Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

No more Contax...

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 12:00:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

....according to dPreview:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0503/05030301kyocera.asp
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

More about : contax

Anonymous
March 4, 2005 12:01:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Brian C. Baird" <nospam@please.no> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c9145152fad2ab398a73a@news.verizon.net...
> ...according to dPreview:
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0503/05030301kyocera.asp
> --
> http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

A sad moment. Though too pricey for my budget. I've always admired Contax
optics.

Walt
Related resources
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 12:01:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Alan Browne wrote ...
>
>A neighbor shoots weddings on Contax 645 ...
>He also was looking forard to a digital back for it...

The Phase One digital backs (16 and 22 Mpixels) both fit the Contax 645
and give wonderful results, but are pretty pricey.

Bill
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 12:01:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

TAFKAB wrote:

> I wonder if anyone will notice?


A neighbor shoots weddings on Contax 645 (and Nikon 35mm). I've sent
him an e-mail. I'm sure he will not only notice, but will verify the
support future for his system. It was a recent investment (2 or 3 years
ago) at that.

He also was looking forard to a digital back for it...



--
-- 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: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 12:01:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:XyNVd.32871$rX3.244974@weber.videotron.net...
> TAFKAB wrote:
>
>> I wonder if anyone will notice?
>
>
> A neighbor shoots weddings on Contax 645 (and Nikon 35mm). I've sent him
> an e-mail. I'm sure he will not only notice, but will verify the support
> future for his system. It was a recent investment (2 or 3 years ago) at
> that.
>
> He also was looking forard to a digital back for it...

Pardon my sarcasm...

Isn't there a digi back for the Contax 645 available now?

>
>
>
> --
> -- 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: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 12:39:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Courtesy Assured" <niceposts@last.com> wrote in news:38pehiF5pvqk4U1
@individual.net:

>
> "Brian C. Baird" <nospam@please.no> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c9145152fad2ab398a73a@news.verizon.net...
>> ...according to dPreview:
>>
>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0503/05030301kyocera.asp
>> --
>> http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
>
>
> Any bets on Olympus folding within the next 12 months?
>
>
>

Olympus will never fold. They are a highly diversified company with some of
the most amazing medical imaging systems on the market for example. They
may have shot themselves in the foot with their high end digital cameras,
but thats hardly enough reason to think even their digicam division will be
"next".
March 4, 2005 12:39:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Courtesy Assured" <niceposts@last.com> wrote in message
news:38pehiF5pvqk4U1@individual.net...
>
> "Brian C. Baird" <nospam@please.no> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c9145152fad2ab398a73a@news.verizon.net...
> > ...according to dPreview:
> >
> > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0503/05030301kyocera.asp
> > --
> > http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
>
>
> Any bets on Olympus folding within the next 12 months?
>
Olympus is in good financial shape. Cameras is a small part of their
business. Olympus is netter known for microscopes, and medical equipment.

Panasonic and Olympus have a joint 4/3 venture at this time. I suspect that
Leica is the next casualty after Contax...
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 12:39:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Nunnya Bizniss" <nunnya@yobizniss.com> wrote in message
news:Xns960EA3E912EFDnunnyayobiznisscom@216.196.97.131...
> "Courtesy Assured" <niceposts@last.com> wrote in news:38pehiF5pvqk4U1
> @individual.net:
>
>>
>> "Brian C. Baird" <nospam@please.no> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1c9145152fad2ab398a73a@news.verizon.net...
>>> ...according to dPreview:
>>>
>>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0503/05030301kyocera.asp
>>> --
>>> http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
>>
>>
>> Any bets on Olympus folding within the next 12 months?
>>
>>
>>
>
> Olympus will never fold. They are a highly diversified company with some
> of
> the most amazing medical imaging systems on the market for example. They
> may have shot themselves in the foot with their high end digital cameras,
> but thats hardly enough reason to think even their digicam division will
> be
> "next".

I think their lack of competitive products may have something to do with it,
though. Just whenthe E-Volt was looking like it had a chance, along comes
the new digital Rebel XT, and suddenly, the E-volt is obsolete. If they
survive, it's going to be very tough going for a while. Their biggest
strength is a rabidly loyal customer base and their very nice P&S cams,
which may be able to help them survive.
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 1:23:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Nunnya Bizniss" <nunnya@yobizniss.com> wrote in message
news:Xns960EA3E912EFDnunnyayobiznisscom@216.196.97.131...
> "Courtesy Assured" <niceposts@last.com> wrote in news:38pehiF5pvqk4U1
> @individual.net:
>
>>
>> "Brian C. Baird" <nospam@please.no> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1c9145152fad2ab398a73a@news.verizon.net...
>>> ...according to dPreview:
>>>
>>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0503/05030301kyocera.asp
>>> --
>>> http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
>>
>>
>> Any bets on Olympus folding within the next 12 months?
>>
>>
>>
>
> Olympus will never fold. They are a highly diversified company with some
> of
> the most amazing medical imaging systems on the market for example. They
> may have shot themselves in the foot with their high end digital cameras,
> but thats hardly enough reason to think even their digicam division will
> be
> "next".<<



Well, it would be pointless to re-hash the well documented deficiencies of
the 4/3 system - just about everyone is already aware that it produces noisy
and relatively poor quality images(or, if they don't know, they've only to
read some reviews)

What has become noticeable is the collapse in prices for Olympus DSLR's -
the 300, for instance, is now selling in the UK for less than £540 - and I
fully expect it to fall below the £500 barrier in a couple of weeks.

The E1 is also poised for massive reductions as an increasingly desperate
Olympus try to shift stock of its aged overpriced flagship camera.

So, why are prices dropping? - yep, because no-one wants them.

There is talk of Olympus releasing a low priced kit version of the 300 with
the 24-45 & 50-140 lenses AND offering a rebate. This might temporarily
help sales - but, as usual, Olympus offer too little, too late.

Already approaching a financial crisis, Olympus look set to pull out of the
DSLR market fairly soon - their losses are simply unsustainable.

They might well soldier on for a bit longer with their point & shoot
models - but even those are being seriously undercut by their rivals.

Face it - Olympus have screwed their customers for years - their lenses are
way overpriced, their DSLR cameras are noisy and/or plagued with JPEG
compression problems, and their ridiculous insistence of sticking to the
discredited 4/3 system ensures that no 'professional' users will be buying
the E-1 replacement, even if Olympus can afford to develop it - which is
increasingly doubtful.

So, all in all, I don't think that 2005 is going to be a very good year for
Oly.
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 1:53:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"TAFKAB" <TheArtist@FormerlyKnownAs.Bowser> wrote in news:422793b6$0$39321
$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com:

> I wonder if anyone will notice?

Contax digital cameras?

Contax was one of the finest film SLR you could get.
Extremely good lenses and mechanical build.

But there are really no digital Contax cameras to notice.



/Roland
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 1:53:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Roland Karlsson wrote:
> "TAFKAB" <TheArtist@FormerlyKnownAs.Bowser> wrote in news:422793b6$0$39321
> $ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com:
>
>
>>I wonder if anyone will notice?
>
>
> Contax digital cameras?
>
> Contax was one of the finest film SLR you could get.
> Extremely good lenses and mechanical build.
>
> But there are really no digital Contax cameras to notice.


Well, they promised a full-frame 6Mpix
camera way way back... but never delivered.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 1:53:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Roland Karlsson" <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns960EF31BDDCAFklotjohan@130.133.1.4...
> "TAFKAB" <TheArtist@FormerlyKnownAs.Bowser> wrote in news:422793b6$0$39321
> $ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com:
>
>> I wonder if anyone will notice?
>
> Contax digital cameras?
>
> Contax was one of the finest film SLR you could get.
> Extremely good lenses and mechanical build.

The passing of the 645 system, with it's Zeiss lenses, is a real shame. I
can't imagine what all those Contax users will do now, except try to live
off used parts and lenses.

This situation reminds me of the Swiss watch industry. A young engineer
showed them a new way of building watches that didn't involve gears and
mainsprings. They scoffed, and said that quartz crystals were not how
watches were done. Of course, Seiko, Pulsar, and the Japanese changed their
minds. But there were casualties, and now the similarities to the camera
industry are showing with Contax gone, and Leica in deep trouble. Funny,
when Leica introduced the MP, they promised support for 30 years. But will
either Leica or film be around in 30 years?
>
> But there are really no digital Contax cameras to notice.
>
>
>
> /Roland
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 1:53:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"rafeb" <rafe@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:42279941$0$70102$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com...
>
>
> Roland Karlsson wrote:
>> "TAFKAB" <TheArtist@FormerlyKnownAs.Bowser> wrote in
>> news:422793b6$0$39321
>> $ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com:
>>
>>
>>>I wonder if anyone will notice?
>>
>>
>> Contax digital cameras?
>>
>> Contax was one of the finest film SLR you could get.
>> Extremely good lenses and mechanical build.
>>
>> But there are really no digital Contax cameras to notice.
>
>
> Well, they promised a full-frame 6Mpix
> camera way way back... but never delivered.

They did deliver it, but it was horrible. I think they sold two of them...

>
>
> rafe b.
> http://www.terrapinphoto.com
>
March 4, 2005 1:53:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

TAFKAB wrote:

>
> "Roland Karlsson" <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> Contax was one of the finest film SLR you could get.
>> Extremely good lenses and mechanical build.
>
> The passing of the 645 system, with it's Zeiss lenses, is a real shame. I
> can't imagine what all those Contax users will do now,

Maybe take pictures with them instead of obsessing about buying the newest
latest greatest equipment to brag about owning?

Rollei stopped making the rolleicord many years ago yet mine still makes
great images, just isn't much to brag about on a digital on-line newsgroup.
Same with my super graphic 4X5, they went under what was it 30 years ago?
Again I guess it depends on if your interested in making good images or
bragging about owning what's popular today?

