Rob, A funny thought just crossed my mind. In the past we have been very accustomed to thinking that the camera body doesn't matter that much as long as the shutter speeds are accurate. The optics are after all, what really makes the picture quality. But with DSLR's, that changes to some degree. Optics are important, but the body is far more important than in the past. With the electronics and software built into the body, a camera body can have as much or more impact on picture quality than the lens. It would be entirely possible for Pentax to create a DSLR with poor software that would negate the quality gained from the optics. Not a comforting thought for me. I have always thought that as long as my glass was good, any body would work in a pinch.
Saturday, September 28, 2002, 10:41:20 PM, you wrote: RS> On 28 Sep 2002 at 20:56, Bruce Dayton wrote: >> Even if one starting switching away from Pentax, and later >> Pentax actually came out with a DSLR, would you be any worse off? My >> guess is that you would end up being further ahead as other makers >> continue to change and innovate at a much faster pace. RS> Hi Bruce, RS> Dollar wise I can assure you I'd not be better off. Perhaps not. For me, I suspect that I would go the trio of pro zooms route, rather than gather all the primes again. Like I said previously, Medium Format has really become my serious kit. My 35mm work would not particularly suffer by just using zooms (perish the thought!) >snip< >> See my note above. I believe you have hit the nail on the head. >> In the digital revolution, Pentax will not be a big player. So if >> you are not happy and satisfied now, I believe you will not be any >> happier later by waiting for a single, light weight release by >> Pentax. RS> As I said in previous posts I'd be happier being able to use Pentax glass on RS> any DSLR, I don't care for Canon or Nikon optics. I, too, like Pentax glass the best. But I could stand to use Nikon glass and bodies if necessary. Bruce
