If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
HOYA SWALLOWS PENTAX !
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
HOYA SWALLOWS PENTAX !
RiceHigh wrote:
http://ricehigh.blogspot.com/2006/12...ws-pentax.html from another source: http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-6145349.html |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
Well, many of us sensed that it was coming.
Pentax had been a longtime user of Hoya optical glass, but to see Hoya swallow Pentax us is disconcerting. These mergers nearly always result in big changes, and I would not be surprised if the "Pentax" name disappears entirely over the next few years. Pentax, for me, was never really the same after they changed their name from Asahi Optical Co. to Pentax Corp. They came out with uninspiring cameras that came and went without making their marks, unlike the Spotmatic series did. They cheapened their lenses once they introduced the "A" series. THis was particularly disconcerting because the optical performance of the "A" lenses was superior to that of the screwmounts and the original K-mounts, while the mechanical build quality had deteriorated noticably. Just like new cars. Better fuel economy and more amenities, at the expense of less sheet metal and smaller overall size. When I heard that Pentax had just invested in a lot of factory space in VIETNAM I knew that they had given up on their legacy. I'm depressed. THat's progress, I suppose. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
jeremy wrote:
mechanical build quality had deteriorated noticably. Just like new cars. Better fuel economy and more amenities, at the expense of less sheet metal and smaller overall size. So, basically, you prefer cars with lots of sheet metal and large size? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
In article , acl
wrote: jeremy wrote: mechanical build quality had deteriorated noticably. Just like new cars. Better fuel economy and more amenities, at the expense of less sheet metal and smaller overall size. So, basically, you prefer cars with lots of sheet metal and large size? Damn straight _I_ do. Sheet metal, true internal structure (not just some flimsy suppoorts for the outer skin), and large size. I'd take high strength composite fiber/plastics (NOT fiberglass!) if they ever start making cars with them (oops, sorry, that was an inadvertent cue for RichA to enter the thread with his obsession), but until then, I want METAL around me. The more the better. Ever seen a serious wreck? Ever been in one? From 1979 to 1996, I worked as a professional, full time paramedic (in Portland, OR and other places), and the last 6 years was also a firefighter. I've _seen_ (and sometimes had to scrape up) the difference in outcomes. Sorry, but to hell with fuel economy... with the millions of people on the road in this country who merely know "how to operate a motor vehicle" as opposed to actually knowing how to _drive_ their vehicles (and there is a HUGE difference between those two skillsets), I want a tank around me, if possible. Again, damn straight I prefer a vehicle with some substance to it rather than today's tin cans that a wrinkle in the sheet metal causes major loss of body integrity and strength (literally). -- You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence. -- Charles A. Beard |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
Ken Lucke wrote: In article , acl wrote: jeremy wrote: mechanical build quality had deteriorated noticably. Just like new cars. Better fuel economy and more amenities, at the expense of less sheet metal and smaller overall size. So, basically, you prefer cars with lots of sheet metal and large size? Damn straight _I_ do. Sheet metal, true internal structure (not just some flimsy suppoorts for the outer skin), and large size. I'd take high strength composite fiber/plastics (NOT fiberglass!) if they ever start making cars with them (oops, sorry, that was an inadvertent cue for RichA to enter the thread with his obsession), but until then, I want METAL around me. The more the better. Ever seen a serious wreck? Ever been in one? From 1979 to 1996, I worked as a professional, full time paramedic (in Portland, OR and other places), and the last 6 years was also a firefighter. I've _seen_ (and sometimes had to scrape up) the difference in outcomes. Sorry, but to hell with fuel economy... with the millions of people on the road in this country who merely know "how to operate a motor vehicle" as opposed to actually knowing how to _drive_ their vehicles (and there is a HUGE difference between those two skillsets), I want a tank around me, if possible. Again, damn straight I prefer a vehicle with some substance to it rather than today's tin cans that a wrinkle in the sheet metal causes major loss of body integrity and strength (literally). -- You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence. -- Charles A. Beard Recent study on the news the other night. You are twice as likely to die in an accident with a small car than a large one, internal compensation devices (airbags) nothwithstanding. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
RichA wrote:
Recent study on the news the other night. You are twice as likely to die in an accident with a small car than a large one, internal compensation devices (airbags) nothwithstanding. OTOH, my own experience indicates a smaller, more nimble vehicle allows the driver avoid accidents he might not be able to avoid in a larger, heavier, less maneuverable automobile. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
Ken Lucke wrote: In article , acl wrote: jeremy wrote: mechanical build quality had deteriorated noticably. Just like new cars. Better fuel economy and more amenities, at the expense of less sheet metal and smaller overall size. So, basically, you prefer cars with lots of sheet metal and large size? Damn straight _I_ do. Sheet metal, true internal structure (not just some flimsy suppoorts for the outer skin), and large size. I'd take high strength composite fiber/plastics (NOT fiberglass!) if they ever start making cars with them (oops, sorry, that was an inadvertent cue for RichA to enter the thread with his obsession), but until then, I want METAL around me. The more the better. Ever seen a serious wreck? Ever been in one? Yes, I've been in one from which I was lucky to get out alive. Can't say it changed my view (if anything, it enhanced my opinion that how a car handles is more important than how robust it is). I agree that if a tank hits me then it's better to be in another tank, though. From 1979 to 1996, I worked as a professional, full time paramedic (in Portland, OR and other places), and the last 6 years was also a firefighter. I've _seen_ (and sometimes had to scrape up) the difference in outcomes. Sorry, but to hell with fuel economy... with the millions of people on the road in this country who merely know "how to operate a motor vehicle" as opposed to actually knowing how to _drive_ their vehicles (and there is a HUGE difference between those two skillsets), I want a tank around me, if possible. Again, damn straight I prefer a vehicle with some substance to it rather than today's tin cans that a wrinkle in the sheet metal causes major loss of body integrity and strength (literally). Well, we have very different priorities in cars, I must admit. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
acl wrote:
Ken Lucke wrote: In article , acl wrote: jeremy wrote: mechanical build quality had deteriorated noticably. Just like new cars. Better fuel economy and more amenities, at the expense of less sheet metal and smaller overall size. So, basically, you prefer cars with lots of sheet metal and large size? Damn straight _I_ do. Sheet metal, true internal structure (not just some flimsy suppoorts for the outer skin), and large size. I'd take high strength composite fiber/plastics (NOT fiberglass!) if they ever start making cars with them (oops, sorry, that was an inadvertent cue for RichA to enter the thread with his obsession), but until then, I want METAL around me. The more the better. Ever seen a serious wreck? Ever been in one? Yes, I've been in one from which I was lucky to get out alive. Can't say it changed my view (if anything, it enhanced my opinion that how a car handles is more important than how robust it is). I agree that if a tank hits me then it's better to be in another tank, though. From 1979 to 1996, I worked as a professional, full time paramedic (in Portland, OR and other places), and the last 6 years was also a firefighter. I've _seen_ (and sometimes had to scrape up) the difference in outcomes. Sorry, but to hell with fuel economy... with the millions of people on the road in this country who merely know "how to operate a motor vehicle" as opposed to actually knowing how to _drive_ their vehicles (and there is a HUGE difference between those two skillsets), I want a tank around me, if possible. Again, damn straight I prefer a vehicle with some substance to it rather than today's tin cans that a wrinkle in the sheet metal causes major loss of body integrity and strength (literally). Well, we have very different priorities in cars, I must admit. My car must be big enough to hold my big DSLR and all the lenses I carry ;-) Roger |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
On 21 Dec 2006 11:11:19 -0800, "acl"
