Upgrading to Digital from SLR

I wouldn't like to think what I was saying three years ago, but probably that the quality of digital wasn't yet where I wanted it to be. But a lot has happened in three years and digital is, in my opinion, now the only sensible way to go. With a few exceptions for specific purposes.

This current point of view only gets a little dented when the PC fails to behave properly and then things get, er, moderately annoying...

The final nail in film's coffin could well be the 10.2MP DSLR.

Hi George..

I stand by every word I wrote. My original post in this thread was polite and sensible. Your response had without doubt a very dogmatic and unjustifiable statement below, which could not go without challenge:

"would be people with serious computer-phobia or an ingrained inability to cope with change of any sort"

This is simply narrow minded nonsense...it implies any film user is PC phobic or some head in the sand idiot. They ARE NOT. There are quite a few film users on this very forum who you just insulted very well.

I am amazed that any intelligent user of this forum, even the most ingrained digital user would spout this kind of thing...argue your point, but do it with a sense of perspective and at least acknowledge that some folk disagree with your choice, not because they are phobic, but because they choose to.

It would also help your cause if you read other posts properly. I did not use the word 'stupid' anywhere. There is not a show of lots of hands going up simply because others are not bothered and other more open minded digital users are probably embarrassed by the above statement you used.....

cheers Steve.

Steve,

Could I just remind you of your original point (a somewhat wild assertion, which I suspect you cannot support):

"many people have reverted to film after trying digital..."

If you are using both, then my comments don't apply to you. In fact, I don't think I have insulted many people at all. I can think of only one die-hard film user on this forum, and I suspect my description fits him pretty well.

As JR points out, film still sometimes has advantages, especially, for instance, if you want to shoot transparencies.

G

Hiya George,

Yep...I use both Film and digital..I use a Pentax DSLR which is why I hang around on here! and Contax/Zeiss for film use...so yes, your comments as you say, do not apply to me..they also do not apply to many others.

I had issue with the statement, since you seemed to be tarring all with the same brush, which of course would be silly. There are clearly some head in the sand users of both analogue and digital, which you would expect, given human nature.

JR, as usual is correct.

By the way, just to hijack the thread, do you think Pentax will sell enough of the 10D to make enough profit to justify the hefty time and expense involved? and do you think they stand any chance at all of shifting the 'Pentax is for amateurs' perception which is so rife?

cheers Steve.

Pentax always appealed primarily to "advanced amateurs", at least with their 35mm kit. The only truly professional SLR they ever produced was the LX, but in the 60s and 70s they were the most successful SLR maker.

So I think they can get back, but it will be a slow process (they don't have the advertising budget) and they will need to aim for their old market, the keen amateur who is knowledgeable about what is available, and whose decision-making process amounts to more than just reading the ads.

The advertising they do do should be very specific. EG: "Pentax - for the lenses!", and then mention the fact that no other company boasts such a good line-up of small, affordable, primes of the highest quality.

In fact a simple picture of a 77mm Ltd, with links to appropriate review sites, should whet a few appetites.

G

Whetted
Just wish I could get my hands on one, especially in black

BTW, I think there is a great deal of "snobbery" when it comes to cameras. For instance, I can only imagine what the pro-with-full-1D-and-lenses thought of me with the "piddly little" *ist-D and 50mm/f1.4 the other day. But I don't care, 'cause I'm pretty sure my photos were better The more I use that lens, the more I love the results

Matt

Your "piddly little" 51mm 1.4 is known to be one of the finest fast fifties available anywhere in the world. I have two, and M and an A, and I use them for portraits on the digital cameras all the time.

I note that this month's BBC Wildlife Magazine has a full back cover advert for the K100D - about as prominent as you can get (put the magazine down face downwards, and you see it), in what I guess is in the UK at least the highest profile magazine for a key sector of the DSLR market - i.e. natural history enthusiasts. Certainly C****n and N***n see this as prime territory (the same edition has a preview of some of the "Wildlife Photographer of the Year" competition entries, most of which were taken with cameras from those two manufacturers, and none from Pentax).

The heading is "Take it steady!" - and of course, antishake will be very relevant in the amateur natural history photography market, where users will often have long lenses or want high depth of field, but may prefer not to use a tripod.

One such advert won't be enough, but if this is the start of a concerted marketing effort, appropriately focused (pun not intended), it can only be good news for the brand.

Ian

Thanks for the reference.

However, I think that ad. was well-targetted but poorly timed. Nature photographers want in-lens AS, and they'll get it next year with Pentax's new long lenses. Pentax should have held off until the lenses were there, and the body to use them.

G