I'm not saying this just to be a "anti Pentax" jerk, but I feel I need to state it: My late father's one and only SLR was a new Nikon EM, and I still have it, and my kids still use it when they want to shoot with an SLR. It has NEVER seen a CLA, and I've replaced the battery only twice. It exposes perfectly and has never failed or produced a negative I could say was bad due to the camera. AND,,,, it accepts all my current AF Nikkor lenses with full camera functions. I suspect many could say the same about their old K-1000 too. Inexpensive does not necessarily mean junk.
Thanks, Ed http://lightandsilver.com > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of T Rittenhouse > Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2002 7:20 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Switching to Pentax > > > At one time the was the Nikon F. It was the only SLR Nikon > made. The made two RFs back in those days but the difference > was features, not quality. Nikon meant quality. Then > Marketing looked around and said, Nikon means quality, we > will produce junk cameras with the Nikon name on them, the > unwashed will not know the difference. An behold, they were > right, the unwashed show you their EM and said it's a Nikon! > Then all the other Makers, said this is good! And proceed to > make all kinds of cameras with their names on them. Most were > cheap junk, but a few who were known for cheap junk actually > made quality cameras and put their names on them. The fell by > the wayside for the unwashed said, look how much they want > for that cheap junk camer when I can get a Nikon for half the price. > > The moral of this story? The unwashed get what they deserve, screwed. <snip> - 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 .
