Re: *istD EOL...
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 11:17:19 -0500, Luigi de Guzman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wednesday 12 January 2005 11:12, Graywolf wrote: VAT? Again, unless the Iron Chancellor has made Canon DSLRs VAT-exempt, this wouldn't make a difference. Something else is going on. -Luigi It's like Peter said: Taxes and greed. Here in the Great White North, there's an incoming duty on all photographic equipment, even used. Import duties are only supposed to be in place to protect local industries. AFAIK, the only Canadian manufacturer of photographic instruments is Leica in Midland, and while I know they still make surveyors' equipment there, I'm not sure if they still make camera lenses. Even if they do, I don't imagine that Leica is losing any sales because I buy a 20 year old Pentax lens from a list member. But if it comes up from the US (or in from anywhere else, for that matter), it's subject to duty. Imagine how much money our gov't has made of this specious tax! That may have nothing to do with why Pentaxen are so expensive in the UK, but I got that pet peeve off my chest, anyway... VBG cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: *istD EOL...
On Friday 14 January 2005 11:35, frank theriault wrote: On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 11:17:19 -0500, Luigi de Guzman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wednesday 12 January 2005 11:12, Graywolf wrote: VAT? Again, unless the Iron Chancellor has made Canon DSLRs VAT-exempt, this wouldn't make a difference. Something else is going on. -Luigi It's like Peter said: Taxes and greed. Here in the Great White North, there's an incoming duty on all photographic equipment, even used. Import duties are only supposed to be in place to protect local industries. AFAIK, the only Canadian manufacturer of photographic instruments is Leica in Midland, and while I know they still make surveyors' equipment there, I'm not sure if they still make camera lenses. As far as I'm aware, E. Leitz Canada is now generally called ELCAN, and they make some pretty decent military-grade rifle scopes, as well. Even if they do, I don't imagine that Leica is losing any sales because I buy a 20 year old Pentax lens from a list member. But if it comes up from the US (or in from anywhere else, for that matter), it's subject to duty. Man. NAFTA was supposed to do away with that, wasn't it? Imagine how much money our gov't has made of this specious tax! That may have nothing to do with why Pentaxen are so expensive in the UK, but I got that pet peeve off my chest, anyway... I'm coming back to my original point: EVERYBODY pays the tax. So why is Canon still cheaper in the UK by such a wide margin? -Luigi
Re: Astrophotography (was Re: *istD EOL...)
When you realize that if you create an image of a distant 60 foot tree on your film, develop that film, put it back in the camera (with the back open) and shine a light through it, you will project the 60 foot tree back on itself, then you will understand that it's all about ratios and the direction the light is going. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 4:56 PM Subject: Re: Astrophotography (was Re: *istD EOL...) I find telescope eyepieces work pretty much as intuition suggests; a stronger eyepiece increases the magnification of the image. A far more interesting question, to my mind, is why that isn't the case in photography. Bob Blakely mused: Ok, the analogy using light levers didn't work. Let's try again... Nothing is working opposite to expectations. One lens, the objective lens, is working in one direction with light coming in from the distant object at the *distant* focal point to the image on the other side of the lens at its *close* focal point. The other lens is being used the other way around with the light from the image going from the *close* focal point to the more distant focal point and eventually to your eye. Regards, Bob... From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] OK, I understand the math and don't disagree, but why does a longer focal length eyepiece (a set of glass lenses in a tube) give lower magification, when a longer focal length camera lens (a set of glass lenses in a tube) yields a higher magnification? It would seem at first blush that if you have a telescope with a given focal length producing x magnification and you then viewed that image through 2 eyepieces of different focal lengths, that the eyepiece with the longer focal length would yield the higher magnification. What makes it work opposite of what one (I) would expect? I know this is a basic optics question that I'm just not too embarrassed to ask.
Re: Astrophotography (was Re: *istD EOL...)
Great analogy. Bob Blakely wrote: When you realize that if you create an image of a distant 60 foot tree on your film, develop that film, put it back in the camera (with the back open) and shine a light through it, you will project the 60 foot tree back on itself, then you will understand that it's all about ratios and the direction the light is going.
Re: *istD EOL...
- Original Message - From: Luigi de Guzman Subject: Re: *istD EOL... But if it comes up from the US (or in from anywhere else, for that matter), it's subject to duty. Man. NAFTA was supposed to do away with that, wasn't it? Luigi, please treat NAFTA the same way you treat politics and religion on a politics/religiuos free mailing list. Thanks, and Best Regards; William Robb
Re: Astrophotography (was Re: *istD EOL...)
OK, basic optics. You do know that a so called magnifying glass does not magnify, right? What it does is allow your eye to focus closer to the image. The shorter the focal length (hight the diopter) the closer the distance you can focus from, and the larger the image appears. Now the basic telescope produces what is called and arial image. That is a image that is focused at a point in space rather than onto something like a ground glass. Once you have that arial image you can by adjusting your eye to exactly the right point focus on it. But your eye would be about 10 inches away. Got that? Now your eyepiece allow you to move your eye closer to that arial image. The shorter the focal length of the eyepiece the closer you can move your eye, and the larger the image appears. It is as simple as that. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Tom C wrote: OK, I understand the math and don't disagree, but why does a longer focal length eyepiece (a set of glass lenses in a tube) give lower magification, when a longer focal length camera lens (a set of glass lenses in a tube) yields a higher magnification? It would seem at first blush that if you have a telescope with a given focal length producing x magnification and you then viewed that image through 2 eyepieces of different focal lengths, that the eyepiece with the longer focal length would yield the higher magnification. What makes it work opposite of what one (I) would expect? I know this is a basic optics question that I'm just not too embarrassed to ask. Tom C. From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Astrophotography (was Re: *istD EOL...) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 20:48:29 -0500 short focal length on an eyepiece gives high magnification. total magnification is the focal length of the objective divided by the focal length of the eyepiece. if 900 is the objective FL, then the 20mm eyepiece gives 45X and the 4mm eyepiece gives 225x. Herb... - Original Message - From: Nick Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 1:28 PM Subject: Astrophotography (was Re: *istD EOL...) I got a telescope for Christmas with a camera adaptor. I've not had much chance to play with it yet but was quite impressed with its power the first couple of times I used it. It's a Telstar 900x114 reflector, and fills the eyepiece with the moon with the 20mm objective. Strangely the moon is even larger when using the shorter focal length 4mm eyepiece, which I haven't quite worked out yet. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.11 - Release Date: 1/12/2005
Re: Astrophotography (was Re: *istD EOL...)
Ok, the analogy using light levers didn't work. Let's try again... Nothing is working opposite to expectations. One lens, the objective lens, is working in one direction with light coming in from the distant object at the *distant* focal point to the image on the other side of the lens at its *close* focal point. The other lens is being used the other way around with the light from the image going from the *close* focal point to the more distant focal point and eventually to your eye. Regards, Bob... From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] OK, I understand the math and don't disagree, but why does a longer focal length eyepiece (a set of glass lenses in a tube) give lower magification, when a longer focal length camera lens (a set of glass lenses in a tube) yields a higher magnification? It would seem at first blush that if you have a telescope with a given focal length producing x magnification and you then viewed that image through 2 eyepieces of different focal lengths, that the eyepiece with the longer focal length would yield the higher magnification. What makes it work opposite of what one (I) would expect? I know this is a basic optics question that I'm just not too embarrassed to ask.
Re: Astrophotography (was Re: *istD EOL...)
Thanks for the replies. I'm still not sure I understand the focal length magnification thingy, so I guess I'll have to draw some ray diagrams. I'll try to shoot the moon when I next get a chance. It's a bit chilly and windy at night at the moment. Nick
Re: Astrophotography (was Re: *istD EOL...)
OK, that's what I started to conclude must be the answer. Thank you. Tom C. From: Bob Blakely [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Astrophotography (was Re: *istD EOL...) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:29:13 -0800 Ok, the analogy using light levers didn't work. Let's try again... Nothing is working opposite to expectations. One lens, the objective lens, is working in one direction with light coming in from the distant object at the *distant* focal point to the image on the other side of the lens at its *close* focal point. The other lens is being used the other way around with the light from the image going from the *close* focal point to the more distant focal point and eventually to your eye. Regards, Bob... From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] OK, I understand the math and don't disagree, but why does a longer focal length eyepiece (a set of glass lenses in a tube) give lower magification, when a longer focal length camera lens (a set of glass lenses in a tube) yields a higher magnification? It would seem at first blush that if you have a telescope with a given focal length producing x magnification and you then viewed that image through 2 eyepieces of different focal lengths, that the eyepiece with the longer focal length would yield the higher magnification. What makes it work opposite of what one (I) would expect? I know this is a basic optics question that I'm just not too embarrassed to ask.
Re: Astrophotography (was Re: *istD EOL...)
I find telescope eyepieces work pretty much as intuition suggests; a stronger eyepiece increases the magnification of the image. A far more interesting question, to my mind, is why that isn't the case in photography. Bob Blakely mused: Ok, the analogy using light levers didn't work. Let's try again... Nothing is working opposite to expectations. One lens, the objective lens, is working in one direction with light coming in from the distant object at the *distant* focal point to the image on the other side of the lens at its *close* focal point. The other lens is being used the other way around with the light from the image going from the *close* focal point to the more distant focal point and eventually to your eye. Regards, Bob... From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] OK, I understand the math and don't disagree, but why does a longer focal length eyepiece (a set of glass lenses in a tube) give lower magification, when a longer focal length camera lens (a set of glass lenses in a tube) yields a higher magnification? It would seem at first blush that if you have a telescope with a given focal length producing x magnification and you then viewed that image through 2 eyepieces of different focal lengths, that the eyepiece with the longer focal length would yield the higher magnification. What makes it work opposite of what one (I) would expect? I know this is a basic optics question that I'm just not too embarrassed to ask.
