Re: Pentax is Dying?
Actually, I was thinking about this rumour: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1028&message=9474786 a REAL full frame 645... DagT > Fra: "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Once again I must ask, Why. It makes more sense to put the FF sensor in > a 35mm size body, maybe with a dual > lens mount 645 and K mount but the 35mm lenses have a major advantage in > resolution. > > DagT wrote: > > > > > På 16. jul. 2004 kl. 22.48 skrev Alan Chan: > > > >>> there are probably other equally plausible explanations. I share your > >>> frustration. > >> > >> > >> Maybe they have been in the process of replacing the FA lenses? > > > > > > That would be nice, a set of DA prime lenses with the Quick shift > > focus and the 14mm build. > > > > Let´s face it, the FF sensor is for the 645 :-) > > > > DagT > >
Re: Pentax is Dying?
Gringo, the rumor on canon/nikon lists is that they are expecting a MF digital solution too. A. On 18 Jul 2004, at 04:05, El Gringo wrote: You're so negative Rob, why is that?? It's scheduled for early 2005, not exactly that far off now is it? A couple other posters provided some interesting ideas as to what Pentax might actually be making. People want a "pro" solution, Pentax discusses said solution, and then people like you complain, and complain. My prediction is that neither Nikon or Canon will come out with a full frame MF format digital camera body unless Pentax has some serious success with theirs. So you can count them out of contention for now. As for the other companies, I don't think they can compete with Pentax. The only MF camera that is interesting to me at all outside of Pentax's offerings is the Mamiya 7. If there was a digital version of that camera with a digital viewfinder I would sell all my camera equipment in a heartbeat and buy that. Two things keep people from buying the 7 though, MF rolls are too cumbersome for action photography, and the viewfinder is not convenient at all. In fact, I simply don't do the type of shooting where I can afford to not have a TTL viewfinder. The 645 digital on the other hand has massive potential. It could be made smaller than it is, more in the range of a large 35mm, it could burst faster than any film MF camera, and it has a real viewfinder, unlike the Mamiya 7. Not to mention that it has a nice range of high quality Pentax 645 lenses. This could be THE camera to own if Pentax pulls out all the stops. It's sad that Pentax gave up their 35mm dominance, but, I think it gives them a small advantage now. If they can convince people that 35mm is more for amateurs or specialized pros, and that newer, dedicated MF digital cameras are the choice for any pros whose major concern is image quality and then respectable portability, they will be sitting in a winning position, with very little investment in a dying market, i.e. the 35mm market. While the major 35mm competitors will be left with a shrinking market, and a huge investment in that market. Now, I'm not saying the 35mm market is dying, or going to die, but I think it's looking a bit more and more out of place... The increasing quality and affordability of digital P&S cameras are attacking from the low end, and the increasing affordability, and decreasing size of MF digitals will be attacking it from the high-end. People talk about FF sensors having advantages, well, what about MF sensors?? Wouldn't every 35mm shooter love to have MF quality with the same features and portability of 35mm systems?? I would. And that could happen with Pentax's new 645 digital... I'm reminded by captain Kirk's quote in the first Star Trek movie: "If you can't win a game by the rules, change the rules of the game." Or something to that effect. Basically, Pentax would have a heck of a time beating Nikon and Canon in 35mm, so what do you do?? You don't beat them at 35mm, you beat them where they have no presence. MF. Think about it, it works, it could be big. IF sensors just get bigger and cheaper as the years go by, why stop at 35mm?? MF could be the future of pro and serious amateur photography. There will always be a place for portable systems, but for those who want the UTMOST quality, MF is the promised land. -el gringo -Original Message- From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 7:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Pentax is Dying? On 17 Jul 2004 at 12:08, El Gringo wrote: And Antonio, people do know things about it, for one, it's supposed to be out in early 2005. For another, the things I've said are straight from the mouth of an executive at Pentax. This bothers me greatly. Sure it would be nice to have a full frame MF digi- solution but the whole concept strikes me as a severe misapplication of funds/development considering how badly their K-format kit is dragging its knuckles. Let alone the fact that by the time Pentax actually delivers such an MF-digi product to market everyone else in contention will already have products to market, we've seen it all before. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: Pentax is Dying?
What's a Cotty? Did he convert to Canonism? Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 17. juli 2004 09:34 Til: pentax list Emne: Re: Pentax is Dying? On 17/7/04, Rob Studdert, discombobulated, offered: >> > Maybe they have been in the process of replacing the FA lenses? >> >> That would be nice, a set of DA prime lenses with the Quick shift focus >> and the 14mm build. >> >> Let´s face it, the FF sensor is for the 645 :-) > >If they do that and replace the FA lenses with DA or something of their ilk >I'll definitely do a Cotty. You'd be joining a growing line of PDMLers, sigh. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
RE: Pentax is Dying?
On 17 Jul 2004 at 21:05, El Gringo wrote: Sorry if this is old news but only came though a moment ago: > You're so negative Rob, why is that?? I guess I'm just older and wiser than yourself, give it time, you'll get there, just don't be impatient :-) > It's scheduled for early 2005, not > exactly that far off now is it? It's just not needed and will find no place in the market but for a few die hards. > A couple other posters provided some > interesting ideas as to what Pentax might actually be making. People want a > "pro" solution, Pentax discusses said solution, and then people like you > complain, and complain. It's not a solution to a problem. A wanted solution is a 35mm FF sensor which offers higher absolute resolution, this will put anyone with a practical perspective off the idea of an MF digi. > My prediction is that neither Nikon or Canon will come > out with a full frame MF format digital camera body unless Pentax has some > serious success with theirs. I predict they they will both still retain viable businesses which is what will count to them. > The > only MF camera that is interesting to me at all outside of Pentax's offerings is > the Mamiya 7. If there was a digital version of that camera with a digital > viewfinder I would sell all my camera equipment in a heartbeat and buy that. I predict that you will never see such a beast from Mamiya, not based on their Mamiya 7 or lenses for that system in any case. > Two things keep people from buying the 7 though, MF rolls are too cumbersome for > action photography, and the viewfinder is not convenient at all. In fact, I > simply don't do the type of shooting where I can afford to not have a TTL > viewfinder. The Mamiya 7 was not designed with action photography in mind, nor close focus or hand held low light or precision focus with fast lenses. > People talk about FF sensors having advantages, well, > what about MF sensors?? Wouldn't every 35mm shooter love to have MF quality > with the same features and portability of 35mm systems?? I would. And that > could happen with Pentax's new 645 digital... I'm not interested in any less than FF solutions in any case and likely not 645 solutions at all, the lenses are too cumbersome and limited for me. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Pentax is Dying?
Once again I must ask, Why. It makes more sense to put the FF sensor in a 35mm size body, maybe with a dual lens mount 645 and K mount but the 35mm lenses have a major advantage in resolution. DagT wrote: På 16. jul. 2004 kl. 22.48 skrev Alan Chan: there are probably other equally plausible explanations. I share your frustration. Maybe they have been in the process of replacing the FA lenses? That would be nice, a set of DA prime lenses with the Quick shift focus and the 14mm build. Let´s face it, the FF sensor is for the 645 :-) DagT
RE: Pentax is Dying?
Yes, I do know what it is. In space it can be a phenomenon, essentially however, all a gravity lens does is bend light, the same way glass would, except, without diffusion, without any kind of degradation. Just a fun thing I was hoping would capture someone's imagination, but I forget about the idiots in the world all to often... Thanks for reminding me. -el gringo -Original Message- From: Gonz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 12:12 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying? El Gringo wrote: > Maybe a thousand years from now, > science will invent a gravity generator, then a portable gravity generator, > then tiny gravity generators and anti-gravity generators, then maybe cameras > in the future will focus with perfectly formed gravity lenses... > LOL. Do you even know what a gravity lens is?
Re: Pentax is Dying?
På 19. jul. 2004 kl. 19.11 skrev Gonz: El Gringo wrote: Maybe a thousand years from now, science will invent a gravity generator, then a portable gravity generator, then tiny gravity generators and anti-gravity generators, then maybe cameras in the future will focus with perfectly formed gravity lenses... LOL. Do you even know what a gravity lens is? As we know it works well for very long lenses - veery long :-) DagT
Re: Pentax is Dying?
Hmmm...I remember a little ;) company named Wang making the same statement back in the 80's. El Gringo wrote: Thats like saying the typewriter is going to make a comeback against MS Word. I mean, MS word could be doomed, it really could be, probably not, but it could be. -el gringo -Original Message- From: mike wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 3:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying? Hi, El Gringo wrote: do that. Also, digital sensors are limited by physics, but there may be a day when there is a sensor for every photon of light. I'm not sure you are saying what you mean. up significantly?? Decades ago?? What about digital?? A few months ago, and not only was the resolution increased, but the noise levels were reduced, the color was improved, the speed of capture was improved, everything got a little better. And a few months from now, it will happen again, and again, and again, and again... So, if I don't _need_ one, why should I buy one now if a better one will come along next month? That would be a remarkably stupid action by your predictions. Except, if I and many others don't, what you prophesy will not come to pass. I managed to destroy APS and disc film cameras. Never bought one of those and look what happened. Digital could be doomed.. Ned Ludd
Re: Pentax is Dying?
John Francis wrote: A few years ago many of the best 16x20 and 20x30 prints were digitally produced on a lighjet printer (205ppi R/G/B lasers on photographic paper). I remember that. LaserPhoto or something like that, out of Florida. Amazing prints. They had some type of process where they characterized emulsions and compensated (digitally) for their characteristics. Kodachrome came out beautifully, almost life-like. I think they went out of business, can't seem to find them anywhere. rg
Re: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
Ver clever William, yes the lens focal lengh doesnt change but the view you get is no longer that of an 85mm lens because of the crop factor. Which is what I was refering too. But of course you know that and are just being a smarty pants. A. On 19 Jul 2004, at 16:13, William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: "Antonio Aparicio" Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying) Yes, but because of the crop factor your 85mm portrait lens is now a 132mm lens. Therefore for a portrait lens you would use say the 50mm, hence a different DOF, no? Wrong. The focal length of a lens is fixed. If the manufacturer makes an 85mm lens, then that is what it will be, no matter what format is put behind it. Wishful thinking won't change that either. William Robb
Re: Re: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
- Original Message - From: "Antonio Aparicio" Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying) > Yes, but because of the crop factor your 85mm portrait lens is now a > 132mm lens. Therefore for a portrait lens you would use say the 50mm, > hence a different DOF, no? Wrong. The focal length of a lens is fixed. If the manufacturer makes an 85mm lens, then that is what it will be, no matter what format is put behind it. Wishful thinking won't change that either. William Robb
Re: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
On 19 Jul 2004 at 7:39, Tom Reese wrote: > Antonio wrote: > > "Shorter lenses have greater DOF and because you are using shorter > lenses to get the same AOV as with 35mm you are therefore getting more > DOF." > > It doesn't work that way. If you shoot a full length portrait with a 135mm > lens at f/8 and then you move much closer to the subject with a 50mm lens at f/8 > to get the exact same image size, the depth of field will be identical. What > will change will be the angle of view. You will see much more background behind > the subject with the 50mm than you will with the 135mm. The reality is that it practically it makes no difference. IOW stopping down one more stop will provide more effective DOF than moving from 35mm to a 1.5x crop sensor at the same magnification. What you have to remember is that DOF is just a photographers guide, it's not a law. 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: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
Exaclty, so with the *ist you get greater DOF for the same focal length or AOV. Which is fine if that is what you want but not gret if you like shallow DOF without having to resort to a 300mm lens. A. On 19 Jul 2004, at 13:23, Don Sanderson wrote: But with the smaller frame on the *ist D you get the same (subject) image size: 1.) From a Greater Distance with the same focal length. 2.) With a shorter Focal Length from the same distance. Both of these conditions would INCREASE depth of field it seems to me. Or is there some law of optics I'm not aware of at work here? Don -Original Message- From: Tom Reese [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 6:39 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying) Antonio wrote: "Shorter lenses have greater DOF and because you are using shorter lenses to get the same AOV as with 35mm you are therefore getting more DOF." It doesn't work that way. If you shoot a full length portrait with a 135mm lens at f/8 and then you move much closer to the subject with a 50mm lens at f/8 to get the exact same image size, the depth of field will be identical. What will change will be the angle of view. You will see much more background behind the subject with the 50mm than you will with the 135mm. Wide angle lenses give you more depth of field than longer lenses when they are set at identical points in the focusing range. A 20mm lens focused at 10 feet will give you more depth of field than a 100mm lens focused at 10 feet. In your example, the wide angle lens will be focused at a much closer distance than the longer lens. The DOF will be the same if the subject image size is the same. Tom Reese
RE: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
But with the smaller frame on the *ist D you get the same (subject) image size: 1.) From a Greater Distance with the same focal length. 2.) With a shorter Focal Length from the same distance. Both of these conditions would INCREASE depth of field it seems to me. Or is there some law of optics I'm not aware of at work here? Don > -Original Message- > From: Tom Reese [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 6:39 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is > Dying) > > > Antonio wrote: > > "Shorter lenses have greater DOF and because you are using shorter > lenses to get the same AOV as with 35mm you are therefore getting more > DOF." > > It doesn't work that way. If you shoot a full length portrait with a 135mm > lens at f/8 and then you move much closer to the subject with a > 50mm lens at > f/8 to get the exact same image size, the depth of field will be > identical. > What will change will be the angle of view. You will see much more > background behind the subject with the 50mm than you will with the 135mm. > > Wide angle lenses give you more depth of field than longer lenses > when they > are set at identical points in the focusing range. A 20mm lens > focused at 10 > feet will give you more depth of field than a 100mm lens focused > at 10 feet. > In your example, the wide angle lens will be focused at a much closer > distance than the longer lens. The DOF will be the same if the > subject image > size is the same. > > Tom Reese > > >
Re: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
Yes, but what about the old 85mm range which is what most people use for portraits? A. On 19 Jul 2004, at 03:53, Rob Studdert wrote: On 18 Jul 2004 at 21:40, J. C. O'Connell wrote: Makes no sense, for same AOV you are using shorter lenses and have a smaller reproduction ratio with APS size formatvs FF 35mm. DOF should not be same as 35mm full frame format. It should be more DOF than 35mm. It might be a greater DOF in absolute terms but practically its nothing from a photographic image making perspective. IOW DOF is still practically nil when shooting a 300/2.8 wide open using a FF 35mm or APS frame. 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: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
Yes, but because of the crop factor your 85mm portrait lens is now a 132mm lens. Therefore for a portrait lens you would use say the 50mm, hence a different DOF, no? A. On 19 Jul 2004, at 01:20, Rob Studdert wrote: On 18 Jul 2004 at 16:21, Antonio Aparicio wrote: You correct Don. DOF is an issue for 1.5x cropped APS digital sensor cameras. Of course, having said that its only an issue if you enjoy a shallow DOF. For those who want greater DOF I guess digital is a godsend. Personally I like the DOF of my current film setup, so a full frame digital camera with no crop would be just the ticket. DOF on the *ist D is more or less the same as film i.e. I'm still often struggling to achieve a decent DOF only the cropped AOV is an issue for me. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
Exactly. That is what I thought too. Shorter lenses have greater DOF and because you are using shorter lenses to get the same AOV as with 35mm you are therefore getting more DOF. A. On 19 Jul 2004, at 03:40, J. C. O'Connell wrote: Makes no sense, for same AOV you are using shorter lenses and have a smaller reproduction ratio with APS size formatvs FF 35mm. DOF should not be same as 35mm full frame format. It should be more DOF than 35mm. JCO -Original Message- From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 7:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying) On 18 Jul 2004 at 16:21, Antonio Aparicio wrote: You correct Don. DOF is an issue for 1.5x cropped APS digital sensor cameras. Of course, having said that its only an issue if you enjoy a shallow DOF. For those who want greater DOF I guess digital is a godsend. Personally I like the DOF of my current film setup, so a full frame digital camera with no crop would be just the ticket. DOF on the *ist D is more or less the same as film i.e. I'm still often struggling to achieve a decent DOF only the cropped AOV is an issue for me. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Power Options - (was Re Pentax is Dying?)
I'm cery pleased with the *istD's power options. The first set of CRV3s lasted for 999 shots and the second set are going strong with a further 600+. Look Mum, no mains required! There's always the option of the RCRV3s if required, and totally non-proprietary. Won't get stuffed for huge battery replacement costs when the camera is getting on a bit and no l9nger supported. Nick -Original Message- From: "Dr. Shaun Canning"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: 18/07/04 23:40:11 To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying? Hah! The same way they dealt with power supply issues with the *ist Dlet the owners worry about it! Many other DSLR's come with rechargeable batteries (or they are at least available for them), but not the *ist D. This is a major let down IMHO. The ability to use of AA's is great, but not so great when you need half a dozen sets of batteries to keep the thing going. There's another thread on this very topic I started yesterday regarrding possible alternative methods of powering the *ist D. Cheers Shaun Alan Chan wrote:
RE: Pentax is Dying?
On 19 Jul 2004 at 14:05, Tanya Mayer Photography wrote: > OMG, Rob, did you just say something *positive* about the *istD?!!? Or was I > just hallucinating? Maybe I've been eating too many choc chip cookies... (I've > been on a bit of a baking binge the last few days...) Sort of, in a round-about way. > *GASP* Could it be, that Mr Studdert is starting to *like* his *istD?!? I like the concept and all that's good about digital and that I can now shoot digital with K-mount lenses but I definitely don't think the *ist D represents the pinnacle of DSLR development if you get my drift. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: Pentax is Dying?
RCR-V3's. It's the best way possible to run the istD. Only problem with them is, I haven't seen any RCR-V3 battery chargers that can charge more than one at a time With the battery grip attached a guy needs for of the suckers so it would be nice to have a charger that can at least do 2 at a time. -el gringo -Original Message- From: Dr. Shaun Canning [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 5:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying? Hah! The same way they dealt with power supply issues with the *ist Dlet the owners worry about it! Many other DSLR's come with rechargeable batteries (or they are at least available for them), but not the *ist D. This is a major let down IMHO. The ability to use of AA's is great, but not so great when you need half a dozen sets of batteries to keep the thing going. There's another thread on this very topic I started yesterday regarrding possible alternative methods of powering the *ist D. Cheers Shaun Alan Chan wrote: >> Lets not forget that the Pentax 645 system IS portable. In fact it >> weights no more than comparable Nikon/Canon high-end slr systems. The >> 645 is down right small compared to EOS-1Ds or similar! I'm sure >> Pentax will make a 645 DSLR even smaller. > > > Without the film transport mechanisms, it is quite possible. Don't > know how they will deal with the power supply though. > > Alan Chan > http://www.pbase.com/wlachan > > _ > Free yourself from those irritating pop-up ads with MSn Premium. Get > 2months FREE* > http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=htt p://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines > > > -- _ Dr. Shaun Canning P.O. Box 21, Dampier, WA, 6714, Australia. m: 0414 967644 http://www.heritageservices.com.au [EMAIL PROTECTED] _
RE: Pentax is Dying?
OMG, Rob, did you just say something *positive* about the *istD?!!? Or was I just hallucinating? Maybe I've been eating too many choc chip cookies... (I've been on a bit of a baking binge the last few days...) *GASP* Could it be, that Mr Studdert is starting to *like* his *istD?!? ;-) tan. -Original Message- From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, 19 July 2004 10:15 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying? On 19 Jul 2004 at 6:40, Dr. Shaun Canning wrote: > Hah! The same way they dealt with power supply issues with the *ist > Dlet the owners worry about it! Many other DSLR's come with > rechargeable batteries (or they are at least available for them), but > not the *ist D. This is a major let down IMHO. The ability to use of > AA's is great, but not so great when you need half a dozen sets of > batteries to keep the thing going. It must be the way you shoot as I don't get though batteries very fast at all. My old E-10 used to gobble them up at about 5x the rate that the *ist D does so when I my first set in the *ist D kept going and going I was truly amazed. I am so glad that the *ist D doesn't rely on some proprietary Li-ion technology. My X-Drive does and it's a real pain, it it only used AA cells. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Pentax is Dying?
On 18 Jul 2004 at 20:24, Jerry Todd wrote: > Hi, > > I just logged on to the list earlier today and this is my first message. > Can you explain what a wet mount is, why or how it is better than the > standard setup, and how you go about making such a modification. Hi Jerry, Wet mounting isn't a manufacturers option, it's only available through third party vendors. Wet mounting eliminates interference patterns where the film touches the glass, reduces the visibility of scratches, ensures that the film remains flat over its entire surface and softens the grain slightly. See: http://www.d-65.com/downloads/scanner.html You might consider subscribing to [EMAIL PROTECTED] if you wish to discuss these issues with users. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Pentax is Dying?
Hi, I just logged on to the list earlier today and this is my first message. Can you explain what a wet mount is, why or how it is better than the standard setup, and how you go about making such a modification. I've an LS-9000 on order, and based on results I've gotten with a Tango drum scanner (which uses some sort of liquid for the mounting based on what I've been told), this sounds very interesting. By the way, just to jump into the digital versus film discussion, I use both in my studio and outdoor work. I do not see one as inherently better than the other. Jerry Todd Dancing Frog Studios Calaveras, California From: Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I want to set up my LS-8000 with a wet mount as > I'm not extracting near the potential in the films > with dry mount holders.
