because i have a lot of money stacked away in Pentax lenses that i would
have to sell at a large loss, and, in a brief moment of lucidity, Pentax
announced what they were going to do and it made sense, for that brief
moment. i was under the illusion that it might happen again. that ended the
day they announced the 645D.
if i don't sell at a loss and wait until the lenses are worth something
reasonably close to what i paid for them, that's going to be a couple of
years after Pentax stops making high end lenses. if they intend to stay in
the 35mm-ish DSLR business, they have to announce a reasonable upgrade for
the *istD.
Pentax lenses, if you get the higher end ones, are still at least as good as
their competition and sometimes much better. most of my lenses are FA* and
A*, with the set of macros and Limiteds thrown in. i just want a body that
uses them well enough to accomplish what i see every day from ordinary Nikon
and Canon shooters using their 20Ds and D70s. every digital camera vendor is
trying to move up in the cost and feature chain because those are the only
cameras that make money. why is Pentax moving the opposite direction?
Herb....
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2005 8:57 AM
Subject: Re: How Pentax Could Survive
Herb needs IS, better AF, and a big buffer. He knows this, and we know
this. Although Pentax may come out with a camera that includes all three,
it may not be for a while, and it is unlikely to be significantly better
than the best Canon. I don't know why Herb doesn't just make his mind up
and switch, instead of poking through the entrails of analysts and
becoming ever more bitter and resentful.
