Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
nah, that's beauty. ugly is universal. mishka On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 08:34:26 -0800, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ugly is in they eyes of the beholder > > Shel
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
"Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On 23 Mar 2005 at 11:38, Dario Bonazza wrote: > >> Don't forget that DALSA (formerly PHILIPS) 6-Mpix CCD wounded Pentax and >> killed Contax. So the 11 Mpix sibling has to be a very good and cheap sensor >> before Pentax is going to use it. At least, this is what I'd think if I was >> Pentax. Bye, Dario > >I did realize that but I also know Pentax and Contax were both quite >inexperienced in the this area of development and production too, these same >sensors were/are used in some quite successful industrial equipment. Apparently the image quality with the Contax was excellent but various design features of the camera were pretty poor. Also battery life was reportedly miserable (which of course wouldn't be an issue in industrial equipment). Don't know how cost compared to other full-frame sensors but Philips price was about $1000 each in quantity. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
On 23 Mar 2005 at 11:38, Dario Bonazza wrote: > Don't forget that DALSA (formerly PHILIPS) 6-Mpix CCD wounded Pentax and > killed Contax. So the 11 Mpix sibling has to be a very good and cheap sensor > before Pentax is going to use it. At least, this is what I'd think if I was > Pentax. Bye, Dario I did realize that but I also know Pentax and Contax were both quite inexperienced in the this area of development and production too, these same sensors were/are used in some quite successful industrial equipment. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
Don't forget that DALSA (formerly PHILIPS) 6-Mpix CCD wounded Pentax and killed Contax. So the 11 Mpix sibling has to be a very good and cheap sensor before Pentax is going to use it. At least, this is what I'd think if I was Pentax. Bye, Dario - Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 11:34 PM Subject: Re: Potential buyrs of a D645? On 22 Mar 2005 at 12:36, Mark Roberts wrote: Pentax has publicly stated that they see no reason why a digital SLR should be any larger than the equivalent film SLR. But we won't see 24 x 36 in a standard 35mm-size body until the sensors are much more of a commodity item. Just like what happened with the APS-C sensor in the ist-D and DS. Not going to happen until low-cost CMOS sensor fabs come on line (probably in China) and the use of two or more small sensors to substitute for a single large sensor becomes more common. Full frame 35mm sensors are available outside Canon, I wonder what this little beasty would cost: http://www.dalsa.com/pi/products/productdetails.asp?ProductID=FTF4027C Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
at 20fps maximum throughput, i would guess on the order of $5K in quantity. that translates into a $20-$30K camera. at 5fps, i would have guessed under $1K. Herb - Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 5:34 PM Subject: Re: Potential buyrs of a D645? Full frame 35mm sensors are available outside Canon, I wonder what this little beasty would cost: http://www.dalsa.com/pi/products/productdetails.asp?ProductID=FTF4027C
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
Shel Belinkoff wrote: Where is this sensor used? Or is it just a sensor looking for a home? How hard is it to change one sensor for another in a digi camera? I imagine pretty complicated, or maybe not at all possible, but I had to ask. Usually pretty complicated for a manufacturer; completely impossible for an end user. :-) S
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
On 22 Mar 2005 at 16:19, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > Where is this sensor used? Or is it just a sensor looking for a home? How > hard > is it to change one sensor for another in a digi camera? I imagine pretty > complicated, or maybe not at all possible, but I had to ask. Only a sensor looking for a home unfortunately, shows just one of what is out there as off-the-shelf products for manufacturers that's about it. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
Where is this sensor used? Or is it just a sensor looking for a home? How hard is it to change one sensor for another in a digi camera? I imagine pretty complicated, or maybe not at all possible, but I had to ask. Shel > [Original Message] > "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Full frame 35mm sensors are available outside Canon, I wonder what this little >beasty would cost: >http://www.dalsa.com/pi/products/productdetails.asp?ProductID=FTF4027C
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
"Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Full frame 35mm sensors are available outside Canon, I wonder what this little >beasty would cost: > >http://www.dalsa.com/pi/products/productdetails.asp?ProductID=FTF4027C If you have to ask you can't afford it! Seriously, we have a long way to go before such an device becomes a commodity item like Sony's APS-C CCD. And it'll probably be a CMOS sensor (or multi-sensor array), not a CCD, as that's where all the R&D money is pointing things. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
On 22 Mar 2005 at 12:36, Mark Roberts wrote: > Pentax has publicly stated that they see no reason why a digital SLR > should be any larger than the equivalent film SLR. But we won't see 24 x > 36 in a standard 35mm-size body until the sensors are much more of a > commodity item. Just like what happened with the APS-C sensor in the > ist-D and DS. Not going to happen until low-cost CMOS sensor fabs come > on line (probably in China) and the use of two or more small sensors to > substitute for a single large sensor becomes more common. Full frame 35mm sensors are available outside Canon, I wonder what this little beasty would cost: http://www.dalsa.com/pi/products/productdetails.asp?ProductID=FTF4027C Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
"Bob Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >The 645D will probably come out with a 24x36mm sensor. That would be a rub! 34mm x 45mm (1.3 FOV crop for 645) Pentax has publicly stated that they see no reason why a digital SLR should be any larger than the equivalent film SLR. But we won't see 24 x 36 in a standard 35mm-size body until the sensors are much more of a commodity item. Just like what happened with the APS-C sensor in the ist-D and DS. Not going to happen until low-cost CMOS sensor fabs come on line (probably in China) and the use of two or more small sensors to substitute for a single large sensor becomes more common. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
I wasn't even considering that, although those are salient points ... having seen the samples posted last week or so, one or another looked very nice, aesthetically pleasing to my eye. If a camera were to fit my hand comfortably, and work in a manner that suited my style, then it's OK. Anyway, any camera I put up to my face would be nothing but an improvement Shel > [Original Message] > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > You took the words right out of my mouth, Shel. If it's well built, sells for the price of a high-end 35mm dslr and offers more resolution and less noise than the 35, that's a beautiful thing. I wouldn't be entering it in any fashion shows.
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
The 645D will probably come out with a 24x36mm sensor. That would be a rub! HAR! Regards, Bob... "A picture is worth a thousand words, but it uses up three thousand times the memory." From: "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Annti_Pekka wrote: I don't yet own any Pentax 645 equipment but I see the 645D as the long awaited "professional DSLR from Pentax" and am very interested in getting one (if comparable in price with the Canon and Kodak FF 35mm offerings). It seems that Pentax is not going to release a FF 35mm any time soon so I would need to go to an entirely new camera system in any case if I wish to get a larger than APS size sensor REPLY: I've said it before: The 645 lenses are no more expensive (or larger) than high-end Canon lenses.
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
You took the words right out of my mouth, Shel. If it's well built, sells for the price of a high-end 35mm dslr and offers more resolution and less noise than the 35, that's a beautiful thing. I wouldn't be entering it in any fashion shows. Paul > Ugly is in they eyes of the beholder > > Shel > > > > [Original Message] > > From: Pål Jensen > > > It seems like Pentax will continue the compact trend with digital 645. > However, the biggest problem with this camera is that it seem incredibly > ugly. I hope sombody tells them that none of the prototypes are acceptable > in the looks department. > >
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
Ugly is in they eyes of the beholder Shel > [Original Message] > From: Pål Jensen > It seems like Pentax will continue the compact trend with digital 645. However, the biggest problem with this camera is that it seem incredibly ugly. I hope sombody tells them that none of the prototypes are acceptable in the looks department.
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
Jostein wrote: > It's a long step from just stating the one sentence "The 645 lenses > are no more expensive (or larger) than high-end Canon lenses", to > actually pointing out that this applies to one quite specific setup > tailored to one person's needs. Now you've done so, and we all know > the scope of your statement. > > The world is always more complicated than one-liners, isn't it? :-) Sure. My main point is that you cannot dismiss MF on size and weight alone, something thats often done, when compared to high-end 35mm gear. It seems like Pentax will continue the compact trend with digital 645. However, the biggest problem with this camera is that it seem incredibly ugly. I hope sombody tells them that none of the prototypes are acceptable in the looks department. Pål
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
I remember your comparison, Pål. You posted it to the list. It was a very interesting comparison back then. Three years is a lot of time, and the comparison may still be valid. There are, however, a lot of new people on the list who haven't read all the archives. :-) It's a long step from just stating the one sentence "The 645 lenses are no more expensive (or larger) than high-end Canon lenses", to actually pointing out that this applies to one quite specific setup tailored to one person's needs. Now you've done so, and we all know the scope of your statement. The world is always more complicated than one-liners, isn't it? :-) Cheers, Jostein - Original Message - From: "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Frankly, I'm not that interested spending time just because someone wants to be argumentative. I did the math years ago. The Pentax lenses in question cost from ~800$ to ~1400. The Canon L lenses from about$ 1300 - $1600. The Pentax lenses weight sigificantly less. If you are that interested I suggest you look up prices yourself. A Pentax 645NII with 33-55, 55-110, 150-300 can be had for less than Nikon and Canon pro zoom lenses systems offering the same flexibility. And a Nikon F5 weights more than a Pentax 645. And yes, again, I know that they don't do the same things, that they are faster, but again somone who considers MF for 35mm is presumably after image quality and won't shoot at F:2.8 at 800ISO. All I stated that Pentax MF compares favourably with Nikon/Canon high-end gear. If someone find that such comparison is irrelevant is fine by me. It certainly is relevant for me and is the reason I mostly shoot MF these days.
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
Jostein wrote: > So basically, you're talking about one _specific_ selection of > high-quality zoom lenses from Canon to match the zooms available in > the 645 system? Basically, yes. It is the development of zoom lenses that has made the 645 system fully competitive to high-end 35mm. The Canon L lenses doen't exclusively consist of prime lenses in this focal lenght area. Almost everyone buy zoom lenses; usually those 2.8 lenses as their optical quality is comparable to primes. Prime lenses for 35mm these days are mostly restricted to ultra fast speciality optics not very comparable to anything in medium format. Almost everyone I know of outdoor photographers who use high-end Nikon or Canon gear use a set of those 2.8 lenses. And they are indeed of the size, weight and cost of Pentax MF (645). > My initial reaction here was to your broad, but brand-specific, > statement "The 645 lenses are no more expensive (or larger) than > high-end Canon lenses." But are they? Granted there are about three lenses in the 645 line-up that are much larger and more expensive than comparable Canon lenses but thats about it. They are all telephotos and I have no arguments with those who thinks that long telephoto works better for 35mm; even better for APS sized sensor cameras. Have you ever lookedd at Canon lenses in a camera shop? I get amazed everytime. I can swear the Elan II is approacvhing the 645 in size and most L-lenses are larger than the lenses I'm used to, and I use MF. I friend has an EOS-1n with booster and with the 80-200/2.8 lens I can hardly lift the thing. A Pentax 645NII with the 150-300 look small in comparison. Pål
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Pål Jensen wrote: > Kostas: > > > > Can you provide an example or two where the same angle of view and > > "similar" quality lenses are quoted and P645 is cheaper than Canon L > > or Nikon high-end. > > Frankly, I'm not that interested spending time just because someone wants to > be argumentative. I think I will follow Jostein out of this thread. Kostas
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
Kostas: > Can you provide an example or two where the same angle of view and > "similar" quality lenses are quoted and P645 is cheaper than Canon L > or Nikon high-end. Frankly, I'm not that interested spending time just because someone wants to be argumentative. I did the math years ago. The Pentax lenses in question cost from ~800$ to ~1400. The Canon L lenses from about$ 1300 - $1600. The Pentax lenses weight sigificantly less. If you are that interested I suggest you look up prices yourself. A Pentax 645NII with 33-55, 55-110, 150-300 can be had for less than Nikon and Canon pro zoom lenses systems offering the same flexibility. And a Nikon F5 weights more than a Pentax 645. And yes, again, I know that they don't do the same things, that they are faster, but again somone who considers MF for 35mm is presumably after image quality and won't shoot at F:2.8 at 800ISO. All I stated that Pentax MF compares favourably with Nikon/Canon high-end gear. If someone find that such comparison is irrelevant is fine by me. It certainly is relevant for me and is the reason I mostly shoot MF these days. Pål
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
- Original Message - From: "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I'm comparing Pentax MF lenses with professional quality Canon L-lenses (or the Nikon counterpart) doing the same job in the new format context. Okay, so we're talking AOV, then. I'm comparing choices a users of the system typically would had doing for doing a similar job. You can cover the angles of view provided by lenses from 20mm-200mm (in 35mm terms) by zoom lenses of professional quality for both Canon/Nikon and Pentax MF with as few holes as possible in focal lenghts, but the Pentax system will weight about 1kg less and cost less too last time I checked. Okaaay? So basically, you're talking about one _specific_ selection of high-quality zoom lenses from Canon to match the zooms available in the 645 system? The fact is that I couldn't afford a high-end Nikon system but I can afford a Pentax 645 system. What's your real comparison here? Nikon or Canon? Not that it matters much, but I think your arguments are getting very hard to verify because of the new parameters brought in all the time. My initial reaction here was to your broad, but brand-specific, statement "The 645 lenses are no more expensive (or larger) than high-end Canon lenses." I'm sorry to say so, but your claim is still not any more substantiated. And now it suddenly applies to Nikon, not Canon?!? I think I'm outa this thread now...:-( Jostein
