> John wrote: > > > How long did it take for Pentax to introduce a real auto-focus camera? > > Uh? They released the first AF 35mm slr. >It might not been "real" but the first "real" Pentax AF slr was > introduced at the same time as Canon introduced their first "real" AF > system.
The SF-1 worked as well as my Nikon 8008, AFwise. Of course, it could be argued that the Nikon's first real AF SLR was the N90. > > How long before their first digital SLR body? Until it could be done cheaply enough to sell to Pentax users. The MZ-D would have been a non-starter, as Contax apparently found out. > It could be argued that the first "real" DSLR has yet to be released by anyone. On what grounds? The Canon EOS-1D (even the "old" one) and Nikon D2h are better CAMERAS than ANY film SLR made by ANY manufacturer in most if not all respects. > > Pentax just aren't set up to be innovators nowadays. Nonsense. It is just the level at which the innovations are introduced. Pentax did not introduce internal motors, image stabilization, or diffractive optics (all Canon), nor lenses optimized for DSLR sensor sizes (Nikon). These are in keeping with the pro-orientations of these companies. Pentax, as I recall, led the fashion for chrome-colored plastic cameras, and for the return of semi-analog controls. The *istD was the first small DSLR, and Pentax was for a while marketing the smallest digital P&S using clever expanding internal optical systems. I think the FA limiteds came out before Nikon's retro 45mm lens, and nobody is producing anything like the ltds (Leicas don't AF!). They're not really "pro" lenses because very few pros shoot 31 or 77mm, but the optics are supposedly top notch. The slanted top on the MZ-S (?) was a pentax innovation. The 17-35 (?) fisheye zoom is pretty much unique. Not all innovation is good, either. Pentax led in power-zoom, and those damn shutter speed buttons on the ME super and Super Program (which might have made the cameras cheaper to make, but I found them harder to use). > And, I would love to hear anyone's views on those two questions that Shel > has posted... ie. > > a) What are the differences in quality (optically) in Nikon, Canon and > Pentax lenses? > b) Are the differences great? > I really wonder this as from my research, I have found that in Australia at > least, when purchasing lenses new, Canon and Nikon lenses are far more > expensive than their Pentax equivalents. Is this just because of their > "name" or is this due to build and optical quality etc? People have heard my opinions on this. N and C are better at the pro level because that's what they do well and where their market is.This may be a recent thing. There has been a lot of evolution at N and C in the last five years, lenswise. N and C are worse at the entry level because it isn't what they do well but they'd love to have a market there. If there is any middle left in the market (it's hard to sell a $500 SLR in today's world of digital and video) I'm not sure how things stack up there. There isn't a lot of range in most manufacturer's lines anymore. At the bottom, higher N and C prices are probably because of the name because the build quality is lousy, although Canon puts internal motors in all of its lenses and Nikon is starting to. That adds value. At the top of its line, Pentax is actually more expensive (around here) because of low volume (or perhaps higher quality control, which has apparently had some slips at Nikon lately). DJE
