Shel Belinkoff wrote:
This little dialogue brings up an interesting, to me, point. First, I
would have no qualms about giving up features (like a built-in toaster oven
and wide screen TV) that are found in many "pro" cameras for a simplified
feature set and a smaller, lighter, easier-to-carry simpler to operate
camera, whether film or digital. Of course, different people have
different needs, but I cannot help but wonder how many here who are
lamenting the lack of a high-end, pro camera would actually buy one,
especially if the size were bloated like some Canon and Nikons, or are just
complaining because they think Pentax "should" have a camera that meets the
top end models of these brands in terms of features because it's good for
Pentax's image.
Having used a couple of Canons I really don't see what all the fuss is
about. For example, Image Stabilization may be nice, but I'd prefer
smaller lenses and bodies that don't need as much stabilization, and lenses
that offer the image qualities that I like over lenses that have a "feature
set" that needs to be adjusted, even minimally. I like to think that I know
how to use my gear well enough that there's no need to rely upon electric
motors, gyroscopes, software, chips (and maybe even dip), and what have
you, in order to get a good photo.
But that's just me ... or is it? From what I've seen there are quite a few
istD owners here who use their cameras pretty much like standard manual
cameras most of the time, sometimes with a concession to auto focus, and
rarely use many of the modes and features and options. Maybe the Pentax
Way really is to simpler, smaller, lighter, more basic cameras that produce
good photos.
If Pentax made a digital version of the ZX-5n, I would want one.
Now, I have *no* idea whether it would make the slightest amount of
business sense to make such a camera, and I am not currently in the
market to buy any more digital cameras, but I'm just saying what I like.
(Especially since my ZX-5n is urrently broken and I can't justify fixing
it ... )
ERNR
