Collin Brendemuehl wrote:
Kostas Kavoussanakis
Thu, 02 Jun 2005 06:55:48 -0700
And how well did the MZ-60 sell? And what was the feature set of its
successor in the line-up (film *ist)?
Kostas
My point is Pentax' tradition for 3 decades.
Start with the K2 and build a line off the basic design.
Actually the K2 was a dead end, unless you count the K2-DMD. (or the LX
which shared many concepts), as a follow on. The K bodys other than the
K2 were based on the old Spotmatic F chassis.
Start with the ME and build a line off the basic design.
There was a complete redesign, with the P bodies, and not for the better
IMHO.
Start with the SF1 and build a line off the basic design.
Start with the PZ-1 and build a line off the basic design.
Start with the ZX-5 and build a line off the basic design.
The rest is more or less true as I see it.
Obviously not all derivatives are direct. And sales volume is less important
because design and production cost is shared across the line. Just swap the prism
housing/electronics module & you've got a new camera. Doesn't matter that 3/4
of it is identical. The top is what you look at and use.
Like the common body panels of many GM vehicles allowing a Buick to look like a Chevy.
(Just swap grille and tail lights & badge & who can tell the diff?) It's a
cost-cutting measure on the design and production side.
To that same end ...
Don't be surprised to see a manual focus Pentax digital to hit $500. Sort of a
digital ZX-M.
On another note ... for those who use it with film ...
... trap focus is still a feature on the DS.
Sincerely,
Collin
________________________________________________________________
Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net
--
A man's only as old as the woman he feels.
--Groucho Marx
