RE: Has Pentax missed again?
At 02:07 PM 10/17/03, throwing caution to the wind, Cotty wrote: What is a pro bag? it's black, natch.
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
Cotty wrote: > > On 17/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: > > >Given the lenses that WERE in my bag (20,28/1.4,50/1.4,85/1.8,180) I have > >lost my wider apertures and cannot exactly replace some lenses. I have > >in fact replaced ALL the lenses in my pro bag, primarily with zooms, > >to compensate--cost me more than the digital camera. > > What is a pro bag? I'm afraid to answer that one, Cotty! keith > > Cheers, > Cotty
RE: Has Pentax missed again?
On 17/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >Given the lenses that WERE in my bag (20,28/1.4,50/1.4,85/1.8,180) I have >lost my wider apertures and cannot exactly replace some lenses. I have >in fact replaced ALL the lenses in my pro bag, primarily with zooms, >to compensate--cost me more than the digital camera. What is a pro bag? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
RE: Has Pentax missed again?
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003, Rob Brigham wrote: > The FA50 1.4 is lovely. Had no use for that focal length before, but > with the 1.5 factor it(or the 43) was a must. My unhappiness with the > 77 has nothing to do with the picture quality, just that my favourite > lens now has a focal length that it of little use to me. Surprised I haven't heard more bitching about this loss of full lens functionality when we've heard so much bitching about loss of K/M metering functionality. It seems particularly odd to me since Pentax is not well provided with ultra-wides. (K 18 if you can find one, 15/3.5 is also hard to find and not cheap. That leaves K/M 20/4--very hard to find--and A/FA 20/2.8, plus the 20-35 FA and 18-35 FA J zooms. Less than half of these are A lenses). Do Pentax folks not shoot wider than 35mm effective focal length?? Now I know the reasons that Pentax didn't produce a full-frame sensor (they actually have the experience of why not to, with the MZ-D!) but the 1.5x crop thing is really messing up my lens line-up since I bought the lenses I had for their specific angles of view. Given the lenses that WERE in my bag (20,28/1.4,50/1.4,85/1.8,180) I have lost my wider apertures and cannot exactly replace some lenses. I have in fact replaced ALL the lenses in my pro bag, primarily with zooms, to compensate--cost me more than the digital camera. Same thing is currently messing with the nice Pentax system that I handed over to my girlfriend. Most of it is K/M stuff and will ultimately have to be replaced for *istD use. One of us has to find the money for a 20/2.8 FA (does it still exist? B&H is out of stock) or a 20-35/4.0 FA to give back what the K30/2.8 provided. Nothing really is going to be able to replace the M24-35 (was there a 16-?? FA J zoom due out? does it have a reasonable aperture?). DJE
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > REPLY: > > I'm not convinced. In order for the market to go where you predict in less > than five years digital need to offer more than simply "not using film" which is > basically all that there is to digital at present. Mind you, that may be > enough for many but not convincing enough for a wholesale switch to digital. In > addition, digital needs to get a lot cheaper (something I'm sure it will). > Likewise, camera sales doesn't really reflect camera usage or preferences. > Customers are buying what they don't own. For slr's all own film slr's; hardly > anyone > (yet) own a DSLR. > > > Pål > > To my way of thinking, no film is a pretty big advantage. So, just curious, > what else could DSLRs offer? Resolution as good as medium format? What? Built-in "polaroid back". Being able to see what you are getting as you are shooting is a huge win. In a recent survey of photojournalists as to how digital cameras have changed the profession this feature was the most often referred to advantage of digital over film. Image quality is no longer tied so much to an analogue physical process, so ultimately cameras can be made smaller for the same picture quality. Theoretically, DLRs could offer much better lens performance through technical wizardry in a couple of ways. 1) Lens distortion and abberation can be measured and corrected for mathematically, as is currently done in the "panotools" photoshop plug-in. Given faster in-camera processors there is no reason that in the future this could not be done in the image-processing stage. If the camera can compensate for known lens flaws, lenses could possibly be designed smaller and cheaper by not optically correcting for flaws that can easily be handled in image-processing. 2) Apparently getting a good image on a flat film plane is one of the major difficulties of lens design. Eventually, I can't see any reason why they couldn't make a digital sensor a hemisphere which would make it a lot easier to make better smaller lenses. E-mailing a photo to grandma is a lot easier with a digital original, and burning a CD of a "slide show" is a lot cheaper and easier too. If more people are sharing photos this way rather than in big prints and traditional slide shows, digital is an advantage. DJE
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
If you can stretch the 190 to 200 - me. I use it a lot for bird-life where the little critters are cheeky enough to perch within range, as they do at my daughter's place in the country! I frequently use the range 110-135 for presentations and speechy functions, where I can shoot from between 3 and 10 metres and get good head and shoulders or full-lengths of the speakers, or of the awardee and the presenter together. I've also used the longer focal lengths often enough to pick out part of a landscape to say that I find them useful. I would guess that many of my family shots fall in the 30-60 range: when I had only a 55/1.8 SMC Takumar, they all did! John Coyle Praxis Data Solutions Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: "Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 8:02 AM Subject: RE: Has Pentax missed again? > LOL! Now if it turned it into a 300 then that would be fine... > > Out of interest, who uses focal lengths between 110 and 190 regularly? > And what for? I find them too tight for portraits (unless I was outside > I guuess, where I could back up farther) and not long enough to be a > useful telephoto. Same goes for the 30-60 range for me. > > > -Original Message- > > From: Alan Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 15 October 2003 22:43 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: Has Pentax missed again? > > > > > > >The FA50 1.4 is lovely. Had no use for that focal length > > before, but > > >with the 1.5 factor it(or the 43) was a must. My > > unhappiness with the > > >77 has nothing to do with the picture quality, just that my > > favourite > > >lens now has a focal length that it of little use to me. > > > > And who says longer is better? :-) > > > > Alan Chan > > http://www.pbase.com/wlachan > > > > _ > > The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail > > > > >
RE: Has Pentax missed again?
LOL! Now if it turned it into a 300 then that would be fine... Out of interest, who uses focal lengths between 110 and 190 regularly? And what for? I find them too tight for portraits (unless I was outside I guuess, where I could back up farther) and not long enough to be a useful telephoto. Same goes for the 30-60 range for me. > -Original Message- > From: Alan Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 15 October 2003 22:43 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Has Pentax missed again? > > > >The FA50 1.4 is lovely. Had no use for that focal length > before, but > >with the 1.5 factor it(or the 43) was a must. My > unhappiness with the > >77 has nothing to do with the picture quality, just that my > favourite > >lens now has a focal length that it of little use to me. > > And who says longer is better? :-) > > Alan Chan > http://www.pbase.com/wlachan > > _ > The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail > >
RE: Has Pentax missed again?
The FA50 1.4 is lovely. Had no use for that focal length before, but with the 1.5 factor it(or the 43) was a must. My unhappiness with the 77 has nothing to do with the picture quality, just that my favourite lens now has a focal length that it of little use to me. And who says longer is better? :-) Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
That is what digital hasn't got. It, in my opinion, comes from the fine nuances of shading you get with film and not with digital. William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" Subject: RE: Has Pentax missed again? The FA*24 and 77ltd don't give me an fov that suits me ibn the ist either - and they are my fave lenses *sigh* Disappointing isn't it. Something that is really dissapointing, my 77 doesn't have that 3D quality that I found so enticing when used on the digital. William Robb -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com "You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway."
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
- Original Message - From: "Steve Desjardins" Subject: RE: Has Pentax missed again? > How are the normals on the *ist D? I noticed that some were saying > their 77 wasn;t as good as it used to be. I was wondering how the FA50 > 1.4 or the 43 ltd were with the 1.5 factor. The 77 seems to lose something in the translation to digital. I haven't had the time to go off and do any formal sorts of testing, but I think the 3D qualities haven't transferred as well as I had hoped they would. The new angle of view is certainly not one I am used to, but I think it will be reasonably useful. I've had an A 50mm f/1.2 that I have never had any use for at all. Owned it since I bought into Pentax, probably 15 years now. I love it on the *ist D. Perfect size for the camera, great balance, lots of light to keep the screen nice and bright for focussing. William Robb
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
> > Cotty wrote: > > C> Rob, I bet you are soo relieved you didn't cave in to the Sigma > C> DSLR a while back ;-) The *ist D is a little cutey. > > Yes, a nice box but still a box around the sensor. And the cutey thing > in Sigma is that Foveon sensor, something I wish to see in a Pentax > too at some point in the future. Hopefully the agreement between Foveon > and Sigma expires soon and the X3 sensors proliferates. It's best > thing that happened in the imaging industry since the colour film. I agree. I was lucky enough to attend a technical presentation on the Foveon sensor shortly before the Sigma camera was released (they had cameras there, but the model number was obscured). It's quite a stunning sensor, even allowing for the fact that the presentation was obviously designed to show off the Foveon technology in the best possible light. Unfortunately the presenter (and chief Foveon technologist, I believe) tends to rather overstate his case. Instead of merely claiming that their sensor is comparable to the performance of 35mm film, he instead wants you to believe that it out-performs medium format cameras as well. The end result, of course, (apart from embarrassing some of his other techies, who were also photographers) is that there is a temptation to ignore the whole set of claims because of this obvious exaggeration. That's a mistake, but it's all too easy a mistake to make.
RE: Has Pentax missed again?
On 15 Oct 2003 at 1:04, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > Problem with that thinking is that digital has already matched/beaten > medium format film in most the cameras in terms of grain/noise and the latest > 10-14 Mpixels models are giving it a run for the money in terms of > resolution. Might be beat with your MFcamera/scanner set-up but not mine. > I think medium format will be the first film format to bite > the dust.. The bodies and lenses are just too damn big > and will not be able to keep up with smaller, higher quality > digital in the long run. Maybe so however there are a lot of MF digi-backs being pushed into service by pros (not Pentax of course). Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: Has Pentax missed again?
