being unable to challenge someone that is about to go out of business is
done by merely staying in business.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2005 10:07 PM
Subject: Re: AW: AW: Rumors About Pentax's Future
Your point?
ent: Saturday, May 28, 2005 12:07 PM
Subject: Re: AW: AW: Rumors About Pentax's Future
Maybe they think that they can challenge Rollie for the DMF market.
--
A man's only as old as the woman he feels.
--Groucho Marx
M
Subject: Re: AW: AW: Rumors About Pentax's Future
Maybe they think that they can challenge Rollie for the DMF market.
I've said that before too. On the other hand Rollie is the "expensive"
solution, and they won't be
competing with Canon and Kodak, (Nikon isn't in the same sensor league yet).
Steve Desjardins wrote:
I'm really not sure what they would be competing about. As Bruce
mentioned in the other pos
I'm really not sure what they would be competing about. As Bruce
mentioned in the other post, the real competition here are the top end
Nikon and Canon DSLRs. As nice as a big sensor may be, there just might
not be much a market for it.
Steven Desjardins
Department of Chemistry
Washington and L
I have to agree with this. The cost of the body along with close
competition from Canon and possibly Nikon will make MF dry up. There
will need to be a bigger difference. At least with large format,
along with the huge negative/sensor, you have perspective and DOF
control that can't be had in a
Maybe they think that they can challenge Rollie for the DMF market.
Steve Desjardins wrote:
I hope they begin to see it as a misstep. An expensive MF digital is a
hugh non-mover. The whole format question no longer revolves around 35
vs MF except for old lenses.
Steven Desjardins
Department
I hope they begin to see it as a misstep. An expensive MF digital is a
hugh non-mover. The whole format question no longer revolves around 35
vs MF except for old lenses.
Steven Desjardins
Department of Chemistry
Washington and Lee University
Lexington, VA 24450
(540) 458-8873
FAX: (540) 458-88
lens, they
received less of them than they ordered.
Leon
>-Original Message-
>From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2005 4:16 AM
>To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
>Subject: Re: AW: AW: Rumors About Pentax's Future
>
>it's been at le
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 1:01 PM
Subject: Re: AW: AW: Rumors About Pentax's Future
BTW, I got my KEH catalog in the mail and was stunned by the lack of
used Pentax AF primes. I initially thought that KEH might be divesting
themselves, but "Top Ten Most Wanted" ad on the back cov
I would have no trouble advising some folks to go with Pentax since I
suspect that they will never want a high end system or if they would
appreciate being able to buy used lenses. The "of course" problem with
Pentax is these lingering doubts about their survival.
BTW, I got my KEH catalog in th
Never said they were. :)
Tom C.
From: Steve Jolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: AW: AW: Rumors About Pentax's Future
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 09:45:16 +0100
Tom C wrote:
Because there's still a concept called &q
"E.R.N. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>glenn murphy wrote:
>
>> Sometimes I try to paddle upstream, other times I just get the hell
>> out of the water and hike.
>>
>Mark!!
Got it!
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
glenn murphy wrote:
Sometimes I try to paddle upstream, other times I just get the hell
out of the water and hike.
Mark!!
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Had I not so many Pentax lenses, I'd be looking seriously at a Canon, in
part because with an adapter it'll take Leica glass, but also because there
are lots of lenses and accessories for it, just like there was for Pentax
about fifteen years ago. The 20D seems like a good
"John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>stop whingeing.
Not directed at anyone in particular: John's advice here is really good
:)
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
t; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "pentax list"
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 7:28 PM
Subject: Re: AW: AW: Rumors About Pentax's Future
Oh I think Pentax knows exactly where it's going. Pity that I can't
agree, and have already cast my vote. That said, I still love the Pentax
equ
Tom C wrote:
Because there's still a concept called "Freedom of Speech" here, as much
as I hate using that grossly overused and abused cliche.
You can say what you like, but other people aren't obliged to appreciate
it and/or respond positively. :-)
S
Rob Studdert wrote:
I learnt early that it's wiser to paddle with the current than against.
I'd have to say it's easier to go with the current, but whether or not
it's wiser depends on where you're trying to get to. I find going with
the current to be very boring. Sometimes I try to paddl
Based on history, the bone from Pentax isn't due for at least a few
more months. They're never going to release more than one new digital
SLR in a year. And while the D645 seemed a misstep, that announcement
may have been only a frantic attempt to remain in the MF market for a
while pending fut
Message -
From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "pentax list"
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 7:28 PM
Subject: Re: AW: AW: Rumors About Pentax's Future
Oh I think Pentax knows exactly where it's going. Pity that I can't
agree, and have already
Fortune favours the brave. Or so 'tis said.
John
On Fri, 27 May 2005 00:50:19 +0100, Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On 27 May 2005 at 0:45, John Forbes wrote:
I hope Pentax will survive as a quirky niche player offering petite,
highly ergonomic bodies and some superb lenses.
Based on the carping on the DP review Minolta forum I kind of doubt it.
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 26 May 2005 at 17:08, William Robb wrote:
I wonder how much of that is bad importers.
I've bought 4 new lenses in the past year or so, the only one that took time to
deliver was the 15mm (which t
On 27 May 2005 at 0:45, John Forbes wrote:
> I hope Pentax will survive as a quirky niche player offering petite,
> highly ergonomic bodies and some superb lenses.
>
> For those Pentax doesn't, and won't, support, we can only say farewell.
> But for the other 98%, come on in, the water's lov
On 26 May 2005 at 17:08, William Robb wrote:
> I wonder how much of that is bad importers.
> I've bought 4 new lenses in the past year or so, the only one that took time
> to
> deliver was the 15mm (which took a couple of months). The others were
> delivered
> in a week to 10 days from Pentax Ca
; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: AW: AW: Rumors About Pentax's Future
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 00:09:10 +0100
Tom,
I wasn't meaning to direct my remarks at you specifically. And whilst
I take your point about f
On 26/5/05, Tom C, discombobulated, unleashed:
>Pentax has deeper pockets than any of us individually, so I'm loathe to
>throw money at a company that may not know where it's going.
Oh I think Pentax knows exactly where it's going. Pity that I can't
agree, and have already cast my vote. That sai
L PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: AW: AW: Rumors About Pentax's Future
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 00:09:10 +0100
Tom,
I wasn't meaning to direct my remarks at you specifically. And whilst I
take your point about freedom of spe
You're right. Pentax lenses are a bit thin on the ground at the moment.
But I have bought two lenses recently on Ebay at two thirds or three
quarters of new price. By sustaining second-hand prices, I have helped
Pentax sell more new lenses (or would have done, if you could get them.
:-)
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert"
Subject: Re: AW: AW: Rumors About Pentax's Future
Why don't you support the brand and buy some new
lenses, oh sorry that's right they are near impossible to get now
I wonder how much of that is bad importers.
of Speech" here, as much
as I hate using that grossly overused and abused cliche.
Tom C.
From: "John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: AW: AW: Rumors About Pentax's Future
Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 23:34
On 26 May 2005 at 23:34, John Forbes wrote:
> So why don't you just go off and buy a bloody Canon and unsubscribe? This
> is a
> Pentax list, but sometimes it reads like a piece of Canon Marketing
> propaganda.
>
> I've got two *ist D, and several superb lenses which can't be bettered by
>
On 26 May 2005 at 23:24, John Forbes wrote:
> It's easier. Not necessarily wiser, or better.
The wiser try to make things easier and better.
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT) +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax
x Loyalist list.
Not trying to be harsh...
Tom C.
From: "John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: AW: AW: Rumors About Pentax's Future
Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 23:34:50 +0100
So why don't you ju
- Original Message -
From: "Tom C"
Subject: Re: AW: AW: Rumors About Pentax's Future
Because there's still a concept called "Freedom of Speech" here, as much
as I hate using that grossly overused and abused cliche.
110%, baby.
William Robb
Because there's still a concept called "Freedom of Speech" here, as much as
I hate using that grossly overused and abused cliche.
Tom C.
From: "John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: AW: A
So why don't you just go off and buy a bloody Canon and unsubscribe? This
is a Pentax list, but sometimes it reads like a piece of Canon Marketing
propaganda.
I've got two *ist D, and several superb lenses which can't be bettered by
Canon at any price. Using Ebay (which still exists, by t
It's easier. Not necessarily wiser, or better.
John
On Thu, 26 May 2005 16:21:57 +0100, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In a message dated 5/26/2005 8:19:28 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I learnt early that it's wiser to paddle with the current than against.
