Hypothetical question: Cost of a new K1000
Here's an interesting question. Suppose that Pentax made a brand new K1000, metal body and all What would they have to charge for such a beast? Could it be made much cheaper than the Nikon FMA3? Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Hypothetical question: Cost of a new K1000
Or take the features of the ZX-M and put it in the K1000 metal body, now that would be a very attractive camera to me. The ZX-M has been compared as the K1000 replacement. Here's an interesting question. Suppose that Pentax made a brand new K1000, metal body and all What would they have to charge for such a beast? Could it be made much cheaper than the Nikon FMA3? Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Hypothetical question: Cost of a new K1000
It would be better to use the FM2n, since that was in production for a long time with a price history. I would not be surprised if the price ratio difference between the K1000 and FM/FM2n was pretty constant over time. When the FM2n stopped being sold last year it sold for $400-$500. The K1000 price was probably in the 2:3 ratio range (?) That would be a reasonable guess as to what a K1000 would cost today. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here's an interesting question. Suppose that Pentax made a brand new K1000, metal body and all What would they have to charge for such a beast? Could it be made much cheaper than the Nikon FMA3?
Re: Hypothetical question: Cost of a new K1000
Probably not any cheaper. At 01:18 PM 3/10/2003 -0500, you wrote: Here's an interesting question. Suppose that Pentax made a brand new K1000, metal body and all What would they have to charge for such a beast? Could it be made much cheaper than the Nikon FMA3? Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and shoddy? [was: RE: Hypothetical Question]
I am usually a lurker on the list, but reading all the posts from everyone here on Pentax digital, I find that most people have their facts misplaced. First of all, the market isn't goingfull digital yet and it may not be for many years. The fact is, people still want good old fashioned "prints". The really interesting part is that, we may all think that men command the photographic market, while in fact, almost more than 46% of photo consumers are women! They spend the money and they still spent it on good old fashioned film. Some may argue that film sales has declined over the past few years and this may signalled the end of analog photography. This is hardly from the truth as if you look at the recent photo industry's sales survey, film is starting to make a come back again. It seems that when digital came into the market, everyone wasfascinated by the opportunity for anyoneto do their own photo finishing at home with their computer. This is indicative of the good old BW darkroom days of some 30-50 years ago. But eventually, people are going back to their photo finisher for digital print processing, just like how the majority of us gave up BW and color printing and let the finisher do the job. Last but not least, no digital camera today that is affordable to the common person is any superior than a 35mm negative. Now, to digital sales.. I guess, most of you have read Pal's comment on digital sales and unfortunately, he *IS* telling the truth. The only people who are making money on digital are probably the photo stores. And why is that? That is because, the 35mm market is for now totally saturated. There isn't any growth in the 35mm market anymore. North American families typically have 1-2 cameras in their household and that usually compromise of a point shoot and ora dated SLR system. And like a computer, the 35mm system has become commodotized. Most stores usually make most of their money not on cameras, but on accessories they sell because margins are a little better there.On the other hand, the digital market still has room to grow, because not every household has it. Now, what does it all have to do with Pentax? I think Pentax knows this. From the mid 80s to the late 90s, as Pal had indicated on his previous post, Pentax was a strong zoom compact maker and still is. While Pentaxdesigned most of their compacts in house, other makersfarm out their compacts to someone else. There is also alittle known fact, but Pentax also has the expertise to design and manufacture their own lens shutter for zoom compacts, something other makers do not. There are also many first technologies employed by Pentax in their zoom compacts that received little recognition. Suffice to say, they are king in their business and still is. On theSLR front, Pentax sells the MZ series very well, though probably not as well as they liked these days. But keep in mind that Pentax is targetting a different market than Nikon and Canon and that market is very well received. But when it comes to digital or any other innovations however, Pentax does fare well against its competitors. They just don't want to bleed money profusely like their competitors do, and that's why they're a little slow in putting things out.That should also explain why they don't put out many of their secret weapons. And besides, being first in any digital innovationdoes not always "ENSURE" you to be the leader of that field in the future. And thatremindsmeof a little history about personal computers.During theearly 70s to themid 90s, the personalcomputer industry suffered from the same fate as the digital market we are experiencing today. Therewere so many computer makers, so many innovations, too many to list. Ti, Tandy, Commodore, Atari, Sinclair and the list goes on and on. I also remembered how people immediately wrote obituaries of both Apple and the PC when the Commodore Amiga and the Atari ST computers were kings of their day. Today, Apple G4s and Pentium 4 PCs are kings, the veryplatform that people in those days said would not survive. All I am saying is that, do not write off Pentax so easily, because I believe that when all this nonsense subside, you'll see only a few handful of digital makers survive. And Pentax will be one of them. That's my 2 cents worth.Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
Re: Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and shoddy? [was: RE: Hypothetical Question]
Rick wrote: Some may argue that film sales has declined over the past few years and this may signalled the end of analog photography. This is hardly from the truth as if you look at the recent photo industry's sales survey, film is starting to make a come back again. REPLY: Here in Norway we are in the front runners of digital camera market share. Still, film sales this year breaks all records. Go figure... Most analyst thinks film and digital will coexist for the foreseeable future. Kodak and Fuji think so too. Pål
Re: Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and shoddy? [was: RE: Hypothetical Question]
I like that opinion. I also have a question of sorts, I thought a good 14MP full frame sensor would meet or defeat the finest grain 35mm films? If not, it's close. So if, as Glen says, 30MP+ come out (will they be like computer CPUs?) when and what will be enough? Unless you want something for a board in Times Square, isn't anything much more complete and utter overkill? How many of use just like slides, or 4x6, 5x7, 8x10, 11x14. I think we'll see a large gap, consumer and pro. They'll get the monsters in case, and we will never get them due to the price. And RAW format with these things? Computer companies are loving this, oh the profits!! Perhaps the 35mm DSLRs will be consumer only and top out at not much more than 14MP. Consumer, amateur. All pros will go for new high tech and big sensors, of a medium format/large format type? Brad - Original Message - From: Glen O'Neal [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2002 1:49 AM Subject: RE: Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and shoddy? [was: RE: Hypothetical Question] One point to remember. We heard quite a few months ago (before Photokina) that along with the new digital SLR they were developing new wide angle lenses for the new line. With the APS sized sensor cropping of the image this makes sense as well as new technology to reduce chromatic aberrations (also a problem with APS sized sensors). This would indicate to me that, even if Pentax does actually get a DSLR to market next spring it will most like not be a full frame sensor. I think the next step for the digital world will be full frame sensors for medium format cameras as well as more sophisticated technology for the 35mm full frame sensors and imaging engine. Perhaps a 645 sensor first. By the time these 30MP+ monsters come out the APS sensor that we are so anxiously waiting for in our DSLR will be no more than a toy that is used mostly in point and shoot cameras and low end DSLR's. Just my humble opinion Glen -Original Message- From: Alexander Krohe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 2:43 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and shoddy? [was: RE: Hypothetical Question] Pål wrote: -- Sure, but I don't think LX with AF should be interpreted litterally; more of an AF camera that occupies the LX place in the line-up. Yes, that is how I have meant it. Both Nikon and Canon sell well of their upper level bodies. When a company like Kyocera could manage to keep four (or was it more) upper end bodies in the market simultaneously, neither of them selling in volumes, it is nothing but a total disgrace that Pentax didn't manage a single one during the 90's. Pentax' entire product line seems to be centered around PS cameras. I was told by a pentax rep that in the early 90s (before they introduced the FA-series), Pentax had almost dicontinued the 35mm SLR system. At that time Pentax dramatically lost market share (35mm SLR), but on the other side, their PS zoom cameras became extremely succesful. They continued their 35mm system because they thought - that making a 35mm system will boost the sales of PS cameras (as it shows their expertise as a camera maker) and - they will get new customers from those who want to upgrade from a PS camara to a SLR system. I think this strategy was quite successful.They survived and regained lost market share. It also explains the product philosophy behind the MZ-cameras: They are all either entry level cameras or for students. Similar to the espio/iqz PS cameras, they make a large variation of MZ cameras that are all based on one single platform. So they can appeal a variation of different customers while keeping costs low. However, in this line up is no room for an expensive model. You need another camera platform (expensive), and such a model is much more difficult to sell with a different marketing stategy and a higher risk. True, the LX was still around but it was beyond its selling date. So Pentax deserve the reputation they now have; entry level cameras there are no point in buying because if you buy a Nikon or a Canon, or even a Minolta, you have something to upgrade to. I think in the 90s the product management was even hostile against high quality 35mm gear as they also ditched the successor to the PZ-1p without any replacement. Instead they kept the PZ-1p in the product line for a IMO give away price (but nevertheless couldn't sell much of them). As a result everybody expects Pentax to be cheap. There was (is?) no long-term marketing strategy for high end 35mm gear. They did not even market the 35mm SLrs as a system, they rather marketed single products. Even up to now Pentax USA and Pentax Europe do not bother with black limited lenses. Still no ultra-wide Af lens. There are, however, signs that Pentax
Re: Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and shoddy? [was: RE: Hypothetical Question]
Oh, just an FYI for Canadians. I cannot remember, but one member I've discussed with on previous occasions. I bitched loudly at Pentax Canada, and probably just from luck, they got *new* brochures for 35mm lenses. It looks like the same old one, until you look closer and see the additional new lenses. About time, way to go Pentax! Pentax is currently offering about 60 lenses. I have no idea how many of those B+H list. Pål
Re: Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and shoddy? [was: RE: Hypothetical Question]
- Original Message - From: Pål Jensen Subject: Re: Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and shoddy? [was: RE: Hypothetical Question] Dan wrote: I just looked at Pentax's lenses on BH, are there more lenses than they list? They show 8 pages of lenses for Nikon, 6 pages each for Canon and Minolta, and then 3 pages for Pentax (Leica and Contax also have 3 pages each). Pentax is currently offering about 60 lenses. I have no idea how many of those B+H list. I just counted 55 lenses on Pentax Canada's website. More than enough for any user, I would think, and they don't include older lenses (the 43mm LTD is no longer listed, for example). William Robb
Re: Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and shoddy? [was: RE: Hypothetical Question]
Ok, but how does that relate to North Americans? I hope we get them all too. I like AF TC's although I've *just* bought one that is not..I like a FA 17mm f/2.8 (non-fisheye) but that would cost a bundle I'm sure. Ya, drop the power zooms, save batteries! Kill Tameron definitely. And stock the stuff in Canada Brad - Original Message - From: Alan Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2002 9:09 AM Subject: Re: Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and shoddy? [was: RE: Hypothetical Question] Pentax is currently offering about 60 lenses. I have no idea how many of those B+H list. Couldn't sleep and got nothing to do. I just counted from the Pentax Japan web site. The results are as follow. - 57 lenses 5 TCs in total - 37 AF lenses (excluding 2 soft focus lenses) - 25 supposed-to-be-good AF lenses ranged from 20mm to 600mm (fisheye excluded) to choose from (including F17-28, FA20-35 FA24-90, but excluding all consumer zooms, based on my very own subjective standard). Anything missing or should-be-made lenses based on my very subjective opinion? - FA 17mm prime or zoom (non-fisheye) - FA* 70-210/4 ED [IF] (power-zoom-less) - FA 100/2 [IF] (optimized for portrait) - FA* 500/4 or 4.5 ED [IF] - make all TCs AF - replaced all power-zoom to power-zoom-less - drop all Tamron cones and redesign all current consumers to better built - ??? regards, Alan Chan _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 3 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemailxAPID=42PS=47575PI=7324D I=7474SU= http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsgHL=1216hotmailtaglines_addphotos_3 mf
Re: Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and shoddy? [was: RE: Hypothetical Question]
