I remember your comparison, P�l. You posted it to the list. It was a very interesting comparison back then. Three years is a lot of time, and the comparison may still be valid. There are, however, a lot of new people on the list who haven't read all the archives. :-)
It's a long step from just stating the one sentence "The 645 lenses are no more expensive (or larger) than high-end Canon lenses", to actually pointing out that this applies to one quite specific setup tailored to one person's needs. Now you've done so, and we all know the scope of your statement.
The world is always more complicated than one-liners, isn't it? :-)
Cheers, Jostein
----- Original Message ----- From: "P�l Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Frankly, I'm not that interested spending time just because someone wants to be argumentative. I did the math years ago. The Pentax lenses in question cost from ~800$ to ~1400. The Canon L lenses from about$ 1300 - $1600. The Pentax lenses weight sigificantly less.
If you are that interested I suggest you look up prices yourself. A Pentax 645NII with 33-55, 55-110, 150-300 can be had for less than Nikon and Canon pro zoom lenses systems offering the same flexibility. And a Nikon F5 weights more than a Pentax 645. And yes, again, I know that they don't do the same things, that they are faster, but again somone who considers MF for 35mm is presumably after image quality and won't shoot at F:2.8 at 800ISO.
All I stated that Pentax MF compares favourably with Nikon/Canon high-end gear. If someone find that such comparison is irrelevant is fine by me. It certainly is relevant for me and is the reason I mostly shoot MF these days.
