> DJE posted (long message most of which I've snipped, but it was interesting): > > > > Given the impending demise-of-factory-service for the LX, would it > > be too much to ask of Pentax that they put out something like an FA > > limited camera to replace it? Something like a ZX-M with AF and > > LX-level build quality. How 'bout a spotmatic re-issue with K mount? > > As I've said a few times -- a ZX-5n with LX build quality.
>I doubt if Pentax consider anything beyond the MZ-S viable. While not >up to LX levels for dust and moisture sealing, it is in many ways the >culmination of the MZ (ZX) line. Because it is too expensive? If so, why do they continue to offer some really expensive "pro" glass? This has always mystified me. Last I looked, Pentax made a 600/4.0, a 300/2.8, and an 80-200/2.8. Last I looked, the equivalent Nikon and Canon lenses were CHEAPER. What the hell do they think people who spend that kind of money on a lens are going to mount them on? You could LOSE a *ist behind a 600/4.0! Even the FA limited lenses are sort of odd that way--if you are willing to pay premium prices for good optics and good build quality and retro styling, are you gonna see the ZX-M (cheap, fragile) or MZ-S (blobby collection of newfangled controls) as the ideal camera? They've both got merits as cameras, I'm sure, but neither is the ideal partner for an FA limited lens from a philosophical standpoint. My guess is that a lot of guys who buy these lenses put them on LXen and MXen, which have good build quality and built-in retro appeal. In the absence of factory support and new manufacture, those days will eventually end. Yes, an "FA limited" camera would be disproportionately expensive just as the big glass is, but there might be a market for it. A higher-end camera might also keep some of the guys who are hoarding the A* and early K lenses from giving up and buying Canon, as is apparently happening slowly. If Pentax made a camera competitive with the Nikon F4 I'd still have my A* lenses. DJE
