yeah, this is what I sort of thought the article was alluding too.
Basically, that Pentax would shop around for the right bits, rather than
get tied up in a supplier deal.
.02
Cheers
Shaun
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 22 Nov 2002 at 12:01, Iren & Henry Chu wrote:
Due to my limited Japanese, I do
On 22 Nov 2002 at 12:01, Iren & Henry Chu wrote:
> Due to my limited Japanese, I don't quite understand about the fifth
> paragraph related to the development of CCD and CMOS. Any body here can
> help?
The translator seems to make little sense of it, hopefully it alludes to the
fact that Pent
The following is the translation of the web page using Babel Fish...
The .. with the goal of 2 years later, increases the research and
development member of camera business in 300 - 450 people of current 1.5
times. When the management resource is shifted to the digital camera, it
judged rei
IMHO for a high end digital SLR camera to sell in sufficient quantities
to be viable, you have to crack the PJ market. This is where this type
of camera is most used and useful. And, this is where Nikon and Canon rule.
As digital SLR camera's become more mainstream and start to replace 35
mm
Chaso DeChaso wrote in regard to our favorite brand:
>
I just
> want them to stay in business so that they can make
> lenses and film cameras for a while longer.)
>
Pentax has already made quite enough cameras and lenses to service my
needs until the day I die. And some very fine ones at that.
l count.
Tom C.
- Original Message -
From: "Isaac Crawford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 8:55 PM
Subject: Re: Pentax Digital NEWS - FULL STORY from AP 27th OCT.
> Patrick White wrote:
> >
> > "aimcompute&
Actually except in the 60's they never had the might to challenge C or
N. Only their loyal momentum kept them up near the top. As it is they
are the leader still usually in P&S so the Optio line looks like they have
begun to switch over to digital. In high end cameras they don't have the
i
26, 2001 1:10 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: OT: DOF and format size (was: Re: Pentax Digital NEWS - FULL
STORY from AP 27th OCT.)
- Original Message -
From: "dave o'brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(snip)
>
> DOF has to do with the focal length and the f-st
- Original Message -
From: "dave o'brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(snip)
>
> DOF has to do with the focal length and the f-stop. Print
> magnification has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
> -
But print magnification has EVERYTHING to do with it.
Until now I have kept my silence WRT this su
er 25, 2001 11:29 AM
Subject: Re: Pentax Digital NEWS - FULL STORY from AP 27th OCT.
> A scroll of mail from Francis Tang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Tue,
> 23 Oct 2001 14:15:08 +0100
> Read it? y
> >I am curious about your comment about increased DOF with a smaller
> >format
> -Original Message-
> From: Juan J. Buhler [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 1:56 PM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: Pentax Digital NEWS! Part one
>
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2001, Matamoros, Cesar A. wrote:
>
>
TECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 9:17 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: RE: Pentax Digital NEWS! Part one
>
> It's the very first 35mm SLR digital camera listed, right before the D30.
>
> The lenses that are compatable with
On Wed, 24 Oct 2001, Matamoros, Cesar A. wrote:
> Looking at the specifications -
>
> Magnification 0.8x with 50-mm lens set to infinity
> and -1.0 m(-1)
So that *does* mean a tiny viewfinder. Keep in mind that not all the
24x36 "original" frame is shown, so you s
> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Roberts [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 7:27 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Pentax Digital NEWS! Part one
>
> "Juan J. Buhler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
On Tue, 23 Oct 2001 15:12:58 -0700 (PDT), Juan J. Buhler wrote:
>
>Ouch. That means a *really* tiny viewfinder then...
No, not really, that depends on magnification factor in the viewfinder
optical system just as much as the actual covered area itself.
Regards, Jan van Wijk
-
"Juan J. Buhler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, Matamoros, Cesar A. wrote:
>
>> We received our Nikon D1H and D1X yesterday afternoon. I
>> will begin playing with them today.
>>
>> The manual states that the viewfinder shows 96% of the frame
>> recor
You forgot the small matter of focus. :)
--graywolf
- Original Message -
From: Mick Maguire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 9:25 AM
Subject: RE: Pentax Digital NEWS! Part one
> Here's a thought:
>
> surely the only
On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, Matamoros, Cesar A. wrote:
> We received our Nikon D1H and D1X yesterday afternoon. I
> will begin playing with them today.
>
> The manual states that the viewfinder shows 96% of the frame
> recorded.
Ouch. That means a *really* tiny viewfinder
, 2001 9:26 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Pentax Digital NEWS! Part one
Here's a thought:
surely the only reason that the 3MP camera would not be "full frame" is the
distance of the sensor array from the lens. If when designing the 3MP camera
the array were place closer to the l
ECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mike Johnston
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 1:40 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Pentax Digital NEWS - FULL STORY from AP 27th OCT.
