You are right Frank - we are in "violent agreement". I agree with your point that it is wiser to buy more and/or better lenses than to look for body upgrades when the old body is just fine. But then Marnie made the comment about Canon also having sharp lenses, and I just felt that she needed to be reminded of the broader esthetic/design/utility/usability factors. These are total system, not just lenses or just bodies. And this is where I think Pentax has an edge. But hey, I even liked the PZ-1p design, so what do I know!
So, conclusion: when it comes to Pentax vs. the world, Pentax is best. When it comes to purchasing more Pentax glass vs more Pentax bodies, the glass should have priority. Stan on 11/7/02 11:27 PM, frank theriault at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi, Stan, > > I don't disagree with a single thing you say. Of course, a camera is a > system: > body and lens. > > Just to expand and clarify (I hope), my comments were an attempt to assist > Marnie with her particular situation. I'm thinking that with the equipment > that > she currently has, her money would be better spent on lenses, if an > improvement > in the quality of her photographs is what she seeks. Older Pentax primes can > be > gotten for so little money, and can produce such wonderful results, my > thinking > is that she might be more satisfied taking that route, rather than buying a > more > modern bottom-of the-line body. > > I don't think that putting the two third-party zooms that she has now on an > MZ-X > will produce any more satisfying results than her current situation, even > though > that body may have more conveniences than her K1000. > > I know we aren't disagreeing here. And I didn't take your reply as a > criticism > of mine. I just thought I'd clarify a bit, based on what you said. > > regards, > frank > > Stan Halpin wrote: > >> Doe - if you buy the better lenses from any manufacturer, it would be really >> really hard to tell any difference in sharpness. Or in most other measurable >> characteristics. But . . . >> >> Despite Frank's emphasis on the lens over the "box" (camera that holds the >> lens), it really is a total system. A camera body without lens makes a good >> ashtray, a camera lens without a body may make a decent loupe or may help >> you start a fire if you are trapped in the North woods up where Frank lives. >> But the total system is what enables you to take pictures. Aspects I like >> about the Pentax system: >> 1. consistency/tradition. every Pentax lens made in the last 20+ years will >> work on every Pentax body made in the last 20+ years. >> 2. consistency. Lenses from the 645 Medium Format bodies will work on my >> 35mm bodies. Lenses from the 6x7 bodies will work on 645 and 35mm. >> 3. consistency. Small number of standard filter-ring sizes. Across 35mm, >> 645, and 6x7. >> 4. ergonomics. most Pentax bodies lenses have a wonderful, carefully >> crafted, look and feel. This is not only an esthetic delight, but makes >> their use more enjoyable. >> 5. lens design. Sharp, good color, many with wonderful bokah. >> 6. attitude. Pentax markets to people who care about photography, not so >> much to the masses looking for something to spend money on. >> >> For more on Pentax lenses see my site and the Boz site mentioned in the >> links on my site. >> >> Stan >> <www.concentric.net/~smhalpin> >> > > -- > "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist > fears it is true." -J. Robert > Oppenheimer > > >
