Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why no discussion about Pentax cameras?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 7:50:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I've been reading this group for awhile trying to make up my mind. I almost
went for the Canon A-95 a couple of weeks ago, but decided to be patient.
The one thing I've noticed is there a very few post about the Pentax
camera's. These were some very good traditional camera's and some thought
them better than Canon. Do they not make a good digital?
February 26, 2005 7:50:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jack Dotson wrote:

> I've been reading this group for awhile trying to make up my mind. I
> almost went for the Canon A-95 a couple of weeks ago, but decided to be
> patient. The one thing I've noticed is there a very few post about the
> Pentax
> camera's. These were some very good traditional camera's and some thought
> them better than Canon. Do they not make a good digital?


Of course pentax is JUNK! Anything that's -not- made by Canon is junk, don't
you know that by now?

This newsgroup is ONLY for posts that praise canon products or bash other
makers products. If you want to talk about anything else, you need to find
another group. You might be able to mention something else as being "fairly
OK" if it's a P&S, but don't get too brazen and try to even insinuate it
could start to compare to a Canon product.

What I'm trying to say is most people who use non-canon products discuss
them elsewhere because of the =militant= canon users on this group. There
are only a handful but they are so abusive, it's worthless trying to
discuss anything non-canon here. These people have never used anything but
Canon products but somehow know nothing can even compare to the greatness
of what they choose to buy. Shame really that this is how this group has
developed, but that's why you never see any pentax info here.
--

Stacey
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 7:50:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stacey pouts:

"What I'm trying to say is most people who use non-canon products
discuss
them elsewhere because of the =militant= canon users on this group.
There
are only a handful but they are so abusive, it's worthless trying to
discuss anything non-canon here. These people have never used anything
but
Canon products but somehow know nothing can even compare to the
greatness
of what they choose to buy. Shame really that this is how this group
has
developed, but that's why you never see any pentax info here."

Pfui. I've often mentioned my Pentax *ist D here, and have had no
negative feedback about my comments.
Related resources
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 7:50:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:38btgcF5jfb6kU1@individual.net...
> Jack Dotson wrote:
>
>> I've been reading this group for awhile trying to make up my mind. I
>> almost went for the Canon A-95 a couple of weeks ago, but decided to be
>> patient. The one thing I've noticed is there a very few post about the
>> Pentax
>> camera's. These were some very good traditional camera's and some thought
>> them better than Canon. Do they not make a good digital?
>
>
> Of course pentax is JUNK! Anything that's -not- made by Canon is junk, don't
> you know that by now?
>
> This newsgroup is ONLY for posts that praise canon products or bash other
> makers products. If you want to talk about anything else, you need to find
> another group. You might be able to mention something else as being "fairly
> OK" if it's a P&S, but don't get too brazen and try to even insinuate it
> could start to compare to a Canon product.
>
> What I'm trying to say is most people who use non-canon products discuss
> them elsewhere because of the =militant= canon users on this group. There
> are only a handful but they are so abusive, it's worthless trying to
> discuss anything non-canon here.

Nonsense.
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 7:50:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:38btgcF5jfb6kU1@individual.net...
> Jack Dotson wrote:
>
>> I've been reading this group for awhile trying to make up my mind. I
>> almost went for the Canon A-95 a couple of weeks ago, but decided to be
>> patient. The one thing I've noticed is there a very few post about the
>> Pentax
>> camera's. These were some very good traditional camera's and some thought
>> them better than Canon. Do they not make a good digital?
>
>
> Of course pentax is JUNK! Anything that's -not- made by Canon is junk, don't
> you know that by now?
>
> This newsgroup is ONLY for posts that praise canon products or bash other
> makers products. If you want to talk about anything else, you need to find
> another group. You might be able to mention something else as being "fairly
> OK" if it's a P&S, but don't get too brazen and try to even insinuate it
> could start to compare to a Canon product.
>
> What I'm trying to say is most people who use non-canon products discuss
> them elsewhere because of the =militant= canon users on this group. There
> are only a handful but they are so abusive, it's worthless trying to
> discuss anything non-canon here.

A quick scan of current thread subject lines:

-Konica Minolta
-Pentax
-Nikon Coolpix
-Sony
-Nikon SLR
-Nikon D2X Review
-Canon Digital Rebel
CAnon Powershot A20
February 26, 2005 9:08:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jack,

Yes - Pentax makes a good digital point 'n shoot camera but as you've noted,
not much is said about Pentax and they have never been known to be one to
blow their own horn or to make extravagant marketing claims about any
products they make. I've been a Pentax user since the early 70's and last
year purchased the *ist D digital. But when it comes to the point 'n shoot
models, I think others have done a better job in some cases - such as the
Canon a95 you mentioned.

