Well, it is reality sort of. The new Olydak is being previewed and although the camera
is no beauty it has balls.
At least this system realizes some of the advantages of digital
On Sun, 2 Mar 2003, [iso-8859-1] Pål Jensen wrote:
> Well, it is reality sort of. The new Olydak is being previewed and
> although the camera is no beauty it has balls. At least this system
> realizes some of the advantages of digital
So...its OK if it doesn't have "styling" and uses a less than
> So...its OK if it doesn't have "styling" and uses a less than full frame
> sensor as long as it doesn't say Pentax?
>
> Maybe I'm just confused, I've taken to just deleting all teh *ist threads
> for the last few days, but isn't this exactly what you're crying about
> just the other day?
No. I
Pål wrote:
In fact some Pentax users wait out the *ist D and when they see it they buy
a Canon.
I could be wrong, but I suspect that most shoppers will try to read about
the various DSLRs on the Web before buying. Most will find hands-on reviews
that evaluate the cameras strictly in terms of fun
rom: "Paul Franklin Stregevsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "'Pentax-Discuss'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How about a 600/2.8 or a 100-400/2.8-3,5?
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 07:40:36 -0500
Pål wrote:
In fact some Pentax users wait o
On March 4, 2003 08:00 am, Leonard Paris wrote:
> I think you are right, Paul. I think that the worst possible thing that
> could happen to Pentax would be for all prospective Pentax buyers to find
> and read the PDML before they made their purchase. For a user's group, we
> seem to be pretty nega
On 4 Mar 2003 at 8:11, Nick Zentena wrote:
> On March 4, 2003 08:00 am, Leonard Paris wrote:
> > I think you are right, Paul. I think that the worst possible thing that
> > could happen to Pentax would be for all prospective Pentax buyers to find and
> > read the PDML before they made their purcha
From: Nick Zentena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: How about a 600/2.8 or a 100-400/2.8-3,5?
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 08:11:30 -0500
On March 4, 2003 08:00 am, Leonard Paris wrote:
> I think you are right, Paul. I think that the worst possible
Leonardwrote:
> Yeah, but if we want Pentax to continue in the business, we could consider
> being a bit more up=beat about their products. We seem to have an ability to
> spread negative information about new products before we know the facts. We
> look at a picture of a new camera and find
Paul wrote:
> I could be wrong, but I suspect that most shoppers will try to read about
> the various DSLRs on the Web before buying. Most will find hands-on reviews
> that evaluate the cameras strictly in terms of functions, value, ease of
> use, and accessories. Few will find PDML and other user
Pål wrote:
"Nikon, on the other hand, is by far the most valuable name associated with
photography there is according to marketing and branding specialists. Forget
Hasselblad and Carl Zeiss, they aren't even in the ballpark. Canon is
nowhere near Nikon in this regard but the brand name is now almos
Henry wrote:
>Many people
> don't want to be associated with the cosmopolitan big brands like Canon or
> Nikon. This time, Pentax is targetting at the *-ist who want something to
> represent their individual status. That's what the name of the D-SLR
> intends to be.
I agree, and thats why
NO I am not negattive. I'd like to add that I think
this is one of the BEST times for Pentax users. For
once they are commited to great products for their
entire line with more to come. Plus their new AF
system sounds killer, and for once it looks as if it
may be ahead of the pack (9 cross sensors)
Mike,
I feel just about the opposite. Probably one angle is that Pål was
looking for a savior for Pentax. Something that would put Pentax ON
THE MAP so to speak.
Personally, I don't think any single body/lens created by Pentax could
do that. Even if they came out with something unique and
revo
Bruce wrote:
> An LX with AF would be yawned at by most of the world - it would only
> appeal to a few die hard Pentaxians.
True enough
> A robocamera is swallowed up by
> Canon/Nikon offering the same basic thing.
But thats what the *ist D is. It is just a shrinked Canon D10 or D100. Thats
And here I tried to give Canon and Nikon a fighting chance by limiting
it to a single format (35mm) and you go and pull an end around.
Certainly Pentax does in the Medium Format world can't be done by
Canon/Nikon. :)
Bruce
Tuesday, March 4, 2003, 12:42:19 PM, you wrote:
g> On Tue, 4 Mar 2003
Bruce wrote:
> An LX with AF would be yawned at by most of the world - it would only
> appeal to a few die hard Pentaxians.
But there is another function of Pentax niche product: keeping the system alive.
Theres no doubt in my mind that without the LX, the Pentax K-mount system would have
be
17 matches
Mail list logo
