how would you guys feel about being merged?

[philg]

Folks:

 

How would you all feel about being merged into "Medium Format" or "Pentax"?

We're trying to do a forums reorg and simplify things for new users, especially

so that they don't get pushed down into an inactive forum such as this one has

become. If we simply deactivate the forum, it will still appear in Google but

there won't be any links within the site to it. The downside of pushing this

into Medium Format, for example, is that all the postings would then have the

"Pentax 67" category because we have no way to have sub-categories (i.e., the

hard work of categorization will have been lost, at least temporarily; we'll

still have the info in the RDBMS and can possibly bring it back one day when the

forum software is rewritten).

 

So... What should it be?

 

1) leave this alone; we love it!

 

2) move into Medium Format (we are dropping the "digest")

 

3) move into Pentax

 

Please respond here in the forum.

 

Thanks,

 

Philip

[dougmiles]

Bypassing #1, it seems to be a question on whether we P67 enthusiasts identify more strongly with our medium-format cousins or with the rest of the Pentax family... which seems increasingly devoted to digital-related issues. Medium Format is more film-oriented (though not exclusively), already includes P645, and we might have more in common there.

[seandepuydt]

My vote is for Medium Format (2)

[rick_sikora]

2) move into Medium Format

 

thanks for asking

[rwbowman]

#2

 

But as Riley said, "what a revolting development."

[nigel d]

I think P67 is sufficiently different from other medium format systems that it deserves its own unique forum. However, it appears that you are quite intent on merging. If merging is the only option, then medium format makes more sense, as P67 users have more in common with other medium format film users than with the Pentax digital folks that inhabit the Pentax forum. So the order of preference then is 1, 2, and last 3.

[richard_brown1]

My vote is for #1.. But #2 would work for me..

 

Thanks,

 

Richard.

[ilkka]

2 3 1 in my order of preference.

[thomas_janik]

Philip:

 

I would choose option #1, for several reasons. You are concerned that new users might find themselves in an inactive forum. Why would they go to the Pentax 67 forum, they won�t know what it is. Having a separate category for the 67 doesn�t require anymore space than storing the threads under MF and, as you have pointed out, searching under the current classification will be more useful. The people on this forum love this camera, although all of us are aware of its shortcomings and its strengths. The camera�s quirks are unique to the 67 and so have less in common with MF cameras in general than might be expected. This is a landmark camera in the history of photography, it may fade or be reincarnated in digital form, but its time is not yet past.

 

Second choice is #2

 

Thanks for asking.

[trooper]

I'm a P67 user but not very active in the forum but I'll toss in a vote for #1, then #2. The forum has become more of an archive resource than an active discussion area. Would a merge make it more difficult to mine information for people specifically searching out P67 info?

 

I also agree that the Pentax brand has morphed into an identity related to digital and will become more so in the future so #3 doesn't strike me as logical.

[dave_cheng1]

#1 please. This forum is unique and does not belog to other forums.

[calvin_lee]

I vote for option #2.

[ernst_thiel1]

Please leave this alone. We are the last of the real "photographers" :-)

If money is the issue, I guess most of us won't mind a small contribution.

So I prefer, 1,2,3

 

Kind regards,

Ernst

[stp]

I won't voice a loud opinion, because I use a Pentax 645 rather than a 67. However,

I've owned a 67, love the system, and would like to hear more regularly from those

who use it. I regularly participate in the medium format forum, and I hope the 67

users will generally choose #2.

[trace_dibble6]

I, for one, would very much dislike seeing the demise of this forum, even if that demise was limited to reincarnation. I've poked my nose in here for almost a decade, a span in which I've seen the photographic landscape change around me due primarily to digital tremors, with many a casualty. Being somewhat slow to stampede, I've held my ground even as one tool after another has slipped from my grasp, victims of market exigencies. I would certainly loathe the loss of yet another.

 

I mean no offense to the denizens of Photo.net, but the atmosphere here would certainly be damaged irreparably were the subject matter to become one endless battle of wits regarding the relative merits of Nikon vs. Canon, not unlike the pointless Ford vs. Chevy or Republican vs. Democrat debates one is sometimes inflicted to hear in bowling alleys or coffee houses.

