Re: OT - Upping the anti
Cool. I hadn't realised that the procedure was reversible Dave On 8/12/05, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 12/8/05, David Savage, discombobulated, unleashed: But will they now work on a Pentax camera? g yes of course. I take the EOS-K mount off and put a K mount on, and away we go. I lose open aperture metering, that's all. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: OT - Upping the anti
Herb Chong wrote: the Dalsa sensors for 22MP cameras were in excess of $5K in OEM quantities. That's certainly a lot. Still, the price doesn't necessarily say much about what Dalsa's cost per unit was, or (perhaps more interesting) what it cost them to make one extra once the production equipment was up-and-running. cost goes up faster than area. Yes. Everyone knows that. However, given the current cost of 1/2-inch sensors - which I'm not sure about either, but based on all those mini/credit card-size cameras that keep popping up, I'm assuming it's rather low by now - it can go up *a lot* faster, and still make relatively affordable large sensor. If you know what I mean... Herb - Original Message - From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 9:58 AM Subject: Re: OT - Upping the anti I don't know prices of the sensor component, but they are expensive. Several hundred dollars at the OEM pricing level. Translate times 7-10 for retail after manufacture.
Re: OT - Upping the anti
But will they now work on a Pentax camera? g Dave On 8/12/05, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11/8/05, P. J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed: Unlike Cotty, I'm not willing to modify my lenses in such a way that they won't work normally. My Pentax lenses all work normally :-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: OT - Upping the anti
someone has to pay the startup cost. if you wait until that is paid for, your competition has the market sewn up. Herb - Original Message - From: Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 3:49 AM Subject: Re: OT - Upping the anti Herb Chong wrote: the Dalsa sensors for 22MP cameras were in excess of $5K in OEM quantities. That's certainly a lot. Still, the price doesn't necessarily say much about what Dalsa's cost per unit was, or (perhaps more interesting) what it cost them to make one extra once the production equipment was up-and-running.
Re: OT - Upping the anti
Herb Chong wrote: someone has to pay the startup cost. True. if you wait until that is paid for, your competition has the market sewn up. Yes. That's one of the reasons why many people on this list say that Pentax ought to compete in the high-end DLSR market, isn't it? And I guess being an early adopter at least means you can make *some* of the money back by asking a very high price for the equipment that initially uses the new technology (because you have no competition yet.) Herb - Original Message - From: Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 3:49 AM Subject: Re: OT - Upping the anti Herb Chong wrote: the Dalsa sensors for 22MP cameras were in excess of $5K in OEM quantities. That's certainly a lot. Still, the price doesn't necessarily say much about what Dalsa's cost per unit was, or (perhaps more interesting) what it cost them to make one extra once the production equipment was up-and-running.
Re: OT - Upping the anti
On 12/8/05, David Savage, discombobulated, unleashed: But will they now work on a Pentax camera? g yes of course. I take the EOS-K mount off and put a K mount on, and away we go. I lose open aperture metering, that's all. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: OT - Upping the anti
More news on the competition: http://news.techwhack.com/1878/canon-5d-is-finally-unveiled/ Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: OT - Upping the anti
every other one of the Big 5 Japanese companies (Canon, Nikon, Konica Minolta, and Olympus) are trying to push into the higher end of the market because those cameras have a longer useful market life and a higher profit margin too. camera phones are expected to destroy the under 3MP market and make major inroads into the 4-7MP market. with the commoditization of most of the remaining PS cameras in the 8-10MP market, only the highest end models with more features than your average operating system are going to be money makers. DSLRs are going to have to differentiate somehow, and interchangeable lenses aren't enough if the high end PS cameras come with fast 28-300mm equiv focal length lenses. that means more and higher quality megapixels, better AF, and faster frame rates. better ruggedness would be nice too. Herb... - Original Message - From: Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 9:15 AM Subject: Re: OT - Upping the anti Yes. That's one of the reasons why many people on this list say that Pentax ought to compete in the high-end DLSR market, isn't it? And I guess being an early adopter at least means you can make *some* of the money back by asking a very high price for the equipment that initially uses the new technology (because you have no competition yet.)
