Re: Predictable Pentax
--- Mishka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: why not? just look through them with a normal lens for the format. 50mm for slr, 75mm for 645, 80mm for 6x6, and so on. what's exatly the problem (except for different aspect ratios)? I think I'll try one more time. 50mm is 50mm regardless of the format, be it 135, 120 or bigger. The detail of the projected image is getting smaller as we go wider of focal length. A standard lens for D/DS/DL is 33mm. Imagine a 33mm lens being mounted on MX which has roughly the same viewfinder magnification, just with the edges being masked off to simulate the DSLR tunnel vision. It will be just as easy/difficult to manual focus as D/DS/DL (but of course, MX has better eyepiece to boot so it's not exactly fair). So if you must compared, use the same focal length, not standard lens for given format. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Predictable Pentax
On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 11:04:40PM -0400, Mishka wrote: what i really honestly do not understand, is why it so difficult to magnify the finder image 1.5x ? This has been answered many times before. But: o It would make the viewfinder image one stop darker o There wouldn't be enough room for all the extra in-viewfinder information people expect nowadays. No auto-focus Pentax SLR has ever had a vewfinder image as large as that in an MX or LX. If you want that sort of viewfinder, you'll have to stay with the manual focus film cameras. The viewfinder of the *ist-D is as bright as the viewfinder of an MX, and as large as the viewfinder image of an MZ-6 or MZ-7. You won't find anything better on any DSLR under $2000.
Re: Predictable Pentax
Okay, you owe me a beer. On Jun 3, 2005, at 10:53 PM, Mishka wrote: personal attacks? what are you talking about? i LOVE you, man! and you CAN have my bud light. best, mishka On 6/3/05, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Personal attacks, eh Mishka? I know how to read, but you don't know what you're talking about. Use one for a few days. Then you won't be spouting such nonsense. Paul On Jun 3, 2005, at 7:21 PM, Mishka wrote: man, would you ever learn to read? i haven't said others have better finder or k-lenses don't work. they do. i said, the finder is lousy (and i check it in bh today: it is lousy). and the mount is crippled. read the sentence above again. rinse. repeat. best, mishka
Re: Predictable Pentax
not beer. bud light. best, mishka On 6/4/05, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Okay, you owe me a beer. On Jun 3, 2005, at 10:53 PM, Mishka wrote: personal attacks? what are you talking about? i LOVE you, man! and you CAN have my bud light. best, mishka
Re: Predictable Pentax
no it wouldn't. from Pentax web page: http://tinyurl.com/9uuul Magnification: 0.95X (with 50mm F1.4 lens at infinity, -1m-1) The coverage is, otoh, is independent of the focal length. best, mishka On 6/4/05, Alan Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wouldn't the viewfinder magnification be constant regardless of the focal length? I thought the coverage would be slightly different depends on the focal length though. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
RE: Predictable Pentax
Buying someone a bud, especially a light one, constitutes a personal attack, and no court in the land would say otherwise. -- Cheers, Bob -Original Message- From: Mishka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 04 June 2005 14:16 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Predictable Pentax not beer. bud light. best, mishka On 6/4/05, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Okay, you owe me a beer. On Jun 3, 2005, at 10:53 PM, Mishka wrote: personal attacks? what are you talking about? i LOVE you, man! and you CAN have my bud light. best, mishka
Re: Predictable Pentax
Bob W wrote: Buying someone a bud, especially a light one, constitutes a personal attack, and no court in the land would say otherwise. Uncapitalis(z)ed is the correct way to write it, too. Doesn't deserve a big letter. -- Cheers, Bob -Original Message- From: Mishka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 04 June 2005 14:16 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Predictable Pentax not beer. bud light. best, mishka On 6/4/05, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Okay, you owe me a beer. On Jun 3, 2005, at 10:53 PM, Mishka wrote: personal attacks? what are you talking about? i LOVE you, man! and you CAN have my bud light. best, mishka
Re: Predictable Pentax
On 4/6/05, mike wilson, discombobulated, unleashed: Bob W wrote: Buying someone a bud, especially a light one, constitutes a personal attack, and no court in the land would say otherwise. Uncapitalis(z)ed is the correct way to write it, too. Doesn't deserve a big letter. Well hang in a minute - it *does* have alcohol content, and if it came down to a Bud, er sorry a bud and a glass of water.. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Predictable Pentax
Cotty wrote: On 4/6/05, mike wilson, discombobulated, unleashed: Bob W wrote: Buying someone a bud, especially a light one, constitutes a personal attack, and no court in the land would say otherwise. Uncapitalis(z)ed is the correct way to write it, too. Doesn't deserve a big letter. Well hang in a minute - it *does* have alcohol content, and if it came down to a Bud, er sorry a bud and a glass of water.. heresy Depends on what the water was. If it was out of the Thames, well maybe. Otherwise /heresy Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Predictable Pentax
If you like beer You'll take the water. Cotty wrote: On 4/6/05, mike wilson, discombobulated, unleashed: Bob W wrote: Buying someone a bud, especially a light one, constitutes a personal attack, and no court in the land would say otherwise. Uncapitalis(z)ed is the correct way to write it, too. Doesn't deserve a big letter. Well hang in a minute - it *does* have alcohol content, and if it came down to a Bud, er sorry a bud and a glass of water.. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- A man's only as old as the woman he feels. --Groucho Marx
Re: Predictable Pentax
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Mishka wrote: i am curious: except for -- small 6MP sensor -- mediocre buffer -- lousy viewfinder -- crippled mount is there anything else that a pro or high end camera would need to change? Which camera are you referring to? The -D is not pro nor is it *that* high-end and the viewfinder is great. Same for -Ds, which certainly is not high-end and has a reasonable buffer. The -DL is the one with the (predicted) lousy VF. Kostas
Re: Predictable Pentax
On 2/6/05, Mishka, discombobulated, unleashed: i am curious: except for -- small 6MP sensor -- mediocre buffer -- lousy viewfinder -- crippled mount is there anything else that a pro or high end camera would need to change? Interesting that you list the viewfinder as lousy. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Predictable Pentax
