Hi Kim

Many thanks for that, I'll get the manual downloaded and printed out.

I tried the converter out on an old Pentax body with 50mm f1.7 lens, the body (I can't remember model) had a split screen and I found it quite hard to use - my MX has it and I've never had problems. I thought it was just me not being used to the camera, as the split screens seemed almost blanked out, but perhaps it was just the converter.

Regarding price, I've seen one elsewhere for £95. I don't know why it was £19, there is a little mark on the large element, but so tiny I didnt notice until I got to work, or perhaps someone just marked it up wrong. Mind you, I've had a few horror buys so I feel I was due some luck!

Matt


p.s. on the topic of manuals, many moons ago I promised you a scan of a manual for a battery grip FG, unfortunately I don't have ready access to a scanner, but now you've reminded me about it (in a roundabout way!) I'll renew efforts to get the scan done.

Hi Kim

Thanks for comments, glad to know it should be OK, I can't wait to give it a try. Are there any other considerations? I appreciate I'll lose 2 stops, and with longer length a sturdy tripod is a must, but are there any other things to watch out for?

It was priced at £19, even the bloke who sold it to me was annoyed that someone had priced it so low. I'm half-expecting to find something wrong with it.

Cheers

Matt

Hi all

Found a Rear Converter 2X-S for peanuts in LCE. Itching to try it out, but have heard about problems with clashing elements etc.

The front element ofmthe converter looks quite recessed, and my Sigma 300mm f/4 APO and Tamron SP 200 f/3.5 don't have rear elements that protrude a great deal. Is it OK to go ahead and use? Also, any ideas if this converter was ever matched with a Pentax lens?

Cheers
Matt

George

I agree, this argument is rambling, there's pretty much no point us further refuting each others points as, to be frank, I haven't the time or inclination to retrace to see what any of us have said, and I'm hoping we've got a general understanding of each others ideas.

I am unsure of what the future holds for film, I would actually posit that it's more likely to be the cheaper, low-end cameras that will disappear whilst the higher-end ones stay. This is what happened to Medium Format, the cheaper 'consumer' ones have gone and the better ones have survived. This is arguably as the higher-spec ones would have had a smaller market anyway, with higher profit per camera, and would have been bought out of necessity (the need for quality) rather than simply for having a functioning camera - when 35mm overtook medium format those who required the higher quality, who would have been buying the higher-end medium format cameras anyway, stayed with them, whilst those who simply wanted to take snapshots went for the value, simplicity and ease of 35mm. As further evidence, how many pros went to APS?

Whether this driver exists for film per se I don't know - film has certain benefits, but I'd suggest they're not as clear cut as the differences in quality between 35mm and Medium Format. I fully expect to see high-street labs going towards digital, but as long as decent monochrome film, paper and chemicals remain available I'll be happy. I suspect you're correct in saying that new film cameras will be few and far between, but I suggest that we might see higher-end ones continuing to be made for a while yet simply as the pro market might require them.

Matt

George,

The z1-p was, until recently, sold alonside the Dynax 7. I care not what era it was developed in, it was sold alongside the Dynax. Hence I compared the two. I think that entirely reasonable, and actually forms my point - who would buy a camera approaching obslensence when you could have the latest technology for around the same money (I can't recall exact rrp of z1-p, but I have been told that the Dynax 7 is of a similar level)? You're right when you say that the z1-p was hamstrung by lack of development, but that is not the issue here. I can't comment on how well the MZ-S fills the gap/addresses the issue as I have never used one, but I have heard empirically that the Minolta is better. I would personally suggest there's not really much in it, but I was struck by the lack of support for the MZ-S from Pentax - only a few years manufacture, and very little advertising that I'd noticed.

The car analogy is apt, and I think looking simply at the cost of the product is misleading. If they can perform changeover so rapidly on something as large, and with such complex tooling, as an automobile then you have to question how quickly they could change production on a hugely less complex camera. That was the reasoning for my comparison. If I had an example of a similar character as a camera to give you, I would, but unfortunately the car is the only example I have to hand.

The point of extending a manufacturing run is that, yes, you have recouped your costs, and hence all else is pure profit. you could indeed switch production to a new product, but at huge expense in terms of development of the function of the camera and of ways and means of making it. there might be potential, but there is also risk. Further to this, there is little to preclude continuing manufacture of old cameras whilst introducing new ones, save for manufacturing line space and capacity. In mitigation, simply manufacturing your old camera is not enough, you have to offer some support, and this can be expensive in it's own right - making spares available etc. If you get this wrong you lose a lot of goodwill and image, hence it's an important consideration that is not cheap to incorporate.

I think I should recap my argument. I am arguing that Pentax could cheaply make more film cameras using existing manufacturing facilities. The batches could be small, how small I don't know as I have no knowledge of what they do but if they subscribe to any modern manufacturing methodologies the batches could be of the order of hundreds. However, they wouldn't be able to sell them as no-one would want to invest in old technology when they could have more advanced cameras for less (excluding, of course, those who are locked into Pentax, myself included).

I get the feeling we're not a million miles apart in our viewpoint. Regardless of wheher they could produce them cheaply, they arguably couldn't sell them easily. Hence, the ability to cheaply manufacture is redundant. The revision of the range should be noted, where Pentax have taken a decsion to only stock cameras that they consider they can sell - the cheap MZ-6, the MF MZ-M, the most advanced *ist and the MZ-S (although I'd heard production had ceased).

Matt

Hi Kimbo

Fair point, I only really made that statement to indicate that a lot of the higher end Pentax film SLRs are getting overtaken by other marques. There are other SLRs that outperform the Z1-p that are relatively cheap, such as the Dynax 7, and many Nikons and Canons. I appreciate that comparisons between the EOS-1v and z1-p are a bit unfair, given the vast price differences, but it really is the only comparison I can make based upon personal experience. Perhaps comparing the z1-p/Dynax 7 would be more illustrative.

Your point if well made that most of the features provided by the EOS-1v (or indeed any high-end camera) are unlikely to be used by the majority of people. However, taking a different tack, you could get most of the features of the Z1-p in a cheaper body from another marque. This is really what I'm getting at, the z1-p was never really developed to any great extent and hence lagged behind the other marque's offerings. In this sense, no-one who wasn't locked into Pentax would consider paying the same money for an (arguably) inferior camera. Hence, it just doesn't make sense to have all that stock sitting around that no-one will buy because other cameras are better. I think this is why Pentax have dropped it.

Matt

Hi George

They are. The film cameras they have kept indicate that they can still make such cameras effectively, however they have every reason to push the *ist as it may be considered the most advanced they have. The Z1-p, for example, retails for a lot of money, and does not compete with the offerings from Canon, Nikon et al - I've tried an EOS-1v and the Z1-p is not even in the same ballpark. The *ist, however, does compete well with the Nikon and Canons and has been very favourably reviewed. I would posit that they don't make the Mz-3/5n, z1-p or MZ-S not because it is uneconomical to do so, but that they realise that they are not competitive products in the overall market. I appreciate this is a slightly circular argument, stating that Pentax could make small batches but then saying that they would sell too few to justify it, but I am arguing that I think these cameras have been dropped simply because other Marques offer better solutions, usually for less money. Please note this is not to say that Pentax film cameras are uneconomical to make, simply that some models are at the end of their shelf-life and are uncompetitive in the modern marketplace. Of course, this involves some idea that the minimum economical batch size is less than the market supports, but this was never my argument - Pentax can produce film cameras in batches smaller than you had prevously suggested, I did not argue that they would maintain all models as these can be dropped for any number of reasons. I argued that changing production from one batch to another was the main cost of manufacture, hence if the range is rationalised they can continue making small batches with fewer costly modifcations to lines. Of course, there becomes a point when the batch size is too small, but that point is considerably lower than the hundreds of thousands you state - I'm still unsure whether you meant that illustratively or not. I actually work in a centre specialising in flexible manufacturing research, and the concensus is that, if existing tooling and protocols already exist, it is feasible to have batches sizes of the order of hundreds. Japanese car manufacturers can change tooling on a car panel press in 30 seconds, and manufacture car panels in batches of around 20. It really is pretty amazing. I've been searching for sales figures to get a better grasp of the situation, but have so far drawn a blank.

