Re: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?)
--- John Dallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Higher resolution is fine, but I'm baffled by the need for a faster buffer. I spot the potential picture, get ready, and take it. If it's a moving or changing subject I wait for the right moment, near as I can guess, and press the button. I shoot dog sports and most of the time I adopt your philosophy. Wait for the right moment and shoot. Now and again it's good to let loose and do a bit of machine gunning. :-) Sequence starts here and ends at 1D8774 http://www.muddypawz.net/tcrt_040605/?show=waterpm_050604_1d8762.htm Wendy Wendy Beard Ottawa, Canada
Re: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?)
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:40:07 -0400 (EDT), wendy beard wrote: Now and again it's good to let loose and do a bit of machine gunning. :-) As others have mentioned, even if you're not machine gunning, a faster camera is ready for the next shot that much faster, too. Not that I don't enjoy machine gunning, I'd just rather do it at the shooting range than with the camera. :-) TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?)
LM But something else strikes me as rather interesting: is the difference in LM RAW file size between *istD and D70 really that big? Why would that be so, LM considering both cameras store basically the same amount of image LM information? Or don't they? If I remember correctly: First, Ist D stores it as 16-bit uncompressed file, even though there are only 12 bits from the sensor. Second, D70 compresses the raw 12-bit file. Third, D70's compression is not lossless, it's visually lossless, thus some insignificant parts are lost. I haven't had a problem with it so far, even under pretty extreme lighting. The average raw file from D70 is 5.5-6 MB... Frantisek
Re: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?)
Thanks Markus. Speed Graphics can still be had for a song. They're a lot of fun. Paul On Jun 4, 2005, at 11:07 PM, Markus Maurer wrote: Hi Paul just when I started to wonder how all the good photos I see in books from the years 1930 - 1970 where possibly made your email came in :-) lovely shot, thanks for showing it Markus -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 4:28 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?) Thirty years ago I used to shoot drag racing with a Speed Graphic 4x5. Most of the time I would shoot off a tripod, swapping or flipping film holders between shots. I would reload crouching by the guardrail with my hands in a changing bag. I did some action shots as well. Several were published. Here's one that was never published. That's why I still have the tranny. (Mags were very bad about returning stuff in those days.) This one is on Ektachrome Tungsten. I think it was about a one second exposure at 5.6 or so with a 127mm Wollensak lens. http://www.portfolios.com/zoom.html? User_number=stenquistimagecount=14
Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
I'm not Bruce but I've had the experience of using my *ist-D in temperatures about 20° below 0°F the camera worked fine until the cold temperatures caused the batteries output to drop below the power needed by the camera. Batteries are the limiting factor. Markus Maurer wrote: Hi Bruce do you ever take photos out in the cold weather or rain or other difficult environment conditions too? I saw in the specifications of some digital bodies that they only work from 0 - 40 grade Celsius or is that very conservative? How good is a Pentax digital body under unfriendly weather conditions like cold, moist, dust, sand and others compared to an analog body? just wondering greetings Markus -Original Message- From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 8:36 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors? Paul, I am just about where you are. At this stage of what I do - portraits, weddings, events, some sports and scenics, the *istD is doing just fine. The buffer thing gets in the way sometimes, but I have to work around it the best I can. Most everything else works well enough for what I do. I'm not a huge proponent of IS or AF - I don't think that I would probably pay for an IS lens anyway. Usually I am in need of either lighter lenses or have moving subjects where the IS is really of no help. The amount of automation that I need is more than present in the current *istD. -- Best regards, Bruce -- A man's only as old as the woman he feels. --Groucho Marx
Re: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?)
First, Ist D stores it as 16-bit uncompressed file, even though there are only 12 bits from the sensor. Correct... 4 out of 16 bits are taking up space storing NO information (zeros) on the -D. That's one pixels' worth in 2 bytes. On the -DS they pack the bits so that they get two pixels in 3 bytes, but it's still completely uncompressed (tiff-format, actually). That's 3040*2024*12/8/1024/1024 = 8.802 MB for the RAW data for every picture on the -DS (11.736 MB for the -D). The rest is taken up by the header info, and the three different JPEGs stored as well. One of them is at full-size (although heavily JPEG-compressed). They run around 1MB for the full-sized one. Second, D70 compresses the raw 12-bit file. Third, D70's compression is not lossless, it's visually lossless, thus some insignificant parts are lost. I haven't had a problem with it so far, even under pretty extreme lighting. I think it's some sort of median filtering. It will remove outliar bright pixels if they only show up in one pixel. Biggest problems are for people using it for astro-photography AIUI. The average raw file from D70 is 5.5-6 MB... Frantisek Canon seems to do a good job of losslessly compressing their RAW files. On a 4mp PS I used awhile back, the RAW files were usually between 3-3.5 MB. The uncompressed would be 4e6*12/8/1024/1024 = 5.7MB. I *do* think that filtering the RAW data is unacceptable. -Cory * * Cory Papenfuss* * Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student * * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * *
RE: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
...Pentax fans, of course :-) Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: P. J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 5. juni 2005 15:15 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors? I'm not Bruce but I've had the experience of using my *ist-D in temperatures about 20° below 0°F the camera worked fine until the cold temperatures caused the batteries output to drop below the power needed by the camera. Batteries are the limiting factor. Markus Maurer wrote: Hi Bruce do you ever take photos out in the cold weather or rain or other difficult environment conditions too? I saw in the specifications of some digital bodies that they only work from 0 - 40 grade Celsius or is that very conservative? How good is a Pentax digital body under unfriendly weather conditions like cold, moist, dust, sand and others compared to an analog body? just wondering greetings Markus -Original Message- From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 8:36 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors? Paul, I am just about where you are. At this stage of what I do - portraits, weddings, events, some sports and scenics, the *istD is doing just fine. The buffer thing gets in the way sometimes, but I have to work around it the best I can. Most everything else works well enough for what I do. I'm not a huge proponent of IS or AF - I don't think that I would probably pay for an IS lens anyway. Usually I am in need of either lighter lenses or have moving subjects where the IS is really of no help. The amount of automation that I need is more than present in the current *istD. -- Best regards, Bruce -- A man's only as old as the woman he feels. --Groucho Marx
RE: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?)
-Original Message- From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2005 1:36 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?) in terms of megabytes/s, my 2-3 times stands. the difference is made up by the relative sizes of the RAW files. One could argue that one waits in seconds and not in megabytes for a buffer to empty. But something else strikes me as rather interesting: is the difference in RAW file size between *istD and D70 really that big? Why would that be so, considering both cameras store basically the same amount of image information? Or don't they? not shooting RAW with a DSLR is sacrificing most of the gains over digital compact camera. I understand we are talking RAW files only. Cheers, Leon
Re: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?)
the *istD produces RAW files about 13-14 megabytes in size and the D70 closer to 9. the *istD uses a very inefficient storage format and then compounds the problem by storing two additional JPEG images inside the RAW file in addition to the mandatory thumbnail. Canon cameras manage almost 1 megabyte per megapixel with their lossless compression. Herb - Original Message - From: Leon Mlakar [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2005 7:45 PM Subject: RE: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?) But something else strikes me as rather interesting: is the difference in RAW file size between *istD and D70 really that big? Why would that be so, considering both cameras store basically the same amount of image information? Or don't they?
RE: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?)
Hi Bruce what speaks against having a second body with you to compensate for the shortcomings of the buffer? Even an old one with film loaded or a PS dig cam if you can not afford a second DSLR or what it lighter? I'm pretty quick with my SFX and the P30 as a backup and second body with the 24mm mounted and set at F8 and 2.2 meters. But I'm still a film user so what do I know about digital problems :-) greetings Markus -Original Message- From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 11:07 PM To: John Dallman Subject: Re: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?) Hello John, Here is a very simple example. You are shooting a wedding - the party is coming up the aisle two by two - there are 8-10 groups coming through in short order. You are shooting raw. You shoot one, wait about 2-3 seconds, shoot the next, etc. The problem is that the buffer fills after 5 shots and it takes about 10 seconds or more to clear the buffer for just one more shot. So you miss the last couple or two. Here's another. Shooting baseball - runner on 3rd, pitcher throws a wild pitch - you take a shot of the catcher, then one of the runner coming down, then the start of the slide, then the pitcher coming in for the tag, then the end of the slide, then the ump signalling out! Your buffer is full. Then during that action, the runner on first is coming around for a dramatic slide into 3rd. All you can do is watch. Buffer full. Here's another - taking candid portraits of a young kid who is moving around and you are catching some great facial expressions. Click, click, click as you go. Suddenly you he puts on the cutest grin and the BUFFER is FULL. When shooting RAW on the *istD, the fastest cards take about 7-9 seconds per shot to write out. Slower cards can take up to 15 seconds per shot. With a full buffer, that is quite a bit of time to elapse. The *istDS by my tests takes about 4-5 seconds per raw shot. The Nikon D70 takes about 1-2 seconds per raw shot. It is not really the rapid fire burst that is the problem here, it is the ongoing shooting that can occur with many events that are not really considered sports. People getting awards, one after the other would be just another example. -- Best regards, Bruce Thursday, June 2, 2005, 1:30:00 PM, you wrote: JD In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD (Shel Belinkoff) wrote: Higher resolution and a faster, bigger buffer make sense, shouldn't add bulk or weight to a camera. JD Higher resolution is fine, but I'm baffled by the need for a faster JD buffer. I spot the potential picture, get ready, and take it. If it's a JD moving or changing subject I wait for the right moment, near as I can JD guess, and press the button. JD I guess having learned my photography on a twin-lens reflex with JD twelve shots per roll, where you had to wind on with several turns of a JD knob, and cock the shutter by hand[1] explains this. I've never used a JD camera with any kind of power wind or motor drive; I just don't feel any JD need to shoot in bursts. JD [1] Microcord II, post-war British copy of a pre-war Rolleicord.
RE: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
Hi Bruce do you ever take photos out in the cold weather or rain or other difficult environment conditions too? I saw in the specifications of some digital bodies that they only work from 0 - 40 grade Celsius or is that very conservative? How good is a Pentax digital body under unfriendly weather conditions like cold, moist, dust, sand and others compared to an analog body? just wondering greetings Markus -Original Message- From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 8:36 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors? Paul, I am just about where you are. At this stage of what I do - portraits, weddings, events, some sports and scenics, the *istD is doing just fine. The buffer thing gets in the way sometimes, but I have to work around it the best I can. Most everything else works well enough for what I do. I'm not a huge proponent of IS or AF - I don't think that I would probably pay for an IS lens anyway. Usually I am in need of either lighter lenses or have moving subjects where the IS is really of no help. The amount of automation that I need is more than present in the current *istD. -- Best regards, Bruce
RE: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?)
