Robert wrote:
> If Pentax hadn't wasted the research dollars on an entirely new body - a
> decision based, I am sure, largely upon the fact that they needed a digital
> camera anyway (for which I am even more annoyed at the digital devolution
> than usual) - they could have built a fantastic Z-1Pn which would have
> kicked the ass of the Maxxum 7.
Why on should they do that? The Z-1p didn't sell. No camera company has ever put a
unpdated a ten year old AF camera on the market for good reasons. To boot the camera
in this case never sold well in the first place. It would have been financial suicide.
>Does anyone, apart from perhaps Paal,
> honestly believe that the autofocus system and metering system of the MZ-S
> would have been the one that has been designed if money had been no object?
A money no object product has never been designed. The metering system I see no reason
to modify. Every test confirm that the Pentax metering system is among the best.
> Did the designers sit down in a room and say "let's NOT have too many
> autofocus points,
No. They probably sat down and figured out how many is necessary and then figured out
that Nikon use five on their top model. Pentax probably figured out that 6 is a good
compromise.
>and definitely no cross-sensors...
Who cares (and who knows?)? Doesn't Pentax use mirrors or split beam instead of cross
sensors? They do the same job. As others have already pointed out, what matters is how
well it works not how it works.
>and the shutter
> shouldn't be too fast either" or is it far more likely that they were
> working within a budget constricted by the primatizing of the digital
> system?
No. It obvious for size constraints. The whole kudos the MZ-S is size. I doubt the
Z-1p shutter cost significantly more than the one used in the MZ-S. Probobaly the
oposite.
80% of the bugdet and cost of digital system is the digital part.
> I maintain that the MZ-S is a more-or-less compromised and
> derivative SLR, and I expected to be flamed for this comment with all speed.
The MZ-S is obviously based on a clear idea and such is remarkably uncompromised. In
order to acheive the desired goal, basically small size and interface, trade-off has
been in max fps and max shutter speed.
> Pentax should have updated the PZ-1p with multi-point autofocusing in 1997
> or 1998. Then again I've always found the PZ-1p to be a handsome-looking
> camera, so what do I know?
I still don't know why a company should reintroduce a product nobody is buying. Lets
face it; its about making money.
Pål
-
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 .