Re: OT - Upping the anti
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: Great for Canon users, doesn't help if you don't own Canon Glass. If I were starting from scratch I don't think I'd care if the sensor was APS sized, and then the 12mp Nikon would be just fine. Surely a 12Mp 24x36 sensor has several advantages over a, what is it, 16x24 12mp one? I mean, even disregarding the crop vs full-frame consideration, bigger is still better in many ways, isn't it? Yes indeed. One has only to see some large prints from a Canon 1D (only 4 megapixels but 1.3 crop factor) to see how true this is. The advantage of a larger sensor with the same total resolution is better signal to noise ratio, more light gathering power thus higher ISO, etc. This has to be balanced against higher cost, larger/heavier lenses, and effective quality for the output print size you're looking for. [ ... ] I might be ready to spring for a $1500 body sometime soon if the advantage in it is great enough, but a $3500 body would require a good bit more potential return before it would be worth it. Yep. I've always been wondering how much of that, say, $2000 extra is actually made up by the sensor cost, though. It's often mentioned on this list and elsewhere how expensive FF sensors are, but does anyone know what they actually cost? Also, people often talk about how large chips cost a lot more to manufacture because they essentially need higher quality silicon, but how much of the sensor price comes from raw material cost, really? - Toralf
Re: OT - Upping the anti
Herb Chong wrote: there is one close enough. it's in the Leica R digital back. Hmmm... * Image Sensor: 3872 x 2576 Pixels (10 MPixel) CCD-Chip, active sensor area 26.4 x 17.6 mm, focal length extension factor 1.37 [ From http://www.leica-camera.com/produkte/rsystem/digitalmodul/index_e.html ] Not *that* close, I think, if we're talking about full-frame... Herb - Original Message - From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 6:27 PM Subject: Re: OT - Upping the anti Or putting pressure on Sony and Kodak to come up with a suitable sensor for them.
Re: OT - Upping the anti
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Cotty wrote: Sorry Mark - they should be! Even if they only build couple a thousand of the damned things. They should be. You read it here first: Cotty is selling his big grey private jet to fund Pentax's RD and losses for the FF model. Here he is taking pictures for the ebay auction: http://www.cottysnaps.com/snaps/spare5.html Kostas
Re: OT - Upping the anti
On 11/8/05, Kostas Kavoussanakis, discombobulated, unleashed: You read it here first: Cotty is selling his big grey private jet to fund Pentax's RD and losses for the FF model. Here he is taking pictures for the ebay auction: http://www.cottysnaps.com/snaps/spare5.html Ha! I would if I could. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: OT - Upping the anti
On Aug 11, 2005, at 1:43 AM, Toralf Lund wrote: Yep. I've always been wondering how much of that, say, $2000 extra is actually made up by the sensor cost, though. It's often mentioned on this list and elsewhere how expensive FF sensors are, but does anyone know what they actually cost? Also, people often talk about how large chips cost a lot more to manufacture because they essentially need higher quality silicon, but how much of the sensor price comes from raw material cost, really? I don't know prices of the sensor component, but they are expensive. Several hundred dollars at the OEM pricing level. Translate times 7-10 for retail after manufacture. Much of the price has to do with what percentage of them are junked as not meeting spec in manufacture... the yield on such components is frighteningly low, less than 10% of the production is able to be sold. Godfrey
Re: OT - Upping the anti
At 12mp bigger it isn't enough better. Not enough to justify the total system price, IMNSHO. I've got a lot of glass I'd have to replace, many of my lenses have special characteristics. I have a much bigger investment in glass than in bodies. Unlike Cotty, I'm not willing to modify my lenses in such a way that they won't work normally. Toralf Lund wrote: P. J. Alling wrote: Great for Canon users, doesn't help if you don't own Canon Glass. If I were starting from scratch I don't think I'd care if the sensor was APS sized, and then the 12mp Nikon would be just fine. Surely a 12Mp 24x36 sensor has several advantages over a, what is it, 16x24 12mp one? I mean, even disregarding the crop vs full-frame consideration, bigger is still better in many ways, isn't it? Tom C wrote: Price range is close to right and FF! Tom C. From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax list pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: OT - Upping the anti Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 16:56:43 +0100 Speculation or a leak? web page: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/62649 PDF download in Spanish: http://alex.netfun.ro/Canon5D-specs.pdf Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: OT - Upping the anti