Hi Paul just when I started to wonder how all the good photos I see in books from the years 1930 - 1970 where possibly made your email came in :-) lovely shot, thanks for showing it Markus -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 4:28 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?) Thirty years ago I used to shoot drag racing with a Speed Graphic 4x5. Most of the time I would shoot off a tripod, swapping or flipping film holders between shots. I would reload crouching by the guardrail with my hands in a changing bag. I did some action shots as well. Several were published. Here's one that was never published. That's why I still have the tranny. (Mags were very bad about returning stuff in those days.) This one is on Ektachrome Tungsten. I think it was about a one second exposure at 5.6 or so with a 127mm Wollensak lens. http://www.portfolios.com/zoom.html?User_number=stenquistimagecount=14
Re: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?)
I thought that I had mentioned the issue there. I do, in fact, have two bodies and sometimes it works to do just as you suggested. The times it doesn't work are when I am using my flash system on a big bracket with a Quantum battery clipped to my side - I couldn't carry two such rigs. Or when I need a certain focal length and I don't have a duplicate or near duplicate lens. Or when I am holding one body on a monopod with a big Sigma 100-300/4 EX lens and can't pick up and use the other camera - too unwieldy. -- Best regards, Bruce Saturday, June 4, 2005, 7:33:33 PM, you wrote: MM Hi Bruce MM what speaks against having a second body with you to compensate for the MM shortcomings of the buffer? MM Even an old one with film loaded or a PS dig cam if you can not afford a MM second DSLR or MM what it lighter? MM I'm pretty quick with my SFX and the P30 as a backup and second body with MM the 24mm mounted MM and set at F8 and 2.2 meters. But I'm still a film user so what do I know MM about digital problems :-) MM greetings MM Markus -Original Message- From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 11:07 PM To: John Dallman Subject: Re: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?) Hello John, Here is a very simple example. You are shooting a wedding - the party is coming up the aisle two by two - there are 8-10 groups coming through in short order. You are shooting raw. You shoot one, wait about 2-3 seconds, shoot the next, etc. The problem is that the buffer fills after 5 shots and it takes about 10 seconds or more to clear the buffer for just one more shot. So you miss the last couple or two. Here's another. Shooting baseball - runner on 3rd, pitcher throws a wild pitch - you take a shot of the catcher, then one of the runner coming down, then the start of the slide, then the pitcher coming in for the tag, then the end of the slide, then the ump signalling out! Your buffer is full. Then during that action, the runner on first is coming around for a dramatic slide into 3rd. All you can do is watch. Buffer full. Here's another - taking candid portraits of a young kid who is moving around and you are catching some great facial expressions. Click, click, click as you go. Suddenly you he puts on the cutest grin and the BUFFER is FULL. When shooting RAW on the *istD, the fastest cards take about 7-9 seconds per shot to write out. Slower cards can take up to 15 seconds per shot. With a full buffer, that is quite a bit of time to elapse. The *istDS by my tests takes about 4-5 seconds per raw shot. The Nikon D70 takes about 1-2 seconds per raw shot. It is not really the rapid fire burst that is the problem here, it is the ongoing shooting that can occur with many events that are not really considered sports. People getting awards, one after the other would be just another example. -- Best regards, Bruce Thursday, June 2, 2005, 1:30:00 PM, you wrote: JD In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD (Shel Belinkoff) wrote: Higher resolution and a faster, bigger buffer make sense, shouldn't add bulk or weight to a camera. JD Higher resolution is fine, but I'm baffled by the need for a faster JD buffer. I spot the potential picture, get ready, and take it. If it's a JD moving or changing subject I wait for the right moment, near as I can JD guess, and press the button. JD I guess having learned my photography on a twin-lens reflex with JD twelve shots per roll, where you had to wind on with several turns of a JD knob, and cock the shutter by hand[1] explains this. I've never used a JD camera with any kind of power wind or motor drive; I just don't feel any JD need to shoot in bursts. JD [1] Microcord II, post-war British copy of a pre-war Rolleicord.
RE: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?)
Hi Bruce sorry, I have not seen that or my email crossed your answer... I see and understand your arguments, especially dual flash usage is not a easy thing :-) greetings Markus -Original Message- From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2005 5:12 AM To: Markus Maurer Subject: Re: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?) I thought that I had mentioned the issue there. I do, in fact, have two bodies and sometimes it works to do just as you suggested. The times it doesn't work are when I am using my flash system on a big bracket with a Quantum battery clipped to my side - I couldn't carry two such rigs. Or when I need a certain focal length and I don't have a duplicate or near duplicate lens. Or when I am holding one body on a monopod with a big Sigma 100-300/4 EX lens and can't pick up and use the other camera - too unwieldy. -- Best regards, Bruce Saturday, June 4, 2005, 7:33:33 PM, you wrote: MM Hi Bruce MM what speaks against having a second body with you to compensate for the MM shortcomings of the buffer? MM Even an old one with film loaded or a PS dig cam if you can not afford a MM second DSLR or MM what it lighter? MM I'm pretty quick with my SFX and the P30 as a backup and second body with MM the 24mm mounted MM and set at F8 and 2.2 meters. But I'm still a film user so what do I know MM about digital problems :-) MM greetings MM Markus -Original Message- From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 11:07 PM To: John Dallman Subject: Re: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?) Hello John, Here is a very simple example. You are shooting a wedding - the party is coming up the aisle two by two - there are 8-10 groups coming through in short order. You are shooting raw. You shoot one, wait about 2-3 seconds, shoot the next, etc. The problem is that the buffer fills after 5 shots and it takes about 10 seconds or more to clear the buffer for just one more shot. So you miss the last couple or two. Here's another. Shooting baseball - runner on 3rd, pitcher throws a wild pitch - you take a shot of the catcher, then one of the runner coming down, then the start of the slide, then the pitcher coming in for the tag, then the end of the slide, then the ump signalling out! Your buffer is full. Then during that action, the runner on first is coming around for a dramatic slide into 3rd. All you can do is watch. Buffer full. Here's another - taking candid portraits of a young kid who is moving around and you are catching some great facial expressions. Click, click, click as you go. Suddenly you he puts on the cutest grin and the BUFFER is FULL. When shooting RAW on the *istD, the fastest cards take about 7-9 seconds per shot to write out. Slower cards can take up to 15 seconds per shot. With a full buffer, that is quite a bit of time to elapse. The *istDS by my tests takes about 4-5 seconds per raw shot. The Nikon D70 takes about 1-2 seconds per raw shot. It is not really the rapid fire burst that is the problem here, it is the ongoing shooting that can occur with many events that are not really considered sports. People getting awards, one after the other would be just another example. -- Best regards, Bruce Thursday, June 2, 2005, 1:30:00 PM, you wrote: JD In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] JD (Shel Belinkoff) wrote: Higher resolution and a faster, bigger buffer make sense, shouldn't add bulk or weight to a camera. JD Higher resolution is fine, but I'm baffled by the need for a faster JD buffer. I spot the potential picture, get ready, and take it. If it's a JD moving or changing subject I wait for the right moment, near as I can JD guess, and press the button. JD I guess having learned my photography on a twin-lens reflex with JD twelve shots per roll, where you had to wind on with several turns of a JD knob, and cock the shutter by hand[1] explains this. I've never used a JD camera with any kind of power wind or motor drive; I just don't feel any JD need to shoot in bursts. JD [1] Microcord II, post-war British copy of a pre-war Rolleicord.
Re: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?)
