Why would they develop a new body. The MZ-S was developed for the MZ-D with less expensive electronics it would fall right into the anticpated price range. I anticpate the MZ-D chassis with new electronics and sensor. I expect it will be 6 mp, with higher res followup at end of year, but it may actually compete with the anticpated Canon D-90. Sensor size, etc are up for grabs. Anyone want to start a pool?
Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 11:10 AM Subject: Re: Speechifying on the old Stump > (Continued...) > > > Okay, so here's what I'm going to be watching for when the news starts to > trickle out: > > 1. What is the sensor size in megapixels? > > 2. What is the ISO sensitivity range? > a. What is the lowest ISO setting, and how high is the image quality? > b. What is the highest ISO setting, and how well is noise controlled? > > 3. What is the physical size of the sensor? > > 4. What flash media does the camera utilize? > a. What's the connectivity? > > 5. How well are responsiveness issues addressed? > a. AF speed > b. Shutter lag > c. Burst rates > d. Write times > e. Buffer size > f. Delay before review (and review access) > g. Turn-on timings > > 6. What's the power source, and how long does it last per charge? > > 7. What resolutions and file formats are supported? > a. Does it support usable RAW recording? > > 8. How good is the viewfinder? > > 9. What's the size and weight of the camera? > a. How are the control ergonomics > b. How's the hand-feel? > > 10. What's the image quality like? > a. Color accuracy > b. Dynamic range > c. White balance > d. Image sharpness / resolving power > c. In-camera sharpening and contrast settings > > 11. How's the software support? > > 11. What's the cost? > > > ============================== > > Okay, and now here's what I'm personally hoping for: > > 1. An intelligent balance, like maybe 6 mp. > > 2. At least 800 on the high side, with excellent noise reduction. > > 3. NOT full size. "Bigger is better up to a point." I think there are > advantages to a smaller sensor size in the long run--I'm hoping for a > magnification factor between 1.6 and 1.3. (I'm also quietly hoping for a > couple of small dedicated WA lenses, but maybe that's just me.) > > 4. CFII and maybe one other additional, with USB and maybe Firewire > > 5. Fast, fast, fast! > > 6. Whatever > > 7. Whatever they decide will be fine with me (although I know pros need RAW, > which is why I think it's important for Pentax to have it) > > 8. Critical. Please, no crappy little squinty tunnel-vision viewfinder! The > whole _point_ of an SLR is a good view, especially since you give up the > option of live LCD preview > > 9. D100 size and weight or less > > 10. Obviously critical-- > a. Color accuracy must have no obvious flaws or it will start internet > brushfires that will be impossible to control and will hurt the > marketability of the product > b. Dynamic range--my own bugaboo, the more the better sez me > c. White balance--custom settable > d. Image sharpness / resolving power--here I can't foresee any problems, > since essentially my 5-mp 1/1.8" Sony is sharp enough for me and the Pentax > will be better than that > c. In-camera sharpening and contrast settings--adjustable, natch > > 11. I'll be importing to Photoshop, but I could use a good filing / > organization / image editing program > > 12. Not really sure this is critical, but then I've flogged that dead horse > into a bloody mass on this list in the past few days, won't go there again. > I suppose, to stand a chance, it has to be cheaper than the D100 and > whatever Canon is introducing to replace the D60. > > > Stepping down off the old speechifying stump, > > --Mike >
