On 20 Feb 2002 at 21:03, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > For those who don't follow these things, Cosina has just announced a > new, mechanical, all metal-bodied, rangefinder called the Bessa-R2.
Cool. Do you have a link to the announcement? > What's also interesting about this is that there are some new lenses > available as well - nice, slow lenses based on old designs that go > back to decades past. One is a nice, slow 50/2.5. Are you being facetious? Last week you were busting on slow lenses. > Anyway, the point of this is not how swell CV is, but to wonder aloud > how it is that a company, who a few years ago had very little or no > brand recognition, has moved to become an innovator in this area, An innovator? They developed a plastic camera for a 50 y.o mount they copied. > creating and marketing reasonably priced products of good quality, > while companies like Pentax are busy spewing out mostly plastic, > consumer junk and mediocrity. Like the 67II, 645n, 645nII, 67 75/2.8, 645 150/2.8, 645 33-55 I said 645 33-55, FA 200/4 Macro, 43/1.9, 77/1.8, 31/1.8, MZ-S etc., etc, etc.... Yeah, I know you don't like the MZ-S, but it's a metal camera and I like it fine. Like the 67II and 645NII, it's an unique product, unlike the Leica rip-off that Voight puts out. > > I would truly like to see pentax make a few bold moves - retro, > advanced engineering and design, unique optics that fill a niche - > they can do it, and I wish they would. What are the limited lenses? The 645 33-55 is a STUPENDOUSLY bold move! > There is no longer anything > being produced by the company that is of any interest to me, and I > suppose I'm not alone with those feelings. Oh well. > > It's been said that it would cost $1000.00 if Pentax were to produce a > contemporary lens like the 50mm/1.4 Super Tak, or $1000.00 to produce > a Spotmatic quality camera. I think that's a gross, overinflated > estimate. I'd like to see your analysis. > If CV can make exceptional lenses for half that price, why > not Pentax? If CV can produce a camera to sell for half that amount, > why not Pentax? Are you saying Voights are as nice as Spots? I suppose they can make the lenses so cheap because what Cosina really specializes in is making all those cheap plastic cameras and lenses you hate. In fact, as I understand it, the first 2 Bessas were built on that universal crap camera frame. In other words, Voight is subsidized by a huge optical company. > > The sad thing is that, without more Pentax gear to move into, I'm > looking to move out of Pentax for my next purchase. It is sad, for > the years I've spent with Pentax have been many ... > but now they seem > to only be producing gimmicky cameras with features that are of little > or no use to me, or many other people. > I'd love it if Pentax could > find a way to make a high quality, simple, basic camera with a few > good lenses. I thought you wanted retro, unique, and bold engineering? > I suspect there are enough old farts like myself who > would gladly buy 'em. Why would you suspect that? I bet there aren't enough "old farts like you" who would gladly buy such a retro camera. There are just barely enough of you to keep Leica in business. You couldn't keep Olympus OM in business, and you couldn't keep the LX in production. The very last thing Pentax needs to do is introduce an LX II, as much as you or I would like to see one. The first thing they need to do is build a digital slr. The second thing would be a digital back for my 645n. tv - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
