Sure, Pentax was a leader (hand-in-hand) with Nikon in the 60s. People seemed to like Nikon's bayonet mount but Pentax' lenses (from conversations I've had with a handful of "oldtimers").
But the technology era that began around 1980 is different than what happened earlier. Today, one-year product development cycles are unacceptable. And it takes a LOT of cash flow to fund that level of development. Canon is one of the ruling parties in office equipment. That's a good source of development funds. Pentax tried, and with some really unique products. One that I recall was a laser that would print CONTINUOUSLY. That's right -- your continuous forms could be laser printed. But alas, a wonderful product with a niche market (read "LX", "MZ-S", and whatever comes in the future from that same philosophy). Nikon gets cash flow from sheer numbers, as well as other venues. Pentax may be significant in other areas, but apparently without enough volume to generate enough cash to fund the rapid development cycles needed in this economy. The net result is that Pentax has had to save up funds to do periodic quality product insertions. LX + 10 years = PZ-1/1p. LX + 20 years = MZ-S. If we're going to stay with Pentax, we should be patient. The quality is there. Just not the rapid marketplace response that the bigger companies enjoy and make use of. my 2 farthings, Collin - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
