Pentax question

On 13/02/2013 6:06 PM, John Turco wrote:
On 2/12/2013 6:12 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-02-12 15:42:07 -0800, John Turco said:


Canon and Nikon are on top, both now and in the foreseeable future.
Recall what happened to Kodak, though -- nothing lasts forever!

John

You don't see too many Henderson or Sears motorcycles around today
either.
http://db.tt/COhBnhIE
http://db.tt/sGZmgOVu


Beautiful bikes!

Incidentally, if there's one machine that might possibly outlast Nikon,
Canon (and maybe, everything else), the Boeing B-52 "Stratofortress"
will probably be it.

John

The Boeing 737 has a record of 10,000 built, and the B737 has been in
continuous production since 1967 (46 years)

--
This space intentionally left blank.

John Turco wrote:

I bought my K100D in September of 2007. At the time, and ever since,
I've occasionally handled Canon and Nikon display models, in stores.
They're surprisingly light and shockingly plasticky, from everything
I've seen.

There is a reason why a common film camera scam was showing the
mark a fairly good compact camera and, if they fell for it,
selling them an absolutely crap camera[1] in a box (claimed,
of course, to be the same one) --- with a hefty bit of lead
in the body of that crap camera, to make it feel like quality.

[1] as in "one aperture, one shutter speed, lens to match
that"

Yep, the entry models are small, light and plastic. For a
lot of people that means less space needed and less weight to
lug around all day! A major selling point, that one.

As to plastic, RichA might be allergic, but in many use cases
the right quality plastic is better or much better than
metal, and not only in weight savings.

In fact, one of them (I forgot which brand) had a fairly large zoom lens
attached. Even so, the entire body/lens combo was practically weightless.

As I said, a major selling point, unless you're in for the weight
lifting.

nikon and canon have always had a better build than pentax, especially
on the higher end bodies, except perhaps for the pentax lx film slr.

Really? I'd read that Pentax's optics are the equal of Nikon's and
Canon's, at the very least.

Equal in what? Weight? Zoom factor? Build?
Where are the exceptional tele lenses from Pentax and the
exceptional wide angle lenses from Pentax?

-Wolfgang

John Turco wrote:
"nospam" wrote:

I bought my K100D in September of 2007. At the time, and ever since,
I've occasionally handled Canon and Nikon display models, in stores.
They're surprisingly light and shockingly plasticky, from everything
I've seen.

There is a reason why a common film camera scam was showing the
mark a fairly good compact camera and, if they fell for it,
selling them an absolutely crap camera[1] in a box (claimed,
of course, to be the same one) --- with a hefty bit of lead
in the body of that crap camera, to make it feel like quality.

[1] as in "one aperture, one shutter speed, lens to match
that"

Yep, the entry models are small, light and plastic. For a
lot of people that means less space needed and less weight to
lug around all day! A major selling point, that one.

As to plastic, RichA might be allergic, but in many use cases
the right quality plastic is better or much better than
metal, and not only in weight savings.

Well, apparently, the K100D's metal frame is sturdier than
that of its Nikon and Canon entry-level counterparts.

In fact, one of them (I forgot which brand) had a fairly large zoom lens
attached. Even so, the entire body/lens combo was practically weightless.

As I said, a major selling point, unless you're in for the weight
lifting.

I'm not a 98-pound weakling...are you?

nikon and canon have always had a better build than pentax, especially
on the higher end bodies, except perhaps for the pentax lx film slr.

Really? I'd read that Pentax's optics are the equal of Nikon's and
Canon's, at the very least.

Equal in what? Weight? Zoom factor? Build?
Where are the exceptional tele lenses from Pentax and the
exceptional wide angle lenses from Pentax?

-Wolfgang

My impression had been that, Pentax's actual glass was
a match for its vaunted competitors' optical prowess.

John

Lyndon wrote:

I have been using Pentax film cameras for all of my photography life
(from the H-1a screw mounts). I currently have the MX camera with many
Kmount lenses. I have noticed the K30 pentax camera and am wondering if
it will take the K mount lenses and get approx the same results with
them. For instance, I have a 24mm lens which is a very wide angle
lens. I have been told that earlier dslr cameras could be modified to
take such a lens, but it would no longer give 24mm film comparable
pictures. Hope this isn't too confusing. But I would like to keep using
all my older K mount lens if possible with similar digital result.

The K30, like all current Pentax DSLRs, has a sensor smaller than a
standard 35mm film frame, approx 16x24mm. The effect of this is that
pictures taken on that camera will have a field of view similar to
pictures taken on film with a lens of about 1.5 times the focal length.
So your 24mm lens on a K30 will cover an angle of view similar to a
35mm lens on your MX.

If you get a K30, I'd suggest you get a new wide angle - the 18-55mm
kit lens will be equivalent to 27-82mm on the MX. You will benefit
from longer reach of your telephoto lenses, as well as image
stabilisation. Any lenses with an "A" setting on the aperture ring
will support all autoexposure modes, other lenses will only have stop
down metering.

On 03/11/2013 01:56 AM, RichA wrote:


It's nearly impossible. People remember these lenses, the Takumars,
etc., through a nostalgic haze. But the average cheap kit lens with
its molded aspherical elements, hybrid elements and modern coatings
will generally beat the old lenses. This isn't always the case, but
more often than not. In addition, the cameras themselves in some
cases correct residual aberrations of new lenses, producing even
better shots. So unless you are after the two main characteristics of
old lenses (certain effects or "cheap speed") you are better off with
new ones. Pentax's 35mm f/2.4 (I think that's it) will no doubt beat
an old Takumar or K lens. I know the slightly older 35mm f/2.0 AF
(discontinued) did.


Well, the point is, I've a bucket load of old (modest) lenses. Nothing
really special. However, it would be good to use them as I can't really
justify going out and buying the equivalent of my old 200mm Vivitar for
the odd occasion that I would use it. Probably not the best performer
(reasonable suspicion), but for the occasional use, fine.

In article , says...

"John Turco" wrote in message
...
Really? I'd read that Pentax's optics are the equal of Nikon's and
Canon's, at the very least. (Not that it truly matters, anymore, as
Pentax
has been reduced to relative obscurity.)

Exactly, the real problem with once big manufacturers like Pentax,
Olympus,
Minolta etc is they come and go at whim, often leaving their users stuck
with lenses and accessories and no upgrade path. All have produced some
good
camera's and lenses over the years, but the only ones I'd bet my money on
being around in 10+ years are Nikon and Canon.
Too expensive to swap all my lenses and flashes every few years :-(

Canon and Nikon are on top, both now and in the foreseeable future. Recall
what happened to Kodak, though -- nothing lasts forever!

Right, I'm not betting on even Canon or Nikon to be around in 50 years, I
just won't care by then! :-)
And will Paul Simon ever bring out an update to "Kodachrome" I wonder? :-)

It, and Kodachrome itself, are of a bygone era. So are a lot of other
good things.

J. Clarke wrote:
In article , says...

"John Turco" wrote in message
...
Really? I'd read that Pentax's optics are the equal of Nikon's and
Canon's, at the very least. (Not that it truly matters, anymore, as
Pentax
has been reduced to relative obscurity.)

Exactly, the real problem with once big manufacturers like Pentax,
Olympus,
Minolta etc is they come and go at whim, often leaving their users stuck
with lenses and accessories and no upgrade path. All have produced some
good
camera's and lenses over the years, but the only ones I'd bet my money on
being around in 10+ years are Nikon and Canon.
Too expensive to swap all my lenses and flashes every few years :-(

Canon and Nikon are on top, both now and in the foreseeable future. Recall
what happened to Kodak, though -- nothing lasts forever!

Right, I'm not betting on even Canon or Nikon to be around in 50 years, I
just won't care by then! :-)
And will Paul Simon ever bring out an update to "Kodachrome" I wonder? :-)

It, and Kodachrome itself, are of a bygone era. So are a lot of other
good things.

Don't forget that everything was better in the past --- when
seen from later times through pink glasses, instead of having
to live in it.

| The Earth is degenerating these days. Bribery and corruption abound.
| Children no longer mind their parents, every man wants to write a
| book, and it is evident that the end of the world is fast approaching.
Assyrian stone tablet, c.2800 BCE

| We are living in a decadent and dying age.
| Youth is corrupt, lacking in respect for elders, impatient of
| restraint. Age-old truth is doubted and the teaching of the fathers
| is questioned. The signs of the time forecast the destruction of the
| world at an early date.
inscribed in an Egyptian tomb 1000 BCE

| Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt
| for authority; they show disrespect for their elders and love
| chatter in place of exercise; they no longer rise when elders
| enter the room; they contradict their parents, chatter before
| company; gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers.
(mis?)attributed to Socrates (470-399 BCE) via Plato,
other sources says it's paraphrased from "The Clouds",
a comedy lampooning the intellectuals of the time and
caricaturating Socrates (423 BCE, revised 420-417 BCE)

-Wolfgang

In article , ozcvgtt02
@sneakemail.com says...

J. Clarke wrote:
In article , says...

"John Turco" wrote in message
...
Really? I'd read that Pentax's optics are the equal of Nikon's and
Canon's, at the very least. (Not that it truly matters, anymore, as
Pentax
has been reduced to relative obscurity.)

Exactly, the real problem with once big manufacturers like Pentax,
Olympus,
Minolta etc is they come and go at whim, often leaving their users stuck
with lenses and accessories and no upgrade path. All have produced some
good
camera's and lenses over the years, but the only ones I'd bet my money on
being around in 10+ years are Nikon and Canon.
Too expensive to swap all my lenses and flashes every few years :-(

Canon and Nikon are on top, both now and in the foreseeable future. Recall
what happened to Kodak, though -- nothing lasts forever!

Right, I'm not betting on even Canon or Nikon to be around in 50 years, I
just won't care by then! :-)
And will Paul Simon ever bring out an update to "Kodachrome" I wonder? :-)

It, and Kodachrome itself, are of a bygone era. So are a lot of other
good things.

Don't forget that everything was better in the past --- when
seen from later times through pink glasses, instead of having
to live in it.

Everything was not better in the past, but a great many things were.
There were also a great many that were worse. The economy was certainy
better in the '50s than it is now, to take one example, but black people
had a lot less opportunity.

J. Clarke wrote:
In article , ozcvgtt02
J. Clarke wrote:
In article , says...
"John Turco" wrote in message

Canon and Nikon are on top, both now and in the foreseeable future. Recall
what happened to Kodak, though -- nothing lasts forever!

Right, I'm not betting on even Canon or Nikon to be around in 50 years, I
just won't care by then! :-)
And will Paul Simon ever bring out an update to "Kodachrome" I wonder? :-)

It, and Kodachrome itself, are of a bygone era. So are a lot of other
good things.

Don't forget that everything was better in the past --- when
seen from later times through pink glasses, instead of having
to live in it.

Everything was not better in the past, but a great many things were.
There were also a great many that were worse.

The bad things are ignored, of course. There are a great many
people longing for the good old times on the USSR side of the
iron curtain ...


The economy was certainy
better in the '50s than it is now, to take one example, but black people
had a lot less opportunity.

Oh, sure, it was a great time ... an extremely costly (in
terms of money and lifes) world war just behind and worse
looming ahead, with both sides having "the bomb" (both the
atomic *and* the hydrogen one --- and both having similar
ranges with bombers), Korean Conflict, McCarthyism (and what a
nice witchhunt it was) and the Red Scare, Sputnik Crisis (and
yes, the USSR stood up the USA very much in the space race,
except for the bit of getting people to and on the moon),
Sovjet tanks quell the popular uprising in the GDR by force,
making it clear noone would be allowed to split off from
the eastern block, and a bit later another popular uprising
in Hungary (20,000 killed by Soviet troops, 100,000s flee
as the uprising is quelled), Suez crisis, the Vietnam War
beginning, Algerian War, Cuban Revolution, Mau Mau Uprising,
Rwandan Revolution (AKA the wind of destruction which finally
lead to the 1994 Rwandan Genoicide), decolonization, secret
services toppling governments, PRC, the end of radio/rise
of TV as main entertainment at home and massed lobotomy use
(e.g. against homosexuality or communistic leanings).

-Wolfgang

In article , ozcvgtt02
@sneakemail.com says...

J. Clarke wrote:
In article , ozcvgtt02
J. Clarke wrote:
In article , says...
"John Turco" wrote in message

Canon and Nikon are on top, both now and in the foreseeable future. Recall
what happened to Kodak, though -- nothing lasts forever!

Right, I'm not betting on even Canon or Nikon to be around in 50 years, I
just won't care by then! :-)
And will Paul Simon ever bring out an update to "Kodachrome" I wonder? :-)

It, and Kodachrome itself, are of a bygone era. So are a lot of other
good things.

Don't forget that everything was better in the past --- when
seen from later times through pink glasses, instead of having
to live in it.

Everything was not better in the past, but a great many things were.
There were also a great many that were worse.

The bad things are ignored, of course. There are a great many
people longing for the good old times on the USSR side of the
iron curtain ...


The economy was certainy
better in the '50s than it is now, to take one example, but black people
had a lot less opportunity.

Oh, sure, it was a great time ... an extremely costly (in
terms of money and lifes) world war just behind and worse
looming ahead, with both sides having "the bomb" (both the
atomic *and* the hydrogen one --- and both having similar
ranges with bombers), Korean Conflict, McCarthyism (and what a
nice witchhunt it was) and the Red Scare, Sputnik Crisis (and
yes, the USSR stood up the USA very much in the space race,
except for the bit of getting people to and on the moon),
Sovjet tanks quell the popular uprising in the GDR by force,
making it clear noone would be allowed to split off from
the eastern block, and a bit later another popular uprising
in Hungary (20,000 killed by Soviet troops, 100,000s flee
as the uprising is quelled), Suez crisis, the Vietnam War
beginning, Algerian War, Cuban Revolution, Mau Mau Uprising,
Rwandan Revolution (AKA the wind of destruction which finally
lead to the 1994 Rwandan Genoicide), decolonization, secret
services toppling governments, PRC, the end of radio/rise
of TV as main entertainment at home and massed lobotomy use
(e.g. against homosexuality or communistic leanings).

I'm not sure I see your point. You seem to be trying to create a
catalog of horrors but you list "the rise of TV" so I'm not really sure
what you think you're on about.