until a full frame sensor reaches a less stratospheric cost, say less than $2000.00
US. When I first heard about the Kodak 14mp offering I though we were there but with
a price of $5000.00 US and everyone else at about $8000.00 or more we're not there yet.
I don't know if Pentax can pull a full frame Digital out of the hat but they've made
a good start.
At 03:26 PM 2/28/2003 +0100, you wrote:
Rob wrote:
> Anyone with a fast long lens will have spent more than the *ist D will cost,
> but the point is that regardless of its affordability if it doesn't serve the
> photographers purpose then it's not going to be appealing and IMHO it's biggest
> negative is simply the fact that the sensor isn't full frame.
In addition, we are at a crossroad. This is the time (when switching to digital) where many sit down a reconsider things. Switching brands will happen wholesale at this juncture. The smaller sensor will accellerate this process as most, whether they realize it or not at present, would want new matching lenses. As very few have any faith in Pentax due to their lack of consistent support of their 35mm slr line the last 15 years or so, many would simply use this opportunity. I don't think the *ist D will be sufficient to convince people.
I've just realized that if I'm going to buy a less than full frame DSLR I am doing so in order to save weight and gain reach with relatively small lenses for telephoto. For this I need new lenses. Theres no reason they have to be Pentax lenses. If, or perhaps rather when, Nikon or even Canon release small circle lenses that equvalents a 600/4 but at the size of 400/5.6 with IS and USM and an relatively affordable price, then I'm in the shopping line. The *ist D is just an also ran with no sign of an unique Pentax design vision.
P�l
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
