Once again if you can't afford it and don't need it doesn't mean nobody can afford it, nor need it. You are saying exactly what I said most of the people on this list were saying.
When the MZ-D was anounched there was no competiion for it on the market now there is. In digital a year is a full generation, that means that already the competion is moving up. By Photokina which will be exactly two years from Pentax showing the MZ-D, everybody will have 6mp slr digitals, except Pentax of course. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto ---------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 10:35 PM Subject: Re: Digital SLR > It was supposed to be priced at 7K. For me, it might as well have been > vaporware. I think Pentax figured that out. When they can build one for 2k, we > will come. They can, and they will > Paul > > Robert Woerner wrote: > > > Too bad this is a dream, huh? :( > > > > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0009/00091402pentaxdigitalslr.asp > > > > Robert > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Bruce Rubenstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 4:32 PM > > Subject: Re: Digital SLR > > > > > You are just plain wrong. Go to http://www.dpreview.com/, poke around > > until you > > > can find the 2meg - 3meg sample jpg files taken with the DSLRs. Down load > > them. > > > open them up in a program where you can blow them up to 300 - 400%, and > > lood at > > > what you see. The images are way better than you can get with any under 2K > > > scanner. > > > If you don't believe your own eyes, go here: > > > http://www.photonews.com/forums/forums.html and see what working pros, who > > are > > > using digital have to say. There are pros wha have dropped MF film for > > DSLRs. > > > Just about all the folks saying that digital has a ways to go yet, turn > > out to > > > be spectators. > > > > > > > > > --- Robert Woerner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > We don't need no stinkin' digital cameras! > > > > > > > > On a more serious note. > > > > > > > > I don't know much about digital; however, I'll offer my thoughts on it > > > > anyway. > > > > > > > > Take your pictures with high resolution tried and true film. > > > > > > > > Have the negatives (or slides) scanned by your processor OR buy the best > > > > scanner, computer and printer available NOW, scan the negatives > > yourself, > > > > and you can blow any digital camera currently made out of the water. I > > > > believe it would be cheaper than buying any digital SLR currently > > > > available. Do folks out there not know this? > > > > Digital is a big "gotta have it now" lie. > > > > > > > > Changes in digital capability will likely come fast what with Foveon vs. > > CCD > > > > and what not. You will be sitting in the dust in a couple of years > > > > resolution-wise as far as digital is concerned if you buy something > > today. > > > > Film is good now and always will be. > > > > > > > > Am I correct in my thinking and opinions? > > > Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards� > > > http://movies.yahoo.com/ > > > - > > > 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 . > > - > > 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 . > - > 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 . - 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 .
