I fully expect to be able to get a ten to twelve megapixel Pentax in 18
months, and I'm sure it will be less than $2500.
Paul
On Aug 24, 2005, at 4:55 AM, Cotty wrote:
On 24/8/05, Kevin Waterson, discombobulated, unleashed:
This one time, at band camp, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll
at 3FPS. IS/VR would be nice, but i can manage without for a while longer.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2005 7:19 AM
Subject: Re: What Would Make a DSLR Obsolete?
I fully expect to be able
On 27/8/05, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed:
I fully expect to be able to get a ten to twelve megapixel Pentax in 18
months, and I'm sure it will be less than $2500.
Sure, no problem. But I'm saying that it won't be a full frame sensor.
I'm also saying that cameras with full frame
There is old saying:
You will never get 3 things at the same time:
Fast
Good
Cheap
always only 2 of them can be true.
mike wilson wrote:
Jens Bladt wrote:
...snip...
There is an alternative.
I'd be satisfied if my D is still alive and well in four years. Then
we'll
probably
When I was in college I used to sell cameras. I remember people would
always come in and say, I want a camera that's not very expensive, that
takes good pictures, fairly small, and has a powerful zoom. Of course
each of those criteria are pretty subjective, but the fact is nothing
meets all
On 23/8/05, Powell Hargrave, discombobulated, unleashed:
My first digital is 10 years old.
It works fine.
I don't use it.
http://members.shaw.ca/hargravep/qt.htm
Snap.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
On 23/8/05, Graywolf, discombobulated, unleashed:
I had a stunning photograph once. It was a matted and framed 16x24
hanging over the sofa. The nail kept pulling out of the wall. Everyone
whom it fell on said it was really stunning.
GRIN
LOL. Love it.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) |
On 24/8/05, Kevin Waterson, discombobulated, unleashed:
This one time, at band camp, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll upgrade as soon as I can get ten or twelve megapixels for less than
$2500
That will be in 18 months from now.
I'll keep this mail for 18 months, I have entered a cron job
Kevin Waterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll upgrade as soon as I can get ten or twelve megapixels for less than
$2500
That will be in 18 months from now.
I'll keep this mail for 18 months, I have entered a cron job to remind me
On 24/8/05, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:
Kevin Waterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll upgrade as soon as I can get ten or twelve megapixels for less than
$2500
That will be in 18 months from now.
I'll keep this mail
Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just to clarify:
Someone said:
'll upgrade as soon as I can get ten or twelve megapixels for less than
$2500
I said:
That will be in 18 months from now.
Kevin said:
I'll keep this mail for 18 months, I have entered a cron job to remind
me then.
Mark said:
On 24/8/05, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:
BTW: My 18 months figure applies to Pentax. Nikon will be much sooner.
Actually I was thinking FF 10 or 12MP for $2500 street price. Not Pentax.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|
Cotty wrote on 24.08.05 15:28:
Actually I was thinking FF 10 or 12MP for $2500 street price. Not Pentax.
I wouldn't be so sure about 12MP FF for 2500$ in 18 months. 5D has no rival
DSLR to compete with so there is no reason for Canon to lower price that
much if the demand would meet their
Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 24/8/05, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:
BTW: My 18 months figure applies to Pentax. Nikon will be much sooner.
Actually I was thinking FF 10 or 12MP for $2500 street price. Not Pentax.
No one mentioned full frame at this price.
--
Mark Roberts
Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 24/8/05, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:
No one mentioned full frame at this price.
I did and I am :-)
18 months, full frame at US$2500 street. Mark :-)
18 months for a cheaper version of the D5? Sounds about right
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and
On 24/8/05, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:
No one mentioned full frame at this price.
I did and I am :-)
18 months, full frame at US$2500 street. Mark :-)
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
Make a DSLR Obsolete?
I agree with Paul. At 6mp I can make a good print to any size I normally
make, and with careful interpolation to any size I've ever made (20x30)
Future cameras may have features I want, but that doesn't mean my camera is
obsolete. It's no different then the PZ-1p did not make
MAA
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 23. august 2005 12:48
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: What Would Make a DSLR Obsolete?
As the time approaches for my purchasing a DSLR, the comments about these
cameras
2005 12:48
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: What Would Make a DSLR Obsolete?
As the time approaches for my purchasing a DSLR, the comments about these
cameras becoming obsolete keep running through my mind. As a user of older
film bodies, which don't become obsolete and which continue to make
this year.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax list pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 9:28 AM
Subject: Re: What Would Make a DSLR Obsolete?
On 24/8/05, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:
BTW: My 18 months figure applies
I can't imagine that anything would obsolete a current DSLR in just ten
years. Memory devices shouldn't be a problem. My card reader has no
moving parts and a firewire connector. (I still have the 10 meg scsi
hard drive that I bought close to twenty years ago, and my computer can
still read
Shel,
A former Univac salesman I worked for always insisted that computers
did not become 'obsolete', but that they were superceded by new
technology.
I think the same is true for digital cameras. That old Sony Mavica
still shoots the exact same 640x480 jpegs that we marveled at, but we
expect a
As the time approaches for my purchasing a DSLR, the comments about these
cameras becoming obsolete keep running through my mind. As a user of older
film bodies, which don't become obsolete and which continue to make good
pictures and use a wide variety of lenses, it's hard to consider that in
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
As the time approaches for my purchasing a DSLR, the comments
about these cameras becoming obsolete keep running through my
mind. As a user of older film bodies, which don't become
obsolete and which continue to make good pictures and use a
wide variety of lenses,
Shel,
I think that what you're asking is very close to request for future
foretelling... Technologically *istD is seriously outdated already.
After all, it's been introduced at 2003. But this is a techno-geek
inside me speaking. The pictures I took with it just last week in UK
are as lovely to my
On Tuesday, August 23, 2005, at 07:18 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
I can't imagine that anything would obsolete a current DSLR in just
ten years. Memory devices shouldn't be a problem. My card reader has
no moving parts and a firewire connector. (I still have the 10 meg
scsi hard drive that I
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Bob Sullivan wrote:
I think the same is true for digital cameras. That old Sony Mavica
still shoots the exact same 640x480 jpegs that we marveled at, but we
expect a whole lot more today. Better performance cheaper price...
I agree, but with a pinch of salt: if the 6MP
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What's the reality of getting 10 years of use from now current Pentax DSLR?
pure hypothesising
I am more concerned that peripheral things, like batteries, will not be
available for the potential life of the camera. That particular issue is (so
far)
From: Bob Shell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2005/08/23 Tue AM 11:33:45 GMT
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: What Would Make a DSLR Obsolete?
On Tuesday, August 23, 2005, at 07:18 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
I can't imagine that anything would obsolete a current DSLR in just
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
As the time approaches for my purchasing a DSLR, the comments about these
cameras becoming obsolete keep running through my mind. As a user of older
film bodies, which don't become obsolete and which continue to make good
pictures and use a wide variety of lenses, it's
That would be us as in those who have spent the money to get one? I
certainly haven't and I'm aware of at least two users who are of the opinion
that they have bought their last camera with a DSLR.
I'd second that. I am not claiming that *istD is my last ever Pentax
camera... However, I
The same things that make any computer obsolete:
1. Memory capacity
2. Storage capacity
3. Processing speed
4. Form factor
5. Paradigm
1, 2, and 3 are givens. It's why not a single one of us can do any serious
image editing on a 386sx system.
4 and 5 get less consideration but are equally
How might that be, except by film being discontinued or there being no one
who could repair them?
