Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

On 13 Feb., 05:45, "flambe" <fac....DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
> What is Pentax anyway?
> They are basically a name sold to Samsung and who knows what Hoya is getting
> out of the deal?
> The very small Pentax lens lineup is actually made by what Japanese
> manufacturer: hint--starts with a "T" and not a "P".
> The current issue of Shutterbug is pimping a non/pre-preproduction Pentax
> dSLR with a sensor made by who?
> For the near term the only old line Japanese SLR makers still in the race
> are Nikon and Canon.
> For the rest of the market the real question is how long will Olympus, Sony,
> Panasonic, Pentax, et al hang in there?
> In any event the market for P&Ses dwarfs the dSLR market. However price
> beats quality in most of this market segment.


well, i'm happy with my pentax. it's a fine machine, wouldn't want to
have any other at the moment. doesn't matter if pentax is just a name,
doesn't matter if it was made by somebody else. it's the product that
counts, and if it's good than all this talk is just hot air and a
waste of time.
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss 

"John Navas" <spamfilter1 DeleteThis @navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:jns6r3hup7li1cahffucaq1k27t35vg1fb@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 21:22:51 GMT, "Jufi" <bowser DeleteThis @heart.com> wrote in
> <LcJsj.2597$YL3.2134@trndny05>:
>
>>"John Navas" <spamfilter1 DeleteThis @navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>news:a0f6r3p18rqqcn7v42to3vk9i47itq88d5@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:16:19 GMT, "Jufi" <bowser DeleteThis @heart.com> wrote in
>>> <TtGsj.2495$YJ4.1052@trndny01>:
>
>>>>And if the EVF ever gets out of the stone age, we might hae something...
>>>
>>> Works fine here.
>>
>>They work OK, but the best EVF is crude compared to the display in an SLR.
>>Grainy, ghosting, dull, hard to see in daylight, etc. I've used one
>>extensively in an FZ50, and compared to the viewfinder in any SLR, it's a
>>distant second place.
>
> My own take is that the FZ50 viewfinder is quite good. I haven't seen
> such problems as you list. Are you thinking of the rear display instead
> of the EVF (which isn't a problem in daylight)? Perhaps the one you
> tried was defective.

No, it was normal, but compared to the "live" display in an SLR, it's just
not that good. I'm an eyeglass wearer, and can't fully shield the EVF from
daylight, which doesn't help at all. And I'm definitely not confusing the
EVF with the LCD. Most users I talk to about EVF cameras have the same
opinion; they work, but have a very long way to go.
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss 

"John Navas" <spamfilter1.DeleteThis@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:gks6r31iqi0205atfrn2j8uhr4fc3a45v4@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 06:49:27 +1100, "Pete D" <no.DeleteThis@email.com> wrote in
> <47b349ca$0$20218$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>:
>
>>"John Navas" <spamfilter1.DeleteThis@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>news:a0f6r3p18rqqcn7v42to3vk9i47itq88d5@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:16:19 GMT, "Jufi" <bowser.DeleteThis@heart.com> wrote in
>>> <TtGsj.2495$YJ4.1052@trndny01>:
>
>>>>And if the EVF ever gets out of the stone age, we might hae something...
>>>
>>> Works fine here.
>>
>>John it may work fine for you but as many of us have noticed your
>>standards
>>are extemely low and therefore of no value what so ever.
>
> Insecure and jealous as always, I see.
>


???Damn you caught me out John but I see that you are stupid and totally
clueless as always..........................
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss 

In article
<47b3d541$0$20224$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, Pete D
<no.DeleteThis@email.com> wrote:

> ???Damn you caught me out John but I see that you are stupid and totally
> clueless as always..........................

It's his way...
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss 

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:56:16 -0500, "Jufi" <bowser.RemoveThis@work.com> wrote in
<4h%sj.601$C8.98@bos-service2b.ext.ray.com>:

>"John Navas" <spamfilter1.RemoveThis@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:jns6r3hup7li1cahffucaq1k27t35vg1fb@4ax.com...

>> My own take is that the FZ50 viewfinder is quite good. I haven't seen
>> such problems as you list. Are you thinking of the rear display instead
>> of the EVF (which isn't a problem in daylight)? Perhaps the one you
>> tried was defective.
>
>No, it was normal, but compared to the "live" display in an SLR, it's just
>not that good. I'm an eyeglass wearer, and can't fully shield the EVF from
>daylight, which doesn't help at all.

Likewise an optical viewfinder.

>And I'm definitely not confusing the
>EVF with the LCD. Most users I talk to about EVF cameras have the same
>opinion; they work, but have a very long way to go.