Hey Bill, when you looked at the Canadian site, did you notice something odd? Nice new site, but they don't list a single flash unit!!! Some stupid over-sight I suppose. Brad - Original Message - From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2002 10:31 AM Subject: Re: Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and shoddy? [was: RE: Hypothetical Question] - Original Message - From: Pål Jensen Subject: Re: Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and shoddy? [was: RE: Hypothetical Question] Dan wrote: I just looked at Pentax's lenses on BH, are there more lenses than they list? They show 8 pages of lenses for Nikon, 6 pages each for Canon and Minolta, and then 3 pages for Pentax (Leica and Contax also have 3 pages each). Pentax is currently offering about 60 lenses. I have no idea how many of those B+H list. I just counted 55 lenses on Pentax Canada's website. More than enough for any user, I would think, and they don't include older lenses (the 43mm LTD is no longer listed, for example). William Robb
Re: Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and shoddy? [was: RE: Hypothetical Question]
- Original Message - From: Brad Dobo Subject: Re: Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and shoddy? [was: RE: Hypothetical Question] Hey Bill, when you looked at the Canadian site, did you notice something odd? Nice new site, but they don't list a single flash unit!!! Some stupid over-sight I suppose. Yer right. The repair department must have taken over website design. William Robb
Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and shoddy? [was: RE: Hypothetical Question]
Pål wrote: -- Sure, but I don't think LX with AF should be interpreted litterally; more of an AF camera that occupies the LX place in the line-up. Yes, that is how I have meant it. Both Nikon and Canon sell well of their upper level bodies. When a company like Kyocera could manage to keep four (or was it more) upper end bodies in the market simultaneously, neither of them selling in volumes, it is nothing but a total disgrace that Pentax didn't manage a single one during the 90's. Pentax' entire product line seems to be centered around PS cameras. I was told by a pentax rep that in the early 90s (before they introduced the FA-series), Pentax had almost dicontinued the 35mm SLR system. At that time Pentax dramatically lost market share (35mm SLR), but on the other side, their PS zoom cameras became extremely succesful. They continued their 35mm system because they thought - that making a 35mm system will boost the sales of PS cameras (as it shows their expertise as a camera maker) and - they will get new customers from those who want to upgrade from a PS camara to a SLR system. I think this strategy was quite successful.They survived and regained lost market share. It also explains the product philosophy behind the MZ-cameras: They are all either entry level cameras or for students. Similar to the espio/iqz PS cameras, they make a large variation of MZ cameras that are all based on one single platform. So they can appeal a variation of different customers while keeping costs low. However, in this line up is no room for an expensive model. You need another camera platform (expensive), and such a model is much more difficult to sell with a different marketing stategy and a higher risk. True, the LX was still around but it was beyond its selling date. So Pentax deserve the reputation they now have; entry level cameras there are no point in buying because if you buy a Nikon or a Canon, or even a Minolta, you have something to upgrade to. I think in the 90s the product management was even hostile against high quality 35mm gear as they also ditched the successor to the PZ-1p without any replacement. Instead they kept the PZ-1p in the product line for a IMO give away price (but nevertheless couldn't sell much of them). As a result everybody expects Pentax to be cheap. There was (is?) no long-term marketing strategy for high end 35mm gear. They did not even market the 35mm SLrs as a system, they rather marketed single products. Even up to now Pentax USA and Pentax Europe do not bother with black limited lenses. Still no ultra-wide Af lens. There are, however, signs that Pentax have gotten the message. I take the introduction of the MZ-S as an indication that you are right. But things are slowly moving. After the introduction of the MZ-S two years ago there has been silence again. The photokina no-show must have sent a desastrous message as they decided to semi-announce the upcomming APS D-SLR through internet groups (normally they remain tight-lipped about news releases). To be honest I think the product management has still a long way to go. They don't communicate to the customer in which direction they will go and what the selling points of their products are. E.g. you have to go to the Japanese web page to find out what the complete product line is. And when the MZ-S was introduced, they left it to the customer to find out if it is made of die-cast parts or just of metal-coated/plated plastic (due to an error in translation). Also, I believe that digital will force higher end cameras from Pentax. With some luck, we wil see film versions of the as well. If for nothing else, then as a means for Pentax to cover developing costs. Full-frame higher-end 35mm digital slr's will start competing with Pentax MF cameras. Also, MF need an upgrade path to digital uless they want their whole MF line to be a dead end. According to a rumor spread on the luminous landscape forum, Pentax is still committed to a full frame D-SLR (with FOVEON sensor). No idea if that is true, did you hear anything about that? (for my part, I will be glad if that APS sized D-SLR materializes in foreseeable future). Codeveloping 35mm and MF digital slr's makes sense as they can be made similar except for sensor size and physical size. Although for digital the sensor will be a strong selling point, Pentax need to update their features as well in order to be seen as competitive. They also will have to expect quite a few years with lossleaders in order to build up their eroded image. I hope you are right but it will be expensive and there is no guarantee that this will pay off in the future. I fear that this is exactly not what they are prepared to do. So far, I do not see a long therm product strategy. The MZ-S looks to me as a temporary solution rather than as the base to a series of new high end digital and film cameras. It took Canon
Re: Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and shoddy? [was: RE: Hypothetical Question]
Alexander wrote: I think in the 90s the product management was even hostile against high quality 35mm gear as they also ditched the successor to the PZ-1p without any replacement. Instead they kept the PZ-1p in the product line for a IMO give away price (but nevertheless couldn't sell much of them). As a result everybody expects Pentax to be cheap. But here is the big mystery; why did they bother with the huge lens line-up. I believe they are still second only to Nikon in the sheer number of lenses available. Why keep all those special lenses in production? For the MZ-5 customers? Hardly. There was (is?) no long-term marketing strategy for high end 35mm gear. They did not even market the 35mm SLrs as a system, they rather marketed single products. Even up to now Pentax USA and Pentax Europe do not bother with black limited lenses. Still no ultra-wide Af lens. I believe the lack of long term strategy is the culprit. Not engineering ambitions or product development. The frustrated (yes they are!) Pentax engineers have developed several interesting high end bodies that didn't get the go ahead. This incudes the Z-2; nickname for the Z-1p sucessor and the unnamed LX sucessor described by Pentax head of camera division at Photokina '96 as a professional body closer to the LX than the Z-1p but without interchangeable finders. Meanwhile, several extremely strategically placed Pentax people have made no secret of the fact that they are working on a flagship. I take the introduction of the MZ-S as an indication that you are right. But things are slowly moving. After the introduction of the MZ-S two years ago there has been silence again. The MZ-S was an anomaly. Whatever long-term plan Pentax had, the MZ-S wasn't part fo it. The MZ-S and it's digital sibling was developed at expense of the projects they were already working on to much dismay. I have no idea what they were working on, but signals clearly states that the MZ-S showed nothing of the good things to come. With the latest filing of patents I have no doubt that it includes color matrix metering, IS, USM and the KAF3 mount. How these plans figure today is unknown to me. According to a rumor spread on the luminous landscape forum, Pentax is still committed to a full frame D-SLR (with FOVEON sensor). No idea if that is true, did you hear anything about that? I haven't heard anything about it apart from the message posted by William and the one you're refering to. However, if the sorce is Foveon, something thats likelay as the rumor apparently has originated outside the usual Pentax channnels, then it might be true. Whatever, the rumor has long circulated that a major manufacturer is going to release a full-frame Foveon chipped DSLR. I hope you are right but it will be expensive and there is no guarantee that this will pay off in the future. I fear that this is exactly not what they are prepared to do. So far, I do not see a long therm product strategy. The MZ-S looks to me as a temporary solution rather than as the base to a series of new high end digital and film cameras. It took Canon more than 20 years of a consequent product policy to get into their present dominant position on the market. When the typical slr buyer, the one who wanted a good camera went to the advanced PS camera, Pentax was there. In fact, they led the way with their pioneering zoom compacts. Pentax dominated this market. What they failed to see with this move, was that the remaining slr buying public changed. Pentax did still try to make another Spotmatic, not realising that the buiyng public couldn't care less and their most important priority was to be seen with the brands the pros are using. During the 90's Pentax has been living well of their huge PS market share. However, Pentax core market, the zoom compact, is being eaten alive by digital. Pentax can never achieve the same position in PS digital as they had in the zoom compact segment. The digital PS market has far more competitors; among them several electronic giants. Pentax need to look to their traditional stronghold; they are among the few manufacturers who does have a complete slr lens line in place. So basically, they need to do something serious in the slr area as this is a market they can expand in. Also, the MF cameras are under pressure from digital although I doubt MF has much importance in Pentax overall: it could be sacrificed. Whats interesting with DSLR is that the game is not only about fancy AF and FPS anymore, but will center more around sensor type and quality, and of course, price. This field will also draw many new users not previously into SLR photography. All this makes this field interesting and hard to predict. A full frame camera makes sense. Would you buy a digital slr from someone who didn't provide an upgrade path? Even if you knew you wasn't going to buy the top model. Also, a full frame DSLR might
RE: Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and shoddy? [was: RE: Hypothetical Question]
One point to remember. We heard quite a few months ago (before Photokina) that along with the new digital SLR they were developing new wide angle lenses for the new line. With the APS sized sensor cropping of the image this makes sense as well as new technology to reduce chromatic aberrations (also a problem with APS sized sensors). This would indicate to me that, even if Pentax does actually get a DSLR to market next spring it will most like not be a full frame sensor. I think the next step for the digital world will be full frame sensors for medium format cameras as well as more sophisticated technology for the 35mm full frame sensors and imaging engine. Perhaps a 645 sensor first. By the time these 30MP+ monsters come out the APS sensor that we are so anxiously waiting for in our DSLR will be no more than a toy that is used mostly in point and shoot cameras and low end DSLR's. Just my humble opinion Glen -Original Message- From: Alexander Krohe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 2:43 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and shoddy? [was: RE: Hypothetical Question] Pål wrote: -- Sure, but I don't think LX with AF should be interpreted litterally; more of an AF camera that occupies the LX place in the line-up. Yes, that is how I have meant it. Both Nikon and Canon sell well of their upper level bodies. When a company like Kyocera could manage to keep four (or was it more) upper end bodies in the market simultaneously, neither of them selling in volumes, it is nothing but a total disgrace that Pentax didn't manage a single one during the 90's. Pentax' entire product line seems to be centered around PS cameras. I was told by a pentax rep that in the early 90s (before they introduced the FA-series), Pentax had almost dicontinued the 35mm SLR system. At that time Pentax dramatically lost market share (35mm SLR), but on the other side, their PS zoom cameras became extremely succesful. They continued their 35mm system because they thought - that making a 35mm system will boost the sales of PS cameras (as it shows their expertise as a camera maker) and - they will get new customers from those who want to upgrade from a PS camara to a SLR system. I think this strategy was quite successful.They survived and regained lost market share. It also explains the product philosophy behind the MZ-cameras: They are all either entry level cameras or for students. Similar to the espio/iqz PS cameras, they make a large variation of MZ cameras that are all based on one single platform. So they can appeal a variation of different customers while keeping costs low. However, in this line up is no room for an expensive model. You need another camera platform (expensive), and such a model is much more difficult to sell with a different marketing stategy and a higher risk. True, the LX was still around but it was beyond its selling date. So Pentax deserve the reputation they now have; entry level cameras there are no point in buying because if you buy a Nikon or a Canon, or even a Minolta, you have something to upgrade to. I think in the 90s the product management was even hostile against high quality 35mm gear as they also ditched the successor to the PZ-1p without any replacement. Instead they kept the PZ-1p in the product line for a IMO give away price (but nevertheless couldn't sell much of them). As a result everybody expects Pentax to be cheap. There was (is?) no long-term marketing strategy for high end 35mm gear. They did not even market the 35mm SLrs as a system, they rather marketed single products. Even up to now Pentax USA and Pentax Europe do not bother with black limited lenses. Still no ultra-wide Af lens. There are, however, signs that Pentax have gotten the message. I take the introduction of the MZ-S as an indication that you are right. But things are slowly moving. After the introduction of the MZ-S two years ago there has been silence again. The photokina no-show must have sent a desastrous message as they decided to semi-announce the upcomming APS D-SLR through internet groups (normally they remain tight-lipped about news releases). To be honest I think the product management has still a long way to go. They don't communicate to the customer in which direction they will go and what the selling points of their products are. E.g. you have to go to the Japanese web page to find out what the complete product line is. And when the MZ-S was introduced, they left it to the customer to find out if it is made of die-cast parts or just of metal-coated/plated plastic (due to an error in translation). Also, I believe that digital will force higher end cameras from Pentax. With some luck, we wil see film versions of the as well. If for nothing else, then as a means for Pentax to cover developing costs. Full-frame higher-end 35mm digital slr's will start competing with Pentax MF cameras. Also, MF
Re: Hypothetical Question
And, gathering from what I read here: Flash will not fire if the LX thinks it can do the exposure without flash. Sticky mirror would not have been a complaint when the LX was released, at least, I hope not. -Lon Pål Jensen wrote: Mark wrote: It's a pity the PDML didn't exist when the LX was introduced. It would have been interesting to read the inevitable complaints. I remember the compaints: it was too big and bulky, used batteries, and had useless features like automatic mode. It was essentially a tool for family snapshooters. Sounds familiar? Pål
Re: Hypothetical Question
If I had to guess, I'd say the average USA Pentax enthusiast got the camera and lens as a gift and uses it 3 times a year. I don't think that fits this group. Lon frank theriault wrote: Even if they do monitor us once in a while, or even all the time, I can't believe that they put much stock in our opinions. We're what, a couple of hundred enthusiasts? That's a pretty small sample, and hardly representative of the market as a whole. We don't have much influence beyond our group (or even within it g). They may watch us once in a while, but I can't believe that too many decisions are made based on what we think. BUT, just in case Big Brother Pentax is watching, how about a Pentax equivalent to the N FM3 (but way cheaper)? I guess it could hurt to try, eh? vbg cheers, frank Paul Stenquist wrote: I work in advertising and have had a lot of contact with the marketing departments of various companies for the last quarter century. They all monitor every bit of information they can find. Why not? It's a no brainer. More information is always a good thing. Paul -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
American Beer (was Hypothetical Question)
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 18:52:33 -0500, T Rittenhouse wrote: [...] 3.2 beer [...] We used to call that near beer. Apparently because it gets to sit near beer on the loading dock. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: Hypothetical Question
That probably describes the average photographer in any developed country. At 07:06 AM 12/19/2002 -0500, you wrote: If I had to guess, I'd say the average USA Pentax enthusiast got the camera and lens as a gift and uses it 3 times a year. I don't think that fits this group. Lon frank theriault wrote: Even if they do monitor us once in a while, or even all the time, I can't believe that they put much stock in our opinions. We're what, a couple of hundred enthusiasts? That's a pretty small sample, and hardly representative of the market as a whole. We don't have much influence beyond our group (or even within it g). They may watch us once in a while, but I can't believe that too many decisions are made based on what we think. BUT, just in case Big Brother Pentax is watching, how about a Pentax equivalent to the N FM3 (but way cheaper)? I guess it could hurt to try, eh? vbg cheers, frank Paul Stenquist wrote: I work in advertising and have had a lot of contact with the marketing departments of various companies for the last quarter century. They all monitor every bit of information they can find. Why not? It's a no brainer. More information is always a good thing. Paul -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Cmos was: Hypothetical Question
So is the CMOS gathering data in a similar fashion as a CCD,but with out the CCD?One BIG digital problem with the CCD is dust on the filter.Is this now eliminated or greatly reduced with CMOS. I know i will eventually have to or want to upo grade from the 2.74 megapixel to a higher unit.Just not sure what is better or more stable,CMOS or CCD. Cotty, i beleive you mentioned shooting soccer was not a problem with the Canon correct,and shutter lag was up there with SLR types. Dave Begin Original Message From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Any CMOS commentsCotty? From what I gather, the CMOS uses vastly less power than a comparable CCD. This seems to bear out in practice. I have the grip with provision for 2 Liithium Ion battery packs, and the 2 packs. Charged up, with occasional snapping and say a good couple of hours shooting on a Saturday, so say about 400 exposures, maybe 450 in all, I can go a good 2 WEEKS before they're exhausted. I have disabled auto-shut-off. The camera stays on all the time when shooting unless I switch it off manually. The packs are amazing. Personally I wouldn't dally with AA-anything. .02pixels :-) Cot Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/ Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ End Original Message Pentax User Stouffville Ontario Canada http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/ http://brooks1952.tripod.com/myhorses Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail
Re: Hypothetical Question
See interspersed comments below Pål wrote:-- I think at the end of it's life time the LX was 3x as expensive as it initially was. Too expensive. The desire for ultimate quality vanishes as prices increase. Yes, but also the fact that there are limits on how long you can sell the same product. At a certain point the market becomes saturated and the used price is so much lower than new price that few are willing to pay for a brand new one. When a product get old enough initial buyers can sell the thing for the same they gave for it 10-15 years earlier, something they are happy to do, maintaining a low used priced compared to new price. This happened also with the 67; the used market was so full of it that few bought new ones anymore as good second-hand samples were plentiful at significant savings. Pål Yes this is true. But Pentax did not decide to keep LX sales going over a longer time by releasing upgrades of the LX or a successor model to the LX. OTOH they did this with the 67 system by introducing the 67II. My point is that (sure I am only guessing here) that an AF LX with modern electronics would be too expensive to find enough customers. This would be, although such a camera would probably not be much more expensive than the old LX would cost today (basically the mechanics are the more expensive parts). Camera reviewers have even complained about the MZ-S being too expensive though it is actually moderately priced for what it is. This is basically because you can buy cheaper, but less well-made bodies that are laden with more features. Mike wrote: If there was a modern Af camera that was built according to the same quality level as the LX and that was accordingly priced (hint: where I live the 31mm/1.8 ltd. lens is almost 4x as expensive as was the K-series 28mm/2), and if your only option was to buy new, what would you choose: this one or a cheap ZX/MZ-something plastic body? I think the market has already given the answer. Alexander, I don't think the market has given the answer because the market has not been given the actual choice. Yes, Pentax would rather build ZX-5's and ZX-7's, and this probably means that it thinks it can do so more profitably than it could build a camera such as you describe. But that doesn't mean that the market wouldn't support an AF LX if one were available. After all, Nikon sells plenty of F100s. Yes, but I assume Pentax made their choice not releasing a LX successor based on marketing research. And it's market is not comparable to Nikon's. Nikon's present share on the 35mm SLR world market is about 35% (if I am not wrong) while that of Pentax is only 10%. So there are much more potiential customers who will likely upgrade to a F5-like camera (only few beginners will start with a F5). When the LX was introduced Pentax' market share was about 20%. Now speaking just for myself, I'd say that my tastes and requirements are so highly evolved that I probably wouldn't be interested in such a camera unless it had all the main features I'm personally looking for. This perfectly shows how much more difficult it is to sell high end gear. Regardles how such a hypothetical AF-LX will look like, they will convice only a fraction of Pentax useres to buy one. (BTW I would like to see a AF-LX) Enjoy, Alexander Those are: 1. A 98% or 100% viewfinder with good snap for easy manual focusing 2. Quiet operation 3. Short shutter lag (i.e., good responsiveness) 4. Ability to use manual focus as well as AF lenses 5. Aperture-priority AE 6. AE lock 7. Non-resetting ISO 8. Diopter adjustment or add-on diopters 9. Moderate size and light to medium weight (say, up to 26 oz. or so) for decent portability 10. General straightforwardness of controls and ease of operation, and not too many extra controls and features confusing everything. I'd *certainly* be using an LX if only it had #2, and I'd probably be using an MZ-S if it had #1. The problem for a camera designer would be that in order to satisfy the top ten features lists of a LARGE number of photographers, they have to have a great deal of capability and it has to be very see-through, i.e., it couldn't be very confusing or feature-laden and it couldn't dictate the way it had to be used, but it would have to be able to satisfy ALL of any particular advanced photographer's wants. This is a very large order, and it's got to be damnably tough for a camera designer to accommodate. For instance, one thing I didn't list is flash capability or high sync speed, because I don't use flash and I don't give a damn about it. But it's very easy to anticipate that many, if not most, photographers would demand excellent flash capability. I haven't specified mirror lock-up or low vibration because I don't do closeup work or astrophotography. But for someone who did either of those things, those features would be mandatory.
Re: Cmos was: Hypothetical Question
So is the CMOS gathering data in a similar fashion as a CCD,but with out the CCD?One BIG digital problem with the CCD is dust on the filter.Is this now eliminated or greatly reduced with CMOS. I know i will eventually have to or want to upo grade from the 2.74 megapixel to a higher unit.Just not sure what is better or more stable,CMOS or CCD. Cotty, i beleive you mentioned shooting soccer was not a problem with the Canon correct,and shutter lag was up there with SLR types. Correct. I believe the Pentax will have a CMOS sensor. Costs will simply not allow it to be equipped with a CCD. Cheers. Cot Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/ Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/
Re: Hypothetical Question taken further...
On Wednesday, December 18, 2002, at 05:05 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote: I can assure you, that as each product is contemplated, careful consideration is given to it's ability to make money. Consumer demand comes from people who buy new things. So if we list all the stuff we bought new, how many would actually be Pentax consumers? I'll be a danmed good customer Bought new: Pentax K2 Pentax ME (black) Pentax ME winder Pentax LX (three) Pentax LX finders (most of them) Pentax LX winder Pentax Z-1p Pentax MZ-S Pentax 280T flash Pentax 400T Flash Pentax 500FTZ(?) flash Pentax 18/3.5 Pentax A 24/2.8 Pentax FA Limited 31/1.8 Pentax A 35/2.8 Pentax FA Limited 43/1.9 Pentax M 50/1.7 Pentax A 50/1.2 Pentax FA Limited 77/1.8 Pentax FA* 85/1.4 Pentax A* 200/4 Macro Pentax FA* 200/4 Macro Pentax A* 300/2.8 Pentax A 400/5.6 Pentax FA* 600/4 Pentax 1000/11 Reflex Pentax M 28-50/3.5 Pentax M 80-200/4.5 Pentax A 35-135/4.5 Pentax FA* 28-70/2.8 Pentax 645N Pentax FA645 33-55/4.5 Pentax FA645 45/2.8 Pentax FA 75/2.8 Pentax FA 120/4 Macro
Re: Hypothetical question
Hi, Ronald, Well, the lens changing thing is a matter of practise, maybe! The Spotmatics are very sturdy cameras, as evidenced by the number of people on this list who still use them! The meters tend to go on them (I doubt that they were designed to last 30 or 40 years), but they can be replaced from parts cameras, or with slight modification, with K1000 meters, by a competent repair shop (one of my Spots has a K1000 meter in it, and it works just fine). I still use my Spotmatics on a regular basis, and other than the odd CLA and replacement of seals, I don't see any reason why they won't go on for another 30 or 40 years (assuming parts can be gotten, but I'm lucky in that my repair shop is pretty good at scrounging used parts). The K1000 is basically a Spotmatic F, without self-timer and with a bayonet mount, so I'd say yes, Spotmatics are as eternal as the early k-mounts. cheers, frank Ronald Arvidsson wrote: Hi Frank, Maybe I made a mistake. Good to hear that your old gear is adequate. It is true that one seldom need the one or two extra seconds. For me it would only arise in photographing wildlife or birds when my two bodies I would bring don't have the lens I want. Then, due to the very fast changing distances angle and thus motif it might might be needed otherwise not. Granted that there is a significant time difference of a second or so in the change of lenses when comparing screwmount to K mount. One can actually loose a lot of time by not being properly prepared - thus mount doesnt matter. I have a question about the cameras though, I used a lot old Konica gear but found that the cameras didn't last as well as the lenses, are Pentax screwmount bodies as eternal as the somewhat younger first generation K mount cameras? Cheers, Ronald -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: Hypothetical Question taken further...
Bought new: Pentax K2 Pentax ME (black) Pentax ME winder Pentax LX (three) Pentax LX finders (most of them) Pentax LX winder Pentax Z-1p Pentax MZ-S Pentax 280T flash Pentax 400T Flash Pentax 500FTZ(?) flash Pentax 18/3.5 Pentax A 24/2.8 Pentax FA Limited 31/1.8 Pentax A 35/2.8 Pentax FA Limited 43/1.9 Pentax M 50/1.7 Pentax A 50/1.2 Pentax FA Limited 77/1.8 Pentax FA* 85/1.4 Pentax A* 200/4 Macro Pentax FA* 200/4 Macro Pentax A* 300/2.8 Pentax A 400/5.6 Pentax FA* 600/4 Pentax 1000/11 Reflex Pentax M 28-50/3.5 Pentax M 80-200/4.5 Pentax A 35-135/4.5 Pentax FA* 28-70/2.8 Pentax 645N Pentax FA645 33-55/4.5 Pentax FA645 45/2.8 Pentax FA 75/2.8 Pentax FA 120/4 Macro Awesome! --Mike
RE: Hypothetical Question
If you can't mix and match, there is no reason to buy Pentax AF gear. BR From: Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] you couldn't mix and match and you couldn't use both--which would it be?