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
Without examples, your "truths" are only statements, Pål. I looked up one case, and it spoke against you. As I said, I'd love to be proven wrong, but I'm beginning to believe you can't...:-) Jostein - Original Message - From: "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 3:29 PM Subject: Re: Potential buyrs of a D645? Jostein wrote: Well that's an elusive answer if ever I saw one. Would you bother to look up some examples to back your statements? I just gave you one to the contrary, where I included data for both comparable AOV and comparable focal lengths. It is no more elusive than it has to be. See below... Yeah. And how relevant is a comparison of a 35mm against a 67 system to a discussion of the virtues of 645? Not at all, IMHO. Any reference to the comparison by Keppler, btw? The relevance is that Pentax MF isn't expensive compared to high-end 35mm gear. In fact, by the logic of your argument in your first paragraph, the range of comparable lenses will be even smaller for a 67 system than for a 645. You'd be stuck with lenses in the normal range for 35mm, which are wide-angles for the 67. If your reference is that narrow, the scope of your initial statement "The 645 lenses are no more expensive (or larger) than high-end Canon lenses" is just an oversimplification at best. I don't understand your argument at all. Of course I'm not comparing a 35mm MF lens to a 35mm lens for a Canon. I'm comparing Pentax MF lenses with professional quality Canon L-lenses (or the Nikon counterpart) doing the same job in the new format context. I'm comparing choices a users of the system typically would had doing for doing a similar job. You can cover the angles of view provided by lenses from 20mm-200mm (in 35mm terms) by zoom lenses of professional quality for both Canon/Nikon and Pentax MF with as few holes as possible in focal lenghts, but the Pentax system will weight about 1kg less and cost less too last time I checked. I never did say that these lenses necessarily do exactly the same thing; I'm perfectly aware that one system may do certain things than the other. I'm also aware that you can get 35mm Caon lenses much cheaper if you go for the consumer stuff. What I was saiying was that Pentax MF (645) compares favourably both in size and prices compared to ! high-end Canon gear; nothing more nothing less and it is nothing lerss than the perfect truth. The fact is that I couldn't afford a high-end Nikon system but I can afford a Pentax 645 system. Pål
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Pål Jensen wrote: > I don't understand your argument at all. Can I interject? Jostein mailed a comparison of 200mm (35mm equiv) lenses where the Canon was significantly cheaper than P645. You suggested that to be true for the long end, but not for "normal" AOV. Can you provide an example or two where the same angle of view and "similar" quality lenses are quoted and P645 is cheaper than Canon L or Nikon high-end. Kostas
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
Jostein wrote: > Well that's an elusive answer if ever I saw one. Would you bother to > look up some examples to back your statements? I just gave you one to > the contrary, where I included data for both comparable AOV and > comparable focal lengths. It is no more elusive than it has to be. See below... > Yeah. And how relevant is a comparison of a 35mm against a 67 system > to a discussion of the virtues of 645? Not at all, IMHO. Any reference > to the comparison by Keppler, btw? The relevance is that Pentax MF isn't expensive compared to high-end 35mm gear. > > In fact, by the logic of your argument in your first paragraph, the > range of comparable lenses will be even smaller for a 67 system than > for a 645. You'd be stuck with lenses in the normal range for 35mm, > which are wide-angles for the 67. If your reference is that narrow, > the scope of your initial statement "The 645 lenses are no more > expensive (or larger) than high-end Canon lenses" is just an > oversimplification at best. I don't understand your argument at all. Of course I'm not comparing a 35mm MF lens to a 35mm lens for a Canon. I'm comparing Pentax MF lenses with professional quality Canon L-lenses (or the Nikon counterpart) doing the same job in the new format context. I'm comparing choices a users of the system typically would had doing for doing a similar job. You can cover the angles of view provided by lenses from 20mm-200mm (in 35mm terms) by zoom lenses of professional quality for both Canon/Nikon and Pentax MF with as few holes as possible in focal lenghts, but the Pentax system will weight about 1kg less and cost less too last time I checked. I never did say that these lenses necessarily do exactly the same thing; I'm perfectly aware that one system may do certain things than the other. I'm also aware that you can get 35mm Caon lenses much cheaper if you go for the consumer stuff. What I was saiying was that Pentax MF (645) compares favourably both in size and prices compared to ! high-end Canon gear; nothing more nothing less and it is nothing lerss than the perfect truth. The fact is that I couldn't afford a high-end Nikon system but I can afford a Pentax 645 system. Pål
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
- Original Message - From: "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Well, I took it for granted that most are aware that for long telephotos MF looses out just like full frame 35mm looses out compared for APS sized sensors. For lenses in the normal shooting range, that is apart from specialized optics, it does hold truth. Pentax 645 lenses are no larger than Canon high-end glass. In fact, usually smaller. And for the most part no more expensive; often less. Well that's an elusive answer if ever I saw one. Would you bother to look up some examples to back your statements? I just gave you one to the contrary, where I included data for both comparable AOV and comparable focal lengths. Indeed, Herbert Keppler once compared the Pentax 67 system to high-end Nikon and concluded that Pentax MF was cheaper. Of course this doesn't hold if you compare 800mm lenses but that is really beside the point for 99% of us. Yeah. And how relevant is a comparison of a 35mm against a 67 system to a discussion of the virtues of 645? Not at all, IMHO. Any reference to the comparison by Keppler, btw? In fact, by the logic of your argument in your first paragraph, the range of comparable lenses will be even smaller for a 67 system than for a 645. You'd be stuck with lenses in the normal range for 35mm, which are wide-angles for the 67. If your reference is that narrow, the scope of your initial statement "The 645 lenses are no more expensive (or larger) than high-end Canon lenses" is just an oversimplification at best. I'd love to be proven wrong, though. Please give your examples if you have them. Jostein
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
"Jostein" > Excuse me, Pål, but you statement will not be more correct by > repetition. It's still plain wrong. Your persistence in defending the > 645 system is admireable, but please stick to the truth. Well, I took it for granted that most are aware that for long telephotos MF looses out just like full frame 35mm looses out compared for APS sized sensors. For lenses in the normal shooting range, that is apart from specialized optics, it does hold truth. Pentax 645 lenses are no larger than Canon high-end glass. In fact, usually smaller. And for the most part no more expensive; often less. Indeed, Herbert Keppler once compared the Pentax 67 system to high-end Nikon and concluded that Pentax MF was cheaper. Of course this doesn't hold if you compare 800mm lenses but that is really beside the point for 99% of us. Pål
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
- Original Message - From: "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I've said it before: The 645 lenses are no more expensive (or larger) than high-end Canon lenses. Excuse me, Pål, but you statement will not be more correct by repetition. It's still plain wrong. Your persistence in defending the 645 system is admireable, but please stick to the truth. Take a versatile lens like eg. 200mm for 35mm format, which has an AOV of about 12 dergrees. The corresponding lens in the 645 realm would be a 300mm. The Canon alternative is not only smaller, but also half the size and LESS than half the price of the Pentax 645 equivalent. If you compare equal focal lengths instead, the difference is less but still in Canon's favor for everything except weight. Prices from B&H: Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM (USD 659.95) Filter Size: 72mm f/Stop Range: 2.8-32 Minimum Focus Distance: 1.5m Magnification: 1:6.3 Angle of View: 12 Degrees Groups/Elements: 7/9 Length: 137 mm Maximum Diameter: 83.2 mm Weight: 765g Pentax FA645 300mm f/4 ED (IF) (USD 3,399.95) Equivalent 35mm Focal Length: 200mm Angle of View @ Infinity13.5 degrees Filter Size: 77mm Elements/Groups: 8/8 f/Stop Range: f/4 - 32 Minimum Focus Distance: 3m (9.8ft) Dimensions: 207.5 mm x 83 mm LxW Weight: 1490g Pentax FA645 200mm f/4 (IF) (USD 849.95) Equivalent 35mm Focal Length: 120mm Angle of View @ Infinity: 20 degrees Filter Size: 58mm Elements/Groups: 6/5 f/Stop Rangef/4 - 32 Minimum Focus Distance: 1.5m (4.9 ft) Dimensions: 119 x 74.5mm (4.69 x 2.93") L x W Weight: 670g (23.6 oz) Jostein
RE: Potential buyrs of a D645
Rob wrote: As will be the 22MP Mamiya ZD which will likely be in users hands well before the Pentax offering and which has a well established user base as it utilizes the excellent Mamiya 645AF lenses. REPLY: Huh? How many Mamiya AF cameras and lenses has been sold? As far as I know precious few and also as far as I know there are significant lens compatibility issues within the system. I'll be surprised if Mamiya is still around in, say, two years from now... Pål
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
Mishka wrote: "why not? i would imagine, people who bought p645 were budget-conscious (or they would have bought contax instead)," REPLY: Certainly not! The Contax 645 was a total flop. It hasn't sold. An overpriced piece of flimsy plastic with a outrageously power consumption that made it unusable away from a power outlet. The batteries lasted from 5-7 rolls of film! It is in addition big and heavy. The Pentax 645 was (is) the no. 1 choice for outdoor MF SLR shooting. Pål
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
Cotty wrote: A high spec camera is not just about the technology packed inside, is it? Surely it's also about how that package is put together, how well it stands up to heavy use, how well the service and backup capability exists. I have no argument with much of the above WRT Pentax, REPLY: As far as I can tell Pentax is using the current 645's mirror box, shutter assembly and mirror mechanism, generally regarded as the the most durable and reliable in the business. They will almost certainly put it in an magnesium body. Pål
RE: Potential buyrs of a D645?
Annti_Pekka wrote: I don't yet own any Pentax 645 equipment but I see the 645D as the long awaited "professional DSLR from Pentax" and am very interested in getting one (if comparable in price with the Canon and Kodak FF 35mm offerings). It seems that Pentax is not going to release a FF 35mm any time soon so I would need to go to an entirely new camera system in any case if I wish to get a larger than APS size sensor REPLY: I've said it before: The 645 lenses are no more expensive (or larger) than high-end Canon lenses. Pål
Re: Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
The 67 lenses could be used on the 645D using the adaptor. Bigger crop factor though. Nick -Original Message- From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> So. Where does all this leave the 67 system?
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
On 18 Mar 2005 at 17:48, Jostein wrote: > Over here, the P645 system has a small but devoted following of nature > photographers. I don't think Norwegian photographers are the only ones > to think that way. Wherever the 645nII has been reviewed, it stood out > as the outdoor MedF tool of choice. With a bit of careful thinking, > Pentax could retain that position with a D645. I suppose it's back to how Pentax is marketed locally. Here for many years Pentax was the last thing you expected to see on the shelves of a camera shop, maybe a few low end MZ with Sigma lenses but nothing else. All the pro shops were full of Hassey, Mamiya, Bronica, Rollei but very little Pentax. Now at least you see the occasional MF body and DSLRs aren't that difficult to find though real Pentax 35mm lenses are still thin on the ground. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, Jostein wrote: > Over here, the P645 system has a small but devoted following of nature > photographers. My wedding was shot with a P645. In Greece, I kid you not. Kostas
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
- Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I pretty much agree though I'm sure a lot of Canon DSLR have replaced MF gear in studios too. My negativity stems from the likely assumption that few working pros still use or would adopt a digital P645 kit over a top end Canon or back for their old MF kit. Of all the studios I've visited and portrait sessions I've attended I can't remember once seeing P645 as the camera of choice. P67 were a far more popular camera here, though Hasseys, Bronicas and Mamiyas made up the vast bulk of MF bodies. Over here, the P645 system has a small but devoted following of nature photographers. I don't think Norwegian photographers are the only ones to think that way. Wherever the 645nII has been reviewed, it stood out as the outdoor MedF tool of choice. With a bit of careful thinking, Pentax could retain that position with a D645. Jostein
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
No I meant current, Kodak makes two different DC 14 the c[anon] and the n[ikon] they are built on two different platforms but they sell for about the same amount. They're not the same camera but they can be considered as a single camera for my purposes here, thus the "x". Either one would be a competitor for the Pentax 645d. As is the new 16mp Canon offering If Kodak stays in the dslr business I expect that there will be a new DC 14 follow on before the 645d is released, probably at 18mp. What do you think the quality difference between a FF 35mm 16-18mp and a 1.3 crop 18mp 645 would really be? Which would you rather have especially if you use a few w/a lenses, and on average the lenses available to you are 1-2 stops faster in the slightly smaller format. The current 13mp Kodak is already looked at as a replacement for medium format, hell, 6mp is looked on by some as a replacement for MF. Like I said the 645d will have to be very competitively priced. Ryan Brooks wrote: Peter J. Alling wrote: To keep that they will have to have a perceived quality and similar feature set to the upcoming Canon 16mp DSLR and a price closer to the current Kodak 14[x]. Upcoming... I think you mean here. -Ryan -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
