Originally posted by les3547 Of course, that's in his mind, not in reality. There is nothing second class about Pentax or even someone's Samsung point and shoot if it fits one's needs.
... or any other camera for that matter. My first "good" camera was one of these, bought for a buck at a thrift store in the early 80s:
No meter, slow f:3.5 lens, top shutter speed of 1/300 sec... It had a sharp lens, though, and I took what I think are some damn good photos with it, 'til the shutter finally gave up on it. Next camera was a 1950-something meterless Minolta A rangefinder. Got great photos with that too, and the "guess-o-matic" exposure meter method taught me a lot. When I finally scored a camera with a built-in meter (K1000) and interchangeable lenses, I thought I hit the big time.
That's why I'm kind of amused by the "pros" who think you can't get good image quality with an APS-C sensor, or that unless you own the most expensive Canikon body with the most expensive primes, you're a lesser photographer and probably an inferior being. Some of us know better.
Originally posted by les3547 Forty years ago, before getting into digital photography, I owned Nikon equipment, and after ten years switched to Leica. Boy was I proud of my "superior" system, as though it was going to make me a better photographer. It didn't.
Yep. I learned that lesson myself, though I couldn't afford a Leica. I owned a whole lotta cameras over the years, though.. Including top of the line pro Nikon 35mm gear. It was nice, but didn't give me any better photos than the Pentax K1000, Minolta SRTs, Canon AE-1P, Olympus OMs, or any of the other systems I've owned over the years.
A lot has been said about the limited selection of Pentax lenses... Leica's S-mount DSLR lens lineup is about a dozen. Pentax's lineup is currently 30-some. Not to mention the aftermarket lenses available.