Alan wrote:
I shoot and test my FA43 many times and came to the
same conclusion. At least I know Rob has the same opinion on FA43. We both, of
course, bought the lemons. :-)
Obviously. The lens was tested by Amateur Photographer magazine and promptly
became their reference lens
Herb wrote:
Pentax's official revenue forecasts show that it will make money over the
next three years, but the imaging products division will lose about the same
amount of money in the next three years as they lost this year. sounds like
a winning strategy to me. then you have the
Toral Lund:
As another spin-off from the looong why choose *istDL thread, I
thought I might mention that I completely agree with the whoever-it-was
who said that what he'd really like to see, was something that might be
described as a digital version of the MZ-5n (or ZX-5n.) Like that
Rob wrote:
The fact that Pentax don't have a visible upper level body doesn't help their
position in the market.
True, but the issue is when is the right time for releasing an upper level
body. According to Pentax they will but only after the Pentax DSLR user base is
sufficiently large. 66
Christian wrote:
But I'm wondering what it offers that
the others do not.
What it offers is that it isn't a Canon. This about as sensible aswer to the
question as you can get. There are as many reasons as there are people.
Pål
Bruce wrote:
The sad thing about this is, that Pentax has to be WAY better than
Canon or Nikon to be able to get any attention. There is no way for
any other manufacturer to be WAY better than Canon. They can be a
little bit better all the way around, but it won't matter much.
My original
Alan wrote:
I thought they stop doing that after the failure of LX? Perhaps the LX was the
biggest mistake ever to Pentax because Pentax fans have had such unrealistic
expectation since.
The LX a failure? Certainly not saleswise. Considering that the camera was
among the most expensive
- Original Message -
From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 1:36 AM
Subject: Re: Rumors About Pentax's Future
the Leica with a 10MP sensor and less components lists for $9K. since Kodak
also makes the 645D sensor, there no chance
Herb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 3:16 AM
Subject: Re: Predictable Pentax
expanding the base works only if you are not losing a lot of money while
doing it. if you do, there's no money left
John wrote:
Anyone who finds this news in any way astonishing just hasn't been
paying attention. Pentax stated their future path, loud and clear,
in the interview given at about the time the *ist-DS was released.
First the DL, then the MF digital, and then the *ist-D follow-on.
But the
If Pal is correct and Pentax is working on an EOS-killer,...
I think I said they would make a camera that outperforms what Canon can offer
in image quality...
Pål
Christian wrote:
But that's my point. They are not playing their cards right. I liked
Pentax the odd-ball, mystical company. The LX, the SMC lenses of mythical
stature, the wacky focal length Limiteds, etc.
To keep the oddball customers coming back, they had better come out with
Hard to fault this logic
Pål
- Original Message -
From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 7:01 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
On 2 Jun 2005 at 10:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Either
- Original Message -
From: Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
- Original Message -
From: Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My original dissapointment
Alan wrote:
However, the market has changed. Many 120 commerical shooters have moved to
high-end
Canon. Canon play one game, and they play it well. Pentax, however, are
playing 2
games, and both are lossing at the moment.
Maybe. But very few Professional (or non-professional) Pentax MF
Alan wrote:
Well, the LX failed to generate cash flow and failed to compete with Canon
F-1
Nikon F3.
Neither the F3 or the F1 made any money. They were expensive to built and built
by hand.
What made the LX successful?
Sales volume. 5000 units a month was a LOT for the most expensive
Dag wrote:
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 11:07 AM
Subject: Re: OT: Kodak kills DSLR
Why not try to be optimistic: They may have decided to drop the Nikon og
Canon based full frame cameras in order to
William wrote:
The Nikon rep estimated that something like 5%
of F3 cameras were in the hands of pro photographers, the rest were owned by
well heeled amateurs.
I've heard the same number for the F5. However, the Pentax distributor here in
Norway says that 50% of Pentax MF are sold to
Paul wrote:
There's a world of price differentiation between and F3 and the 645D.
Yeah, hobbyists will use a 645 system that they purchased for a grand
or so. But will they come up with close to 10K for a digital body? Some
say it will be much more. I doubt it. If there's no pro market
Cornelius wrote:
?
Why is it seemingly so difficult to produce a camera with a full frame (35mm)
sensor, if Pentax and many others have/will have MF digitals surely one of
these sensors could be used, even if it has to be masked?
Cost and problem with performance at the corners due to
Bruce wrote:
Bill, that is shocking! I used to use 67II's and did NOT think they
were light or small. At least it had a big negative. That Canon is
one BIG camera for having a sensor of that size.
Yes...and it makes the Pentax 645 system look small...
Pål
Jostein wrote:
I think you're right. Now that the MedF systems are entering the market with
cameras more suited for work outside studios, chances are they will put the FF
high-pixel cameras in a squeeze.
Thats what I think too. If the price rumors are correct it will cost less than
a full
Jostein wrote:
I think the most likely conspiracy theory is that Pentax Japan is holding
their cards to tightly to their chest as usual. Pentax UK sounds like they
don't know what's coming, so they choose to focus on the past.
Pentax Japan is extremely inept at making use of buzz for
Herb wrote:
66K DSLRs is 2/3 of what Kodak sold last year and Kodak is pulling the plug
on their DSLRs. Kodak's DSLRs were a lot more expensive than any Pentax one
and they still outsold Pentax. since the Pentax DSLRs are low end models,
Pentax isn't making much money on them.
Sure. The
- Original Message -
From: Alin Flaider [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 4:33 PM
Subject: Predictable Pentax
Remember MZ/ZX series? They started with MZ-5 and then came along no
less than five inferior models (10,50,7,60,30), together
Dario wrote:
I'm not argumenting the choice of 3-segment AF here. That can be fine.
I only ask why the hell they have to mess-up things that way. Whay don't
they call the damn thing SAFOX IV, SAFOXIX (ah, ah), SAFOX L, or SAFOX
WHATEVER? Why SAFOX VIII (which is another thing)?
Maybe it is
Malcolm wrote:
Deprecation depends on your viewpoint on the product. Here we are talking
cameras, and in the majority (?) of cases here it is hobby money. I have a
local friend who would be horrified at losing a few hundred pounds to
upgrade a camera to the latest model, yet he is quite happy
Alek wrote:
But with K and M lenses you could not use matrix... just central or spot
and???
Do you have Pentax FA 200/4 ED macro lens? Or A200/4 ED macro?
If so which is better?
If pressed I think the FA* is slightly better but significantly larger and heavier.
What about competition
Alek wrote:
I am going to use PZ1 with some my K lenses. Is it truth that there appears
overexposure of 2/3 EV? Now I checking it using Velvia but on the basis of some
measurements it really seems to me that overexposure occurs. Any comments...So the
correction is needed.
I do hope it is
Alek wrote:
With A 50/1.7 exposures were great. The difference is with older lenses.
With mine it was the other way around and only in matrix metering if memory serves me
right.
So now you have MZS.. Better than Pz-1p?
I think so.
I have read some reviews and many people believe PZ1p
Alek wrote:
Do you know who uses FA200/4 ED macro?Or you know any tests of the lens or other
macro lenses?
It is great. As good as they come.
Pål
I also wonder if Pentax release great dlsr and flagship. But I have heard that
selling pro cameras does not makes profit so maybe it is not good idea to introduce
such camera,especially that not many pros uses Pentax slr.Or Pentax wants to change
it. Heaven knows.
This a chicken and the
Bruce wrote:
Further, if prints are the final product then it is
perfectly valid to look at the prints, because in the end, they are all
that count.
As I've said previously, this is a valid view from a pragmatic point of view. The
problem start when someone is using this to say that the
Tom wrote:
The camera should work even better at low tempuratures. The batteries are
the problem. If you can get them separated from the camera by a cord and
keep the batteries in an inside pocket a digital camera should be great for
cold weather photography.
The problem for digital for me
John wrote:
It is my firm hope that Pentax will make a good quality DSLR, with a full
range of lens covering the 35mm equivalents of 15 - 600mm, but also with the
possibility of using an adaptor to allow the use of existing K-mount lens,
so that the affordability of a useful system does not
Tom wrote:
I'll wait and see what Pentax does, but I have to admit I'm concerned.