LOL Try going through any door with a spear through your head. That's a neat trick. Dave S On 6/4/05, Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] most things are possible Try going through a revolving door with a spear through your head :-) Christian
Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Shel Belinkoff wrote: They also sponsor a number of PBS shows, such as nature, where the audience demographics are terrific. I think the key is placement: lube the news-channels to show reporters using Canons; partially fund movies to get the star or the guy behind the star to shoot Canon; that kind of thing. Kostas
Re: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/06/03 Fri AM 03:28:14 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors? Shel wrote: Having used a couple of Canons I really don't see what all the fuss is about. For example, Image Stabilization may be nice, but I'd prefer smaller lenses and bodies that don't need as much stabilization, and lenses that offer the image qualities that I like over lenses that have a feature set that needs to be adjusted, even minimally. I like to think that I know how to use my gear well enough that there's no need to rely upon electric motors, gyroscopes, software, chips (and maybe even dip), and what have you, in order to get a good photo. But that's just me ... or is it? From what I've seen there are quite a few istD owners here who use their cameras pretty much like standard manual cameras most of the time, sometimes with a concession to auto focus, and rarely use many of the modes and features and options. Maybe the Pentax Way really is to simpler, smaller, lighter, more basic cameras that produce good photos. All good points Shel. For the most part I am satisfied with my *ist D. My *major* concern is the future of the brand and the wisdom of throwing more money at the Pentax line (especially when it comes to Pentax or 3rd party K-mount lenses). If Pentax were to go bellyup or were to get out of the DLSR business, I think support and repairs for their existing cameras would quickly disappear. I could end up with a non-functioning DLSR and a whole slew of lenses that will only work with pre-owned Pentax film cameras. Only if you are precious with it. The more you use it, the better will be the backup. To use an extreme example, you can buy a pretty much brand new Supermarine Spitfire these days. Only because there are enough people flying the unimportant (historically) ones to make it worthwhile for companies to support them. My thoughts are leaning to Canon because if I blow $1000 on a new lens, I feel confident that Canon will be around and new bodies will continue to be available (hopefully compatible with the lenses, of course). Why do you feel confident? Any company can go bust and it is arguable that the bigger as corporation gets, the more likely it is that it will fail catastrophically. Sure I see that Pentax *appears* to be trying to compete in the DLSR market. But I'm unconvinced that they are seriously competing. Based upon a limited marketing strategy, at least in the US, I don't see the future boding well. If they out advertised Nikon and Canon 5-to-1 they'd still have a difficult uphill battle to gain market share. Both Nikon and Canon appear to have deep enough wallets to quickly bring new products to market and absorb the quick depreciation inherent in the digital lifecycle. It's just a gut feeling and I have no proof to offer, other than that I have been a loyal Pentax owner for 15 years and now I'm starting to get paranoid. The fact that other long respected marques that didn't leapfrog to the front of the digital persuasion early, are biting the dust doesn't help much. I've thought about getting an *ist D for my wife. Everytime I do though, I think why not a 20D and one nice lens? Tom C. (wordy enough I'm sure). - Email provided by http://www.ntlhome.com/
Re: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
fra: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 2/6/05, Alan Chan, discombobulated, unleashed: Are Pentax people blind? Only in one eye, apparently. Hey, if you're referring to me you got it wrong. Both eyes work perfectly, but not together. .-) DagT
Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
Are Pentax people blind? Only in one eye, apparently. Hey, if you're referring to me you got it wrong. Both eyes work perfectly, but not together. .-) I'm saying no more! :- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
From: Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/06/03 Fri AM 08:48:42 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors? On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Shel Belinkoff wrote: They also sponsor a number of PBS shows, such as nature, where the audience demographics are terrific. I think the key is placement: lube the news-channels to show reporters using Canons; partially fund movies to get the star or the guy behind the star to shoot Canon; that kind of thing. Kostas But Pentax users are unlikely to be targeted by this sort of thing. I'm not sure if it is just (just!) spam or an apptempt to insert a Trojan. (DON'T click the links!!) == Dear Customer, We would like to welcome our Canon Europe Web Self Service (CEWSS) customers to our new upgraded service called My Canon. We would like to inform you that, as from today, CEWSS has been fully integrated into the new My Canon service. What is My Canon? My Canon is an upgrade to your existing CEWSS service that will allow you to benefit at no additional cost from our European online community and is dedicated to your experience of the Canon Digital Imaging world. My Canon is a portal created for you to benefit from other online services, in addition to CEWSS, via one simple login. My Canon offers new, previously unavailable features and has already been launched in 16 European countries. Why Upgrade to My Canon? In order to continue accessing CEWSS, and also take advantage of the new My Canon services offered by Canon, you need to activate your account and become a member of the My Canon community: - Please follow this link: http://my.canon-europe.com/user/pwreminder.html , enter your email address and we will send you your own unique My Canon password - When you attempt to login to a My Canon service for the first time you may be asked to confirm or update your personal information - Once you have become a member of My Canon you will be able to experience CEWSS as you used to, and enjoy all the new services available to you. If you do not follow these instructions, you will no longer be able to access the CEWSS service and take advantage of the new services offered by My Canon. We hope you will enjoy the new My Canon world, where images do come to life. Your Canon Team x-gfi-me-from: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bcc: Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jun 2005 09:49:41.0193 (UTC) FILETIME=02BDB90:01C56821] Date: 3 Jun 2005 10:49:41 +0100 = - Email provided by http://www.ntlhome.com/
Re: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/06/03 Fri AM 09:27:39 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors? fra: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 2/6/05, Alan Chan, discombobulated, unleashed: Are Pentax people blind? Only in one eye, apparently. Hey, if you're referring to me you got it wrong. Both eyes work perfectly, but not together. .-) DagT That explains a lot of your pictures. 8-) - Email provided by http://www.ntlhome.com/
Re: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, mike wilson wrote: But Pentax users are unlikely to be targeted by this sort of thing. I'm not sure if it is just (just!) spam or an apptempt to insert a Trojan. (DON'T click the links!!) x-gfi-me-from: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bcc: Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] How many Ns in Canon? Kostas
Re: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
fra: mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] fra: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 2/6/05, Alan Chan, discombobulated, unleashed: Are Pentax people blind? Only in one eye, apparently. Hey, if you're referring to me you got it wrong. Both eyes work perfectly, but not together. .-) That explains a lot of your pictures. 8-) Yup, that's why they are two-dimensional .-) DagT
RE: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?)
hell, I still use large formant and you only get one exposure ( well two if you count both sides of the film holder) per film! JCO -Original Message- From: Mishka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 11:16 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?) and how did people managed that with 36 exposures per fim? mishka On 6/2/05, Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the proper moment might be 10-20 times a minute for a few minutes
Re: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?)
- Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 7:46 AM Subject: RE: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?) hell, I still use large formant and you only get one exposure ( well two if you count both sides of the film holder) per film! JCO and you are shooting birds and sports with this right? :-) Interesting story: There is a local guy who shoots car racing with a 4x5. I've seen him set up on the outside of turn 1 (a 90 degree right hander) and he seems to get some great shots. I guess he prefocuses at a spot on the track and trips the shutter when the cars are at this point. My concern is that being on the outside of the turn and concentrating on his framing, he is vulnerable for the common occurrence of a car going straight on. Christian
Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, mike wilson wrote: But Pentax users are unlikely to be targeted by this sort of thing. I'm not sure if it is just (just!) spam or an apptempt to insert a Trojan. (DON'T click the links!!) x-gfi-me-from: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bcc: Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] How many Ns in Canon? Kostas Depends on what kind... -- A man's only as old as the woman he feels. --Groucho Marx
Re: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?)
Thirty years ago I used to shoot drag racing with a Speed Graphic 4x5. Most of the time I would shoot off a tripod, swapping or flipping film holders between shots. I would reload crouching by the guardrail with my hands in a changing bag. I did some action shots as well. Several were published. Here's one that was never published. That's why I still have the tranny. (Mags were very bad about returning stuff in those days.) This one is on Ektachrome Tungsten. I think it was about a one second exposure at 5.6 or so with a 127mm Wollensak lens. http://www.portfolios.com/zoom.html?User_number=stenquistimagecount=14 - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 7:46 AM Subject: RE: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?) hell, I still use large formant and you only get one exposure ( well two if you count both sides of the film holder) per film! JCO and you are shooting birds and sports with this right? :-) Interesting story: There is a local guy who shoots car racing with a 4x5. I've seen him set up on the outside of turn 1 (a 90 degree right hander) and he seems to get some great shots. I guess he prefocuses at a spot on the track and trips the shutter when the cars are at this point. My concern is that being on the outside of the turn and concentrating on his framing, he is vulnerable for the common occurrence of a car going straight on. Christian
Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
I think you are right Shel. luben Shel Belinkoff wrote: This little dialogue brings up an interesting, to me, point. First, I would have no qualms about giving up features (like a built-in toaster oven and wide screen TV) that are found in many pro cameras for a simplified feature set and a smaller, lighter, easier-to-carry simpler to operate camera, whether film or digital. Of course, different people have different needs, but I cannot help but wonder how many here who are lamenting the lack of a high-end, pro camera would actually buy one, especially if the size were bloated like some Canon and Nikons, or are just complaining because they think Pentax should have a camera that meets the top end models of these brands in terms of features because it's good for Pentax's image. Having used a couple of Canons I really don't see what all the fuss is about. For example, Image Stabilization may be nice, but I'd prefer smaller lenses and bodies that don't need as much stabilization, and lenses that offer the image qualities that I like over lenses that have a feature set that needs to be adjusted, even minimally. I like to think that I know how to use my gear well enough that there's no need to rely upon electric motors, gyroscopes, software, chips (and maybe even dip), and what have you, in order to get a good photo. But that's just me ... or is it? From what I've seen there are quite a few istD owners here who use their cameras pretty much like standard manual cameras most of the time, sometimes with a concession to auto focus, and rarely use many of the modes and features and options. Maybe the Pentax Way really is to simpler, smaller, lighter, more basic cameras that produce good photos. Shel -- Computers are useless. They can only give answers. - Pablo Picasso
Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, mike wilson wrote: But Pentax users are unlikely to be targeted by this sort of thing. I'm not sure if it is just (just!) spam or an apptempt to insert a Trojan. (DON'T click the links!!) x-gfi-me-from: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bcc: Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] How many Ns in Canon? Kostas Depends on what kind... -- A man's only as old as the woman he feels. --Groucho Marx
Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
Alan wrote: I shoot and test my FA43 many times and came to the same conclusion. At least I know Rob has the same opinion on FA43. We both, of course, bought the lemons. :-) Obviously. The lens was tested by Amateur Photographer magazine and promptly became their reference lens outperforming the Carl Zeiss 50/1.4. The latter probably another Lemon lens whose reputation is based on myth only. Mike Johnston wrote an essay where the Pentax Limteds were touted as the best AF lenses money could buy. Maybe he too is easily fooled in spite of having tried almost everything out there? It may be that for some the best there is isn't good enough but for the rest of us the best there is, is the stuff that creates cults. Pål
RE: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?)
The Bruce's original message I was replying to stated raw to storage medium writing times being 1-2 secs for D70 and 7-9 secs for *istD. That's 3.5 to 9 times slower than D70. D70 is hardly an action/sports model. My entire reply was made in this context. Both your 2-3 times and my almost an order of magnitude have similar margin of error and are equally misleading, only to the opposite sides g Cheers, Leon -Original Message- From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 4:15 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?) the fastest of the ordinary DSLRs, excluding the action/sports models, are about 2-3 times faster than the *istD with perhaps equal or slightly larger buffer size. the action sports models are 5-6 times faster and have 4 or 5 times the buffer size. Herb - Original Message - From: Leon Mlakar [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 5:31 PM Subject: RE: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?) That's a long time, indeed. Something you do not think about with film camera. But, if the figures for Nikon D70 are correct, it sounds to me that larger buffer provides only a partial, temporary workaround. A redesign of electronics to speed up the writing by almost an order of magnitude would be more desirable solution.
Re: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?)
they didn't take as many pictures and didn't get as many good shots. Herb - Original Message - From: Mishka [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 11:15 PM Subject: Re: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?) and how did people managed that with 36 exposures per fim?
Re: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?)
which works when you have two similar lenses. some people can afford a pair of A* 400/2.8s. i can't. Herb - Original Message - From: John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 12:42 AM Subject: Re: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?) Two bodies.
Re: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?)
most things are possible if you don't have to make a living at it, or even just break even. Herb - Original Message - From: Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 9:56 AM Subject: Re: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?) Interesting story: There is a local guy who shoots car racing with a 4x5. I've seen him set up on the outside of turn 1 (a 90 degree right hander) and he seems to get some great shots. I guess he prefocuses at a spot on the track and trips the shutter when the cars are at this point. My concern is that being on the outside of the turn and concentrating on his framing, he is vulnerable for the common occurrence of a car going straight on.
Re: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?)
- Original Message - From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] most things are possible Try going through a revolving door with a spear through your head :-) Christian
Re: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?)
