Adam, IMO there is no immediate need for the camera between K-m and K20D. What is desperately needed, is camera (way) above K20D. For now, Pentax is lagging behind Sony, Nikon, and Canon in this respect. Having said that, if Pentax would as a matter of default actually include shiftable-P mode to all their lower level cameras, it would make them significantly more attractive to me.
My K10D is about to become 2-years old. Thinking of an upgrade I don't think of staying at the same marketing level. I'd rather either go down to K-m (but lack of shiftable program is absolute show stopper to me) or up to whatever it will be above K20D. Another alternative, which I am starting to think very seriously about is likes of Panasonic G-1 with hopefully good 20/1.7 lens, a portrait lens and some wide lens, may be even wide zoom lens. On slightly different matter, I am surprised to see that DA* 55/1.4 weighs just a hair below 400 grams with filter diameter of whopping 58 mm. This is very big chunk of glass, much like just announced Nikon 50/1.4G lens. I wonder why? At least Nikon covers full frame, and DA* 55 doesn't necessarily have to. Just my cents. Boris On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Overall I'm relatively impressed with the K-m. It's what the K200D > should have been. The still-crippled buffer is much more forgivable in > a low end body than one priced the way the K200D was. hopefully Pentax > will bring out a new K200D replacement for PMA with better specs. > > -Adam -- Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