Frits wrote:
> If the one that we already saw is upgradable, would it be possible it
would
> hit the ma
You know the real people who seem to be benefitting from this digital
whatnot are Sigma. This is all due to the smaller sensors. Apparently
none of the camera manufacturers make any money out of the bodies, but
Sigma sell s**tloads of wide angle lenses now.
I keep reading user reviews which say
.
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 3:09 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: Pentax Digital NEWS! Part one
The 'magnification' factor is one of the reasons I have not truly
looked at a digital SLR. I have started to enjoy wide angle shooting and
would not relish having to
Trouble is - you would lose either infinity focus or close focus, as
your sensor is no longer mounted on the normal plane of focus.
> -Original Message-
> From: Mick Maguire [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 23 October 2001 14:26
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE:
I believe that (some of?)the Fuji cameras use a non-rectangular array of
sensors (heaxagonal/honeycomb pattern maybe?). This requires them to re-map
(interpolate) the data from the sensors to a rectangular pixel pattern.
Eric
>From: "Doug Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 1
MF print magnification is less than 35mm, so that cant be the reason...
> -Original Message-
> From: Francis Tang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 23 October 2001 14:15
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Pentax Digital NEWS - FULL STORY from AP 27th OCT.
>
>
s II
Panama City, Florida
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 11:32 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Pentax Digital NEWS! Part one
>
> B&H's new digital catalog list
Here's a thought:
surely the only reason that the 3MP camera would not be "full frame" is the
distance of the sensor array from the lens. If when designing the 3MP camera
the array were place closer to the lens then surely full frame would be
achieved. Wouldn't this solve the lens issue, (if not
Dear Mike,
On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 02:37:11PM -0500, Mike Johnston wrote:
> P.S. I have to say that I'm totally NOT sold on the idea that a "full-size"
> sensor (meaning 35mm size, 24mm x 36mm) is a good idea. I'm really not sure
> it is. A smaller sensor size is really a great advantage: it mean
On Tuesday, October 23, 2001, at 02:23 AM, Rob Studdert wrote:
> Can't say that I'm too fussed on the mechanical build and function of
> the
> SS4000, also the Polaroid software is just pathetic, I would really be
> looking
> at the new Nikons if I were you. Pssst want to buy a SS4000 cheap :-)
On Tuesday, October 23, 2001, at 06:48 AM, lbparis wrote:
> Yeah, they used to read the list then. They kicked us out
> because they were afraid that the things we were saying might be
> mistaken as "official" Pentax views.
I believe, at the time, we were also in the midst of a Kirkland/Mafud
My sentiments exactly.
Kent Gittings
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Brendan
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 1:18 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Pentax Digital NEWS! Part one
This might be a good thing!! a decent d30 class
digital
: Monday, October 22, 2001 2:03 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Pentax Digital NEWS! Part one
Bruce wrote:
> My concern is if you are going to do no better than the competition, and
> they are more entrenched, how are you going to compete. The motto "We're
no
> worse than the re
> -Original Message-
> From: Juan J. Buhler [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 5:23 PM
> Subject: RE: Pentax Digital NEWS! Part one
>
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, John Francis wrote:
>
> > Longer, effectively. The lens produces an im
The Acer Scanwit ain't bad if you ensure the particular one you get does focus
accurately (I had to return the first example I had). The included software
(Mira, in Australia) is reasonably competent and fast, and the only problem
scans I have had so far have been with very old and thin colour
riginal Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 5:23 AM
Subject: Re: Pentax Digital news
> In a message dated 22/10/01 19:35:56 GMT Daylight Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> << Does anyone think that someone
Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Mark wrote:
>
>> This sudden change, whatever the rationale, is inexcusable. Yes, digital
>> technology is advancing at a tremendous rate and the market for it isn't
>> stable. But in October of 2001 they can't really expect me to believe that
>> this is
In a message dated 22/10/01 19:35:56 GMT Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Does anyone think that someone from Pentax reads this list!!!???
Can I place my order right now?
>>
As I recall, when the list was hosted by the Pentax site, someone from
Pentax did keep an ear to the gro
Hey... now that's the spirit!
Tom C.
- Original Message -
From: "Aaron Reynolds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: Pentax Digital NEWS - FULL STORY from AP 27th OCT.
> Bah, I'll never
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 4:13 PM
Subject: Re: Pentax Digital NEWS - FULL STORY from AP 27th OCT.
> On 22 Oct 2001, at 14:07, aimcompute wrote:
>
> > When we
>
B&H's new digital catalog lists the new Contax N1 which is a 6MP camera and
uses new AF lenses (50f1.4 lists for $595). So the 6 MP is here. Canon
suprised me by coming out with a 4 MP EOS1D for @ $6,500 list. I use the D30
at work and enjoy using it, especially when my 80-200 f/2.8 becomes
Patrick White wrote:
>
> "aimcompute" writes:
> >I guess it makes sense. Up to now. digital photography has never really
> >been about "quality".
> >I find the Fuji Super CCD technology somewhat of a joke. You can't end up
> >with more raw material than you start with.
The Nikon D1x us
Chaso DeChaso wrote:
>
> Wasn't there a time when Pentax actually cared about
> being a leader? Are they now content with always
> following (more and more distantly), at best offering
> products close to the others and cheaper? This would
> be sad. If they simply don't have the might to
> com
Bruce Dayton wrote:
>
> My concern is if you are going to do no better than the competition, and
> they are more entrenched, how are you going to compete. The motto "We're no
> worse than the rest" comes to mind.
>
> A full frame CCD was, IMHO, one of the big differences between the Pentax
> an
On 22 Oct 2001, at 21:13, Doug Franklin wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2001 10:37:57 +1000, Rob Studdert wrote:
> 2) How does the "absolute resolution" of the captured image compare
> between this undersampling and the "full" sampling performed by, e.g.,
> a flatbed or film scanner.
Well we can only p
On Tue, 23 Oct 2001 10:37:57 +1000, Rob Studdert wrote:
> [...] in a digital camera the CCD is masked by a matrix of colour
> filters ie for every cluster of four pixels there are a red, blue
> and two green sensitive CCD pixels. These sensors and the surrounding
> ones are used to interpolate
On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, Rob Studdert wrote:
> But at least a flat-bed or film scanner scans the three primary
> colours for each absolute pixel whereas in a digital camera the
> CCD is masked by a matrix of colour filters ie for every cluster
> of four pixels there are a red, blue and two green sens
On 22 Oct 2001, at 19:07, Doug Franklin wrote:
> Anyway, you threw away a bunch of data when you captured the image a
> lower resolution. Now you're going to make some up to get a
> "reasonable facsimile" of what you could have had in the first place.
> To go from 600 dpi to 9600 dpi, as the HP
No, I don't think so. It'll be at least a 4MP, and probably a
5MP camera.
It's really too late already for anything as small as 3MP.
Len
---
> Oh, this is very bad news. Pentax is again playing catch-up on
last
> year's technology. They could have been ahead of the pack with
the
> digital MZ-S
Mark Roberts fumed:
>
> I certainly hope you're correct. Right now I'm still
> *furious* at this latest development. I spent several
> thousand dollars on equipment this year, largely based
> on the confidence that the digital SLR was coming and
> what I bought would be compatible.
Gambling on
On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, John Francis wrote:
> Longer, effectively. The lens produces an image of exactly
> the same size, but only the central portion of that image
> falls on the digital sensor. The effect is exactly the same
> as taking the central portion of a 35mm negative and using that
> to
>P.P.S. I've requested a sample Optio 330/430 from Pentax for a >review
(through a friend who works for Pentax), and if I end up >getting one I'll
post ongoing updates of my findings here in advance >of the published
review.
My brother bought one and he let me play with it last Friday for about
Jan van Wijk remarked:
>
> I like the idea too, I'd rather have a 4MP K-mount digital
> SLR for $2000 to $3000 in a few months
(or, more realistically, in probably around a year)
> than the 6MP full-frame for maybe $7000 now ...
That's pretty much what I've been saying for the last six months
Jan van Wijk wrote:
>
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 15:43:35 -0700, tom wrote:
>
> >
> >This is all true...however, Canon and Nikon user have been happy to buy
> >up D30's and D1's, so I guess Pentax believes the same of Pentax users.
> >Apparently the smaller frame size sells ok, and I guess Pentax thi
Bruce Dayton wrote:
>
> The price tag would be high. Could I afford one? Good question. I, too,
> would be somewhat concerned with low light performance. The real
> disappointment is not just that it is delayed, but I keep seeing a pattern.
> Rather than driving the market, Pentax is only res
Your order for the ditched 6MB or for the new one with the smaller CCD?
I am not sure how to take this news. Perhaps it means the camera is more
affordable?
If the one that we already saw is upgradable, would it be possible it would
hit the market with a smaller CCD to begin with? That might be a
Mike wrote:
>All this smacks of great good sense to me. What they're going to do is
>release a smaller-CCD-size, LOWER COST, 3-5-mp digital SLR ASAP, and put
>off MR-42 until both the market and the technology are more stable.
