Hi Ther are many reason for staying with Pentax or buying into a Pentax system. These are some of them, IMO: Durability (they may brake if you drop them - otherwise hardly ever - more than 80% of my repair cost were my own fault) Reliability, yet "cutting edge" technology Long time lens mount compatibility (use 30 years old lenses on brand new camera or vise versa) High quality glass - and still reasonably affordable Brilliant user interface; few buttons, no gimmicks; made like tools, not toys Models don't change too fast (supporting repair for many years) Huge number of used lenses and accessories available of many brands (K-mount).
If you have 10.000 USD you could buy any camera equipment. If you have 1.000 USD, buy a Pentax and e few lenses, and keep buliding up your system over the next 3 decades Regards Jens -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Peter Jansen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 22. marts 2003 20:39 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: WHY PENTAX? WAS: Re: Pentax <--> Canon >From the exchange of e-mails below from Roland & Alan, why are we using Pentax?????? Doesn't sound like a good system to buy into, and even long-time PDMLer's are making arguements against it. For me it is cost at the moment. I just expanding on my manual Pentax stuff slowly. I'd rather put my $$$ in film, trips, and marketing my work than a new system that may not improve my photography hugely (though this will change I'm sure). Any thoughts? --- Alan Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >But Pentax has had 28-105's for a long time. > >FA 28-105 f/4-5.6, 28-105 f/4-5.6 (IF) and now the > f/3.2-4.5. > >I don't understand you here. > > Aside from some Tamron rebadged zooms, the choice of > true Pentax FA zooms > are quite limited when compared to C, N & M. They > have many good quality > consumer zooms (I don't mean those truely low > quality lenses), but Pentax > was stuck with FA28-105/4.5-5.6, and now the > FA20-35/4 & FA24-90/3.5-4.5. > Still, the choice is rather limited. > > >My FA 135 f/2.8 is built like a tank, I'm sure that > it can stand the attack > >of missiles. It's a full metal construction. I also > like the build quality > >of my FA 28 f/2.8 and FA 50 f/1.7. They feels very > solid with great > >mechanics. I like the build quality of my FA 28-105 > f/3.2-4.5. It's much > >more solid than my FA 28-70 f/4 was. So, FA lenses > are *not* cheaply built > >- except from some consumer zooms. > > I can assure you the FA135/2.8 was not built like a > tank. The focus ring > feels truely bad, so to the FA100/2.8. These lenses > have metal shells and > quite ok, but it's no Nikkor AF lenses (similar > lenses). > > >The FA* 80-200 f/2.8 is more expensive than the > competition, but the other > >lenses are not. In fact, some are even less > expensive. The FA* 28-70 f/2.8 > >is the least expensive 28-70 f/2.8 on the market > from a major manufacturer, > >and the FA 28-105 f/3.2-4.5 AL (IF) is less > expensive than Nikon AF 28-105 > >f/3.5-4.5. The 50 f/1.4 is the least expensive 50 > f/1.4 on the market, same > >with is true for the legendary FA 100 f/2.8 > Macro.Well, they were when I > >checked Cyberphoto (http//www.cyberphoto.se). > > If I remember correctly, most FA* lenses were more > expensive than Nikkor AF > and similar to EOS equivalent. The FA*80-200 and > FA*28-70 were selling like > US$16xx & US$12xx respectively. The FA*200/2.8 > costed US$12xx too. The only > truely affordable * lens was FA*24/2, and the FA*85 > & FA*300/4.5 were > selling at US$8xx. If you take into the account that > EOS lenses had much > better AF ability, the FA* lenses were overpriced > indeed. Some of these > lenses are cheaper these days, but at the same time, > every manufacturers > have moved forward and produced updated versions > while Pentax is still > selling the new old stocks at the lower but still > not quite competitive > price tags. > > >But the entry level lenses are very plastic with no > distance information > >scale. Canon even has plastic prime lenses with > plastic lens mounts (like > >the 50 f/1.8). Now, all Pentax prime lenses has > higher quality than that. > > But one EF50/1.8 doesn't represent the whole system. > In fact, this 50mm is > the only poorly built prime lens in the whole EOS > line. > > >this has never happened to any of my MZ-bodies. > > Because the whole thing is plastic, except the > mount. They are ok for so > long as you don't mount some rather heavy lenses on > it and handle it rough. > For heavy lenses, Z-1, Z-1p & MZ-S are the only > choices. > > >The more I use my MZ-5n, the more I like it. It's a > beautiful camera. > > A well designed camera, but not without its own > problem. > > regards, > Alan Chan > > _________________________________________________________________ > MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months > FREE*. > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus > __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com