Shel
ERN wrote:
(of course there are ways your older film cameras could become
obsolete, too; it's not that they don't become obsolete, it's that
yours -- and mine -- haven't done so yet)
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The same things that make any computer obsolete:
1. Memory capacity
2. Storage capacity
3. Processing speed
4. Form factor
5. Paradigm
1, 2, and 3 are givens. It's why not a single one of us can do any serious
image editing on a 386sx system.
It is the same as with mobile phones.
They become obseleted within 3 years.
Battery is dead and it costs a lot of money to get new or to replace
some parts.
My first (and i hope last) new mobile phone i bought was Ericcson R310,
that was virtually unbreakable. But it broke. And it become
I got two and a half years from my MZ-S before it was obsolete (that
it, until I bought the ist-D). I'm approaching two years with the ist-D
and have no doubt I will be using it extensively for longer than I did
my MZ-S.
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
I think we need a consistant clear defintion of the
word obsolete before this thread gets out of hand.
In my opinion 35mm Film Cameras/Film are not yet obsolete
because DSLRs that can match them on every possible aspect
do not even exist yet and the ones getting close still
cost several thousand
.Kostas Kavoussanakis
.Tue, 23 Aug 2005 05:58:34 -0700
.
.On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
.
.The same things that make any computer obsolete:
.
.1. Memory capacity
.2. Storage capacity
.3. Processing speed
.4. Form factor
.5. Paradigm
.
.1, 2, and 3 are givens. It's why not a
There's a difference between obsolete and a desire to upgrade. An *istD will
still be a good picture taking device ten years from now. That Canon was
marginal even when it was new. You're comparing apples to oranges, infant
technology to reasonably well-developed technology. I'll upgrade as
From: Bob Shell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2005/08/23 Tue PM 01:56:22 GMT
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: What Would Make a DSLR Obsolete?
On Tuesday, August 23, 2005, at 07:49 AM, mike wilson wrote:
That would be us as in those who have spent the money to get one? I
Good point.
If i can go out with my Mir-20 wide angle lens, take pictures using
snap-in-focus feature with cool wide angle effects...
There are no such DSLR out there that can do that.
I like wide angle, and one of next lens for my 645 will be fisheye :)
Gasha
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
I
The same things that make any computer obsolete:
1. Memory capacity
2. Storage capacity
3. Processing speed
4. Form factor
5. Paradigm
I'll have to disagree a bit here. Computers become obsolete
primarily because their expectations have been increased. Both through
expanded useage (beeps -
On Tuesday, August 23, 2005, at 07:49 AM, mike wilson wrote:
That would be us as in those who have spent the money to get one? I
certainly haven't and I'm aware of at least two users who are of the
opinion that they have bought their last camera with a DSLR.
The difference may just be
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Mark Roberts wrote:
I got two and a half years from my MZ-S before it was obsolete (that
it, until I bought the ist-D).
I think these were exceptional circumstances.
Kostas
Shel, there is no guarantee on how long any DSLR will last at this point in
time.
Maybe never.
But I am not sure that is the question one should ask before moving over to
digital.
I think some other questions are more pertient. Like how long will film last?
How long will good film
Obsolete - 2. Outmoded in design, style, or construction: an obsolete
locomotive.
This is the definition that we are probably talking about here.
I would add that its no longer useful or usable. For a camera such
as the *istD, this would happen when you were no longer able to:
1. retrieve
Hello Shel,
Yes, to some degree it is the techno-buffs talking. The DSLR you
purchase today will continue to take pictures in the future as it is
today. In some respects, you could consider film cameras outdated as
new models were introduced. If you had a manual camera and auto
exposure were
Shel, As long as the camera makes photographs that you're happy with,
and suites your photographic style
it's not obsolete. The only thing to worry about is repairs, (and maybe
batteries, though if you stick with Pentax
you won't have to worry about that).. Most countries I know of require
PROTECTED]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: Shel Belinkoff pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: What Would Make a DSLR Obsolete?
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 08:40:49 -0700
Hello Shel,
Yes, to some degree it is the techno-buffs talking. The DSLR you
purchase today will continue to take pictures
On Tuesday, August 23, 2005, at 10:15 AM, mike wilson wrote:
One thing I don't understand is that everyone talks about cost savings
with DSLRs and yet (mostly) they make deskjet prints. I, generally,
don't do prints but I fail to see how that can be cheaper unless
people are mostly not
Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Mark Roberts wrote:
I got two and a half years from my MZ-S before it was obsolete (that
it, until I bought the ist-D).
I think these were exceptional circumstances.
Not for me. I think the amount of time I had the PZ-1p
This requires a definition of obsolete. The one I use is:
A product is considered obsolete when it is no longer produced, that
is, when it is replaced by something else by the original
manufacturer or by another manufacturer.
By that definition, my Nikon FM was obsolete as soon as the FM2
Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This requires a definition of obsolete. The one I use is:
A product is considered obsolete when it is no longer produced, that
is, when it is replaced by something else by the original
manufacturer or by another manufacturer.
This is the definition
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 03:47:47AM -0700, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
What's the reality of getting 10 years of use from now current Pentax DSLR?
I would expect my *ist-D to still be capable of delivering images
in ten years time. The question is more whether I'll be asking it
to do so.
Digital
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
How might that be, except by film being discontinued or there being no one
who could repair them?
Shel
ERN wrote:
(of course there are ways your older film cameras could become
obsolete, too; it's not that they don't become obsolete, it's that
yours -- and mine
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
I think we need a consistant clear defintion of the
word obsolete before this thread gets out of hand.
In my opinion 35mm Film Cameras/Film are not yet obsolete
because DSLRs that can match them on every possible aspect
do not even exist yet and the ones getting close
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's a difference between obsolete and a desire to upgrade. An *istD will
still be a good picture taking device ten years from now. That Canon was marginal even
when it was new. You're comparing apples to oranges, infant technology to reasonably
well-developed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
.
Kostas,
You missed the point completely.
#1 Numbers 1, 2, and 3 have everything to do with these computer cameras.
a. The operating systems WILL change. Who here used XP 10 years ago?
Windows was pretty much useless 10 years ago and is pretty much useless
On 23/8/05, Bob Shell, discombobulated, unleashed:
I am looking at it from a professional
perspective. My Canon 10D,
Mark!
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
On 23/8/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:
I'll upgrade as soon as I can get ten or twelve megapixels for less than
$2500
That will be in 18 months from now.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
On 23/8/05, mike wilson, discombobulated, unleashed:
One thing I don't understand is that everyone talks about cost savings
with DSLRs and yet (mostly) they make deskjet prints. I, generally,
don't do prints but I fail to see how that can be cheaper unless people
are mostly not printing.
On 23/8/05, Bob Shell, discombobulated, unleashed:
I only do limited-edition fine art prints myself.
Hey, same here.
Except mine are stunning.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
On Tuesday, August 23, 2005, at 05:38 PM, Cotty wrote:
I only do limited-edition fine art prints myself.
Hey, same here.
Except mine are stunning.
Ahem! Well, I haven't seen your so I can't comment.
Bob
On 23/8/05, Bob Shell, discombobulated, unleashed:
I only do limited-edition fine art prints myself.
Hey, same here.
Except mine are stunning.
Ahem! Well, I haven't seen your so I can't comment.
;-)
This was a cheap jibe at a different thread, no worries.
However, I'd be interested in
Hey, Cotty ... I've seen your prints. I must admit that I was stunned ;-))
Shel
[Original Message]
I only do limited-edition fine art prints myself.
Hey, same here.
Except mine are stunning.
On 23/8/05, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed:
Hey, Cotty ... I've seen your prints. I must admit that I was stunned ;-))
Yeah well, that was an attempt at mono from a 9000S, but the colour
renditions are pretty good. Oh hell, here we go again !
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O)
You've still got some of that left pffft! I'm jealous!
Shel
John Francis wrote:
I doubt if I'll be using it for those shots where I consider
I might want more than an 8x10, but there again I don't really
use it for that today - I pull out the MZ-S and grab a roll of
Royal Gold 25
Excuses, excuses LOL Hey, I was just yanking your chain. I liked
all three pics
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Cotty
Shel Belinkoff, not at all discombobulated, carefully considered and
commented:
Hey, Cotty ... I've seen your prints. I must admit that I was stunned
;-))
With a 2x4?
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Hey, Cotty ... I've seen your prints. I must admit that I was stunned ;-))
Shel
[Original Message]
I only do limited-edition fine art prints myself.
Hey, same here.
Except mine are stunning.
--
When you're worried
On 23/8/05, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed:
Excuses, excuses LOL Hey, I was just yanking your chain. I liked
all three pics
Actually I was deeply touched when you told me where one of them ended up.
Meanwhile
Baldrick
I have a cunning plan
/Baldrick
I have
On Aug 23, 2005, at 1:31 PM, Toralf Lund wrote:
b. The sensor sizes and resolutions WILL change. Who here built
20 meg
JPG files 10 years ago?
Wouldn't dream of it then, won't dream of it now.
I have quite a few very large, very low-loss JPEGs that date back to
about then. About 12M
On Aug 23, 2005, at 3:37 PM, Cotty wrote:
I have a 2nd S9000 that I picked up a while back. It's my intention to
set it up with a full set of mono inks just for black and white.
ptui
The gauntlet was thrown down and I don't shy from a challenge.
Just need some more space to set it all up
On 23/8/05, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed:
Remember: once past a selection of good inks and proper image
processing, the paper itself becomes the key. Good, fine art quality
papers make the difference.
I use MIS UT2 ink and QuadtoneRIP to drive an ancient Epson 1270.
Printed
You're close to right. It's behind the door.
Tom C.
From: Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: What Would Make a DSLR Obsolete?
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 19:36:08 -0400
Now where did I put that thing?
It's down
Except mine are stunning
Har, mine are sunning.
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: What Would Make a DSLR Obsolete?
On 23/8/05, Bob Shell, discombobulated, unleashed:
I only do limited-edition fine art prints myself.
Hey, same here
My first digital is 10 years old.
It works fine.
I don't use it.
http://members.shaw.ca/hargravep/qt.htm
Powell
I agree with Paul. At 6mp I can make a good print to any size I normally
make, and with careful interpolation to any size I've ever made (20x30)
Future cameras may have features I want, but that doesn't mean my camera is
obsolete. It's no different then the PZ-1p did not make the MX or LX
- Original Message -
From: Butch Black
Subject: Re: What Would Make a DSLR Obsolete?
It's no different then the PZ-1p did not make the MX or LX obsolete.
Not being a PZ-1p camera liker, I can say without reservation that I agree
fully with this.
Not that this matters a whit
I had a stunning photograph once. It was a matted and framed 16x24 hanging over
the sofa. The nail kept pulling out of the wall. Everyone whom it fell on said
it was really stunning.
GRIN
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---
- Original Message -
From: Graywolf
Subject: Re: What Would Make a DSLR Obsolete?
I had a stunning photograph once. It was a matted and framed 16x24 hanging
over the sofa. The nail kept pulling out of the wall. Everyone whom it fell
on said it was really stunning.
We have a print
This one time, at band camp, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll upgrade as soon as I can get ten or twelve megapixels for less than
$2500
That will be in 18 months from now.
I'll keep this mail for 18 months, I have entered a cron job to remind me then.
Kevin
--
Democracy is two wolves
poetry.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 10:15 AM
Subject: Re: Re: What Would Make a DSLR Obsolete?
One thing I don't understand is that everyone talks about cost savings
with DSLRs and yet
82 matches
Mail list logo
