> -----Original Message----- > From: Brad Dobo [mailto:brad.dobo@;rogers.com] > > Question: What if Pentax does come out with the DSLR that is > currently being talked about, how many people on the list > would buy one? (Assuming the price is what? ~$2000US)
Me for one! BTW, the price quoted on imaging resource is $1600US. > It's obvious then that it would not be a real feature rich camera. Not > like the top Nikons or Canons, or the unfortunate MZ-D. That's not obvious to me? Plus the top Nikons and Canons are $6000ish, and would the MZ-D have been. The lower end (D30, D60 for example) are based on consumer models and are said to have very much second rate AF for a start. I think, bearing in mind the price and the mention to using a smaller sensor enabling a smaller body, that this will not use the MZ-D body. I have always suspected that the MZ-6 was launched to provide the basis for a consumer dSLR. It addresses the main faults in the MZ-7 et al by giving autobracketing and spotmetering, plus DOF preview. It would be highly unlikely that a DSLR be based on the ageing MZ-5 body, so a new one was needed and these features would be demanded on the new camera. Yessir, I see the MZ-6D on the way. This would be much smaller and lighter, not to mention cheaper than the proposed MZ-D, and would fill a market even when a bigger full frame version is later launched. > Also, once they enter the market, then a year later a > full-frame kick-butt one comes out? If I wanted a Pentax > DSLR (which I don't :)), I would pass on what they seem to be > offering and what I've read here (Hey, at $2000US it is worse > in Canada and that's some serious money still), and wait > another year for a superior? product. See above - the year later superior? Product would be bigger, heavier and much more expensive. I personally might buy the first model, and then just sit tight until the ultimate model is released which fits my purposes better. I ideally want a body exactly the same as the MZ-S, but with a 'swivellable' screen on the back and a full frame sensor. The MZ-D I would possibly have bought out of sheer madness and irresistable stupidity as it is way bigger than I would ultimately like. I don't even use the BG-10. I doubt if even the second Pentax DSLR will fit my bill, so I will probably jum on with the initial 'cheapie' and wait till things settle, probably in 3(or possibly 2)-5 years time. > Another one: Would be it useful to professionals or more a > toy for the serious-hobbist? Both. > One more (I think): I don't understand the megapixel > difference. Unless you are in the business of making huge > posters or want something you can use in your house instead > of wallpaper :) does a 3.3mp do the job? As the D30 showed, 3MP CAN be enough, but is not ideal. 6MP seems to be sufficient for most, although you really need the 11MP jobbies to truly challenge film. > Will it keep going up? How high? A ISO6400 colour print with > the grain of a Velvia or Provia 100 F? This is one area where digital is currently poor - high ISO noise is far worse than film, such that most wont let you go past 800-1000, some wont even go above 400. > does the sensor size matter? APS, > full-frame, etc? I've read some of the posts on this and you > guys are just way over my head in this area, lots of > scientific stuff. (ok, sorry, that was a bunch of questions in one) Quite simple really, a smaller sensor means that all of your lenses become longer eg by a factor of 1.5. Thus your 24mm wide angle becomes a 36mm which is no good for me. Therefore you have to buy super wide angles like Sigma's 14mm to get a 20. I am glad I have a 17-35mm zoom! That will give me a 24ish with the new APS size sensor. Of course this is actually GOOD at the long end - a 300mm becomes a 450mm which is excellent for motorsports or wildlife etc. This is why it is 'long lens' photography ratehr than landscapes etc which has really adopted digital as the norm. Other factors are that because you are effectively enlarging the central portion of the 'image', the lens resolution is not fully used. It is like blowing up the central portion of a film image.
