Mark Roberts wrote on 3/29/2005, 1:16 PM:
> Christian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Well, second, actually. How do you figure? You can't count the aborted MZ-D; it was never produced. the D and Ds are the same generation. > But counting "generations" is a fool's game. but you brought up how "early" it was in the DSLR game. Why not judge how early based on how long other manufacturers have been building DSLRs? I agree that is *very* early in Pentax's DSLR game. but not Canon or Nikon. > Would you buy an inferior product just because its manufacturer has had > more generations leading up to it? Of course not. And I didn't. I bought a great product from Pentax even though it was the first generation. However, a 10D (Pentax's contemporary) was not inferior at the time. It was and is every bit as good as Pentax's offering. > The ist-Ds is every bit as much a contender in its price range as the Rebel-D and D70. And I would never dispute that statement. > I can honestly say that the Ist-D I bought a year ago meets my needs *better* > than any competitor's product available at the time (or now, come to > think of it). That's because size and weight are important issues for > me, as is a good viewfinder and solid construction. The fact that it was > the first generation DSLT from Pentax was of no concern to me then or > now. Nor was it a concern for me. (Size and weight I could give a shit about) You are taking the argument to the past now. I was arguing for the future. Where is the 20D equivalent from Pentax? (Again, I'm not expecting or wanting a 1D or 1Ds class camera from Pentax at all) -- Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
