[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Patrick Genovese mused:We're talking about a new camera so why not. Having said that it is not a top priority especially if they upgrade the viewfinder.
For me it would be an MZ-S with the following changes.
1. Slightly bigger viewfinder and higher eyepoint.
Possible.
2. Preferably an interchangeable finder.
Implausible - that would need to be designed in, not added later.
Pentax's fixation with diminutive bodies sometimes works against them while I like the way the MZ-S handles I don't think that being a little bit bigger would have hurt it. By bigger i don't mean a behemoth like an F5 or a 1V. just enough to allow the deisgners a bit of extra elbow room with things like AF motors. Perhaps some weather sealing and sound deadening.3. Faster AF and more accurate servo AF.
Doubtful - there may not be room for a larger motor.
Others manage it why not Pentax. The thing that bothers me most is the motordrive racket.4. Slightly bigger grip closer to the Z-1P's gip (with at option to add a handstrap).
5. Faster frame rate say 5 fps would be enough
6. Quieter operation
Pick one :-)
No it would'nt, But we are daydreaming of something better and lets' face it 7 (the back) is easy. 8 just a software update. 9 they had that with the Z1-P. 10 (exposure compensation) again the Z1-P had it v/v flash exp compensation in viewfinder display a scale would be gr8 but a numerical display would do.7. Metal back (or something that feels more robust).
8. Improved exposure data imprinting e.g print actual exposure time on Bulb exposures.
9. Higher flash sync 1/250
10. Built in flash exposure compensation. available in all modes. with a separate compensation scale / indicator in the viewfinder.
11. Exposure adjustments in 1/3 stops. Even it this requires aperture control using a thumbwheel on the body.
But that wouldn't be an MZ-S ...
11 Why not its a new body - or at least exp compensation in 1/3 stops. An easy way to do that may be to feed an offset ISO rating to the metering system.
I agree but if you design a new body and you are going to use most development on a DSLR as well then it just might make sense.12. And last but not least .... (Digital option via a digital back a' la Leica R9) (Dreams dreams dreams!!!)
A camera like that would not just be a film swansong but it could serve as a platform for future DSLR development and may even make commercial sense.
No new 35mm film camera is likely to make commercial sense. I expect that Nikon will lose money on the F6. Even Canon (who are probably the only company who could sell enough film bodies to recoup development costs) don't seem to be bringing out a new body to complement the EOS-1v.
Nor, for that matter, will an interchangeable film/digital camera everI very much doubt Lieca had a digital back in mind when they designed the R8 but they made the back work with it. Now if you start with that target (DSLR+FILM) in mind you are at an advantage. Pentax can save money coz they can amortise the development of the camera platform over a longer time.
be available at a price point most amateurs are prepared to consider.
From a customer's POV you are offering customers a value proposition with respect to upgradeability and backward compatibility. I guess that people especially cash strapped amateurs would be prepared to pay a lttle bit extra for "resistance to obsolesence", I know I would. Just image it you can send in your back and get it upgraded from a 10MP to a 16MP for 25%-40% of the price of a new DSLR. A modular design of the digital side of the camera would enable that to be possible. There may need to be compromises e.g larger / heavier bodies.
Rgds
Patrick
