we're talking small and attractive with IQ. I know I'm interested in that ;-)
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 11:52 AM, P. J. Alling <webstertwenty...@gmail.com> wrote: > But that's just the point of the K mount and the 624 mount cameras. They > play to an existing user base with a boat load, (relatively speaking in the > case of the 645D), of used lenses available. A bigger camera, (and in the > case of the 645D I don't think it's any bigger really) is not so much of a > problem in when you're working with an installed user base, with all of > those yummy legacy lenses. The Auto 110 had what 5 primes, 2 zooms and 1 > third party teleconverter. If it goes with the m4:3 standard then the those > lenses won't work without an adapter anyway, if they use their own standard, > I bet the lenses would cover APS-C, given it's high ISO noise advantage why > not just go with an APS-C camera body... > > Hey wait a moment. Doesn't Pentax already have a camera system using an > APS-C sensor and a legacy lens mount? > > On 1/15/2011 8:06 AM, John Sessoms wrote: >> >> They could do a new Auto110D and give it the same treatment they had to >> use on the *ist-D. It looks like the old Auto110. It evokes the feel of the >> old Auto110. It can use the old Auto110 lenses, but it's just a little bit >> bigger so they can cram the necessary electronics in there. >> >> That's all just engineering. Having stated the problem is half-way to >> solving it. >> >> The real question is whether there's a market for it? If Pentax could see >> the kind of market demand the 645D is generating, the Auto110D would be a >> viable product. >> >> It's a clever idea, but is it a clever enough idea for Pentax to be able >> to make money out of it? I don't think it is, but I won't mind if I'm proved >> wrong again. I'd like to have one myself. >> >> From: "P. J. Alling" >>> >>> No they can't. Look at a *ist-D compared to an MX or even a MZ >>> series camera, notice how thick the body is front to back, there's >>> a lot space required for the sensor and electronics that a roll of >>> film doesn't need. There wouldn't be room in a classic Auto 110 >>> body. Nor is there any space for the battery, you'd need to have >>> the /motor/ /drive/ mounted at all times. >>> >>> On 1/11/2011 8:08 PM, David Parsons wrote: >>>> >>>> > They could just put a 4/3s sensor in a 110 body. Then they rerelease >>>> > the lenses with new coatings. >>>> > >>>> > On Tuesday, January 11, 2011, Dario Bonazza<dario.bona...@virgilio.it> >>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >> A Pentax mirrorless camera system based on a 4/3 sensor would make >>>>> >> sense, being it >>>>> >>different enough from their SLR line and not as silly as the I10. A >> >> clever move indeed. >>>>> >>>>> >> Naah... too clever for Pentax, I don't believe it's going to happen. >>>>> >> After all, just read all those other silly K-rumors, none of which >>>>> >> happened. >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >> Dario >>>> >> >> >> >> ----- >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 10.0.1191 / Virus Database: 1435/3380 - Release Date: 01/14/11 >> >> > > > -- > Where's the Kaboom? There was supposed to be an Earth-shattering Kaboom! > > --Marvin the Martian. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. > -- Steve Desjardins -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
