, because it would sell even better if people could see > it and feel it, but is good news because they are selling all the units > they can make. > > > -Original Message- > > From: T Rittenhouse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > A comment about the MZ-S not selling well. Most of the stores > > I have been in that carry them sell them about as fast as > > they can get them. That is, it seems more a supply problem > > than a buyer problem. > >
Crippled mount; was Re: Good-bye Pentax (2)
Roland posted, among many other good things: > But the *ist D will have full compatibility with the older lenses. > So, there's still no signs that Pentax are about to abandon support for > aperture ring. You can't judge Pentax future mid and market bodies by the > entry-level body. > What bothers me, (I am not Boz, and I am not switching to Canon anytime soon) is that the film *ist is now the FOURTH entry-level body they've introduced with this mount. My only reaction to the ZX-50 was "well, whatever, I'm not buying that particular body. Maybe they'll see it's a mistake to have one that doesn't fit in with the compatibility that makes this system." I'm still not buying the crippled-mount bodies, but each time they produce a new one they seem more committed to this path, and I start to worry about where it will end.
Re: Good-bye Pentax (2)
Hi Roland, Do you remember the time about three weeks? Pentax had said "full compatibility" for the *ist, and everyone was talking about how his personal Pentax sources were confirming that. Pentax-Europe's marketing director had confirmed it, and I was still not believing it because it was not fitting together with several technical observations of mine. It turned out that they were all wrong. I see how passionate you are about this, and I respect your choice. However, I do not share your optimism, and I have some technical reasons in my head. > But the *ist D will have full compatibility with the older lenses. This we have only seen on paper, just like we saw similar texts about the *ist. The only HARD evidence (the early prototypes at PMA and CeBit) show the contrary. Now, I am quite certain that the prototype at PMA is a different one from the one at CeBit, and both featured the crippled mount. Are you feeling small waves of coldness on your back? I am... For the *ist D I have good-heartedly indicated Kaf2 on the KMP, but I could actually imagine how Pentax is thinking: "those people have been raving for a DSLR for years. How about we save $5 on the aperture coupling and $5 on aperture rings, and they all go out and replace those fabulous 15/3.5, 18/3.5, 20/4, etc. lenses with FAJ equivalents"... I hold that for unlikely but very possible. > If the lens mount in the *ist D, with full compatibility for K and > M lenses, scremount lenses (with adapter), 645 (with adapter) and > 67 (with adapter) are "crippled mount", then why would this be a > bad thing? The crippled mount cannot meter properly with K and M lenses. Either part 1 of your statement is true or part 2 but not both. My explanation is that someone re-edited the MZ-D press release, updating the text hier and there. Compare the "Lens compatibility" sections fo both press releases... > Not true. It's possible to make a full electronic lens mount with > aperture ring on the lenses. One simply has to have a mechanical > to electrical decoder for the aperture ring in the lenses, so that > the lens can send aperture ring information to the body. Now read your statement a few times loud and ask yourself how likely that is... > This might be what Pentax are working on. It's probably less > expensive to have electrical decoders around the aperture ring > instead of a complete mechanical system. I am no expert but consider myself relatively compentent about the workings of the Pentax mounts. What you are saying sounds unreasonable to me, and I hold it for unlikely. Having said all this, I realize that neither of us has hard facts, so until we hear new definitive information, this will be my last e-mail on the subject. Piece, Boz
Re: Good-bye Pentax (2)
Bojidar Dimitrov wrote: For me the *ist is a great camera but it is the *ist-entry-level. Take the *ist D with a fully compatible KAF2-mount (without Powerzoom) and work it out to an analog camera - that might be the "flagship" in fall. This is a rather optimistic point of view, but for the sake of all of you and for Pentax, I hope you are right. Pentax insisted that the *ist is "entry-level" (much to Paal's pleasure). We also know that the D version has full compatibility. I can see that there's place for a *ist S, with glass pentaprism, full lens compatibility and maybe some other minor mods. It would be the next MZ-5n. Beeing said that, I do understand your decision. All I hope is that you could visit us once in a while and share some of your experience. cheers, caveman
Re: Good-bye Pentax (2)
tom wrote: Maybe I'll get an LX so I can stick around here... Tom, I'd suggest a ME Super with a 50/1.4 lens. You won't burry too much money into that combo, so you won't be tempted to sell it. And when you get angry on the world or pissed off by some quirks of the digital, take that one out and spend an afternoon in a nice place. Works miracles. cheers, caveman p.s. caveman knows.
Re: Good-bye Pentax (2)
Hi Boz, I believe I'm one of those close to your point of view. Pentax is good enough for what I do now, yet when trying to take on more specialized genres of photography I always look either to old lenses or to third parties. Pentax 35mm became a highly polarized system, and it's rarefied core leaves little to no options to advanced amateurs. However I couldn't bring myself to make the switch, at least not in the film realm. I still expect Pentax to pull themselves together and rebuild a coherent system. Should I see the sign, I will continue to support Pentax. If all they do is cutting corners and crippling mounts to grab first time SLR buyers, then I might just keep the current film setup - as you do with LX - and buy into another digital 35mm system. Anyway, I do hope you'll drop in pdml from time to time. You've done a terrific job with the KMP, and it'll be a pity to see it turning into the K mount museum. Servus,Alin Bojidar wrote: BD> Now, where is Pentax? I feel that they have slowly but surely abandoned BD> the market segment in which I am -- serious amateur. If we ignore the BD> brilliant FA* 200-600/5.6, they don't have much for sports or wild-life BD> professionals either. They seem to be concentrating in the segment of BD> *ist and below. I have nothing against that, but I wish Pentax would BD> come out and say if my assumption is correct, or they are simply lacking BD> the money/people/resources to develop things faster. BD> In the end, it is all very simple. I feel that very few serious BD> amateurs and professionals use Pentax gear, and therefore the few BD> serious Pentax items do not sell very well. This then leads to Pentax BD> not investing very much in development of such items, and more serious BD> amateurs and professionals switch to other brands. It's a vicious BD> circle, and I am the real loser. BD> So I switched... But like I said, I'll keep an LX, FE-1, two bright BD> screens, a 17/4 fish, A20/2.8, A24/2.8, K30/2.8, A50/1.7, and A100/2.8 BD> Macro. Sad as it may be, soon after my current eBay auctions are over, BD> I will also sell the superA, MZ-5n, battery pack Fg, M24-35/3.5 and FA BD> 24-90/3.5-4.5. BD> Once again, thanks for all your positive remarks and nice comments to my BD> previous mail. BD> Cheers, BD> Boz
Re: Good-bye Pentax (2)
Hi Boz, I am very unhappy that it were my K400/f5.6 and my M42/K500/f4.5 that made you turn away from Pentax. It is true that these wonderful all manual lenses need a lot of practice to get good results, however it is not only possible to get good results, you also would have gotten such results with just that: practice. Still I agree that especially with long telephotos auto-focus is very very helpful. I much prefer the F*300/f4.5 over the A/M*300/f4 for this reason (and for its better minimum focusing distance). However, it is not fair to compare an all automatic Canon EF400/f5.6 with an all manual K400/5.6. The answers that you get depend on the questions that you ask. I guess the FA*400/f5.6 would be a similar joy to use as is the EF400/f5.6, and the results would be more or less indistinguishable. OK, so now the FA*400/f5.6 is too expensive new (1600 Euros), and it is very hard to find used. I guess Pentax need not care much for customers that rarely buy their gear new, however, you could have gotten a used Sigma AF 400/f5.6 or a Tokina AF400/f5.6 in k-mount for about one third of what you paid for the used Canon, and you could have gotten a NEW Sigma 5,6/400 APO MACRO for less than what you paid for the used Canon EF400/f5.6, and I think the quality of this particular Sigma lens is quite good, too. You would still have switched away from Pentax but you would have stayed with the k-mount, and you would have been able to put that lens on your LX as well as on your Super A as well as on your MZ5-N. After all, two SLR systems (one AF and one manual focus) togehter are very hard to carry at one time. About the Pentax future I am much more optimistic than you are, and lately Pentax has given us reason for such optimism. Of course Pentax will never be good as Canon in being like Canon, and if you are fascinated by Canon's very own strengths then go for them. However, Canon will never be as good as Pentax in being like Pentax, either. See my email of yesterday for why I stick with Pentax.. Arnold
Thanks Boz was: Re: Good-bye Pentax (2)
--- Bojidar Dimitrov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi all, > [snip] > > Now, where is Pentax? I feel that they have slowly > but surely abandoned > the market segment in which I am -- serious amateur. > If we ignore the > brilliant FA* 200-600/5.6, they don't have much for > sports or wild-life > professionals either. They seem to be concentrating > in the segment of > *ist and below. I have nothing against that, but I > wish Pentax would > come out and say if my assumption is correct, or > they are simply lacking > the money/people/resources to develop things faster. >[snip] > Cheers, > Boz ___ Though I came to the PDML just recently, your own page has been an archive and working Encyclopedia at the same time. Wandering about trying to find your page, I discovered that PENTAX, like Kodak, has so many corporate irons in the scientific-space-medical fields, that Pentax "pro" or serious amateur cameras are just a sideline. PENTAX dominates in so many other imaging fields that mere "photography" is not enough of their corporate income structure to actually CARE about the needs of individuals like you and me or any latent "pros" who might want to shoot the Pentax brand. It would not surprise me at all if Pentax abandoned the SLR "camera" field entirely, including medium format. They do quite well with P&Ss and that is where they will probably draw the line. I too wish that you continue to monitor your page. While your page may have been a pure labor of love, I can sense that you might want to do for Canon what you've done for Pentax. That is, become the Canon archivist-historian-keeper of the flame. Sure there are plenty of Canon related pages out there, but few of them are as comprehensive, as incisive as your own Pentax page. Thanks Boz, Ed PS: No matter what else anybody thinks, I consider my Pentax PZ-1p and WR-90 P&S my /most valuable/ Pentax bodies. = I get it done with YAHOO! DSL!
Re: Good-bye Pentax (2)
Hi Bojidar, on 18 Mar 03 you wrote in pentax.list: >thank you very much for the nice answers to my previous mail! It is a >really special feeling to know that I have done something worthwhile, We have to thank you - the KMP is a real bible for all Pentax users. I'm really sorry, that your focus leaves Pentax. >So, the main factors are: ... I can understand you reasons. If you want state-of-the-art, then there's no other way than Canon. Canon is technology driven and technological leader. Even Nikon can't compete with Canon's development. And Canon is developping really aggressive - take the 10D: they build it in a new, full automatic facility. > - Canon has a more complete AF system I think, that the new Pentax AF on the *ist/*istD is very competitive. >change their mount any time soon (Pentax is moving towards a mount >change [at least simplification]. The *ist does NOT work properly with >K and M lenses, and it is NOT an entry-level camera --- it has the best >AF system of ANY Pentax camera!) I don't think, that the "crippled" KAF-mount of the *ist is something that shows us the future of Pentax. We had such a crippled mount on the MZ-30, 50 and 60 but that was it. For me the *ist is a great camera but it is the *ist-entry-level. Take the *ist D with a fully compatible KAF2-mount (without Powerzoom) and work it out to an analog camera - that might be the "flagship" in fall. But I agree with you, that theese developments are slow and it is a really poor marketing of Pentax to leave us in uncertainty about the future (KAF3? USM? IS?). >Now, where is Pentax? I feel that they have slowly but surely abandoned >the market segment in which I am -- serious amateur. If we ignore the ... >They seem to be concentrating in the segment of *ist and below. I have >nothing against that, but I wish Pentax would ... >In the end, it is all very simple. I feel that very few serious >amateurs and professionals use Pentax gear, and therefore the few >serious Pentax items do not sell very well. This then leads to Pentax >not investing very much in development of such items, and more serious >amateurs and professionals switch to other brands. I think there are many satisfied "serious amateurs" on this list. But not all amateurs a equal: I think Pentax serves the niche of amatuers, that prefer a more classic style of photography and user interface and are satisfied with a certain amount of technology. The MZ-5n and the MZ- S are the best examples for this. But it IS a niche of serious amateurs: Pentax wouldn't build the Limited lenses for consumers. If I could choose if Pentax should build Limited lenses or USM lenses, then I would prefer the Limiteds. Otherwise they wouldn't offer something that is outstanding. Or in other words: Otherwise I could choose Canon. Pentax recognizes and serves the consumer market as all other manufacturers. Because this is the market where they earn the real money to pay vor developping the real toys for us. With the *ist they will have good chances to earn more money there. And I'm quite sure that they will never drop the higher level products as those are necessary to hold up the company's image and sell in the consumer market. >It's a vicious circle, and I am the real loser. No, you aren't. You have simply recognized, that the Pentax way is not the right for you. There are many more segments in the group of serious amatuers: one is that of the purists, maybe using Leica. Another that of the MF users. Or that of the technology driven users - that's for sure the Canon way. I wish you good luck and hope, that you will keep an eye on Pentax's development and certainly on your great KMP. Maybe you can share your Canon experiences form time to time with us. Alles Gute, Heiko
Re: Good-bye Pentax (2)
Bojidar Dimitrov wrote: > > Hi all, > > thank you very much for the nice answers to my previous mail! It is a > really special feeling to know that I have done something worthwhile, > and I am deeply moved that you all appreciate my work to such an > extent. I took no offense to the one or two mails that spoke about "the > results count", "Canon is a gadget maker", don't worry. I actually > expected more resistance... :-) > > What can I say? It was not an easy decision, and I have been > contemplating it for over a year now. I have thought about it long and > hard, and have had several (heated) discussions with PDML members Arnold > Stark and Knut Kampe. But in the end even Arnold's strongest and solid > arguments could not overpower my will to move on. > > The real turn came when I recently decided that I want to try > photographing birds and animals (nothing exotic, creatures in our garden > or in the zoo). The only lens that I was able to afford was a > second-hand 400/5.6, and it had to be AF. I have never seen a used FA* > 400/5.6, so I look at eBay for a Canon. Well, in the last 6 weeks there > have been 8 of them for sale, and I got mine at a wonderful price. > Adding a body and a flash was a breeze, so I was all set. Let's say it > like this: My only Pentax experience with longer lenses was a day-trip > with Arnold where I got to use his K 400/5.6 and M42->K 500/4.5. Those > photos were a disaster! Manual aperture were manual focus too much for > me!!! Using the EOS 30 with the 400/5,6 USM is much more convenient. I > can dial in exp. comp. via the thumb dial in the back, flash exp. comp > on the flash, AF is very fast, and can see well even through the small > AF-type viewfinder. Program shift is very convenient via the > index-finger dial, and the eye-control AF "gimmick" work wonderfully for > me! > > So, where are those that say that better technology does not lead to > better photos? Yes, each photo made with the greatest USM, IS, etc. > lens can be made also without. But the chances of doing that are almost > non-existent! > > So, the main factors are: > - Canon has a more complete AF system > - Canon delivers new products and technologies faster > - it is far easier and more cost-effective to buy (second-hand) Canon > gear (for example, I will soon be able to buy a like-new second-hand D60 > for about $800) > - one has certain security that one can never outgrow the Canon system > - counting from 1986 until now, Canon actually has better system > compatibility than Pentax, and there is NO INDICATION that will have to > change their mount any time soon (Pentax is moving towards a mount > change [at least simplification]. The *ist does NOT work properly with > K and M lenses, and it is NOT an entry-level camera --- it has the best > AF system of ANY Pentax camera!) > > Now, where is Pentax? I feel that they have slowly but surely abandoned > the market segment in which I am -- serious amateur. If we ignore the > brilliant FA* 200-600/5.6, they don't have much for sports or wild-life > professionals either. They seem to be concentrating in the segment of > *ist and below. I have nothing against that, but I wish Pentax would > come out and say if my assumption is correct, or they are simply lacking > the money/people/resources to develop things faster. > > In the end, it is all very simple. I feel that very few serious > amateurs and professionals use Pentax gear, and therefore the few > serious Pentax items do not sell very well. This then leads to Pentax > not investing very much in development of such items, and more serious > amateurs and professionals switch to other brands. It's a vicious > circle, and I am the real loser. > > So I switched... But like I said, I'll keep an LX, FE-1, two bright > screens, a 17/4 fish, A20/2.8, A24/2.8, K30/2.8, A50/1.7, and A100/2.8 > Macro. Sad as it may be, soon after my current eBay auctions are over, > I will also sell the superA, MZ-5n, battery pack Fg, M24-35/3.5 and FA > 24-90/3.5-4.5. > > Once again, thanks for all your positive remarks and nice comments to my > previous mail. > > Cheers, > Boz > I have many times over the years thought about switching from Pentax for similar reasons. Your expertise and knowledge will be missed on this list. I hope you are happy with your new system. -- David S. Nature and wildlife photography http://www.sheppardphotos.com
Re: Good-bye Pentax (2)
Boz, in all sincerity, I hope you get what you want out of the new system. To me that would mean more "keepers" and less in the circular file. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: "Bojidar Dimitrov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "PDML" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 5:45 PM Subject: Good-bye Pentax (2) > Hi all, > > thank you very much for the nice answers to my previous mail! It is a > really special feeling to know that I have done something worthwhile, > and I am deeply moved that you all appreciate my work to such an > extent. I took no offense to the one or two mails that spoke about "the > results count", "Canon is a gadget maker", don't worry. I actually > expected more resistance... :-) > > What can I say? It was not an easy decision, and I have been > contemplating it for over a year now. I have thought about it long and > hard, and have had several (heated) discussions with PDML members Arnold > Stark and Knut Kampe. But in the end even Arnold's strongest and solid > arguments could not overpower my will to move on. > > The real turn came when I recently decided that I want to try > photographing birds and animals (nothing exotic, creatures in our garden > or in the zoo). The only lens that I was able to afford was a > second-hand 400/5.6, and it had to be AF. I have never seen a used FA* > 400/5.6, so I look at eBay for a Canon. Well, in the last 6 weeks there > have been 8 of them for sale, and I got mine at a wonderful price. > Adding a body and a flash was a breeze, so I was all set. Let's say it > like this: My only Pentax experience with longer lenses was a day-trip > with Arnold where I got to use his K 400/5.6 and M42->K 500/4.5. Those > photos were a disaster! Manual aperture were manual focus too much for > me!!! Using the EOS 30 with the 400/5,6 USM is much more convenient. I > can dial in exp. comp. via the thumb dial in the back, flash exp. comp > on the flash, AF is very fast, and can see well even through the small > AF-type viewfinder. Program shift is very convenient via the > index-finger dial, and the eye-control AF "gimmick" work wonderfully for > me! > > So, where are those that say that better technology does not lead to > better photos? Yes, each photo made with the greatest USM, IS, etc. > lens can be made also without. But the chances of doing that are almost > non-existent! > > So, the main factors are: > - Canon has a more complete AF system > - Canon delivers new products and technologies faster > - it is far easier and more cost-effective to buy (second-hand) Canon > gear (for example, I will soon be able to buy a like-new second-hand D60 > for about $800) > - one has certain security that one can never outgrow the Canon system > - counting from 1986 until now, Canon actually has better system > compatibility than Pentax, and there is NO INDICATION that will have to > change their mount any time soon (Pentax is moving towards a mount > change [at least simplification]. The *ist does NOT work properly with > K and M lenses, and it is NOT an entry-level camera --- it has the best > AF system of ANY Pentax camera!) > > Now, where is Pentax? I feel that they have slowly but surely abandoned > the market segment in which I am -- serious amateur. If we ignore the > brilliant FA* 200-600/5.6, they don't have much for sports or wild-life > professionals either. They seem to be concentrating in the segment of > *ist and below. I have nothing against that, but I wish Pentax would > come out and say if my assumption is correct, or they are simply lacking > the money/people/resources to develop things faster. > > In the end, it is all very simple. I feel that very few serious > amateurs and professionals use Pentax gear, and therefore the few > serious Pentax items do not sell very well. This then leads to Pentax > not investing very much in development of such items, and more serious > amateurs and professionals switch to other brands. It's a vicious > circle, and I am the real loser. > > So I switched... But like I said, I'll keep an LX, FE-1, two bright > screens, a 17/4 fish, A20/2.8, A24/2.8, K30/2.8, A50/1.7, and A100/2.8 > Macro. Sad as it may be, soon after my current eBay auctions are over, > I will also sell the superA, MZ-5n, battery pack Fg, M24-35/3.5 and FA > 24-90/3.5-4.5. > > Once again, thanks for all your positive remarks and nice comments to my > previous mail. > > Cheers, > Boz > > -- > _\\|//_ Imagination is more important than knowledge... >0(` O-O ')0 A. Einstein > ===ooO=(_)=Ooo=== > Bojidar D. Dimitrov author and editor, Pentax K-Mount web page > [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://kmp.BDimitrov.de/ > = ><__> <__> > >
Re: Good-bye Pentax (2)
Boz, As others have said, sorry to see you go. We will miss you, and wish you well. Thanks for the wonderful efforts on you Pentax pages. It is a bible for many of us. Finally, I have always enjoyed your quote from A.Einstien. It is one of my favorites. Keep imagining... Regards, Bob S. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Once again, thanks for all your positive remarks and nice comments to my > previous mail. > > Cheers, > Boz > > -- > _\\|//_ Imagination is more important than knowledge... > 0(` O-O ')0 A. Einstein > ===ooO=(_)=Ooo=== > Bojidar D. Dimitrov author and editor, Pentax K-Mount web page > [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://kmp.BDimitrov.de/ > > = > <__> <__>
RE: Good-bye Pentax (was: Pentax needs USM and IS)
--- Brendan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Rob brings up a good point abou the frequency of USM > lenses, now how are these suppposed to be good for > wild life if your running around the forest with the > equivalent of a dog whislte making a racket? > He just may have been talking about his own Rottweiler. Canon USM lenses of any length work more or less silently. But those with an EOS camera /might/ hear them in a quiet room. Working along a noisy river bank with an EOS body sans booster is very quiet. It's when you hang a Booster on that you get motor/winder "noise". But then, we (photographers) too often equate the physicality of the shot itself (that visceral, very noticeable (to the shooter) viewfinder black-out) with whatever slight noise the shutter or mirror might make. To us, because of our immediate vicinity, the "noise" is noticeable. But hold a "modern" (post PZ1p) Pentax body cradled in your hands and shoot normally. Nearly any "noise" you hear will still be more the product of your /foreknowledge/ of the shutter's or mirror action than any shutter "shshst" or mirror slap the shooter senses more than hears. In a quiet place, like a conert hall, our body movement as we move our heads and shoulders with the (a) camera disturbs people more than any slight noise the modern shutter/mirror makes. The real trouble arises when you rewind. That high-pitched noise /is/ very noticeable. = I get it done with YAHOO! DSL!
Re: Good-bye Pentax
The need for quiet is one of the reasons I occasionally dig out my ZX-M. Since it's manual focus no issue there, and the shutter auto advance are very low noise level in comparison from what I've seen. > > > The question is: how much quieter is it? I find > > that I can't use AF on > > > my PZ1p in a concert hall because it's too noisy. > > Well, so's the > > > shutter mechanism but if I could get a quiet > > shutter mechanism and > > > quiet AF on a *ist-D, that would make it very > > attractive for me. It > > > could even be a quiet motor in the camera body. > > > > The Canon regular lenses are very quiet, the USM > > lenses are almost silent, > > unless you are a Rottweiler, in which case they seem > > to sound like > > fingernails scraping on a chalkboard. > > > > William Robb > > > __ > A Canona A2 with a USM lens is a stealth machine. > > = > > I get it done with YAHOO! DSL! > >
Re: Good-bye Pentax
Are you saying there are tooth marks in your lens...lol. > The Canon regular lenses are very quiet, the USM lenses are almost silent, > unless you are a Rottweiler, in which case they seem to sound like > fingernails scraping on a chalkboard. > > William Robb > >
Re: Good-bye Pentax
--- William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "Juey Chong Ong" > Subject: Re: Good-bye Pentax > > > > > > > The question is: how much quieter is it? I find > that I can't use AF on > > my PZ1p in a concert hall because it's too noisy. > Well, so's the > > shutter mechanism but if I could get a quiet > shutter mechanism and > > quiet AF on a *ist-D, that would make it very > attractive for me. It > > could even be a quiet motor in the camera body. > > The Canon regular lenses are very quiet, the USM > lenses are almost silent, > unless you are a Rottweiler, in which case they seem > to sound like > fingernails scraping on a chalkboard. > > William Robb > __ A Canona A2 with a USM lens is a stealth machine. = I get it done with YAHOO! DSL!
Re: Good-bye Pentax (was: Pentax needs USM and IS)
This point was discussed years ago by Canon nature and wildlife shooters on photo.net and there was no problem with ultra sonic lens noise. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rob brings up a good point abou the frequency of USM lenses, now how are these suppposed to be good for wild life if your running around the forest with the equivalent of a dog whislte making a racket?
Re: Good-bye Pentax
Oh? Sorry, I forgot to read the avertisements, and was simply depending on a technical background. I will try to do better next time and use buzz-words instead of explainations. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: "Michel Carrère-Gée" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 11:33 AM Subject: Re: Good-bye Pentax > T Rittenhouse a écrit: > > USM = Ultra-Sonic Motor. What that means is instead of using a DC motor they > > use an AC motor that works at ultrasonic frequencies (100khz and above). The > > extremely high frequency of the power source (generated electronically) > > allows the motor to be very small and light. That means the motor can > > accelerate much faster than a low frequency or DC motor. Used in a lens that > > translates into a lighter, and faster focusing, lens . However since the > > motor has to move a mass of glass the overall improvement is only > > incremental in the real world. HSM (Hyper-Sonic Motor) means the same thing. > > 10% real improvement, 90% hype > Usm/Hsm combine fast motor, direct-drive (no mechanism) and step-motor > > Michel > >
Re: Good-bye Pentax (was: Pentax needs USM and IS)
Hi! Boz, I am sorry I am a little late with reply. It seems that there were no virus on my computer after all, but hotpop is indeed behaving strangely. Anyway, I am sorry to see you go. With all honesty I realize that you might as well disappear from PDML, since this is mainly technical list. I hope though that you'd keep coming in every now and then and saying a word or two. In fact, I hope you'd keep submitting your work for PUG... As for you choice, I find it perfectly logical that when one sees a reason to make a step, one just makes it. I hope you'd enjoy the novelty of Canon. Even if you decide to stop updating your KMP pages it would be appreciated not only by me but by many others if you kept them accessible. Wishing you all the best. --- Boris Liberman www.geocities.com/dunno57 www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=38625
Re: Good-bye Pentax
- Original Message - From: "Juey Chong Ong" Subject: Re: Good-bye Pentax > > The question is: how much quieter is it? I find that I can't use AF on > my PZ1p in a concert hall because it's too noisy. Well, so's the > shutter mechanism but if I could get a quiet shutter mechanism and > quiet AF on a *ist-D, that would make it very attractive for me. It > could even be a quiet motor in the camera body. The Canon regular lenses are very quiet, the USM lenses are almost silent, unless you are a Rottweiler, in which case they seem to sound like fingernails scraping on a chalkboard. William Robb
Re: Good-bye Pentax (was: Pentax needs USM and IS)
Hear! Hear! Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: "Greene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 11:21 AM Subject: Re: Good-bye Pentax (was: Pentax needs USM and IS) > > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Bojidar: Interesting approach and conclusion. I can > > see your reasons for > > leaving... But don't ever forget that it is the > > photographs that make the > > difference not the camera, not even really the > > lenses. If you want the latest > > and greatest USM, IS etc, go out and get it, but it > > really won't make you a > > better photographer. As I have said before, IS is > > fine for lazy photographer > > and special applications like shooting from a boat > > or something) but I use a > > tripod almost all the time and IS lenses would add > > nothing but cost to my > > outfit... I'm not saying that if Pentx came out with > > an IS lens I wouldn't > > buy one, but I certainly wouldn't change systems > > because of it. My suggestion > > would be to invest in film rather than the latest > > equipment > > > > vic > _ > What I know about Boz in the very few weeks I've been > here is 1. He knows who makes the photographs and 2. > He most certainly is not "lazy", not if we jedge him > by his herculean efforts building and housekeeping his > site, a technical masterpiece he assiduously > maintianed for legions of Pentax > photographers/collectors. > For you to condescnd to such a man shows a degree of > contempt for his being that I find astonishing. > > > > = > > I get it done with YAHOO! DSL! >
Re: Good-bye Pentax (was: Pentax needs USM and IS)
Can't say that I blame you, Boz. Funny thing is most of us on this list are 'serious' photographers. Pentax has pretty much abandoned that segment of the market. That may be a sound marketing decision on their part, but it really means that the enthusiastic Pentax user has been abandoned. Camera companies that don't cater to that segment of the market soon become commodity vendors or go out of business. A comment about the MZ-S not selling well. Most of the stores I have been in that carry them sell them about as fast as they can get them. That is, it seems more a supply problem than a buyer problem. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: "Bojidar Dimitrov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 8:51 AM
Re: Good-bye Pentax
