John, Because you seem firmly convinced of your position, please clarify for me in what way digital provides you, "a much better picture-taking experience". At the moment of capture? This is in the serious hope that I'll read something other than "immediate feed back".
Jack --- John Forbes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tom, > > The continual negativism on this forum doesn't make it a better > place, and > it certainly doesn't HELP Pentax. What is does is to distort > people's > assessment of Pentax's true position. > > You wouldn't think so from some of the posts, but Pentax is a > profitable > company. It clearly went through a hard time when it was forced to > abandon > the MZ-D, and I personally think it has bounced back from that rather > > well. A company with less financial muscle, and less commitment to > photography, would have given up then. The fact that it didn't > speaks > volumes. > > As the more level-headed members of this site point out, the current > DSLR > range (the D, incidentally, is still available) meets the needs of > most > people, even most PDML members. Yes, it would be nice to have extra > bells > and whistles, but most of us don't actually need them, and many of us > > wouldn't pay very much for them. That's not to deny that there are > some > photographers whose needs are clearly not well served by the present > > line-up. However, they are a small minority, and with luck (and a > little > time), the D replacement will address their problems. > > It is noteworthy that there are now very few list members left who > have > not bought a Pentax DSLR. Clearly, there must be something good > about > them. > > In my view the Pentax DSLRs provide a much better picture-taking > experience than any 35mm film camera, and I expect my two D bodies to > be > active for some time to come, whatever the future of Pentax. That > means I > will continue to buy lenses. > > John > > On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 20:20:45 +0100, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > In answer to your last question, yes I've perceived that to be the > case > > sometimes, but not with the Chongwagon comment. However, it's not > all > > whining and negativism. Some of it's an ongoing analysis and, yes, > > > speculation regarding the future of the brand, and therefore the > wisdom > > of future potential 'investments'. > > > > I single-handedly, and others who tend to share the same views, > will not > > make those views come true. Pentax, having marketed and produced > in the > > manner they have, are responsible for their image, ranking in the > > marketplace. > > > > Tom C. > > > > > > > > > >> From: "John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Reply-To: [email protected] > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax... > >> Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 19:38:16 +0100 > >> > >> Which is a pretty big market if you think about it, in MF terms. > >> > >> Why don't you post a lot more negative messages about Pentax? > That > >> way you'll make your worst fears come true. > >> > >> It seems to me that in life we need a certain amount of optimism. > > >> People who get things done are optimists; people who whinge and > >> bellyache are not nice to know and tend not to amount to much. > >> > >> Have you noticed that the most prolific posters of pictures on > this > >> site, and the best photographers, do not as a rule jump on the > >> Chongwagon. They just get on with life and take pictures. > >> > >> John > >> > >> On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 18:33:47 +0100, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> > >>> Yep. I can't see the market for a 645D being too much more than > > >>> owners of a film Pentax 645 system. > >>> > >>> Tom C. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>> Reply-To: [email protected] > >>>> To: [email protected] > >>>> Subject: Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax... > >>>> Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 10:45:48 +1000 > >>>> > >>>> On 30 Sep 2005 at 15:17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > Formats are only names now. A 645D would probably be no larger > or > >>>> heavier than > >>>> > the current Canon D1s Mark II, and Pentax has already said > it's > >>>> sensor won't be > >>>> > true 645 dimensions. Most prosumers cameras and some pro > models > >>>> will probably > >>>> > remain APS-C. It's all just semantics. Paul > >>>> > >>>> The difference is that in reality by the time the 645D comes to > > >>>> market (if at > >>>> all) there will likely be very little advantage between a top > end > >>>> Canon DSLR > >>>> kit and the 645D technically. And if I had to buy a new set of > >>>> lenses (which I > >>>> would if I had to buy a 645D to get anything remotely top end > out of > >>>> Pentax) > >>>> I'd definitely buy into the Canon system and I can't imagine > other > >>>> people in my > >>>> position not doing the same. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 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 > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: > http://www.opera.com/m2/ > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ > > __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
