Good for Pentax! Eliminate the horrible little P&Ss

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

  1. John Turco wrote:
    []
    Almost a "British" trait - standing up for the underdog!

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Feb 25, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    John Navas Guest

     
    John Navas, Feb 26, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    John Navas Guest

    On the contrary -- I avoid those lenses.
    Again, "Google is your friend."
     
    John Navas, Feb 26, 2008
  4. RichA

    Guest Guest

    as i expected. it's nothing more than an unsubstantiated claim. you
    stated you saw no difference but refuse to name which ones they were.
     
    Guest, Feb 26, 2008
  5. RichA

    John Turco Guest

    Hello, David:

    You should've written, "lose out," instead. :p
    No chance! I can't afford any new "glass" for my poor Pentax, at the moment --
    especially, as a larger priority involves the construction of a better, faster
    computer.

    In other words, my aged, home-built box is causing me more frustrations than
    any of my cameras are, now. Its mainboard (Tyan S1830S "Tsunami" AT) was
    installed, way back in May of 2000. I've since maxed out my basic hardware
    configuration, with a Pentium III 1GHz CPU and 1GB of RAM.

    Yes, you read that correctly, in the above paragraph! This is an AT system,
    running Windows XP Home Edition. The K100D's bundled software applications
    tend to crawl, therefore, and I couldn't even imagine attempting to do any
    RAW conversions, in "PENTAX PHOTO Laboratory."


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Feb 26, 2008
  6. RichA

    John Turco Guest


    Hello, David:

    Rather ironic of you, implying that Kodak - the 120+ year old colossus of
    the photography industry -- is an "underdog." <g>

    Now, if you'd meant Pentax, alone, I'd have to concur. It's a comparatively
    small outfit, largely confining itself to cameras, lenses and other optical
    equipment.

    (Traditionally, Kodak's hallmarks have been the manufacturing and processing
    of film, which are far more lucrative operations.)


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Feb 26, 2008
  7. I often get that one wrong, and this wretched spelling checker never
    John, you can try this in any decent camera shop. I'm not suggesting you
    need to buy a lens for your own camera.
    Well, the good news is that computers are now very cheap - cheaper than
    many DSLR cameras. A system with 2GB of memory, and almost /any/
    dual-core processor, should be a noticeable improvement. I recommend
    Intel over AMD, from personal experience and performance measurements from
    others (things like USB performance). Build versus buy - buy may actually
    be cheaper! You might want to consider a portable, as those are very
    cheap now as well.

    Perhaps the biggest single performance enhancement I made was to configure
    a second monitor - it only needed the cable. For what I do, the extra
    screen area makes a big difference.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Feb 26, 2008
  8. Yes, it was Pentax's honour you said you were defending, John!

    Kodak has a name, certainly, but it must be 40 years since I bought any
    equipment branded Kodak, and over 10 years since I bought any Ektachrome
    or Kodachrome. I suppose I wouldn't be surprised to see Kodak go the way
    of Polaroid - a well-known name that goes bust, gets bought up, and then
    disappears, and I would be a little sad to see that.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Feb 26, 2008
  9. RichA

    John Navas Guest

    I'm just not going to waste time on someone that's just going to dismiss
    it out of hand with childish remarks like this.

    "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
     
    John Navas, Feb 26, 2008
  10. RichA

    Guest Guest

    it would have taken you less time to simply list which lenses they were
    when i originally asked, rather than to respond four times and evade
    the question.
     
    Guest, Feb 26, 2008
  11. RichA

    John Navas Guest

    Equally childish.
     
    John Navas, Feb 26, 2008
  12. RichA

    John Turco Guest

    Hello, David:

    Okay, I'd suspected that may have been what you'd meant, before. I don't know
    of a "decent camera shop" in my area, however, and wouldn't bother traveling
    very far, simply to experiment.
    My "dream machine" should, indeed, be rather less expensive than an equivalent
    off-the-shelf computer. I obtained the first piece of my new PC puzzle, via
    eBay, recently. It's an MSI P6N SLI-FI (ATX mainboard), and I've been planning
    to mount a Pentium 3GHz dual-core processor and 4GB of RAM, on it.
    Monitor was my first huge upgrade, last month. After nearly seven years
    of faithful service, my CTX PL9 (19" CRT) died, suddenly.

