Re: VIRUS: Re: Pentax needs USM and IS
on 20.01.04 0:08, Cotty at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh my GOD Robert, I just opened a PIF file - and guess what happened ?!?!? Nothing? ;-) Sometimes it is really good to be different :-) -- Best Regards Sylwek
Re: VIRUS: Re: Pentax needs USM and IS
On 19/1/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: Oh my GOD Robert, I just opened a PIF file - and guess what happened ?!?!? Cheers, Cotty I don't know :o) You won a million dollars? I wish. What happened? Nothing. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: VIRUS: Re: Pentax needs USM and IS
On 19/1/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: Well, if I get an e-mail wherein the subject line thanks me for buying them lunch, I ~know~ it's gotta be fake!! So Frank is it true that you have the deepest pockets and the shortest arms east of the Rockies? ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
VIRUS: Re: Pentax needs USM and IS
FYI, this message had a virus attached (well, that's _my_ interpretation of having a file named 031013-2141.cl5.pif attached means :-) later, patbob On Monday 19 January 2004 09:21 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Roland is right. I have just the same opinion. There is time when someone suddenly discover he is afford/needs to have sth bp
Re: VIRUS: Re: Pentax needs USM and IS
At 02:08 PM 19/01/2004 -0500, you wrote: Patrick White [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FYI, this message had a virus attached (well, that's _my_ interpretation of having a file named 031013-2141.cl5.pif attached means :-) If anyone opens a PIF file they asked for it! (*)o(*) Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Vs: VIRUS: Re: Pentax needs USM and IS
Well - it´s not always easy to see what´s pif and what´s not.
BTW I just received a mail from Bruce Dayton with Re: PUG deadlines as subject.
Looked suspicious.
All the best!
Raimo
Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
-Alkuperäinen viesti-
Lähettäjä: mapson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Päivä: 19. tammikuuta 2004 22:45
Aihe: Re: VIRUS: Re: Pentax needs USM and IS
At 02:08 PM 19/01/2004 -0500, you wrote:
Patrick White [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FYI, this message had a virus attached (well, that's _my_
interpretation of
having a file named 031013-2141.cl5.pif attached means :-)
If anyone opens a PIF file they asked for it!
(*)o(*)
Robert
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: VIRUS: Re: Pentax needs USM and IS
On 19/1/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
At 02:08 PM 19/01/2004 -0500, you wrote:
Patrick White [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FYI, this message had a virus attached (well, that's _my_
interpretation of
having a file named 031013-2141.cl5.pif attached means :-)
If anyone opens a PIF file they asked for it!
(*)o(*)
Robert
Oh my GOD Robert, I just opened a PIF file - and guess what happened ?!?!?
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_
Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: VIRUS: Re: Pentax needs USM and IS
Must be a big archive of sent mail too, if that mail originated from PDML. Roland Mabo left us a couple of years ago, iirc. Jostein - Original Message - From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 8:08 PM Subject: Re: VIRUS: Re: Pentax needs USM and IS Patrick White [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FYI, this message had a virus attached (well, that's _my_ interpretation of having a file named 031013-2141.cl5.pif attached means :-) Yeah, viruses now steal subject lines found in your saved email in order to look more authentic. They snag the From: information from either your saved mail or your web browser cache. It's best these days to be suspicious of any attached executable unless it's something you specifically requested - even if it seems to come from someone you know. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: VIRUS: Re: Pentax needs USM and IS
Oh my GOD Robert, I just opened a PIF file - and guess what happened ?!?!? Cheers, Cotty I don't know :o) You won a million dollars? I do not claim that you can avoid ALL viruses but often they follow a pattern. PIFs are good give-away it might be a virus. Another one is a general reference to something that supposedly happened recently. thanks for lunch the other day, now it's my turn, this is the info you asked for, XYZ send hello etc. I got the Snow White one a couple of times. They tell you the beginning of the story and then ask you to click on a link to see the rest (sexual references all over). Last week I got a prompt for Windows update. All killed as soon as they emerged ;-) (*)o(*) Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: VIRUS: Re: Pentax needs USM and IS
Not being a PC person, I visited Google. They said, in defining a .pif file: Short for Program InFormation file, a type of file that holds information about how Windows should run a non-Windows application. For example, a PIF file can contain instructions for executing a DOS application in the Windows environment. These instructions can include the amount of memory to use, the path to the executable file, and what type of window to use. PIF files have a .pif extension . mapson wrote: Oh my GOD Robert, I just opened a PIF file - and guess what happened ?!?!? Cheers, Cotty I don't know :o) You won a million dollars? I do not claim that you can avoid ALL viruses but often they follow a pattern. PIFs are good give-away it might be a virus. Since this is a Windows how to work file, why is it necessarily associated with virii? I know I'm missing something here, but it has always seemed to me that a .pif file, by itself, is not an indicator of the presence of a virus. Are .pif files carriers of viruses? What? keith Another one is a general reference to something that supposedly happened recently. thanks for lunch the other day, now it's my turn, this is the info you asked for, XYZ send hello etc. I got the Snow White one a couple of times. They tell you the beginning of the story and then ask you to click on a link to see the rest (sexual references all over). Last week I got a prompt for Windows update. All killed as soon as they emerged ;-) (*)o(*) Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: VIRUS: Re: Pentax needs USM and IS
Since this is a Windows how to work file, why is it necessarily associated with virii? I know I'm missing something here, but it has always seemed to me that a .pif file, by itself, is not an indicator of the presence of a virus. Are .pif files carriers of viruses? What? keith Not being a virologist myself, I am guessing that the pif file may tell windows something that it should not. If it executes a procedure that you don't want it acts as a virus. PIF does not always mean VIRUS. Just as EXE does not always mean trouble. BUT IT MAY. I know that a few of the last attempts to penetrate were done by a PIF file. While you can expect your friends to send you *.doc, *.jpg or *.mp3 files, it is less likely they will suddenly, unannounced send you a PIF file, hence suspicion! Some info on one of them (the first one): http://www.viruslibrary.com/virusinfo/I-Worm.PIF.Fable.htm (*)o(*) Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: VIRUS: Re: Pentax needs USM and IS
Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not being a PC person, I visited Google. They said, in defining a .pif file: Short for Program InFormation file, a type of file that holds information about how Windows should run a non-Windows application. For example, a PIF file can contain instructions for executing a DOS application in the Windows environment. These instructions can include the amount of memory to use, the path to the executable file, and what type of window to use. PIF files have a .pif extension . Just remember that Windows treats a PIF as an executable. The same is true of BAT and SCR files. ...unless you set up your PC to use Open in Text Editor as the default action for these file types (which I do to every PC I get my hands on). -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Pentax needs USM and IS
Paul Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think one difference between the EOS-3 and MZ-S that should be considered is the external build quality. The MZ-S is quite solid as far as newer cameras go and the EOS-3 feels like plastic junk, I have shot both of these cameras and there is no comparison. Actual the Elan7e (EOS30) felt better than the EOS-3 Also the focusing screen on the MZ-S kicks ass on the focusing screen in any Canon EOS body i've used. That doesnt mean that the MZ-S is a better camera though, I think they both have there strengths. I think the MZ-S is very inexpensive for its construction quality and capabilities. Lists of specifications are no way to choose a camera. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
RE: Pentax needs USM and IS
