kei Article(long) WAS: Pentax Pro DSLR (WAS: RE: Spotted on
(Banother group ...)
(B
(B
(B> Lower price DSLR's are the symbol for this eagerness.
(B> DSLR's used to be, at least, JPY150 thousand, but Canon in
(B> September 2003 and Nikon in March 2004 introduced consumer
Hello Takehiko,
Thanks for taking the time to translate this for us. It provides some
very interesting information.
Domo, Gokurosan deshita!
Bruce
Wednesday, February 9, 2005, 5:06:09 AM, you wrote:
TU> --- Herb Chong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote$B!'(B
>> i reread the NIKKEI release and a cou
Alan wrote:
AC> I don't know about average consumers, but the insisting on using smaller
CCDs have
AC> kept me from buying Pentax DCs. For instance, 1/2.5" CCD is marginal for
3MP, but
AC> they kept using it for 4 & 5MP. The image quality simply suffers.
I have to say that after testing the
Just cant let this post pass. There are many opinions and irritated
people in this issue. I understand and I'm one of them to a certain
extent. However. I feel that Pentax for sure will have full frame when
it is cost effective. In the same way we will see cameras with faster
buffers and so on.
On 2005-02-09 06:12, Alan Chan wrote:
> --- Martin Trautmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm surprised that there's just one camera starting at 24 mm
> > (35mm-equivalent, the Nikon Coolpix 8400). I don't need more that about 2 MP
> > here... It's easy to get a camera with > 400 mm tele, but the
--- Martin Trautmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm surprised that there's just one camera starting at 24 mm
> (35mm-equivalent, the Nikon Coolpix 8400). I don't need more that about 2 MP
> here... It's easy to get a camera with > 400 mm tele, but there's none below
> 24 mm.
I think I can answer
On 2005-02-09 05:31, Alan Chan wrote:
> I don't know about average consumers, but the insisting on using smaller CCDs
> have
> kept me from buying Pentax DCs. For instance, 1/2.5" CCD is marginal for 3MP,
> but
> they kept using it for 4 & 5MP. The image quality simply suffers.
It's not only abo
Interesting stuff- thanks for the translation Takehiko.
(B
(BCheers,
(BRyan
(B
(B
(B- Original Message -
(BFrom: "Takehiko Ueda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(BTo:
(BSent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 11:06 PM
(BSubject: Nikkei Article(long) WAS: Pentax Pro DSLR (WAS
--- Takehiko Ueda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The corporation is not doing well in the compact digi-cam
> market, whose main stream is around JPY30 thousand, with
> its weaker brand than that of such electronics companies
> as Sony. The average price of Pentax digi-cams have
> fallen down by 30%
--- Herb Chong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote$B!'(B
(B> i reread the NIKKEI release and a couple of others.
(B
(B
(BHere's my brief translation of the article;
(B
(B===
(B28th Jan, Nikkei(Tokyo)
(B
(B2nd stage for competition with DSLR
(BP&S spread over to consumers
(B
(
Quoting Alan Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> --- Pål Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Pentax have been making pro cameras from about 1968, regardless of what
> definition
> > you choose for pro-level, so I cannot see why they should stop now.
> Pentax have
> > labeled at least six different bodie
Yes, but the great gulf between pro and consumer cameras didn't really
exist in the 60s in the way it does now. All the big brand cameras were
made to very high standards, and were used by amateurs and pros alike.
I would also argue that the K2 DMD was intended as a pro camera.
John
On Tue, 8
--- Pål Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pentax have been making pro cameras from about 1968, regardless of what
> definition
> you choose for pro-level, so I cannot see why they should stop now. Pentax
> have
> labeled at least six different bodies as "pro-grade" since 1968 and they have
> s
--- Kostas Kavoussanakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When you write something, I always make a point of reading it. I don't
> know what you mean by line-up, but to me (as an observer) the biggest
> drawback that Pentax has at the moment as an option is that it does
> not offer a complete system. E
To me this exudes lack of commitment.
More likely a lack of budget. It is obvious to me that Pentax simply can't
afford to put out everything that us enthusiasts would like to see. I think
this is why they've pretty much dropped film cameras altogether: they know
they have to focus on digital,
not the entire R&D
staff.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 8:25 AM
Subject: Pentax Pro DSLR (WAS: RE: Spotted on another group ...)
For digital, having an upgrade path is far more important than it
All I can say is that if Pentax releases a new DSLR with the
size, ergonomics and design integrity of the *ist DS, uprated to
a more robust build spec, with improved speed and performance,
and with the same or better image quality, I'll be beating down
their door to buy it. I like the camera, the l
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Pål Jensen wrote:
> Pentax is still a venerable SLR
> manufacturer but the large potential for Pentax is only there if
> they offer in due course a complete line-up.
Pål,
When you write something, I always make a point of reading it. I don't
know what you mean by line-up, but
Jens wrote:
I doubt Pentax will aim at a pro-level DSLR. I Pentax wanted to, they would
have manufactured the full frame MZ-D.
I guess what we might see from Pentax will be a 8-10Mp prosumer DSLR. Pretty
much like the *ist DS, but with more MP's.
REPLY:
In my opinion they have to. The MD-S (th
19 matches
Mail list logo
