Yes, I think you have got the point: since professionals accepted the
T90 despite its ploycarbonate body and lots of electronics they were
ready for the EOS-1. Nikon tried to keep things the old way for
longer and the F4 was more like old-times pro cameras. Failure of
Minolta 9000 was rather inevitable: when it was introduced the
company did not have any professional manual focus body on the market
(X-700 was not one) and thus few pro users. Moreover, it did break
down quite often - the shutter was a weak point - and the external
LCD did not last long.
You are right about "the right pedigree". Once you win the pro market
you can get away with many things.
Pal Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał / wrote:
> The EOS1 was more of a T90 replacement than anything else; not a
professional camera in the way that professional cameras has been
defined previously. This only proves that if the brand is of the
right pedigree then it get away with defining their professional
cameras the way they want. Pentax (and Minolta for that matter), will
suffer criticism if they label something professional and if its not
a blueprint of a Nikon or a Canon. I've said it before but say it
again: if the MZ-S had been a Nikon, and sold as the lighweight
professional camera at $200 more than the MZ-S, nobody would have
had any problem with that or Nikon's marketing.
>
> Pal
>
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
>
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nie stój w kolejce do pieniędzy! Sprawdź nową ofertę w Pasażu Finansowym. Kliknij!
< http://pasazfin.wp.pl/pasaz/pasaz_bankowy.html?param=inteligo/inteligo_glowna_p.html
>
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
