Bruce wrote:
There weren't enough people willing to spend $1,400 on a Minolta no matter how good it
was.
REPLY:
I believe the main problem for the Dynaxx 9 was that it didn't really offer anything
over its cheaper siblings than built quality. Nikon and Canon can presently get away
with such
John wrote:
No wonder the 7 is such a sales *success*.
REPLY:
Success? That depends on how you count. According to the Wall street journal the
Dynaxx 7 only sell 1/10th of its projected sales and Minolta is loosing wholesale on
it.
Pål
This is really sad. Maxxum 7 is a fantastic piece of engineering with nothing coming
even close in that price range. I know, I used to have one.
Mishka
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 10:37:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: Peter Jansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Question on Pentax Lineup
I also heard
And your reason to trash it? :-)
regards,
Alan Chan
This is really sad. Maxxum 7 is a fantastic piece of engineering with
nothing coming even close in that price range. I know, I used to have one.
_
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com
BLEH, I'd put my yashica mat up against and 35mm
camera for print quality, who needs AF, auto modes,
Matrix metering or batteries.
__
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Brendan wrote:
BLEH, I'd put my yashica mat up against and 35mm
camera for print quality, who needs AF, auto modes,
Matrix metering or batteries.
Who needs prints, we all look at images on our computer and TV screens.
cheers,
caveman
I thought someone mentioned the '7' was also a market failure even though it
was loaded with features. Who do I believe?
regards,
Alan Chan
The market failure of the Maxxum/Dynax 9 was, more than
anything else, due to the introduction of the Maxxum/Dynax 7
which had all the desirable features of
series.
The rest of Pentax, it seems, is for the enthusiast.
My 2c,
Collin
*
From: Christopher Comer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Question on Pentax Lineup
Hey everyone,
I don't follow the future of Pentax too closely so maybe
you could fill me
Pentax has never *consistently* made PJ-type 35mm bodies.
In the 60s almost everything was well-built, so a PJ pro could
use almost anything, and Pentax was in the fray. Even then
their major market was the enthusiast.
Very true, and many Pentax fans have been constantly wishing for another
Christopher Comer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't follow the future of Pentax too closely so maybe
you could fill me in on some rumors. Will the *ist line be
phasing out the Z/M line of cameras?
There will probably be entry-level *ists in the future to replace the
lower-priced Pentax
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pentax has never *consistently* made PJ-type 35mm bodies.
See if I care.
Now seriously. Why would I.
cheers,
amateur caveman
Sorry to bring up old topics but I do appreciate the
responses. The brief Pentax history was interesting and I
had no idea the -5n was out of production. That could be a
tough one to track down in a few months since they seldom
show up used. It may sound irrelevant considering other
Exactly. Pentax cameras do what i want without fuss, and without much
of a hit to the wallet. Well, i take that back, maybe the old russian
rangefinders can do the same thing for about $20, and they do have the
cool CCCP label on them
On Tuesday, Jun 3, 2003, at 14:47 US/Pacific, Caveman
Pentax will probably phase out the ZX line. No one knows when. Stocks of
the ZX-5n will probably be run down by the time it is announced. There
is no way of knowing how long you would have to wait before the price
dropped, assuming it ever does.
Companies that have always built, what are
14 matches
Mail list logo