Regarding your processing point, I have no idea what is going to happen, but I think you could be right when you suggest that procesing is going to become difficult. We've been spoilt by cheap labs for a while, when these drop film in favour of digital I expect to see prices rise. I'm also concerned by Ilford's woes, I am happy to keep shooting film monochrome but if Ilford go then supplies might become scarse and expensive. As it stands Monochrome is cheap as chips, which is one of the reasons I can partake as much as I do. However, having seen the price of colour chemicals and paper, if monochrome ever reaches those levels I don't think I could continue.

Cheers

Matt

Sorry, above post was mine, didn't notice I wasn't logged in.

Hi George

I appreciate you include the reference to hundreds of thousands as being the minimum batch size simply to illustate a point, as in you can't manufacture one-offs. However, it is not quite that clear-cut. The major cost involved in manufacture is the tooling, and that already exists and is unlikely to need much maintenance that is specific to a given camera - obsolesence of many products is sometimes enforced as dies etc. wear and are uneconomical to replace. I am not sure if this is the case with Pentax, if so I am highly suspicious that dies for each camera failed at the same time. The only non-equipment cost caused by manufacturing different film cameras is that caused by changeover. Modern manufacture has moved away from accepting the cost of changeover (in other words, just computing what the minium efficient batch is based upon poor changeover performance, and manufacturing that batch size) to actually attempting to (and succeeding in) reducing the changeover duration and cost. This is one of the tenets of lean manufacture and responsive manufacture and forms part of the just-in-time philosophy that Japanese firms developed over many years. What this means is that Pentax could feasibly make small batches, indeed they will have invested great effort in reducing the size of their batches to give them more managerial flexibility. This is especially important to a small company like Pentax, who do not sell a great number of cameras. The use of common components across models also assists in this (for example, Canon use almost identical electronics between the 300D and 10D, with software used to cripple some features on the 300D).

I don't agree with your argument that it is uneconomical to produce film cameras. If changeover performance cannot be improved to maintain sufficient profit, then simply reduce the range so you have fewer changeovers - that is what we are seeing here. To put it concisely, the actual cost of manufacture with changes in batch size varies very little, it is the cost of changing manufacture between products, once factored in, that causes problems.

Still, I agree with your point regarding the balance of power between film and digital. Times are changing, digital is taking a huge chunk of the photography market. Film camera ranges will be pared down, ever the optimist I am foreseeing a future where only high-end film cameras are made and the budget models are replaced as casual photographers use digital almost exclusively. This is a mirror image of the early DSLR market, where only technically high-quality prodicts will be available to those who want them, at a price to match their quality, and the DSLR market will have an option for all budgets.

I'm not wishing for the continuation of the dominance of film, but having mastered an art, and having taken great pleasure from doing so, I'll be upset if some branch of film photography doesn't continue. I'm not expecting huge film camera ranges or a new model every year, just some ambition from Pentax to support film in some manner, and that was the original point I took from tijean's post - that Pentax are not being forthcoming with their plans, or making it clear what level of support they will be offering. They were happy enough to take my money*, I expect a decent duration of support for my pains.

*high horse alert, made even worse by the fact I bought all my Pentax gear second-hand!

Hi

There are 5 cameras on the UK Pentax site (pentax.co.uk), the ones on the US site plus the MZ-6 and the MZ-S. They've droped the MZ-3, not sure what else was there recently.

The US site has been totally revamped, perhaps they just haven't bothered to include the older cameras as yet? I always feel a little uncomfortable with their actions, it feels like they're withholding information to steer people to digital. The US website, in its previous guise, was always a lot more informative than the UK, so it is quite surprising that they've omitted these cameras. Even if they're not manufacturing them any more, they are still selling them, so shouldn't they be included on the website?

As an aside, I looked at the 'historical products' section, and to my surprise there was no MX. Was it not released in America?

Matt