Alexander wrote: > Why so? As I said, it is is a new genre of DSLRs. > Sure, there will be cameras with higher MPs but those > will be also much, much more expensive. People on > this list compare different cameras and lenses as if > they were all for free :-)
It is just that I don't think Pentax will be left alone in this niche, let alone being first. I see absolutely no reasons why Pentax should be able to undercut the "volume" DSLR makers on price. > For being "indistinguishable from Nikon": The N80 has > been a big success for Nikon for good reasons. But theres no reason to asume a similar Pentax would have sold as well. And besides, Nikon gets away with murder: the F50 was market leader in several markets proving that if you have the name and distribution it doesn't matter what you sell. > I think the camera is a good move and will be a > success. It has a very clear user interface and can do > a lot. And for my part I don't like overdesigned > muscle cameras either. I think you're making the mistake of assuming that having the product make the customers come. It isn't like that. The danger is that nobody will notive this camera except those married to the K-mount. Never before have Pentax made such derivative design as the *ist. Great engineering, great packaging, and probably great price dissapearing into a body that looks like a Nikon F80 (a camera that will win no design prices) or, God forbid, that Sigma DSLR that I can't remember what looks like. And again, I don't think that making whats after all is an expensive digital camera indistingushable from a popular dirt cheap film slr is actually going to convince anyone. P�l