I purchased three of them last year for gifts after looking over a number of
models - including the Pentax models. For SLR's and lenses - Pentax has
always provided excellent quality. Not saying they're better or worse than
comparable models - that's for you to decide but I personally think they
still make a quality product.

Try www.dpreview.com for some comparisons....

Bob S.



"Jack Dotson" <jdotson@stx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:xN1Ud.58444$911.3734@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> I've been reading this group for awhile trying to make up my mind. I
almost
> went for the Canon A-95 a couple of weeks ago, but decided to be patient.
> The one thing I've noticed is there a very few post about the Pentax
> camera's. These were some very good traditional camera's and some thought
> them better than Canon. Do they not make a good digital?
>
>
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 9:45:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:38btgcF5jfb6kU1@individual.net...
> Jack Dotson wrote:
>
>> I've been reading this group for awhile trying to make up my mind. I
>> almost went for the Canon A-95 a couple of weeks ago, but decided to be
>> patient. The one thing I've noticed is there a very few post about the
>> Pentax
>> camera's. These were some very good traditional camera's and some thought
>> them better than Canon. Do they not make a good digital?
>
>
> Of course pentax is JUNK! Anything that's -not- made by Canon is junk, don't
> you know that by now?
>
> This newsgroup is ONLY for posts that praise canon products or bash other
> makers products. If you want to talk about anything else, you need to find
> another group. You might be able to mention something else as being "fairly
> OK" if it's a P&S, but don't get too brazen and try to even insinuate it
> could start to compare to a Canon product.
>
> What I'm trying to say is most people who use non-canon products discuss
> them elsewhere because of the =militant= canon users on this group. There
> are only a handful but they are so abusive, it's worthless trying to
> discuss anything non-canon here. These people have never used anything but
> Canon products but somehow know nothing can even compare to the greatness
> of what they choose to buy. Shame really that this is how this group has
> developed, but that's why you never see any pentax info here.

One more comment to Stacey's whining:

There is one very simple aspect of why Canon is discused so much here, and it is this:

Canon has been releasing FAR more cameras than Nikon, Pentax, Konica/Minolta, Kodak, HP,
Casio, Panasonic, Leica (hee hee) and others of late.

Check the release history on www.dpreview.com if you haven't noticed this.
Just the fact that Canon continues to release so many new models is bound to generate
discussion.
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 11:15:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jack Dotson wrote:
> I've been reading this group for awhile trying to make up my mind. I
> almost went for the Canon A-95 a couple of weeks ago, but decided to
> be patient. The one thing I've noticed is there a very few post about
> the Pentax camera's. These were some very good traditional camera's
> and some thought them better than Canon. Do they not make a good
> digital?

You may want to check out rec.photo.digital.slr-systems as well.

David
February 26, 2005 11:48:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Charlie Self" <charliediy@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1109464820.160841.26850@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Stacey pouts:
>
> Pfui. I've often mentioned my Pentax *ist D here, and have had no
> negative feedback about my comments.
>
Maybe Pentax users are out taking pictures ;) 

I love my *ist D, and my LX. I really enjoy my DA 14mm f:2.8 (IF) ED. My
shooting buddy has a 10D and we get along well, although he is jealous that
my 14mm is wider than his 17~40L (nice glass too)
February 27, 2005 12:01:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark² wrote:

>
> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> What I'm trying to say is most people who use non-canon products discuss
>> them elsewhere because of the =militant= canon users on this group. There
>> are only a handful but they are so abusive, it's worthless trying to
>> discuss anything non-canon here.
>
> A quick scan of current thread subject lines:
>
> -Nikon SLR
> -Nikon D2X Review
>

Yea, read those two threads, a bunch of canon users bashing a camera they
have never seen.

Or.

D2X: Noise box

Yea, that is discussing this camera in an unbiased way. What are these
people afraid of? That some pro's might use something other than what they
own?

--

Stacey
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 12:01:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:38cnv9F5ku795U1@individual.net...
> Mark² wrote:
>
>>
>> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> What I'm trying to say is most people who use non-canon products discuss
>>> them elsewhere because of the =militant= canon users on this group. There
>>> are only a handful but they are so abusive, it's worthless trying to
>>> discuss anything non-canon here.
>>
>> A quick scan of current thread subject lines:
>>
>> -Nikon SLR
>> -Nikon D2X Review
>>
>
> Yea, read those two threads, a bunch of canon users bashing a camera they
> have never seen.
>
> Or.
>
> D2X: Noise box
>
> Yea, that is discussing this camera in an unbiased way. What are these
> people afraid of? That some pro's might use something other than what they
> own?

