Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-03-2014, 11:21 AM   #376
Pentaxian
ChristianRock's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Woodstock, GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,524
Perhaps the caveman FF should be in its own thread? It's already completely derailed this one...

07-03-2014, 11:44 AM   #377
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,651
QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
Every manufacturer in every line of work will allways seek to recycle as many parts and tech in as many products as possible. That was not discovered when Pentax reused portions of the K-3 in the 645 and platform cars are nothing new either.
A 100% finder at 1.0 magnification is not cheap - or so they say, particularly now that none are manufactured. But then I have never argued for a rock bottom cheap ff pentax either.




But I do. About ten rolls p.a. - I just want it digital. You do have a hard time dealing with people who do not see a part of the world in exactly your terms, eh?
So let me repay the compliment - why don't you get a Sony A7, Panasonic GH4 or Blackmagic or GoPro? Or indeed a Bolex (film that is)



Should I just pass on 'jack of all trades' or add master of none? Anyway, good point - Kunzite and you will probably still explain where the requisite number of customers will come from - relying on the existing Pentax user base will mean very slim pickin's for Ricoh. Enlarging the K-3 with some sort of magic lantern open source video api or such will not bring in very many new customers. Like I said before, late to the party with little to show for it.



No need to drop af if it can be avoided. Maybe someone knows a way. I am saying that if a compromise needs to be made it should be made in favor of the viewfinder. Let's not pretend like that would be the last camera on earth. Even Pentax will continue to develop cameras - despite what Kunzite says.
I don't have a problem understanding other people have different needs. However the question is how many are there that have YOUR needs and are willing to spend a high amount on it. If you thought the number of customers for a regular FF Pentax are small... the number of those willing to buy a FF MF Pentax are microscopic. Btw. I argue that even the numbers for a normal FF Pentax are too low to make sense.


Camera makers have been trying to solve the AF viewfinder problem for the past 30 or so years. I think it's safe to say we've reached the optimum for an optical viewfinder. Unless you use AF sensors on the image sensor there's not much you can do, and at that point the viewfinder becomes useless.
07-03-2014, 11:53 AM   #378
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 287
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
By your own admission, Pentax does not have to answer the supposed need for expensive cameras with no autofocus.
Come again? I cannot make heads or tails of that sentence.

QuoteQuote:
By the way, are you talking about a camera to be used with old lenses (because AF ones are terrible for manual focusing), or a camera and a new line of lenses?
That will depend. As a rule of thumb, the newer the lens the poorer it focusses manually. One of my arguments from previous discussions was always that such a camera fits very well with legacy lenses as well as the limiteds (they mf just peachy) and the entire 'lens philosophy' of Pentax. Will they again develop made for mf lenses ā la Cosina Voigtländer, sort of a neo-Takumar? It will depend on the success of the camera in the market. If I am correct to think that this camera is the bait for CaNikon users, then certainly such lenses would be the hook. Or the camera is the hook with the limiteds being the bait.
Regardless, it is an ill suited camera for zoom afficionados. Fortunately they have a bevy of choices and need not feel bad: Good things come to those who wait

QuoteQuote:
Again, I'm not talking about a "ff k-3". You're doing this intentionally, while accusing me of being obtuse and "arrog..." - how nice.
I'm talking about a competitive FF DSLR, which could use K-3's platform (but hopefully not the AF). It could also use a next-gen platform.
I never said such a product would be a "resounding success" - that is your strawman. I'm saying it might work (partly because I would buy one, and new lenses made for it).
It's not rocket science - Pentax made quite a few K-mount DSLRs so far, those are working - we have something to extrapolate from. I'm talking about expanding the product line upwards, not a complete departure into the unknown.
You are talking about a FF K-3 (ok, essentially talking about a ff k-3). What in your thinking would be new, what would lure users of other brands? What are your ideas? I see none. It's basically more of the same - just bigger.

