> There was a lot of speculation on this list about a year ago on a lot >of >innovative digital things; a 'dual-format' slr, able to do both digital and >film simultaneously, without switching backs; rumours of a digital >viewfinder built into their 35mm's; rumours of a digital viewfinder for the >67, negating the use of Polaroid backs; and of course, the ill-fated MZS-D >full frame ccd camera.
Personally, I have never thought the "dual format" idea would work. Just too expensive to develop and not practical. > There has also been a lot of speculation regarding the future of >SLR's; >about the fabled 'flagship' camera that may or may not exist and/or come to >market; rumours of Pentax 'Image Stabilization' patents, and that Pentax >actually sold the technology to Canon, and were 'sitting on it', or were >unable to use it themselves due to licensing restrictions. If that was the >case, it was a very bad misjudgement of the technology by Pentax; I guess >they thought Canon would not really be able to make it as 'viable' as it >has >been, and totally misjudged the marketplace acceptance of it; Canon now >surpasses even Nikon in the pro market, and it is largely due to >technological innovations like IS. In terms of technology, Canon was ahead of Nikon since they introduced the EOS system, and it was back to 1988? > There have been rumours of IS teleconverters, TLR's, Rangefinders to >match the Limited Lenses, and all kinds of stuff. So far all we have seen >in >the high end line up are three Limited lenses with equally limited focal >lengths, the MZ-S, and a 360 flash unit, both of which are technically >marvelous and somewhat innovative in their diminutive size, but are less >performance oriented than the items they have 'replaced': the PZ-1 and the >FTZ 500. The shutter speeds and drive speed of that camera are not anywhere >near the current 'Pro' specs, and the lack of separate shutter and aperture >wheels make metered manual very cumbersome for someone with big hands using >the pro glass; ever tried to get your thumb onto the aperture wheel of the >FA* 85mm f=1.4? And the guide number of the flash unit is several notches >down from what 'Pro' spec is currently, and the lack of a pivoting function >is likewise quite useless. Indeed, my Metz MZ40 far outperforms even the >FTZ >500, its supposedly direct competitor. I have the 40MZ3i too but I think it's too complicated and the odd shape fits nowhere in any of my camera bags. It works well, but do I really need all the buttons on the back? Ok, the aperture ring on the FA*85 sucks, I agree. Besides, don't this lens deserve a round shape 9 piece aperture blades? > My guess for the next Limited; a very disappointing 50mm f=1.2 based >on >the one from the LX 2000. That will sure go well with the 43mm. What's >next, >a 28? Or maybe an 85mm. I'm not optimistic (but have been wrong before). Well, the Limited 50/1.2 was made for the LX2000 only and never mean to be used or sold seperately. Just to soak up more money for Pentax. Personally, I see no practical reason to carry 2 standard lenses in my bag. > Either Pentax will have a whole lot of treats for us at Photokina next >month, or there are going to be a whole lot of disappointed Pentax gurus >out >there and, subsequently, a whole lot of used equipment on the market as >people wholeheartedly dump their gear in order to jump ship to Canon or >Nikon. The Pentax Digital SLR had better be marvelous, or I will be one of >them. > > We are sick of waiting. > > Rapidly losing faith, The used narket will soak them up as soon as you dumped your gears. Everyone is waiting, including Nikon and Canon fans. Just that we are waiting for our own dreams. In the meantime, I just keep shooting. regards, Alan Chan _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
