On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 23:48:43 +0100, Jostein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> no, no. > It's just a new guy, Jamie Walling, not accepting that us oldtimers > use Rockwell logic to dismiss Rockwell reviews. > > If we had a price for machiavellian discussion techniques, I would > give it to William Robb this time for addressing Jamie as "mrs. > Rockwell" in his replies, without any further ado. > > Jostein > > (Leaning back to watch) > > :-) :-) :-) > Well, not that I wish to defend Mr. Walling (I'm sure he's quite capable of doing that himself), but perhaps he doesn't realize the position that Pentax is in. That, I would suggest, is why some here might seem a bit "defensive" about what Mr. Rockwell calls a "review" (which in its most literal sense means "see again" - ironic since he tells is he's never actually seen or held a real one <g>). My personal opinion is that the *istDs is a very important camera for Pentax. We've been pretty much relegated to fighting it out for third place among the non-Canon-Nikon group for some time. Sort of like Formula One: There's Ferrari/Schuie, and there's everyone else. We're "everyone else" - not an enviable position to be in, and a somewhat precarious one at that. For the first time in recent years, Pentax has a "serious" camera that seems to be noticed. Geez, I went into Henry's (Canada's largest camera retailer, I believe) flagship store today, here in Toronto, and saw about 10 boxes behind the counter of the *istDs/18-55 kit! As I walked into the store, a large poster advertised the kit for (I think) $1199 Cdn - a pretty decent price. Now, this camera is going to be bought by a lot of people (like those on this list) who already have a number of Pentax lenses, to whom compatibility is important. But, if those are the only people who by the *istDs, it's doomed to be a sales flop, which could have dire consequences for a company like Pentax. None of us here want to see Pentax abandon DSLR sales altogether, but let's face it, if they don't make money off them, they aren't going to make them just to keep this list happy. No, to make money off the *istDs, Pentax has to get them into the hands of "new" customers. Both new to Pentax, and new to DSLR's; people for whom this would be their first serious foray into photography. Realistically, Pentax has to attract people who would otherwise be looking at a Nikon or a Canon. If such a person reads Mr. Rockwell's "review", he would think that the Pentax is an inferior product - full stop. Basically, what he is saying is that unless one has a bunch of Pentax lenses, the *istDs is an inferior camera, so why buy it? Those on this list who own or have used one, know that much of what the Pentax has going for it is a quality feel, a solidity that neither the DigiRebel nor the D70 has. What other reviews have mentioned is the high quality images that both the *istD and Ds produce - obviously, Mr. Rockwell can't comment on those, as he's never seen a real a *istDs, let alone looked at an image produced by one. Seems to me that a newcomer, looking for a first DSLR, might want to know about solidity of feel, and quality of image, yet neither of those strong points of the Pentax were addressed - as indeed they couldn't be. In fact, he dismisses the image debate by simply saying they're "all the same". With a paucity of information, he summarily dismisses the camera. Sure, he puts all sorts of qualifiers, disclaimers and caveats in his article, but is a newby really going to take those into account? Bottom line, according to him (and, I would submit, what a consumer will remember of the article): "... inferior to the Canon and Nikon cameras at the same price for real photography." If Mr. Rockwell's article is the first one that a curious/potential DSLR buyer looks at, is he/she going to bother looking for other opinions re: the *istDs? Not likely. It'll be stricken from the shortlist of potential cameras, and off to Nikon/Canon they go. Look, if Canon and Nikon lose a few sales due to something a guy like Rockwell says, that's just a blip to them. If Pentax does, it could make a difference. The difference between a company that makes a quality DSLR that mostly fits the needs of many on this list, and a company that abandons us to old unsupported film bodies and some digi-P&Ses that fit in a mint can. That's why we get defensive. This was intended not as a criticism of Mr. Rockwell's review (which is a horrific piece of journalism, IMHO and FWIW), but is intended to explain (from my POV, anyway) recent list behaviour. cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
