Could be. They're making those digital backs for the Nikon 35mm bodies.
>Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 19:34:23 EDT
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Next Pentax Flagship Camera?
>Just a thought. With talk about a new Pentax digital SLR system, what is
the
>possibility that
It's possible. Pentax has been awarded several U.S. patents recently that
describe precisely this kind of technology. The question in my mind is
whether such a camera will be 35mm or medium format. Seems likely we'll
find out in September.
Anyone know if the MZ-S is still selling well?
--Mark
From: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The
> real battle area for them is in the 645 arena. This is an area where
> both Contax and Mamiya are working with that very concept. Pentax
> would have better luck putting there efforts there.
>
>
> Bruce
>
I agree, Bruce!
Minolta has tried and faile
>Minolta has tried and failed in the pro 35mm market. Pentax can regain some
>respect only if they can go digital and retain the 35mm format on both
>fronts. It is known in this group that the Pentax optics, when they chose,
>are world beaters.
I seriousely doubt Pentax will ever regain their
- Original Message -
From: "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> The 645E was not that successful, and I don't see how it will hurt the
> P645NII at all.
>
The worry here is that it will attract newcomers to medium format and a
logical upgrade the the Mamiya AF cameras. KEH has them for 699.
On 17 Aug 2002 at 11:06, Bob Rapp wrote:
If I were to restart and sacrifice my existing cameras and lenses, I would
> be hard pressed to bypass Canon. Their present system and optics leave Nikon
> lacking. Only because older optics can be used with present Nikon cameras
> keep Nikon in the game
- Original Message -
From: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Next Pentax Flagship Camera?
> Trying to battle Canon and
> Nikon on the 35mm front is foolish. They already lost the battle.
After reading all posting of the thread so far I wonde
In a message dated 8/17/2002 3:22:46 AM Central Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> However, I think that unlike Minolta
> Pentax is able to get back into "pro" (oh, yes - again this hated word, but
> i don't know how to call it in a different way) market and settle there.
> Why
> "unli
On 17/08/02 at 10:19 Artur Ledóchowski pounded the keys and wrote as follows:
>- Original Message -
>From: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Next Pentax Flagship Camera?
>
>
>> Trying to battle Canon and
>> Nikon on the 35mm fron
e?
Thanks,
Bruce
Saturday, August 17, 2002, 4:03:51 AM, you wrote:
TR> Could be. They're making those digital backs for the Nikon 35mm bodies.
>>Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 19:34:23 EDT
>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Subject: Next Pentax Flagship Camera?
>>Just a thought.
- Original Message -
From: "Conrad F. Samuels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Next Pentax Flagship Camera?
> I think Pentax decided somewhere to specialise in medium format gear. I
still remember when they brought out their first MF SLR in the early 70's
alth
On 17/08/02 at 18:28 Artur Ledóchowski pounded the keys and wrote as follows:
>
>If, as you think, Pentax decided to specialise in the MF, then how come
>they
>introduce new 35mm bodies so often as well as introduce new features like
>P-TTL, HSS, SAFOX VII in 35mm bodies? I think they focus equal
>If, as you think, Pentax decided to specialise in the MF, then how come
>they
>introduce new 35mm bodies so often as well as introduce new features like
>P-TTL, HSS, SAFOX VII in 35mm bodies? I think they focus equally on both
>formats. Besides, you're wrong about that Pentax supremacy in the MF
> There was a lot of speculation on this list about a year ago on a lot
>of
>innovative digital things; a 'dual-format' slr, able to do both digital and
>film simultaneously, without switching backs; rumours of a digital
>viewfinder built into their 35mm's; rumours of a digital viewfinder for
- Original Message -
From: Alan Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Next Pentax Flagship Camera?
> If I am not mistaken, P645 and P67 system were designed for field use
where
> polaroid backs aren't important. Also, the relatively affordable P67
lenses
> are
Jim A. wrote:
>
> I would like those who are salivating for a Pentax dslr to form their own
> list so that those of us who are contented film users can live in peace
> without all the digital stuff intruding.
>
> Jim A.
Writes Jim, digitally.
Jim, get a grip. Form your own list of film
Cameron Hood wrote with intelligence and decisiveness:
I reiterate, their new camera better be bloody good, or there will be a
LOT of nice FA* lenses on the market. And they had better introduce a decent
flash or two to match, because a guide number of 30 (barely) just doesn't
cut it for
> Talking to other photographers is somewhat
> embarrassing because they can't believe I haven't gone digital yet. Almost
> no one is using film anymore; have you seen a max rez shot from a new high
> end Canon or Nikon digital? A lot of pros are dumping their medium format
> stuff for it. And it
On Sun, 2002-08-18 at 23:50, Cameron Hood wrote:
> If I had a digital camera, it could all be archived for easy retrieval
> on CD alphabetically, by date, by scene, by subject, or all of the above,
> instantly, and repeatably.
Archivability is the major reason why I'm still shooting film.
I
> Cameron Hood wrote with intelligence and decisiveness:
>
> I reiterate, their new camera better be bloody good, or there will be a
> LOT of nice FA* lenses on the market. And they had better introduce a decent
> flash or two to match, because a guide number of 30 (barely) just doesn't
> cut it
On Sun, 18 Aug 2002 14:50:03 -0700
Cameron Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim A. wrote:
> >
> > I would like those who are salivating for a Pentax dslr to form their own
> > list so that those of us who are contented film users can live in peace
> > without all the digital stuff intruding.
I
> Writes Jim, digitally.
>
>Jim, get a grip. Form your own list of film only shooters. While
> you're at it, why don't you use snail mail instead of email. You
> could have a nice tight group of Pentax film-only penpals, and you
> could start a stamp collection to boot.
man, are you f
>Almost
no one is using film anymore; have you seen a max rez shot from a new high
end Canon or Nikon digital?<
the main difference i see between my Provia 100F originals after scanning
and my Nikon digital originals? there isn't any film grain in the digital
original. large prints made from the
- Original Message -
From: Tim S Kemp
Subject: Re: Next Pentax Flagship Camera?
> I would suggest though that wedding and portrait guys are not
yet dumping
> film. Not the ones I've seen anyway. I think 35mm is going
away in favour of
> digital though and all that hold
d.
Wow.
R
- Original Message -
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2002 10:39 PM
Subject: Re: Next Pentax Flagship Camera?
> - Original Message -
> From: Tim S Kemp
> Subject: Re: Next Pentax Flagship Came
> The new way of doing wedding photography:
> http://trevorowen.com/paton/
> Shot on a Canon D60
If thats the new way the bring back the old way! The look soft and arn't
particulaly good shots. The rest of that guys stuff look much better. The
D60 is a very impressive camera, but this definately
Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 14:50:03 -0700
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Next Pentax Flagship Camera?
>
> Jim A. wrote:
>>
>> I would like those who are salivating for a Pentax dslr to form their own
&
Your right about that.
Jim A.
> From: Kevin Waterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Organization: Oceania
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 10:21:10 +1000
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Next Pentax Flagship Camera?
>
> I note that you no longer have patience to get your processing done like
most
> on this list (I assume). Last I heard patience is a virtue. You lost it
> somewhere.
It's not patience, it's invonvenience. If photography is your business then
time is money, if it's not then then time processing
- Original Message -
From: Jim Apilado
Subject: Re: Next Pentax Flagship Camera?
Jim, you might want to check out this link:
http://65.107.211.206/victorian/darwin/darwin1.html
Good metaphorical information there about your concern.
William Robb
> I repeat all those who are go
Artur wrote:
> I don't agree with the point of view stated above (and it has been already
> disscussed several times), because the photographic market is not a constant
> thing. Conditions change. Yes, Pentax lost the battle, but why do you think
> they also lost the whole war? They can and IMHO
Conrad wrote:
> I think Pentax decided somewhere to specialise in medium format gear. I still
>remember when they brought out their first MF SLR in the early 70's although the name
>escapes me now. In all fairness, they have never looked back. Others have come and
>gone some more than othe
Cameron wrote:
> My guess for the next Limited; a very disappointing 50mm f=1.2 based on
> the one from the LX 2000.
You guess is wrong.
>
> Either Pentax will have a whole lot of treats for us at Photokina next
> month, or there are going to be a whole lot of disappointed Pentax
Artur wrote:
> MZ-S is full of contradictions.