If you're looking for a forum that is bias free, then you are chasing rainbows.
We all have bias.
So do you.
Right now your bias is against people on this forum, and their supposed inability to
discuss in a meaningful way.
Up to this point, I have seen little from you other than to harp on everyone here.
I have often pointed out impressive aspects of Nikon.
In fact, I posted one of the very first links to the Nikon D2... with very favorable
comments.

We can all convince ourselves that the world is against us, but I wouldn't advise making a
habit of it. This is a forum for discussing equipment. It is reasonable to expect people
will have strong opinions about certain aspects. All in all, I'd say there are a good
number of people here that are interested in making images that please them. Their quest
to do this takes them through the maze of epuipment choices and variables. On the way,
they/we/you are sure to form some opinions about different manufacturers. This is natural
and neither good nor bad.

There are some who blindly declare one superior to the other, but I can assure you that
this happens from the standpoint of MANY brands. -Not just Canon.
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 12:56:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:38btgcF5jfb6kU1@individual.net...
> Jack Dotson wrote:
>
>> I've been reading this group for awhile trying to make up my mind. I
>> almost went for the Canon A-95 a couple of weeks ago, but decided to be
>> patient. The one thing I've noticed is there a very few post about the
>> Pentax
>> camera's. These were some very good traditional camera's and some
>> thought
>> them better than Canon. Do they not make a good digital?
>
>
> Of course pentax is JUNK! Anything that's -not- made by Canon is junk,
> don't
> you know that by now?
>
> This newsgroup is ONLY for posts that praise canon products or bash other
> makers products. If you want to talk about anything else, you need to find
> another group. You might be able to mention something else as being
> "fairly
> OK" if it's a P&S, but don't get too brazen and try to even insinuate it
> could start to compare to a Canon product.
>
> What I'm trying to say is most people who use non-canon products discuss
> them elsewhere because of the =militant= canon users on this group. There
> are only a handful but they are so abusive, it's worthless trying to
> discuss anything non-canon here. These people have never used anything but
> Canon products but somehow know nothing can even compare to the greatness
> of what they choose to buy. Shame really that this is how this group has
> developed, but that's why you never see any pentax info here.
> --
>
> Stacey

Stacey, if you have such a problem with what you perceive to be the bias in
this newsgroup, why do you stick around?

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 3:49:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stewy states:
"Take a look at http://www.dpreview.com/ You'll see Pentax only makes
one
DSLR and that's pretty new. I think Pentax got into digital rather late

and are paying the price by being sidelined by Nikon and canon"

Pentax makes two DSLRs, not one, and has been selling digitals for
about five years.

Oddly enough, Pentax DSLR users don't seem to jump to the fore with
camera problems as do many others, so that may be why there are fewer
posts. It IS a smaller company, too, which has a bearing.
February 27, 2005 5:32:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Skip M wrote:


>
> Stacey, if you have such a problem with what you perceive to be the bias
> in this newsgroup, why do you stick around?
>

That's a good question and I probably won't.

--

Stacey
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 5:32:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:38dbc6F5memhgU1@individual.net...
> Skip M wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Stacey, if you have such a problem with what you perceive to be the bias
>> in this newsgroup, why do you stick around?
>>
>
> That's a good question and I probably won't.

Oh darn.
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 6:49:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:%paUd.123674$0u.119248@fed1read04...

> Up to this point, I have seen little from you other than to harp on
everyone here.

Quite true. He is upset that the world doesn't see things the same way he
does, and rather than try to convince others of the merits of his views, he
bashes everyone that makes meaningful contributions, if those people don't
share his views.

> We can all convince ourselves that the world is against us, but I wouldn't
advise making a
> habit of it.

Well-stated.
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 7:58:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:38btgcF5jfb6kU1@individual.net:

> Jack Dotson wrote:
>
>> I've been reading this group for awhile trying to make up my
>> mind. I almost went for the Canon A-95 a couple of weeks ago,
>> but decided to be patient. The one thing I've noticed is there a
>> very few post about the Pentax
>> camera's. These were some very good traditional camera's and
>> some thought them better than Canon. Do they not make a good
>> digital?
>
>
> Of course pentax is JUNK! Anything that's -not- made by Canon is
> junk, don't you know that by now?
>
> This newsgroup is ONLY for posts that praise canon products or
> bash other makers products. If you want to talk about anything
> else, you need to find another group. You might be able to mention
> something else as being "fairly OK" if it's a P&S, but don't get
> too brazen and try to even insinuate it could start to compare to
> a Canon product.
>
> What I'm trying to say is most people who use non-canon products
> discuss them elsewhere because of the =militant= canon users on
> this group. There are only a handful but they are so abusive, it's
> worthless trying to discuss anything non-canon here. These people
> have never used anything but Canon products but somehow know
> nothing can even compare to the greatness of what they choose to
> buy. Shame really that this is how this group has developed, but
> that's why you never see any pentax info here.

Poppycock. There are plenty of Nikon owners here too, as well as owners
of all brands IN PROPORTION TO SALES VOLUME OF THOSE BRANDS. Canon has
more models of digicams than any other manufacturer, so it makes sense
that they will get mentioned the most.

--

Bill
February 27, 2005 7:58:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Woodchuck Bill wrote:


>
> Poppycock. There are plenty of Nikon owners here too, as well as owners
> of all brands IN PROPORTION TO SALES VOLUME OF THOSE BRANDS. Canon has
> more models of digicams than any other manufacturer, so it makes sense
> that they will get mentioned the most.
>

Does that mean that they should also be more militant?

Read the canon threads, you'll see people who use them discussing the
cameras and the reasons to choose between the different models.

Then read ANY nikon,pentax,olympus thread. 90% of the posts are canon users
trying to steer people to the camera they use, bashing a camera they have
never seen nor used. And you're trying to tell me this is poppycock? After
being attacked or seeing this, most "other users" just post their questions
elsewhere. Why would a non-canon user post anything here to only have these
"canonites" jump all over them?

I'd love to post about some of the good/bad experiences I've had but there
is NO WAY I'd post it here again since it isn't praise for a canon product.
I tried to explain that the problem I was having with a canon printer I
bought was a -bad printer-, yet these people said basically there is no way
and that I had to be doing something wrong? And you wonder why 99% of the
posts here are about canon stuff?

--

Stacey
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 7:58:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> more models of digicams than any other manufacturer, so it makes sense
>> that they will get mentioned the most.
>>
>
> Does that mean that they should also be more militant?
>
> Read the canon threads, you'll see people who use them discussing the
> cameras and the reasons to choose between the different models.
>
> Then read ANY nikon,pentax,olympus thread. 90% of the posts are canon users
> trying to steer people to the camera they use, bashing a camera they have
> never seen nor used. And you're trying to tell me this is poppycock? After
> being attacked or seeing this, most "other users" just post their questions
> elsewhere. Why would a non-canon user post anything here to only have these
> "canonites" jump all over them?
>
> I'd love to post about some of the good/bad experiences I've had but there
> is NO WAY I'd post it here again since it isn't praise for a canon product.

Then you not only silly, but you're apparently a coward.
For crying out loud!
You'll only comment if you've got some sort of guarrantee that people will kiss your arse
in agreement?
Why are you here?
I'm beginning to think you are merely trolling here...

> I tried to explain that the problem I was having with a canon printer I
> bought was a -bad printer-, yet these people said basically there is no way
> and that I had to be doing something wrong?

Most printing issues here involve user error.
While your particular case might have been a bad printer, it usually isn't the printer
that is to blame. This is true regardless of what printer manufacturer is discussed, and
has nothing to do with Canon. I use exclusively Epson pigment based systems due to
longevity issues. You can use whatever the heck you want.

>And you wonder why 99% of the
> posts here are about canon stuff?

How many printers are made by Nikon, Pentax, Olympus, Sony, and Konica-Minolta?
Basically for photos, the three major choices are Epson, HP and Canon. These printers
come up a lot, though there are FAR more people here who use Epson over Canon.
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 8:58:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Charlie Self" <charliediy@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1109494185.237999.128370@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Stewy states:
> "Take a look at http://www.dpreview.com/ You'll see Pentax only makes
> one
> DSLR and that's pretty new. I think Pentax got into digital rather late
>
> and are paying the price by being sidelined by Nikon and canon"
>
> Pentax makes two DSLRs, not one, and has been selling digitals for
> about five years.
>
> Oddly enough, Pentax DSLR users don't seem to jump to the fore with
> camera problems as do many others, so that may be why there are fewer
> posts. It IS a smaller company, too, which has a bearing.
>

Is it possible that Pentax users don't jump to the fore with problems
because there are fewer problems? <G>

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 9:58:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 02:43:31 -0500, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I'd love to post about some of the good/bad experiences I've had but there
>is NO WAY I'd post it here again since it isn't praise for a canon product.

Do you promise?
Cross your heart & hope to die?
--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 2:21:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <xN1Ud.58444$911.3734@fe2.texas.rr.com>,
"Jack Dotson" <jdotson@stx.rr.com> wrote:

> I've been reading this group for awhile trying to make up my mind. I almost
> went for the Canon A-95 a couple of weeks ago, but decided to be patient.
> The one thing I've noticed is there a very few post about the Pentax
> camera's. These were some very good traditional camera's and some thought
> them better than Canon. Do they not make a good digital?

