Hi, Bruce, Sorry, I probably didn't take my own advice, and read your post in haste <g>.
Mea culpa, etc... cheers, frank Bruce Dayton wrote: > frank, > > You may have mistaken me. I was not arguing. I was asking for > clarification which Pal did very nicely. I wanted to differentiate > that I had said that Pentax did make pro gear and Pal had said > otherwise. His last post should have cleared all that up. > > As always, Pal is a great source of information. > > It is my hunch (and mine alone) that more working pro's are likely to > view Pentax medium format positively than Pentax 35mm - based both on > the reputation and breadth of systems compared to the competition. > That was more the basis of my conjecture not specifically Pentax > internal view of their own product line. > > Sorry for the confusion. I am still a very happy Pentax 67II, MZ-S > and MX owner. > > Bruce > > Tuesday, February 18, 2003, 3:06:59 PM, you wrote: > > ft> To be fair, Pal said, "Pentax doesn't really market anything as "professional"." >- > ft> that's the direct quote. He didn't say that Pentax makes "no pro level cameras". > > ft> Pal then said that within Pentax, "professional is MF plus A*, FA* and Limited >lenses, > ft> the Z-1p, LX, MZ-S". > > ft> I don't think it's fair to attribute false quotes to someone, then argue that his > ft> position is wrong. Not that I'm saying you did it on purpose, but it was in >fact done, > ft> and it doesn't make for a particularly compelling argument... > > ft> cheers, > ft> frank > > ft> Bruce Dayton wrote: > > >> P�l, > >> > >> Since Pentax makes no pro level cameras (quoting you), what in the > >> heck is a flagship? Just a fancy word for anything that they want? > >> Does flagship have to denote the most capable? Can it denote > >> bestseller just as well? > >> > >> Bruce > >> > > ft> -- > ft> "Honour - that virtue of the unjust!" > ft> -Albert Camus -- "Honour - that virtue of the unjust!" -Albert Camus