RE: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
On 18 Jul 2004 at 21:40, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > Makes no sense, for same AOV you are using shorter lenses and > have a smaller reproduction ratio with APS size formatvs FF 35mm. DOF > should not be same as 35mm full frame format. It should be more DOF > than 35mm. It might be a greater DOF in absolute terms but practically its nothing from a photographic image making perspective. IOW DOF is still practically nil when shooting a 300/2.8 wide open using a FF 35mm or APS frame. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Pentax is Dying?
Hah! The same way they dealt with power supply issues with the *ist Dlet the owners worry about it! Many other DSLR's come with rechargeable batteries (or they are at least available for them), but not the *ist D. This is a major let down IMHO. The ability to use of AA's is great, but not so great when you need half a dozen sets of batteries to keep the thing going. There's another thread on this very topic I started yesterday regarrding possible alternative methods of powering the *ist D. Cheers Shaun Alan Chan wrote: Lets not forget that the Pentax 645 system IS portable. In fact it weights no more than comparable Nikon/Canon high-end slr systems. The 645 is down right small compared to EOS-1Ds or similar! I'm sure Pentax will make a 645 DSLR even smaller. Without the film transport mechanisms, it is quite possible. Don't know how they will deal with the power supply though. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan _ Free yourself from those irritating pop-up ads with MSn Premium. Get 2months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines -- _ Dr. Shaun Canning P.O. Box 21, Dampier, WA, 6714, Australia. m: 0414 967644 http://www.heritageservices.com.au [EMAIL PROTECTED] _
RE: Pentax is Dying?
By then time viewers will have been invented so there won't be a need for photographs as you can just set your picture frame to show any scene from any viewpoint at any time. Nick -Original Message- On 18 Jul 2004, at 19:39, El Gringo wrote: > Maybe a thousand years from now, > science will invent a gravity generator, then a portable gravity > generator, > then tiny gravity generators and anti-gravity generators, then maybe > cameras > in the future will focus with perfectly formed gravity lenses...
RE: Pentax is Dying?
Lets not forget that the Pentax 645 system IS portable. In fact it weights no more than comparable Nikon/Canon high-end slr systems. The 645 is down right small compared to EOS-1Ds or similar! I'm sure Pentax will make a 645 DSLR even smaller. Without the film transport mechanisms, it is quite possible. Don't know how they will deal with the power supply though. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan _ Free yourself from those irritating pop-up ads with MSn Premium. Get 2months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: Pentax is Dying?
Funny enough I end up feeling like some stacked livestock every time I fly lately! A. On 18 Jul 2004, at 23:48, El Gringo wrote: How was your flight?? I only wrote that to have a little fun, glad to see the idea of a little fun is totally lost on you. *Keep hanging on to your film you backwards fools, the rest of us are moving forward.* -el gringo -Original Message- From: Antonio Aparicio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 1:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying? And maybee pigs will fly. A. On 18 Jul 2004, at 19:39, El Gringo wrote: Maybe a thousand years from now, science will invent a gravity generator, then a portable gravity generator, then tiny gravity generators and anti-gravity generators, then maybe cameras in the future will focus with perfectly formed gravity lenses...
Re: Pentax is Dying?
Ah, but isn't the Galaxy doomed? A. On 18 Jul 2004, at 23:53, Bob W wrote: Hi, Digital could be doomed.. Absolutely! I mean, the best they've been able to come up with so far is the one on Hubble, and that can't resolve anything smaller than a galaxy. Crap! -- Cheers, Bob
Re: Pentax is Dying?
Will do, living in small village surrounded by the sea on one side and by desert on the other on the south-eastern spanish coast its not that easy to do - but will watch out for the prints next time I am at one in London. A. On 18 Jul 2004, at 23:29, Bob W wrote: Hi, Sunday, July 18, 2004, 9:33:52 PM, Antonio wrote: I stand corrected. Not having seen one of the prints you refer to i was guided by poor quality stuff you get on the high-street. Obviously there is more to it than that. You should pay attention at exhibitions. There are some fantastically good digital prints out there. Next time you're in London have a look at eyestorm on Maddox Street, W1 (just off Regent's St. by Oxford Circus). http://www.eyestorm.com/artists/photography.aspx -- Cheers, Bob
RE: Pentax is Dying?
Thats like saying the typewriter is going to make a comeback against MS Word. I mean, MS word could be doomed, it really could be, probably not, but it could be. -el gringo -Original Message- From: mike wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 3:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying? Hi, El Gringo wrote: > do that. Also, digital sensors are limited by physics, but there may be a > day when there is a sensor for every photon of light. I'm not sure you are saying what you mean. up significantly?? Decades ago?? What about digital?? A few months ago, > and not only was the resolution increased, but the noise levels were > reduced, the color was improved, the speed of capture was improved, > everything got a little better. And a few months from now, it will happen > again, and again, and again, and again... So, if I don't _need_ one, why should I buy one now if a better one will come along next month? That would be a remarkably stupid action by your predictions. Except, if I and many others don't, what you prophesy will not come to pass. I managed to destroy APS and disc film cameras. Never bought one of those and look what happened. Digital could be doomed.. Ned Ludd
RE: Pentax is Dying?
For the application Rob, it might be a great viewfinder... 35mm cameras I'm sure you know, have as part of their convenience factor the TTL viewfinder. Something I appreciate more than anything. The beautiful thing is, you can have your cake and eat it to with digital... You don't need a mirror to do TTL view finding with digital quite obviously... Thats my point really, I would love to see a Mamiya 7 III with a 14+ MP sensor. -el gringo -Original Message- From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 2:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying? The Mamiya 7II is the current model, the 7 was replaced by it about 3-4 years ago. A 6x7 range finder camera with fabulous (by all reports) lenses. Yes it is expensive, ridiculously so in the US, but many people think the image quality is worth the money. Some think of it as a decendant of the Mamiya Press, but I would call it more of a direct decendant of the Simon Omega Rapid, Koni-Omega, Rapid Omega 100 (made by Mamiya) line of cameras. As for a real viewfinder..? Some think the 7II has the best viewfinder/rangefinder ever made, even better the the Leica M series. IIRC Rob Studdert uses these cameras. Have you replaced them with digital yet, Rob? -- Keith Whaley wrote: > Have you seen the new (?) Mamiya 7 II? Popular Photography July 2004 > adv., page 7. > I have not yet compared to the model 7 (basic) but it does seem > comparatively small for a 6x7 cm camera... > They must be very expensive, as I can't find a hint of a price on their > web site. > > keith whaley > > Pål Jensen wrote: > >> El Gringo wrote: >> >> The 645 digital on the other hand >> has massive potential. It could be made smaller than it is, more in the >> range of a large 35mm, it could burst faster than any film MF camera, >> and it >> has a real viewfinder, unlike the Mamiya 7. Not to mention that it has a >> nice range of high quality Pentax 645 lenses. This could be THE >> camera to >> own if Pentax pulls out all the stops. > > >> REPLY: >> >> Exactly! Provided that Pentax have any future in mind for their MF >> system(s) > > this is the natural path to take. Mind you, Pentax have previously shown > interest > in the high-end DSLR market with the MD-S. This camera was mainly intended > for their pro MF user base who could use their lenses on a K-mount slr. > At that > time a wholly MF bases DSLR wasn't viable (nor the MD-S apparently). I > don't > think Pentax have changed their basic policy since. > >> El Gringo: >> >> There will always be a place for portable systems, but for >> those who want the UTMOST quality, MF is the promised land. > > >> REPLY: >> >> Lets not forget that the Pentax 645 system IS portable. In fact > > it weights no more than comparable Nikon/Canon high-end slr > systems. The 645 is down right small compared to EOS-1Ds or > similar! I'm sure Pentax will make a 645 DSLR even smaller. > >> >> >> Pål > > > I'm waiting, Pentax... > > keith > > -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: Pentax is Dying?
Hi, > Digital could be doomed.. Absolutely! I mean, the best they've been able to come up with so far is the one on Hubble, and that can't resolve anything smaller than a galaxy. Crap! -- Cheers, Bob
RE: Pentax is Dying?
How was your flight?? I only wrote that to have a little fun, glad to see the idea of a little fun is totally lost on you. *Keep hanging on to your film you backwards fools, the rest of us are moving forward.* -el gringo -Original Message- From: Antonio Aparicio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 1:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying? And maybee pigs will fly. A. On 18 Jul 2004, at 19:39, El Gringo wrote: > Maybe a thousand years from now, > science will invent a gravity generator, then a portable gravity > generator, > then tiny gravity generators and anti-gravity generators, then maybe > cameras > in the future will focus with perfectly formed gravity lenses...
Re: Pentax is Dying?
Hi, Sunday, July 18, 2004, 9:33:52 PM, Antonio wrote: > I stand corrected. Not having seen one of the prints you refer to i was > guided by poor quality stuff you get on the high-street. Obviously > there is more to it than that. You should pay attention at exhibitions. There are some fantastically good digital prints out there. Next time you're in London have a look at eyestorm on Maddox Street, W1 (just off Regent's St. by Oxford Circus). http://www.eyestorm.com/artists/photography.aspx -- Cheers, Bob
Re: Pentax is Dying?
LOL! mike wilson wrote: So, if I don't _need_ one, why should I buy one now if a better one will come along next month? That would be a remarkably stupid action by your predictions. Except, if I and many others don't, what you prophesy will not come to pass. I managed to destroy APS and disc film cameras. Never bought one of those and look what happened. Digital could be doomed.. Ned Ludd -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: Pentax is Dying?
I stand corrected. Not having seen one of the prints you refer to i was guided by poor quality stuff you get on the high-street. Obviously there is more to it than that. A. On 18 Jul 2004, at 20:08, Bill Owens wrote: Antonio wrote: Not to mention the poor quality of those digital prints. Here I must disagree. A properly printed digital print is equal in quality to an average film print, up to 8x10 at least. Above 8x10 and for severe crops I'll agree with you. Our Frontier 375 minilab does a surprisingly good job on Fuji Crystal Archive paper. Bill
Re: Pentax is Dying?
Hi, El Gringo wrote: do that. Also, digital sensors are limited by physics, but there may be a day when there is a sensor for every photon of light. I'm not sure you are saying what you mean. up significantly?? Decades ago?? What about digital?? A few months ago, and not only was the resolution increased, but the noise levels were reduced, the color was improved, the speed of capture was improved, everything got a little better. And a few months from now, it will happen again, and again, and again, and again... So, if I don't _need_ one, why should I buy one now if a better one will come along next month? That would be a remarkably stupid action by your predictions. Except, if I and many others don't, what you prophesy will not come to pass. I managed to destroy APS and disc film cameras. Never bought one of those and look what happened. Digital could be doomed.. Ned Ludd
Re: Pentax is Dying?
