Why not take Pentax to task for not offering a
film/digital interchangeable back? That would be a
fine use for all that space.
Jack
--- Stan Halpin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Lets assume for a moment that the shape of the 645D
> is not dictated by
> a desire to use elements of the film-based 645, and
> that Pentax has
> something else in mind for that space that used to
> be occupied by the
> film insert. Even if you want to stick with the
> original assumption,
> bear with me for a minute. Lets speculate about
> what can be done with
> that big empty space...
>
> 1. Batteries.
> 2. Space for an internal 20-40 gigabyte drive.
> 3. 801b.11 interface
> 4. GPS
> 5. More batteries.
> 6. Built-in battery charger. (You can change out the
> AA's, but can
> charge them in situ if you like.)
> 7. Storage space for 4-6 CD cards
> 8. or Slots for 4-6 CD cards (with auto or manual
> switching from card
> to card while shooting.)
> 9. Control mechanism for sensor orientation
> (in-camera image
> stabilization.)
>
> BTW, I do not expect the 645D to have any
> ground-breaking features; I
> think it will be a basic functional quality
> platform. Priced at about
> $7,245, with street price of $5,995. But just think
> what could be
> done!
>
> Stan
>
> On Mar 25, 2005, at 12:18 PM, Pål Jensen wrote:
>
> > Rob wrote:
> >
> >
> >> They created a rod for their backs using this
> style of telescopic eye
> >> relief in
> >> their film cameras, I've never found it
> comfortable to work with
> >> (I've owned
> >> and used 3 separate P645 systems over the years)
> and it's the most
> >> fragile part
> >> of the system too, I've had to repair two of
> mine. The small light
> >> prism design
> >> plus the space required to house the film
> cartridge and the
> >> requirement to
> >> minimize weight lead to the need to approach the
> finder design in
> >> this manner.
> >> They could now do far better on the new design
> but it seems they have
> >> hung onto
> >> the old system, possibly to reduce cost or maybe
> sadly to preserve
> >> the visual
> >> connection with the old film system.
> >
> >
> > I seriously doubt it has anything to do with the
> wish to preserve
> > visual clues to the film cameras. The shape of the
> 645D indicate that
> > it is built on the chassis of the film camera. As
> you suggest, the
> > design is dictated by the use of the film back and
> film transport in
> > 645 cameras and not necessary in digital camera.
> In theory at least,
> > Pentax could have made the 645D smaller if it was
> built from ground up
> > and similar in shape and size to a large 35mm slr.
> So basically, the
> > solution must be chosen for price reasons using
> the chassis and
> > mechanics (minus film transport) of the film 645
> as basis. My guess is
> > that the camera electronics is redesigned (judged
> from the interface)
> > and most likely copied from the *isd or less
> likely, the coming
> > semi-pro K-mount DSLR from Pentax.
> >
> >
> > Pål
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