> fra: Sylwiusz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On 2005-03-18, at 00:23, Rob Studdert wrote: > > > I pretty much agree though I'm sure a lot of Canon DSLR have replaced > > MF gear > > in studios too. My negativity stems from the likely assumption that > > few working > > pros still use or would adopt a digital P645 kit over a top end Canon > > or back > > for their old MF kit. Of all the studios I've visited and portrait > > sessions > > I've attended I can't remember once seeing P645 as the camera of > > choice. P67 > > were a far more popular camera here, though Hasseys, Bronicas and > > Mamiyas made > > up the vast bulk of MF bodies. > You're right Rob. But on the other side how many 645 AF Mamiyas have > you seen in studios? I believe these are 6x7 Mamiyas that made them > popular among Pros. This is rather field camera and I think it is even > less popular than Pentax 645 and has much lesser choice of lenses - > just 10 AF versions, while Pentax has 17 for 645 AF. Oh and older > manual Pentax 645 lenses are fully compatible with 645 AF bodies, while > Mamiya 645 AF can use their MF lenses only with stop down metering. So > I believe Pentax 645 could be more interesting for pros because of > wider choice of lenses. I agree with you there. My experience is that Mamiya 645 are made to be inexpencive but unreliable. Among other things a friend of mines Mamiya passed out at temperatures below 0C. My Bronica, another guys Pentax and a Hasselblad worked fine. Because of this I'm not convinced about the quality. We should also remember that both Kodak and Pentax have made dslrs before, while Mamiya hasn't. If Kodak and Pentax join forces they should be able to make a decent camera at a decent prise. I know that Kodaks FF cameras have had their problems with image quality, but on the other hand some people are impressed by the dynamic range Pentax have got out of the CCD sensor in the Ds. At jpg it is even better than Fuji S3, with RAW the S3 is slightly better. DagT
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645? (Modified by Sylwiusz)
On 2005-03-18, at 09:07, Antti-Pekka Virjonen wrote: The Mamiya ZD looks quite ugly... Not only body, but their AF lenses are ugly too :-) Seriously - most of Mamiya's 645AF lenses have one ergonomic flaw - focusing ring is as thin as on old SMC-F lenses :-( Compare it to wide, rubberized, comfortable focusing rings with focusing clutch on almost every currentPentax 645AF lens and you'll know what I mean... I wonder how do the Mamiya 645AF lenses compare with the Pentax ones? Anybody dare to make some tests for us? ;-) We were talking about it with Rob too, but nothing is sure :-) -- Best regards Sylwek
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
On 2005-03-18, at 09:07, Antti-Pekka Virjonen wrote: The Mamiya ZD looks quite ugly... Not only body, but their AF lenses are ugly too :-) Seriously - most of Mamiya's 645AF lenses have one ergonomic flaw - focusing ring is as thin as on old SMC-F lenses :-( Compare it to wide, rubberized, comfortable focusing rings with focusing clutch on almost every currentPentax 645AF lens... I wonder how do the Mamiya 645AF lenses compare with the Pentax ones? Anybody dare to make some tests for us? ;-) We were talking about it with Rob too, but nothing is sure :-) -- Best regards Sylwek
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
On 2005-03-18, at 00:23, Rob Studdert wrote: I pretty much agree though I'm sure a lot of Canon DSLR have replaced MF gear in studios too. My negativity stems from the likely assumption that few working pros still use or would adopt a digital P645 kit over a top end Canon or back for their old MF kit. Of all the studios I've visited and portrait sessions I've attended I can't remember once seeing P645 as the camera of choice. P67 were a far more popular camera here, though Hasseys, Bronicas and Mamiyas made up the vast bulk of MF bodies. You're right Rob. But on the other side how many 645 AF Mamiyas have you seen in studios? I believe these are 6x7 Mamiyas that made them popular among Pros. This is rather field camera and I think it is even less popular than Pentax 645 and has much lesser choice of lenses - just 10 AF versions, while Pentax has 17 for 645 AF. Oh and older manual Pentax 645 lenses are fully compatible with 645 AF bodies, while Mamiya 645 AF can use their MF lenses only with stop down metering. So I believe Pentax 645 could be more interesting for pros because of wider choice of lenses. -- Best regards Sylwek
RE: Potential buyrs of a D645?
> As will be the 22MP Mamiya ZD which will likely be in users hands well before > the Pentax offering and which has a well established user base as it utilizes > the excellent Mamiya 645AF lenses. > > > Rob Studdert The Mamiya ZD looks quite ugly... I wonder how do the Mamiya 645AF lenses compare with the Pentax ones? Antti-Pekka Antti-Pekka Virjonen Estera Oy Turku www.estera.fi www.computec.fi
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
don't be so certain: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=4535063255&category=6212 mishka On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 20:00:13 -0500, Herb Chong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > it'll certainly cost less than a Ferrari. > > Herb... > - Original Message - > From: "Mishka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 7:16 AM > Subject: Re: Potential buyrs of a D645? > > > why not? i would imagine, people who bought p645 were budget-conscious > > (or they would have bought contax instead), and for those, digital MF > > right now exists only in theory (pricewise). hopefully, D645 would > > cost less than a new > > car. then i would buy one. > >
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
Herb's omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent ... Shel > [Original Message] > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > You must be a mind reader. You already know how fast it is? In terms of size the 645D is obviously smaller than a Canon1DS Mk2. You can tell by the size of the body in comparison to the lens. > > > > informed rumor is that it will list for $12KUS. that's why i think the 645D > > will list between $10K and $11K USD. even if it was exactly the same price > > as the Canon 1DSMk2, the 645D is a nonstarter for me. not fast enough, in > > addition to body size - thickness to be exact. > > > > Herb... > > - Original Message - > > From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: > > Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 9:40 AM > > Subject: RE: Potential buyrs of a D645? > > > > > > > As will be the 22MP Mamiya ZD which will likely be in users hands well > > > before > > > the Pentax offering and which has a well established user base as it > > > utilizes > > > the excellent Mamiya 645AF lenses. > > > >
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
just have to know that it's a 645 with a big mirror. it's not going to shoot 4fps like the Canon. it'll be lucky to be 2fps. Herb - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 8:30 PM Subject: Re: Potential buyrs of a D645? You must be a mind reader. You already know how fast it is? In terms of size the 645D is obviously smaller than a Canon1DS Mk2. You can tell by the size of the body in comparison to the lens.