I think the 7 is a follow on from the Mamiya 6 actually. Antonio On 18 Jul 2004, at 21:19, graywolf wrote: Some think of it as a decendant of the Mamiya Press, but I would call it more of a direct decendant of the Simon Omega Rapid, Koni-Omega, Rapid Omega 100 (made by Mamiya) line of cameras.
RE: Pentax is Dying?
In my experience most Inkjets are great for color, poor for black and white. There may be some exceptions but I have never seen a BW inkjet print that looks as good as a good wet one. Not true for color, the best inkjets I have seen look BETTER than the best wet ones I have seen... JCO -Original Message- From: John Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 3:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying? > > Antonio wrote: > > >Not to mention the poor quality of those digital prints. > > Here I must disagree. A properly printed digital print is equal in > quality to an average film print, up to 8x10 at least. Above 8x10 and > for severe crops I'll agree with you. Our Frontier 375 minilab does a > surprisingly good job on Fuji Crystal Archive paper. > > Bill A few years ago many of the best 16x20 and 20x30 prints were digitally produced on a lighjet printer (205ppi R/G/B lasers on photographic paper). I don't know what the current state of the art is, but I'd expect there to be something even better by now.
Re: Pentax is Dying?
The Mamiya 7II is the current model, the 7 was replaced by it about 3-4 years ago. A 6x7 range finder camera with fabulous (by all reports) lenses. Yes it is expensive, ridiculously so in the US, but many people think the image quality is worth the money. Some think of it as a decendant of the Mamiya Press, but I would call it more of a direct decendant of the Simon Omega Rapid, Koni-Omega, Rapid Omega 100 (made by Mamiya) line of cameras. As for a real viewfinder..? Some think the 7II has the best viewfinder/rangefinder ever made, even better the the Leica M series. IIRC Rob Studdert uses these cameras. Have you replaced them with digital yet, Rob? -- Keith Whaley wrote: Have you seen the new (?) Mamiya 7 II? Popular Photography July 2004 adv., page 7. I have not yet compared to the model 7 (basic) but it does seem comparatively small for a 6x7 cm camera... They must be very expensive, as I can't find a hint of a price on their web site. keith whaley Pål Jensen wrote: El Gringo wrote: The 645 digital on the other hand has massive potential. It could be made smaller than it is, more in the range of a large 35mm, it could burst faster than any film MF camera, and it has a real viewfinder, unlike the Mamiya 7. Not to mention that it has a nice range of high quality Pentax 645 lenses. This could be THE camera to own if Pentax pulls out all the stops. REPLY: Exactly! Provided that Pentax have any future in mind for their MF system(s) this is the natural path to take. Mind you, Pentax have previously shown interest in the high-end DSLR market with the MD-S. This camera was mainly intended for their pro MF user base who could use their lenses on a K-mount slr. At that time a wholly MF bases DSLR wasn't viable (nor the MD-S apparently). I don't think Pentax have changed their basic policy since. El Gringo: There will always be a place for portable systems, but for those who want the UTMOST quality, MF is the promised land. REPLY: Lets not forget that the Pentax 645 system IS portable. In fact it weights no more than comparable Nikon/Canon high-end slr systems. The 645 is down right small compared to EOS-1Ds or similar! I'm sure Pentax will make a 645 DSLR even smaller. Pål I'm waiting, Pentax... keith -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: Pentax is Dying?
> > Antonio wrote: > > >Not to mention the poor quality of those digital prints. > > Here I must disagree. A properly printed digital print is equal in quality > to an average film print, up to 8x10 at least. Above 8x10 and for severe > crops I'll agree with you. Our Frontier 375 minilab does a surprisingly > good job on Fuji Crystal Archive paper. > > Bill A few years ago many of the best 16x20 and 20x30 prints were digitally produced on a lighjet printer (205ppi R/G/B lasers on photographic paper). I don't know what the current state of the art is, but I'd expect there to be something even better by now.
Film vs Digital, Large vs Small Format, (was Re: Pentax is Dying?)
Earlier "Bill Owens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Antonio wrote: >Not to mention the poor quality of those digital prints. Here I must disagree. A properly printed digital print is equal in quality to an average film print, up to 8x10 at least. Above 8x10 and for severe crops I'll agree with you. Our Frontier 375 minilab does a surprisingly good job on Fuji Crystal Archive paper. Bill A couple of days ago I read an article on George DeWolfe in the August issue of Shutterbug. DeWolfe has been a large format nature photographer, author and teacher for many years. In the article he says "Digital is now my medium..." and names a couple of popular DSLRs that he uses. Even so, he goes on to say that he still shoots with his 4x5. When he does, he uses Polaroid type 55pn. He says "All I have to do is put the film in the sodium sulfite in the sink, wash it, hang it to dry, and then scan it. Everything else from the negative on is digital." He goes on to describe why he prefers digital. A couple of striking quotes: "The digital process allows me to express a lot more about white and tones and about my subject than I was ever able to express in silver." "The ink jet gives me a much better realization than I ever had in silver, a print with subtleties that are much closer to what I felt when I took the image." He describes getting much better denser blacks, and smoother gray scales by using quad-tone inks and an ink jet printer and goes on to describe the control he has with digital as "magnificent". But the best line in the article is this. On the topic of his preferring digital: "Why that bothers some people I don't know. It still goes back to seeing and capturing a good picture - it really does." And that is the bottom line. I encourage you to pick up a copy of the magazine and read the article. It's illustrated with several of his photos. See you later, gs
Re: Pentax is Dying?
Have you seen the new (?) Mamiya 7 II? Popular Photography July 2004 adv., page 7. I have not yet compared to the model 7 (basic) but it does seem comparatively small for a 6x7 cm camera... They must be very expensive, as I can't find a hint of a price on their web site. keith whaley Pål Jensen wrote: El Gringo wrote: The 645 digital on the other hand has massive potential. It could be made smaller than it is, more in the range of a large 35mm, it could burst faster than any film MF camera, and it has a real viewfinder, unlike the Mamiya 7. Not to mention that it has a nice range of high quality Pentax 645 lenses. This could be THE camera to own if Pentax pulls out all the stops. REPLY: Exactly! Provided that Pentax have any future in mind for their MF system(s) this is the natural path to take. Mind you, Pentax have previously shown interest in the high-end DSLR market with the MD-S. This camera was mainly intended for their pro MF user base who could use their lenses on a K-mount slr. At that time a wholly MF bases DSLR wasn't viable (nor the MD-S apparently). I don't think Pentax have changed their basic policy since. El Gringo: There will always be a place for portable systems, but for those who want the UTMOST quality, MF is the promised land. REPLY: Lets not forget that the Pentax 645 system IS portable. In fact it weights no more than comparable Nikon/Canon high-end slr systems. The 645 is down right small compared to EOS-1Ds or similar! I'm sure Pentax will make a 645 DSLR even smaller. Pål I'm waiting, Pentax... keith
RE: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
I wanted to take that back the moment I clicked send! You ARE NOT magnifying more, you're simply wasting part of the potential frame size. However, since the lens was designed with a specific frame size in mind, I would think performance would be affected. DOF should be deeper and oddly enough corner sharpness might be BETTER. Since lenses are usually less sharp at the corners of the frame, and you are not using the corners of the frame! Don > -Original Message- > From: Don Sanderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 1:16 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is > Dying) > > > But it seems that if you take the same information from a SMALLER > section of > the image circle, > Then enlarge that to the same size you would have using the FULL FRAME the > image circle is capable of, > you have magnified that smaller section 1.5x as much, and the > imperfections > in the lens with it. > I think I understood what I just said! > > Don > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Joseph Tainter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 1:05 PM > > To: pdml > > Subject: Re: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is > > Dying) > > > > > > "that's one factor. the other is the automatic 1.5 magnification of the > > center portion of the lens circle." > > > > I'm not aware of magnification. It is a crop of the central part of the > > lens circle, giving a field of view that looks like a 1.5x > magnification. > > > > Even the photography magazines seem to have finally begun to understand > > this. > > > > Joe > > >
RE: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
But it seems that if you take the same information from a SMALLER section of the image circle, Then enlarge that to the same size you would have using the FULL FRAME the image circle is capable of, you have magnified that smaller section 1.5x as much, and the imperfections in the lens with it. I think I understood what I just said! Don > -Original Message- > From: Joseph Tainter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 1:05 PM > To: pdml > Subject: Re: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is > Dying) > > > "that's one factor. the other is the automatic 1.5 magnification of the > center portion of the lens circle." > > I'm not aware of magnification. It is a crop of the central part of the > lens circle, giving a field of view that looks like a 1.5x magnification. > > Even the photography magazines seem to have finally begun to understand > this. > > Joe >
Re: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
Now, if the majority of photographers would begin to understand. As I've mentioned in the past, a 50mm lens projects the same size image on the film/sensor regardless of format, it's just that the image takes up a larger portion of the film/sensor the smaller the format. Bill - Original Message - From: "Joseph Tainter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "pdml" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 2:05 PM Subject: Re: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying) > "that's one factor. the other is the automatic 1.5 magnification of the > center portion of the lens circle." > > I'm not aware of magnification. It is a crop of the central part of the > lens circle, giving a field of view that looks like a 1.5x magnification. > > Even the photography magazines seem to have finally begun to understand > this. > > Joe >
RE: Pentax is Dying?
El Gringo wrote: The 645 digital on the other hand has massive potential. It could be made smaller than it is, more in the range of a large 35mm, it could burst faster than any film MF camera, and it has a real viewfinder, unlike the Mamiya 7. Not to mention that it has a nice range of high quality Pentax 645 lenses. This could be THE camera to own if Pentax pulls out all the stops. REPLY: Exactly! Provided that Pentax have any future in mind for their MF system(s) this is the natural path to take. Mind you, Pentax have previously shown interest in the high-end DSLR market with the MD-S. This camera was mainly intended for their pro MF user base who could use their lenses on a K-mount slr. At that time a wholly MF bases DSLR wasn't viable (nor the MD-S apparently). I don't think Pentax have changed their basic policy since. El Gringo: There will always be a place for portable systems, but for those who want the UTMOST quality, MF is the promised land. REPLY: Lets not forget that the Pentax 645 system IS portable. In fact it weights no more than comparable Nikon/Canon high-end slr systems. The 645 is down right small compared to EOS-1Ds or similar! I'm sure Pentax will make a 645 DSLR even smaller. Pål
RE: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
Alan wrote: I read the patent for the 118/2.4 too last year but it doesn't make sense for Pentax ro release another expensive Limited lens consider the last one (FA31/1.8) hasn't sold that well. REPLY: I've no idea whether there will be more Limited lenses. I've heard though, that the MF/AF clutch mechanism of the DA lenses will find it's way into "non-DA" lenses. These could be replacements for existing FA lenses. Pål
Re: Pentax is Dying?
And maybee pigs will fly. A. On 18 Jul 2004, at 19:39, El Gringo wrote: Maybe a thousand years from now, science will invent a gravity generator, then a portable gravity generator, then tiny gravity generators and anti-gravity generators, then maybe cameras in the future will focus with perfectly formed gravity lenses...
Re: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
"that's one factor. the other is the automatic 1.5 magnification of the center portion of the lens circle." I'm not aware of magnification. It is a crop of the central part of the lens circle, giving a field of view that looks like a 1.5x magnification. Even the photography magazines seem to have finally begun to understand this. Joe
Re: Pentax is Dying?
Thats right - and I would say that 35mm film shot with a half decent camera and lens is still better quality wise than a digital SLR such as the *ist. Not to mention the poor quality of those digital prints. A. On 18 Jul 2004, at 19:50, J. C. O'Connell wrote: Bullshit? You're the one dispensing it. there is one major flaw with your argument, this is NOW not the future and you cannot get affordable digital that equals or exceeds large format film that is available NOW. To say the *istD is "clearly better than film" is silly. Film goes beyond 35mm format. Way, way, way, beyond and the istD cant approch what my $125 4x5 speed graphic can do with film, color or BW, NOW. JCO -Original Message- From: El Gringo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 1:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Pentax is Dying? Sorry, Thats bullshit. What you get from a digital P&S camera easily exceeds low end 35mm systems using the cheap Kodak film you buy at Walgreen's... The high-end APS systems, such as the istD, are better than color film period. My father has been an amateur for many years and when he saw the first istD images he said it was clearly better than film, and it is as long you play to its strengths, but, in the future you won't even have to do that. Also, digital sensors are limited by physics, but there may be a day when there is a sensor for every photon of light. It's theoretically possible... Science has already said a single electron transistor is possible... That kind of fine detail is beyond what chemistry could ever hope for and is infinite to the human eye... Heck, sensors could be made to resolve so finely that you need a microscope to see the resolution limit... Eventually sensors will resolve beyond the power of the lenses, and new lenses will be designed. The point is, technology is unstoppable right now, it's progression is inexorable, film stopped progressing a long time ago on the other hand... The chemicals are still toxic, still clumsy, still the same as always. When was the last true "revolution" in film quality?? A hundred years ago?? When did the resolution limit of 35mm last get bumped up significantly?? Decades ago?? What about digital?? A few months ago, and not only was the resolution increased, but the noise levels were reduced, the color was improved, the speed of capture was improved, everything got a little better. And a few months from now, it will happen again, and again, and again, and again... Maybe a thousand years from now, science will invent a gravity generator, then a portable gravity generator, then tiny gravity generators and anti-gravity generators, then maybe cameras in the future will focus with perfectly formed gravity lenses... -el gringo -Original Message- From: Antonio Aparicio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 11:11 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying? Gringo, So film is limited by chemistry and digital sensors are limited by physics. So what? At the end of the day they are just capture mediums, and I have yet to see a digital sensor captures something that film cannot. Plus, as the market currently stands you have to use a hell of a LOT of film to equal the cost of even an APS sized digital sensor that is not its equal in terms of image quality. As to environmental concerns I doubt digital sensor production and disposal/recycling is a cost free exercise either. A. On 18 Jul 2004, at 17:35, George Sinos wrote: Earlier "El Gringo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It wont happen. What you guys forget, is that film is limited by chemistry, digital sensors are limited by the technology itself, which is ever advancing. In 5 years the question of putting film in a digital camera will be like putting diesel fuel in the space shuttle, a serious waste of powerful hardware. -el gringo Chemicals are something most companies would rather not mess with. An individual photographer may get by with dumping his spent chemicals down the drain, but any commercial facility will be regulated in some way or another. Proper disposal of waste water and spent chemicals is an expense that most companies would rather eliminate. I'm not arguing that digital is overall environmentally better or worse. It just gets rid of an expensive problem for a lot of people. The chemical problem is just one more side issue that will eventually hasten the demise of film. See you later, gs
Re: Pentax is Dying?
Perhaps but I wasnt talking low end 35mm systems. I was talking 35mm SLR vs digital APS SLR. Pentax *ist Film vs Pentax *istD, for arguments sake each with the same glass. A. On 18 Jul 2004, at 19:39, El Gringo wrote: Sorry, Thats bullshit. What you get from a digital P&S camera easily exceeds low end 35mm systems using the cheap Kodak film you buy at Walgreen's...
RE: Pentax is Dying?
Bullshit? You're the one dispensing it. there is one major flaw with your argument, this is NOW not the future and you cannot get affordable digital that equals or exceeds large format film that is available NOW. To say the *istD is "clearly better than film" is silly. Film goes beyond 35mm format. Way, way, way, beyond and the istD cant approch what my $125 4x5 speed graphic can do with film, color or BW, NOW. JCO -Original Message- From: El Gringo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 1:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Pentax is Dying? Sorry, Thats bullshit. What you get from a digital P&S camera easily exceeds low end 35mm systems using the cheap Kodak film you buy at Walgreen's... The high-end APS systems, such as the istD, are better than color film period. My father has been an amateur for many years and when he saw the first istD images he said it was clearly better than film, and it is as long you play to its strengths, but, in the future you won't even have to do that. Also, digital sensors are limited by physics, but there may be a day when there is a sensor for every photon of light. It's theoretically possible... Science has already said a single electron transistor is possible... That kind of fine detail is beyond what chemistry could ever hope for and is infinite to the human eye... Heck, sensors could be made to resolve so finely that you need a microscope to see the resolution limit... Eventually sensors will resolve beyond the power of the lenses, and new lenses will be designed. The point is, technology is unstoppable right now, it's progression is inexorable, film stopped progressing a long time ago on the other hand... The chemicals are still toxic, still clumsy, still the same as always. When was the last true "revolution" in film quality?? A hundred years ago?? When did the resolution limit of 35mm last get bumped up significantly?? Decades ago?? What about digital?? A few months ago, and not only was the resolution increased, but the noise levels were reduced, the color was improved, the speed of capture was improved, everything got a little better. And a few months from now, it will happen again, and again, and again, and again... Maybe a thousand years from now, science will invent a gravity generator, then a portable gravity generator, then tiny gravity generators and anti-gravity generators, then maybe cameras in the future will focus with perfectly formed gravity lenses... -el gringo -Original Message- From: Antonio Aparicio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 11:11 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying? Gringo, So film is limited by chemistry and digital sensors are limited by physics. So what? At the end of the day they are just capture mediums, and I have yet to see a digital sensor captures something that film cannot. Plus, as the market currently stands you have to use a hell of a LOT of film to equal the cost of even an APS sized digital sensor that is not its equal in terms of image quality. As to environmental concerns I doubt digital sensor production and disposal/recycling is a cost free exercise either. A. On 18 Jul 2004, at 17:35, George Sinos wrote: > Earlier "El Gringo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> It wont happen. What you guys forget, is that film is limited by >> chemistry, digital sensors are limited by the technology itself, >> which is ever advancing. In 5 years the question of putting film in >> a digital camera will >> be like putting diesel fuel in the space shuttle, a serious waste of >> powerful hardware. >> >> -el gringo > > > Chemicals are something most companies would rather not mess with. An > individual photographer may get by with dumping his spent chemicals > down the drain, but any commercial facility will be regulated in some > way or another. > > Proper disposal of waste water and spent chemicals is an expense that > most companies would rather eliminate. > > I'm not arguing that digital is overall environmentally better or > worse. It just gets rid of an expensive problem for a lot of people. > > The chemical problem is just one more side issue that will eventually > hasten the demise of film. > > See you later, gs > >
RE: Pentax is Dying?
Sorry, Thats bullshit. What you get from a digital P&S camera easily exceeds low end 35mm systems using the cheap Kodak film you buy at Walgreen's... The high-end APS systems, such as the istD, are better than color film period. My father has been an amateur for many years and when he saw the first istD images he said it was clearly better than film, and it is as long you play to its strengths, but, in the future you won't even have to do that. Also, digital sensors are limited by physics, but there may be a day when there is a sensor for every photon of light. It's theoretically possible... Science has already said a single electron transistor is possible... That kind of fine detail is beyond what chemistry could ever hope for and is infinite to the human eye... Heck, sensors could be made to resolve so finely that you need a microscope to see the resolution limit... Eventually sensors will resolve beyond the power of the lenses, and new lenses will be designed. The point is, technology is unstoppable right now, it's progression is inexorable, film stopped progressing a long time ago on the other hand... The chemicals are still toxic, still clumsy, still the same as always. When was the last true "revolution" in film quality?? A hundred years ago?? When did the resolution limit of 35mm last get bumped up significantly?? Decades ago?? What about digital?? A few months ago, and not only was the resolution increased, but the noise levels were reduced, the color was improved, the speed of capture was improved, everything got a little better. And a few months from now, it will happen again, and again, and again, and again... Maybe a thousand years from now, science will invent a gravity generator, then a portable gravity generator, then tiny gravity generators and anti-gravity generators, then maybe cameras in the future will focus with perfectly formed gravity lenses... -el gringo -Original Message- From: Antonio Aparicio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 11:11 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying? Gringo, So film is limited by chemistry and digital sensors are limited by physics. So what? At the end of the day they are just capture mediums, and I have yet to see a digital sensor captures something that film cannot. Plus, as the market currently stands you have to use a hell of a LOT of film to equal the cost of even an APS sized digital sensor that is not its equal in terms of image quality. As to environmental concerns I doubt digital sensor production and disposal/recycling is a cost free exercise either. A. On 18 Jul 2004, at 17:35, George Sinos wrote: > Earlier "El Gringo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> It wont happen. What you guys forget, is that film is limited by >> chemistry, >> digital sensors are limited by the technology itself, which is ever >> advancing. In 5 years the question of putting film in a digital >> camera will >> be like putting diesel fuel in the space shuttle, a serious waste of >> powerful hardware. >> >> -el gringo > > > Chemicals are something most companies would rather not mess with. An > individual photographer may get by with dumping his spent chemicals > down the drain, but any commercial facility will be regulated in some > way or another. > > Proper disposal of waste water and spent chemicals is an expense that > most companies would rather eliminate. > > I'm not arguing that digital is overall environmentally better or > worse. It just gets rid of an expensive problem for a lot of people. > > The chemical problem is just one more side issue that will eventually > hasten the demise of film. > > See you later, gs > >
RE: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
Gotcha, kinda like being saddled with a 1.5x rear converter all the time. Yuck. Would this also leave DOF the same for a give F stop even though the effective focal length increases by 1.5x? That would mean having to run wide open more often to control DOF, decreasing sharpness further on most lenses. I know that DOF is deeper for a given magnification on my C5050, due to the shorter FL of course. Has this been a problem for you, or am I thinking about it wrong and DOF does get shallower? Don > -Original Message- > From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 8:52 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is > Dying) > > > that's one factor. the other is the automatic 1.5 magnification of the > center portion of the lens circle. > > Herb > - Original Message - > From: "Don Sanderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 9:21 AM > Subject: RE: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: > Pentax is Dying) > > > > Do you attribute this to rather unforgiving square pixels in digital as > > versus the softer random edges in film grain? > > Most of my lenses are in the adequate/good/very good category, > I'd hate to > > think I'd get less from them than I do now by going digital. > >
Re: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
that's one factor. the other is the automatic 1.5 magnification of the center portion of the lens circle. Herb - Original Message - From: "Don Sanderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 9:21 AM Subject: RE: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying) > Do you attribute this to rather unforgiving square pixels in digital as > versus the softer random edges in film grain? > Most of my lenses are in the adequate/good/very good category, I'd hate to > think I'd get less from them than I do now by going digital.