Most users I talk to find them more than satisfactory.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss 

"John Navas" <spamfilter1.RemoveThis@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:cb09r3t65ugm8c5evfm8jjfpfsfrrh2gpn@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:56:16 -0500, "Jufi" <bowser.RemoveThis@work.com> wrote in
> <4h%sj.601$C8.98@bos-service2b.ext.ray.com>:
>
>>"John Navas" <spamfilter1.RemoveThis@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>news:jns6r3hup7li1cahffucaq1k27t35vg1fb@4ax.com...
>
>>> My own take is that the FZ50 viewfinder is quite good. I haven't seen
>>> such problems as you list. Are you thinking of the rear display instead
>>> of the EVF (which isn't a problem in daylight)? Perhaps the one you
>>> tried was defective.
>>
>>No, it was normal, but compared to the "live" display in an SLR, it's just
>>not that good. I'm an eyeglass wearer, and can't fully shield the EVF from
>>daylight, which doesn't help at all.
>
> Likewise an optical viewfinder.

I see the optical viewfinder just fine, corner to corner in all lighting
conditions. Not the same for EVF from any manufacturer I've tried. Use what
you like, but for me they just aren't that good. Useable, yes, but nowhere
near as clear as an optical viewfinder.

>
>>And I'm definitely not confusing the
>>EVF with the LCD. Most users I talk to about EVF cameras have the same
>>opinion; they work, but have a very long way to go.
>
> Most users I talk to find them more than satisfactory.

I guess when I see the shooters along the sidelines of a football game using
an EVF camera, I'll change my mind. Nearly worthless for action shooting.
But for many out there, agree that they are satisfactory. Just not for me.
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss 

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 23:24:05 GMT, "Jufi" <bowser RemoveThis @heart.com> wrote in
<p44tj.4350$%x3.1322@trndny06>:

>>>Most users I talk to about EVF cameras have the same
>>>opinion; they work, but have a very long way to go.
>>
>> Most users I talk to find them more than satisfactory.
>
>I guess when I see the shooters along the sidelines of a football game using
>an EVF camera, I'll change my mind.

If that was my profession (and my gear was all paid for), I might well
too, but that's not the kind of photography I do.

>Nearly worthless for action shooting.

My FZ8 is terrific for action shooting.

>But for many out there, agree that they are satisfactory. Just not for me.

Fair enough. "Different strokes for different folks."

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss 

In article <ghibr31d98n6stacbe5pr85iqps2rg834v.TakeThisOut@4ax.com>, John Navas
<spamfilter1.TakeThisOut@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> >it had 922k *dots*, not pixels.
>
> The correct term is "subpixel", and the subpixel resolution can matter
> if the display is capable of subpixel rendering, which can produce a
> better image than pixel rendering.

that may be, but it's called 'dots' by the manufacturers. of course,
people end up calling it pixels anyway, adding to the confusion.

> Pentax has a tiny fraction of the market, only 5.8% even in Japan
> according to <http://en.j-cast.com/2008/01/25015807.html>.

so what? the pentax k10d was a strong seller as was the k100d. pentax
isnt' about to overtake nikon or canon, but they have some very
competitive cameras.
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss 

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 16:05:05 -0800, nospam <nospam RemoveThis @nospam.invalid> wrote
in <150220081605055907%nospam@nospam.invalid>:

>In article <ghibr31d98n6stacbe5pr85iqps2rg834v RemoveThis @4ax.com>, John Navas
><spamfilter1 RemoveThis @navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> >it had 922k *dots*, not pixels.
>>
>> The correct term is "subpixel", and the subpixel resolution can matter
>> if the display is capable of subpixel rendering, which can produce a
>> better image than pixel rendering.
>
>that may be, but it's called 'dots' by the manufacturers. of course,
>people end up calling it pixels anyway, adding to the confusion.

Where are manufacturers calling it "dots"?
Where are people calling it pixels?

>> Pentax has a tiny fraction of the market, only 5.8% even in Japan
>> according to <http://en.j-cast.com/2008/01/25015807.html>.
>
>so what? the pentax k10d was a strong seller as was the k100d. pentax
>isnt' about to overtake nikon or canon, but they have some very
>competitive cameras.

That's not enough market share to survive in the long term. Generally
speaking, it takes about 10% market share to be viable in a competitive
market over the long term.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss 

In article <cfdcr35j1ihm4tp27e28lbpqrjc1k3v38p DeleteThis @4ax.com>, John Navas
<spamfilter1 DeleteThis @navasgroup.com> wrote:

> >that may be, but it's called 'dots' by the manufacturers. of course,
> >people end up calling it pixels anyway, adding to the confusion.
>
> Where are manufacturers calling it "dots"?

<http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/digitalcamera/slr/d300/index.ht
m>

3-inch LCD with 920,000-dot (VGA) resolution and a 170° ultra-wide
viewing angle.

> Where are people calling it pixels?

<http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond300/page3.asp>

One of the big changes to the D300 is the new high resolution screen.
It has four times the number of dots than the 230,000 unit used on the
D2X and other such cameras. For clarity, the words pixels and dots are
interchanged almost randomly in specification sheets but strictly
speaking we should talk of dots (these being red, green or blue
sub-pixels) when referring to the figures quoted by manufacturers.

