it doesn't sound crazy at all to me. let's see: -- P. dslr has zero chance of competing against C & N (just C, really) in "pro 35mm" market -- P. dslr would have very little competition in pro 645 market (contax gone) -- P. needs to regain its position and reputation w/ pro audience badly. -- a serious chunk MF is being taken by C., so if it waits, it misses its only chance
what would you do? best, mishka On 1/24/06, John Forbes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > OK, Rob, > > I don't know. It seems crazy to you, and I have to say it seems crazy to > me, too. I am sure it would have been a good thing to have done three or > four years ago, but now it seems too late. > > It doesn't detract from my argument that Pentax has limited funds. > Indeed, it makes them more limited. Sadly. > > John > > > On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:50:49 -0000, Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > On 24 Jan 2006 at 22:36, John Forbes wrote: > > > >> There is no dispute that Pentax has been slow to produce a high-spec > >> DSLR. However, following the disaster of the MZ-D, they have not had > >> unlimited resources to put into further bodies. Rightly or wrongly, > >> they > >> are now being more cautious. > > > > This reply has to be made publicly. Why would you say such a thing > > knowing full > > well Pentax is off on a tangent pouring funds into a digital 645 body > > which > > will be extremely costly to develop and have very limited appeal and > > marketability? I'd hardly call that cautious. And all the while they are > > loosing people who require higher spec bodies to Canon and Nikon. :-( > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ > >
