Re: DSLR market trends (WAS: Re: How about a 600/2.8 or a 100-400/2.8-3,5?)
Bruce wrote: An LX with AF would be yawned at by most of the world - it would only appeal to a few die hard Pentaxians. But there is another function of Pentax niche product: keeping the system alive. Theres no doubt in my mind that without the LX, the Pentax K-mount system would have been strictly for thos looking for a bargain in obsolete equipment. Now, aspects of the Pentax K-mount system is the prefered tool for quite a number of photographers. I mean, how else to explain that many are willing to pay more for a A* 85/1.4 than a brand new FA* 85/1.4 lens? I have no doubt that the Limited lenses are regarded as future legends from Pentax. Something to keep interest in the brand and system. Pentax doesn't have an AF camera that will function as an anchor of the AF lens system. I believe they need it. The LX is the fundament of the whole K-mount cult and without it a dare not even think about what the K-mount would have been about today. At least, you could have found K-mount lenses much cheaper on e-bay. Pål
Re: How about a 600/2.8 or a 100-400/2.8-3,5?
Pål wrote: In fact some Pentax users wait out the *ist D and when they see it they buy a Canon. I could be wrong, but I suspect that most shoppers will try to read about the various DSLRs on the Web before buying. Most will find hands-on reviews that evaluate the cameras strictly in terms of functions, value, ease of use, and accessories. Few will find PDML and other user forums in which people bash Pentax for substandard support.
Re: How about a 600/2.8 or a 100-400/2.8-3,5?
I think you are right, Paul. I think that the worst possible thing that could happen to Pentax would be for all prospective Pentax buyers to find and read the PDML before they made their purchase. For a user's group, we seem to be pretty negative about Pentax's efforts. Len --- From: Paul Franklin Stregevsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Pentax-Discuss' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: How about a 600/2.8 or a 100-400/2.8-3,5? Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 07:40:36 -0500 Pål wrote: In fact some Pentax users wait out the *ist D and when they see it they buy a Canon. I could be wrong, but I suspect that most shoppers will try to read about the various DSLRs on the Web before buying. Most will find hands-on reviews that evaluate the cameras strictly in terms of functions, value, ease of use, and accessories. Few will find PDML and other user forums in which people bash Pentax for substandard support. _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: How about a 600/2.8 or a 100-400/2.8-3,5?
On March 4, 2003 08:00 am, Leonard Paris wrote: I think you are right, Paul. I think that the worst possible thing that could happen to Pentax would be for all prospective Pentax buyers to find and read the PDML before they made their purchase. For a user's group, we seem to be pretty negative about Pentax's efforts. You're always hardest on those you love-)) Nick
Re: How about a 600/2.8 or a 100-400/2.8-3,5?
On 4 Mar 2003 at 8:11, Nick Zentena wrote: On March 4, 2003 08:00 am, Leonard Paris wrote: I think you are right, Paul. I think that the worst possible thing that could happen to Pentax would be for all prospective Pentax buyers to find and read the PDML before they made their purchase. For a user's group, we seem to be pretty negative about Pentax's efforts. You're always hardest on those you love-)) Got to pay that one :-) The reality is that they Pentax not been forthcoming with their plans of late and a little while back they dangled the carrot then whipped it away before we knew what had happened. We have a right to be critical, for some of us it's now looking like too little too late. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html Pentax user since 1986 PDMLer since 1998
Brand names (WAS: Re: How about a 600/2.8 or a 100-400/2.8-3,5?)
Paul wrote: I could be wrong, but I suspect that most shoppers will try to read about the various DSLRs on the Web before buying. Most will find hands-on reviews that evaluate the cameras strictly in terms of functions, value, ease of use, and accessories. Few will find PDML and other user forums in which people bash Pentax for substandard support. I think you are being naive. If you look at all the various photography newsgroups or forums you'll see countless of Nikon vs. Canon question regarding every model in their line up. They haven't reduced the numbers of manufactures to Nikon and Canon after careful research of everything available, but decided on these two brand s bacuse they have the brand value and names they want to be associated with. Most haven't the faintest idea of what Pentax is offering and probably believe that Pentax only offer 10 consumer lenses cause that what they see on BH adverising in Pop Photography. The fact is that if you're after a BMW or a Mercedes your not likely going to check out what Kia is offering in the price level or even Nissan. Canon long time ago figured out that the key to market domination was the professional market segment and its spin-off value. They have now 40% market share for conventional SLR's and probably more for DSLR. Theres no way Pentax is going to beat them on price or by copying. Nikon, on the other hand, is by far the most valuable name associated with photography there is according to marketing and branding specialists. Forget Hasselblad and Carl Zeiss, they aren't even in the ballpark. Canon is nowhere near Nikon in this regard but the brand name is now almost as well known as Coca-Cola and Sony. Pål
Re: DSLR market trends (WAS: Re: How about a 600/2.8 or a 100-400/2.8-3,5?)
Henry wrote: Many people don't want to be associated with the cosmopolitan big brands like Canon or Nikon. This time, Pentax is targetting at the *-ist who want something to represent their individual status. That's what the name of the D-SLR intends to be. I agree, and thats why I think it is sad that it doesn't look more individual. Pål
Re: How about a 600/2.8 or a 100-400/2.8-3,5?
Yeah, but if we want Pentax to continue in the business, we could consider being a bit more up=beat about their products. We seem to have an ability to spread negative information about new products before we know the facts. We look at a picture of a new camera and find ways to pick it apart before we've read any of the hands-on reviews, much less had a chance to read the manual or or give it a test drive ourselves. It's almost like we want Pentax to fail and orphan our equipment. Being hardest on those we love has been responsible for a lot of divorces. Len --- From: Nick Zentena [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: How about a 600/2.8 or a 100-400/2.8-3,5? Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 08:11:30 -0500 On March 4, 2003 08:00 am, Leonard Paris wrote: I think you are right, Paul. I think that the worst possible thing that could happen to Pentax would be for all prospective Pentax buyers to find and read the PDML before they made their purchase. For a user's group, we seem to be pretty negative about Pentax's efforts. You're always hardest on those you love-)) Nick _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: DSLR market trends (WAS: Re: How about a 600/2.8 or a 100-400/2.8-3,5?)
NO I am not negattive. I'd like to add that I think this is one of the BEST times for Pentax users. For once they are commited to great products for their entire line with more to come. Plus their new AF system sounds killer, and for once it looks as if it may be ahead of the pack (9 cross sensors). From the sounds of it, we can expect more great things to come from Pentax. They are finally walking their talk. Also, I remember when the MZ-S came out. There was more luke warm feelings on this list about it than the *ist/D. Except for Pål of course... Also, outside of the name, the photographic community seems to love the new *ist D says it will do well (see the Luminous Landscape as well). Except for Pål of course... Just my 2 cents. Peter --- Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Len: For a user's group, we seem to be pretty negative about Pentax's efforts. Pål: I'm realistic about it. You are NOT!!! Let me just ask, does ANYONE else on this list feel as negative about the *ist D as Pål is? Stand up and be counted. --Mike __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/
Re: DSLR market trends (WAS: Re: How about a 600/2.8 or a 100-400/2.8-3,5?)
Mike, I feel just about the opposite. Probably one angle is that Pål was looking for a savior for Pentax. Something that would put Pentax ON THE MAP so to speak. Personally, I don't think any single body/lens created by Pentax could do that. Even if they came out with something unique and revolutionary, the same Canon/Nikon mindsets would just wait until it hit their camp. On a side note, what could be introduced by anybody that would be so earthshaking that most of us couldn't wait a year or three before procuring? When you want a clean, simple, easy to understand, easy to operate, small to moderate sized camera, then Pentax is a player. When you are making a living with your camera (not necessarily as fun as a hobbyist), you NEED to create the image time and time again. Every little edge you can get on your competition is worth looking at. Number of lenses, accessories, bodies, support, reliability all factor in way ahead of fun and enjoyable. Pentax is about enjoying the art and craft of photography. Canon and Nikon are about making money through photography. Vastly different philosophies and vastly different users. In the US, much is made of status symbols. Way more than the skills/knowledge of the person is the possessions. Nikon and Canon are much bigger status symbols than Pentax and nothing Pentax could release in the SLR world would change that. A totally off the wall unique PS oriented thing (Optio S) would get noticed, but not by the same crowd. Since I am not trying to make money with my 35mm gear (Medium Format is a different story), I am very happy with my Pentax stuff. I am excited about their new directions with both the *ist and the *ist D. I think they are still trying to appeal to a place in the market where they can make a difference. An LX with AF would be yawned at by most of the world - it would only appeal to a few die hard Pentaxians. A robocamera is swallowed up by Canon/Nikon offering the same basic thing. Small, light, clean and simple is where the others don't do so well. Bruce Tuesday, March 4, 2003, 9:33:06 AM, you wrote: MJ Len: For a user's group, we seem to be pretty negative about Pentax's efforts. MJ Pål: I'm realistic about it. MJ You are NOT!!! MJ Let me just ask, does ANYONE else on this list feel as negative about the MJ *ist D as Pål is? Stand up and be counted. MJ --Mike
Re: DSLR market trends (WAS: Re: How about a 600/2.8 or a 100-400/2.8-3,5?)
