 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / May 2006Pentax announces two new entry-level DSLRs
http://www.pentaximaging.com/footer/news_media_article?ArticleId=7717552 Inexpensive, plastic-bodied DSLRs are doing what they did in the late 1980s, rescuing camera makers from losing money on expensive metal bodies as well as facilitating the sale of pricey lenses which are the real profit makers for the DSLR producers. These plastic DSLRs are the same as printers in the printer industry, a mechanism to sell hugely overpriced ink. >From Pentax: The latest lens inherits all the attributes of the acclaimed PENTAX Limited lens series including high-quality image reproduction, distinctive visual description, and high-grade lens-barrel finish. The smc PENTAX DA 21mm F3.2 AL Limited lens will ship in July 2006 for $549.95. WTLM, this was leaked weeks ago. > http://www.pentaximaging.com/footer/news_media_article?ArticleId=7717552 > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > smc PENTAX DA 21mm F3.2 AL Limited lens will ship in July 2006 for > $549.95. The specifics just appeared on dpreview.com. > The specifics just appeared on dpreview.com. And you posted a link?? Tell me about the new 10MP Pentax with SR and a even better/faster focusing system and I might be a bit more interested and just might stop thinking you are just another troll. > And you posted a link?? Tell me about the new 10MP Pentax with SR and > a even better/faster focusing system and I might be a bit more > interested and just might stop thinking you are just another troll. http://www.dpreview.com/news/0605/06052205pentaxk100d.asp The new K10D(?) with 10MP is still a rumour... Regards, Carsten  Signature(Bei eMail-Kontakt: Bitte "USENET" im Betreff mit angeben. For emails: Please put 'USENET' somewhere in the subject.) Stop crying like a bitch. At least the focusing system in the D/DS/DS2, etc, is better than the old one in the ZX/MZ series. Not great, but very good. And the bodies do sound better than my DS -- they're talking of a stainless internal frame. That's an apparent improvement. What gets me is why they released a non-shake-reduction model at all. (Other than to make money, that is.) The DL fills that slot. Or maybe they just wanted a product name that makes for sense than "*ist". Sounds like tuna. Collin KC8TKA > At least the focusing system in the D/DS/DS2, etc, is better than > the old one in the ZX/MZ series. Not great, but very good. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > "*ist". > Sounds like tuna. Hell to search on as well. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > At least the focusing system in the D/DS/DS2, etc, is better than > the old one in the ZX/MZ series. Not great, but very good. > > And the bodies do sound better than my DS -- they're talking of a > stainless > internal frame. That's an apparent improvement. They all have a stainless steel frame with polycarbonate cladding so they are exactly the same. > What gets me is why they released a non-shake-reduction model at all. > (Other than to make money, that is.) The DL fills that slot. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Collin > KC8TKA > http://www.pentaximaging.com/footer/news_media_article?ArticleId=7717552 > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > in the printer > industry, a mechanism to sell hugely overpriced ink. I think that you missed the real news. The K100D has in-body image stabilization. And I fail to see how a body that can use lenses dating back to the '60s and add image stabilization to them is a particularly good way to sell expensive lenses. If the IS actually works the thing is a sore temptation. >>From Pentax: > The latest lens inherits all the attributes of the acclaimed PENTAX > Limited lens series including high-quality image reproduction, > distinctive visual description, and high-grade lens-barrel finish. The > smc PENTAX DA 21mm F3.2 AL Limited lens will ship in July 2006 for > $549.95. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) Why a "sore temptation" now? Minolta's with it have been out for some time. > Why a "sore temptation" now? Minolta's with it have been out for some > time. Minolta is gone, because they were 2 years late with the 7D. Minolta = Sony. They are alive! > Minolta = Sony. They are alive! No, Minolta = a small cog in the Sony machine. What Sony will do with the remains has yet to be seen. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > Why a "sore temptation" now? Minolta's with it have been out for some > time. But (a) I can't buy a Minolta right now unless I get it on ebay or luck out on some "new old stock" and (b) I have several Pentax lenses but no Minolta lenses. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >> http://www.pentaximaging.com/footer/news_media_article?ArticleId=7717552 >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >I think that you missed the real news. The K100D has in-body image >stabilization. Not to mention the fact that this "plastic bodied DSLR" apparently has a new, stiffer stainless steel chassis. >>I think that you missed the real news. The K100D has in-body image >>stabilization. > > Not to mention the fact that this "plastic bodied DSLR" > apparently has a new, stiffer stainless steel chassis. While this may be "new" and "stiffer", all of the Pentax DSLR's have had stainless stell chassis, as far as I know. The fact that the out casing happens to be plastic rather than metal would be of concern only to someone who makes his living selling mining or metal. As for why IS might be a significant development despite the fact that KM had it earlier - far more people with Pentax lenses wanting to buy DSLR's than folks with KM lenses, plus, I think many people just find the Pentax ergonomics and functionality to be far superior. IS on a mediocre camera with few lenses in circulation is not as exciting as IS on a camera people really like and have lenses for. --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ >>>I think that you missed the real news. The K100D has in-body image >>>stabilization. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >While this may be "new" and "stiffer", all of the Pentax DSLR's have had >stainless stell chassis, as far as I know. You are correct. My *ist-D (just like my MZ-S, and my PZ-1p) has a plastic outer shell around a stainless steel frame. >>>I think that you missed the real news. The K100D has in-body image >>>stabilization. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >happens to be plastic rather than metal would be of concern only to >someone who makes his living selling mining or metal. Or someone who paid $500 for a cheap plastic body facing a $275 repair bill if they crack it. Alot of good a S/S. chassis does. Which is WHY Canon is doing SO well with it's metal-bodied 20D, 30D and Nikon's D200 (metal, of course) is so hard to even get ahold of. >>>>I think that you missed the real news. The K100D has in-body image >>>>stabilization. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >metal-bodied 20D, 30D and Nikon's D200 (metal, of course) is so hard >to even get ahold of. You can afford a $275 repair bill around four times before you even get close to what you'd have paid for a D200 or a 30D. Not that you'd ever need that, of course - high impact polycarbonate is stronger than steel or magnesium. That's why they make F1 race cars out of "plastic". So - how do the price-competitive models from Canon or Nikon look? Canon EOS 350D: plastic body (no mention of even a metal chassis). Nikon don't even say what they make the D50 (or the D70) out of. But if you want to use it as a hammer, or a football, by all means spend your money on metal. I'd rather pay for features. Such as, say, the AF system - how many AF points do the D50 or the 350D have? >>>>>I think that you missed the real news. The K100D has in-body image >>>>>stabilization. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > ever need that, of course - high impact polycarbonate is stronger than > steel or magnesium. More impact resistant than cast magnesium I'll buy--cast magnesium isn't particularly good in impact resistance. Stronger than steel, no. > That's why they make F1 race cars out of "plastic". Yeah, carbon fiber and aramid composites, not polycarbonate. Maybe you have the two confused? Further, impact resistance has never been carbon fiber's strong suit--Rolls-Royce found that out the hard way when they couldn't get the RB-211 to pass bird-ingestion without cracking blades. Going beyond that, the real advantages are stiffness and strength-to-weight, not absolute strength. This is irrelevant though, no inexpensive cameras are made of carbon-fiber composite. > So - how do the price-competitive models from Canon or Nikon look? > Canon EOS 350D: plastic body (no mention of even a metal chassis). [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > spend your money on metal. I'd rather pay for features. Such as, > say, the AF system - how many AF points do the D50 or the 350D have? Does the Pentax autofocus system actually work better in the real world? Can one _get_ an environmentally sealed all metal body for the Pentax system? And why are you so defensive? Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >> But if you want to use it as a hammer, or a football, by all means >> spend your money on metal. I'd rather pay for features. Such as, >> say, the AF system - how many AF points do the D50 or the 350D have? > >Does the Pentax autofocus system actually work better in the real world? That depends very much on whether you want to use one of the AF points which it has, but the others don't. In that case, there's no doubt that it works better. In other cases, it's a little harder to say. According to a couple of people I know with both Pentax and other systems, the Pentax AF is generally slower, but more precise - it seems to take one extra final adjustment step on occasions to refine the focus. >Can one _get_ an environmentally sealed all metal body for the Pentax >system? Not since the LX. There are suggestions that the announced, but not yet released, 10MP body will have environmental sealing. Personally if that's true I don't really care too much what the body is made of; a dented metal body is just as useless as a cracked plastic one. And, in any case, I try to avoid putting precision instruments through the kind of mechanical stresses necessary to damage metal or plastics. >And why are you so defensive? Because I'm sick and tired of Rich's mindless "Plastic = bad" posts, and sometimes I let the irritation show. >>> But if you want to use it as a hammer, or a football, by all means >>> spend your money on metal. I'd rather pay for features. Such as, [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Because I'm sick and tired of Rich's mindless "Plastic = bad" posts, > and sometimes I let the irritation show. Best thing to do with such people is ignore them. Makes them madder'n Hell <g>. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > >>>>I think that you missed the real news. The K100D has in-body image > >>>>stabilization. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > You can afford a $275 repair bill around four times before you even > get close to what you'd have paid for a D200 or a 30D. I hope you are not saying these new (or any) Pentax DSLRs in the same league with D200 or 30D? >> >>>>I think that you missed the real news. The K100D has in-body image >> >>>>stabilization. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >I hope you are not saying these new (or any) Pentax DSLRs in the same >league with D200 or 30D? Wouldn't dream of it. But I wasn't the one who slagged them off for having plastic outer bodies, and then brought up the metal-bodied D200 & 30D. I merely pointed out that you get what you pay for. Let's see how close the forthcoming 10MP body (with SR) gets to the D200. > I hope you are not saying these new (or any) Pentax DSLRs in the same > league with D200 or 30D? Talk about Trolling! Of course the Pentax *ist D/DS/DS2 are in the same league. The fewer number of pixels is a trivial difference. In most other respects, the Pentax is better. Face it, none of these reduced-size sensor bodies are in the same league as the Canon full frame bodies. A working "pro" who can succeed with a 30D can also succeed with a Pentax, and may do a better job. Fred > > I hope you are not saying these new (or any) Pentax DSLRs in the same > > league with D200 or 30D? > > Talk about Trolling! And the AOL user bites! > Of course the Pentax *ist D/DS/DS2 are in the same league. And then of course you are an idiot. > The fewer > number of pixels is a trivial difference. In most other respects, the > Pentax is better. Give... say one good reason why "Pentax *ist D/DS/DS2" better than 30D or D200. > Face it, none of these reduced-size sensor bodies are in the same league > as the Canon full frame bodies. A working "pro" who can succeed with a > 30D can also succeed with a Pentax, and may do a better job. Depends what you are calling as a success. A working "pro" will succeed with a fair-enough P&S if compared with an amateur loaded with expensive gears. >Give... say one good reason why "Pentax *ist D/DS/DS2" better than 30D >or D200. Because they accept almost the whole range of superlative Pentax K and Takumar M42 lenses going back over 40 years, of course! ;-) I use both Canon (EOS 5D) and Pentax (*ist D) DSLRs so please do not try accusing me of bias. <g> >>Give... say one good reason why "Pentax *ist D/DS/DS2" better than 30D >>or D200. > > Because they accept almost the whole range of superlative Pentax K and > Takumar M42 lenses going back over 40 years, of course! So does the EOS, so how is that a benefit? > I use both Canon (EOS 5D) and Pentax (*ist D) DSLRs so please do not > try accusing me of bias. <g> Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>Give... say one good reason why "Pentax *ist D/DS/DS2" better than 30D >>>or D200. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >So does the EOS, so how is that a benefit? Only a very limited range of K bayonet lenses can be used at all on the EF mount, unless they are permanently modified. The EOS DSLRs offer stopped down mode only. In contrast, Pentax DSLRs offer full aperture focusing with K bayonet lenses, full aperture focusing and metering and all exposure modes with KA bayonet lenses, and full aperture focusing and metering, all exposure modes and autofocus with all F and FA lenses. Unless you are using only M42 lenses, a Pentax DSLR is a far better choice for owners of Pentax glass. Cotty (on PDML) and a commercial product available on eBay allow use of K lenses on a Canon without modification. iirc. Collin >Cotty (on PDML) and a commercial product available on eBay >allow use of K lenses on a Canon without modification. >iirc. > >Collin You don't rc. Cotty's lenses are permamently modified. And, as pointed out, you lose auto-aperture doing this. >Cotty (on PDML) and a commercial product available on eBay >allow use of K lenses on a Canon without modification. >iirc. I believe Cotty's modification is semi-permanent. You cannot use the lenses on a Pentax body once they are modified, although the modification is relatively easy to reverse. The lenses can only be used stopped down on an EOS body. I also believe that the adapters available on eBay can only be used with a very limited range of Pentax lenses. Just because things can be bought on eBay doesn't necessarily mean that they work. <g> >>>>Give... say one good reason why "Pentax *ist D/DS/DS2" better than 30D >>>>or D200. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Only a very limited range of K bayonet lenses can be used at all on > the EF mount, unless they are permanently modified. That's not what the manufacturer of the adapter says. > The EOS DSLRs > offer stopped down mode only. This is true. They offer it on Pentax lenses, and Canon and Leica and Olympus and Contax and well, there are darned few lenses that can't be made to work on a Canon EOS. The Olympus 4/3 system appears to be equally versatile in that regard. Now, what other brands can you use on a Pentax? > In contrast, Pentax DSLRs offer full aperture focusing with K bayonet > lenses, full aperture focusing and metering and all exposure modes > with KA bayonet lenses, and full aperture focusing and metering, all > exposure modes and autofocus with all F and FA lenses. Personally I've never been a big fan of auto-anything. I came to digital from a Leica M. I don't see setting the aperture or focus to be any kind of hardship. > Unless you are using only M42 lenses, a Pentax DSLR is a far better > choice for owners of Pentax glass. If you have a large collection of the best grade of Pentax glass and don't see expanding beyond it in your future this is true. However one should not restrict oneself to Pentax only because one believes the lenses to be unusable on other brands. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) In article <tnr772955trsmck46510b5kv7pqteqb...@4ax.com>, - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Rich <m...@nowhere.com> wrote: >On Tue, 23 May 2006 22:01:27 -0600, "Marc Sabatella" ><m...@outsideshore.com> wrote: >>>>I think that you missed the real news. The K100D has in-body image >>>>stabilization. >>> Not to mention the fact that this "plastic bodied DSLR" >>> apparently has a new, stiffer stainless steel chassis. >>While this may be "new" and "stiffer", all of the Pentax DSLR's have had >>stainless stell chassis, as far as I know. The fact that the out casing >>happens to be plastic rather than metal would be of concern only to >>someone who makes his living selling mining or metal. >Or someone who paid $500 for a cheap plastic body facing a $275 repair >bill if they crack it. Alot of good a S/S. chassis does. > Which is WHY Canon is doing SO well with it's >metal-bodied 20D, 30D and Nikon's D200 (metal, of course) is so hard >to even get ahold of. You can afford a $275 repair bill around four times before you even get close to what you'd have paid for a D200 or a 30D. Not that you'd ever need that, of course - high impact polycarbonate is stronger than steel or magnesium." All evidence to the contrary. I hear stories about those plastic things cracking and splitting from minor falls and I do not hear this about things like the 20D or 30D or the Nikon D200.' > In article <tnr772955trsmck46510b5kv7pqteqb...@4ax.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > the 20D or > 30D or the Nikon D200.' Plastic cracks, metal dents. The result of either can range from cosmetic to total loss of function depending on where the damage occurs. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >Plastic cracks, metal dents. The result of either can range from cosmetic >to total loss of function depending on where the damage occurs. Not all metal is born equal. Modern diecast camera bodies don't dent, they crack. How much impact is needed (compared with polycarbonate) is another matter, but dents went out with pressed brass bodies. SignatureJohn Bean >>While this may be "new" and "stiffer", all of the Pentax DSLR's have >>had [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Or someone who paid $500 for a cheap plastic body facing a $275 repair > bill if they crack it. I suppose if the body really is "cheap plastic", then such problems would be common enough to worry about. Not all plastic bodies are created equal, though. Do you have any actual statistics on the number of problems reported with the particular combination of chassis and casing material that Pentax uses? Any statistics that might compare the frequency and severity of damage to a camera body with damage to the internals, given the same stresses? As it is, you're basically recommending spending around a thousand dollars to buy insurance against a two or three hundred dollar problem that is extremely unlikely to ever actually occur, and if it does occur, if probably just as likely to fry the camera *insides*, regardless of the body construction. > Which is WHY Canon is doing SO well with it's > metal-bodied 20D Yeah, almost as well as they're doing with their more-plastic-than-Pentax 300 & 350. --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ I was zipping up the road on my bike about 40mph. I saw the car come to a full stop at the corner. He saw me. I thought. The next instant he was right there. I hit his front fender- did a swan dive over his hood and slid on my back into the curb-head first. What kept my head from splitting like an egg was the polycarbonate helmet I was wearing. Not only was my head intact, so was the helmet. Worrying about a camera with a metal chassis covered with plastic is really a baseless worry. The plastics they use now are tough, make for a lighter load to carry and make little difference in the durability of the camera. My ist*D has taken a few bumps unscathed. That certainly shouldn't be a deal breaker. Frank >>> While this may be "new" and "stiffer", all of the Pentax DSLR's have >>> had [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> Or someone who paid $500 for a cheap plastic body facing a $275 repair >> bill if they crack it. > I was zipping up the road on my bike about 40mph. I saw the car come to > a full stop at the corner. He saw me. I thought. The next instant he was > right there. I hit his front fender- did a swan dive over his hood and > slid on my back into the curb-head first. What kept my head from > splitting like an egg was the polycarbonate helmet I was wearing. Are you sure it was polycarbonate? The normal material for helmets that are not fiberglass or aramid is ABS. I see some now that are an ABS/Polycarbonate alloy--perhaps that is what yours is made of. > Not > only was my head intact, so was the helmet. Don't bet on it. It may look fine but odds are that the padding is shot. > Worrying about a camera with > a metal chassis covered with plastic is really a baseless worry. The [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >>> Or someone who paid $500 for a cheap plastic body facing a $275 repair >>> bill if they crack it. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) This is off topic, but I felt compelled to comment, FWIW. For almost all helmets, the manufacturers recommend replacement or examination after an impact -- no matter what the helmet looks like. An impact can cause fine cracks and other invisible damage that can impact the structural integrity of the helmet. For bike helmets, I think they recommend replacement after an impact because they aren't work examination. For most motorcycle helmets, you can send them back to the manufacturer to be examined and x-rayed. I think suggest it even if you drop in from anything over about 3 feet (that's 1 meter for out friends in the rest of the world). For football helmet, they are usually examined and rebuild every 3 seasons. For out friends in the rest of the world, that's .... oh never mind. Hope all was well after your crash. Pat. > Inexpensive, plastic-bodied DSLRs are doing what they did in the late > 1980s, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > for the DSLR producers. These plastic DSLRs are the same as printers > in the printer sure, yeah. Did you take your medication yet? B. > http://www.pentaximaging.com/footer/news_media_article?ArticleId=7717552 > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > smc PENTAX DA 21mm F3.2 AL Limited lens will ship in July 2006 for > $549.95. RichA, You're "starting" to sound like an old fogey ;-( Your plastic thing is getting to be ooooooooooooooold. Could you please give us a break and talk about something else? Thanks, Marcel >> http://www.pentaximaging.com/footer/news_media_article?ArticleId=7717552 >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >Thanks, >Marcel Canon 1 plastic, 5 metal DSLRs. Pentax, 1 metal, 4 plastic DSLRs. Who is doing better? hmmmm another anti-pentax zealot ?????? Signaturehttp://photobucket.com/albums/b216/corks67/my-bikes/ > http://www.pentaximaging.com/footer/news_media_article?ArticleId=7717552 > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > smc PENTAX DA 21mm F3.2 AL Limited lens will ship in July 2006 for > $549.95. >hmmmm another anti-pentax zealot ?????? Absolutely not, I like Pentax. I just dislike the direction they are headed in. This could be the direction for all makers aside from Canon and Nikon as no one else will ever make any kind of impact in the pro market so why should they build expensive metal bodied DSLRs? Got to admit, it's about the weirdest looking lens I've ever seen. http://www.pentaxtech.com/Press/KIMAGES/K100D21mm.jpg Any idea why??? P.S. Original k1000 was a GREAT camera. I owned mine for over 20 years. Only stopped using it when I went with a different dSLR. Gave the camera to a friend, it's still going strong. You could drive over that thing and it would still work fine. 100% manual 100% of the time. Oh, those were the days. No calibrated monitors or color profiles. Just you, an enlarger, a grain focuser and lots of paper and chemicals .... > Got to admit, it's about the weirdest looking lens I've ever seen. > > http://www.pentaxtech.com/Press/KIMAGES/K100D21mm.jpg > > Any idea why??? Hmm, 21mm f/3.2 manual focus pancake lens. Nice. I have a Nikon 45mm with a somewhat similar inverted cone lens shade though not a square opening like that one. It is nice to have a tiny lens like that. > P.S. Original k1000 was a GREAT camera. I owned mine for over 20 > years. Only stopped using it when I went with a different dSLR. Gave > the camera to a friend, it's still going strong. You could drive over > that thing and it would still work fine. 100% manual 100% of the time. > Oh, those were the days. No calibrated monitors or color profiles. > Just you, an enlarger, a grain focuser and lots of paper and chemicals >> Got to admit, it's about the weirdest looking lens I've ever seen. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >with a somewhat similar inverted cone lens shade though not a square >opening like that one. It is nice to have a tiny lens like that. It's AF, not manual :-) All DA lenses have full-time manual focus too. I have its little brother the DA40/2.8 pancake. Superb lens and I expect this one to be just as good... but wider. SignatureJohn Bean >> Got to admit, it's about the weirdest looking lens I've ever seen. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > a somewhat similar inverted cone lens shade though not a square opening > like that one. It is nice to have a tiny lens like that. Actually Pentax has 21mm f:3.2 pancake, 40mm f:2.8 pancake and the 70mm f:2.4 limited pancake The 45 is hardly a pancake. Check out Pentax' DA40 for another thin baby like the old M40/2.8. http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/primes/normal/M40f2.8.html http://www.pentaximaging.com/products/product_details/camera_lens--smc_P-DA_40mm _F2.8_Limited/reqID--6635729/subsection--Digital_35mm_standard > The 45 is hardly a pancake. > Check out Pentax' DA40 for another thin baby like the old M40/2.8. Didn't we already have this argument? The 45 P is 17mm (0.7 inches) long. > http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/primes/normal/M40f2.8.html 18mm long > http://www.pentaximaging.com/products/product_details/camera_lens--smc_P-DA_40mm _F2.8_Limited/reqID--6635729/subsection--Digital_35mm_standard 0.59 inches long. The 45 P comes with a screw in neutral filter/protector and lens shade which including the cap almost doubles the length. And it extends out at closest focus. >> The 45 is hardly a pancake. >> Check out Pentax' DA40 for another thin baby like the old M40/2.8. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > which including the cap almost doubles the length. And it extends out at > closest focus. Both those links you cite are for a 40mm f2.8, not 45mm. SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com > Got to admit, it's about the weirdest looking lens I've ever seen. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Just you, an enlarger, a grain focuser and lots of paper and chemicals > .... Well in a colour darkroom I had all sorts of profiles, films were all different, colour paper varied from batch to batch. Digital for colour prints works well for me.. I agree the K1000 counts as a classic camera, heir to the Spotmatic dynasty. Darrell Larose Spotmatic II 1972 LX 1981 *ist D 2004 >> Got to admit, it's about the weirdest looking lens I've ever seen. >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > LX 1981 > *ist D 2004 Personally I preffered my KM and have just bought one to do some film photography again. All the K bodies are essentially the same frame. Only the K2 differs in control location. They're tanks. Nice tanks. But still tanks. > All the K bodies are essentially the same frame. > Only the K2 differs in control location. > They're tanks. > Nice tanks. > But still tanks. Yes. This a good thing in this case. :-) > http://www.pentaximaging.com/footer/news_media_article?ArticleId=7717552 > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > in the printer > industry, a mechanism to sell hugely overpriced ink. So, oh Master Troll, what consumables are the camera companies selling when they release consumer DSLRs at reasonable prices? Film? Oh, that's right, the D stands for digital and there aren't any expensive consumables but you wouldn't know that because you don't own a DSLR! In this digital world a DSLR owner may never print a single image. Your analogy is as weak as your mind. Greg Signature"All my time I spent in heaven Revelries of dance and wine Waking to the sound of laughter Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons >> http://www.pentaximaging.com/footer/news_media_article?ArticleId=7717552 >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >Greg No consumables, but a $600 lens obviously generates more profit than a $500 DSLR body. How many lenses do you own or have bought over the last say five years for your camera? They ARE the consumables! -Rich >>> http://www.pentaximaging.com/footer/news_media_article?ArticleId=7717552 >>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > No consumables, but a $600 lens obviously generates more profit than a > $500 DSLR body. Now why would that be? Are you perhaps laboring under the misconception that mass-produced electronics are more expensive than mass-produced optics? > How many lenses do you own or have bought over the > last say five years for your camera? They ARE the consumables! Once you have the lenses, unless you are very hard on your equipment you won't need to replace them for a good long time, they are hardly "consumable". On the other hand, as technology improves the bodies will get replaced with some regularity--they are far more "consumable" than lenses. > -Rich Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>> http://www.pentaximaging.com/footer/news_media_article?ArticleId=7717552 >>>> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > >> -Rich Take a look at the majority of messages on DSLR groups. They concern "Should I buy this or I just bought this new lens." Lenses are the profit engines of the camera makers when it comes to DSLRs. Now, I'm not saying Canon isn't making a mint off things like the 1DsMkII at $7000 a pop for the body, but that is a special case. The price erosion on entry-level DSLRs pretty much means the profit is found elsewhere, which are lenses and accessories. >>>>>http://www.pentaximaging.com/footer/news_media_article?ArticleId=7717552 >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > "Should I buy this or I just bought this new lens." Lenses are the > profit engines of the camera makers when it comes to DSLRs. Dude, they're bought and used, or bought and sold. Get it through your thick skull that they're not bought and consumed. Greg Signature"All my time I spent in heaven Revelries of dance and wine Waking to the sound of laughter Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons >>>http://www.pentaximaging.com/footer/news_media_article?ArticleId=7717552 >>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > $500 DSLR body. How many lenses do you own or have bought over the > last say five years for your camera? They ARE the consumables! So the camera eats the lenses or something? Lenses are accessories or actually required parts of the camera, not consumables, at least not in anyone's world but yours. Greg Signature"All my time I spent in heaven Revelries of dance and wine Waking to the sound of laughter Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.