Well one problem is that, at least right now, a 6MP camera in a 35mm capable body will be perceived as a professional camera with all the pros and cons that means for the company bringing it out. Not to mention that the top of the market is going to be very fluid when it comes to pixel counts and features. And to be honest Pentax has aimed more for the top of the amateur or semi-pro market for several years because you have to provide logistic support for your cameras if you want to compete and sell at the top of the heap. By aiming a digital more at the PZ-1p/MX-S level you can produce a camera with the kind of advance features you want without having to get into the pixel count race and without having to provide professional services which you don't currently have. Minolta has found out the pitfalls of this when they brought out the Maxxum 9. They can't afford to have mobile support services like Canon and Nikon so they provide the kind of 2nd tier service that gets you fast turnaround when you have a problem. But that's it. Just remember that a digital body as an add-on to a 35mm system camera could get by with 3-4 MP easily at a price that would compete with cameras like the E-10 and Dimage 7. Frankly I'd take a 35mm lens capable body with 3.5 MP over a permanent lens camera with over 5 MP. In fact most of the higher end Minolta users feel the same way. We'd all like a camera with a full size CCD array but if it's going to cost $5K-$7k I'd take something less that fit my lenses in the 3-4 MP range. Doesn't seem to bother the Canon/Nikon guys because the important thing is you get to use the lenses you want. You'd have about the same pixel count as a D30 or D1, but you could make it in the price range of your target consumer, somewhere in the range of the MZ-S. In fact a 3 MP with interpolation to 6MP would be good, like the Fuji, while saving a significant cost over a full 6 MP camera. Kent Gittings
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of aimcompute Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 2:03 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax Digital NEWS! Part one Bruce wrote: > My concern is if you are going to do no better than the competition, and > they are more entrenched, how are you going to compete. The motto "We're no > worse than the rest" comes to mind. Agreed. I guess all they want to do is have some offering, no matter what. > > A full frame CCD was, IMHO, one of the big differences between the Pentax > and a D30 or D1. Pentax may be able to sell a lesser model to some of us, > but it will *not* lure Canon and Nikon users away. You don't really gain > any market share. At best, you may hang on to what you have. But it seems > that you are sending the same old signal, "we will not compete." > Probably a dumb question, but I'll ask it anyway. I think I understand that a perceived advantage to using a full frame CCD was that the CCD captures the entire scene entering the camera thru the lens. Is this correct? It seems to me that the real issue is, do I like the results I get... does the captured scene match my vision through the viewfinder. Does the frame size really matter that much? Tom C. - 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 . ********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.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 .
