First, let me say, while I was replying to your post, I was not talking to you specifically, nor am I doing so in this reply.
On this list I get the distinct impression that if it is of no use to the responder personally, it is no use to anybody. And, like it or not, it is likely that Pentax uses this list as at least part of their market research. So, when we as a group, who have no need, nor interest for, say, a high-end digital say there is no market for it, we are influencing the thinking at Pentax. The problem with that is that the people who would be in the market for something like that have no input what so ever to Pentax. Canon, and Nikon, with their professional freebee programs have a great deal of input from the high end users, that effects their marketing. The conventional wisdom on this list is that the LX is so expensive that there is no market for it. My friend the Pentax Rep always tells me how it costs too much to make to sell to the Pentax users market at the price they need to get. But, they had been making them in limited quantities. The thing no one seems to notice, is that those expensive unsellable cameras are not piled up in a warehouse somewhere, someone was buying them. Considering that Pentax has done everything in its power to alienate that customer base that seems very strange to me. >From this list, it would seem that Pentax need make no more cameras what so ever. All of us only want the old used ones, we seem to think the new ones are junk. The MZ-S is too expensive. Well, unlike some other cameras, the reason you don't see them on dealers shelves is the dealers have a hard time getting them. When I have seen them on the shelves around here, they are gone in two weeks. Two weeks is a fabulous turn over in the camera business, so any dealer in his right mind would like to have a couple in stock. Limited lenses are horrendously expensive, they too are selling fast as they make them. So somebody is buying them. Since Aaron started bragging about the 6x7 they have gotten popular with list members, they seem to sell well, even with all the old ones available used for little money. They are not in the market this list generally seems to think is the only one Pentax sells to. But, you know what, I doubt very much that pentax is pushing them to the market that is buying them. What you, or I, want and need is not the only thing Pentax or someone else should sell. One local dealer here sells the Canon D-30, they melt off the shelves as fast as he gets them in. The other dealers say they don't sell, but if you want one they will special order it at full list price for you. Screwy thinking seems to be the industry norm. What I would buy is not the market anyone should look at, and I know that. If I had the money to have the equipment I really want the only thing contemporary on the list would be a high end 35mm based digital. My wish list other than that high end digital is a Linhof Super Technika outfit, a Mamiya Universal Press outfit, and a multi Pentax MX outfit. None of these have been produced in more than a decade. (Well they still make a Technika but nice as it is, it is junk compared to the older ones), The strange thing is I have had all those in the past. My life has not been conductive to retaining things. Every time I have sold things like these it was with the intention of replacing them soon. Life has a way of not working out the way I want it to. I seem to have wandered astray so I will shut up and go away for now. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto ---------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 12:04 AM Subject: RE: Pentax digital SLR - Not now! > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of T Rittenhouse > > Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 11:26 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: Pentax digital SLR - Not now! > > > > > > Hey, I am going to butt in and reply to this. > > > > No, Dave's 8x10s ain't no where near as good as a good chemical print from > > 35mm. They are about as good as the 'make an 8x10 from your 4x6 print' > > prints that most people are going to compare them to. But then he > > sells them > > right then and there and pockets the money. His other choice is to go have > > prints made and approach the customer a few days latter as I have done in > > the past, or at the next event if the customer is at the next > > event. So his > > choice is salon grade prints, or a pocket full of money. To me > > that is not a > > hard choice to make. His prints are acceptable to his clients and that is > > really all that matters. > > I'm not criticizing what he's doing especially if he's making money from > it. BUT, I am an amatuer hobby enthusiast that has only one client - ME! > I want the fullest quality 35mm can offer because to ME its marginal > format to begin with. I have little interest in the current digital > SLRs because I feel they are not as good as good 35mm yet. I'm sure > in the future I will end up with one but not now. It's still too much > of a compromise to me in terms of picture quality. > > > > > > This list like most of the photography lists has this elitist > > bent that has > > nothing to do with reality. This lens in not sharp, that lens is really, > > good, when 99% of the people who look at the photographs can not tell the > > difference. The depth of field on this print is not acceptable they say, > > leaving nose prints on the print. > > I dont find that much difference between lenses on a given format > but they are there, just subtle. I find HUGE differences between > formats 35mm vs. 6X7 for example both in sharpness and grain. > > > > > > Not only does Pentax not know anything about supplying gear to > > professional > > photographers, neither do their customers know anything about what is a > > useful and therefore valuable piece of equipment to someone > > trying to make a > > living from photography, or at least make it pay for itself. And, as an > > aside, while photojournalism is the most visible type of professional > > photography it is only a small part of the professional market > > > > Pentax doesnt make any money from pros, their market is amatuers. > Why do you think they bailed out on the LX??? It wasnt making enuff money. > > > Now I know that most of the people on the list who looked at my web page, > > thought, "what lousy pictures", but many of those snap shots, and I > > unabashedly admit I do snap shots, put money in my pocket. > > > > Nothing wrong from making money from ANY shots if you can, but > I want image quality for my own satifaction, I dont see how > that is eliteist in any way. > > > > I know pros who do make money from pretty pictures, but I doubt > > if very many > > of them make a profit. Let's see a 30x40 Cibachrome, matting, framing. My > > cost $300 or $400. I need to haul around a 50 or so of them so my > > potential > > customers can paw through them. Ah, I sold 3 8x10s this week for > > $50 each. I > > have sold 20 or so of my $20 snap shots in a weekend. I imagine that is > > about what Dave does also. His digital solves the problem that defeated me > > in the past, how to get prints to the customer before they go > > home from the > > event. > > Thats a great application for digital no doubt, but totally > inappropriate for what I want out of my photography. Different > applications altogether. > > > > > Why not buy a toy digicam? Because of the stupid problems that go > > with them > > like the one you mentioned. What use is a camera that keeps > > shutting itself > > off in the middle of a shoot to a professional. That feature is for idiot > > that takes two shots of their daughter on the teeter-totter then put the > > camera away until next weekend without shutting it off. > > No, that feature is to save battery consumption. Digicams with LCDs > are power hogs. How many batteries does he go thru on a shoot? > > > Also the bigger > > sensor gives higher quality images than the small sensor in the toy camera > > does at the same resolution. > > > > They are better in terms of noise yes, but not resolution. Lower noise > is a definate plus in terms of image quality though. > > > I guess what I want to say is, get real. > > > > Ciao, > > Graywolf > > I think I am being realistic when I complain about the problems > with todays digital SLRs for MY type of photography. Hell, sometimes > I not even satisfied with 6X7 wishing instead that I had used > my speed graphic for some shots. I just dont understand how you > can say that wanting maximum image quality is "unrealistic". > JCO > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