--

Stacey
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 1:53:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:38pu20F5suafjU1@individual.net...
> TAFKAB wrote:
>
>>
>> "Roland Karlsson" <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> Contax was one of the finest film SLR you could get.
>>> Extremely good lenses and mechanical build.
>>
>> The passing of the 645 system, with it's Zeiss lenses, is a real shame. I
>> can't imagine what all those Contax users will do now,
>
> Maybe take pictures with them instead of obsessing about buying the newest
> latest greatest equipment to brag about owning?

Who are you talking to, Stacey?
You really seem to have an inferiority complex--and I mean that sincerely.
Why do you immediately jump to these sorts of statement all the time???
First it's Canon, and now Contax.
What happened to you?
Why are you so bitter?
What gave you the idea that Contax users are buy-the-latest-thing people?
My impression is that this is RARELY the case with Contax shooters.

> Rollei stopped making the rolleicord many years ago yet mine still makes
> great images, just isn't much to brag about on a digital on-line newsgroup.
> Same with my super graphic 4X5, they went under what was it 30 years ago?
> Again I guess it depends on if your interested in making good images or
> bragging about owning what's popular today?

Meanwhile, you like to BRAG on and on about how you DON'T BRAG.
Put a lid on it, for crying out loud!
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 1:59:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Courtesy Assured" <niceposts@last.com> wrote in
news:38ph58F45qd7pU1@individual.net:

> There is talk of Olympus releasing a low priced kit version of the 300
> with the 24-45 & 50-140 lenses AND offering a rebate. This might
> temporarily help sales - but, as usual, Olympus offer too little, too
> late.

The strangest part of this is thet Oly told us that
the new fantastic 4/3 system had some extra ordinary
properties that made it superior - that the real advantage
was that it was the choice of professionals that wanted
a tool that produced outstanding results. It was lots
of talk of tele centric lenses etc, etc, ... The site was
full of fashion photography made by very good photographers.

And now? Cheap cameras and lenses to try to save the system.
Back to the roots - amateurs.


/Roland
March 4, 2005 2:17:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

I think Olympus is one of the more successful P&S manufacturers. They
will probably be out of the DSLR business as soon as they can dump the
remaining stock, but will "pretend" it is still a going concern they way
they did with the OM system for a few years after they had stopped making
them.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"Courtesy Assured" <niceposts@last.com> wrote in message
news:38pehiF5pvqk4U1@individual.net...
>
> "Brian C. Baird" <nospam@please.no> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c9145152fad2ab398a73a@news.verizon.net...
> > ...according to dPreview:
> >
> > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0503/05030301kyocera.asp
> > --
> > http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
>
>
> Any bets on Olympus folding within the next 12 months?
>
>
March 4, 2005 3:37:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark² wrote:

>
> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:38pu20F5suafjU1@individual.net...
>> TAFKAB wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Roland Karlsson" <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> Contax was one of the finest film SLR you could get.
>>>> Extremely good lenses and mechanical build.
>>>
>>> The passing of the 645 system, with it's Zeiss lenses, is a real shame.
>>> I can't imagine what all those Contax users will do now,
>>
>> Maybe take pictures with them instead of obsessing about buying the
>> newest latest greatest equipment to brag about owning?
>
> Who are you talking to, Stacey?

TAFKAB?

> You really seem to have an inferiority complex--and I mean that sincerely.
> Why do you immediately jump to these sorts of statement all the time???
> First it's Canon, and now Contax.

??? I said "Maybe they'll go out and take pictures with them"???


> What happened to you?
> Why are you so bitter?
> What gave you the idea that Contax users are buy-the-latest-thing people?

??? Reread what I wrote or maybe you misunderstood, I meant to say the EXACT
opposite!

> My impression is that this is RARELY the case with Contax shooters.
>


Exactly, this guy was acting like just because the company goes out of
bussiness, all these contax users are screwed. I doubt many will even care.
I know if mamiya etc went out of bussiness, I sure wouldn't be upset. Sorry
if it came off the other way...

BTW I have NOTHING again canon products (I own 2 of their printers..), it's
the people who use them and their attitude that get's to me.
--

Stacey
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 5:40:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

I never understood how Yashica/Kyocera found the Contax brand name
profitable for the last two decades.
March 4, 2005 6:18:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark² wrote:

>>> You also need to understand that Canon is wildly out-selling Nikon in
>>> the point-and-shoot digital market...and also the DSLR market.
>>>
>>
>> So? Should it make people feel a need to bash anything but their brand
>> of camera like goes on here?
>
> There you go again!
> WHO is doing this?
> Where???

Are you wearing blinders? Obviously so or you don't see the bias because you
yourself are biased?


--

Stacey
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 6:18:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:38qjv9F5p9fm7U2@individual.net...
> Mark² wrote:
>
>>>> You also need to understand that Canon is wildly out-selling Nikon in
>>>> the point-and-shoot digital market...and also the DSLR market.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So? Should it make people feel a need to bash anything but their brand
>>> of camera like goes on here?
>>
>> There you go again!
>> WHO is doing this?
>> Where???
>
> Are you wearing blinders? Obviously so or you don't see the bias because you
> yourself are biased?