On Tuesday, March 18, 2003, at 09:45 AM, T Rittenhouse wrote: USM = Ultra-Sonic Motor...the overall improvement is only incremental in the real world. HSM (Hyper-Sonic Motor) means the same thing. 10% real improvement, 90% hype The question is: how much quieter is it? I find that I can't use AF on my PZ1p in a concert hall because it's too noisy. Well, so's the shutter mechanism but if I could get a quiet shutter mechanism and quiet AF on a *ist-D, that would make it very attractive for me. It could even be a quiet motor in the camera body. --jc
Re: Good-bye Pentax
USM = Ultra-Sonic Motor. What that means is instead of using a DC motor they use an AC motor that works at ultrasonic frequencies (100khz and above). The extremely high frequency of the power source (generated electronically) allows the motor to be very small and light. That means the motor can accelerate much faster than a low frequency or DC motor. Used in a lens that translates into a lighter, and faster focusing, lens . However since the motor has to move a mass of glass the overall improvement is only incremental in the real world. HSM (Hyper-Sonic Motor) means the same thing. 10% real improvement, 90% hype Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: "Gregory L. Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 12:37 PM > I don't care about USM, but other people seem to, so > maybe that's just because I don't understand it well enough to want it. >
Re: Good-bye Pentax (was: Pentax needs USM and IS)
On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:51:33 +0100, Boz wrote: > > Best wishes to all and thanks for all I've learned from you! > To all KMP contributors most sincere thanks! > > Bojidar Dimitrov If I may add my small voice to the chorus, thanks for something that's pulled back many, many veils over the few short years I've been serious about photography. "Invaluable resource" doesn't even begin to describe what you've built. Best regards, Stephen Moore
Re: Good-bye Pentax (was: Pentax needs USM and IS)
From: Pål Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:46:39 +0100 The *ist D won't be cheap. It will probably cost slightly more than >the Canon D10. A Pentax rep told me that the estimated price here in >Norway was about 20.000Nkr (~£1700), about twice as much as it needed >to cost in order to sell. Pentax has said that the pricing is going to be "competetive". Costing more than the D10 isn't "competetive". Anyway, it's far too early to say anything about the price. CCD prices are likely to drop, it's still 3-4 months left to the release. Regarding looks - Canon has the ugliest cameras in the world, and they sell... :-) Best wishes, Roland _ Hitta rätt på nätet med MSN Sök http://search.msn.se/
Re: Good-bye Pentax (was: Pentax needs USM and IS)
Cameron wrote: The MZ-S was beautiful, but flawed; the *ist D is way too late, and it better be cheap because it's last years' technology, and the *ist has some nice features but is extremely tacky looking. REPLY: Mostly right on. However, the MZ-S was basically the right camera but should have been released much earlier. If not exactly the same camera then at least a camera with the same general outline. The *ist D won't be cheap. It will probably cost slightly more than the Canon D10. A Pentax rep told me that the estimated price here in Norway was about 20.000Nkr (~£1700), about twice as much as it needed to cost in order to sell. I agree that the *ist's are tacky looking. I expect the *ist to look better in flesh due to the fact that its small size will add cuteness factor. I believe looks are extremely important for Pentax in particular as they need people to litterally take a look at their producst. Nikon and Canon get the attention regardless on how they look (or even perform!). Pål
Re: Good-bye Pentax (was: Pentax needs USM and IS)
<< Oh yes, I do own a Pentax that I think is beautiful but a bit tacky in design. It's a transparent SF1 with a transparent zoom lens. Everything works on it but I can't take pictures with film because the film would be fogged. The camera and lens is on prominent display in my home. I get lots of interesting comments about it. >> Jim. I am eternally envious. A friend of mine collects colored cameras - not wishing to be outdone, I decided to collect no color cameras. To date of course, I have collected..none. No color & cutaways, if I had the cash to spare. Kind regards Peter
Re: Good-bye Pentax (was: Pentax needs USM and IS)
Jim Apilado wrote: > > How many look at your cameras when you are out? I've had more attention from my 6x7 in the last 4 months than I have had from any other camera in 20 years. Almost invariably if I set up the beast on the tripod some wag pops up with variations of 'Are you taking a photograph then?' that usually leads to questions about what sort of camera it is, etc, etc. I was pointing the camera towards a mist-shrouded part of the Peak District(*) last month and one guy even wanted to know if I was going to be in National Geographic (yeah, right!). Chris (*) For people who don't know, but might want to know, the Peak District is a very hilly National Park that runs along the upper middle of the UK.
RE: Good-bye Pentax (was: Pentax needs USM and IS)
Reminds me of going into B&H the last few times I was in NYC and having everyone wanting to try out the LX or two I was carrying ;-) Cesar Panama City, Florida -- -Original Message- -- From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 5:33 PM -- -- -- Jim Apilado wrote: -- > -- > How many look at your cameras when you are out? -- -- I've had numerous inquiries regarding my 6x7. People are intrigued by -- the fact that it looks like an SLR on steroids. But my -- recently acquired -- Leica IIIf draws a crowd. I've only been using it for a -- week, but people -- frequently ask if they can see it. I took it with me into a -- camera store -- because I didn't want to leave it in the car with the -- sunroof open, and -- all the employees had to hold it. Made me nervous. -- Paul --
Re: Good-bye Pentax (was: Pentax needs USM and IS)
Jim Apilado wrote: > > How many look at your cameras when you are out? I've had numerous inquiries regarding my 6x7. People are intrigued by the fact that it looks like an SLR on steroids. But my recently acquired Leica IIIf draws a crowd. I've only been using it for a week, but people frequently ask if they can see it. I took it with me into a camera store because I didn't want to leave it in the car with the sunroof open, and all the employees had to hold it. Made me nervous. Paul
Re: Good-bye Pentax (was: Pentax needs USM and IS)
On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:51:33 +0100, you wrote: >Best wishes to all and thanks for all I've learned from you! >To all KMP contributors most sincere thanks! > >Bojidar Dimitrov Many thanks for the KMP site, Boz. I've enjoyed it many times. I bought a Nikon D100 DSLR, intending to hold onto my Pentax lenses until the arrival of a Pentax DSLR. The D100 cost me a bundle, maybe four grand for the body, flash, a few lenses. Works great, much better than I expected. In hindsight, I should have bought fewer Nikon lenses. Seems my 24-135 zoom and 300/4 get all the work. I've got a 28/2 Macro, 100/2.8 Macro, 85/2, 135/2, and 180/2.8 that seldom get used. Maybe they stay in the bag because the 1.5x multiplier makes every prime lens a little strange. Most likely it's just my normal bad habit - buying too much gear that I seldom use. Let me make one statement I feel very strongly about: If the *istD and *ist line fulfill their promise, Pentax is only a few lenses away from parity with Nikon and Canon, at least for most of us amateurs. We only need one or two USM IS lenses - a 24-135 zoom and something around 300mm. I'll most likely buy an *istD just to use with my FA* 600/4, and for the wife with our other Pentax lenses. Selling my surplus Nikon lenses should pay for the *istD. What Pentax lacks, for me, is an AF 300/4 USM with a perfectly matched 1.4x AF teleconverter. If Pentax introduces a 300/4 USM IS with matched AF teleconverter, my Nikon gear will certainly go Ebay... and I'll be in line for the Pentax full-frame DSLR, which of course will be compatible with my M-20/f4. Hog heaven, no doubt. -- John Mustarde www.photolin.com
