Bruce wrote:
>Not really. The original photo.net post had a rather specific photographic >objective in mind. I don't think the person asking the question had a very >good >grasp basic photography. (I heard this is a dim lens, does this mean my >pictures will come out dark? [confusing viewfinder image with film image]) It >also sounded like she was starting from scratch with equipment. >There were >several posts suggesting that there were better tools for the job than entry >level Minoltas of Pentaxes. The original poster wanting to buy an entry level camera with up to a 300mm lens. She believed, based on hearsay, that Minolta and Pentax lenses will go dark(!). > Pal took this as another photo.net attack on >Pentax. The thread veered off into Pentax vs. the world with Pal following up >with 4 more responses to press his point. It wound up spilling over here when >Pal couldn't get people over there to agree with him that starting with >Pentax, >for wildlife photography, was just as good as every other system. Pure hogwash. I said se should by the camera she felt comfortable with regardless, while initial responses was about why she shouldn't buy Pentax (or Minolta), not based on experience, but based on what cameras they owned themselves. The it was about setting the record straight abou all the misinformation in that thread, like how few Pentax lenses that exist and how difficult they are to find on the use market. > Of course, >everyone over there set out to convince Pal (!) that Nikon and Canon were more >suitable for all the standard reasons (stretched out to the point that >they had >no bearing on the original poster). Nobody said that Nikon or Canon wasn't suitable. What was said was that Pentax and Minolta wasn't worth buying for a variety of constructed and absurd reasons. And lets not forget the context of the original question. I believe that both Nikon, Canon, Pentax and Minolta is worth buying. This in strong contrast to Photo.net blatant consumerism where the right name tag is the most important feature. >No one over there suggested that everyone >should get a Nikon or Canon, because it would get them NPS or CPS, and >everyone >will want to rent a 600/4 to shoot their kid playing soccer. Oh really. Did you miss half of the posts? The final triumphant argument to end all argument as to why to stay away from Pentax was that it was impossible to rent a Pentax 600/4 in Floirida. > BTW, Atkins >deleted the thread there. Thankfully yes. The first thing I said in my post was that the thread should be deleted due to the silly responses from people who had no first hand experience of what they are talking about. In order to judge how suitable a Pentax is for wildlife, it's a plus if you have actually tried it. Again, you represent the sort of silliness this thread is all about. What you are saying is that doing things different than Nikon and Canon is worthless. Doing the same as Nikon and Canon is pointless because only Nikon and Canon are professional cameras anyway. This is the essence of what you are saying and exactly the kind of silliness this thread is adressing. It's nothing but pure consumerism without any basis in fact or reason. I don't say that anyone should go out and buy a Pentax; neither here or on photo.net. I say People should buy the camera and system that appeals to them. P�l - 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 .
