>Indeed. But I think that the majority of the MF cameras are being used in >studios. IMHO this is where Pentax strategy is quite inconsistent. Most of >the field photographers prefer to use 35mm or digital cameras because of >their convenience: such cameras are lighter or at least their equipment is >lighter (most of all - lenses), they usually have better parameters (say >for >example: flash sync speed), much more lenses of different kinds and focal >lengths to choose from, easier and cheaper processing. Pentax is unique in >terms of the compact size of its MF cameras but is also the only major MF >producer that hasn't introduced interchangeable backs so far. You're right >saying that the place that they do well is in field cameras, but heading >for >this segment only is in fact heading for the dead end. IMHO Pentax will be >forced to introduce interchangeable backs to settle among studio >photographers or else they will be floating around as a satellite. AFAIK >(I'm not an MF shooter yet:)) Bronica produces digital backs. This will >make >the issue even more important for Pentax...
I don't know your definition of field camera. But for landscape at least, MF is much better than 35mm due to larger film format. And I sure prefer 120 for landcape if I can afford to. >classic style, elegance, convenience of control, ergonomy, backward >compatibility. These are serious weapons against opponents, but need to be >properly used. A Dynaxx 7 is no match for the Z-1p when we talk about >ergonomy and convenience of use. The only good thing it has is the large >LCD >on the back panel, but who cares for it when it is necessary to control the >camera without taking an eye away from a viewfinder and the Dynaxx 7 does >not allow it. I know it because I have chance to play with this camera - >one >of my good friends has it. I haven't played with a Dynaxx 9 but suspect >it's >no better... Personally, I don't see how "classic style, elegance, convenience of control, ergonomy, backward compatibility" could be serious weapons. These factors are 2nd consideration at most. Besides, I don't think Z-1p can compete with Minolta 7 or 9. >Yes, you're right - film cameras will become tools for hobbyists only... >Actually I don't really see any feature that Canon or Nikon could add to >the >F5 or EOS1v. They are pretty much complete bodies. But Pentax could do it. >Unfortunately, you're probably right about those economical obstacles. >Perhaps something, what we on the PDML disscussed some time ago, would be >the solution: a modular camera - the one that accepts both films and CCD's, >has interchangeable prisms and viewfinders as well as boosters, battery >packs, external power sources etc...Combining it with new Ltd and * lenses, >that would support Image Stabilisation would be a powerful weapon. Any modular system is expensive, and I doubt it will ever happen. Besides, if this is important to anyone, why wait for Pentax when Nikon has the F5 now? Just doesn't make sense. regards, Alan Chan _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.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 .
