I very much appreciate Bob and Ken and their well-informed posts. Much of the information Bob gives was pretty well known at the time (albeit not officially confirmed directly from Pentax), so I'm not sure why there are so many alternative "explanations" for the MZ-D never making it to the store shelves.
What follows is pure speculation on my part. I have absolutely no facts to support this hypothesis - seekers after truth should quit now. Because the lead time (the length of time between commencing the initial design step and the product showing up on shelves) is so long, and the demand for constant 'improvement' is high, it's common for companies to have multiple independent design teams. And what I've seen come out of Pentax in the last few years leads me to believe that they operated the same way. Not only that - some of their design teams have differing views on how things should be done. Without strong company guidance this often shows up in the final products. To me, the Pentax product line shows all the signs of this. On the one hand we had the MZ series of cameras; as close to the traditional old cameras we all knew as was possible while still incorporating all the modern features. On the other side was the PZ range; cameras designed to offer all the new abilities, methods of control, etc. that were to be found on competing products (not to mention some unique features - not all of which, in hindsight seem all that well-concieved). Long-time list members will, no doubt, remember the speculation as to whether Pentax would ever release a fully-featured film body (whether or not the MZ-S merits this description is a separate discussion), and if so whether we would see an MZ-x or a PZ-2. At the time Pentax first considered stepping into the digital marketplace, the MZ design team were the ones available to take on the task of designing the camera. As a result, we (almost) saw something very close to the MZ-S. It was a bold design, and if it had been successful it would quite probably have put Pentax in a strong position in the overall DSLR market. But the gamble didn't pay off, and Pentax had to abandon the project. By the time it next became feasible for Pentax to consider a DSLR (though, I'd guess, with a somewhat smaller design budget) the PZ design team were the ones who got the job. As a result we got a camera that was ergonomically very close to the PZ-1p. I suspect Pentax may even have decided they could no longer afford two fully-independent design teams, or at the very least had decreed that designs had to show far more commonality. If that is the case, I think Pentax are doing the right thing; I've worked at several places where independent design teams were allowed to be truly independent, and it has usually turned out to be a bad idea in the long term. On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 06:54:37AM -0800, Jack Davis wrote: > A prime clarifying example of knowledge revealing the absurdity of > emotional assumptions. > Thanks, Bob! > > Jack > > > --- Bob Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 28, 2006, at 6:54 PM, Rob Studdert wrote: > > > > >> You are not feeling especially smart, either. > > >> I recall that Pentax was pretty blunt about the FF camera not > > being > > >> marketable due to sensor issues. > > > > > > So you are telling me that they didn't know this or it wasn't an > > > issue when it > > > was shown to the market? > > > > > > Actually, they didn't. I saw the prototype at photokina and talked > > to some of the Pentax people about it. They were very enthusiastic. > > > > But at that time they did not know that Philips, the maker of the > > full frame chip, would miss delivery deadlines by over a year and > > jack the price up several times prior to delivery. Kyocera went > > ahead with the N Digital using that chip, and you see where it got > > them! Pentax people I talked to at various times during the project > > > > were very up front with me about what was going on, and when Philips > > > > raised the price one last time they told me they were killing the > > project because the new chip price would push the price of the camera > > > > out of the range they considered practical. The Contax N Digital was > > > > nearly two years late to dealers, sold poorly and performed even more > > > > poorly due to chip and firmware problems, both of which Kyocera > > blamed on Philips. I believe it was the disaster with this chip that > > > > caused Philips to decide to withdraw from that market and sell off > > their chip fabrication assets, which are now an independent company > > called Dalsa. > > > > If I were in your shoes, Rob, I'd direct my anger where it belongs, > > at Philips. They promised Pentax something they were unable to > > provide at the quoted original price and in the quoted time frame. > > Pentax lost a lot of money on that project. If Philips had come > > through with what they originally promised it would have been a > > killer camera. But if they hadn't dropped the project it might just > > > > have killed Pentax, as it did Contax. > > > > Bob > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com