The Pentax digital mount is not crippled in any way. The viewfinder is quite possibly the best of any digital SLR. Paul On Jun 2, 2005, at 11:09 PM, Mishka wrote: i am curious: except for -- small 6MP sensor -- mediocre buffer -- lousy viewfinder -- crippled mount is there anything else that a pro or high end camera would need to change? i would imagine that the first two limitations shouldn't cost a fortune to fix. the finder and the mount might be trickier, but i doubt that's something that's waaay out of their reach. the higher pixel count competition (except for canon) is $5K D2X (APS) and $800K Oly Evolt (even smaller sensor, even smaller buffer, even less backward compatibility). it looks like at this point pentax is squarely in the middle of the pack and only canon is definitely far ahead. to me, it looks like concentration of efforts on 645D and the new lenses is the right thing to do at this time. not that i would mind having a pentax 16MP FF camera with 100% 1x finder for $1000 :) best, mishka On 6/2/05, Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2 Jun 2005 at 14:00, Pål Jensen wrote: Certainly not. Making a high-emd body for Pentax makes no sense at present as virtually no one would buy one. Sure, they could make a body somewhat higher than the *istD but thats about it at present. The only high-end Pentax have any hope to be a player is in digital MF. Pentax didn't even see the need to have a high-end 35mm film body after 1980. A high-end DSLR cost several magnitudes more to develop than, say, an LX replacement with much smaller sales. Very few first time Pentax DSLR buyers would buy a high-end DSLR. Hence, they need to have a DSLR customer base installed before higher end model are being released. I don't know where you think all the high roller digital MF buyers are going to appear from? Personally I think that Pentax would now benefit by introducing a higher spec'd 35mm DSLR. The *ist D/Ds have introduced a lot of people to Pentax, my guess is that a goodly proportion of these buyers are well heeled geek types who would just love to be able to get their hands on a new pro/semi- pro spec'd body. Leave it too late and Pentax will miss the boat. Pity it's near impossible to find anything but a handful of lenses too. 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: Predictable Pentax
i looked through the finder. it sucks. i don't care that canon rebel has a worse one. the *istd finder still sucks. the mount is crippled. but i meant my email not as criticism of *istD*, quite on contrary. best, mishka On 6/3/05, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Pentax digital mount is not crippled in any way. The viewfinder is quite possibly the best of any digital SLR. Paul On Jun 2, 2005, at 11:09 PM, Mishka wrote:
Re: Predictable Pentax
I'd say the viewfinder is barely acceptable and it's a direct consequence of the APS size of the sensor. And I'm afraid we're not gonna get a better optical viewfinder in the future, and may even see the first electronic viewfinders showing up in entry level DSLR in a couple of years. Too bad, as optics is the last Pentax stronghold. Servus, Alin Mishka wrote: M i looked through the finder. it sucks. i don't care that canon M rebel has a worse one. the *istd finder still sucks.
Re: Predictable Pentax
Paul Stenquist wrote on 03.06.05 12:43: The Pentax digital mount is not crippled in any way. The viewfinder is quite possibly the best of any digital SLR. Almost. Konica-Minolta Maxxum (Dynax) 7D has even slightly bigger and brighter finder than *istD (it is almost as big as the one in MZ-S) - I've compared all these directly. -- Balance is the ultimate good... Best Regards Sylwek
Re: Predictable Pentax
Strange indeed. I compared *istD and 7D at Photokina, and the 7D viewfinder was noticeably narrower. Even the Minolta guy admitted that without hesitation. Brighter? Yes, I think so. Yes, it was a prototype, but... Dario - Original Message - From: Sylwester Pietrzyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 1:47 PM Subject: Re: Predictable Pentax Paul Stenquist wrote on 03.06.05 12:43: The Pentax digital mount is not crippled in any way. The viewfinder is quite possibly the best of any digital SLR. Almost. Konica-Minolta Maxxum (Dynax) 7D has even slightly bigger and brighter finder than *istD (it is almost as big as the one in MZ-S) - I've compared all these directly. -- Balance is the ultimate good... Best Regards Sylwek
Re: Predictable Pentax
Look through the viewfinder of any dslr. I haven't seen one that's better than the *istD. As for the mount, if you had ever used the camera, you would know that it works great with K and M lenses. It's not even an issue. You tap the green button to meter. Not a problem. Easier than metering with many Pentax film cameras. It's interesting that you're so adamant about this, but you haven't tried it yourself. Very strange. Paul On Jun 3, 2005, at 7:23 AM, Mishka wrote: i looked through the finder. it sucks. i don't care that canon rebel has a worse one. the *istd finder still sucks. the mount is crippled. but i meant my email not as criticism of *istD*, quite on contrary. best, mishka On 6/3/05, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Pentax digital mount is not crippled in any way. The viewfinder is quite possibly the best of any digital SLR. Paul On Jun 2, 2005, at 11:09 PM, Mishka wrote:
Re: Predictable Pentax
Dario Bonazza wrote on 03.06.05 14:07: Strange indeed. I compared *istD and 7D at Photokina, and the 7D viewfinder was noticeably narrower. Even the Minolta guy admitted that without hesitation. Brighter? Yes, I think so. Yes, it was a prototype, but... I had an opportunity to test production sample. As usually I used similar focal length, similar f-stop and looked through both finders simultaneously. D7D's one was undoubtely slightly bigger and brighter than the one in *istD, althought the difference wasn't as big as between *istD and for instance N D70. As a matter of fact I compared D7D's finder to MZ-S too and there was very slight difference (in favour of MZ-S of course) between these... Popular Photography has even measured magnification and coverage of both viewfinders: D7D: magnification 0.95X, coverage 95.2% *istD: magnification 0.94X, coverage 88% Both tests can be downloaded here: http://www.popphoto.com/assets/download/1142004172027.pdf http://www.popphoto.com/assets/download/PP0205_Minolta7DTest.pdf It seems that worse coverage makes *istD viewfinder smaller than the one in D7D. Minolta had undoubtly the best viewfinders among analogue AF cameras and as I can see they continue this tradition in DSLRs. -- Balance is the ultimate good... Best Regards Sylwek
RE: Predictable Pentax
