Pentax is good value for the money, while Nikon or Leica would make me a poor man.
Regards,
Rod.
- Original Message -
From: Bob Blakely [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 9:57 PM
Subject: Re: The way things might have been - WAS: Rumour mill again
Mark's comments:
If Asahi had offered the K bayonet mount at least 10
years earlier, Pentax would still be a brand of choice
for the professional user.
It would have helped to have come out with bayonnet mount 3 or 4
years earlier, but 10 years? I don't think so. Until the end of the
I agree, Andre,
Canon only entered the serious pro market in '71 with it's F-1, so surely
one can't say that Pentax lost that much by staying with m42 throughout
the '60's.
Screwmount only became a problem with the advent of open-aperture
metering, as it became difficult of properly align the
--- Rodelion [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pentax is good value for the money, while Nikon or
Leica would make me a poor man.
The Minolta MD and Canon FD systems are also a good
value for the money. A equally competent Nikon AI
system can be put together at about the same
investment as a Pentax
4 matches
Mail list logo