    Hence, I replaced it with a Sceptre X24WG (24" LCD widescreen monitor).
    It's as bright and sharp as the old PL9 was, and better yet, the X24WG's
    extra "real estate" is quite a revelation!

    Unfortunately, due to certain issues with my ATI "All-In-Wonder Radeon
    8500DV" (AGP video card), I decided to switch to using the VGA input,
    instead of DVI. The latter seemed even more dazzling, during the brief
    time it was connected.

    In any case (pun intended), I fully intend to get DVI working properly,
    on my next system.


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Feb 29, 2008
  13. RichA

    John Turco Guest

    David J Taylor wrote:


    Hello, David:

    If mighty Kodak falls, is >any< camera company truly safe?

    A "shuttering" thought! <g>


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Feb 29, 2008
  14. John Turco wrote:
    []
    <G> indeed!

    But I would ask: "Is any company safe?". And the longer I am around
    seeing things happen the answer has to be "No". Even in the camera field:
    Minolta, Agfa, Ilford?, Rollei... Outside that: the UK General Electric
    Company, Digital (DEC), too many car makes to name.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Feb 29, 2008
  15. John Turco wrote:
    []
    A pity, but I can understand.

    []
    Pentium and dual-core sounds good! You may find that you can't address
    all the 4GB (depending on your OS), and that 3GB may be slightly cheaper
    (2 x 1GB, 2 x 512MB).

    []
    Suddenly everything seems squashed up in the top-left corner......
    Some cards or monitors don't offer things like brightness and contrast
    controls with the DVI input, which is a pain. The 1920 x 1200 is the size
    I would go for next. The 1080 tall is much more coming, though. You are
    at least getting hints of what is to come.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Feb 29, 2008
  16. RichA

    John Turco Guest


    Hello, David:

    Yet, of all those aforementioned firms, none was ever a true industry giant,
    such as Kodak.

    [General Electric >is<, certainly, but it's a multinational conglomerate, of
    which its British branch is (was?) one of many, worldwide.]


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Mar 2, 2008
  17. RichA

    John Turco Guest

    Hello, David:

    Oh, rest assured, I've been doing my fair share of relevant research. I'm
    still somewhat undecided on my choice of Windows operating systems, however.
    XP seems to be the safest bet, at the moment, but Vista is the wave of the
    future, obviously.

    I'll likely pick XP and then "upgrade" to Vista, within the next few years.
    Huh?
    1920x1200 happens to be the X24WG's native resolution, which I'm using, now.
    (Alas, text is a bit tiny, yet I can live with it.)


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Mar 2, 2008
  18. John Turco wrote:
    []
    John,

    The General Electric Company (GEC) had no connection to other companies of
    similar names. It was possibly even bigger than Kodak, at it's height.
    Digital not an industry giant? IIRC it was number two to IBM at one time.
    Do we shed tears for these companies any more? Are we happy with what
    Panasonic, Canon, Nikon, Pentax and the rest provide today?

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Mar 2, 2008
  19. John Turco wrote:
    []
    A year ago I would have agreed. Today, I see few problems with Vista, and
    would no longer recommend people to start with XP. I'm not saying you
    shouldn't - simply that it wouldn't be my default recommendation.
    When you run a program designed for 1024 x 768 or even 800 x 600 on your
    1920 x 1200 display, it can look awfully small, and not fill the screen as
    it used to. That's all I meant.

    []
    My 1200 pixels vertically is occupying 12 inches, and I'm using the
    default text size from Windows XP. I got my optician to optimise my
    "reading" glasses for computer screen, rather than book reading, use. No
    problems, and having all those spreadsheet rows visible at one is rather
    nice.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Mar 2, 2008
  20. RichA

    Mr. Strat Guest

    Oh, you're the one who's having no problems with Vista. The marketplace
    is rejecting it. It's an ugly, bloated piece of shit.

    Windows has detected that you're looking at the screen...do you wish to
    cancel or allow?
     
    Mr. Strat, Mar 2, 2008
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.