Not sure if they would recover the cost with FF (135) Stefan. They seem confident that they may recover the cost on the 645D. The 645D still has a digital back built into it. That could be done with an MZS. Just because it retails for a small fortune does not mean it cost a small fortune to manufacture.

There would probably be less people buying a 645D than a FF (135) Pentax if it were available.

With all due respect to Sony, I never expected them to take the market a huge impact. Maybe its me but I don't feel comfortable with Sony on my prism housing, they were never a "camera" manufacturer. The main brand names still carry more weight. It's a sign of your R&D situation when a third party uses your sensors and outperforms you.

How would Pentax look at users of the 645? Once Hassled and Bladdered et al went digital, Adorama, B&H and many more were full of second hand 645 and other film MF kit. They were as cheap as chips second hand.

Think back a while, until Pentax DSLR's started to get into the mainstream sales figures, used Pentax lenses were cheap as well, come to think of it, so were the new lenses.

I think results speak as loud if not louder than technical spec's.

I covered a National model flying competition on May 31st Bank Holiday weekend. Met a guy with a Nikon D2X who was a retired Police photographer and ex army photographer. He told me that IHO, the D2X has the best IQ of all Nikons. Very film like in appearance. I respect his point of view. He has many many years of experience. He loved my K7 by the way and thought that the shutter sound was superb!

For those who want or need DMF, great news. For the rest of us there is a choice. Just a pity it can't be Pentax.

Regards

Based on the above, I would say yes.

Good work and No.1 is excellent.

Regards

The Nikon does not stabilise old lenses, neither do any of my Pentaxes that were made before my K10D. My only stabilised Nikon lens is the 70-200 f/2.8 VR. My 14-24 and 24-70 don't have VR. Since I can use them at silly high ISO, noise free, why do I need VR on short glass?

My Minolta 7D does as it preceded the K10D by two years. Pentax must have thought it a good idea to copy the Minolta route rather than Canon or Nikon with regards to IS.

All this is irrelevant. IS is not one of my reasons for buying a camera.

I use different systems on their own merit and never ask a fellow photographer why they use their choice over what I use.

Truth be told, when people see me with more than one brand of camera, they more often than not ask about the Pentax and the Minolta with genuine interest.

Regards[/quote]IS/SR may not be one of your criteria for buying a camera, that doesn't mean it is a bad reason for someone that values it.

Also, I've never asked why someone has chosen a particular system over another, though I'd like to think that if I did, and they presented good reasons for doing so, that I would accept that. That was kind of the point of this post. It wasn't a dig at Nikon, it mentions Nikon as that is what they guy shot with.[/quote]Then we agree Rob.

I did not mean to infer that IS/SR was a bad reason to buy.
Also no issue with digs at Nikon or any make. The only recent brands I don't own in digital or film is Leica (no MF or larger).

Regards

I agree with the Contax and Leica scenario John.

The fact of the matter is that the manufacturers have slowly replicated the field of view with lenses for APS that were available with 35mm format. Good business sense?

With the bulk, weight and cost issue, that would rule out the 645D then?

There will always be issues with likes and dislikes within photography yet it has evolved over the years to bring more people on board. That can't be a bad thing but with that came more "choice" issues and opinions.

I personally feel that all of the current FF Pentax lenses are wasted by not having a FF digital body to use them on.

I believe that with the mockup MZ-D which looked just like it's film variant in size was the way to go, not then due to sensor issues etc, but it did show that FF does not need to be huge or indeed heavy.

I know that people cannot just go and buy various systems due to cost ans in some cases bulk. I do say that those who want FF can do it now. If Pentax release such a model, other third party kit can be sold to help fund it.

The camera is still only a tool, just as the different tools in a workshop. Learning to use and using different tools is an everyday event. Cameras are no different. The only barrier is psychological.

Best regards

I was hoping that a Pentax Fx body would appear. As mentioned above, lenses like the 15mm and of course the 28 shift would be usable once again.

I would love a 31mm Ltd but why buy it to put on a body it was not made for? I want it on FF to use all of the glass. I could use it on a 35mm film body of course but the cost does not justify that. The same for the rest of the Pentax FF Ltd's. Edge to edge sharpness suddenly means nothing on an APS sensor.

Jonathan, you mentioned in your OP

"I also love the fact that the apparent focal length means those lenses work as if they are one and a half times more powerful than they are on a 35mm camera (not as much, however, as the 2x crop factor on four-thirds)."

The magnification never changes. Only the FOV. As discussed many times here, it was a great marketing con. Less FOV due to smaller sensor size generally means more enlargement to get an image to print size dimensions. Fortunately, most DSLR's have enough resolution that we don't always notice any ill effect with this.

September 2000, the MZ-D (MR-52) was shown at Photokina. It never went into production for various reasons. It was to be FF. It looked the biz and I thought that Pentax were about to conquer the DSLR market.

For those of us that want a Pentax FF, we may be waiting for a bus that will never arrive. If like me, you get a year older each year, you may want to re-consider your options. I bought a FF DSLR and have never regretted it.

To date there has been a gap at the wide end and people are waiting for the Sigma 8-16mm. At f/4.5 - f/5.6, it still wont be too useful indoors at least not on my K7.

The passing of the 35mm *ist and Pentax film bodies was a sad day indeed, as so much more was lost along with it.

Regards

The Nikon does not stabilise old lenses, neither do any of my Pentaxes that were made before my K10D. My only stabilised Nikon lens is the 70-200 f/2.8 VR. My 14-24 and 24-70 don't have VR. Since I can use them at silly high ISO, noise free, why do I need VR on short glass?

My Minolta 7D does as it preceded the K10D by two years. Pentax must have thought it a good idea to copy the Minolta route rather than Canon or Nikon with regards to IS.

All this is irrelevant. IS is not one of my reasons for buying a camera.

I use different systems on their own merit and never ask a fellow photographer why they use their choice over what I use.

Truth be told, when people see me with more than one brand of camera, they more often than not ask about the Pentax and the Minolta with genuine interest.

Regards

Yet my Nikon works with every Nikon lens since 1977 and all AF Nikon lenses since 1986. How far back do we need to go?

The majority of buyers will not be buying a new Pentax body to use with a legacy lens.

Regards

No. 1. IMO.

A good set and great subject matter.

Regards

some candid shots..










comments welcome

regards

Which if you read the (almost comically hate-filled ) Pro Digital section of the DPR forums, has the disadvantage of being triggered by any Nikon DSLR within about thirty feet. So good for groups provided that nobody else photographing the same group also has a Nikon DSLR.[/quote]So that's Pentax and Nikon out of the "wedding camera" options.

Regards