All Forum Comments
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Seriously - film SLRs phased out? Pentax.com at 10/11/2004 - 20:27
I don't know why people are having so much trouble getting their heads around this.
Cameras are not produced by hand; they are mass-produced by very complex and sophisticated machines. It costs very little to make one camera, provided you make hundreds of thousands. However, if volumes fall to a few thousand, or even less, then the economics change completely, and each camera would cost so much to produce that nobody would buy it.
That is what is happening with film cameras. There is still some demand, but it is now so low that it no longer makes economic sense to produce them. Anybody doing so will lose money on every one.
If you've ever wondered why some Pentax lenses cost £10,000 or more, it is because they are hand-made. If you want to pay £30,000 for an MZ-S, then I am sure Pentax would be happy to make you one. If not, then snap up some second-hand cameras at dirt cheap prices on Ebay.
At the end of the day, people go for convenience, and digital beats film hands-down on that score. As for quality, well that's another story, though in my view the average user gets better prints from digital than he used to from film because the photo-labs did such a poor colour-matching job with print film.
I've gone digital, but I still have an old Leica and an old Spottie for when the mood takes me. Which, I have to say, is not very often these days.
It's always sad to witness the end of an era, but wishing things were different won't make them so.
George
Cameras are not produced by hand; they are mass-produced by very complex and sophisticated machines. It costs very little to make one camera, provided you make hundreds of thousands. However, if volumes fall to a few thousand, or even less, then the economics change completely, and each camera would cost so much to produce that nobody would buy it.
That is what is happening with film cameras. There is still some demand, but it is now so low that it no longer makes economic sense to produce them. Anybody doing so will lose money on every one.
If you've ever wondered why some Pentax lenses cost £10,000 or more, it is because they are hand-made. If you want to pay £30,000 for an MZ-S, then I am sure Pentax would be happy to make you one. If not, then snap up some second-hand cameras at dirt cheap prices on Ebay.
At the end of the day, people go for convenience, and digital beats film hands-down on that score. As for quality, well that's another story, though in my view the average user gets better prints from digital than he used to from film because the photo-labs did such a poor colour-matching job with print film.
I've gone digital, but I still have an old Leica and an old Spottie for when the mood takes me. Which, I have to say, is not very often these days.
It's always sad to witness the end of an era, but wishing things were different won't make them so.
George
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Seriously - film SLRs phased out? Pentax.com at 09/11/2004 - 08:39
JR's advice is, as usual, spot on.
We have to remember that in any extreme situation the human brain is always going to know what is needed, and work out how to achieve it, much more effectively than a pre-programmed camera chip. If women wore all-white dresses all the time, no doubt cameras would be programmed to set the exposure appropriately.
George
We have to remember that in any extreme situation the human brain is always going to know what is needed, and work out how to achieve it, much more effectively than a pre-programmed camera chip. If women wore all-white dresses all the time, no doubt cameras would be programmed to set the exposure appropriately.
George
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Set to permanently underexpose? at 05/11/2004 - 12:46
Mattie,
Pentax don't mention LD glass in their blurb, but the lens is widely reputed to contain such glass, not least by Boz, who describes it as an ED lens.
G
Pentax don't mention LD glass in their blurb, but the lens is widely reputed to contain such glass, not least by Boz, who describes it as an ED lens.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Which Telezoom ?? at 12/11/2004 - 12:43
I fear you might regret buying any of these lenses.
All else being equal, the greater the zoom range, the greater the fall-off in quality.
I would recommend an F 70-210 f4-5.6 and the best 300mm prime you can afford. Both second-hand. I am assuming that (like most of us) you are not made of money.
George
All else being equal, the greater the zoom range, the greater the fall-off in quality.
I would recommend an F 70-210 f4-5.6 and the best 300mm prime you can afford. Both second-hand. I am assuming that (like most of us) you are not made of money.
George
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Which Telezoom ?? at 11/11/2004 - 21:15
JR,
Glad to hear you're pleased, especially with the lens. I didn't have many doubts as regards the camera.
George
Glad to hear you're pleased, especially with the lens. I didn't have many doubts as regards the camera.
George
Comment by George Lazarette posted on istD S at 19/12/2004 - 20:16
I was responding to JR.
Comment by George Lazarette posted on istD S at 08/12/2004 - 18:08
I, for one, will be very interested to hear your views on the lens, which has been dismissed as just another "consumer" zoom in some quarters.
It will also be interesting to hear about the RAW software, which is different from that provided for the *ist D.
Happy snapping!
G
It will also be interesting to hear about the RAW software, which is different from that provided for the *ist D.
Happy snapping!
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on istD S at 06/12/2004 - 16:55
My local camera shop in London has been promised supplies before the end of October.
G
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on istD S at 20/10/2004 - 21:14
The user interface on the Pentax digital SLRs is very similar to the Z1 and Z1-P, so you will be on familiar territory.
The Pentax cameras are smaller than the competition, and generally very well-built (though the memory card door is a well-known minor defect).
They have the best viewfinders of all, large and bright.
They work with all Pentax lenses back to 1975 (the first K lenses). Some old Sigma lenses have problems with modern cameras, but I believe they can be re-chipped if necessary.
They take a choice of batteries, including AAs and NiMHs. Very useful if you are somewhere remote. Also, rechargeable NiMHs are much cheaper.
The difference in crop factor (1.5 or 1.6) is too small to make any real difference, though, in general, the smaller the crop the better.
Unless you like to mix photography with weightlifting, there is not a lot of point in changing brands.
Good luck.
The Pentax cameras are smaller than the competition, and generally very well-built (though the memory card door is a well-known minor defect).
They have the best viewfinders of all, large and bright.
They work with all Pentax lenses back to 1975 (the first K lenses). Some old Sigma lenses have problems with modern cameras, but I believe they can be re-chipped if necessary.
They take a choice of batteries, including AAs and NiMHs. Very useful if you are somewhere remote. Also, rechargeable NiMHs are much cheaper.
The difference in crop factor (1.5 or 1.6) is too small to make any real difference, though, in general, the smaller the crop the better.
Unless you like to mix photography with weightlifting, there is not a lot of point in changing brands.
Good luck.
Comment by George Lazarette posted on which camera? at 19/10/2004 - 12:45
If you're right about the ability of Pentax to produce small batches cost-effectively (and I don't think you are - your "small batch" is still more than the market requires), then why isn't Pentax still producing these cameras?
I do agree that film will be available for quite a long time. But it will be harder to get, and the choice will be more limited. It will also be harder to find someone to process it.
George