We all have bias.
Bias is inescapable.
However, I would challenge you to find a SINGLE post from me bashing ANY camera
manufacturer...
....OK...with the single exception of Sigma. :) 
(In my opinion, Sigma camera bodies are perhaps the worst alternative available--but that
argument is not at hand, here.)

I have not bashed any group of people, or any manufacturer EVER--for not being Canon.
I am a Canon shooter, but I could have just as easily become a Nikon shooter when I first
started building my current system.
Right now, Nikon and Canon are clearly head and shoulders above others in terms of DSLR
offerings.
This cannot be honestly disputed.
Both produce world-class optics and bodies.
However, there are many fine manufacturers including Pentax, Konica-Minolta and others.

Now before you proceed in FURTHER proving my point about your gross generalizations by
automatically making declarations about me based on my camera equipment, I would suggest
you reconsider.
I use Canon...and...according to you, this makes me a basher.
That's the logic of a bigot...who makes judgements about an entire group of people based
on some silly gripe you have with a few.

Discern.
Investigate.
Discriminate (in the best sense of the word).
And lastly...grow a backbone that isn't so sensitive to the happy yelps of shooters that
are satisfied with their gear.
When you encounter one with a tendency to bash...just remind yourself you're doing quite a
bit of bashing, yourself.
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 7:19:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1109902877.522220.190600@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
bhilton665@aol.com says...
> >A neighbor shoots weddings on Contax 645 ...
> >He also was looking forard to a digital back for it...
>
> The Phase One digital backs (16 and 22 Mpixels) both fit the Contax 645
> and give wonderful results, but are pretty pricey.

You can buy two decent cars or a sizable portion of a house with what
they cost.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 7:19:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Brian C. Baird" <nospam@please.no> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c91abd9c14a6d898a73e@news.verizon.net...
> In article <1109902877.522220.190600@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> bhilton665@aol.com says...
>> >A neighbor shoots weddings on Contax 645 ...
>> >He also was looking forard to a digital back for it...
>>
>> The Phase One digital backs (16 and 22 Mpixels) both fit the Contax 645
>> and give wonderful results, but are pretty pricey.
>
> You can buy two decent cars or a sizable portion of a house with what
> they cost.

Here in California, you can only buy about a square foot of a house for that $$...
-And I'm only SORT of joking.
:( 
I pity anyone who tries to move here...
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 7:19:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:4IRVd.149204$0u.83759@fed1read04...
>
> "Brian C. Baird" <nospam@please.no> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c91abd9c14a6d898a73e@news.verizon.net...
>> In article <1109902877.522220.190600@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
>> bhilton665@aol.com says...
>>> >A neighbor shoots weddings on Contax 645 ...
>>> >He also was looking forard to a digital back for it...
>>>
>>> The Phase One digital backs (16 and 22 Mpixels) both fit the Contax 645
>>> and give wonderful results, but are pretty pricey.
>>
>> You can buy two decent cars or a sizable portion of a house with what
>> they cost.
>
> Here in California, you can only buy about a square foot of a house for
> that $$...
> -And I'm only SORT of joking.
> :( 
> I pity anyone who tries to move here...
>
Yeah, but going the other way is great....After 40 years of scrubbing floors
and living in a hovel in California, I retired to Oregon and here they call
me, "King William", and I live in a palace with 13 serving wenches......
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 7:19:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:D pmdnZomfIZTbrrfRVn-2g@comcast.com...
>
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
> news:4IRVd.149204$0u.83759@fed1read04...
>>
>> "Brian C. Baird" <nospam@please.no> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1c91abd9c14a6d898a73e@news.verizon.net...
>>> In article <1109902877.522220.190600@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
>>> bhilton665@aol.com says...
>>>> >A neighbor shoots weddings on Contax 645 ...
>>>> >He also was looking forard to a digital back for it...
>>>>
>>>> The Phase One digital backs (16 and 22 Mpixels) both fit the Contax 645
>>>> and give wonderful results, but are pretty pricey.
>>>
>>> You can buy two decent cars or a sizable portion of a house with what
>>> they cost.
>>
>> Here in California, you can only buy about a square foot of a house for that $$...
>> -And I'm only SORT of joking.
>> :( 
>> I pity anyone who tries to move here...
>>
> Yeah, but going the other way is great....After 40 years of scrubbing floors and living
> in a hovel in California, I retired to Oregon and here they call me, "King William", and
> I live in a palace with 13 serving wenches......

Woo-hoo!! Retirement...here I come!
:) 
Very true, William. -Heck, you're only barely joking too!
We bought our house about 2 1/2 years ago.
In that time, it's value has increased about $300,000.
Ridiculous.
If we tried to buy it today, based on our current income, we couldn't afford it.
March 4, 2005 7:19:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark² wrote:


> We bought our house about 2 1/2 years ago.
> In that time, it's value has increased about $300,000.
> Ridiculous.
> If we tried to buy it today, based on our current income, we couldn't
> afford it.

The problems start when you like where you live, don't really want to move
but the increased property taxes based on this increased worth drives you
out of your house..

