This is just in case someone from Pentax cares to monitor this list, otherwise I wouldn't bother any of you with such obvious truths:
from Herbert Kepple's article: AF> ... With the possibility of AF> electronic viewfinders, pentaprisms should vanish along with the need for AF> rapid return mirrors. I would certainly *not* buy a camera without an optical, TTL viewfinder. Period. AF> ... AF> AF> Why no Minolta or Pentax interchangeable lens digital SLRs? Because as good AF> as Minolta and Pentax lenses are, their lens systems are inadequate in AF> variety to satisfy the pros and advanced amateurs camera makers see as the AF> prime customers. The incredible scopes of the Canon and Nikon lens systems AF> are indeed prime reasons for every electronic camera to use them. Virtually AF> all present and many past Canon and Nikon lenses plus those from independent AF> lens makers can and will fit the new breed of digital SLRs. I'm neither a pro nor an advanced amateur, at least not judging by the size of my investment in Pentax gear. Yet I would consider buying a $1000, 8 MPixel, full frame (24x36) sensor. Food for thought, Pentax. AF> ... AF> coverage. But is such a large sensor really needed at all? Nikon and Canon AF> have found that their considerably smaller format sensors can produce pro AF> quality results to six megapixels and probably beyond. In other words, AF> unlike film, the bigger sensor area does not necessarily produce needed AF> higher resolution. Given my scientific formation, I am convinced that 4/3 inches and smaller sensors lack the resources, both electronic and optical, to provide film resolution in the foreseeable future. Servus, Alin
