Man, this is what I've been arguing all along. I mentioned long ago that the MZ-S was a derivative and therefore possibly compromised camera and most found that possibility silly. I'm not complaining about any MZ-S specifics but simply questioning whether certain of the choices would have been made if it hadn't been first designed as a digital.Bruce wrote:For low volume production items the cost is in the tooling and setting up production, and not the materials.
Thats why the story provided by Pentax UK, all new slr's from the same chassis, makes sense.
I'm not convinced the MZ-S as building block for the whole Pentax slr line-up makes sense. The MZ-S was designed as a digital slr from >ground up and later engineered into a film slr. This cannot be ideal. A new chassis that is engineered from ground up for both film and digital >seem to make more sense.
P�l
RSW
_________________________________________________________________
Get faster connections�-- switch to�MSN Internet Access! http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp
