In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Patrick White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > The only problem I can see with their marketing strategy on this is that >they continue to take it in the shorts on brand perception because of this. >No serious professional (or professional wannabe) would consider Pentax gear >because of the perception. Ultimately, this hurts their ability to produce >products for even the advanced amateur. And _that_ affect my ability to buy >the kind of equipment that I may one day want for pursuing my hobby. For >the time being, I'm willing to give them the time till that "one day" to >come out with equipment I need. If I get there first, then I'll be forced >to switch brands and they will loose one more customer that would be willing >and able to spend $1000 on a body.
When your talking about pro gear you're really only talking about four brands, Leica, Hassleblad, Nikon and Canon. Most self-proclaimed advanced amateurs almost certainly would never have the kind of money or requirement to invest in this kind of equipment. I would imagine that Pentax aren't terribly interested in trying to break into the market of the Canon's and Nikon's; their user base is well established with very specific needs. Amateurs just don't get any benefit from buying at that end of the market. Pentax, like Olympus and Minolta, are very strong brands in the amateur market of which there are more than enough customers to keep them all in business. I must admit I have met numerous professional photographers who do in fact use Pentax and are very happy to do so. >>Remember, today's $300 digital cameras have more memory and processing >power >>than a $3000 PC from 5 years ago! > > And how significant is this to the digital camera? It needs RAM to capture >the image fast, and more RAM to capture several images in succession faster >than it can compress and write them. It needs faster processing to compress >the image fast. Aside from PJ usage, how many of us put our camera bodies >on motor drive and are impressed about how fast of a movie camera it makes? In theory, Moore's law should apply to digital cameras but it doesn't. Digital cameras are pretty much universally rubbish at the present time. I had a Minolta Dimage 7 and I thought it was the worst camera I've ever used; the autofocus was pathetically slow, it couldn't shoot any more than about three frames consecutively because the memory buffer would over flow, the batteries would barely last for 31 exposures...need I go on? Currently RAM is too unstable and too expensive and Compact Flash pathetically too small and expensive to be of serious value. Photojournalists like them because they're quick and dirty and they don't need high definition pictures, I'd say the average newspaper would be lucky to be 600 DPI. Seems to be mostly hype and bullshit to push more hardware on people who have already got about as much debt and choked with about as many processions as they can handle. May be it's time to put the break on the capitalist gang-bang that turns even the sanest person into a glutton, an unhappy hoarder of techo knick-knacks and impedimenta that no one has the time or the energy to use. Kev. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
