Re: Pentax 50mm News

[John Forbes]

The biggest single reason cited for not going digital is the current cost  
of the cameras.  Given that, it seems hard to blame the manufacturers for  
trying to bring prices down.

John
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:56:02 +0000, John Whittingham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
wrote:

Start saving. Disregarding the good bit (;-PPPP) the Canon is
5.2KGBP. That's 500 times more than what you paid for your MZ-3
They'll come down a bit in time, besides you pay for the technology etc.
no, it is not recommended that one buy a used digital camera, as
discussed here in the recent past).
Fully agree on that point, wouldn't touch one s/h.
It *is* broke, check
http://www.mail-archive.com/pentax-discuss@pdml.net/msg205063.html
It's a goner; do other manufacturers support it even in the way
Pentax does?
More cost cutting, it's about time Pentax stopped following Canon and  
Minolta
trends, they never where scared of breaking from the norm.

John

---------- Original Message -----------
From: Kostas Kavoussanakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 16:12:19 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: Pentax 50mm News
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, John Whittingham wrote:
> > What's the big deal? If you buy into a Pentax digital body now,
> > you'll need one wider lens to handle wide field of view needs.
>
> I'd much prefer to save the money and spend it on a good 36mm x 24mm
digital
> body.
Start saving. Disregarding the good bit (;-PPPP) the Canon is
5.2KGBP. That's 500 times more than what you paid for your MZ-3 (and
no, it is not recommended that one buy a used digital camera, as
discussed here in the recent past).
> I would need more then one W/A lens or a very good zoom to replace
> 24mm, 28mm and 35mm lenses not to mention 17mm rectilinear and 16mm
Fisheye
> that I also use from time to time.
Just get the 16-45. The 17 you are using may be awful on digital,
full-frame or otherwise, because of CA. Only you can judge if the
fisheye is enough to justify your decision.
> The current trend for not putting the aperture ring on the lens really
isn't
> to my taste either, it worked perfectly on the well for years, it's  
the
> logical place to control the diaphragm from. If it isn't broke don't  
fix
it!
It *is* broke, check
http://www.mail-archive.com/pentax-discuss@pdml.net/msg205063.html
It's a goner; do other manufacturers support it even in the way
Pentax does?
C> It *is* broke, check
http://www.mail-archive.com/pentax-discuss@pdml.net/msg205063.html
It's a goner; do other manufacturers support it even in the way
Pentax does?
Kostas
------- End of Original Message -------



--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/