Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:35:30 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven RemoveThis @geemail.com>
wrote in <47b62113$0$36387$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>irwell wrote:
>
>>> Are there any P&S models still available with a high resolution EVF like
>>> the A2?
>>
>> The new Nikon P60 has this spec for the EVF.
>>
>> Viewfinder
>> 0.2-in., approx. 201k-dot, equivalent
>>
>> What resolution was the A2?
>
>922,000 pixels (or dots).

Wrong again: 307K pixels (922K subpixels).

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

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:56:40 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven RemoveThis @geemail.com>
wrote in <47b6260a$0$36408$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>David J Taylor wrote:
>> SMS wrote:
>> []
>>> Are there any P&S models still available with a high resolution EVF
>>> like the A2?
>>
>> Sadly, not as far as I know.
>
>With D-SLRs taking over the high to mid-range, I'm not surprised. Few
>users of point and shoot cameras ever manual focus, and even a low-res
>EVF is sufficient for framing the shot. No point in putting in an
>expensive EVF for the few buyers that understand the benefit.

No truth to any of that.

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

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

>In article <cfdcr35j1ihm4tp27e28lbpqrjc1k3v38p 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.

>> 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 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.

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 DeleteThis @nospam.invalid> wrote
in <150220081752483686%nospam@nospam.invalid>:

>In article <grecr31b70ufpqkgiouv9o2if9adtrbp8i DeleteThis @4ax.com>, John Navas
><spamfilter1 DeleteThis @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 

In article <3bicr3dpi2iodgoge828arb32hnihhnrl8.DeleteThis@4ax.com>, John Navas
<spamfilter1.DeleteThis@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> >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.

a large part of their sales are for p&s cameras, not dslrs. pentax
dslrs are selling quite well, and much better than olympus. one key
advantage are the large numbers of excellent pentax lenses available on
the used market.

here are some numbers from 2006:
<http://bcnranking.jp/sys_imgs/news/article/11835-digi_camera_2.gif>
<http://bcnranking.jp/sys_imgs/news/article/11835-00.gif>

if olympus is doing better 'by a large margin' why are there no olympus
models listed anywhere on the chart, and olympus' trend mostly flat, at
the bottom? granted, that doesn't include the e3 that was just
released, but pentax and sony have more offerings at more price points.
and as i stated before, the 4/3rds sensor is going to be a big issue in
the future.

> >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

of those, only leica, olympus and panasonic make 4/3rds cameras, and
leica is a niche player.
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss 

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 19:36:59 -0800, nospam <nospam RemoveThis @nospam.invalid> wrote
in <150220081936598696%nospam@nospam.invalid>:

>In article <3bicr3dpi2iodgoge828arb32hnihhnrl8 RemoveThis @4ax.com>, John Navas
><spamfilter1 RemoveThis @navasgroup.com> wrote:

>> In your opinion. Not in mine, and Olympus is clearly doing very well,
>> better than Pentax by a large margin.
>
>a large part of their sales are for p&s cameras, not dslrs. pentax
>dslrs are selling quite well, and much better than olympus.

From my prior post (did you miss it?):
<http://www.japancorp.net/Article.Asp?Art_ID=16898>

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. [emphasis added]

The same period sales increase for Pentax was ... ?

>one key
>advantage are the large numbers of excellent pentax lenses available on
>the used market.

That's not a significant factor in the new equipment market.

>if olympus is doing better 'by a large margin' why are there no olympus
>models listed anywhere on the chart, and olympus' trend mostly flat, at
>the bottom?

See above.

>granted, that doesn't include the e3 that was just
>released, but pentax and sony have more offerings at more price points.
>and as i stated before, the 4/3rds sensor is going to be a big issue in
>the future.

In your opinion. I disagree.

>> Four Thirds is actually doing surprisingly well:
>> * Fuji
>> * Kodak
>> * Leica
>> * Olympus
>> * Panasonic
>> * Sanyo
>> * Sigma
>
>of those, only leica, olympus and panasonic make 4/3rds cameras, and
>leica is a niche player.