--

Stacey
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 7:19:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:38qe8kF5snm5mU2@individual.net...
> Mark² wrote:
>
>
>> We bought our house about 2 1/2 years ago.
>> In that time, it's value has increased about $300,000.
>> Ridiculous.
>> If we tried to buy it today, based on our current income, we couldn't
>> afford it.
>
> The problems start when you like where you live, don't really want to move
> but the increased property taxes based on this increased worth drives you
> out of your house..

It doesn't work that way in California.
Proposition 13 (over two decades ago) locked in property taxes based roughly on the
original purchase price.
If you MOVE...**THEN** you get a new tax based on your new property...which is whenyou
take a big hit.
My property taxes have only increased a tiny percentage, and not because of increased
value.

My brother pays less than one TENTH the tax I pay...because he bought my grandmother's
house...and this family transfer "grandfathered him in" at her original tax rate. Our
houses are worth roughly the same amount...yet I pay over $5K/year while he pays about
$400/year (the dirty dog!).
March 4, 2005 7:43:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

The way Oly is treating the 5060 mode dial issue is both shameful and
indicative of a company that couldn't care less about its customers --
and maybe its line of business. Evidence indicates increasingly that
they are purposely selling a camera with known defects and practicing
highly inconsistent repair and warranty policies. My own 5060 died
after a couple of months (non-mode dial problem) and there are
increasing horror stories about this camera (which does take beautiful
photos when it works) which not only suggest that shortcuts were taken
in the manufacturing process, but that the company has decided to duck
and weave away from telling the truth. They have never responded to
inquiries from me and other users. I'm a fifth generation Oly digicam
user and cannot imagine that there will be a sixth unless something
changes dramatically.
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 8:23:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <4IRVd.149204$0u.83759@fed1read04>, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest
even number here)@cox..net> says...
> > You can buy two decent cars or a sizable portion of a house with what
> > they cost.
>
> Here in California, you can only buy about a square foot of a house for that $$...
> -And I'm only SORT of joking.
> :( 
> I pity anyone who tries to move here...
>
It's about the same here (DC suburbs). Our house has more than doubled
in value over 5 years. I'm just waiting for the crash...
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 9:25:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Tony" <tspadaro@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:lWMVd.31265$Yf5.3128728@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> I think Olympus is one of the more successful P&S manufacturers. They
> will probably be out of the DSLR business as soon as they can dump the
> remaining stock, but will "pretend" it is still a going concern they way
> they did with the OM system for a few years after they had stopped making
> them.

They have decent market share, around 11%, but it's falling. I expect that
they'll end up merging their digital camera business with another
low-market-share manufacturer, just like Konica-Minolta. It's hard to be a
survivor in a commodity market, with no higher-end products. Too bad they
got into the 4:3 mess. Pentax and Konica-Minolta look like they may make a
go of it in the consumer D-SLRs.
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 9:36:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:4IRVd.149204$0u.83759@fed1read04...
>
> "Brian C. Baird" <nospam@please.no> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c91abd9c14a6d898a73e@news.verizon.net...
> > In article <1109902877.522220.190600@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> > bhilton665@aol.com says...
> >> >A neighbor shoots weddings on Contax 645 ...
> >> >He also was looking forard to a digital back for it...
> >>
> >> The Phase One digital backs (16 and 22 Mpixels) both fit the Contax 645
> >> and give wonderful results, but are pretty pricey.
> >
> > You can buy two decent cars or a sizable portion of a house with what
> > they cost.
>
> Here in California, you can only buy about a square foot of a house for
that $$...
> -And I'm only SORT of joking.
> :( 
> I pity anyone who tries to move here...

You beat me to that one.

Here's a nice 2/1:
http://www.mlslistings.com/common/properties/propertyDe...
11&mls_number=416615&type=property&name= for only $988,888. Note that this
is not a house that is being sold to live in, it's a tear-down, so plan on
another $250-300K to actually build a house.
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 10:16:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:38pu20F5suafjU1@individual.net...
> TAFKAB wrote:
>
>>
>> "Roland Karlsson" <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> Contax was one of the finest film SLR you could get.
>>> Extremely good lenses and mechanical build.
>>
>> The passing of the 645 system, with it's Zeiss lenses, is a real shame. I
>> can't imagine what all those Contax users will do now,
>
> Maybe take pictures with them instead of obsessing about buying the newest
> latest greatest equipment to brag about owning?

Yes, but with the system being a dead end, few pros will stick with it when
it needs repair or replacement. Plus, some of the much needed accessories
that users seem to want will never appear, like leaf shutter lenses (or have
they appeared?). Dead end systems are usually not the way to go.

Of course Contax is totally to blame. Look at their rangefinders; nice idea,
horrible execution. No digital solution. No true AF lenses, just one really
stupid AF body. Contax never kept up, and now they're gone. It shouldn't be
a surprise.

>
> Rollei stopped making the rolleicord many years ago yet mine still makes
> great images, just isn't much to brag about on a digital on-line
> newsgroup.
> Same with my super graphic 4X5, they went under what was it 30 years ago?
> Again I guess it depends on if your interested in making good images or
> bragging about owning what's popular today?