RE: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
Assuming you had film and digital sensors of same resolution/mm spec, a FF film image will be sharper than a APS digtial sensor until the lens used with the APS sensor is 50% sharper than the lens used on film. With APS digital you need really good lenses to match average lenses on FF film. Reason is you are using shorter focal length lenses and magnifying the central portion only with APS digital. JCO -Original Message- From: Don Sanderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 9:21 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying) Do you attribute this to rather unforgiving square pixels in digital as versus the softer random edges in film grain? Most of my lenses are in the adequate/good/very good category, I'd hate to think I'd get less from them than I do now by going digital. Don > -Original Message- > From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 7:19 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is > Dying) > > > my observations while scanning a lot of slides, mostly Provia 100F. > acceptable lenses that seemed to deliver neglibly different sharpness > from my best lenses on my film bodies show a lot more difference in > sharpness on the *istD. ch is most of the time. > > Herb...
RE: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
Do you attribute this to rather unforgiving square pixels in digital as versus the softer random edges in film grain? Most of my lenses are in the adequate/good/very good category, I'd hate to think I'd get less from them than I do now by going digital. Don > -Original Message- > From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 7:19 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is > Dying) > > > my observations while scanning a lot of slides, mostly Provia 100F. > acceptable lenses that seemed to deliver neglibly different sharpness from > my best lenses on my film bodies show a lot more difference in > sharpness on > the *istD. ch is most of the time. > > Herb...
Re: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
"Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I'll be more disappointed than ever if they start fixing areas of the lens >line-up where it 'aint broke before they fix where it is i.e. down the wide/fast >end. Frankly, I have no problem with Pentax's lens lineup at all. I suppose I'd rather like a fast (f/2.8-4.0) 17-35 zoom, but I easily get by with their excellent primes in this range. The only place I find the Pentax system lacking is in the flash department. I'm saving my money, not for any new lenses, but for the rumoured AF500FGZ. Hoping/expecting to see it soon. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
my observations while scanning a lot of slides, mostly Provia 100F. acceptable lenses that seemed to deliver neglibly different sharpness from my best lenses on my film bodies show a lot more difference in sharpness on the *istD. Velvia scans show more difference. none of my lesser expensive Pentax lenses are now being used. i don't have many short/medium primes because they don't offer the flexibility i need. i choose my position for landscapes based on the spatial relationships of the objects in my scene and the FOV gets determined later. most of the reason i use short/medium primes is when i need the larger aperture, and that is almost never since i am on a tripod virtually 100% of the time. i'm tending toward longer lenses now for macro work and lately that has been my 400/5.6 with a high quality closeup lens. it's not as sharp as i like, but it gives me the working distance i need. the 24/2 has too much chromatic abberation and is too long for my landscape work. most of my prime work is done with my two 400mm lenses, and the 400/5.6 just isn't in the same league as the 400/2.8, especially with an extender on each, which is most of the time. Herb... - Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 7:51 AM Subject: Re: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying) > What makes you say this Herb? > > All my primes but for the FA24/2 seem up to the task.
Re: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
On 18 Jul 2004 at 14:12, Dario Bonazza wrote: > Just wait a few weeks and you'll see... I'll be more disappointed than ever if they start fixing areas of the lens line- up where it 'aint broke before they fix where it is i.e. down the wide/fast end. 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: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
Alan Chan wrote: > Some news from Taiwan retailers (or just rumour) suggested some Pentax FA > lenses were not manufactured anymore (like FA100/2.8 & FA50/2.8 etc) because > they are expecting new lenses to replace them. But then again, nobody can > confirm. Just wait a few weeks and you'll see... Dario
Re: Pentax is Dying
well, let's just say that i'm not optomistic either. Herb - Original Message - From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "pentax list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 6:23 AM Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying > Ain't gonna happen Herb. I reckon the best you can hope for is the *ist D 2.
Re: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
On 18 Jul 2004 at 7:41, Herb Chong wrote: > the ones that are paying attention to their images will discover that the > practical and affordable lenses are not good enough for the *istD. the lens > quality matters even more with a DSLR than with a film camera. What makes you say this Herb? All my primes but for the FA24/2 seem up to the task. 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: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
the ones that are paying attention to their images will discover that the practical and affordable lenses are not good enough for the *istD. the lens quality matters even more with a DSLR than with a film camera. Herb... - Original Message - From: "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 8:19 PM Subject: RE: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying) > I guess most DSLR buyers are looking for practical and affordable lenses, > instead of luxury lenses like the Limited which really aim for manual focus > buyers.
Re: Pentax is Dying
On 17/7/04, Herb Chong, discombobulated, offered: >i'm giving them until October to promise a high end DSLR body and a couple >of lenses of FA* quality with DA features. if not then, i can't wait and >continue to lose photos that i haven't been able to get purely because of >hardware limitations. > >Herb Ain't gonna happen Herb. I reckon the best you can hope for is the *ist D 2. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: Pentax is Dying?
Boy, do I have news for you. -- El Gringo wrote: will be like putting diesel fuel in the space shuttle, a serious waste of powerful hardware. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
> > >Why not an DA Limited series ? > > I guess most DSLR buyers are looking for practical and affordable lenses, > instead of luxury lenses like the Limited which really aim for manual focus > buyers. Manual focus good - auto-focus bad. Manual focus good - auto-focus bad. Film-based SLR good - DSLR bad. Film-based SLR good - DSLR bad. Four legs good - two legs bad. Four legs good - two legs bad.
RE: Pentax is Dying?
It wont happen. What you guys forget, is that film is limited by chemistry, digital sensors are limited by the technology itself, which is ever advancing. In 5 years the question of putting film in a digital camera will be like putting diesel fuel in the space shuttle, a serious waste of powerful hardware. -el gringo -Original Message- From: David Miers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 8:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Pentax is Dying? I mean, how many owners of the *istD wish that they could > put a roll of film in it as well? > I don't own one, but to tell the truth that would be attractive to me. Film still has better exposure latitude and/or film cameras seem to have more accurate metering or something. There's certainly been enough comments on this list to prove that issue exists. If I ran across a half to have shot with tricky lighting or needed to use flash, that's exactly what I would do, put a roll of film in a digital camera if I could figure out how! and the accurate film metering still existed. When I eventually get a DSLR I still anticipate carrying a film kit too. Time will tell. Dave
RE: Pentax is Dying?
You're so negative Rob, why is that?? It's scheduled for early 2005, not exactly that far off now is it? A couple other posters provided some interesting ideas as to what Pentax might actually be making. People want a "pro" solution, Pentax discusses said solution, and then people like you complain, and complain. My prediction is that neither Nikon or Canon will come out with a full frame MF format digital camera body unless Pentax has some serious success with theirs. So you can count them out of contention for now. As for the other companies, I don't think they can compete with Pentax. The only MF camera that is interesting to me at all outside of Pentax's offerings is the Mamiya 7. If there was a digital version of that camera with a digital viewfinder I would sell all my camera equipment in a heartbeat and buy that. Two things keep people from buying the 7 though, MF rolls are too cumbersome for action photography, and the viewfinder is not convenient at all. In fact, I simply don't do the type of shooting where I can afford to not have a TTL viewfinder. The 645 digital on the other hand has massive potential. It could be made smaller than it is, more in the range of a large 35mm, it could burst faster than any film MF camera, and it has a real viewfinder, unlike the Mamiya 7. Not to mention that it has a nice range of high quality Pentax 645 lenses. This could be THE camera to own if Pentax pulls out all the stops. It's sad that Pentax gave up their 35mm dominance, but, I think it gives them a small advantage now. If they can convince people that 35mm is more for amateurs or specialized pros, and that newer, dedicated MF digital cameras are the choice for any pros whose major concern is image quality and then respectable portability, they will be sitting in a winning position, with very little investment in a dying market, i.e. the 35mm market. While the major 35mm competitors will be left with a shrinking market, and a huge investment in that market. Now, I'm not saying the 35mm market is dying, or going to die, but I think it's looking a bit more and more out of place... The increasing quality and affordability of digital P&S cameras are attacking from the low end, and the increasing affordability, and decreasing size of MF digitals will be attacking it from the high-end. People talk about FF sensors having advantages, well, what about MF sensors?? Wouldn't every 35mm shooter love to have MF quality with the same features and portability of 35mm systems?? I would. And that could happen with Pentax's new 645 digital... I'm reminded by captain Kirk's quote in the first Star Trek movie: "If you can't win a game by the rules, change the rules of the game." Or something to that effect. Basically, Pentax would have a heck of a time beating Nikon and Canon in 35mm, so what do you do?? You don't beat them at 35mm, you beat them where they have no presence. MF. Think about it, it works, it could be big. IF sensors just get bigger and cheaper as the years go by, why stop at 35mm?? MF could be the future of pro and serious amateur photography. There will always be a place for portable systems, but for those who want the UTMOST quality, MF is the promised land. -el gringo -Original Message- From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 7:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Pentax is Dying? On 17 Jul 2004 at 12:08, El Gringo wrote: > And Antonio, people do know things about it, for one, it's supposed to be > out in early 2005. For another, the things I've said are straight from the > mouth of an executive at Pentax. This bothers me greatly. Sure it would be nice to have a full frame MF digi- solution but the whole concept strikes me as a severe misapplication of funds/development considering how badly their K-format kit is dragging its knuckles. Let alone the fact that by the time Pentax actually delivers such an MF-digi product to market everyone else in contention will already have products to market, we've seen it all before. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Pentax is Dying
the baby D is so far the only concrete move in that direction that has been formally announced. Herb... - Original Message - From: "Steve Desjardins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 9:19 AM Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying > This could mean the Baby D. Pentax also needs EVF camera like the Nikon 5700 or 8700. > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/16/04 10:37PM >>> > that's not what they are telling shareholders in Japan. they are saying that > moving to high end P&S and DSLRs are where they hope to boost total market > share.