Re: Good-bye Pentax (was: Pentax needs USM and IS)
On 17 Mar 2003 at 20:57, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Thanks Fred: You are exactly right. I was not in any way suggesting Boj was lazy > ... I was, in fact, trying to convince him not to leave Pentax for the bells and > whistles that Canon and Nikon offer. I doubt Boz's move is about "bells and whistles", I assume its more to do with function and utility (which I can fully appreciate) Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html Pentax user since 1986 PDMLer since 1998
Re: Good-bye Pentax (was: Pentax needs USM and IS)
How many look at your cameras when you are out? I never had anyone come out and tell me how "beautiful" my equipment is. Never had anyone come up to me and say how "tacky" my LX, 645, or ESII are. I am happy that Pentax is still in the medium format business. I would be interested if a digital insert is made for my old 645. I wouldn't care if it isn't beautiful or looked tacky. As long as its function is to help me record an image that's what I want. Oh yes, I do own a Pentax that I think is beautiful but a bit tacky in design. It's a transparent SF1 with a transparent zoom lens. Everything works on it but I can't take pictures with film because the film would be fogged. The camera and lens is on prominent display in my home. I get lots of interesting comments about it. Jim A. > From: Cameron Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 09:13:07 -0800 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Good-bye Pentax (was: Pentax needs USM and IS) > Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 12:13:17 -0500 > > It is indeed a sad day for Pentax and the PDML that the great > Bojidar Dimitrov is leaving. His fabulous K mount page is world class, > and this is a sad indication of the state that Pentax has left it's > advanced users. > > It is not offering any support or encouragement in the top echelons > of SLRdom, and in spite of years and years of rumours, there has been > no concrete offerings by them. The MZ-S was beautiful, but flawed; the > *ist D is way too late, and it better be cheap because it's last years' > technology, and the *ist has some nice features but is extremely tacky > looking. There has been no improvements of the high end lenses in > living memory, and the Limited Lenses, while beautiful, have no camera > to match them either in performance or cosmetics. They don't even offer > autofocus teleconverters for high end autofocus lenses that have been > out for over a decade! > > I think Pentax was seriously hurt by the disasterous MZ-D; whether > or not they have the fortitude to recover and to listen to their core > customers is another story. We will definitely miss Bojidar's insiteful > comments and his wonderful addition to the Pentax family, disfunctional > though it may be. Best wishes to him from a long time (since '96) PDML > member. > > Cameron Hood > > > On Monday, March 17, 2003, at 06:30 AM, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:51:33 +0100 >> From: Bojidar Dimitrov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: Good-bye Pentax (was: Pentax needs USM and IS) >> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> >> Hi Roland, hi all, >> >> Roland Mabo wrote: >>> >>> Choosing SLR, is choosing a system. Those who wish to use the SLR >>> primarly for p&s photography doesn't bother, but those who are >>> serious about learning photography - who sees photography as an >>> art, as a hobby or as an income - thinks about SLR as a system. >> >> I certainly do, and as much as I like Pentax bodies (LX, superProgram, >> ZX-5n), I am not convinced by Pentax's system. I chose a superProgram >> with a couple of A lenses when I was a student, and I still believe >> that >> for a limited budget Pentax is a great solution. There is plenty of >> second-hand gear and it is good, small, light, and inexpensive. >> >> BUT... when I started getting serious and ready to spend some more >> cash, >> I started watching with great envy those Canon and Nikon users. Now, I >> am a technical head more than an artist, so I was fascinated by things >> like USM, IS, AF eye-control, etc. Still, this was not enough to make >> me switch. >> >> I am a cost-conscious person, so I like to buy second-hand, and I do >> not >> go for the big profi items. But recently I started wanting a longer >> lens as well as a reasonable 70-200 lens, and found that I cannot >> really >> buy them from Pentax. Yes, they do have the FA* 300/2.8, FA* 400/5.6 >> and FA* 80-200/2.8, but I was not willing to buy them new, and I could >> not find them used. At the same time I wondered if I have confidence >> to >> even spend that money on a company that since 1984 has steadily but >> surely been falling behind the competition. A company whose most >> recent >> big-ticket item (the MZ-S) has been a flop (at least in my eyes and >> from >> a sales point-of-view), and a comp
Re: Good-bye Pentax (was: Pentax needs USM and IS)
Thanks Fred: You are exactly right. I was not in any way suggesting Boj was lazy ... I was, in fact, trying to convince him not to leave Pentax for the bells and whistles that Canon and Nikon offer. As photographers, collectors and gadget freaks (which most of us are including myself) I think it is wise to keep reminding ourselves of the importance of taking pictures rather than trying to buy them with the latest and greatest gadgetsGreat photographs have been made for hundreds of years with a lot more basic equipment than Pentx's latest offerings. > What I know about Boz in the very few weeks I've been here is 1. > He knows who makes the photographs and 2. He most certainly is not > "lazy", not if we jedge him by his herculean efforts building and > housekeeping his site, a technical masterpiece he assiduously > maintianed for legions of Pentax photographers/collectors. For you > to condescnd to such a man shows a degree of contempt for his > being that I find astonishing. Well, Greene, I also have the highest respect both for Boz as a person and for Boz's truly "herculean efforts" with the K-mount Page. However, I really do think that Vic meant Boz no disrespect in his reply. Rather (it seemed to me) that Vic was politely (and respectfully) offering some countering wisdom, which would seem to be very appropriate here on the PDML (and which I suspect that Boz, as a long-time PDML-er, would invite). Fred
Re: Good-bye Pentax (was: Pentax needs USM and IS)
For a lot of types of photography, it may not make you a better photographer, but you will get better photographs. Most of this misty-eyed, romantic, manual drivel comes from people with little of no experience using current high-end equipment. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you want the latest and greatest USM, IS etc, go out and get it, but it really won't make you a better photographer.