If they work for you, keep shooting. Some of us prefer a different
direction. FWIW, neither of those cameras are useful to me, since I shoot
some kid's sports. Also, it ain't the gear...

>
> --
>
> Stacey
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 10:46:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <422851a9$0$39259$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com>,
"TAFKAB" <TheArtist@FormerlyKnownAs.Bowser> wrote:

> Contax is totally to blame

Contax is a Zeiss Ikon tradename for the cameras they made in Germany.

The Contax you are talking about is a product of a Japanese company who
used the trademark Contak under license of Zeiss. Zeiss did not make or
market the cameras you are referring to. They were designed, made and
marketed by Yashica first and then Kyrocera later. Kyrocera bought
Yashica.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 11:13:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 06:39:48 GMT, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com>, wrote in
news:38qe5lF5snm5mU1@individual.net:

> Marký wrote:
>
>>
>> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> My impression is that this is RARELY the case with Contax shooters.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Exactly, this guy was acting like just because the company goes out
>>> of bussiness, all these contax users are screwed. I doubt many will
>>> even care. I know if mamiya etc went out of bussiness, I sure
>>> wouldn't be upset. Sorry if it came off the other way...
>>>
>>> BTW I have NOTHING again canon products (I own 2 of their
>>> printers..), it's the people who use them and their attitude that
>>> get's to me.
>>
>> I think it's time you examined your own attitude.
>
> Really now. I explained my post WASN'T what you got your panties in a
> wad about, apologised if you misunderstood what I meant yet you're
> still going on about this?


Take a pass on him this time, Stacey. He was branded "pen*s wrinkle" for a
reason.
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 11:13:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"T.N.T." <tnt@localhost.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns960F20DC8DD16gehatagubzrpbz@corporate.utopia.disorg...
> On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 06:39:48 GMT, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com>, wrote in
> news:38qe5lF5snm5mU1@individual.net:
>
>> Marký wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>> My impression is that this is RARELY the case with Contax shooters.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Exactly, this guy was acting like just because the company goes out
>>>> of bussiness, all these contax users are screwed. I doubt many will
>>>> even care. I know if mamiya etc went out of bussiness, I sure
>>>> wouldn't be upset. Sorry if it came off the other way...
>>>>
>>>> BTW I have NOTHING again canon products (I own 2 of their
>>>> printers..), it's the people who use them and their attitude that
>>>> get's to me.
>>>
>>> I think it's time you examined your own attitude.
>>
>> Really now. I explained my post WASN'T what you got your panties in a
>> wad about, apologised if you misunderstood what I meant yet you're
>> still going on about this?
>
>
> Take a pass on him this time, Stacey. He was branded "pen*s wrinkle" for a
> reason.

T.N.T. aye?

What a nice new call-sign you have!
:) 
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 11:35:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

TAFKAB wrote:

> The passing of the 645 system, with it's Zeiss lenses, is a real shame. I
> can't imagine what all those Contax users will do now, except try to live
> off used parts and lenses.

I'm a happy Rolleiflex 35mm SLR system user - it has been gone for about
a decade. And so? The lenses (Zeiss) are real bargains!

> But will
> either Leica or film be around in 30 years?

Film, certainly. Leica,probably - but in a very different form or as a
label.
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 12:18:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

x-no-archive:yes

rafeb <rafe@nowhere.com> wrote:

>Well, they promised a full-frame 6Mpix
>camera way way back... but never delivered.

Not exactly. They did deliver a few for a short while, they're still
around, you can find them regularly on eBay. I've even held one and
shot a few frames with it. It was a flop in general, unless you were
content with ISO 25 and no practical RAW software or RAW LCD display,
among other limitations. Here are two fairly favorable reviews with
caveats:

http://www.lonestardigital.com/n_digital.htm

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/conta...
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 12:30:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <MPG.1c91abd9c14a6d898a73e@news.verizon.net>,
Brian C. Baird <nospam@please.no> wrote:
>In article <1109902877.522220.190600@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
>bhilton665@aol.com says...
>> The Phase One digital backs (16 and 22 Mpixels) both fit the Contax 645
>> and give wonderful results, but are pretty pricey.
>
>You can buy two decent cars or a sizable portion of a house with what
>they cost.

