Cameron wrote: The MZ-S was beautiful, but flawed; the *ist D is way too late, and it better be cheap because it's last years' technology, and the *ist has some nice features but is extremely tacky looking.
REPLY: Mostly right on. However, the MZ-S was basically the right camera but should have been released much earlier. If not exactly the same camera then at least a camera with the same general outline. The *ist D won't be cheap. It will probably cost slightly more than the Canon D10. A Pentax rep told me that the estimated price here in Norway was about 20.000Nkr (~�1700), about twice as much as it needed to cost in order to sell. I agree that the *ist's are tacky looking. I expect the *ist to look better in flesh due to the fact that its small size will add cuteness factor. I believe looks are extremely important for Pentax in particular as they need people to litterally take a look at their producst. Nikon and Canon get the attention regardless on how they look (or even perform!). P�l