The digital gear is great for all those photographic exploits where convenience and speed is far more important than absolute quality. My aim is to continue shooting MF film for as long as I can and all smaller format work will be digital. Of course I'd be putting film through my classic 35mm bodies occasionally but only for fun. === Problem with that thinking is that digital has already matched/beaten medium format film in most the cameras in terms of grain/noise and the latest 10-14 Mpixels models are giving it a run for the money in terms of resolution. I think medium format will be the first film format to bite the dust.. The bodies and lenses are just too damn big and will not be able to keep up with smaller, higher quality digital in the long run. JCO
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
- Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" Subject: RE: Has Pentax missed again? > > The FA*24 and 77ltd > > don't give me an fov that suits me ibn the ist either - and they are my > > fave lenses *sigh* > > Disappointing isn't it. Something that is really dissapointing, my 77 doesn't have that 3D quality that I found so enticing when used on the digital. William Robb
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
- Original Message - From: "Peter Alling" Subject: Re: Has Pentax missed again? > Since we don't have a Native SLR industry, (or for that matter camera > manufacturers) > they can't be accused of dumping. Well, not quite. Dumping is classified under GATT as selling a good for less than the cost of producing it. It is a problem when there is a native industry in competition. As soon as there is competition, then the accusations of dumping come along, and absurdly punitive duties get imposed. And the WTO paases its rulings, generally against the duties, and then the rulings get ignored, or else yet another set of duties gets imposed. And it goes on and on and on. It's only dumping when it is unhandy for you. William Robb
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
I agree to a point. I've seen mass media ads for Canon and Olympus, but few, if any, for Nikon, and very, very few, and then only P&S for Pentax. Bill - Original Message - From: "Peter Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 11:05 PM Subject: Re: Has Pentax missed again? > Since we don't have a Native SLR industry, (or for that matter camera > manufacturers) > they can't be accused of dumping. Pentax want's to recapture the US > market, it might > help if they advertised... > > At 08:54 AM 10/11/03, you wrote: > > >----- Original Message - > >From: "David Mann" > >Subject: Re: Has Pentax missed again? > > > > > > > > > The shop's website lists the *ist-D with FA-J 18-35mm for NZ$4095 > > > (US$2457). > > > > > > The Canon 300D with EF-S 18-55mm is NZ$2250 (US$1350). > > > > > > What are the US street prices for these kits? > > > >The Canadian street for the 300D with the 18-55 is $1599.00, the ist D with > >the 18-35 was $2400.00. > >The Canon 300D is not realistically priced. > >Can you say "dumping"? > >Were they selling wheat or softwood, there would be a trade embargo on > >Pentax going into the US right now. > > > >William Robb > > I drink to make other people interesting. > -- George Jean Nathan > >
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
Since we don't have a Native SLR industry, (or for that matter camera manufacturers) they can't be accused of dumping. Pentax want's to recapture the US market, it might help if they advertised... At 08:54 AM 10/11/03, you wrote: - Original Message - From: "David Mann" Subject: Re: Has Pentax missed again? > The shop's website lists the *ist-D with FA-J 18-35mm for NZ$4095 > (US$2457). > > The Canon 300D with EF-S 18-55mm is NZ$2250 (US$1350). > > What are the US street prices for these kits? The Canadian street for the 300D with the 18-55 is $1599.00, the ist D with the 18-35 was $2400.00. The Canon 300D is not realistically priced. Can you say "dumping"? Were they selling wheat or softwood, there would be a trade embargo on Pentax going into the US right now. William Robb I drink to make other people interesting. -- George Jean Nathan
RE: Has Pentax missed again?
Well I've got the cape, and I did feel the force of the dark side (oops sorry, you said dark slide!) for a long while, but then Pentax brought out a DSLR called the Yoda*ist, which saved me from the evil Canon Trade Federation for now! I love the mechanics of some of the LF cameras, from an engineering POV, but nothing in me wants to use one I am afraid. Sounds like exciting times for you though! The film darkroom has a special quality, which the digital darkroom cannot hold a candle too. > -Original Message- > From: mike wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > I meant, really, large format. Capes, dark slides and > suchlike. It's the way I am leaning to at present. Just > bought a Jobo processor from our lovely NHS. They got it for > an O.T. unit and never used it. It will do all my 35mm, MF > and potential LF needs for the forseeable future. Won't tell > you what I paid, you'll just start crying. > > m > >
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
Hi, Rob Brigham wrote: > > I have thought about it, honestly, for many years - but it just seems > like too much of a pain in the a**e. I really like the look of the 645, > didn't really like the 67 (sorry brothers), especially the finder. Its > been a constant should I, shouldn't I situation. I think what has > ultimately stopped me is that I just don't get enough time to engage my > pasisions for landscapes these days due to family commitments and the > fact that I work long hours so every moment with them is precious. In > years to come I can drag the kids over mountains with me - and maybe > they can carry the heavy MF gear! The developing and viewing really > puts me off too - stuck with specialist places at expensive prices, not > being able to view the slides except on a light table under a loupe or > scanning - expensive for a proper film scanner, and lots of work. 35mm > film is 'good enough' for my purposes in that respect. Digital would be > too - at a stretch, if only it could do wide angles. I meant, really, large format. Capes, dark slides and suchlike. It's the way I am leaning to at present. Just bought a Jobo processor from our lovely NHS. They got it for an O.T. unit and never used it. It will do all my 35mm, MF and potential LF needs for the forseeable future. Won't tell you what I paid, you'll just start crying. m
RE: Has Pentax missed again?
I have thought about it, honestly, for many years - but it just seems like too much of a pain in the a**e. I really like the look of the 645, didn't really like the 67 (sorry brothers), especially the finder. Its been a constant should I, shouldn't I situation. I think what has ultimately stopped me is that I just don't get enough time to engage my pasisions for landscapes these days due to family commitments and the fact that I work long hours so every moment with them is precious. In years to come I can drag the kids over mountains with me - and maybe they can carry the heavy MF gear! The developing and viewing really puts me off too - stuck with specialist places at expensive prices, not being able to view the slides except on a light table under a loupe or scanning - expensive for a proper film scanner, and lots of work. 35mm film is 'good enough' for my purposes in that respect. Digital would be too - at a stretch, if only it could do wide angles. > -Original Message- > From: mike wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 13 October 2003 21:42 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Has Pentax missed again? > > > Hi, > > Rob Brigham wrote: > > > However, when I am taking more artistic stuff like landscapes etc > > (which is my passion) > > > If landscape is what trips your shutter, _why_ go digital and > not large format? > > mike > >
RE: Has Pentax missed again?
Yeah, the Sigma lot seems to have gone eerily quite for a while. The price was tempting, and I liked the idea of the technology too. I don't buy the general derision of Sigma stuff in the industry, but I would rather not change my glass. I would still rather the SD9 to the 300D personally, but then I always go for the underdog! > -Original Message- > From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 13 October 2003 19:52 > To: pentax list > Subject: RE: Has Pentax missed again? > > > On 13/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: > > >I have taken over 600 shots in my istD in the last month. I would > >never have taken that many on film unless there was a > special occasion > >or something. I have gotten some shots of the family which are > >absolutely stunning and which I would have missed were I using film > >because I would not have had the camera in my hand so often. > Working > >this way you can capture moments you would have missed using your > >normal film techniques, but you have to be much more determined to > >throw away shots which don't work. With film I tended to keep even > >slightly blurred shots of the kids because they were records of a > >moment/mood/expression. > > Rob, I bet you are soo relieved you didn't cave in to > the Sigma DSLR a while back ;-) The *ist D is a little cutey. > > > > > Cheers, > Cotty > > > ___/\__ > || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche > ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps > _ > Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk > >
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
Hi, Rob Brigham wrote: > However, when I am taking more artistic stuff like landscapes etc (which > is my passion) If landscape is what trips your shutter, _why_ go digital and not large format? mike
RE: Has Pentax missed again?
> > a $8000 PC from 20 years ago would still run its > > original software just fine, and is screen would > > still show those gorgeous 4 shades of green... > > And you just compared the computer equivalent of > rubbing two sticks together or using a Zippo to > start a campfire. > > William Robb that was exactly the point i wanted to make. mishka
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
> Precision camera in Austin. Where are you located? > San Antonio. And Precision Camera was who I thought you might have meant. (Been there once. Bought my Optio 550 there.) > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Robert G posted: > > > >>I had my first look at a camera store near me and it looks > >>like a winner. Very light! But very solid. > > > > > > Which camera store ... > > ? > > > > > >
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
On 13/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >The technology is accelerating at a rate that is perhaps one hundred >times what we are used to in the film world. I can't see spending $1500 >for a six megapixel camera. In two or three years it will be a paperweight. How so Paul? I expect to be shooting still in that time frame on 6 MP. I may upgrade the printer - but I'll bet you a pint of Dogs Bollocks that a 11X8 print from my 6MP will be indiscernable from a same size print (same printer) off 8 or even 12 MP for that matter. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Has Pentax missed again (More shots)
My color prints usually come with an index print. I attached this to the envelope and can easily tell what negatives are in the envelope. One day I will catalog them so I can go to the right folder to seek the envelope I need. Jim A. > From: wendy beard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 11:27:16 -0400 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Has Pentax missed again (More shots) > Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Resent-Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 11:27:32 -0400 > > At 10:49 AM 13/10/2003 -0400, Vic wrote: >> The down side that gets overlooked is the amount of time needed to tweak and >> file all the digital images. > > Have to agree with that. > On the other hand, shooting digital has forced me to catalogue and backup > my shots. I now have a CD (or DVD) in a box file with an index print > showing all the files on the disc. > Shooting film, I'd get a load back from the processors, look through them > and then stack the envelopes neatly on the floor. Periodically the > envelopes would be moved to another spot and re-stacked when it looked like > the pile was about to fall over. > > > Wendy Beard, > Ottawa, Canada > http://www.beard-redfern.com > >
RE: Has Pentax missed again?
I don't disagree about the value of digital - in fact I was one of the 'others' who noted this! I was just staggered at how much you are paying! Provia for me is £3 per film. Process/Mount by Fuji is £4 - could get cheaper but I am more than happy with them. 3 of the lot for £20. Neg film works out about the same - film is about £2 and printing is about £5. This is where digital cant match the costs because if you printed 37 digital shots it would cost you a lot more. Of course not all would be worth printing, but even if you throw 10 prints away digital is still no cheaper than film on an ongoing basis never mind recouping the up front cost of the kit. When I am taking family/friends photos I would say 75% are keepers which I would want printed so digital cant match that on cost. However, when I am taking more artistic stuff like landscapes etc (which is my passion) I DO get a lot more wastage on film and digital WOULD pay for itself here eventually. But then I am using slide for this previously so cost is not my main driving factor here. If you want printed output you cant beat neg film for value - even over a lng period of time. > -Original Message- > From: John Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > The last time I was back in the UK I found that, much to my > surprise, many 35mm roll film costs (and, often, prices for > developing services) were rather lower than in the USA. Out > here Provia-100F costs $4:50 or so for a single roll (and > over twice that if you want the higher speed of 400F). > Process and mount from anywhere that I trust can be anything > from $10-$13 [quantity 1]. > > I'm not even sure I could find a much better deal; most of > the cheap bulk processors don't even touch slide film (not > that I'd let them; I've worked in one of those places - if I > wanted my slides scratched I'd do it myself). I can get > $7:50 - $8:00 per roll if I look around. But then I've got to > add in shipping costs , which gets me back up over > $10:00/roll. And in any case I much prefer to deal with in- > house processors; not only is there rather less chance of the > film getting lost in the mail, it's a lot easier to explain > just what you are not happy about when you're talking to a > live human being across a counter, and can *show* them the problem. > > Even at $10/roll, though, you only need to use one roll a > week for a *ist-D to pay for itself in three years. And, as > others have noted, you end up shooting a lot more with > digital anyway because the incremental cost is nil; you don't > need to end up with too many shots you would otherwise have > passed by before you are convinced that the outlay on the > digital was worth it.
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
> > Man, you are getting your stuff from the wrong place then! > > Even in 'rip-off Britain' Provia+Dev+Mount costs me about half that - > even for a single. The last time I was back in the UK I found that, much to my surprise, many 35mm roll film costs (and, often, prices for developing services) were rather lower than in the USA. Out here Provia-100F costs $4:50 or so for a single roll (and over twice that if you want the higher speed of 400F). Process and mount from anywhere that I trust can be anything from $10-$13 [quantity 1]. I'm not even sure I could find a much better deal; most of the cheap bulk processors don't even touch slide film (not that I'd let them; I've worked in one of those places - if I wanted my slides scratched I'd do it myself). I can get $7:50 - $8:00 per roll if I look around. But then I've got to add in shipping costs , which gets me back up over $10:00/roll. And in any case I much prefer to deal with in- house processors; not only is there rather less chance of the film getting lost in the mail, it's a lot easier to explain just what you are not happy about when you're talking to a live human being across a counter, and can *show* them the problem. Even at $10/roll, though, you only need to use one roll a week for a *ist-D to pay for itself in three years. And, as others have noted, you end up shooting a lot more with digital anyway because the incremental cost is nil; you don't need to end up with too many shots you would otherwise have passed by before you are convinced that the outlay on the digital was worth it. > > > -Original Message- > > From: John Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 13 October 2003 04:51 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: Has Pentax missed again? > > > > > > And, of course, in three years it's not that hard for even a > > $1500 camera to pay for itself; my normal film is Provia > > 100F. Processed and mounted I don't get all that much change > > from $20 for a single roll (though there are discounts for > > quantity). I'll shoot more than 100 rolls over a three-year > > period; using a digital body instead means I'll actually be > > spending less. > > > > >
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
- Original Message - From: "Mike Ignatiev" Subject: RE: Has Pentax missed again? > thanks for a great econ 101; i hate to break it to > you, but MP = MV. > > a $8000 PC from 20 years ago would still run its > original software just fine, and is screen would still > show those gorgeous 4 shades of green... > > you mix value and functionality. And you just compared the computer equivalent of rubbing two sticks together or using a Zippo to start a campfire. William Robb
Re: Has Pentax missed again (More shots)
Wendy posted: > At 10:49 AM 13/10/2003 -0400, Vic wrote: > >The down side that gets overlooked is the amount of time needed to tweak and > >file all the digital images. > > Have to agree with that. > On the other hand, shooting digital has forced me to catalogue and backup > my shots. I now have a CD (or DVD) in a box file with an index print > showing all the files on the disc. > Shooting film, I'd get a load back from the processors, look through them > and then stack the envelopes neatly on the floor. Periodically the > envelopes would be moved to another spot and re-stacked when it looked like > the pile was about to fall over. I hear that! Have 8,400+ photos in my Photoshop Album catalogue. The vast majority are digital images. All the digital images I've kept are easy to find -- they're stored on CD-Rs in numerical order. Most of my negatives and slides are nicely filed, by year, in binders. Find prints though Ha!
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
Precision camera in Austin. Where are you located? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Robert G posted: I had my first look at a camera store near me and it looks like a winner. Very light! But very solid. Which camera store ... ?
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
On Friday, Oct 10, 2003, at 19:28 America/New_York, Alan Chan wrote: Don't forget Canon took everyone by surprise with their Rebel Digital which was released later. Perhaps Pentax knew that. But if not, Pentax didn't choose not to compete with it, but forced not to. There is a big difference. I suspect that the Rebel Digital is selling on razor-thin margins. It would be a very risky venture for Pentax to do that with their very first DSLR. Since margins are typically higher on higher-end gear, Pentax (and Canon, Contax and Nikon before them) rolled out their first DSLR in the market segment where people don't think a lot about spending so much money. --jc
Re: Has Pentax missed again (More shots)
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 09:23:49 EDT > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Has Pentax missed again (More shots) > Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Resent-Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 09:24:00 -0400 > . > The down side that gets overlooked is the amount of time needed to tweak and > file all the digital images. > Vic > > >I borrowed a friend's D30 Canon to record a wedding a couple of months ago. He showed me some very basic PS to tweak the images. Shooting the wedding was fun. Doing the tweaking was a long process. Now I am back to shooting weddings on film only. I'll let the film processor do the tweaking for me. Jim A.
RE: Has Pentax missed again?
> But film > is fun, ans ome of us will continue to use it. It's a > different medium. Remember, they didn't stop using oil paints > when film was invented. Yep. After all, I can still get 120 film for my Yashicamat.
RE: Has Pentax missed again (More shots)
I agree with this argument. Everyone I have talked to who owns digital says they shoot more now than they ever did with film. They experiment more and the results show it... It's an argument in favour of digital that often gets overlooked. The down side that gets overlooked is the amount of time needed to tweak and file all the digital images. Vic Precisely. I have taken over 600 shots in my istD in the last month. I would never have taken that many on film unless there was a special occasion or something. I have gotten some shots of the family which are absolutely stunning and which I would have missed were I using film because I would not have had the camera in my hand so often. Working this way you can capture moments you would have missed using your normal film techniques, but you have to be much more determined to throw away shots which don't work. With film I tended to keep even slightly blurred shots of the kids because they were records of a moment/mood/expression. Some of these shots alone mean the camera has already paid for itself to me.
RE: Has Pentax missed again?
>Fortunately I've found a small independent one-hour lab operated by a guy who treats my film as if it were his own, and who takes good care of his equipment, but it's not the dip-and-dunk I could get two years ago. Another sign is the crash in value of processing gear. I bought a Jobo CPP with lift, three tanks, 11 35mm reels and 3 4x5 reels on the weekend at a camera fair for around US$280. Only one other guy had expressed interest. To buy that stuff here new would cost ten times as much. It's ironic that a couple of weeks after buying the *ist D I should be buying a film processor, but I have really enjoyed playing with monochrome 4x5 and would like to try colour. With the lift I should be able to do E6 and then I can scan that on the 2450. So long as the E6 kits are still available I will be happily self sufficient. I'm also accumulating flash bulbs when I can get them cheaply, for use with the Speed-Graphic. There is a bit of work to be done there to understand the effects of using small bulbs with large reflectors. Unfortunately the proper screw base bulbs are hard to come by here and are usually too expensive to import once you take postage into account. There are plenty of M2, M3 and PF5s still around, so I'll have to make do. I'm not sure whether a flash meter will measure the light correctly as the duration of the bulb is a lot longer and thus the cumulative amount of light in a 1/60 exposure could be greater even though a strobe has a much greater peak output. Paul Ewins Melbourne, Australia
RE: Has Pentax missed again?
Precisely. I have taken over 600 shots in my istD in the last month. I would never have taken that many on film unless there was a special occasion or something. I have gotten some shots of the family which are absolutely stunning and which I would have missed were I using film because I would not have had the camera in my hand so often. Working this way you can capture moments you would have missed using your normal film techniques, but you have to be much more determined to throw away shots which don't work. With film I tended to keep even slightly blurred shots of the kids because they were records of a moment/mood/expression. Some of these shots alone mean the camera has already paid for itself to me. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 13 October 2003 12:23 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Has Pentax missed again? > > > This is not true because it ignores the difference between > price and value. > Price is established when you sell something. Value is what > it is worth to > you. A computer or DSLR may have a low resale price, but > still be perfectly > capable of producing perfectly adequate work. A 6mp DSLR that > produces > excellent images today, will still do so 5 years from now. > > BR > > From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Bottom line is if you buy a DSLR, you better use it > and use it alot. It will not be worth much in say > 5 yrs, even MINT. Sorta like computers in that > respect. > >
RE: Has Pentax missed again?
This is not true because it ignores the difference between price and value. Price is established when you sell something. Value is what it is worth to you. A computer or DSLR may have a low resale price, but still be perfectly capable of producing perfectly adequate work. A 6mp DSLR that produces excellent images today, will still do so 5 years from now. BR From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Bottom line is if you buy a DSLR, you better use it and use it alot. It will not be worth much in say 5 yrs, even MINT. Sorta like computers in that respect.
RE: Has Pentax missed again?
Man, you are getting your stuff from the wrong place then! Even in 'rip-off Britain' Provia+Dev+Mount costs me about half that - even for a single. > -Original Message- > From: John Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 13 October 2003 04:51 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Has Pentax missed again? > > > And, of course, in three years it's not that hard for even a > $1500 camera to pay for itself; my normal film is Provia > 100F. Processed and mounted I don't get all that much change > from $20 for a single roll (though there are discounts for > quantity). I'll shoot more than 100 rolls over a three-year > period; using a digital body instead means I'll actually be > spending less. > >
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
> > I can't see spending $1500 for a six megapixel camera. > In two or three years it will be a paperweight. No. In two or three years it will still produce 6MP images. That's more than enough for most purposes; it's a full-frame 8x10 print at 300ppi. Unless you're shooting on a tripod, at optimal lens aperture, 6MP isn't going to be the weak link. I'm still using a three-year-old digital point-and-shoot that only has a paltry 3.3MP, and a lens that isn't anywhere near as good as my Pentax glass. I'm not ready to consign it to life as a paperweight just yet, though. And, of course, in three years it's not that hard for even a $1500 camera to pay for itself; my normal film is Provia 100F. Processed and mounted I don't get all that much change from $20 for a single roll (though there are discounts for quantity). I'll shoot more than 100 rolls over a three-year period; using a digital body instead means I'll actually be spending less.
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
Robert G posted: > I had my first look at a camera store near me and it looks > like a winner. Very light! But very solid. Which camera store ... ?
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
> > What I am worrying is that good quality processing might become harder and > harder to find in the near future. > > Alan Chan "Near Future" be blowed. In two years I've had to find a new place to get my slides processed twice because the lab I was using closed down, and one of the two labs that offered high-end enlargements from negatives is gone. I've also observed that at a big sporting event there's far less chance that you'll find a local lab offering pick-up and drop-off service for E6. Fortunately I've found a small independent one-hour lab operated by a guy who treats my film as if it were his own, and who takes good care of his equipment, but it's not the dip-and-dunk I could get two years ago.
RE: Has Pentax missed again?
Amen to that - After all these years I still cant find a lab I am even halfway happy with in terms of both consistency and results. That's the main reason I went to slides. The scanning time involved with slides to sensibly print them without spending a lot of money is part of what has pushed me to digital. Don't get me wrong, I still dearly love film - and want to keep using it. I have just bought 50 odd assorted films in bulk from a cheap source. Trouble is, when you go to grab for a camera it is all to easy to grab the digital first. Jury is still out on whether peoples predictions that I wont use film again will be proved right! Till it goes full frame, then landscapes will push me towards film for wideangle solutions. The FA*24 and 77ltd don't give me an fov that suits me ibn the ist either - and they are my fave lenses *sigh* > -Original Message- > From: Alin Flaider [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 12 October 2003 21:36 > To: Pål Jensen > Subject: Re: Has Pentax missed again? > > > > However I'm afraid it's just a > matter of time before I have to step in and get a DSLR, simply > because it keeps getting harder to put up with the photo-finishing > industry. > > Servus, Alin >
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
Really? I have never seen any pressure to switch from film to digital. I shoot with my Optio 230, a nice small digital camera. I still love slides, however and now have swung back to mostly film shooting than digital. Jim A. > From: "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:14:51 -0700 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Has Pentax missed again? > Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Resent-Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 15:14:46 -0400 > >> I think consumers are going to be forced into digital, whether they like it >> or not, if they are going to continue to take pictures. > > At least I can feel the pressure too. > > Alan Chan > http://www.pbase.com/wlachan > > _ > MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus >
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
What I am worrying is that good quality processing might become harder and harder to find in the near future. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan I think film will continue to be available for hobbyists. But pros will eventually be forced into digital. But not until 10 megapixel cameras are widely available for less than $1000. When will that happen? Two to three years at most. But film is fun, ans ome of us will continue to use it. It's a different medium. Remember, they didn't stop using oil paints when film was invented. _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
I think film will continue to be available for hobbyists. But pros will eventually be forced into digital. But not until 10 megapixel cameras are widely available for less than $1000. When will that happen? Two to three years at most. But film is fun, ans ome of us will continue to use it. It's a different medium. Remember, they didn't stop using oil paints when film was invented. Alan Chan wrote: > > >I think consumers are going to be forced into digital, whether they like it > >or not, if they are going to continue to take pictures. > > At least I can feel the pressure too. > > Alan Chan > http://www.pbase.com/wlachan > > _ > MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
I think consumers are going to be forced into digital, whether they like it or not, if they are going to continue to take pictures. At least I can feel the pressure too. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 12:30 PM Subject: Re: Has Pentax missed again? > > To my way of thinking, no film is a pretty big advantage. So, just curious, > what else could DSLRs offer? Resolution as good as medium format? What? Not dealing with film, and all the problems that go along with it is nice, but all that happens is a whole other set of problems crop up. Film is a very convenient storage medium for shooting a lot of pictures away from a home base. Shooting a lot of pictures on digital, especially those with large pixel count sensors at full quality requires huge amounts of storage. On the ist D, a 1 gb card holds 70 RAW files. Thats less than two rolls of film. The 1 gb card was fairly pricey too. Just for the price of the card, I could have bought 2 dozen rolls of film and paid for the processing. So, you have to want to get away from film enough to spend some dollars. Digital capture prints are deceptive. The lack of grain is amazing, but film really does have an advantage if you need to capture fine detail and translate that to large prints. The digital capture prints look like they are as good as medium format due to the lack of grain, but they aren't. The fine detail just isn't there. OTOH, most people don't care about that anyway. The lack of grain is enough to make them fall in love with the result. What really swayed me towards digital was the ist D itself. It had nothing to do with it being a digital camera, and everything to do with what a lovely piece of equipment it is. I would have bought it on the spot if it had been a film camera too. Well perhaps not, there is still that no K mount compatability issue, and I think I would have felt stronger about it with a film camera. The other thing with digital now is the coming lack of film compatable photo labs. Believe it, minilabs are becoming even less film friendly. Scanning technology, when applied to the needs of a one hour lab just doesn't cut it. The state of the art right now is 2000 PPI scanning capture, with the scans coming out at about 2000x3000 pixels. Just big enough to get all the scanning artifacts we have come to know and love. This may get better, or it may not. It depends on how much faster data tranfer speeds get, as that is really important to fast production turnaround. Personally, I don't think we are going to see much improvement in this area, as the dollars just don't add up for the manufacturers in what is now a rapidly shrinking market. I think consumers are going to be forced into digital, whether they like it or not, if they are going to continue to take pictures. William Robb
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
REPLY: I'm not convinced. In order for the market to go where you predict in less than five years digital need to offer more than simply "not using film" which is basically all that there is to digital at present. Mind you, that may be enough for many but not convincing enough for a wholesale switch to digital. In addition, digital needs to get a lot cheaper (something I'm sure it will). Likewise, camera sales doesn't really reflect camera usage or preferences. Customers are buying what they don't own. For slr's all own film slr's; hardly anyone (yet) own a DSLR. Pål To my way of thinking, no film is a pretty big advantage. So, just curious, what else could DSLRs offer? Resolution as good as medium format? What? Marnie aka Doe :-) Good to see you're still alive and kicking, Pal.
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
Alin wrote: Hopefully Pentax doesn't share your opinion. The DSLR potential market _is_huge_ - virtually every film SLR owner is going to eventually buy a DSLR in the next five years or so. Especially when the industry starts to drop film support and DSLRs enter the mid level SLR price area. REPLY: I'm not convinced. In order for the market to go where you predict in less than five years digital need to offer more than simply "not using film" which is basically all that there is to digital at present. Mind you, that may be enough for many but not convincing enough for a wholesale switch to digital. In addition, digital needs to get a lot cheaper (something I'm sure it will). Likewise, camera sales doesn't really reflect camera usage or preferences. Customers are buying what they don't own. For slr's all own film slr's; hardly anyone (yet) own a DSLR. Pål
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
Steve wrote: I don't think film will end for a long time, but once it becomes a niche market it's "dead" as far as the camera makers are concerned. I don't expect any further development in 35 mm SLRs. They'll be a heathy market, however, in older equipment and this alone will keep a revenue stream for the film makers. REPLY: Firstly, SLR's is a nice market to start with. Secondly, film will still be a preferred medium form many into this niche, at least until digital is more than merely an alternative. Thirdly, film slr's can be developed "cheaply" as spin-off from DSLR development. After all, the cameras share all the expensive camera parts and technology associated with it. The difference is a film transport vs. image processing circuitry. Surely not a big issue for either engineering and production. Provided there will be a film market, although seriously shrinked, there still will be development in film slr's. Not at least because they could be more profitable as manufacturer could charge more from film enthusiast than from the highly price sensitive digital market. What manufacturers need to do is to provide a reason for users to upgrade their film slr's. I believe we will see eg. a Nikon F6 quite soon... Pål
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
>A lot of people are predicting the end of film but I don't buy it. Yes more and more people are moving to digital but there are still millions of film cameras out there that will continue to be used for decades. I think people are beginning to panick a little too much about the future of film. People are dumping perfectly good cameras Paying $1,000s to buy digital camera's that will be outdated in two years. I for one will keep my film cameras and supplement them with a digital in time... Vic I agree. One thing one learns working with computers and digital stuff -- ALWAYS KEEP A BACK UP! An analog backup is preferable, if doable. You know, like paper and pen. :-) Or a paper filing system that duplicates some of one's electronic filing system. So when I get a DSLR I'll still keep my film camera. And while I am tremendously excited by what is happening with DSLRs, I want: the price to come down and possibly the resolution to rise. I am not totally positive that digital is now equal to film. Or maybe I want more medium format quality. :-) But they're here. Here to stay. And, hopefully, they'll just get better. I mean, I worry about increasingly frequent power outages. The more reliance on computers/digital, the more our systems become fragile if power/electricity becomes a major problem. Probably too doomsday, but I can't help thinking about it. Marnie aka Doe Analog backups may be necessary.
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
On 11/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >> The shop's website lists the *ist-D with FA-J 18-35mm for NZ$4095 >> (US$2457). >> >> The Canon 300D with EF-S 18-55mm is NZ$2250 (US$1350). >> >> What are the US street prices for these kits? > >The Canadian street for the 300D with the 18-55 is $1599.00, the ist D with >the 18-35 was $2400.00. I have AP in my hand right now. Here in the UK the *ist D with 18-35mm is GBP £1315 at Park Cameras (that's just under US $2200). Body only is quoted as GBP £1199 (US $1995). 300D quoted at GBP £750 (US $1248) body only. www.parkcameras.co.uk Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
Hi I just noticed an unusual phenomenon. While pretty much everybody online is selling the 300D kit ($999 US) I can't find anyone listing the *ist-D kit. The *ist-D body is going for $1699 US. I checked Adorama, B&H, Calumet, Ritz, and State Street. Does anyone else find that unusual? (or am I just getting paranoid?) Can anyone confirm that Pentax is selling the *ist-D kit in the US.