Take a look at http://www.dpreview.com/ You'll see Pentax only makes one
DSLR and that's pretty new. I think Pentax got into digital rather late
and are paying the price by being sidelined by Nikon and canon
February 27, 2005 2:21:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stewy" <anyone4tennis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:anyone4tennis-5F8B7E.11213027022005@newssv.kcn.ne.jp...
> In article <xN1Ud.58444$911.3734@fe2.texas.rr.com>,
> "Jack Dotson" <jdotson@stx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > I've been reading this group for awhile trying to make up my mind. I
almost
> > went for the Canon A-95 a couple of weeks ago, but decided to be
patient.
> > The one thing I've noticed is there a very few post about the Pentax
> > camera's. These were some very good traditional camera's and some
thought
> > them better than Canon. Do they not make a good digital?
>
> Take a look at http://www.dpreview.com/ You'll see Pentax only makes one
> DSLR and that's pretty new. I think Pentax got into digital rather late
> and are paying the price by being sidelined by Nikon and canon

Hmmm, 2000 Pentax showed the MR-52 aka MZ-D at PhotoKina. Was a 6 megapixel
24x36 Phillips Chip (aka Dalsa) dSLR. 2003 Pentax *istD current, 2005 *istDS
current that's 2 current dSLR. The *istD will probably be discontinued FY
2005 and a replacement announced. Look more closely at dpreview, and you'll
see http://www.dpreview.com/articles/pentaxistds which compares them side
by side.

The Pentax * ist D is bigger than the Canon Rebel XT, and the Pentax *ist DS
is smaller and lighter than the Canon Rebel XT.
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 3:31:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Jack Dotson" <jdotson@stx.rr.com> wrote in
news:xN1Ud.58444$911.3734@fe2.texas.rr.com:

> I've been reading this group for awhile trying to make up my mind. I
> almost went for the Canon A-95 a couple of weeks ago, but decided to
> be patient. The one thing I've noticed is there a very few post about
> the Pentax camera's. These were some very good traditional camera's
> and some thought them better than Canon. Do they not make a good
> digital?
>

Pentax user are quiet persons that use their time taking
pictures and do not frequent forums and news group talking
about their gear :) 

No - frankly - Canon is the biggest - most cameras sold.
When it comes to DSLR Canon and Nikon are the biggest.
So - it is only natural if more are discussing Canon and Nikon.
I think that Pentax has a fair share of non canon and Nikon
posts.

But - take a look in the rec.photo.digital.dlsr-systems group.
Some talk about the Pentax D and DS there.


/Roland
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 3:05:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I've got a Pentax Optio 330RS point and shoot for carrying around everyday
use. It does the job admirably. It's small enough to fit in a shirt pocket,
has full manual control, three different metering modes, easy to set manual
white balance, I could on and on but why. It's not great, but it's good
enough and has given me no troubles.

Kerry Brown

"Jack Dotson" <jdotson@stx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:xN1Ud.58444$911.3734@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> I've been reading this group for awhile trying to make up my mind. I
> almost went for the Canon A-95 a couple of weeks ago, but decided to be
> patient. The one thing I've noticed is there a very few post about the
> Pentax camera's. These were some very good traditional camera's and some
> thought them better than Canon. Do they not make a good digital?
>
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 3:05:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 00:05:29 GMT, "Hi There"
<gt4NOSPAMdatsun@h*o*t*m*a*i*l.com> wrote:

>I've got a Pentax Optio 330RS point and shoot for carrying around everyday
>use. It does the job admirably. It's small enough to fit in a shirt pocket,
>has full manual control, three different metering modes, easy to set manual
>white balance, I could on and on but why. It's not great, but it's good
>enough and has given me no troubles.

Yeah, but if you'd bought a Canon, it *would* be great. :-)
>
>Kerry Brown
>
>"Jack Dotson" <jdotson@stx.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:xN1Ud.58444$911.3734@fe2.texas.rr.com...
>> I've been reading this group for awhile trying to make up my mind. I
>> almost went for the Canon A-95 a couple of weeks ago, but decided to be
>> patient. The one thing I've noticed is there a very few post about the
>> Pentax camera's. These were some very good traditional camera's and some
>> thought them better than Canon. Do they not make a good digital?
>>
>

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 6:05:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi There <gt4NOSPAMdatsun@h*o*t*m*a*i*l.com> wrote:

> I've got a Pentax Optio 330RS point and shoot for carrying around everyday
> use. It does the job admirably. It's small enough to fit in a shirt pocket,
> has full manual control, three different metering modes, easy to set manual
> white balance, I could on and on but why. It's not great, but it's good
> enough and has given me no troubles.

That seems to be the Pentax Way: If you aim at slightly more than
adequate, your customers will be happy that you achieved your goal.
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 10:03:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J. Littleboy wrote:

> Which is why FD users are still mad, many many years later.

But what did these users expect Canon to do? Never innovate and go out
of the SLR business? It's a long time to hold a grudge. I still play
vinyl records on occasion, and I'm not upset that I had to buy a CD
player in order to play new releases. I could even still play 8 track
tapes, though I never was into that format.

>They shouldn't have trouble competing against Nikon, since they're
using the
>same Sony sensors. (Yes, I realize Nikon has Nikon sensors in certain
pro
>cameras, but the D100, D70, and D2x are all Sony.)

>It'd be funny if Pentax beat Nikon to the punch and released a US$1500
>camera with the 12MP sensor.

The Sony 12MP CMOS sensor is too small for the number of pixels,
resulting in the need for such small pixels, which is why the low-noise
performance is so unimpressive. I wouldn't think that Pentax would want
to go that route.

A low noise, 8MP, CMOS sensor, in a Pentax body, that could compete
against the Rebel XT and/or 20D, would be a more logical product (as it
would be for Nikon when it refreshes the D70 and D100 later this year).
Pentax also needs to expand its lens selection, especially with a
super-wide angle zoom in the 10-20 or 12-24 range. Hopefully the new
Sigma 10-20 will be better than the Sigma 12-24.
March 1, 2005 12:00:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1109641801.306730.36620@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
scharf.steven@gmail.com says...
> The *istD and *istDs aren't a bad second attempt for Pentax, but they
> are going to have to move to a lower noise sensor in order to compete
> well against Canon and Nikon
>

If they dont move to a lower noise sensor, they will need to move to a lower
price structure... Much lower.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
March 1, 2005 12:53:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<scharf.steven@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1109641801.306730.36620@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> The *istD and *istDs aren't a bad second attempt for Pentax, but they
> are going to have to move to a lower noise sensor in order to compete
> well against Canon and Nikon.
>
The *istD/DS have the same Sony sensor that's in the Nikon D70/D100.
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 3:56:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> That seems to be the Pentax Way: If you aim at slightly more than
> adequate, your customers will be happy that you achieved your goal.
>

You took my post the wrong way. The camera is much more more than slightly
above adequate. My old Canon Ftb was a great camera (for it's time). It is
the only "great" camera I have owned out of many including other Canons and
Nikons. My Optio 330RS is an excellent camera for the use I bought it for.
Just because I don't consider it great doesn't mean I wouldn't buy another
one. There are very few manufactured products I consider great.

Kerry Brown
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 3:56:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi There <gt4NOSPAMdatsun@h*o*t*m*a*i*l.com> wrote:

> > That seems to be the Pentax Way: If you aim at slightly more than
> > adequate, your customers will be happy that you achieved your goal.
>
> You took my post the wrong way.

I think we're actually pretty much in agreemenet. I could have used a
better wording than 'slightly more than adequate.'

> The camera is much more more than slightly above adequate. My old Canon
> Ftb was a great camera (for it's time). It is the only "great" camera I
> have owned out of many including other Canons and Nikons. My Optio 330RS
> is an excellent camera for the use I bought it for. Just because I don't
> consider it great doesn't mean I wouldn't buy another one. There are very
> few manufactured products I consider great.
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 3:56:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 00:56:46 GMT, "Hi There"
<gt4NOSPAMdatsun@h*o*t*m*a*i*l.com> wrote:


>You took my post the wrong way. The camera is much more more than slightly
>above adequate. My old Canon Ftb was a great camera (for it's time). It is
>the only "great" camera I have owned out of many including other Canons and
>Nikons. My Optio 330RS is an excellent camera for the use I bought it for.
>Just because I don't consider it great doesn't mean I wouldn't buy another
>one. There are very few manufactured products I consider great.


Right on. I feel the same way about my
Nikon FE, my Hobie Cat, and my AR turntable. <grin>

Designed to do one thing and to do it well.
Not a single part that isn't there for a
damned good reason.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 2:04:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<scharf.steven@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The reasons Canon had to move to a new mount are well understood.

Yes.

> Customers with FD bodies and lenses could continue to use them, and in
> fact you could use FD lenses, in manual mode, on EOS bodies with an
> adapter.

That's playing extremely fast and loose with the word "use". You either lose
infinity focus or have to use what is essentially a teleconverter. In
neither case do you have full use of the lens.

