Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-29-2011, 04:17 PM   #121
New Member




Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: ragusa, Sicily
Posts: 14
QuoteOriginally posted by jstevewhite Quote
Get the 8mm from Samyang! Done, and done! Or the 10-20 Sigma.
done. and I don't like it both. I do like the panasonic 7-14: mirrorless. I do like the zeiss 18mm: fullframe. Try before buy

06-29-2011, 05:14 PM   #122
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by la_nonna Quote
done. and I don't like it both. I do like the panasonic 7-14: mirrorless. I do like the zeiss 18mm: fullframe. Try before buy
Fair enough; Just sayin', "I don't like it" isn't the same thing as "it doesn't exist", right? It's perfectly reasonable to say "I don't like any of the options available on APS-c for UWA". It's not quite as reasonable to say "There are no UWA lenses for APS-c, so Pentax must go FF or suck."
06-29-2011, 05:16 PM   #123
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,250
QuoteOriginally posted by la_nonna Quote
done. and I don't like it both. I do like the panasonic 7-14: mirrorless. I do like the zeiss 18mm: fullframe. Try before buy
I think the Sigma 8-16 is a very nice lens. It would be the rectilinear answer to wide angle full frame.
06-29-2011, 07:56 PM   #124
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Florida
Photos: Albums
Posts: 235
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
For a long time Canon's name was with the photocopiers that trumped Xerox Canon was seen as a bit gimmicky compared to Nikon and Pentax, both"serious" camera companies. Then the world went all AF and electronic and suddenly Canon had an edge in adapting microprocessors to cameras (as did Minolta who had a better vision). Nikon, Olympus, and Pentax were caught flat-footed.

When did Canon have the reputation as 'gimmicky'? Are you talking about the 90's just prior to the Digital camera?

Was Canon considered 'a' or 'the' premier camera company during the film days, or was Nikon the leader (SLR's)?

Just curious... I believe you, just didn't know they were considered below Nikon and Pentax at any time...

Thanks,
Bill

06-29-2011, 08:49 PM   #125
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by Snydly Quote
When did Canon have the reputation as 'gimmicky'? Are you talking about the 90's just prior to the Digital camera?
Autofocus happened in the 80s, so it must have been before that. I'm not sure how exactly each company was perceived, but Canon did get ahead of the others in the 80s by dropping their FD mount - a bold move that has paid off.
06-29-2011, 09:37 PM   #126
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,212
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
Autofocus happened in the 80s, so it must have been before that. I'm not sure how exactly each company was perceived, but Canon did get ahead of the others in the 80s by dropping their FD mount - a bold move that has paid off.
Actually, Canon started out with the AL-1 (introduced in 1982) which competed with the ME F. It wasn't AF but had an electronic rangefinder for focus assist. Canon introduced the Electro-Optical-System, EOS in 1987 to catchup to Minolta's Maxxuum. Of course Pentax busted out the SF-1 (SFX) that year. The thing that allowed them to catch Minolta was the huge settlement they made to Honeywell over bogus or dubious patent claims but that is another story.
06-30-2011, 12:54 AM   #127
New Member




Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: ragusa, Sicily
Posts: 14
QuoteOriginally posted by jstevewhite Quote
Fair enough; Just sayin', "I don't like it" isn't the same thing as "it doesn't exist", right? It's perfectly reasonable to say "I don't like any of the options available on APS-c for UWA". It's not quite as reasonable to say "There are no UWA lenses for APS-c, so Pentax must go FF or suck."
I just said that its harder to build UWA for aps-c dslr. Of course they exist but they are not as good as the ff or mirrorless ones (at least the ones that I tried).
06-30-2011, 04:05 AM   #128
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,250
QuoteOriginally posted by la_nonna Quote
I just said that its harder to build UWA for aps-c dslr. Of course they exist but they are not as good as the ff or mirrorless ones (at least the ones that I tried).
Is it actually harder to build ultra wide angles for APS-C, or is it that most companies expend their effort doing it for full frame? Seems like it shouldn't really be harder or easier, just different.