On 11/8/05, P. J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed: Unlike Cotty, I'm not willing to modify my lenses in such a way that they won't work normally. My Pentax lenses all work normally :-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: OT - Upping the anti
How could anything work normaly for you? :-) Cotty wrote: On 11/8/05, P. J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed: Unlike Cotty, I'm not willing to modify my lenses in such a way that they won't work normally. My Pentax lenses all work normally :-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: OT - Upping the anti
Herb Chong wrote: the cost savings on a camera of that price is negligible. Yeah. Much like the savings of putting a crippled K-mount on a $1500 camera, or whatever the original price of the *istD was... they can offer it on a $300 body. leaving it off of a $3500 body is marketing and not profits. Herb - Original Message - From: Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 4:11 PM Subject: Re: OT - Upping the anti Sometimes the popup flash is useful for a tiny bit of fill. Yes, but I could easily live without it, especially if it reduced the price of the camera, or I could trade it in for something else, like a full frame sensor (well that would not be a direct swap, I guess) or mechanical aperture coupling. (In the case of Pentaxes, obviously.)
Re: OT - Upping the anti
Close enough. Toralf Lund wrote: Herb Chong wrote: the cost savings on a camera of that price is negligible. Yeah. Much like the savings of putting a crippled K-mount on a $1500 camera, or whatever the original price of the *istD was... they can offer it on a $300 body. leaving it off of a $3500 body is marketing and not profits. Herb - Original Message - From: Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 4:11 PM Subject: Re: OT - Upping the anti Sometimes the popup flash is useful for a tiny bit of fill. Yes, but I could easily live without it, especially if it reduced the price of the camera, or I could trade it in for something else, like a full frame sensor (well that would not be a direct swap, I guess) or mechanical aperture coupling. (In the case of Pentaxes, obviously.) -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: OT - Upping the anti
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: On Aug 10, 2005, at 1:11 PM, Toralf Lund wrote: Yes, but I could easily live without it, especially if it reduced the price of the camera, or I could trade it in for something else, like a full frame sensor (well that would not be a direct swap, I guess) or mechanical aperture coupling. (In the case of Pentaxes, obviously.) On many of the rare occasions that I need flash, it's all the flash I need. Instead of carrying an external flash unit for those occasions, I find it worth the small initial increase in price. It surely doesn't add much. No. The point was just that I'm sort of dreaming about a back-to-basics DSLR - as I've mentioned earlier. On such a setup maybe even the popup-flash would have to go... But I wouldn't want to save on sensor size and quality, or the lens interface. The custom functions on the Canon are extensive, much more so than on the *ist D/DS/DL, but most of what they offer is quite useful for various people. Well, I haven't actually tried configuring a Canon camera, so I have idea what they do, but 21 functions do seem like a lot... The problem with having so many of course arises if you don't use most of them; having so many extra options tends to make it a lot harder to track down you do want to change. I had the Canon 10D for a year and a half before I bought the DS. While I rarely used many of the CF options, I did configure the camera to suit my use once or twice: the options in customizing it to taste were very welcome. You don't normally do these sorts of things in the field very often, so you usually are sitting by your desk with the instruction manual at hand when you want to see if there's a better configuration. The DS custom functions are very simple by comparison. More or less useful is a moot point; the 10D's options cover a lot more things than the DS', and thus the 10D/20D/etc are more flexible cameras. My point is that increased flexibility often leads to reduced usability. I mean that as a general note not related to digital cameras in particular. Of course, if you don't feel the need for any of the CF options, you don't have to look at them at all. I know several 10D users who never once looked at any of the CF options. Yeah, like I said, the real problem occurs if there are 2 or 3 genuinely useful options, and 18 or 19 that you *may* want to use, but could really make do without. It's often much better to have just the 2 or 3, then. Also, configurability does tend to hurt performance and/or reliability; this is also meant as a general note... They shouldn't be confused with exposure program presets, however, which are mostly just a waste of space on the mode selector dial for me. On either camera. ;-) You mean the picture modes. Yep, I wouldn't miss those