Actually, no the Digital Rebel was not the exception. At the time, for DSLR's there were the Nikon D1x and D1h (Pro bodies), the D100 (Damned near identical to the *istD), the Canon 1D and 1Ds (pro bodies), the Canon 10D (very similar to the *istD) and the Digital Rebel, as well as the Fujifilm S2 Pro (inferior to the *istD), the Contax N digital (Comparable to the *istD with poor-performing 6MP full-frame sensor, same sensor as in the cancelled MZ-D) and the Kodak DCS760 (F5 based pro body, very similar to the D1x)
So there were 5 full-on pro bodies, 3 other similar bodies (Although the Contax cost more like the Pro bodies) and two inferior bodies, with a third (the D70) arriving about 3 months later. That isn't 'far and away many many more BETTER DSLRS on the market'. It isn't even close to that. -Adam J. C. O'Connell wrote: > Ah, maybe the digital rebel is why pentax's DSLRS > Got worse instead of better after the *istD > Came out. > > Still there were far and away many many more > BETTER DSLRS on the market when ist came > Out. Digital rebel being the exception. > jco > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Adam Maas > Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2006 11:53 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: The JCO survey > > The Digital Rebel was indeed on the market when the *istD shipped. It > was announced in August and shipped in late spetember IIRC. > > And everything about the Digital Rebel was lower-spec than the *istD, > escept the flash sync. > > The Digital Rebel is a cheap plastic camera with a tiny wee pentamirror > finder, slow AF, slow to turn on (About 3x as slow as the *istD), with a > > crippled flash subsystem, limited to ISO1600 and a single-wheel > interface. It's roughly comparable to the *istDL, except the DL has a > superior finder and superior build quality. The only thing comparable > between the Digital Rebel and the *istD is image quality, teh Rebel's > was as good as any other 6MP body. > > -Adam > > > J. C. O'Connell wrote: >> Was the digtal rebel on the market when the istD >> Came out and what was lower about it other than >> Price? >> jco >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of >> Adam Maas >> Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2006 10:51 PM >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject: Re: The JCO survey >> >> Canon Digital Rebel (Announced Aug 03, 3 months before the *istD > shipped >> in october 03), Fuji S2 Pro (Wasn't replaced by the S3 Pro until mid >> 2004). The D70 arrived shortly after the *istD (Jan 04). >> >> The *istD was comparable to the D100 and 10D in specifications and >> performance (Actually the 10D was a bit better than the other two due > to >> a higher framerate and larger buffer), which were current models when > it >> was introduced. All 3 were mid-range bodies getting sold as semi-pro >> bodies (Which none of them were). >> >> -Adam >> >> >> >> J. C. O'Connell wrote: >>> Name one DSLR on the market that was LOWER >>> Specificed and not discontiuned when *istD >>> Came out. Pentax >>> Started cheap and at the bottom and worked >>> Their way DOWN ( until the K100D and K10D). >>> jco >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf >> Of >>> Adam Maas >>> Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2006 3:20 PM >>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> Subject: Re: The JCO survey >>> >>> Nope. >>> >>> It was almost identical to the Nikon D100, and the Canon EOS 10D >> offered >>> only a larger buffer over the D100 and *istD. The Canon D60 and D30 >> were >>> lower-end models, as was the Nikon D70 that shortly followed the >> *istD's >>> introduction. And at the time it was the best-specified camera in >>> production at Pentax (The MZ-S, which is the only recent body to be >>> better-specified than the *istD, ended production at approximately > the >>> same time). The Canon Digital Rebel was introduced about that time as > >>> well, and was far less camera than the *istD (In fact the original >> rebel >>> is arguably the lowest-end DSLR ever made, only the earlier Fuji S1 >> Pro >>> can give it a run (the Fuji is less capable, but far earlier >> technology) >>> -Adam >>> >>> >>> J. C. O'Connell wrote: >>>> The *istD WAS a bottom line model compared to >>>> All other makes and models of DSLRS on the market >>>> At the time. Just because they later made even >>>> Lower specified models doesn't make it "better" >>>> The bottom just got lower which was weird. >>>> jco >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf >>> Of >>>> Shel Belinkoff >>>> Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2006 11:54 AM >>>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>> Subject: RE: The JCO survey >>>> >>>> You haven't a clue. The istD was _not_ a bottom of the line model, >>> nor >>>> did >>>> it seem that Pentax was trying to put out "the cheapest possible >> model >>>> they >>>> could ..." After the D came the DS, which was substantially less >>>> expensive >>>> even though it had some benefits and features the D didn't have. > The >>> DS >>>> was quickly followed by the DL, which was even less expensive, had >>> fewer >>>> features than the DS. The DS and DL were great successes for > Pentax. >>>> Shel >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> [Original Message] >>>>> From: J. C. O'Connell >>>>> This is the third time I have posted my thery on this. >>>>> I think that Pentax's first DSLR (*istD) was trying >>>>> To be the cheapest possible model they could hit the >>>>> DSLR scene with. In that case, it's a BOTTOM OF THE LINE >>>>> Model >> > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
