>> Pieter, you got a coffee table?? Does it have nice strong legs??
>
>I used to have one, until it broke.
Hmmm, broke, eh? 8-)
Ever fancied making camera accessories??
Nod nod wink wink, know what I mean?
Cot
Cor, swipe me. He paints with light!
http://w
Has anyone said ARRGGG to this yet.
At 01:32 AM 8/22/2002 +0200, you wrote:
>On Thu, 2002-08-22 at 00:06, Cotty wrote:
> > Pieter, you got a coffee table?? Does it have nice strong legs??
>
>I used to have one, until it broke.
>
>I've been contacted by certain other camera manufactur
>On the other hand, one learns a lot by keeping the stinkers, looking at
them in the calmness of your coffee table, and asking yourself "what did
I do wrong here?"
<
why do you have to do it on the coffee table? the LCD is good enough for a
lot of evaluation including composition and basic expos
On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, William Robb wrote:
> > Maybe that way one eventually tends to take less stinkers,
> which gives
> > on the extra time to take two keepers in the time someone else
> would
> > have deleted and re-taken one stinker?
>
> Everyone here are expert photographers who don't need to
On 21 Aug 2002 at 19:38, Pieter Nagel wrote:
> On the other hand, one learns a lot by keeping the stinkers, looking at
> them in the calmness of your coffee table, and asking yourself "what did
> I do wrong here?"
>
> Maybe that way one eventually tends to take less stinkers, which gives
> on th
On 20 Aug 2002 at 14:24, Ryan K. Brooks wrote:
> I don't think you can fairly say that there will be a D120, D200, and so on. For
> one, if the chip doesn't get much bigger than now then that's getting to be a
> pretty small well size- which means more noise. This contradicts the wonderful
> low
On 21 Aug 2002 at 16:53, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> WHEN CONSIDERING A CURRENT DSLR
> DONT FORGET ABOUT :
>
> 1. EXPENSIVE 1GB OR GREATER HARD DRIVE (OR TWO)
>--FRAGILE TOO
The drives are coming down in price as are the memory cards, FWIW there is now
a Compact Flash card at 1GB
> 2. MUL
<< Actually, they will just dial down the contrast and rebadge
Velvia to Vulvia.
Sorry Wendy.
Gawd, I am so glad Ann is on vacation.
HAR!!
WW >>
Bill, you naughty boy! ;)
BTW - I'm glad this thread isn't about DSLR's. What was I thinking :)
Lukasz
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail
- Original Message -
From: Pieter Nagel
Subject: RE: DSLR Pricing (was: RE: Today's rant: Alright,
already
> Coinciding with the release of this camera, Fuji will announce
the
> extension of the venerable Velvia, Superia and Provia lines
with the new
> Fuji Pornia slide f
On Thu, 2002-08-22 at 00:06, Cotty wrote:
> Pieter, you got a coffee table?? Does it have nice strong legs??
I used to have one, until it broke.
I've been contacted by certain other camera manufacturers and we decided
to make 35mm cameras more attractive to rich young men by introducing
the icon
>On the other hand, one learns a lot by keeping the stinkers, looking at
>them in the calmness of your coffee table, and asking yourself "what did
>I do wrong here?"
Pieter, you got a coffee table?? Does it have nice strong legs??
:-)
Cotty
Cor, swipe me. H
[snip about the high price of DSLRs]
>And you say you want to buy one?
>
>Surely you have just talked yourself out of it?
Hey - that's a suggestion to a sane man. I claim no such state!
:-)
Cotty
Cor, swipe me. He paints with light!
http://www.macads.co.uk
A passive cap, resistor, etc. is not what I was writing about.
- Original Message -
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 1:45 PM
Subject: Re: DSLR Pricing (was: RE: Today's rant: Alright, already
- Original Message -
From: Pieter Nagel
Subject: RE: DSLR Pricing (was: RE: Today's rant: Alright,
already
>
> On the other hand, one learns a lot by keeping the stinkers,
looking at
> them in the calmness of your coffee table, and asking yourself
"what di
- Original Message -
From: Ryan K. Brooks
Subject: Re: DSLR Pricing (was: RE: Today's rant: Alright,
already
>
> Electronics nightmare? Solid state electronics don't wear
out. period.
Well, no. They do wear out eventually. Sometimes in as little as
a couple of decad
You'd have to be pretty old to remember it.
Len
---
-Original Message-
From: Rob Brigham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 9:49 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Today's rant: Alright, already.
Egg? No, but you can buy me a virtual beer if yo
2002 10:31 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Today's rant: Alright, already.
They haven't been around that long.
At 06:44 AM 8/21/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>The fact that that phrase was in the quoted message does not mean that I
was
>commenting on that exact issue. I stated what my
> In a year's time when the D120 is out, I reckon a D30 can be picked up
> for less than 500 GBP. That's my prediction. A year later, maybe 200. A
I don't think you can fairly say that there will be a D120, D200, and so on.
For one, if the chip doesn't get much bigger than now then that's getting
geable lens DSLRs are a lot
>higher than used computers.
>
>Len
>---
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Rob Brigham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 4:09 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: Today's rant: Alright, already.
>
gt; Sent: 21 August 2002 15:32
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: Today's rant: Alright, already.
>
>
> So? What do you want? An egg in your beer?
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Rob Brigham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, Augu
So? What do you want? An egg in your beer?
-Original Message-
From: Rob Brigham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 6:59 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Today's rant: Alright, already.
Look, the text I quoted was not "in the quoted message&qu
PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 21 August 2002 12:44
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: Today's rant: Alright, already.
>
>
> The fact that that phrase was in the quoted message does not
> mean that I was commenting on that exact issue. I stated what
> my commen
PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 4:09 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Today's rant: Alright, already.
But your reply started "I don't think digital SLRs will follow the
depreciation of computers". Maybe you read English, but you obviously
don't unde
am forced to give up...
> -Original Message-
> From: Len Paris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 21 August 2002 00:36
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Today's rant: Alright, already.
>
>
> You can argue what you want to argue. I know what the e-mail
>
> From: Chris Brogden
> Subject: RE: DSLR Pricing (was: RE: Today's rant: Alright, already
> Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 17:06:47 -0700
>
>
> To be fair, I think you're missing the point. If you develop and
> print 200 rolls of film, you're paying to
DSLR's are not computers. Now that they've reached 6mp sensors, improvements
will be incremental (to double the resolution you need 4 times the pixel
count). 6mp also starts getting you close to the point of deminishing
return. Most folks using 6mp DSLRs think that they're good enough to stop
usin
I agree, however your investment will depreciate rapidly as newer more
capable and or feature enhanced models
are released, unlike well thought out well built traditional cameras which
can actually appreciate in value.
Which was the argument that began this thread, I think.
At 06:38 PM 8/20/200
: "Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 5:57 PM
Subject: RE: Today's rant: Alright, already.
> But the mail you were relying to said "I wonder if these
expensive
> digital cameras will retain their value like
lto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 20 August 2002 20:45
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: DSLR Pricing (was: RE: Today's rant: Alright, already
>
>
> For the amateur, it weighs in at how much film you would have
> bought and paid processing for over 5 years
gust 2002 19:29
> To: Pentax List
> Subject: DSLR Pricing (was: RE: Today's rant: Alright, already
>
>
> >I guess I didn't make myself clear. I don't see the price of
> new DSLR
> >bodies following new computer prices. That is to say, the
> new on
ginal Message-
> From: Paris, Leonard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 20 August 2002 18:19
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: Today's rant: Alright, already.
>
>
> I guess I didn't make myself clear. I don't see the price of
> new DSLR bo
I think DSLR's will be like laptop computers.
For years, the minimum price point for a Laptop was US$2000.
You didn't find one any cheaper because the Manufacturers determined that there was a
market for them at $2-$5,000 and saw no need to lower price.
Now that everybody who wants a laptop (
>I guess I didn't make myself clear. I don't see the price of new DSLR bodies
>following new computer prices. That is to say, the new ones are not going to
>be drastically lower priced as each generation is born. Features and
>performance will increase over time but that's not going to make them
Len Paris wrote:
> So, to make the point. There are tens of millions of people buying point
> and shoot cameras. That's where the prices will continue to come down.
> There are a lot less people buying SLRs, especially digital SLRs,
> so prices
> there are not going to decrease a lot. Economie
Rob,
Right on!
The depreciation has nothing to do with mass production. It has to do
with the fact that 10 years old PC is nothing but a pile of junk in a
beige case.
Christ, one can pick up DEC stations for less then $100, even though
they have never been *mass* produced and were state of the
old SLRs.
Len
---
-Original Message-
From: Rob Brigham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 10:46 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Today's rant: Alright, already.
You seem to miss the fact that DSLR technology is advancing in leaps and
bounds. While prices may not de
computers - it does not necessarily have anything to do with
volume sales.
> -Original Message-
> From: Paris, Leonard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 20 August 2002 16:35
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: Today's rant: Alright, already.
>
>
ten percent (and probably less than that) being digital
SLRs with interchangeable lenses.
Len
---
-Original Message-
From: Peter Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 5:34 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Today's rant: Alright, already.
At 06:23 AM 8
At 06:23 AM 8/19/2002 +0100, you wrote:
>Brendan MacRae wrote:
>
>
> > This issue is not strictly "generational" IMHO. If it were, the
> > only digital
> > cameras one would see would be cheap point and shoots that are marketed
> > specifically to the younger crowds. We wouldn't have 6+ megapixel
Brendan MacRae wrote:
> This issue is not strictly "generational" IMHO. If it were, the
> only digital
> cameras one would see would be cheap point and shoots that are marketed
> specifically to the younger crowds. We wouldn't have 6+ megapixel
> SLR's on
> the market because no 19 year old coul
In a message dated 8/18/2002 9:42:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> bought an ME-Super for my son, but of course, whilst he likes it, he wants
> the instant access of digital photography, that comes with his generation.
> He can take a picture to school the following day
41 matches
Mail list logo