> >> Pentax has a tiny fraction of the market, only 5.8% even in Japan
> >> according to <http://en.j-cast.com/2008/01/25015807.html>.
> >
> >so what? the pentax k10d was a strong seller as was the k100d. pentax
> >isnt' about to overtake nikon or canon, but they have some very
> >competitive cameras.
>
> That's not enough market share to survive in the long term. Generally
> speaking, it takes about 10% market share to be viable in a competitive
> market over the long term.

apple seems to have managed. among the second tier camera companies, i
expect olympus to have the biggest challenges in the future.
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss 

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:16:16 -0800, nospam <nospam.DeleteThis@nospam.invalid> wrote
in <150220081716162180%nospam@nospam.invalid>:

>In article <cfdcr35j1ihm4tp27e28lbpqrjc1k3v38p.DeleteThis@4ax.com>, John Navas
><spamfilter1.DeleteThis@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> Where are manufacturers calling it "dots"?
>
><http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/digitalcamera/slr/d300/index.ht
>m>
>
>3-inch LCD with 920,000-dot (VGA) resolution and a 170° ultra-wide
>viewing angle.

That's one. I'm not seeing that on any significant scale.

>> Where are people calling it pixels?
>
><http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond300/page3.asp>
>
>One of the big changes to the D300 is the new high resolution screen.
>It has four times the number of dots than the 230,000 unit used on the
>D2X and other such cameras. For clarity, the words pixels and dots are
>interchanged almost randomly in specification sheets but strictly
>speaking we should talk of dots (these being red, green or blue
>sub-pixels) when referring to the figures quoted by manufacturers.

Again, that's one, and a reviewer. I'm not seeing that on any
significant scale.

>> That's not enough market share to survive in the long term. Generally
>> speaking, it takes about 10% market share to be viable in a competitive
>> market over the long term.
>
>apple seems to have managed. among the second tier camera companies, i
>expect olympus to have the biggest challenges in the future.

Apple nearly disappeared entirely. The iPod saved it.
Olympus is clearly in a stronger position than Pentax.
<http://www.japancorp.net/Article.Asp?Art_ID=16898>

For April-December, Olympus reported that its net profit grew 27.5
pct from a year earlier to 51,653 million yen. Operating profit
increased 17.5 pct to 91,507 million yen, on sales of 843,135 million
yen, up 10.3 pct.

By sector, sales at the imaging equipment division, which deals in
digital cameras, increased 14.6 pct to 253.3 billion yen, with global
shipments of digital single-lens reflex cameras soaring 85 pct to
370,000 units.

Sales at the medical equipment division grew 16.1 pct to 255.2
billion yen, boosted mainly by robust sales of endoscopes.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss 

In article <grecr31b70ufpqkgiouv9o2if9adtrbp8i RemoveThis @4ax.com>, John Navas
<spamfilter1 RemoveThis @navasgroup.com> wrote:

> >> Where are manufacturers calling it "dots"?
> >
> ><http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/digitalcamera/slr/d300/index.ht
> >m>
> >
> >3-inch LCD with 920,000-dot (VGA) resolution and a 170° ultra-wide
> >viewing angle.
>
> That's one. I'm not seeing that on any significant scale.

i see 'dots' more than i do 'subpixels.' nevertheless, it's nitpicking.
we both agree that 'pixels' is incorrect.

> >apple seems to have managed. among the second tier camera companies, i
> >expect olympus to have the biggest challenges in the future.
>
> Apple nearly disappeared entirely. The iPod saved it.

that's absolute nonsense. even when everyone was insisting on their
demise (something which has been ongoing for 25 years, i might add),
apple had enough cash in the bank to carry them for a while. the ipod
certainly helped in the last few years, but they were on a positive
track well before that.

> Olympus is clearly in a stronger position than Pentax.

olympus is stuck with a 4/3" sensor when the rest of the dslr market is
moving to full frame sensors. there is *no* growth path for them.

what olympus needs to do is capitalize on the fact the sensor produces
decent images and make a compact camera that's actually compact, rather
than make dslrs that are just slightly smaller than what nikon, canon
and pentax make.
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss 

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:52:48 -0800, nospam <nospam.RemoveThis@nospam.invalid> wrote
in <150220081752483686%nospam@nospam.invalid>:

>In article <grecr31b70ufpqkgiouv9o2if9adtrbp8i.RemoveThis@4ax.com>, John Navas
><spamfilter1.RemoveThis@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>> Apple nearly disappeared entirely. The iPod saved it.
>
>that's absolute nonsense. even when everyone was insisting on their
>demise (something which has been ongoing for 25 years, i might add),
>apple had enough cash in the bank to carry them for a while. the ipod
>certainly helped in the last few years, but they were on a positive
>track well before that.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

>> Olympus is clearly in a stronger position than Pentax.
>
>olympus is stuck with a 4/3" sensor when the rest of the dslr market is
>moving to full frame sensors. there is *no* growth path for them.

In your opinion. Not in mine, and Olympus is clearly doing very well,
better than Pentax by a large margin.

>what olympus needs to do is capitalize on the fact the sensor produces
>decent images and make a compact camera that's actually compact, rather
>than make dslrs that are just slightly smaller than what nikon, canon
>and pentax make.

Four Thirds is actually doing surprisingly well:
* Fuji
* Kodak
* Leica
* Olympus
* Panasonic
* Sanyo
* Sigma

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss