I recently recommended a Canon 20D to a colleague who owned no 35mm
gear to speak of. I don't think I would recommend a 350D. Build quality
seems inferior. I did mention that Pentax would be a decent choice
because of the backward compatibility and the resulting opportunity to
buy high quality used lenses, but I said that conventional wisdom would
suggest going with the Canon.
Paul
On May 26, 2005, at 4:00 AM, Rob Studdert wrote:
On 26 May 2005 at 0:44, Alan Chan wrote:
My observation is that the success of Pentax back in the Spotmatic
and M series
period was due to their unique yet affordable SLR bodies. However,
since the A
series, the lack of these quality has failed to capture the attention
of the
general public. To prove this theory, after the long struggling with
the SF &
Z/PZ series, the introduction of the MZ/ZX-5 have put Pentax back in
serious
business again, something not even the MZ-S could do due to its cost.
So it
seems "unique + affordable" have always been the winning combination
for Pentax
135 system. And I think the DS possess these quality as well,
although a little
short on unique. Am I wrong?
So if someone with no SLR kit and with no potential access to your
lenses asked
you for honest advice on which entry level DLSR kit to consider would
point
them the Pentax way (ie *ist Ds) or towards Canon (350D)?
I'm great at selling Canon, I just say you'll end up being as
frustrated as me
if you go the Pentax route.
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT) +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