wrote: Ken Lucke wrote: In article , acl wrote: jeremy wrote: mechanical build quality had deteriorated noticably. Just like new cars. Better fuel economy and more amenities, at the expense of less sheet metal and smaller overall size. So, basically, you prefer cars with lots of sheet metal and large size? Damn straight _I_ do. Sheet metal, true internal structure (not just some flimsy suppoorts for the outer skin), and large size. I'd take high strength composite fiber/plastics (NOT fiberglass!) if they ever start making cars with them (oops, sorry, that was an inadvertent cue for RichA to enter the thread with his obsession), but until then, I want METAL around me. The more the better. Ever seen a serious wreck? Ever been in one? Yes, I've been in one from which I was lucky to get out alive. Can't say it changed my view (if anything, it enhanced my opinion that how a car handles is more important than how robust it is). I agree that if a tank hits me then it's better to be in another tank, though. About 5 years ago I had one of those immortal teenagers in his invincible SUV come shooting out of a driveway with all 4 burning. Two solid lanes of oncoming traffic on the left and trees to the right. I only left about 12 feet of skid marks before sticking the nose of my Trans Am into the side of that GMC Jimmy. He was going fast enough to spin me through the oncoming traffic and into a bank parking lot. The GMC turned 90 degrees and stopped about 30 feed down the left turn lane. It put the right front tire almost into the seat on that side. The firewall was back against the bottom of the dash all the way across and I wrapped the steering wheel around the column. The car stopped so quick all the antennas bent over flat against the body. Even bending that steering wheel I was unhurt. Punchier than after a 6-pack on an empty stomach, but unhurt. The kid in the SUV ended up in the hospital with a broken shoulder or collar bone. The only thing that save his life was that massive door pillar on the Jimmy. However the air bags, seat and shoulder harness and that car body folding up (plus being missed by all that oncoming traffic) is the only reason I'm alive. I also fly high performance airplanes. The interesting comparison is insurance rates and vehicle value. The more you drive the higher your rates due to exposure, but the more you fly the lower your rates due to time building competency. From 1979 to 1996, I worked as a professional, full time paramedic (in Portland, OR and other places), and the last 6 years was also a firefighter. I've _seen_ (and sometimes had to scrape up) the difference in outcomes. Sorry, but to hell with fuel economy... with the millions of people on the road in this country who merely know "how to operate a motor vehicle" as opposed to actually knowing how to _drive_ their vehicles (and there is a HUGE difference between those two skillsets), I want a tank around me, if possible. Again, damn straight I prefer a vehicle with some substance to it rather than today's tin cans that a wrinkle in the sheet metal causes major loss of body integrity and strength (literally). If gas would get up to $5 a gallon we might be able to do something about that. We worry about the dangers of all kinds of devices and demand protection. Then we go out and kill off between 40,000 and 50,000 a year on the highways and chalk it up to the cost of doing business. Well, we have very different priorities in cars, I must admit. Any time you take a car out it's a risk. There is a calculated risk associated with virtually every action we take. I'm willing to take the higher risk associated with the smaller car, or flying an airplane. I drive a 4WD SUV for a lot of things and my wife's Hybrid when it's available. I doubt I'm any safer in the SUV with all the *stuff* I throw in back. Plus in either car I usually have a couple of cameras in the right front seat. One with a Short to medium wide range zoom and the other with a 200 to 500 zoom. My first wife (many, many years ago in another life) lived because she was thrown out of a car in a wreck. You would never get her to wear a seat belt, even though the odds are far in favor for doing so. Had I not had a seat belt on when I hit that SUV it would have been quite a ride. One deputy with a kind of lop sided grin asked, "did you have your seat belt on". I replied "I sure wouldn't be walking around like this if I hadn't". and the insurance company refused to rebuild...er ...fix it. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pelican swallows pigeon | Daniel Silevitch | Digital Photography | 31 | October 31st 06 05:04 PM |
Hoya HMC CP filter | Eydz | 35mm Photo Equipment | 2 | October 22nd 06 01:21 AM |
Hoya 67mm circular polarizer + Hoya Skylight + Nikon D70 - some problems | Nicolae Fieraru | Digital Photography | 16 | April 10th 05 11:10 AM |
Hoya 67mm circular polarizer + Hoya Skylight + Nikon D70 - some problems | Nicolae Fieraru | Digital Photography | 0 | April 9th 05 06:03 AM |
Hoya Filters UV(0) OR UV(N) | ianr | Digital Photography | 0 | January 27th 05 10:31 PM |