John Forbes wrote:
Ach, that's nowt. My Quad 303 amp, purchased in Jamaica in
1976, still gives excellent service, though I did have the
capacitors changed nine years ago. I'll change them again in 2016.
I'm sorry I don't still have the electrostatic speakers.
In a world where only the
The most satisfying cameras I own are about 45~ 50 years old. No added
bells and whistles. Real quality is built in, not added on. Bells and
whistles are nice, but will we still hear a pleasant, harmonious tune in
ten or twenty years?
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Malcolm Smith
In a
On 15/10/05, Malcolm Smith, discombobulated, unleashed:
and a
receiver that still works perfectly and is very sensitive that was built in
the middle part of WW2.
Cool! Can you still hear 'Listen With Mother' on it?
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|
Cotty wrote:
and a
receiver that still works perfectly and is very sensitive that was
built in the middle part of WW2.
Cool! Can you still hear 'Listen With Mother' on it?
LOL! It's put away in storage at the moment as with growing children, space
is at a premium and it needs a study
On 15/10/05, Malcolm Smith, discombobulated, unleashed:
it's scary to think that the original owner
heard the war time speeches broadcast on it. It's history you can physically
touch!
Excellent.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|
From: E.R.N. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2005/10/14 Fri AM 02:31:06 GMT
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: BAD NEWS: Pentax +Samsung DSLRs
mike wilson wrote:
NEED it? I don't even WANT it! 8-)
Mark, I hate to keep bugging you, but ...
I wrote something
-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: BAD NEWS: Pentax +Samsung DSLRs
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 20:54:31 -0400
You don't think these guys are going to buy a $200 TV. Why they would be
laughed out of their country club, and the yacht club would sink their boat
(sorry, 200
, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
- Original Message - From: Tom C
Subject: Re: BAD NEWS: Pentax +Samsung DSLRs
I could still have only the Kenwood component system I bought in 1981
(which I still use and is beautifully simple and elegant)...
I am still using, and enjoying, a JVC
Anthony Farr wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(prior message snipped)
CRTs are too costly to ship and produce and new technologies always demand
a
premium especially when there are marketable benefits and cool technology
labels. It's
For me a television is mainly a way to view films at home. The only
programming I watch on anywhere near a regular basis is sporting
events. But home theater has long been a pleasant way to bring at least
some of my large family together. And since we generally avoid
commercial theaters, the
On 14 Oct 2005 at 3:40, keith_w wrote:
This is pertinent, as I'm looking at that very range myself.
On reflectin, it seems to me the problem might be coming from having the CRT
adhere to the display ratio... If the screen dieplay was square, I'll bet all
squiggless would go away. But, that
John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ach, that's nowt. My Quad 303 amp, purchased in Jamaica in 1976, still
gives excellent service, though I did have the capacitors changed nine
years ago. I'll change them again in 2016.
Great little amp, that. I used to have one.
I'm sorry I don't still
E.R.N. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
mike wilson wrote:
NEED it? I don't even WANT it! 8-)
Mark, I hate to keep bugging you, but ...
LOL! You're right about this one, though!
(And several others you've pointed out in the past. Thanks.)
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005, keith_w wrote:
Anthony Farr wrote:
Last year we needed a new TV so bought a Panasonic 76cm, 16:9 ratio CRT.
It
was unmitigated crap.
This is pertinent, as I'm looking at that very range myself.
Very useful range indeed, only I prefer 4:3.
A good illustration for
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005, Rob Studdert wrote:
light and compact high frequency switch mode PSUs. These don't need to be
weighty to have good performance but a high performance supply has a comparably
high cost so that's a place that quality is often compromised.
Can one upgrade those (or if as
From: Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2005/10/14 Fri PM 12:41:29 GMT
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: BAD NEWS: Pentax +Samsung DSLRs
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005, keith_w wrote:
Anthony Farr wrote:
Last year we needed a new TV so bought a Panasonic 76cm, 16:9 ratio
On 13/10/05, Tom C, discombobulated, unleashed:
I don't even NEED my first SLR, the
MX.
Thomas Cakal you wash your mouth out with soap!!!
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
On 13/10/05, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed:
I am still using, and enjoying, a JVC AX-5 amp and Celestion Ditton 332
speakers on a daily basis.
I purchased that equipment new in June of 1981.
Yo! Celestion Ditton 130s here. 1982. Nice one!
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) |
Not likely with modern equipment. It's almost formed as a piece.
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005, Rob Studdert wrote:
light and compact high frequency switch mode PSUs. These don't need
to be
weighty to have good performance but a high performance supply has a
comparably
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 14 Oct 2005 at 3:40, keith_w wrote:
This is pertinent, as I'm looking at that very range myself.
On reflectin, it seems to me the problem might be coming from having the CRT
adhere to the display ratio... If the screen dieplay was square, I'll bet all
squiggles would
P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not likely with modern equipment. It's almost formed as a piece.
These days the entire TV set is almost formed as a piece ;-)
Seriously, when I was an A/V tech I remember getting a modern
Korean/Japanese/whatever set to repair (it's usually the older sets
fra: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 10/12/05, Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Canon-envy on this list is truly of Freudian proportions.
the freud-envy is of canonesque proportions?
seriously, it doesn't matter to some on this list what pentax
announces/does. it will
]
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 8:27 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: BAD NEWS: Pentax +Samsung DSLRs
- Original Message -
From: Gautam Sarup
Subject: RE: BAD NEWS: Pentax +Samsung DSLRs
The question IMO is can Sansung/Pentax sell enough
cameras with cheap
I've been impressed with the Samsung TVs as well. I'm looking for a
50-inch plasma. So far the very best seems to be Pioneer Elite. In
terms of picture quality, Sony is a distant fourth behind Pioneer,
Samsung and Phillips.
On Oct 13, 2005, at 1:35 AM, Tom C wrote:
From: Gonz [EMAIL
graywolf wrote:
The sensor in the DCS-14 cameras were not made by Kodak, they
outsourced them.
Surely that was one of the reasons why they discontinued those cameras?
They were Nikons/Canons with a sensor produced by a forget who, but
someone other than Kodak. Seems to me that continuing
He's a Canadian, he has a chain saw GRIN
I guess that means he's a lumber jack - He'OK BIGGER GRIN
Kenneth Waller
-Original Message-
From: graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: BAD NEWS: Pentax +Samsung DSLRs
He's a Canadian, he has a chain saw GRIN.
graywolf
http
- Original Message -
From: Gautam Sarup
Subject: RE: BAD NEWS: Pentax +Samsung DSLRs
If they would. Nothing wrong with making cameras that take bad
quality pictures.
You forgot the smiley
William Robb
Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
graywolf wrote:
The sensor in the DCS-14 cameras were not made by Kodak, they
outsourced them.
Surely that was one of the reasons why they discontinued those cameras?
The sensor for the DCS-14 cameras was made by Fill Factory... which is
owned by Kodak.
The DCS-14n was built out of Nikon body parts , the DCS-14c seemed to be
built out of Sigma body parts with a EOS lens mount, the Camera
electronics and functions followed the manufacture of the body parts
style. The Sensor and support electronics were farmed out to someone
else entirely.
On Thursday, October 13, 2005, at 10:35 AM, P. J. Alling wrote:
The DCS-14n was built out of Nikon body parts , the DCS-14c seemed to
be built out of Sigma body parts with a EOS lens mount, the Camera
electronics and functions followed the manufacture of the body parts
style. The Sensor
On Thursday, October 13, 2005, at 09:15 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
The sensor for the DCS-14 cameras was made by Fill Factory... which is
owned by Kodak.
Where did you hear that FillFactory is owned by Kodak? There is
corporate information on their web site, but it makes no mention of
Bob Shell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday, October 13, 2005, at 09:15 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
The sensor for the DCS-14 cameras was made by Fill Factory... which is
owned by Kodak.
Where did you hear that FillFactory is owned by Kodak?
Friends in the digital sensor division at Kodak. I
with
a screen 3 - 5 inches larger than otherwise.
Tom C.
From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: BAD NEWS: Pentax +Samsung DSLRs
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 06:38:46 -0400
I've been impressed with the Samsung TVs as well. I'm
prices during
those 13 years while my good ol' Sony was hanging in there.
keith == still shell shocked!
From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: BAD NEWS: Pentax +Samsung DSLRs
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 06:38:46 -0400
Well you know I could be throwig all this money at Pentax, but guess what?
They won't come out with a camera I wish to purchase... :)
Tom C.
From: keith_w [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: BAD NEWS: Pentax +Samsung DSLRs
Date: Thu
Kodak used to be the overall holding company for things photographic, I
believe at one time they owned
a piece of every publicly traded company that manufactured something
related to the photo industry.
Mark Roberts wrote:
Bob Shell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday, October 13,
closer attention to TV prices
during those 13 years while my good ol' Sony was hanging in there.
keith == still shell shocked!