Re: Astrophotography (was Re: *istD EOL...)
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 19:56:34 -0500 (EST), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I find telescope eyepieces work pretty much as intuition suggests; a stronger eyepiece increases the magnification of the image. A far more interesting question, to my mind, is why that isn't the case in photography. We don't usually use a second (objective) lens in photography. It's sometimes done in astrophotography, though. Usually, though, photographic lenses just use one (compound) lens with a specific focal length. When you mount two lenses nose-to-nose, for extreme macro photography, you're doing something similar to a telescope with an eyepiece (objective) lens. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: *istD EOL...
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:20:30 -0500, Peter J. Alling wrote: Pentax's English distributor strikes again. My local dedicated Camera shop says the *istDs isn't selling. They have it and the 300d and D70 (and the Minolta which is humungous) on display alongside each other. Even though the Pentax is smaller, they say the reasons people don't go for it are partly the SD card but mostly the difference in price. The 300d is something like GBP200 cheaper. In Australia the *IstD is less than the D70 and 300D. The *istDS is cheaper again. Leon http://www.bluering.org.au http://www.bluering.org.au/leon
Re: *istD EOL...
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005, Herb Chong wrote: given that the US list price for the *istDs and the 300D are almost the same and the street price is nearly so, what's up with the UK distributor? You hit it on the head Herb. Pentax is really overpriced in the UK. Kostas
Re: *istD EOL...
On Wednesday 12 January 2005 05:44, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Tue, 11 Jan 2005, Herb Chong wrote: given that the US list price for the *istDs and the 300D are almost the same and the street price is nearly so, what's up with the UK distributor? You hit it on the head Herb. Pentax is really overpriced in the UK. Kostas Yet another example of rip-off Britain, eh? What accounts for the huge difference in price in dollar terms? If anything, the UK price should be *lower* in dollar terms, given the relative strength of sterling against both the US Dollar and the Yen. I'm not aware of a tariff restriction, either, so why this difference? -Luigi
Re: *istD EOL...
Taxes and Greed. Luigi de Guzman wrote: On Wednesday 12 January 2005 05:44, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Tue, 11 Jan 2005, Herb Chong wrote: given that the US list price for the *istDs and the 300D are almost the same and the street price is nearly so, what's up with the UK distributor? You hit it on the head Herb. Pentax is really overpriced in the UK. Kostas Yet another example of rip-off Britain, eh? What accounts for the huge difference in price in dollar terms? If anything, the UK price should be *lower* in dollar terms, given the relative strength of sterling against both the US Dollar and the Yen. I'm not aware of a tariff restriction, either, so why this difference? -Luigi -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: *istD EOL...
On Wednesday 12 January 2005 10:36, Peter J. Alling wrote: Taxes and Greed. I don't see taxes as a valid reason--unless there are some shady deals, Canon would have to pay the same taxes, unless for some reason there's an anti-Pentax tax (er, perhaps a PenTax?) in force. When I lived in Britain, I found that, for most things, prices were higher in dollar terms, but I accounted for almost all of this through the currency conversion. A CD, for instance, which cost twelve USD would cost twelve UKP: the difference was just the currency symbol in front. Greed, I might see, but surely someone's advised these guys about the whole market share idea, right? -Luigi
Re: *istD EOL...
If that is a Ritz I understand they give their salesfolk a bigger spiff on the D70 than any of the others. There is a lot more going on than which is the best camera. My understanding is that at least Pentax is making enough istDs's to push them. They weren't pushing the istD because they were selling faster than they came off the assembly line. And if someone wants to think about it, consider that the istD was their first DSLR, then think of what the competion's first DSSLR was like. That does say something positive about Pentax's engineering department. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Bruce Dayton wrote: I was in my local shop yesterday - mostly Nikon and Pentax, some Canon. They are selling about five D70's everyday. People just keep walking in a buying them. They think highly of the *istDS, but it doesn't sell anywhere like the D70. Pretty much the word is out in all media that photographers and would be photographers that the D70 is THE camera to buy. Pop Photography proclaimed it Camera of the Year. Size doesn't matter to most people at the time of purchase. Later on, when having to carry the extra they might care, but it is too late. The best Pentax can do with the *istDS is be respected. My shop thinks the DRebel is junk next to the DS and they are very willing to tell any potential customers. But they are really making their money on the D70. It could well be the camera that saved Nikon's hide. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.10 - Release Date: 1/10/2005
Re: *istD EOL...
VAT? graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Luigi de Guzman wrote: On Wednesday 12 January 2005 05:44, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Tue, 11 Jan 2005, Herb Chong wrote: given that the US list price for the *istDs and the 300D are almost the same and the street price is nearly so, what's up with the UK distributor? You hit it on the head Herb. Pentax is really overpriced in the UK. Kostas Yet another example of rip-off Britain, eh? What accounts for the huge difference in price in dollar terms? If anything, the UK price should be *lower* in dollar terms, given the relative strength of sterling against both the US Dollar and the Yen. I'm not aware of a tariff restriction, either, so why this difference? -Luigi -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.10 - Release Date: 1/10/2005
Re: *istD EOL...
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005, Graywolf wrote: Luigi de Guzman wrote: On Wednesday 12 January 2005 05:44, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Tue, 11 Jan 2005, Herb Chong wrote: given that the US list price for the *istDs and the 300D are almost the same and the street price is nearly so, what's up with the UK distributor? You hit it on the head Herb. Pentax is really overpriced in the UK. Kostas What accounts for the huge difference in price in dollar terms? If anything, the UK price should be *lower* in dollar terms, given the relative strength of sterling against both the US Dollar and the Yen. I'm not aware of a tariff restriction, either, so why this difference? VAT? I cannot see any of these statements (dollar or taxes) explaining why Pentax goods are unintuitevely more expensive in the UK that the competition (we are not comparing UK prices with US prices). Kostas
Re: *istD EOL...
On Wednesday 12 January 2005 11:12, Graywolf wrote: VAT? Again, unless the Iron Chancellor has made Canon DSLRs VAT-exempt, this wouldn't make a difference. Something else is going on. -Luigi
Re: *istD EOL...
I think Canon are discounting quite heavily. The Pentax is GBP20 cheaper than the D70, but nowhere near the Canon. Nick -Original Message- From: Herb Chong[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 12/01/05 00:12:25 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.netpentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: *istD EOL... given that the US list price for the *istDs and the 300D are almost the same and the street price is nearly so, what's up with the UK distributor? Herb... - Original Message - From: Nick Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 6:18 PM Subject: Re: *istD EOL... My local dedicated Camera shop says the *istDs isn't selling. They have it and the 300d and D70 (and the Minolta which is humungous) on display alongside each other. Even though the Pentax is smaller, they say the reasons people don't go for it are partly the SD card but mostly the difference in price. The 300d is something like GBP200 cheaper.
Astrophotography (was Re: *istD EOL...)
I got a telescope for Christmas with a camera adaptor. I've not had much chance to play with it yet but was quite impressed with its power the first couple of times I used it. It's a Telstar 900x114 reflector, and fills the eyepiece with the moon with the 20mm objective. Strangely the moon is even larger when using the shorter focal length 4mm eyepiece, which I haven't quite worked out yet. When looking at a group of stars (Seven Sisters) there are many more visible than with the naked eye, even here in light polluted London. Unfortunately when I put the camera adaptor on with the *istD I couldn't see anything - it was far too dark to focus. A bit disappointing. I haven't tried the camera with the moon yet, but will do next time it makes an appearance, and it's not raining, or cloudy. Nick -Original Message- From: Tom C[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11/01/05 23:45:05 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.netpentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: *istD EOL... Bruce, I'm curious why the shop people thought the Digital Rebel was junk. Was it based on look and feel ? What about image quality? I'm asking because right now the Rebel is the top selling DLSR for astrophotography. I haven't had a chance to try the *ist D yet with my telescope, but depending on results I get with the *ist D I wouldn't mind trying the Rebel. Tom C. From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: Nick Clark pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: *istD EOL... Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 15:33:08 -0800 I was in my local shop yesterday - mostly Nikon and Pentax, some Canon. They are selling about five D70's everyday. People just keep walking in a buying them. They think highly of the *istDS, but it doesn't sell anywhere like the D70. Pretty much the word is out in all media that photographers and would be photographers that the D70 is THE camera to buy. Pop Photography proclaimed it Camera of the Year. Size doesn't matter to most people at the time of purchase. Later on, when having to carry the extra they might care, but it is too late. The best Pentax can do with the *istDS is be respected. My shop thinks the DRebel is junk next to the DS and they are very willing to tell any potential customers. But they are really making their money on the D70. It could well be the camera that saved Nikon's hide. -- Best regards, Bruce Tuesday, January 11, 2005, 3:18:50 PM, you wrote: NC My local dedicated Camera shop says the *istDs isn't selling. NC They have it and the 300d and D70 (and the Minolta which is NC humungous) on display alongside each other. Even though the Pentax NC is smaller, they say the reasons people don't go for it are partly NC the SD card but mostly the difference in price. The 300d is NC something like GBP200 cheaper. NC Nick NC -Original Message- NC From: Pål Jensen[EMAIL PROTECTED] NC I think it will be more than enough. As high-end DSLR are NC larger than medium format cameras, and consequently suffers from NC the same lack of portability, the market niche is definitely NC there. Mind you, Pentax need to design cameras that look small, NC not only are small. The problem with the *istD(S) is that they NC look big. Products that are going to sell on their smallness need NC to comunicate their size through design. Small cars don't look NC like shrinked big ones. If they did they wouldn't sell. The small NC SLR's of the past looked small without any reference. Pentax M NC series and Olympus OM's had a slim smallish look whereas the NC *istD(S) look big and fat until you actually handle one or see a NC photo of it next to the competition. Since most people never see NC or handle a Pentax theres nothing telling them how small they are NC unless they do a lot of homework. NC The Pentax 40mm pancake lens is agreat idea. It is a pity NC though that Pentax haven't made a pancake camera. NC Pål
Re: *istD EOL...