Which is why FD users are still mad, many many years later.

> The *istD and *istDs aren't a bad second attempt for Pentax, but they
> are going to have to move to a lower noise sensor in order to compete
> well against Canon and Nikon.

They shouldn't have trouble competing against Nikon, since they're using the
same Sony sensors. (Yes, I realize Nikon has Nikon sensors in certain pro
cameras, but the D100, D70, and D2x are all Sony.)

It'd be funny if Pentax beat Nikon to the punch and released a US$1500
camera with the 12MP sensor.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
March 1, 2005 2:04:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
news:D 00iit$d27$1@nnrp.gol.com...
>
> <scharf.steven@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > The reasons Canon had to move to a new mount are well understood.
>
> Yes.
>
> > Customers with FD bodies and lenses could continue to use them, and in
> > fact you could use FD lenses, in manual mode, on EOS bodies with an
> > adapter.
>
> That's playing extremely fast and loose with the word "use". You either
lose
> infinity focus or have to use what is essentially a teleconverter. In
> neither case do you have full use of the lens.
>
> Which is why FD users are still mad, many many years later.
>
> > The *istD and *istDs aren't a bad second attempt for Pentax, but they
> > are going to have to move to a lower noise sensor in order to compete
> > well against Canon and Nikon.
>
> They shouldn't have trouble competing against Nikon, since they're using
the
> same Sony sensors. (Yes, I realize Nikon has Nikon sensors in certain pro
> cameras, but the D100, D70, and D2x are all Sony.)
>
> It'd be funny if Pentax beat Nikon to the punch and released a US$1500
> camera with the 12MP sensor.
>
Pentax has a few interesting patents that caught my attention. It would be
interesting to see what shows up first the D50, the D200 (D100 mk.II) or a
new Pentax.
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 2:04:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
news:D 00iit$d27$1@nnrp.gol.com...
>
> <scharf.steven@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The reasons Canon had to move to a new mount are well understood.
>
> Yes.
>
>> Customers with FD bodies and lenses could continue to use them, and in
>> fact you could use FD lenses, in manual mode, on EOS bodies with an
>> adapter.
>
> That's playing extremely fast and loose with the word "use". You either
> lose
> infinity focus or have to use what is essentially a teleconverter. In
> neither case do you have full use of the lens.
>
> Which is why FD users are still mad, many many years later.

That is why _some_ FD users are still mad, many more years later than is
reasonable. Face it, somebody who's still upset about something that
happened nearly 20 years ago has a problem moving on. We had a considerable
number of FD mount lenses and cameras, but stayed with Canon anyway. We
liked the ergonomics, features and feel of the Canons over the other brands,
and we had to buy new lenses, no matter which brand we chose.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 2:10:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Larry" <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> wrote:
> scharf.steven@gmail.com says...
> > The *istD and *istDs aren't a bad second attempt for Pentax, but they
> > are going to have to move to a lower noise sensor in order to compete
> > well against Canon and Nikon
>
> If they dont move to a lower noise sensor, they will need to move to a
lower
> price structure... Much lower.

????

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxistd/page13.asp

The *istD, at least, is better than the D70 up to ISO800, as good as the D70
at ISO 1600, and only problematic at ISO 3200, which is probably bogus (i.e.
noise-reduced) on the D70.

Presumably, the *istDs is similar...

To the best that I can tell, the _only_ things wrong with the Pentax dSLRs
is that my oversized paws are too big to hold them comfortably...

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
March 1, 2005 2:10:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <d00iu6$d74$1@nnrp.gol.com>, davidjl@gol.com says...
>
> "Larry" <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> wrote:
> > scharf.steven@gmail.com says...
> > > The *istD and *istDs aren't a bad second attempt for Pentax, but they
> > > are going to have to move to a lower noise sensor in order to compete
> > > well against Canon and Nikon
> >
> > If they dont move to a lower noise sensor, they will need to move to a
> lower
> > price structure... Much lower.
>
> ????
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxistd/page13.asp
>
> The *istD, at least, is better than the D70 up to ISO800, as good as the D70
> at ISO 1600, and only problematic at ISO 3200, which is probably bogus (i.e.
> noise-reduced) on the D70.
>
> Presumably, the *istDs is similar...
>
> To the best that I can tell, the _only_ things wrong with the Pentax dSLRs
> is that my oversized paws are too big to hold them comfortably...
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>
>
>

I agree, actually (about them being pretty good cameras).

My hands are fairly small so the size of the camera/controls wouldn't be a
problem.

My remark about price was more about how the pixel peepers hammer away at ANY
noise in a digital camera. That attitude could make it a hard sell with the
pricing being what it is.