Not really an action shot, but kind of hard to do them at night. Back about 1961 or 62 I knew a guy who shot Saturday night dirt track midget races with a Speed. He got his action shots during trials in the daytime, and did pit shots at night during the actual races. Sold the action shots to a magazine, most of the pit shot to the owners and drivers (often the same person in those days and kind of races). At one time (20's, 30's, and 40's) 90%+ of racing photos were shot with Speed Graphics. Pete Peterson, the magazine publisher, who started Hot Rod magazine did most of the photos in the Hot Rod through most of the 1950's with a Speed Graphic, including the action shots. Think of trying to get a shot of a dry=laker moving 200mph with one. If you get ahold of some of those old issues look for the credit Photo by Pete. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thirty years ago I used to shoot drag racing with a Speed Graphic 4x5. Most of the time I would shoot off a tripod, swapping or flipping film holders between shots. I would reload crouching by the guardrail with my hands in a changing bag. I did some action shots as well. Several were published. Here's one that was never published. That's why I still have the tranny. (Mags were very bad about returning stuff in those days.) This one is on Ektachrome Tungsten. I think it was about a one second exposure at 5.6 or so with a 127mm Wollensak lens. http://www.portfolios.com/zoom.html?User_number=stenquistimagecount=14 - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 7:46 AM Subject: RE: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?) hell, I still use large formant and you only get one exposure ( well two if you count both sides of the film holder) per film! JCO and you are shooting birds and sports with this right? :-) Interesting story: There is a local guy who shoots car racing with a 4x5. I've seen him set up on the outside of turn 1 (a 90 degree right hander) and he seems to get some great shots. I guess he prefocuses at a spot on the track and trips the shutter when the cars are at this point. My concern is that being on the outside of the turn and concentrating on his framing, he is vulnerable for the common occurrence of a car going straight on. Christian -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.6.1 - Release Date: 6/3/2005
Re: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?)
You left out the nun: black white also red can't go through revolving door nun with spear through head http://web.sfc.keio.ac.jp/~yukihiko/haiku.shtml - MCC - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, MI www.markcassino.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Original Message - From: Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 10:10 PM Subject: Re: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?) - Original Message - From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] most things are possible Try going through a revolving door with a spear through your head :-) Christian
Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
Christian wrote on 02.06.05 5:15: I wonder if Pentax could make a K to 4/3 adapter. :-) There's already one among others :-) http://www.cameraquest.com/adapt_olyE1.htm -- Balance is the ultimate good... Best Regards Sylwek
Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
Don Sanderson wrote on 02.06.05 1:56: Just found a Nikon compatibility chart: http://www.nikonlinks.com/unklbil/bodylens.htm It's a bit complicated for sure. Glad I bought an FM though. ;-) But not too complicated :-) One thing is certain - you can mount AI and AIS lenses (majority of used MF Nikkors have this mount) on all new bodies, but only with few higher end (F100, F5, F6, D1X, D2X, D2H) you will have metering. On the newest hi-end bodies (F6, D2 series) compatibility is even better than on Pentax, because you can store in camera parameters of up to 10 manual lenses and thus obtain matrix metering and aperture display :-) -- Balance is the ultimate good... Best Regards Sylwek
Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 10:53:15PM -0400, Christian wrote: Once again, Pentax has not even thrown us a bone. Hey check it out guys! a new DSLR! (oh yeah, not the one our loyal, salivating customers have been begging for, it's another downgrade. even LOWER spec-ed than the previous release) On 2/6/05, John Francis, discombobulated, unleashed: Anyone who finds this news in any way astonishing just hasn't been paying attention. Pentax stated their future path, loud and clear, in the interview given at about the time the *ist-DS was released. First the DL, then the MF digital, and then the *ist-D follow-on. But the ostriches don't want to hear the facts - they'd rather keep their head buried in the sand, then piss and moan when Pentax don't release the *ist-Dn camera those folks just happen to want. Can you blame them John? It's only natural for a consumer to voice opinion on a product, especially where the direction the product is going is perceived as the wrong direction. That opinion, voiced in enough quantity, can lead to possible re-examination of said direction. Ultimately though, consumers vote with their feet, as has happened in a few cases on the list here. I try not to confuse pissing and moaning with healthy criticism which can surely only be a positive thing. Best, Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Christian wrote: But I'm wondering what it offers that the others do not. It is newer and will compete in price. Until the next offering from the competition. This is the point of this model. A new buyer now has again three choices, and like DagT, I can now tell whoever asks me ask to see the new Pentax too. salespeople. We've read it here many times: You go in a store and ask for Pentax and the salespeople immediately push the two big brands at you. And what can the PDML do about that? of professional-grade cameras, lenses and accessories. They shouldn't waste their time (and mine; my dissatisfaction with their product strategy has been voiced) with entry-level cameras that - in spite of build quality, features, size and ergonomics - cannot compete with current offerings from other companies based on marketing and brand recognition. I am sure the -DL has cost them next to nothing given the previous RD and if it sells well it's a money cow. What they do with this money (if it comes) may be of interest. Pentax does not move fast. They are committed to APS-C. They have a roadmap for new lenses (looking forward to the FF 50-200/4, myself) and have promised an upgrade to the -D in the longer term. We can question whether these will happen all day, given their track record, but their recent past shows they deliver. It's pointless trying to get them to change the above strategy to higher-end (FF?) K-mount products, so let's not waste breath. You pay your money, you make your choices. Yesterday was a good day for Pentax (and Sweden ;-))) as far as I am concerned. Kostas
Re: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
I knew I was provoking you, and I got what I expected .-) I make a living by selling my time and my knowledge in a certain field. Sometimes I have the chance to sell something the client doesn't need. Why shouldn't I do that? Because in the long run he will be dissatified, so they don't come back. You asked us what we would say to convince people to buy Pentax, I say why sould we convince anybody unless they find by themselves that they want Pentax. I think there are as many reasons for liking Pentax as there are people on this list, so general arguments probably would have much effect. Knowing the needs of the potential buyer would help a lot, but I would just as soon recommend Canon for someone who needs a high speed dslr, or Pentax if they want a good finger or have old Pentax lenses. Actually, I'm defending your change to Canon. You are clearly not satisfied with Pentax, so you are no longer among those customers they want to sell to. Either your needs have changed or Pentax has changed over the last few years, or you have simply misunderstood Pentax' philosophy (if they have any) from the beginning. I can't see much change in Pentax over the years I've used them, so maybe it's you. You can't demand that they follow you. It looks like you feel insulted by them for not defining your needs as their major concern, but if they did they would look even more like Canon, loose whatever uniqueness they have and die under the weight. Small companies can't compete in all areas. They have to choose something that makes them visible in the market. We can agree or disagree with their strategies, and someone always do. As long as Pentax makes money we are alright. I'm not sure that they would continue doing so if they copied Canon in most aspects. DagT fra: Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: DagT [EMAIL PROTECTED] So, who cares about the answers to your question? I think you, the loyal Pentax user, should care if you are at all interested in products more geared to the advanced amateur or (dare I write it?) professional user who wish to use some of that awesome SMC glass (which is remarkably hard to get new, but still available on the used market). Once again, Pentax has not even thrown us a bone. Hey check it out guys! a new DSLR! (oh yeah, not the one our loyal, salivating customers have been begging for, it's another downgrade. even LOWER spec-ed than the previous release) I'm not bashing the new camera. The D is a great camera. The Ds is a great camera, marketed and priced competitively against the Rebel and D70. I'm sure the DL will turn out to produce great images and have the small size and ergonomics that Pentax is famous for. I understand wanting to capture new users who do not own an SLR yet. But I'm wondering what it offers that the others do not. And I'm wondering how Pentax expect to out-compete (and you KNOW they have to out-compete) the other two manufacturers who have their names in lights and who advertise, market, and offer incentives to salespeople. We've read it here many times: You go in a store and ask for Pentax and the salespeople immediately push the two big brands at you. Sure, you and I and the other PDMLers can hold our own and get what we want, but the average, uneducated consumer will walk out of the store with a Canon or Nikon without even knowing about a brand called Pentax. If Pentax want to be a niche player, great! But their niche should be advanced amateurs such as myself who are willing to pay for a steady stream of professional-grade cameras, lenses and accessories. They shouldn't waste their time (and mine; my dissatisfaction with their product strategy has been voiced) with entry-level cameras that - in spite of build quality, features, size and ergonomics - cannot compete with current offerings from other companies based on marketing and brand recognition.
