24-90 discontinued
Posted 08/04/2005 - 17:54
Link
Stop whingeing. It's in stock right now at Park Cameras:
http://www.parkcameras.com/cameras/slrcameras/pentax.htm
Also, for less money, at B&H in New York.
G
http://www.parkcameras.com/cameras/slrcameras/pentax.htm
Also, for less money, at B&H in New York.
G
Posted 09/04/2005 - 11:43
Link
It has clearly escaped Kevin Stephen's notice that there has recently been a change in the way cameras capture photographic images. For the past four or five years, a new type of camera has come on the market which captures images digitally. For most people, and in most situations, this is a better solution than film, so nobody buys film cameras any more.
Camera manufacturers have either moved production to digital, or gone out of business (Contax, Bronica, Leica next month, Mamiya any minute now, Hasselblad soon).
It is because customers are not showing any commitment to film that this has happened. Pentax was in fact slow to bring out a digital SLR, and suffered accordingly. Nonetheless, their entire digital SLR range is capable of using lenses made 30 years ago. Can Canon say that? Certainly not.
What is important is Pentax's commitment to its customers, not to a technology that few people still want (judged by what they are buying). In this respect, I think Pentax shows more commitment than any other manufacturer, which is why I take exception to ill-thought-out comments from Luddites like Mr Stephens.
George
Camera manufacturers have either moved production to digital, or gone out of business (Contax, Bronica, Leica next month, Mamiya any minute now, Hasselblad soon).
It is because customers are not showing any commitment to film that this has happened. Pentax was in fact slow to bring out a digital SLR, and suffered accordingly. Nonetheless, their entire digital SLR range is capable of using lenses made 30 years ago. Can Canon say that? Certainly not.
What is important is Pentax's commitment to its customers, not to a technology that few people still want (judged by what they are buying). In this respect, I think Pentax shows more commitment than any other manufacturer, which is why I take exception to ill-thought-out comments from Luddites like Mr Stephens.
George
Posted 09/04/2005 - 21:14
Link
Hi George
At least I rattled somebodys cage, and thanks for pointing out my my ill thought out comments, not like :
"For most people, and in most situations, this is a better solution than film, so nobody buys film cameras any more. "
Well maybe for press photographers with a deadline, and where the max image size is A4, or maybe A3, or where digital manipulation is more important than the integrety of the original image.
For a luddite I seem to find my Minolta Dimage Scan Elite film scanner very useful, and my friends at Peak Imaging (don't think they have stopped their wet processing yet either) have provided me with some fantastically detailed 30in x 20in landscape prints for my wall off the CDs I sent them. I guess that this is why many leading landscape photo libraries require non-interpolated digital images with resolution that could only be achieved by scanning 35mm (or larger) film, far beyond that of current digital cameras.
Climbing and mountaineering is a big part of my life and I find the superior coatings on my (35mm) lenses produce great transparancies which look superb when projected for a group of friends with a few beers, or for a larger audience. Confident that they are seeing the real image, not photoshoped skies etc that ruin so many digital pics "Yes it was really like that, especially the colours"
Anyone who tells me that digital projection is on a par with 35mm is clearly talking out of their rear apperture.
A great benefit of Pentax 35mm gear is the lens coatings, and tough compact bodies. For Pentax to move away from film (35mm at least) makes thes features worthless. With digital you can add any colour you want after the event.
Pentax is small compared to Canon and Nikon an I can understand that they may not have the market to justify investment in what I agree is a diminishing market, however minolta still manage.
You mention that Pentax bodies are compatible with older lenses - great. But Nikon and Canon etc' continue to provide new lenses whhich are 35mm as well as digital compatible. Thank goddness Sigma's EX range and Tamrons SP range appear to be supporting the PK mount (OK John some of their lenses may not equal some of Pentax Lenses but the better ones are good enough for me)
Kevin
At least I rattled somebodys cage, and thanks for pointing out my my ill thought out comments, not like :
"For most people, and in most situations, this is a better solution than film, so nobody buys film cameras any more. "
Well maybe for press photographers with a deadline, and where the max image size is A4, or maybe A3, or where digital manipulation is more important than the integrety of the original image.
For a luddite I seem to find my Minolta Dimage Scan Elite film scanner very useful, and my friends at Peak Imaging (don't think they have stopped their wet processing yet either) have provided me with some fantastically detailed 30in x 20in landscape prints for my wall off the CDs I sent them. I guess that this is why many leading landscape photo libraries require non-interpolated digital images with resolution that could only be achieved by scanning 35mm (or larger) film, far beyond that of current digital cameras.
Climbing and mountaineering is a big part of my life and I find the superior coatings on my (35mm) lenses produce great transparancies which look superb when projected for a group of friends with a few beers, or for a larger audience. Confident that they are seeing the real image, not photoshoped skies etc that ruin so many digital pics "Yes it was really like that, especially the colours"
Anyone who tells me that digital projection is on a par with 35mm is clearly talking out of their rear apperture.
A great benefit of Pentax 35mm gear is the lens coatings, and tough compact bodies. For Pentax to move away from film (35mm at least) makes thes features worthless. With digital you can add any colour you want after the event.
Pentax is small compared to Canon and Nikon an I can understand that they may not have the market to justify investment in what I agree is a diminishing market, however minolta still manage.
You mention that Pentax bodies are compatible with older lenses - great. But Nikon and Canon etc' continue to provide new lenses whhich are 35mm as well as digital compatible. Thank goddness Sigma's EX range and Tamrons SP range appear to be supporting the PK mount (OK John some of their lenses may not equal some of Pentax Lenses but the better ones are good enough for me)
Kevin
Posted 10/04/2005 - 12:26
Link
Kevin,
You said: "I guess that this is why many leading landscape photo libraries require non-interpolated digital images with resolution that could only be achieved by scanning 35mm (or larger) film, far beyond that of current digital cameras."
Actually, many digital photographers are supplying re-sampled images to photo libraries, and the quality is indistinguishable from 35mm, even when using a 6mp camera.
"... my (35mm) lenses produce great transparancies which look superb when projected for a group of friends with a few beers, or for a larger audience."
Most people's pictures look good after a few beers! But I agree that projected slides do look wonderful. However, most people do not shoot slides, and I was talking about most people.
"... not photoshoped skies etc that ruin so many digital pics".
Irrelevant. The fact that some people drive badly does not render cars useless. The fact that some people don't use Photoshop properly doesn't render digital useless.
"Anyone who tells me that digital projection is on a par with 35mm is clearly talking out of their rear apperture" (sic).
Irrelevant. Nobody said that. You should be in politics. I actually said: "For most people, and in most situations, this [digital] is a better solution than film". I didn't mention digital projection (and nor did you until now). I happen to agree with you about slides. Colour prints from digital, however, are just as good as colour prints from 35mm, and far more consistent in quality. And most people use their digital cameras for prints or for viewing on computer.
"A great benefit of Pentax 35mm gear is the lens coatings, and tough compact bodies. For Pentax to move away from film (35mm at least) makes thes features worthless."
Worthless? How? Good lenses and tough bodies are just as desirable for digital.
"With digital you can add any colour you want after the event."
Irrelevant. And incidentally, getting exposure and colour balance right in the camera saves a lot of time later.
Kevin, you haven't addressed the main point, which is that (virtually) nobody is buying film cameras any more, and those manufacturers who only offer film cameras are going out of business in droves. It is the customers who are not supporting 35mm, not the manufacturers, as you stated.
The reason digital is a better solution (for most people in most situations) is the killer combination of cost, convenience and control.
Keen digital photographers spend far less than film photographers because mistakes and practice shots cost nothing, because you only print what you want, and because viewing pictures on a computer screen is completely cost-free.
The convenience of seeing what you have shot immediately after doing so is wonderful. If it didn't work, you take another. As soon as you get home, you've got your pictures. And, they're on computer, where they are so easy to view.
And as for control, there is no comparison at all. Pictures are cropped and adjusted just the way the photographer wants them. This is all but impossible when having prints made commercially from film.
I very much doubt that Minolta or Nikon will continue to serve 35mm much longer, and Canon will only do so in the slightly longer term IF they continue to produce full-frame digital cameras. If they continue to produce new lenses for this format, they will be much too expensive for you if you have to buy Sigmas now because they will sell so few of them.
For you, Kevin, film is a better solution than film. I completely accept that. But don't knock all digital photography because it doesn't happen to meet your requirements, and don't knock Pentax for catering to the majority. If they didn't, they wouldn't exist, and where would your "commitment" be then?
George
PS: I used to do a bit of climbing at one time, and have some lovely slides taken in the Himalayas. For such a trip, I would still take a film camera. It's the right solution for the circumstances.
You said: "I guess that this is why many leading landscape photo libraries require non-interpolated digital images with resolution that could only be achieved by scanning 35mm (or larger) film, far beyond that of current digital cameras."
Actually, many digital photographers are supplying re-sampled images to photo libraries, and the quality is indistinguishable from 35mm, even when using a 6mp camera.
"... my (35mm) lenses produce great transparancies which look superb when projected for a group of friends with a few beers, or for a larger audience."
Most people's pictures look good after a few beers! But I agree that projected slides do look wonderful. However, most people do not shoot slides, and I was talking about most people.
"... not photoshoped skies etc that ruin so many digital pics".
Irrelevant. The fact that some people drive badly does not render cars useless. The fact that some people don't use Photoshop properly doesn't render digital useless.
"Anyone who tells me that digital projection is on a par with 35mm is clearly talking out of their rear apperture" (sic).
Irrelevant. Nobody said that. You should be in politics. I actually said: "For most people, and in most situations, this [digital] is a better solution than film". I didn't mention digital projection (and nor did you until now). I happen to agree with you about slides. Colour prints from digital, however, are just as good as colour prints from 35mm, and far more consistent in quality. And most people use their digital cameras for prints or for viewing on computer.
"A great benefit of Pentax 35mm gear is the lens coatings, and tough compact bodies. For Pentax to move away from film (35mm at least) makes thes features worthless."
Worthless? How? Good lenses and tough bodies are just as desirable for digital.
"With digital you can add any colour you want after the event."
Irrelevant. And incidentally, getting exposure and colour balance right in the camera saves a lot of time later.
Kevin, you haven't addressed the main point, which is that (virtually) nobody is buying film cameras any more, and those manufacturers who only offer film cameras are going out of business in droves. It is the customers who are not supporting 35mm, not the manufacturers, as you stated.
The reason digital is a better solution (for most people in most situations) is the killer combination of cost, convenience and control.
Keen digital photographers spend far less than film photographers because mistakes and practice shots cost nothing, because you only print what you want, and because viewing pictures on a computer screen is completely cost-free.
The convenience of seeing what you have shot immediately after doing so is wonderful. If it didn't work, you take another. As soon as you get home, you've got your pictures. And, they're on computer, where they are so easy to view.
And as for control, there is no comparison at all. Pictures are cropped and adjusted just the way the photographer wants them. This is all but impossible when having prints made commercially from film.
I very much doubt that Minolta or Nikon will continue to serve 35mm much longer, and Canon will only do so in the slightly longer term IF they continue to produce full-frame digital cameras. If they continue to produce new lenses for this format, they will be much too expensive for you if you have to buy Sigmas now because they will sell so few of them.
For you, Kevin, film is a better solution than film. I completely accept that. But don't knock all digital photography because it doesn't happen to meet your requirements, and don't knock Pentax for catering to the majority. If they didn't, they wouldn't exist, and where would your "commitment" be then?
George
PS: I used to do a bit of climbing at one time, and have some lovely slides taken in the Himalayas. For such a trip, I would still take a film camera. It's the right solution for the circumstances.
Posted 10/04/2005 - 15:26
Link
George
My points which you see as irrelevent, or indicating possible political aspirations were in response to your assertion that "nobody buys film cameras any more". A point you now rettract by adding "virtually" and "most".
In fact there are a lot of us film users out here.
The one and only point in my OP is that I have made a major investment in a modern quality autofocus 35mm SLR to replace my beloved MX, and chose Pentax over Canon due to the inherent qualities (Which you, I and many others value) of Pentax. Naturally I feel let down that having made this choice I am not now able to build a collection of quality Pentax AF lenses. Whereas if I had chose Canon I could treat myself to a new L series lens everyso often.
Finally I take great exception to your insinuation that my friends and I drink to excess, and that this is necessary to appreciate the quality of my photographs.
You may wish to sober up before checking these links.
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2847470
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2849579
All the best
Kevin
My points which you see as irrelevent, or indicating possible political aspirations were in response to your assertion that "nobody buys film cameras any more". A point you now rettract by adding "virtually" and "most".
In fact there are a lot of us film users out here.
The one and only point in my OP is that I have made a major investment in a modern quality autofocus 35mm SLR to replace my beloved MX, and chose Pentax over Canon due to the inherent qualities (Which you, I and many others value) of Pentax. Naturally I feel let down that having made this choice I am not now able to build a collection of quality Pentax AF lenses. Whereas if I had chose Canon I could treat myself to a new L series lens everyso often.
Finally I take great exception to your insinuation that my friends and I drink to excess, and that this is necessary to appreciate the quality of my photographs.
You may wish to sober up before checking these links.
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2847470
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2849579
All the best
Kevin
Posted 10/04/2005 - 17:38
Link
Beautiful images Kevin
Who cares about the media, so long as the end results are that good?
35mm is going to be around for quite some time yet, not everyone has the expertise and patience to work with digital. For a few quid you can drop a film into a high street processor and within an hour have a full set of decent quality prints in your hands (a perfectly adequate photographic experience for most 'happy snappers').
George is absolutely right about the many benefits of digital but I personally look forward to receiving my prints, not knowing quite what to expect and possibly finding some really funny shots that just didn't work properly.
These would probably have been deleted immediately, had they been digital but that picture of granny with the lamp post growing out of her head is a gem and what's more, it's a real photograph of a real event that really happened - if you know what I mean!
Snap up those lenses while you can - they'll serve you well for years to come
Who cares about the media, so long as the end results are that good?
35mm is going to be around for quite some time yet, not everyone has the expertise and patience to work with digital. For a few quid you can drop a film into a high street processor and within an hour have a full set of decent quality prints in your hands (a perfectly adequate photographic experience for most 'happy snappers').
George is absolutely right about the many benefits of digital but I personally look forward to receiving my prints, not knowing quite what to expect and possibly finding some really funny shots that just didn't work properly.
These would probably have been deleted immediately, had they been digital but that picture of granny with the lamp post growing out of her head is a gem and what's more, it's a real photograph of a real event that really happened - if you know what I mean!
Snap up those lenses while you can - they'll serve you well for years to come
Die my dear doctor, that's the last thing I shall do!
Posted 10/04/2005 - 17:59
Link
Kevin,
You mentioned the beer, remember! I wasn't seriously insinuating that your pictures needed alcohol to be appreciated, just as I wasn't seriously suggesting that nobody at all in the entire world was buying film cameras. Of course a few are still being sold, but only a mere fraction of the numbers sold five years ago. This was obvious hyperbole.
Two final points. The first is that many people nowadays buy their lenses second-hand, thanks to the wonders of the Internet, and this supply is not going to suddenly dry up, although the prices of desirable lenses have gone up a bit recently. In fact, I recently bought the famous 24-90 on Ebay, and a very fine lens it is.
Secondly, I believe that Pentax plan to produce quite a number of new lenses over the course of the next year or so, and it is quite possible that there will be some full-frame ones among them, like the two new macro lenses that came out late last year.
George
PS: Liked your pics. However, I have been going to Llanberis for forty years, and have never seen the lake quite that shade of blue. Are you honestly telling me: "Yes it was really like that, especially the colours"?
You mentioned the beer, remember! I wasn't seriously insinuating that your pictures needed alcohol to be appreciated, just as I wasn't seriously suggesting that nobody at all in the entire world was buying film cameras. Of course a few are still being sold, but only a mere fraction of the numbers sold five years ago. This was obvious hyperbole.
Two final points. The first is that many people nowadays buy their lenses second-hand, thanks to the wonders of the Internet, and this supply is not going to suddenly dry up, although the prices of desirable lenses have gone up a bit recently. In fact, I recently bought the famous 24-90 on Ebay, and a very fine lens it is.
Secondly, I believe that Pentax plan to produce quite a number of new lenses over the course of the next year or so, and it is quite possible that there will be some full-frame ones among them, like the two new macro lenses that came out late last year.
George
PS: Liked your pics. However, I have been going to Llanberis for forty years, and have never seen the lake quite that shade of blue. Are you honestly telling me: "Yes it was really like that, especially the colours"?
Posted 10/04/2005 - 18:59
Link
George, your'e welcome to see the original transparancy.
Cheers for now
Kevin
Cheers for now
Kevin
Posted 10/04/2005 - 20:05
Link
I was judging a competition and doubted the colours of a particular shot, but the photographer put me right and assured me that they were genuine...
We can't really know unless we were there, although different films and probably different CCDs will see things differently to us and to each other.
I do find digital colour somewhat cleaner than film in some ways, and since the processing of Kodachrome more or less guarantees a horrible magenta cast these days I'm not quite sure which colour slide film I really like.
The 24-90mm, which is where we started this thread, is an excellent lens and serves very well, but there are plenty of others both autofocus and manual focus that also deliver the goods.
I am very tempted to go back to primes even for the digital cameras, especially with the new 40mm beckoning....The 24mm f2 looks nice....A 100mm Macro would be lovely....
Here we go again!
We can't really know unless we were there, although different films and probably different CCDs will see things differently to us and to each other.
I do find digital colour somewhat cleaner than film in some ways, and since the processing of Kodachrome more or less guarantees a horrible magenta cast these days I'm not quite sure which colour slide film I really like.
The 24-90mm, which is where we started this thread, is an excellent lens and serves very well, but there are plenty of others both autofocus and manual focus that also deliver the goods.
I am very tempted to go back to primes even for the digital cameras, especially with the new 40mm beckoning....The 24mm f2 looks nice....A 100mm Macro would be lovely....
Here we go again!
Best regards, John
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
88 posts
22 years
To me it looks like they are running down stocks of lenses suited to 35mm; zero commitment to support 35mm
Now I wish I had bought an EOS3 instead of my MZs (which is now in for repair)