Understood. Without going back and reading the announcement again, it let
me to believe it was this year. I was thinking that between now and then it
was unlikely something as fundamental as sensor-size/resolution would
change.
A full frame D2 would interest me. :-)
Tom C.
From: Peter Fairweather <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Two high-end Pentax DSLR this year
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 20:23:40 +0000
The problem with long lead times is that the technology changes
quickly so an announcement this month about the specification of a
camera due out in 18 months time is pointless. Indeed the 645, for
example, seems to have grown from 16 to 22 megapixels.
Perhaps the original sensor could be put in the new full frame D2!!
Like many on here I just hope that the marque continues. I've no
desire to sell my DS or its lenses. I certainly don't want to sell my
67II which my wife is giving me for my birthday, in fact I can't wait
till I am allowed to start using it - six weeks to go.
Peter
On 2/9/06, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm happy to hear they are planning something. It would be nice if
*some*
> details were given, starting with how many mega-pixels the new (non MF)
DSLR
> body will have. One would suppose that information is already known.
>
> Tom C.
>
>
> >From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >It's all about timing and delivery, what ever comes when it comes
better be
> >spec'd better then the current bodies or it won't just be me generating
> >what
> >you mistakenly deem as "mindless negativism". Heard of the boy who
cried
> >wolf?
> >
> >Given that often local Pentax distributors have problems determining if
> >current
> >lenses are in or out of production or are or are not available (or even
if
> >they
> >exist in some cases) I find it hard to view the article with other than
a
> >little scepticism. Given the suggested time line in that article what
is
> >your
> >personal assessment of a potential date of actual availability for a
body
> >that
> >would qualify as a replacement for the *ist D?
> >
>
>
>
