On 22 Jul 2005 at 10:23, Malcolm Smith wrote: > I do indeed still use film and thus I have a choice. You have MF for a high > quality image capture. What it really comes down to is wanting it all in one > package, inconvenient as it is, you already have it, albeit in two different > forms of equipment.
I guess the very bottom line for me is that it isn't just inconvenient, it's getting difficult and becoming limiting having to tote and juggle two systems, plus quality film and processing is now a significant cost. My frustration is compounded by the fact that I'm sure that it's possible to replace my MF system with a suitably spec'd digital body that utilizes 35mm lenses and by the fact that at least one other manufacturer makes such a body. Unfortunately my lens kit with which I'm very happy isn't compatible. > I expect users of plate cameras longed for what became 35mm and then forever > found fault with it. How many posts have there been over the years about > Pentax > not ever launching a digital camera, then when they do - even with so many > backward compatibility features - it's still not enough. Where do you jump in? > You have to feel some sympathy to Pentax, as they have taken so much stick > from > actually producing a DSLR at all, to the length of time behind the others on > launching it - even ensuring previous lens models could be used with some > limitations. Should they have waited for film quality sensors? Perhaps they > should have jumped from cameras altogether. I'm glad they didn't though. This has been discussed more than a few times before, Pentax had every opportunity to offer full backwards compatibility but elected not to, they also cried wolf. I've been loyal to Pentax for many years and I feel they are letting me down > If you know before hand what you will be likely to shoot, you can choose > what to take (if it's a professional shoot you will already know what they > want in the way of negative or digital image); if it's a newsworthy picture > which all the tabloids want, they won't give a toss if it's from a 'phone > camera > or the latest expensive digital if it has the image they can use. My shots are mainly for me and I'm hard to please, much more so than most commercial clients I expect. > It's a pain Rob, but like most things in life it's a compromise. You have a > vast > amount of talent to make the very best of what you use and that you can't buy. Point granted and I do accept the compromises and I don't want to sound like I'm whining (no comments) but it's just difficult having to watch other manufacturers delivering products that consistently set the standards and Pentax users being fed little but vague promises. And then, to top it off, having to bear the tireless supportive claims of Pentax users who accept the status quo that insist on reinforcing to the rest of us that Pentax are going the right way about their business. If they were I'd be happier I guess? Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
