> I think that by looking back only to 1990 you miss the > sea state change started by Minolta with the first fully > integrated AF in 1985.
It is just where I started my search through the magazines. A decade looked good to me. I understand it missed a few things. > Ever since that time camera makers have been refining > the camera interfaces to make them more efficent to use > and support new capabilities. Canon was one of the first > to have a fairly standard control interface across their > models (the Rebels, and everyone elses bottom of the > line entry level cameras, differ by only having a single > control dial). Having used Canon cameras before I have to agree. The problem isn't the standard...all of the Canon controls aren't intuitive. Now that the standard has been around people are getting better at it. I'm afraid this was my same gripe with the PZ-1 and the 1p...just let me make a friggin' photo already! I like my cameras intuitive...it is strange that the MZ-S seems more familier in its controls, but then I may be getting used to the newer interfaces. Can't say that Canon doesn't have a good thing going...they wouldn't be where they are at least in some part. Too bad you can't use any pre-EOS lenses - Canon has worked hard on not making that a limit, but I consider it a minus. Nikon wandered around, with different > controls on different models, until the F5. The F100 and > N80 are very similar to it, particularly in the way that > AF sensors are selected. Everyone liked that control > concept so much they copied it (Canon, Minolta and > Contax). Nikon N70...took me longer than the PZ-1p to figure out, but once I did...it worked ok. It is too bad older lenses don't work with the F100 and N80. Once again I consider this a disadvantage...it limits the system, IMO. I like the F100 and the N80. > Now, Minolta started this off by being on the leading > edge of new technology. They got so carried away with > this that they became loaded down with fluff (remember > function/personality cards?). I saw an ad fro those...I had almost forgotten. : ) When Canon introduced the > EOS line, they not only took the technology lead from > Minota, but finally had a chance to make big inroads > into Nikon's pro market. (AF leveled the playing field. > Nikon was burnt by this so bad that when digital > photography looked like the next hot thing they jumped > on it ahead of Canon and had a DSLR a couple of years > ahead of them.) Judging Canon's technology by the Rebel, > sort of misses everything they've done. Most of the > entry level SLRs are the same: the maker recycles the > last model with a fresh look and some new feature, but > they don't change much. Those cameras are driven by low > cost and a fancy looking spec sheet. I was just using the Rebel as an example of the Canon standard...not just the technology. The EOS 3 is not too far from the EOS A2 (which came out before the Elan II)...and the EOS V is pretty close to the 3. Does a V really do that much more for a photographer than an Elan? I know it all depends on the photographer, but how many 'eye-controlled focus points' does one really need? Gimme a break! It feels like a push-button transmission to me. All the companies need a buget SLR and so on. It is in the realm of the advanced amature/pro that I think manufacturers are losing sight of the photograph. > So what did Pentax do? They made cameras that seemed a > lot like everyone elses with a feature or two they could > call their own: power zoom & Hyper Programs for > instance. All the market progress they made in the 70's, > they lost in the late 80's and early 90's. Pentax took > good advantage of the analog retro backlash with the ZX- > 5. The problem is though, that it's hard to be retro and > contemporary at the same time. By keeping the controls > 1960's simple you just can't support all the newer types > of controls. Right after the ZX-5 came out everyone else > had gone back to dials and knobs, where it made sense, > and most of the modern SLRs are pretty straight forward > to use. Now, in the areas that Pentax is different than > other makers, they are in sort of a retro-niche. > If DSLR's turn out to be big in amature photography, > will get whacked as hard as they did when AF redefined > SLRs. > I guess this is where I really have to disagree. I don't think that Pentax was 'whacked' by the AF 'revolution'. I think that they, more than any other company, understood what it would take to put out a decent product. Minolta took that decade an killed the lead they had in AF tech with too much. Modes, models, and cards - (not to mention new lens mounts (2) and a new flash mount). Canon used the standardization road and it served them well, but it took several models over the last years (lets say from 1990 to 2000 or so) to get to good cameras that get the job done, and don't confuse the crud out of the users. Nikon, as you said, wondered all over the place with controls. I noticed the N80 has the standard cable release (like the 6006) that the N70 and N50 should have used. After all that time, but fewer models than Canon, they are getting the idea. Pentax, however, figured it out pretty fast. Two camera body type since the SF cameras (even thoought the PZ-1 has a similar body type). It may be that Pentax just likes to wait around until everyone else has tried out the new stuff, and then try it themselves, but then they have a few firsts too. It just looked good to me, as I looked through years of photography and equipment, that Pentax go from point A to point B with less in the middle. Says something to me anyway. - 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 .
