Lawrence wrote:
"To most people, a SLR should look like a SLR; it's hard to make it "stylish" without looking cheesy. And *ist D control layout is well honed and well proven; and it is ergonomically driven. This is much more important than to change everthing just to make it "look different" from Canon and Nikon. On the contrary, *ist D design looks very "Pentax". You can black out all the labels, put it with a D100 and 10D, most people can identify the Pentax from 20 feet away. The compactness and the pentaprism housing's low profile is Pentax trademark. I personally believe that it would make *ist D stand out in the store shelf when put side by side with the Canon's and Nikon's DSLRs." I agree. Wouldn't you say that the LX, F3 and F1 looked the same??? Perhaps looking too different can be a burden? Does anyone know here how SUCCESSFUL the MZ-S is? Was it a run away hit or was it a strike out? While the *ist-D does resemble a Nikon a bit, it clearly is a Pentax in design and function: good ergonomics, SMALL, LIGHT, and can use any K lens. What's not to like? Peter --- Lawrence Kwan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, [iso-8859-1] P�l Jensen wrote: > > And as the Pentax is too indistinctive apart from > it size, which is not > > a selling point among the pro look wannabees, > > I disagree, P�l. > > I don't see anything wrong with *ist D's design; in > fact, I like it. The > worst thing is to try to be different just for the > sake of being > different. Look at Olympus' 4/3 prototype monster, > would you call that > distinctive and imaginative enough? I am so thankful > that Pentax doesn't > look anything like that. > > So in your mind, what do you mean by stylish? None > of the Pentax SLR > cameras in its history deviates too much from the > conventional SLR design. > MZ-S is their boldest - but so what? It still did > not stand out in the > store shelf, and very few people outside the Pentax > circle paid much > attention. > > To most people, a SLR should look like a SLR; it's > hard to make it > "stylish" without looking cheesy. And *ist D > control layout is well honed > and well proven; and it is ergonomically driven. > This is much more > important than to change everthing just to make it > "look different" from > Canon and Nikon. > > On the contrary, *ist D design looks very "Pentax". > You can black out all > the labels, put it with a D100 and 10D, most people > can identify the > Pentax from 20 feet away. The compactness and the > pentaprism housing's > low profile is Pentax trademark. I personally > believe that it would make > *ist D stand out in the store shelf when put side by > side with the Canon's > and Nikon's DSLRs. > > > now. By July this camera may be uncompetitive. > Price of the *ist D is > > Huh??? Canon's EOS 10D just announced is not that > different from *ist D. > > > -- > --Lawrence Kwan--SMS Info Service/Ringtone > Convertor--PGP:finger/www-- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.vex.net/~lawrence/ > -Key ID:0x6D23F3C4-- > __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/
