All Forum Comments
Comment by JohnX posted on Pentax/Ricoh putting prices up at 18/04/2012 - 14:54
Ned's post is here> http://nedbunnell.posterous.com/lens-prices-and-our-channel-strategy-in-the-u
Comment by JohnX posted on Pentax/Ricoh putting prices up at 18/04/2012 - 14:52
grahamcoad wrote:
Not quite! I considered older cameras, and when you think about how they were used their screens were simply larger viewfinders that you still got close to!Quote:
I think your use of words..'take(n)'..in particular sums up the issue. You can take a photograph without a viewfinder, but I think you can really only make a photograph with one.
The viewfinder is surely the best way to see the composition and judge the finished product?
Discuss
Ah! You have fallen into my trap, Ha Ha!!! Well before the miniature cameras (35mm) became universally popular in the last century, professional and keen amateurs used view cameras which were, to all intents and purposes view SCREENS, not optical viewfinders. This even continued with the earliest 35mm SLRs which came with waist level SCREENS, as did the Rolleiflex and similar TLRs. Much of the most admired photography of the 20th century was made on a screen, not through a viewfinder. Think Ansel Adams and onwards from there....I think your use of words..'take(n)'..in particular sums up the issue. You can take a photograph without a viewfinder, but I think you can really only make a photograph with one.
The viewfinder is surely the best way to see the composition and judge the finished product?
Discuss
How many phone photographers have you seen with their eye inches from the screen, and/or with a hood over their heads to shade the screen? Not many I suspect.
I've used the cameras you describe, and not once have I held them out in front of me and peered at a tiny screen!
TLR's I held at chest height; land cameras - head under hood a short distance from the screen.
BUT...I'm not saying your can't make a good photograph on a camera phone, just that they're not designed for that purpose. They offer increasingly better quality substitutes for compacts, that's all, and befoe you tell me about great photographers making great photos with compacts, etc, yes, I agree, but a collection of hens teeth comes to mind.
I have high quality camera phones, etc, so can speak from experience, so I'm not a naysayer for the sake of it. I have seen many people with DSLRs on Auto as well.
Comment by JohnX posted on The Best and the Coolest.... at 18/04/2012 - 10:26
dougf8 wrote:
I use my eyes and imagine, before I reach for the cameraphone, p&s, the ILC or the K-5.
Agreed, but turning what you see and imagine into reality needs help, and isn't that why we buy what we do? If you could achieve what you wanted with a cameraphone, etc, why bother with a K-5?I use my eyes and imagine, before I reach for the cameraphone, p&s, the ILC or the K-5.
Comment by JohnX posted on The Best and the Coolest.... at 18/04/2012 - 09:31
Gwyn wrote:
I agree with Graham. And of course you can make a photograph without a viewfinder. Have you looked at some of the fantastic photos taken with mobile phones and P&S cameras? As always it is the person wielding the photographic device not the device which makes a great photo.
I agree with you up to a point Gwyn - it is the person not the equipment that makes the photograph, and 'yes', I have seen some good photographs taken with phones and p&s, and plent of 'snaps' taken with SLR's (most of my output in fact), but...I agree with Graham. And of course you can make a photograph without a viewfinder. Have you looked at some of the fantastic photos taken with mobile phones and P&S cameras? As always it is the person wielding the photographic device not the device which makes a great photo.
The type and, and to some extent the quality of the equipment cannot be ignored.
Don't you think that the 'intimacy' provided by a viewfinder makes the photographer consider what they're doing more? How can you truly compose, review backgrounds, etc, when you're holding a device out in front of you at arms length staring into a 3-4" diagonal screen?
Comment by JohnX posted on The Best and the Coolest.... at 18/04/2012 - 09:25
grahamcoad wrote:
I think that most of the photographs taken in the developed world now are composed by viewing on a screen rather than a viewfinder, on mobile phones and compact digital cameras... major manufacturers have dropped viewfinders from their compacts, and there is a definite movement in favour of mirrorless cameras.
I think your use of words..'take(n)'..in particular sums up the issue. You can take a photograph without a viewfinder, but I think you can really only make a photograph with one. I think that most of the photographs taken in the developed world now are composed by viewing on a screen rather than a viewfinder, on mobile phones and compact digital cameras... major manufacturers have dropped viewfinders from their compacts, and there is a definite movement in favour of mirrorless cameras.
The viewfinder is surely the best way to see the composition and judge the finished product?
Discuss
Comment by JohnX posted on The Best and the Coolest.... at 18/04/2012 - 09:04
The lens hood is important. Can this be sent from home?
Comment by JohnX posted on FS: SMC PENTAX DA 17-70 F4 SDM at 17/04/2012 - 08:37
jacqui2 wrote:
Hi, not yet, they are saying on paypal, pending until 19th April, spoke to the guy and he said, sorry there's not much I can do about it
Don't get this. Bought a hueyPRO via eBay/PayPal. Wasn't as advertised. Returned it. Refund went into my account the day the seller received the item back.Hi, not yet, they are saying on paypal, pending until 19th April, spoke to the guy and he said, sorry there's not much I can do about it
Comment by JohnX posted on advice needed at 16/04/2012 - 19:19
paulgee20 wrote:
I suppose that they will come out with all the usual lame excuses, Exchange Rate, Tsunami, etc etc. But the long and short is that we suffer. Perhaps we need to vote with our feet for say A YEAR and we dont buy anything? Im sure we would all have withdrawal symptons but WE could do it.
I know why you say this, but..I suppose that they will come out with all the usual lame excuses, Exchange Rate, Tsunami, etc etc. But the long and short is that we suffer. Perhaps we need to vote with our feet for say A YEAR and we dont buy anything? Im sure we would all have withdrawal symptons but WE could do it.
ALL manufacturers need to make profits to survive. If camera and lens sales are down, so are profits.
WE have a choice. Support our chosen manufacturer or see it whither and die. If they go, so does our hobby, and if that's the case, no whinging about it!
All camera manufacturers are upping their prices. We've had a good deal from Pentax for a long time. The fact that they are trying to stay in the market is good for Pentaxians, even though it might hit our pockets.
My personal relationship with Pentax is also linked to price. I'll buy their products so long as I see the right price/performance balance, and I'll be letting them know if it's not right,(a) by telling them, and (b) by not buying.
Comment by JohnX posted on Pentax/Ricoh putting prices up at 14/04/2012 - 14:52
JohnX wrote:
I'll see if I can dig out the name, unless Womble comes along and beats me to it.
It's The Darkroom UK > http://www.the-darkroom.co.uk/I'll see if I can dig out the name, unless Womble comes along and beats me to it.
Also, see this thread > https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/topic/film-developing-and-scanning-to-cd-32974/...
Comment by JohnX posted on Negative scanner at 13/04/2012 - 09:39
Quick question for SRS, Ned specifically said in his statement that Pentax HADN'T increased any pricing recently? So are your price rises an exchange rate thing, or is there a different pricing sheet for Europe, issued quarterly?
Thank you