On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, John Whittingham wrote: > > What's the big deal? If you buy into a Pentax digital body now, > > you'll need one wider lens to handle wide field of view needs. > > I'd much prefer to save the money and spend it on a good 36mm x 24mm digital > body.
Start saving. Disregarding the good bit (;-PPPP) the Canon is 5.2KGBP. That's 500 times more than what you paid for your MZ-3 (and no, it is not recommended that one buy a used digital camera, as discussed here in the recent past). > I would need more then one W/A lens or a very good zoom to replace > 24mm, 28mm and 35mm lenses not to mention 17mm rectilinear and 16mm Fisheye > that I also use from time to time. Just get the 16-45. The 17 you are using may be awful on digital, full-frame or otherwise, because of CA. Only you can judge if the fisheye is enough to justify your decision. > The current trend for not putting the aperture ring on the lens really isn't > to my taste either, it worked perfectly on the well for years, it's the > logical place to control the diaphragm from. If it isn't broke don't fix it! It *is* broke, check http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg205063.html It's a goner; do other manufacturers support it even in the way Pentax does? I have anti-digital arguments myself and I am not considering it at the moment, just thought to point out that we are on a one-way street with lots of lemming-like traffic all around you at the moment; you can slow down but it will be damn difficult to go back. Kostas