I was content with the pace at which Pentax released new cameras in
the past because I knew the quality of my prints depended on the
lenses, not the camera. This is no longer true with digital - the body
is no
Alek wrote:
Thank you! so for the price K35/3.5 is great and if one can afford to buy FA version
it pays.
I shall try to find old for beginning.
The problem with AF lenses (most of them anyway) is that they are AF lenses; loose,
rattly, and focuses past infinity. Unfortunately, I've
Butch wrote:
As a photofinisher I must disagree. Technically only 1 point is in actual
focus, everything else is increasingly out of focus (circle of confusion).
So as you enlarge further, less area is perceived to be in focus.
The point in focus will be equally less sharp with
JCO wrote:
Other SLR makers most notably Konica had AE
(shutter priority) via automatic aperture setting lenses
around 5 years before the Pentax ES.
aperture priority isnt the only way to get AE.
But only Konica nd Canon bothered with this kind of auto. Most other manufacturers
like
JCO wrote:
Zero impact? I disagree, if you wanted AE in the 1960's
SLR, Pentax couldnt deliver.
I think my point was that hardly anyone wanted AE in the 60's. Particularly not in
that form..
Pål
It seems as though Steve Winter, a photographer for Natl. Geographic, has a
Pentax F*300mm f4.5 mounted to an unknown(I can't tell what it is anyway)
body in the July 2002 Natl. Geographic.
No he doesn't. It's a Canon zoom lens. Most likely the 70-210/2.8 L-lens.
Pål
William wrote:
Seconded. I have a great love for my wood tripod. They don't
ring, they are much stronger, and they are much harder to
damage.
If you ding the leg of a metal tripod, you can run into some
problems with legs that no longer close, or in a worst case
scenario, a leg that can
William wrote:
Yes you are being unrealistic. Pentax would rather commit
suicide than commit to potential customers.
I don't think so. Having been around on this list since it's beginning I've noticed
that Pentax have put out exactly those higher end products most of us asked for. The
MZ-S
William wrote:
Yes you are being unrealistic. Pentax would rather commit
suicide than commit to potential customers.
Pentax will make a digital slr and have stated so in press release.
Nikon and Canon are both producing digital SLR's and are selling
them as fast as they can crank them
Hernan wrote:
I just read this at Boris's site
(http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/extras/K-mount/Kaf.html):
Speaking about multi-segment metering: (...) since algorithm is rather
complex, it is very difficult to judge when it will fail and in which
direction. Hence, it is not advisable to use
I would not be waiting for a Pentax 17-35 FA. I
suspect that Pentax would rather make an 18/2.8 to fill that hole. A FA 18/2.8
Limited + a FA 20-35/4 will possibly be cheaper and smaller than a 17-35/2.8.
Pentax is indeed working on image stabilization.
When or whether it reach the market
Clover wrote:
It is not because you have it on the SLR that mean you need to use it all
time long !
But, it makes crazy when you need it even once a year because for this day,
I find it is stupid to buy or rent an other SLR just for the need of a day.
I don'æt agree. I'll rather be
Clover wrote:
I am OK that the MZ-S is the cheapest all metal, solid AF body out there if
you except the N90s/ F90x.
The F90 is plastic and not at all an all metal, solid AF body. Its lens mount flexes
with something as light as a 80-200/2.8 and the bottom plate flexes when the camera is
Bucky wrote:
And if Nikon had brought it out you'd be sneering at it, and that's a fact
too.
Certainly not! If it had been a Nikon I would have considered switching brand.
Dog
forbid anyone should express a preference for another brand! It's like
discussing morality with a fundie.
Clover wrote:
It seems that the SLR find easily owner in the US.
Wheraas in France, everybody complain its high price.
My personnal wish is that Pentax makes a better SLR at the same price of the
Nikon F-100.
I don't get this. First you tell us that the MZ-S is expensive (as in too
Clover wrote:
REally, how will you feel is MZ-S with the same price, has a 4 fps speed and
a Synchro 1/8000 and Synchro X 1/250 ??? Does it remember you a PZ-1p???
'
So now you want Pentax to make a camera way better specified than the F100 and sell it
for 25% less.
1,5 fps extra and half a
51 matches
Mail list logo
