Hell I don't know. All I know is that I have 3 MX's to make sure that I have a mechanical backup camera until I'm to old to see, or I die whichever comes first. I often find myself places where a.) I cannot buy anything but the most basic, i.e. AAA AA C D cells, or b.) where the cost of specialized photo batteries exceed the GNP of some third world nations, (OK an exaggeration). I would love to have available something I could consider an MX replacement. Others on this list seem have expressed similar sentiments. Would Pentax sell enough of these cameras to make money, probably not, but Nikon probably isn't making money on the FM3a either.
At 10:22 AM 10/14/2002 -0400, you wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Peter Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 11:36 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: Reality Checks Part 3 > > > > > > That's very true. The only new piece of equipment that's > > tempted me in a long > > time was the Nikon FM3a. If Pentax built an updated MX around that > > electromechanical > > shutter and sold it for the same price as the Nikon I'd snap one up > > immediately. I'll > > bet a lot of others would as well. > >You think? I'm told the FM3A isn't selling very well. > >tv
