Question about the Pentax *ist D

"corks" wrote:

what mistakes out of interest ???


Konica Minolta's in-camera Anti-Shake is far less effective than
Canon's IS and Nikon's VR, both of which are in-lens systems.

The latest generation of Nikon's VR consistently offers a better than
three stop improvement in shutter speed and Canon's IS is not far
behind. Konica Minolta's system struggles to offer a two stop
improvement and it gets less effective with longer focal lengths,
which is of course where you need it most.

I was merely expressing a hope that Pentax can learn from Konica
Minolta's mistakes and offer a system that works rather better. The
poor performance of Konica Minolta's Anti-Shake is one of the reasons
the Maxxum 7D and 5D didn't sell, and the resulting very poor sales
contributed to Konica Minolta's decision to desert the photography
sector for good.

Pentax have managed to survive by being cautious and not making such
mistakes. For example, Pentax abandoned development of their first AF
system when it didn't work, and still survived. Pentax abandoned
development of their first Digital SLR when the full frame Philips
sensor didn't work, and still survived.

Contrast that with Kyocera, manufacturers of Contax, whose N Digital
SLR was introduced with the same Philips sensor, and bombed in the
market. Now Kyocera have deserted the photography sector for good.

That's why it's important not to make mistakes. Konica Minolta and
Kyocera paid a heavy price for making products that didn't work as
they should, and therefore didn't sell.

Pentax is a sensible company, not given to over-optimistic and rash
decisions. So I trust that time is being well spent in making Pentax
image stabilisation work rather better than Konica Minolta's does.

I hope that makes things clearer.

"corks" wrote:

cool no probs, i wasnt having a go , i was just curious as the mistakes made

what do you think of panasonics image stabilisation on say its fz30 then ???


On the compact Panasonic point and shoot digicams, it's excellent.

The much smaller sensors only need to be moved a very small distance
to eliminate camera shake. It is when you scale the whole thing up to
an APS-C sized sensor that the problems become more challenging.

You will note that Panasonic's first DSLR will have anti-shake in the
lenses, not the body. It uses the Four Thirds format, so the sensor is
much nearer the APS-C size sensors than the point and shoot sensors.

I hope Pentax gets it right in the 10MP DSLR, because if not, the
company could share the same fate as Kyocera and Konica Minolta - dead
and buried in a very short time.

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 22:46:35 +0000, Tony Polson
wrote:

"corks" wrote:

cool no probs, i wasnt having a go , i was just curious as the mistakes made

what do you think of panasonics image stabilisation on say its fz30 then ???


On the compact Panasonic point and shoot digicams, it's excellent.

Agreed.

The much smaller sensors only need to be moved a very small distance
to eliminate camera shake. It is when you scale the whole thing up to
an APS-C sized sensor that the problems become more challenging.

But Panasonic don't move the sensor, you're thinking of
Minolta.

You will note that Panasonic's first DSLR will have anti-shake in the
lenses, not the body. It uses the Four Thirds format, so the sensor is
much nearer the APS-C size sensors than the point and shoot sensors.

*All* Panasonic cameras already have anti-shake in the
lenses, not the body.


--
John Bean

John Bean wrote:

But Panasonic don't move the sensor, you're thinking of
Minolta.

John,

I didn't say anywhere that Panasonic moved the sensor, but thank you
for pointing out that what I wrote was a little unclear.

Tony

Tony Polson wrote:

"corks" wrote:

what mistakes out of interest ???



Konica Minolta's in-camera Anti-Shake is far less effective than
Canon's IS and Nikon's VR, both of which are in-lens systems.

Wrong. VR/IS lenses are genrerally (but not always) good for 3 stops of
effeciveness v. "rule of thumb". The Minolta systems (A-S) is good for
2 stops, sometimes a little more.


The latest generation of Nikon's VR consistently offers a better than
three stop improvement in shutter speed and Canon's IS is not far
behind.

Please post proof, Tony. It would be refreshing.

Konica Minolta's system struggles to offer a two stop
improvement and it gets less effective with longer focal lengths,
which is of course where you need it most.

False.

I was merely expressing a hope that Pentax can learn from Konica
Minolta's mistakes and offer a system that works rather better. The
poor performance of Konica Minolta's Anti-Shake is one of the reasons
the Maxxum 7D and 5D didn't sell, and the resulting very poor sales
contributed to Konica Minolta's decision to desert the photography
sector for good.

They started into digital SLR too late. That was the only downfall.
Too many people had jumped ship to Canon (and even in a few cases to Nikon).

I hope that makes things clearer.

No. As usual you have muddied the waters to fit your own agenda.

Please do post some of your photography. It's way past due.

Cheers,
Alan



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Tony Polson wrote:

The 10MP Pentax replacement for the *ist D, due Q4/2006, will have
in-camera image stabilisation. Hopefully, Pentax designers will have
used the months since the introduction of Konica Minolta's Anti-Shake
mechanism (in the Maxxum 7D) to ensure that Konica Minolta's mistakes
are not repeated in the new design.

You are certainly agenda minded. And wrong.



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.