Crikey! Houses must be really cheap where you are.
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 12:47:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Steven M. Scharf wrote:

> "Tony" <tspadaro@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:lWMVd.31265$Yf5.3128728@twister.southeast.rr.com...
>
>> I think Olympus is one of the more successful P&S manufacturers. They
>>will probably be out of the DSLR business as soon as they can dump the
>>remaining stock, but will "pretend" it is still a going concern they way
>>they did with the OM system for a few years after they had stopped making
>>them.
>
>
> They have decent market share, around 11%, but it's falling. I expect that
> they'll end up merging their digital camera business with another
> low-market-share manufacturer, just like Konica-Minolta. It's hard to be a
> survivor in a commodity market, with no higher-end products. Too bad they
> got into the 4:3 mess. Pentax and Konica-Minolta look like they may make a
> go of it in the consumer D-SLRs.
>
>
This would parallel what they did in film cameras (dropped new SLRs).
As Oly SLR (film) fans, we have now bought a different brand, 'cause few
lens mfgs make new lenses for our old Olys. Sad- we bought Olympus for
decades. I even bought an Oly digicam. I doubt if I will buy another,
though. Not that my Oly digital was bad when I bought it, but if I were
in market for new digicam today, I think other brands offer more bang
for buck.
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 3:38:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <38ph58F45qd7pU1@individual.net>,
"Courtesy Assured" <niceposts@last.com> wrote:

> Well, it would be pointless to re-hash the well documented deficiencies of
> the 4/3 system - just about everyone is already aware that it produces noisy
> and relatively poor quality images(or, if they don't know, they've only to
> read some reviews)

Instead of reading reviews, I actually use the E-system, (among other
camera's) and I can only say it has surpassed all my expectations by a
wide margin. The E1 is a high-quality pro-level tool. (unlike Canon's
offerings on the same price-level) It beats the Nikon D1x hands down,
and this was the top level Nikon up to a week ago. E1 production has
already stopped by the way, expect some interesting news in a few
weeks/months, while stock is being cleared. You are so hoplessly
misinformed it isn't even funny. Admit it, peanut-brain, you are just
repeating nonsense you heard on the web, like a parrot. Does your mother
know you are using her computer?

Have fun looking through your plastic f/5.6 20D kit-lens. Now THAT is an
example of an overpriced lens... $100 optics and Canon sells it for
$500. They must laugh their asses off.

Lourens
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 3:38:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Lourens Smak" <smak@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:smak-0420B2.12384804032005@news.euronet.nl...
> In article <38ph58F45qd7pU1@individual.net>,
> "Courtesy Assured" <niceposts@last.com> wrote:
>
>> Well, it would be pointless to re-hash the well documented deficiencies
>> of
>> the 4/3 system - just about everyone is already aware that it produces
>> noisy
>> and relatively poor quality images(or, if they don't know, they've only
>> to
>> read some reviews)
>
> Instead of reading reviews, I actually use the E-system, (among other
> camera's) and I can only say it has surpassed all my expectations by a
> wide margin. The E1 is a high-quality pro-level tool. (unlike Canon's
> offerings on the same price-level) It beats the Nikon D1x hands down,
> and this was the top level Nikon up to a week ago. E1 production has
> already stopped by the way, expect some interesting news in a few
> weeks/months, while stock is being cleared. You are so hoplessly
> misinformed it isn't even funny. Admit it, peanut-brain, you are just
> repeating nonsense you heard on the web, like a parrot. Does your mother
> know you are using her computer?
>
> Have fun looking through your plastic f/5.6 20D kit-lens. Now THAT is an
> example of an overpriced lens... $100 optics and Canon sells it for
> $500. They must laugh their asses off.
>
> Lourens




Actually, my observations are based on a week's use of a 300 - which proved
to be a nasty little camera exhibiting all the limitations of the 4/3
system.

As for the fabled E-1 - if you like it, and are happy with the unsharp noisy
images it produces, fine. Perhaps it is, as you claim, a 'High level Pro
tool' - but without any 'High level Pro's' actually using it.

Still, perhaps you know something they don't?

However, it seems clear that your decent into personal abuse is symptomatic
of your own dissatisfaction with your wildly overpriced antique.

I'm not surprised to learn that E-1 production has ended - and as for the
'interesting news' that you are anticipating, I believe that this will prove
to be the announcement from Olympus that they have finally decided to stop
holding their corporate fingers in the fire, and are pulling out of the DSLR
market altogether.

Remember, the alleged collaboration with Panasonic remains mere vaporware -
empty words on hastily scribble press releases. I very much doubt that, in
reality, Panasonic will actually choose to follow Olympus down the pathway
to bankruptcy.

After all, Fuji came to their senses, didn't they? - and perhaps now it's
time for you to do the same?
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 3:38:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Lourens Smak" <smak@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:smak-0420B2.12384804032005@news.euronet.nl...
> In article <38ph58F45qd7pU1@individual.net>,
> "Courtesy Assured" <niceposts@last.com> wrote:
>
>> Well, it would be pointless to re-hash the well documented deficiencies
>> of
>> the 4/3 system - just about everyone is already aware that it produces
>> noisy
>> and relatively poor quality images(or, if they don't know, they've only
>> to
>> read some reviews)
>
> Instead of reading reviews, I actually use the E-system, (among other
> camera's) and I can only say it has surpassed all my expectations by a
> wide margin. The E1 is a high-quality pro-level tool. (unlike Canon's
> offerings on the same price-level) It beats the Nikon D1x hands down,
> and this was the top level Nikon up to a week ago. E1 production has
> already stopped by the way, expect some interesting news in a few
> weeks/months, while stock is being cleared. You are so hoplessly
> misinformed it isn't even funny. Admit it, peanut-brain, you are just
> repeating nonsense you heard on the web, like a parrot. Does your mother
> know you are using her computer?
>
> Have fun looking through your plastic f/5.6 20D kit-lens. Now THAT is an
> example of an overpriced lens... $100 optics and Canon sells it for
> $500. They must laugh their asses off.
>
> Lourens

