Good for you!

And good for you too, if you sell it at a profit. I don't hold with all this 'it's immoral to sell stuff at a profit to forum members', as comes up occasionally in discussion.

Basically, if you buy something that costs you X, and you're happy to pay it, that's good. If you then sell it at price Y that you're happy to receive, and that someone else is happy to pay, that's two people happy. None of anyone's business whether you've made a profit or not.

I'm getting flashbacks now...

I'm looking forward to your explanation of how film (or anything else) would remove large-scale moiré like that


______
PS: helpful top tip for pedants like me: ALT-0233

Yes, it looks like it, very badly though. And by someone who can't count to five.

You really, really wouldn't want a camera that removed moiré like this.

Yes, I agree. But I think that currently, Ricoh is known to the masses as a manufacturer of photocopiers and printers, not of high-end cameras.

If they're successful, that will change of course.

It might be grounds for optimism, that they're pushing the Ricoh name so hard in their camera marketing, since if they're identifying their name strongly with Pentax cameras, that can only be good for us.

However, I think it's a bit early to bin the Pentax brand. Most people that know anything about cameras do know at least, that Pentax made good cameras and lenses a long time ago. So breathing new life into an established name seems to me to be better than replacing the name with something else.

But I have no idea whether I'm right.

Talking of fanboys, and at risk of going a bit OT (I'm sure Smegs won't mind), where did this dreadful article originate from?

I mean seriously...

It's shockingly badly written, and mostly the reasons listed in it aren't particularly unique to Pentax anyway, apart, ironically, from the colour selections on the entry level models.

I'd almost go as far as to say that only a fanboy could have either written it, accepted it for publication, or read it and not wanted to reach for a bucket....

I agree. Pentax is a small brand, but it has a lot more traction than Ricoh as a camera manufacturer. And they redact the Pentax history at their peril.

It was completely ridiculous to put the Ricoh logo on the back of the K-3 - at a stroke it fails to promote the Ricoh name it to people who see it in use, and annoys the people who have bought it because it's a Pentax.

It annoys me a little, but it isn't going to stop me getting one. It seems elsewhere that there are people that feel so strongly about the brand that they won't even buy one because it says Ricoh on the back.

That takes it into fanboy territory, to my mind.

You're right, it can be used in that sense, but I think it's more subtle than that.

I think it's more a case of enthusiastically liking something to the point where one's blind to its faults, and blind to the potential advantages of alternatives.

For instance, I enthusiastically like Pentax cameras, always have. However they have faults, and other brands have advantages in some areas, and I'm not blind to any of these. You can call me a fanboy if you like, and I won't care in the least.

I enthusiastically like Windows 7 as an operating system, since it meets my needs brilliantly, most of the time. But again, it has its faults, and Apple does better in some respects. Again, you can call me a fanboy if you like, and I won't be at all offended.

'Fanboy' is used in a derogatory sense, and perhaps not surprisingly, in the particular sense that being blind to the faults of one's chosen brand erodes one's credibility when entering into discussions about its relative strengths and weaknesses. Not that that justifies such a label, in the absence of reasoned argument.

But even being biased in this way doesn't necessarily make one a fanboy - I think it's where the enthusiastic liking is so strong that one identifies with the brand - so that anyone that criticises the brand is also diminishing them as a person.

And they're the ones that get offended. IMO, people get offended too easily these days.

I've never seen the point of the function. You still use a shutter cycle, so why not just take the picture and delete it if it's no good, and then take another one that is?

Suppose it was a great shot, and then another great shot comes along, but you miss it because you have to save the earlier image first.

It's not as if the size of SD cards is limiting.

TBH I've never seen the point of the optical preview either. By the time it stops down significantly, the viewfinder is so dark and grainy that seeing the DoF accurately is impossible.