that's true. don't need to change camera bodies. simply go for that adapter which would take digital film, and you are all set. i too was looking forward to come that product in the market. i am sure, one day it will.
>From: "Nenad Djurdjevic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: MZ-S Cost...Hey Pentax. >Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 16:40:08 +0800 > >I for one liked the idea of 'digital film' and while the the idea recently >proposed was flawed (I forget the company's name and the web address) I >can't see why such an idea couldn't be made to work if the camera was >designed to support digital film from the start. How happy would current >MZ-S owners be if they knew that digital accessories were in the pipeline >for their camera. A different back (similar to a databack) and a few >electrical contacts to tell the camera to disable the film transport system >would be all it would take. Furthermore, such accessories when they became >obsolete could be upgraded and the camera could remain a useful piece of >equipment instead of a becoming an expensive paperweight (like most >superceded electronic products). > >Even die hard film users (like Shel) might one day be tempted to try >digital >if they didn't have to throw away their old cameras but simply had to buy a >digital back (assuming Shel updated to a hypothetical MZ-S/D). > >By the way: I might be wrong but don't other manufacturer's pro digital >cameras still retain focal-plane electromechanical shutters? > >I take your point though: >the MZ-S and the MZ-D (or whatever it gets called) *are* [the next best >thing to] interchangeable film and digital backs for use with the family of >Pentax K-mount lenses. > >Nenad > >John Francis wrote: > > > > I don't know why people keep resurrecting this tired old concept. > > It just wouldn't be practical. The marketplace isn't exactly overrun > > with 35mm bodies with removable backs, for a very good reason. > > And by the time you get around to modifying all the parts that > > would be different for a digital body (no need for film transport, > > obviously. Nor a focal-plane shutter, come to that), and take > > advantage of the extra capabilities digital can provide, it's > > simpler, and cheaper, to make two completely different bodies. > > > > Let's face it - the MZ-S and the MZ-D (or whatever it gets called) > > *are* interchangeable film and digital backs for use with the family > > of Pentax K-mount lenses. > > > > > It's a shame that the MZ-S wasn't designed with interchangeable backs >so > > it > > > could be used either as a digital or film camera - then it truly would >be > > > able to "exist in a digital dominated future". >- >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 . > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp - 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 .
