[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Keith, > Looking at the intro date of 1981 for the MG, I would guess it is an ME with > a new name. Think about it as a marketing ploy. Pentax says... > "We are going to introduce the ME Super, now how are we going to keep the > customers from confusing this with the ME and recognizing all the extra > functionality we built in. I've got it! We'll stop making the ME, introduce > the ME Super for a bit higher price, and when the distributors are out of the > ME, we'll introduce the MG... same camera as the ME, but with slightly > reduced (more realistic?) specs than the ME. We can price it at a bit less > than the ME Super and more than the MV." > Regards, Bob S.
I think you've summed it up nicely, Bob... That reflects my feelings about how the MG came to be... keith > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > << Check out Mr. D's site at <http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/>. > Go to the bottom of the screen, and select "Bodies," then "Body Data & > Descriptions" then finally "M-series" bodies. > All the info is there on his chart... > Seem to be almost identical, don't they? It might be that the MG did > replace the basic ME, functionally, while the ME went off and became > the ME-F and the ME-Super...but that's a wild guess on my part. I'm > too new at this to make intelligent suppositions like that! <BG> >>