QuoteQuote:
P.S. You're asking me questions but you won't say where will the non-AF customers come from... double standards?
I hate lies.
Come now. I have laid it out plainly: Your suggestion relies on current Pentax users upscaling to ff, my proposal relies on some current Pentax users upscaling and more importantly users of other brands coming around to Pentax. There are no double standards and certainly no lies that I can discern. I hate them too, btw.
07-03-2014, 11:55 AM   #379
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,714
QuoteOriginally posted by kadajawi Quote
@RonHendriks:
I don't think the savings would be so great. The lack of an EVF would make a reasonable difference, but it would also turn the camera into one that frequently isn't usable, depending on where you are. How about instead dropping the outside monitor, if you must, but keeping an EVF? You can still review shots on the EVF. It would also allow for a thinner body, which due to SR would get thicker.


Why wouldn't someone who is not that rich, not that much into photography etc. buy a FF? Why not an APS-C camera?
On the first thing, the backscreen. Didn't think of it, but is possible to leave off the camera and make the camera thinner. Starting from mirrorless, since that is thinner then dslr you could save another ?? milimeters:



It isn't cheaper I think, but could be working. There is one other way to add a larger backscreen and that could be separate from the body. Communicating either wired or without. So you would have a mirrorless K-mount that is thinner then the K-01 with full frame sensor and a separate (optional) screen. Or maybe have that working on your smartphone. Sounds even great.


Last edited by RonHendriks1966; 07-03-2014 at 12:32 PM.
07-03-2014, 12:07 PM   #380
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
Wwjd? Wwgd!

QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Pentax should hire the entire software industry, making sure nobody would be left to work for Canon .
That's the answer that comes from asking WWGD.

("What Would Google Do?")

07-03-2014, 12:13 PM   #381
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 287
QuoteOriginally posted by kadajawi Quote
I don't have a problem understanding other people have different needs. However the question is how many are there that have YOUR needs and are willing to spend a high amount on it. If you thought the number of customers for a regular FF Pentax are small... the number of those willing to buy a FF MF Pentax are microscopic. Btw. I argue that even the numbers for a normal FF Pentax are too low to make sense.


Camera makers have been trying to solve the AF viewfinder problem for the past 30 or so years. I think it's safe to say we've reached the optimum for an optical viewfinder. Unless you use AF sensors on the image sensor there's not much you can do, and at that point the viewfinder becomes useless.
I hope Ricoh employ an office full of young energetic junior marketing types fresh out of business school who will shed light on those questions. I hope they also have an old master yoda who will not believe everything the marketing department says.

Meanwhile, did I ask you or kunzite for reliable marketing intelligence of future units sold? No.
So we can go around for ever w/o getting anywhere.
You want a K-3 with monster video - or perhaps rather MILC - and you think/do not think that enough people will buy it.
Kunzite wants a big K-3 but isn't so keen on video. He is note sure enough people will buy it either.
I want a big ovf. I'm not sure enough people will buy it either - but at least the caveman-cam will cost decidedly less to develop.

Let's just hope that Ricoh marketing is as good as some of the cameras from Ricoh imaging. I'm sure we can agree on that.
07-03-2014, 12:42 PM   #382
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,651
QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
Come again? I cannot make heads or tails of that sentence.



That will depend. As a rule of thumb, the newer the lens the poorer it focusses manually. One of my arguments from previous discussions was always that such a camera fits very well with legacy lenses as well as the limiteds (they mf just peachy) and the entire 'lens philosophy' of Pentax. Will they again develop made for mf lenses ā la Cosina Voigtländer, sort of a neo-Takumar? It will depend on the success of the camera in the market. If I am correct to think that this camera is the bait for CaNikon users, then certainly such lenses would be the hook. Or the camera is the hook with the limiteds being the bait.
Regardless, it is an ill suited camera for zoom afficionados. Fortunately they have a bevy of choices and need not feel bad: Good things come to those who wait



You are talking about a FF K-3 (ok, essentially talking about a ff k-3). What in your thinking would be new, what would lure users of other brands? What are your ideas? I see none. It's basically more of the same - just bigger.



