Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-20-2008, 03:31 AM   #16
Banned




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H.
Posts: 5,979
QuoteQuote:
As for FA* I may be wrong but most of those lenses were maybe not that much available anymore (this is IMO). They maybe judge that performance of lenses would not be adequate?
they would have been far more available when this would have been introduced, and likely would still be widely available or more FF derivatives because of this SLR. and how would a pro quality FF lens not be adequate for a FF DSLR? they were more than adequate for 35mm film and they have been proved to be more than adequate for a crop sensor.

06-20-2008, 03:38 AM   #17
Veteran Member
creampuff's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Singapore
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,955
séamuis, agree with your points.
The reason why many FA series lenses were discontinued some years ago was simply economics. Pentax was then producing mediocre film cameras that the consumers didn't want to buy. With stagnant or declining film camera sales, it didn't make sense to maintain a full line-up of lenses. Nothing to do with the performance of the lenses.
06-20-2008, 04:02 AM   #18
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philippines
Posts: 1,399
wasn't it that the reason for the discontinuation of the FA* lenses were more because of the lead content (which the EU does not approve of) than anything? i thought that was more of the reason than economics.
06-20-2008, 04:09 AM   #19
Banned




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H.
Posts: 5,979
from what I understand that ban has been lifted for quite some time, but I think that would have little to do with it considering pentax has never had a FF DSLR on the market.

06-20-2008, 05:32 AM   #20
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Central Kentucky, USA
Posts: 142
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
We both seem to have trouble to find the source now...

My figure was from a worldwide DSLR market survey, the most recent year which was published (2006, I guess, did already include Sony and Samsung in the DSLR camp). Pentax, Sony, Olympus had all 6% each. But only after I added Pentax (5%) and Samsung (1%).
Sorry, I didn't bookmark the article, and iirc it was an accidental find when I was looking for something else anyway. I just remember Sony and Olympus seemed to have more marketshare digital camera wise than pentax/samsung. And like I said, the numbers may have included compact pns and dslr numbers rolled into one. I'm willing to go with your figures since you seem to have a better memory than I do!

Still, if the MZ-D had been capable of decent images(which appears to be in dispute), I have to wonder if Pentax would have a larger marketshare than it does.
This seems to be a reason(it wasn't for me, obviously), for some people to recommend Canon and Nikon, i.e. they have the largest marketshare, therefore it's a better brand to buy, so the logic goes. To some extent I can see the logic, at least in the sense that most aftermarket lenses and accessories are released first for Canon and Nikon it seems, then Sony and later(if at all), for the other brands. Granted, most of the time I don't care, but I think I'm in the minority here. For me at least, if Pentax/Samsung can stay in business making great high-value gear with a 6% marketshare, that's fine.
06-20-2008, 05:51 AM   #21
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,206
QuoteOriginally posted by séamuis Quote
they would have been far more available when this would have been introduced, and likely would still be widely available or more FF derivatives because of this SLR.
Maybe indeed except if the "discontinuation" of those lens was already settled.

QuoteOriginally posted by séamuis Quote
and how would a pro quality FF lens not be adequate for a FF DSLR? they were more than adequate for 35mm film and they have been proved to be more than adequate for a crop sensor.
Well if Pentax judged a good idea to make DFA versions of their FA macro lenses and all those digital coating (which is pretty much debatable) lenses are there for a reason.

Anyway, Pentax had reasons not to be satisfied with quality, thet was the official reason to ditch the MZ-D
06-20-2008, 06:01 AM   #22
Banned




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H.
Posts: 5,979
QuoteQuote:
Well if Pentax judged a good idea to make DFA versions of their FA macro lenses and all those digital coating (which is pretty much debatable) lenses are there for a reason.
that has nothing to do with the performance of the lens itself, if it was so then we would hear about it from people using ALL lenses older than DFA myself included. the digital coating is just going the extra distance to get the most out of the lens and sensor not because it was absolutely needed. one doesn't need SMC coatings but we all like having it but you can certainly take excellent photos without it cant you? the performance of the lenses was never in question im willing to put money on it. the lenses were never an issue in the lack of an MZ-D and I highly doubt the performance of the sensor was the only reason, I think it likely had more to do with pentax's financial situation. and this of course is the biggest debate: would it have done more good or bad releasing the MZ-D?
06-20-2008, 07:10 AM   #23
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,206
I dunno, I remember now that one more thing which was said at that time (true or not, how do I know?) is that basicaly Contax and Pentax were more or less working together.
When Pentax dropped the ball, Contax went for help to Pentax which reponded 'nuts' (or something like that lol). Why? Probably financial, I do not see Pentas helping another company when Pentax itself was so-so...

But it indicates that Contx wasn't happy either. And I'm pretty sure about having read the performance "excuse" (I suppose this word suits more your reasoning) from Pentax.

How (if at all) is this true, we will never know.

06-20-2008, 07:16 AM   #24
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,206
QuoteOriginally posted by séamuis Quote
that has nothing to do with the performance of the lens itself, if it was so then we would hear about it from people using ALL lenses older than DFA myself included.
You know pretty well that this isn't always true and depends on the type of lens design. Newer lens being made on economy I would not be surprised that 'for digital' design has more influence than older designs (K,M series).

QuoteOriginally posted by séamuis Quote
the digital coating is just going the extra distance to get the most out of the lens and sensor not because it was absolutely needed.
Look at some fringing like Tamron 70-300 and think again.

QuoteOriginally posted by séamuis Quote
one doesn't need SMC coatings but we all like having it but you can certainly take excellent photos without it cant you?
Well the couple lenses I got which I had in both SMC and non-SMC version, the SMC version was a lot heck better in coulours and flare resistance.

QuoteOriginally posted by séamuis Quote
the performance of the lenses was never in question im willing to put money on it.
You are but John Doe is not

QuoteOriginally posted by séamuis Quote
and this of course is the biggest debate: would it have done more good or bad releasing the MZ-D?
It is an excellent question for sure but somehow I doubt we will ever find any answer on this one.
06-20-2008, 07:48 AM   #25
Banned




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H.
Posts: 5,979
QuoteQuote:
Look at some fringing like Tamron 70-300 and think again.
allot of lenses even pentax DA lenses can be prone to purple fringing in the right situation, some lenses more than others but if it were as big of a problem as you seem to make it then as I said before you would hear about it. how could all of us enjoy using our old glass if they perform poorly due to lack of digital coating? as I said before its not necessary its just adding to the protection against it. the FA and FA* lenses would have performed just as well on the MZ-D if not better than they currently perform on *ist and K series DSLRs.

QuoteQuote:
Well the couple lenses I got which I had in both SMC and non-SMC version, the SMC version was a lot heck better in coulours and flare resistance.
of course, and I wouldn't argue that but you can still take good pictures without it therefore proving that its not absolutely necessary just like the digital coating. it makes the pictures better but doesn't mean the lens will absolutely perform bad due to using a sensor instead of film.

QuoteQuote:
You are but John Doe is not
if it was then pentax would have been very open for years now about the poor performance of these lenses on DSLRs. I am, and in this debate john doe doesn't count unless he can come up with evidence to prove otherwise.
06-22-2008, 01:53 PM   #26
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,206
Well I consider you do not show any consideration for discussion but rather camp on your coneptions on the matter.

As a matter of fact I consider this topic as dead and without any sense.

Please could any moderator close the topic, thanks.
06-22-2008, 07:48 PM   #27
Veteran Member
fwbigd's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Fort Worth TX
Posts: 308
The real problem with the MZ-D was the proposed $6,000 tag. Pentax was smart to cancel the project. By doing so they were able to survive.

VR
Darryl
06-24-2008, 08:40 AM   #28
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Central Kentucky, USA
Posts: 142
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by fwbigd Quote
The real problem with the MZ-D was the proposed $6,000 tag. Pentax was smart to cancel the project. By doing so they were able to survive.

VR
Darryl
Well, I guess I was thinking that digital in general was expensive anyway at that time, it was developed in 2000. The big drop in cost for digital gear hadn't happened yet. What else was out there in the 6MP DSLR class in 2000?

Quote from DPReview.com:

"Pretty stunning when you consider Kodak were selling six megapixel D-SLR's for $16,000 as recently as August 2000."

Nikon D100 Review: 21. Conclusion:

Last edited by brothereye; 06-24-2008 at 09:16 AM.
06-25-2008, 10:32 AM   #29
Pentaxian
Cambo's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Vancouver, BC
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 839
A few other points on the MZ-D

QuoteOriginally posted by fwbigd Quote
The real problem with the MZ-D was the proposed $6,000 tag. Pentax was smart to cancel the project. By doing so they were able to survive.

VR
Darryl
I followed the development and introduction of this camera closely as I was so enthralled with it. If I recall correctly (based on reviews I read on the Contax at the time), price was definitely one factor, but apparently the battery consumption was horrific, and the buffer speeds were absolutely pitiful, as was the higher iso performance. It made a decent studio camera with good controlled lighting if you weren't in a hurry; in the real world, it was barely above dreadful; blotchy, inky shadows with low detail, very easily blown highlights, dynamic range was awful; reliability of the image engine was also appalling; crashing and endless pauses for the spinning hourglass of death were common, as were lost images from processor lockups and the batteries dying constantly. Most users had them tethered permanently to a power cable. That and the fact that storage for large images cost a fortune back then (hard drives were slow, small and pricey, as were memory cards) are what doomed this camera. That the sensor producer (was it Phillips?) could nowhere near meet the original performance specs on the sensor also helped relegate it to the scrap heap of photographic history. Pentax was both brave and brilliant in pulling the plug on it when they did; it caused the total demise of Contax, a venerable company with a very long history of great products.

I do wish they had brought that body out in a different iteration; the MZ-S is one of the most beautiful cameras ever produced, with superb ergonomics, IMHO, as was its flawed digital twin. It's one drawback was the lack of a second control wheel.

This is all from memory of 6 to 8 years ago, so please forgive me if I've messed up some facts.

Cheers,
Cameron

Last edited by Cambo; 06-25-2008 at 12:51 PM.
06-26-2008, 01:15 AM   #30
axl
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,181
QuoteOriginally posted by philmorley Quote
the joy of diversity. I never had a MZ-S so obvisously dont know what I'm missing but I look at the pic of the MZ-D and say big deal (not a negative, but not a positive). But the I look at the 50th Anniversary model

AP 50th Aniv.

That beastie I would have bought in second

Phil
Oh yea, they definitely should have released that one. Beautifull camera...
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Speculation: What if Pentax did not go FF but rather a 1.3x? brecklundin Pentax DSLR Discussion 36 08-13-2013 10:36 PM
K-x price speculation SylBer Pentax DSLR Discussion 18 10-13-2010 12:29 PM
Speculation about the impact of the 645D asw66 Photographic Technique 2 10-07-2010 07:36 AM
Speculation choet Monthly Photo Contests 0 01-13-2010 06:21 PM
Speculation on My Part. fwbigd Pentax DSLR Discussion 4 09-21-2007 11:01 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:42 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top