From: Pete D on

"John Bean" <waterfoot(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:q4lo339ratpu6g0tk4uuarmv09p525p3lj(a)4ax.com...
> On Sat, 5 May 2007 08:32:52 +1000, "Pete D" <no(a)email.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"John Bean" <waterfoot(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:jmem33d6tje3sd7v6d3mr4ntrams2ot16e(a)4ax.com...
>>> On 4 May 2007 06:15:08 -0700, Charlie Self
>>> <charliediy(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On May 4, 9:02?am, John Bean <waterf...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 4 May 2007 04:36:33 -0700, Charlie Self
>>>>>
>>>>> <charlie...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> >I just checked U.S. prices for the K10D and the Samsung. Straight
>>>>> >body, K10D is $850 (minus 50 buck rebate), Samsung is $1000. hat's
>>>>> >at B&H. Not for me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Charlie, the OP is quoting UK prices so I assume he's in the
>>>>> UK. Samsung sells for a *much* lower price than Pentax in
>>>>> the UK, not the other way around as it seems to be in the
>>>>> US.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's why I have a Samsung SA50-200 rather than a Pentax
>>>>> DA50-200 on my DS.
>>>>
>>>>John: Is the swing that great? When the rebate is knocked off, we're
>>>>talking about a $200 difference for essentially the same product.
>>>
>>> We have no rebates :-(
>>>
>>> There's a lot of variation but taking a single supplier who
>>> sells both the Samsung "kit" will sell for about the same
>>> price as the Pentax body, so you basically get the lenses
>>> free. The kit lenses are not cheap in the UK, I paid �129
>>> for my Samsung 50-200, the Pentax was �169 - that's over
>>> $300... So yes, you could easily save the equivalent of $200
>>> in the UK by buying a Samsung rather than Pentax, depending
>>> on what kit you buy.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Certainly, if I could get a GX10 for $200 less than the Pentax, I'd be
>>>>at least poised to leap, even though I don't really have the hots for
>>>>either one...but at $600!
>>>>
>>>>Of course, the OP was writing about either pounds or euros, both of
>>>>which are worth more than the buck. And his cost was $1,195. Argh!
>>>>Ouch. That's my wallet screaming in commiseration. I'm complaining
>>>>about, essentially, an $825 K10D. I apologize.
>>>
>>> Yep, that's the way it is. After saving your $200 equivalent
>>> by buying Samsung instead of Pentax here in the UK you would
>>> still be paying $200 more than US prices for Pentax. It's a
>>> funny old world.
>>
>>And the Samsung only supports DNG so you need double the memory compared
>>to
>>PEF files when you shoot RAW.
>
> I fail to see how that's pertinent to this part of the
> discussion Pete. In the UK you can save a lot by buying
> Samsung rather than Pentax - and memory is getting cheaper
> almost by the minute. In the US (and maybe other places) the
> Samsung price isn't competitive so it's a moot point anyway.
>
> You probably know my feelings about equipment from dpreview
> and other places, and I'm a fairly strong supporter of
> Pentax. But your articles in this thread do neither you nor
> Pentax any favours, instead you come across as an
> evangelical fanboy.
>
> The OP is equally silly in his bashing of the K10D since
> independant tests have shown no significant difference in
> image quality, but his point about the UK pricing is
> absolutely valid.
>
> --
> John Bean

That was my whole point John, it was a sill post and things he said were
simply not true. The price difference in the UK is probably the only thing
he said that was actually correct. UK pricing for many things is off the
planet but to use that for the whole basis of a pretty much untrue attack
for no good reason known only to the OP and if you chack back through my
posts I never refuted the prices.

Pretty good post for his first post, silly me for sounding like a fanboi.

Cheers.

Back to it.

Pete


From: John Bean on
On Sat, 5 May 2007 21:34:26 +1000, "Pete D" <no(a)email.com>
wrote:
>The price difference in the UK is probably the only thing
>he said that was actually correct.

Yep. But it's a valid reason to go the Samsung route if
you're not brand-sensitive. The rest was drivel, not worth
the effort of responding.

>Pretty good post for his first post, silly me for sounding like a fanboi.

He baited you - he actually said so up front - and you went
for it. Bad move.

"Never wrestle with a pig - you both get dirty but only the
pig enjoys it."

"Don't argue with a fool, he'll drag you down to his level
and beat you with experience."

Et cetera...

>Back to it.

Good idea :-)

--
John Bean
From: Pete D on

"John Bean" <waterfoot(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7lso33t41mktmbhr5khi5k27onhvcke19n(a)4ax.com...
> On Sat, 5 May 2007 21:34:26 +1000, "Pete D" <no(a)email.com>
> wrote:
>>The price difference in the UK is probably the only thing
>>he said that was actually correct.
>
> Yep. But it's a valid reason to go the Samsung route if
> you're not brand-sensitive. The rest was drivel, not worth
> the effort of responding.
>
>>Pretty good post for his first post, silly me for sounding like a fanboi.
>
> He baited you - he actually said so up front - and you went
> for it. Bad move.
>
> "Never wrestle with a pig - you both get dirty but only the
> pig enjoys it."
>
> "Don't argue with a fool, he'll drag you down to his level
> and beat you with experience."
>
> Et cetera...
>
>>Back to it.
>
> Good idea :-)
>
> --
> John Bean

Cheers.