>
>I like the idea. What it means for the Pentax loyalist is that we w
On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 15:43:35 -0700, tom wrote:
>
>This is all true...however, Canon and Nikon user have been happy to buy
>up D30's and D1's, so I guess Pentax believes the same of Pentax users.
>Apparently the smaller frame size sells ok, and I guess Pentax thinks
>they can make some cash.
I li
Ah... that's what I thought.
>
> only the central portion of that image
> falls on the digital sensor. The effect is exactly the same
> as taking the central portion of a 35mm negative and using that
> to produce a standard print.
>
Tom C.
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.
Mike wrote...
> P.S. I have to say that I'm totally NOT sold on the idea that a
"full-size"
> sensor (meaning 35mm size, 24mm x 36mm) is a good idea. I'm really not
sure
> it is. A smaller sensor size is really a great advantage: it means lenses
> can be significantly smaller and lighter and s
ng. There is a difference between just surviving and
actually thriving.
Bruce Dayton
- Original Message -
From: "tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 3:43 PM
Subject: Re: Pentax Digital NEWS! Part one
> Snip<
>&g
See below
> -Original Message-
> From: Mike Johnston [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 3:37 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Pentax Digital NEWS - FULL STORY from AP 27th OCT.
>
> Cotty wrote:
>
> > News in A
Bruce Dayton wrote:
>
> The big advantage to a full frame CCD is that our existing wide angle lenses
> will remain as such. Nothing quite so exciting as having your 20mm behave
> like it was a 35mm. So, if I have to buy some new lenses (I like wides),
> then why buy Pentax. It seems to me, tha
Cotty wrote:
> News in AP regarding the Pentax Digital. Scrapping launch of Pentax 6 MP
> digital slr in favour of lower-end digital k mount slr more along the
> lines of the Canon D30 and Fuji S1. First appearance will probably be
> next year's PMA.
And then in another post:
> Does anyone th
Shel Belinkoff asked:
>
> Do other quality digital cameras offer FF CCD that can be
> used with the lenses from their SLRs?
No - all current digital SLRs built around 35mm bodies have
sensors smaller than full frame. This gives a focal length
multiplier for all lenses - somewhere between 1.3
]
> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 2:54 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Pentax Digital NEWS! Part one
>
> Currently, no SLR on the shelf from Nikon or Canon has a full frame CCD.
> Telephoto lenses are also multiplied. If you shoot lots of telephoto,
> this
aimcompute wrote:
>
> Bruce wrote:
> Probably a dumb question, but I'll ask it anyway.
>
> I think I understand that a perceived advantage to using a full frame CCD
> was that the CCD captures the entire scene entering the camera thru the
> lens. Is this correct?
>
Nope, The full CCD means th
rate.
Bruce Dayton
- Original Message -
From: "aimcompute" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 11:03 AM
Subject: Re: Pentax Digital NEWS! Part one
>snip<
>
> Probably a dumb question, but I'll ask it anyway.
&g
ikon and Canon
> offerings.
>
> Bruce Dayton
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Brendan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 10:18 AM
> Subject: Re: Pentax Digital NEWS! Part one
>
&g
Bruce wrote:
> My concern is if you are going to do no better than the competition, and
> they are more entrenched, how are you going to compete. The motto "We're
no
> worse than the rest" comes to mind.
Agreed. I guess all they want to do is have some offering, no matter what.
>
> A full fra
f use considering digital more reason to examine Nikon and Canon
offerings.
Bruce Dayton
- Original Message -
From: "Brendan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 10:18 AM
Subject: Re: Pentax Digital NEWS! Part one
> This might
This might be a good thing!! a decent d30 class
digital SLR may get more K-mount development going.
--- tom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rob Brigham wrote:
> >
> > So we go from 6MP release this year to 3MP first
> glimpse next year (and
> > probably released 2003!). This is not good
> Pentax!!
Rob Brigham wrote:
>
> So we go from 6MP release this year to 3MP first glimpse next year (and
> probably released 2003!). This is not good Pentax!!
Plus the ccd is probably not full-frame.
tv
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and f
Interesting
I guess it makes sense. Up to now. digital photography has never really
been about "quality".
I find the Fuji Super CCD technology somewhat of a joke. You can't end up
with more raw material than you start with.
Tom C.
- Original Message -
From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTEC
So we go from 6MP release this year to 3MP first glimpse next year (and
probably released 2003!). This is not good Pentax!!
> -Original Message-
> From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 22 October 2001 16:52
> To: Pentax List
> Subject: Pentax Digital NEWS! Part one
>
>
> News
Does anyone think that someone from Pentax reads this list!!!???
Can I place my order right now?
Cotty
___
Personal email traffic to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MacAds traffic to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Check out the UK Macintosh ads
www.macads.co.uk
-
This
75 matches
Mail list logo
