Same here. I have owned and used Practica (first SLR), Canon, Olympus, Nikon and Pentax. Price is not the issue. Feel, size, interface and SMC glass are issues. There are a few situations where more technology is helpful, but for what I do, not many. Pentax technology has been adequate in those situations for me. I have ridden out the dissatisfaction storms on the list many times. During a storm, I get a little worked up and start to question a bit, but find that once I calm down and really examine what I am doing and need, that Pentax is just fine.
Presently I am shooting an MX and 67II - having recently sold my 2 MZ-S bodies. All my glass is FA for 35mm so I don't have the issue with the *is that many do. I had planned on picking one up when it is released and will look closely at doing so. I am probably not typical because I have purchased most of my equipment new and have used both old and new bodies with enjoyment from both styles. Bruce Saturday, March 22, 2003, 12:36:04 PM, you wrote: SH> I know that is not true for me Bruce. When I started using Pentax I had used SH> and given up on Nikon and then Olympus (inconsistent metering, frequent SH> expensive repairs to recalibrate), Canon seemed gimmicky, Minolta seemed SH> primitive, Pentax seemed easy to use and had a good reputation. When I SH> resumed photography after a few years lapse, I bought an AF body and stuck SH> with Pentax because I remembered my Nikon experience, Canon seemed gimmicky SH> and complicated, Minolta seemed primitive, and the PZ-1p not only looked SH> nice and felt good but also allowed me to use my old lenses. A minor bonus, SH> but still important. I never asked the price on any of the cameras along the SH> way, it just was not a factor. SH> Stan SH> on 3/22/03 1:52 PM, Bruce Rubenstein at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> For all but a handful of people here, cost is the first 3 reasons for >> Pentax. >> >> BR >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >>> >>> For me it is cost at the moment. >>> >> >> >>