Re: Pentax is Dying
i'm giving them until October to promise a high end DSLR body and a couple of lenses of FA* quality with DA features. if not then, i can't wait and continue to lose photos that i haven't been able to get purely because of hardware limitations. Herb - Original Message - From: "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 8:08 AM Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying > I think the *ist D main purpose is to provide Pentax with a DSLR (like the MD-S function) and thereby signalize to the market that the company will be a DSLR manufacturer and that the K-SLR line will continue into digital. Also providing the loyal Pentax users with a DSLR. > The next installments of DSLR's from Pentax is perhaps the "real" thing developed to sell in quantities.
Re: Pentax is Dying
like i said in other posts, what they say, what they promised last year, and what they are doing, seem to be three different things. Herb... - Original Message - From: "Otis Wright" <"rusty."@att.net> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 1:40 AM Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying > And, when is this supposed to happen? I hear all these promises about > how good its going to be... you know the rest of the > story.. > > Otis Wright > > Herb Chong wrote: > > >that's not what they are telling shareholders in Japan. they are saying that > >moving to high end P&S and DSLRs are where they hope to boost total market > >share.
RE: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
Why not an DA Limited series ? I guess most DSLR buyers are looking for practical and affordable lenses, instead of luxury lenses like the Limited which really aim for manual focus buyers. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan _ MSN Premium includes powerful parental controls and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: Pentax is Dying
Hi, >> >> I've heard that there will be wonderful things announced, though not >> necessarily shown, at the Ulan Bator show. > Mongolia? Is this a first? Sounds liike it might be... Pentax announce hordes of new products there. The local people have a real 'khan do' attitude. I'm hoping to make it to next year's show. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: Pentax is Dying?
On 17/7/04, Jens Bladt, discombobulated, offered: >What's a Cotty? Did he convert to Canonism? Fraid so. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
RE: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
Why not an DA Limited series ? -Message d'origine- De : Alan Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Envoyé : samedi 17 juillet 2004 22:23 À : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Objet : RE: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying) I read the patent for the 118/2.4 too last year but it doesn't make sense for Pentax ro release another expensive Limited lens consider the last one (FA31/1.8) hasn't sold that well. This is especially true when people are saving money for DSLRs and digital lenses now. 87/2.4 is just too close to FA77 and would be a mistake imho. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan >Actually, Pentax have long had a FA 87/2.4 Macro Limited lens developed >that have not yet been released (along with a 118/2.4 Limited). The lens >focus down to 1:2 by itself but the kit will include either a small >extension tube or a dedicated close-up lens for bringing it down to 1:1. >What solution will be used was not finalized when I got this info a couple >of years ago. Such a lens could be a great replacemnt for both the two FA >macros. _ Free yourself from those irritating pop-up ads with MSn Premium. Get 2months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=htt p://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
RE: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004, Alan Chan wrote: > saving money for DSLRs and digital lenses now. 87/2.4 is just too close to > FA77 and would be a mistake imho. Why? Was it a mistake to have 50s at 1.4, 1.7 and 2.8 at the same time? I thought macros (like the 87 Paal is talking about) are a different ball-game. Kostas
Re: Pentax is Dying
The next installments of DSLR's from Pentax is perhaps the "real" thing developed to sell in quantities. It is possible considered Pentax used to be slow to upgrade their cameras. K series, (the 1st bayonet K mount system), MX (fully mechanical high end body when everyone was doing electronics), A series (program mode) were all one step behind the competition when they were introduced. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN Premium http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
RE: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
I read the patent for the 118/2.4 too last year but it doesn't make sense for Pentax ro release another expensive Limited lens consider the last one (FA31/1.8) hasn't sold that well. This is especially true when people are saving money for DSLRs and digital lenses now. 87/2.4 is just too close to FA77 and would be a mistake imho. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan Actually, Pentax have long had a FA 87/2.4 Macro Limited lens developed that have not yet been released (along with a 118/2.4 Limited). The lens focus down to 1:2 by itself but the kit will include either a small extension tube or a dedicated close-up lens for bringing it down to 1:1. What solution will be used was not finalized when I got this info a couple of years ago. Such a lens could be a great replacemnt for both the two FA macros. _ Free yourself from those irritating pop-up ads with MSn Premium. Get 2months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: Pentax is Dying?
Not being inmate with the finances of Leica and Co. cant comment on whether they could have afforded to produce their own digital backs - sounds like they must really be in the financial doldrums if true. Personally it is a solution I like (apart from the cable). Lets hope that the 645 DSLR at least supports the old lenses and that this isnt an afterthought like on the ist. A. On 17 Jul 2004, at 21:58, Pål Jensen wrote: Antonio wrote: Unique? What about the Hasselblad H1 - isn't that a 645 that will take both film and digital backs? Or the Mamiya 645? I wonder The only reason digital back solutions exist (yeah. I know some think its a good idea but still...) is that the manufacturers cannot afford developing a dedicated digital body. It is no coincidence that Leica is the first (and only?) to develp a digital back for a 35mm system camera. They cannot afford developing a DSLR either. Neither Leca SLR's or MF cameras sell in large enough quantities.What these companies does is at best slightly modifying existing cameras and let somebody else develop the digital solution. This, I believe, is the reason why Pentax so far have said no to those who want to develop and sell digital backs for their MF system. I think Pentax will develop it themselves. Digital back is one of those things that seems like a good idea in theory but upon further thinking is seems like a solution answering question nobody asked. You end up with a hybrid thats going to be more expensive and not doing things as well as dedicated solutions. After all, most people buy digital in order not to use film. Those who do want to use film already own a film body (which apparently is worthless anyway on the used market) and the digital back cost as much, if not more, than a comparable DSLR. I mean, how many owners of the *istD wish that they could put a roll of film in it as well? I guess if the rumored new digital Pentax 645 is a dedicated digital body then that will be kinda of unique, although not as flexible or indeed desirable as the other systems on the market. If Pentax base a MF DSLR upon the back solution for existing models then they are definitely choosing a cheap solution. The real possibility for Pentax is to design a DSLR from ground up that take MF lenses (say 645 system lenses). If you remove the film transport from the 645, you not only free lots of space but also remove abot 35% of the cameras depth occupied by the film path, no longer needed. The box shape is rather pointless without a film transport. In short, a Pentax "MF" DSLR could be completely simlar to, say, the *ist D but with a larger mirror box and prism. This camera could in fact be made smaller than a Canon D10. Whats more, savings in developing cost could be tremendous as all their DSLR's could share camera electronics including metering, AF system etc, and basically be the same camera with various built quality and sensor size. If Pentax could make, say, a 22Mpix DSLR with Pentax 645 mount at a size smaller than Nikon and Canon mid level DSLR, it would be! a bomb. It is perfectly possible. Remember too that Pentax 645 lenses are smaller than Canon L-lenses. Pål
Re: Pentax is Dying
- Original Message - From: "Thibouille" Subject: RE: Pentax is Dying > Do you know when this show does take place ? I think the next one is April 1st, 2014 It's a joke. William Robb > > - Original Message - > From: "Otis Wright" > Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying > > > > And, when is this supposed to happen? I hear all these promises > about > > how good its going to be... you know the rest of the > > story.. > > I've heard that there will be wonderful things announced, though not > necessarily shown, at the Ulan Bator show. > > WW > > > > > >
RE: Pentax is Dying?
I already know all about the Hasselblad and Mamiya systems ability to take both, I used a Mamiya RB67 in college (it was a friend of mines), though I wasn't a photography major. My friend worked as an assistant to a pro photographer and she got me hired to do some computer work for them, while I was there she showed me some of the cool equipment they had, including a big MF setup with a digital back. What struck me about it was the cord running from the digital back to the outlet in the wall. Not exactly the best camera to take in the mountains... And Antonio, people do know things about it, for one, it's supposed to be out in early 2005. For another, the things I've said are straight from the mouth of an executive at Pentax. -el gringo -Original Message- From: Antonio Aparicio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 11:50 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying? Well Gringo, given that nobody knows anything about it you make some big statements. My point about flexibility related to the Hasselblad and Mamiya systems ability to take film and digital backs. Antonio On 17 Jul 2004, at 18:43, El Gringo wrote: > Antonio... It's more felxible because it's a fully self contained > system. > Digital backs largely require external power sources, and the ones that > don't are huge and cumbersome. Yes the Pentax system will be quite > unique, > and very flexible in that it will allow MF field photography. > > -el gringo > > -Original Message- > From: Antonio Aparicio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 7:30 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying? > > > Unique? What about the Hasselblad H1 - isn't that a 645 that will take > both film and digital backs? Or the Mamiya 645? I guess if the rumored > new digital Pentax 645 is a dedicated digital body then that will be > kinda of unique, although not as flexible or indeed desirable as the > other systems on the market. > > Antonio > > > On 17 Jul 2004, at 07:03, El Gringo wrote: > >> Pentax will have 3 DSLR's including a >> unique in the world of photography FF medium format digital camera >> based on >> the well loved 645 camera system. >> >
Re: Pentax is Dying?
Well Gringo, given that nobody knows anything about it you make some big statements. My point about flexibility related to the Hasselblad and Mamiya systems ability to take film and digital backs. Antonio On 17 Jul 2004, at 18:43, El Gringo wrote: Antonio... It's more felxible because it's a fully self contained system. Digital backs largely require external power sources, and the ones that don't are huge and cumbersome. Yes the Pentax system will be quite unique, and very flexible in that it will allow MF field photography. -el gringo -Original Message- From: Antonio Aparicio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 7:30 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying? Unique? What about the Hasselblad H1 - isn't that a 645 that will take both film and digital backs? Or the Mamiya 645? I guess if the rumored new digital Pentax 645 is a dedicated digital body then that will be kinda of unique, although not as flexible or indeed desirable as the other systems on the market. Antonio On 17 Jul 2004, at 07:03, El Gringo wrote: Pentax will have 3 DSLR's including a unique in the world of photography FF medium format digital camera based on the well loved 645 camera system.
RE: Pentax is Dying
Do you know when this show does take place ? Thibouille -Message d'origine- De : William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Envoyé : samedi 17 juillet 2004 15:22 À : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Objet : Re: Pentax is Dying - Original Message - From: "Otis Wright" Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying > And, when is this supposed to happen? I hear all these promises about > how good its going to be... you know the rest of the > story.. I've heard that there will be wonderful things announced, though not necessarily shown, at the Ulan Bator show. WW
RE: Pentax is Dying?
Antonio... It's more felxible because it's a fully self contained system. Digital backs largely require external power sources, and the ones that don't are huge and cumbersome. Yes the Pentax system will be quite unique, and very flexible in that it will allow MF field photography. -el gringo -Original Message- From: Antonio Aparicio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 7:30 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying? Unique? What about the Hasselblad H1 - isn't that a 645 that will take both film and digital backs? Or the Mamiya 645? I guess if the rumored new digital Pentax 645 is a dedicated digital body then that will be kinda of unique, although not as flexible or indeed desirable as the other systems on the market. Antonio On 17 Jul 2004, at 07:03, El Gringo wrote: > Pentax will have 3 DSLR's including a > unique in the world of photography FF medium format digital camera > based on > the well loved 645 camera system. >
RE: Pentax is Dying?
Its also almost half the price of Canon L lens. I'm not bragging, I'm saying WAIT AND SEE. -el gringo -Original Message- From: Alan Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 12:29 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Pentax is Dying? I think it is quite pointless to brag about something which might but does not exist yet. Not to mention the inability to satisfy immediate demand. Also, DA16-45 does not meet the built quality of Canon L lenses. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan >Man you people are ridiculous Pentax will have 3 DSLR's including a >unique in the world of photography FF medium format digital camera based on >the well loved 645 camera system. Certainly they are not failing as a >company. I tried winning a DA 16-45 on Ebay, but once it got within 95% of >retail I gave up on it. The assumption I have to make about that is, there >is serious demand for this lens. And most owners seem completely satisfied >by the lens as well. $420 for performance that equals the Canon L series, >I >can hardly call that a failure. Be patient. Pentax is not huge, they cant >work miracles, if the new DSLR sucks then bitch. But until then, lets put >a >hold on the rampant negative speculation, it helps nothing. I am excited >as >heck about the changes Pentax is making, and I look forward to being a user >of the new emerging Pentax system. _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN Premium. Get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=htt p://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: Pentax is Dying?
Unique? What about the Hasselblad H1 - isn't that a 645 that will take both film and digital backs? Or the Mamiya 645? I guess if the rumored new digital Pentax 645 is a dedicated digital body then that will be kinda of unique, although not as flexible or indeed desirable as the other systems on the market. Antonio On 17 Jul 2004, at 07:03, El Gringo wrote: Pentax will have 3 DSLR's including a unique in the world of photography FF medium format digital camera based on the well loved 645 camera system.
Re: Pentax is Dying?
- Original Message - From: "Alan Chan" Subject: RE: Pentax is Dying? > > Also, DA16-45 does not meet the built quality of Canon L lenses. > I don't think it meets the price point of the Canon L lenses either. William Robb
Re: Pentax is Dying
- Original Message - From: "Otis Wright" Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying > And, when is this supposed to happen? I hear all these promises about > how good its going to be... you know the rest of the > story.. I've heard that there will be wonderful things announced, though not necessarily shown, at the Ulan Bator show. WW
Re: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying)
- Original Message - From: "Pål Jensen" Subject: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros? (Re: Pentax is Dying) > > > > Alan wrote: > > > > > Some news from Taiwan retailers (or just rumour) suggested some Pentax FA > > > lenses were not manufactured anymore (like FA100/2.8 & FA50/2.8 etc) because > > > they are expecting new lenses to replace them. But then again, nobody can > > > confirm. > > > Actually, Pentax have long had a FA 87/2.4 Macro Limited lens developed that have not yet been released (along with a 118/2.4 Limited). I suppose they will be released when the Asahi family personal photographer reaches the age of 87, and then 118 years? William Robb
Re: Pentax is Dying
This could mean the Baby D. Pentax also needs EVF camera like the Nikon 5700 or 8700. >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/16/04 10:37PM >>> that's not what they are telling shareholders in Japan. they are saying that moving to high end P&S and DSLRs are where they hope to boost total market share. Herb - Original Message - From: "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 6:29 PM Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying > I've been told (by Pentax distributors) that Pentax have no plans of meeting demand for the *istD. Maybe the same is the case for the DA lenses (at least initially)?
Re: Pentax is Dying?
Given recent discussions, it might offend someone to describe him as Canonized...:-) No brand glorification intended, though... Jostein - Original Message - From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 10:30 AM Subject: RE: Pentax is Dying? What's a Cotty? Did he convert to Canonism? Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 17. juli 2004 09:34 Til: pentax list Emne: Re: Pentax is Dying? On 17/7/04, Rob Studdert, discombobulated, offered: >> > Maybe they have been in the process of replacing the FA lenses? >> >> That would be nice, a set of DA prime lenses with the Quick shift focus >> and the 14mm build. >> >> Let´s face it, the FF sensor is for the 645 :-) > >If they do that and replace the FA lenses with DA or something of their ilk >I'll definitely do a Cotty. You'd be joining a growing line of PDMLers, sigh. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: Pentax is Dying?
On 17/7/04, Rob Studdert, discombobulated, offered: >> > Maybe they have been in the process of replacing the FA lenses? >> >> That would be nice, a set of DA prime lenses with the Quick shift focus >> and the 14mm build. >> >> Let´s face it, the FF sensor is for the 645 :-) > >If they do that and replace the FA lenses with DA or something of their ilk >I'll definitely do a Cotty. You'd be joining a growing line of PDMLers, sigh. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: Pentax is Dying?
Pentax isn't Dying. Film is, increasingly slowly at some stage perhaps, but it's still going down. As Pentax has/had a pro-market in MF, they have to upgrade this (Hasselblad and Rollei did) or/and try to dig further into/stay alive in consumer DSLR/D-P&S markets. Sadly this could have been done quite nicely with the DMZ-S (digital MZ-S version) or a new full-frame 8-12MP DSLR (I'm probably draeaming). The latter may never come or at least be long after the (Canon)train has reached the next station. What's left is the consumer diggies and gimmick- and gadget-market. I guess Baby *ist D and the Optio MX are good excamples of these lines of future Pentax cameras. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: El Gringo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 17. juli 2004 07:04 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: RE: Pentax is Dying? Man you people are ridiculous Pentax will have 3 DSLR's including a unique in the world of photography FF medium format digital camera based on the well loved 645 camera system. Certainly they are not failing as a company. I tried winning a DA 16-45 on Ebay, but once it got within 95% of retail I gave up on it. The assumption I have to make about that is, there is serious demand for this lens. And most owners seem completely satisfied by the lens as well. $420 for performance that equals the Canon L series, I can hardly call that a failure. Be patient. Pentax is not huge, they cant work miracles, if the new DSLR sucks then bitch. But until then, lets put a hold on the rampant negative speculation, it helps nothing. I am excited as heck about the changes Pentax is making, and I look forward to being a user of the new emerging Pentax system. -el gringo -Original Message- From: Steve Desjardins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 8:38 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying? Another: Pentax is doing fine as a company but is beginning to de-emphasize their photo division, or at least moving to a leaner photo division.. Possible explanations that come to mind: demand has suddenly skyrocked and Pentax can't ship fast enough (yeah right) labor troubles, political troubles at their lens assembly plant withholding supply from US until currency exchange rates improve Pentax is having cash flow problems Pentax has a problem with parts supply (plausible if K mount hardware is the issue) Pentax is in the process of moving their assembly operations and the move has disrupted operations Pentax is failing as a company
Re: Pentax is Dying
And, when is this supposed to happen? I hear all these promises about how good its going to be... you know the rest of the story.. Otis Wright Herb Chong wrote: that's not what they are telling shareholders in Japan. they are saying that moving to high end P&S and DSLRs are where they hope to boost total market share. Herb - Original Message - From: "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 6:29 PM Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying I've been told (by Pentax distributors) that Pentax have no plans of meeting demand for the *istD. Maybe the same is the case for the DA lenses (at least initially)?
RE: Pentax is Dying?
I think it is quite pointless to brag about something which might but does not exist yet. Not to mention the inability to satisfy immediate demand. Also, DA16-45 does not meet the built quality of Canon L lenses. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan Man you people are ridiculous Pentax will have 3 DSLR's including a unique in the world of photography FF medium format digital camera based on the well loved 645 camera system. Certainly they are not failing as a company. I tried winning a DA 16-45 on Ebay, but once it got within 95% of retail I gave up on it. The assumption I have to make about that is, there is serious demand for this lens. And most owners seem completely satisfied by the lens as well. $420 for performance that equals the Canon L series, I can hardly call that a failure. Be patient. Pentax is not huge, they cant work miracles, if the new DSLR sucks then bitch. But until then, lets put a hold on the rampant negative speculation, it helps nothing. I am excited as heck about the changes Pentax is making, and I look forward to being a user of the new emerging Pentax system. _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN Premium. Get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
RE: Pentax is Dying?
Man you people are ridiculous Pentax will have 3 DSLR's including a unique in the world of photography FF medium format digital camera based on the well loved 645 camera system. Certainly they are not failing as a company. I tried winning a DA 16-45 on Ebay, but once it got within 95% of retail I gave up on it. The assumption I have to make about that is, there is serious demand for this lens. And most owners seem completely satisfied by the lens as well. $420 for performance that equals the Canon L series, I can hardly call that a failure. Be patient. Pentax is not huge, they cant work miracles, if the new DSLR sucks then bitch. But until then, lets put a hold on the rampant negative speculation, it helps nothing. I am excited as heck about the changes Pentax is making, and I look forward to being a user of the new emerging Pentax system. -el gringo -Original Message- From: Steve Desjardins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 8:38 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying? Another: Pentax is doing fine as a company but is beginning to de-emphasize their photo division, or at least moving to a leaner photo division.. Possible explanations that come to mind: demand has suddenly skyrocked and Pentax can't ship fast enough (yeah right) labor troubles, political troubles at their lens assembly plant withholding supply from US until currency exchange rates improve Pentax is having cash flow problems Pentax has a problem with parts supply (plausible if K mount hardware is the issue) Pentax is in the process of moving their assembly operations and the move has disrupted operations Pentax is failing as a company
Re: Pentax is Dying
that's not what they are telling shareholders in Japan. they are saying that moving to high end P&S and DSLRs are where they hope to boost total market share. Herb - Original Message - From: "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 6:29 PM Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying > I've been told (by Pentax distributors) that Pentax have no plans of meeting demand for the *istD. Maybe the same is the case for the DA lenses (at least initially)?
