Yeah, so what if ist is like the F80. I personally would rather have a K mount F80(*ist D) than a nikon mount F80(D100).
Trouble is, that I would prefer CMOS and a magnesium body. The D60 is miles better than the D100, and the 10D looks like it will be absolutely superb. I am not really bothered if it looks 'faceless' (although I must admit I agree with Pal that it doesn't inspire me the way the MZ-S did) but I would like CMOS (which is much better than CCD at high ISO) and magnesium body. For me to buy it without these I have to think long and hard whether I want to stay with K mount. This decision would be helped by either a) a cheap price for *ist D or b) the announcment, at least, that a full frame higher grade body is in the pipeline. IT would be one thing to be stuck with orphaned lenses now, but even worse to invest in Pentax digital and extra lenses needed and THEN be orphaned by the lack of progression. > -----Original Message----- > From: Arnold Stark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 28 February 2003 15:00 > To: PDML > Subject: Re: Hands up and be counted > > > P�l, > > please stop being so negative. OK, so the *ist D resembles a > Nikon F80. > It still has lots of known Pentax design and user interface elements, > and it is much smaller that the technically similar Nikon D100, so I > would not call it copied and pasted. So, if the *ist D will be > considerably cheaper than its Nikon and Canon rivals, then I see no > reason why the *ist D should not be successfull at a moment when the > DSLR beomes a mass product. After all, Nikon and Canon became big by > producing cheaper copies of German cameras, didn't they? > > Arnold > >
