----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re[4]: So?
> Although I didn't come right out and say it, I hinted at the idea that > one should probably look at what is available (including announced and > about ready to ship) and go that direction. Pentax has over many > years shown that it's high end equipment is Medium Format, not 35mm. > Look how long it took to get the MZ-S after the PZ-1p. Their track > record for higher end 35mm is pretty poor. I wouldn't expect a change > overnight. First I'd suggest we don't take any Asahi patents too seriously. Especially one shouldn't base on them any conclusions of possible (near) breakthrough and appearing of some miraculous devices like KAF3 and IS converters for example. The wishful thinking campaign that took place before the Photokina IMHO made our expectations (or better "lust") rise to the point of absurd. That's why the introductionof the Optio 330GS looks ridiculous. > Pentax is very satisfying for people who enjoy the older, manual focus > bodies (LX, MX, SuperProgram, etc) or film based Medium Format. If > you are looking for RoboCameras and/or new innovations fairly often, > then Pentax is probably not the right brand. So by switching to Canon > or Nikon, you will end up addressing your needs better even if Pentax > actually released a DSLR. After they did, then Canon and Nikon would > release 2 or 3 generations of bodies and everyone would have the same > basic complaint - if Pentax doesn't release another updated DSLR then > I'm going to switch. Just do the deed and get on with it. Build out > your kit as you see fit and slowly change over from the film based > stuff. I think many people stick to Pentax because of its fabulous backward compatibility and the relatively great quality (optical and coating) of all Pentax lenses, which, to sum it up, allows users to complete a large 35mm kit for relatively low price (especially if we consider that Pentax cameras work easily and well with m42 lenses). An average Canon or Minolta user is usually forced to work with only two lenses - a standard zoom and a telezoom (mostly of not the highest quality) and doesn't even dream of having extreme WA's or fast primes unless of course has A LOT of money. Such is also the case with most of the average Nikon users. The above is IMHO as important as the joy of using the manual focus bodies. The decision of switching brands is thus not so easy. This is all the matter of choice and many Pentax users sacrify innovations to the accessibility of the (good) lenses. Actually no brand gives us everything and nothing comes for free. As stated above, Pentax users sacrify one thing to get another, but also Canon, Nikon and Minolta users must sacrify something. Yes, they have for example IS and USM lenses but, first, either are unable to use older ones or this ability comes for a huge price, second, the m42 lenses are dificult to use unless they spend money on separate bodies - older ones that are of course incompatible with modern lenses etc etc, third, any other-than-typical lenses (tele's or extreme WA's - both primes and zooms) are so expensive that those users can't afford them anyway. However, Pentax users are often frustrated when they compare their AF to USM, for example. Why is that? IMHO it's because of the Pentax marketing strategy, or lack of it. Pentax is the source of all the inferiority complexes of its users. Each and every strenght and advantage of the Pentax system (at least recently - in the AF era) IMHO has been discovered and articulated by the users themselves, not by any official ads, promotions etc. We, as the users, are left alone - let's face it. The decision of switching the brands is thus, I repeat, a critical one, unless of course it is to be made due to the occupation reasons. Regards Artur