Could be. They wanted GBP699 for the DA 14mm f/2.8. I bought it new from Canada for GBP299 plus 30 postage and 46 import duty. Still quids in. Makes you feel sorry for the local camera shop though as they do try their best to match. Where do you think the high price originates - the Pentax UK or their price from Pentax Japan? Nick -Original Message- From: Peter J. Alling[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 12/01/05 02:20:30 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.netpentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: *istD EOL... Pentax's English distributor strikes again. Nick Clark wrote: My local dedicated Camera shop says the *istDs isn't selling. They have it and the 300d and D70 (and the Minolta which is humungous) on display alongside each other. Even though the Pentax is smaller, they say the reasons people don't go for it are partly the SD card but mostly the difference in price. The 300d is something like GBP200 cheaper. Nick -Original Message- From: Pål Jensen[EMAIL PROTECTED] I think it will be more than enough. As high-end DSLR are larger than medium format cameras, and consequently suffers from the same lack of portability, the market niche is definitely there. Mind you, Pentax need to design cameras that look small, not only are small. The problem with the *istD(S) is that they look big. Products that are going to sell on their smallness need to comunicate their size through design. Small cars don't look like shrinked big ones. If they did they wouldn't sell. The small SLR's of the past looked small without any reference. Pentax M series and Olympus OM's had a slim smallish look whereas the *istD(S) look big and fat until you actually handle one or see a photo of it next to the competition. Since most people never see or handle a Pentax theres nothing telling them how small they are unless they do a lot of homework. The Pentax 40mm pancake lens is agreat idea. It is a pity though that Pentax haven't made a pancake camera. Pål -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: Astrophotography (was Re: *istD EOL...)
The power of an astronomical telescope is computed thusly: (Focal length of the objective) / (Focal length of the eyepiece). For example, I have a Meade ETX 90. The focal length of the objective (consisting of the front meniscus, primary mirror and secondary mirror) is 1250mm. With a 17mm secondary eyepiece, the power is 1250/17 = 73.5. With a 4mm secondary eyepiece, the power is 1250/4 = 312.5. Think of it like a lever. The objective is focusing the image in the air inside the telescope's tube. The longer the focal length, the larger this image (like a camera lens). The eyepiece is used like a magnifying glass to view this image in the ether. The shorter the focal length of the magnifying glass, the larger the image to your eye. Note: usually, the eyepiece is removed to attach the camera adapter. Focus will be in a markedly different place than with the eyepiece in place. In fact, the image must be moved from inside the telescope to outside it and onto your film or CCD. This is usually several inches. When *severely* out of focus, you'll see nothing but black. Try focusing on a brighter object, such as a planet, first. Saturn is overhead now, and it's rings are tilted so as to be quite spectacular. Regards, Bob... - Original Message - From: Nick Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 10:28 AM Subject: Astrophotography (was Re: *istD EOL...) I got a telescope for Christmas with a camera adaptor. I've not had much chance to play with it yet but was quite impressed with its power the first couple of times I used it. It's a Telstar 900x114 reflector, and fills the eyepiece with the moon with the 20mm objective. Strangely the moon is even larger when using the shorter focal length 4mm eyepiece, which I haven't quite worked out yet. When looking at a group of stars (Seven Sisters) there are many more visible than with the naked eye, even here in light polluted London. Unfortunately when I put the camera adaptor on with the *istD I couldn't see anything - it was far too dark to focus. A bit disappointing. I haven't tried the camera with the moon yet, but will do next time it makes an appearance, and it's not raining, or cloudy. Nick -Original Message- From: Tom C[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11/01/05 23:45:05 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.netpentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: *istD EOL... Bruce, I'm curious why the shop people thought the Digital Rebel was junk. Was it based on look and feel ? What about image quality? I'm asking because right now the Rebel is the top selling DLSR for astrophotography. I haven't had a chance to try the *ist D yet with my telescope, but depending on results I get with the *ist D I wouldn't mind trying the Rebel. Tom C. From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: Nick Clark pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: *istD EOL... Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 15:33:08 -0800 I was in my local shop yesterday - mostly Nikon and Pentax, some Canon. They are selling about five D70's everyday. People just keep walking in a buying them. They think highly of the *istDS, but it doesn't sell anywhere like the D70. Pretty much the word is out in all media that photographers and would be photographers that the D70 is THE camera to buy. Pop Photography proclaimed it Camera of the Year. Size doesn't matter to most people at the time of purchase. Later on, when having to carry the extra they might care, but it is too late. The best Pentax can do with the *istDS is be respected. My shop thinks the DRebel is junk next to the DS and they are very willing to tell any potential customers. But they are really making their money on the D70. It could well be the camera that saved Nikon's hide. -- Best regards, Bruce Tuesday, January 11, 2005, 3:18:50 PM, you wrote: NC My local dedicated Camera shop says the *istDs isn't selling. NC They have it and the 300d and D70 (and the Minolta which is NC humungous) on display alongside each other. Even though the Pentax NC is smaller, they say the reasons people don't go for it are partly NC the SD card but mostly the difference in price. The 300d is NC something like GBP200 cheaper. NC Nick NC -Original Message- NC From: Pål Jensen[EMAIL PROTECTED] NC I think it will be more than enough. As high-end DSLR are NC larger than medium format cameras, and consequently suffers from NC the same lack of portability, the market niche is definitely NC there. Mind you, Pentax need to design cameras that look small, NC not only are small. The problem with the *istD(S) is that they NC look big. Products that are going to sell on their smallness need NC to comunicate their size through design. Small cars don't look NC like shrinked big ones. If they did
Re: Astrophotography (was Re: *istD EOL...)
Bob wrote: Think of it like a lever. The objective is focusing the image in the air inside the telescope's tube. The longer the focal length, the larger this image (like a camera lens). The eyepiece is used like a magnifying glass to view this image in the ether. The shorter the focal length of the magnifying glass, the larger the image to your eye. There's something fundamental I'm missing, maybe you can help. I've been wrestling with the idea for a while... why, on let's say a camera lens or optical tube, does longer focal length = larger image, and on an eyepiece longer focal length = smaller image (less magnification). In my mind, it seems that an eyepiece is a lens with an optical tube and therefore it should work reverse of what you've stated regardless of whether it's focusing on he object itself or an image of the object in the ether. I realize your statement is quite correct. What am I not getting? I'm sure I need to dig out a basic optics book. Tom C.
Re: Astrophotography (was Re: *istD EOL...)
Think of the lenses as simple, one element lenses. Think of the center of the lenses as fulcrums (pivot points) of a light lever too. If the eyepiece has a short focal length, the distance from the image in the telescope to the lens fulcrum is short. The distance from the lens fulcrum to your retina is longer. Small image in the tube, big image on your retina. Shorter focal length on the lens even larger image on your retina. Yes, I know there is another lens involved, your eye's lens, but this is sufficient to demonstrate the principle. Regards, Bob... From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bob wrote: Think of it like a lever. The objective is focusing the image in the air inside the telescope's tube. The longer the focal length, the larger this image (like a camera lens). The eyepiece is used like a magnifying glass to view this image in the ether. The shorter the focal length of the magnifying glass, the larger the image to your eye. There's something fundamental I'm missing, maybe you can help. I've been wrestling with the idea for a while... why, on let's say a camera lens or optical tube, does longer focal length = larger image, and on an eyepiece longer focal length = smaller image (less magnification). In my mind, it seems that an eyepiece is a lens with an optical tube and therefore it should work reverse of what you've stated regardless of whether it's focusing on he object itself or an image of the object in the ether. I realize your statement is quite correct. What am I not getting? I'm sure I need to dig out a basic optics book.
Re: Astrophotography (was Re: *istD EOL...)
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 18:28:39 -, Nick Clark wrote: Strangely the moon is even larger when using the shorter focal length 4mm eyepiece, which I haven't quite worked out yet. If I understand it correctly, the magnification of the image you see will be the focal length of the scope divided by the focal length of the eyepiece. So, with the 20mm eyepiece you'd get 45X magnification, but with the 4mm eyepiece you'd get 225X magnification. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: Astrophotography (was Re: *istD EOL...)
short focal length on an eyepiece gives high magnification. total magnification is the focal length of the objective divided by the focal length of the eyepiece. if 900 is the objective FL, then the 20mm eyepiece gives 45X and the 4mm eyepiece gives 225x. Herb... - Original Message - From: Nick Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 1:28 PM Subject: Astrophotography (was Re: *istD EOL...) I got a telescope for Christmas with a camera adaptor. I've not had much chance to play with it yet but was quite impressed with its power the first couple of times I used it. It's a Telstar 900x114 reflector, and fills the eyepiece with the moon with the 20mm objective. Strangely the moon is even larger when using the shorter focal length 4mm eyepiece, which I haven't quite worked out yet.
