Probably they were following this list and the hunderds of posts saying that no
one would ever pay that much for a camera. Those were the days when I had to
preach the benefits of digital, just as I now have to do for film now. Such is life.
--
Tom C wrote:
Based on the current prices of FF DLSR's, It's pretty obvious Pentax
blundered in a big way with the MZ-D. Particularly from the standpoint
of disappointing eager customers. Maybe they are simply holding that
design in abeyance until pricepoints make it a higher volume seller.
Tom C.
From: Arnold Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 35mm coverage of new lenses
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 08:43:10 +0200
Obviously full frame coverage has two advantages:
1.) Future Pentax DSLRs are not to be limited to APS sized sensors at
a time when larger sensors become cheap enough (at that time such
DSLRs need not necessarily be "pro-ish");
2.) The new lenses are attractive to the owners of analogue SLRs and
those who use both ASLRs and DSRLS.
Arnold
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
See below from Boz's site. Does the aperture ring and 35mm coverage
mean that Pentax is planning a 'full frame' pro-ish digital, why else
would the new lenses have such coverage?
--
graywolf
http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