RE: Cmos was: Hypothetical Question
No, CMOS is cheaper- it's the more common process these days. R Quoting Glen O'Neal [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Cotty, Not sure I understand. Isn't the CMOS more expensive? Glen -Original Message- From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 3:18 PM To: Pentax List Subject: Re: Cmos was: Hypothetical Question So is the CMOS gathering data in a similar fashion as a CCD,but with out the CCD?One BIG digital problem with the CCD is dust on the filter.Is this now eliminated or greatly reduced with CMOS. I know i will eventually have to or want to upo grade from the 2.74 megapixel to a higher unit.Just not sure what is better or more stable,CMOS or CCD. Cotty, i beleive you mentioned shooting soccer was not a problem with the Canon correct,and shutter lag was up there with SLR types. Correct. I believe the Pentax will have a CMOS sensor. Costs will simply not allow it to be equipped with a CCD. Cheers. Cot Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/ Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/
Re: Hypothetical Question
Big surprise! The F100 just about nails all your specs. It misses the viewfinder by 2% (96%), and I guess makes the weight (27.7 oz). The problem with Pentax is that what Pentax users wish for, other manufacturers already make and sell. BR From: Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] After all, Nikon sells plenty of F100s. Now speaking just for myself, I'd say that my tastes and requirements are so highly evolved that I probably wouldn't be interested in such a camera unless it had all the main features I'm personally looking for. Those are: 1. A 98% or 100% viewfinder with good snap for easy manual focusing 2. Quiet operation 3. Short shutter lag (i.e., good responsiveness) 4. Ability to use manual focus as well as AF lenses 5. Aperture-priority AE 6. AE lock 7. Non-resetting ISO 8. Diopter adjustment or add-on diopters 9. Moderate size and light to medium weight (say, up to 26 oz. or so) for decent portability 10. General straightforwardness of controls and ease of operation, and not too many extra controls and features confusing everything.
Re: Hypothetical Question
How about the FM10? That should fit the typical Pentax Pocketbook. Pentax mostly sells cheap cameras, because most Pentax buyers are cheap. Pentax figured this out years ago and then fired their market research department, because they're cheap too. BR From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] BUT, just in case Big Brother Pentax is watching, how about a Pentax equivalent to the N FM3 (but way cheaper)? I guess it could hurt to try, eh? vbg
RE: Hypothetical Question
I already use AF lenses with my MF bodies. At 10:09 PM 12/17/2002 -0500, you wrote: Older, metal, for sure, for their simplicity and larger viewfinders more than anything else. To paraphrase a Harvard professor's remark about reading new books, Whenever a new camera body comes out, I buy two old ones. I assume I could still mix old bodies with new lenses, and vice versa. Yes? Not that I would. Which raises a variant question: If you could use either old (metal manual-focus) bodies with AF lenses or new (AF) bodies with old (manual focus) lenses, which would you choose? [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Hypothetical Question
Until they make a digi, eh Cotty? -Original Message- From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] I have no doubts. Metal bodied, LX and MX. Cheers, Cotty Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/ Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/
Re: Hypothetical Question
That about says it all, Paul! keith whaley Paul Stenquist wrote: The older bodies, without a doubt. LX, MX, and Spotmatic F are my favorites. Focus and exposure control are part of the fun. To leave that up to the machine would be like taking the bus instead of driving a sports car. Paul Stenquist
Re: Hypothetical Question
Since my usage went from an sp500 to an MV to ZX-7 to an MZ-S I'm not really knowledgeable enough to compare. I didn't use many of the older cameras folks here rave about. I do like the feel of the SP500 over the ZX-7 but not the MZ-S. My question is this: Could Pentax actually use this list for advice and stay in business? We may be too eclectic a group to be a good source of market research. We still argue over the PZ-1p vs the MZ-S. Many here don't even want autofocus. I think if Pentax had made good marketing/economic decisions the F100 would have Pentax on the prism housing. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Hypothetical Question taken further
Dear Sir: To support the upcoming Pentax DSLR release, I enclose $50___$100 $6000__ Please send me the free T-Shirt and my PDML membership for the next year. best, mishka From: Brad Dobo Subject: Hypothetical Question taken further... Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 20:51:11 -0800 --- (...) If we don't buy all the latest and greatest from Pentax, how can we expect them to develop for us, a DSLR. We'd be the ones with the want and money to buy one. But Pentax needs money and a reason to develop and manufacture and sell worldwide a DSLR. Are we, in general terms, helping them do that?
Re: Hypothetical Question
In theory, I prefer my manual focus cameras, especially my Spotmatics, two of which still work, and my Non-MLU 6x7, or my SuperProgram, when I need a camera with a motor drive, to set up on the tripod and trigger with a long cable. My eyesight has faded a bit with age, however, so when I'm on vacation or at an event, when I need to take the shots more quickly, I usually take my MZ-5, because the autofocus helps a lot.
Re: Hypothetical Question taken further
To support the upcoming Pentax DSLR release, I enclose $50___$100 $6000__ Please send me the free T-Shirt and my PDML membership for the next year. That had better be a 14 Mp T-shirt for $6K . . . Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Hypothetical Question
My question is this: Could Pentax actually use this list for advice and stay in business? We may be too eclectic a group to be a good source of market research. We still argue over the PZ-1p vs the MZ-S. Many here don't even want autofocus. This is pretty much what I was wondering about when I wrote the original Hypothetical Question. People here wonder whether Pentax monitors this list (they do), and whether they listen to our advice when advising Japan about product development...I don't know whether they do that or not, but I have to wonder if it would be productive if they did. I know that one Pentax person has told me privately that despite all the gushing and lauding of the LX on this list, even diehards weren't buying new LX's at the end of its lifespan. Most were buying used, or were using LXen purchased many years previously. Some of the comments about a digital SLR would probably be of value to them, especially from the perspective of not alienating longtime Pentax aficionados. But of course that's only going to be one consideration out of many in the design and concept of the new camera. We're only a few months away now...the Pentax DSLR is coming, --Mike
Re: Hypothetical Question
Thing I like about the Pentax system is not having to choose ... I wouldn't want to lose either my LX or my ZX-5n. I think I use both about equally.
Re: Re: Hypothetical Question
So we will see what happens! I think Pentax knows that many users sticks to them since they have great compatibility. But not many people start with Pentax since they have no silent and ultra fast quit cheap motors and plenty of gear not mentioning that sale assistants usual advise new buyers to choose Canon/Nikon. Moreover, some people want to use gear which is used by pros. So we will see. Alek Uytkownik Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisa: Uytkownik Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisa: My question is this: Could Pentax actually use this list for advice and stay in business? We may be too eclectic a group to be a good source of market research. We still argue over the PZ-1p vs the MZ-S. Many here don't even want autofocus. This is pretty much what I was wondering about when I wrote the original Hypothetical Question. People here wonder whether Pentax monitors this list (they do), and whether they listen to our advice when advising Japan about product development...I don't know whether they do that or not, but I have to wonder if it would be productive if they did. I know that one Pentax person has told me privately that despite all the gushing and lauding of the LX on this list, even diehards weren't buying new LX's at the end of its lifespan. Most were buying used, or were using LXen purchased many years previously. Some of the comments about a digital SLR would probably be of value to them, especially from the perspective of not alienating longtime Pentax aficionados. But of course that's only going to be one consideration out of many in the design and concept of the new camera. We're only a few months away now...the Pentax DSLR is coming, --Mike
Re[2]: Hypothetical Question
I have to agree with Steve here. Companies only survive by selling new things. A follow on used market doesn't really make them much money. So, if most of us are happy with older gear, Pentax would have nothing to sell and would have to fold. They could have followed Olympus to the grave by continuing to make and sell basically the MX/E and LX type cameras, tried to compete head on with Canon and Nikon (PZ-1p) or find some other niche. Not a particularly fun place to be as a company. The niche is sort of working. It allows them to be number 4 in a market of 4 players. The future digital world may have some changes in store - how they capitalize on it remains to be seen. Anyway, the glory days of the mechanical world are pretty much gone...and not just for cameras. Bruce Wednesday, December 18, 2002, 5:50:25 AM, you wrote: SD Since my usage went from an sp500 to an MV to ZX-7 to an MZ-S I'm not SD really knowledgeable enough to compare. I didn't use many of the older SD cameras folks here rave about. I do like the feel of the SP500 over the SD ZX-7 but not the MZ-S. SD My question is this: Could Pentax actually use this list for advice SD and stay in business? We may be too eclectic a group to be a good SD source of market research. We still argue over the PZ-1p vs the MZ-S. SD Many here don't even want autofocus. I think if Pentax had made good SD marketing/economic decisions the F100 would have Pentax on the prism SD housing. SD Steven Desjardins SD Department of Chemistry SD Washington and Lee University SD Lexington, VA 24450 SD (540) 458-8873 SD FAX: (540) 458-8878 SD [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Hypothetical question
I would use the camera that suits my needs. Kids: can't cope without autofocus MZ-5 Birds - hummingbirds e.g., give me an MZ-S Travel photo into poorer areas: take my cheapest ME or whatever Otherwise: LX Blowups and high quality pictures: Medium Format As written here before - what is good quality is subjective and sometimes a perfect picture with the cheapest of pentax lenses my render a fantastic photo. Sorry: I wouldn't use screw mount simply because I use single focal lengths and they are too slow to exchnage on the camera. Cheers, Ronald
Re: Hypothetical Question
Find an old Encyclopedia Britannica published around 1890, it contains detailed instructions on the chemical basics to make your own nitrate based film, you will have to adopt the nitrocellulose film stock from the explosive's section however, (well nothing's perfect I guess). At 11:02 PM 12/17/2002 -0500, you wrote: Well, I don't have a lot of experience to speak from, but I do have both the K-1000 and MZ-5n now. Both camera bodies have pluses and minuses. Neither is exactly what I want. But considering the fact that I lost a lot of shots with the K-1000 because cranking the film to advance it for the next shot took too long, or I missed a shot because I setting the exposure took too long, or I missed a shot because focusing took too long -- well, I'd have to go with the modern camp. But if I was traveling in a third world country where I wanted real reliability, I'd take the K-1000 along. And if the world ended (like in a nuclear war), then I'd want the K-1000 because I could still use it even if I couldn't find a lithium battery anywhere. Course then, I'd still have to be able to find film that had not been x-rayed to death. Reminds me somehow of that old Twilight Zone episode with Burgess Meredith. Actually, somehow the whole question reminds me of that. Later, Doe aka Marnie Hehehe.
Re: Hypothetical Question taken further
On Wednesday, December 18, 2002, at 09:05 AM, Steve Desjardins wrote: To support the upcoming Pentax DSLR release, I enclose $50___$100 $6000__ Please send me the free T-Shirt and my PDML membership for the next year. That had better be a 14 Mp T-shirt for $6K . . . To support the upcoming Pentax DSLR release, I enclose Best Wishes $50___$100 $6000__ Please send me the free T-Shirt and my PDML membership for the next year. Dan Scott g
Re: Hypothetical Question
Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: People here wonder whether Pentax monitors this list (they do), and whether they listen to our advice when advising Japan about product development...I don't know whether they do that or not, but I have to wonder if it would be productive if they did. Now *that's* an interesting question! Having been involved in a little market research years ago, I'd say that it *would* be productive as long as they avoided the most fanatical (and most outspoken) Pentax devotees as far as specific ideas/suggestions go. Newbies (to Pentax and/or photography) are likely to be the most valuable source of information from a marketing standpoint. The PDML might be viewed in aggregate to evaluate general perceptions and trends. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Hypothetical Question
If there was a modern Af camera that was built according to the same quality level as the LX and that was accordingly priced (hint: where I live the 31mm/1.8 ltd. lens is almost 4x as expensive as was the K-series 28mm/2), and if your only option was to buy new, what would you choose: this one or a cheap ZX/MZ-something plastic body? I think the market has already given the answer. Alexander, I don't think the market has given the answer because the market has not been given the actual choice. Yes, Pentax would rather build ZX-5's and ZX-7's, and this probably means that it thinks it can do so more profitably than it could build a camera such as you describe. But that doesn't mean that the market wouldn't support an AF LX if one were available. After all, Nikon sells plenty of F100s. Now speaking just for myself, I'd say that my tastes and requirements are so highly evolved that I probably wouldn't be interested in such a camera unless it had all the main features I'm personally looking for. Those are: 1. A 98% or 100% viewfinder with good snap for easy manual focusing 2. Quiet operation 3. Short shutter lag (i.e., good responsiveness) 4. Ability to use manual focus as well as AF lenses 5. Aperture-priority AE 6. AE lock 7. Non-resetting ISO 8. Diopter adjustment or add-on diopters 9. Moderate size and light to medium weight (say, up to 26 oz. or so) for decent portability 10. General straightforwardness of controls and ease of operation, and not too many extra controls and features confusing everything. I'd *certainly* be using an LX if only it had #2, and I'd probably be using an MZ-S if it had #1. The problem for a camera designer would be that in order to satisfy the top ten features lists of a LARGE number of photographers, they have to have a great deal of capability and it has to be very see-through, i.e., it couldn't be very confusing or feature-laden and it couldn't dictate the way it had to be used, but it would have to be able to satisfy ALL of any particular advanced photographer's wants. This is a very large order, and it's got to be damnably tough for a camera designer to accommodate. For instance, one thing I didn't list is flash capability or high sync speed, because I don't use flash and I don't give a damn about it. But it's very easy to anticipate that many, if not most, photographers would demand excellent flash capability. I haven't specified mirror lock-up or low vibration because I don't do closeup work or astrophotography. But for someone who did either of those things, those features would be mandatory. Slide photographers may not give a hoot for a 100% viewfinder; others would be very concerned with motor drive capability; landscape photographers may well not care about quiet operation; and the list goes on and on. What Abe Lincoln said really holds true here. You can satisfy some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't satisfy all of the people all of the time. No matter WHAT an AF LX would look like, there would still be people who would find fault with it, be disappointed with it, or loudly complain that it is missing the one essential feature they wanted. Designing cameras must be a pretty thankless task. --Mike
Re[2]: Hypothetical Question
Mike, Until you got to #9, I thought you were describing the 67II (other than AF). Ok, ok, so it's not that quiet either. Seriously, if you pick one up and play with it, you'd think why isn't there an equivalent 35mm body just like this for sale? Bruce Wednesday, December 18, 2002, 12:07:19 PM, you wrote: snip MJ Now speaking just for myself, I'd say that my tastes and requirements are so MJ highly evolved that I probably wouldn't be interested in such a camera MJ unless it had all the main features I'm personally looking for. MJ Those are: MJ 1. A 98% or 100% viewfinder with good snap for easy manual focusing MJ 2. Quiet operation MJ 3. Short shutter lag (i.e., good responsiveness) MJ 4. Ability to use manual focus as well as AF lenses MJ 5. Aperture-priority AE MJ 6. AE lock MJ 7. Non-resetting ISO MJ 8. Diopter adjustment or add-on diopters MJ 9. Moderate size and light to medium weight (say, up to 26 oz. or so) for MJ decent portability MJ 10. General straightforwardness of controls and ease of operation, and not MJ too many extra controls and features confusing everything. MJ I'd *certainly* be using an LX if only it had #2, and I'd probably be using MJ an MZ-S if it had #1. MJ The problem for a camera designer would be that in order to satisfy the top MJ ten features lists of a LARGE number of photographers, they have to have a MJ great deal of capability and it has to be very see-through, i.e., it MJ couldn't be very confusing or feature-laden and it couldn't dictate the MJ way it had to be used, but it would have to be able to satisfy ALL of any MJ particular advanced photographer's wants. This is a very large order, and MJ it's got to be damnably tough for a camera designer to accommodate. MJ For instance, one thing I didn't list is flash capability or high sync MJ speed, because I don't use flash and I don't give a damn about it. But it's MJ very easy to anticipate that many, if not most, photographers would demand MJ excellent flash capability. I haven't specified mirror lock-up or low MJ vibration because I don't do closeup work or astrophotography. But for MJ someone who did either of those things, those features would be mandatory. MJ Slide photographers may not give a hoot for a 100% viewfinder; others would MJ be very concerned with motor drive capability; landscape photographers may MJ well not care about quiet operation; and the list goes on and on. MJ What Abe Lincoln said really holds true here. You can satisfy some of the MJ people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you MJ can't satisfy all of the people all of the time. MJ No matter WHAT an AF LX would look like, there would still be people who MJ would find fault with it, be disappointed with it, or loudly complain that MJ it is missing the one essential feature they wanted. Designing cameras must MJ be a pretty thankless task. MJ --Mike
Re: Hypothetical Question
Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The PDML might be viewed in aggregate to evaluate general perceptions and trends. One thing I'm saying is that we may _not_ be an accurate reflection of general perceptions and trends. We're an enthusiast group with very non-general attitudes and tastes. Just the fact that so many of us prefer older bodies and manual-focus lenses seems to bear that out. I think if you look at what we're *doing* as opposed to saying we're closer to mainstream than you might think ;-) It is, after all, the vocal members whom I suggested Pentax would ignore that are the biggest manual focus proponents. Look at how much discussion has been devoted to DSLRs, hardly a topic for manual focus purists. I think that if you filter out a few irrational rants you could see a trend toward consensus on DSLR issues: Pentax distinguishes itself from other brands with unsurpassed lens-body compatibility, so it's not surprising that this is regarded as essential in a DSLR body (and I think the PDML is an accurate representation that, thought it might not figure into a new user's decision to buy Pentax, that same person will appreciate it greatly *after* buying a Pentax). Another common feeling I detect is that a full-frame sensor is essential *eventually* (Canon has pretty much made that a given with the EOS-1Ds - have you read the reviews at Luminous Landscape or http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1ds/ yet?), but most would accept a smaller sensor now if the price is reasonable (under $2000.00 or so). Another - accurate, I think - impression you get from the PDML is that Pentax needs a DSLR not so much for the people who would buy it but for the people who fear that Pentax will be left behind if they don't introduce one. So for SLR users, I think the PDML (with judicious filtering) is closer to mainstream than commonly perceived. That said, isn't the bulk of Pentax's camera sales PS now? So you're probably right and I guess you can pretty much ignore everything I just wrote. :-P Carry on. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Hypothetical Question
Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No matter WHAT an AF LX would look like, there would still be people who would find fault with it, be disappointed with it, or loudly complain that it is missing the one essential feature they wanted. Designing cameras must be a pretty thankless task. It's a pity the PDML didn't exist when the LX was introduced. It would have been interesting to read the inevitable complaints. -- People who like this sort of thing will find that this is the sort of thing they like. - Abe Lincoln
RE: Hypothetical Question
I hope they listen now. I would buy a 6MP CCD or CMOS DSLR and would not mind if the chip is APS sized. If they could manage a CMOS chip like the Foveon, with some enhancements over the one used in the Sigma SD-9, I'd be very happy. I don't need anything a lot larger than that. Keep the price $2200 or less and they've got me hooked. Len --- Some snippage for the guys reading the digest I hear they listened to the list on the MZ-D though. All you guys said you would never, pay that much for a camera. They believed you. Ciao, Graywolf
RE: Hypothetical Question
Personally although I love Pentax gear I am considering a move to C. I have done a lot of research on the EOS 1Ds and am really impressed with the images produced by the full frame CMOS sensor as well as the other features. So if Pentax is listening, my desire is for an 11 MP CMOS full frame sensor DSLR that can give me nearly the same quality as my 645n. If I do decide to move over I will be selling off all my Pentax gear in one fell swoop. I am already putting together a price list but want to sell it all in one transaction. Come on Pentax ... get it together. Glen -Original Message- From: Len Paris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 2:45 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Hypothetical Question I hope they listen now. I would buy a 6MP CCD or CMOS DSLR and would not mind if the chip is APS sized. If they could manage a CMOS chip like the Foveon, with some enhancements over the one used in the Sigma SD-9, I'd be very happy. I don't need anything a lot larger than that. Keep the price $2200 or less and they've got me hooked. Len --- Some snippage for the guys reading the digest I hear they listened to the list on the MZ-D though. All you guys said you would never, pay that much for a camera. They believed you. Ciao, Graywolf
Re: Hypothetical Question
1. A 98% or 100% viewfinder with good snap for easy manual focusing I really wanted #1 (or part of) for the MZ-S, but I was told that to get 100% it was expensive, like doubling the cost. I can see why Pentax didn't bother with it given their market. Too bad. Not sure what you mean by snap with manual focus. 7. Non-resetting ISO Can you explain this further and why it's a problem? No matter WHAT an AF LX would look like, there would still be people who would find fault with it, be disappointed with it, or loudly complain that it is missing the one essential feature they wanted. Designing cameras must be a pretty thankless task. So true. It no doubt is a very thankless task. I suppose that is why we have other companies to choose from. My worry is everyone is so pumped about a Pentax DSLR, and it won't be want they expected after all this time, or not quite good enough, or too good (making it too expensive) I also wanted one 'cheap' addition, dropping the finder cap and putting in a switch you can toggle to block the viewfinder. I didn't get that either. But, all in all, I'm very happy with my camera and the rest of my gear. --Mike
Re: Hypothetical Question
It's a pity the PDML didn't exist when the LX was introduced. It would have been interesting to read the inevitable complaints. Now that is really interesting
Re: RE: Hypothetical Question
Two thinks i like about the D1 even with the 80-200 f2.8 on it,is its well balanced even with the weight.The Pentax DSLR would have to ,for me,be aswell. Also the shutterlag is that of an slr,meaning its good for capturing high speed sports with out panning(not to say panning is badg) Just not sure how the CMOS works vs the CCD.I always associated CMOS as start up computer programing.I have seen the Canon 1D and it looks nice and its cheaper than the Dxx series from Nikon. Any CMOS commentsCotty? Dave Begin Original Message From: Glen O'Neal [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 14:56:27 -0600 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Hypothetical Question Personally although I love Pentax gear I am considering a move to C. I have done a lot of research on the EOS 1Ds and am really impressed with the images produced by the full frame CMOS sensor as well as the other features. So if Pentax is listening, my desire is for an 11 MP CMOS full frame sensor DSLR that can give me nearly the same quality as my 645n. If I do decide to move over I will be selling off all my Pentax gear in one fell swoop. I am already putting together a price list but want to sell it all in one transaction. Come on Pentax ... get it together. Glen -Original Message- From: Len Paris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 2:45 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Hypothetical Question I hope they listen now. I would buy a 6MP CCD or CMOS DSLR and would not mind if the chip is APS sized. If they could manage a CMOS chip like the Foveon, with some enhancements over the one used in the Sigma SD- 9, I'd be very happy. I don't need anything a lot larger than that. Keep the price $2200 or less and they've got me hooked. Len --- Some snippage for the guys reading the digest I hear they listened to the list on the MZ-D though. All you guys said you would never, pay that much for a camera. They believed you. Ciao, Graywolf End Original Message Pentax User Stouffville Ontario Canada http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/ http://brooks1952.tripod.com/myhorses Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail
RE: RE: Hypothetical Question
For a very impressive review including image comparisons of the EOS D1s and 35mm and 645 (buy the way he uses the Pentax 645) see this page below. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/1ds/1ds-field.shtml -Original Message- From: David Brooks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 3:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: RE: Hypothetical Question Two thinks i like about the D1 even with the 80-200 f2.8 on it,is its well balanced even with the weight.The Pentax DSLR would have to ,for me,be aswell. Also the shutterlag is that of an slr,meaning its good for capturing high speed sports with out panning(not to say panning is badg) Just not sure how the CMOS works vs the CCD.I always associated CMOS as start up computer programing.I have seen the Canon 1D and it looks nice and its cheaper than the Dxx series from Nikon. Any CMOS commentsCotty? Dave Begin Original Message From: Glen O'Neal [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 14:56:27 -0600 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Hypothetical Question Personally although I love Pentax gear I am considering a move to C. I have done a lot of research on the EOS 1Ds and am really impressed with the images produced by the full frame CMOS sensor as well as the other features. So if Pentax is listening, my desire is for an 11 MP CMOS full frame sensor DSLR that can give me nearly the same quality as my 645n. If I do decide to move over I will be selling off all my Pentax gear in one fell swoop. I am already putting together a price list but want to sell it all in one transaction. Come on Pentax ... get it together. Glen -Original Message- From: Len Paris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 2:45 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Hypothetical Question I hope they listen now. I would buy a 6MP CCD or CMOS DSLR and would not mind if the chip is APS sized. If they could manage a CMOS chip like the Foveon, with some enhancements over the one used in the Sigma SD- 9, I'd be very happy. I don't need anything a lot larger than that. Keep the price $2200 or less and they've got me hooked. Len --- Some snippage for the guys reading the digest I hear they listened to the list on the MZ-D though. All you guys said you would never, pay that much for a camera. They believed you. Ciao, Graywolf End Original Message Pentax User Stouffville Ontario Canada http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/ http://brooks1952.tripod.com/myhorses Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail
Re[3]: Hypothetical Question
Not anymore. He sold it and it sounds like he'll sell his 67II and be done with film for good. Bruce Wednesday, December 18, 2002, 1:34:37 PM, you wrote: GON For a very impressive review including image comparisons of the EOS D1s and GON 35mm and 645 (buy the way he uses the Pentax 645) see this page below.
Re: Hypothetical question
Hi, Ronald, I keep hearing that bayonet mount is so much faster to change lenses than screwmount, but my experience doesn't agree. I just now walked over to my cameras, and timed a lens exchange with both bayonet and screwmount. Under 5 seconds for each. Even if I'm off by a second or two, the difference is truly inconsequential, imho. cheers, frank Ronald Arvidsson wrote: snip Sorry: I wouldn't use screw mount simply because I use single focal lengths and they are too slow to exchnage on the camera. Cheers, Ronald -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: Hypothetical Question
I work in advertising and have had a lot of contact with the marketing departments of various companies for the last quarter century. They all monitor every bit of information they can find. Why not? It's a no brainer. More information is always a good thing. Paul Brad Dobo wrote: I'm not saying it's impossible. Far from it. Just not likely. I doubt Pentax Japan does. Perhaps someone from Pentax USA? They don't carry much weight in Japan however. I do know that no one at Pentax Canada watches this list, if some are members, they are just like most of us, they don't write reports to anyone. Anyhow, silly topic that no one will change opinions on, not quite but getting up there with Big Brother, CIA, etc. If anything, we just confuse the hell out of them! g So it looks to me like most won't be happy unless they release a DSLR on the traditional LX body, make it steel and heavy, and use as much mechanical parts as possible. A mechanical analog digital...interesting :) Brad (who loves the MZ-S, the 360 flash, the FA lenses, and autofocus! No need for a new 35mm flagship when when we have a wonderful one now!) Brad (who also loves his A 400mm 5.6 MF lens and A1.4x-L converter that's in the mail!) Brad (who won't buy a DSLR for a long long time!) (There, that's got 'em confused! vbg) - Original Message - From: T Rittenhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 1:56 PM Subject: Re: Hypothetical Question The do not officially monitor this list. Therefore, what you are asking is silly. Some of us on the list know people who work for Pentax. We know what they say. However, I can almost guaranty they if you post a question to Pentax on this list, it will not be answered. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Brad Dobo [EMAIL PROTECTED] Of course, that is assuming they watch the list. Just who is? This was originally a Pentax USA thing, right? Well, Japan doesn't think much of North America. So who is looking? Why? Have we looked at the content lately? I'm sure they left after all the insults, swearing and gun talk. Can someone give me concrete proof that Pentax monitors this? (again, what is Pentax?) Realistically, you cannot expect me to take someones word for it. If you cannot prove it, it's immediately suspect. Fishy, screwyya know! g
Re: Hypothetical Question taken further...
Sorry, Brad, But, I think you've got the whole marketing thing backwards (I'm saying this from the viewpoint of someone who knows ~nothing~ about marketing, btw). I shouldn't have to buy the latest and greatest equipment, to support my favourite company, so they can bring out something that I don't really care about right now (ie: a dslr), so the company can stay solvent. I'm the consumer, dammit! They (Pentax or anyone else) should cater to ~me~! If they don't, I don't buy new stuff from them. Simple as that. Pentax doesn't make the type of camera that I prefer, being an affordable, nicely featured mechanical metal-bodied camera. But, who does? No one, at least not a 35mm slr - and I don't count the N FM3, since it ain't exactly affordable. Mind you, I'm not saying that Pentax ~should~ make what I want. They stuck with the K1000 for almost 25 years, and made it as cheaply as they could, eventually making it in 3rd world countries, and substituting much plastic for what was once metal, both inside and out. They obviously weren't making money off it, so they stopped making it - and that's fine. The only camera I can think of offhand that fits the bill right now is the Voigtlander Bessa R (the top plate isn't metal, but the chassis is, so I'll forgive them for that). I might have bought one, but Dave Chang-Sang sold me his Leica CL for about 1/2 the price of a new Bessa and lens. So, I'll keep buying used, until Pentax comes up with something new that I want, and I ain't holding my breath. Of course, I'm now invested in k mount and m42 gear, so I can't afford to change systems - not that I want to, 'cause I like what I have. But I certainly will make no apologies for sticking with the used market, nor should I have to. cheers, frank Brad Dobo wrote: Just a thought. Many here (but not all) like and use the older gear, to get additional items, or replacements, they buy used equipment (not all the time, but most I assume). What do I think? To each his own. More power to you if you can really 'work' the older equipment. Now, I'm not a perfect example, since I've now bought 2 items used, including a manual focus lens. However, we all talk about Pentax and their position, rank and financial, and what they will be in the future, and really..what about that darned DSLR? What I'm thinking is, we as a whole group are the serious amateurs, or professionals using Pentax. We are somewhat representative. If we don't buy all the latest and greatest from Pentax, how can we expect them to develop for us, a DSLR. We'd be the ones with the want and money to buy one. But Pentax needs money and a reason to develop and manufacture and sell worldwide a DSLR. Are we, in general terms, helping them do that? If they know their real fans like the old over the new, and buy used, why put the effort into a DSLR? Or a better new 35mm flagship for that matter? Just something to toss about. [The opinions represented in this email are by no means that of the originator of the email. g] Happy Holidays! -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: Hypothetical Question
Even if they do monitor us once in a while, or even all the time, I can't believe that they put much stock in our opinions. We're what, a couple of hundred enthusiasts? That's a pretty small sample, and hardly representative of the market as a whole. We don't have much influence beyond our group (or even within it g). They may watch us once in a while, but I can't believe that too many decisions are made based on what we think. BUT, just in case Big Brother Pentax is watching, how about a Pentax equivalent to the N FM3 (but way cheaper)? I guess it could hurt to try, eh? vbg cheers, frank Paul Stenquist wrote: I work in advertising and have had a lot of contact with the marketing departments of various companies for the last quarter century. They all monitor every bit of information they can find. Why not? It's a no brainer. More information is always a good thing. Paul -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: Hypothetical Question
On 18 Dec 2002 at 14:27, Brad Dobo wrote: So it looks to me like most won't be happy unless they release a DSLR on the traditional LX body, make it steel and heavy, and use as much mechanical parts as possible. A mechanical analog digital...interesting :) A rigid chassis is just as important for a DSLR as a film SLR so a metal body would be desirable bear in mid too that modern cast alloys are near as light as polycarbonate for the same strength. Also the sensors in top end DSLRs require shutters and mirrors just like conventional SLRs therefore the mechanical requirements of the systems are similar. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
RE: Hypothetical Question
On 18 Dec 2002 at 14:45, Len Paris wrote: I hope they listen now. I would buy a 6MP CCD or CMOS DSLR and would not mind if the chip is APS sized. If they could manage a CMOS chip like the Foveon, with some enhancements over the one used in the Sigma SD-9, I'd be very happy. I don't need anything a lot larger than that. Keep the price $2200 or less and they've got me hooked. Yay, I'd be in it to and my second body would be the later full frame 14mpix. Pentax have extracted plenty on money out of me in new lenses very recently and mostly bases on the premise that they would soon deliver a DSLR, thank god (or your favourite deity) for K-mount backwards compatibility. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: RE: Hypothetical Question
On 18 Dec 2002 at 16:27, David Brooks wrote: Just not sure how the CMOS works vs the CCD.I always associated CMOS as start up computer programing.I have seen the Canon 1D and it looks nice and its cheaper than the Dxx series from Nikon. Any CMOS commentsCotty? CMOS is a far better option than CCD however it has only recently been developed to a point where it would be suitable for professional photographic applications. CCD sensors will displaced completely in the not to distant future. See: http://kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/cameras/dcsPro14n/cmos.jhtml?id =0.3.6.30.5.8.3.18.3lc=en Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: Hypothetical Question
The do not officially monitor this list. Therefore, what you are asking is silly. Some of us on the list know people who work for Pentax. We know what they say. However, I can almost guaranty they if you post a question to Pentax on this list, it will not be answered. All companies that have press and public relations departments ensure that press clippings and relevant reaction is catalogued and filtered for use by market research and others within. Of course, it depends on the size and disposition of said PR Dept as to how far they go in gaining reaction and from what source, and how far they take it. I know for a fact that various personnel working for Pentax in various parts of the world have been known to monitor the list, whether through choice or instruction, and whether through their own research or through being provided with the relevant info. I won't back up my claim (for obvious reasons) with any hard evidence, you'll just have to trust me on that, or not. It should not be any great surprise. After all, knowledge is power, huh? I wouldn't place too high a priority on this as a hotline to the top Pentax brass though :-) Regards, Cotty Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/ Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/
Re: Hypothetical Question
Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: CMOS is a far better option than CCD however it has only recently been developed to a point where it would be suitable for professional photographic applications. CCD sensors will displaced completely in the not to distant future. See: http://kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/cameras/dcsPro14n/cmos.jhtml?id =0.3.6.30.5.8.3.18.3lc=en Kodak is currently pushing their CMOS stuff heavily (their new 14 megapixel camera is CMOS). For a bit less biased opinion (they do *both* CMOS and CCD technology), see http://www.dalsa.com/markets/ccd_vs_cmos.asp -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Hypothetical Question
An interesting aside: of the current crop of $2K DSLRs the Nikon seems to produce the cleanest image. I is, I think, the only one using a CCD. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 6:07 PM Subject: Re: Hypothetical Question Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: CMOS is a far better option than CCD however it has only recently been developed to a point where it would be suitable for professional photographic applications. CCD sensors will displaced completely in the not to distant future. See: http://kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/cameras/dcsPro14n/cmos.jht ml?id =0.3.6.30.5.8.3.18.3lc=en Kodak is currently pushing their CMOS stuff heavily (their new 14 megapixel camera is CMOS). For a bit less biased opinion (they do *both* CMOS and CCD technology), see http://www.dalsa.com/markets/ccd_vs_cmos.asp -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Hypothetical Question
Hi, Tom, My bet is that the vast majority of Rebel users have no idea that all those big white lenses on the sidelines of NFL football games are C lenses. They probably bought their Rebels because Andre Agassi's mug is on the tube, trying to tell us that he uses one (yeah, right!). That's ~real~ marketing! g And, of hundreds of thousands of Rebels that are sold, do you really think that many are bought because some neophyte was chatting with a member of CDML (if such a thing exists), who enthusiastically told him to buy one? I have my doubts. Nah, TV ads, magazine ads, promotional deals in the local paper selling the ubiquitous starter kit with a 28-70 (or whatever) plus strap and camera bag for $200 - that's what does it, imho. But, as always, I could be wrong. cheers, frank T Rittenhouse wrote: But the people on this is are not a couple hundred users, they are a couple of hundred flag wavers. If word of mouth is worth anything, they would be trying to please these people. Canon Nikon have thousands of flag wavers, simply because they do try to please that segment of their market. The Rebel is the best selling SLR in the world because of all the white lenses that are seen at sporting events. Canon does not sell a heck of a lot of white lenses, but giving them away sells a heck of a lot of Rebels cameras. That is called marketing. -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: Hypothetical Question
Cotty wrote: If God loves me there is a full-frame digital SLR with fast imaged stablized lenses in my future. I am betting Pentax won't have one out by then. Anyone want to wager a beer or two on that. I like free beer! I'll bet you a bottle of Wychwood's Hobgoblin against a tin of that sudsy bathwater you Americans call beer that you will not see a full frame DSLR from Pentax before Jan 1st 2005 :-) You in? Cotty ref: http://www.wychwood.co.uk/ Hell no! But... I'd love to join you for making that case of Wychwood become smaller! I'm ALWAYS up for that, Cotty! I'll even bring my magic MX to see you! g keith whaley P.S. Americans don't MAKE beer! IMMHO...
Re[3]: Hypothetical Question taken further...
