>Small cars don't look like shrinked big ones. If they did, they wouldn't sell. Good point. But not allways true. A camera is still a camera. IMO the *ist D/DS models make others look ridiculous.
Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Pål Jensen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 11. januar 2005 14:23 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: *istD EOL... John wrote: I hate to say it, but I agree. Pentax needs something to really set it apart from the other guys. Consistantly making smallest-in-their-class cameras isn't enough for serious photographers. REPLY: I think it will be more than enough. As high-end DSLR are larger than medium format cameras, and consequently suffers from the same lack of portability, the market niche is definitely there. Mind you, Pentax need to design cameras that look small, not only are small. The problem with the *istD(S) is that they look big. Products that are going to sell on their smallness need to comunicate their size through design. Small cars don't look like shrinked big ones. If they did they wouldn't sell. The small SLR's of the past looked small without any reference. Pentax M series and Olympus OM's had a slim smallish look whereas the *istD(S) look big and fat until you actually handle one or see a photo of it next to the competition. Since most people never see or handle a Pentax theres nothing telling them how small they are unless they do a lot of homework. The Pentax 40mm pancake lens is agreat idea. It is a pity though that Pentax haven't made a pancake camera. Pål
