Christian wrote: > > Pentax have recently relocated 60% of their R&D towards DSLR's. > > It will take about 2 years until we see the fruits of ths major change of > direction. > > Which is honestly too long for me to wait. And in any case is pure > speculation.
It is not speculation but a published fact. My issue was your piece of pure speculation: "As we > have recently seen, Pentax has no plans to produce a full-frame (24x36mm) > sensor with a k-mount body. New lens releases confirm this with most only > covering the current sensor size." I have no issue with anyone wanting to use Canon or even wanting a full frame DSLR. As you say 2 years is too long for you to wait I can only assume you plan to buy a full frame Canon DSLR in less than 2 years. However, to me the full frame argument you propose seem to be more of a red hering in this context; consumerism isn't rational but often rationalized in retrospect. Full frame sensors doesn seem to be the big issue; the fact is that the most valuable camera brand on the planet, and a market leader as well in DSLR; Nikon, doesn't seem to care about full frame either. So this issue is blown out of proportion. If this argument is going to turn into a sensor sized pissing context, Pentax will win in the end as they will make even bigger than full 35mm frame sensor cameras. ..then you have to switch back.... > I can see that now: "low end" = *ist Ds, "prosumer" = *ist D (darnit! it's > already ceased production!), "pro" = 645D (dammit! this one is not in > production yet! well, we can wait a year or so like we did for the *ist D > for the 645D to be in consumers' hands) Again, I have no issue with anyone wanting a Canon (or Nikon or Minolta or whatever). I argued against some of the justifications used even though no justifications are needed. For what it is worth I don't think Pentax is a particularly good choice at present. But above you're wrong. The *ist name is reserved for entry level products. > Again, Canon has already done it. Twice. (let's leave out Kodak's debacle > for now). There must be some kind of market... But, i'm sure you'll tell us > that it's produced at a loss and is simply there as a charity case for all > the Canon guys who don't really need or want it Again I never made any coments aginst wanting to buy a Canon. You, however, seem to have a need to justify your purchase decision in public. It isn't needed. I think it is enough to want to buy camera A over B because you find it more appealing. If you want a full frame DSLR NOW, go out and buy whats available. If not, the whole issue is rather pointless. > My point is that Pentax's future (and by this I mean NEAR FUTURE; as in 2 > years or so) is too much of an unknown for me. Thats perfectly understandable. > I don't need to justify my > choices but one thing is certain, I'm not blindly delusional either. I am > certainly not a Pentax basher. the *ist D served me well as did my film > bodies and lenses. Where I do have an issue with Pentax as a company is in > its product development - or lack thereof in the case of k-mount DSLRs. > From an innovator and technology leader back in the LX days, to a small time > company playing catch up and never quite getting there. Sad for Pentax. > Even more sad for the Pentax faithful. Sure, but at least we can allow ourself some optimism now that Pentax will make SLR their main target. P�l