Re: Good-bye Pentax (was: Pentax needs USM and IS)
Roland wrote: I understand your decision - but I feel that Pentax are moving towards USM and IS. And I believe that the *ist D has support for this technology. But, the question is always - how long will it take? New bodies and lenses with USM and IS. I believe that some might be released this fall, but the PMA show next year will probably be the place where Pentax releases it's new technology, a new FA* serie and a new flagship, and probably a more high-end digital SLR. REPLY: I wouldn't hold my breath on that. It may be that all Pentax wants is to keep their market share. The new lenses for fall may just as well be additions to the present FA* line in the form of super wide angle and a supe wide angle zoom. Pentax main problem isn't their ability of releasing new technology. The problem is that a shrinking number of people are willing to financially commit to such new up-to-date Pentax technology as they have no faith in the fact that Pentax will continue to support this technology. Personally I'm happy with the Pentax 645 system. This system they have developed in the direction I wanted. In 1999 or 2000 I suggested they should release compact F:5.6 zoom lenses for the 645 for us landscape shooters. This they have done with the 33-55, 55-110 and the 150-300, making it possible to make a 645NII and pro grade zoom lens set covering the 35mm system equivalent focal lengths from 20-200 at a weight weight point you have to increase by 50% in order to reach the weight of a Nikon F5 with pro zooms covering the same focal lenght range. The day I go digital, I'll buy the camera that suit my needs. Not neccessarily the camera that suit my lenses. Pål
RE: Good-bye Pentax (was: Pentax needs USM and IS)
Boz, I want to thank you for all of the effort that you put into the KMP. It's a really great resource. I hope that, if you decide to stop maintaining it, you'll consider finding another serious "Pentax head" to take over the maintenance. If you make the switch to Canon completely, perhaps you'll consider opening a new page for Canon equipment. Please don't just disappear from the PDML. Len ---
RE: Good-bye Pentax
Boz, it's been such a pleasure to work with you on the KMP and to read your post on the list. I hope you'll be able to maintain the KMP and that you'll show up on the list once in a while to give us a sense of what it is to be with the "competition"... and what Pentax should do to maintain a good level of innovation. I belong to the ones who are happy with the Pentax MF equipment, slowly going toward some AF stuff. You must have good reasons to change your equipment as your needs are different. More important than the equipment is what we do with it, so I hope there will be a link on the KMP to your pics. Best regards, Andre --
Re: Good-bye Pentax (was: Pentax needs USM and IS)
From: Cameron Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 09:13:07 -0800 the *ist D is way too late, and it better be cheap because it's last years' technology "last years' technology"? Why are you saying that? What's "last year" in it? We haven't seen the complete specification yet, but from what is known - it seems to be very updated. Because... * It uses a tweaked, updated, version of the Sony CCD chip (so this is "this years'" technology) * It has the most advanced and modern autofocus system in it's class. * It probably has some tricks - unknown for everyone except the clever people at the r&d department. (I suspect that it will have USM and IS support) * And, it's not late. It's perfect timing. Prices was to high last year. No one would have bought it. and the *ist has some nice features but is extremely tacky looking. I don't agree with you here. It has the best specification in it's class, it even gives F80 and EOS 30/33 a run for the money. And about the design, I like it a lot. It has style, it has class. I like it. Limited Lenses, while beautiful, have no camera to match them either in performance or cosmetics. The MZ-S match them, trouble is that the silver-black version is only available in Japan. Best wishes, Roland _ Hitta rätt på nätet med MSN Sök http://search.msn.se/
RE: Good-bye Pentax (was: Pentax needs USM and IS)
Hi Boz, Any system is not the be all and end all, just like with many other things, when you feel it doesn't perform then you are free to change. What is more important is that you are still a photographer. Many thanks for the KMP site, which has given me and many others an invaluable source of Pentax information. I'm glad to hear that you will keep it going. Just keep on taking those pictures. Good Luck. Ziggy
Re: Good-bye Pentax (was: Pentax needs USM and IS)
It is indeed a sad day for Pentax and the PDML that the great Bojidar Dimitrov is leaving. His fabulous K mount page is world class, and this is a sad indication of the state that Pentax has left it's advanced users. It is not offering any support or encouragement in the top echelons of SLRdom, and in spite of years and years of rumours, there has been no concrete offerings by them. The MZ-S was beautiful, but flawed; the *ist D is way too late, and it better be cheap because it's last years' technology, and the *ist has some nice features but is extremely tacky looking. There has been no improvements of the high end lenses in living memory, and the Limited Lenses, while beautiful, have no camera to match them either in performance or cosmetics. They don't even offer autofocus teleconverters for high end autofocus lenses that have been out for over a decade! I think Pentax was seriously hurt by the disasterous MZ-D; whether or not they have the fortitude to recover and to listen to their core customers is another story. We will definitely miss Bojidar's insiteful comments and his wonderful addition to the Pentax family, disfunctional though it may be. Best wishes to him from a long time (since '96) PDML member. Cameron Hood On Monday, March 17, 2003, at 06:30 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:51:33 +0100 From: Bojidar Dimitrov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Good-bye Pentax (was: Pentax needs USM and IS) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Roland, hi all, Roland Mabo wrote: Choosing SLR, is choosing a system. Those who wish to use the SLR primarly for p&s photography doesn't bother, but those who are serious about learning photography - who sees photography as an art, as a hobby or as an income - thinks about SLR as a system. I certainly do, and as much as I like Pentax bodies (LX, superProgram, ZX-5n), I am not convinced by Pentax's system. I chose a superProgram with a couple of A lenses when I was a student, and I still believe that for a limited budget Pentax is a great solution. There is plenty of second-hand gear and it is good, small, light, and inexpensive. BUT... when I started getting serious and ready to spend some more cash, I started watching with great envy those Canon and Nikon users. Now, I am a technical head more than an artist, so I was fascinated by things like USM, IS, AF eye-control, etc. Still, this was not enough to make me switch. I am a cost-conscious person, so I like to buy second-hand, and I do not go for the big profi items. But recently I started wanting a longer lens as well as a reasonable 70-200 lens, and found that I cannot really buy them from Pentax. Yes, they do have the FA* 300/2.8, FA* 400/5.6 and FA* 80-200/2.8, but I was not willing to buy them new, and I could not find them used. At the same time I wondered if I have confidence to even spend that money on a company that since 1984 has steadily but surely been falling behind the competition. A company whose most recent big-ticket item (the MZ-S) has been a flop (at least in my eyes and from a sales point-of-view), and a company that in the end of Feb 2003 still had no DSLR. So I started looking at Canon and Nikon more and more seriously. After I edjucated myself a bit about new names, series, compatibility, etc., I started having a rather sick feeling that I will be leaving Pentax soon. I bought an EOS 30 (Elan 7e) and the top-rated lenses EF 70-200/4 USM L and 28-105/3.5-4.5 USM. What can I say, I wasn't feeling sick anymore. USM may be seen just as a gimmick by some on this list, but USM lenses have full-time manual and allow the photographer to reach in and readjust the focus at any time, without having to switch or slide levers. The build quality is absolutely fantastic, and the manual focus feel is at least as good as that of an A-series lens. I have not spent the money on an IS lens yet, but I have the option, if I ever have the money. So I was not feeling sick any more... Just at that time the first news of the *ist and *ist D came out, and I was almost ready to abandon my plans to switch. After all, Pentax showed some new products, and they looked good! But after the euphory settled down, I took a critical look and had a sick feeling once again. I wasn't sure if my good old K and M lenses will work with the *ist, and the new Pentax lenses wern't itneresting at all. After all, I am happy with 2 bodies, but I want LENSES. And the Pentax's AF offerings are either too expensive for me (I must buy them new) or they are not there. At the same time they represent late 1980's and early 1990's technology. Add to that Canon's news about the 10D DSLR along with a (theoretically) perfect wide-angle zoom (17-40/4 USM), and I felt certain that my choice of a new system was the right one. I wish Pentax all the best, and I hope they st
Re: Good-bye Pentax (was: Pentax needs USM and IS)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you want the latest and greatest USM, IS etc, go out and get it, but it really won't make you a better photographer. Boz clearly stated that he is "a technical head more than an artist", and I can understand his reasoning. It's his money, and he's free to spend it as he sees fit. And I bet that whatever he does, he won't post here "Pentax s***s, Canon rules, you are all a bunch of morons" messages, like some distinguished pdml subscribers are doing. cheers, caveman
Re: Good-bye Pentax (was: Pentax needs USM and IS)
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Bojidar: Interesting approach and conclusion. I can > see your reasons for > leaving... But don't ever forget that it is the > photographs that make the > difference not the camera, not even really the > lenses. If you want the latest > and greatest USM, IS etc, go out and get it, but it > really won't make you a > better photographer. As I have said before, IS is > fine for lazy photographer > and special applications like shooting from a boat > or something) but I use a > tripod almost all the time and IS lenses would add > nothing but cost to my > outfit... I'm not saying that if Pentx came out with > an IS lens I wouldn't > buy one, but I certainly wouldn't change systems > because of it. My suggestion > would be to invest in film rather than the latest > equipment > > vic _ What I know about Boz in the very few weeks I've been here is 1. He knows who makes the photographs and 2. He most certainly is not "lazy", not if we jedge him by his herculean efforts building and housekeeping his site, a technical masterpiece he assiduously maintianed for legions of Pentax photographers/collectors. For you to condescnd to such a man shows a degree of contempt for his being that I find astonishing. = I get it done with YAHOO! DSL!
Re: Good-bye Pentax (was: Pentax needs USM and IS)
Bojidar: Interesting approach and conclusion. I can see your reasons for leaving... But don't ever forget that it is the photographs that make the difference not the camera, not even really the lenses. If you want the latest and greatest USM, IS etc, go out and get it, but it really won't make you a better photographer. As I have said before, IS is fine for lazy photographer and special applications like shooting from a boat or something) but I use a tripod almost all the time and IS lenses would add nothing but cost to my outfit... I'm not saying that if Pentx came out with an IS lens I wouldn't buy one, but I certainly wouldn't change systems because of it. My suggestion would be to invest in film rather than the latest equipment vic
Re: Good-bye Pentax (was: Pentax needs USM and IS)
Hi Bojidar, I understand your decision - but I feel that Pentax are moving towards USM and IS. And I believe that the *ist D has support for this technology. But, the question is always - how long will it take? New bodies and lenses with USM and IS. I believe that some might be released this fall, but the PMA show next year will probably be the place where Pentax releases it's new technology, a new FA* serie and a new flagship, and probably a more high-end digital SLR. Because they must do it, if they want to survive (and I'm sure they want this). I'm not worried, at least not know. But if Pentax has nothing at next years PMA, then I might reconsider my decision. To be honest, I want the MZ-5n/3 replacement *now*, I wish that Pentax had showned it at the PMA show. But I understand, Pentax is a small company and releasing two new filmbased SLR's would be too much for them. But I hope, I pray, I beg - that the MZ-5n/3 replacement will be released this fall. With the looks of the *ist D, I am standing ready with my credit card. :-) Best wishes, Roland From: Bojidar Dimitrov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:51:33 +0100 Hi Roland, hi all, Roland Mabo wrote: > > Choosing SLR, is choosing a system. Those who wish to use the SLR > primarly for p&s photography doesn't bother, but those who are > serious about learning photography - who sees photography as an > art, as a hobby or as an income - thinks about SLR as a system. I certainly do, and as much as I like Pentax bodies (LX, superProgram, ZX-5n), I am not convinced by Pentax's system. I chose a superProgram with a couple of A lenses when I was a student, and I still believe that for a limited budget Pentax is a great solution. There is plenty of second-hand gear and it is good, small, light, and inexpensive. BUT... when I started getting serious and ready to spend some more cash, I started watching with great envy those Canon and Nikon users. Now, I am a technical head more than an artist, so I was fascinated by things like USM, IS, AF eye-control, etc. Still, this was not enough to make me switch. I am a cost-conscious person, so I like to buy second-hand, and I do not go for the big profi items. But recently I started wanting a longer lens as well as a reasonable 70-200 lens, and found that I cannot really buy them from Pentax. Yes, they do have the FA* 300/2.8, FA* 400/5.6 and FA* 80-200/2.8, but I was not willing to buy them new, and I could not find them used. At the same time I wondered if I have confidence to even spend that money on a company that since 1984 has steadily but surely been falling behind the competition. A company whose most recent big-ticket item (the MZ-S) has been a flop (at least in my eyes and from a sales point-of-view), and a company that in the end of Feb 2003 still had no DSLR. So I started looking at Canon and Nikon more and more seriously. After I edjucated myself a bit about new names, series, compatibility, etc., I started having a rather sick feeling that I will be leaving Pentax soon. I bought an EOS 30 (Elan 7e) and the top-rated lenses EF 70-200/4 USM L and 28-105/3.5-4.5 USM. What can I say, I wasn't feeling sick anymore. USM may be seen just as a gimmick by some on this list, but USM lenses have full-time manual and allow the photographer to reach in and readjust the focus at any time, without having to switch or slide levers. The build quality is absolutely fantastic, and the manual focus feel is at least as good as that of an A-series lens. I have not spent the money on an IS lens yet, but I have the option, if I ever have the money. So I was not feeling sick any more... Just at that time the first news of the *ist and *ist D came out, and I was almost ready to abandon my plans to switch. After all, Pentax showed some new products, and they looked good! But after the euphory settled down, I took a critical look and had a sick feeling once again. I wasn't sure if my good old K and M lenses will work with the *ist, and the new Pentax lenses wern't itneresting at all. After all, I am happy with 2 bodies, but I want LENSES. And the Pentax's AF offerings are either too expensive for me (I must buy them new) or they are not there. At the same time they represent late 1980's and early 1990's technology. Add to that Canon's news about the 10D DSLR along with a (theoretically) perfect wide-angle zoom (17-40/4 USM), and I felt certain that my choice of a new system was the right one. I wish Pentax all the best, and I hope they stay in the game. That way Canon will have one more competitor, and may some day learn how to make smaller and lighter bodies and lenses. Now, back to reality. I will go on working on the KMP, and will try to improve it and make it more complete and more informative. I will also hang around on the PDML for few more weeks, at least. Best wishes to all and thanks for all I've learned from you! To all KMP contributors most sincere thanks! Bojidar Dimitrov
Re: Good-bye Pentax (was: Pentax needs USM and IS)
At 14:51 17.3.2003 +0100, Bojidar Dimitrov wrote: >... I bought an EOS 30 (Elan 7e) and the top-rated lenses EF >70-200/4 USM L and 28-105/3.5-4.5 USM. What can I say, I wasn't feeling >sick anymore. USM may be seen just as a gimmick by some on this list, >but USM lenses have full-time manual and allow the photographer to reach >in and readjust the focus at any time, without having to switch or slide >levers. The build quality is absolutely fantastic, and the manual focus >feel is at least as good as that of an A-series lens. I have not spent >the money on an IS lens yet, but I have the option, if I ever have the >money. So I was not feeling sick any more... Have fun with your new toys and thanks for all the KMP data you have collected over the years ! It would be nice to have you pop-in and let us know how things go from time to time. All the best, Antti-Pekka --- * Antti-Pekka Virjonen * Fiskarsinkatu 7 D * GSM: +358 500 789 753 * * Computec Oy Turku* FIN-20750 Turku Finland * Fax: +358 10 264 0777 *