 

Moreover, I respectfully disagree with Nigel. I used a Pentax 67 for years, sometimes both seeking and giving advise on problems peculiar to them, yet always, even in the doing, feeling more of a kinship to medium format adherents as a group than to P67 users specifically.

 

Keep it as it is, Phillip. Let us die with dignity.

[johnmarkpainter]

There is always a lot of P67 discussion on the Medium Format Forum anyway. I am an ex

P67 owner.....

[rod_sainty2]

It appears that the Pentax 67 forum has already been merged into the Medium Format forum, so it seems a bit pointless to still ask Philip for option (1) - leave this alone. Given the distinctive handling of the Pentax 67, I think a separate forum is justified. However, I agree with him that we share much more in common with the other medium format users than those at the increasingly digital Pentax forum.

 

I especially appreciated the manner in which Steve Rasmussen served in his role as administrator of the Pentax 67 forum. As his last few posts attest, he was (is!) both knowledgeable and informative. Thankyou, Steve.

[thomas_janik]

You have to wonder why Philip even offered option #1.

 

I second the thanks to Steve.

[tony_cunningham]

I see you have merged the forum with Medium Format without even bothering to wait for all the answers from the forum participents. Why did you find it necessary to insult us like this?

 

The strength of this forum WAS in its archives, not in the amount it is used daily. Compared to modern digital cameras the P67 system has a limited number of variables. We have reached a stage where 95% of all the quirks of the system have been covered and indeed the daily contributions have dwindled.

 

All the contributions from the past and particularly those from Steve R are presumably virtually impossible to find now.

 

Perhaps we should take this forum elsewhere. What do you think Steve? If we have lost the archive then I would be prepared to make a summary of what I can remember. If I was then to pass on this to other members for editing we could probably get enough on 'paper' to enable us to start again.

[tito sobrinho]

It should be only a Medium Format Digest. If you open a Pentax 67 sub-category, you should do a Hasselblad, Rolleiflex, Kiev66 etc as well.

 

The Medium Format Digest would lose its meaning!

[jerry_friedman]

I have been happy the way things are but option 2 would do fine too. My only concern is that no sub-catagories disappear, or that this main catagory becomes too difficult to maintain. There are fewer of us over time, I am sorry to say, and I would prefer to "include as many in" rather than dealing with issues of "purity". I use 6x6 Rolleis but find the discussion concerning any other format or marques of interest if only because it is NOT something I would normally pay attention to. Or, over the years, I have moved from one system to another and may have something to contribute to someone just discovering the virtues of Xreflex. -- So, with great thanks to the moderator and to all those who work to keep this forum alive, please do whatever makes your life easier. Of course, I am assuming, even over time, you will not ever include LEICA......:>)

 

Many thanks, Jerry

[donald_brewster]

Option 2.

[leicaglow]

1 or 2. The digest isn't needed. Pentax makes a MF camera?<g>

[ron_payne]

I vote for #4: Pentax film i.e. all 35mm (K-mount and M42) and medium format Pentax cameras. Put Pentax digital in it's own forum.

Regards,

Ron.

Sorry, I'm grumpy today.

[steve_rasmussen]

Recently I have considered asking the P67 group the same question, about whether to merge P67 into MF Digest. The reason was that there were many questions being asked about the P67 on the MF forum. There was obvious overlap. I guess Phil beat me to it. If the consensus was to move, then so be it.

 

It must be remembered that the P67 forum came from Phil's LUSENET and was added to Photo.net after LUSENET had storage issues. So, the P67 forum was not a part of Photo.net's original structure. So, there was overlap. Since it is only one camera system, we don't get the posts that other forums get. That can be expected.

 

So now we can judge how it used to be, with the P67 forum on its own, vs how it is today, with it being subsumed into MF forum. We can see both options and judge, which one works best for us, the customer. It is my personal opinion that the new merger is way too ackward to use. If it remains this way, I would vote for a return to the old "stand alone" P67 forum. If Photo.net refuses to listen to the sentiment of its members/contributors, it will lose participation. Without participation, there is no Photo.net!

 

 

 

Steve Rasmussen

P67 Moderator since 1997

 

P.S. Thanks for the kind words above guys.