mike wilson wrote:
> Not necessarily. On the route of this plethora of "upgrades"
> the company finds that it has to relocate its manufacturing
> (which it has already removed most of the human element from)
> to outer Mongolia or some other place where labour is cheap
> and unprotected, in o
Yes, it makes for cheap old stuff that I can afford.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---
Malcolm Smith wrote:
Upgrading is good for you; indirectly.
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Viru
>
> From: "Malcolm Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2005/06/15 Wed PM 12:44:14 GMT
> To:
> Subject: RE: *ist D discontinued ?
>
> Graywolf wrote:
>
> > Now just what does it take to equal the Anti-Digital
> > Intentional Photography C
Graywolf wrote:
> Now just what does it take to equal the Anti-Digital
> Intentional Photography Camera*?
>
> *My Crown Graphic 45, for those who don't know. I added the
> "Intentional Photography" (from another thread) because it
> does one shot at a time .
Kodak Holosuite Plus. So good, you
hotography"
(from another thread) because it does one shot at a time .
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message ----- From: "J. C. O'Conne
- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: RE: *ist D discontinued ?
Its not a ridiculous hypothetical. In the past
it was very common to be able to buy FILM cameras
with better buiid quality that offered no better
features or performance than much lowe
On 14 Jun 2005 at 19:35, Malcolm Smith wrote:
> It doesn't matter if your digital camera is
> quickly superseded or your favourite film camera finally is unrepairable. Look
> at the legacy of what it took, in either digital, negatives or slides, because
> at the end of the day, that's where your m
In a message dated 6/14/2005 11:37:31 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
With a quick nod to the pricing aspect of both new and second hand digital
models, the one thing I am surprised no one has put a value on, are the
images taken. Some of the images I have seen here are worth t
>> As an interesting aside - while looking around I had a look at the Canon
EOS
>> 350D and was sorely tempted (despite being a Pentax fan). However the
dealer
>> (who sells both Canon & Pentax) advised me that the Pentax ist D and (DS)
>> were "much better quality" than the Canon 350D which had
-Original Message-
From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 8:49 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: RE: *ist D discontinued ?
Its not a ridiculous hypothetical. In the past it was very
common to be able to buy FILM cameras with better buiid
On 14/6/05, Malcolm Smith, discombobulated, unleashed:
>With a quick nod to the pricing aspect of both new and second hand digital
>models, the one thing I am surprised no one has put a value on, are the
>images taken. Some of the images I have seen here are worth the price of the
>camera for the
l [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 8:49 PM
>To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
>Subject: RE: *ist D discontinued ?
>
>Its not a ridiculous hypothetical. In the past it was very
>common to be able to buy FILM cameras with better buiid
>quality that offered no bette
cameras but it does not mean that these cameras
wont be offered ( i.e. like a digital leica ?)
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Christian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 2:41 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: *ist D discontinued ?
and I will repost this: "
and I will repost this: "Your argument is based on ridiculous hypotheticals"
Christian
- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 2:36 PM
Subject: RE: *ist D discontinued ?
> Read my first wor
Christian wrote:
> Point taken that DSLRs are "disposable" And no I don't
> expect to be using
> my current DSLR in 30 to 40 years. I expect to be using
> whatever is mostly
> current at that time.
Well, you have to laugh. Do you all remember the excitement not that long
ago about the introdu
lto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 2:23 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: *ist D discontinued ?
- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 1:45 PM
Subject: RE: *ist D discontinued ?
>
- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 1:45 PM
Subject: RE: *ist D discontinued ?
> If Pentax and Canon
> had similar models with similar features and performance
> there is no way I would pay $
-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: RE: *ist D discontinued ?
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> I said this before but will reiterate, at this point I WILL NOT pay
> extra for better build quality in ANY digital camera. They are
> pseudo-disposables IMHO at this point. I would rat
re than 5 years
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Christian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 1:34 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: *ist D discontinued ?
- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
I said this before but will reiterate, at this point I WILL NOT pay
extra for better build quality in ANY digital camera. They are
pseudo-disposables IMHO at this point. I would rather get a much
lower priced lower build quality camera than pay for s
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005, Mark Roberts wrote:
"Robert Whitehouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have now found a UK dealer who has a few left at a reasonable price so I
am about to place an order for my *ist D. Now I've just got to decide which
lens !
Come on, man: 31mm Limited!
Or 35/2.
As a
- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 1:09 PM
Subject: RE: *ist D discontinued ?
> I said this before but will reiterate, at this point I WILL NOT
> pay extra for better build quality in ANY digit
PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: RE: *ist D discontinued ?
Seems like another argument for not paying 30EUR more for a DS than you
would for a DL
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Date: 6/14/2005 10:11:33 A
Seems like another argument for not paying 30EUR more for a DS than you
would for a DL
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Date: 6/14/2005 10:11:33 AM
> Subject: RE: *ist D discontinued ?
>
> I said this before but
ybe,
but I seriously doubt it...)
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Christian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 12:58 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: *ist D discontinued ?
- Original Message -
From: "Robert Whitehouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
- Original Message -
From: "Robert Whitehouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 12:50 PM
Subject: RE: *ist D discontinued ?
> Well,
>
> As an interesting aside - while looking around I had a look at the Canon
EOS
> 350D and was sor
"Robert Whitehouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I have now found a UK dealer who has a few left at a reasonable price so I
>am about to place an order for my *ist D. Now I've just got to decide which
>lens !
Come on, man: 31mm Limited!
>As an interesting aside - while looking around I had a loo
ladt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 13 June 2005 15:29
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: RE: *ist D discontinued ?
It is. So who cares if they still make it.
I hope mine will last until a new metal frame Pentax body hits the shelves.
Hopefully inclduding a very fast processing and writing speed
- Original Message -
From: "John Forbes"
Subject: Re: *ist D discontinued ?
Given what I've heard on this subject recently, you are no doubt correct.
Perhaps I need to take apart the flash units and introduce a bit more
resistance, or do I mean impedance?
You&
Given what I've heard on this subject recently, you are no doubt correct.
Perhaps I need to take apart the flash units and introduce a bit more
resistance, or do I mean impedance?
John
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 13:43:23 +0100, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
"John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROT
"John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 00:50:17 +0100, Gonz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I dont have that much control on my flashes, they are not real high end.
>>
>That's my probem, too. I could of course spend a grand or two on super
>new equipment, but if the camer
res and more creative opportunities.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: John Forbes
As William said, why put a filter on a lens if you don't have to?
- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Stenquist"
Subject: Re: *ist D discontinued ?
Why would you want ISO 50 sensitivity? At 200, noise
- Original Message -
From: "Gonz"
Subject: Re: *ist D discontinued ?
I dont have that much control on my flashes, they are not real high end.
Move em back if you can. Double the distance = 1/4 the light.
Get yerself some black window screen and make a set of gobos
've said about
film,
lower speeds means wider apertures and more creative opportunities.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: John Forbes
As William said, why put a filter on a lens if you don't have to?
- Original Message - From: "Paul Stenquist"
Subject: Re: *ist D dis
- Original Message -
From: "Paul Stenquist"
Subject: Re: *ist D discontinued ?
Can't you adjust your studio flashes? I can dial mine down to 1/16th power
if need be. And if that's not enough to get the aperture I want, I add the
ND filter. It's certainly no
ginal Message]
From: John Forbes
As William said, why put a filter on a lens if you don't have to?
- Original Message - From: "Paul Stenquist"
Subject: Re: *ist D discontinued ?
Why would you want ISO 50 sensitivity? At 200, noise is virtually
unnoticable, and ND filters can
ies.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: John Forbes
As William said, why put a filter on a lens if you don't have to?
- Original Message - From: "Paul Stenquist"
Subject: Re: *ist D discontinued ?
Why would you want ISO 50 sensitivity? At 200, noise is virtua
heard that the D70 has a similar option.
Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Frits Wüthrich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 12. juni 2005 13:39
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: Re: *ist D discontinued ?
I asked Pentax
e to?
----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Stenquist"
Subject: Re: *ist D discontinued ?
Why would you want ISO 50 sensitivity? At 200, noise is virtually
unnoticable, and ND filters can be used when slower shutter speeds
are
required.
I can understand it. I like limite
William said, why put a filter on a lens if you don't have to?
- Original Message - From: "Paul Stenquist"
Subject: Re: *ist D discontinued ?
Why would you want ISO 50 sensitivity? At 200, noise is virtually
unnoticable, and ND filters can be used when slower shutter spee
The *ist D is still for sale on the Japan site. Here's the production
strategy for many companies:
1.Tool up for new production, product 1.
2.Start limited production. No sales yet.
3.Check quality, production flow etc.
4.Tweak production.
5.Start production & sales:
a.
All sensors have one "native" iso speed. You can "push" it to higher
EI but you get more noise and less dynamic range. Withing a range of
EI though the difference is small. You can't "pull" it though, because
the highlights will get blown out. (At least without
some magickry like combining many sup
we accept lower quality for ISO 1600 and 3200. the Canon 1Ds Mk2 is
noticeably worse at ISO 50 than 100.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Shel Belinkoff"
Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2005 11:45 AM
Subject: Re: *ist D
How about a ND over the sensor?
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---
Bruce Dayton wrote:
The real trick here is that there is a single native speed of the CCD.
If you lower it or raise it, you introduce noise/quality proble
I don't think I knew that. I suppose the amount of lower quality would be
a determining factor. istD users are always saying how good the quality is
at higher ISO ratings, so how bad could things get if the rating was lower?
Don't other cameras besides Minolta offer lower ISO speeds? Maybe a trip
e]
>> From: John Forbes
>> As William said, why put a filter on a lens if you don't have to?
>> > ----- Original Message - From: "Paul Stenquist"
>> > Subject: Re: *ist D discontinued ?
>> >
>> >
>> >> Why would yo
about film,
lower speeds means wider apertures and more creative opportunities.
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: John Forbes
> As William said, why put a filter on a lens if you don't have to?
> > - Original Message - From: "Paul Stenquist&qu
2 Jun 2005 01:44:57 +0100, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
- Original Message - From: "Paul Stenquist"
Subject: Re: *ist D discontinued ?
Why would you want ISO 50 sensitivity? At 200, noise is virtually
unnoticable, and ND filters can be used when slow
I asked Pentax Netherlands about this in Sept 2004, and it was confirmed 'in
between the lines' so to say. You could still buy a new *ist D. Apparently that
is still the case.
On Saturday 11 June 2005 19:10, Robert Whitehouse wrote:
FJW> This is my *ist post (sorry !) to this group so apologies
- Original Message -
From: "Bob Sullivan"
Subject: Re: *ist D discontinued ?
Did you ever find a way to make 'slide duplicates' with the digital?
I've got a bunch of slides that this would make quickly available.
Not a good one.
The best I have come up
True enough. But ISO 50 is still low on my list of wants and needs.
Paul
On Jun 11, 2005, at 8:44 PM, William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: "Paul Stenquist"
Subject: Re: *ist D discontinued ?
Why would you want ISO 50 sensitivity? At 200, noise is virtually
unnoti
- Original Message -
From: "Paul Stenquist"
Subject: Re: *ist D discontinued ?
Why would you want ISO 50 sensitivity? At 200, noise is virtually
unnoticable, and ND filters can be used when slower shutter speeds are
required.
I can understand it. I like limited DOF, b
PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Bob Sullivan"
> Subject: Re: *ist D discontinued ?
>
>
> > It
> > is very nice to have your lenses about you rather than a point &
> > shoot.
>
> It's also nice to push the button and
Why would you want ISO 50 sensitivity? At 200, noise is virtually
unnoticable, and ND filters can be used when slower shutter speeds are
required.
Paul
On Jun 11, 2005, at 6:58 PM, John Forbes wrote:
Good question.
For the average PDMLer the D is the best camera of the three. The
only worth
- Original Message -
From: "Graywolf"
Subject: Re: *ist D discontinued ?
All this seems so slow, one forgets it has been less than 2 years since
preproduction *istD were first seen.
Two years is a heck of a long time in the camera game. Pentax has never been
quick to
- Original Message -
From: "Bob Sullivan"
Subject: Re: *ist D discontinued ?
It
is very nice to have your lenses about you rather than a point &
shoot.
It's also nice to push the button and have the camera take a picture.
The shutter lag on digital P&S
Rumors I hear are that the 645D is going to be basically an *istD with a larger
sensor and the 645 lens mount. Be interesting to see is that is true. Also
there is definately supposed to be an upgrade to the *istD in the works
although it seems to have been delayed a bit. All this seems so slow
On Sat, Jun 11, 2005 at 11:58:17PM +0100, John Forbes wrote:
>
> We can hope that the needs of the more serious photographer will be
> addressed by the next body. Personally, I'm hoping for a bigger buffer
> and better write speed, plus 50 ISO.
I think a bigger buffer, better write speed, an
They haven't cut the *ist-D, they're just not producing new ones, ran a
production run and are now selling out stock. The *ist-D is still
considered current and is still available at well stocked stores, as
well as being advertised on all the English Language Pentax sites. (I
didn't bother ch
My understanding was that the D & DS had the same sensor and produced
equal quality results. Given the US$623 I paid to have a new DS
delivered to my door, I can't justify a D at US$1100+. I'd just as
soon wait on the next top model from Pentax.
By the way, I find it very handy to have the SLR f
I don't think the *ist DSLRs will share production lines with the D645.
Insufficient differentiation within the *ist range is the reason to cut
one model. Let's hope it's not too long before they bring out the D Mk2.
John
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 23:49:42 +0100, P. J. Alling
<[EMAIL PROTECTED
Good question.
For the average PDMLer the D is the best camera of the three. The only
worthwhile improvement offered by the DS is it's larger buffer/higher
speed, but against those is the lack of functionality and the irritation
of idiot features like "sports mode".
Perhaps Pentax are no
They don't expect to sell as many as the *ist-Ds or Dl. and needed the
production line capacity for the
those cameras while ramping up for the new 645D..
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Hmmm ... what would be the reason for Pentax discontinuing or curtailing
production of the istD? I think this may ha
My guess is that they did a certain amount of production run and that
is it. With electronics, obsolesence is a big issue. There is a
successor to the *istD going to come out at some point so they would
stop production and sell all the inventory while it has value.
--
Best regards,
Bruce
Satu
Because it doesn't make sense to have three almost identical models
for sale, and the DS/DL are probably much cheaper to produce.
The *ist-D probably can't be sold now at a price that makes a profit.
On Sat, Jun 11, 2005 at 03:14:33PM -0700, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> Hmmm ... what would be the
Hmmm ... what would be the reason for Pentax discontinuing or curtailing
production of the istD? I think this may have been discussed before, but I
wasn't paying attention, not being too interested in the camera at the time.
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: Paul Stenquist
> I think Pentax m
I think Pentax may have stopped producing the *istD. It's available new
from B&H in New York.
Paul
On Jun 11, 2005, at 1:10 PM, Robert Whitehouse wrote:
This is my *ist post (sorry !) to this group so apologies if this is
an old
thread.
Having spent the last few weeks deliberating over purcha
Not according to Pentax UK.
http://www.pentax.co.uk/products.php?divisionid=2&parentid=15
B&H Photo has them in stock.
*http://tinyurl.com/b99bs
I just finished reading an article in a British photo-magazine about the
perils of buying from American
sources to save money, (written by the presi
They're still being advertised here:
http://www.parkcameras.com/
I bought a second body from them a couple of months ago.
John
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 18:10:55 +0100, Robert Whitehouse
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is my *ist post (sorry !) to this group so apologies if this is an
old
thr
> (same price now in UK) I decide to buy *ist D. Rang camera shop to
> order and was told;
>
> "Sorry *ist D is now discontinued by Pentax and we will not be
> getting any more."
You can get factory refurbished ones, guaranteed for one year IIRC from
srsmicrosystems here in the UK £450 IIRC.
informally, known since February. only whatever is in the pipeline since
about then.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: "Robert Whitehouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 1:10 PM
Subject: *ist D discontinued ?
Having spent the last few weeks deliberating ove
Not if they were in their right mind.
Paul Stenquist wrote:
Hadn't seen it until you posted it here. But it seems to be another
example of Pentax pre-photokina paranoia. I can't imagine that any
company in their right mind would say that they are going to
discontinue a camera before existing
Kevin Waterson mused:
>
> This one time, at band camp, "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I agree. This camera is only one year old. I'm sure it will have buyers for
> > at least one or two more years.
> > Or at least until a replacement (pro specs & built quality) is introduced.
> > P
Well, one thing I am sure of, John. You are correct about it not being an
offical Pentax annoucement.
--
John Francis wrote:
Nicolas Colarusso posed:
Anyone seen this
http://www.pentaxuser.co.uk/forum/ftopic923.html&sid=7410148a29f812d9833bf21b689092c5
(brief summary: a thread in which someon
Hum...? Maybe they have been reading my posts (grin).
It may be a fact that Pentax are taking no more orders for it (trying to clear
out the pipeline). The new camera is too much like the current one for them to
do anything else in my opinion (as I stated last week here on the list). The
only do
I think this is wrong: the Australian Pentax distributor has just ordered
several hundred *ist-D's, and in a market the size of Australia this would
suggest either a very high level of market penetration, or an anticipated
long time in the market for the model.
John Coyle
Brisbane, Australia
Nico
This one time, at band camp, "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree. This camera is only one year old. I'm sure it will have buyers for
> at least one or two more years.
> Or at least until a replacement (pro specs & built quality) is introduced.
> Preferably one with faster AF and FPS
.dk/bladt
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: John Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 6. september 2004 21:44
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: Re: IST-D discontinued?
Nicolas Colarusso posed:
>
> Anyone seen this
>
http://www.pentaxuser.co.uk/forum/ftopic923.html&sid=7410148a29f
Nicolas Colarusso posed:
>
> Anyone seen this
> http://www.pentaxuser.co.uk/forum/ftopic923.html&sid=7410148a29f812d9833bf21b689092c5
(brief summary: a thread in which someone states Pentax.NL told him
the *ist-D is to be discontinued, and replaced by the *ist-Ds)
I wouldn't put too much fait
Hadn't seen it until you posted it here. But it seems to be another
example of Pentax pre-photokina paranoia. I can't imagine that any
company in their right mind would say that they are going to
discontinue a camera before existing stock is sold out.
On Sep 6, 2004, at 3:32 PM, Nicolas Colar
80 matches
Mail list logo