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
I wrote: > >I saw some of those samples when I was researching the camera myself, and > >really wondered if it would be a good choice for me (but still determined > >to > >try it). However, since using the camera and seeing my own results, I've > >been > >wondering just how they got those poor-quality samples. .. but I just revisited the Optio 550 review at dpreview.com and looked at the "samples" page, and those aren't the "poor-quality" samples I remember seeing somewhere -- I'm going to have to figure out where those were. dpreview's samples look good to me. ERN somewhat embarrassed ..
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
I saw some of those samples when I was researching the camera myself, and really wondered if it would be a good choice for me (but still determined to try it). However, since using the camera and seeing my own results, I've been wondering just how they got those poor-quality samples. I would love to see some "better" samples from anyone then if possible. I am particular interested in distance subjects with fine details. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
> >For that matter, have you seen images from the Pentax Optio 550?? > > I just checked the samples from dpreview & imaging resource and they aren't > as good as the other 5MP models I prefer. Not that 550 is bad, but there are > better choices. > > Alan Chan I saw some of those samples when I was researching the camera myself, and really wondered if it would be a good choice for me (but still determined to try it). However, since using the camera and seeing my own results, I've been wondering just how they got those poor-quality samples.
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
For that matter, have you seen images from the Pentax Optio 550?? I just checked the samples from dpreview & imaging resource and they aren't as good as the other 5MP models I prefer. Not that 550 is bad, but there are better choices. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
Chris posted, among many other things: > > Optical quality is important to me, but I don't have excessive > expectations for p&s digital. It's hard to find a 5MP digital that takes > really bad photos, and I'd feel comfortable enlarging the Optio 550's > shots to 5x7. I haven't made any 8x10's with one yet ... I have made a few. They look GREAT.
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
John Francis quoted Alan Chan and posted a comment: > > Perhaps I have a different way to approach the digital products. The 1st > > thing I check is the picture quality. If they aren't good, I don't care. Why > > bother to produce a 5MP model when the images are(sic) that good anyway? > > Have you checked the Canon PowerShot G1/2/3/4/5? The Olympus 30x0 series? > The image quality of each of those that I've tested seems perfectly adequate > for any situation where I'd consider using a 35mm camera without using flash. For that matter, have you seen images from the Pentax Optio 550??
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
John Francis quoted Alan Chan and posted a comment: > > Perhaps I have a different way to approach the digital products. The 1st > > thing I check is the picture quality. If they aren't good, I don't care. Why > > bother to produce a 5MP model when the images are(sic) that good anyway? > > Have you checked the Canon PowerShot G1/2/3/4/5? The Olympus 30x0 series? > The image quality of each of those that I've tested seems perfectly adequate > for any situation where I'd consider using a 35mm camera without using flash. For that matter, have you seen images from the Pentax Optio 550??
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
The D1 was based on the F100. It came out around a year before the D30. You're thinking of the Kodak/Nikon hybreds. BR From: "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I remember those days. Those big heavy ugly DSLRs which were not designed for the general public, but press photographers only. Even so, few were using them.
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
It's the rumored, but not yet announced, D2X that I'm waiting for. BR From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Nikon D2H, which very few if any people actually have in their hands right now but is promised this month, is better than the equivalent Canon EOS-1D. Canon isn't sitting still, of course, so their next offering will be better than the D2H.
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
but they are exactly so unique to draw much attention from the competitions. Damn, I mean "aren't", not "are". :-) And it's a matter of perspective. I don't expect my SLR to fit in my pocket, so why should I expect my p&s to take as good a photo as my SLR? If it could, I wouldn't need the SLR. :) A 5MP p&s digital is good enough for most standard shots, but if I'm going to put the emphasis on image quality then I'll probably bring my SLR instead. That is true. But when one can buy a better pic quality 5MP model, people would go for it. I think the strength of 550 is price. Is this the one that uses Pentax lenses? Yes. Possibly, but that can backfire as well. Nikon's SQ is turning off a lot of people. I definitely wouldn't mind seeing some more innovative designs, though, given the different requirements of digital p&s's. SQ does look ugly (to me). :-) Nikon has been good at designing tradition style cameras, but sucks on pretty much anything else. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, Alan Chan wrote: > >I admit to being a little confused as to why more people don't like > >Pentax's p&s digitals. Pentax has always excelled at putting out small, > >well-featured, well-built products. They're rarely the first on the > >market, but they're usually worth the wait. > > Not that I can see for the digital market so far. Pentax have some > reasonable digital cameras but they are exactly so unique to draw much > attention from the competitions. Again, I like them because they're unique, and it actually makes them easier to sell. It's a love/hate thing. If you're showing a customer 5 cameras that all look the same and then one Pentax that is completely different, the odds are maybe 50/50 that they'll like the Pentax over the other 5, instead of being 1/6. > >What do most people want in a p&s digital? Something small enough that > >they'll take it places, something reasonably well-built, and something > >with as much flexibility as you can fit into a small body. > > Perhaps I have a different way to approach the digital products. The 1st > thing I check is the picture quality. If they aren't good, I don't care. > Why bother to produce a 5MP model when the images are that good anyway? > I might just stay with a cheap 2MP for snaps and 4x6" prints only. Optical quality is important to me, but I don't have excessive expectations for p&s digital. It's hard to find a 5MP digital that takes really bad photos, and I'd feel comfortable enlarging the Optio 550's shots to 5x7. I haven't made any 8x10's with one yet, but the 5x7's I've seen from the 550 have been superb. And it's a matter of perspective. I don't expect my SLR to fit in my pocket, so why should I expect my p&s to take as good a photo as my SLR? If it could, I wouldn't need the SLR. :) A 5MP p&s digital is good enough for most standard shots, but if I'm going to put the emphasis on image quality then I'll probably bring my SLR instead. > >Most people are probably familiar with the Optio S, which might still be > >the smallest 3MP digital with a 3x optical zoom. Definitely in a class by > >itself. > > Everywhere I checked, the Casio is better than the Optio S. It's selling > point is compact size, and only imho. Is this the one that uses Pentax lenses? We don't carry Casio, so I'm not as familar with their stuff. > Marketing aside, I think Pentax need a new way to design their digital > products. They look too much like the traditional P&S. Sony, for > example, have good designs imho, and that alone made themselves to the > hands of many teenagers. Possibly, but that can backfire as well. Nikon's SQ is turning off a lot of people. I definitely wouldn't mind seeing some more innovative designs, though, given the different requirements of digital p&s's. chris
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Chris posted: > > > > I admit to being a little confused as to why more people don't like > > Pentax's p&s digitals. Pentax has always excelled at putting out small, > > well-featured, well-built products. They're rarely the first on the > > market, but they're usually worth the wait. > > > > What do most people want in a p&s digital? Something small enough that > > they'll take it places, something reasonably well-built, and something > > with as much flexibility as you can fit into a small body. For this, the > > Optio 550 is *perfect*, and I don't say that about many cameras. > > [snip long and well-deserved testimonial to the Optio 550's perfection] > > First problem is FINDING it. I live in what's supposedly the 9th or 10th > largest city in the USA and the electronics stores, big discount stores > and what passes here for camera stores, unanimously did not carry this > camera. In fact I don't think any of them carried any Pentax p&s > digital, whatsoever. Most of that is the fault of the retailers, but some of the blame has to be laid at Pentax's door. If they advertised even 1/4 as much as Canon, there'd be enough customers asking for them that the stores would begin to carry Pentax digital. The big problem here in Manitoba is trying to stop every single person from buying a Canon digital. They don't want them because they like what the cameras do; they want them because the advertising is Way Cool. Canon advertises the #$%$%# out of their products, and they sell to just about every Mom & Pop store that wants to buy. Pentax can only dream of having Canon's marketing budget, but it would be nice to see them do more with what they do have. chris
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, graywolf wrote: > Unfortunately Pentax no longer fills up warehouses before shipping. They > tend to sell faster than the dealers can get them. How many Pentax > digitals do you have in stock, Chris? How long do they sit around the > store? Now, tell us, where is your store again (grin)? Man, I'd love if that were true around these parts. We almost always have Pentax digital p&s's in stock, and they don't sell that quickly at all. I'm one of the few salespeople here who likes them enough to bother showing them to customers on a regular basis. Many people prefer to take the easy way and show models that they're a little more familiar with. So hey... if you're looking for one... ;) > I think that Pentax's market share in P&S digitals if somewhat beyond > their production capacity. That is called a seller's market, it is a > nice place for a manufacturer to be. I have no idea if this is true or not, but I'd love it to be. chris
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
Except that Pentax *has* been going there for a long time. Their entry-level film SLRs aren't any better built than Canon's Rebels or Nikon's F55/F75. As fun as it is to slag Canon, it's not really fair to criticize a Rebel for falling apart when used professionally day in and day out. They're simple not built for that and not marketed for that, and a Pentax MZ-60 or MZ-6 would fall apart just as quickly. True, the Rebel Digital (300D) might fall apart under similar use, but again... it's not built for that. If you want to get a camera to use professionally, frequently or roughly, get a 10D or a D100. The Rebel Digital just isn't made for that kind of use, and to my knowledge Canon hasn't claimed otherwise. chris On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, Treena wrote: > I just wonder how happy Rebel digital customers will be. Only time will > tell, obviously, but I'd be afraid to drop any money on one. The > reporters the company sends me are usually newbies, and almost every > single one tells me they have a great! camera - a Rebel. I just smile > and nod. Then after a few weeks of regular use, they bring it to me and > ask me what's wrong with it. I open the back and pieces of plastic fall > out. Important pieces of plastic. The camera doesn't work anymore after > that. It also doesn't get fixed because they spent the little bit of > savings they had to buy it and by this time, they're thoroughly > disgusted with it anyway. > > Now to be fair, I'm sure there are Rebels out there that have held up > over time - I just haven't seen a single one of them. If a customer who > buys a camera for less than $200 that breaks in a few months, how > unhappy will they be if they sink $1000 in a digital Rebel and pieces > fall out in a few months after low to moderate use? If it's the same > quality as the film camera, I have a hard time believing it will take > market share from anything over any real amount of time, AND if this is > the case and what it takes to compete in the low-end digital slr market, > I'd just as soon Pentax didn't go there.
RE: Has Pentax missed again?
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, tom wrote: > There are 2 types of p+s I'd like. One is the small, pocketable, > take-it-anywhere type, the other is the larger "serious" type. > > I'd take a Pentax for the former and a G5 for the latter *except* that > they just don't go wide enough. Digital p+s' in particular seem to > suffer from tele-itis. Yeah, it's hard to find good wide angles. Nikon's 5400 ain't bad, though. The G5 type is a class that's extremely popular with people who don't want the size, weight and cost of a DSLR, but I tend to polarize my preferences. If I have a p&s, I want it to be as small as possible, as long as the image quality doesn't completely suck. If I want good quality shots, I'll probably just go all the way and get a DSLR. > One more thing...with digital sensor sizes, it seems to me there's an > opportunity for a new class of p+s, a fixed lens camera with a seriously > fast lens. How about a p+s with a 28mm f/1.4? Maybe another with a > 85/1.4? I could do a whole wedding with those 2 cameras. Marketed > correctly they'd fill the niche occupied by the Contax T3, Minolta TC-1 > and Ricoh GR-1. This is a super good idea! Can you imagine a digital p&s with maybe 2 or 3 interchangeable high-quality fast lenses? Make it like an old M-series Leica, and I bet you couldn't make enough to meet the demand. chris
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
Have you checked the Canon PowerShot G1/2/3/4/5? The Olympus 30x0 series? The image quality of each of those that I've tested seems perfectly adequate for any situation where I'd consider using a 35mm camera without using flash. I haven't looked at the Nikon CoolPix 5700 in detail, but a preliminary look at the images my neighbour has prodiced on his suggest that it is a contender. Well, I was referring to the Pentax only. In fact, among the 5MP models, I quite like G5, F717, V1 & A1. None that from Nikon. :-( Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan _ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
> > Perhaps I have a different way to approach the digital products. The 1st > thing I check is the picture quality. If they aren't good, I don't care. Why > bother to produce a 5MP model when the images are(sic) that good anyway? Have you checked the Canon PowerShot G1/2/3/4/5? The Olympus 30x0 series? The image quality of each of those that I've tested seems perfectly adequate for any situation where I'd consider using a 35mm camera without using flash. I haven't looked at the Nikon CoolPix 5700 in detail, but a preliminary look at the images my neighbour has prodiced on his suggest that it is a contender. I wouldn't take a P&S digital if I wanted to end up with 24x16 prints, but I've seen some pretty good 8x10s produced using only a 3MP camera.
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
> > I remember those days. Those big heavy ugly DSLRs which were not designed > for the general public, but press photographers only. Even so, few were > using them. I guess it depends where you looked. In my experience as soon as the D1 came out you could hardly find an F5 in the media centre at motorsports events, and Nikon even made a few inroads into Canon territory. Then as soon as Canon came out with digitals, most of the EOS-1 bodies vanished. The big agencies will have one guy shooting Velvia on one body, digital on the other, and three guys each with two or three digital bodies. I'd estimate that digital has something like 80% of the market now.
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
imho, Olympus is going one further by playing the bleeding edge pro game. And they're waging a pretty extensive media campaign by getting Doug Dubler to do the ads. Interestingly they run Fuji film and Olympus ads in the same magazine featuring the same model --- perhaps to imply that the Olympus E1 digital quality is equal to Fuji film quality. Then they sponsor Mecedes Benz Fashion Week, Toronto Film Festival and other big events. They had to. Just catching up with Nikon and Canon is not going to get them business. The Olympus E1 seems to be an impressive system, and the body is very well sealed. However, I am not optimistic on their success. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
Pentax will price it and market it to meet their targets, whatever they are. The *ist-D is no Rebel Digital. They compete in different segments. If Pentax wanted to compete with a Rebel Digital, they would have called it a ZX-D or something like that. Don't forget Canon took everyone by surprise with their Rebel Digital which was released later. Perhaps Pentax knew that. But if not, Pentax didn't choose not to compete with it, but forced not to. There is a big difference. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan _ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
I admit to being a little confused as to why more people don't like Pentax's p&s digitals. Pentax has always excelled at putting out small, well-featured, well-built products. They're rarely the first on the market, but they're usually worth the wait. Not that I can see for the digital market so far. Pentax have some reasonable digital cameras but they are exactly so unique to draw much attention from the competitions. What do most people want in a p&s digital? Something small enough that they'll take it places, something reasonably well-built, and something with as much flexibility as you can fit into a small body. For this, the Optio 550 is *perfect*, and I don't say that about many cameras. It's small, about the same size as Olympus's C-50, and definitely one of the smallest 5MP cameras out there. It has a metal body, so it not only looks cool but it's pretty tough. How many people know that dpreview.com found the Optio 500 to have the best battery life of any prosumer camera they tested? Yup, the Optio 550 outlasts the Canon G3/G5 with its big honkin BP-511 and the Sony F707/F717 with its large InfoLITHIUM FM50. Plus you get shutter and aperture priority, full manual mode, and manual focus, although (like with any p&s) these are a PITA to use sometimes. So far it's a lot like the Olympus C-50, except for the excellent battery life, but the *really* cool part is the zoom. Not the standard 3x optical, but a 5x lens, 38-188mm equivalent. Good luck finding that in another compact 5MP camera. Sure, image quality isn't as good as a DSLR, but it's fine for most purposes. Perhaps I have a different way to approach the digital products. The 1st thing I check is the picture quality. If they aren't good, I don't care. Why bother to produce a 5MP model when the images are that good anyway? I might just stay with a cheap 2MP for snaps and 4x6" prints only. Most people are probably familiar with the Optio S, which might still be the smallest 3MP digital with a 3x optical zoom. Definitely in a class by itself. Everywhere I checked, the Casio is better than the Optio S. It's selling point is compact size, and only imho. The Optio 33L is nothing much to write home about, but Pentax still managed to put in a cool flip-out LCD in a camera that's priced comparably to many 2MP digitals. And the 33WR, with its Class 7 water-resistance, is unique. These 2 are more interesting consider their price and specification. As much as I dislike Pentax's slowness to bring products to market, I have to admire the originality of the stuff they bring out. It's true that they're not mindlessly popping out Canon/Nikon/Sony/Olympus clones, but I respect them for this. There are a few more cameras I wouldn't mind seeing in their lineup, but I have no complaints about the models they have out now. It's tempting to lay the blame on their marketing department (I swear that Canon's working on a way to broadcast ads to me while I sleep), but some of the blame has to lie on the retail salesmonkeys who would rather push a big brand name than a unique and well thought out product. Marketing aside, I think Pentax need a new way to design their digital products. They look too much like the traditional P&S. Sony, for example, have good designs imho, and that alone made themselves to the hands of many teenagers. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
Unfortunately Pentax no longer fills up warehouses before shipping. They tend to sell faster than the dealers can get them. How many Pentax digitals do you have in stock, Chris? How long do they sit around the store? Now, tell us, where is your store again (grin)? Go to a mass marketer. Look for Pentax digital cameras. None there? Does that mean that Pentax is not selling, or does it mean they are selling so fast that they can not be kept on the shelves? Pentax has released the S4 while they have not yet shipped all the orders for the S3. I think that Pentax's market share in P&S digitals if somewhat beyond their production capacity. That is called a seller's market, it is a nice place for a manufacturer to be. Chris Brogden wrote: On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, Alan Chan wrote: Unfortunately, when it comes to P&S digital, Canon & Sony are the leading players. Pentax (& Olympus) might be the winner in the old day with film based P&S, but these products are losing their ground. And I must say, none of the current Pentax digital P&S attract my eyes. I admit to being a little confused as to why more people don't like Pentax's p&s digitals. Pentax has always excelled at putting out small, well-featured, well-built products. They're rarely the first on the market, but they're usually worth the wait. What do most people want in a p&s digital? Something small enough that they'll take it places, something reasonably well-built, and something with as much flexibility as you can fit into a small body. For this, the Optio 550 is *perfect*, and I don't say that about many cameras. It's small, about the same size as Olympus's C-50, and definitely one of the smallest 5MP cameras out there. It has a metal body, so it not only looks cool but it's pretty tough. How many people know that dpreview.com found the Optio 500 to have the best battery life of any prosumer camera they tested? Yup, the Optio 550 outlasts the Canon G3/G5 with its big honkin BP-511 and the Sony F707/F717 with its large InfoLITHIUM FM50. Plus you get shutter and aperture priority, full manual mode, and manual focus, although (like with any p&s) these are a PITA to use sometimes. So far it's a lot like the Olympus C-50, except for the excellent battery life, but the *really* cool part is the zoom. Not the standard 3x optical, but a 5x lens, 38-188mm equivalent. Good luck finding that in another compact 5MP camera. Sure, image quality isn't as good as a DSLR, but it's fine for most purposes. Most people are probably familiar with the Optio S, which might still be the smallest 3MP digital with a 3x optical zoom. Definitely in a class by itself. The Optio 33L is nothing much to write home about, but Pentax still managed to put in a cool flip-out LCD in a camera that's priced comparably to many 2MP digitals. And the 33WR, with its Class 7 water-resistance, is unique. As much as I dislike Pentax's slowness to bring products to market, I have to admire the originality of the stuff they bring out. It's true that they're not mindlessly popping out Canon/Nikon/Sony/Olympus clones, but I respect them for this. There are a few more cameras I wouldn't mind seeing in their lineup, but I have no complaints about the models they have out now. It's tempting to lay the blame on their marketing department (I swear that Canon's working on a way to broadcast ads to me while I sleep), but some of the blame has to lie on the retail salesmonkeys who would rather push a big brand name than a unique and well thought out product. chris -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com "You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway."