From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: BAD NEWS: Pentax +Samsung DSLRs
Date: Thu, 13 Oct
Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: BAD NEWS: Pentax +Samsung DSLRs
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 06:38:46 -0400
I've been impressed with the Samsung TVs as well. I'm looking for a
50-inch plasma. So far the very best seems to be Pioneer Elite
Mike Wilson wrote:
The real bottom line? This is not about TVs. It's about the size of your
genitals. TV is hardly worth the electricity, never mind the apparatus.
---
Uh... OK, I'll let my wife know.
Tom C. (watches very litle mainstream TV) (wants to watch What's My Line
mike wilson wrote:
[...]
The real bottom line? This is not about TVs.
What isn't?
It's about the size of your genitals.
Huh?
TV is hardly worth the electricity, never mind the apparatus.
Maybe the TV you watch...
We never watch commercial TV programming anymore.
A few select
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005, keith_w wrote:
But, all that 's beside the original point. This particular conversation
isn't about watching TV, it's supposed to be about the horrid cost of
television receivers today, regardless of the end use to which it's put.
Yes, what happened to CRTs? Do you need
On 13 Oct 2005 at 22:41, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005, keith_w wrote:
But, all that 's beside the original point. This particular conversation
isn't
about watching TV, it's supposed to be about the horrid cost of television
receivers today, regardless of the end use
I like the look of the LCD sets a little better
and the burn in that can occur with plasma is worrying.
Where do you live?
Tom C.
From: keith_w [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: BAD NEWS: Pentax +Samsung DSLRs
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005, keith_w wrote:
But, all that 's beside the original point. This particular
conversation isn't about watching TV, it's supposed to be about the
horrid cost of television receivers today, regardless of the end use
to which it's put.
Yes,
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 13 Oct 2005 at 22:41, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005, keith_w wrote:
But, all that 's beside the original point. This particular conversation isn't
about watching TV, it's supposed to be about the horrid cost of television
receivers today,
Tom C wrote:
Mike Wilson wrote:
The real bottom line? This is not about TVs. It's about the size of
your genitals. TV is hardly worth the electricity, never mind the
apparatus.
---
Uh... OK, I'll let my wife know.
Tom C. (watches very litle mainstream TV) (wants to watch
keith_w wrote:
mike wilson wrote:
[...]
The real bottom line? This is not about TVs.
What isn't?
It's about the size of your genitals.
Huh?
TV is hardly worth the electricity, never mind the apparatus.
Maybe the TV you watch...
Or not.
We never watch commercial TV
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005, keith_w wrote:
But, all that 's beside the original point. This particular
conversation isn't about watching TV, it's supposed to be about the
horrid cost of television receivers today, regardless of the end use
to which it's put.
Yes,
Tom C wrote:
I was looking at 40 LCD and a 42 Plasma for around $2850 $3150
respectively. Not that I think those prices are good. I haven't begun
to compare online prices from non-major retailers yet.
Yeah, it's expensive (my wife will never know what it costs, or I will
never be getting
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005, keith_w wrote:
CRTs weigh well over 100 lb! Not that I move them every week, but come spring
(and sometimes in between) my wife succombs to some need to thoroughly wash
windows, and the TV *must* be moved.
My 7-yo Grundig CRT is fairly small (20 inch) and is probably too
That was before the anti-trust suit long before most of us were born.
They say nothing ever dies on the Internet; however that suit happened
long long before computers even. It caused Kodak to divest themselves of
many of their American holdings. Having to give up the company that made
the
You don't think these guys are going to buy a $200 TV. Why they would be
laughed out of their country club, and the yacht club would sink their
boat (sorry, 200 meter yacht).
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---
Kostas
From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
You forgot the smiley
No. I deliberately left it out.
Gautam
-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: BAD NEWS: Pentax +Samsung DSLRs
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 20:54:31 -0400
You don't think these guys are going to buy a $200 TV. Why they would be
laughed out of their country club, and the yacht club would sink their boat
(sorry, 200
- Original Message -
From: Tom C
Subject: Re: BAD NEWS: Pentax +Samsung DSLRs
I could still have only the Kenwood component system I bought in 1981
(which I still use and is beautifully simple and elegant)...
I am still using, and enjoying, a JVC AX-5 amp and Celestion Ditton 332
]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: BAD NEWS: Pentax +Samsung DSLRs
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 19:39:27 -0600
- Original Message - From: Tom C
Subject: Re: BAD NEWS: Pentax +Samsung DSLRs
I could still have only the Kenwood component system I bought in 1981
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
fra: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 10/12/05, Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Canon-envy on this list is truly of Freudian proportions.
the freud-envy is of canonesque proportions?
seriously, it doesn't matter to some on this list what pentax
mike wilson wrote:
NEED it? I don't even WANT it! 8-)
Mark, I hate to keep bugging you, but ...
