> This has nothing to do with it. The feature level are constantly increasing at > every price level, not at least at entry level. If features are to be > conunted, the MZ-M should be placed above the LX (or Super A for that matter). > The MZ-series is fundamentally a seven year old camera.
We really get hung up on these terms..."Professional," "entry-level." Seems to me an entry-level camera is defined by two things: a) it is the least expensive in a single manufacturer's product line. b) there are no models below it. That is, it makes "entry" into the product lineup as accessible as possible. For now at least, the *ist doesn't seem like it will meet either criterion. Maybe it will in the future, but I strongly doubt it. Pentax doesn't compete with Nikon, Canon, Minolta, and Contax at the high end. In the SLR market the low end is currently Pentax's bread-and-butter. With obvious competition at half the *ist's price, and given that that's where the highest volume of sales are, it makes no sense that Pentax would choose not to compete at that level. All that said, I don't see how any of this matters. We're customers, not corporate strategy planners. --Mike