Cheers,
Rob S
Had I not so many Pentax lenses, I'd be looking seriously at a Canon, in
part because with an adapter it'll take Leica glass, but also because there
are lots of lenses and accessories for it, just like there was for Pentax
about fifteen years ago. The 20D seems like a good way to go.
Shel
> [O
From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I recently recommended a Canon 20D to a colleague who owned no 35mm gear to
speak of. I don't think I would recommend a 350D. Build quality seems
inferior. I did mention that Pentax would be a decent choice because of the
backward compatibility and the
It's funny, the average photographer can't afford the bells and whistles
that Canon can sell you. I have an acquaintance
who decided to get a DSLR he had some Canon lenses so he got a D20. He
got the EFS 17-85 [IS] with the camera.
He decided he needed something longer so he picked up the Can
On 26 May 2005 at 11:27, Christian wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >
> > I don't subscribe to that concept at all, I always recommend Windows as it
> has
> > the largest support base, largest array of software and is compatible with
> the
>
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I don't subscribe to that concept at all, I always recommend Windows as it
has
> the largest support base, largest array of software and is compatible with
the
> widest range of hardware, not because Microsoft is Microsoft
In a message dated 5/26/2005 8:19:28 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I learnt early that it's wiser to paddle with the current than against.
Cheers,
Rob Studdert
===
Right. Unfortunately. Not always as fun, though.
Marnie aka Doe :-)
On 26 May 2005 at 16:09, Toralf Lund wrote:
> Possibly. Or maybe I'd recommend a Nikon... But that's me; I sort of
> like being different and/or have a certain prejudice against selecting
> the market leader...I'd recommend a Mac or Linux box over MS Windows any
> day, too, if you know what I'm
On 26 May 2005 at 14:04, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
> On Thu, 26 May 2005, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>
> > buy high quality used lenses, but I said that conventional wisdom would
> > suggest going with the Canon.
>
> I am wondering what will happen to conventional wisdom if Canon is the
> only one
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 26 May 2005 at 0:44, Alan Chan wrote:
My observation is that the success of Pentax back in the Spotmatic and M series
period was due to their unique yet affordable SLR bodies. However, since the A
series, the lack of these quality has failed to capture the attention o
In a message dated 5/26/2005 6:05:46 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 26 May 2005, Paul Stenquist wrote:
> buy high quality used lenses, but I said that conventional wisdom would
> suggest going with the Canon.
I am wondering what will happen to conventional wisdom if
On Thu, 26 May 2005, Paul Stenquist wrote:
> buy high quality used lenses, but I said that conventional wisdom would
> suggest going with the Canon.
I am wondering what will happen to conventional wisdom if Canon is the
only one left standing. 7K for the entry-level 350XXL? Not that it's
anyone's
I recently recommended a Canon 20D to a colleague who owned no 35mm
gear to speak of. I don't think I would recommend a 350D. Build quality
seems inferior. I did mention that Pentax would be a decent choice
because of the backward compatibility and the resulting opportunity to
buy high quality
No, you're right. But many have been pining for pro level cameras from
Pentax for a long time. Remember back in the days before digital how
the list whined for a new LX? Now some expect Pentax to match Canon's
top of the line offerings. Ain't gonna happen. But we'll continue to
get very good ca
--- Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So if someone with no SLR kit and with no potential access to your lenses
> asked
> you for honest advice on which entry level DLSR kit to consider would point
> them the Pentax way (ie *ist Ds) or towards Canon (350D)?
>
> I'm great at selling Cano
On 26 May 2005 at 0:44, Alan Chan wrote:
> My observation is that the success of Pentax back in the Spotmatic and M
> series
> period was due to their unique yet affordable SLR bodies. However, since the A
> series, the lack of these quality has failed to capture the attention of the
> general pu
--- "keller.schaefer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The FA 3/35 is not even in the Pentax Germany price list since 12 months -
> and Germany is not a niche market for Pentax.
>
> It is nice to know that B&H got hold of some from wherever but what kind of
> sales strategy is that? Pentax did have a
The FA 3/35 is not even in the Pentax Germany price list since 12 months -
and Germany is not a niche market for Pentax.
It is nice to know that B&H got hold of some from wherever but what kind of
sales strategy is that? Pentax did have a decent lens range for 40 years
until now. How can they poss
55 matches
Mail list logo