Seems like a lot of companies these days don't engineer their lenses quite as much and just expect the users to use software to correct distortion, vignetting, etc in post. Seems kind of sloppy to me...

06-30-2011, 06:41 AM   #129
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,212
QuoteOriginally posted by la_nonna Quote
I just said that its harder to build UWA for aps-c dslr. Of course they exist but they are not as good as the ff or mirrorless ones (at least the ones that I tried).
The mirroless m4/3 lenses generally suck. Example, the Lumix 14mm and Oly 17mm have some major distortion going on but it is fixed by the in-camera processing or if shot in ORF by pp software. Plus, m4/3 is smaller than aps-c which actually makes it an even bigger challenge from a field of view standpoint. If aps-c sux, then it is still going to suk in mirrorless.
06-30-2011, 06:46 AM   #130
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,270
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
The mirroless m4/3 lenses generally suck. Example, the Lumix 14mm and Oly 17mm have some major distortion going on but it is fixed by the in-camera processing or if shot in ORF by pp software. Plus, m4/3 is smaller than aps-c which actually makes it an even bigger challenge from a field of view standpoint. If aps-c sux, then it is still going to suk in mirrorless.
the smaller the sensor the harder to make good UWA in general, on the flip Good Telephoto is easier for the most part
the idea of in camera correction versus building a lens correctly drives me nuts
My DA 14 (21 Equiv FOV) is decent enough on apsC but i haven't used any of the truly UWA with it (mind you even on film i rarely went wider than 21mm on 35mm and 40mm (24 equiv FOV) on 645 so I don't find it a hardship
06-30-2011, 06:48 AM - 1 Like   #131
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,922
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
Autofocus happened in the 80s, so it must have been before that. I'm not sure how exactly each company was perceived, but Canon did get ahead of the others in the 80s by dropping their FD mount - a bold move that has paid off.
Nikon and Canon were #1 and #2 for the SLR rush of the late 60's to the 1980's. Minolta was usually #3, Pentax and Olympus both had a strong presence. Others nibbled at the higher or lower margin fringes, like Contax, who had the superb Zeiss lenses, Mamiya, etc.

But Canon went all photocopier mad in the 1970's and many pro photogs questioned their loyalty to their optics. Nikon was seen as the "premium" SLR producer, and Minolta an innovator. Olympus rocked the industry with the small format, tightly designed OM system which Pentax emulated. Pentax had a tremendous legacy to draw upon, but wasted some of that by sticking to the screwmount far too long.

Canon's wholesale change of mount from FD to EOS as well as brand, and product development is still what powers the company in photography today. In the 1980's, Canon's experience with microprocessors, mass marketing, channel distribution, etc. allowed them to trump everyone by integrating all of that into a comprehensive package from professional to amateur. They then plowed the $$ into R&D and started the cycle again. Canon gave away top-end product to esteemed, published photographers and started the ad campaigns you still see in National Geographic among other publications. Canon especially put money into optics. They never looked back. Despite some excellent camera bodies, Nikon struggled and for a time in the late 1980's actually fell behind in sales to Minolta.

Canon has vast resources to draw upon and a diversified industrial position. They make a fortune on printers. Nikon has, only recently, closed a 30-year gap on the camera side, and then only really at the higher-end, and Nikon's additional revenue streams are open to more market variability and long product cycles.

Olympus diversified and threw money at some good (rangefinders) and not so good projects because the OM system was emulated so much the brand lost its edge in the new world of AF, electronic shutters, and on-board microprocessors. They also over-priced. Pentax chugged along as did Konica, Contax, Mamiya, Fuji, etc. Many of the latter found new life in the 1980's with Medium Format products which fit in well with small design teams, hand assembly, and high-margins, selling to Yuppie prosumers and suburbanites with darkroom space who preferred 120 film to 35mm.

Minolta was not only hit by a massive Honeywell lawsuit that crippled it, but became something of a me-too company with regards to bodies and kind of let their lens development slide (the beercan exception) reliant on marketing ("The Mind of Minolta" has long been considered a very successful marketing sound bite) to drive sales. Minolta alienated a big chunk of its base by trying to do what Canon did and switch mounts from their MD to their Maxxum line. A lot of their business went to Canon, but Minolta, like Canon had some diversity (photocopiers).

I shot Minolta, Rollei, and Nikon back in the day. I still have a big set of very good Minolta MD equipment. If anyone has an MD 28/2.8 Rokkor in awesome shape....drop me a line :-)

One comment on glass: All companies made excellent glass in the early to mid-SLR days. All of them. Zeiss was probably the best, but you had to buy a Contax/Yashica esoteric body to get it. Everyone else in manual focus land made terrific glass: Pentax, Zuiko, Nikon, Canon, Rokkor. It was the early polycarbonate bodies with over-aggressive AF systems where glass really took a nosedive. This is where Canon started to leave the field behind, especially with their pro big glass and zooms. Canon simply had a better roadmap for the future.
06-30-2011, 07:51 AM   #132
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,270
good summary Aristophenes, the only thing i would point out is Pentax actually sold more DSLR then Nikon or Canon up to the early-mid 70's. all focused on amateurs though for the most part. Nikon with the F system really owned the pro market for quite a while, with Canon's A catching up in the early eighties. The Eos switch really pissed off a lot of Canon users most of whom went Nikon and the F series continued to be pretty amazing (i still think the F5 is the best pro film camera ever made)
Eos really won for canon on the mass market consumer side. for much the same reason it still does. they have a ton of visible pros (with those big white lenses) many of whom are sponsored to some degree or another, and they play it up in the ads for the consumer gear. Every new dad and soccer mom wants to feel like they can be a pro by getting the same camera as the pro's....of course what they get is a long way from what the pros use but it strokes their ego still. Nikon really lost a lot of pro's at the beginning of digital, they were just too slow out of the gate with a truly pro body - I know a lot of die hard Nikon guys who went Canon because of the bodies. some have moved back to take advantage of all their old glass but not many
As for Medium format doing well for prosumer yuppies and suburbanites, I think the vast majority of MF was sold to Wedding guys and Studio based pros
most weeding guys now of course shoot FF Canon or Nikon because the quality is there and it's what the client expects to see as well.
I for one don't expect Pentax to ever be a major FF player even once they get into it, But I think if they put some more focus on it they could own the MFD market (the 645 already got a big chunk of that share without have lenses in production etc)
06-30-2011, 08:09 AM   #133
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,212
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
Nikon and Canon were #1 and #2 for the SLR rush of the late 60's to the 1980's. Minolta was usually #3, Pentax and Olympus both had a strong presence. Others nibbled at the higher or lower margin fringes, like Contax, who had the superb Zeiss lenses, Mamiya, etc.

. . .
Actually, canon was a joke in the slr arena in the late 60s and early 70s. They turned it around with their L glass in the late 70s and early 80s but then dumped those with the L glass when they went eos. In 1981, Asahi Optical was the first manufacturer to produce 10 million SLR cameras.


Edit: http://www.aohc.it/milestone.htm

Last edited by Blue; 06-30-2011 at 09:06 AM.
06-30-2011, 08:22 AM   #134
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by eddie1960 Quote
(i still think the F5 is the best pro film camera ever made)
No way, man! The T90, all the way!

QuoteQuote:
Eos really won for canon on the mass market consumer side. for much the same reason it still does. they have a ton of visible pros (with those big white lenses) many of whom are sponsored to some degree or another, and they play it up in the ads for the consumer gear.
And in the early days of real AF (not the AF built into lenses, but the real stuff, the EOS stuff) Canon beat the crap out of EVERYONE. It was amazing (to those of us who didn't grow up with autofocus), and the debates were amusing. Many pros and enthusiasts insisted that 1) Af could never compete with a Real Photographer(TM), and 2) Anyone who couldn't focus their own damned lens was too lazy or too incompetent to be a photographer. Really, lots of 'em said that! LOL!

