> > From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2005/06/03 Fri AM 03:28:14 GMT > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors? > > Shel wrote: > > > >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. > > All good points Shel. For the most part I am satisfied with my *ist D. My > *major* concern is the future of the brand and the wisdom of throwing more > money at the Pentax line (especially when it comes to Pentax or 3rd party > K-mount lenses). If Pentax were to go bellyup or were to get out of the > DLSR business, I think support and repairs for their existing cameras would > quickly disappear. I could end up with a non-functioning DLSR and a whole > slew of lenses that will only work with pre-owned Pentax film cameras.
Only if you are precious with it. The more you use it, the better will be the backup. To use an extreme example, you can buy a pretty much brand new Supermarine Spitfire these days. Only because there are enough people flying the "unimportant" (historically) ones to make it worthwhile for companies to support them. > > My thoughts are leaning to Canon because if I blow $1000 on a new lens, I > feel confident that Canon will be around and new bodies will continue to be > available (hopefully compatible with the lenses, of course). Why do you feel confident? Any company can go bust and it is arguable that the bigger as corporation gets, the more likely it is that it will fail catastrophically. > > Sure I see that Pentax *appears* to be trying to compete in the DLSR market. > But I'm unconvinced that they are seriously competing. Based upon a > limited marketing strategy, at least in the US, I don't see the future > boding well. If they out advertised Nikon and Canon 5-to-1 they'd still > have a difficult uphill battle to gain market share. Both Nikon and Canon > appear to have deep enough wallets to quickly bring new products to market > and absorb the quick depreciation inherent in the digital lifecycle. > > It's just a gut feeling and I have no proof to offer, other than that I have > been a loyal Pentax owner for 15 years and now I'm starting to get paranoid. > The fact that other long respected marques that didn't leapfrog to the > front of the digital persuasion early, are biting the dust doesn't help > much. > > I've thought about getting an *ist D for my wife. Everytime I do though, I > think why not a 20D and one nice lens? > > Tom C. (wordy enough I'm sure). > > > ----------------------------------------- Email provided by http://www.ntlhome.com/