Lourens, you are a classic example of a pot calling a kettle black. Through
misrepresentation and out and out falsehood, you condemn a camera, system
and company with which you have little, if any, familiarity. The feel and
heft of the E-1 (yes, I've tried one, at the store) is similar the that of
the 20D. Yes, it is better sealed, but no better constructed. And it was
too small for me to handle comfortably. The "kit" lens you seem to be
talking about is probably the 17-85 f4-5.6 IS, but you seem, in your
fanaticism, to be combining it with the 18-55 f4.5-5.6 lens, one that does,
indeed, have $100 worth of optics, which is what the lens sells for. The
17-85 isn't a cheapie, and offers something that no Olympus lens offers,
image stabilization. You can't match it with anything you own, or may, in
the future own, because Olympus doesn't have it.
And there is no way that the image quality of the E-1 can match the quality
of the 20D, with the limitations of the Oly 5mp sensor, not to mention any
of the other offerings of other camera manufacturers, including the
KonicaMinolta 7D with its built in "anti-shake," Canon 1D mkII and 1Ds mkII
or the Nikon D2x. Speaking of laughing their asses off, Oly must be having
a serious chuckle over convincing guys like you that a smaller, lower
resolution sensor is better. All it did was let them build cameras and
lenses with less material in them, and charge you the same as, or more than,
the other mfrs. do for theirs.
Give it up, Lourens, you've exhausted any credibility you ever had.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 3:38:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Lourens Smak" <smak@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:smak-0420B2.12384804032005@news.euronet.nl...
> In article <38ph58F45qd7pU1@individual.net>,
> "Courtesy Assured" <niceposts@last.com> wrote:
>
> > Well, it would be pointless to re-hash the well documented deficiencies
of
> > the 4/3 system - just about everyone is already aware that it produces
noisy
> > and relatively poor quality images(or, if they don't know, they've only
to
> > read some reviews)
>
> Instead of reading reviews, I actually use the E-system, (among other
> camera's) and I can only say it has surpassed all my expectations by a
> wide margin. The E1 is a high-quality pro-level tool. (unlike Canon's
> offerings on the same price-level) It beats the Nikon D1x hands down,
> and this was the top level Nikon up to a week ago. E1 production has
> already stopped by the way, expect some interesting news in a few
> weeks/months, while stock is being cleared. You are so hoplessly
> misinformed it isn't even funny. Admit it, peanut-brain, you are just
> repeating nonsense you heard on the web, like a parrot. Does your mother
> know you are using her computer?
>
> Have fun looking through your plastic f/5.6 20D kit-lens. Now THAT is an
> example of an overpriced lens... $100 optics and Canon sells it for
> $500. They must laugh their asses off.

I don't know that you're smoking but it's sold for $100, the kit lens is the
18-55.

Greg
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 3:41:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <Xns960EF412FC9C6klotjohan@130.133.1.4>,
Roland Karlsson <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote:


> The strangest part of this is thet Oly told us that
> the new fantastic 4/3 system had some extra ordinary
> properties that made it superior - that the real advantage
> was that it was the choice of professionals that wanted
> a tool that produced outstanding results. It was lots
> of talk of tele centric lenses etc, etc, ... The site was
> full of fashion photography made by very good photographers.
>
> And now? Cheap cameras and lenses to try to save the system.
> Back to the roots - amateurs.

Ah... someone who hasn't seen the latest stuff yet.

14-35mm f2.0
http://www.digitalcamera.jp/html/HotNews/image/2005-02/...

35-100mm f2.0
http://www.digitalcamera.jp/html/HotNews/image/2005-02/...


90-250mm f2.8
http://www.digitalcamera.jp/html/HotNews/image/2005-02/...

Lourens
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 3:48:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Lourens Smak" <smak@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:smak-0420B2.12384804032005@news.euronet.nl...
Admit it, peanut-brain, you are just
> repeating nonsense you heard on the web, like a parrot. Does your mother
> know you are using her computer?

Feeling a little touchy about our purchase decision?... =)

Al...
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 5:47:47 PM

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

Ben Rosengart wrote:

> Later in RAW. I don't like the results from the native conversion.
> I usually switch to LAB color, delete the A and B channels, then
> switch to Grayscale and then to RGB. (If anyone knows how to make a
> Photoshop Action out of this, I'm all ears!)

An inefficient way to just click on "desaturate". (When you set a and
b to zero and retain L "from LAB" step copies the CIE "Y" value to all
output channels ... which is basically what you get when you
"desaturate" an image in RGB space.)
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 6:05:26 PM

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

Ben Rosengart wrote:

> No. Try it, you'll see: the results are different.

If the results are different then what you described is not what is
occuring. You can google up the CIE->LAB and LAB->CIE transformation.
!