On May 11, 2007, at 7:26 AM, Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:
They probably should
have gone ahead and produced the full frame digital in spite of the
problems with the Philips chip.
Contax did it... and they went out of business two years ago.
Yes, but for totally different reasons. Contax was
- Original Message -
From: Paul Stenquist
Subject: Re: Pentax - Selling HQ and Apparently Drops 645D
I agree. But in terms of retail exposure, it's gotten much better for
Pentax in the last six months. You couldn't find a Pentax *ist camera
in any of the local camera stores
The lens line has been in existence for years. I see no FF DSLR.
From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2007/05/11 Fri AM 10:24:09 GMT
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Pentax - Selling HQ and Apparently Drops 645D
Nonsense. Pentax has never obsoleted a line
List
Subject: Re: Pentax - Selling HQ and Apparently Drops 645D
The lens line has been in existence for years. I see no FF DSLR.
From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2007/05/11 Fri AM 10:24:09 GMT
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Pentax - Selling HQ
- Selling HQ and Apparently Drops 645D
Nonsense. Pentax has never obsoleted a line of lenses before they're
introduced.
On May 11, 2007, at 3:16 AM, mike wilson wrote:
Unfortunately, it's not. Pentax has made its whole lens line
obsolete once before and has more than once introduced
- Original Message -
From: Fernando Terrazzino
Subject: Re: Pentax - Selling HQ and Apparently Drops 645D
You lost me, come again?
Mike's still incoherent about Blair stepping down.
William Robb
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo
heard of Pentax.
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Paul Stenquist
Subject: Re: Pentax - Selling HQ and Apparently Drops 645D
I agree. But in terms of retail exposure, it's gotten much better for
Pentax in the last six months. You couldn't find a Pentax *ist camera
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Pentax - Selling HQ and Apparently Drops 645D
The expensive DA* lenses are really a new line. They're just beginning to
appear. Pentax won't obsolete them. But as many have said, they seem to
provide enough coverage
Unfortunately Pentax Imaging would just be a pimple on Hoya's ass.
Bob Shell wrote:
On May 11, 2007, at 7:26 AM, Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:
They probably should
have gone ahead and produced the full frame digital in spite of the
problems with the Philips chip.
Contax did it...
]
The lens line has been in existence for years. I see no FF DSLR.
From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2007/05/11 Fri AM 10:24:09 GMT
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Pentax - Selling HQ and Apparently Drops 645D
Nonsense. Pentax has never obsoleted
completely missing anymore.
A few good reviews don't hurt either.
-Brendan
On May 10, 2007, at 11:12 PM, William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Paul Stenquist
Subject: Re: Pentax - Selling HQ and Apparently
Drops 645D
But they're also well made and reasonably
Message -
From: Brendan MacRae
Subject: Re: Pentax - Selling HQ and Apparently
Drops 645D
Thanks, Tom. It's funny how some presume so
much.
I
love Pentax. I love the K10D. So, kill me if I
also
want the company to be able compete with the big
guys
and offer gear
Well, I don't have a SR yet and although I am sure it is a fantastic
tool I find that by 1/15 of a sec. my main problem is people's movement
which Pentax SR won't fight.
To be honest I've yet to test *ist DS at ISO 1600 and 3200 against color
ISO 800 film pushed 1 and 2 stops. I know digital
On 5/11/07, Pawel Bartuzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
I suppose Canon 5D would be an option, but now it costs 4 times
as much as an *ist DS.
I would say it costs more than that...
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ferand/
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
I note these days very little is mentioned by users or advertisers
about the K10Ds 22 bit ADC ;-)
--
Rob Studdert
Spoiler.
Tom C.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Digital Image Studio pisze:
On 11/05/07, Pawel Bartuzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For me the difference between FF and APS-C is at shooting time. When I
shoot film then SMC K 18/3.5, K 28/2 and 35/2 all behave as they are
supposed to. When using my DSLR I suddenly loose all my low light wide
The 22 bit ADC is probably a carry over from the 645d. Looking at the
development of the 645 vis a vis the MZ series cameras I'd say that a
lot of the processing was developed jointly. That ADC would probably
have meant a lot more in the medium format DSLR than it means in the K10D.
