> it answers why they chose the name *ist. It is intended as > an "entry level" camera (I heard this from some other sources too) but a bit > different from competitions because there is a room built in for users to > grow with, yet easy to operate for the tyros and family users. That's the > design/marketing philosophy Pentax are manifesting. So, it sounds to me > that the *ist covers the entry level market AS WELL AS mid level. Does this > mean there will be no lower level camera? Perhaps, but I do not know. But > it seem to coincide well with the recently announced Pentax philosophy to > reduce the number of models in the future.
I can virtually guarantee that in any conceivable new-generation lineup of models, especially if reduced in number, the *ist will not be the entry-level model. This is what people at Pentax are telling me, plus, it's obvious--at the retail level, one of the few bright spots for film cameras are inexpensive SLRs in the $150-$250 range that are stealing sales from $200-$300 point-and-shoots. It would be truly stupid to make a $350-$400 camera (the likely selling price range of the *ist) the least expensive model in a lineup. It's not something that Pentax would do. Sorry Ken, but I think you're wrong on this one! Just this one time. <g> --Mike
