> There are certainly a lot of us who'll be royally p*ist off if our huge > investment in glass (including my 15mm f/3.5) is made obsolete or > irrelevant; that is, if we have to have two different lenses to serve > the same purpose on a DSLR and a film SLR. Not everyone is going to > *abandon* film for digital. Many of us plan on using both...if it's > possible/practical. Canon has made this possible with the EOS 1Ds
Well, maybe you're right, although I wonder exactly how many there are in "a lot of us...." Unlike Nikon and Canon, Pentax hasn't served the pro market for many years, so I doubt there's a huge base of people with both a "huge investment" in lenses and the need to shoot digital side-by-side with film. As for the EOS-1Ds, I'd personally rather buy a $1700 DSLR and three or four new lenses for it than have to pay $8000 for the DSLR body so I can use my old 35mm lenses. Let alone the fact that for many amateurs, their biggest investment is in long telephotos that they'd be more than happy to see getting even longer. How many times have we overheard discussions on this list from people who have 300mms wishing they could afford 400mms, people who have 400mms wishing they could afford 600mms, and so on? So in half the cases or more, the smaller sensor turns into a material _advantage_ for amateur photographers vis-ā-vis the pre-existing investment. Hardly supports your contentions. The worst that happens for most people is that their existing telephoto glass gets longer and then they'll have to buy a new wide-angle or two. This just doesn't seem like such a big downside to me. --Mike
