It is possible that Pentax did plan that all along, I..e, one chassis for digital and film. It would have made as much sense several years ago as it does now. Not that it would invalidate your argument. A common chassis for both media would tend to introduce compromises.
It is an interesting point, however. Most of the "problems" with the MZ-S (Lower shutter speeds and lower FPS) are associated with it's small size. That is certainly not an accommodation to the DSLR application. I suspect that Pentax made the following argument: We made a big and inexpensive camera with lots of features, the PZ-1P, and it sold badly (so I'm told, anyway). We made these smaller ZX bodies, and they sold well. And we made those expensive limited lenses and they sold well. So let's make our high end camera with a high build quality and small size. Also, the ZX-5n was praised for it's return to a more classic set of controls. The PZ-1p was all LCD screen. So the MZ-S is a hybrid of the two. To make everyone happy, Pentax really does need the MZ-S and a higher end camera in the 12-1500 USD range. Many of the users of this list really like old style cameras, and I think that only Leica/Contax can really make a living at that. "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. RSW" _________________________________________________________________ Get faster connections�-- switch to�MSN Internet Access! http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
