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

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

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

Woman, watching some photographers marching along: "they was all out of step except our Steve".

Steve, old lad (I'm fairly sure you're not young), don't think by calling me narrow-minded and stupid that you can magically turn the clock back.

The reason photography courses are still teaching film is that digital has caused a huge resurgence of interest in photography. Look at the number of photo mags (I use the term loosely) on sale now compared with ten years ago.

Many budding photographers feel that they would like to experience how it used to be done, as well as how it is done now, and to try out as many as possible of the different methods and techniques for themselves. And many tutors are happy to oblige.

I know three students who have recently taken photography courses. They all enjoyed the film component, but they all have digital cameras and open minds and they certainly won't be using film in the future.

Nor, I dare say, will you. If you doubt me, look back at some of the comments on this forum made by John Riley and others three years ago.

There has been a Damascene conversion.

And by the way, I can't count any hands.

G

Oh really? Depends on what you call "many", but if it's more than .1 of 1% of DSLR buyers I would be amazed, and even then they would be people with serious computer-phobia or an ingrained inability to cope with change of any sort.

Hands up all readers of this list who have given a Pentax DSLR a serious try and then reverted to film.

G

The 22 bit news has been widely discussed elsewhere, and appears to be fact, as do most of the other features mentioned.

From what I have read and seen, however, I do not think there is a great deal of support for the claims about weather-sealing. It seems to be an expensive feature to include, given an expected price tag in the region $1,000.

And without sealed lenses, what use is it?

G

Methinks that is itself a snide comment. Double standard?

But to revert to topic, my researches led me to E&L, who advertise here, and whose rates seem to be about half of those of some other insurers. Their policy restrictions are drafted rather vaguely, however, and leave a lot to their discretion.

George

Quote deleted by JR

If that's what you thought, then you weren't thinking hard enough. However, whilst this may be the time, it's not the place for this discussion. Drop me a pm if you would like to debate this further.

G

Peter,

Thanks for that clarification. It does seem that the draconian restrictions imposed after the alleged aircraft bomb conspiracy have now been eased considerably.

Thanks too to others for their comments. As things now stand, it looks as though insurance is not required.

G

I'm more concerned about theft, or the luggage ending up in Honolulu when I'm in Patagonia, than I am about damage.

And I would miss my 77!

G