On 08/12/06, Michael Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The optimist in me hopes that your friend found a sales person who
> actually genuinely cared that she got the product best for her purpose.
> The cynic in me thinks that maybe that camera had an rewards program
> attached to the sale for the
On Thu, 2006-12-07 at 10:12 +1100, Digital Image Studio wrote:
> On 07/12/06, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Actually, it seems to be best "price-to-features" ratio. One of my
> > private clients whom I tutor recently bought her first digital camera -
> > without consulting me. She
>
> From: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2006/12/07 Thu PM 01:57:26 GMT
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: Another interview articles
>
> mike wilson wrote:
>
> >> From: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>
> >
mike wilson wrote:
>> From: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> No. What I'm saying is that we've reached a point at which average
>> consumers are going to be able to see very clearly that more
megapixels
>> don't necessarily mean a better camera (or better pictures). That fact
>> holds t
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Digital Image Studio wrote:
> Assuming that they are cashed up sufficiently to fulfill the demand
> that they have created though their aggressive pricing.
Rob, what aggressive pricing?
SRPs and actuals from http://www.parkcameras.com/
No Canon 40D
Canon 30D 1,100 74
>
> From: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2006/12/06 Wed PM 07:58:59 GMT
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: Another interview articles
>
> Tom C wrote:
>
> >I take it then you saying the resolution limit has been reached with
> >d
Certainly.
Tom C.
>From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
>Subject: Re: Another interview articles
>Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 17:54:21 -0600
>
>
>- Original
- Original Message -
From: "Tom C"
Subject: Re: Another interview articles
>I take it then you saying the resolution limit has been reached with
> digital? Most of us here are directing our comment towards DSLR's not
> P&S
> cameras. The desire for
On 07/12/06, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, it seems to be best "price-to-features" ratio. One of my
> private clients whom I tutor recently bought her first digital camera -
> without consulting me. She ended up with a 4 megapixel Canon. She could
> have afforded one with Mor
Digital Image Studio wrote:
>On 07/12/06, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Tom C wrote:
>>
>> >I say again that the single factor a consumer understands, more
>> >than any other, is size, i.e. mega-pixel count.
>>
>> Nope. It's price ;-)
>
>Exactly best the MP/$ ratio ;-)
Actually, it s
On 07/12/06, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tom C wrote:
>
> >I say again that the single factor a consumer understands, more
> >than any other, is size, i.e. mega-pixel count.
>
> Nope. It's price ;-)
Exactly best the MP/$ ratio ;-)
--
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554
OK - You're right there.
Tom C.
>From: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>Subject: Re: Another interview articles
>Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 16:30:15 -0500 (EST)
>
>Tom C wrote:
>
> >I sa
Tom C wrote:
>I say again that the single factor a consumer understands, more
>than any other, is size, i.e. mega-pixel count.
Nope. It's price ;-)
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>No. What I'm saying is that we've reached a point at which average
>consumers are going to be able to see very clearly that more megapixels
>don't necessarily mean a better camera (or better pictures). That fact
>holds true for point-n-shoots and DSLR's.
>Mark Roberts
Maybe, but then again the a
Tom C wrote:
>I take it then you saying the resolution limit has been reached with
>digital?
No. What I'm saying is that we've reached a point at which average
consumers are going to be able to see very clearly that more megapixels
don't necessarily mean a better camera (or better pictures).
>From: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>Subject: Re: Another interview articles
>Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 12:29:28 -0500 (EST)
>
>Adam Maas wrote:
>
> >Digital Image Studio wrote:
>
Adam Maas wrote:
>Digital Image Studio wrote:
>> On 06/12/06, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Standing in a digital camera shop (no I am not
>> joking) which serves to a big crowd of P&S buyers it was interesting
>> to hear in the short time I was in there that MP count does indeed
>> appear t
Digital Image Studio wrote:
> On 06/12/06, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>Canon could conceivably outgun the competition in price and megapixels if
>>there were to be a price war.
>
>
> Not could, would. Standing in a digital camera shop (no I am not
> joking) which serves to a big crow
On 12/06/06 11:29 AM, "K.Takeshita", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> would not wish to sacrifice anything including price just because of 10mp.