one bit if they were removed. Does anyone here actually ever use them? Or will any users of a 3500 euro-camera like that new Canon? Yes: picture modes = exposure program presets. The only one of merit on the DS is the Sports preset because it is the only way that you can obtain C-AF with the DS body. The D has a position on the AF-MF selector switch, and the DL implements a C-AF switch in the menu system. The DS is missing the ability to use C-AF in all exposure modes ... Sounds like the design is a bit flawed in that respect... not a heartbreaker far as I'm concerned, but something I occasionally miss. I don't use any of the others. I'm usually using Av, P, Tv or M exposure mode. Yeah, me to. With film bodies, that is. Actually, I think I use Av about 90% of the time, but that's just my style, I guess... Godfrey
Re: OT - Upping the anti
Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11/8/05, P. J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed: Unlike Cotty, I'm not willing to modify my lenses in such a way that they won't work normally. My Pentax lenses all work normally :-) Oh yeah? Let Frank use 'em, you'll see! -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: OT - Upping the anti
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 07:22:02PM +0200, Toralf Lund wrote: Herb Chong wrote: the cost savings on a camera of that price is negligible. Yeah. Much like the savings of putting a crippled K-mount on a $1500 camera, or whatever the original price of the *istD was... $1695 :-(
Re: OT - Upping the anti
the Dalsa sensors for 22MP cameras were in excess of $5K in OEM quantities. cost goes up faster than area. Herb - Original Message - From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 9:58 AM Subject: Re: OT - Upping the anti I don't know prices of the sensor component, but they are expensive. Several hundred dollars at the OEM pricing level. Translate times 7-10 for retail after manufacture.
Re: OT - Upping the anti
that was not determined by cost. they chose not to because they wanted to abandon lenses without an A setting. then they discovered that they could put something in as a hack purely in firmware to quiet some of the noises from people here. Herb - Original Message - From: Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 1:22 PM Subject: Re: OT - Upping the anti Yeah. Much like the savings of putting a crippled K-mount on a $1500 camera, or whatever the original price of the *istD was...
Re: OT - Upping the anti
The PDML centric view of the universe... Herb Chong wrote: that was not determined by cost. they chose not to because they wanted to abandon lenses without an A setting. then they discovered that they could put something in as a hack purely in firmware to quiet some of the noises from people here. Herb - Original Message - From: Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 1:22 PM Subject: Re: OT - Upping the anti Yeah. Much like the savings of putting a crippled K-mount on a $1500 camera, or whatever the original price of the *istD was... -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
OT - Upping the anti
Speculation or a leak? web page: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/62649 PDF download in Spanish: http://alex.netfun.ro/Canon5D-specs.pdf Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
RE: OT - Upping the anti
Price range is close to right and FF! Tom C. From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax list pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: OT - Upping the anti Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 16:56:43 +0100 Speculation or a leak? web page: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/62649 PDF download in Spanish: http://alex.netfun.ro/Canon5D-specs.pdf Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: OT - Upping the anti
I can't imagine what Pentax engineers must feel like when they see something like this. Cotty wrote: Speculation or a leak? web page: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/62649 PDF download in Spanish: http://alex.netfun.ro/Canon5D-specs.pdf Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: OT - Upping the anti
- Original Message - From: Gonz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 12:37 PM Subject: Re: OT - Upping the anti I can't imagine what Pentax engineers must feel like when they see something like this. Hard for them to see it when their heads are firmly buried in the sand. yes the sand. heads in the sand. Christian
Re: OT - Upping the anti
I think they probably start looking for ways to downgrade the specs on the camera they are designing so they can sell it for less... 1/2 tongue-in-cheek - 1/2 serious Tom C. From: Gonz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: OT - Upping the anti Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 11:37:04 -0500 I can't imagine what Pentax engineers must feel like when they see something like this. Cotty wrote: Speculation or a leak? web page: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/62649 PDF download in Spanish: http://alex.netfun.ro/Canon5D-specs.pdf Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: OT - Upping the anti
That's pretty bad smelling sand... you must mean they have sand in their pants. :) Tom C. From: Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: OT - Upping the anti Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 12:42:37 -0400 - Original Message - From: Gonz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 12:37 PM Subject: Re: OT - Upping the anti I can't imagine what Pentax engineers must feel like when they see something like this. Hard for them to see it when their heads are firmly buried in the sand. yes the sand. heads in the sand. Christian
Re: OT - Upping the anti
Christian wrote: - Original Message - From: Gonz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 12:37 PM Subject: Re: OT - Upping the anti I can't imagine what Pentax engineers must feel like when they see something like this. Hard for them to see it when their heads are firmly buried in the sand. yes the sand. heads in the sand. Me thinks its the marketing guys that have their head there. The engineers could probably do a much better job if given the chance. Christian
Re: OT - Upping the anti
I think they probably start looking for ways to downgrade the specs on the camera they are designing so they can sell it for less... 1/2 tongue-in-cheek - 1/2 serious Tom C. From: Gonz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: OT - Upping the anti Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 11:37:04 -0500 I can't imagine what Pentax engineers must feel like when they see something like this. Cotty wrote: Speculation or a leak? web page: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/62649 PDF download in Spanish: http://alex.netfun.ro/Canon5D-specs.pdf Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: OT - Upping the anti
On 10/8/05, Christian, discombobulated, unleashed: Hard for them to see it when their heads are firmly buried in the sand. yes the sand. heads in the sand. No boy, calm down. They'll get there eventually. The LX-D. I would want one of course. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: OT - Upping the anti
On Wednesday, August 10, 2005, at 11:56 AM, Cotty wrote: Speculation or a leak? It's real. We've known about it for a bit. 12 MP full-frame sensor, 2.5 inch LCD monitor, 3 frames per second, about US $ 3,500 street price when it gets here. It's first official US showing will be at Photo Plus in NYC in late October. Bob
Re: OT - Upping the anti
Tom C wrote: I think they probably start looking for ways to downgrade the specs on the camera they are designing so they can sell it for less... As long as they downgrade the right things, I'm all for it. I notice that Canon has removed the pop-up flash on the body discussed here. If they got rid of the 21 custom functions with 59 values (or whatever), too, I might start getting interested... 1/2 tongue-in-cheek - 1/2 serious Tom C. From: Gonz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: OT - Upping the anti Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 11:37:04 -0500 I can't imagine what Pentax engineers must feel like when they see something like this. Cotty wrote: Speculation or a leak? web page: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/62649 PDF download in Spanish: http://alex.netfun.ro/Canon5D-specs.pdf Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: OT - Upping the anti
On Aug 10, 2005, at 11:51 AM, Toralf Lund wrote: As long as they downgrade the right things, I'm all for it. I notice that Canon has removed the pop-up flash on the body discussed here. If they got rid of the 21 custom functions with 59 values (or whatever), too, I might start getting interested... Sometimes the popup flash is useful for a tiny bit of fill. The custom functions on the Canon are extensive, much more so than on the *ist D/DS/DL, but most of what they offer is quite useful for various people. They shouldn't be confused with exposure program presets, however, which are mostly just a waste of space on the mode selector dial for me. On either camera. ;-) Godfrey
Re: OT - Upping the anti
Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sometimes the popup flash is useful for a tiny bit of fill. The custom functions on the Canon are extensive, much more so than on the *ist D/DS/DL, but most of what they offer is quite useful for various people. After using the MZ-S and ist-D extensively in the field, I wouldn't want to own a camera *without* a pop-up flash. That little baby's saved several shots for me! -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: OT - Upping the anti
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: On Aug 10, 2005, at 11:51 AM, Toralf Lund wrote: As long as they downgrade the right things, I'm all for it. I notice that Canon has removed the pop-up flash on the body discussed here. If they got rid of the 21 custom functions with 59 values (or whatever), too, I might start getting interested... Sometimes the popup flash is useful for a tiny bit of fill. Yes, but I could easily live without it, especially if it reduced the price of the camera, or I could trade it in for something else, like a full frame sensor (well that would not be a direct swap, I guess) or mechanical aperture coupling. (In the case of Pentaxes, obviously.) The custom functions on the Canon are extensive, much more so than on the *ist D/DS/DL, but most of what they offer is quite useful for various people. Well, I haven't actually tried configuring a Canon camera, so I have idea what they do, but 21 functions do seem like a lot... The problem with having so many of course arises if you don't use most of them; having so many extra options tends to make it a lot harder to track down you do want to change. They shouldn't be confused with exposure program presets, however, which are mostly just a waste of space on the mode selector dial for me. On either camera. ;-) You mean the picture modes. Yep, I wouldn't miss those one bit if they were removed. Does anyone here actually ever use them? Or will any users of a 3500 euro-camera like that new Canon? Godfrey
Re: OT - Upping the anti
Great for Canon users, doesn't help if you don't own Canon Glass. If I were starting from scratch I don't think I'd care if the sensor was APS sized, and then the 12mp Nikon would be just fine. Tom C wrote: Price range is close to right and FF! Tom C. From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax list pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: OT - Upping the anti Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 16:56:43 +0100 Speculation or a leak? web page: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/62649 PDF download in Spanish: http://alex.netfun.ro/Canon5D-specs.pdf Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: OT - Upping the anti
Probably, Why won't management let us build one? Gonz wrote: I can't imagine what Pentax engineers must feel like when they see something like this. Cotty wrote: Speculation or a leak? web page: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/62649 PDF download in Spanish: http://alex.netfun.ro/Canon5D-specs.pdf Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: OT - Upping the anti
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, P. J. Alling wrote: Probably, Why won't management let us build one? Because management knows better than let you run when you can barely walk. Kostas
Re: OT - Upping the anti
The engineers know how to run, the sales department can barely crawl. Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, P. J. Alling wrote: Probably, Why won't management let us build one? Because management knows better than let you run when you can barely walk. Kostas -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: OT - Upping the anti
P. J. Alling wrote: Great for Canon users, doesn't help if you don't own Canon Glass. If I were starting from scratch I don't think I'd care if the sensor was APS sized, and then the 12mp Nikon would be just fine. Surely a 12Mp 24x36 sensor has several advantages over a, what is it, 16x24 12mp one? I mean, even disregarding the crop vs full-frame consideration, bigger is still better in many ways, isn't it? Tom C wrote: Price range is close to right and FF! Tom C. From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax list pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: OT - Upping the anti Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 16:56:43 +0100 Speculation or a leak? web page: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/62649 PDF download in Spanish: http://alex.netfun.ro/Canon5D-specs.pdf Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: OT - Upping the anti
Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: P. J. Alling wrote: Great for Canon users, doesn't help if you don't own Canon Glass. If I were starting from scratch I don't think I'd care if the sensor was APS sized, and then the 12mp Nikon would be just fine. Surely a 12Mp 24x36 sensor has several advantages over a, what is it, 16x24 12mp one? I mean, even disregarding the crop vs full-frame consideration, bigger is still better in many ways, isn't it? Yes indeed. One has only to see some large prints from a Canon 1D (only 4 megapixels but 1.3 crop factor) to see how true this is. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: OT - Upping the anti
P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Probably, Why won't management let us build one? More likely: Canon's in the unique position of designing and manufacturing their own sensors. Not that big a deal to Pentax engineers because Pentax isn't in the $3500 DSLR market. Nikon engineers, on the other hand, are probably scared stiff (as they should be). Gonz wrote: I can't imagine what Pentax engineers must feel like when they see something like this. Cotty wrote: Speculation or a leak? web page: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/62649 PDF download in Spanish: http://alex.netfun.ro/Canon5D-specs.pdf -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: OT - Upping the anti
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: On Aug 10, 2005, at 11:51 AM, Toralf Lund wrote: As long as they downgrade the right things, I'm all for it. I notice that Canon has removed the pop-up flash on the body discussed here. If they got rid of the 21 custom functions with 59 values (or whatever), too, I might start getting interested... Sometimes the popup flash is useful for a tiny bit of fill. The custom functions on the Canon are extensive, much more so than on the *ist D/DS/DL, but most of what they offer is quite useful for various people. Removing the popup flash would also seemingly eliminate wireless remote flash. Tom Reese
Re: OT - Upping the anti
On Aug 10, 2005, at 1:11 PM, Toralf Lund wrote: Yes, but I could easily live without it, especially if it reduced the price of the camera, or I could trade it in for something else, like a full frame sensor (well that would not be a direct swap, I guess) or mechanical aperture coupling. (In the case of Pentaxes, obviously.) On many of the rare occasions that I need flash, it's all the flash I need. Instead of carrying an external flash unit for those occasions, I find it worth the small initial increase in price. It surely doesn't add much. The custom functions on the Canon are extensive, much more so than on the *ist D/DS/DL, but most of what they offer is quite useful for various people. Well, I haven't actually tried configuring a Canon camera, so I have idea what they do, but 21 functions do seem like a lot... The problem with having so many of course arises if you don't use most of them; having so many extra options tends to make it a lot harder to track down you do want to change. I had the Canon 10D for a year and a half before I bought the DS. While I rarely used many of the CF options, I did configure the camera to suit my use once or twice: the options in customizing it to taste were very welcome. You don't normally do these sorts of things in the field very often, so you usually are sitting by your desk with the instruction manual at hand when you want to see if there's a better configuration. The DS custom functions are very simple by comparison. More or less useful is a moot point; the 10D's options cover a lot more things than the DS', and thus the 10D/20D/etc are more flexible cameras. Of course, if you don't feel the need for any of the CF options, you don't have to look at them at all. I know several 10D users who never once looked at any of the CF options. They shouldn't be confused with exposure program presets, however, which are mostly just a waste of space on the mode selector dial for me. On either camera. ;-) You mean the picture modes. Yep, I wouldn't miss those one bit if they were removed. Does anyone here actually ever use them? Or will any users of a 3500 euro-camera like that new Canon? Yes: picture modes = exposure program presets. The only one of merit on the DS is the Sports preset because it is the only way that you can obtain C-AF with the DS body. The D has a position on the AF-MF selector switch, and the DL implements a C-AF switch in the menu system. The DS is missing the ability to use C-AF in all exposure modes ... not a heartbreaker far as I'm concerned, but something I occasionally miss. I don't use any of the others. I'm usually using Av, P, Tv or M exposure mode. Godfrey
Re: OT - Upping the anti
On Aug 10, 2005, at 3:13 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: Not that big a deal to Pentax engineers because Pentax isn't in the $3500 DSLR market. Nikon engineers, on the other hand, are probably scared stiff (as they should be). Or putting pressure on Sony and Kodak to come up with a suitable sensor for them. Godfrey
Re: OT - Upping the anti
Great for Canon users, doesn't help if you don't own Canon Glass. If I were starting from scratch I don't think I'd care if the sensor was APS sized, and then the 12mp Nikon would be just fine. Surely a 12Mp 24x36 sensor has several advantages over a, what is it, 16x24 12mp one? I mean, even disregarding the crop vs full-frame consideration, bigger is still better in many ways, isn't it? Yes indeed. One has only to see some large prints from a Canon 1D (only 4 megapixels but 1.3 crop factor) to see how true this is. The advantage of a larger sensor with the same total resolution is better signal to noise ratio, more light gathering power thus higher ISO, etc. This has to be balanced against higher cost, larger/heavier lenses, and effective quality for the output print size you're looking for. There is no disputing that a larger sensor has its advantages, but one must also acknowledge its disadvantages and consider whether it is actually worth the extra money. This new Canon body is going to sell at the stupendously low price of near $3500 ... How many people on this mailing list are prepared to spend that for a body tomorrow? How about $3000? $2000? $1500? If you really really think that nothing less expensive will do an adequate job for your particular pleasure, well, get ready to ante up. I might be ready to spring for a $1500 body sometime soon if the advantage in it is great enough, but a $3500 body would require a good bit more potential return before it would be worth it. Godfrey
Re: OT - Upping the anti
On Aug 10, 2005, at 3:42 PM, Tom Reese wrote: Removing the popup flash would also seemingly eliminate wireless remote flash. Not eliminate it but certainly make it a bit less convenient. The DS body right now does not support wireless flash control with the built- in flash, but supports it just fine with two dedicated flashes... one mounted on the body. Godfrey
Re: OT - Upping the anti
Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Aug 10, 2005, at 3:13 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: Not that big a deal to Pentax engineers because Pentax isn't in the $3500 DSLR market. Nikon engineers, on the other hand, are probably scared stiff (as they should be). Or putting pressure on Sony and Kodak to come up with a suitable sensor for them. ...and possibly available to other camera manufacturers. :) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: OT - Upping the anti
On 10/8/05, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed: Not that big a deal to Pentax engineers because Pentax isn't in the $3500 DSLR market. Sorry Mark - they should be! Even if they only build couple a thousand of the damned things. They should be. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: OT - Upping the anti
Tom Reese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Removing the popup flash would also seemingly eliminate wireless remote flash. Or at least force you to buy *two* flash units in order to do it. Good point. I love being able to do off-camera flash without cables. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: OT - Upping the anti
that's 3 out of 5. Herb - Original Message - From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax list pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 11:56 AM Subject: OT - Upping the anti Speculation or a leak? web page: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/62649 PDF download in Spanish: http://alex.netfun.ro/Canon5D-specs.pdf
Re: OT - Upping the anti
the cost savings on a camera of that price is negligible. they can offer it on a $300 body. leaving it off of a $3500 body is marketing and not profits. Herb - Original Message - From: Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 4:11 PM Subject: Re: OT - Upping the anti Sometimes the popup flash is useful for a tiny bit of fill. Yes, but I could easily live without it, especially if it reduced the price of the camera, or I could trade it in for something else, like a full frame sensor (well that would not be a direct swap, I guess) or mechanical aperture coupling. (In the case of Pentaxes, obviously.)
Re: OT - Upping the anti
all things being equal, yes. however, not all things are equal, as Nikon is proving. it's not as good as a full frame sensor, but noise is VERY good on the Nikon. Herb - Original Message - From: Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 5:47 PM Subject: Re: OT - Upping the anti Surely a 12Mp 24x36 sensor has several advantages over a, what is it, 16x24 12mp one? I mean, even disregarding the crop vs full-frame consideration, bigger is still better in many ways, isn't it?
Re: OT - Upping the anti
they are where they are they are now partly because they aren't in that market. Herb - Original Message - From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 6:13 PM Subject: Re: OT - Upping the anti Not that big a deal to Pentax engineers because Pentax isn't in the $3500 DSLR market.
Re: OT - Upping the anti
there is one close enough. it's in the Leica R digital back. Herb - Original Message - From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 6:27 PM Subject: Re: OT - Upping the anti Or putting pressure on Sony and Kodak to come up with a suitable sensor for them.
Re: OT - Upping the anti
Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/8/05, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed: Not that big a deal to Pentax engineers because Pentax isn't in the $3500 DSLR market. Sorry Mark - they should be! Even if they only build couple a thousand of the damned things. They should be. Agreed. But there's not much anyone can do about it until Pentax gets their own CMOS sensor operation on line. I hear perhaps next year. Even then, the money is at the low end of the market. I've heard from knowledgeable sources that Nikon could have been in bankruptcy if not for the D70. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: OT - Upping the anti
D2X sales were twice projected. that is what made the difference. D70 sales were what they expected. Herb - Original Message - From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 7:50 PM Subject: Re: OT - Upping the anti Agreed. But there's not much anyone can do about it until Pentax gets their own CMOS sensor operation on line. I hear perhaps next year. Even then, the money is at the low end of the market. I've heard from knowledgeable sources that Nikon could have been in bankruptcy if not for the D70.