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
You must be a mind reader. You already know how fast it is? In terms of size the 645D is obviously smaller than a Canon1DS Mk2. You can tell by the size of the body in comparison to the lens. > informed rumor is that it will list for $12KUS. that's why i think the 645D > will list between $10K and $11K USD. even if it was exactly the same price > as the Canon 1DSMk2, the 645D is a nonstarter for me. not fast enough, in > addition to body size - thickness to be exact. > > Herb... > - Original Message - > From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 9:40 AM > Subject: RE: Potential buyrs of a D645? > > > > As will be the 22MP Mamiya ZD which will likely be in users hands well > > before > > the Pentax offering and which has a well established user base as it > > utilizes > > the excellent Mamiya 645AF lenses. > >
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
upcoming? it's been in people's hands since December. B&H can't keep it in stock. Herb - Original Message - From: "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 10:44 AM Subject: Re: Potential buyrs of a D645? To keep that they will have to have a perceived quality and similar feature set to the upcoming Canon 16mp DSLR and a price closer to the current Kodak 14[x].
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
informed rumor is that it will list for $12KUS. that's why i think the 645D will list between $10K and $11K USD. even if it was exactly the same price as the Canon 1DSMk2, the 645D is a nonstarter for me. not fast enough, in addition to body size - thickness to be exact. Herb... - Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 9:40 AM Subject: RE: Potential buyrs of a D645? As will be the 22MP Mamiya ZD which will likely be in users hands well before the Pentax offering and which has a well established user base as it utilizes the excellent Mamiya 645AF lenses.
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
it'll certainly cost less than a Ferrari. Herb... - Original Message - From: "Mishka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 7:16 AM Subject: Re: Potential buyrs of a D645? why not? i would imagine, people who bought p645 were budget-conscious (or they would have bought contax instead), and for those, digital MF right now exists only in theory (pricewise). hopefully, D645 would cost less than a new car. then i would buy one.
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
Peter J. Alling wrote: To keep that they will have to have a perceived quality and similar feature set to the upcoming Canon 16mp DSLR and a price closer to the current Kodak 14[x]. Upcoming... I think you mean here. -Ryan
Re: Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Re: Potential buyrs of a D645? So. Where does all this leave the 67 system? Film. William Robb
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
On Thursday, March 17, 2005, at 02:24PM, Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I pretty much agree though I'm sure a lot of Canon DSLR have replaced MF gear >in studios too. My negativity ... I suspect the same, but who cares? why be negative about it? In the end, the Pentax 645D or *ist D or *ist DS is just a camera. If it suits the use you want to put it to, great. If it doesn't, find something else that does. If you're making money from the use of your gear, even more reason to just buy what produces for you. No camera manufacturer pays for loyalty. Godfrey
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
On 17 Mar 2005 at 20:36, Jens Bladt wrote: > The 645D is, I think, aimed at pro users - studios that does portraits, > advertising, nature/postcards or fashion photographs. > Not casual shooters or amateurs. The 645D was not made for the family album > etc. > but for people who get paid to make pictures. The same goes for Hassies, > Rollies > and Mamiyas. Canons are made for sports shooters and journalists - for > "constantly on the road" photogtgraphers. > > Pentax *ist D is for people that take pictures while doing other things - > like me - I'm a planner/architect who does landscapes, city-scapes, some > portraits and some casual or nature shooting. I pretty much agree though I'm sure a lot of Canon DSLR have replaced MF gear in studios too. My negativity stems from the likely assumption that few working pros still use or would adopt a digital P645 kit over a top end Canon or back for their old MF kit. Of all the studios I've visited and portrait sessions I've attended I can't remember once seeing P645 as the camera of choice. P67 were a far more popular camera here, though Hasseys, Bronicas and Mamiyas made up the vast bulk of MF bodies. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
On 17/3/05, Jens Bladt, discombobulated, unleashed: >Canons are made for sports shooters and >journalists - for "constantly on the road" photogtgraphers. Er, not quite. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
The 645D is, I think, aimed at pro users - studios that does portraits, advertising, nature/postcards or fashion photographs. Not casual shooters or amateurs. The 645D was not made for the family album etc. but for people who get paid to make pictures. The same goes for Hassies, Rollies and Mamiyas. Canons are made for sports shooters and journalists - for "constantly on the road" photogtgraphers. Pentax *ist D is for people that take pictures while doing other things - like me - I'm a planner/architect who does landscapes, city-scapes, some portraits and some casual or nature shooting. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 17. marts 2005 15:40 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: RE: Potential buyrs of a D645? On 17 Mar 2005 at 14:56, Antti-Pekka Virjonen wrote: > I am sure most of the people on this list will not consider the 645D > as an option (because of the cost) but I see it can be very competitive > with the 35mm FF DSLR's if the price is right! As will be the 22MP Mamiya ZD which will likely be in users hands well before the Pentax offering and which has a well established user base as it utilizes the excellent Mamiya 645AF lenses. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
Oh yes, you can use the lenses on the 645. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 2005/03/17 Thu PM 12:27:22 GMT To: Subject: Re: Potential buyrs of a D645? - Original Message - From: "Mishka" Subject: Re: Potential buyrs of a D645? why not? i would imagine, people who bought p645 were budget-conscious (or they would have bought contax instead), and for those, digital MF right now exists only in theory (pricewise). hopefully, D645 would cost less than a new car. then i would buy one. The Pentax 645 has been around for a very long time, at least a couple of decades. and there are a lot of 645 lenses out there. It precedes the Contax by a very long time. Although I don't have any 645 equipment, I imagine that someone who has invested in that camera and format over the past 20-25 years would be quite happy for the possibility of a digital body to mount his/her lenses to. So. Where does all this leave the 67 system? m - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
With film. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 2005/03/17 Thu PM 12:27:22 GMT To: Subject: Re: Potential buyrs of a D645? - Original Message - From: "Mishka" Subject: Re: Potential buyrs of a D645? why not? i would imagine, people who bought p645 were budget-conscious (or they would have bought contax instead), and for those, digital MF right now exists only in theory (pricewise). hopefully, D645 would cost less than a new car. then i would buy one. The Pentax 645 has been around for a very long time, at least a couple of decades. and there are a lot of 645 lenses out there. It precedes the Contax by a very long time. Although I don't have any 645 equipment, I imagine that someone who has invested in that camera and format over the past 20-25 years would be quite happy for the possibility of a digital body to mount his/her lenses to. So. Where does all this leave the 67 system? m - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
Overall Pentax was known as being the best bang for the buck of the Medium Format producers, the total system price (camera and a couple of lenses), were near the bottom in most comparisons and quality, near the top. It will be hard to maintain that first one with a digital body. To keep that they will have to have a perceived quality and similar feature set to the upcoming Canon 16mp DSLR and a price closer to the current Kodak 14[x]. Mishka wrote: why not? i would imagine, people who bought p645 were budget-conscious (or they would have bought contax instead), and for those, digital MF right now exists only in theory (pricewise). hopefully, D645 would cost less than a new car. then i would buy one. best, mishka On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 12:23:23 +1000, Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 16 Mar 2005 at 20:14, Herb Chong wrote: the 645D will attract a negligible number of non-Pentax MF owners. it's job is to prevent further defections. .. in two years time? :-( Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
You could probably use your 6x7 glass on a 645D, although it would probably be like using K glass on an *istD -- at best. However, I wouldn't mind having to use a handheld meter, as I do with my 6x7. Paul > This one time, at band camp, "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > So who here has it in their sights and how much would you be prepared to > > spend > > on such a beast? > > > I would consider it, but I prefer the 6x7, $5k would be my limit on this as I > would > need to buy glass > > Kevin > -- > "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. > Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." >
Re: Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
> > From: Sylwester Pietrzyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2005/03/17 Thu PM 02:09:54 GMT > To: "pentax-discuss@pdml.net" > Subject: Re: Potential buyrs of a D645? > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 17.03.05 14:25: > > > So. Where does all this leave the 67 system? > Sorry Mike, they'll have to wait for 67 D ;-) I agree with you. I also suspect that the wait may have no ending. Pentax may have "chosen" one of their MF systems to move "forward" with. m - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com virus-checked using mcAfee(R) Software visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 17.03.05 14:25: > So. Where does all this leave the 67 system? Sorry Mike, they'll have to wait for 67 D ;-) -- Balance is the ultimate good... Best Regards Sylwek
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
Rob Studdert wrote on 17.03.05 15:40: > As will be the 22MP Mamiya ZD which will likely be in users hands well before > the Pentax offering Let's hope this difference will be as small as possible :-) Much smaller than between Nikon D1 and *istD ;-) AFAIR it took Pentax about one year from showing non-working prototype of *istD to its actual appearance in shops. > and which has a well established user base as it utilizes > the excellent Mamiya 645AF lenses. Well, Mamiya AF lenses are no better than their Pentax equivalents, but usually much more expensive, aren't they? -- Balance is the ultimate good... Best Regards Sylwek
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
This one time, at band camp, "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So who here has it in their sights and how much would you be prepared to > spend > on such a beast? > I would consider it, but I prefer the 6x7, $5k would be my limit on this as I would need to buy glass Kevin -- "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
RE: Potential buyrs of a D645?
On 17 Mar 2005 at 14:56, Antti-Pekka Virjonen wrote: > I am sure most of the people on this list will not consider the 645D > as an option (because of the cost) but I see it can be very competitive > with the 35mm FF DSLR's if the price is right! As will be the 22MP Mamiya ZD which will likely be in users hands well before the Pentax offering and which has a well established user base as it utilizes the excellent Mamiya 645AF lenses. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
> > From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2005/03/17 Thu PM 12:27:22 GMT > To: > Subject: Re: Potential buyrs of a D645? > > > - Original Message - > From: "Mishka" > Subject: Re: Potential buyrs of a D645? > > > > why not? i would imagine, people who bought p645 were > > budget-conscious > > (or they would have bought contax instead), and for those, digital > > MF > > right now exists only in theory (pricewise). hopefully, D645 would > > cost less than a new > > car. then i would buy one. > > The Pentax 645 has been around for a very long time, at least a > couple of decades. and there are a lot of 645 lenses out there. > It precedes the Contax by a very long time. > Although I don't have any 645 equipment, I imagine that someone who > has invested in that camera and format over the past 20-25 years > would be quite happy for the possibility of a digital body to mount > his/her lenses to. So. Where does all this leave the 67 system? m - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
On 17/3/05, Rob Studdert, discombobulated, unleashed: >Hmm, a Maybach or a Picanto? They sound like cooking sauces Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
RE: Potential buyrs of a D645?
> The Pentax 645 has been around for a very long time, at least a > couple of decades. and there are a lot of 645 lenses out there. > It precedes the Contax by a very long time. > Although I don't have any 645 equipment, I imagine that someone who > has invested in that camera and format over the past 20-25 years > would be quite happy for the possibility of a digital body to mount > his/her lenses to. > > William Robb I don't yet own any Pentax 645 equipment but I see the 645D as the long awaited "professional DSLR from Pentax" and am very interested in getting one (if comparable in price with the Canon and Kodak FF 35mm offerings). It seems that Pentax is not going to release a FF 35mm any time soon so I would need to go to an entirely new camera system in any case if I wish to get a larger than APS size sensor (considering the size of the individual pixels and the Mpix count of the sensor; my goal is low noise and high pixel count and quality). Besides, the Pentax 645 DSLR may even be smaller and lighter than the 35mm FF from Canon or Kodak... I am sure most of the people on this list will not consider the 645D as an option (because of the cost) but I see it can be very competitive with the 35mm FF DSLR's if the price is right! And, I suppose, I would not even have to mention the Pentax glass ;-). Antti-Pekka Antti-Pekka Virjonen Estera Oy Turku www.estera.fi www.computec.fi
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
On 17 Mar 2005 at 7:16, Mishka wrote: > hopefully, D645 would > cost less than a new > car. then i would buy one. Hmm, a Maybach or a Picanto? Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
- Original Message - From: "Mishka" Subject: Re: Potential buyrs of a D645? why not? i would imagine, people who bought p645 were budget-conscious (or they would have bought contax instead), and for those, digital MF right now exists only in theory (pricewise). hopefully, D645 would cost less than a new car. then i would buy one. The Pentax 645 has been around for a very long time, at least a couple of decades. and there are a lot of 645 lenses out there. It precedes the Contax by a very long time. Although I don't have any 645 equipment, I imagine that someone who has invested in that camera and format over the past 20-25 years would be quite happy for the possibility of a digital body to mount his/her lenses to. William Robb
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
why not? i would imagine, people who bought p645 were budget-conscious (or they would have bought contax instead), and for those, digital MF right now exists only in theory (pricewise). hopefully, D645 would cost less than a new car. then i would buy one. best, mishka On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 12:23:23 +1000, Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 16 Mar 2005 at 20:14, Herb Chong wrote: > > > the 645D will attract a negligible number of non-Pentax MF owners. it's job > > is > > to prevent further defections. > > .. in two years time? :-( > > > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ > Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 > >
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
i didn't say it was an effective at its job. Herb - Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 9:23 PM Subject: Re: Potential buyrs of a D645? On 16 Mar 2005 at 20:14, Herb Chong wrote: the 645D will attract a negligible number of non-Pentax MF owners. it's job is to prevent further defections. .. in two years time? :-(
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
On 16 Mar 2005 at 20:14, Herb Chong wrote: > the 645D will attract a negligible number of non-Pentax MF owners. it's job is > to prevent further defections. .. in two years time? :-( Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
the 645D will attract a negligible number of non-Pentax MF owners. it's job is to prevent further defections. Herb... - Original Message - From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "pentax list" Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 7:02 AM Subject: Re: Potential buyrs of a D645? I have no argument with much of the above WRT Pentax, but if I was making money full time from stills, and eyeing up some new gear, I would be a daft boy to move away from what I already had unless the newbie was as good as, or better than, the status quo. The 645D has to catch up, meet, and maybe even surpass offerings already there. It can be done IMO, but not on the cheap, without losing credibility.