There's no contradictions with the MZ-S.
>Moreover, lack of promotion and information,
> together with a bit too high price (when compared with Dynaxx 7 for example)
> and those contradictions don't make its future bright IMHO.
Well, it can't be
Artur wrote:
> No, the main role for the MF is studio/fashion/commercials/nude (:))
Medium format is the most popular format for landscape photography on a global basis.
This is the market Pentax is catering for. The studio market is crowded and Pentax
have never shown much interest in it.
>
Alexander wrote:
> Just a thought. With talk about a new Pentax digital SLR system, what is the
> possibility that the new Pentax 35mm flagship camera is a film/digital
> system?
I think the possibilities are very slim. With the short lifespan of digital products
and the added complexity,
Jim wrote:
> I repeat all those who are going digital should form their own list. When I
> joined the list digital wasn't even a topic.
This is a Pentax discussion forum. Here we discuss Pentax equipment. If Pentax makes
digital products then it's a topic. Lets not go back to the weird times
Artur wrote:
> Indeed. But I think that the majority of the MF cameras are being used in
> studios. IMHO this is where Pentax strategy is quite inconsistent.
No, there's nothing incosistent in making cameras indended for outside studio use.
Pentax have been very consistent in this.
> Yes,
Alan wrote:
> In terms of technology, Canon was ahead of Nikon since they introduced the
> EOS system, and it was back to 1988?
They have "always" been ahead of Nikon in the feature race.
Pål
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and f
Tim wrote:
> So true. Has anyone seen shots from the full frame Contax?
It's a disaster. Customers are demanding their money back.
Pål
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Use
Artur wrote:
> Besides, you're wrong about that Pentax supremacy in the MF
> segment. The reason is simple - bodies lack interchangeable backs. This is
> more important and decisive thing than one would suspect.
Not for Pentax who actually specialices in the non-interchangeable back market. The
- Original Message -
From: Tim S Kemp
Subject: Re: Next Pentax Flagship Camera?
> > I note that you no longer have patience to get your
processing done like
> most
> > on this list (I assume). Last I heard patience is a virtue.
You lost it
> > somewhere.
>
&
Bruce wrote:
>The support/marketing for the pro
> world also has to be in place.
I believe this argument is mostly a red herring. Unless you're shooting at the
Olympics special pro service hardly exist. All manufacturers makes special
arrangements for pros. Pentax MF shooters get equally goo
Bruce, an honest question, in light of the attitude of disdain
displayed in your message...
Why are you even a posting member of this list, if you think so little
of Pentax?
Whaley, Keith
"Rubenstein, Bruce M (Bruce)" wrote:
>
> I have no idea why anyone who shots 35mm for money, and shoots typ
Pål Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The battle in the MF market is of course important, but unless Pentax
>> introduces interchangeable backs for the 645 and 67, it will not be able to
>> win the battle with Contax and Mamiya. This is of course but a personal
>> point of view:)
>
>But Pentax
: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 19 August 2002 16:36
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Next Pentax Flagship Camera?
>
>
> Pål Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> The battle in the MF market is of course important, but
> unless Pent
I was talking about the previous posting, this link is correctly balanced.
- Original Message -
From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 8:19 AM
Subject: Re: Next Pentax Flagship Camera?
> The D60 is an amazi
- Original Message -
From: Pal Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Next Pentax Flagship Camera?
> Medium format is the most popular format for landscape photography on a
global basis. This is the market Pentax is catering for. The studio market
is crowded and Pentax have ne
In a message dated 8/19/2002 5:01:26 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> You need one touch of your
> > finger to switch between HyP, Av and Tv in Z-1p. You can set the flash
> > compensation w/o taking your eye away from the viewfinder in Z-1p.
> > You tell me it isn't use
On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, Keith Whaley wrote:
> Bruce, an honest question, in light of the attitude of disdain
> displayed in your message...
> Why are you even a posting member of this list, if you think so little
> of Pentax?
As much as I disagree with what Bruce says sometimes, I find it hard to
a
- Original Message -
From: Chris Brogden
Subject: Re: Next Pentax Flagship Camera?
> Hard to argue with this, except to point out the uselessness
of "amateur"
> and "pro" as general terms.
Actually, no. The terminology is very germaine to the
discussio
On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, William Robb wrote:
> Pentax as a brand has always been an enthusiast/ hobbiest brand,
> at least here in North America, since the Korean War.
This is certainly not true for the UK at least. For example, recently UK
tv showed a documentary titled 'The Real Blow Up' (did anyo
The full frame Contax by all accounts is a technical nightmare.
At 11:35 PM 8/18/2002 +0100, you wrote:
> > Talking to other photographers is somewhat
> > embarrassing because they can't believe I haven't gone digital yet. Almost
> > no one is using film anymore; have you seen a max rez shot fr
Bruce is just a spy for Nikon or is it Canon. He gets a commission every
time someone
on this list buys his brand.
At 11:18 PM 8/19/2002 +1000, Rob wrote:
>On 19 Aug 2002 at 8:58, Rubenstein, Bruce M (Bruce) wrote:
>
> > I have no idea why anyone who shots 35mm for money, and shoots typical
>
Artur wrote:
> I wonder if I'm really the only one PDML'er who thinks that Z-1p is user friendly
>and easy to master, the only one who >feels that MZ-S is not as good as it could and
>should have been.
This is really not the discussion. I have no problems with the fact that some find the
Z-1
Artur wrote:
> What is contradictory about MZ-S is that the camera, that is claimed to be a
>successor of Z-1p on the flagship position, is >both more and less advanced than
>Z-1p.
This is not contradiction it's a mistaken assumption. The MZ-S is not a replacement
for the Z-1p (in fact, Pen
On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, William Robb wrote:
> > Hard to argue with this, except to point out the uselessness
> of "amateur"
> > and "pro" as general terms.
>
> Actually, no. The terminology is very germaine to the
> discussion. "Pro" means the type of equipment that is desirable
> to a working pro.
2002 15:11
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Next Pentax Flagship Camera?
>
>
> Good point, but there's more to it than that. A lot of
> people got very
> excited about Sigma's DSLR, partly because of the Foveon
> technology, and
> partly because of the mar
My problem with the MZ-S is that it is way overpriced. I think my magic
number is $400-500 US, way below the retail at B&H of $799. If I were going
to spend that much on a body I might have to go for an F100 and change
systems(ouch). I am also worried about the "bugs" in the MZ-S(sounds like
s
Bruce wrote:
>By the time the Pentax put its first SLR on sale, Nikon (which had already been
>selling SLRs) was already established as a >"pro" brand.
If this correct most history book must be rewritten. As far as I know, Pentax (Asahi)
made the first japanese slr.
Pål
-
This message is fr
Bruce wrote:
> Now, now as we ALL know, because Pal told us so, Nikon and Canon lose money on every
>high end camera they sell. By >pushing these other brands of high end cameras I'm
>helping them lose money faster, so they will go out of business leaving >Pentax a
>wide open for film cameras
Chris wrote:
> Exactly. But which pro? The type of equipment desirable to wedding
> photographers is usually very different from what pro landscape
> photographers use, and what studio photographers use, etc. etc. You can
> talk about "pro" equipment as it relates to these fields individually
Me, too. I've been away for a week in England, and I come back to find
this hotbed of controversy.
Just to mention, I finally got to shoot extensively (about 30 rolls)
with the MZ-S. The camera worked perfectly, and I thoroughly enjoyed
using it. About five rolls have stuff we needed for m
In a message dated 8/20/2002 9:56:23 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >By the time the Pentax put its first SLR on sale, Nikon (which had already
> been selling SLRs) was already established as a >"pro" brand.
>
>
> If this correct most history book must be rewritten. As
"Robert Woerner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>My problem with the MZ-S is that it is way overpriced.
After having used an MZ-S for over a year, I believe it is significantly
*underpriced* for the construction quality and capabilities it offers.
--
Mark Roberts
www.robertstech.com
-
This messag
bad, not bad at all.
All the best!
Raimo
Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
-Alkuperäinen viesti-
Lähettäjä: Pål Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Päivä: 20. elokuuta 2002 13:32
Aihe: Re: Next Pen
/~raikorho
-Alkuperäinen viesti-
Lähettäjä: Rubenstein, Bruce M (Bruce) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Vastaanottaja: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Päivä: 20. elokuuta 2002 16:21
Aihe: Re: Next Pentax Flagship Camera?