Tom C
, Circuit City, etc.), seem
to have never heard of Pentax.
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Paul Stenquist
Subject: Re: Pentax - Selling HQ and Apparently Drops 645D
I agree. But in terms of retail exposure, it's gotten much better for
Pentax in the last six months
On 12/05/07, P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The 22 bit ADC is probably a carry over from the 645d. Looking at the
development of the 645 vis a vis the MZ series cameras I'd say that a
lot of the processing was developed jointly. That ADC would probably
have meant a lot more in the
On 10/05/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmmm. Gave it more thought. If they are banned from seeking outside
investment until the time frame with Hoya runs out, it could be a sneaky
underhanded
move. That selling a building is the ONLY way they can bring in extra money
at
In a message dated 5/9/2007 10:55:12 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There is nothing underhanded or illegal about what they are proposing.
If they own the building and wish to liquidate it that's their
business, it's irrelevant to the Hoya merger deal.
--
Rob Studdert
In a message dated 5/9/2007 10:55:12 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There is nothing underhanded or illegal about what they are proposing.
If they own the building and wish to liquidate it that's their
business, it's irrelevant to the Hoya merger deal.
--
Rob Studdert
On 10/05/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And sorry if you think I am stupid or something, but I don't remember
reading on list the suggestion that they have a buyer already lined up.
Because it
is only a clever move is a buyer IS already lined up. Otherwise it's a pretty
On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 08:08:30PM -0700, Brendan MacRae wrote:
--- John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 09:18:02PM -0400, Christian
wrote:
Brendan MacRae wrote:
--- John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For most people, the (significant) extra
--- Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/5/07, John Francis, discombobulated, unleashed:
That doesn't seem to be true. While the Canon 5D
is selling
reasonably well, it's not selling in anything like
the numbers
of the smaller-sensor models.
For most people, the (significant) extra
for the 645D. My point being that there
would be MUCH more interest in the former over the
latter.
Apparently Pentax agrees with me since at least
they've killed the 645D. And although you have no
evidence to support your contention that a FF DSLR
isn't what most people want (apologies to Cotty), I
want one
Brendan, there is one thing you seem to be neglecting. It is purely
virtual and purely immaterial - people who were shooting 35 mm gear
*used* to 35 mm frame, so that full frame DSLR does not rock their
boat, so to say. I for one, would love to have full frame camera just
for that reason.
But
This one time, at band camp, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, and not too long ago it was thought by the majority on this list
that digital was too expensive and no one would ever buy a DSLR.
A few years ago, many of us figured Pentax would never put a DSLR on the
market.
On 10/05/07, Kevin Waterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is true, but is the DSLR market profitable for pentax to continue with or
will it be dropped with other non-profitable products?
Reports suggest the K mount DSLRs will be the only camera equipment
line that they continue with in the
This one time, at band camp, Digital Image Studio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think you are closer to the mark but the question is who would have
pulled $10k+ out of their wallet for the 645D?
I would have 2 in a snap for my business.
Kevin
--
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on
On 10/5/07, Brendan MacRae, discombobulated, unleashed:
And although you have no
evidence to support your contention that a FF DSLR
isn't what most people want (apologies to Cotty),
No need to apologise. I want one as well, but I want better build
quality, weatherproofing and performance before
From: John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2007/05/10 Thu AM 01:37:34 GMT
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Pentax - Selling HQ and Apparently Drops 645D
On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 09:18:02PM -0400, Christian wrote:
Brendan MacRae wrote:
--- John Francis [EMAIL
Cotty, that's true only because you drive Range Rover ;-). Or at least
were driving one couple of years ago and most probably drive another
similar car now ;-).
Just in case - I am being only semi-serious.
On 5/10/07, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/5/07, Brendan MacRae, discombobulated,
Brendan MacRae [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First of all, from what I've seen, larger sensors
produce better images. Call it BS if you want, but why
on earth would a company make a camera with a larger
sensor if there was no noticeable increase in image
quality. Oh, and then charge three times
On 10/05/07, Kevin Waterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My impression is that they will go with point-and-shoot and drop all other
lines.
Pentax have had much success in the ps market.
Reports to the market indicate otherwise:
Pentax will continue to overhaul less profitable businesses. It
This one time, at band camp, Digital Image Studio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/05/07, Kevin Waterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is true, but is the DSLR market profitable for pentax to continue with
or
will it be dropped with other non-profitable products?
Reports suggest the K
Buying back your stock is seen as a healthy move by most long term
investors. And it generally results in an increase in share value.
Paul
On May 10, 2007, at 12:37 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 5/9/2007 8:28:53 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This
On May 10, 2007, at 3:01 AM, Brendan MacRae wrote:
I talk to him all the time and he's really craving the
quality that he's seeing from guys on his Canon
forums. I've subscribed myself to one and have seen
some of this work and it blows me away. Much of it
looks like MF to me.
Then
In the press release they specifically said they were going to focus
on DSLR for entry level and intermediate users.
Paul
On May 10, 2007, at 6:00 AM, Kevin Waterson wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Digital Image Studio
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/05/07, Kevin Waterson [EMAIL
On May 9, 2007, at 6:41 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote:
No one here or on any other photo forum has ever been able to provide
proof that Tokina is a part of Hoya group and neither company appears
in each others public finical statements.
The group name is THK. Tokina-Hoya-Kenko.
Bob
--
On 10/5/07, Boris Liberman, discombobulated, unleashed:
Cotty, that's true only because you drive Range Rover ;-). Or at least
were driving one couple of years ago and most probably drive another
similar car now ;-).
Just in case - I am being only semi-serious.
You're a better man than me
Tokyo real estate has absurdly high book values, (or at least it used
to). Pentax could probably sell it a s substantial paper loss, to make
it look attractive, yet collect oodles of money. On the other hand no
one may be able to afford it at anything approaching the price they need
for
That seems to be a US only distributor. There's no equivalent in Japan,
at least no in the public record on the web. There is however a Kenko
Corp, an Hoya Corp, and a Tokina Corp.
Bob Shell wrote:
On May 9, 2007, at 6:41 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote:
No one here or on any other
Digital Image Studio wrote:
But they just can't go on increasing the density of APS sized sensor
ad infinitum, it will only end in tears.
It's true. If the K1D is 14 megapixels as reported, it'll certainly
have to have a larger sensor than APS-C if they're going to meet users'
Actually you could have done the math...
Mark Roberts wrote:
Digital Image Studio wrote:
But they just can't go on increasing the density of APS sized sensor
ad infinitum, it will only end in tears.
It's true. If the K1D is 14 megapixels as reported, it'll certainly
have to have
On 10/05/07, Bob Shell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 9, 2007, at 6:41 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote:
No one here or on any other photo forum has ever been able to provide
proof that Tokina is a part of Hoya group and neither company appears
in each others public finical statements.
P. J. Alling wrote:
Mark Roberts wrote:
Digital Image Studio wrote:
But they just can't go on increasing the density of APS sized sensor
ad infinitum, it will only end in tears.
It's true. If the K1D is 14 megapixels as reported, it'll certainly
have to have a larger sensor than
Hi friends,
Maybe this is not news, but to make sure.
Pentax is to open its middle term plan tomorrow, with their business
performance of FY2006. Their biggest shareholder, an investment fund,
is proposing to nominate the ex-president of the company as a board
member, which means the fund urges
Thanks for the heads up. The factually correct information is very
important both in general and in this very community in particular.
Thanks!
On 5/10/07, Takehiko Ueda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi friends,
Maybe this is not news, but to make sure.
Pentax is to open its middle term plan
Didn't see this posted:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchivesid=a3WWqqxLUotM
Pretty much the same
On 5/9/07, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just in...
TOKYO (Nikkei)--Pentax Corp. plans to sell its Tokyo headquarters
and withdraw from less profitable businesses...
...
On
Whatever size sensor Pentax uses in the K1D, we can be sure it will work with
DA lenses. They wouldn't be introducing a full line of expensive lenses for
cameras that can't use them. So FF is definitely a no go.
Paul
-- Original message --
From: Mark Roberts
I agree with Paul. Consider K1D that is same as K10D but has proper 16
bit RAW files and some minor goodies. It will be both a breakthrough
and a new flagship model.
On 5/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whatever size sensor Pentax uses in the K1D, we can be sure it will work
On 10/05/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whatever size sensor Pentax uses in the K1D, we can be sure it will work with
DA lenses. They wouldn't be introducing a full line of expensive lenses for
cameras that can't use them. So FF is definitely a no go.
I really don't think
On 10/05/07, Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree with Paul. Consider K1D that is same as K10D but has proper 16
bit RAW files and some minor goodies. It will be both a breakthrough
and a new flagship model.
Boris, the bit depth issue has been discussed before, it's just of no
Irrefutable logic!
Jack
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whatever size sensor Pentax uses in the K1D, we can be sure it will
work with DA lenses. They wouldn't be introducing a full line of
expensive lenses for cameras that can't use them. So FF is definitely
a no go.
Paul
--
If they buy back more of their stock, Sparxx will be left with a larger
percentage of the total that remains.
I doubt if that is what Pentax wants.
John
On Thu, 10 May 2007 11:15:17 +0100, Paul Stenquist
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Buying back your stock is seen as a healthy move by most
To me APS-C keeps the camera size reasonable, I paid the size-price
when I moved to the K10D but just to gain SR. I don't think I'm going
for the new DA*s but they sure seem smaller than Canon's equivalents.
Luckily for me Pentax seems to agree with moi.
Fernando
On 5/10/07, Jack Davis [EMAIL
- Original Message -
From: John Francis
Subject: Re: Pentax - Selling HQ and Apparently Drops 645D
Precisely. You just plain assume that better means
larger sensor. That's the viewpoint that's full of BS.
It's generally accepted that for any given number of sensor sites, a bigger
May be. I wonder what marketing dept has to say ;-).
We're living in the marketing world, Rob.
On 5/10/07, Digital Image Studio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/05/07, Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree with Paul. Consider K1D that is same as K10D but has proper 16
bit RAW files
: Re: Pentax - Selling HQ and Apparently Drops 645D
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 23:30:10 -0400
Yes.
Paul
On May 9, 2007, at 11:12 PM, Jack Davis wrote:
This thought may have been offered as I've only looked at a few of
these posts. It may be that Pentax is taking the same route as many
have
are generally writing as if he did.
Tom C.
From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Pentax - Selling HQ and Apparently Drops 645D
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 23:18:54 -0400
Then get ready to open you wallet
(or even $8k if we are being kind of naive).
--
Rob Studdert
Come now.
Tom C.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
And it was under the *former* president's watch that DSLR's became more
profitable. So go figure.
Tom C.
From: Takehiko Ueda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Pentax - Selling HQ and Apparently Drops 645D
It'll still be a percentage of the total shares available.(?)
Jack
--- John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If they buy back more of their stock, Sparxx will be left with a
larger
percentage of the total that remains.
I doubt if that is what Pentax wants.
John
On Thu, 10 May 2007
Refuting failure.. ;)
--- P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Logic, yes. Start from incorrect assumptions and follow them to the
logical incorrect conclusion. Not that I'm saying Paul is wrong,
just
that even impeccable logic doesn't guarantee he's right.
Jack Davis wrote:
That's the way I see it.
Digital Image Studio wrote:
On 10/05/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whatever size sensor Pentax uses in the K1D, we can be sure it will work
with DA lenses. They wouldn't be introducing a full line of expensive lenses
for cameras that can't use
Logic, yes. Start from incorrect assumptions and follow them to the
logical incorrect conclusion. Not that I'm saying Paul is wrong, just
that even impeccable logic doesn't guarantee he's right.