Re: Astrophotography (was Re: *istD EOL...)
OK, I understand the math and don't disagree, but why does a longer focal length eyepiece (a set of glass lenses in a tube) give lower magification, when a longer focal length camera lens (a set of glass lenses in a tube) yields a higher magnification? It would seem at first blush that if you have a telescope with a given focal length producing x magnification and you then viewed that image through 2 eyepieces of different focal lengths, that the eyepiece with the longer focal length would yield the higher magnification. What makes it work opposite of what one (I) would expect? I know this is a basic optics question that I'm just not too embarrassed to ask. Tom C. From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Astrophotography (was Re: *istD EOL...) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 20:48:29 -0500 short focal length on an eyepiece gives high magnification. total magnification is the focal length of the objective divided by the focal length of the eyepiece. if 900 is the objective FL, then the 20mm eyepiece gives 45X and the 4mm eyepiece gives 225x. Herb... - Original Message - From: Nick Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 1:28 PM Subject: Astrophotography (was Re: *istD EOL...) I got a telescope for Christmas with a camera adaptor. I've not had much chance to play with it yet but was quite impressed with its power the first couple of times I used it. It's a Telstar 900x114 reflector, and fills the eyepiece with the moon with the 20mm objective. Strangely the moon is even larger when using the shorter focal length 4mm eyepiece, which I haven't quite worked out yet.
Re: Astrophotography (was Re: *istD EOL...)
the eyepiece is magnifying a fixed location virtual image. take a look at a loupe and see how higher magnification ones have shorted focal length. the objective is focusing an image onto a fixed plane inside the body of the scope for that situation, a longer focal length gives higher magnification. the eyepiece then magnifies that fixed plane. Herb - Original Message - From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 9:09 PM Subject: Re: Astrophotography (was Re: *istD EOL...) OK, I understand the math and don't disagree, but why does a longer focal length eyepiece (a set of glass lenses in a tube) give lower magification, when a longer focal length camera lens (a set of glass lenses in a tube) yields a higher magnification?
Re: Astrophotography (was Re: *istD EOL...)
At 6:28 PM + 1/12/05, Nick Clark wrote: I got a telescope for Christmas with a camera adaptor. I've not had much chance to play with it yet but was quite impressed with its power the first couple of times I used it. It's a Telstar 900 I assume that this is the focal length of the mirror? x114 ...and this is the mirror diameter? reflector, and fills the eyepiece with the moon with the 20mm objective. Strangely the moon is even larger when using the shorter focal length 4mm eyepiece, which I haven't quite worked out yet. The magnification is calculated by dividing the focal length of the mirror by the focal length of the eyepiece, so the 20mm = 45 power and the 4mm = 225 power (assuming the FL is 900mm). When looking at a group of stars (Seven Sisters) there are many more visible than with the naked eye, even here in light polluted London. That's because the 114mm mirror is a lot bigger than your 7mm pupil diameter so it collects more light. Unfortunately when I put the camera adaptor on with the *istD I couldn't see anything - it was far too dark to focus. A bit disappointing. Did you have an eyepiece in, or a lens on the camera? If so, try it without them...then the telescope acts as a 900mm lens. I haven't tried the camera with the moon yet, but will do next time it makes an appearance, and it's not raining, or cloudy. -- Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: *istD EOL...
Alan wrote: I'm not so sure. It seems like AF isn't an issue anymore among consumers. Now they concentrate on megapixels instead. There never was much wrong with Pentax AF anyway. The spinning through the helicoid trick has never been a benchmanrk on true AF performace. Andy Rouse, the wildlife photographer, uses both Pentax 645 and Canon EOS. Accrding to him even the Pentax MF camera perform equally well AF wise as the EOS. The Pentax metering is far superior to any Canon not only according to Rouse but plenty of Pentax/Canon users over at Photo.net. Pål
Re: *istD EOL...
John wrote: I hate to say it, but I agree. Pentax needs something to really set it apart from the other guys. Consistantly making smallest-in-their-class cameras isn't enough for serious photographers. REPLY: I think it will be more than enough. As high-end DSLR are larger than medium format cameras, and consequently suffers from the same lack of portability, the market niche is definitely there. Mind you, Pentax need to design cameras that look small, not only are small. The problem with the *istD(S) is that they look big. Products that are going to sell on their smallness need to comunicate their size through design. Small cars don't look like shrinked big ones. If they did they wouldn't sell. The small SLR's of the past looked small without any reference. Pentax M series and Olympus OM's had a slim smallish look whereas the *istD(S) look big and fat until you actually handle one or see a photo of it next to the competition. Since most people never see or handle a Pentax theres nothing telling them how small they are unless they do a lot of homework. The Pentax 40mm pancake lens is agreat idea. It is a pity though that Pentax haven't made a pancake camera. Pål
Re: *istD EOL...
Herb wrote: no surprise if they are really going to announce a signficantly higher end body at PMA with 10 megapixels at $3-4K street price. REPLY: They are...? Pål
RE: *istD EOL...
Quoting Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Alan wrote: There never was much wrong with Pentax AF anyway. (I'm not quite sure whose comment that was) I never found anything wrong with Pentax AF on the much-maligned PZ-1 and I thought the ZX-5n wasn't too bad either, though not good in really low light. However, it seems to me that autofocus on the *ist D is worse than either of those. I use manual focus most of the time with the *ist D because I've lost a lot of shots while the camera hunted, and lost some more that turned out, upon inspection, to be out of focus. And as I've said before, the autoexposure with the *ist D doesn't work as well as ANY other Pentax camera with AE that I've used: that would be two ME Supers, P30t, Super Program, Program Plus, LX, PZ-1, ZX-5n, WR-90 and Optio 550. That said, I am learning to get better exposures out of the *istD, and as someone else has said, its viewfinder works fine for manual focus. ERNR
RE: *istD EOL...
Small cars don't look like shrinked big ones. If they did, they wouldn't sell. Good point. But not allways true. A camera is still a camera. IMO the *ist D/DS models make others look ridiculous. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Pål Jensen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 11. januar 2005 14:23 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: *istD EOL... John wrote: I hate to say it, but I agree. Pentax needs something to really set it apart from the other guys. Consistantly making smallest-in-their-class cameras isn't enough for serious photographers. REPLY: I think it will be more than enough. As high-end DSLR are larger than medium format cameras, and consequently suffers from the same lack of portability, the market niche is definitely there. Mind you, Pentax need to design cameras that look small, not only are small. The problem with the *istD(S) is that they look big. Products that are going to sell on their smallness need to comunicate their size through design. Small cars don't look like shrinked big ones. If they did they wouldn't sell. The small SLR's of the past looked small without any reference. Pentax M series and Olympus OM's had a slim smallish look whereas the *istD(S) look big and fat until you actually handle one or see a photo of it next to the competition. Since most people never see or handle a Pentax theres nothing telling them how small they are unless they do a lot of homework. The Pentax 40mm pancake lens is agreat idea. It is a pity though that Pentax haven't made a pancake camera. Pål
Re: *istD EOL...
Jens wrote: Good point. But not allways true. A camera is still a camera. IMO the *ist D/DS models make others look ridiculous. Yes, but who knows except Pentax insiders? Pål
RE: *istD EOL...
I have always found Pentax AF much more reliable than my cy manual focusing. Started with the MZ-30, then the MZ-S was a definite step up. *itdD AF seems to be have trouble locking more often than the MZ-S but will sometimes focus in lower light than the MZ-S would. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11 January 2005 15:23 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: *istD EOL... Quoting Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Alan wrote: There never was much wrong with Pentax AF anyway. (I'm not quite sure whose comment that was) I never found anything wrong with Pentax AF on the much-maligned PZ-1 and I thought the ZX-5n wasn't too bad either, though not good in really low light. However, it seems to me that autofocus on the *ist D is worse than either of those. I use manual focus most of the time with the *ist D because I've lost a lot of shots while the camera hunted, and lost some more that turned out, upon inspection, to be out of focus. And as I've said before, the autoexposure with the *ist D doesn't work as well as ANY other Pentax camera with AE that I've used: that would be two ME Supers, P30t, Super Program, Program Plus, LX, PZ-1, ZX-5n, WR-90 and Optio 550. That said, I am learning to get better exposures out of the *istD, and as someone else has said, its viewfinder works fine for manual focus. ERNR
Re: *istD EOL...
- Original Message - From: Pål Jensen Subject: Re: *istD EOL... Jens wrote: Good point. But not allways true. A camera is still a camera. IMO the *ist D/DS models make others look ridiculous. Yes, but who knows except Pentax insiders? My local camera store was telling me that before Christmas, they were selling istDS's as fast as they could ring in the sales. William Robb
Re: *istD EOL...
My local dedicated Camera shop says the *istDs isn't selling. They have it and the 300d and D70 (and the Minolta which is humungous) on display alongside each other. Even though the Pentax is smaller, they say the reasons people don't go for it are partly the SD card but mostly the difference in price. The 300d is something like GBP200 cheaper. Nick -Original Message- From: Pål Jensen[EMAIL PROTECTED] I think it will be more than enough. As high-end DSLR are larger than medium format cameras, and consequently suffers from the same lack of portability, the market niche is definitely there. Mind you, Pentax need to design cameras that look small, not only are small. The problem with the *istD(S) is that they look big. Products that are going to sell on their smallness need to comunicate their size through design. Small cars don't look like shrinked big ones. If they did they wouldn't sell. The small SLR's of the past looked small without any reference. Pentax M series and Olympus OM's had a slim smallish look whereas the *istD(S) look big and fat until you actually handle one or see a photo of it next to the competition. Since most people never see or handle a Pentax theres nothing telling them how small they are unless they do a lot of homework. The Pentax 40mm pancake lens is agreat idea. It is a pity though that Pentax haven't made a pancake camera. Pål
Re: *istD EOL...
I was in my local shop yesterday - mostly Nikon and Pentax, some Canon. They are selling about five D70's everyday. People just keep walking in a buying them. They think highly of the *istDS, but it doesn't sell anywhere like the D70. Pretty much the word is out in all media that photographers and would be photographers that the D70 is THE camera to buy. Pop Photography proclaimed it Camera of the Year. Size doesn't matter to most people at the time of purchase. Later on, when having to carry the extra they might care, but it is too late. The best Pentax can do with the *istDS is be respected. My shop thinks the DRebel is junk next to the DS and they are very willing to tell any potential customers. But they are really making their money on the D70. It could well be the camera that saved Nikon's hide. -- Best regards, Bruce Tuesday, January 11, 2005, 3:18:50 PM, you wrote: NC My local dedicated Camera shop says the *istDs isn't selling. NC They have it and the 300d and D70 (and the Minolta which is NC humungous) on display alongside each other. Even though the Pentax NC is smaller, they say the reasons people don't go for it are partly NC the SD card but mostly the difference in price. The 300d is NC something like GBP200 cheaper. NC Nick NC -Original Message- NC From: Pål Jensen[EMAIL PROTECTED] NC I think it will be more than enough. As high-end DSLR are NC larger than medium format cameras, and consequently suffers from NC the same lack of portability, the market niche is definitely NC there. Mind you, Pentax need to design cameras that look small, NC not only are small. The problem with the *istD(S) is that they NC look big. Products that are going to sell on their smallness need NC to comunicate their size through design. Small cars don't look NC like shrinked big ones. If they did they wouldn't sell. The small NC SLR's of the past looked small without any reference. Pentax M NC series and Olympus OM's had a slim smallish look whereas the NC *istD(S) look big and fat until you actually handle one or see a NC photo of it next to the competition. Since most people never see NC or handle a Pentax theres nothing telling them how small they are NC unless they do a lot of homework. NC The Pentax 40mm pancake lens is agreat idea. It is a pity NC though that Pentax haven't made a pancake camera. NC Pål
Re: *istD EOL...
Bruce, I'm curious why the shop people thought the Digital Rebel was junk. Was it based on look and feel ? What about image quality? I'm asking because right now the Rebel is the top selling DLSR for astrophotography. I haven't had a chance to try the *ist D yet with my telescope, but depending on results I get with the *ist D I wouldn't mind trying the Rebel. Tom C. From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: Nick Clark pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: *istD EOL... Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 15:33:08 -0800 I was in my local shop yesterday - mostly Nikon and Pentax, some Canon. They are selling about five D70's everyday. People just keep walking in a buying them. They think highly of the *istDS, but it doesn't sell anywhere like the D70. Pretty much the word is out in all media that photographers and would be photographers that the D70 is THE camera to buy. Pop Photography proclaimed it Camera of the Year. Size doesn't matter to most people at the time of purchase. Later on, when having to carry the extra they might care, but it is too late. The best Pentax can do with the *istDS is be respected. My shop thinks the DRebel is junk next to the DS and they are very willing to tell any potential customers. But they are really making their money on the D70. It could well be the camera that saved Nikon's hide. -- Best regards, Bruce Tuesday, January 11, 2005, 3:18:50 PM, you wrote: NC My local dedicated Camera shop says the *istDs isn't selling. NC They have it and the 300d and D70 (and the Minolta which is NC humungous) on display alongside each other. Even though the Pentax NC is smaller, they say the reasons people don't go for it are partly NC the SD card but mostly the difference in price. The 300d is NC something like GBP200 cheaper. NC Nick NC -Original Message- NC From: Pål Jensen[EMAIL PROTECTED] NC I think it will be more than enough. As high-end DSLR are NC larger than medium format cameras, and consequently suffers from NC the same lack of portability, the market niche is definitely NC there. Mind you, Pentax need to design cameras that look small, NC not only are small. The problem with the *istD(S) is that they NC look big. Products that are going to sell on their smallness need NC to comunicate their size through design. Small cars don't look NC like shrinked big ones. If they did they wouldn't sell. The small NC SLR's of the past looked small without any reference. Pentax M NC series and Olympus OM's had a slim smallish look whereas the NC *istD(S) look big and fat until you actually handle one or see a NC photo of it next to the competition. Since most people never see NC or handle a Pentax theres nothing telling them how small they are NC unless they do a lot of homework. NC The Pentax 40mm pancake lens is agreat idea. It is a pity NC though that Pentax haven't made a pancake camera. NC Pål
Re: *istD EOL...
only rumors from Graywolf that we are to look for something important at PMA are true. of course if it is a digital 645, then i'm not interested. Herb... - Original Message - From: Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 8:11 AM Subject: Re: *istD EOL... no surprise if they are really going to announce a signficantly higher end body at PMA with 10 megapixels at $3-4K street price. REPLY: They are...?
Re: *istD EOL...
given that the US list price for the *istDs and the 300D are almost the same and the street price is nearly so, what's up with the UK distributor? Herb... - Original Message - From: Nick Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 6:18 PM Subject: Re: *istD EOL... My local dedicated Camera shop says the *istDs isn't selling. They have it and the 300d and D70 (and the Minolta which is humungous) on display alongside each other. Even though the Pentax is smaller, they say the reasons people don't go for it are partly the SD card but mostly the difference in price. The 300d is something like GBP200 cheaper.
Re: *istD EOL...
Their comments, I believe, are based on build quality and general feel - nothing to do with image quality. I suspect if it were stuck on a telescope, ergonomics wouldn't matter much. -- Best regards, Bruce Tuesday, January 11, 2005, 3:45:05 PM, you wrote: TC Bruce, TC I'm curious why the shop people thought the Digital Rebel was junk. Was it TC based on look and feel ? What about image quality? TC I'm asking because right now the Rebel is the top selling DLSR for TC astrophotography. I haven't had a chance to try the *ist D yet with my TC telescope, but depending on results I get with the *ist D I wouldn't mind TC trying the Rebel. TC Tom C. From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: Nick Clark pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: *istD EOL... Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 15:33:08 -0800 I was in my local shop yesterday - mostly Nikon and Pentax, some Canon. They are selling about five D70's everyday. People just keep walking in a buying them. They think highly of the *istDS, but it doesn't sell anywhere like the D70. Pretty much the word is out in all media that photographers and would be photographers that the D70 is THE camera to buy. Pop Photography proclaimed it Camera of the Year. Size doesn't matter to most people at the time of purchase. Later on, when having to carry the extra they might care, but it is too late. The best Pentax can do with the *istDS is be respected. My shop thinks the DRebel is junk next to the DS and they are very willing to tell any potential customers. But they are really making their money on the D70. It could well be the camera that saved Nikon's hide. -- Best regards, Bruce Tuesday, January 11, 2005, 3:18:50 PM, you wrote: NC My local dedicated Camera shop says the *istDs isn't selling. NC They have it and the 300d and D70 (and the Minolta which is NC humungous) on display alongside each other. Even though the Pentax NC is smaller, they say the reasons people don't go for it are partly NC the SD card but mostly the difference in price. The 300d is NC something like GBP200 cheaper. NC Nick NC -Original Message- NC From: Pål Jensen[EMAIL PROTECTED] NC I think it will be more than enough. As high-end DSLR are NC larger than medium format cameras, and consequently suffers from NC the same lack of portability, the market niche is definitely NC there. Mind you, Pentax need to design cameras that look small, NC not only are small. The problem with the *istD(S) is that they NC look big. Products that are going to sell on their smallness need NC to comunicate their size through design. Small cars don't look NC like shrinked big ones. If they did they wouldn't sell. The small NC SLR's of the past looked small without any reference. Pentax M NC series and Olympus OM's had a slim smallish look whereas the NC *istD(S) look big and fat until you actually handle one or see a NC photo of it next to the competition. Since most people never see NC or handle a Pentax theres nothing telling them how small they are NC unless they do a lot of homework. NC The Pentax 40mm pancake lens is agreat idea. It is a pity NC though that Pentax haven't made a pancake camera. NC Pål
Re: *istD EOL...
I didn't realize that Nikon needed to be saved. Shel From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] But they are really making their money on the D70. It could well be the camera that saved Nikon's hide.
Re: *istD EOL...
On Tuesday 11 January 2005 18:18, Nick Clark wrote: My local dedicated Camera shop says the *istDs isn't selling. They have it and the 300d and D70 (and the Minolta which is humungous) on display alongside each other. Even though the Pentax is smaller, they say the reasons people don't go for it are partly the SD card but mostly the difference in price. The 300d is something like GBP200 cheaper. GBP 200? come off it. Really? Where I am, the 300D and the DS sell for USD 1000 each. They're more or less equal in price; the Canon is more generally-available however. They're sold everywhere: computer stores, camera stores, wherever. are you quite sure you were comparing the *istDS and the EOS 300D, and haven't instead compared the price between the *istD and the EOS 300D? The *istD was price-competitive with the Canon EOS 10D; the DS and the 300D are likewise in the same price bracket. -Luigi
Re: *istD EOL...
