Pål wrote:
"After all, everything points towards a
> flexible production line for the *ist derivatives so
> "anything" is probably possible."
That is probably their strategy. Pentax needs a safety
net since the competition is fierce and ever changing.
If no one buys the *ist D, then they may have
Rick wrote:
> Fortunately, that is *not* my view on this matter.
> How is the Pentax's ZX series compete realistically
> with the Canon's stuff? And yet, the ZX series are
> great sellers and compete very well with the Canons as
> well as the Nikons in the consumer line of stuff.
That is beacu
--- Pål_Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tom wrote:
>
> "But
> realistically, Pentax's *ist is simply not realistic
> enough to compete with
> Canon or idealistic enough to capture one's
> imagination."
>
Tom,
Fortunately, that is *not* my view on this matter.
How is the Pentax's ZX series
Tom wrote:
"But
realistically, Pentax's *ist is simply not realistic enough to compete with
Canon or idealistic enough to capture one's imagination."
REPLY
Sadly, thats my view too. I just hope the *ist D is compromised in order to be a entry
level DSLR and not suggestive for Pentax design dire
Mike wrote:
"Case in point: early adopters of the Canon EOS D30 have lost more cash than
the entire cost of the EOS 10D. "
REPLY:
This is the fate of any DSLR at this point. Probably also the *istd D. The *ist D3
will cost the same as the value loss of the *ist D.
Pål
More bokeh talk: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004eIv
BR
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Canon lenses generally have very good _bokeh_, however.
HAR! maybe - but "good bokeh" (out of focus areas) isn't supposed
to be present in the entire frame ;^)
HAR! indeed -
William Robb wrote:
> I bow to your knowledge in this area.
> Mike wrote -
> > Canon lenses generally have very good _bokeh_, however.
HAR! maybe - but "good bokeh" (out of focus areas) isn't
supposed to be present in the entire frame ;^)
drum ruckus / crash / sizzl
- Original Message -
From: "Mike Johnston"
Subject: Re: Being real-*istic
> Canon lenses generally have very good _bokeh_, however.
I bow to your knowledge in this area.
William Robb
> I disagree (respectfully). Canon changes their body line too fast for out of
> date equipment to be worth anything in more than a couple of years. Add to
> that their history of orphaning their customer base entirely, and their junk
> optics (bokeh that makes Yassir Arafat look like a beauty quee
- Original Message -
From: "Tom Davis"
Subject: Being real-*istic
> But where "jumping ship" hurts most is lenses. The most damning part of
> "pre-PMA" is no new Limited, much less a body designed to the standards of
> the existing Limiteds.
- Original Message -
From: "Boris Liberman"
Subject: Re: Being real-*istic
>
> I really think you've pulled the trigger a little too soon. But then
> again, Canon ought to have excellent re-sale value...
I disagree (respectfully). Canon changes their body line
Regarding some trollish remarks
>you have given no argument whatsoever that the Canon 10D will allow you
>to make better pictures than the *ist D would allow you. What I can see
>in what you have written is "Canon is the stronger company, so I go for
>them". If everybody had always made up
Tom,
you have given no argument whatsoever that the Canon 10D will allow you
to make better pictures than the *ist D would allow you. What I can see
in what you have written is "Canon is the stronger company, so I go for
them". If everybody had always made up their decisions like that, we
woul
Hi all,
Today I "pre-ordered" a Canon 10D for $1514.95 (with two-day delivery). The
decision to go "all digital" for color dictated having to choose which
company has the best long-term future in digital. Well, sorry to say,
there's not much contest among the "traditional" photographic companies.
14 matches
Mail list logo