RE: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
--- Don Sanderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 28/3.5, 35/3.5, 135/3.5, 200/4, 50/1.7, just to name a few. All inexpensive, all very good to excellent. For all 5 of the above I paid less than $150.00, I'm very pleased with all of them. I suppose how one is looking at the Pentax situation. There are tons of 3rd party K mount lenses which will work with current bodies, also many not-so-hot SM/K/M/A/F/FA lenses. But for the few high quality lenses, especially good primes, there aren't many bargains when compared to C/N, new or used. 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: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
Then move on. I've decided to wait for now. I passed up a very good deal on a little used 1D Mark II last week. But I gave it some thought. I think waiting makes sense at the moment. Paul On Jun 2, 2005, at 12:34 AM, Rob Studdert wrote: Nor do I wish to have to wait until the MF Digital is brought to market and fails miserably before being told that they can't now afford to produce a better spec'd *ist D replacement. 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: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
And I'm wondering how Pentax expect to out-compete... I thought they stop doing that after the failure of LX? Perhaps the LX was the biggest mistake ever to Pentax because Pentax fans have had such unrealistic expectation since. Pentax 135 has never meant to be truely professional like C/N, the LX was just an accident. g If Pentax want to be a niche player, great! But their niche should be advanced amateurs such as myself who are willing to pay for a steady stream of professional-grade cameras, lenses and accessories. They shouldn't waste their time (and mine; my dissatisfaction with their product strategy has been voiced) with entry-level cameras that - in spite of build quality, features, size and ergonomics - cannot compete with current offerings from other companies based on marketing and brand recognition. I bet Pentax would be out of business a lot sooner than Minolta if that's what they had done. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan __ Discover Yahoo! Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/mobile.html
Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
--- Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My original hypothetical was for a new consumer who didn't have any previous lenses. BU, sorry! Previous brand ownership is a no-brainer in making the decision. I bought the D (a great camera, thankfully) because I already had bags-o-gear. Your response has been disqualified! :-) I could be wrong, but I think the majority of consumers have strong preference toward C or N (just to famous obvious to ignore). I mean those who have never touched a camera. 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: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
--- Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe will see a new OP camera Olympus-Pentax. :) [-ve + -ve = +ve] I suppose? :-) Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
--- Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wonder if Pentax could make a K to 4/3 adapter. :-) There is an adaptor to mount K lenses on E system. http://www.kindai-inc.co.jp/mount_fosa.htm 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: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
--- Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My new experience with Canon in the realm of backwards compatability is almost non-existent. I still own some nice SMC Taks that work on the 20D just as well as on the D or Ds. It is interesting to see EOS bodies can mount many other lenses such as Contax Zeiss. Just one more reason to go EOS to those who want digital for their old lenses. 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: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
--- Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can see what they are attempting to do, I don't know if it will work for them but I can tell you it's not the camera I want. Nor do I wish to have to wait until the MF Digital is brought to market and fails miserably before being told that they can't now afford to produce a better spec'd *ist D replacement. History just keep repeating itself. When the company has detached from reality, some nasty is going to happen. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan __ Discover Yahoo! Use Yahoo! to plan a weekend, have fun online and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/
Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
On 2/6/05, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed: I've decided to wait for now. I passed up a very good deal on a little used 1D Mark II last week. But I gave it some thought. I think waiting makes sense at the moment. This is called getting older - admit it, 20 years ago you would have gone for it ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
If me, 20 years ago I could not even give it a thought, for 2 excellent reasons: 1) It did not exist (this is also a good reason for Paul ;-) 2) I couldn't afford such a cost (even a good deal on such a beast) Dario - Original Message - From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax list pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 1:25 PM Subject: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors? On 2/6/05, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed: I've decided to wait for now. I passed up a very good deal on a little used 1D Mark II last week. But I gave it some thought. I think waiting makes sense at the moment. This is called getting older - admit it, 20 years ago you would have gone for it ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
Christian wrote: But I'm wondering what it offers that the others do not. What it offers is that it isn't a Canon. This about as sensible aswer to the question as you can get. There are as many reasons as there are people. Pål
Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
Bruce wrote: The sad thing about this is, that Pentax has to be WAY better than Canon or Nikon to be able to get any attention. There is no way for any other manufacturer to be WAY better than Canon. They can be a little bit better all the way around, but it won't matter much. My original dissapointment over the *istD was that it wasn't funky enough and didn't offer the design flair in order to get attention. I think Pentax need to design DSLR that looks less me too. Pål
Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
Alan wrote: I thought they stop doing that after the failure of LX? Perhaps the LX was the biggest mistake ever to Pentax because Pentax fans have had such unrealistic expectation since. The LX a failure? Certainly not saleswise. Considering that the camera was among the most expensive 35mm slr money could buy (late in life it costed more than a Leica), it sold briskly and probably only outsold by the F3 in its class. It is true though that many at the Pentax board considered it a mistake but that was for economical reasons (they never made any money on it). However, Pentax dire situation at present is due to the fact that the company had no presence in the upper segments during the AF era, and hence lost most their customer base. In addition, the LX is fundamental for the underground Pentax hysteria existing at present. In case you haven't noticed, Pentax image has been transformed in later year possibly due to their underdog status. Nowadays you can read on the net about Pentax lenses of Leica quality, both by users and prhotography writers (eg. Mike Johnston); Pentax outperforming Zeiss lenses for the Hasselblad and Contax (by Hasselblad and Contax owners); and even magazines now treat Pentax as a brand for knowledgeable fundamentalist appreciating unsurpassed optical and mechanical quality. Five years ago such notion would be laughed at (some may still do) and Pentax was strictly considerd also ran for those who couldn't afford the real thing. Theres a lot of Pentax mystique going around at present and considering that other mythical brands are virtually dead (Contax and Leica), there should be market for an oddball company if they play their cards right. Pål
Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
John wrote: Anyone who finds this news in any way astonishing just hasn't been paying attention. Pentax stated their future path, loud and clear, in the interview given at about the time the *ist-DS was released. First the DL, then the MF digital, and then the *ist-D follow-on. But the ostriches don't want to hear the facts - they'd rather keep their head buried in the sand, then piss and moan when Pentax don't release the *ist-Dn camera those folks just happen to want. BRAVO! Pål
Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
The upgrade path is an interesting question. If you buy an entry DSLR ($700) and a few comparable lenses, you will probably be investing less than $1500. To access those high end Canon lenses and bodies you'll have to spend this much on a new body (20D) and probably a $1000 a lens. For most folks, this is never going to happen, so the only real question is Pentax actually staying in business and offering the DA lenses or Sigma keeping them in the lineup. Even for someone like me who considers photography a hobby, the Canon stuff that really makes a difference is more than I want to spend. I'm OK with the high end Pentax being the 20D equivalent, which will always lag behind Canon's release by a few years. OTOH, those who buy Leica just because they can will go to Canon because it gives them a place to spend their money. I also realize there are serious amateurs on this list who want (and can use) high end equipment. They should switch to Canon and not look back. (Stay on the PDML however; it just makes it more fung). Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
fra: Steve Desjardins [EMAIL PROTECTED] . . . They should switch to Canon and not look back. (Stay on the PDML however; it just makes it more fung). I don't know. We've got enough people who have switched to Canon and are regretting it because they find that it didn't really make a difference to their photographs, but in stead of admitting it they stay around criticising Pentax for not being what they wanted it to be .-) DagT
Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
Christian wrote: - Original Message - From: DagT [EMAIL PROTECTED] So, who cares about the answers to your question? If Pentax want to be a niche player, great! But their niche should be advanced amateurs such as myself who are willing to pay for a steady stream of professional-grade cameras, lenses and accessories. They shouldn't waste their time (and mine; my dissatisfaction with their product strategy has been voiced) with entry-level cameras that - in spite of build quality, features, size and ergonomics - cannot compete with current offerings from other companies based on marketing and brand recognition. My experience with DSLRs is only a 20D of a friend. I don't like it, really - it is too bulky and heavy, it doesn't fit well in my palm, it is hard to make easy things etc. It is my impression of shooting 2-3 weeks with it. There are 2 reasons for me not to switch in part to digital. I am looking for well built and simple body - I do not need most of the advanced feature: big buffers, 3 frames per second, 11 points of autofocus etc. (on other side it is sad that they replaced the pentaprism with pentamirror in *istDL). The second reason is that the prices of current offerings are a little bit high for me. So, I am expecting to see the price of the DL body when it hits the market... luben -- Computers are useless. They can only give answers. - Pablo Picasso
Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
The economy is on an upswing now too, at least outside the US. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Mishka Subject: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors? i am just curious: all this time i have been hearing about inexpensive excellent pentax lenses. what are they (i mean, both, inexpensive AND excellent)? Prices are on an upswing at the moment. I have, in the past, gotten some very excellent deals on good Pentax glass. William Robb -- 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: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
Perhaps. Although twenty years ago I couldn't afford it. By the time we earn enough to live somewhat decadently, we no longer have the energy or inclination. That's nature's way of making us older folk behave :-). Paul On 2/6/05, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed: I've decided to wait for now. I passed up a very good deal on a little used 1D Mark II last week. But I gave it some thought. I think waiting makes sense at the moment. This is called getting older - admit it, 20 years ago you would have gone for it ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
I've heard that said. However, except for the LX which I understand continued to be available in Japan Pentax has not offered a high end camera since about 1990. The MZ/S was a step in the right direction, but too little too late. Except for the unfortunate name the *istD was also a step in the right direction. In the old days Pentax was noted for its mid-line cameras. But the only thing you gave up buying one of them was a few features otherwise they were as good as any camera on the market, both in picture making ability and build quality. Yes, a Pentax H-3 was every bit as well built as an Nikon F, or a Leica M-3. The interesting thing is that it would not be any big deal to upgrade the istD to a higher-end camera. Higher rez, and maybe larger sensor. Get rid of the pop up flash, advanced amateurs and pros don't use them and they are delicate anyway. Drop the I don't know what I am doing features. Raise the price a bit. Oh yes, and change the stupid name grin. Of course, an MZ/D with a current sensor would be really nice. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- John Francis wrote: Pentax have been going broke trying to play to that niche for years. They don't have a viable future continuing along that line - there just aren't enough loyal, salivating customers today. Of course they might not have a viable future anyway, but at least they're doing what is necessary to try and stay in business. -- 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: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
- Original Message - From: Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 7:46 AM Subject: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors? Theres a lot of Pentax mystique going around at present and considering that other mythical brands are virtually dead (Contax and Leica), there should be market for an oddball company if they play their cards right. But that's my point. They are not playing their cards right. I liked Pentax the odd-ball, mystical company. The LX, the SMC lenses of mythical stature, the wacky focal length Limiteds, etc. To keep the oddball customers coming back, they had better come out with something to keep the fans of the LX, PZ-1, MZ-S type cameras around. Going for the bottom of the market is no longer being odd-ball it's being stupid and generic and setting them up for a failure in the marketplace... IMO. Christian
Re: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 8:22 AM Subject: Re: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors? fra: Steve Desjardins [EMAIL PROTECTED] . . . They should switch to Canon and not look back. (Stay on the PDML however; it just makes it more fung). I don't know. We've got enough people who have switched to Canon and are regretting it because they find that it didn't really make a difference to their photographs, but in stead of admitting it they stay around criticising Pentax for not being what they wanted it to be .-) If you are refering to me, you are wrong. I have no regrets about my decisions. My experieince, ie, going out and shooting pictures as much as I can, has improved my photography. I got results I was proud of with film and the LXen, MXen, etc. I got results I was proud of with the *ist D and I get results I'm proud of with the 20D. Why are some of my 20D pictures better than my *ist D pictures which were better than with film? It aint the camera or the media; it's me. And BTW, I'm going to hang around on this list because I still own Pentax cameras and lenses (not that it's a neccesity; Graywolf's FAQ don't mention it). And I'll voice my opinion WRT new DSLR releases because it's my god-given right to have an opinion of a company I had/have so much respect for. When they make stupid decisions (IMO) I'm going to tell it how I feel about it. Christian
Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
There are a great many people using their Leica R lenses on the Canon bodies. Over on the Leica list it seems that most everyone has at least one Canon body for their R lenses, and some have even sold off their Leica gear. These were the same folks who, a couple of years ago, were waving the Leica flag exclusively. It's sad to see the Canon juggernaut rolling over the photographic landscape as it is, but clearly Canon has the product that many people want when it comes to digital. Shel [Original Message] From: Alan Chan It is interesting to see EOS bodies can mount many other lenses such as Contax Zeiss. Just one more reason to go EOS to those who want digital for their old lenses.
Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
- Original Message - From: Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] My original dissapointment over the *istD was that it wasn't funky enough and didn't offer the design flair in order to get attention. I think Pentax need to design DSLR that looks less me too. I don't buy cameras as fashion accessories. They are merely tools to do the job. Ergonomics is WAY more important than design flair to me. Christian
Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: fra: Steve Desjardins [EMAIL PROTECTED] . . . They should switch to Canon and not look back. (Stay on the PDML however; it just makes it more fung). I don't know. We've got enough people who have switched to Canon and are regretting it because they find that it didn't really make a difference to their photographs, but in stead of admitting it they stay around criticising Pentax for not being what they wanted it to be .-) DagT And then we have Dr. Friedrich Cotty Frankenstein... -- A man's only as old as the woman he feels. --Groucho Marx
Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
If it weren't on the upswing in most places in the US it wouldn't be on the upswing outside. We are China's market... Graywolf wrote: The economy is on an upswing now too, at least outside the US. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Mishka Subject: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors? i am just curious: all this time i have been hearing about inexpensive excellent pentax lenses. what are they (i mean, both, inexpensive AND excellent)? Prices are on an upswing at the moment. I have, in the past, gotten some very excellent deals on good Pentax glass. William Robb -- A man's only as old as the woman he feels. --Groucho Marx
Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
På 2. jun. 2005 kl. 16.33 skrev Christian: - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] fra: Steve Desjardins [EMAIL PROTECTED] . . . They should switch to Canon and not look back. (Stay on the PDML however; it just makes it more fung). I don't know. We've got enough people who have switched to Canon and are regretting it because they find that it didn't really make a difference to their photographs, but in stead of admitting it they stay around criticising Pentax for not being what they wanted it to be .-) If you are refering to me, you are wrong. I have no regrets about my decisions. My experieince, ie, going out and shooting pictures as much as I can, has improved my photography. I got results I was proud of with film and the LXen, MXen, etc. I got results I was proud of with the *ist D and I get results I'm proud of with the 20D. Why are some of my 20D pictures better than my *ist D pictures which were better than with film? It aint the camera or the media; it's me. And BTW, I'm going to hang around on this list because I still own Pentax cameras and lenses (not that it's a neccesity; Graywolf's FAQ don't mention it). And I'll voice my opinion WRT new DSLR releases because it's my god-given right to have an opinion of a company I had/have so much respect for. When they make stupid decisions (IMO) I'm going to tell it how I feel about it. First: see the smiley .-) Second: Say whatever you want, as I will... DagT
Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
On 2 Jun 2005 at 8:10, Steve Desjardins wrote: I'm OK with the high end Pentax being the 20D equivalent, which will always lag behind Canon's release by a few years. I appreciate that the Pentax offerings will likely lag behind Canons line-up however it's pretty sad when the two bottom end cameras have far better buffer/processing speed and info screens that the top line camera. None of the Pentax line up provide comparable resolution to the current bottom line Canon offering (350D) and still no *ist D replacement in view. But hey that are small. 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: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
On 2/6/05, Dario Bonazza, discombobulated, unleashed: If me, 20 years ago I could not even give it a thought, for 2 excellent reasons: 1) It did not exist (this is also a good reason for Paul ;-) 2) I couldn't afford such a cost (even a good deal on such a beast) Dario The point I was making was that most of us become more patient the older we get :-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
On 2 Jun 2005 at 8:02, Shel Belinkoff wrote: It's sad to see the Canon juggernaut rolling over the photographic landscape as it is, but clearly Canon has the product that many people want when it comes to digital. The thing is that they got there by listening to their customers, so well they deserve it IMO. 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: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
Maybe in Australia the bottom line camera in the Canon line is the TX but the Rebel D is still being sold in the US. Rob Studdert wrote: On 2 Jun 2005 at 8:10, Steve Desjardins wrote: I'm OK with the high end Pentax being the 20D equivalent, which will always lag behind Canon's release by a few years. I appreciate that the Pentax offerings will likely lag behind Canons line-up however it's pretty sad when the two bottom end cameras have far better buffer/processing speed and info screens that the top line camera. None of the Pentax line up provide comparable resolution to the current bottom line Canon offering (350D) and still no *ist D replacement in view. But hey that are small. 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 -- A man's only as old as the woman he feels. --Groucho Marx
Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
On 2/6/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed: I don't know. We've got enough people who have switched to Canon and are regretting it because they find that it didn't really make a difference to their photographs, but in stead of admitting it they stay around criticising Pentax for not being what they wanted it to be .-) If I was to wear a T shirt with the single most important slogan that summed up my entire life, it would say simply: No Regrets I switched because at the time there was no digital offering from Pentax. I waited over a year for something to happen, even a hint of something on the horizon. The MZ-D was announced and I thought - perfect - just what I wanted. But it was not to be. At least I took a few lenses with me for fun and for serious stuff. I don't regret anything I ever do, I don't understand anyone who does. If the shoe fits, wear it, and walk! :-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
On 2/6/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed: Perhaps. Although twenty years ago I couldn't afford it. By the time we earn enough to live somewhat decadently, we no longer have the energy or inclination. That's nature's way of making us older folk behave :-). Ain't *that* the truth! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
On 2/6/05, P. J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed: And then we have Dr. Friedrich Cotty Frankenstein... Thanks for the vote of confidence Peter...I think. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
On 2/6/05, DagT, discombobulated, unleashed: First: see the smiley .-) Your smiley lost an eye. or are you half-blind? note! :-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Rob Studdert wrote: The thing is that they got there by listening to their customers, so well they deserve it IMO. You mean their customers asked to change the mount? Kostas
Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
Of course, Canon said we're going to change the lens mount, you want that don't you... Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Rob Studdert wrote: The thing is that they got there by listening to their customers, so well they deserve it IMO. You mean their customers asked to change the mount? Kostas -- A man's only as old as the woman he feels. --Groucho Marx
Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
Christian wrote: But that's my point. They are not playing their cards right. I liked Pentax the odd-ball, mystical company. The LX, the SMC lenses of mythical stature, the wacky focal length Limiteds, etc. To keep the oddball customers coming back, they had better come out with something to keep the fans of the LX, PZ-1, MZ-S type cameras around. Going for the bottom of the market is no longer being odd-ball it's being stupid and generic and setting them up for a failure in the marketplace... IMO. I'm not saying it is nice that Pentax doesn't at present offer a high-end K-mount body. But the fact is that the company have stated in public that they intend to make DSLR at all levels (you may choose to not believe them), after they have secured a user base. I don't think this qualifies for not playing the cards right. I don't believe Pentax can sell an EOS-1DS clone; precious few high-end Pentax users would buy one (and there aren't that many of them anyway) and not a single Canon user or potential Canon buyer would be interested unless it significantly outperformed what Canon can offer, something thats not very realistic. Pentax high-end market is strictly in medium format. This market is in addition virtually unexploited and no Canon equivalent competition is in sight in this segment. The 645D proves that Pentax is serious about high-end digital and theres nothing indication that Pentax will forever only make entry level *istD clones. Pål
Re: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
On 2 Jun 2005 at 10:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Either your needs have changed or Pentax has changed over the last few years, or you have simply misunderstood Pentax' philosophy (if they have any) from the beginning. I can't see much change in Pentax over the years I've used them, so maybe it's you. I think you actually alluded to the problem that a lot of long term users have with Pentax because you do understand it. They don't have a positive definitive direction, product and marketing wise they have really headed in all directions for some years now. This is not a great way to run a company. Consider the radical departure from the Z series bodies to the MZ and finally MZ-S, they were very different operationally and ergonomically. Then came the MZ-D fiasco which must have cost the company a small fortune in lost development revenues and consumer confidence. The fact that they then embarked on a complete departure from the MZ-S/D in the design of the *ist D line I assume cost them more cash and resources. The MZ-S and MZ-D should never have happened, though the MZ-S was a beautiful camera the development of the pair were plain and simple bad management decisions. And I'd bet to top it off they played a part in the significant delay in the release of the first Pentax DSLRs too. Canon however has a history of continuity in design, good production management and regular releases. Granted Canon is a more affluent company and realistically Pentax could never hope to compete on a 1:1 basis with them, but really my guess is that through poor management it stifled many great opportunities in the market. 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: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
The problem is there is a Canon competitor to the upcoming 645D, the EOS-1DS. Look at the resolution specifications there's less than a 10% difference in resolution. Less than the EOS TX to the *ist-D. Pentax will have to significantly under sell not just any medium format competition but also the Canon to capture any market share. Professionals still using MF who haven't moved to Canon or Kodak, not many to Kodak I guess, will be weighing the difference in cost and advantages of Canon L lenses, vs the Pentax 645 lenses. I don't think Pentax will win many back, that's not to say that the Pentax lenses are inferior, just that the Canon is more versatile, and the image output is good enough. Pål Jensen wrote: Christian wrote: But that's my point. They are not playing their cards right. I liked Pentax the odd-ball, mystical company. The LX, the SMC lenses of mythical stature, the wacky focal length Limiteds, etc. To keep the oddball customers coming back, they had better come out with something to keep the fans of the LX, PZ-1, MZ-S type cameras around. Going for the bottom of the market is no longer being odd-ball it's being stupid and generic and setting them up for a failure in the marketplace... IMO. I'm not saying it is nice that Pentax doesn't at present offer a high-end K-mount body. But the fact is that the company have stated in public that they intend to make DSLR at all levels (you may choose to not believe them), after they have secured a user base. I don't think this qualifies for not playing the cards right. I don't believe Pentax can sell an EOS-1DS clone; precious few high-end Pentax users would buy one (and there aren't that many of them anyway) and not a single Canon user or potential Canon buyer would be interested unless it significantly outperformed what Canon can offer, something thats not very realistic. Pentax high-end market is strictly in medium format. This market is in addition virtually unexploited and no Canon equivalent competition is in sight in this segment. The 645D proves that Pentax is serious about high-end digital and theres nothing indication that Pentax will forever only make entry level *istD clones. Pål -- A man's only as old as the woman he feels. --Groucho Marx
Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