Personally, I can live with a LITTLE noise, as long as I like the camera.

I kind of like the *istDs.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
March 1, 2005 2:10:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
news:D 00iu6$d74$1@nnrp.gol.com...
>
> "Larry" <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> wrote:
> > scharf.steven@gmail.com says...
> > > The *istD and *istDs aren't a bad second attempt for Pentax, but they
> > > are going to have to move to a lower noise sensor in order to compete
> > > well against Canon and Nikon
> >
> > If they dont move to a lower noise sensor, they will need to move to a
> lower
> > price structure... Much lower.
>
> ????
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxistd/page13.asp
>
> The *istD, at least, is better than the D70 up to ISO800, as good as the
D70
> at ISO 1600, and only problematic at ISO 3200, which is probably bogus
(i.e.
> noise-reduced) on the D70.
>
> Presumably, the *istDs is similar...
>
> To the best that I can tell, the _only_ things wrong with the Pentax dSLRs
> is that my oversized paws are too big to hold them comfortably...
>
Many will say the same about the 350D/XT/KissN as it is smaller than the
300D. The new D Rebel is close to the size of the *ist DS. I expect many
will say ick! At least they have a battery grip to bulk it up again. I do
admit my *ist D feels a lot better with the D-BG1 mounted.
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 1:59:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
> > <scharf.steven@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Customers with FD bodies and lenses could continue to use them, and in
> >> fact you could use FD lenses, in manual mode, on EOS bodies with an
> >> adapter.
> >
> > That's playing extremely fast and loose with the word "use". You either
> > lose
> > infinity focus or have to use what is essentially a teleconverter. In
> > neither case do you have full use of the lens.
> >
> > Which is why FD users are still mad, many many years later.
>
> That is why _some_ FD users are still mad, many more years later than is
> reasonable. Face it, somebody who's still upset about something that
> happened nearly 20 years ago has a problem moving on.

Yes. I agree with you here. I just wanted to correct the "can be used on EF
bodies" claim.

I am quite surprised how often I hear people kvetching<g>.

> We had a considerable
> number of FD mount lenses and cameras, but stayed with Canon anyway. We
> liked the ergonomics, features and feel of the Canons over the other
brands,
> and we had to buy new lenses, no matter which brand we chose.

(I completely missed the switch to AF in the years I wasn't doing any
photography. (Of course, the cameras I was using never went AF, and my
manual focus cameras even now outnumber AF cameras 4 to 1.))

David J. Littleboy
davidjl@really.have.to.stop.buying.old.MF.cameras.com
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 1:59:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <d01snv$ono$1@nnrp.gol.com>,
David J. Littleboy <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>
>(I completely missed the switch to AF in the years I wasn't doing any
>photography. (Of course, the cameras I was using never went AF, and my
>manual focus cameras even now outnumber AF cameras 4 to 1.))
>
>David J. Littleboy
>davidjl@really.have.to.stop.buying.old.MF.cameras.com

It's an easy habit to develop. Our (my wife and I) collection currently
stands at 1 35mm rangefinder, 1 medium format rangefinder, 2 6*6 folders, 2
6*9 folders, 4 TLRs and a scary 5*4 view camera that has a habit of biting
the unwary.

Digital SLRs are nice, and all, but somehow they just seem so utilitarian
and unsatisfying compared to the manual film stuff.
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 5:21:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi,

I was shopping at Costco (Bend, Oregon) yesterday and saw a tiny Pentax
digital camera on the rack. Didn't get the number/name but it was quite
small, 5MP, 3x optical zoom, 1.8" LCD, and selling for $275. Looked
like a good buy to me.

Best,

Conrad

PS These types of small cameras are great except some people have
trouble with the small buttons and dials.


--
Conrad
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 5:42:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Conrad <Conrad.1l9t3m@no-mx.newsgroup.gateway> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I was shopping at Costco (Bend, Oregon) yesterday and saw a tiny Pentax
> digital camera on the rack. Didn't get the number/name but it was quite
> small, 5MP, 3x optical zoom, 1.8" LCD, and selling for $275. Looked
> like a good buy to me.
>

My other half has one of the previous generation Pentax Optio cameras
(33LF). x3 zoom, 3.2Mp, and gives good indoor and very good outdoor
pictures with excellent colour. Also has the popular feature of a
pop-out/swivelling LCD. It's a nicely-built camera, not quite as compact
as an Ixus, but compact, feels robust, and easy to use. She paid a
bargain £99 for it last year, and has had excellent images from it -
assuming it's representative of Pentax's consumer kit I'd definitely
look on anything they did with respect.

pete
--
pete@fenelon.com "Send lawyers, guns and money...."
!