So that's what it was.

Thanks.

G

Translation, please.

G

This is the mighty River Thames, reduced to a trickle.

Looking out of my window, my eye was drawn to the sight of two fit young ladies, paddling about in the river. They had clearly just learned the first rule of boating, which states that boats don't float if there's not enough water.

Had they shared my interest in etymology, they would have deduced that the river is unusually shallow at Brentford, and that at low tide it pays to take particular care.

Naturally I waded in to provide assistance, but that is another story...

G

PS: Yes, I know there is lots of purple fringing, a consequence of shooting almost straight at a low sun. Silkypix has a tool to fix this, but I haven't mastered it yet.

Camera sales are much lower than they would have been if there had been no financial crisis.

Instead of your withering sarcasm, Froggie, try addressing the issue. Which of my statements above do you take issue with?

Of course I agree that more marketing effort would be helpful, but Pentax's market share is so much smaller than Canon's or Nikon's that they really can't compete in that area. Or do you think that they can?

It's so easy to criticise from the sidelines, but rather less easy when you're in the hot seat yourself.

G

We're discussing lenses here, Froggie, not camera bodies. And I do take issue with your comments above.

I really can't see how telephone support is relevant; Pentax warranties are the same as anybody else in the UK (this is a UK forum); there are sufficient retail stockists, and the good ones are very good; only the most expensive lenses from Canon and Nikon are materially better at focussing than Pentax lenses; flash is not relevant to lenses, and serious flash work is done in the studio anyway, with proper equipment; 135-format is irrelevant to lens prices; QC is no worse than other manufacturers; and SDM lenses will no doubt improve as time goes on.

You're just upset that Pentax has dared to increase its prices. Frankly, I would rather Pentax made some profit, and had money to invest in R&D and increasing the product range, than that it should be a bargain-basement supplier.

And even if you personally are not a doom & gloom merchant, many others are, sadly.

G

Buy this one, and you'll get a manual with it.

link

If you change the ISO, you can change the aperture.

So, if the gun suggests f5.6 at 100 ISO, you can use f8 at 200 ISO.

Good luck

G

PS: Just noticed you are a film man. You'll obviously have to change film too!

Welcome to the club.

Now put a Limited lens on the front (preferably one of the older FA Ltds - 31mm, 43mm, or 77mm)) and stand by to be even more impressed.

Good luck,

G

It's a big deal if you have a big system.

Many people have just a body and one or two lenses.

G

At a time of recession, sales volumes tend to fall.

Smaller volumes mean unit costs rise (because economies of scale have gone out of the window).

Profits therefore fall twice over. First, because less is being sold, and second because the profit per item is lower.

Reducing prices further to stimulate sales is not practicable, because it will lead to items being sold at a loss.

So, there are two other possibilities:

One, go out of business.

Two, raise prices.

It would appear that the entire camera industry has decided to stay in business and therefore raise prices.

Perhaps they are not as stupid as Frogfish suggests.

G

I'll do my own prophesising, thank you!

G