The mini-FAQ is not official. But as long as you think Pentax once made great cameras you are welcome here on the list. While I do not think I mentioned it in the FAQ, this is a really list for PEOPLE who like Pentax cameras, not a list about Pentax CAMERAS. A slightly different emphasis, but a whole lot different outlook. Now guys, Doug asked us not to break the list while he was gone (Actually it has happened once or twice). Besides I will tattle when I see him tomorrow grin. I wonder why I worry about a high-end Pentax, I can't even afford to drive over to GFM today. My Soc-Sec does not last from month-start to month-end anymore as it is. Luckily tomorrow is the beginning of my physical month. To be honest I don't personally feel Pentax has made a real camera since the MX. Luckily I now have two of them. Well beat up, actually they look worse the the two I used professionally in the 80's did when I sold them, so Frank thinks they are neat. I do not have an M85/2.0 any longer but I have the M100/2.8 to replace it and the M135/3.5, plus a Tokina ATX 80-200/2.8 and 2x converter to replace the 300mm/4.0. and a Vivitar 24/2.0 to replace the M28/3.5 I used to have. Only have one winder now however. While I love my Crown Graphic, it somehow just does not replace the Linhof Super Technica I used to have. I only need two things to go out and play with my toys. A little bit more money. And a lot more energy... graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Christian wrote: - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 8:22 AM Subject: Re: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors? fra: Steve Desjardins [EMAIL PROTECTED] . . . They should switch to Canon and not look back. (Stay on the PDML however; it just makes it more fung). I don't know. We've got enough people who have switched to Canon and are regretting it because they find that it didn't really make a difference to their photographs, but in stead of admitting it they stay around criticising Pentax for not being what they wanted it to be .-) If you are refering to me, you are wrong. I have no regrets about my decisions. My experieince, ie, going out and shooting pictures as much as I can, has improved my photography. I got results I was proud of with film and the LXen, MXen, etc. I got results I was proud of with the *ist D and I get results I'm proud of with the 20D. Why are some of my 20D pictures better than my *ist D pictures which were better than with film? It aint the camera or the media; it's me. And BTW, I'm going to hang around on this list because I still own Pentax cameras and lenses (not that it's a neccesity; Graywolf's FAQ don't mention it). And I'll voice my opinion WRT new DSLR releases because it's my god-given right to have an opinion of a company I had/have so much respect for. When they make stupid decisions (IMO) I'm going to tell it how I feel about it. Christian -- 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: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Rob Studdert wrote: The thing is that they got there by listening to their customers, so well they deserve it IMO. You mean their customers asked to change the mount? Kostas And said that they wanted to own great, back-crippling, lumps of camera that wake you up in the morning, turn the shower on, make you a cup of tea and tell you what a _wonderful_ photographer you are? Probably
Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
Not me! graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Cotty wrote: The point I was making was that most of us become more patient the older we get :-) -- 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: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
Much to what you say, Rob. At one time Pentax was an engineering company run by engineers. Then they decided they had to change, but seem never to have decided change to what?. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Rob Studdert wrote: On 2 Jun 2005 at 10:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Either your needs have changed or Pentax has changed over the last few years, or you have simply misunderstood Pentax' philosophy (if they have any) from the beginning. I can't see much change in Pentax over the years I've used them, so maybe it's you. I think you actually alluded to the problem that a lot of long term users have with Pentax because you do understand it. They don't have a positive definitive direction, product and marketing wise they have really headed in all directions for some years now. This is not a great way to run a company. Consider the radical departure from the Z series bodies to the MZ and finally MZ-S, they were very different operationally and ergonomically. Then came the MZ-D fiasco which must have cost the company a small fortune in lost development revenues and consumer confidence. The fact that they then embarked on a complete departure from the MZ-S/D in the design of the *ist D line I assume cost them more cash and resources. The MZ-S and MZ-D should never have happened, though the MZ-S was a beautiful camera the development of the pair were plain and simple bad management decisions. And I'd bet to top it off they played a part in the significant delay in the release of the first Pentax DSLRs too. Canon however has a history of continuity in design, good production management and regular releases. Granted Canon is a more affluent company and realistically Pentax could never hope to compete on a 1:1 basis with them, but really my guess is that through poor management it stifled many great opportunities in the market. 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 -- 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: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
This little dialogue brings up an interesting, to me, point. First, I would have no qualms about giving up features (like a built-in toaster oven and wide screen TV) that are found in many pro cameras for a simplified feature set and a smaller, lighter, easier-to-carry simpler to operate camera, whether film or digital. Of course, different people have different needs, but I cannot help but wonder how many here who are lamenting the lack of a high-end, pro camera would actually buy one, especially if the size were bloated like some Canon and Nikons, or are just complaining because they think Pentax should have a camera that meets the top end models of these brands in terms of features because it's good for Pentax's image. Having used a couple of Canons I really don't see what all the fuss is about. For example, Image Stabilization may be nice, but I'd prefer smaller lenses and bodies that don't need as much stabilization, and lenses that offer the image qualities that I like over lenses that have a feature set that needs to be adjusted, even minimally. I like to think that I know how to use my gear well enough that there's no need to rely upon electric motors, gyroscopes, software, chips (and maybe even dip), and what have you, in order to get a good photo. But that's just me ... or is it? From what I've seen there are quite a few istD owners here who use their cameras pretty much like standard manual cameras most of the time, sometimes with a concession to auto focus, and rarely use many of the modes and features and options. Maybe the Pentax Way really is to simpler, smaller, lighter, more basic cameras that produce good photos. Shel [Original Message] From: mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Date: 6/2/2005 10:41:38 AM Subject: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors? Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Rob Studdert wrote: The thing is that they got there by listening to their customers, so well they deserve it IMO. You mean their customers asked to change the mount? Kostas And said that they wanted to own great, back-crippling, lumps of camera that wake you up in the morning, turn the shower on, make you a cup of tea and tell you what a _wonderful_ photographer you are? Probably
Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
Many good points Shel, however the control aspect is what seems to be what is lost, first... Shel Belinkoff wrote: This little dialogue brings up an interesting, to me, point. First, I would have no qualms about giving up features (like a built-in toaster oven and wide screen TV) that are found in many pro cameras for a simplified feature set and a smaller, lighter, easier-to-carry simpler to operate camera, whether film or digital. Of course, different people have different needs, but I cannot help but wonder how many here who are lamenting the lack of a high-end, pro camera would actually buy one, especially if the size were bloated like some Canon and Nikons, or are just complaining because they think Pentax should have a camera that meets the top end models of these brands in terms of features because it's good for Pentax's image. Having used a couple of Canons I really don't see what all the fuss is about. For example, Image Stabilization may be nice, but I'd prefer smaller lenses and bodies that don't need as much stabilization, and lenses that offer the image qualities that I like over lenses that have a feature set that needs to be adjusted, even minimally. I like to think that I know how to use my gear well enough that there's no need to rely upon electric motors, gyroscopes, software, chips (and maybe even dip), and what have you, in order to get a good photo. But that's just me ... or is it? From what I've seen there are quite a few istD owners here who use their cameras pretty much like standard manual cameras most of the time, sometimes with a concession to auto focus, and rarely use many of the modes and features and options. Maybe the Pentax Way really is to simpler, smaller, lighter, more basic cameras that produce good photos. Shel [Original Message] From: mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Date: 6/2/2005 10:41:38 AM Subject: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors? Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Rob Studdert wrote: The thing is that they got there by listening to their customers, so well they deserve it IMO. You mean their customers asked to change the mount? Kostas And said that they wanted to own great, back-crippling, lumps of camera that wake you up in the morning, turn the shower on, make you a cup of tea and tell you what a _wonderful_ photographer you are? Probably -- A man's only as old as the woman he feels. --Groucho Marx
Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
Some very good points here Shel. Every time I think I might want to switch to Canon, I remind myself that the *istD is capable of doing everything I require at the moment. Yes, the slow and small buffer is a minus, but that's about the only thing that ever gets in my way. Some shooters do need certain high technology features. I think the IS will pay off for Christian who does a lot of nature photography. I do some nature photography but primarily for amusement. So the challenge of handholding a 400 without IS is part of the fun. I will move up to a higher resolution Pentax with a faster, bigger buffer when it comes along, but I'm quite happy with the way the current camera performs. This little dialogue brings up an interesting, to me, point. First, I would have no qualms about giving up features (like a built-in toaster oven and wide screen TV) that are found in many pro cameras for a simplified feature set and a smaller, lighter, easier-to-carry simpler to operate camera, whether film or digital. Of course, different people have different needs, but I cannot help but wonder how many here who are lamenting the lack of a high-end, pro camera would actually buy one, especially if the size were bloated like some Canon and Nikons, or are just complaining because they think Pentax should have a camera that meets the top end models of these brands in terms of features because it's good for Pentax's image. Having used a couple of Canons I really don't see what all the fuss is about. For example, Image Stabilization may be nice, but I'd prefer smaller lenses and bodies that don't need as much stabilization, and lenses that offer the image qualities that I like over lenses that have a feature set that needs to be adjusted, even minimally. I like to think that I know how to use my gear well enough that there's no need to rely upon electric motors, gyroscopes, software, chips (and maybe even dip), and what have you, in order to get a good photo. But that's just me ... or is it? From what I've seen there are quite a few istD owners here who use their cameras pretty much like standard manual cameras most of the time, sometimes with a concession to auto focus, and rarely use many of the modes and features and options. Maybe the Pentax Way really is to simpler, smaller, lighter, more basic cameras that produce good photos. Shel [Original Message] From: mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Date: 6/2/2005 10:41:38 AM Subject: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors? Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Rob Studdert wrote: The thing is that they got there by listening to their customers, so well they deserve it IMO. You mean their customers asked to change the mount? Kostas And said that they wanted to own great, back-crippling, lumps of camera that wake you up in the morning, turn the shower on, make you a cup of tea and tell you what a _wonderful_ photographer you are? Probably
Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
Control? Please elaborate ... what control does one give up? Shel [Original Message] From: P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Date: 6/2/2005 11:13:11 AM Subject: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors? Many good points Shel, however the control aspect is what seems to be what is lost, first... Shel Belinkoff wrote: This little dialogue brings up an interesting, to me, point. First, I would have no qualms about giving up features (like a built-in toaster oven and wide screen TV) that are found in many pro cameras for a simplified feature set and a smaller, lighter, easier-to-carry simpler to operate camera, whether film or digital. [...] But that's just me ... or is it? From what I've seen there are quite a few istD owners here who use their cameras pretty much like standard manual cameras most of the time, sometimes with a concession to auto focus, and rarely use many of the modes and features and options. Maybe the Pentax Way really is to simpler, smaller, lighter, more basic cameras that produce good photos. [Original Message] From: mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Date: 6/2/2005 10:41:38 AM Subject: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors? Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Rob Studdert wrote: The thing is that they got there by listening to their customers, so well they deserve it IMO. You mean their customers asked to change the mount? Kostas And said that they wanted to own great, back-crippling, lumps of camera that wake you up in the morning, turn the shower on, make you a cup of tea and tell you what a _wonderful_ photographer you are? Probably -- A man's only as old as the woman he feels. --Groucho Marx
Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
Agreed. I don't know if it's listening to their customers or simply turning out quality products with a large variety of choices. They are doing something right though. Tom C. The thing is that they got there by listening to their customers, so well they deserve it IMO.
Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
Don't forget, ADVERTISING, fast turnaround on new products, ADVERTISING, crushing the competition with the same or better feature set, etc. Face it, they are a huge powerhouse who are not about to let anybody get in their way. -- Bruce Thursday, June 2, 2005, 11:21:51 AM, you wrote: TC Agreed. I don't know if it's listening to their customers or simply turning TC out quality products with a large variety of choices. They are doing TC something right though. TC Tom C. The thing is that they got there by listening to their customers, so well they deserve it IMO.
Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
Paul, I am just about where you are. At this stage of what I do - portraits, weddings, events, some sports and scenics, the *istD is doing just fine. The buffer thing gets in the way sometimes, but I have to work around it the best I can. Most everything else works well enough for what I do. I'm not a huge proponent of IS or AF - I don't think that I would probably pay for an IS lens anyway. Usually I am in need of either lighter lenses or have moving subjects where the IS is really of no help. The amount of automation that I need is more than present in the current *istD. -- Best regards, Bruce Thursday, June 2, 2005, 11:16:30 AM, you wrote: pcn Some very good points here Shel. Every time I think I might pcn want to switch to Canon, I remind myself that the *istD is pcn capable of doing everything I require at the moment. Yes, the pcn slow and small buffer is a minus, but that's about the only thing pcn that ever gets in my way. Some shooters do need certain high pcn technology features. I think the IS will pay off for Christian pcn who does a lot of nature photography. I do some nature pcn photography but primarily for amusement. So the challenge of pcn handholding a 400 without IS is part of the fun. I will move up pcn to a higher resolution Pentax with a faster, bigger buffer when pcn it comes along, but I'm quite happy with the way the current pcn camera performs. This little dialogue brings up an interesting, to me, point. First, I would have no qualms about giving up features (like a built-in toaster oven and wide screen TV) that are found in many pro cameras for a simplified feature set and a smaller, lighter, easier-to-carry simpler to operate camera, whether film or digital. Of course, different people have different needs, but I cannot help but wonder how many here who are lamenting the lack of a high-end, pro camera would actually buy one, especially if the size were bloated like some Canon and Nikons, or are just complaining because they think Pentax should have a camera that meets the top end models of these brands in terms of features because it's good for Pentax's image. Having used a couple of Canons I really don't see what all the fuss is about. For example, Image Stabilization may be nice, but I'd prefer smaller lenses and bodies that don't need as much stabilization, and lenses that offer the image qualities that I like over lenses that have a feature set that needs to be adjusted, even minimally. I like to think that I know how to use my gear well enough that there's no need to rely upon electric motors, gyroscopes, software, chips (and maybe even dip), and what have you, in order to get a good photo. But that's just me ... or is it? From what I've seen there are quite a few istD owners here who use their cameras pretty much like standard manual cameras most of the time, sometimes with a concession to auto focus, and rarely use many of the modes and features and options. Maybe the Pentax Way really is to simpler, smaller, lighter, more basic cameras that produce good photos. Shel [Original Message] From: mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Date: 6/2/2005 10:41:38 AM Subject: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors? Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Rob Studdert wrote: The thing is that they got there by listening to their customers, so well they deserve it IMO. You mean their customers asked to change the mount? Kostas And said that they wanted to own great, back-crippling, lumps of camera that wake you up in the morning, turn the shower on, make you a cup of tea and tell you what a _wonderful_ photographer you are? Probably
Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
On 2 Jun 2005 at 11:03, Shel Belinkoff wrote: But that's just me ... or is it? From what I've seen there are quite a few istD owners here who use their cameras pretty much like standard manual cameras most of the time, sometimes with a concession to auto focus, and rarely use many of the modes and features and options. Maybe the Pentax Way really is to simpler, smaller, lighter, more basic cameras that produce good photos. I use my DSLR in MF more 95% of the time and auto/manual exposure 50/50 and I do enjoy it's size. That said there is no reason that Pentax could put a full frame or higher pixel density sensor in a camera the same size as or just a little larger than the *ist D. 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: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
Hi Paul ... Higher resolution and a faster, bigger buffer make sense, shouldn't add bulk or weight to a camera. They are internal improvements that are essentially transparent, like putting a more powerful engine in an auto. It just goes about its job without a lot of interaction between it and the driver. Shel [Original Message] I will move up to a higher resolution Pentax with a faster, bigger buffer when it comes along, but I'm quite happy with the way the current camera performs.
Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, P. J. Alling wrote: Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Rob Studdert wrote: The thing is that they got there by listening to their customers, so well they deserve it IMO. You mean their customers asked to change the mount? Kostas Of course, Canon said we're going to change the lens mount, you want that don't you... Not sure what point you are making. Kostas
Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
On 3 Jun 2005 at 4:38, Rob Studdert wrote: I use my DSLR in MF more 95% of the time and auto/manual exposure 50/50 and I do enjoy it's size. That said there is no reason that Pentax could put a full frame or higher pixel density sensor in a camera the same size as or just a little larger than the *ist D. I'll try again for the sake of basic comprehension: I use my DSLR in MF focus more than 95% of the time and in auto/manual exposure around 50/50 and I do enjoy it's size. That said there is no reason that Pentax couldn't put a full frame or higher pixel density sensor in a camera the same size as or just a little larger than the *ist D. 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: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
As they strip features out of the body, manual control seems to be short changed these days. Shel Belinkoff wrote: Control? Please elaborate ... what control does one give up? Shel [Original Message] From: P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Date: 6/2/2005 11:13:11 AM Subject: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors? Many good points Shel, however the control aspect is what seems to be what is lost, first... Shel Belinkoff wrote: This little dialogue brings up an interesting, to me, point. First, I would have no qualms about giving up features (like a built-in toaster oven and wide screen TV) that are found in many pro cameras for a simplified feature set and a smaller, lighter, easier-to-carry simpler to operate camera, whether film or digital. [...] But that's just me ... or is it? From what I've seen there are quite a few istD owners here who use their cameras pretty much like standard manual cameras most of the time, sometimes with a concession to auto focus, and rarely use many of the modes and features and options. Maybe the Pentax Way really is to simpler, smaller, lighter, more basic cameras that produce good photos. [Original Message] From: mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Date: 6/2/2005 10:41:38 AM Subject: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors? Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Rob Studdert wrote: The thing is that they got there by listening to their customers, so well they deserve it IMO. You mean their customers asked to change the mount? Kostas And said that they wanted to own great, back-crippling, lumps of camera that wake you up in the morning, turn the shower on, make you a cup of tea and tell you what a _wonderful_ photographer you are? Probably -- A man's only as old as the woman he feels. --Groucho Marx -- A man's only as old as the woman he feels. --Groucho Marx
Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
One thought that bugs me with the Canon 1Ds MkII is how the heck the Canon lenses can resolve enough detail to make 16 mill. pixels worthwhile on a 36x24mm chip. I suspect it doesn't. In my mind, at least, a MedF digital makes more sense in this respect. Pixels spread out on a larger area. This will have some implications on the evaluation of lenses too. I'm sure some photo journal is going to pick up on that pretty soon, and compare the Mamiya 645 digital to EOS. :-) To tell you the truth, I've already started saving for a digital MedF. My the time I have the money there should be at least a couple of models to choose from, but heck...:-) Cheers, Jostein - Original Message - From: P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 7:13 PM Subject: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors? The problem is there is a Canon competitor to the upcoming 645D, the EOS-1DS. Look at the resolution specifications there's less than a 10% difference in resolution. Less than the EOS TX to the *ist-D. Pentax will have to significantly under sell not just any medium format competition but also the Canon to capture any market share. Professionals still using MF who haven't moved to Canon or Kodak, not many to Kodak I guess, will be weighing the difference in cost and advantages of Canon L lenses, vs the Pentax 645 lenses. I don't think Pentax will win many back, that's not to say that the Pentax lenses are inferior, just that the Canon is more versatile, and the image output is good enough. Pål Jensen wrote: Christian wrote: But that's my point. They are not playing their cards right. I liked Pentax the odd-ball, mystical company. The LX, the SMC lenses of mythical stature, the wacky focal length Limiteds, etc. To keep the oddball customers coming back, they had better come out with something to keep the fans of the LX, PZ-1, MZ-S type cameras around. Going for the bottom of the market is no longer being odd-ball it's being stupid and generic and setting them up for a failure in the marketplace... IMO. I'm not saying it is nice that Pentax doesn't at present offer a high-end K-mount body. But the fact is that the company have stated in public that they intend to make DSLR at all levels (you may choose to not believe them), after they have secured a user base. I don't think this qualifies for not playing the cards right. I don't believe Pentax can sell an EOS-1DS clone; precious few high-end Pentax users would buy one (and there aren't that many of them anyway) and not a single Canon user or potential Canon buyer would be interested unless it significantly outperformed what Canon can offer, something thats not very realistic. Pentax high-end market is strictly in medium format. This market is in addition virtually unexploited and no Canon equivalent competition is in sight in this segment. The 645D proves that Pentax is serious about high-end digital and theres nothing indication that Pentax will forever only make entry level *istD clones. Pål -- A man's only as old as the woman he feels. --Groucho Marx
Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
- Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 2:39 PM Subject: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors? Hi Paul ... Higher resolution and a faster, bigger buffer make sense, shouldn't add bulk or weight to a camera. They are internal improvements that are essentially transparent, like putting a more powerful engine in an auto. It just goes about its job without a lot of interaction between it and the driver. more car anaologies. Ok, so Ford puts out a 300HP Mustang. Chevy puts out a 310HP Camaro. Ford, to make its loyal customers happy, put out a 320HP Mustang and Chevy counters. At the other end, Chevy has a 50HP Chevette and Ford puts out a 75HP Escort. Chevy counters with a 77HP Chevette to gain new entry-level consumers. why can't Pentax put a bigger motor in the D? :-) Christian