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
I'm sure that the market for SLRs of any kind is pretty small, and getting smaller every year. The 35mm SLR was successful against the cameras of the day because it was smaller, lighter, and cheaper. The picture quality wasn't as good, but it was good enough. And the SLR design was ideal for interchangeable-lens systems. Today the digital point-and-shoots are smaller and lighter than the SLR-based designs. The picture quality is certainly good enough for most users, and the optical quality of all but the cheapest models is impressive. Look at what you can get from Sony or Nikon for $500-$600. Very few people will need the extra flexibility of an interchangeable-lens system when you can get cameras that fit in your pocket with 8x or 10x zoom. Sure, there will continue to be a small market for SLRs, both film and digital. But even there it looks as though the digital market is moving to smaller, lighter models; both Canon and Pentax are introducing smaller, lighter lenses for the smaller sensors. In the perpetual tradeoff between quality and convenience the arguments for stopping at the 35mm-sized SLR are decreasing. > I hear you, but have to wonder. > Will the current crop of 25 year olds ever move to a digital SLR? > They don't know anything about film qualities. > When they need to replace that old 5 megapixel Sony, > will it be another point-n-shoot with 15 megapixels? > > I don't know how long it will be before > digital completely superceeds 35mm film cameras. > I am paying attention to what the publishers are doing. > When I hear that they want digital, I get uncomfortable. > When digital is good enough for their higher quality uses, > 35mm film becomes a hobby item. > > Bob S. > > >From: Alin Flaider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Bob, I am aware of the omnipresence of digital p&s over the pond. > > Last autumn in NY I could hardly spot a SLR elsewhere than at B&H, > > while digicams were all over the place. I also agree the demand for > > digicams is even far from reaching the peak. > > > > My point is that DSLRs still appeal to those who want image > > quality, speed, versatility, etc. and it's likely that current > > owners of film SLRs will get a DSLR as soon as it enters their > > affordable area for the very same reasons they purchased the film > > SLR in the very beginning. Of course some that inherited or got > > accidentally in the SLR will be perfectly happy with digi-toys, but > > I suspect an important segment won't settle for less than a DSLR. > > Then the potential DSLR market amounts to what? - even for Pentax > > users base the figure must be in the millions. It would be foolishly > > for Pentax to ignore it. > > _ > Get MSN 8 Dial-up Internet Service FREE for one month. Limited time offer-- > sign up now! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup >
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
On Friday, Oct 10, 2003, at 13:34 America/New_York, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pentax, Minolta, and Olympus aren't playing the cutting-edge-pro-technology game because at this point Nikon and Canon have a huge lead. imho, Olympus is going one further by playing the bleeding edge pro game. And they're waging a pretty extensive media campaign by getting Doug Dubler to do the ads. Interestingly they run Fuji film and Olympus ads in the same magazine featuring the same model --- perhaps to imply that the Olympus E1 digital quality is equal to Fuji film quality. Then they sponsor Mecedes Benz Fashion Week, Toronto Film Festival and other big events. They had to. Just catching up with Nikon and Canon is not going to get them business. --jc
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > This is interesting perception of Canon, because it means folks have a short > memory. Ignoring the Kodak/Nikon/Canon DSLRs for the moment, The Nikon D1 was > out well before the Canon D30. Canon was playing catchup to Nikon in the > begining (at least a year). Now things are back to the status quo with Canon > being a step ahead of Nikon. It's more of a leap-frog. The Nikon D2H, which very few if any people actually have in their hands right now but is promised this month, is better than the equivalent Canon EOS-1D. Canon isn't sitting still, of course, so their next offering will be better than the D2H. Nikon has been playing catch-up with lens technology of late but now has a couple of lens offerings that Canon will want to match. Pentax, Minolta, and Olympus aren't playing the cutting-edge-pro-technology game because at this point Nikon and Canon have a huge lead. Honestly it has never been Pentax's strong point. Pentax wins with cameras like the ME Super. Given this, I'd have thought that they would make something more like the MZ-D would have been for the die-hard Pentax nuts and something more like the Canon digital rebel to compete in the "ME Super" market. Of course the digital rebel probably caught all the other camera companies flat-footed, just as the D1 did. DJE
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
I just wonder how happy Rebel digital customers will be. Only time will tell, obviously, but I'd be afraid to drop any money on one. The reporters the company sends me are usually newbies, and almost every single one tells me they have a great! camera - a Rebel. I just smile and nod. Then after a few weeks of regular use, they bring it to me and ask me what's wrong with it. I open the back and pieces of plastic fall out. Important pieces of plastic. The camera doesn't work anymore after that. It also doesn't get fixed because they spent the little bit of savings they had to buy it and by this time, they're thoroughly disgusted with it anyway. Now to be fair, I'm sure there are Rebels out there that have held up over time - I just haven't seen a single one of them. If a customer who buys a camera for less than $200 that breaks in a few months, how unhappy will they be if they sink $1000 in a digital Rebel and pieces fall out in a few months after low to moderate use? If it's the same quality as the film camera, I have a hard time believing it will take market share from anything over any real amount of time, AND if this is the case and what it takes to compete in the low-end digital slr market, I'd just as soon Pentax didn't go there. - Original Message - From: "Juey Chong Ong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 9:14 AM Subject: Re: Has Pentax missed again? > On Thursday, Oct 9, 2003, at 20:43 America/New_York, Joseph Tainter > wrote: > > > The issue is gaining market share. Newcomers are more frequently > > swayed by price. It is not until they are more experienced that they > > realize they will need those extra-cost features. Newcomers will buy > > this Canon, not the starkistdee. > > Pentax will price it and market it to meet their targets, whatever they > are. The *ist-D is no Rebel Digital. They compete in different > segments. If Pentax wanted to compete with a Rebel Digital, they would > have called it a ZX-D or something like that. > > btw, you can now get a Nikon D100 for US$1,499. That's a US$100-US$200 > price cut, I think. > > --jc >
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, Alin Flaider wrote: > Kevin wrote: > > KW> I really dont think Pentax is too fussed about the dSLR market, consentrating > KW> more on point and shoot folks is where the dollars are. > > Hopefully Pentax doesn't share your opinion. > The DSLR potential market _is_huge_ - virtually every film SLR owner > is going to eventually buy a DSLR in the next five years or so. > Especially when the industry starts to drop film support and DSLRs > enter the mid level SLR price area. Perhaps a bit optimistic about the timetable. Guys that are buying the $200 film Canon Rebels, and there are a lot of them, aren't going to buy the digital Rebels until Canon can get them down to $200 or so. Canon clearly cut every corner it could to get the digital Rebel down to the price it is, and I think the technology has to mature a lot before digital SLRs will get that cheap. Film will be with us for a while yet. Probably fewer kinds, and more expensive, but enough people will still want slides and B&W and to use their cheap film SLRs to keep it in business. Kodak has announced that they are cutting back on DEVELOPMENT of new films, since the pros who really care about film quality are going digital for cost-of-business reasons, but I doubt they are going to stop MAKING film any time soon. DJE
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
Alan, I hear you, but have to wonder. Will the current crop of 25 year olds ever move to a digital SLR? They don't know anything about film qualities. When they need to replace that old 5 megapixel Sony, will it be another point-n-shoot with 15 megapixels? I don't know how long it will be before digital completely superceeds 35mm film cameras. I am paying attention to what the publishers are doing. When I hear that they want digital, I get uncomfortable. When digital is good enough for their higher quality uses, 35mm film becomes a hobby item. Bob S. From: Alin Flaider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Bob, I am aware of the omnipresence of digital p&s over the pond. Last autumn in NY I could hardly spot a SLR elsewhere than at B&H, while digicams were all over the place. I also agree the demand for digicams is even far from reaching the peak. My point is that DSLRs still appeal to those who want image quality, speed, versatility, etc. and it's likely that current owners of film SLRs will get a DSLR as soon as it enters their affordable area for the very same reasons they purchased the film SLR in the very beginning. Of course some that inherited or got accidentally in the SLR will be perfectly happy with digi-toys, but I suspect an important segment won't settle for less than a DSLR. Then the potential DSLR market amounts to what? - even for Pentax users base the figure must be in the millions. It would be foolishly for Pentax to ignore it. _ Get MSN 8 Dial-up Internet Service FREE for one month. Limited time offer-- sign up now! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup
RE: Has Pentax missed again?
> -Original Message- > From: alex wetmore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, tom wrote: > > Right now the p+s I'd like to get is that Pentax w/ the 24mm. > > Which model is this? Espio 24EW. I just checked, the lens is kind of slow. > > > One more thing...with digital sensor sizes, it seems to > me there's an > > opportunity for a new class of p+s, a fixed lens camera with a > > seriously fast lens. How about a p+s with a 28mm f/1.4? > Maybe another > > with a 85/1.4? I could do a whole wedding with those 2 cameras. > > Marketed correctly they'd fill the niche occupied by the > Contax T3, > > Minolta TC-1 and Ricoh GR-1. > > I agree. > > This new Panasonic Lumix camera seems to be a push in the > right direction > for that, although it still has a zoom lens (but it is a very fast > one, 28-90/2): > > http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/news/articles/story_440.html Wow, that's pretty cool. tv
RE: Has Pentax missed again?
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, tom wrote: > Right now the p+s I'd like to get is that Pentax w/ the 24mm. Which model is this? > One more thing...with digital sensor sizes, it seems to me there's an > opportunity for a new class of p+s, a fixed lens camera with a > seriously fast lens. How about a p+s with a 28mm f/1.4? Maybe another > with a 85/1.4? I could do a whole wedding with those 2 cameras. > Marketed correctly they'd fill the niche occupied by the Contax T3, > Minolta TC-1 and Ricoh GR-1. I agree. This new Panasonic Lumix camera seems to be a push in the right direction for that, although it still has a zoom lens (but it is a very fast one, 28-90/2): http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/news/articles/story_440.html If I'm reading the text on the lens right it looks like it is using a 2/3" sized CCD, which probably means it is the same chip that is in the Sony F717 and the Minolta D7 series of cameras. That has lower noise than most P&S digital cameras, although it can't compete with a D-SLR. I'm curious to see what these end up selling for. I have a Ricoh GR-1 that I'd sell if anyone is interested. alex
RE: Has Pentax missed again?