Come now. I have laid it out plainly: Your suggestion relies on current Pentax users upscaling to ff, my proposal relies on some current Pentax users upscaling and more importantly users of other brands coming around to Pentax. There are no double standards and certainly no lies that I can discern. I hate them too, btw.
Made for MF lenses are especially popular with video users.


Canon makes them too:

This line is supposed to be the best Canon makes IIRC. And they are really expensive.


Should Pentax chose to make MF focused lenses (perhaps with the option of AF still?) they could market them for video folks. They are willing to spend money on that.


Are you sure people will come from Canikon (where they have all the manual lenses) and switch to Pentax (where they don't have lenses) because of a bigger, brighter viewfinder? Ambitious.


Are you sure the development, and especially manufacturing of a caveman FF would be so much cheaper? An upscaled K-3 could use the same AF sensor, though that would be suboptimal. Or the K-3 successor could be a downscaled FF camera with the only difference being a smaller sensor. And what with my idea of hacking a camera into an AF less camera? Essentially you'd replace the mirror, and you'd have to make sure it has the right thickness. Then you've got a brighter viewfinder. Add a viewfinder loupe, and you've got the size you'll like. Didn't Canon make a DSLR without IR filter? Or Nikon stripped a camera of the AA filter by hand.


@RonHendricks: Google Glass? :P We're moving into video territory there. I think a smartphone based screen IN ADDITION would be cool, though in terms of colour calibration and accuracy... the phones are all quite different. Some sort of screen has to be on the camera, like a viewfinder. The additional screen could be connected via a second HDMI port. In any case such a project wouldn't be that easy.
07-03-2014, 12:48 PM   #383
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,324
QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
Come again? I cannot make heads or tails of that sentence.
You said "Not every camera manufactured has to answer every need". If few people "need" (and, most important, are willing to pay for) a manual focus DSLR, Pentax doesn't have to make it.

QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
That will depend. As a rule of thumb, the newer the lens the poorer it focusses manually. One of my arguments from previous discussions was always that such a camera fits very well with legacy lenses as well as the limiteds (they mf just peachy) and the entire 'lens philosophy' of Pentax. Will they again develop made for mf lenses ā la Cosina Voigtländer, sort of a neo-Takumar? It will depend on the success of the camera in the market. If I am correct to think that this camera is the bait for CaNikon users, then certainly such lenses would be the hook. Or the camera is the hook with the limiteds being the bait.
Regardless, it is an ill suited camera for zoom afficionados. Fortunately they have a bevy of choices and need not feel bad: Good things come to those who wait
I doubt it is correct to think that CaNikon users are just waiting to give up on autofocus.

QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
You are talking about a FF K-3 (ok, essentially talking about a ff k-3). What in your thinking would be new, what would lure users of other brands? What are your ideas? I see none. It's basically more of the same - just bigger.
Thinking of it as a K-3 is too limiting so for the Nth time, I'm not talking about a FF K-3.
Why should it be "new thinking"? And why that "new thinking" should be about going decades into the past? What's so wrong with following a consistent strategy instead of looking for unlikely niches?
I'm a Pentaxian because Pentax consistently makes products that I like/want.

QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
Come now. I have laid it out plainly: Your suggestion relies on current Pentax users upscaling to ff, my proposal relies on some current Pentax users upscaling and more importantly users of other brands coming around to Pentax. There are no double standards and certainly no lies that I can discern. I hate them too, btw.
You were asking me to explain how "my" ff k-3 will become the resounding success "I" implied (of course, it's not a FF K-3 nor did I ever implied a resounding success). OTOH, you're not providing such explanations - thus, double standards.

The current user base is the easiest market, and a safer bet than to assume there might be a "no autofocus" user group somewhere.

I never said anything about Pentax not continuing to develop cameras.

