Rumours or fact?


Don

Link Posted 22/08/2010 - 17:37
I prefer manual focus anyways.
Nothing worse than having af "Hunting" in low light when shooting a wedding... which happens, even when the camera is on a tripod.... and the subject really isn't moving much...
Fired many shots. Didn't kill anything.

Shaky

Link Posted 22/08/2010 - 19:34
Don wrote:
I prefer manual focus anyways.

Yah, and if Pentax could launch a new model where additionally an integral part of video mode operation were the use of a hand crank, no doubt they’d be on to a real winner

Don

Link Posted 22/08/2010 - 20:11
Shaky wrote:
Don wrote:
I prefer manual focus anyways.

Yah, and if Pentax could launch a new model where additionally an integral part of video mode operation were the use of a hand crank, no doubt they’d be on to a real winner

umn... I was thinking the powerzoom lenses would be neat on the d-slrs... Pentax already has some very good "M" and "A" lenses that are easy to manual focus.....
Fired many shots. Didn't kill anything.

rparmar

Link Posted 22/08/2010 - 21:49
Shaky wrote:
Yah, and if Pentax could launch a new model where additionally an integral part of video mode operation were the use of a hand crank, no doubt they’d be on to a real winner

Um, yes, actually that is what professionals do. Ref: focus puller.


Don wrote:
I prefer manual focus anyways.

Me too. By far preferable in most situations.
Listen to my albums free on BandCamp. Or visit my main website for links to photography, etc.

mowog

Link Posted 22/08/2010 - 22:27
In my earlier, silly post in this thread, I mentioned a Kodak takeover of Pentax. - Having thought about it more, I think it's a pretty good idea.

Hoya clearly does not want Pentax. Not the camera making bit of it, anyway, and has been making noises about off-loading it. Pentax would not survive long on it's own.
Kodak is a huge concern, with lots of cash and very clever people working for it. Since film photography is now a tiny fraction of the market, Kodak's core business of film, chemical and paper production has all but disappeared. In fact Kodak have succesfully moved into other lines of business. Indeed, Kodak is more of an electronics company than a photographic one, now.
Kodak make sensors. Pentax use sensors. Kodak needs to maintain It's presence in the photo industry. Pentax needs big investment. Kodak has big money.
Kodak do make (or rather market) low end, point and shoot compacts.
It was not always so. I remember when digital SLR cameras first appeared. They were huge and incredibly expensive. Kodak made the top Pro ones. You could have one in Nikon or Canon mount.

I reckon the acquisition of pentax, would be good for both companies. Pentax would have the investment to develop the kinds of equipment we are always wishing for, and Kodak could be right at the centre of camera production, again.

Yes... That's it! - I just hope Mr Kodak is a regular visitor to PU, and will read this.
No man is worth his salt, who has not been banned from at least one Forum, and two Flickr groups.

Mowog.
Last Edited by mowog on 22/08/2010 - 22:31

saltholme

Link Posted 22/08/2010 - 22:37
A bit of additional info gleaned from a Pentax employee manning the Pentax stand at this years Bird fair at Rutland. 'Two new bodies to be announced in September' Apparently they will have everything we are looking for!!

tigershoot

Link Posted 22/08/2010 - 22:41
Trouble is that I think Kodak would want to rebrand Pentax as Kodak. The name is world-famous and Kodak would fit nicely on the pentaprism!
K3ii, K-5, K-x, DA150-450mm, DA16-85WR, DA16-45, DA18-55WR, DA18-135WR, DA35 F2.4, M100mm F4 Macro, DA55-300mm, FA50mm 1.4, AF360 Flash, AF540 Flash

mowog

Link Posted 22/08/2010 - 22:55
Wot... And throw away a respected and equally famous name! - Actually, It wouldn't bother me, as long as they kept the (K)odak mount.
No man is worth his salt, who has not been banned from at least one Forum, and two Flickr groups.

Mowog.

Shaky

Link Posted 22/08/2010 - 22:58
rparmar wrote:
Shaky wrote:
Yah, and if Pentax could launch a new model where additionally an integral part of video mode operation were the use of a hand crank, no doubt they’d be on to a real winner

Um, yes, actually that is what professionals do. Ref: focus puller.

How is this relevant to a consumer electronics product?

Are you saying the market consists substantially of slack-jawed wannabes who will gladly sacrifice usable results for the feelgood factor from behaving like a pro?

Thank god Pentax appear to have moved away from the seemingly recently pervasive attitude that poor results were attributable to flawed technique. Cause it’s all about economies of scale driven by mass market appeal.

@Mowog. I’m afraid the hard working investment bankers engaged by Hoya to off load Pentax, will independently have come up with Mr Kodak’s number after no more than a couple of brainstorming luncheons. And since he hasn’t pulled his chequebook out by now, it is unlikely to happen.

ChrisA

Link Posted 22/08/2010 - 23:06
Don wrote:
I prefer manual focus anyways.
Nothing worse than having af "Hunting" in low light when shooting a wedding... which happens, even when the camera is on a tripod.... and the subject really isn't moving much...

Agreed.

But Don, this is the year 2010.

Manual focus in those circumstances is now what we call a "work around".

It's comments like that, that make Pentax say to themselves... "ah well, guys, we don't need to bother for another few months, with customers like that".
.
Pentax K-3, DA18-135, DA35 F2.4, DA17-70, DA55-300, FA28-200, A50 F1.7, A100 F4 Macro, A400 F5.6, Sigma 10-20 EXDC, 50-500 F4.5-6.3 APO DG OS Samsung flash SEF-54PZF(x2)
.
Last Edited by ChrisA on 22/08/2010 - 23:09

Don

Link Posted 22/08/2010 - 23:53
ChrisA wrote:
Don wrote:
I prefer manual focus anyways.
Nothing worse than having af "Hunting" in low light when shooting a wedding... which happens, even when the camera is on a tripod.... and the subject really isn't moving much...

Agreed.

But Don, this is the year 2010.

Manual focus in those circumstances is now what we call a "work around".

It's comments like that, that make Pentax say to themselves... "ah well, guys, we don't need to bother for another few months, with customers like that".

I disagree.
Nobody yet has video cam on the market that will focus properly in all shooting situations.
Fired many shots. Didn't kill anything.

rparmar

Link Posted 23/08/2010 - 02:44
Shaky wrote:
Are you saying the market consists substantially of slack-jawed wannabes who will gladly sacrifice usable results for the feelgood factor from behaving like a pro?

Wow, yeah, that was exactly what I meant, even though I used none of those phrases and didn't indicate that meaning in any way. How do you read my mind so effectively?

For what it's worth I was responding to your joke by illustrating how close to the mark you actually were.
Listen to my albums free on BandCamp. Or visit my main website for links to photography, etc.

ChrisA

Link Posted 23/08/2010 - 09:58
Don wrote:
ChrisA wrote:
Quote:
I prefer manual focus anyways.
Nothing worse than having af "Hunting" in low light when shooting a wedding... which happens, even when the camera is on a tripod.... and the subject really isn't moving much...

Agreed.

But Don, this is the year 2010.

Manual focus in those circumstances is now what we call a "work around".

It's comments like that, that make Pentax say to themselves... "ah well, guys, we don't need to bother for another few months, with customers like that".

I disagree.
Nobody yet has video cam on the market that will focus properly in all shooting situations.

Well, it wasn't clear that you were talking about videoing a wedding.

I was really referring to AF for stills.

The thing is, if the AF hunts in low light, and we focus manually as an alternative, we end up putting up with poor AF instead of demanding better AF from the manufacturer.
.
Pentax K-3, DA18-135, DA35 F2.4, DA17-70, DA55-300, FA28-200, A50 F1.7, A100 F4 Macro, A400 F5.6, Sigma 10-20 EXDC, 50-500 F4.5-6.3 APO DG OS Samsung flash SEF-54PZF(x2)
.

johnriley

Link Posted 23/08/2010 - 10:31
Quote:
we end up putting up with poor AF instead of demanding better AF from the manufacturer.

I can't agree with this - manufacturers are always vieing with each other for better, bigger, brighter....it sells cameras just like anything else.

The AF we have already is brilliant - certainly in terms of focusing accurately in low light. It can focus in light as good as I can see in to hope to do it myself. Deep in the gloom of old buildings there's never a problem, except with the usual subjects that are just nor suitable for AF. Such as smooth featureless walls or certain types of pattern.

I suspect it's high speed focusing on high speed moving objects that is causing grief to some, which comes down to the sort of photography you do. I don't really shoot sports, although some wildlife. Some things are tricky to get right withy AF, but practice improves things considerably, and MF is an option that people managed with very well for a very long time.
Best regards, John

Anvh

Link Posted 23/08/2010 - 10:33
ChrisA wrote:
Well, it wasn't clear that you were talking about videoing a wedding.

Don't know where you read that?

There simply isn't a camera that works flawlessly in all situation or is there?
Stefan


K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.