--- John Dallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Higher resolution is fine, but I'm baffled by the
need for a faster
buffer. I spot the potential picture, get ready, and
take it. If it's a
moving or changing subject I wait for the right
moment, near as I can
guess, and press the button.
I
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:40:07 -0400 (EDT), wendy beard wrote:
Now and again it's good to let loose and do a bit of
machine gunning. :-)
As others have mentioned, even if you're not machine gunning, a faster
camera is ready for the next shot that much faster, too. Not that I
don't enjoy machine
LM But something else strikes me as rather interesting: is the difference in
LM RAW file size between *istD and D70 really that big? Why would that be so,
LM considering both cameras store basically the same amount of image
LM information? Or don't they?
If I remember correctly:
First, Ist D
shot, thanks for showing it
Markus
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 4:28 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon
competitors?)
Thirty years ago I used to shoot
like
cold, moist, dust, sand and others compared
to an analog body?
just wondering
greetings
Markus
-Original Message-
From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 8:36 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon
First, Ist D stores it as 16-bit uncompressed file, even though there
are only 12 bits from the sensor.
Correct... 4 out of 16 bits are taking up space storing NO
information (zeros) on the -D. That's one pixels' worth in 2 bytes. On
the -DS they pack the bits so that they get two pixels in
...Pentax fans, of course :-)
Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: P. J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 5. juni 2005 15:15
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
I'm
-Original Message-
From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2005 1:36 AM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon
or Canon competitors?)
in terms of megabytes/s, my 2-3 times stands. the difference
is made up
megabyte per megapixel with their lossless compression.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: Leon Mlakar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2005 7:45 PM
Subject: RE: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon
competitors?)
But something
*ist DL over Nikon or Canon
competitors?)
Hello John,
Here is a very simple example. You are shooting a wedding - the party
is coming up the aisle two by two - there are 8-10 groups coming
through in short order. You are shooting raw. You shoot one, wait
about 2-3 seconds, shoot the next, etc
conditions like
cold, moist, dust, sand and others compared
to an analog body?
just wondering
greetings
Markus
-Original Message-
From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 8:36 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon
4:28 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon
competitors?)
Thirty years ago I used to shoot drag racing with a Speed Graphic
4x5. Most of the time I would shoot off a tripod, swapping or
flipping film holders between shots. I would
: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon
competitors?)
Hello John,
Here is a very simple example. You are shooting a wedding - the party
is coming up the aisle two by two - there are 8-10 groups coming
through in short order. You are shooting raw. You shoot one, wait
about 2-3
Maurer
Subject: Re: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon
competitors?)
I thought that I had mentioned the issue there. I do, in fact, have
two bodies and sometimes it works to do just as you suggested. The
times it doesn't work are when I am using my flash system on a big
LOL
Try going through any door with a spear through your head. That's a neat trick.
Dave S
On 6/4/05, Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
most things are possible
Try going through a revolving door with a spear through
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
They also sponsor a number of PBS shows, such as nature, where the audience
demographics are terrific.
I think the key is placement: lube the news-channels to show reporters
using Canons; partially fund movies to get the star or the guy behind
the star
From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2005/06/03 Fri AM 03:28:14 GMT
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
Shel wrote:
Having used a couple of Canons I really don't see what all the fuss is
about. For example, Image
fra: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 2/6/05, Alan Chan, discombobulated, unleashed:
Are Pentax people blind?
Only in one eye, apparently.
Hey, if you're referring to me you got it wrong. Both eyes work perfectly, but
not together. .-)
DagT
Are Pentax people blind?
Only in one eye, apparently.
Hey, if you're referring to me you got it wrong. Both eyes work
perfectly, but not together. .-)
I'm saying no more!
:-
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
From: Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2005/06/03 Fri AM 08:48:42 GMT
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
They also sponsor a number of PBS shows, such as nature, where
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2005/06/03 Fri AM 09:27:39 GMT
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
fra: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 2/6/05, Alan Chan, discombobulated, unleashed:
Are Pentax people blind?
Only
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, mike wilson wrote:
But Pentax users are unlikely to be targeted by this sort of thing.