Jack Davis wrote:
Irrefutable logic!
Jack
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whatever size
Maybe Pentax is planning a private offer to Sparx at a the same or
higher price than Hoya. (Blackmail is such a dirty word).
John Forbes wrote:
If they buy back more of their stock, Sparxx will be left with a larger
percentage of the total that remains.
I doubt if that is what Pentax
- Original Message -
From: P. J. Alling
Subject: Re: Pentax - Selling HQ and Apparently Drops 645D
Logic, yes. Start from incorrect assumptions and follow them to the
logical incorrect conclusion. Not that I'm saying Paul is wrong, just
that even impeccable logic doesn't
logic tell us?
Tom C.
From: P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Pentax - Selling HQ and Apparently Drops 645D
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 11:09:05 -0400
Logic, yes. Start from incorrect assumptions
that DSLR's became more
profitable. So go figure.
Tom C.
From: Takehiko Ueda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Pentax - Selling HQ and Apparently Drops 645D
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 22:09:02 +0900
Hi
But that was before, (when Pentax had pinned it's professional hopes on
the 645d), everything changed recently, but no one has really noticed.
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: P. J. Alling
Subject: Re: Pentax - Selling HQ and Apparently Drops 645D
Logic, yes
Good one. :-)
Tom C.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Pentax - Selling HQ and Apparently Drops 645D
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 15:39:07 +
So not only did Al Gore invent the internet, Bill Clinton
-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Pentax - Selling HQ and Apparently Drops 645D
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 22:09:02 +0900
Hi friends,
Maybe this is not news, but to make sure.
Pentax is to open its middle term plan tomorrow
pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Pentax - Selling HQ and Apparently Drops 645D
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 22:09:02 +0900
Hi friends,
Maybe this is not news, but to make sure.
Pentax is to open its middle term plan tomorrow, with their business
performance of FY2006. Their biggest shareholder
William Robb wrote:
One needn't look farther than the lens roadmap to see that they don't have
the intent to produce lenses that will cover a 24x36 format sensor.
It's not much of a leap to be safe in the presumption that they don't have
plans to produce a camera that they aren't planning on
and Apparently Drops 645D
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 11:09:05 -0400
Logic, yes. Start from incorrect assumptions and follow them to the
logical incorrect conclusion. Not that I'm saying Paul is wrong, just
that even impeccable logic doesn't guarantee he's right.
Jack Davis wrote:
Irrefutable
and Apparently Drops 645D
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 12:21:26 -0400
Logic tells us that when conditions change corporations change course.
Tom C wrote:
Logic would tell us that Pentax could probably not produce a
competitive,
profitable, MF DSLR in the face of many MF pro's dumping their MF film
bodies
work on a larger sensor for it's DSLR's
with the RD for the 645D. My point being that there
would be MUCH more interest in the former over the
latter.
Apparently Pentax agrees with me since at least
they've killed the 645D. And although you have no
evidence to support your contention
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whatever size sensor Pentax uses in the K1D, we can
be sure it will work with DA lenses. They wouldn't
be introducing a full line of expensive lenses for
cameras that can't use them. So FF is definitely a
no go.
Paul
That's a good point, Paul. I was thinking
--- Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 10, 2007, at 3:01 AM, Brendan MacRae wrote:
I talk to him all the time and he's really
craving the
quality that he's seeing from guys on his Canon
forums. I've subscribed myself to one and have
seen
some of this work and it blows
Come on, Paul, you know that if you buy a Hassy H1 your web images will
be better than mine. HA HA HA HA...
Paul Stenquist wrote:
On May 10, 2007, at 3:01 AM, Brendan MacRae wrote:
I talk to him all the time and he's really craving the
quality that he's seeing from guys on his Canon
BUT! Larger pixels are desirable in themselves, as long as your density
is high enough to give the resolution you need. Which is better a 100hp
V8, or a 200hp 4-banger?
Mark Roberts wrote:
Digital Image Studio wrote:
But they just can't go on increasing the density of APS sized sensor
ad
Here is an idea that I never tried, take a raw photo with the k10d,
process as 10Mb, 6Mb and 2Mb. Downsize every jpeg to half the size of
the 2Mb photo. See any difference?
On 5/10/07, Brendan MacRae [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 10, 2007, at
Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Pentax - Selling HQ and Apparently Drops 645D
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 12:21:26 -0400
Logic tells us that when conditions change corporations change course.
Tom C wrote:
Logic would tell us that Pentax could
Mark wrote:
If the K1D is 14 megapixels as reported
Mark, where did you see this? I don't recall reading it.
Thanks,
Joe
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Subject: Re: Pentax - Selling HQ and Apparently
Drops 645D
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 22:09:02 +0900
Hi friends,
Maybe this is not news, but to make sure.
Pentax is to open its middle term plan tomorrow,
with their business
performance of FY2006. Their biggest
shareholder
--- Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm with Brendan on this one. I think he's
presented his opinion in a sound
and rational manner and that he's just getting
bashed around because it's
not that of a cheerleader.
If Pentax had a FF body at a reasonable price, I bet
the vast majority
From:
P. J. Alling
Maybe Pentax is planning a private offer to Sparx at a the same or
higher price than Hoya. (Blackmail is such a dirty word).
In corporate speak, it's called a poison pill ... taking on a load of
debt or some such other action that makes the corporation less
attractive
That could happen. I would imagine that the DA lenses were designed with some
room for sensor expansion.
Paul
-- Original message --
From: Brendan MacRae [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whatever size sensor Pentax uses in the K1D, we can
be
Tjis action would seem to be the opposite of a poison pill.
John Sessoms wrote:
From:
P. J. Alling
Maybe Pentax is planning a private offer to Sparx at a the same or
higher price than Hoya. (Blackmail is such a dirty word).
In corporate speak, it's called a poison pill ... taking on
On 10/05/07, Kevin Waterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Digital Image Studio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think you are closer to the mark but the question is who would have
pulled $10k+ out of their wallet for the 645D?
I would have 2 in a snap for my business.
I've been championing the 1.3x crop sensor for a long time. I think it
would be close to the perfect compromise. However it annoys me when
people call it the APS-H format. No matter what Canon marketing wishes,
it isn't. The Canon so called APS-H format is 20.1mm x18.7mm with the
same
--- Fernando Terrazzino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here is an idea that I never tried, take a raw photo
with the k10d,
process as 10Mb, 6Mb and 2Mb. Downsize every jpeg to
half the size of
the 2Mb photo. See any difference?
No, I haven't done that either. But why would I?
Wouldn't that only
My point is that the advantage of a larger sensor is less noise and
the ability to print at a larger size (more mpixels), so unless you
need the clean high ISO I doubt that you can tell the difference
between downsized images for the web coming from a FF camera and a
APS-C camera, any extra
Furthermore, take a look at this:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond2x/page24.asp
Is the 12mpixeks Nikon D2X vs Canon's 17.2mpixels EOS-1Ds Mark II FF
There are obviously other factors to consider, but resolution-wise, at
low ISOs you'll see there can't be to much difference in a web-size
Better image quality for printing, yes. That is why I
would want a larger sensor. Low noise would be another
benefit. And I can see a difference in downsized
images on the web. There is a perceptible difference.
-Brendan
--- Fernando Terrazzino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My point is that the
On 5/10/07, Brendan MacRae [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
And I can see a difference in downsized images on the web. There is a
perceptible difference.
Ok then
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Completing the information:
Of course, It's not guaranteed and it's not valid for all DA lenses.
Cassio
On 5/10/07, Cassio Vogel Dorneles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've read somewhere some DA lenses could even be used with (obviously
FF) film cameras. Unfortunately, I've lost the source :-(
I've read somewhere some DA lenses could even be used with (obviously
FF) film cameras. Unfortunately, I've lost the source :-(
Cassio (Hi, I'm new here)
On 5/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That could happen. I would imagine that the DA lenses were designed with some
room
201 - 300 of 408 matches
Mail list logo