-Original Message-
From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(prior message snipped)
CRTs are too costly to ship and produce and new technologies always demand
a
premium especially when there are marketable benefits and cool technology
labels. It's becoming very difficult to buy
On Oct 14, 2005, at 10:48 AM, Rob Studdert wrote:
CRTs are too costly to ship and produce and new technologies always
demand a
premium especially when there are marketable benefits and cool
technology
labels. It's becoming very difficult to buy any kind of CRT TV/
monitor in
Australia.
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:56:15 +0200
From: Sylwester Pietrzyk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: HOT NEWS: Pentax +Samsund DSLRs
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Dario Bonazza
Well, that didn't take long.
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
- Original Message -
From: Colin J
Subject: BAD NEWS: Pentax +Samsung DSLRs
The reason Canon succeeds so strongly is that
Canon DSLRs use Canon-made sensors. All other
DSLR manufacturers have to buy in sensors from
sensor manufacturers. This has led to many
problems
Colin,
When someone succeeds strongly there's ALWAYS more than just one reason.
Canon has done a lot of propers steps toward success, and very few mistakes.
Someone else has done the opposite. Your vision looks oversimplified to me,
as well as your conclusions.
Dario
This is BAD NEWS for
I think we should all slit our wrists. The sky is falling.
Paul
On Oct 12, 2005, at 8:49 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Well, that didn't take long.
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
Hi Colin,
This is BAD NEWS for Pentax.
The reason Canon succeeds so strongly is that
Canon DSLRs use Canon-made sensors. All other
DSLR manufacturers have to buy in sensors from
sensor manufacturers. This has led to many
problems.
snip contax
Kodak failed with the DCS 14n, Pro/n and
Mark Roberts wrote on 12.10.05 14:49:
Well, that didn't take long.
Mark, be my oracle please ;-)
--
Balance is the ultimate good...
Best Regards
Sylwek
I shall do no such thing (as long as I have a few rolls of ektachrome in the
freezer).
Tom (Twice as Doomed) Reese
Paul (We're All Doomed) Stenquist wrote:
I think we should all slit our wrists. The sky is falling.
On Oct 12, 2005, at 8:49 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Well, that didn't take
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Lucas Rijnders [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 12. oktober 2005 14:52
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: Re: BAD NEWS: Pentax +Samsung DSLRs
Hi Colin,
This is BAD NEWS for Pentax.
The reason Canon succeeds so strongly is that
Canon DSLRs use Canon-made sensors
http://tinyurl.com/bdexw
http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/news/articles/story_4419.html
http://tinyurl.com/bhdrq
http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Samsung-announces-7-megapixel-CMOS
-Sensor.htm
You don't know what you're talking about. Samsung has an excellent
reputation in the
@pdml.net
Emne: Re: BAD NEWS: Pentax +Samsung DSLRs
Hi Colin,
This is BAD NEWS for Pentax.
The reason Canon succeeds so strongly is that
Canon DSLRs use Canon-made sensors. All other
DSLR manufacturers have to buy in sensors from
sensor manufacturers. This has led to many
problems.
snip
Amen bro, I think I'll sell my pentax stuff
Kenneth Waller
-Original Message-
From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Oct 12, 2005 8:49 AM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: BAD NEWS: Pentax +Samsung DSLRs
I think we should all slit our wrists. The sky is falling.
Paul
On Oct
graywolf wrote:
Newspapers started buying Canon, because Canon just about gave them
the equipment and furnished basically free on site service. Soon
everywhere you went the news photographers were using Canon.
Especially at big events where the Canon truck was there to lend them
that 1200mm
- Original Message -
From: Colin J [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is BAD NEWS for Pentax.
[doomsaying snipped]
Canon must be laughing out loud.
I'm sorry, Colin J, but so am I.
The Canon-envy on this list is truly of Freudian proportions.
Jostein
Hi Lucas,
My apologies ... in my despair I got confused
between Sony and Kodak. Oh dear me.
Colin.
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 14:51:35 +0200
From: Lucas Rijnders [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: BAD NEWS: Pentax +Samsung DSLRs
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Type
Reading threads like this is such a tremendous waste of energy and time
Godfrey
Writing to them is even worse! :)
Tom C.
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: BAD NEWS: Pentax +Samsung DSLRs
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 10:00:54 -0700
Reading threads like this is such a tremendous waste of energy
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: Colin J
Subject: BAD NEWS: Pentax +Samsung DSLRs
The reason Canon succeeds so strongly is that
Canon DSLRs use Canon-made sensors. All other
DSLR manufacturers have to buy in sensors from
sensor manufacturers. This has led to many
Partnerships in business come and go, strategic partnerships often
faster than most others.
Paul Stenquist wrote:
I think we should all slit our wrists. The sky is falling.
Paul
On Oct 12, 2005, at 8:49 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Well, that didn't take long.
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and
For others it's like a soap opera, or, perhaps, a tele novella ;-))
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi
Reading threads like this is such a tremendous waste of energy and time
Godfrey
...
--
Regards, Lucas
Colin.
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 14:51:35 +0200
From: Lucas Rijnders [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: BAD NEWS: Pentax +Samsung DSLRs
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed;
delsp=yes; charset=iso-8859-15
Content
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 08:20:30 -0700
From: Shel Belinkoff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: RE: BAD NEWS: Pentax +Samsung DSLRs
Message-ID:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
You don't know what you're talking about.
Samsung
has an excellent
Kodak failed with the DCS 14n, Pro/n and Pro/c because their 14 MP
sensor was noisy. The problem: Kodak ended the product line.
Olympus failed with the E-1 and E-300 because the Kodak sensors are
noisy at all but the lowest ISO settings. The problem: Kodak ended
their interest in Four
Colin J [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Samsung's current reputation has been earned by
making low end, low cost consumer items such as
microwave ovens and cellphones.
In the manufacturing world, Samsung has made its (excellent) reputation
from manufacturing semiconductors, many of which are used in
You guys are really exhausting me...:-)
Jostein
- Original Message -
From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 7:04 PM
Subject: Re: BAD NEWS: Pentax +Samsung DSLRs
Writing to them is even worse! :)
Tom C.
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi
- Original Message -
From: Kenneth Waller
Subject: Re: BAD NEWS: Pentax +Samsung DSLRs
Amen bro, I think I'll sell my pentax stuff
Can I have your 600?
WW
It's just part of daily life on the Pentax Doom Mongers List.
John
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 18:31:50 +0100, Shel Belinkoff
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For others it's like a soap opera, or, perhaps, a tele novella ;-))
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi
Reading threads like this
Can I have your 600?
WW
Sure, right after you pry it away from my cold rigid fingers ;^)
Kenneth Waller
-Original Message-
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Oct 12, 2005 1:53 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: BAD NEWS: Pentax +Samsung DSLRs
- Original Message
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: BAD NEWS: Pentax +Samsung DSLRs
- Original Message -
From: Kenneth Waller
Subject: Re: BAD NEWS: Pentax +Samsung DSLRs
Amen bro, I think I'll sell my pentax stuff
Can I have your 600?
WW
PeoplePC
On 12/10/05, Colin J, discombobulated, unleashed:
Samsung gets a partner with decades of experience
of producing fine SLRs and even better lenses,
and what does Pentax get? A firm with a
reputation for low end products that sell on
price alone.
Funny, I don't consider my ground-breaking
On 12/10/05, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed:
Their sensors could be made by the Dilbert
sensor corporation in Elbonia,
There's a leak at Dilbert!
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
On 12/10/05, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed:
Reading threads like this is such a tremendous waste of energy and time
Oh come one Godders. It's sport!!
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
On 12/10/05, Colin J, discombobulated, unleashed:
My apologies ... in my despair I got confused
between Sony and Kodak. Oh dear me.
Not despair, mate. Dementia.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
I would never ever put it that short and accurate,
Graywolf, thanks!
--- graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now, Pentax. Well, Pentax became famous because the
Beatles used them.
Pentax had no idea what to do with that fame. And
soon the fame died
out, leaving them the seller of the
samsung, a firm with a reputation for low end products that sell on
price alone.
yup, like Alpha chips.
mishka
One word: Alpha. That's the best reputation any company can
hope to get.
mishka
On 10/12/05, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Colin J [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Samsung's current reputation has been earned by
making low end, low cost consumer items such as
microwave ovens and cellphones.
On 10/12/05, Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Canon-envy on this list is truly of Freudian proportions.
the freud-envy is of canonesque proportions?
seriously, it doesn't matter to some on this list what pentax
announces/does. it will not be merely wrong, it will be disastrous!
whatta
On 12/10/05, frank theriault, discombobulated, unleashed:
whatta laff.
Amen!
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
if you look at the results from those sensors, they aren't bad.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pentax Discuss pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 8:43 AM
Subject: Re: BAD NEWS: Pentax +Samsung DSLRs
The reason Canon
, October 12, 2005 11:20 AM
Subject: RE: BAD NEWS: Pentax +Samsung DSLRs
You don't know what you're talking about. Samsung has an excellent
reputation in the electronics field. Read the rest of the posts in this
thread.
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
