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: Rumors About Pentax's Future
Herb wrote: Pentax's official revenue forecasts show that it will make money over the next three years, but the imaging products division will lose about the same amount of money in the next three years as they lost this year. sounds like a winning strategy to me. then you have the financial analysts who don't believe Pentax and think they won't even make those targets because it's playing at the wrong end of the profit margin curve. Are there any companies that actually make money on digital cameras? According to Olympus they don't exist... Pål
Re: Digital MZ-5n
Toral Lund: As another spin-off from the looong why choose *istDL thread, I thought I might mention that I completely agree with the whoever-it-was who said that what he'd really like to see, was something that might be described as a digital version of the MZ-5n (or ZX-5n.) Like that other person, I'm not sure it would make sense from a marketing viewpoint - although it would at least have some features that would clearly distinguish it from the competitors, which is often a Good Thing. If they put it one one of those funky steel bodies used for more upmarket PS's I think it could have been quite succesful. However, it seems like Pentax wants to standardize interfaces and build more or less the same camera from the same building blocks. Even the forthcoming 645D seem to be an *istD in placed in a 645 chassis. Pål
Re: Good things about *istDL
Rob wrote: The fact that Pentax don't have a visible upper level body doesn't help their position in the market. True, but the issue is when is the right time for releasing an upper level body. According to Pentax they will but only after the Pentax DSLR user base is sufficiently large. 66 000 is probably not enough Pål
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: Rumors About Pentax's Future
- Original Message - From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 1:36 AM Subject: Re: Rumors About Pentax's Future the Leica with a 10MP sensor and less components lists for $9K. since Kodak also makes the 645D sensor, there no chance that the 645D sensor will cost substantially less than the one used in the Leica. the sensor makes up easily half the OEM cost of the camera. Lots of assumptions here. 1. Leica isn't known for selling anything cheap. 2. As I understand it the digital solution for Leica was designed fully out of house. However did the work want to make a profit on it. 3. The volume for this product is minuscule. It cost millons of dollars to develop and a huge part of the 9K is due to this. 4. As I understod the press releas from Pentax a few years back the Kodak chip in question is not a commodity bought off the shelf but the fruit of a cooperation between Kodak and Pentax. Pentax probably have had a signifcant input in the design. 5. Developing cost for the 645D is probably not astronomical. It uses the chassis and finder of the current 645's long ago paid for. Based on the interface and the AF selector pad on the back it almost certainly use *istD electronics and SAFOX VIII AF system, also paid for long ago. Leica must get the revenue back from a single product while Pentax use building blocks from lots of products. Pål
Re: Predictable Pentax
Herb wrote: - Original Message - From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 3:16 AM Subject: Re: Predictable Pentax expanding the base works only if you are not losing a lot of money while doing it. if you do, there's no money left for when the demand curve flattens and prices drop. in the case of the DSLR market, the price competition is going to get much worse in the next couple of years and profit margins are going to drop further. that is why delivering a high end body now makes sense. Fuji, Olympus, and Konica-Minolta have made indications that this is their strategy. large market share at razor thin margins or small market share at large margins? playing at the low end is a good way to go out of business. Certainly not. Making a high-emd body for Pentax makes no sense at present as virtually no one would buy one. Sure, they could make a body somewhat higher than the *istD but thats about it at present. The only high-end Pentax have any hope to be a player is in digital MF. Pentax didn't even see the need to have a high-end 35mm film body after 1980. A high-end DSLR cost several magnitudes more to develop than, say, an LX replacement with much smaller sales. Very few first time Pentax DSLR buyers would buy a high-end DSLR. Hence, they need to have a DSLR customer base installed before higher end model are being released. Pl
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: Seen in this week's Amateur Photographer...
If Pal is correct and Pentax is working on an EOS-killer,... I think I said they would make a camera that outperforms what Canon can offer in image quality... Pål
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?
Hard to fault this logic Pål - Original Message - From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 7:01 PM Subject: 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?
- Original Message - From: Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 5:15 PM Subject: 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. That is really not the point. If the camera doesn't get peoples attention in the first place then they will not find out about its ergonomics. Pål
Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
Alan wrote: However, the market has changed. Many 120 commerical shooters have moved to high-end Canon. Canon play one game, and they play it well. Pentax, however, are playing 2 games, and both are lossing at the moment. Maybe. But very few Professional (or non-professional) Pentax MF shooters have switched to digital at all. The larger than 35mm format outdoor photography marlket that dominates Pentax MF sales haven't change wholesale to digital yet. PÅl
Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
Alan wrote: Well, the LX failed to generate cash flow and failed to compete with Canon F-1 Nikon F3. Neither the F3 or the F1 made any money. They were expensive to built and built by hand. What made the LX successful? Sales volume. 5000 units a month was a LOT for the most expensive 35mm slr money could buy. I would not even go into the on-going reliability issue. Theres is no ongoing reliability issue. I've used mine for 24 years and it failed the first time after 19 years. It still worked though. The other problems are pure maintainance. It is one of the most durable and reliable camera ever made. All other Pentax slr have more problems than the LX except for the 645's according to those who repair the stuff. The problem issue is biased. Due to the LX value and collectability, problem LX are still around and getting repaired. Problem Super A's are thrown in the garbage and you consequently never hear about them. I could be wrong, but I think Pentax have been detached from reality since the A series. They put all their eggs in the A series and Minolta caught them by surprise with 7000. Minolta took everybody by surprise including Canon. When they introduced the SF series, the F lens line looked ridiculous. With P/PZ series, they decided to offer the either super cheap zooms or super expensive * lenses, nothing in between for the real consumers. They have always seem to produce products that they wanted, instead of what consumers needed; a very poor business practice. They had all the time to introduce high quality f4 zooms (especially tele-zooms) at much lower price than FA* lenses, but they ignore the demand. They kept pumping out their super expensive FA* lenses and finally collapsed. And the self-destructed FA 28-70/4 just didn't cut it. I don't really agree with this. When the Z-series were current the lens line up was mostly OK. The F:4 quality zooms was virtually non-existent from all manufacturers back then; Canon didn't make them until the late 90's. By then Pentax had lost interest in the SLR line-up.The F:4 quality zooms seems to coming now in DA form now that Pentax supposedly have rediscovered slr's for digital this time. However, if you keep wining about Pentax lens line from 15 years back, I seriously think you should have shifted system long ago to put you out of misery. Personally, I find Pentax current lens line up pretty much OK. There are holes but for my usage there are larger holes in the Canon lens line up. Did I mention the FA43/1.9 Limited has horrible corner sharpness even stopped way down? Nonsense. Mine doesn't. Neither is this supported by test and published MTF values. Pål
Re: OT: Kodak kills DSLR
Dag wrote: - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 11:07 AM Subject: Re: OT: Kodak kills DSLR Why not try to be optimistic: They may have decided to drop the Nikon og Canon based full frame cameras in order to concentrate on the cooperation with Pentax for developing the 18MP 645D. I don't think Kodak see themselves as a slr manufacturer. They probably made them in order to sell sensors. Kodak may now have more formalized outlets for their sensors by proper camera manufacturers. Pål
Re: Rumors About Pentax's Future
William wrote: The Nikon rep estimated that something like 5% of F3 cameras were in the hands of pro photographers, the rest were owned by well heeled amateurs. I've heard the same number for the F5. However, the Pentax distributor here in Norway says that 50% of Pentax MF are sold to professionals which means that MF has a significantly larger pro percentage usage than 35mm. Pål
Re: Rumors About Pentax's Future
Paul wrote: There's a world of price differentiation between and F3 and the 645D. Yeah, hobbyists will use a 645 system that they purchased for a grand or so. But will they come up with close to 10K for a digital body? Some say it will be much more. I doubt it. If there's no pro market for a 645D, it will be dead on arrival. I believe that one can assume that MF users on average are more willing to spend money than the average 35mm user. MF is bought by true enthusiast to a larger extent than 35mm. Pål
Re: Full Frame - What's the problem?
Cornelius wrote: ? Why is it seemingly so difficult to produce a camera with a full frame (35mm) sensor, if Pentax and many others have/will have MF digitals surely one of these sensors could be used, even if it has to be masked? Cost and problem with performance at the corners due to the angle the light fall at the sensors edges. Canon may have slight advantage here due to the larger diametre of the lens mount. Pentax have released full frame lenses (FA-D) to fix this potential problem. Pål
Re: OT: Kodak kills DSLR
Bruce wrote: Bill, that is shocking! I used to use 67II's and did NOT think they were light or small. At least it had a big negative. That Canon is one BIG camera for having a sensor of that size. Yes...and it makes the Pentax 645 system look small... Pål
Re: OT: Kodak kills DSLR - the end of FF dreams
Jostein wrote: I think you're right. Now that the MedF systems are entering the market with cameras more suited for work outside studios, chances are they will put the FF high-pixel cameras in a squeeze. Thats what I think too. If the price rumors are correct it will cost less than a full frame Canon, weight less as well and as I have pointed out many times before, the lenses need weight no more than Canon L- lenses as long we are within the normal focal lenght range. Pål
Re: Seen in this week's Amateur Photographer...
Jostein wrote: I think the most likely conspiracy theory is that Pentax Japan is holding their cards to tightly to their chest as usual. Pentax UK sounds like they don't know what's coming, so they choose to focus on the past. Pentax Japan is extremely inept at making use of buzz for creating interest about coming products. If the worlwide distributors were fed with little bits of information they were allowed to pass on to dealers and customers, the whole brand-name would suddenly be more active and viable. But this has changed the last year or so after the new boss was hired. Before, the Pentax engineers leaked, now the boss does. Eg. it is a couple of years ago they told us about an MF DSLR with sensor from Kodak. The baby *ist (DL) was also mentioned and according to the same sorce, a semi pro DSLR is forthcoming. Pål
Re: Rumors About Pentax's Future
Herb wrote: 66K DSLRs is 2/3 of what Kodak sold last year and Kodak is pulling the plug on their DSLRs. Kodak's DSLRs were a lot more expensive than any Pentax one and they still outsold Pentax. since the Pentax DSLRs are low end models, Pentax isn't making much money on them. Sure. The Pentax MD-S (shelved) costed $20 million to develop. Assuming this is a typical for a DSLR we can assume that only the best selling Nikon and Canon DSLR's makes any money for their makers. Pentax is caught in a hard place as their volume segment, the advanced zoom compact, are under intense competition and the fact that they virtually abandoned their old niche the slr. Pål
Re: Predictable Pentax
- Original Message - From: Alin Flaider [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 4:33 PM Subject: Predictable Pentax Remember MZ/ZX series? They started with MZ-5 and then came along no less than five inferior models (10,50,7,60,30), together with two other spin offs (5n and 3). It took Pentax 7 years to come up with a top of the line (MZ-S). So what do we have now, let's see: a base *ist D and two downgrades: DS and DL. We should expect 3 to 4 more 6 MP derivatives together with two other *ist D variations before we get a real flagship that finally crosses the 6 MP barrier and maybe the APS size too. Of course, this is assuming they can do the old flip again. And stay in business. I don't think you can make these kind of generalizations. In the late 80's Pentax shifted their focus from slr's to PS's. The MZ series was simply a way to make profitable slr PS's. The MZ-S existence was probably due to whining from Pentax loyalists. The main struggle for DSLR's at present is lower price. Lower prices means higher volumes particularly for Pentax. As Pentax are about to increase their customer base for DSLR such a move is hardly surprising. In fact, all manufacturers most important arena are in the lower price segments. A difference from the last 15 years for Pentax is that they now intend SLR's to become their main target area making comparisons to the 90's not very relevant. Pål
Re: Pentax *ist-DL
Dario wrote: I'm not argumenting the choice of 3-segment AF here. That can be fine. I only ask why the hell they have to mess-up things that way. Whay don't they call the damn thing SAFOX IV, SAFOXIX (ah, ah), SAFOX L, or SAFOX WHATEVER? Why SAFOX VIII (which is another thing)? Maybe it is SAFOX V and the rest is printing error in the specifications? Pål
Re: Real world example of DSLR depreciation
Malcolm wrote: Deprecation depends on your viewpoint on the product. Here we are talking cameras, and in the majority (?) of cases here it is hobby money. I have a local friend who would be horrified at losing a few hundred pounds to upgrade a camera to the latest model, yet he is quite happy to throw thousands away to have the latest car every year. I am sure most of us have similar examples. The problem is that if you buy a DSLR today, you can have the same camera or a better one for 50% less in six months with some bad luck. Thats not depreciation, but wasting money. Pl
Re: Re: Re: Overexposure of PZ1+
Alek wrote: But with K and M lenses you could not use matrix... just central or spot and??? Do you have Pentax FA 200/4 ED macro lens? Or A200/4 ED macro? If so which is better? If pressed I think the FA* is slightly better but significantly larger and heavier. What about competition in this range-Nikon/Canon/Sigma?ANy comments... According to the only test I've seen on the 200 macro lenses the A* 200/4 macro beats the Nikon and Canon counterparts. Pål
Re: Overexposure of PZ1+K and M lenses
Alek wrote: I am going to use PZ1 with some my K lenses. Is it truth that there appears overexposure of 2/3 EV? Now I checking it using Velvia but on the basis of some measurements it really seems to me that overexposure occurs. Any comments...So the correction is needed. I do hope it is constant with all my K lenses. With A the problem probably does not take place. No idea but it did happen with two of my A lenses: the A 24/2.8 and the A 35/2.8. I don't really remember the details anymore as I don't own the camera anylonger. Pål
Re: Re: Overexposure of PZ1+
Alek wrote: With A 50/1.7 exposures were great. The difference is with older lenses. With mine it was the other way around and only in matrix metering if memory serves me right. So now you have MZS.. Better than Pz-1p? I think so. I have read some reviews and many people believe PZ1p has more features and not so expensive. It is truth. The MZ-S is more expensive but it does in fact have more features than the Z-1p if you count them. It does, however, have slower max fps rate and max shutterspeed. Pål
Re: Re: 31 and 35mm lenses tested in German magazine
Alek wrote: Do you know who uses FA200/4 ED macro?Or you know any tests of the lens or other macro lenses? It is great. As good as they come. Pål
Re: Re: New of Pentax ultra-compact D-SLR based on 110
I also wonder if Pentax release great dlsr and flagship. But I have heard that selling pro cameras does not makes profit so maybe it is not good idea to introduce such camera,especially that not many pros uses Pentax slr.Or Pentax wants to change it. Heaven knows. This a chicken and the egg problem. Pål
Re: I'll never shut up. was Re: Okay, I'll shut up now
Bruce wrote: Further, if prints are the final product then it is perfectly valid to look at the prints, because in the end, they are all that count. As I've said previously, this is a valid view from a pragmatic point of view. The problem start when someone is using this to say that the original, not the end product, is better or worse. However, I do not agree that the print is all that counts in the end. If if it was, it would be meaningless subject for tests as the printing and scanning quality is in a state of flux and constantly improving. Tests aren't invalid because parameters can't be quantified at every step in the process. Thats not the issue. The test is invalid because the testers don't claim to test print quality or end result but to test the quality of the original film and digital capture. It would be perfectly valid to take pictures of the same scene with different format cameras and then look at nothing but the final prints to determine which, if either was better. No. This test only tell what print was the better. Not what format although this is usually self evident. If what you say were true I could claim that medium format was no better than 35mm because I can't see the difference in small prints. Pål
Re: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Tom wrote: The camera should work even better at low tempuratures. The batteries are the problem. If you can get them separated from the camera by a cord and keep the batteries in an inside pocket a digital camera should be great for cold weather photography. The problem for digital for me at least is the fact that it need to be used close to civilization. The battery/power consumption issue need to be resolved before it holds any interest to me. Even the MZ-S is borderline due to it's power consumption. Pål
Re: A new DSLR standard emerging?
John wrote: It is my firm hope that Pentax will make a good quality DSLR, with a full range of lens covering the 35mm equivalents of 15 - 600mm, but also with the possibility of using an adaptor to allow the use of existing K-mount lens, so that the affordability of a useful system does not put it out of the range of the average keen amateur. I don't think theres a danger that Pentax won't use the K-mount. Smaller lenses will use the K-mount. Pål
Re: A new DSLR standard emerging? (WAS: Re: Nikon DX lenses: Is this whatPentax is up to?)
Tom wrote: I'll wait and see what Pentax does, but I have to admit I'm concerned. I was content with the pace at which Pentax released new cameras in the past because I knew the quality of my prints depended on the lenses, not the camera. This is no longer true with digital - the body is no longer just a light-tight box. The sensor goes a long way towards determining the quality of your prints, and if Pentax is constantly 2 or 3 or 4 generations behind...well, that just wouldn't be a good thing. Well, they claim that their digital cameras will have a shelf life of 6 months. So it seems like they will try to keep up... Pål
Re: Re: Who has switched to Pentax and why?
Alek wrote: Thank you! so for the price K35/3.5 is great and if one can afford to buy FA version it pays. I shall try to find old for beginning. The problem with AF lenses (most of them anyway) is that they are AF lenses; loose, rattly, and focuses past infinity. Unfortunately, I've discovered that initially tight AF lenses develop looseness over time. It may well be that some newer AF designs are potentially beter optically, but getting the best out of them is more of a hassle. Older, MF lenses are built to last forever and my experience is that they do and never ever get out of alignment or develop rattles. Pål
Re: DOF in DSLRs - HELP ME PLEASE...
Butch wrote: As a photofinisher I must disagree. Technically only 1 point is in actual focus, everything else is increasingly out of focus (circle of confusion). So as you enlarge further, less area is perceived to be in focus. The point in focus will be equally less sharp with magnification. The prceived DOF is related to the focus difference between the point in focus and the DOF zone. This is constant with magnification. Another issue is that larger images a viewed from a longer distance negating any reduction of sharpness due to magnification. Pål
Re: No Pentax D-SLR on Photokina?
JCO wrote: Other SLR makers most notably Konica had AE (shutter priority) via automatic aperture setting lenses around 5 years before the Pentax ES. aperture priority isnt the only way to get AE. But only Konica nd Canon bothered with this kind of auto. Most other manufacturers like Pentax, Olympus, Nikon and Minolta found it rather pointless. It had absolutely zero impact something that cannot be said about the ES... Pål
Re: No Pentax D-SLR on Photokina?
JCO wrote: Zero impact? I disagree, if you wanted AE in the 1960's SLR, Pentax couldnt deliver. I think my point was that hardly anyone wanted AE in the 60's. Particularly not in that form.. Pål
Re: F*300mm f4.5 in Natl Geographic
It seems as though Steve Winter, a photographer for Natl. Geographic, has a Pentax F*300mm f4.5 mounted to an unknown(I can't tell what it is anyway) body in the July 2002 Natl. Geographic. No he doesn't. It's a Canon zoom lens. Most likely the 70-210/2.8 L-lens. Pål
Re: A few questions....
William wrote: Seconded. I have a great love for my wood tripod. They don't ring, they are much stronger, and they are much harder to damage. If you ding the leg of a metal tripod, you can run into some problems with legs that no longer close, or in a worst case scenario, a leg that can fold under a heavy lens/camera system. If you damage a wood tripod leg, you get out the sandpaper and varnish. I keep forgetting about Berlebach tripods. My Gitzo is dented so that one of it's leg won't retract. My Manfrotto has one bent leg so it suffers from the same problem as my Gitzo... Pål - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Pentax would rather commit suicide than commit to potential customers (WAS: Re: A few questions....)
William wrote: Yes you are being unrealistic. Pentax would rather commit suicide than commit to potential customers. I don't think so. Having been around on this list since it's beginning I've noticed that Pentax have put out exactly those higher end products most of us asked for. The MZ-S is almost a blueprint of the MZ-1 we wanted: a metal bodied, small MZ-style camera. I can also remember my own and others whining about plasticky AF lenses and that we wanted compact, metal lenses back. JCO even said that the lenses need to have metal focus rings as well in order to make him happy; no rubber. Thats exactly what we got with the Lmited lenses. Pål - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: A few questions....
William wrote: Yes you are being unrealistic. Pentax would rather commit suicide than commit to potential customers. Pentax will make a digital slr and have stated so in press release. Nikon and Canon are both producing digital SLR's and are selling them as fast as they can crank them out. Really? The combined total sales of Nikon and Canon digital slr's to date is less than a year production run of the MZ-S. Pål - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Multi-segment metering and exposure compensation
Hernan wrote: I just read this at Boris's site (http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/extras/K-mount/Kaf.html): Speaking about multi-segment metering: (...) since algorithm is rather complex, it is very difficult to judge when it will fail and in which direction. Hence, it is not advisable to use exposure compensation together with multi-segment metering. So, would you use exposure compensation only in spot meter mode? What do you think? How much do you trust multi-segment metering? With all due respect, I wouldn't pay much attention to this. I use exposure compensation with multipattern metering all the time and in contradiction to urban myth the metering doesn't really do weird unpredictable things. Its quite easy, although it takes experience, to know how the multipattern metering reacts to various situations. When this is said, the multipattern metering of the newer Pentax slr's are top notch; they are quite possibly the best around. The sucess rate is very high and you can basically rely on it. However, multipattern meters get get fooled in the same way that any other meter; they just cope better than eg. center weighted meters but the same logic and precausions apply. I always, when time permits, check the multipattern readout with the spot meter. In the majority of cases I and the multipattern meter agree. Exposure is, particularly in tricky lighting situations, often a matter of taste; the photographer and the multi pattern metering might not agree even when the cameras choosen exposure cannot be considered wrong. Pål - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: New Lens ???
I would not be waiting for a Pentax 17-35 FA. I suspect that Pentax would rather make an 18/2.8 to fill that hole. A FA 18/2.8 Limited + a FA 20-35/4 will possibly be cheaper and smaller than a 17-35/2.8. Pentax is indeed working on image stabilization. When or whether it reach the market is up to the marketing guys. Silent wave or USM rumors exist but their credibility is totally unknown (to me). Pentax said at the Photokina show in 1996 that they were considering an 80-200/2.8 without power zoom. So far it hasn't materialized. You write to Pentax engineers by posting at PDML; or at least the marketing people who decide whats going to be released. The engineers have made both Image stabilization lenses, exostic ultrafast glass, Z-1p replacement etc. The marketing people decides whats going to reach production. - Original Message - From: Pentax Clover To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 12:54 AM Subject: New Lens ??? Hello Does anybody heard something about a 17-35mm f/:2.8 FA ??? And about stabilisation or silent wave ??? And do you think it is going to be released a new 80-200mm f/:2.8, cheaper, without power zoom ??? Last: How can we write to Japanese Pentax engineers ? I hope to ask them to release some lens I feel missing Thanks See you [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MZ-S and More ?
Clover wrote: It is not because you have it on the SLR that mean you need to use it all time long ! But, it makes crazy when you need it even once a year because for this day, I find it is stupid to buy or rent an other SLR just for the need of a day. I don'æt agree. I'll rather be without features I use once a year. Features cost money or have other drawbacks like higher power consumption. I like features that are being used regularly and are useful and don't want to pay for seldomly used features. Nor do I want to carry dead weight; that is features that increases thei weight but seldomly or never used. Of course it is ridiculous, but for a beginner, it is very important because he wants to own a SLR that can give lots of features for the same price. You seem to forget that small size are features as well as any and that many of us have no interest in a feature count competition. The features you mention don't do anything for me getting better images. You also seem to forget that the extra 1,5 fps rate At a speed at 1/1000s you'll gain only 1,5/1000 of the action compared to the MZ-S. You'll still miss 996/1000 of the action with 4fps compared to the MZ-S 497,5/1000 - hardly a big difference. Pål - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: MZ-S and More ?
Clover wrote: I am OK that the MZ-S is the cheapest all metal, solid AF body out there if you except the N90s/ F90x. The F90 is plastic and not at all an all metal, solid AF body. Its lens mount flexes with something as light as a 80-200/2.8 and the bottom plate flexes when the camera is on a tripod. Pål - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: MZ-S and More ?
Bucky wrote: And if Nikon had brought it out you'd be sneering at it, and that's a fact too. Certainly not! If it had been a Nikon I would have considered switching brand. Dog forbid anyone should express a preference for another brand! It's like discussing morality with a fundie. I'm a fan of the F100. But I prefer the MZ-S which is basically a shrinken F100 with added Pentax features like data imprinting, brilliant interface, RTF flash that synch at all speeds, an extra AF point, hyper modes etc. The trade-off for small size is slightly slower fps rate and half a stop slower x-synch. It also sells at a lower price so I don't understand the criticism. Its allright that this camera doesn't have all the features some might want but that has nothing to do with not being worth its cost. The MZ-S is competitively priced for what it offers. Pål - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: MZ-S and More ?
Clover wrote: It seems that the SLR find easily owner in the US. Wheraas in France, everybody complain its high price. My personnal wish is that Pentax makes a better SLR at the same price of the Nikon F-100. I don't get this. First you tell us that the MZ-S is expensive (as in too expensive), then you indirectly tells us that the F100 is not. Where I live the MZ-S costs 25% less than the F100. The trade-off (if any) is a slightly lower fps rate and half a stop slower max shutter speed. To compensate for this, the MZ-S has several expensive features missing on the F100. If anything, the MZ-S is cheap while the F100 is expensive on a cost to feature basis. Whats more, the MZ-S and the F100 is bult likewise of the same materials. Pål - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: MZ-S and More ?
Clover wrote: REally, how will you feel is MZ-S with the same price, has a 4 fps speed and a Synchro 1/8000 and Synchro X 1/250 ??? Does it remember you a PZ-1p??? ' So now you want Pentax to make a camera way better specified than the F100 and sell it for 25% less. 1,5 fps extra and half a stop slower x-synch quite frankly is of extremely little importance even in France. With the MZ-S Pentax have made the best built camera in its class. Its also the cheapest all metal, solid AF body out there and thats a fact. Pål - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
