Re: Why I don't believe in the KAF3 mount on *ist D (resent)
On 03.3.13 0:38 PM, "Chris Brogden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nothing wrong with small and inexpensive cameras. If I want a large and > expensive camera, I'll use my 67 and get a larger negative. If I wanted > or needed a 35mm robocamera, I'd buy a Nikon. I'm not bitter about > Pentax's decision not to make an F5 clone. And people seem to keep buying > the MZ's, so as long as they do that, Pentax has money to spend to > come out with things like the AF 645N II, 67II, and the Limited lenses. > Works for me. Right on, Chris! Ken
Re: Why I don't believe in the KAF3 mount on *ist D (resent)
On March 13, 2003 12:38 pm, Chris Brogden wrote: > Nothing wrong with small and inexpensive cameras. If I want a large and Like he said. Nick
Re: Re: Why I don't believe in the KAF3 mount on *ist D (resent)
Hi I also believe that USM and IS is huge advantage when new buyers want to buy sth.and shop-assistants also advise them to choose Canon for such a reason-fast, silent and many pros use it and lots of people want to have what pros have. They just see what camera makers are very popular where there is any match, concert, meeting etc and they see C/N mostly so the know these brands. How many of people know that Pentax has great MF cameras?...much less than that Canon/Nikon are mostly chosen by pros and they can see it. Even if PEntax releases USM/IS it would be very difficult to enter a pro market. They have not camera like F5/1V and as good reputation. And advertisement. But if they introduce new technologies,there is a chance to have bigger share in the market Alek Użytkownik Roland Mabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał: >>From: Bruce Rubenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 11:20:19 -0500 >> >>The vast majority of film SLR\'s sold are entry level ones, and the people >>buying them don\'t know or care about USM or IS. > >I don\'t agree with you here. I believe that they care about USM and IS, >simply because they\'ve seen a lot of adverts from Canon and Nikon about >this. And they probably have heard from the clerk behind the counter at the >local photo store that "this one has USM, and this doesn\'t, and USM is nice >to have". And they have probably read in photo magazines that Canon won a >test because it has USM. > >>They probably do buy Pentax because they once had a K1000 and, "it took >>good pictures". > >Then Pentax is going to die, because there\'s a lot of newcomers out there >who has never held a K1000. > >>I have no idea why you wouldn\'t want USM (and the full time manual focus >>that goes along with it) in every lens, unless you\'re just cheap. > >I\'m not cheap, but I want the optics to be. :-) (in price, not in quality) > >Best wishes, >Roland > > >_ >Skaffa fler messengerkontakter - Vinn 10.000 i resecheckar! >http://messenger.msn.se/promo >
Re: Why I don't believe in the KAF3 mount on *ist D (resent)
Nothing wrong with small and inexpensive cameras. If I want a large and expensive camera, I'll use my 67 and get a larger negative. If I wanted or needed a 35mm robocamera, I'd buy a Nikon. I'm not bitter about Pentax's decision not to make an F5 clone. And people seem to keep buying the MZ's, so as long as they do that, Pentax has money to spend to come out with things like the AF 645N II, 67II, and the Limited lenses. Works for me. chris On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Bruce Rubenstein wrote: > The real reason Pentax is still in business: "I want it cheap, little, > light and cheap!" > > BR > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > I'm not cheap, but I want the optics to be. :-).. > > > >
RE: Why I don't believe in the KAF3 mount on *ist D (resent)
Roland, I have to agree with you. People who buy SLR cameras with interchangeable lenses usually read at least one of the photography magazines that are available at magazine stands, so they know more than some folks give them credit for. Len --- > I don't agree with you here. I believe that they care about > USM and IS, > simply because they've seen a lot of adverts from Canon and > Nikon about > this. And they probably have heard from the clerk behind the > counter at the > local photo store that "this one has USM, and this doesn't, > and USM is nice > to have". And they have probably read in photo magazines that > Canon won a > test because it has USM. > Best wishes, > Roland
RE: Why I don't believe in the KAF3 mount on *ist D (resent)
> I don't agree with you here. I believe that they care about > USM and IS, > simply because they've seen a lot of adverts from Canon and > Nikon about > this. And they probably have heard from the clerk behind the > counter at the > local photo store that "this one has USM, and this doesn't, > and USM is nice > to have". And they have probably read in photo magazines that > Canon won a > test because it has USM. > Best wishes, > Roland
Re: Why I don't believe in the KAF3 mount on *ist D (resent)
The real reason Pentax is still in business: "I want it cheap, little, light and cheap!" BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not cheap, but I want the optics to be. :-)..