>Not from Bill...
>Korea is where Nikon got its
To my mind the
people who see it as expensive overlook the fact that build quality
costs and tend to be 'features people'.
> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 20 August 2002 16:46
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: N
Ah Bruce,
Much as I would love to let this little political attack go unanswered,
I feel compelled to point out that in the UK and most of Europe, Nikon
equipment is actually LESS expensive than Pentax.
Besides, any consultant worth his yacht would be buying Leica ;-)
--
Kristian
> The real
PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Raimo Korhonen
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 8:58 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Vs: Next Pentax Flagship Camera?
That´s how it was - approximately - but there is a mistake:
Nikon did not make any SLRs before 1959 - at which time Pentax was the
market
I have always been told that Nikon made its inroads in NA as THE pro brand by
outfitting the entire photo staff at Life magazine with their F1 (I think).
They were the cream of the pro photo crop in the 50's and 60's. When others
saw that they were using Nikon, most others fell in line.
Jer
Nice logic but it doesn't mean they don't pay you a commission. It depends
on the way you look at product, is it sold to make money or as
advertising. (That's much to serious a response on my part, oh well).
At 09:14 AM 8/20/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>Now, now as we ALL know, because Pal told us
20, 2002 12:00 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Next Pentax Flagship Camera?
I have always been told that Nikon made its inroads in NA as THE pro brand
by
outfitting the entire photo staff at Life magazine with their F1 (I think).
They were the cream of the pro photo crop in the 50&#x
Chris Brogden wrote:
>
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, William Robb wrote:
>
> > > Hard to argue with this, except to point out the uselessness
> > > of "amateur" and "pro" as general terms.
> >
> > Actually, no. The terminology is very germaine to the
> > discussion. "Pro" means the type of equipment th
Pentax may have shown the first Japanese SLR, but Nikon was selling them first.
This is in the same general vein of, if you want patents, prototypes and smoke go to
Pentax, if you want stuff you can buy, go somewhere else.
Just to avoid any confusion, Nikon had already established themselves wit
<>
Huh? Not in Poland (unless it's not Europe for you ;)
Lukasz
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
There's about 17 pro landscape photographers in the world (and they make their money
selling books to hobiests on how to be pro landscape/nature photographers). So, to a
first order approximation there is no such thing.
You can go off on whatever semantic tangents you'd like to, but in the world
No, It's just mot Europe for Nikon.
At 08:23 PM 8/20/2002 +0200, you wrote:
>>
>
>Huh? Not in Poland (unless it's not Europe for you ;)
>
>Lukasz
>-
>This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
>go to http://www.pdml.net
://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
-Alkuperäinen viesti-
Lähettäjä: Arthur D. Grokhovski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Päivä: 20. elokuuta 2002 18:25
Aihe: RE: Next Pentax Flagship Camera?
> Russian manufacturer KMZ has be
Robert wrote:
> My problem with the MZ-S is that it is way overpriced. I think my magic
> number is $400-500 US, way below the retail at B&H of $799.
Well, just because you're not willing to pay more than 500 for doesn't mean it's
overpriced. I don't want to spend the money for an Mercedes S-c
I am not convinced it is true for UK either.
> -Original Message-
> From: Lukasz Kacperczyk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 20 August 2002 19:23
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Next Pentax Flagship Camera?
>
>
> < equipment is actually LESS expensi
In a message dated 8/20/2002 3:38:57 PM Central Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Subject: Vs: Next Pentax Flagship Camera?
>
> F1 was a Canon, 3 versions of it.
>
OK, my mistake, it was the original Nikon F.
Jerry in Houston
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discu
1:03
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Next Pentax Flagship Camera?
>
>
> Robert wrote:
>
> > My problem with the MZ-S is that it is way overpriced. I think my
> > magic
> > number is $400-500 US, way below the retail at B&H of $799.
>
> Well, just
step backwards in so many ways.
Robert
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 12:00 PM
Subject: RE: Next Pentax Flagship Camera?
> I think the 'problem' here is that while th
- Original Message -
From: Pål Jensen
Subject: Re: Next Pentax Flagship Camera?