Under the current state of the art, of course. 10mp is nice and noise does
not bother me so much, compared with other advantages of higher resolutions,
bu
On 12/06/06 11:20 AM, "Adam Maas", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've bought 3 6MP bodies since september 2005 (*istD, Nikon D50, K100D) and
> I'd have probably preferred the K10D with the proven 6MP sensor. The
> advantages of the 10MP bodies for me (with the exception of the Sony A100) is
> their
see.
>
>
> Tom C.
>
>
>
>>From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>>To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>>Subject: Re: Another interview articles
>>Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 19:54:40 -0500
>>
>>But
Thanks Ken, good info!
Regards, JvW
On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 17:34:51 -0500, K.Takeshita wrote:
>I just made a Q&D translation of another interview w/Tatamiya. Some parts
>might be a repeat of what he said in his previous interview.
>Usual disclaimer and no proofreading applies :-)
>
>http://ca.geoc
Thank you Ken!
I was particularly stuck by this portion of the interview: "Production
Planning dep’t in [the] development team and [the] marketing staff in
sales company were independently operating [before] but were
consolidated into one in April 2005. This means the group that has
been taki
Would you like me to send you a check or a money order? I have too much
money and it's getting to be a burden. LOL.
Tom C.
>From: "Digital Image Studio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
>Su
megapixel count
(especially larger differences in MP) is the singular easily quantifiable
spec that is both easy to demonstrate and easy to see.
Tom C.
>From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>Subject: Re:
- Original Message -
From: "Digital Image Studio"
Subject: Re: Another interview articles
> Not could, would. Standing in a digital camera shop (no I am not
> joking) which serves to a big crowd of P&S buyers it was interesting
> to hear in the short time I was
sh... we don't want sales to taper off... :-)
Tom C.
>>The irony of it is that the majority of people buying P&S cameras and
>>clamouring for
>higher MP counts are only ever going to email small jpegs and/or get
>regular photo
>sized prints made, so they would be equally happy with a 3mp
On 06/12/06, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But perhaps more in the P&S market. Yet knowledgeable sales people in
> this part of the world are steering people away from high megapixel P&S
> cameras, because they understand the tradeoffs. The word will get out.
> It generally does.
Tha
nsideration for
them, if they are even aware of the concept.
Tom C.
>From: "Digital Image Studio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
>Subject: Re: Another interview articles
>Date: Wed, 6 Dec 200
But perhaps more in the P&S market. Yet knowledgeable sales people in
this part of the world are steering people away from high megapixel P&S
cameras, because they understand the tradeoffs. The word will get out.
It generally does.
Paul
On Dec 5, 2006, at 7:41 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote:
>
The irony of it is that the majority of people buying P&S cameras and
clamouring for
higher MP counts are only ever going to email small jpegs and/or get regular
photo
sized prints made, so they would be equally happy with a 3mp camera.
Ahhh, the power of marketing.
Quoting Digital Image Stud
On 06/12/06, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Canon could conceivably outgun the competition in price and megapixels if
> there were to be a price war.
Not could, would. Standing in a digital camera shop (no I am not
joking) which serves to a big crowd of P&S buyers it was interesting
to hear i
But it probably wouldn't fit in the body, and the K10 build quality is
far superior to the *istDS.
On Dec 5, 2006, at 5:34 PM, Brian Walters wrote:
>
> Actually - I'd be happy with a 10 MP/Shake Reduction version of the
> *istDS.
>
> Cheers
>
> Brian
>
> ++
> Bria
Fascinating. Thank you very much for the translation.
Paul
On Dec 5, 2006, at 5:34 PM, K.Takeshita wrote:
> I just made a Q&D translation of another interview w/Tatamiya. Some
> parts
> might be a repeat of what he said in his previous interview.
> Usual disclaimer and no proofreading applies :-
As I mentioned in another post, Pentax seems to be filling the pipeline
again. After being sold out everywhere last week, cameras are available
again. They did delay intro to build some volume. They may be making
the right moves. I know we've become accustomed to them making the
wrong decisions
will
likely go with the higher MP camera.
