Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Feb 13, 2008.

  1. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, John Navas
    <> 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.
     
    nospam, Feb 16, 2008
    #41
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    John Navas Guest

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

    >In article <>, John Navas
    ><> 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)
     
    John Navas, Feb 16, 2008
    #42
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, John Navas
    <> 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.
     
    nospam, Feb 16, 2008
    #43
  4. RichA

    John Navas Guest

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

    >In article <>, John Navas
    ><> 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)
     
    John Navas, Feb 16, 2008
    #44
  5. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, John Navas
    <> 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.
     
    nospam, Feb 16, 2008
    #45
  6. RichA

    John Turco Guest

    John Navas wrote:
    >
    > On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 04:45:44 GMT, "flambe" <> wrote in
    > <YBusj.7146$>:
    >
    > >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?
    > >...

    >
    > Olympus, Sony and Panasonic are all doing pretty well.
    > BTW, you left out Kodak. ;)



    Hello, John:

    And a very serious omission it was, with Kodak ranking among the U.S.
    and worldwide leaders, in digicam sales, today.


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Feb 16, 2008
    #46
  7. RichA

    John Navas Guest

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

    >In article <>, John Navas
    ><> 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)
     
    John Navas, Feb 16, 2008
    #47
  8. RichA

    Mr. Strat Guest

    In article <>, John Navas
    <> wrote:

    > Apple nearly disappeared entirely. The iPod saved it.
    > Olympus is clearly in a stronger position than Pentax.


    As usual, you don't know shit.

    It was the 1998 introduction of the iMac that got Apple back in the
    game.
     
    Mr. Strat, Feb 16, 2008
    #48
  9. RichA

    John Turco Guest

    Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    steph wrote:
    >
    > On 13 Feb., 05:45, "flambe" <> 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 <>
     
    John Turco, Feb 17, 2008
    #49
  10. Re: 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 <>


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

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Feb 17, 2008
    #50
  11. RichA

    nospam Guest

    Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    In article <CGStj.8581$>, David J
    Taylor <-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.
     
    nospam, Feb 17, 2008
    #51
  12. Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    nospam wrote:
    > In article <CGStj.8581$>, David J
    > Taylor <-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
     
    David J Taylor, Feb 17, 2008
    #52
  13. RichA

    nospam Guest

    Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    In article <gRTtj.8606$>, David J
    Taylor <-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.
     
    nospam, Feb 17, 2008
    #53
  14. RichA

    John Turco Guest

    Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    David J Taylor wrote:
    >
    > nospam wrote:
    > > In article <CGStj.8581$>, David J
    > > Taylor <-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 <>
     
    John Turco, Feb 19, 2008
    #54
  15. RichA

    John Turco Guest

    Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    nospam wrote:
    >
    > In article <gRTtj.8606$>, David J
    > Taylor <-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.



    Hello, nospam:

    Hey, if David J. Taylor wants to pay a price premium, in order to enjoy
    the nebulous benefits of "in-lens image stabilisation" - well, then,
    more power to him. :-J


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Feb 19, 2008
    #55
  16. RichA

    nospam Guest

    Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    In article <>, John Turco
    <> wrote:

    > > > .. 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.

    >
    > Hey, if David J. Taylor wants to pay a price premium, in order to enjoy
    > the nebulous benefits of "in-lens image stabilisation" - well, then,
    > more power to him. :-J


    it's not that much of a price premium and not at all nebulous. in-lens
    stabilization offers some distinct advantages, such as a stabilized
    viewfinder as well as outperforming in-camera stabilization at longer
    focal lengths. as i said, both systems have their advantages.
     
    nospam, Feb 19, 2008
    #56
  17. Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    John Turco wrote:
    > David J Taylor wrote:
    >>
    >> nospam wrote:
    >>> In article <CGStj.8581$>, David J
    >>> Taylor <-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 <>


    John,

    If you compare a long lens (e.g. 300mm) with in-lens and in-body
    stabilisation, it is immediately obvious why paying any extra for in-lens
    IS is well worthwhile. Do try it sometime. Just comapre framing the
    subject with the IS switched on and off. It is not a "nebulous
    advantage", but an immediately obvious one. Both of my "budget" telephoto
    zooms have in-lens IS. Buying purely on price may not get you the best
    overall DSLR system, nor would buying at the cheapest supplier. Let's
    look at UK prices from Warehouse Express:

    Pentax
    K100D + 18-55mm GBP 330
    50-200mm GBP 169
    Total: GBP 499

    Nikon
    D40 + 18-55mm GBP 299
    55-200mm VR GBP 179
    Total: GBP 478

    So no "price premium", actually a saving. I also have a 70-300mm VR lens
    as well, which is missing from this supplier's Pentax line-up.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Feb 19, 2008
    #57
  18. RichA

    dj_nme Guest

    Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    David J Taylor wrote:
    > John Turco wrote:
    >
    >>David J Taylor wrote:
    >>
    >>>nospam wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>In article <CGStj.8581$>, David J
    >>>>Taylor <-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 <>