Agreed - but Specs do play a part. I wouldn't purchase an automobile on looks alone (although many have) as that would be silly since I'm not made of . I also wouldn't purchase an automobile without test driving it first. The whole package has to be considered; and, as I often tell friends who are interested in purchasing a camera, Go into the store and hold it and fire it off and see what it feels like first, then check your specs and such later Cheers, Dave -Original Message- From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 7:20 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax needs USM and IS I think the MZ-S is very inexpensive for its construction quality and capabilities. Lists of specifications are no way to choose a camera. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Pentax needs USM and IS
Most people aren't even aware of what a SLR is, I scare people when I remove my lenses, they assume that every camera works like a point shoot. I once convinced a friend of mine to buy a SLR solely on the fact that she could focus the camera. (She was using some fixed lens nikon P S) Newbies are very fascinated with these new-fangled slr thingies, end result a new photographer. Feroze - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 5:44 PM Subject: Re: Pentax needs USM and IS I hope you're kidding. If not, that's a pretty low standard to set... Vic In a message dated 3/18/03 10:39:44 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: the fact that most members here know how to focus a camera without its help puts us well above average. Herb
Re: Pentax needs USM and IS ( MZ-S)
I love it. You guys keep talking about how bad the MZ-S is. When you get the price into the $350-400 range, I'm gonna have a new flagship for the price of an LX. ;-) Regards, Bob S. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Pentax's current flagship - MZ-S - is, even by those on this list, considered a failure. I think the MZ-S has come a little too late, just like many Pentax products in the past. If it had been released 2 years earlier, it might receive a much better welcome. Timing is critical, but Pentax don't seem to get it. They also failed to emphasis the built quality of the MZ-S in their ads (if there is any), but wrongly emphasized its features which don't draw attention. Not that it lacks seriously,
Re: Pentax needs USM and IS
Dave wrote: Pentax's current flagship - MZ-S - is, even by those on this list, considered a failure. Pentax's last decent model was the MZ-5n IMHO. REPLY: Huh? The MZ-S is described as more sucessful than anticipated in market. It sales aren't huge but if you look at the price the reason why is evident. I don't think anyone can claim that the MZ.5 is more decent than the MZ-S and expect to be taken serious. Whatever one thinks of the MZ-S it is the only natural match among AF bodies for Pentax manual focus lenses, both in built quality and philosophy. DAVE: I'm merely saying that Pentax does not want to nor do they see a need to develop pro-level gear in 35mm format. REPLY: What is this assumption based on? The majority of Pentax 35mm gear is indeed pro gear. Perhaps it is old but so are Pentax cameras (mostly). The MZ-D was definitely a sign of pro aspiration and even the *ist D will be bought by people who have the means and the willingness to purchase pro gear. Pål
Re: Pentax needs USM and IS
On March 18, 2003 02:58 am, Roland Mabo wrote: From: Nick Zentena [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:12:55 -0500 Great now define the market. Ask 100 people here and I bet you'll get 101 different answers. Maybe 201. Since many are choosing Canon or Nikon because of the support for USM and IS, and since many are leaving Pentax because of the lack of USM and IS (we have seen this in this forum lately...) - it's clear that the majority of the customers wants USM and IS. It's rare that Canon and Nikon users switch to Pentax, but it's common that Pentax users switches to Canon or Nikon. Majority of people are choosing disposable cameras. I'm guessing they don't have either USM or IS. Like I said before define your market. Pentax doesn't need to provide a camera for everybody in the world. Canon doesn't have anything in either MF or LF. Nikon nothing in MF. Pentax nothing in LF. They provide what they think they can sell and make money at. Nick
Re: Re: Pentax needs USM and IS
Hi Roland is right. I have just the same opinion. There is time when someone suddenly discover he is afford/needs to have sth better and also discovers that Pentax does not have USM and IS and that the prices of glass is even higher than Nikon/Canon. So even having MZS one decides to switch to C/N just for above reason. I believe Pentax should introduce IS and USM before updating their FA* lenses and reasing new Limited (maybe). What it would be a choice to have FA77/1.8 Limited with USM or Limited 70-200/2.8 USM IS ... and then to update MZS. Maybe it will happen who knows... With compatibility of old lenses, at last with A Alek Uytkownik Roland Mabo [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisa: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 08:49:34 -0500 I think Bruce has a point here (and no, it\'s not on his head)... We have to remember, while we, loyal Pentax users, would love to see the brand grow and flourish, Pentax\'s target market in 35mm SLR has, I believe, always been amateur or entry level. enthusiastic amateurs as Pentax calls it. This is not a bad thing, but eventually - amateurs wants more than the el cheapo plastic le chique consumer zooms, they start to explore new areas of photography. They discover macrophotography and the novelty of extension tubes, they discover bird photography and wants a fast low cost telephoto. Or they discover that they want everything but in one package, so they discover ultra zooms. What are the options? Nikon has just released a good 24-120 with IS and USM. It\'s consumer level, it\'s not for pro\'s. Together with the consumer level F75, it makes a good travelling kit. If they want pro-technology without the price, they can buy Sigma\'s telephotos with USM - if they have a Nikon or Canon. Pro-technology, at consumer prices. And Sigma has presented IS lenses! As Pentax users, we do not have those options. Do remember that Pentax has a FA* serie that cost as the competitions best lenses, and in some cases the Pentax lenses even cost more, but the competition has USM and IS - Pentax does not. Nikon\'s 70-200 f/2.8 with USM and IS is less expensive than Pentax FA* 80-200 f/2.8 ED. One can\'t survive by only doing entry level bodies all the time, because when beginners outgrow their cameras - what should they do? Sell their gear and switch to Canon and Nikon? They\'re already doing this. The MZ-S is a fine camera, it sure is, but the lack of USM and IS means that many of the potential customers are lost. For those who buys entry level, it is better to buy Nikon or Canon because this way they can grow. They don\'t have to sell their eguipment and change brand when they discover that they need something more. Best wishes, Roland _ Hitta rtt p ntet med MSN Sk http://search.msn.se/
Re: Pentax needs USM and IS
The PUG? Try Sports Illustrated, not a gallery of hobbyists. Stop with the self serving sample group. The shots you can't get with your antiques, somebody else will. They get the shot and the job, you get squat. If you want to be in qualification limbo (not bad for.., pretty good considering..., almost as good as, etc. ) some people want to get past that and get the best shot that could have been taken. A slow lens is still a slow lens and doesn't have the look of a fast lens shot wide open. If you think a 70-200/4 zoom with a 2x converter is just as good as a 400/2.8, then have a nice life. For a lot of photography, equipment does count. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh come on Bruce. That's way overboard. Sure there are pictures taken today with modern autofocus lenses that could not be taken today, but i would guess that 80 per cent of the pictures taken today are capable of being shot with older equipment. The greatest development since then is the speed of the film. That makes older slower lenses much faster in reality. Vic P.S. If PUG is any indication of the type of shots being taken it probably climbs to 90-95 per cent Vic
Re: Pentax needs USM and IS
USM and IS are just icing. You seem to think that people sit down with a few spec sheets, measure the length of the feature list and make their decision. I don't think it works that way. After 4 years I still don't have a lens with either (although a AF-S lens would be nice). Still the best move I ever made. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since many are choosing Canon or Nikon because of the support for USM and IS, and since many are leaving Pentax because of the lack of USM and IS (we have seen this in this forum lately...) - it's clear that the majority of the customers wants USM and IS.