I don't see how you can say that the *istD stop down metering/NO AE on the fly with K/M lenses isnt crippled. Not only do you lose metering sensitivity compared to a a real PK mount at small fstops, AE *on the fly* is no longer possible. This is simply not as good as real PK mount and if it was then Pentax would have been doing it that way for last 30 years BUT THEY HAVENT because its NOT as good method of doing it as sensing the aperture setting ring method is, which the *istD doesn't do. Im not saying green button technique is useless, its just not on the fly AE which pentax has had for over 30 years beginning way back in the screwmount era with the ES/ESII. JCO -Original Message- From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 8:24 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Predictable Pentax Look through the viewfinder of any dslr. I haven't seen one that's better than the *istD. As for the mount, if you had ever used the camera, you would know that it works great with K and M lenses. It's not even an issue. You tap the green button to meter. Not a problem. Easier than metering with many Pentax film cameras. It's interesting that you're so adamant about this, but you haven't tried it yourself. Very strange. Paul On Jun 3, 2005, at 7:23 AM, Mishka wrote: i looked through the finder. it sucks. i don't care that canon rebel has a worse one. the *istd finder still sucks. the mount is crippled. but i meant my email not as criticism of *istD*, quite on contrary. best, mishka On 6/3/05, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Pentax digital mount is not crippled in any way. The viewfinder is quite possibly the best of any digital SLR. Paul On Jun 2, 2005, at 11:09 PM, Mishka wrote:
Re: Predictable Pentax
know that it works great with K and M lenses. It's not even an issue. You tap the green button to meter. Not a problem. Easier than metering with many Pentax film cameras. It's interesting that you're so adamant about this, but you haven't tried it yourself. Very strange. Paul I don't know if the -DS I've got is much different than the -D, but I know a few things where the crippled mount falls flat. The biggest is flash... pretty much stuck with manual. The other ones are less important... matrix metering, etc. Oh, and of course the human fiddle factor of having to/forgetting to go to 'M' mode when swapping to a non-A lens. For the most part, however, it *is* a non-issue. How much more would it cost to add in the coupler? If it were $100 I'd probably pay that. If it were $250, I'd have to think about it. If it were $500, no way. -Cory * * Cory Papenfuss* * Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student * * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * *
Re: Predictable Pentax
On 3/6/05, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed: Look through the viewfinder of any dslr. I haven't seen one that's better than the *istD. As for the mount, if you had ever used the camera, you would know that it works great with K and M lenses. It's not even an issue. You tap the green button to meter. Not a problem. Easier than metering with many Pentax film cameras. It's interesting that you're so adamant about this, but you haven't tried it yourself. Very strange. Agreed. I held the *ist Ds and the Canon 1Dm2 up vertically side by side and looked through with both eyes. To me, the finders on both were the same size and brightness, and the 1D is a 1.3 crop. The *ist D and Ds finders are way bigger than other offerings. Now if you're comparing to a film camera, say the LX, well, then I suppose you could say that a digi SLR Hoovers in that regard, but I personally think you have to compare apples with apples... Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Predictable Pentax
- Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 6:43 AM Subject: Re: Predictable Pentax The Pentax digital mount is not crippled in any way. The viewfinder is quite possibly the best of any digital SLR. Here I most definitely agree. The 20D's finder has slightly more of the tunnel feel to it, but the *ist D finder is great. The worst has to be the Oly E1 and E300. Yuck! Not only does it have a light-at-the-end-of-a-tunnel look but let's just say that the light must be a 40watt bulb about to expire. BTW, a co-worker has a 1DII. WOW! the finder on that is huge and bright. But the body size matches it; even I can admit that it's a big camera. Christian
Re: Predictable Pentax
Then you'll be disappointed with finders on all digitals, keep your MX. Mishka wrote: i looked through the finder. it sucks. i don't care that canon rebel has a worse one. the *istd finder still sucks. the mount is crippled. but i meant my email not as criticism of *istD*, quite on contrary. best, mishka On 6/3/05, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Pentax digital mount is not crippled in any way. The viewfinder is quite possibly the best of any digital SLR. Paul On Jun 2, 2005, at 11:09 PM, Mishka wrote: -- A man's only as old as the woman he feels. --Groucho Marx
Re: Predictable Pentax
Sure it's bright, but try manually focusing with it. Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote: Paul Stenquist wrote on 03.06.05 12:43: The Pentax digital mount is not crippled in any way. The viewfinder is quite possibly the best of any digital SLR. Almost. Konica-Minolta Maxxum (Dynax) 7D has even slightly bigger and brighter finder than *istD (it is almost as big as the one in MZ-S) - I've compared all these directly. -- A man's only as old as the woman he feels. --Groucho Marx
Re: Re: Predictable Pentax
From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/06/03 Fri PM 02:08:30 GMT To: pentax list pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Predictable Pentax On 3/6/05, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed: Look through the viewfinder of any dslr. I haven't seen one that's better than the *istD. As for the mount, if you had ever used the camera, you would know that it works great with K and M lenses. It's not even an issue. You tap the green button to meter. Not a problem. Easier than metering with many Pentax film cameras. It's interesting that you're so adamant about this, but you haven't tried it yourself. Very strange. Agreed. I held the *ist Ds and the Canon 1Dm2 up vertically side by side and looked through with both eyes. To me, the finders on both were the same size and brightness, and the 1D is a 1.3 crop. The *ist D and Ds finders are way bigger than other offerings. Now if you're comparing to a film camera, say the LX, well, then I suppose you could say that a digi SLR Hoovers in that regard, but I personally think you have to compare apples with apples... It's more like the difference between Egremont Russets and Bramleys. One is small, perfectly formed and tasty, the other is big and leaves a bitter taste in the mouth unless you do quite a bit of processing. 8- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ - Email provided by http://www.ntlhome.com/
Re: Predictable Pentax
P. J. Alling wrote on 03.06.05 16:26: Sure it's bright, but try manually focusing with it. I tried, it is pretty easy bacause it's finder is even slightly bigger than the one in *istD. If you were referring to matte granurality, then there's no problem - just change focusing screen to type M or ML with Super-Spherical Acute Matte and you will get superb visibility of out of focus areas... -- Balance is the ultimate good... Best Regards Sylwek
Re: Re: Predictable Pentax
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, mike wilson wrote: From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/06/03 Fri PM 02:08:30 GMT To: pentax list pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Predictable Pentax Now if you're comparing to a film camera, say the LX, well, then I suppose you could say that a digi SLR Hoovers in that regard, but I personally think you have to compare apples with apples... It's more like the difference between Egremont Russets and Bramleys. One is small, perfectly formed and tasty Not familiar with the Egremont Russets variety. Is it also sticky on the inside and old enough for the stock to be weak and susceptible to disease? :-o Kostas
Re: Predictable Pentax
Sure it's bright, but try manually focusing with it. Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote: Paul Stenquist wrote on 03.06.05 12:43: The Pentax digital mount is not crippled in any way. The viewfinder is quite possibly the best of any digital SLR. Almost. Konica-Minolta Maxxum (Dynax) 7D has even slightly bigger and brighter finder than *istD (it is almost as big as the one in MZ-S) - I've compared all these directly. -- A man's only as old as the woman he feels. --Groucho Marx
Re: Predictable Pentax
Then you'll be disappointed with finders on all digitals, keep your MX. Mishka wrote: i looked through the finder. it sucks. i don't care that canon rebel has a worse one. the *istd finder still sucks. the mount is crippled. but i meant my email not as criticism of *istD*, quite on contrary. best, mishka On 6/3/05, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Pentax digital mount is not crippled in any way. The viewfinder is quite possibly the best of any digital SLR. Paul On Jun 2, 2005, at 11:09 PM, Mishka wrote: -- A man's only as old as the woman he feels. --Groucho Marx
Re: Predictable Pentax
I only saw it with the stock screen, it seemed to be incredably hard to find focus. Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote: P. J. Alling wrote on 03.06.05 16:26: Sure it's bright, but try manually focusing with it. I tried, it is pretty easy bacause it's finder is even slightly bigger than the one in *istD. If you were referring to matte granurality, then there's no problem - just change focusing screen to type M or ML with Super-Spherical Acute Matte and you will get superb visibility of out of focus areas... -- A man's only as old as the woman he feels. --Groucho Marx
Re: Predictable Pentax
P. J. Alling wrote on 03.06.05 16:57: Then you'll be disappointed with finders on all digitals, keep your MX. I've got that terrible feeling of Deja Vú :-) -- Balance is the ultimate good... Best Regards Sylwek
Re: Predictable Pentax
P. J. Alling wrote on 03.06.05 17:04: I only saw it with the stock screen, it seemed to be incredably hard to find focus. Maybe you tried focusing with 17-35 lens? If so, you are right, it is not so easy, but bear in mind that it is very wide angle lens, so focusing isn't easy no matter what matte is used. However you should try D7D with M or ML screens - both give very sharp focus and out-of-focus areas definition, probably even better than in *istD, but that's just my feeling as I didn't compare them directly and with similar lenses. -- Balance is the ultimate good... Best Regards Sylwek
Re: Predictable Pentax
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, mike wilson wrote: From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/06/03 Fri PM 02:08:30 GMT To: pentax list pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Predictable Pentax Now if you're comparing to a film camera, say the LX, well, then I suppose you could say that a digi SLR Hoovers in that regard, but I personally think you have to compare apples with apples... It's more like the difference between Egremont Russets and Bramleys. One is small, perfectly formed and tasty Not familiar with the Egremont Russets variety. Is it also sticky on the inside and old enough for the stock to be weak and susceptible to disease? no. Probably the best eating apple in the world. Only available for a short time around early October. Distinguished by its non-shiny, russet (golden brown) skin. m
Re: Predictable Pentax
Cory Papenfuss wrote: know that it works great with K and M lenses. It's not even an issue. You tap the green button to meter. Not a problem. Easier than metering with many Pentax film cameras. It's interesting that you're so adamant about this, but you haven't tried it yourself. Very strange. Paul I don't know if the -DS I've got is much different than the -D, but I know a few things where the crippled mount falls flat. The biggest is flash... pretty much stuck with manual. The other ones are less important... matrix metering, etc. The *ist-D does TTL flash very nicely, either with the built in flash or an AF200T or AF280T. Well as long as you make sure to set the sensitivity to ISO 400. I've noticed a lot more variation at other ISOs Oh, and of course the human fiddle factor of having to/forgetting to go to 'M' mode when swapping to a non-A lens. For the most part, however, it *is* a non-issue. How much more would it cost to add in the coupler? If it were $100 I'd probably pay that. If it were $250, I'd have to think about it. If it were $500, no way. -Cory * * Cory Papenfuss* * Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student * * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * * -- A man's only as old as the woman he feels. --Groucho Marx
Re: Predictable Pentax
I don't know if the -DS I've got is much different than the -D, but I know a few things where the crippled mount falls flat. The biggest is flash... pretty much stuck with manual. The other ones are less important... matrix metering, etc. The *ist-D does TTL flash very nicely, either with the built in flash or an AF200T or AF280T. Well as long as you make sure to set the sensitivity to ISO 400. I've noticed a lot more variation at other ISOs Ah yes... my bad. I just got the TTL not being a subset of P-TTL a few weeks ago. I forgot that the -D has TTL in the internal flash and the -DS is only P-TTL. That would help the functionality with non-A lenses. -Cory * * Cory Papenfuss* * Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student * * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * *
Re: Predictable Pentax
viewfinder quality has nothing to do with the sensor size. case in point: P6x7 and ME-Super. both are fantastic, similar mag., vastly different formats. oh, ME-S was also (and still is) dirt cheap mishka On 6/3/05, Alin Flaider [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd say the viewfinder is barely acceptable and it's a direct consequence of the APS size of the sensor. And I'm afraid we're not gonna get a better optical viewfinder in the future, and may even see the first electronic viewfinders showing up in entry level DSLR in a couple of years. Too bad, as optics is the last Pentax stronghold. Servus, Alin Mishka wrote: M i looked through the finder. it sucks. i don't care that canon M rebel has a worse one. the *istd finder still sucks.
Re: Predictable Pentax
man, would you ever learn to read? i haven't said others have better finder or k-lenses don't work. they do. i said, the finder is lousy (and i check it in bh today: it is lousy). and the mount is crippled. read the sentence above again. rinse. repeat. best, mishka On 6/3/05, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Look through the viewfinder of any dslr. I haven't seen one that's better than the *istD. As for the mount, if you had ever used the camera, you would know that it works great with K and M lenses. It's not even an issue. You tap the green button to meter. Not a problem. Easier than metering with many Pentax film cameras. It's interesting that you're so adamant about this, but you haven't tried it yourself. Very strange. Paul On Jun 3, 2005, at 7:23 AM, Mishka wrote: i looked through the finder. it sucks. i don't care that canon rebel has a worse one. the *istd finder still sucks. the mount is crippled. but i meant my email not as criticism of *istD*, quite on contrary. best, mishka On 6/3/05, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Pentax digital mount is not crippled in any way. The viewfinder is quite possibly the best of any digital SLR. Paul On Jun 2, 2005, at 11:09 PM, Mishka wrote:
Re: Predictable Pentax
both are imaging taking tools, i think it's a fair comparison. LX finder can be compared to P67 finder, to P645 finder and to any other finder. why DSLRs are different? best, mishka Now if you're comparing to a film camera, say the LX, well, then I suppose you could say that a digi SLR Hoovers in that regard, but I personally think you have to compare apples with apples...
Re: Predictable Pentax
dammit, read the first sentense of my post. get some glasses. read, man. it helps a lot! mishka On 6/3/05, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: that you're so adamant about this, but you haven't tried it yourself. Very strange. Paul On Jun 3, 2005, at 7:23 AM, Mishka wrote: i looked through the finder. it sucks. i don't care that canon rebel
Re: Predictable Pentax
has its pluses over MX (which I am keeping). it's just great viewfinder isn't among them. best, msihka On 6/3/05, P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then you'll be disappointed with finders on all digitals, keep your MX.
Re: Predictable Pentax
--- Mishka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: viewfinder quality has nothing to do with the sensor size. case in point: P6x7 and ME-Super. both are fantastic, similar mag., vastly different formats. oh, ME-S was also (and still is) dirt cheap I gave some thought about this and think you are mostly correct. 0.9X viewfinder is 0.9X regardless of the format. However, it might not be practically correct. What I mean is, 50mm for film SLR = 33mm for *istD/DS/DL practically. Since wider angle lens yield smaller image details through the viewfinder, smaller format is more difficult to manual focus in practical sense. It is like using 33mm on film SLR and it is more difficult to manual focus than 50mm on the same body, just that now the edges have been masked in D/DS/DL. I hope I am making sense. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Predictable Pentax
Personal attacks, eh Mishka? I know how to read, but you don't know what you're talking about. Use one for a few days. Then you won't be spouting such nonsense. Paul On Jun 3, 2005, at 7:21 PM, Mishka wrote: man, would you ever learn to read? i haven't said others have better finder or k-lenses don't work. they do. i said, the finder is lousy (and i check it in bh today: it is lousy). and the mount is crippled. read the sentence above again. rinse. repeat. best, mishka On 6/3/05, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Look through the viewfinder of any dslr. I haven't seen one that's better than the *istD. As for the mount, if you had ever used the camera, you would know that it works great with K and M lenses. It's not even an issue. You tap the green button to meter. Not a problem. Easier than metering with many Pentax film cameras. It's interesting that you're so adamant about this, but you haven't tried it yourself. Very strange. Paul On Jun 3, 2005, at 7:23 AM, Mishka wrote: i looked through the finder. it sucks. i don't care that canon rebel has a worse one. the *istd finder still sucks. the mount is crippled. but i meant my email not as criticism of *istD*, quite on contrary. best, mishka On 6/3/05, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Pentax digital mount is not crippled in any way. The viewfinder is quite possibly the best of any digital SLR. Paul On Jun 2, 2005, at 11:09 PM, Mishka wrote:
Re: Predictable Pentax
Don't curse at me, boy. I read your sentence. You looked. Once. You haven't used the camera. You don't know what you're talking about. On Jun 3, 2005, at 7:25 PM, Mishka wrote: dammit, read the first sentense of my post. get some glasses. read, man. it helps a lot! mishka On 6/3/05, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: that you're so adamant about this, but you haven't tried it yourself. Very strange. Paul On Jun 3, 2005, at 7:23 AM, Mishka wrote: i looked through the finder. it sucks. i don't care that canon rebel
Re: Predictable Pentax
i did use the camera. i know exactly what i am talking about. don't put words in my mouth. but, hey, nothing personal. my original post wasn't meant as criticism of *istD. quite the opposite. and if you want to hear me cursing. come by my table during the day hours. you'll be surprised at how rudimentary and inflexible english is compared to some other tongues. best, mishka On 6/3/05, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Don't curse at me, boy. I read your sentence. You looked. Once. You haven't used the camera. You don't know what you're talking about. On Jun 3, 2005, at 7:25 PM, Mishka wrote: dammit, read the first sentense of my post. get some glasses. read, man. it helps a lot! mishka On 6/3/05, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: that you're so adamant about this, but you haven't tried it yourself. Very strange. Paul On Jun 3, 2005, at 7:23 AM, Mishka wrote: i looked through the finder. it sucks. i don't care that canon rebel
Re: Predictable Pentax
personal attacks? what are you talking about? i LOVE you, man! and you CAN have my bud light. best, mishka On 6/3/05, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Personal attacks, eh Mishka? I know how to read, but you don't know what you're talking about. Use one for a few days. Then you won't be spouting such nonsense. Paul On Jun 3, 2005, at 7:21 PM, Mishka wrote: man, would you ever learn to read? i haven't said others have better finder or k-lenses don't work. they do. i said, the finder is lousy (and i check it in bh today: it is lousy). and the mount is crippled. read the sentence above again. rinse. repeat. best, mishka