    >
    >
    > John,
    >
    > If you compare a long lens (e.g. 300mm) with in-lens and in-body
    > stabilisation, it is immediately obvious why paying any extra for in-lens
    > IS is well worthwhile. Do try it sometime. Just comapre framing the
    > subject with the IS switched on and off. It is not a "nebulous
    > advantage", but an immediately obvious one. Both of my "budget" telephoto
    > zooms have in-lens IS. Buying purely on price may not get you the best
    > overall DSLR system, nor would buying at the cheapest supplier. Let's
    > look at UK prices from Warehouse Express:
    >
    > Pentax
    > K100D + 18-55mm GBP 330
    > 50-200mm GBP 169
    > Total: GBP 499
    >
    > Nikon
    > D40 + 18-55mm GBP 299
    > 55-200mm VR GBP 179
    > Total: GBP 478
    >
    > So no "price premium", actually a saving. I also have a 70-300mm VR lens
    > as well, which is missing from this supplier's Pentax line-up.
    >
    > Cheers,
    > David


    At least be fair and specify comparible lenses for both.
    You forgot to have both of the Nikon lenses as VR lenses, as both the
    lenses specified by you for the Pentax K100D can be used with Pentax
    in-body AS.
    I'm sorry, but the Nikon D40 18-55mm kit lens isn't a VR lens, so your
    price comparison is invalid.

    The closest listed Nikon lens at Warehouse Express is the 18-55mm
    f/3.5-5.6G AF-S VR DX at GBP 179.

    Warehouse Express doesn't sell a D40 without a kit lens, so a Nikon D40
    with an all VR lens line-up would cost out at:
    Nikon D40 (with non VR 18-55mm kit lens)- GBP 299
    18-55mm VR - GBP 179
    55-200mm VR - GBP 179

    total - GBP 657

    A fair comparison makes the Nikon GBP 158 more expensive than the Pentax.
     
    dj_nme, Feb 19, 2008
    #58
  19. RichA

    nospam Guest

    Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    In article
    <47bad716$0$30968$>, dj_nme
    <> wrote:

    > Warehouse Express doesn't sell a D40 without a kit lens, so a Nikon D40
    > with an all VR lens line-up would cost out at:
    > Nikon D40 (with non VR 18-55mm kit lens)- GBP 299
    > 18-55mm VR - GBP 179
    > 55-200mm VR - GBP 179
    >
    > total - GBP 657
    >
    > A fair comparison makes the Nikon GBP 158 more expensive than the Pentax.


    except that you now have *three* lenses, not two. the extra 18-55mm
    can be sold, so the difference is not as big as you make it out to be.
     
    nospam, Feb 19, 2008
    #59
  20. Re: Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

    dj_nme wrote:
    []
    > At least be fair and specify comparible lenses for both.
    > You forgot to have both of the Nikon lenses as VR lenses, as both the
    > lenses specified by you for the Pentax K100D can be used with Pentax
    > in-body AS.
    > I'm sorry, but the Nikon D40 18-55mm kit lens isn't a VR lens, so your
    > price comparison is invalid.
    >
    > The closest listed Nikon lens at Warehouse Express is the 18-55mm
    > f/3.5-5.6G AF-S VR DX at GBP 179.
    >
    > Warehouse Express doesn't sell a D40 without a kit lens, so a Nikon
    > D40 with an all VR lens line-up would cost out at:
    > Nikon D40 (with non VR 18-55mm kit lens)- GBP 299
    > 18-55mm VR - GBP 179
    > 55-200mm VR - GBP 179
    >
    > total - GBP 657
    >
    > A fair comparison makes the Nikon GBP 158 more expensive than the
    > Pentax.


    Had there been a D40 + 18-55mm VR kit, I would have quoted that, of
    course. There are those that argue "you don't need IS below 50mm", but I
    don't agree with that. I suspect that the VR will become the standard
    "kit" lens (as it is for the most recent cameras), and then the prices
    will be similar. You obviously don't need two 18-55mm lenses as your GBP
    657 includes.

    A pity you can't get a Pentax 70-300mm zoom, or is that just too new or
    one which Warehouse Express don't stock? I see a 55-300mm on DPReview
    from January 2008.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Feb 19, 2008
    #60
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,026
    gunner
    Feb 11, 2007
  2. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,463
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  3. Charles
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    633
    Ray Fischer
    Jan 29, 2010
  4. LOL!
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    746
    Ray Fischer
    Jan 30, 2010
  5. Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    510
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Feb 7, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page