Fuji, Kodak, Olympus, and Panasonic are all serious players, and Leica
adds considerable cachet. I wouldn't be surprised to see Four Thirds
cameras from Fuji and Kodak in the relatively near future.

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

steph wrote:
>
> On 13 Feb., 05:45, "flambe" <fac....TakeThisOut@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.


Hello, Steph:

You said it right! My Pentax K100D stacks up against any equivalent DSLR
from Canon and Nikon, but, at a much lower price point.


Cordially,
John Turco <jtur.TakeThisOut@concentric.net>
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss 

John Turco wrote:
[]
> Hello, Steph:
>
> You said it right! My Pentax K100D stacks up against any equivalent
> DSLR from Canon and Nikon, but, at a much lower price point.
>
>
> Cordially,
> John Turco <jtur.DeleteThis@concentric.net>

Unfortunately, though, it lacks in-lens image stabilisation (unless 3rd
party vendors offer this?).

David
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss 

In article <CGStj.8581$XI.3845@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J
Taylor <david-taylor DeleteThis @blueyonder.neither-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk>
wrote:

> > You said it right! My Pentax K100D stacks up against any equivalent
> > DSLR from Canon and Nikon, but, at a much lower price point.
> >
> Unfortunately, though, it lacks in-lens image stabilisation (unless 3rd
> party vendors offer this?).

it has in-body stabilization.
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss 

nospam wrote:
> In article <CGStj.8581$XI.3845@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J
> Taylor <david-taylor.DeleteThis@blueyonder.neither-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>> You said it right! My Pentax K100D stacks up against any equivalent
>>> DSLR from Canon and Nikon, but, at a much lower price point.
>>>
>> Unfortunately, though, it lacks in-lens image stabilisation (unless
>> 3rd party vendors offer this?).
>
> it has in-body stabilization.

... yes, of course, but that doesn't benefit the view through the
viewfinder, which is not stabilised. Try comparing in-lens and in-body
with a hand-held 300mm lens on a windy day and you'll see why the in-lens
is so much preferable to in-body.

David
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss 

In article <gRTtj.8606$XI.5327@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J
Taylor <david-taylor RemoveThis @blueyonder.neither-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk>
wrote:

> >>> You said it right! My Pentax K100D stacks up against any equivalent
> >>> DSLR from Canon and Nikon, but, at a much lower price point.
> >>>
> >> Unfortunately, though, it lacks in-lens image stabilisation (unless
> >> 3rd party vendors offer this?).
> >
> > it has in-body stabilization.
>
> .. yes, of course, but that doesn't benefit the view through the
> viewfinder, which is not stabilised. Try comparing in-lens and in-body
> with a hand-held 300mm lens on a windy day and you'll see why the in-lens
> is so much preferable to in-body.

that's true but in-body stabilizes virtually all lenses. both systems
have their advantages and disadvantages.
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss 

David J Taylor wrote:
>
> nospam wrote:
> > In article <CGStj.8581$XI.3845@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J
> > Taylor <david-taylor DeleteThis @blueyonder.neither-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>> You said it right! My Pentax K100D stacks up against any equivalent
> >>> DSLR from Canon and Nikon, but, at a much lower price point.
> >>>
> >> Unfortunately, though, it lacks in-lens image stabilisation (unless
> >> 3rd party vendors offer this?).
> >
> > it has in-body stabilization.
>
> .. yes, of course, but that doesn't benefit the view through the
> viewfinder, which is not stabilised. Try comparing in-lens and in-body
> with a hand-held 300mm lens on a windy day and you'll see why the in-lens
> is so much preferable to in-body.
>
> David


Hello, David:

What "budget" DSLR, other than the peerless Pentax K100D, has >any<
sort of image stabilization, whatsoever?

Hint: Certainly NOT your Nikon D40 body, old man! <g>


Cordially,
John Turco <jtur DeleteThis @concentric.net>
 >> Stay informed about: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss