Well, if the *istD dont satisfy your need, why did you buy it in the first place?
Face it, you probably shouldn't have bought Pentax in the first place. It happens to many of us, like my experience with Bronica. If I were you I'd use the Pentax for the pictures I'd always used it for (it must have been useful for something) and continue doing so until it falls apart, and I'd bought something else to take the other pictures. I think the difference is that you see the equipment as an investment, while I see it as a tool. DagT > fra: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > what's the problem? Pentax hasn't upgraded the *istD in 2 years. it is > incapable of capturing many images i have to let pass because the camera is > unable to capture it. the specific capabilities missing are significantly > large capture buffer and much better AF, especially in the tracking of > moving subjects. the low end Nikons and Canons can do both better, let alone > the high end ones, as based on cameras owned by acquaintances of mine whom i > have shot with. even if the *istD works perfectly within its design specs 10 > years from now, it would be useless because the camera won't have a useful > function for me by then. DSLRs don't age gracefully, especially when it > comes to software support. > > Herb.... > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 8:16 AM > Subject: Re: How Pentax Could Survive (was:Re: Pentax K 2.5/200mm) > > > > So, if this happens to Pentax I will use the equipment I have until it is > > unrepairable and falls apart. This is a long time and until then I can > > take pictures just the same way as before. > > > > So, what's the problem? Sure, it would be sad but it's not the end of the > > world. > >