Re: Pentax needs USM and IS
I think it's important to remember that it is, IN MOST CASES, not different NEEDS but different WANTS. There is a big difference Vic In a message dated 3/18/03 12:03:56 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bill, Some people are still doing it the same good old fashioned way. But some other people are actually needing all the aids that modern technology can bring to them. And more. I mean, like Viagra and implants. Just tell yourself: different people, different needs ;-) cheers, caveman
Re: Pentax needs USM and IS
Herb: with all due respect, and I know I'm going to get lambasted with this comment. I have to disagree here. I would not say that PUG represents a group significantly above average. We would all like to think we are, and if we tell ourselves that enough we begin to believe it. But I don't buy it. There are some very good shooters on the list, some good shooters and plenty of, let's say, beginners. I think PUG is a pretty good representation of Pentax shooters. And I maintain that it is not equipment that stands in our way of getting great shots... Vic In a message dated 3/18/03 12:06:17 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: the PUG isn't remotely close to being representative. it represents a level of technical expertise significantly above average. Herb
Re: Pentax needs USM and IS
Bruce Rubenstein wrote: The PUG? Try Sports Illustrated, not a gallery of hobbyists. Whoahaaa. All the skill involved there can be resumed to keeping the subject in the viewfinder and the shutter release button pressed down. A movie camera would be much more appropriate. Why don't we take some other mundane example, such as Victoria's Secrets catalog ? Now we're into a completely different set of skills. Should we speak lighting ? No USM IS there. Just lot of knowledge, careful and imaginative planning and execution. Composition ? Surely would benefit from some higher FPS. Image quality ? Yeah sure, that cool 28-300 zoom will definitely cut it. cheers, caveman
Re: Pentax needs USM and IS
the fact that most members here know how to focus a camera without its help puts us well above average. Herb - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 10:18 Subject: Re: Pentax needs USM and IS Herb: with all due respect, and I know I'm going to get lambasted with this comment. I have to disagree here. I would not say that PUG represents a group significantly above average. We would all like to think we are, and if we tell ourselves that enough we begin to believe it. But I don't buy it. There are some very good shooters on the list, some good shooters and plenty of, let's say, beginners. I think PUG is a pretty good representation of Pentax shooters. And I maintain that it is not equipment that stands in our way of getting great shots... Vic
Re: Pentax needs USM and IS
Bruce when was the last time you saw a Sport Illustrated photographer using a Pentax. Never will. That's my point. Pentax is not trying to compete in that market. It's competing for amateurs and does a fine job with it If you want to shoot with the big boys go and get a big boy camera. My cameras do everything I want them to do... I'm not worried about it. If I really wanted to shoot sports action photography for a living I'd use my newspaper's Nikons or buy a 300 2.8 for my Pentaxs. I never said anything about a 70-200 F4. Where did that come from...? Vic In a message dated 3/18/03 9:55:04 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The PUG? Try Sports Illustrated, not a gallery of hobbyists. Stop with the self serving sample group. The shots you can't get with your antiques, somebody else will. They get the shot and the job, you get squat. If you want to be in qualification limbo (not bad for.., pretty good considering..., almost as good as, etc. ) some people want to get past that and get the best shot that could have been taken. A slow lens is still a slow lens and doesn't have the look of a fast lens shot wide open. If you think a 70-200/4 zoom with a 2x converter is just as good as a 400/2.8, then have a nice life. For a lot of photography, equipment does count.
Re: Pentax needs USM and IS
i wasn't kidding. Herb - Original Message - From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 15:34 Subject: Re: Pentax needs USM and IS - Original Message - Subject: Re: Pentax needs USM and IS I hope you're kidding. If not, that's a pretty low standard to set... Vic Unfortunately, he isn't kidding. William Robb
Re: Pentax needs USM and IS
Huh? Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: David Chang-Sang [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 7:57 PM Subject: RE: Pentax needs USM and IS Pentax's current flagship - MZ-S - is, even by those on this list, considered a failure. Pentax's last decent model was the MZ-5n IMHO.
Re: Pentax needs USM and IS
Kenneth Waller wrote: Huh? Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: David Chang-Sang [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 7:57 PM Subject: RE: Pentax needs USM and IS Pentax's current flagship - MZ-S - is, even by those on this list, considered a failure. I've not yet seen a proper definition of why/how it's a failure, so until I do, it seems pretty good on the specifications page... Right now I don't buy that... Pentax's last decent model was the MZ-5n IMHO. Aka ZX-5N in the U.S. of A. A well-respected camera, by all accounts... keith whaley
RE: Pentax needs USM and IS
Ok.. Let's see if I can clarify a statement that I made earlier: The MZ-S is a failure I believe that's how I put it. Now, why do I feel this way? 1) Price - like all PDMLers, I whine about the cost of things - especially things that I can get for about half the cost of the MZ-S - The Elan 7 is not a flagship model - it's about 3 or 4 down from Canon's top O' the line EOS-1v - spec'd out it misses on a couple points but is half the price of the MZ-S 2) Availability of Accessories - I do recall, as many of you may or may not, Mr Brad Dobo (may he R.I.P.) complaining about having to traverse much of this province in search of at least one accessory (those of you who have the digest version and are intense enough to search for it can remind me which one it was) because Pentax Canada didn't have any in stock and the slow boat from Japan was taking far too long - Most major companies, if they are truly trying to get the pro market share, would, I believe, bend over backwards for their pro shooters. Pentax on the other hand shrug and offer you a nice PS camera instead. 3) Specs - for about $80 more (according to the BH) you can have an EOS 3 ($880) over the MZ-S ($799) - Viewfinder: for the EOS 3 - 97% coverage; Viewfinder for the MZ-S - 92% coverage. Both offer interchangeable screens Metering: for the EOS 3 - Evaluative metering (linkable to any point), Partial metering (approx. 8.5% of viewfinder at center), Center spot metering (approx. 2.4% of viewfinder at center), Spot metering (linked to focusing point at approx. 2.4% of viewfinder), Multi-spot metering (Max. 8 multi-spot metering entries), Center-weighted averaging metering - Range 0-20EV for the MZ-S - 6-Zone evaluative, Centerweighted, Spot - Range 0-21EV Focusing System: for the EOS 3 - 0-18EV range, up to 45 AF points (that's excessive in my books.. but hey.. some people want that), and eye controlled focus for the MZ-S - 1-18EV range, 6 AF points in a cross hair pattern Shutter Speed: for the EOS 3 - 30 - 1/8000 - syncs at 1/200 for the MZ-S - 30 - 1/6000 - syncs at 1/180 I'm going to stop listing spec's there - we all can look them up and quote them ad nauseum (which I'm sure you're getting already) but I think you see that the EOS 3 is only $80 more than the MZ-S and you're getting a bit more bang for your buck on the body. 4) Lenses - this really isn't a knock since you all know how good the Pentax glass is. This I admit to; however it's the old glass that I believe is worthy and the new stuff just hasn't been developed to be pro grade. At the same point in time the Canon and Nikon pro glass can be expensive but then it offers more options a la USM and IS. A good example: Canon 28-70 f2.8 L (USM) - $1029.00 USA or $999.95 Import Pentax 28-70 f2.8 SMC-FA - $999.95 So.. is the MZ-S a failure? As a flagship model; I'd say that it is. As a 3rd tier semi-pro/advanced amateur model - it's ok. If I had the $$$ now to choose and, had no apparent brand loyalty (and the Toronto PDML folk know that I don't) - I would do my research and probably go with the Canon EOS 3 for the extra $80 US. I never even included Nikon's F100 which would probably have been similar to the EOS 3 - but I figure Bruce Rubenstein or another Nikon shooter could probably chime in with their opinion on that one. I have no quarrel with those that chose the MZ-S. If you've got it going on with the camera and you dig it; more power to you. What I have a problem with is Pentax making a flagship model that is only 3rd tier of what other competing companies are making. As I stated before, this is why I feel that Pentax is happy with their current share of the 35mm market - They have stated that this year would be different; so far, it has been - let's hope that it continues and Pentax will prove me, and all the others out there hoping for something special, wrong. Cheers, Dave -Original Message- From: Keith Whaley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 7:19 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax needs USM and IS Kenneth Waller wrote: Huh? Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: David Chang-Sang [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 7:57 PM Subject: RE: Pentax needs USM and IS Pentax's current flagship - MZ-S - is, even by those on this list, considered a failure. I've not yet seen a proper definition of why/how it's a failure, so until I do, it seems pretty good on the specifications page... Right now I don't buy that... Pentax's last decent model was the MZ-5n IMHO. Aka ZX-5N in the U.S. of A. A well-respected camera, by all accounts... keith whaley
Re: Pentax needs USM and IS
After which, they produced the rest of the MZ/ZX line looking like, not quite Rebel clones but at least Rebel cousins. The MZ-5 is significant not because its a flagship or it looked special, but the fact that it put Pentax back into the game again after years of struggle with the Z/PZ series (although not the high end market that most of us hoped for). Offering AF technology in a 80's manual focus body design is what made the 5/5n special (and what many people wanted at the time). regards, Alan Chan _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Re: Pentax needs USM and IS
Pentax abandoned this segment so long ago that no one thinks of Pentax when they look for high end/high tech cameras. It would take years of work (that Pentax was never willing to do) to change the perception of the brand. Most people who are fans of taking pictures, rather than camera brands, have bought the technology they want/need from whoever is selling it. I have no idea why people think that a company 1/10 the size of Canon would have the same RD budget as Canon. (RD isn't just paper patents: it real, tangible, physical products you can buy.) BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So I also believe it is high time for realising USM and IS with support of old lenses, it should be very good step+ to give such eqipment to some pros and photojournalists just for adv. Let people see that Pentax is able to produce hi-end gear. I hope it will come true... Fan of Pentax
Re: Re: Pentax needs USM and IS
HI So what dou you suggest? Alek Uytkownik Bruce Rubenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisa: Pentax abandoned this segment so long ago that no one thinks of Pentax when they look for high end/high tech cameras. It would take years of work (that Pentax was never willing to do) to change the perception of the brand. Most people who are fans of taking pictures, rather than camera brands, have bought the technology they want/need from whoever is selling it. I have no idea why people think that a company 1/10 the size of Canon would have the same RD budget as Canon. (RD isn\'t just paper patents: it real, tangible, physical products you can buy.) BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So I also believe it is high time for realising USM and IS with support of old lenses, it should be very good step+ to give such eqipment to some pros and photojournalists just for adv. Let people see that Pentax is able to produce hi-end gear. I hope it will come true... Fan of Pentax
Re: Pentax needs USM and IS
USM and IS are not only for pro's. But speaking of pro's, I have seen many pro's with EOS 3 and F100. They're lighter and capable of producing professional results. Even EOS 30/33 and F80 has a pro-appeal, especially as 2nd bodies. So, Pentax does not have to do a F5 or EOS 1. Best wishes, Roland From: Bruce Rubenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax needs USM and IS Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 07:44:50 -0500 Pentax abandoned this segment so long ago that no one thinks of Pentax when they look for high end/high tech cameras. It would take years of work (that Pentax was never willing to do) to change the perception of the brand. Most people who are fans of taking pictures, rather than camera brands, have bought the technology they want/need from whoever is selling it. I have no idea why people think that a company 1/10 the size of Canon would have the same RD budget as Canon. (RD isn't just paper patents: it real, tangible, physical products you can buy.) _ Hitta rätt köpare på MSN Köp Sälj http://www.msn.se/koposalj
Re: Pentax needs USM and IS
Buy the equipment/technology you need from whoever sells it. Companies do not look after you; you don't worry about companies. Vote with your dollars, it's the only thing companies understand. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: HI So what dou you suggest? Alek
Re: Pentax needs USM and IS
I think Bruce has a point here (and no, it's not on his head)... We have to remember, while we, loyal Pentax users, would love to see the brand grow and flourish, Pentax's target market in 35mm SLR has, I believe, always been amateur or entry level. This does not mean that they do not produce good cameras. It does, mean, however that they do not see a need to develop advanced amateur or pro level gear. USM and IS (which I've used on my Elan 7) is a good invention and top notch. The issue? It costs top notch $$$ too because, as Bruce has mentioned, a lot of RD went into it. The Pentax 35mm SLR user wants all these gizmos (USM, IS, DSLR, Matrix Metering etc.) at the price of a Polaroid JoyCam. It would be great if this would come true but I'm not holding my breath. Cheers, Dave P.S. Yes, I still use Pentax gear as well.. Original Message: - From: Roland Mabo [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:20:02 +0100 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax needs USM and IS USM and IS are not only for pro's. But speaking of pro's, I have seen many pro's with EOS 3 and F100. They're lighter and capable of producing professional results. Even EOS 30/33 and F80 has a pro-appeal, especially as 2nd bodies. So, Pentax does not have to do a F5 or EOS 1. Best wishes, Roland From: Bruce Rubenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax needs USM and IS Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 07:44:50 -0500 Pentax abandoned this segment so long ago that no one thinks of Pentax when they look for high end/high tech cameras. It would take years of work (that Pentax was never willing to do) to change the perception of the brand. Most people who are fans of taking pictures, rather than camera brands, have bought the technology they want/need from whoever is selling it. I have no idea why people think that a company 1/10 the size of Canon would have the same RD budget as Canon. (RD isn't just paper patents: it real, tangible, physical products you can buy.) _ Hitta rätt köpare på MSN Köp Sälj http://www.msn.se/koposalj mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .
Re: Pentax needs USM and IS
The only time pros buy these cameras is when their parts are used in DSLRs. The #1 concern of muost pros is reliability, and no matter how well mid range consumer cameras work they don't have a very solid feel, and pros don't trust them. The EOS 3 and F100 are sold by their makers as pro cameras, so it's no wonder that pros use them. If you spent a couple of months using a F100 and N80, you would know why N80's aren't used as backups to F100's. Backup bodies are: another F100, or the photographers old, N90, F3 or FM2n. Hardware still has very little to do with it. The Maxxum 9 was one of the all time great camera flops. They sell for $800, new in the box, never used on ebay. The Maxxum 9 was probably the biggest reason Pentax never sold a contemporary film flagship. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Even EOS 30/33 and F80 has a pro-appeal, especially as 2nd bodies. So, Pentax does not have to do a F5 or EOS 1.
Re: Pentax needs USM and IS
IMHO, they do, if it wasn't for the EOS1/F5 they wouldn't sell as many of the lower models. People buy the F100 and tell themselves that ok I couldn't afford the F5 or my back can't handle the weight but I did buy the second best camera available, its selling lots and lots of the lower models that gives you enough money to have a flagship. I also lots of pros still shooting with the F4 to this day despite owing a F5 BTW. Feroze - Original Message - From: Roland Mabo [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 3:20 PM Subject: Re: Pentax needs USM and IS USM and IS are not only for pro's. But speaking of pro's, I have seen many pro's with EOS 3 and F100. They're lighter and capable of producing professional results. Even EOS 30/33 and F80 has a pro-appeal, especially as 2nd bodies. So, Pentax does not have to do a F5 or EOS 1. Best wishes, Roland From: Bruce Rubenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax needs USM and IS Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 07:44:50 -0500 Pentax abandoned this segment so long ago that no one thinks of Pentax when they look for high end/high tech cameras. It would take years of work (that Pentax was never willing to do) to change the perception of the brand. Most people who are fans of taking pictures, rather than camera brands, have bought the technology they want/need from whoever is selling it. I have no idea why people think that a company 1/10 the size of Canon would have the same RD budget as Canon. (RD isn't just paper patents: it real, tangible, physical products you can buy.) _ Hitta rätt köpare på MSN Köp Sälj http://www.msn.se/koposalj
Re: Pentax needs USM and IS
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 08:49:34 -0500 I think Bruce has a point here (and no, it's not on his head)... We have to remember, while we, loyal Pentax users, would love to see the brand grow and flourish, Pentax's target market in 35mm SLR has, I believe, always been amateur or entry level. enthusiastic amateurs as Pentax calls it. This is not a bad thing, but eventually - amateurs wants more than the el cheapo plastic le chique consumer zooms, they start to explore new areas of photography. They discover macrophotography and the novelty of extension tubes, they discover bird photography and wants a fast low cost telephoto. Or they discover that they want everything but in one package, so they discover ultra zooms. What are the options? Nikon has just released a good 24-120 with IS and USM. It's consumer level, it's not for pro's. Together with the consumer level F75, it makes a good travelling kit. If they want pro-technology without the price, they can buy Sigma's telephotos with USM - if they have a Nikon or Canon. Pro-technology, at consumer prices. And Sigma has presented IS lenses! As Pentax users, we do not have those options. Do remember that Pentax has a FA* serie that cost as the competitions best lenses, and in some cases the Pentax lenses even cost more, but the competition has USM and IS - Pentax does not. Nikon's 70-200 f/2.8 with USM and IS is less expensive than Pentax FA* 80-200 f/2.8 ED. One can't survive by only doing entry level bodies all the time, because when beginners outgrow their cameras - what should they do? Sell their gear and switch to Canon and Nikon? They're already doing this. The MZ-S is a fine camera, it sure is, but the lack of USM and IS means that many of the potential customers are lost. For those who buys entry level, it is better to buy Nikon or Canon because this way they can grow. They don't have to sell their eguipment and change brand when they discover that they need something more. Best wishes, Roland _ Hitta rätt på nätet med MSN Sök http://search.msn.se/
Re: Pentax needs USM and IS
On March 17, 2003 09:15 am, Roland Mabo wrote: enthusiastic amateurs as Pentax calls it. This is not a bad thing, but eventually - amateurs wants more than the el cheapo plastic le chique consumer zooms, they start to explore new areas of photography. They discover macrophotography and the novelty of extension Pentax needs something like the Mamiya 645e. People are buying into the 645e who would never have looked at Mamiya higher priced models. Nick
What I lust for (was Re: Pentax needs USM and IS)
Nick Zentena wrote: Pentax needs something like the Mamiya 645e. People are buying into the 645e who would never have looked at Mamiya higher priced models. I don't know what Pentax actually needs, and it's not my business to decide it anyway. But I definitely know that I'm eyeing a Bronica GS-1. I'm pretty much sure that the 6x7 format will let me get much better enlargements than 35mm with USM, IS, VR, SW and whatnot. And lots of fun. cheers, caveman
Re: Pentax needs USM and IS
Paul wrote_ Do you know something about Pentax future that we don't? Note: This is an honest question. REPLY: The honest answer is that I don't know what you know so I cannot answer the question honestly. Anyway, I don't pretend to know anything about the future. However, it is possible to extrapolate from the past. Pentax suffers in terms of brand recognition. The unfortunate effect of this is that too many don't consider Pentax as a viable alternative. In order to change this, more than new products are needed. Pål
Re: Pentax needs USM and IS
Ryan wrote: So what? If you're not Canon, just give up? That doesn't sound like a better plan. Reply: So what what? I didn't suggest rolling over and play dead. I suggested that it was going to be difficult and more than just the products are needed. Pentax is suffering in the image department and in order to increase brand attraction something needs to be done here. This sorry state is in fact quite mysterious in my opinion as Pentax have had a great selection of superb lenses always and have a heavy presence in the medium format market. Stll, many believe that Pentax lens line consist of approximately ten consumer zooms. Pentax need to be seen as a sufficiently different and worthwhile alternative. Pål
What I lust for (was Re: Pentax needs USM and IS)
I don't know what Pentax actually needs, and it's not my business to decide it anyway. But I definitely know that I'm eyeing a Bronica GS-1. I'm pretty much sure that the 6x7 format will let me get much better enlargements than 35mm with USM, IS, VR, SW and whatnot. And lots of fun. Just make sure that you handle the GS-1 before buying. Preferably shooting a couple of rolls through it. It has a reputation of being the least popular of the Bronicas with a bit of quirky handling/ergonomics. Unless you need/want interchangeable backs and high speed flash sync the Pentax 67 might be a better option. BUTCH Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself. Hermann Hess (Damien)
Re: Pentax needs USM and IS
Bruce wrote: Buy the equipment/technology you need from whoever sells it. Companies do not look after you; you don't worry about companies. Vote with your dollars, it's the only thing companies understand. Yup this is true. There have been many a Nikon users who have switched or at the very least bought some Canon equipment in order have IS technology. This seems to have put Nikon on their heels fast enough, though may not be fast enough (no big glass with IS yet). Pentax may have come to this realization with the DSLR. We'll have to see what happens with this and other products. Peter --- Rubenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Buy the equipment/technology you need from whoever sells it. Companies do not look after you; you don't worry about companies. Vote with your dollars, it's the only thing companies understand. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: HI So what dou you suggest? Alek __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com
Re: Pentax needs USM and IS
Bruce wrote: If you spent a couple of months using a F100 and N80, you would know why N80's aren't used as backups to F100's. Backup bodies are: another F100, or the photographers old, N90, F3 or FM2n. Sure this may be true generally. However Galen Rowell aways like taking his N80 when travelling light is important. However, I do beleive that when he was going on a long trip/assignment he would rely on his F100, N90s, F5 whatever. Peter --- Bruce Rubenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The only time pros buy these cameras is when their parts are used in DSLRs. The #1 concern of muost pros is reliability, and no matter how well mid range consumer cameras work they don't have a very solid feel, and pros don't trust them. The EOS 3 and F100 are sold by their makers as pro cameras, so it's no wonder that pros use them. If you spent a couple of months using a F100 and N80, you would know why N80's aren't used as backups to F100's. Backup bodies are: another F100, or the photographers old, N90, F3 or FM2n. Hardware still has very little to do with it. The Maxxum 9 was one of the all time great camera flops. They sell for $800, new in the box, never used on ebay. The Maxxum 9 was probably the biggest reason Pentax never sold a contemporary film flagship. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Even EOS 30/33 and F80 has a pro-appeal, especially as 2nd bodies. So, Pentax does not have to do a F5 or EOS 1. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com
Re: Pentax needs USM and IS
Dave wrote: Pentax's target market in 35mm SLR has, I believe, always been amateur or entry level. REPLY: Canon target market have also always been entry level. They have in fact dominated this segment for 25 years. The wast majority of all Nikon and Canon gear sold is entry level. DAVE: This does not mean that they do not produce good cameras. It does, mean, however that they do not see a need to develop advanced amateur or pro level gear. REPLY: Pentax have always been present in the upper market segments. The majority of their lenses are far from entry level. In the 60's there wasn't any entry level as understood today and those old Pentax cameras and lenses are still enjoyed for their non-surpassed built quality. So your assesment isn't correct. Pentax have never actively marketed anything towards pros but thats a totally different issue. They haven't lacked pro grade equipment. It is just the fact that their current lenses are basically 15 years old technologically speaking. The 90's has been an era where Pentax have chosen preofitability over market share for 35mm slr's. Pål
Re: What I lust for (was Re: Pentax needs USM and IS)
On March 17, 2003 11:17 am, Caveman wrote: Nick Zentena wrote: Pentax needs something like the Mamiya 645e. People are buying into the 645e who would never have looked at Mamiya higher priced models. I don't know what Pentax actually needs, and it's not my business to decide it anyway. But I definitely know that I'm eyeing a Bronica GS-1. I'm pretty much sure that the 6x7 format will let me get much better enlargements than 35mm with USM, IS, VR, SW and whatnot. And lots of fun. The nice thing about the 645e is it's so cheap people are choosing it instead of used. That brings people into the Mamiya system so to speak. If Pentax wants new users it won't get it from copying others by just adding features. They need to make people stand up and notice. It can be from a good cheap camera. Or it can be from adding something that nobody else has. But feature wars don't get you far if you're behind. Nick
Re: Pentax needs USM and IS
On March 17, 2003 01:46 pm, Roland Mabo wrote: Pentax must supply what the market demands. Great now define the market. Ask 100 people here and I bet you'll get 101 different answers. Maybe 201. Nick
Re: Pentax needs USM and IS
They took different pictures. You couldn't create the images with the old gear that you can with the new. If you like the 1942 look, fine. Not everyone does. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All of this talk about how important USM, IS, FPS makes me wonder how in the hell did anybody ever take a decent photograph with a 620 folder, 35mm rangefinder or even a Speed Graphic. Bells and whistles do not a photographer make! Bill
Re: Pentax needs USM and IS
Bruce wrote: I have no idea why people think that a company 1/10 the size of Canon would have the same RD budget as Canon. REPLY: Ideas are like beards. Men doesn't have them until they grow up. Incidentally, didn't you say the same thing about a Pentax DSLR? That they would never make one because they hadn't the RD resources? Personally, I don't think Canon use their money from selling office machines for making slr cameras. Pentax have all the RD finances and capabilities to make any camera they want. The problem is marketing and profitability. Not RD money. Pål
Re: Pentax needs USM and IS
Galen Rowell is unfortunately dead. He used the N80, and previously the N60, for their very light weight for rock/mountain climbing. It's a rather special use, and I wouldn't draw general conclusions from it. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sure this may be true generally. However Galen Rowell aways like taking his N80 when travelling light is important. However, I do beleive that when he was going on a long trip/assignment he would rely on his F100, N90s, F5 whatever.