>
> 30 years ago all of them used Nikon and couldn't care less
about what Canon was doing next...
>
Perhaps. And in 30 years hence, they still won't care what
Pentax is doing.
William Rob
- Original Message -
From: Rubenstein, Bruce M (Bruce)
Subject: Re: Next Pentax Flagship Camera?
> Pentax may have shown the first Japanese SLR, but Nikon was
selling them first.
> This is in the same general vein of, if you want patents,
prototypes and smoke go to Pentax, if yo
>I think the 'problem' here is that while the MZ-S is 'significantly'
>*underpriced*, the Z1P was MASSIVELY **underpriced** due to the fact
>Pentax had to drop the price in order to sell any Z1's. This arguably
>now makes the MZ-S 'seem' expensive in comparison. To my mind the
>people who see it
>My problem with the MZ-S is that it is way overpriced. I think my magic
>number is $400-500 US, way below the retail at B&H of $799. If I were going
>to spend that much on a body I might have to go for an F100 and change
>systems(ouch). I am also worried about the "bugs" in the MZ-S(sounds lik
>After having used an MZ-S for over a year, I believe it is significantly
>*underpriced* for the construction quality and capabilities it offers.
To show people the true quality of the MZ-S, Pentax should hammer their MZ-S
in their ads.
regards,
Alan Chan
_
>Tell me then, how does Nikon manufacture and sell an F100 for around a
>grand? an N90s for $750(discontinued)...certainly cameras which are more
>bang for the buck compared to an MZ-S.
I can tell you that the F90X/F90s wasn't made as well as the MZ-S. It's more
like the built quality of the Z-
>Well said Pal. Something is worth what people are prepared to pay for
>it. If enough people are prepared to pay the price for an MZ-S then it
>is not overpriced. Basic economics. [Rob]
I wonder what the term 'overpriced' means then if everything is worth
exactly its selling price (assuming
The term was pro. 99% of postcard pictures are shot by hobbiests. "My
picture's on a POST CARD!, My picture's on a POST CARD! My mother's so proud
of me!"
and then Canon came out with the EOS system, and was willing to make a
major investment in time, money and effort to take a significant pa
>I like quality and know it when I get it. Seems to me the PZ1p
>competes better than the MZ-S. Stronger AF motor for example.
There are differences between quantity and quality.
regards,
Alan Chan
_
Send and receive Hotmail on y
In a message dated 8/19/2002 8:08:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> All manufacturers makes special arrangements for pros. Pentax MF shooters
> get equally good service as Canon pro shooters.
>
This is probably true. However, I couldn't imagine Pentax creating an
equ
On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, Pål Jensen wrote:
> If there were lot of profit in pro gear don't you think other
> manufacturers would have been more interested?
Pål
I would have assumed that the pro end of a manufacturers line would be
similar to the motorsport divisions of car companies - costs hell of
Hell with two camera stores I frequent that carry Pentax, one that last
time I visited had pretty
much the full line of current products except the MZ-S in stock I still
haven't been able to see one.
Both places told me they have trouble getting orders filled. You can't
sell what you don't hav
:49
Aihe: Re: Next Pentax Flagship Camera?
>>Now, now as we ALL know, because Pal told us so, Nikon and Canon lose
>>snip
>>can't reveal his true sources.
>>
>>BR
>
>Man, as much as it pains me to say anything supportive, this posting was
>hila
Pieter Nagel wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2002-08-21 at 02:24, Bruce Dayton wrote:
>
> > Ergonomically the MZ-S is much more comfortable to hold, especially
> > vertically with the BG-10.
>
> That feature I really love.
>
> My personal wish is for a camera that takes vertical pictures when it is
> right
Maybe yes, maybe no. It doesn't matter. The operative term here was pro: one who earns
all or most of their income from photography.
From: Pieter Nagel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ah, but don't those hobbyists get paid for those postcards?
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsub
Now features are a big deal. Toy batteries. Almost useless BIF. Low max Sync speed.
Another AF sensor, which is great because the AF sensor selector sucks. The F100 is a
performance body, not some cute, boutique toy.
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=E5l_Jensen?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
But this is wrong. It
1 - 100 of 156 matches
Mail list logo