I'm not sure if it is just (just!) spam or an apptempt to insert a
Trojan. (DON'T click the links!!)
x-gfi-me-from: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bcc:
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
How many Ns
fra: mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
fra: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 2/6/05, Alan Chan, discombobulated, unleashed:
Are Pentax people blind?
Only in one eye, apparently.
Hey, if you're referring to me you got it wrong. Both eyes work
: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon
competitors?)
and how did people managed that with 36 exposures per fim?
mishka
On 6/2/05, Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the proper moment might be 10-20 times a minute for a few minutes
- Original Message -
From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 7:46 AM
Subject: RE: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon
competitors?)
hell, I still use large formant and you only get
one exposure ( well two
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, mike wilson wrote:
But Pentax users are unlikely to be targeted by this sort of thing.
I'm not sure if it is just (just!) spam or an apptempt to insert a
Trojan. (DON'T click the links!!)
x-gfi-me-from: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bcc:
?User_number=stenquistimagecount=14
- Original Message -
From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 7:46 AM
Subject: RE: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon
competitors?)
hell, I still use large formant
I think you are right Shel.
luben
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
This little dialogue brings up an interesting, to me, point. First, I
would have no qualms about giving up features (like a built-in toaster oven
and wide screen TV) that are found in many pro cameras for a simplified
feature set and a
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, mike wilson wrote:
But Pentax users are unlikely to be targeted by this sort of thing.
I'm not sure if it is just (just!) spam or an apptempt to insert a
Trojan. (DON'T click the links!!)
x-gfi-me-from: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bcc:
Alan wrote:
I shoot and test my FA43 many times and came to the
same conclusion. At least I know Rob has the same opinion on FA43. We both, of
course, bought the lemons. :-)
Obviously. The lens was tested by Amateur Photographer magazine and promptly
became their reference lens
- Original Message -
From: Leon Mlakar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 5:31 PM
Subject: RE: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon
competitors?)
That's a long time, indeed. Something you do not think about
with film
camera
they didn't take as many pictures and didn't get as many good shots.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: Mishka [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 11:15 PM
Subject: Re: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon
competitors
which works when you have two similar lenses. some people can afford a pair
of A* 400/2.8s. i can't.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 12:42 AM
Subject: Re: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL
most things are possible if you don't have to make a living at it, or even
just break even.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 9:56 AM
Subject: Re: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon
- Original Message -
From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
most things are possible
Try going through a revolving door with a spear through your head :-)
Christian
with a 127mm Wollensak
lens.
http://www.portfolios.com/zoom.html?User_number=stenquistimagecount=14
- Original Message -
From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 7:46 AM
Subject: RE: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- Original Message -
From: Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 10:10 PM
Subject: Re: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon
competitors?)
- Original Message -
From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
most
Christian wrote on 02.06.05 5:15:
I wonder if Pentax could make a K to 4/3 adapter. :-)
There's already one among others :-)
http://www.cameraquest.com/adapt_olyE1.htm
--
Balance is the ultimate good...
Best Regards
Sylwek
Don Sanderson wrote on 02.06.05 1:56:
Just found a Nikon compatibility chart:
http://www.nikonlinks.com/unklbil/bodylens.htm
It's a bit complicated for sure.
Glad I bought an FM though. ;-)
But not too complicated :-) One thing is certain - you can mount AI and AIS
lenses (majority of used
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 10:53:15PM -0400, Christian wrote:
Once again, Pentax has not even thrown us a bone. Hey check it out guys!
a new DSLR! (oh yeah, not the one our loyal, salivating customers
have been
begging for, it's another downgrade. even LOWER spec-ed than the previous
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Christian wrote:
But I'm wondering what it offers that the others do not.
It is newer and will compete in price. Until the next offering from
the competition. This is the point of this model. A new buyer now has
again three choices, and like DagT, I can now tell whoever asks
I knew I was provoking you, and I got what I expected .-)
I make a living by selling my time and my knowledge in a certain field.
Sometimes I have the chance to sell something the client doesn't need. Why
shouldn't I do that? Because in the long run he will be dissatified, so they
don't
--- Don Sanderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
28/3.5, 35/3.5, 135/3.5, 200/4, 50/1.7, just to name a few.
All inexpensive, all very good to excellent.
For all 5 of the above I paid less than $150.00, I'm very
pleased with all of them.
I suppose how one is looking at the Pentax situation. There
Then move on. I've decided to wait for now. I passed up a very good
deal on a little used 1D Mark II last week. But I gave it some thought.
I think waiting makes sense at the moment.
Paul
On Jun 2, 2005, at 12:34 AM, Rob Studdert wrote:
Nor do I wish to have to wait
until the MF Digital is
And I'm wondering how Pentax expect to out-compete...
I thought they stop doing that after the failure of LX? Perhaps the LX was the
biggest mistake ever to Pentax because Pentax fans have had such unrealistic
expectation since. Pentax 135 has never meant to be truely professional like
C/N,
the
--- Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My original hypothetical was for a new consumer who didn't have any previous
lenses. BU, sorry! Previous brand ownership is a no-brainer in making
the decision. I bought the D (a great camera, thankfully) because I already
had bags-o-gear. Your
--- Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe will see a new OP camera Olympus-Pentax. :)
[-ve + -ve = +ve] I suppose? :-)
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
--- Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder if Pentax could make a K to 4/3 adapter. :-)
There is an adaptor to mount K lenses on E system.
http://www.kindai-inc.co.jp/mount_fosa.htm
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
__
Do You
--- Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My new experience with Canon in the realm of backwards compatability is
almost non-existent. I still own some nice SMC Taks that work on the 20D
just as well as on the D or Ds.
It is interesting to see EOS bodies can mount many other lenses such as
--- Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can see what they are attempting to do, I don't know if it will work for
them
but I can tell you it's not the camera I want. Nor do I wish to have to wait
until the MF Digital is brought to market and fails miserably before being
told
that
On 2/6/05, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed:
I've decided to wait for now. I passed up a very good
deal on a little used 1D Mark II last week. But I gave it some thought.
I think waiting makes sense at the moment.
This is called getting older - admit it, 20 years ago you would have
pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 1:25 PM
Subject: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
On 2/6/05, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed:
I've decided to wait for now. I passed up a very good
deal on a little used 1D Mark II last week. But I gave
Christian wrote:
But I'm wondering what it offers that
the others do not.
What it offers is that it isn't a Canon. This about as sensible aswer to the
question as you can get. There are as many reasons as there are people.
Pål
Bruce wrote:
The sad thing about this is, that Pentax has to be WAY better than
Canon or Nikon to be able to get any attention. There is no way for
any other manufacturer to be WAY better than Canon. They can be a
little bit better all the way around, but it won't matter much.
My original
Alan wrote:
I thought they stop doing that after the failure of LX? Perhaps the LX was the
biggest mistake ever to Pentax because Pentax fans have had such unrealistic
expectation since.
The LX a failure? Certainly not saleswise. Considering that the camera was
among the most expensive
John wrote:
Anyone who finds this news in any way astonishing just hasn't been
paying attention. Pentax stated their future path, loud and clear,
in the interview given at about the time the *ist-DS was released.
First the DL, then the MF digital, and then the *ist-D follow-on.
But the
The upgrade path is an interesting question. If you buy an entry DSLR
($700) and a few comparable lenses, you will probably be investing less
than $1500. To access those high end Canon lenses and bodies you'll
have to spend this much on a new body (20D) and probably a $1000 a lens.
For most
fra: Steve Desjardins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
.
.
They should switch to Canon and not look back.
(Stay on the PDML however; it just makes it more fung).
I don't know. We've got enough people who have switched to Canon and are
regretting it because they find that it didn't really make a
Christian wrote:
- Original Message -
From: DagT [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So, who cares about the answers to your question?
If Pentax want to be a niche player, great! But their niche should be
advanced amateurs such as myself who are willing to pay for a steady stream
of
The economy is on an upswing now too, at least outside the US.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: Mishka
Subject: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors
Perhaps. Although twenty years ago I couldn't afford it. By the time we earn
enough to live somewhat decadently, we no longer have the energy or
inclination. That's nature's way of making us older folk behave :-).
Paul
On 2/6/05, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed:
I've decided to
I've heard that said. However, except for the LX which I understand continued
to be available in Japan Pentax has not offered a high end camera since about
1990. The MZ/S was a step in the right direction, but too little too late.
Except for the unfortunate name the *istD was also a step in
- Original Message -
From: Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 7:46 AM
Subject: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
Theres a lot of Pentax mystique going around at present and considering
that other mythical brands
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 8:22 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
fra: Steve Desjardins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
.
.
They should switch to Canon and not look back
There are a great many people using their Leica R lenses on the Canon
bodies. Over on the Leica list it seems that most everyone has at least
one Canon body for their R lenses, and some have even sold off their Leica
gear. These were the same folks who, a couple of years ago, were waving
the
- Original Message -
From: Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My original dissapointment over the *istD was that it wasn't funky enough
and didn't offer the design flair in order to get attention. I think Pentax
need to design DSLR that looks less me too.
I don't buy cameras as fashion
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
fra: Steve Desjardins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
.
.
They should switch to Canon and not look back.
(Stay on the PDML however; it just makes it more fung).
I don't know. We've got enough people who have switched to Canon and are
regretting it because they
---
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: Mishka
Subject: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
i am just curious: all this time i have been hearing about
inexpensive excellent pentax lenses. what are they
(i mean, both, inexpensive AND excellent
På 2. jun. 2005 kl. 16.33 skrev Christian:
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
fra: Steve Desjardins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
.
.
They should switch to Canon and not look back.
(Stay on the PDML however; it just makes it more fung).
I don't know. We've got enough people
On 2 Jun 2005 at 8:10, Steve Desjardins wrote:
I'm OK with the high end
Pentax being the 20D equivalent, which will always lag behind Canon's
release by a few years.
I appreciate that the Pentax offerings will likely lag behind Canons line-up
however it's pretty sad when the two bottom end
On 2/6/05, Dario Bonazza, discombobulated, unleashed:
If me, 20 years ago I could not even give it a thought, for 2 excellent
reasons:
1) It did not exist (this is also a good reason for Paul ;-)
2) I couldn't afford such a cost (even a good deal on such a beast)
Dario
The point I was making
On 2 Jun 2005 at 8:02, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
It's sad to see the Canon juggernaut rolling
over the photographic landscape as it is, but clearly Canon has the product
that
many people want when it comes to digital.
The thing is that they got there by listening to their customers, so well
Maybe in Australia the bottom line camera in the Canon line is the TX
but the Rebel D is still being sold in the US.
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 2 Jun 2005 at 8:10, Steve Desjardins wrote:
I'm OK with the high end
Pentax being the 20D equivalent, which will always lag behind Canon's
release
On 2/6/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:
I don't know. We've got enough people who have switched to Canon and
are regretting it because they find that it didn't really make a
difference to their photographs, but in stead of admitting it they stay
around criticising Pentax for
On 2/6/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:
Perhaps. Although twenty years ago I couldn't afford it. By the time we
earn enough to live somewhat decadently, we no longer have the energy or
inclination. That's nature's way of making us older folk behave :-).
Ain't *that* the truth!
On 2/6/05, P. J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed:
And then we have Dr. Friedrich Cotty Frankenstein...
Thanks for the vote of confidence Peter...I think.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
On 2/6/05, DagT, discombobulated, unleashed:
First: see the smiley .-)
Your smiley lost an eye. or are you half-blind?
note! :-)
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Rob Studdert wrote:
The thing is that they got there by listening to their customers, so well they
deserve it IMO.
You mean their customers asked to change the mount?
Kostas
Of course, Canon said we're going to change the lens mount, you want
that don't you...
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Rob Studdert wrote:
The thing is that they got there by listening to their customers, so well they
deserve it IMO.
You mean their customers asked
Christian wrote:
But that's my point. They are not playing their cards right. I liked
Pentax the odd-ball, mystical company. The LX, the SMC lenses of mythical
stature, the wacky focal length Limiteds, etc.
To keep the oddball customers coming back, they had better come out with
On 2 Jun 2005 at 10:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Either your needs have changed or Pentax has changed over the last few years,
or
you have simply misunderstood Pentax' philosophy (if they have any) from the
beginning. I can't see much change in Pentax over the years I've used them,
so
The problem is there is a Canon competitor to the upcoming 645D, the
EOS-1DS. Look at the resolution specifications there's less than a 10%
difference in resolution. Less than the EOS TX to the *ist-D. Pentax
will have to significantly under sell not just any medium format
competition but
== Expert Proof
---
Christian wrote:
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 8:22 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
fra: Steve Desjardins [EMAIL
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Rob Studdert wrote:
The thing is that they got there by listening to their customers, so well they
deserve it IMO.
You mean their customers asked to change the mount?
Kostas
And said that they wanted to own great, back-crippling, lumps
Not me!
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---
Cotty wrote:
The point I was making was that most of us become more patient the older
we get :-)
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version:
Much to what you say, Rob. At one time Pentax was an engineering company run by
engineers. Then they decided they had to change, but seem never to have decided
change to what?.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---
Rob Studdert
: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Rob Studdert wrote:
The thing is that they got there by listening to their customers, so
well they
deserve it IMO.
You mean their customers asked to change the mount
[Original Message]
From: mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Date: 6/2/2005 10:41:38 AM
Subject: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Rob Studdert wrote:
The thing is that they got
.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Date: 6/2/2005 10:41:38 AM
Subject: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Rob Studdert wrote:
The thing
Control? Please elaborate ... what control does one give up?
Shel
[Original Message]
From: P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Date: 6/2/2005 11:13:11 AM
Subject: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
Many good points Shel, however the control
Agreed. I don't know if it's listening to their customers or simply turning
out quality products with a large variety of choices. They are doing
something right though.
Tom C.
The thing is that they got there by listening to their customers, so well
they
deserve it IMO.
Don't forget, ADVERTISING, fast turnaround on new products,
ADVERTISING, crushing the competition with the same or better feature
set, etc.
Face it, they are a huge powerhouse who are not about to let anybody
get in their way.
--
Bruce
Thursday, June 2, 2005, 11:21:51 AM, you wrote:
TC
the Pentax
Way really is to simpler, smaller, lighter, more basic cameras that produce
good photos.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Date: 6/2/2005 10:41:38 AM
Subject: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors
On 2 Jun 2005 at 11:03, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
But that's just me ... or is it? From what I've seen there are quite a few
istD
owners here who use their cameras pretty much like standard manual cameras
most
of the time, sometimes with a concession to auto focus, and rarely use many of
the
Hi Paul ...
Higher resolution and a faster, bigger buffer make sense, shouldn't add
bulk or weight to a camera. They are internal improvements that are
essentially transparent, like putting a more powerful engine in an auto.
It just goes about its job without a lot of interaction between it and
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, P. J. Alling wrote:
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Rob Studdert wrote:
The thing is that they got there by listening to their customers, so well
they
deserve it IMO.
You mean their customers asked to change the mount?
Kostas
Of course,
On 3 Jun 2005 at 4:38, Rob Studdert wrote:
I use my DSLR in MF more 95% of the time and auto/manual exposure 50/50 and I
do
enjoy it's size. That said there is no reason that Pentax could put a full
frame
or higher pixel density sensor in a camera the same size as or just a little
larger
:13:11 AM
Subject: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
Many good points Shel, however the control aspect is what seems to be
what is lost, first...
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
This little dialogue brings up an interesting, to me, point. First, I
would have no qualms about
be at least a couple of
models to choose from, but heck...:-)
Cheers,
Jostein
- Original Message -
From: P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 7:13 PM
Subject: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
The problem
- Original Message -
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 2:39 PM
Subject: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
Hi Paul ...
Higher resolution and a faster, bigger buffer make sense, shouldn't add
bulk
1 - 100 of 175 matches
Mail list logo