RE: Pentax needs USM and IS
Pal; Pentax's current flagship - MZ-S - is, even by those on this list, considered a failure. Pentax's last decent model was the MZ-5n IMHO. What's left? MZ-L, MZ-6 etc. none of which are beyond advanced amateur. The same could be said for Minolta's offerings outside of their nicely spec'd Maxxum 5/7/9 series. Canon and Nikon, while still aiming at entry level users still seem to want to develop and have developed pro grade cameras and lenses. Maybe it's because they can afford to, maybe it's because people want them, or maybe it's because they basically own that market niche. I don't believe that Pentax wants to, nor sees an opportunity to, take a share of that market. It would cost far too much money to begin developing a lens line or camera line that would be on par with the EOS-1/F5's offered by the competitors. I really think that Pentax is happy with it's share of the 35mm market. With respect to your reply regarding the lack of pro-grade equipment: 15 year old equipment doesn't cut it for everyone. Constant advances in lenses by other companies, including 3rd party makers, seems to be what the public (pro and amateur alike) seem to want. I'm not sure if I would consider a 15 year old lens, while it may have been top notch back in 1988, to be up to pro-grade standards today. The Limiteds were/are nice but even so, Pentax has made themselves an oddball by creating lenses that, when viewed by those outside the sphere of Pentaxian culture, as being strange. How many other companies are creating 77mm, 43mm and 31mm focal lengths? I'm merely saying that Pentax does not want to nor do they see a need to develop pro-level gear in 35mm format. For some people, this is perfectly fine, and acceptable, for others, it is not. I personally prefer the 15 year old stuff because I'm not going to sweat it when I toss it aside because I didn't spend a lot of cash on it. Just remember that if anyone holds onto their 15 year old equipment there will be a time, as I'm sure you're well aware, when they'll be turned away by Pentax themselves because they no longer support that equipment (i.e. LX for example) no matter how close to pro grade it used to be. Dave -Original Message- From: Pål Jensen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 4:55 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax needs USM and IS Dave wrote: Pentax's target market in 35mm SLR has, I believe, always been amateur or entry level. REPLY: Canon target market have also always been entry level. They have in fact dominated this segment for 25 years. The wast majority of all Nikon and Canon gear sold is entry level. DAVE: This does not mean that they do not produce good cameras. It does, mean, however that they do not see a need to develop advanced amateur or pro level gear. REPLY: Pentax have always been present in the upper market segments. The majority of their lenses are far from entry level. In the 60's there wasn't any entry level as understood today and those old Pentax cameras and lenses are still enjoyed for their non-surpassed built quality. So your assesment isn't correct. Pentax have never actively marketed anything towards pros but thats a totally different issue. They haven't lacked pro grade equipment. It is just the fact that their current lenses are basically 15 years old technologically speaking. The 90's has been an era where Pentax have chosen preofitability over market share for 35mm slr's. Pål
Re: Pentax needs USM and IS
David Chang-Sang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pentax's current flagship - MZ-S - is, even by those on this list, considered a failure. What??? Mark Roberts MZ-S owner
Re: Pentax needs USM and IS
Fine whatever the reason. If you want high tech/high end you buy from someone other than Pentax. Pentax spent a lot of years successfully creating the perception among buyers that they aren't a first line SLR maker. No matter what sort of hand waving, smoke and mirrors exercise you want to go through, the fact is that Pentax doesn't have the name cachet, or sell the technology of a company like Canon. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The problem is marketing and profitability. Not RD money.
Re: Pentax needs USM and IS
Exactly my point Bill Vic In a message dated 3/17/03 1:18:33 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: All of this talk about how important USM, IS, FPS makes me wonder how in the hell did anybody ever take a decent photograph with a 620 folder, 35mm rangefinder or even a Speed Graphic. Bells and whistles do not a photographer make! Bill
Re: Pentax needs USM and IS
on 3/17/03 6:57 PM, David Chang-Sang at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pentax's current flagship - MZ-S - is, even by those on this list, considered a failure. Pentax's last decent model was the MZ-5n IMHO. Failure? Huh? It is a very solid, easy to use, accurate metering, fast focusing, etc etc... I can't give you chapter and verse of al the other cameras on the market, but I can tell you that the MZ-S is a good camera. If Pentax paid spiff to salespeople it would be the camera of the decade. I do have one niggling issue with the MZ-S, it is harder to do fill flash than with the PZ-1p (unless you buy a new flash special built for the purpose, and I don't use flash often enough to have been tempted by this option yet.) Stan
Re: Pentax needs USM and IS
Oh come on Bruce. That's way overboard. Sure there are pictures taken today with modern autofocus lenses that could not be taken today, but i would guess that 80 per cent of the pictures taken today are capable of being shot with older equipment. The greatest development since then is the speed of the film. That makes older slower lenses much faster in reality. Vic P.S. If PUG is any indication of the type of shots being taken it probably climbs to 90-95 per cent Vic In a message dated 3/17/03 5:36:44 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: They took different pictures. You couldn't create the images with the old gear that you can with the new. If you like the 1942 look, fine. Not everyone does. BR
Re: Pentax needs USM and IS
In a message dated 3/17/03 1:18:33 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: All of this talk about how important USM, IS, FPS makes me wonder how in the hell did anybody ever take a decent photograph with a 620 folder, 35mm rangefinder or even a Speed Graphic. Bill, Some people are still doing it the same good old fashioned way. But some other people are actually needing all the aids that modern technology can bring to them. And more. I mean, like Viagra and implants. Just tell yourself: different people, different needs ;-) cheers, caveman
Re: Pentax needs USM and IS
the PUG isn't remotely close to being representative. it represents a level of technical expertise significantly above average. Herb - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 23:45 Subject: Re: Pentax needs USM and IS Oh come on Bruce. That's way overboard. Sure there are pictures taken today with modern autofocus lenses that could not be taken today, but i would guess that 80 per cent of the pictures taken today are capable of being shot with older equipment. The greatest development since then is the speed of the film. That makes older slower lenses much faster in reality. Vic P.S. If PUG is any indication of the type of shots being taken it probably climbs to 90-95 per cent Vic