Re: Predictable Pentax
yes, you are making sense. what i think doesn't make sense is that DSLR manufacturers quote the viewfinder mag. with 50mm lens. it's like quoting film SLR magnification with 80mm lens. sure, it's great for marketing (0.95 mag.!). but why stop there? why not quote with 500mm? 9.5x magnification!!! anyway, when i look through p645 and when i look through mx, i see a huge, bright image. when i look through *any* dslr, i see a tunnel. kinda like on my old zenit. what i really honestly do not understand, is why it so difficult to magnify the finder image 1.5x ? best, mishka On 6/3/05, Alan Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Mishka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: viewfinder quality has nothing to do with the sensor size. case in point: P6x7 and ME-Super. both are fantastic, similar mag., vastly different formats. oh, ME-S was also (and still is) dirt cheap I gave some thought about this and think you are mostly correct. 0.9X viewfinder is 0.9X regardless of the format. However, it might not be practically correct. What I mean is, 50mm for film SLR = 33mm for *istD/DS/DL practically. Since wider angle lens yield smaller image details through the viewfinder, smaller format is more difficult to manual focus in practical sense. It is like using 33mm on film SLR and it is more difficult to manual focus than 50mm on the same body, just that now the edges have been masked in D/DS/DL. I hope I am making sense. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
Re: Predictable Pentax
why not? just look through them with a normal lens for the format. 50mm for slr, 75mm for 645, 80mm for 6x6, and so on. what's exatly the problem (except for different aspect ratios)? mishka On 6/3/05, Alan Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Mishka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: both are imaging taking tools, i think it's a fair comparison. LX finder can be compared to P67 finder, to P645 finder and to any other finder. why DSLRs are different? I don't think viewfinders from different formats can be compared directly, for the same reason in my earlier post. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Predictable Pentax
--- Mishka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: yes, you are making sense. what i think doesn't make sense is that DSLR manufacturers quote the viewfinder mag. with 50mm lens. it's like quoting film SLR magnification with 80mm lens. sure, it's great for marketing (0.95 mag.!). but why stop there? why not quote with 500mm? 9.5x magnification!!! anyway, when i look through p645 and when i look through mx, i see a huge, bright image. when i look through *any* dslr, i see a tunnel. kinda like on my old zenit. Wouldn't the viewfinder magnification be constant regardless of the focal length? I thought the coverage would be slightly different depends on the focal length though. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan __ Discover Yahoo! Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/online.html
Re: Predictable Pentax
--- Mishka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: why not? just look through them with a normal lens for the format. 50mm for slr, 75mm for 645, 80mm for 6x6, and so on. what's exatly the problem (except for different aspect ratios)? Well, I think you do not understand my explanation in another post then. Maybe somebody with better language skill could explain it a little better than I did. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan __ Discover Yahoo! Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/online.html
Re: Predictable Pentax
Herb wrote: - Original Message - From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 3:16 AM Subject: Re: Predictable Pentax expanding the base works only if you are not losing a lot of money while doing it. if you do, there's no money left for when the demand curve flattens and prices drop. in the case of the DSLR market, the price competition is going to get much worse in the next couple of years and profit margins are going to drop further. that is why delivering a high end body now makes sense. Fuji, Olympus, and Konica-Minolta have made indications that this is their strategy. large market share at razor thin margins or small market share at large margins? playing at the low end is a good way to go out of business. Certainly not. Making a high-emd body for Pentax makes no sense at present as virtually no one would buy one. Sure, they could make a body somewhat higher than the *istD but thats about it at present. The only high-end Pentax have any hope to be a player is in digital MF. Pentax didn't even see the need to have a high-end 35mm film body after 1980. A high-end DSLR cost several magnitudes more to develop than, say, an LX replacement with much smaller sales. Very few first time Pentax DSLR buyers would buy a high-end DSLR. Hence, they need to have a DSLR customer base installed before higher end model are being released. Pl
Re: Predictable Pentax
I guess it depends on whether you think the dog wags the tail or the tail wags the dog. Nikon sells lots of cheap cameras because its a Nikon. Pentax sells lots of cheap cameras because they're cheap. When the sales-droid says, I can sell you a Nikon or Canon for only $5 more, Pentax loses a sale. Luckily Pentax does have some residual reputation, but only with us older folks, and those who remember using a K-1000 in college. Anybody remember Craig car stereos? They were cheap. They were better than the name-brands. The Pioneer has a better receiver. Does the Pioneer have an antenna hooked up? Yes. Does the Craig? No. How come I can not hear this station on the Pioneer? Craig did not advertise much. They are gone. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Pål Jensen wrote: expanding the base works only if you are not losing a lot of money while doing it. if you do, there's no money left for when the demand curve flattens and prices drop. in the case of the DSLR market, the price competition is going to get much worse in the next couple of years and profit margins are going to drop further. that is why delivering a high end body now makes sense. Fuji, Olympus, and Konica-Minolta have made indications that this is their strategy. large market share at razor thin margins or small market share at large margins? playing at the low end is a good way to go out of business. Certainly not. Making a high-emd body for Pentax makes no sense at present as virtually no one would buy one. Sure, they could make a body somewhat higher than the *istD but thats about it at present. The only high-end Pentax have any hope to be a player is in digital MF. Pentax didn't even see the need to have a high-end 35mm film body after 1980. A high-end DSLR cost several magnitudes more to develop than, say, an LX replacement with much smaller sales. Very few first time Pentax DSLR buyers would buy a high-end DSLR. Hence, they need to have a DSLR customer base installed before higher end model are being released. Pål -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 267.4.0 - Release Date: 6/1/2005