Pentax's English distributor strikes again. Nick Clark wrote: My local dedicated Camera shop says the *istDs isn't selling. They have it and the 300d and D70 (and the Minolta which is humungous) on display alongside each other. Even though the Pentax is smaller, they say the reasons people don't go for it are partly the SD card but mostly the difference in price. The 300d is something like GBP200 cheaper. Nick -Original Message- From: Pål Jensen[EMAIL PROTECTED] I think it will be more than enough. As high-end DSLR are larger than medium format cameras, and consequently suffers from the same lack of portability, the market niche is definitely there. Mind you, Pentax need to design cameras that look small, not only are small. The problem with the *istD(S) is that they look big. Products that are going to sell on their smallness need to comunicate their size through design. Small cars don't look like shrinked big ones. If they did they wouldn't sell. The small SLR's of the past looked small without any reference. Pentax M series and Olympus OM's had a slim smallish look whereas the *istD(S) look big and fat until you actually handle one or see a photo of it next to the competition. Since most people never see or handle a Pentax theres nothing telling them how small they are unless they do a lot of homework. The Pentax 40mm pancake lens is agreat idea. It is a pity though that Pentax haven't made a pancake camera. Pål -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: *istD EOL...
- Original Message - From: Tom C Subject: Re: *istD EOL... I'm asking because right now the Rebel is the top selling DLSR for astrophotography. I haven't had a chance to try the *ist D yet with my telescope, but depending on results I get with the *ist D I wouldn't mind trying the Rebel. - Original Message - From: Brian Schneider Subject: Re: Can you answer a question please... William Robb wrote: Brian, What is it about the digital rebel that is making it the favourite camera for astrophotography? low noise at long exposures?
Re: *istD EOL...
Keith, I cannot be sure what they will work on, but you may want to check out Gulfstream Camera 1682 East Oakland Park Blvd. Oakland Park, FL 4 954-564-8586 They are in the Ft. Lauderdale area. I plan on being in their store on Friday. Hopefully I will remember to ask them about your Retina. They have plenty of old cameras. They have a few technicians that come in to work on cameras. They have worked on a majority of my screwmount cameras, with no disappointments. When I wanted them to work on my Nikonos system, they referred me to a place in Texas. Worh checking out, César Panama City, Florida Keith Whaley wrote: snip Hah, I haven't asked YOU yet... do you know an expert Retina repair person? The only one I knew passed on a year or so ago, and I need my almost brand-new Retina Reflex III repaired... A simple repair, but no-one will touch it! keith whaley
Re: *istD EOL...
Luigi de Guzman mused: I spent, with tax, about a thousand dollars, US on the DS. I nearly threw up; it was the most money I'd ever spent in one go on a single piece of photographic equipment. I paid full release price for my *ist-D; $1695 US, I believe. Then I watched the price tumble by $500 in the next 6 months. But in 1972 I paid 114 pounds sterling for a Spotmatic II 50mm lens. Convert that to current-day dollars and it was probably more than the *ist-D; it was certainly a much higher percentage of my paycheck.
Re: *istD EOL...
On 9 Jan 2005 at 23:56, Luigi de Guzman wrote: I spent, with tax, about a thousand dollars, US on the DS. I nearly threw up; it was the most money I'd ever spent in one go on a single piece of photographic equipment, and probably equalled the value of all my gear in all formats (35mm and 6x6...and the enlarger, and its lenses) This value of outlay will look insignificant as your life progresses. I hope there are doctors close by when you sign your first house mortgage papers. :-) 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: *istD EOL...
On 9 Jan 2005 at 8:57, Brian Dipert wrote: The representative DID however point out that they'd need to 'digitize' their medium format product line soon; that as-is it was getting 'long in the tooth' It's teeth have already fallen out and there aren't any gums to bother with. Let's just hope they give us a decent spec. 35mm format body, that's all I ask. 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: *istD EOL...
AFAIK Pentax is still servicing LXen. After all it was only discontinued in 2000 (although they were almost impossible to get outside Japan). Since they were made for almost 20 years official repairs should be available for at least a few years yet. It is not lack of parts it is lack of interest at most repair shops that prevent repairs. They are only willing to change modules, not actually get into the camera and fix it. And most people are not willing to pay the price to have it done right anyway. Any mechanical mechanism can be repaired, an expert can machine parts for it. The only question is, is it worth the cost to you. Remember most things are made somewhere where labor is 2-bits an hour while you have to pay US or European wages to have them repaired. SK Grimes, or Photography on Bald Mountain will repair about any mechanical camera; if you are willing to pay the price needed to do it. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree in principle. But repair services have already quit servicing the LX. Make a few calls to verify if you wish. I shoot with mine once in a while, but it's becoming a museum piece. The *istD will undoubtedly follow, but not for at least five years. Paul Hi, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would be surprised if you'd be able to get either the *istD or the LX serviced in 10 years. In fact, it's difficult to get the LX serviced now. Independents won't touch it. It's too specialized. And I think Pentax is on the verge of abondoning it. Don't get me wront. I love my LX, and I will do my best to get it work ad infinitum. Right now it's sitting in a dust free glass case. That might be the best strategy. I have a somewhat different philosophy. By all means keep a pristine example of the specie in whatever method of stasis best preserves it. One thing our society is short of is geuine examples of consumer goods in their original condition. (Note: restorations do not count - they are someone's idea of what it was originally; they are not _original_) If it is used, the best thing to keep it functional is to use it. That way you wear it out and have to get it repaired. Look at the market for Supermarine Spitfire spares, for example. There are plenty of places that will deal with the LX. They are not cheap, as it is a skilled job. But the more that LXs are used, the more the repairers and servicers will order parts and the longer those parts and the skills to fit them will be available. In ten years time, there will be nothing better than the LX at what it does. The same cannot be said for the D. In ten years time, you will have the choice of spending X to get the D repaired or spending a fraction of X to buy something that does the job better. mike -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.9 - Release Date: 1/6/2005
RE: *istD EOL...
Thanks for the report. Makes sense, given the (almost?) identical imaging sensors in the two cameras and the faster processing in the Ds. Did they drop any hints regarding the release of a higher-end DSLR? --Mark I asked about a higher-end 35mm model and did not get an encouraging response; either the person I spoke with was uninformed, or there won't be a pro body announced at PMA. Pentax seems to be focused on volume, not profit margin, in this space. The representative DID however point out that they'd need to 'digitize' their medium format product line soon; that as-is it was getting 'long in the tooth' == Brian Dipert Technical Editor: Mass Storage, Memory, Multimedia, PC Core Logic and Peripherals, and Programmable Logic EDN Magazine: http://www.edn.com 5000 V Street Sacramento, CA 95817 (916) 454-5242 (voice), (617) 558-4470 (fax) mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit me at http://www.bdipert.com
Re: *istD EOL...
Quoting Graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED]: AFAIK Pentax is still servicing LXen. Certainly were doing so around April/May of 2004, when mine paid them a couple of visits. ERNR
Re: *istD EOL...
- Original Message - From: Graywolf Subject: Re: *istD EOL... AFAIK Pentax is still servicing LXen. After all it was only discontinued in 2000 (although they were almost impossible to get outside Japan). It won't be the machanics that are the problem, it will be the electronic components. As an example, when my fleet went in for service a couple of years ago, Pentax informed me that one of the cameras wasn't going to be an easy rtepair, as the main circuit board had been redesigned shortly after I bought my camera and was no longer available. Pity, since that is what they wanted to change out. I coaxed them into having one made by Pentax and shipped in, but it took forever, and I think they had a couple produced before they got one that worked in my camera. According to my repair guy, the MX uses some proprietary electronic components that were custom manufactured for the camera, and when they die, thats it, no more meter. William Robb
Re: *istD EOL...
Graywolf wrote: AFAIK Pentax is still servicing LXen. After all it was only discontinued in 2000 (although they were almost impossible to get outside Japan). Since they were made for almost 20 years official repairs should be available for at least a few years yet. It is not lack of parts it is lack of interest at most repair shops that prevent repairs. They are only willing to change modules, not actually get into the camera and fix it. And most people are not willing to pay the price to have it done right anyway. Any mechanical mechanism can be repaired, an expert can machine parts for it. The only question is, is it worth the cost to you. Remember most things are made somewhere where labor is 2-bits an hour while you have to pay US or European wages to have them repaired. SK Grimes, or Photography on Bald Mountain will repair about any mechanical camera; if you are willing to pay the price needed to do it. Hah, I haven't asked YOU yet... do you know an expert Retina repair person? The only one I knew passed on a year or so ago, and I need my almost brand-new Retina Reflex III repaired... A simple repair, but no-one will touch it! keith whaley graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com [...]
Re: *istD EOL...
