Godfrey is right in that selling a good camera with a crap kit lens is a stupid way to go - I understand why the Australian distributors used to insist on selling Pentax bodies as a kit with a dreadful Sigma 28-80 lens, because they were also the Sigma distributors. I've never thought that they appreciated that the result was a downgrade of the Pentax brand in buyers' eyes because the results were so spectacularly awful!
John Coyle Brisbane, Australia -----Original Message----- From: PDML [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Godfrey DiGiorgi Sent: Saturday, 12 October 2013 12:05 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: K-3 musings I do my best to simply ignore the hype and silliness, find the data, and understand it. The K-3 looks to have some interesting specs and features. The AA simulation is one of them, a 24 MPixel sensor isn't anything particularly new or fascinating. Let's hope it doesn't make Larry sad and hasn't lost any of the sensitivity that he finds the K5 to be the standard for. I hope the K-3 makes all of those who buy it happy is the most I can say. It's the highest end digital SLR Pentax has yet produced. One thing I was kind of confused about was that I saw an advertisement for the K-3 ... offered at $1300 body only (a good price point), then offered as a kit at $1630-with an 18-135/4-5.6 lens or something like that? To me, that makes little sense - buy a pro spec body and fit it with a slow wide-zoom lens as your hallmark kit? Why not offer a kit with a pro spec lens, an f/2.8 or f/4 constant aperture zoom in a more sensibly modest range? I never understand why companies do stuff like that. I never buy SLR cameras as kits unless that's the only way you can buy them. Kit lenses are almost to the one junk, a waste of the extra money. But that's quibbling over marketing BS. G On Oct 11, 2013, at 4:43 AM, Boris Liberman <bori...@gmail.com> wrote: > Peter, let me try to explain. I seem to have grown to sincerely dislike all > too often seen on the internet ocassions when following the announcement (and sometimes even following relatively reliable rumors) people start proclaiming very loud claims. > > E.g. K-3 is not revolutionary for the industry. It is great step up for > Pentax, that's for sure. But it makes absolutely no sense to say that it is very imaginary Nikon D400. It is not. Nor it leapfrogs the competition. It simply does not at this time. It may in the future should it come out devoid of any bleeding edge cuts and bruises and should the market decidedly vote by its money in its favor. > > Until then - it is all hand off review... > > I hope you understand me now. And naturally, I mean no disrespect to you or > anyone else on this list. I'm merely stating my opinion on the matter. > > On 10/11/2013 8:01 AM, P.J. Alling wrote: >> Yes, but unlike Kennyboy, Hogan actually deserves the respect he's >> given. He's a Nikon centric guy, with an occasional nod to Canon, so >> I don't read his site often, but when he has something I think is >> worth reading, it's usually worth reading. >> >> On 10/11/2013 12:14 AM, Boris Liberman wrote: >>> On 10/8/2013 5:37 PM, P.J. Alling wrote: >>>> and only a few years ago Hogan was confidently predicting Pentax's >>>> demise, or ignoring it entirely. >>>> >>>> C'est la vie. >>> >>> All hail the hands off reviews :-). -- 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. -- 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.