> -Original Message- > From: Chris Brogden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > I admit to being a little confused as to why more people don't like > Pentax's p&s digitals. Pentax has always excelled at > putting out small, > well-featured, well-built products. They're rarely the first on the > market, but they're usually worth the wait. > > What do most people want in a p&s digital? Something small > enough that > they'll take it places, something reasonably well-built, > and something > with as much flexibility as you can fit into a small body. There are 2 types of p+s I'd like. One is the small, pocketable, take-it-anywhere type, the other is the larger "serious" type. I'd take a Pentax for the former and a G5 for the latter *except* that they just don't go wide enough. Digital p+s' in particular seem to suffer from tele-itis. Right now the p+s I'd like to get is that Pentax w/ the 24mm. One more thing...with digital sensor sizes, it seems to me there's an opportunity for a new class of p+s, a fixed lens camera with a seriously fast lens. How about a p+s with a 28mm f/1.4? Maybe another with a 85/1.4? I could do a whole wedding with those 2 cameras. Marketed correctly they'd fill the niche occupied by the Contax T3, Minolta TC-1 and Ricoh GR-1. tv
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
On Thursday, Oct 9, 2003, at 20:43 America/New_York, Joseph Tainter wrote: The issue is gaining market share. Newcomers are more frequently swayed by price. It is not until they are more experienced that they realize they will need those extra-cost features. Newcomers will buy this Canon, not the starkistdee. Pentax will price it and market it to meet their targets, whatever they are. The *ist-D is no Rebel Digital. They compete in different segments. If Pentax wanted to compete with a Rebel Digital, they would have called it a ZX-D or something like that. btw, you can now get a Nikon D100 for US$1,499. That's a US$100-US$200 price cut, I think. --jc
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, Alan Chan wrote: > Unfortunately, when it comes to P&S digital, Canon & Sony are the > leading players. Pentax (& Olympus) might be the winner in the old day > with film based P&S, but these products are losing their ground. And I > must say, none of the current Pentax digital P&S attract my eyes. I admit to being a little confused as to why more people don't like Pentax's p&s digitals. Pentax has always excelled at putting out small, well-featured, well-built products. They're rarely the first on the market, but they're usually worth the wait. What do most people want in a p&s digital? Something small enough that they'll take it places, something reasonably well-built, and something with as much flexibility as you can fit into a small body. For this, the Optio 550 is *perfect*, and I don't say that about many cameras. It's small, about the same size as Olympus's C-50, and definitely one of the smallest 5MP cameras out there. It has a metal body, so it not only looks cool but it's pretty tough. How many people know that dpreview.com found the Optio 500 to have the best battery life of any prosumer camera they tested? Yup, the Optio 550 outlasts the Canon G3/G5 with its big honkin BP-511 and the Sony F707/F717 with its large InfoLITHIUM FM50. Plus you get shutter and aperture priority, full manual mode, and manual focus, although (like with any p&s) these are a PITA to use sometimes. So far it's a lot like the Olympus C-50, except for the excellent battery life, but the *really* cool part is the zoom. Not the standard 3x optical, but a 5x lens, 38-188mm equivalent. Good luck finding that in another compact 5MP camera. Sure, image quality isn't as good as a DSLR, but it's fine for most purposes. Most people are probably familiar with the Optio S, which might still be the smallest 3MP digital with a 3x optical zoom. Definitely in a class by itself. The Optio 33L is nothing much to write home about, but Pentax still managed to put in a cool flip-out LCD in a camera that's priced comparably to many 2MP digitals. And the 33WR, with its Class 7 water-resistance, is unique. As much as I dislike Pentax's slowness to bring products to market, I have to admire the originality of the stuff they bring out. It's true that they're not mindlessly popping out Canon/Nikon/Sony/Olympus clones, but I respect them for this. There are a few more cameras I wouldn't mind seeing in their lineup, but I have no complaints about the models they have out now. It's tempting to lay the blame on their marketing department (I swear that Canon's working on a way to broadcast ads to me while I sleep), but some of the blame has to lie on the retail salesmonkeys who would rather push a big brand name than a unique and well thought out product. chris
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
Alin, Every computer store, every electronics store, every large floor space, mass merchandise store carries digital point-n-shoot. Only the best, pro camera store will carry a 35mm digital, and they are dropping Pentax 35mm. The market here in the USA is clearly point-n-shoot. Christmas will show a new crop of them with full features for $500. My 24 year old son is looking for a digital camera. His wife already has a cheap point-n-shoot (under $150 some time ago), but he wants something better. He's got a Super Program outfit, but recognizes it will cost many rolls of film to teach her to use it well. Digital is a free download to their computers. All this is for their first dog, but could well be for a first child. This is where the new digital cameras are going, and what they are getting used for. This is not terribly different from my first 35mm camera purchase. I bought a ME some months before an overseas vacation and probably paid $200 some 25 years ago. The price point for today's point-n-shoot camera is in the same ballpark (in today's $$$). Pentax is going to sell these cameras to us, the old 35mm user base. Regards, Bob S. From: Alin Flaider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Kevin wrote: I really dont think Pentax is too fussed about the dSLR market, consentrating more on point and shoot folks is where the dollars are. Hopefully Pentax doesn't share your opinion. The DSLR potential market _is_huge_ - virtually every film SLR owner is going to eventually buy a DSLR in the next five years or so. Especially when the industry starts to drop film support and DSLRs enter the mid level SLR price area. Servus, Alin _ Help protect your PC. Get a FREE computer virus scan online from McAfee. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
This is interesting perception of Canon, because it means folks have a short memory. Ignoring the Kodak/Nikon/Canon DSLRs for the moment, The Nikon D1 was out well before the Canon D30. Canon was playing catchup to Nikon in the begining (at least a year). Now things are back to the status quo with Canon being a step ahead of Nikon. BR From: "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> In fact, I think the whole DSLR market has been leaded by Canon since the very beginning. Everyone has been playing catch-up game.
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
I dont deny that the market potential is huge, just that Pentax have not really taken to it, leaving it for the other manufactures to fight over. Whilst in the point and shoot arena, they are the market leaders. That would be a bad thing to give up for them. I am quite happy with the meagre digital offerings as it stands. So long as there is at least _some_ sort of product, I am happy. Unfortunately, when it comes to P&S digital, Canon & Sony are the leading players. Pentax (& Olympus) might be the winner in the old day with film based P&S, but these products are losing their ground. And I must say, none of the current Pentax digital P&S attract my eyes. However, I think the DSLR market is still young and the game is not done yet, not until full frame 135 format became affordable and popular at least. There is a good chance Minolta might release a DSLR next year with AS technology which is used on A1. If Pentax followed the same route, Pentax might be able to gain their position once again because every lens will be turned into IS/VR lens instantly. That alone would make Pentax & Minolta attractive to many consumers because they did not have to buy those expensive, heavy & bulky IS/VR lenses. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
This one time, at band camp, Alin Flaider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hopefully Pentax doesn't share your opinion. > The DSLR potential market _is_huge_ - virtually every film SLR owner > is going to eventually buy a DSLR in the next five years or so. > Especially when the industry starts to drop film support and DSLRs > enter the mid level SLR price area. I dont deny that the market potential is huge, just that Pentax have not really taken to it, leaving it for the other manufactures to fight over. Whilst in the point and shoot arena, they are the market leaders. That would be a bad thing to give up for them. I am quite happy with the meagre digital offerings as it stands. So long as there is at least _some_ sort of product, I am happy. Kind regards Kevin -- __ (_ \ _) ) | / / _ ) / _ | / ___) / _ ) | | ( (/ / ( ( | |( (___ ( (/ / |_| \) \_||_| \) \) Kevin Waterson Port Macquarie, Australia
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
- Original Message - From: "Joseph Tainter" Subject: Has Pentax missed again? > The November Pop Photo arrived today, complete with an article on > Canon's new dSLR selling for $899. Yep, $899. It lacks a bunch of > features, but otherwise has the same sensor as the 10D and apparently > takes marvelous photos. Seen the Rebel. It's Ok. The ist is nicer, even the Rebel owner that I know thinks so. Canon has a very real advantage over Pentax, that being mature manufacturing of DSLRs. They've been doing it long enough now that they have paid for a lot of development costs. The Rebel is nothing new, its a stripped 10D in a cheap plastic body. > > The issue is gaining market share. Newcomers are more frequently swayed > by price. It is not until they are more experienced that they realize > they will need those extra-cost features. Newcomers will buy this Canon, > not the starkistdee. Pentax will fail to gain (and probably continue to > lose) market share unless it comes out with something comparably priced. Umm, how can they lose market share in the DSLR market? If they sell any product, they gain market share. What is the alternative? I guess that would be to stay out of the DSLR market. How long do you think Pentax would keep making SLRs and lenses if they did this? Photography is going digital. There is no doubt in my mind that this is so. It offers too many advantages over film, with few disadvantages. All the new photolab technology is geared towards digital. Noritsu is marketing 13 minilabs on their website right now. Only 4 are optical printers. The state of technology at the moment gives digital a quality edge over film when both are printed on the same machine. This is not likely to change. We already complain all the time about how hard it is to get quality printing from film, and it is going to get harder, quite a bit harder. Unless you have a digital camera. If you have one of those, and use it at an appropriate file size setting, it gives very nice prints. Nicer than those from film, in fact. So, the choice a camera maker has is to get into the market, or eventually close up shop completely. Pentax would become the next Olympus if they stay out of the game. Do you want a Pentax SLR or not? They have to be on the shelf for you to be able to make that choice. Canon is a Goliath at the moment, and is throwing their weight around pretty good. That makes it tough to compete, but the alternative is to go home. If Pentax does that, we all lose, film SLRs are on their way out. Of this I am sure. Personally, I think the ist D is worth the extra coin. It is a nicer camera. William Robb
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
This one time, at band camp, Joseph Tainter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The November Pop Photo arrived today, complete with an article on > Canon's new dSLR selling for $899. Yep, $899. It lacks a bunch of > features, but otherwise has the same sensor as the 10D and apparently > takes marvelous photos. I really dont think Pentax is too fussed about the dSLR market, consentrating more on point and shoot folks is where the dollars are. Kind regards Kevin -- __ (_ \ _) ) | / / _ ) / _ | / ___) / _ ) | | ( (/ / ( ( | |( (___ ( (/ / |_| \) \_||_| \) \) Kevin Waterson Port Macquarie, Australia
