P�l wrote: PJ> What gave you that idea? Why shouldn't Pentax be able to match PJ> their prices? The have always been able to match anybodies prices.
Well, camera price is still driven by the sensor price. Last time I checked Canon was manufacturing their own sensor, that is they have a larger margin to cut from. PJ> The first maker who make a DSLR that actually look like something PJ> high-tech and not like a 12 year old slr, will suceed. Digital are PJ> "lifestyle" items that wsill sell on style and modernity. I believe this trend is receding lately. Indeed Olympus, Minolta or Sony made everything possible their ZLRs look like tricorders. It made me sick just by looking at them. Once the fanciness is gone, good old proven design and functionality will be back. It happened before with film AF, it will happen even faster with digital. Ken wrote: KT> This is the old thinking based on the film technology. The KT> boundary between P&S digital and DSLR is becoming blurred litle KT> by little, and will accelerate in the near future. True, but digital does not necessarily level the field. There's a limit for miniaturization. A DSLR will always have more resources than a p&s, and the difference in ergonomics is what makes apart a tool from a toy. Modular SLR systems are not an accident. KT> With the improvement of the electronic viewfinder, one of the most KT> advantages of SLRs may be diminishing (well, it will at least KT> eliminate the bulky prism and its housing). I understand that KT> big4 are developing better EVF now. Then, the high end and very KT> compact digicam with a rangefinder form factor with decent zoom KT> and EVF might satisfy most, if not all, of the consumer markets. Oh well, I hope I won't be forced to resign within the consumer condition and have to stare at the reconstructed piece of the reality in the viewfinder. If I need mind blowing simulations with subject identification based on the previous 1000 shots and a real time on-screen probability figure of the shot to be a Pulitzer winner, then I know where to go. Just give me the true optical image of what my camera gets through the lens. Can you do this for me, Hal? ;o) KT> Pentax has more than KT> sufficient resources to produce what they want including accessories. Not so obvious if it's about new technologies. Pentax only recently upgraded the flash system and it still lacks sorely in the lens department with no IS and USM. In order to successfully promote the image of a revolutionary new DSLR system, they have to introduce other technologies as well, besides digital. They may have among the largest lens lines, but this is aging and won't take them too far. Then again, are they up to task of the change...? Mike wrote: MJ> But the early "demise" of the D60 in no way indicates a lack of MJ> support for it--rather, it indicates its overwhelming popularity MJ> and far stronger than expected sales. Many Canon users are perceiving it as a lack of commitment from their beloved manufacturer (sounds familiar?). They had no other option but to buy an expensive, underspecified camera compared to their current film belonging, and now they fear the uncertainty of future drivers while some frankly deplore the reselling price will drop in just a few months. Servus, Alin
