I think you were trying to express your anger rather than an objective analysis here. Never ignore the fact that LX has never been as successful as the Nikon big "F" series which made Nikon famous in the 1st place. I know many people here love the LX, but as a whole, LX means very little in the photographic world, while the Nikon big "F" series do. Before the LX, there was no true professional 135 system from Pentax (I don't know if MX should qualify). Pentax is always about affordable cameras with reasonably good quality and features, while Nikon relies on their professional image. Pentax also replaced the whole series of products when the time came (K, M, A, P, SF, Z/PZ, MZ/ZX), while Nikon just extended what they had already had. These are 2 very different approach and difficult to compare objective. If Pentax was guilty of introducing screw mount, then Canon must not except the same guilt by introducing the EOS system. At the same time, Nikon must be guilty of dropping the aperture mechanism on their recent AF bodies too. The only difference here is, Canon and Nikon are the winner today, and Pentax is not. And as usual, loser takes all the blame. I am not a Pentax fan, I use Pentax, I love Pentax, and I hate Pentax too. The way I see Pentax is, they like to toy with different ideas from time to time, and sometimes they succeed, sometimes not.
regards, Alan Chan >Pentax show commitment to the K-mount; at least regarding compatibility. >But they do lack commitment and long term strategy for their products and >customers. Regardless of what Nikon and Canon are doing they keep their >customers happy by replacing their cameras in all classes with sucessor >models. Pentax, on the other hand, have a history of almost never keeping >consistency in their line-up making many users frustrated; eg. the LX were >never replaced just abandoned. Can you imagine the reaction if Nikon did >the same with the F3? The Z-1p never got a direct replacement - the MZ-S >alienates some Z-1 users fine camera though it is. I've never met any Nikon >owner who doesn't think that the F100 is worthy F90 replacement. We could >go on like this for ever. Minolta have made "7" models for as long as I can >remember with design consistency. Canon likewise; the EOS bodies show >consistency and regardless of what body you own and what price segment >you're into, you can rest assure that Canon will continue to support your >needs. Not so with Pentax. And although Pentax kept their lens >compatibility they could almost just as well have ditched the K-mount. >Twelve years ago they deleted their whole lens catalogue with out >replacements. Try buying new Pentax lenses back in 90-91 and you were at >loss with options. Nikon never did such things. The only exception for >Pentax is their medium format line that for some reason they do show >commitment and consistency. >As for Nikon backward compatibility; Firstly, Nikon mount go back to 1957. >Pentax abandoned their users back in 1975 when switching from screw mount >to K-mount. Nikon have done no such thing. >Secondly, Nikon have incorporated several "desireable" features in their >lenses like AF motors and VR something Pentax haven't. >Canon abandoned their lens mount alright but few would argue that it wasn't >a wise move. >Pentax main problem is lack of consistency and long term commitment. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. - 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 .
