> >> Hmmm ... I don't recall long discussions about >amortizing >> the cost of film cameras. Did I miss them, or did they >just >> not happen? >
They happened, sort of, but they were comparative in nature to other manufacturers rather than film-to-digital. Now since the Pentax DSLR is not the best value on the block, we are sailing in uncharted waters, and hoping lens quality/flare resistance/other will justify staying with Pentax. Remember lots of threads extolling the virtues of the low-cost Pentax 35mm system, and the value of lens compatibility, especially compared to Nikon and/or Canon offerings? Plus many comments related to the cost virtues of Pentax 6x7 and 645. But all that was pre-DSLR, a era which seems to have become irrelevant for some reason. I still believe that the PZ1p is the best-in-class, best-bang-for-the-buck film camera ever. I know I once owned three of them, carried two around my neck and a third hitched to the 600/4 on the tripod, and congratulated myself because the three of them cost about the same as one N90 with back. I think Pentax still owes us a - um, what did we call it - oh yeh, they owe us a Flagship film camera. Now I have to think about DSLR cost again, a couple of years after getting my first one. Here's my dilemma - I miss using my 600/4, so should I buy some film for a few bucks, or a second DSLR, Pentax this time, for $1300. Strangely, I'll probably buy the second DSLR. Does not make sense at all to me, someone once fixated on the price/value of Pentax 35mm. Oh well, times change, and I never was married to film anyway. -- John Mustarde www.photolin.com