Seeya in the forums.



From: RichA on
On May 4, 6:39 pm, Charlie Self <charlie...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 4, 12:36?pm, RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 4, 9:15 am, Charlie Self <charlie...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 4, 9:02?am, John Bean <waterf...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 4 May 2007 04:36:33 -0700, Charlie Self
>
> > > > <charlie...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >I just checked U.S. prices for the K10D and the Samsung. Straight
> > > > >body, K10D is $850 (minus 50 buck rebate), Samsung is $1000. ?That's
> > > > >at B&H. Not for me.
>
> > > > Charlie, the OP is quoting UK prices so I assume he's in the
> > > > UK. Samsung sells for a *much* lower price than Pentax in
> > > > the UK, not the other way around as it seems to be in the
> > > > US.
>
> > > > That's why I have a Samsung SA50-200 rather than a Pentax
> > > > DA50-200 on my DS.
>
> > > > --
> > > > John Bean
>
> > > John: Is the swing that great? When the rebate is knocked off, we're
> > > talking about a $200 difference for essentially the same product.
> > > Certainly, if I could get a GX10 for $200 less than the Pentax, I'd be
> > > at least poised to leap, even though I don't really have the hots for
> > > either one...but at $600!
>
> > > Of course, the OP was writing about either pounds or euros, both of
> > > which are worth more than the buck. And his cost was $1,195. Argh!
> > > Ouch. That's my wallet screaming in commiseration. I'm complaining
> > > about, essentially, an $825 K10D. I apologize.
>
> > For whatever reason, that Samsung is MIA, where exactly can you find
> > stock in the U.S.? ?Kind of hard ?to sell vapourware.
> > Reminds me of the Olympus E-400 debacle.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home;jsessionid=G716HwwN1q...

Damn! I was just at a camera show, didn't see the thing at the
Samsung booth. Would have been nice to compare it directly to the
Pentax.

From: mark.thomas.7 on
On May 4, 9:06 am, "Sam" <n...(a)thisaddress.net> wrote:
> Just in case anyone was wondering whether the Samsung GX-10 (K10D clone) is
> as good as the Pentax version, wonder no more - it's better.
>
> Having owned both cameras I can state that the Samsung JPG algorithm
> produces noticeably sharper (yet also smoother) results.
>
> The infamous banding issue of under-exposed images is also reduced - to the
> point where RAW files (DNG only on the GX-10) opened in Lightroom eliminate
> the phenomenon completely when compared to the same image opened in Silkypix
> (Adobe obviously likes its own format)
>
> The menu system is also much improved over the Pentax version - much more
> modern and aesthetically pleasing. Build quality is exactly the same - but
> the Samsung comes with a 2 year warranty in the UK, and costs only £600 for
> the 2 lens kit.
>
> On the subject of the supplied lenses - I had planned to sell both lenses
> immediately on ebay (18-55 & 50-200) but they are so sharp and generally
> pleasing that I see no need to splash out on anything better at the moment.
> I have some considerable experience of various Pentax glass, including the
> 18-55, 50-200, and a couple of the Limiteds (as well as many others) so I
> know what constitutes a good example. There is no reason why the Samsung
> brand lenses would be better than the Pentax version - so it appears that
> (for once in my life) I got lucky and landed two samples at the better end
> of the tolerance range.
>
> All in all I'm a happier camper than I've been for a couple of years trying
> cameras from Pentax Nikon and Fuji, now that Samsung have released a battery
> grip to fit the slightly deeper grip profile of the GX-10 I see no reason
> for buying the Pentax product.
>
> So, if you're debating the merits of the two cameras - buy the Samsung with
> confidence - I doubt that you'll be disappointed.
>
> Regards

Sam(sung? - a tribute perhaps, or do you work for them, or is it just
a happy coincidence?), you've made a strong claim that would be far
better served by examples. And they should be easy to post - in fact
one wonders why you haven't, given that you infer you have closely
examined and compared similar scenes.

Like Pete, I am a little puzzled by your angry defence and sudden
appearance - only one post ever? Forgive the cynicism (and call me a
monkey too if it makes you feel better), but given manufacturers are
known to plant these sort of posts, can you offer anything to prove
you aren't in that category? It is also a tiny bit puzzling that you
claim to be an owner of both cameras (why?), but also say that you
have spent "a couple of years trying cameras from Pentax Nikon and
Fuji" .. Do you buy to try?

Frankly, if you are after the best quality it is already well known
that (most of?) the Pentaxes give their best from Raw, so I'm not sure
why this is such a huge deal.

FWIW I own neither camera, so have no axes to grind...