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
If that becomes the street price, I'll start saving too. Might end up selling most of my smaller format gear in the process, though. Jostein Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > I would probably spend $4000 on a D645. > > > > So who here has it in their sights and how much would you be prepared to > spend > > on such a beast? > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Rob Studdert > > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ > > Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 > > > > This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
On 16/3/05, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed: >It's not a matter of materials. It's more about the evolution of the >technology and the reduced cost of components. Whatever sensor Pentax >is using, you can be fairly certain they have a deep pocket, heavy user >partner. I'll bet we hear more about this shortly. I take your point but submit that it is a matter of materials. A high spec camera is not just about the technology packed inside, is it? Surely it's also about how that package is put together, how well it stands up to heavy use, how well the service and backup capability exists. I have no argument with much of the above WRT Pentax, but if I was making money full time from stills, and eyeing up some new gear, I would be a daft boy to move away from what I already had unless the newbie was as good as, or better than, the status quo. The 645D has to catch up, meet, and maybe even surpass offerings already there. It can be done IMO, but not on the cheap, without losing credibility. Best regards, Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
On 16 Mar 2005 at 6:22, Paul Stenquist wrote: > It's not a matter of materials. It's more about the evolution of the > technology and the reduced cost of components. Whatever sensor Pentax > is using, you can be fairly certain they have a deep pocket, heavy user > partner. I'll bet we hear more about this shortly. If Josteins insider information is correct regarding its suggested "build to order" production then the sensors will likely remain very expensive that is of course unless Pentax's competitors employ the same sensors at much higher volumes :-( Remember too that any large sensor will never fall to the cost of a physically smaller high or low volume sensor due to the relatively fixed cost of silicon per unit area. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
It's not a matter of materials. It's more about the evolution of the technology and the reduced cost of components. Whatever sensor Pentax is using, you can be fairly certain they have a deep pocket, heavy user partner. I'll bet we hear more about this shortly. Paul On Mar 16, 2005, at 5:04 AM, Cotty wrote: On 16/3/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed: I'm guessing it will be much less. The digital market is still evolving. To be successful, Pentax will have to price under the Canon 1DS Mark II. I think they'll find a way to do it. Perhaps by using lots of plastic. There is a reason that cameras destined for heavy use are expensive, right Paul? Pentax can only sacrifice so much in terms of quality before it becomes self-defeating. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
On 16/3/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed: >I'm guessing it will be much less. The digital market is still evolving. >To be successful, Pentax will have to price under the Canon 1DS Mark II. >I think they'll find a way to do it. Perhaps by using lots of plastic. There is a reason that cameras destined for heavy use are expensive, right Paul? Pentax can only sacrifice so much in terms of quality before it becomes self-defeating. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
You would spend thousands of $$ to get started in medium format digital? That's extreme loyalty to Pentax. Too extreme for me. Jim A. > From: Scott Loveless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 21:59:36 -0500 > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: Potential buyrs of a D645? > Resent-From: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 21:59:46 -0500 > > On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:26:33 +1000, Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> So who here has it in their sights and how much would you be prepared to >> spend >> on such a beast? >> > Y'know, if I had a slew of 645n gear, and I was making money with it, > sure. No brainer. Even if Canon does come out with something sooner. > > Starting from scratch would be a tough call. I'd do it just because > it's Pentax. > > -- > Scott Loveless > http://www.twosixteen.com >
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:26:33 +1000, Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So who here has it in their sights and how much would you be prepared to spend > on such a beast? > Y'know, if I had a slew of 645n gear, and I was making money with it, sure. No brainer. Even if Canon does come out with something sooner. Starting from scratch would be a tough call. I'd do it just because it's Pentax. -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
i'm basing my price guess on 6X the cost of the base film body. this works well for the existing MF and 35 digital bodies. it gives a street price of about $11K. Herb... - Original Message - From: "Marco Alpert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 9:04 PM Subject: Re: Potential buyrs of a D645? Not to mention the 22MP Mamiya ZD which is also rumored to be in the $12K range.
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
Not to mention the 22MP Mamiya ZD which is also rumored to be in the $12K range. - Marco On Mar 15, 2005, at 5:24 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm guessing it will be much less. The digital market is still evolving. To be successful, Pentax will have to price under the Canon 1DS Mark II. I think they'll find a way to do it. Paul given that the street price will be between $10-12K USD, probably closer to $10K.
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
I'm guessing it will be much less. The digital market is still evolving. To be successful, Pentax will have to price under the Canon 1DS Mark II. I think they'll find a way to do it. Paul > given that the street price will be between $10-12K USD, probably closer to > $10K. > > Herb > - Original Message - > From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 8:26 PM > Subject: Potential buyrs of a D645? > > > > So who here has it in their sights and how much would you be prepared to > > spend > > on such a beast? > >
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
given that the street price will be between $10-12K USD, probably closer to $10K. Herb - Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 8:26 PM Subject: Potential buyrs of a D645? So who here has it in their sights and how much would you be prepared to spend on such a beast?
RE: Potential buyrs of a D645?
Couldn't afford one in a million years. I'll just wait for all those cheap used D's you guys will be selling to finance yours! ;-) Don > -Original Message- > From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 7:27 PM > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Potential buyrs of a D645? > > > So who here has it in their sights and how much would you be > prepared to spend > on such a beast? > > Cheers, > > > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ > Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 >
Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?
I would probably spend $4000 on a D645. > So who here has it in their sights and how much would you be prepared to > spend > on such a beast? > > Cheers, > > > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ > Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 >
Potential buyrs of a D645?
So who here has it in their sights and how much would you be prepared to spend on such a beast? Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
