All Forum Comments
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Drought and Etymology at 06/04/2012 - 16:38
mdc wrote:
.
Maybe because they made 35mm SLR cameras for over 50 years, along with the lenses to go with them?
On that flawed logic, we can look forward to Pentax bringing out a new film camera..
Maybe because they made 35mm SLR cameras for over 50 years, along with the lenses to go with them?
Quote:
APS-C is - and always has been - a stopgap solution provided by the camera companies until full-frame sensors can be produced at a price point that's affordable to most consumers.
APS-C is actually a very usable format which first saw the light of day in film cameras. It didn't succeed in replacing 35mm partly because they never brought out any really good APS-C bodies, and partly because people already had 135-format kit, and didn't want to change.APS-C is - and always has been - a stopgap solution provided by the camera companies until full-frame sensors can be produced at a price point that's affordable to most consumers.
Now, APS-C digital cameras are immensely capable, and people won't want to switch to 135 because they already have APS-C kit. And because any marginal improvement in quality won't justify the cost, and the increased size, weight, etc..
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Pentax lenses price increasing by 15-90%? at 06/04/2012 - 15:04
MDC, you have a most impressive capacity for self-delusion.
G
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Pentax lenses price increasing by 15-90%? at 06/04/2012 - 14:29
MDC, you have no basis for your view whatsoever.
G
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on FS: Pentax A series 35mm f2.8 at 06/04/2012 - 14:23
Froggy and Mark,
You two are being stubborn, argumentative, and ridiculous.
With so much in common, can't you be friends?
G
You two are being stubborn, argumentative, and ridiculous.
With so much in common, can't you be friends?
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Pentax lenses price increasing by 15-90%? at 06/04/2012 - 14:22
mecrox wrote:
Others, and I am one, would like to keep their options open for the future. There is nothing wrong with APS-C at all, but I don't want to lock myself into it by purchasing APS-C-only things if I don't have to, so I am becoming fairly careful about what I do buy.
More generally, the gap between high-end APS-C and 135-format is narrowing, costwise. This may mean that camera-makers will have to be careful about raising their prices for APS-C things too high or they risk losing users to a rival who offers FF for not much more money. These users may not be many in number but they probably buy an awful lot more branded things than a lower-end user who is content with a mid-range camera and a couple of basic lenses. Thus, imho, the more Pentax raise prices for their APS-C equipment the more exposed they will be to losing users without an FF offering in their range. I have no strong opinions about this myself, but it just looks the way things are going. APS-C is being squeezed at both sides, the top by 135-format and the lower end by increasingly capable but usually less expensive m4/3 outfits.
What evidence do you have that APS-C is being "squeezed"?George Lazarette wrote:
Can somebody please explain why people who think they want a 135-format camera should buy an APS-C format camera?
I have wracked my brains over this, but I just can't see why anybody should do such an extraordinary thing.
I don't frequent Canon or Nikon forums, but do they have people whingeing that Canon and Nikon don't make 645-format cameras?
Do Hasslebald forums have people whingeing that Blad's are only 6x6 when they could be 6x7 or 6x9? Or even 10x8?
Why, when Pentax have never made a 135-format digital camera, and have introduced a large number of APS-C lenses, do we have people complaining that there isn't a 135-format body?
It just doesn't make any kind of sense.
If I want to drive at 150 mph, I buy a Ferrari. If I want to ferry 10 tons of sand, I buy a lorry. I don't buy a Ferrari and complain that it won't carry sand, and I don't buy a lorry and complain that it won't do 140 mph.
All this seems logical to me. What am I missing?
G
Well, some folks who would like a 135-format camera cannot afford one (or perhaps the lenses if they are after long ones) so they settle for APS-C. Still others, I expect, have an idee fixe about full frame but that's probably a matter for the psychiatrists.Can somebody please explain why people who think they want a 135-format camera should buy an APS-C format camera?
I have wracked my brains over this, but I just can't see why anybody should do such an extraordinary thing.
I don't frequent Canon or Nikon forums, but do they have people whingeing that Canon and Nikon don't make 645-format cameras?
Do Hasslebald forums have people whingeing that Blad's are only 6x6 when they could be 6x7 or 6x9? Or even 10x8?
Why, when Pentax have never made a 135-format digital camera, and have introduced a large number of APS-C lenses, do we have people complaining that there isn't a 135-format body?
It just doesn't make any kind of sense.
If I want to drive at 150 mph, I buy a Ferrari. If I want to ferry 10 tons of sand, I buy a lorry. I don't buy a Ferrari and complain that it won't carry sand, and I don't buy a lorry and complain that it won't do 140 mph.
All this seems logical to me. What am I missing?
G
Others, and I am one, would like to keep their options open for the future. There is nothing wrong with APS-C at all, but I don't want to lock myself into it by purchasing APS-C-only things if I don't have to, so I am becoming fairly careful about what I do buy.
More generally, the gap between high-end APS-C and 135-format is narrowing, costwise. This may mean that camera-makers will have to be careful about raising their prices for APS-C things too high or they risk losing users to a rival who offers FF for not much more money. These users may not be many in number but they probably buy an awful lot more branded things than a lower-end user who is content with a mid-range camera and a couple of basic lenses. Thus, imho, the more Pentax raise prices for their APS-C equipment the more exposed they will be to losing users without an FF offering in their range. I have no strong opinions about this myself, but it just looks the way things are going. APS-C is being squeezed at both sides, the top by 135-format and the lower end by increasingly capable but usually less expensive m4/3 outfits.
Nikon and Canon sell very few 135-format bodies, compared to their other formats, and it is highly unlikely that Pentax would be able to poach more than a fraction of these.
The truth is that the 135-format market is tiny, and will remain so. The vast majority of Pentax users for whom 135 was important will already have switched.
So, if Pentax were to introduce a 135-format body, there would be very few buyers. They know that, and that's why they haven't done it.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Pentax lenses price increasing by 15-90%? at 06/04/2012 - 14:13
judderman62 wrote:
convert ? Isn't that what Islam tries to do ? We all know how that's panning out.
How about live and let live as a philosophy instead ?
Islam?convert ? Isn't that what Islam tries to do ? We all know how that's panning out.
How about live and let live as a philosophy instead ?
Christianity has done much more to convert people than any other religion, and done it in nastier ways.
But I agree with your philosophy.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Have You Converted Anyone? at 06/04/2012 - 13:29
Can somebody please explain why people who think they want a 135-format camera should buy an APS-C format camera?
I have wracked my brains over this, but I just can't see why anybody should do such an extraordinary thing.
I don't frequent Canon or Nikon forums, but do they have people whingeing that Canon and Nikon don't make 645-format cameras?
Do Hasslebald forums have people whingeing that Blad's are only 6x6 when they could be 6x7 or 6x9? Or even 10x8?
Why, when Pentax have never made a 135-format digital camera, and have introduced a large number of APS-C lenses, do we have people complaining that there isn't a 135-format body?
It just doesn't make any kind of sense.
If I want to drive at 150 mph, I buy a Ferrari. If I want to ferry 10 tons of sand, I buy a lorry. I don't buy a Ferrari and complain that it won't carry sand, and I don't buy a lorry and complain that it won't do 140 mph.
All this seems logical to me. What am I missing?
G
I have wracked my brains over this, but I just can't see why anybody should do such an extraordinary thing.
I don't frequent Canon or Nikon forums, but do they have people whingeing that Canon and Nikon don't make 645-format cameras?
Do Hasslebald forums have people whingeing that Blad's are only 6x6 when they could be 6x7 or 6x9? Or even 10x8?
Why, when Pentax have never made a 135-format digital camera, and have introduced a large number of APS-C lenses, do we have people complaining that there isn't a 135-format body?
It just doesn't make any kind of sense.
If I want to drive at 150 mph, I buy a Ferrari. If I want to ferry 10 tons of sand, I buy a lorry. I don't buy a Ferrari and complain that it won't carry sand, and I don't buy a lorry and complain that it won't do 140 mph.
All this seems logical to me. What am I missing?
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Pentax lenses price increasing by 15-90%? at 06/04/2012 - 13:20
Puma likes to set these little linguistic challenges from time to time, to keep the older generation on their toes.
G
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Greetings from London at 06/04/2012 - 12:52
Look at the right hand edge of the bank of pebbles in the foreground.
I suspect your eyes were pointed higher up.
G
I suspect your eyes were pointed higher up.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Drought and Etymology at 06/04/2012 - 12:25
But in the interests of geographical accuracy, Brentford is far from Brent, a modern borough named after the river that flows through it, and also through Greenford.
And the ford is over the Thames. The Romans are reputed to have crossed here, so I spend my waking hours out on the strand, looking for denarii. Or stranded maidens.
G