JCO wrote:
> Isnt it odd that Sigma, primarily a third rate ( oops > I mean third party )lens company, comes out with a digital SLR > before Pentax and Minolta? Odd? Lets hope neither Pentax or Minolta make a camera nobody buys like the Sigma (or the Contax). And can anyone actually remember what the Sigma looks like? It looks like an anonymous piece of shit that only didicated Sigma fans (to the extent they exist at all) will even think about buying. Pentax have two choices: Make a camera for the masses that has appeal beyond the simple fact that it is a DSLR that take Pentax lenses. Or make a higher end DSLR that make sense to Pentax professional users: MF customers. This will be a loss leader. DSLR's that looks like film camera at a fraction of the price with second rate AF and built, simply cannot make it except among those who must have digital due to their line of work or the early adopters. Neither can sustain a thriving DSLR industry. Regardless of what some people seem to think, not a single DSLR has yet been manufactured that can be considered a mass market product. P�l