Hi, Graywolf wrote: AFAIK Pentax is still servicing LXen. After all it was only discontinued in 2000 (although they were almost impossible to get outside Japan). Since they were made for almost 20 years official repairs should be available for at least a few years yet. It is not lack of parts it is lack of interest at most repair shops that prevent repairs. They are only willing to change modules, not actually get into the camera and fix it. And most people are not willing to pay the price to have it done right anyway. Any mechanical mechanism can be repaired, an expert can machine parts for it. The only question is, is it worth the cost to you. Remember most things are made somewhere where labor is 2-bits an hour while you have to pay US or European wages to have them repaired. SK Grimes, or Photography on Bald Mountain will repair about any mechanical camera; if you are willing to pay the price needed to do it. There are _at least_ two national repairers for the LX in the UK and there is a local for me, who is at least 300 miles from civilisation graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree in principle. But repair services have already quit servicing the LX. Make a few calls to verify if you wish. I shoot with mine once in a while, but it's becoming a museum piece. The *istD will undoubtedly follow, but not for at least five years. Paul Hi, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would be surprised if you'd be able to get either the *istD or the LX serviced in 10 years. In fact, it's difficult to get the LX serviced now. Independents won't touch it. It's too specialized. And I think Pentax is on the verge of abondoning it. Don't get me wront. I love my LX, and I will do my best to get it work ad infinitum. Right now it's sitting in a dust free glass case. That might be the best strategy. I have a somewhat different philosophy. By all means keep a pristine example of the specie in whatever method of stasis best preserves it. One thing our society is short of is geuine examples of consumer goods in their original condition. (Note: restorations do not count - they are someone's idea of what it was originally; they are not _original_) If it is used, the best thing to keep it functional is to use it. That way you wear it out and have to get it repaired. Look at the market for Supermarine Spitfire spares, for example. There are plenty of places that will deal with the LX. They are not cheap, as it is a skilled job. But the more that LXs are used, the more the repairers and servicers will order parts and the longer those parts and the skills to fit them will be available. In ten years time, there will be nothing better than the LX at what it does. The same cannot be said for the D. In ten years time, you will have the choice of spending X to get the D repaired or spending a fraction of X to buy something that does the job better. mike
Re: *istD EOL...
That is true of MX meter systems. However when did they quit making the MX 1985 or so? That is 20 years ago. There are no new spare parts for an MX except what might be left over on the shelf. The advantage to the MX is the meter is merely a convenience not a necessity. However, I would have thought the newer circuit board could be used in the older LX cameras. Usually they design them so they can do that. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Graywolf Subject: Re: *istD EOL... AFAIK Pentax is still servicing LXen. After all it was only discontinued in 2000 (although they were almost impossible to get outside Japan). It won't be the machanics that are the problem, it will be the electronic components. As an example, when my fleet went in for service a couple of years ago, Pentax informed me that one of the cameras wasn't going to be an easy rtepair, as the main circuit board had been redesigned shortly after I bought my camera and was no longer available. Pity, since that is what they wanted to change out. I coaxed them into having one made by Pentax and shipped in, but it took forever, and I think they had a couple produced before they got one that worked in my camera. According to my repair guy, the MX uses some proprietary electronic components that were custom manufactured for the camera, and when they die, thats it, no more meter. William Robb -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.9 - Release Date: 1/6/2005
Re: *istD EOL...
Unfortunately, no. I did a few years back but the guy retired or died or something. Micro-Tools has some Retina parts in their catalog. There is a guy in Australlia that comes up with a 'kodak retina repairs' search but it looks like he only works on RF models. If you are handy copies of the repair manuals are readily available. What the problem is you are going to place where the techs are kids. Just like going to the dealer to get a 7-8 year old car repaired. They do not know anything about anything from before they went to school to learn it. In 1991 I could not find a local mechanic even at the Ford dealer who knew crap about the carburator system in my 5 year old Escort, all they knew was fuel-injection systems. You might inquire with Ken Ruth he used to work on all kinds of Kodak stuff (warning he is very expensive): http://www.baldmtn.com/ graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Keith Whaley wrote: Hah, I haven't asked YOU yet... do you know an expert Retina repair person? The only one I knew passed on a year or so ago, and I need my almost brand-new Retina Reflex III repaired... A simple repair, but no-one will touch it! keith whaley graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com [...] -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.9 - Release Date: 1/6/2005
Re: *istD EOL...
On Saturday 08 January 2005 23:32, John Celio wrote: Without USM and IS like technology, I am afraid nothing Pentax could do to impress high end 135 users. I hate to say it, but I agree. Pentax needs something to really set it apart from the other guys. Consistantly making smallest-in-their-class cameras isn't enough for serious photographers. I recently had dinner with a friend of mine who's a reasonably serious photographer. He's a Canon EOS 10D user who'd wanted to have a look at the DS since I'd gotten it. His first reaction when I pulled it out of the camera bag was priceless: WOW, he said, as his eyes popped. That's TINY. We put it side-by-side with his 10D, and it was almost comical; the 10D looked like a gorilla compared to the DS. [A non-photographer friend of ours, also at the same dinner table, cooed right as I pulled out the DS: What a cute camera!] I handed him the camera and immediately he started playing with it. His observations: The viewfinder was far nicer. He had a hard time going back to the Canon's. The controls were far better placed. And boy was it small! verdict: If I wasn't already so heavily invested in Canon glass, I'd get this. (heavily invested, here means that the total value of his lenses is easily in excess of the value of his car. Admittedly, he drives a very well-used car, but for someone who isn't paying his bills with the photography, it's an awful lot). I wish the DS were more universally available, though -Luigi
Re: *istD EOL...
Luigi de Guzman mused: verdict: If I wasn't already so heavily invested in Canon glass, I'd get this. (heavily invested, here means that the total value of his lenses is easily in excess of the value of his car. Admittedly, he drives a very well-used car, but for someone who isn't paying his bills with the photography, it's an awful lot). There's many of us here in that category. In fact I can easily exceed the value of my car (a 1986 Mustang GT ragtop) with just one lens.
Re: *istD EOL...
John can attest to the fact that I can exceed the value of my Toyota with just a lens cap ;-)) Shel [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] There's many of us here in that category. In fact I can easily exceed the value of my car (a 1986 Mustang GT ragtop) with just one lens.
Re: *istD EOL...
On Sunday 09 January 2005 23:28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Luigi de Guzman mused: verdict: If I wasn't already so heavily invested in Canon glass, I'd get this. (heavily invested, here means that the total value of his lenses is easily in excess of the value of his car. Admittedly, he drives a very well-used car, but for someone who isn't paying his bills with the photography, it's an awful lot). There's many of us here in that category. In fact I can easily exceed the value of my car (a 1986 Mustang GT ragtop) with just one lens. I spent, with tax, about a thousand dollars, US on the DS. I nearly threw up; it was the most money I'd ever spent in one go on a single piece of photographic equipment, and probably equalled the value of all my gear in all formats (35mm and 6x6...and the enlarger, and its lenses) I mean, it was three times a much as I'd spent on my bicycle! -Luigi
RE: *istD EOL...
Interesting. It seems Pentax can't really impress a substantial percentage of high-end 35mm camera buyers. I wonder what Pentax will be doing to try to replace the lost sales of professional the MF cameras (6x45, 6x7) - in other words to get (back) in to the pro market. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Brian Dipert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 8. januar 2005 04:44 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: *istD EOL... I had a chat with the folks at the Pentax booth today at CES. What I was told is that there are less than 1000 bodies left in factory inventory, and when they're gone there'll be no more made; the *istDS will carry the torch going forward (at least until next-generation products are out). The guy I talked to also wasn't aware of any future *istD firmware updates under development == Brian Dipert Technical Editor: Mass Storage, Memory, Multimedia, PC Core Logic and Peripherals, and Programmable Logic EDN Magazine: http://www.edn.com 5000 V Street Sacramento, CA 95817 (916) 454-5242 (voice), (617) 558-4470 (fax) mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit me at http://www.bdipert.com
Re: *istD EOL...
Brian Dipert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I had a chat with the folks at the Pentax booth today at CES. What I was told is that there are less than 1000 bodies left in factory inventory, and when they're gone there'll be no more made; the *istDS will carry the torch going forward (at least until next-generation products are out). The guy I talked to also wasn't aware of any future *istD firmware updates under development That's actually a pretty long lifespan for a camera in its section of the market. Wonder if there'll be any announcements/hints at PMA next month. I may be going to PMA, by the way. I'll keep the List posted! -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
RE: *istD EOL...
--- Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interesting. It seems Pentax can't really impress a substantial percentage of high-end 35mm camera buyers. I wonder what Pentax will be doing to try to replace the lost sales of professional the MF cameras (6x45, 6x7) - in other words to get (back) in to the pro market. Without USM and IS like technology, I am afraid nothing Pentax could do to impress high end 135 users. = Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
Re: *istD EOL...
and much better AF given that others have done so, at least on their high end cameras. it signals to me that if they want to appeal to the people that pay for the mid or high priced DSLR bodies, they are going to have to release a raft of new-to-Pentax technologies at once. Herb - Original Message - From: Alan Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 7:34 AM Subject: RE: *istD EOL... Without USM and IS like technology, I am afraid nothing Pentax could do to impress high end 135 users.
Re: *istD EOL...
- Original Message - From: Jens Bladt Subject: RE: *istD EOL... Interesting. It seems Pentax can't really impress a substantial percentage of high-end 35mm camera buyers. I wonder what Pentax will be doing to try to replace the lost sales of professional the MF cameras (6x45, 6x7) - in other words to get (back) in to the pro market. Pentax's version of the Pro market is gone now. They dropped the ball 20 years ago, and now it has rolled under the bed, most likely out of reach forever. William Robb
Re: *istD EOL...
What I was told is that there are less than 1000 bodies left in factory inventory, and when they're gone there'll be no more made Hmmm. I wonder how long there will be parts for repairs? I suppose that the DS uses some of the same parts. Joe
Re: *istD EOL...
I thought that Pentax' Pro market was addressed by their 645 and 67 series cameras. Remember that the 645n was the first production autofocus medium format camera in the world. What I can't understand is why Pentax hasn't released a digital system that uses 645 and/or 67 lenses. If nothing else, I would think that it would signal to fashion and other pro photographers who use Pentax that they plan to be around for the long term --Mark William Robb wrote: Pentax's version of the Pro market is gone now. They dropped the ball 20 years ago, and now it has rolled under the bed, most likely out of reach forever. William Robb
Re: *istD EOL...
- Original Message - From: Joseph Tainter Subject: Re: *istD EOL... What I was told is that there are less than 1000 bodies left in factory inventory, and when they're gone there'll be no more made Hmmm. I wonder how long there will be parts for repairs? I suppose that the DS uses some of the same parts. Aren't there consumer laws regarding this? I know in Canada, they have to supply repairs for a certain number of years after the product is discontinued (I believe 7). William Robb
Re: *istD EOL...
- Original Message - From: Mark Erickson Subject: Re: *istD EOL... I thought that Pentax' Pro market was addressed by their 645 and 67 series cameras. Was is the key operative. Pro's aren't using so much medium format now. More and more, they are using Canon and Nikon DSLRs. William Robb
Re: *istD EOL...
The law is 7 years but I'm not sure that matters much in electronics... William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Joseph Tainter Subject: Re: *istD EOL... What I was told is that there are less than 1000 bodies left in factory inventory, and when they're gone there'll be no more made Hmmm. I wonder how long there will be parts for repairs? I suppose that the DS uses some of the same parts. Aren't there consumer laws regarding this? I know in Canada, they have to supply repairs for a certain number of years after the product is discontinued (I believe 7). William Robb -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: *istD EOL...
In the US such laws very state by state, and even when there is such a law they are often not enforced unless there is a big hugh and cry by the public about some specific item. As for the manufactures something they sold millions of over many years will be supported for a long time, something like an *istD that they only sold a few thousand of for a year or so, will soon be orphaned. And since manufactures are run by beancounters now they care even less. Kodak sold 620 film 30 years after they quit making cameras that used it. Disk film was gone 3-5 years after they quit making the cameras. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Joseph Tainter Subject: Re: *istD EOL... What I was told is that there are less than 1000 bodies left in factory inventory, and when they're gone there'll be no more made Hmmm. I wonder how long there will be parts for repairs? I suppose that the DS uses some of the same parts. Aren't there consumer laws regarding this? I know in Canada, they have to supply repairs for a certain number of years after the product is discontinued (I believe 7). William Robb -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.9 - Release Date: 1/6/2005
Re: *istD EOL...
Hi, William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Joseph Tainter Subject: Re: *istD EOL... What I was told is that there are less than 1000 bodies left in factory inventory, and when they're gone there'll be no more made Hmmm. I wonder how long there will be parts for repairs? I suppose that the DS uses some of the same parts. Aren't there consumer laws regarding this? I know in Canada, they have to supply repairs for a certain number of years after the product is discontinued (I believe 7). Part are no good if you cannot find anyone to do the work. In ten years time the D will be a tiny speck on the history of phtotgraphy. OTOH, I suspect I will still be able to get my LX serviced.. mike -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.9 - Release Date: 06/01/2005
Re: *istD EOL...
I would be surprised if you'd be able to get either the *istD or the LX serviced in 10 years. In fact, it's difficult to get the LX serviced now. Independents won't touch it. It's too specialized. And I think Pentax is on the verge of abondoning it. Don't get me wront. I love my LX, and I will do my best to get it work ad infinitum. Right now it's sitting in a dust free glass case. That might be the best strategy. Paul Hi, William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Joseph Tainter Subject: Re: *istD EOL... What I was told is that there are less than 1000 bodies left in factory inventory, and when they're gone there'll be no more made Hmmm. I wonder how long there will be parts for repairs? I suppose that the DS uses some of the same parts. Aren't there consumer laws regarding this? I know in Canada, they have to supply repairs for a certain number of years after the product is discontinued (I believe 7). Part are no good if you cannot find anyone to do the work. In ten years time the D will be a tiny speck on the history of phtotgraphy. OTOH, I suspect I will still be able to get my LX serviced.. mike -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.9 - Release Date: 06/01/2005
Re: *istD EOL...
Hi, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would be surprised if you'd be able to get either the *istD or the LX serviced in 10 years. In fact, it's difficult to get the LX serviced now. Independents won't touch it. It's too specialized. And I think Pentax is on the verge of abondoning it. Don't get me wront. I love my LX, and I will do my best to get it work ad infinitum. Right now it's sitting in a dust free glass case. That might be the best strategy. I have a somewhat different philosophy. By all means keep a pristine example of the specie in whatever method of stasis best preserves it. One thing our society is short of is geuine examples of consumer goods in their original condition. (Note: restorations do not count - they are someone's idea of what it was originally; they are not _original_) If it is used, the best thing to keep it functional is to use it. That way you wear it out and have to get it repaired. Look at the market for Supermarine Spitfire spares, for example. There are plenty of places that will deal with the LX. They are not cheap, as it is a skilled job. But the more that LXs are used, the more the repairers and servicers will order parts and the longer those parts and the skills to fit them will be available. In ten years time, there will be nothing better than the LX at what it does. The same cannot be said for the D. In ten years time, you will have the choice of spending X to get the D repaired or spending a fraction of X to buy something that does the job better. mike
Re: *istD EOL...
I agree in principle. But repair services have already quit servicing the LX. Make a few calls to verify if you wish. I shoot with mine once in a while, but it's becoming a museum piece. The *istD will undoubtedly follow, but not for at least five years. Paul Hi, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would be surprised if you'd be able to get either the *istD or the LX serviced in 10 years. In fact, it's difficult to get the LX serviced now. Independents won't touch it. It's too specialized. And I think Pentax is on the verge of abondoning it. Don't get me wront. I love my LX, and I will do my best to get it work ad infinitum. Right now it's sitting in a dust free glass case. That might be the best strategy. I have a somewhat different philosophy. By all means keep a pristine example of the specie in whatever method of stasis best preserves it. One thing our society is short of is geuine examples of consumer goods in their original condition. (Note: restorations do not count - they are someone's idea of what it was originally; they are not _original_) If it is used, the best thing to keep it functional is to use it. That way you wear it out and have to get it repaired. Look at the market for Supermarine Spitfire spares, for example. There are plenty of places that will deal with the LX. They are not cheap, as it is a skilled job. But the more that LXs are used, the more the repairers and servicers will order parts and the longer those parts and the skills to fit them will be available. In ten years time, there will be nothing better than the LX at what it does. The same cannot be said for the D. In ten years time, you will have the choice of spending X to get the D repaired or spending a fraction of X to buy something that does the job better. mike
Re: *istD EOL...
Without USM and IS like technology, I am afraid nothing Pentax could do to impress high end 135 users. I hate to say it, but I agree. Pentax needs something to really set it apart from the other guys. Consistantly making smallest-in-their-class cameras isn't enough for serious photographers. If they had something as simple as an Olympus-like sensor cleaner built into their bodies, that would certainly help (and it'd keep me from switching to Olympus, as I'm seriously considering doing in the near future). At the shop I work at, Olympus' super-sonic wave filter is the main selling point to get people into the E-system, and it's the main reason I'm probably going to get into that system when the E-1's successor comes out this winter/spring. Oops, did I say that out loud? (; John Celio -- http://www.neovenator.com http://www.newpixel.net AIM: Neopifex Hey, I'm an artist. I can do whatever I want and pretend I'm making a statement.
Re: *istD EOL...
no surprise if they are really going to announce a signficantly higher end body at PMA with 10 megapixels at $3-4K street price. Herb... - Original Message - From: Brian Dipert [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 10:43 PM Subject: *istD EOL... I had a chat with the folks at the Pentax booth today at CES. What I was told is that there are less than 1000 bodies left in factory inventory, and when they're gone there'll be no more made; the *istDS will carry the torch going forward (at least until next-generation products are out). The guy I talked to also wasn't aware of any future *istD firmware updates under development
Re: *istD EOL...
On Friday 07 January 2005 22:43, Brian Dipert wrote: I had a chat with the folks at the Pentax booth today at CES. What I was told is that there are less than 1000 bodies left in factory inventory, and when they're gone there'll be no more made; the *istDS will carry the torch going forward (at least until next-generation products are out). The guy I talked to also wasn't aware of any future *istD firmware updates under development So, curiously, does anybody have any total production figures for the *istD as compared to, say the EOS 10D? How about the projected run of the DS? -Luigi
RE: *istD EOL...
Thanks for the report. Makes sense, given the (almost?) identical imaging sensors in the two cameras and the faster processing in the Ds. Did they drop any hints regarding the release of a higher-end DSLR? --Mark Brian Dipert wrote: I had a chat with the folks at the Pentax booth today at CES. What I was told is that there are less than 1000 bodies left in factory inventory, and when they're gone there'll be no more made; the *istDS will carry the torch going forward (at least until next-generation products are out). The guy I talked to also wasn't aware of any future *istD firmware updates under development == Brian Dipert