Re: Predictable Pentax
On 2 Jun 2005 at 14:00, Pål Jensen wrote: Certainly not. Making a high-emd body for Pentax makes no sense at present as virtually no one would buy one. Sure, they could make a body somewhat higher than the *istD but thats about it at present. The only high-end Pentax have any hope to be a player is in digital MF. Pentax didn't even see the need to have a high-end 35mm film body after 1980. A high-end DSLR cost several magnitudes more to develop than, say, an LX replacement with much smaller sales. Very few first time Pentax DSLR buyers would buy a high-end DSLR. Hence, they need to have a DSLR customer base installed before higher end model are being released. I don't know where you think all the high roller digital MF buyers are going to appear from? Personally I think that Pentax would now benefit by introducing a higher spec'd 35mm DSLR. The *ist D/Ds have introduced a lot of people to Pentax, my guess is that a goodly proportion of these buyers are well heeled geek types who would just love to be able to get their hands on a new pro/semi- pro spec'd body. Leave it too late and Pentax will miss the boat. Pity it's near impossible to find anything but a handful of lenses too. 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: Predictable Pentax
Graywolf wrote: Luckily Pentax does have some residual reputation, but only with us older folks, and those who remember using a K-1000 in college. Seems to me that the vast majority of those who remember starting with a K1000, switched brands when they outgrew the K1000. Present company excepted, because present company *is* pretty much all the exceptions.
Re: Predictable Pentax
i am curious: except for -- small 6MP sensor -- mediocre buffer -- lousy viewfinder -- crippled mount is there anything else that a pro or high end camera would need to change? i would imagine that the first two limitations shouldn't cost a fortune to fix. the finder and the mount might be trickier, but i doubt that's something that's waaay out of their reach. the higher pixel count competition (except for canon) is $5K D2X (APS) and $800K Oly Evolt (even smaller sensor, even smaller buffer, even less backward compatibility). it looks like at this point pentax is squarely in the middle of the pack and only canon is definitely far ahead. to me, it looks like concentration of efforts on 645D and the new lenses is the right thing to do at this time. not that i would mind having a pentax 16MP FF camera with 100% 1x finder for $1000 :) best, mishka On 6/2/05, Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2 Jun 2005 at 14:00, Pål Jensen wrote: Certainly not. Making a high-emd body for Pentax makes no sense at present as virtually no one would buy one. Sure, they could make a body somewhat higher than the *istD but thats about it at present. The only high-end Pentax have any hope to be a player is in digital MF. Pentax didn't even see the need to have a high-end 35mm film body after 1980. A high-end DSLR cost several magnitudes more to develop than, say, an LX replacement with much smaller sales. Very few first time Pentax DSLR buyers would buy a high-end DSLR. Hence, they need to have a DSLR customer base installed before higher end model are being released. I don't know where you think all the high roller digital MF buyers are going to appear from? Personally I think that Pentax would now benefit by introducing a higher spec'd 35mm DSLR. The *ist D/Ds have introduced a lot of people to Pentax, my guess is that a goodly proportion of these buyers are well heeled geek types who would just love to be able to get their hands on a new pro/semi- pro spec'd body. Leave it too late and Pentax will miss the boat. Pity it's near impossible to find anything but a handful of lenses too. 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
Predictable Pentax
Remember MZ/ZX series? They started with MZ-5 and then came along no less than five inferior models (10,50,7,60,30), together with two other spin offs (5n and 3). It took Pentax 7 years to come up with a top of the line (MZ-S). So what do we have now, let's see: a base *ist D and two downgrades: DS and DL. We should expect 3 to 4 more 6 MP derivatives together with two other *ist D variations before we get a real flagship that finally crosses the 6 MP barrier and maybe the APS size too. Of course, this is assuming they can do the old flip again. And stay in business. Servus, Alin
RE: Predictable Pentax
Remember, its always easier and faster to pull features out than it is to add new ones in! Downgrades are no brainers... JCO -Original Message- From: Alin Flaider [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 10:33 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Predictable Pentax Remember MZ/ZX series? They started with MZ-5 and then came along no less than five inferior models (10,50,7,60,30), together with two other spin offs (5n and 3). It took Pentax 7 years to come up with a top of the line (MZ-S). So what do we have now, let's see: a base *ist D and two downgrades: DS and DL. We should expect 3 to 4 more 6 MP derivatives together with two other *ist D variations before we get a real flagship that finally crosses the 6 MP barrier and maybe the APS size too. Of course, this is assuming they can do the old flip again. And stay in business. Servus, Alin
Re: Predictable Pentax
- Original Message - From: Alin Flaider [EMAIL PROTECTED] Remember MZ/ZX series? Indeed. But I don't remember the Z and SF series. Were they the same? Jostein
Re: Predictable Pentax