Bruce wrote: An LX with AF would be yawned at by most of the world - it would only appeal to a few die hard Pentaxians. True enough A robocamera is swallowed up by Canon/Nikon offering the same basic thing. But thats what the *ist D is. It is just a shrinked Canon D10 or D100. Thats whats worries me... Small, light, clean and simple is where the others don't do so well. The 'ist D is small and light but neither clean or simple. Pål
Re: How about a 600/2.8 or a 100-400/2.8-3,5?
Leonardwrote: Yeah, but if we want Pentax to continue in the business, we could consider being a bit more up=beat about their products. We seem to have an ability to spread negative information about new products before we know the facts. We look at a picture of a new camera and find ways to pick it apart before we've read any of the hands-on reviews, much less had a chance to read the manual or or give it a test drive ourselves. You don't get a second chance on first impressions. Pål
Re: DSLR market trends (WAS: Re: How about a 600/2.8 or a 100-400/2.8-3,5?)
And here I tried to give Canon and Nikon a fighting chance by limiting it to a single format (35mm) and you go and pull an end around. Certainly Pentax does in the Medium Format world can't be done by Canon/Nikon. :) Bruce Tuesday, March 4, 2003, 12:42:19 PM, you wrote: g On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Bruce Dayton wrote: Personally, I don't think any single body/lens created by Pentax could do that. Even if they came out with something unique and revolutionary, the same Canon/Nikon mindsets would just wait until it hit their camp. On a side note, what could be introduced by anybody that would be so earthshaking that most of us couldn't wait a year or three before procuring? g 645 IS and USM, with a digital back. Canon and Nikon users would be g waiting a mighty long time, although the Mamiya people would be jealous.. g ;) g Or, 67 with the above (and, of course, AF), if you prefer. I assume we'd g see it in their 645 line before their 67 line.
Re: Brand names (WAS: Re: How about a 600/2.8 or a 100-400/2.8-3,5?)
Pål wrote: Nikon, on the other hand, is by far the most valuable name associated with photography there is according to marketing and branding specialists. Forget Hasselblad and Carl Zeiss, they aren't even in the ballpark. Canon is nowhere near Nikon in this regard but the brand name is now almost as well known as Coca-Cola and Sony. Indeed, last year, a coworker was shopping for a digicam. I've decided to get a Nikon, she explained, because that's what everyone I know uses and that's what they tell me I should get. She wanted me to help her decide, Which Nikon? I urged her to try the model before buying it to make sure she felt comfortable with its interface. I was using my company's Nikon CoolPix 900 or perhaps a slightly earlier model. I worked with some fairly bright engineers, but it took them more than 10 minutes to figure out how to change the ISO from 100 to 400 and turn off the flash, even with the Quick Reference chart and full manual in front of them.
Re: How about a 600/2.8 or a 100-400/2.8-3,5?
On Sun, 2 Mar 2003, [iso-8859-1] Pål Jensen wrote: Well, it is reality sort of. The new Olydak is being previewed and although the camera is no beauty it has balls. At least this system realizes some of the advantages of digital So...its OK if it doesn't have styling and uses a less than full frame sensor as long as it doesn't say Pentax? Maybe I'm just confused, I've taken to just deleting all teh *ist threads for the last few days, but isn't this exactly what you're crying about just the other day? -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
Re: How about a 600/2.8 or a 100-400/2.8-3,5?
So...its OK if it doesn't have styling and uses a less than full frame sensor as long as it doesn't say Pentax? Maybe I'm just confused, I've taken to just deleting all teh *ist threads for the last few days, but isn't this exactly what you're crying about just the other day? No. It is just that Pentax has no advantage as long as they don't affer something different than the rest. If you need new lenses anyway in order to take advantage of the DSLR, why buy Pentax in the first place with their quite rotten product continuity and support? In fact some Pentax users wait out the *ist D and when they see it they buy a Canon. My personal stance on this is that Pentax won't automatically get my DSLR business as can't see that the *ist D have any perticular advantages over the competition. Perhaps that was not the plan either; maybe just a K-mount slr. If I have to by not full circle lenses anyway I can't see why it must be Pentax. I will judge all the competition when the time comes and choose what suits me the best. So far it doesn't seem to be Pentax although things might change. Pål
