Or simply a 12 MP FF 35 mm sensor in a back that will fit on a 645 nII. That could be
below $6K and would given the MF types a digital option. There are few enough FF 35
mm- style cameras around to make this a viable option, especially since the Canon 1DS
is competing with MF.
Steven
, November 13, 2003 11:25 PM
Subject: Re: New Pentax SMC-DA 3.5-4.5/15-26
And Pentax may have made a mistake by not pricing the *istD more
aggressively. Canon may have stolen the *istD's thunder by coming
out
with the 300D at $1000, which they may have thought the Pentax
camera
was going
I'll agree to this. The one niche really open to Pentax is the 645 style cameras,
regardless of sensor size.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/16/03 03:03PM
Steve Desjardins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suspect that Pentax just can't even begin to compete with Canon
anymore. Because of the sheer amount of
On 16 Nov 2003 at 21:03, Pål Jensen wrote:
Not very likely as Pentax according to the latest rumors already have a fully
working full frame DSLR based on the 645 system. They are waiting for the price
to come down. Apparently this price point is $6000; not too bad for a full frame
6 X 4,5
I think Pentax will be using the APS for a few years. I don't think the
FF sensor will be a big market for a while, and it just doesn't make
sense for Pentax to try to win over those people. They simply can't
compete head to head with Canon.
Steven Desjardins
Department of Chemistry
Washington
More to the original point --
if one want the magnification of a 135 format 300/2.8
on a format 2/3 its size
one should purchase a 200/2.8.
It's that easy.
Collin
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 15:27:59 +0100 (CET)
From: Jan van Wijk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Good point Collin,
One other thing I never see
Ah yes, Pentax should sell the camera at a loss. A couple of hundred dollars a
camera is nothing to worry about. After all they can make it up in film sales.
--
Robert Gonzalez wrote:
And Pentax may have made a mistake by not pricing the *istD more
aggressively. Canon may have stolen the
Well, yes I would.
For one thing I see a lot of stuff that says Pentax on it in my doctor's
examining rooms. Pentax does not just make cameras, I doubt that cameras are
their main income. However I doubt that Pentax is big enough for one section of
the company to subsidise another. In some
i sincerely doubt that Canon paid the slightest attention to Pentax in their
marketing plans for the 300D.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: Robert Gonzalez [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 11:25 PM
Subject: Re: New Pentax SMC-DA 3.5-4.5/15-26
in their
marketing plans for the 300D.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: Robert Gonzalez [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 11:25 PM
Subject: Re: New Pentax SMC-DA 3.5-4.5/15-26
And Pentax may have made a mistake by not pricing the *istD more
aggressively
LOL. But companies do this all the time however (lose money to gain
market share). Esp Japanese companies. Remember all the fuss over DRAM
back in the 80's and the dumping below cost to put other DRAM
companies out of business? Pentax doesn't have that deep of pockets
however, hence the
I have the information that a pre-production DA16-45 just arrived at
Pentax Europe (Hamburg), so I guess that it will be available soon.
Arnold
Rüdiger Neumann schrieb:
Hallo infos on the coming DA16-45 are on http://www.aohc.it/pressrelease/lns0308e.htm regards Rüdiger
I was just wondering if anyone else agrees with me that the new DA lenses
seem like a bit of a backward move. Shouldn't they be working toward
incorporating full frame CCDs and reducing the cost of that technology
first? Doesn't this new DA lens reduce the optical sweet spot (and isn't
that bad?)?
Ryan wrote:
RL I was just wondering if anyone else agrees with me that the new DA lenses
RL seem like a bit of a backward move.
RL ..
RL I wonder how
RL much resources this direction takes away from moving towards full frame
RL (maybe Pentax isn't even considering it!).
Well Ryan, I
, November 13, 2003 8:46 PM
Subject: Re: New Pentax SMC-DA 3.5-4.5/15-26
Ryan wrote:
RL I was just wondering if anyone else agrees with me that the new DA
lenses
RL seem like a bit of a backward move.
RL ..
RL I wonder how
RL much resources this direction takes away from moving towards full
Hi,
Ryan wrote:
I was just wondering if anyone else agrees with me that the new DA lenses
seem like a bit of a backward move. snip Whole thing kinda reminds me of
APS.. Could it be this is another Pentax nail in the pro coffin?
I've been wondering for some time whether the present DSLR
I suspect that Pentax just can't even begin to compete with Canon
anymore. Because of the sheer amount of RD money Canon had, it
probably already has prototypes for a number of cameras. So, for
example, if Pentax did come out with a full frame DSLR, I'm sure Canon
would one-up it within a month
Steve Desjardins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suspect that Pentax just can't even begin to compete with Canon
anymore. Because of the sheer amount of RD money Canon had, it
probably already has prototypes for a number of cameras. So, for
example, if Pentax did come out with a full frame DSLR, I'm
- Original Message -
From: Ryan Lee
Subject: Re: New Pentax SMC-DA 3.5-4.5/15-26
I was just wondering if anyone else agrees with me that the new DA lenses
seem like a bit of a backward move. Shouldn't they be working toward
incorporating full frame CCDs and reducing the cost
- Original Message -
From: Ryan Lee
Subject: Re: New Pentax SMC-DA 3.5-4.5/15-26
I agree with this totally. I give them points for identifying, and tending
to this market, but if Canon unveils a full frame CCD in a 300D price
range
a bit too soon, it'll be a disaster for Pentax
- Original Message -
From: Sylwester Pietrzyk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 8:53 AM
Subject: Re: New Pentax SMC-DA 3.5-4.5/15-26
Well, actually for 16-45/4 lens it is very small (just imagine this zoom
range and brightness for 35mm lens
- Original Message -
From: Sylwester Pietrzyk
Subject: Re: New Pentax SMC-DA 3.5-4.5/15-26
Never? LX was strictly marketed as a pure professional tool, and as such a
system it won hearts of many pro photographers around the world. It took
many customers away from Nikon F3
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, William Robb wrote:
I'm not imagining it as a 35mm lens, since it doesn't cover the format.
The whole point of the small sensors was to enable smaller cameras and
lenses.
The 16-45 takes a 67mm filter, and is larger than the 18-35. I happen to
have that lens, and it is
- Original Message -
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The whole point of the small sensors was to enable smaller cameras and
lenses.
Not to make it cheap? I don't think it was the lens size that motivated ccd
size like you seem to be saying..
alex wetmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, William Robb wrote:
I'm not imagining it as a 35mm lens, since it doesn't cover the format.
The whole point of the small sensors was to enable smaller cameras and
lenses.
The 16-45 takes a 67mm filter, and is larger than the 18-35. I
Previously written;
I was just wondering if anyone else agrees with me that the new DA lenses
seem like a bit of a backward move. Shouldn't they be working toward
incorporating full frame CCDs and reducing the cost of that technology
first? Doesn't this new DA lens reduce the optical sweet spot
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Mark Roberts wrote:
alex wetmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Compared to 35mm lenses in the same size it is small.
For comparison lets look at the Sigma 15-30/f3.5-f4.5.
Well, that's not a fair comparison. For *equivalent focal length*, you
should be comparing it to a
Hi Bruce,
Yes, how about the Pentax company...? ;o) Well, the paradox is that
Pentax has little company and that may be very well their only
excuse.
I don't think that Fuji (or Kodak for that matter) are players. They
lack a SLR tradition nor do they have a client base - so it's
A 300/2.8 is a 300/2.8 no matter the format it's on.
Period.
Now, 300mm on 8x10 is normal, but the magnification is
EXACTLY THE SAME as on 35mm! It's just that 35mm has been
seriously (severly) CROPPED!
CRB
Now imagine DA 300/2.8 - being 30%
smaller andf lighter than A* 300/3.8 - wouldn't it
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Mark Roberts wrote:
No. You'd have to compare a 450/2.8 FULL IMAGE CIRCLE lens on a film
camera to a 300/2.8 limited image circle lens on a digital camera.
Allright, but it doesn't matter. If 300/2.8 FULL IMAGE CIRCLE lens
is two times smaller than 400/2.8 for film, then
10:10 AM
Subject: Re: New Pentax SMC-DA 3.5-4.5/15-26
Large format, Medium format, 35mm.. ladies and gentlemen, please put your
hands together for Tiny format! :) I suppose creating DA lenses (with
their
alleged cost effectiveness) does have a short term viable market; since
the
digital scene
Pentax SMC-DA 3.5-4.5/15-26
It is entirely possible that 24x36mm sensors will stay prohibitively
expensive, and not filter down to the mainstream user.
On 13 Nov 2003 at 9:11, Mark Roberts wrote:
I'll bet that Canon has an economy version (less than $5000.00)
full-frame DSLR already designed and ready to go into production... as
soon as they need to sell it. That'll be when a serious full-frame
competitor appears and not a moment before.
- Original Message -
From: alex wetmore
Subject: Re: New Pentax SMC-DA 3.5-4.5/15-26
That is what Canon did with the EF-S lenses, but Pentax doesn't
appear to be doing that with the DA lenses.
The Canon lens is about the same size as the Pentax 18-35 also.
William Robb
Unfortunately, Pentax doesn't have the resources that Canon does, to
fabricate their own chips. Pentax is at the mercy of Sony. Since Sony
also provides the 6mp chips for Nikon, and Nikon is also creating their
own line of APS dedicated lenses, it appears that they also believe that
APS
Hallo
infos on the coming DA16-45 are on
http://www.aohc.it/pressrelease/lns0308e.htm
regards
Rüdiger
-
Von: Joseph Tainter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thank you, Rüdiger. It appears that you have more information than the
rest of us about the forthcoming DA 16-45 (such as dimensions, filter
size). Is
36 matches
Mail list logo
