View Single Post
Old Jan 28, 2007, 8:37 PM   #7
stowaway7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 183
Default

Greg Chappell wrote:
Quote:
Pentax, Olympus and Minolta never were really huge in terms of market share back when people were running film through their cameras and manually focusing their lenses, either. There's been no huge paradigm shift with the digital age.


Actually, cameras like the Minolta SRT-101, the Olympus OM line and the Pentax model (back then they were known as Honeywell Pentax) that introduced spot & average metering made quite a dent in market share. You would need to look to the Miranda Sensomat/Sensorex line of the mid-70's, the Haminex Practika's or more recently the Yashica-then-Kyocera-then-no-more-digital-cameras line to find those who didn't make the paradigm shift very well. For that matter, the Yashica Electro 35 range-finders were a staple of the industry. I still see them around quite often. My point is, with all the talk about pro this and pro that, what exactly determines what a "pro" model is? Any camera used by someone that makes money with it? I don't think the industry has settled on any standards (which makes is simple for any companyto call a model with the most featuretheir "pro" camera). I think you summed up the whole issue best in your final line...GO OUT AND TAKE SOME PICTURES!
stowaway7 is offline   Reply With Quote