Anthony wrote: > Don't forget the lesson of the M-series of Pentaxes. They were a 'me > too' product copying the Oly OM range and also selling against similar > models from Nikon (EM), Canon (AE-1) and Minolta (I think it was the > X-series). Pentax were not the innovator of this class but did very > well indeed out of it.
I don't agree with this. The pentax ME was truly innovative at launched a flood of copies from every manufacturer: Nikon EM, Olympus OM-10, Canon AV-1, Minolta (something), etc. True, the Olymopus was first being small, but the OM-1 was simply a Spotmatic type camera shrinked and the OM-2 was simply as a typical 70's auto camera shrinked. The pentax ME was shrinked further and the first minuature, entry level, auto camera in the world whose design was highly influental. In fact, I cannot right now remember any camera that created more copies than the ME. The MX was simply a OM-1 copy. > It's been said by others but I'll repeat it. It is not strange that a > Pentax which looks exactly like a camera resembles a Nikon that also > looks exactly like a camera. And that is a subjective viewpoint until > the respective cameras are sharing the open market together. I suspect > that once together they'll look like a dreadnought with a corvette > alongside. I think the slr market has changed significantly from the 70's. Back then Nikon may have been the camera mans camera, but they were rather crude, mechanical cameras that where far from having the market share they have to day. Both Pentax, Canon, Minolta and perhaps even Olympus enjoyed higher market share than Nikon. Electronics was pioneered by Canon, Minolta and Pentax back then and these same companies also pushed the price envelopes. Copying a sigle sucessful camera body like the OM-1 in a market where most major manufacturers was on equal ground is quite different from copying a camera from a manufacturer that is seen a high-end brand by a underdog. P�l