RE: Pentax needs USM and IS
Pentax's current flagship - MZ-S - is, even by those on this list, considered a failure. I think the MZ-S has come a little too late, just like many Pentax products in the past. If it had been released 2 years earlier, it might receive a much better welcome. Timing is critical, but Pentax don't seem to get it. They also failed to emphasis the built quality of the MZ-S in their ads (if there is any), but wrongly emphasized its features which don't draw attention. Not that it lacks seriously, but don't look good on paper when compared to C/M/N. It reminds me the P50/P5 which was soon disappeared from the market due to AF technology, only that we are talking about digital now (much worse situation). Adding the USM/AFS IS/VR issues, Pentax has been living in the shadow for the last 12 years. regards, Alan Chan _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: What I lust for (was Re: Pentax needs USM and IS)
- Original Message - From: Caveman Subject: What I lust for (was Re: Pentax needs USM and IS) I don't know what Pentax actually needs, and it's not my business to decide it anyway. But I definitely know that I'm eyeing a Bronica GS-1. I'm pretty much sure that the 6x7 format will let me get much better enlargements than 35mm with USM, IS, VR, SW and whatnot. And lots of fun. The GS-1 is a hell of a nice camera, and the lenses approach Pentax glass for quality. I don't think it is as nice a field camera as the Pentax 6x7 though. William Robb
RE: Pentax needs USM and IS
-- -Original Message- -- From: Alan Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 12:06 AM -- -- Pentax's current flagship - MZ-S - is, even by those on this list, -- considered a failure. -- -- I think the MZ-S has come a little too late, just like many -- Pentax products -- in the past. If it had been released 2 years earlier, it -- might receive a -- much better welcome. Timing is critical, but Pentax don't -- seem to get it. -- They also failed to emphasis the built quality of the MZ-S -- in their ads (if -- there is any), but wrongly emphasized its features which don't draw -- attention. Not that it lacks seriously, but don't look good -- on paper when -- compared to C/M/N. It reminds me the P50/P5 which was soon -- disappeared from -- the market due to AF technology, only that we are talking -- about digital now -- (much worse situation). Adding the USM/AFS IS/VR issues, -- Pentax has been -- living in the shadow for the last 12 years. -- -- regards, -- Alan Chan -- I can only react based on the shops I have been in. The sales clerks are the reason for not pushing the MZ-S. It is an excellent camera. Maybe it is the money given to the clerks for selling cameras, I have to ask at my shop to get a feel for that, but I don't see the sales people really pushing the Pentax SLRs. The PS is another story... César Panama City, Florida
Re: Pentax needs USM and IS
- Original Message - From: David Chang-Sang [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 10:57 AM Subject: RE: Pentax needs USM and IS Pal; Pentax's current flagship - MZ-S - is, even by those on this list, considered a failure. Not this cookie, David! John Coyle Brisbane, Australia
Re: Pentax needs USM and IS
Actually, the Dynaxx 7 show how dangerous this market is. According to the Wall Street Journal (or was it Finacial Times?), Minolta grossly overestimated the sales of this camera. They anticipated a sale of 60.000 units a month (quite possible not far from the number achieved by the Minolta 7000 that sold 2 million in a couple of years. They obviously attempted to repeat the sucess), but it only sold 7.000 a month intially (who knows what they sell now: probably less). Now, I find 7000 units a month great for such a camera (the *ist is scheduled for 10.000 units/month - very conservative) but it obvioulsy spelt disaster for Minolta who lost millions of on it. It really just show that it isn't enough to have the product; you need the system and credibility as well. The Dynaxx 7 didn't manage to get customers from Nikon and Canon and possibly only tempted Minolta owners to upgrade; that is, those who hadn't switched to Nikon or Canon already. It isn't enough for Pentax to release also rans. That will only keep the ever diminishing Pentax crowd happy for short period of time. Pål
Re: Pentax needs USM and IS
Pål Jensen wrote: Actually, the Dynaxx 7 show how dangerous this market is. According to the Wall Street Journal (or was it Finacial Times?), Minolta grossly overestimated the sales of this camera. They anticipated a sale of 60.000 units a month (quite possible not far from the number achieved by the Minolta 7000 that sold 2 million in a couple of years. They obviously attempted to repeat the sucess), but it only sold 7.000 a month intially (who knows what they sell now: probably less). Now, I find 7000 units a month great for such a camera (the *ist is scheduled for 10.000 units/month - very conservative) but it obvioulsy spelt disaster for Minolta who lost millions of on it. It really just show that it isn't enough to have the product; you need the system and credibility as well. The Dynaxx 7 didn't manage to get customers from Nikon and Canon and possibly only tempted Minolta owners to upgrade; that is, those who hadn't switched to Nikon or Canon already. It isn't enough for Pentax to release also rans. That will only keep the ever diminishing Pentax crowd happy for short period of time. Pål So what? If you're not Canon, just give up? That doesn't sound like a better plan.
Re: Pentax needs USM and IS
Pal, Do you know something about Pentax future that we don't? Note: This is an honest question. Actually, the Dynaxx 7 show how dangerous this market is. According to the Wall Street Journal (or was it Finacial Times?), Minolta grossly overestimated the sales of this camera. They anticipated a sale of 60.000 units a month (quite possible not far from the number achieved by the Minolta 7000 that sold 2 million in a couple of years. They obviously attempted to repeat the sucess), but it only sold 7.000 a month intially (who knows what they sell now: probably less). Now, I find 7000 units a month great for such a camera (the *ist is scheduled for 10.000 units/month - very conservative) but it obvioulsy spelt disaster for Minolta who lost millions of on it. It really just show that it isn't enough to have the product; you need the system and credibility as well. The Dynaxx 7 didn't manage to get customers from Nikon and Canon and possibly only tempted Minolta owners to upgrade; that is, those who hadn't switched to Nikon or Canon already. It isn't enough for Pentax to release also rans. That will only keep the ever diminishing Pentax crowd happy for short period of time. Pål _ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