Canon could conceivably outgun the competition in price and megapixels if
there were to be a price war.
Tom C.
>From: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>Subject: Re:
Adam Maas wrote:
>OK, we'll agree to disagree then.
>
>I suspect your alternate option is what will occur.
You mean "6MP DSLR bodies for $300 and 10Mp
bodies for $500"? Sounds right.
I see the 8MP SLR as a transitional anomaly. If anyone keeps making
them it'll be just Canon. And then only out
m: Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> Subject: Re: Another interview articles
>> Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 16:44:22 -0500
>>
>> I disagree. The K100D/K110D are a distinct improvement over their
On 06/12/06, K.Takeshita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just made a Q&D translation of another interview w/Tatamiya. Some parts
> might be a repeat of what he said in his previous interview.
> Usual disclaimer and no proofreading applies :-)
>
> http://ca.geocities.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/TatamiyaIn
Thanks for the translation Ken. It does appear Pentax is making moves in
the right direction.
Tom C.
>From: "K.Takeshita" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>Subject: Another interview articles
>Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 17:34:51 -0500
>
>I j
Actually - I'd be happy with a 10 MP/Shake Reduction version of the *istDS.
Cheers
Brian
++
Brian Walters
Western Sydney Australia
Quoting Charles Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Dec 5, 2006, at 15:44, Adam Maas wrote:
> > You're paying far too much attenti
e.
The idea that bigger is better is deeply entrenched.
Tom C.
>From: Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>Subject: Re: Another interview articles
>Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 16:44:22 -0500
>
>I disagree. The K100D
On 06/12/06, K.Takeshita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/05/06 9:02 AM, "Digital Image Studio", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Well let's face it, they aren't a premium photographic company stock
> > in the eyes of the vast majority of commercial analysts, there has to
> > be a reason for this
g seller (especially
>>at it's price), not their 6MP bodies which aside from SR in one, are not
>>considerably different from the prior *ist D derivative.
>>
>>Tom C.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>From: Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>&g
Charles Robinson wrote:
> On Dec 5, 2006, at 15:44, Adam Maas wrote:
>
>>You're paying far too much attention to MP count. The 6MP models
>>are here to stay, they're just going to get cheaper as time goes
>>on. The sensors are proven designs and cheap to produce, the 10MP
>>sensors are noisi
On Dec 5, 2006, at 15:44, Adam Maas wrote:
> You're paying far too much attention to MP count. The 6MP models
> are here to stay, they're just going to get cheaper as time goes
> on. The sensors are proven designs and cheap to produce, the 10MP
> sensors are noisier and more complex (driving
Adam Maas wrote:
>If 6MP is a dinosaur, why did Nikon just announce one (D40)? And note
that the Rebel XT (which is still Canon's base model and is still
notably more expensive than the other base models, (the XTi is their
next step up and is likely to stay there). 6MP is the value lead right
nsidered, I would have expected the K10D to be the big seller (especially
> at it's price), not their 6MP bodies which aside from SR in one, are not
> considerably different from the prior *ist D derivative.
>
> Tom C.
>
>
>
>
>>From: Adam Maas <[EMAIL
ered, I would have expected the K10D to be the big seller (especially
> at it's price), not their 6MP bodies which aside from SR in one, are not
> considerably different from the prior *ist D derivative.
>
> Tom C.
>
>
>
> >From: Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTE
y different from the prior *ist D derivative.
Tom C.
>From: Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>Subject: Re: Another interview articles
>Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 15:43:27 -0500
>
>If 6MP is a dinosaur, why did Nik
>
>
>
>>From: Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>>To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>>Subject: Re: Another interview articles
>>Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 13:44:21 -0500
>>
>>They were expecting it to sell. They we
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Tom C wrote:
> Yes it's good for Pentax that the new K10D is in such high demand. It's bad
> that they will inevitably lose some sales (bodies and lenses) because of
> non-supply, especially those potential customers with no reason to have any
> brand-loyalty to Pentax.
2 thi
cuss Mail List
>To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>Subject: Re: Another interview articles
>Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 13:44:21 -0500
>
>They were expecting it to sell. They weren't expecting a higher-end body to
>be more popular at launch that the last low-end body as low-end bo
They were expecting it to sell. They weren't expecting a higher-end body to be
more popular at launch that the last low-end body as low-end bodies typically
outsell high-end bodies by a fair margin.
-Adam
Tom C wrote:
> Yeah that makes alot of sense. Spend several years designing what you wil
Yeah that makes alot of sense. Spend several years designing what you will
advertise as a superior product, but don't anticipate selling that many...
LOL. So how many sales will be lost?
This is what several of us were saying months back. It's simple. Anyone
wanting to purchase a higher en
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Patrick Genovese wrote:
> Despite all this I beleive that their conservative approach has proven
> to be a wise one. for example never releasing the MZ-D --- the
> panasonic sensor it was supposed to use is what killed Contax.
Philips (Dalsa) sensor.
> I beleive that the next
The feeling that I get is that pentax got caught out by the digital
revolution. They lagged behind technologically and realised that
unless they come back with a splash they will die.
Despite all this I beleive that their conservative approach has proven
to be a wise one. for example never releas
> Fra: "K.Takeshita" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On 12/05/06 9:02 AM, "Digital Image Studio", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Well let's face it, they aren't a premium photographic company stock
> > in the eyes of the vast majority of commercial analysts, there has to
> > be a reason for this, poor
On 12/05/06 8:39 AM, "Adam Maas", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pentax was expecting Pentax-level sales. They got much better sales than
> that. They weren't expecting the level of interest from non-Pentax users
> that they got.
True.
This is what Tatamy is saying in his new interview.
Ken
--
Hi Ken,
Thank you for priceless contribution to this list.
Regards
Patrick
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
On 12/05/06 9:02 AM, "Digital Image Studio", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well let's face it, they aren't a premium photographic company stock
> in the eyes of the vast majority of commercial analysts, there has to
> be a reason for this, poor management come to mind?
When "underdog" did a good t
On 06/12/06, DagT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe they listened too much to those who say they are doomed anyway .-)
Well let's face it, they aren't a premium photographic company stock
in the eyes of the vast majority of commercial analysts, there has to
be a reason for this, poor management
> Fra: "Digital Image Studio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On 05/12/06, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Once it became obvious that the K10 was going to be in great demand, it
> > was obvious that Pentax wouldn't be able to meet initial demand. Same
> > as Nikon. The same thing happens in
Digital Image Studio wrote:
> On 05/12/06, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Once it became obvious that the K10 was going to be in great demand, it
>> was obvious that Pentax wouldn't be able to meet initial demand. Same
>> as Nikon. The same thing happens in the car business when a pro
On 12/05/06 7:55 AM, "Digital Image Studio", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyone with any sense could have correlated the sales potential with
> the price point that they settled on, it wasn't a case of
> conservatism.
I do not think the popularity of K100/10D came from the price point only,
whic
On 05/12/06, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Once it became obvious that the K10 was going to be in great demand, it
> was obvious that Pentax wouldn't be able to meet initial demand. Same
> as Nikon. The same thing happens in the car business when a product
> takes off. It's not necess
Once it became obvious that the K10 was going to be in great demand, it
was obvious that Pentax wouldn't be able to meet initial demand. Same
as Nikon. The same thing happens in the car business when a product
takes off. It's not necessarily incompetent to be conservative in your
original volum
On 05/12/06, David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As a few here thought. Pentax stuffed up their numbers..
Yes, and got roasted for daring to suggest such incompetence existed.
--
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT) +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://home.swiftd
On 12/5/06, K.Takeshita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> There are a couple of interviews on K10D cropped up in Japanese articles.
> One is a bit more technical with a few participants by Pentax. Another is
> with Mr.Tatamiya (nick named "Tatamy" in Japan :-) talking about the
> marketin
Thanks Ken, that would be very cool :)
2006/12/5, K.Takeshita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi folks,
>
> There are a couple of interviews on K10D cropped up in Japanese articles.
> One is a bit more technical with a few participants by Pentax. Another is
> with Mr.Tatamiya (nick named "Tatamy" in Japan
70 matches
Mail list logo
