All Forum Comments
Comment by George Lazarette posted on SMC K (A) 24mm 2.8 at 09/04/2012 - 09:18
Perhaps it's because there is more of a ritual attached to using film. There's a box to unwrap, the process of loading the film, the necessity to change the ISO, and the knowledge that you only have a limited amount of exposures and you have to make them count.
It's akin to smoking a pipe. There's much more to do than with a cigarette.
G
It's akin to smoking a pipe. There's much more to do than with a cigarette.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on What's in my bag today at 09/04/2012 - 08:24
womble wrote:
K.
Well, it would seem that you aren't having any problems with it.George Lazarette wrote:
Kris, was your shot taken on film?
G
Digital this time, my K20D.Kris, was your shot taken on film?
G
K.
It's a long time ago now, but the claim was that some lenses caused light to fall on the edges of the sensor at a sharp angle, causing a partial vignetting effect.
I can't see any evidence of that in this picture.
After a while, Pentax owners stopped talking about the alleged digital effect. However, people who owned cameras with larger sensors tended to report the effect more, as you would expect.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on SMC K (A) 24mm 2.8 at 09/04/2012 - 08:16
Shaky wrote:
Furthermore, like I said I believe it is more likely that vendor financing in the camera business takes the form of stocks held on a sale or return basis (float financing via timing differences in creditor/debtor days is much more prevalent in higher stock turnover businesses like grocery or say pubs). If that is so there is no financial risk whatsoever since title is retained by the supplier, except for minor red tape inconvenience in the event of an insolvency.
Separately it is in the nature of retail market power that dominant players are largely able to set their own terms. You have likely heard different stories from many different industries of suppliers moaning about the unfair terms imposed on them by Tescos. And rightly so because they get screwed silly. But at the end of the day they grin and bear it because Tescos is by far the biggest outlet for their products; it is business madness to walk away from that kind of distribution power if you’re aiming for volume. Geddit?
Shaky, read what I wrote.George Lazarette wrote:
If my hypothesis is correct, Shaky, and it is only one possibility, then the answer is that nobody wants to fund a business that's losing money.
Your hypothesis unfortunately fails your own test, since Nikon, Canon, etc are still in there.If my hypothesis is correct, Shaky, and it is only one possibility, then the answer is that nobody wants to fund a business that's losing money.
Furthermore, like I said I believe it is more likely that vendor financing in the camera business takes the form of stocks held on a sale or return basis (float financing via timing differences in creditor/debtor days is much more prevalent in higher stock turnover businesses like grocery or say pubs). If that is so there is no financial risk whatsoever since title is retained by the supplier, except for minor red tape inconvenience in the event of an insolvency.
Separately it is in the nature of retail market power that dominant players are largely able to set their own terms. You have likely heard different stories from many different industries of suppliers moaning about the unfair terms imposed on them by Tescos. And rightly so because they get screwed silly. But at the end of the day they grin and bear it because Tescos is by far the biggest outlet for their products; it is business madness to walk away from that kind of distribution power if you’re aiming for volume. Geddit?
Jessops can't dictate to Nikon and Canon in the way it can to the smaller players. Jessops needs Canon more than Canon needs Jessops. Therefore, the terms which apply to Canon may well be different from the terms which apply to Pentax. Geddit?
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Jessops fall out with pentax at 08/04/2012 - 23:34
You're still welcome!
G
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Hello everybody at 08/04/2012 - 23:22
pentaxian450 wrote:
Sorry, missed this. Are you talking about programs and disks, or about infer/imply, etc.?George Lazarette wrote:
The other example from the field of computing is disk. By using the American spellings of these two words for the specific meanings of a set of instructions to a computer, and a magnetised platter for storing data, we have been able to bring back a bit of precision of meaning.
Which is a blessing in an age when people can't distinguish between infer and imply, uninterested and disinterested, who and whom, and while and whilst.
To name but a few....
G
Do you mind explaining the differences for those speaking a "foreign" language.The other example from the field of computing is disk. By using the American spellings of these two words for the specific meanings of a set of instructions to a computer, and a magnetised platter for storing data, we have been able to bring back a bit of precision of meaning.
Which is a blessing in an age when people can't distinguish between infer and imply, uninterested and disinterested, who and whom, and while and whilst.
To name but a few....
G
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Snapseed for iPad at 08/04/2012 - 22:48
Kingfisher, you are right.
I used to subscribe to the PDML, and I don't recall much criticism of Pentax film lenses on digital. However, I do remember vaguely hearing one or two adverse comments about the 24mm.
Since the early days, however, I have heard very little adverse comment about any Pentax film-era lens on a digital camera.
Kris, was your shot taken on film?
G
I used to subscribe to the PDML, and I don't recall much criticism of Pentax film lenses on digital. However, I do remember vaguely hearing one or two adverse comments about the 24mm.
Since the early days, however, I have heard very little adverse comment about any Pentax film-era lens on a digital camera.
Kris, was your shot taken on film?
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on SMC K (A) 24mm 2.8 at 08/04/2012 - 22:45
Patience, or time?
I used to love being in the darkroom, but finding the time was difficult. Of course, if you have a dedicated darkroom in your house, it's a bit easier. But even then...
G
I used to love being in the darkroom, but finding the time was difficult. Of course, if you have a dedicated darkroom in your house, it's a bit easier. But even then...
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on What's in my bag today at 08/04/2012 - 18:59
Shaky wrote:
Those suppliers that wish to do business with the UK’s dominant retail/distribution outlet and have a presence at the nation’s favourite try-before-you-internet-buy location.
If my hypothesis is correct, Shaky, and it is only one possibility, then the answer is that nobody wants to fund a business that's losing money.George Lazarette wrote:
As for why they won't stock Pentax, well here's a clue. Their trade creditors at January 2011 amounted to £49 million. Their stock amounted to £22 million (just under a month's sales). So Jessops are using their creditors to fund their business generally, not just the stock. They're not alone in doing that, of course, but who wants to fund a business that's losing money?
Rather than get into the technicalities of typically structurally negative working capital in most retail businesses, usually provided either by 30/60 days credit from suppliers versus cash receipts from customers, or as I suspect is the case with slr kit at Jessops goods supplied on a sale or return basis, I’ll confine myself to the answer to your question: As for why they won't stock Pentax, well here's a clue. Their trade creditors at January 2011 amounted to £49 million. Their stock amounted to £22 million (just under a month's sales). So Jessops are using their creditors to fund their business generally, not just the stock. They're not alone in doing that, of course, but who wants to fund a business that's losing money?
Those suppliers that wish to do business with the UK’s dominant retail/distribution outlet and have a presence at the nation’s favourite try-before-you-internet-buy location.
Some will feel that they have no choice, and some will decide, as Pentax might have done, that the risk isn't worth the candle. The Internet has changed the balance of power. There is more than one route to market.
Many retail businesses have been in the habit of getting their suppliers instead of their shareholders to provide their capital. It works well during boom times, but not so well in leaner times. That is why so many of them find themselves in difficulties at the moment.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Jessops fall out with pentax at 08/04/2012 - 18:05
womble wrote:
I know this as I was sold a camera "in excellent condition" a while back which was so filthy and battered it could not be considered as being in excellent condition by any sane person. Initially, the vendor refused to take it back as he said he didn't realise I was "a collector" and had sold the camera for use (this despite the fact the lens fell off every time you tried to focus it). I happen to have a good friend who is a Trading Standards Officer who gave me the advice. I contacted the vendor and told him I had taken advice and had downloaded the small claims court paperwork which I would submit if he didn't offer a refund. Needless to say I got my money back and returned the piece of junk to him.
I suggest that you contact the vendor and state quite clearly that you are not happy that the item is "as described" and would like to return it and obtain a refund.
Best wishes, Kris.
This is correct.davidstorm wrote:
Hi Jacqui
If you have bought it privately, unfortunately you have absolutely no rights to force the seller to refund, repair, replace or anything else. Your only hope is that the seller shows some goodwill.
Sorry if this is bad news, but that is the legal position.
Regards
David
This simply isn't true. A commercial sale (e.g., from a shop) requires the item to be "fit for purpose." A private sale requires the item to be "as described". If it isn't "as described" the seller is legally obliged to take the item back and issue a refund. If they refuse then I'm afraid the small claims court is the way to go.Hi Jacqui
If you have bought it privately, unfortunately you have absolutely no rights to force the seller to refund, repair, replace or anything else. Your only hope is that the seller shows some goodwill.
Sorry if this is bad news, but that is the legal position.
Regards
David
I know this as I was sold a camera "in excellent condition" a while back which was so filthy and battered it could not be considered as being in excellent condition by any sane person. Initially, the vendor refused to take it back as he said he didn't realise I was "a collector" and had sold the camera for use (this despite the fact the lens fell off every time you tried to focus it). I happen to have a good friend who is a Trading Standards Officer who gave me the advice. I contacted the vendor and told him I had taken advice and had downloaded the small claims court paperwork which I would submit if he didn't offer a refund. Needless to say I got my money back and returned the piece of junk to him.
I suggest that you contact the vendor and state quite clearly that you are not happy that the item is "as described" and would like to return it and obtain a refund.
Best wishes, Kris.
David, you really should refrain from pontificating on subjects you know nothing about.
Contracts for the sale of goods have been enforceable under English Common Law for centuries, irrespective of the status of the parties.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on advice needed at 08/04/2012 - 14:28
G