- Original Message - From: Alin Flaider [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 4:33 PM Subject: Predictable Pentax Remember MZ/ZX series? They started with MZ-5 and then came along no less than five inferior models (10,50,7,60,30), together with two other spin offs (5n and 3). It took Pentax 7 years to come up with a top of the line (MZ-S). So what do we have now, let's see: a base *ist D and two downgrades: DS and DL. We should expect 3 to 4 more 6 MP derivatives together with two other *ist D variations before we get a real flagship that finally crosses the 6 MP barrier and maybe the APS size too. Of course, this is assuming they can do the old flip again. And stay in business. I don't think you can make these kind of generalizations. In the late 80's Pentax shifted their focus from slr's to PS's. The MZ series was simply a way to make profitable slr PS's. The MZ-S existence was probably due to whining from Pentax loyalists. The main struggle for DSLR's at present is lower price. Lower prices means higher volumes particularly for Pentax. As Pentax are about to increase their customer base for DSLR such a move is hardly surprising. In fact, all manufacturers most important arena are in the lower price segments. A difference from the last 15 years for Pentax is that they now intend SLR's to become their main target area making comparisons to the 90's not very relevant. Pål
Re: Predictable Pentax
Alin Flaider [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Remember MZ/ZX series? They started with MZ-5 and then came along no less than five inferior models (10,50,7,60,30), together with two other spin offs (5n and 3). It took Pentax 7 years to come up with a top of the line (MZ-S). So what do we have now, let's see: a base *ist D and two downgrades: DS and DL. We should expect 3 to 4 more 6 MP derivatives I'd guess one or possibly two more at 6 Mpix. with two other *ist D variations before we get a real flagship that finally crosses the 6 MP barrier and maybe the APS size too. Of course, this is assuming they can do the old flip again. And stay in business. The only way Pentax is going to stay in business is by building inexpensive cameras. The MZ-S was never the company's profit-maker, it was the ZX-L, etc. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Predictable Pentax
I have to complete agree with Pål on this. Pentax had a shrinking SLR base prior to the DS, so expanding the SLR customer base makes a lot of sense. I know the hard core Pentaxians want a pro DSLR, but expanding the customer base is a smart thing to do, especially while they are working on (hopefully) a pro version. I know my first camera was an ME Super, but that led to buy an LX later. I think the release of the DL is an important move for Pentax, especially including a lens (see the What's in The Box section). This will make it easy for people buy into the Pentax line and increase the demand for higher end DSLR's in the future. Derek - Original Message - From: Alin Flaider [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 4:33 PM Subject: Predictable Pentax Remember MZ/ZX series? They started with MZ-5 and then came along no less than five inferior models (10,50,7,60,30), together with two other spin offs (5n and 3). It took Pentax 7 years to come up with a top of the line (MZ-S). So what do we have now, let's see: a base *ist D and two downgrades: DS and DL. We should expect 3 to 4 more 6 MP derivatives together with two other *ist D variations before we get a real flagship that finally crosses the 6 MP barrier and maybe the APS size too. Of course, this is assuming they can do the old flip again. And stay in business. I don't think you can make these kind of generalizations. In the late 80's Pentax shifted their focus from slr's to PS's. The MZ series was simply a way to make profitable slr PS's. The MZ-S existence was probably due to whining from Pentax loyalists. The main struggle for DSLR's at present is lower price. Lower prices means higher volumes particularly for Pentax. As Pentax are about to increase their customer base for DSLR such a move is hardly surprising. In fact, all manufacturers most important arena are in the lower price segments. A difference from the last 15 years for Pentax is that they now intend SLR's to become their main target area making comparisons to the 90's not very relevant. Pål
Re: Predictable Pentax
lower prices is a good way to lose money. prices are dropping so fast that a camera has to make back its development costs in about 4 or 5 months tops, with DSLRs having maybe a year to do it. at that point, the camera is obsolete compared to its competition, whether or not it is functionally obsolete, and has little remaining sales potential. Herb - Original Message - From: Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 12:45 PM Subject: Re: Predictable Pentax The main struggle for DSLR's at present is lower price. Lower prices means higher volumes particularly for Pentax. As Pentax are about to increase their customer base for DSLR such a move is hardly surprising. In fact, all manufacturers most important arena are in the lower price segments. A difference from the last 15 years for Pentax is that they now intend SLR's to become their main target area making comparisons to the 90's not very relevant.
Re: Predictable Pentax
at 1-5% profit margin, it's not going to work. they need a high end camera with high end specs and price and long useful market life. Herb - Original Message - From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 1:16 PM Subject: Re: Predictable Pentax The only way Pentax is going to stay in business is by building inexpensive cameras. The MZ-S was never the company's profit-maker, it was the ZX-L, etc.
Re: Predictable Pentax
expanding the base works only if you are not losing a lot of money while doing it. if you do, there's no money left for when the demand curve flattens and prices drop. in the case of the DSLR market, the price competition is going to get much worse in the next couple of years and profit margins are going to drop further. that is why delivering a high end body now makes sense. Fuji, Olympus, and Konica-Minolta have made indications that this is their strategy. large market share at razor thin margins or small market share at large margins? playing at the low end is a good way to go out of business. Herb - Original Message - From: Village Idiot [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 1:09 PM Subject: Re: Predictable Pentax I have to complete agree with Pl on this. Pentax had a shrinking SLR base prior to the DS, so expanding the SLR customer base makes a lot of sense. I know the hard core Pentaxians want a pro DSLR, but expanding the customer base is a smart thing to do, especially while they are working on (hopefully) a pro version. I know my first camera was an ME Super, but that led to buy an LX later.
