That should be "high IQ". Notice I did not say it applied to me.
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Steven Desjardins <[email protected]> wrote: > we're talking small and attractive with IQ. I know I'm interested in that ;-) > > On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 11:52 AM, P. J. Alling > <[email protected]> wrote: >> But that's just the point of the K mount and the 624 mount cameras. They >> play to an existing user base with a boat load, (relatively speaking in the >> case of the 645D), of used lenses available. A bigger camera, (and in the >> case of the 645D I don't think it's any bigger really) is not so much of a >> problem in when you're working with an installed user base, with all of >> those yummy legacy lenses. The Auto 110 had what 5 primes, 2 zooms and 1 >> third party teleconverter. If it goes with the m4:3 standard then the those >> lenses won't work without an adapter anyway, if they use their own standard, >> I bet the lenses would cover APS-C, given it's high ISO noise advantage why >> not just go with an APS-C camera body... >> >> Hey wait a moment. Doesn't Pentax already have a camera system using an >> APS-C sensor and a legacy lens mount? >> >> On 1/15/2011 8:06 AM, John Sessoms wrote: >>> >>> They could do a new Auto110D and give it the same treatment they had to >>> use on the *ist-D. It looks like the old Auto110. It evokes the feel of the >>> old Auto110. It can use the old Auto110 lenses, but it's just a little bit >>> bigger so they can cram the necessary electronics in there. >>> >>> That's all just engineering. Having stated the problem is half-way to >>> solving it. >>> >>> The real question is whether there's a market for it? If Pentax could see >>> the kind of market demand the 645D is generating, the Auto110D would be a >>> viable product. >>> >>> It's a clever idea, but is it a clever enough idea for Pentax to be able >>> to make money out of it? I don't think it is, but I won't mind if I'm proved >>> wrong again. I'd like to have one myself. >>> >>> From: "P. J. Alling" >>>> >>>> No they can't. Look at a *ist-D compared to an MX or even a MZ >>>> series camera, notice how thick the body is front to back, there's >>>> a lot space required for the sensor and electronics that a roll of >>>> film doesn't need. There wouldn't be room in a classic Auto 110 >>>> body. Nor is there any space for the battery, you'd need to have >>>> the /motor/ /drive/ mounted at all times. >>>> >>>> On 1/11/2011 8:08 PM, David Parsons wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > They could just put a 4/3s sensor in a 110 body. Then they rerelease >>>>> > the lenses with new coatings. >>>>> > >>>>> > On Tuesday, January 11, 2011, Dario Bonazza<[email protected]> >>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >> A Pentax mirrorless camera system based on a 4/3 sensor would make >>>>>> >> sense, being it >>>>>> >>different enough from their SLR line and not as silly as the I10. A >>> >>> clever move indeed. >>>>>> >>>>>> >> Naah... too clever for Pentax, I don't believe it's going to happen. >>>>>> >> After all, just read all those other silly K-rumors, none of which >>>>>> >> happened. >>>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Dario >>>>> >> >>> >>> >>> ----- >>> No virus found in this message. >>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >>> Version: 10.0.1191 / Virus Database: 1435/3380 - Release Date: 01/14/11 >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Where's the Kaboom? There was supposed to be an Earth-shattering Kaboom! >> >> --Marvin the Martian. >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> [email protected] >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. >> > > > > -- > Steve Desjardins > -- Steve Desjardins -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