07-03-2014, 01:00 PM   #384
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 287
QuoteOriginally posted by kadajawi Quote
Made for MF lenses are especially popular with video users.


Canon makes them too:

This line is supposed to be the best Canon makes IIRC. And they are really expensive.


Should Pentax chose to make MF focused lenses (perhaps with the option of AF still?) they could market them for video folks. They are willing to spend money on that.


Are you sure people will come from Canikon (where they have all the manual lenses) and switch to Pentax (where they don't have lenses) because of a bigger, brighter viewfinder? Ambitious.


Are you sure the development, and especially manufacturing of a caveman FF would be so much cheaper? An upscaled K-3 could use the same AF sensor, though that would be suboptimal. Or the K-3 successor could be a downscaled FF camera with the only difference being a smaller sensor. And what with my idea of hacking a camera into an AF less camera? Essentially you'd replace the mirror, and you'd have to make sure it has the right thickness. Then you've got a brighter viewfinder. Add a viewfinder loupe, and you've got the size you'll like. Didn't Canon make a DSLR without IR filter? Or Nikon stripped a camera of the AA filter by hand.


@RonHendricks: Google Glass? :P We're moving into video territory there. I think a smartphone based screen IN ADDITION would be cool, though in terms of colour calibration and accuracy... the phones are all quite different. Some sort of screen has to be on the camera, like a viewfinder. The additional screen could be connected via a second HDMI port. In any case such a project wouldn't be that easy.
Well, it was the bountiful lenses for still cameras that got us into this 'a camera is not a camera unless it does 8k/120p' mess in the first place.
Believe me, given the price of real film lenses, I can sympathize with anyone who wants to marry video to a stills camera. But it doesn't have to affect every camera. And I remain convinced that the marriage will in part be dissolved again (for the dslr, milcs are different).

---------- Post added 03-07-14 at 22:19 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
You said "Not every camera manufactured has to answer every need". If few people "need" (and, most important, are willing to pay for) a manual focus DSLR, Pentax doesn't have to make it.
'Doesn't have to' goes without saying. They have to pay their bills, that's about it.

"I doubt it is correct to think that CaNikon users are just waiting to give up on autofocus."
Doubt, crud and fud! You make it sound like a sucessful Pentax camera would require every CaNikon user to switch our way. In plain terms that is Bull. And of course I never said anything like it. I did point out that some CaNikon users (and not just they) - those over forty who started out in the pre-digital, pre-autofocus age will be likely candidates for such a camera. You cannot seriously deny that there is no such demand in this world. How strong it is, we will only know after someone attempts to offer such a camera.

QuoteQuote:
Thinking of it as a K-3 is too limiting so for the Nth time, I'm not talking about a FF K-3.
Why should it be "new thinking"? And why that "new thinking" should be about going decades into the past? What's so wrong with following a consistent strategy instead of looking for unlikely niches?
I'm a Pentaxian because Pentax consistently makes products that I like/want.
Look, I'm trying hard to see something in your thinking that points beyond a FF K-3. I do not find it. You want the complete feature set of a K-3 with a ff sensor. You point to nothing specifically new. What would you call that?

To think that this whole debate revolves about me daring to suggest that a ff pentax with a big ovf would be my kind of camera and then having the temerity to suggest that it would even make sense for Pentax to make one. Jeeezuz


QuoteQuote:
You were asking me to explain how "my" ff k-3 will become the resounding success "I" implied (of course, it's not a FF K-3 nor did I ever implied a resounding success). OTOH, you're not providing such explanations - thus, double standards.

The current user base is the easiest market, and a safer bet than to assume there might be a "no autofocus" user group somewhere.

I never said anything about Pentax not continuing to develop cameras.
Already answered - scroll back.
07-03-2014, 01:49 PM   #385
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,324
You said "CaNikon users", I said "CaNikon users"; yet you were right in saying so and I'm wrong? Double standards.

People over forty, you mean those with their vision gradually getting worse? I see no indication they tend to prefer manual focus cameras. Usually when people are talking about removing features, it's in the hope it will get them a much cheaper product, and they want to fit some old lenses on it (pay less for the camera, not buying new lenses). What's possible, what's desirable for a large enough number of people, that some ideas failed in the past or were surpassed and the fact that Ricoh Imaging is in this business for profit is forgotten.

But, we have prolonged too much this useless discussion. The less sense a camera idea has, the more it is defended So let's do this, I'll buy this Pentax FF when it will be launched (probably next year) and I'll let you wonder what if someone would make a manual focus DSLR

Have fun thinking about it!
07-03-2014, 01:57 PM   #386
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 287
QuoteOriginally posted by ChristianRock Quote
Perhaps the caveman FF should be in its own thread? It's already completely derailed this one...
Good point. What did the OP want again?

QuoteQuote:
The real deal is if Ricoh can develop mirrorless cameras that harken back the days of the film SLRs like the ME Super and K1000. It seems the nostalgia is one of the driving factors of camera design (Nikon, anyone?) and I'm sure the same guys who asked Marc Newson to design the KO-1 can bring something more stated and reminiscent of those wonderful film cameras.
ME Super, K1000! So other than discussing ff rather than aps-c we are still very much on track!

---------- Post added 03-07-14 at 23:13 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
You said "CaNikon users", I said "CaNikon users"; yet you were right in saying so and I'm wrong? Double standards.
I say a FF K-3 ā la Kunzite will attract no users from other brands. I say a caveman-cam will attract users from other brands because it constitutes a unique selling proposition. Got it? usp, manufacturers kill for that sort of thing, even if it doesn't guarantee success. No double standards involved, just straight thinking.

Finally your FF K-3 flies completely in the face of anything that has so far been said by RP re a possible full format camera. Didn't they say they'd surprise the industry? A FF K-3 is perfectly predictable.

QuoteQuote:
People over forty, you mean those with their vision gradually getting worse? I see no indication they tend to prefer manual focus cameras. Usually when people are talking about removing features, it's in the hope it will get them a much cheaper product, and they want to fit some old lenses on it (pay less for the camera, not buying new lenses). What's possible, what's desirable for a large enough number of people, that some ideas failed in the past or were surpassed and the fact that Ricoh Imaging is in this business for profit is forgotten.

But, we have prolonged too much this useless discussion. The less sense a camera idea has, the more it is defended So let's do this, I'll buy this Pentax FF when it will be launched (probably next year) and I'll let you wonder what if someone would make a manual focus DSLR

Have fun thinking about it!
Mercifully I don't have to wait for you to buy a camera to have fun. You overestimate your importance by a significant factor.
07-03-2014, 02:32 PM   #387
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,651
@eyeswideshut: I don't see the separation of stills and videos in DSLRs, unless DSLRs die as a professional tool, and pro's just use MILC instead. Now of course Pentax can ignore the professional market, as they have so far, but I bet people who get paid to shoot are also more willing to spend on gear, as the gear pays for itself. My K-5 was in parts paid for by my company back then, and the rest of it was paid for by freelance work.


The cameras need to do both well. Not being good enough at video excludes quite a few potential customers, no matter how much the camera would suit their needs otherwise.
07-03-2014, 02:40 PM   #388
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,324
QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
I say a FF K-3 ā la Kunzite will attract no users from other brands.
That's a FF a la Pentax. The K-3 is a Pentax camera, not a Kunzite camera - in case you didn't notice; I'm not talking about a "FF K-3" anyway (didn't I said that enough times?).

QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
I say a caveman-cam will attract users from other brands because it constitutes a unique selling proposition. Got it? usp, manufacturers kill for that sort of thing, even if it doesn't guarantee success. No double standards involved, just straight thinking.
There's nothing straight about your thinking, just stubbornness in pushing your idea. Others are obsessing with repeating the K-01 failure in a larger scale, others are seeking for imaginary APS-H sensors - yours is the caveman camera.
And it's not an USP if it won't sell.

QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
Finally your FF K-3 flies completely in the face of anything that has so far been said by RP re a possible full format camera. Didn't they say they'd surprise the industry? A FF K-3 is perfectly predictable.
Ricoh Imaging never implied what you're suggesting, and again it's not "FF K-3". Don't try to make up things or attribute the nonsense speculated (wild speculation based on one word, translated from Japanese - how insane is that?) in this forum to Pentax/Ricoh, I remember the interviews.

QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
Mercifully I don't have to wait for you to buy a camera to have fun. You overestimate your importance by a significant factor.
You're overestimating your ability (actually, willingness) to read. Never said you'd have to wait for me.
P.S. It's not "FF K-3".
07-04-2014, 02:00 AM   #389
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,122
Wow... This thread is moving fast! I have to agree with Kunzite here. Leaving out valueable features that can be toggled on/off anyway will only shoot Pentax in the foot. Just like going only halfway with the sensor... that doesn't even exist.

I've tried the A7s in the store. That low light capability sure is something. Then yesterday I was shooting a dimly lit indoor sports event with my K5. Oh that sensor would be great in a high FPS DSLR. So, what about using that ultra-sensitive A7s sensor in a Pentax DSLR? It fits the Pentax image of a durable camera that can shoot in bad conditions... So, low light conditions too. Moreover, there is no DSLR yet with that sensor.

It would certainly have something extra over a mediocre try-to-please-all 24/36mp late-to-the-party why-would-anybody-get-one FF DSLR.
07-04-2014, 03:11 AM   #390
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,651
@Clavius: eyeswideshut's suggestion does have advantages, namely a brighter viewfinder, that as a result can be bigger. However that advantage comes with a trade-off that I'm afraid for many will be just too big. And such a camera also appeals to customers who want to recycle old lenses. Unless Pentax is going to make new MF only lenses (they could perhaps justify it if they made a much more video centric camera) that's not what they want. Also, these MF only lenses are usually _very_ expensive. Canon sells their MF only primes for $5000 each IIRC, and that is relatively affordable. I'm afraid of those who would actually want such a camera, many are rather budget conscious (including eyeswideshut, who wants a relatively cheap FF camera IIRC).


Hm. A Pentax FF camera, mirrorless or not, with that A7s sensor would be tempting, as long as dimensions and weight are there.


@eyeswideshut: I'm the one talking about a FF K-3, not Kunzite. Moving the K-3 successor upmarket, and then building the same camera (complete with FF viewfinder) with APS-C and FF sensors (perhaps even 2 versions, one with the A7s sensor, one with a more conventional one) would be appealing to me. They just need to keep the size and weight low enough.


Am I the only one who finds a larger than sensor viewfinder appealing? It was IIRC touted as an advantage of the Sigma, and it's also an advantage on rangefinder cameras. It's great for street photography. It's great for sports photography. Anything where there is movement. It makes it much easier to await the right moment for your composition, if your motive is moving. Pentax wants to be different? Then be different.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
24x36mm, adapter, af, aps-c, bodies, body, cameras, ergonomics, film, frame, full frame camera, full-frame, k-01, lcd, lenses, market, micro four thirds, mirroless camera, mirrorless, pentax, people, ricoh, sensor, shutter, size, struggle, time
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Full Frame NEX is going to be announced in October ! jogiba Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 30 09-15-2013 03:23 PM
Pentax does not care about Full Frame Watson Pentax Full Frame 88 08-19-2013 04:53 AM
Are Any of The 17-50 (or in that range) Lenses Full Frame? reivax Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 12 02-04-2013 07:38 PM
Do you think in the long run, DA lenses are a bad buy? Size of CCDs in the future Capslock118 Pentax DSLR Discussion 28 11-07-2010 06:46 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:23 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top