Indeed, landscape photographers, and other outdoor photographers as well, is a very likely target group for a Pentax 645D. I have talked to several former P645 users who went to Canon and still miss their P645.
Admittedly a small percentage of the total number of pros, but still significant. Jostein On 9/28/06, Rob Brigham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Add to that list: > > C. Landscape photographers - many of whom havent gone digital because (I > think) most MedF solutions need to be tethered to a PC, need mains > power, or are just too bulky to use in the field. Some of these may have > gone digital (if so then many would probably look to the 35mm FF > solutions) but probably few find digital up to the standard so also > shoot film still. > > The 645 would (hopefully) be a good field use camera and not have any > huge competition in this market, albeit a slightly niche market I guess. > You still (at least up to a year ago anyway) find Pentax highest > penetration in this market among professionals as far as I can see - the > 645 and 67 are quite common in UK outdoor mags. > > I don't think the 645D is particularly aimed at studio photogs because > there are solutions which will be fine for them already - albeit > expensive ones...! Pentax may win some of these on price, but not sure > how many. > > Just my 2c > > Rob > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > graywolf > Sent: 28 September 2006 13:15 > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: Interview w/Pentax exec > > > I will argue with that. MF users are: a. Wedding Photographers many who > have gone digital, but some of them are actually going back to film; and > > b. Studio Photographers who have probably only gone 50% digital, some of > > them actually shoot digital and film in parallel. Actually the only area > > where digital is an overwhelming advantage are news, and event > photography. > > Oh, yes, and snapshooters who have to see their image to know if they > got what they thought they got. Which brings up an old story. It was > January 1961 I was in basic training, I had just bought a Kalimar A at > the Base Exchange for $24.95, I also got a roll of Kodachrome. My first > 35mm camera, and my first roll of color film. Over the weekend I > wandered over the base taking pictures of everything in sight. I got > that roll of Kodachrome back, it had 17 black slides and 3 dim ones. > Back to the BX to buy a light meter, that was when I realized that > photography was going to be an expensive hobby. > > -- > graywolf > http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf > "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" > ----------------------------------- > > > Digital Image Studio wrote: > > On 28/09/06, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Pentax's pro users have been largely medium format for many years. > >> Whether they can retain a share of this market is uncertain, but they > > >> probably have a better chance in MF than in pro grade FF SLR. > > > > I understand where you're coming from Paul but I sincerely expect that > > > any pro who used Pentax medium format equipment has likely moved on to > > > a new digital system of some type. I can't help but believe that the > > vast majority of Pentax MF shooters these days are amateurs. Few of > > which will likely shell out for a new P645 even if it comes in at > > under US$5k (and as you may recall I've said similar before long ago > > but it seem more and more likely as time slips by) > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