Re: Why I don't believe in the KAF3 mount on *ist D (resent)
From: Bruce Rubenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 09:06:21 -0500 What you want them [Pentax] to do, what they can do and what they will do aren't necessarily related. Market demand isn't a business case for Pentax being able to make more money by offering those technologies. True, but I have no doubt that Pentax *can* offer those technologies. (they have patents for USM and IS). Then the question is - are they going to do it? Well, everyone else is doing it. However, following others are not enough for Pentax, as we all know. :-) I don't believe in USM for standard zooms, but I can understand those who wants it for big telephotos. And USM technology can be made less noisy than mechanical coupling of aperture. (but USM isn't automatically "noisefree". Just listen to Sigma HSM...). Many consumers doesn't consider buying Pentax because of the lack of USM and IS. So, by not offering USM and IS - Pentax are loosing money and market share. I would be perfectly happy with Nikon's 24-120 VR SWM lens. A good lens when travelling. Best wishes, Roland _ Skaffa fler messengerkontakter - Vinn 10.000 i resecheckar! http://messenger.msn.se/promo
Re: Why I don't believe in the KAF3 mount on *ist D (resent)
On 03.3.13 9:06 AM, "Bruce Rubenstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What you want them [Pentax] to do, what they can do and what they will > do aren't necessarily related. Market demand isn't a business case for > Pentax being able to make more money by offering those technologies. This has always been your overtone and preaching, and you do not have to repeat it here. Regardless if Pentax would adopt these technologies or not (I have a reason to believe they do), do you WANT to see them do, or you rather not. That is the big question to you. And your answer to it would determine whether you are in or out, although we know you rather do not answer. Ken
Re: Why I don't believe in the KAF3 mount on *ist D (resent)
What you want them [Pentax] to do, what they can do and what they will do aren't necessarily related. Market demand isn't a business case for Pentax being able to make more money by offering those technologies. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I understand your scepticism, but I believe that Pentax must release USM and IS lenses - simply because the market demands it. In order to be successful, USM and IS lenses are a must.
Re: Why I don't believe in the KAF3 mount on *ist D (resent)
From: Bojidar Dimitrov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 14:07:35 +0100 A sceptic might say that there is no Kaf3 mount in the works. He might then add that Pentax is not saying because they are not sure if it will be the "crippled" Kaf or Kaf2 without power-zoom. I am tipping towards the crippled Kaf. :-( I understand your scepticism, but I believe that Pentax must release USM and IS lenses - simply because the market demands it. In order to be successful, USM and IS lenses are a must. Pentax has showned that they listens more to the market now than they had in the past. The new 11 point AF is a sign of this. They could have done a 3-point system with a central cross sensor, now it seems like they've done a 11 point with at least two (or 9 as KT Takeshiva has written). It's time for USM and IS now. If the *ist D doesn't support this technology, then they are on a dangerous route. Best wishes, Roland _ Skaffa fler messengerkontakter - Vinn 10.000 i resecheckar! http://messenger.msn.se/promo
Re: Why I don't believe in the KAF3 mount on *ist D (resent)
Hi Roland, Roland Mabo wrote: > > I still believe in KAF3 mount in the *ist D, the one that they will > produce. Pentax has *not* said what the lens mount type is. A sceptic might say that there is no Kaf3 mount in the works. He might then add that Pentax is not saying because they are not sure if it will be the "crippled" Kaf or Kaf2 without power-zoom. I am tipping towards the crippled Kaf. :-( Cheers, Boz
Re: Why I don't believe in the KAF3 mount on *ist D (resent)
I still believes in KAF3 mount in the *ist D, the one that they will produce. Pentax has *not* said what the lens mount type is. They claim "KAF" for the filmbaed *ist, they have given *no* information of the mount on the *ist D. Why? Probably because they're still working on it. I believe they put a mount on the *ist D only for display purposes. The KAF3 might not be 100% ready yet. I believe that Pentax wish to keep KAF3 as a secret until the camera is ready to be released in it's final form. Best wishes, Roland From: Alin Flaider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 12:22:50 +0200 Well, today I took one hard look at the lens mount picture, trying to figure if there's the slightest difference from the KAF mount, and if not could a new mount go away with the existing KAF contacts? Any of the supposedly new KAF3 features - electric diaphragm actuator, IS or USM - requires electric power to some degree. It needs a significant amperage just to be able to close the aperture blades. Now the *ist D mount lacks the gold plated power zoom contacts from KAF2 that would have empowered the above functions, so it has to do with what's left. Of the remaining contacts, only one is gold plated - the so called "AF contact" and this one is employed for the digital protocol transmission between lens and body, and while digital communication is possible over power lines, I seriously doubt Pentax would choose such a clumsy solution. All the other are simple electric contacts, none gold plated, none capable to sustain reliable electronic signals, so much the less to deliver electric power. They're here obviously only to form the KA part of the mount. So the sad conclusion is the *ist D is, at least at this prototype stage, nothing more than a bland KAF camera. No IS, no USM, not even electric diaphragm actuator. Possibly no mechanical coupling for K mount, but this is not obvious, not from these pictures. This camera brings no new lens technology and it may very well be incompatible with old lenses. So what is it? The first of a new glorious series, waving the smallness as its unique attribute? Just another poor man's option? Either thought is horrifying. _ Skaffa fler messengerkontakter - Vinn 10.000 i resecheckar! http://messenger.msn.se/promo
