Whatever happened to Pentax?

Discussion in 'Pentax' started by Dudley Hanks, Mar 8, 2008.

  1. Dudley Hanks

    Tony Polson Guest

    Michael Benveniste <> wrote:

    >On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 20:44:22 +0000, Tony Polson
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>The Hasselblad H3D-39 uniquely satisfies a need for a 39 MP DSLR.
    >>While there will only be a (relatively) small number of people who
    >>need 39 MP, the camera will be profitable if those people are prepared
    >>to pay a high price.

    >
    >>I just wondered how many people were in that position.

    >
    >Walk into non-photographer friend's home, and note the number of large,
    >high-quality photographic prints. Then do the same for a small or
    >medium-sized business.
    >
    >The H3D-39 is designed to create a gallery quality 18x24" print, or a
    >very good quality 27x36". Currently, that size of print is not really
    >in fashion for homes. In a business setting, you'll see the occasional
    >founders' shot or team photograph, but even those are now more likely to
    >appear on a webpage than on a wall.
    >
    >My _guess_ is that quite a few working pros have an occasional need to
    >print at that size, but it's not enough to warrant the investment.
    >Instead, they'll either look to rent an H3D or fall back to a film
    >camera. In the last year, the two 24x30" prints I've made both came out
    >of my 4x5" field camera.
    >
    >Of course, fashions could change next week. But if I was a pro, I
    >wouldn't tie up my capital on that sort of bet.



    An interesting analysis, Michael. However I think the market for such
    prints is vanishingly small.

    The H3D appears popular for fashion and advertising photography.
    39 MP is probably pretty useful for billboard size prints, and high
    quality reproduction in fashion magazines and catalogs. I have no
    idea what proportion of the H3D market these uses represent, however.
     
    Tony Polson, Mar 11, 2008
    #61
    1. Advertisements

  2. Dudley Hanks

    Tony Polson Guest

    "Bruce." <> wrote:

    >"Peter Chant" <> wrote in message
    >news:J3UAj.491858$...
    >> Yashica?
    >>
    >> Surely that's a name that's not been used in years. Who owns it?

    >
    >I'm still wondering what happened to Miranda. I owed a couple of those many
    >moons ago.



    Didn't she marry a guy named Fred?
     
    Tony Polson, Mar 11, 2008
    #62
    1. Advertisements

  3. Dudley Hanks

    Pudentame Guest

    wrote:
    > On Mar 11, 12:14 pm, "Jeremy" <> wrote:
    >> "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message
    >>
    >> news:nWCAj.74916$w57.63673@edtnps90...
    >>
    >>> Back in the '60s, '70s and even into the '80s Pentax was right up there
    >>> with Canon and Nikon. But, today, it seems like the company doesn't even
    >>> get honourable mention in the brand wars. What happened?

    >> They did what most of the other camera manufacturers did--they began sucking
    >> the build quality out of their bodies and lenses. At least Nikon maintained
    >> a high-end line for professionals. Pentax lost it whan they discontinued
    >> the LX without first creating a replacement model.
    >>
    >> When I compare the build quality of my "A" lenses to my SMC Takumars, I just
    >> shake my head in disbelief. The Spotmatic-F and the ES-II were the high
    >> water marks for Pentax. Once they migrated to the K Mount, things went
    >> downhill. I have a P3n and a P30t which I use as my knockaround cameras.
    >> They are made in China, they are so light that they feel like they're just
    >> made of air, but they take good photos. Trouble is, they feel like toys,
    >> relative to my older Pentax gear.
    >>
    >> Many (most?) of today's photographers don't remember what was out there in
    >> the early 70s, and thus do not know what they are missing.
    >>
    >> I would argue that--for advanced amateurs especially--cameras and lenses
    >> need to provide some tactile gratification in addition to just recording
    >> images. If they feel like toys, the brand will be perceived as another
    >> also-ran.
    >>
    >> Now, with Pentax mass-producing digital ameras in Vietnam, the problem will
    >> only become worse. Cameras are becoming commodities rather than specialized
    >> optical tools. Robotic assembly lines stamp them out as though they were
    >> cookie cutters.
    >>
    >> Remember when audiophiles spent thousands on top-notch turntables and
    >> cartridges, in order to get that high end sound? Now a cheap CD Walkman can
    >> outperform many of those old analog setups--and audiophile sound is
    >> available to Everyman, at low prices. I suspect that consumer/advanced
    >> amateur gear is headed in the same direction. Cheap, disposable & plastic .
    >> . .

    >
    > Did Pentax almost go under last year? If I am not mistaken, Hoya (the
    > makers of filter lens) planned to buy Pentax in 2006/2007. But I heard
    > that the deal did not fall through. Can someone confirm?


    Hoya bought Pentax.

    >
    > I saw an early development for a 6x4.5 format for digital Pentax
    > camera a few years ago (was it in Photokina?), but I don't know if
    > that was going anywhere either.
    >


    AFAIK, they were almost ready to bring it to market. Had gone so far as
    to give a tentative "date" of spring 2007.

    Then Hoya bought Pentax.

    The 645D "on hold"/cancellation announcement followed rapidly on the
    Hoya takeover.

    It's still not clear if the project is completely dead, or just on an
    extended hiatus. I lean toward the former, and hope for the latter.

    > However, when I look around on opinions on the camera websites, people
    > who own/buy a Pentax digital cameras appear to like their camera.
    > Either the popular 2 leading camera makers are too over-rated, or
    > Pentax enthusiasts do not want to tell anybody that they have problems
    > with their cameras.
    >


    Pentax gives you a lot of bang for your buck.

    The K10D matches up pretty good against the Nikon D200 ... doesn't have
    quite the continuous shooting speed & buffer size, but does give you
    image stabilization in the camera so you can (mostly) use your existing
    Pentax lenses.

    Pentax doesn't get a lot of second level support. Tamron, Tokina, &
    Sigma make some good lenses for Nikon & Canon - even for Sony and
    Olympus, that just aren't available in Pentax mount.

    Pentax doesn't really have a "PRO"-level DSLR, but you can do just about
    anything Nikon's non-"PRO" cameras will let you do. And Pentax's
    currently available selection of lenses leaves a lot to be desired (in
    my opinion - YMMV).

    Can't speak about Canon, since the canonista's attitude turned me off &
    I haven't looked at anything since the A1. And I ain't goin' to, so save
    your breath.

    I currently *USE* the following Pentax cameras - K1000, LX, PZ1P,
    *ist-D, K10D.

    > In the old days, I still remember the famous Asahi Pentax Spotmatix
    > SLR, as well as the Pentax 6x7 camera. I hope that the company is
    > making a come back with their K10D, and K20D models.
    >


    The K10D is an excellent camera. The K20D looks to be a significant
    improvement on an already great camera.
     
    Pudentame, Mar 12, 2008
    #63
  4. Pudentame wrote:
    > David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >> "Pudentame" <> wrote:
    >>> I don't know if the market is really there for medium format digital,
    >>> since all the MF digital I know of on the market are actually crop
    >>> sensors, none of them actually 6x4.5, 6x6, or 6x7.

    >>
    >> (Note that the actuall MF frame sizes are 42x56, 56x56, and 56x70mm.)
    >>
    >> The current "cropped" MF digital sensors are 36x48, which is exactly
    >> twice the area of "FF", and so does have a theoretical advantage. It
    >> also turns out that MF lenses are razor sharp on 5D density digital
    >> sensors, so 24MP and higher images that are painfully sharp corner to
    >> corner are a piece of cake for MF digital. Anything 24MP and over in
    >> FF is going to be a stretch for even the best Nikkor or Canon lenses
    >> at anything other than f/8 or f/11.


    >>

    >
    > There's also the cost. Medium Format film was affordable, medium format
    > digital not so much, with digital backs selling upwards of $10K,
    > although, IIRC, the Pentax 645D was planned to come on the market around
    > $4K.
    >
    > Medium format film thrived because even rank amateurs could afford it. I
    > don't know if we'll see medium format digital get there.


    We will, as to affordability, at least. Marketability is possibly a
    bigger question. I'd sure like one at less than $3,000, but not a back,
    and integrated design.

    --
    john mcwilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Mar 13, 2008
    #64
  5. Dudley Hanks

    Paul Furman Guest

    John McWilliams wrote:
    > Pudentame wrote:
    >> David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >>> "Pudentame" <> wrote:
    >>>> I don't know if the market is really there for medium format
    >>>> digital, since all the MF digital I know of on the market are
    >>>> actually crop sensors, none of them actually 6x4.5, 6x6, or 6x7.
    >>>
    >>> (Note that the actuall MF frame sizes are 42x56, 56x56, and 56x70mm.)
    >>>
    >>> The current "cropped" MF digital sensors are 36x48, which is exactly
    >>> twice the area of "FF", and so does have a theoretical advantage. It
    >>> also turns out that MF lenses are razor sharp on 5D density digital
    >>> sensors, so 24MP and higher images that are painfully sharp corner to
    >>> corner are a piece of cake for MF digital. Anything 24MP and over in
    >>> FF is going to be a stretch for even the best Nikkor or Canon lenses
    >>> at anything other than f/8 or f/11.

    >>
    >> There's also the cost. Medium Format film was affordable, medium
    >> format digital not so much, with digital backs selling upwards of
    >> $10K, although, IIRC, the Pentax 645D was planned to come on the
    >> market around $4K.
    >>
    >> Medium format film thrived because even rank amateurs could afford it.
    >> I don't know if we'll see medium format digital get there.

    >
    > We will, as to affordability, at least.


    Not with the current technology any time soon though. Big sensors cost
    big bucks and the future cost savings is in miniaturization. But you
    never know, I was reading about OLED technology that can make large high
    res monitors on paper thin, high dynamic range, low energy use materials
    that can roll up like a sheet of paper; maybe something like that will
    come along for image sensor technology. If it did, we'd be back at
    square one where you'd need a big klunky outfit to get a limited
    expensive choice of lenses, painfully slow exposures & vanishingly
    shallow depths of field. But that could be fun if the latest sensor
    could be printed out on an inkjet for $40.

    > Marketability is possibly a
    > bigger question. I'd sure like one at less than $3,000, but not a back,
    > and integrated design.
    >
     
    Paul Furman, Mar 14, 2008
    #65
  6. Paul Furman wrote:
    > John McWilliams wrote:
    >> Pudentame wrote:
    >>> David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >>>> "Pudentame" <> wrote:
    >>>>> I don't know if the market is really there for medium format
    >>>>> digital, since all the MF digital I know of on the market are
    >>>>> actually crop sensors, none of them actually 6x4.5, 6x6, or 6x7.
    >>>>
    >>>> (Note that the actuall MF frame sizes are 42x56, 56x56, and 56x70mm.)
    >>>>
    >>>> The current "cropped" MF digital sensors are 36x48, which is exactly
    >>>> twice the area of "FF", and so does have a theoretical advantage. It
    >>>> also turns out that MF lenses are razor sharp on 5D density digital
    >>>> sensors, so 24MP and higher images that are painfully sharp corner
    >>>> to corner are a piece of cake for MF digital. Anything 24MP and over
    >>>> in FF is going to be a stretch for even the best Nikkor or Canon
    >>>> lenses at anything other than f/8 or f/11.
    >>>
    >>> There's also the cost. Medium Format film was affordable, medium
    >>> format digital not so much, with digital backs selling upwards of
    >>> $10K, although, IIRC, the Pentax 645D was planned to come on the
    >>> market around $4K.
    >>>
    >>> Medium format film thrived because even rank amateurs could afford
    >>> it. I don't know if we'll see medium format digital get there.

    >>
    >> We will, as to affordability, at least.

    >
    > Not with the current technology any time soon though.


    I didn't imply either!

    > Big sensors cost
    > big bucks and the future cost savings is in miniaturization. But you
    > never know, I was reading about OLED technology that can make large high
    > res monitors on paper thin, high dynamic range, low energy use materials
    > that can roll up like a sheet of paper; maybe something like that will
    > come along for image sensor technology. If it did, we'd be back at
    > square one where you'd need a big klunky outfit to get a limited
    > expensive choice of lenses, painfully slow exposures & vanishingly
    > shallow depths of field. But that could be fun if the latest sensor
    > could be printed out on an inkjet for $40.
    >
    >> Marketability is possibly a bigger question. I'd sure like one at less
    >> than $3,000, but not a back, and integrated design.


    I do believe it will become a market issue once the technology and cost
    reductions have been achieved.

    --
    john mcwilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Mar 14, 2008
    #66
  7. Dudley Hanks

    Ryan Robbins Guest

    "Peter" <> wrote in message
    news:47d59c98$0$13871$-secrets.com...
    > "Noons" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> On Mar 10, 12:39 pm, "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> the area of "FF", and so does have a theoretical advantage. It also
    >>> turns
    >>> out that MF lenses are razor sharp on 5D density digital sensors, so
    >>> 24MP
    >>> and higher images that are painfully sharp corner to corner are a piece
    >>> of
    >>> cake for MF digital. Anything 24MP and over in FF is going to be a
    >>> stretch
    >>> for even the best Nikkor or Canon lenses at anything other than f/8 or
    >>> f/11.

    >>
    >> and at that density and stop-down, one will likely start to hit
    >> diffraction limits anyway...

    >
    >
    > Nobody needs more than 64k of memory - Bill Gates


    He never said that.
     
    Ryan Robbins, Mar 15, 2008
    #67
  8. Dudley Hanks

    van dark Guest

    No, he said it.

    Ryan Robbins napsal(a):
    > "Peter" <> wrote in message
    > news:47d59c98$0$13871$-secrets.com...
    >> "Noons" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> On Mar 10, 12:39 pm, "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> the area of "FF", and so does have a theoretical advantage. It also
    >>>> turns
    >>>> out that MF lenses are razor sharp on 5D density digital sensors, so
    >>>> 24MP
    >>>> and higher images that are painfully sharp corner to corner are a piece
    >>>> of
    >>>> cake for MF digital. Anything 24MP and over in FF is going to be a
    >>>> stretch
    >>>> for even the best Nikkor or Canon lenses at anything other than f/8 or
    >>>> f/11.
    >>> and at that density and stop-down, one will likely start to hit
    >>> diffraction limits anyway...

    >>
    >> Nobody needs more than 64k of memory - Bill Gates

    >
    > He never said that.
    >
    >
     
    van dark, Mar 15, 2008
    #68
  9. Dudley Hanks

    Ray Fischer Guest

    van dark <> wrote:
    >Ryan Robbins napsal(a):
    >> "Peter" <> wrote in message


    >>> Nobody needs more than 64k of memory - Bill Gates

    >>
    >> He never said that.

    >
    >No, he said it.


    No, he didn't. Try finding the exact quote.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Mar 15, 2008
    #69
  10. Dudley Hanks

    Pudentame Guest

    van dark wrote:
    > No, he said it.
    >


    640K ... yer off by an order of magnitude.

    > Ryan Robbins napsal(a):
    >> "Peter" <> wrote in message
    >> news:47d59c98$0$13871$-secrets.com...
    >>> "Noons" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>
    >>>> On Mar 10, 12:39 pm, "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> the area of "FF", and so does have a theoretical advantage. It also
    >>>>> turns
    >>>>> out that MF lenses are razor sharp on 5D density digital sensors,
    >>>>> so 24MP
    >>>>> and higher images that are painfully sharp corner to corner are a
    >>>>> piece of
    >>>>> cake for MF digital. Anything 24MP and over in FF is going to be a
    >>>>> stretch
    >>>>> for even the best Nikkor or Canon lenses at anything other than f/8
    >>>>> or f/11.
    >>>> and at that density and stop-down, one will likely start to hit
    >>>> diffraction limits anyway...
    >>>
    >>> Nobody needs more than 64k of memory - Bill Gates

    >>
    >> He never said that.
    >>
     
    Pudentame, Mar 15, 2008
    #70
  11. "Ray Fischer" <> wrote:
    > van dark <> wrote:
    >>Ryan Robbins napsal(a):
    >>> "Peter" <> wrote in message

    >
    >>>> Nobody needs more than 64k of memory - Bill Gates
    >>>
    >>> He never said that.

    >>
    >>No, he said it.

    >
    > No, he didn't. Try finding the exact quote.


    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bill_Gates

    He claims he didn't.

    I was at MIT when Bill was dropping out of Harvard. He showed up at a
    meeting of a student computer group that I missed, and asked people to work
    with him. He got laughed at: "We have real computers to work with" was the
    attitude since that particular group was given a chunk of the Multics system
    to play with.

    MIT nerds can be amazing turkeys, sometimes.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Mar 15, 2008
    #71
  12. Dudley Hanks

    Paul J Gans Guest

    In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems David J. Littleboy <> wrote:

    >"Ray Fischer" <> wrote:
    >> van dark <> wrote:
    >>>Ryan Robbins napsal(a):
    >>>> "Peter" <> wrote in message

    >>
    >>>>> Nobody needs more than 64k of memory - Bill Gates
    >>>>
    >>>> He never said that.
    >>>
    >>>No, he said it.

    >>
    >> No, he didn't. Try finding the exact quote.


    >http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bill_Gates


    >He claims he didn't.


    >I was at MIT when Bill was dropping out of Harvard. He showed up at a
    >meeting of a student computer group that I missed, and asked people to work
    >with him. He got laughed at: "We have real computers to work with" was the
    >attitude since that particular group was given a chunk of the Multics system
    >to play with.


    >MIT nerds can be amazing turkeys, sometimes.


    Well, who knew?

    What happened was a combination of skill, good sense, and a major
    dollup of luck. There's lots of the first two around. It is the
    last that is in short supply.

    --
    --- Paul J. Gans
     
    Paul J Gans, Mar 15, 2008
    #72
  13. Dudley Hanks

    Peter Guest

    "Pudentame" <> wrote in message
    news:47dbf37b$0$6132$...
    > van dark wrote:
    >> No, he said it.
    >>

    >
    > 640K ... yer off by an order of magnitude.
    >



    At least nobody denied, that I said what I said I said.

    --
    Peter
     
    Peter, Mar 16, 2008
    #73
  14. Dudley Hanks

    Doug Freese Guest

    "RichA" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > It's a camera made for women no doubt.


    Still playing the nerd I see. .
     
    Doug Freese, Mar 26, 2008
    #74
  15. Dudley Hanks

    Guy Guest

    Re: Whatever happened to Yashica?

    McKev (yay!) wrote:
    > "Peter Chant" <> wrote in message
    > news:J3UAj.491858$...
    >> sally wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> Canon and Nikon are just better at developing and marketing new products.
    >>> Pentax and Yashica are trying to come back, but that will be difficult.

    >> Yashica?
    >>
    >> Surely that's a name that's not been used in years. Who owns it?
    >>


    http://www.yashica.com/aboutus.htm
     
    Guy, Apr 1, 2008
    #75
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Similar Threads
  1. RichA

    Whatever happened to FAST lenses???

    RichA, Apr 25, 2005, in forum: Digital SLR
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    602
    RichA
    Apr 26, 2005
  2. Doug Payne

    whatever happened to ...?

    Doug Payne, Mar 17, 2005, in forum: 35mm Cameras
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    391
    Alan Browne
    Mar 17, 2005
  3. Glen

    Whatever happened to Chris Cox?

    Glen, Dec 3, 2005, in forum: Photoshop Tutorials
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    460
    iehsmith
    Dec 3, 2005
  4. Annika1980

    Whatever Happened To ........

    Annika1980, Dec 8, 2006, in forum: 35mm Cameras
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    504
    Bandicoot
    Dec 12, 2006
  5. Annika1980

    Whatever Happened To ..... (Part B)

    Annika1980, Dec 8, 2006, in forum: 35mm Cameras
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    361
    Bandicoot
    Dec 12, 2006
  6. Whatever happened to Soligor ?

    , Aug 7, 2007, in forum: Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    602
    Rob Morley
    Aug 7, 2007
  7. Annika1980

    Whatever Happened To?

    Annika1980, Jul 11, 2008, in forum: 35mm Cameras
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    287
    Mark Thomas
    Jul 15, 2008
  8. zeitgeist

    Speaking of Foveon, whatever happened to

    zeitgeist, Oct 24, 2003, in forum: Digital Cameras
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    569
    Michael Quack
    Nov 2, 2003
Loading...