I hope they begin to see it as a misstep. An expensive MF digital is a hugh non-mover. The whole format question no longer revolves around 35 vs MF except for old lenses.
Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/26/05 9:40 PM >>> Based on history, the bone from Pentax isn't due for at least a few more months. They're never going to release more than one new digital SLR in a year. And while the D645 seemed a misstep, that announcement may have been only a frantic attempt to remain in the MF market for a while pending future development. I doubt if it precludes another DSLR in the interim. I remain somewhat optimistic and quite satisfied with the *istD. Paul On May 26, 2005, at 7:50 PM, Rob Studdert wrote: > On 27 May 2005 at 0:45, John Forbes wrote: > >> I hope Pentax will survive as a quirky niche player offering petite, >> highly ergonomic bodies and some superb lenses. >> >> For those Pentax doesn't, and won't, support, we can only say >> farewell. >> But for the other 98%, come on in, the water's lovely. Okay, it's a >> bit >> chilly at the moment, but it'll warm up. > > I hope that they will survive too but I'm not reading their situation > with > quite the positive twist you seem to be, I'd say that there was an ice > layer > forming on the pond at this stage, heading where we can only guess... > > Practically they really aren't throwing us any bones at the moment are > they? > >> John >> >> PS: Because I, too, was a little concerned about the future (I read >> too >> many Herb Chong posts), I bought a second D body. >> That both helped Pentax and gave me a backup/source of spares. > > Brave man. > > > 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 >
