not the only. but the miain. my fav. lenses are 8mm fisheye, 16mm fisheye, 15mm, 24mm/2.8, 50/1.4 and 135/2.5 ok, 85/2 will replace the last one. but that's about it. 35mm/2 is one stop slower than 50/1.4 and so is 16-45/4 zoom (heavier too). the first three cannot be replaced *at all* (there are no 10mm lenses for k mount, afaik).
so, basically, i'll have to replace some of my most used lenses with slower and more expensive ones, and just forget about the rest. in other words, i'll have to pay ~$2K and have an inferior system. how is that cool? oh, and if i were to shoot b&w, iwould have really great 2MP pixies (from which i will be able to make 144M files). wow. that's what i call "inadequate". and i don't care what other companies do (not much better) except, nikon does offer an ultrawide and fisheye options for its digital. and speaking of understanding of how digital files work... oh, of course, i have forgotten, you don't need no stinking science, you can *see* it and your clients are happy -- is that what understanding means? too bad, i don't have paying clients and don't need to market to them. best, mishka On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:53:57 -0600, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rob Studdert" > Subject: Re: MZ-S discontinued? > > > > > That's not fair, do you drive the same type of vehicle used by most > > professional drivers (taxis) in the US? > > If the only thing wrong with the istD is that fisheye lenses don't > work as well, then Pentax has done well. Mishka will have the same > complaint with all but the most expensive DSLRs out there. > The rest of his post represents a rather sad lack of understanding > about how digital image files work. > > William Robb > >
