At 15:22 9-9-2002 -0400, you wrote: >Seriously, it's much more interesting to hear why people made a >*conscious* decision to use one or another kind of >equipment (as oposed to having inherited it). >But I was wrong in my initial judgement -- seems like lots of people here >did make that choice, and I saw some very >good reasons. > >Now if only someone from Pentax marketing were listening... > >Best, >Mishka
I didn't inherit any camera equipment. Nor was I given any Pentax stuff as a present by anyone. I reckon Pentax marketing had a lot to do with my decision. I started out into "serious" photography with a second-hand Zenit-E. I sold it and then progressed(!) to a Praktica MTL3. Around 1981, the equipment bug bit and I started buying Amateur Photographer to look through the adverts (I certainly didn't buy it for any other of the content - if I recall, a better title might have been "amateur pornographer"). At the time, Pentax products were flavour of the month with the editorial team and nearly all the camera shops advertizing their wares had a good stock of Pentax gear. Reviews of the MX and ME-Super were glowing, they were the smallest around and even better - they were affordable! I duly sent off my cheque to the advertizer with the best price and a few days later was the proud owner of an MX with 50/1.7 lens. As I didn't like to be like everyone else, I decided that my standard lens should be the 35/f2.8 which I purchased, along with the 135/3.5. About a year later, I bought the 75-150 zoom. That was my kit until the late 90s. I took a foray into the world of Minolta for my AF outfit. Pentax were nowhere to been seen, and what there was available in the shops near to where I was living wasn't awe-inspiring. Then came the MZ-S (anyone want to buy a Minolta dynax 600si classic?) Wendy --- Wendy Beard Ottawa, Canada mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] home page http://www.beard-redfern.com
