Re: JCO is right, so ...

[P. J. Alling]

Except that the *ist-D has a different frame, prism, and control layout 
than the *ist.  Though I'll bet that the *ist shares the same mirror 
box, (very similar if not the same as the mz/zx series mirror box, why 
design something new when old will do).

Steve Jolly wrote:
Larry Levy wrote:

I think one of his premises is falacious. He seems to be attributing 
logic to their choice of what to include. If recent past is prelude, 
we should not expect logical behavior from Pentax. Was it logical to 
pre-introduce a full-sized sensor seemingly based on the MZ-S before 
being absolutely sure that they would produce such a much-desired (at 
least within this list) DSLR? It certainly wasn't prudent.


I always assumed the logic for the omission of the aperture indicator 
coupler on the DSLR range went as follows:

1. Let's build the world's smallest, lightest film SLR!  It'll be 
aimed at consumers, who won't be interested in MF, so we might as well 
leave out that coupler and save a few dollars per body.  We'll call it 
the *ist.
2. Let's scrap the MZ-D, the full-frame DSLR that our professional 
users have been waiting for!
3. Oh wait, now we need a new DSLR.  Let's base it on our smallest, 
lightest film body, since small and light seems to be one of the few 
unique selling propositions of our cameras.  It lacks an aperture 
indicator coupler you say?  Sod it.  We can always come up with a 
software workaround if enough people complain.

S




--
When you're worried or in doubt, 
	Run in circles, (scream and shout).