Alan wrote: > I thought they stop doing that after the failure of LX? Perhaps the LX was the > biggest mistake ever to Pentax because Pentax fans have had such unrealistic > expectation since.
The LX a failure? Certainly not saleswise. Considering that the camera was among the most expensive 35mm slr money could buy (late in life it costed more than a Leica), it sold briskly and probably only outsold by the F3 in its class. It is true though that many at the Pentax board considered it a mistake but that was for economical reasons (they never made any money on it). However, Pentax dire situation at present is due to the fact that the company had no presence in the upper segments during the AF era, and hence lost most their customer base. In addition, the LX is fundamental for the underground Pentax hysteria existing at present. In case you haven't noticed, Pentax image has been transformed in later year possibly due to their underdog status. Nowadays you can read on the net about Pentax lenses of Leica quality, both by users and prhotography writers (eg. Mike Johnston); Pentax outperforming Zeiss lenses for the Hasselblad and Contax (by Hasselblad and Contax owners); and even magazines now treat Pentax as a brand for knowledgeable fundamentalist appreciating unsurpassed optical and mechanical quality. Five years ago such notion would be laughed at (some may still do) and Pentax was strictly considerd also ran for those who couldn't afford the real thing. Theres a lot of Pentax mystique going around at present and considering that other mythical brands are virtually dead (Contax and Leica), there should be market for an oddball company if they play their cards right. P�l