Hi, Wednesday, December 18, 2002, 11:05:39 PM, you wrote: I think one of Brad's points is that *many* on this list don't buy new stuff no matter what Pentax makes. Even if they made the kind of stuff you want, at the prices it would cost to make it, would you buy new? Probably not. [...] When I had nearly $20K worth of retail spending power from my insurance claim to spend on new equipment, I'd have been happy to put it into Pentax-san's pockets, but he didn't have anything I wanted, so I bought Contax. Even when I was buying mostly used Pentax stuff I did buy a fair amount of new equipment. Somebody who has 4 or 5 cameras and a dozen or so lenses all bought used is still quite likely to spend more on new equipment, I'd have thought, than somebody who buys a low-end body and lens kit and sticks with that forever. --- Bob Our heads are round so that our thoughts can fly in any direction Francis Picabia
Re: RE: Hypothetical Question
Just not sure how the CMOS works vs the CCD.I always associated CMOS as start up computer programing.I have seen the Canon 1D and it looks nice and its cheaper than the Dxx series from Nikon. Any CMOS commentsCotty? From what I gather, the CMOS uses vastly less power than a comparable CCD. This seems to bear out in practice. I have the grip with provision for 2 Liithium Ion battery packs, and the 2 packs. Charged up, with occasional snapping and say a good couple of hours shooting on a Saturday, so say about 400 exposures, maybe 450 in all, I can go a good 2 WEEKS before they're exhausted. I have disabled auto-shut-off. The camera stays on all the time when shooting unless I switch it off manually. The packs are amazing. Personally I wouldn't dally with AA-anything. .02pixels :-) Cot Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/ Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/
Re[2]: Hypothetical Question
Hi, Wednesday, December 18, 2002, 11:02:59 PM, you wrote: [...] I wouldn't place too high a priority on this as a hotline to the top Pentax brass though :-) it's not brass anymore, it's plastic... --- Bob Our heads are round so that our thoughts can fly in any direction Francis Picabia
Re: Hypothetical Question
Hey, I am the one who was trying to find a sucker to bet me. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 6:14 PM Subject: Re: Hypothetical Question If God loves me there is a full-frame digital SLR with fast imaged stablized lenses in my future. I am betting Pentax won't have one out by then. Anyone want to wager a beer or two on that. I like free beer! I'll bet you a bottle of Wychwood's Hobgoblin against a tin of that sudsy bathwater you Americans call beer that you will not see a full frame DSLR from Pentax before Jan 1st 2005 :-) You in? Cotty ref: http://www.wychwood.co.uk/ Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/ Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/
Re: Hypothetical Question
On Wednesday, December 18, 2002, at 04:40 PM, frank theriault wrote: Even if they do monitor us once in a while, or even all the time, I can't believe that they put much stock in our opinions. We're what, a couple of hundred enthusiasts? That's a pretty small sample, and hardly representative of the market as a whole. We don't have much influence beyond our group (or even within it g). They may watch us once in a while, but I can't believe that too many decisions are made based on what we think. BUT, just in case Big Brother Pentax is watching, how about a Pentax equivalent to the N FM3 (but way cheaper)? I guess it could hurt to try, eh? vbg cheers, frank How about a ZX-5n dslr equivalent to whatever that Canon thing is Cotty's got? Bet they'd sell a bazillion more of those than a cheap FM3 knock off. g Anyway, as previously mentioned, the demand for new, mechanical Pentax slrs is next to non-existent. The people buying Pentax mechanicals now have a huge supply of high quality mechanicals already available to them at prices that Pentax would find impossible to beat. Dan Scott
OT: Beer -- re: Hypothetical Question
Also, I resent the implication, I drink that stuff they make over here. Grolsh, Pilsner Urquel, and occassionally some of your english ale are my usual choices. Though I have heard that that stuff is only for export because you guys only drink Bud Coors nowadays. A related anecdote: I was sitting in the bar next to L. L. Bean's in Freeport Maine several years back when the gentleman next to me, apparently a Canadian, said, I didn't realize our export was quite this bad, refering to the Labatt's he was drinking. I explained to him about Town laws in Maine, and 3.2 beer, therein. He sputtered, You mean they water the beer? Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'll bet you a bottle of Wychwood's Hobgoblin against a tin of that sudsy bathwater you Americans call beer that you will not see a full frame DSLR from Pentax before Jan 1st 2005 :-) http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/
Re: Hypothetical Question
Nah, I think he bought it because some camera freak buddy said Canon's are the best camera made. Of course, all those TV ads meant that he had already heard of Canon. All I am saying is that the people in Pentaxes marketing department seem to be pretty good engineers g. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] My bet is that the vast majority of Rebel users have no idea that all those big white lenses on the sidelines of NFL football games are C lenses. They probably bought their Rebels because Andre Agassi's mug is on the tube, trying to tell us that he uses one (yeah, right!). That's ~real~ marketing! g And, of hundreds of thousands of Rebels that are sold, do you really think that many are bought because some neophyte was chatting with a member of CDML (if such a thing exists), who enthusiastically told him to buy one? I have my doubts. Nah, TV ads, magazine ads, promotional deals in the local paper selling the ubiquitous starter kit with a 28-70 (or whatever) plus strap and camera bag for $200 - that's what does it, imho. But, as always, I could be wrong.
Re: Hypothetical Question
Hee-hee! It's because of these sorts of posts that we're all so glad you're back, Tom! vbg cheers, frank T Rittenhouse wrote: snip) All I am saying is that the people in Pentaxes marketing department seem to be pretty good engineers g. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
OT: American Beer, was Re: Hypothetical Question
You must be thinking about the big manufacturers, Bud, Coors, Miller, stuff not fit to swill for pigs. There's lots of good Beer made in America, just not these. At 03:26 PM 12/18/2002 -0800, you wrote: Cotty wrote: If God loves me there is a full-frame digital SLR with fast imaged stablized lenses in my future. I am betting Pentax won't have one out by then. Anyone want to wager a beer or two on that. I like free beer! I'll bet you a bottle of Wychwood's Hobgoblin against a tin of that sudsy bathwater you Americans call beer that you will not see a full frame DSLR from Pentax before Jan 1st 2005 :-) You in? Cotty ref: http://www.wychwood.co.uk/ Hell no! But... I'd love to join you for making that case of Wychwood become smaller! I'm ALWAYS up for that, Cotty! I'll even bring my magic MX to see you! g keith whaley P.S. Americans don't MAKE beer! IMMHO...
Film vs. Digital (WAS: Re: RE: Hypothetical Question)
Glen wrote: For a very impressive review including image comparisons of the EOS D1s and 35mm and 645 (buy the way he uses the Pentax 645) see this page below. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/1ds/1ds-field.shtml He isn't. He is comparing his digital camera with another digital camera; the latter take pictures of film. For judging these two digital cameras he create a copy. Then he make conclusion about the original. Or in other words: He is comparing a second generation copy with a third generation copy. Both copying processes has a resolution below even the most rotten third party lens. Then he make conclusions about the original. He could just as well be comparing apple and oranges. Pål
Re: Hypothetical Question
Alexander wrote: Interestingly, a majority here confesses how they prefer manual focus and even all-manual bodies over the new AF-bodies. In the real world however, exactly the contrary has happened: Obviously because of a lack of demand, most manual focus and all all-manual 35mm SLRs disappeared from the market. It's not only the equipment in itself that matters, but the fact that it is old and not longer available brand new. It is also about the thrill of finding an elusive item at a great price. I think at the end of it's life time the LX was 3x as expensive as it initially was. Too expensive. The desire for ultimate quality vanishes as prices increase. Yes, but also the fact that there are limits on how long you can sell the same product. At a certain point the market becomes saturated and the used price is so much lower than new price that few are willing to pay for a brand new one. When a product get old enough initial buyers can sell the thing for the same they gave for it 10-15 years earlier, something they are happy to do, maintaining a low used priced compared to new price. This happened also with the 67; the used market was so full of it that few bought new ones anymore as good second-hand samples were plentiful at significant savings. Pål
Re: Hypothetical Question
Mark wrote: It's a pity the PDML didn't exist when the LX was introduced. It would have been interesting to read the inevitable complaints. I remember the compaints: it was too big and bulky, used batteries, and had useless features like automatic mode. It was essentially a tool for family snapshooters. Sounds familiar? Pål
Re: OT: Beer -- re: Hypothetical Question
Struthwater in the beer! That would cause a general strike and riots where I live. You don't mess with a blokes wife, cars, sheds, dogs or beer, although the first one is optional. G Cheers Shaun T Rittenhouse wrote: Also, I resent the implication, I drink that stuff they make over here. Grolsh, Pilsner Urquel, and occassionally some of your english ale are my usual choices. Though I have heard that that stuff is only for export because you guys only drink Bud Coors nowadays. A related anecdote: I was sitting in the bar next to L. L. Bean's in Freeport Maine several years back when the gentleman next to me, apparently a Canadian, said, I didn't realize our export was quite this bad, refering to the Labatt's he was drinking. I explained to him about Town laws in Maine, and 3.2 beer, therein. He sputtered, You mean they water the beer? Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'll bet you a bottle of Wychwood's Hobgoblin against a tin of that sudsy bathwater you Americans call beer that you will not see a full frame DSLR from Pentax before Jan 1st 2005 :-) http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ . -- Shaun Canning Cultural Heritage Services High Street, Broadford, Victoria, 3658. www.heritageservices.com.au/ Phone: 0414-967644 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] My images can be seen at www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=238096
Re: American Beer, was Re: Hypothetical Question
Amercan beer is like making love in a canoe
Re: Hypothetical Question
It also helps that around here at least, you can't find Pentax SLR's in any of the large discount retailers. Local Wal-Mart's for example carry a couple of Canon Models a Nikon model and a Minolta Model, Pentax is represented by IQZooms. Pentax probably won't put up with Wal-Mart's extortion demands, I mean marketing requirements. But once again you can't buy what's not available. At 06:57 PM 12/18/2002 -0500, you wrote: Nah, I think he bought it because some camera freak buddy said Canon's are the best camera made. Of course, all those TV ads meant that he had already heard of Canon. All I am saying is that the people in Pentaxes marketing department seem to be pretty good engineers g. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] My bet is that the vast majority of Rebel users have no idea that all those big white lenses on the sidelines of NFL football games are C lenses. They probably bought their Rebels because Andre Agassi's mug is on the tube, trying to tell us that he uses one (yeah, right!). That's ~real~ marketing! g And, of hundreds of thousands of Rebels that are sold, do you really think that many are bought because some neophyte was chatting with a member of CDML (if such a thing exists), who enthusiastically told him to buy one? I have my doubts. Nah, TV ads, magazine ads, promotional deals in the local paper selling the ubiquitous starter kit with a 28-70 (or whatever) plus strap and camera bag for $200 - that's what does it, imho. But, as always, I could be wrong.
