Nick Wright wrote:
<I've looked at switching to Canon very earnestly this year; for one reason, digital. But I can never do it. I am not about to have to spend ~more~ money to get ~less~ quality. Honestly, it sounds like to ~want~ to switch to Canon. If so, then do it... quit arguing semantics with us. Nick Wright> Youch. Is your last name Wright or Right? Anyway, I thought PDML meant "Parsing Damned Minutiae Loudly." :-) Hey, I'm not here to argue semantics. This gets into semantics is because either myself or another poster aren't talking on the same wavelength. I've admitted a couple of times it has been my fault because I didn't phrase a sentence a certain way or give my definition of a term. The reason why I've been talking about my possible switch is to get some *positive* feedback on why it might be better to stay with Pentax. I don't have all the answers. I thought that by posting here I could engage in some civil debate about Pentax-Canon platforms and see if there was something I was overlooking in the analyzation of my particular situation with the equipment I now have. I would prefer to buy new. I've had too many hassles with used stuff and also would like a warranty to fall back on for a while. To me I've sank enough money into my ME-Super that I bought used. I've seen people who have "good money chase after bad money" when it comes to an used car. They fix one thing, another one goes, then something else, on and on, until they were better off getting a newer car. I do like my ME-Super but there's a point with my budget that I don't like it *that* much. Anyway, Nick, you state that you were thinking about switching to Canon but decided against it because you were "not about to have to spend ~more~ money to get ~less~ quality." OK, fair enough. But could you explain to me the "less quality" part about Canon, outside of the cheapy plastic 50mm 1.8 that I already know about? Best, Ray
