On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, [iso-8859-1] P�l Jensen wrote: > And as the Pentax is too indistinctive apart from it size, which is not > a selling point among the pro look wannabees,
I disagree, P�l. I don't see anything wrong with *ist D's design; in fact, I like it. The worst thing is to try to be different just for the sake of being different. Look at Olympus' 4/3 prototype monster, would you call that distinctive and imaginative enough? I am so thankful that Pentax doesn't look anything like that. So in your mind, what do you mean by stylish? None of the Pentax SLR cameras in its history deviates too much from the conventional SLR design. MZ-S is their boldest - but so what? It still did not stand out in the store shelf, and very few people outside the Pentax circle paid much attention. To most people, a SLR should look like a SLR; it's hard to make it "stylish" without looking cheesy. And *ist D control layout is well honed and well proven; and it is ergonomically driven. This is much more important than to change everthing just to make it "look different" from Canon and Nikon. On the contrary, *ist D design looks very "Pentax". You can black out all the labels, put it with a D100 and 10D, most people can identify the Pentax from 20 feet away. The compactness and the pentaprism housing's low profile is Pentax trademark. I personally believe that it would make *ist D stand out in the store shelf when put side by side with the Canon's and Nikon's DSLRs. > now. By July this camera may be uncompetitive. Price of the *ist D is Huh??? Canon's EOS 10D just announced is not that different from *ist D. -- --Lawrence Kwan--SMS Info Service/Ringtone Convertor--PGP:finger/www-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.vex.net/~lawrence/ -Key ID:0x6D23F3C4--