Re: American Beer, was Re: Hypothetical Question
A wire canoe at that! Pål Jensen wrote: Amercan beer is like making love in a canoe . -- Shaun Canning Cultural Heritage Services High Street, Broadford, Victoria, 3658. www.heritageservices.com.au/ Phone: 0414-967644 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] My images can be seen at www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=238096
Re: Hypothetical Question
1. A 98% or 100% viewfinder with good snap for easy manual focusing I really wanted #1 (or part of) for the MZ-S, but I was told that to get 100% it was expensive, like doubling the cost. I can see why Pentax didn't bother with it given their market. Too bad. Not sure what you mean by snap with manual focus. Well, some viewfinders with coarser groundglass make it easier to see when the image is in focus and when it isn't. The new super-bright focusing screens made it very difficult to see when the image is in focus and when it isn't. It isn't an issue on most AF cameras, since the AF does the focusing, but if you like to focus manually, it makes a difference. Take a look at the screen in the Contax Aria sometime for an example of an acceptably bright frame that snaps into focus well. 7. Non-resetting ISO Can you explain this further and why it's a problem? I don't use the ISO rating for films, so I dislike cameras that default to the ISO / DX speed rating whenever the camera is turned off and on again. I like to be able to set the camera for E.I. 200 with Tri-X, for instance, and then leave it there, confident that it will remain on 200 until I reset it. --Mike
Re: Hypothetical Question
I remember those... At 08:20 PM 12/18/2002 -0500, you wrote: Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mark wrote: It's a pity the PDML didn't exist when the LX was introduced. It would have been interesting to read the inevitable complaints. I remember the compaints: it was too big and bulky, used batteries, and had useless features like automatic mode. It was essentially a tool for family snapshooters. Sounds familiar? And I assume there were complaints that it wasn't automated *enough* also? (Only aperture-preferred autoexposure) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Hypothetical Question
But the important thing to remember is that we wouldn't like the brand if they didn't meed our needs, at least as some time weather today or in the past. At 07:20 PM 12/18/2002 -0600, you wrote: But the people on this is are not a couple hundred users, they are a couple of hundred flag wavers. Bingo! Excellent point. We're the people who LIKE Pentax, so we support the brand and proselytize for it, defend it, publicize it. For instance, I've written several web columns about Pentax equipment, and when I was Editor of _PT_ I published a cover about a Pentax feature (trap focus). So, supposedly, I have more influence that just as a consumer of the company's products. --Mike
Re: Hypothetical Question
The fact that the LX was only available in Japan made it rather difficult for most of us to buy. Hell I can't see a MZ-S in the proverbial flesh despite having two relatively well stocked camera stores which both carry Pentax within easy driving distance. At 09:19 AM 12/18/2002 -0600, you wrote: My question is this: Could Pentax actually use this list for advice and stay in business? We may be too eclectic a group to be a good source of market research. We still argue over the PZ-1p vs the MZ-S. Many here don't even want autofocus. This is pretty much what I was wondering about when I wrote the original Hypothetical Question. People here wonder whether Pentax monitors this list (they do), and whether they listen to our advice when advising Japan about product development...I don't know whether they do that or not, but I have to wonder if it would be productive if they did. I know that one Pentax person has told me privately that despite all the gushing and lauding of the LX on this list, even diehards weren't buying new LX's at the end of its lifespan. Most were buying used, or were using LXen purchased many years previously. Some of the comments about a digital SLR would probably be of value to them, especially from the perspective of not alienating longtime Pentax aficionados. But of course that's only going to be one consideration out of many in the design and concept of the new camera. We're only a few months away now...the Pentax DSLR is coming, --Mike Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: Hypothetical Question
Hi Peter, I saw and held one in Sydney at a camera store near Martin Place on George street. Bob - Original Message - From: Peter Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 4:17 AM Subject: Re: Hypothetical Question The fact that the LX was only available in Japan made it rather difficult for most of us to buy. Hell I can't see a MZ-S in the proverbial flesh despite having two relatively well stocked camera stores which both carry Pentax within easy driving distance. At 09:19 AM 12/18/2002 -0600, you wrote: My question is this: Could Pentax actually use this list for advice and stay in business? We may be too eclectic a group to be a good source of market research. We still argue over the PZ-1p vs the MZ-S. Many here don't even want autofocus. This is pretty much what I was wondering about when I wrote the original Hypothetical Question. People here wonder whether Pentax monitors this list (they do), and whether they listen to our advice when advising Japan about product development...I don't know whether they do that or not, but I have to wonder if it would be productive if they did. I know that one Pentax person has told me privately that despite all the gushing and lauding of the LX on this list, even diehards weren't buying new LX's at the end of its lifespan. Most were buying used, or were using LXen purchased many years previously. Some of the comments about a digital SLR would probably be of value to them, especially from the perspective of not alienating longtime Pentax aficionados. But of course that's only going to be one consideration out of many in the design and concept of the new camera. We're only a few months away now...the Pentax DSLR is coming, --Mike Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: Hypothetical Question
That's nice, I'm in North America, If I bore a hole straight down I'll only have to travel about 7900 miles or so to see and hold an MZ-S. I'm sure that I could find one in Mew York City, but I think I'd rather bore that hole. At 04:41 PM 12/19/2002 +1100, Bob Rap wrote: Hi Peter, I saw and held one in Sydney at a camera store near Martin Place on George street. Bob - Original Message - From: Peter Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 4:17 AM Subject: Re: Hypothetical Question The fact that the LX was only available in Japan made it rather difficult for most of us to buy. Hell I can't see a MZ-S in the proverbial flesh despite having two relatively well stocked camera stores which both carry Pentax within easy driving distance. At 09:19 AM 12/18/2002 -0600, you wrote: My question is this: Could Pentax actually use this list for advice and stay in business? We may be too eclectic a group to be a good source of market research. We still argue over the PZ-1p vs the MZ-S. Many here don't even want autofocus. This is pretty much what I was wondering about when I wrote the original Hypothetical Question. People here wonder whether Pentax monitors this list (they do), and whether they listen to our advice when advising Japan about product development...I don't know whether they do that or not, but I have to wonder if it would be productive if they did. I know that one Pentax person has told me privately that despite all the gushing and lauding of the LX on this list, even diehards weren't buying new LX's at the end of its lifespan. Most were buying used, or were using LXen purchased many years previously. Some of the comments about a digital SLR would probably be of value to them, especially from the perspective of not alienating longtime Pentax aficionados. But of course that's only going to be one consideration out of many in the design and concept of the new camera. We're only a few months away now...the Pentax DSLR is coming, --Mike Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Hypothetical Question
If Pentax...would have applied advances in autofocus, image stabilization...how many of you would be still shooting with Pentax (a majority brand)? Or would you be shooting Canon FD and poking jealous fun at Pentax snobs G? Hah! Great point. Canon is so good at being Canon, nobody else has to be Canon So let me ask a hypothetical question here. Asked of everyone. IF you have to choose between EITHER the older, metal bodied, manual focus Pentax family (Spotmatics, M series, A series, up to LX) ***OR*** the polycarbonate-bodied, AF Pentax family (P series, ZX series, up to MZ-S)--and you couldn't mix and match and you couldn't use both--which would it be? I guess since my main Pentax is an ESII you know which way I lean. --Mike
Re: Hypothetical Question
Despite my having fun recently with my most modern camera, a PZ-1, and a few autofocus lenses, I always have to go back to one of the older bodies after a little while (or have a black-and-white roll going at the same time in an older body). Of my older cameras, the MX, Spotmatic, and the ESII are my most used and are truly a joy to use. I would miss them far more than the PZ-1 if I had to choose. Joe P.S. What is it about the ESII that makes it such a delight? I've made some really nice photos and have had a lot of fun with it in the past year -- despite its big and somewhat clunky size and generous weight! If Pentax...would have applied advances in autofocus, image stabilization...how many of you would be still shooting with Pentax (a majority brand)? Or would you be shooting Canon FD and poking jealous fun at Pentax snobs G? Hah! Great point. Canon is so good at being Canon, nobody else has to be Canon So let me ask a hypothetical question here. Asked of everyone. IF you have to choose between EITHER the older, metal bodied, manual focus Pentax family (Spotmatics, M series, A series, up to LX) ***OR*** the polycarbonate-bodied, AF Pentax family (P series, ZX series, up to MZ-S)--and you couldn't mix and match and you couldn't use both--which would it be? I guess since my main Pentax is an ESII you know which way I lean. --Mike
Re: Hypothetical Question
- Original Message - From: Mike Johnston Subject: Hypothetical Question So let me ask a hypothetical question here. Asked of everyone. IF you have to choose between EITHER the older, metal bodied, manual focus Pentax family (Spotmatics, M series, A series, up to LX) ***OR*** the polycarbonate-bodied, AF Pentax family (P series, ZX series, up to MZ-S)--and you couldn't mix and match and you couldn't use both--which would it be? For me, the question isn't hypothetical. We have an MZ-5 in the house. I have used it once, and found I didn't like the cheapness of it. William Robb
Re: Hypothetical Question
Mike, Found myself using/mixing the PZ-1p with manual lenses and some autofocus at my daughter's gym meets. This week I switched back to the LX with a winder. Two advantages were apparent. 1. The shutter lag was shorter with the LX. This is not a surprise, but I'm surprised that I noticed. 2. The manual lenses snap into focus better on the LX than on the PZ-1p. This is what I was hoping for. Now I've got to check the prints. The manual focus is still a winner. I'm not looking forward to being forced to autofocus. Regards, Bob S. In a message dated 12/17/2002 4:30:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So let me ask a hypothetical question here. Asked of everyone. IF you have to choose between EITHER the older, metal bodied, manual focus Pentax family (Spotmatics, M series, A series, up to LX) ***OR*** the polycarbonate-bodied, AF Pentax family (P series, ZX series, up to MZ-S)--and you couldn't mix and match and you couldn't use both--which would it be?
Re: Hypothetical Question
On 17 Dec 2002 at 15:30, Mike Johnston wrote: So let me ask a hypothetical question here. Asked of everyone. IF you have to choose between EITHER the older, metal bodied, manual focus Pentax family (Spotmatics, M series, A series, up to LX) ***OR*** the polycarbonate-bodied, AF Pentax family (P series, ZX series, up to MZ-S)--and you couldn't mix and match and you couldn't use both--which would it be? I currently have the option of picking up an MZ-S or LX and if it had to be one the LX would be my choice. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: Hypothetical Question
Autofocus? We don't need no stinkin' autofocus! Give me an LX any day Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 4:30 PM Subject: Hypothetical Question If Pentax...would have applied advances in autofocus, image stabilization...how many of you would be still shooting with Pentax (a majority brand)? Or would you be shooting Canon FD and poking jealous fun at Pentax snobs G? Hah! Great point. Canon is so good at being Canon, nobody else has to be Canon So let me ask a hypothetical question here. Asked of everyone. IF you have to choose between EITHER the older, metal bodied, manual focus Pentax family (Spotmatics, M series, A series, up to LX) ***OR*** the polycarbonate-bodied, AF Pentax family (P series, ZX series, up to MZ-S)--and you couldn't mix and match and you couldn't use both--which would it be? I guess since my main Pentax is an ESII you know which way I lean. --Mike
Re: Hypothetical Question
My Pentax bodies are an MX, and 3 Spotmatics. My bodies from other brands are all metal, manual focus, and with the exception of my Yashica Electro 35, mechanical shutter. I can't see myself ever going plastic (sorry, polycarbonate g). There are so many good old bodies out there for decent prices, why bother? I don't need AF or AE, although I do hope one day to own an LX. Were I to upgrade, it would be to decent Medium Format (not that I don't like my Yashica Mat, but it does have it's limitations), likely a 6x7 or 67. cheers, frank Mike Johnston wrote: Hah! Great point. Canon is so good at being Canon, nobody else has to be Canon So let me ask a hypothetical question here. Asked of everyone. IF you have to choose between EITHER the older, metal bodied, manual focus Pentax family (Spotmatics, M series, A series, up to LX) ***OR*** the polycarbonate-bodied, AF Pentax family (P series, ZX series, up to MZ-S)--and you couldn't mix and match and you couldn't use both--which would it be? I guess since my main Pentax is an ESII you know which way I lean. --Mike -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: Hypothetical Question
Sorry Mike, I lean the other way! The conveniences of modern metering systems and selective AF (when appropriate), together with the toughness given by the use of a mix of modern plastics and alloys in cameras such as the MZ-S would always draw me towards them. I have seen many Spotmatics which have died, and I know while it would be true to say that we won't know how long any camera will last until it reaches the same vintage, my guess is that the fewer mechanical parts a camera has to wear out, and the more modular it is in construction, the longer it will be around. John Coyle Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 7:30 AM Subject: Hypothetical Question So let me ask a hypothetical question here. Asked of everyone. IF you have to choose between EITHER the older, metal bodied, manual focus Pentax family (Spotmatics, M series, A series, up to LX) ***OR*** the polycarbonate-bodied, AF Pentax family (P series, ZX series, up to MZ-S)--and you couldn't mix and match and you couldn't use both--which would it be? I guess since my main Pentax is an ESII you know which way I lean. --Mike
Re: Hypothetical Question
Too bad because your missing out on using a very nice camera. I have a ZX-5n, and while it is a polycarbonate body, it has a very nice feel too it and has great simple features that fall easily to hand. This camera has produced time after time for me over the past 3 years. It's not a coincidence that it has won camera of the year awards after it's introduction some 6-7 years ago. DG At 04:11 PM 12/17/02 -0600, you wrote: - Original Message - From: Mike Johnston Subject: Hypothetical Question So let me ask a hypothetical question here. Asked of everyone. IF you have to choose between EITHER the older, metal bodied, manual focus Pentax family (Spotmatics, M series, A series, up to LX) ***OR*** the polycarbonate-bodied, AF Pentax family (P series, ZX series, up to MZ-S)--and you couldn't mix and match and you couldn't use both--which would it be? For me, the question isn't hypothetical. We have an MZ-5 in the house. I have used it once, and found I didn't like the cheapness of it. William Robb
Re: Hypothetical Question
I have had AF in the past (SF1N Pz1P) and switched back to mechanical cameras. The Spotmatic SP is still a favourite along with the LX. Note - I am not afraid to use Takumars on my LX and do from time to time. I love the SP as much as I do the LX. Sorry Mike, I don't like auto anything. Bob - Original Message - From: Mike Johnston So let me ask a hypothetical question here. Asked of everyone. IF you have to choose between EITHER the older, metal bodied, manual focus Pentax family (Spotmatics, M series, A series, up to LX) ***OR*** the polycarbonate-bodied, AF Pentax family (P series, ZX series, up to MZ-S)--and you couldn't mix and match and you couldn't use both--which would it be? I guess since my main Pentax is an ESII you know which way I lean. --Mike
Re: Hypothetical Question
Many Spotmatics have died, that's true. But, considering that they are between 27 and 38 years old, a surprising number of them are still around. And, in my experience, the overwhelming reason that they die is that the meter goes. Mechanical failures are not that prevalent. Even if the mechanics fail, there are so many meter-less bodies out there from which to cannibalize parts, the majority of mechanical failures can still be remedied. regards, frank jcoyle wrote: snip I have seen many Spotmatics which have died, and I know while it would be true to say that we won't know how long any camera will last until it reaches the same vintage, my guess is that the fewer mechanical parts a camera has to wear out, and the more modular it is in construction, the longer it will be around. -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