QuoteQuote:
As for Medium format doing well for prosumer yuppies and suburbanites, I think the vast majority of MF was sold to Wedding guys and Studio based pros
most weeding guys now of course shoot FF Canon or Nikon because the quality is there and it's what the client expects to see as well.
Yeah, I was going to say that the big sales of MF were to pros and dentists. I knew lots of wedding pros that did set shots with MF and action with 35mm; you really only needed MF for the 20x24 canvas prints that everyone was all excited about back then.

Nearly every commercial photographer I knew had a MF setup, and most had a 4x5; Some that I knew had no 35mm rig and rented a bag if they really needed it. But commercial photogs were a small fraction of the working pros; most were wedding and portrait photogs as you mentioned. I hated weddings, so that made up my mind for me when I set up my studio
06-30-2011, 08:44 AM   #135
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,922
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
Actually, canon was a joke in the slr arena in the late 60s and early 70s. The turned it around with their L glass in the late 70s and early 80s but then dumped those with the L glass when the went eos. In 1981, Asahi Optical was the first manufacturer to produce 10 million SLR cameras.
You're right about Canon until the A series. I remember a PopPhoto or some 1980's interview about Canon vs. Nikon vs. Everyone Else and what was remarkable about the EOS switch was how Canon said they wanted to make lots of money and sell this awesome new glass for the AF era, while the Nikon rep said they wanted to sell bodies for their existing glass.

Put another way: Canon was going to make much more money than Nikon based on advertising and pushing new everything with AF being the crown jewel. And they did.

I think the only other camera maker that "got it" then was Minolta because they were pretty close behind. In the 1970's cameras were an amateur fetish based on quality products and good old manufacturing. In the 1980's SLR's and quality RF's were mass consumer items with all sorts of user-friendly shortcuts that pros adopted to "get the shot". Canon simply was ahead of all competitors at reading the tea leaves. I also remember Nikon feuding with its retailers and distributors; that company has always had a mean streak while Canon is a smiling Buddha.

As an older teenager into photography in the early 1980's Pentax was like Oldsmobile: grandpa's brand. Despite innovations and firsts, Pentax really never shook that label for a younger crowd. Canon and Minolta were where the new tech was; they were the TransAms of cameras (not necessarily a good thing). Nikon was the pro stuff but sort of fuddy duddy and precious arrogant with brutally expensive glass. The Olympus OM series was showing its age. Contax and others were weird and most often over-priced. My "quaint" camera was a dear Rollei 35RS from Germany my mother gave me to match hers. At first I thumbed my nose at it (zone focusing...who cares?) but after about a year I realized that my skills had increased to the point where I could tell the camera what to do with assurance and did not need to rely on AF. Ironically, that's when cameras got cheaper for me!

It'sa good point about MF and the wedding crowd, but that was going on well before the boom in the 1980's 120 scene with Mamiya and Rollei all jumping in along with Pentax and of course, Hasselblad. I live in a neighborhood now where I have no less than 4 houses on one 2 block stretch with built-in 1980's darkrooms and studios where 120 was the thing as a hobby, not wedding biz. 35mm was for the mini-lab crowd. My photographer teacher in high school insisted we all shoot 135 while he shot MF!

I *lived* for photo and skateboarding magazines from about 1978 to 1988.
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!
camera, dslr, films, image, lenses, passion, pentax, photography, production, slr, switch
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How do the K5 photos compare to Full Frame camera photos as far as the "look" goes? crossover37 Pentax K-5 166 05-16-2011 07:24 PM
Full frame or improved AF. What do you want in the "K-8"? johnmflores Pentax DSLR Discussion 73 06-04-2010 11:35 AM
Nikon's 1998 vintage "full frame" DSLR pingflood General Talk 5 07-25-2009 05:44 PM
How does the camera "know" where the first frame starts? pbo Pentax Medium Format 9 07-08-2009 08:23 AM
German c't calls K-7 "full frame" falconeye Pentax News and Rumors 3 05-24-2009 11:18 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:59 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