Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-16-2013, 03:44 PM   #16
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,450
QuoteOriginally posted by jogiba Quote
It's better than buying a used D600 since it says "Refurbished by the Manufacturer (Nikon) to original company's specifications".
No doubt, but that doesn't make the price a fair comparison to a new top line APSc camera (though I'm not sure that was your point). For instance, how long is the warranty?

07-16-2013, 05:38 PM   #17
Banned




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Millstone,NJ
Posts: 6,491
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
No doubt, but that doesn't make the price a fair comparison to a new top line APSc camera (though I'm not sure that was your point). For instance, how long is the warranty?
You will only buy Pentax so what is the point ? If I was buying a D800 I would get the refurbished one for $2,399.95 to save $600. The D800 is more like the 645D than any APS-C in image quality.
07-16-2013, 05:47 PM   #18
Banned




Join Date: May 2010
Location: Back to my Walkabout Creek
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,541
QuoteOriginally posted by 672 Quote
I just now saw this full frame forum. What a great idea! I hope they make it exactly like an MZ-S. I would pre order one today.......
|
:
Pentax has also aesthetically and functionally evolved since; compared to K-5, MZ-S looks like a hunchback of Notre-dame next to prince elegant and charming.
07-17-2013, 12:41 AM   #19
Veteran Member
tclausen's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,399
QuoteOriginally posted by Uluru Quote
|
:
Pentax has also aesthetically and functionally evolved since; compared to K-5, MZ-S looks like a hunchback of Notre-dame next to prince elegant and charming.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as they say. I still think that my MZ-S is rather strappy looking, and easily better than the K-30 and K-5

Or, is it just that having had the MZ-S for so long, I've grown to love hunchbacks?

07-17-2013, 12:54 AM   #20
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 818
QuoteOriginally posted by boriscleto Quote
I hate to do it but here is the DPReview preview...

Pentax 6mp Digital SLR hands-on: Digital Photography Review

Battery life would have been a big problem. 4 1600mAh batteries only lasted about 100 shots on the Contax.
Oh.. This is SOOOOOOOOOO BEAUTIFUL! 2001, and now's 2013... How much longer... Oh man.....
07-17-2013, 01:01 AM   #21
672
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: santa monica
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 418
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by tclausen Quote
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as they say. I still think that my MZ-S is rather strappy looking, and easily better than the K-30 and K-5

Or, is it just that having had the MZ-S for so long, I've grown to love hunchbacks?
Yes, I like the MZ-S looks and weight and size and angled controls and dials. That was the point of my post, actually. Thats why i called the thread MZ-S D. I will admit, the MZ-S with vertical grip, for me , defeats the purpose of the small camera. I mean MZ-S D with no vertical grip, in black , with angled controls and dials.
07-17-2013, 01:21 AM   #22
Veteran Member
tclausen's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,399
QuoteOriginally posted by 672 Quote
Yes, I like the MZ-S looks and weight and size and angled controls and dials. That was the point of my post, actually. Thats why i called the thread MZ-S D. I will admit, the MZ-S with vertical grip, for me , defeats the purpose of the small camera. I mean MZ-S D with no vertical grip, in black , with angled controls and dials.
Well, I've got hands that people say make snow-plows feel impotent, and the vertical grip lives on m MZ-S Also, I look rather goofy with the K-01 and even more so with the Q. If I could, I would have gotten the Q in pink, just to complete the picture
07-17-2013, 01:45 AM   #23
672
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: santa monica
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 418
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by tclausen Quote
Well, I've got hands that people say make snow-plows feel impotent, and the vertical grip lives on m MZ-S Also, I look rather goofy with the K-01 and even more so with the Q. If I could, I would have gotten the Q in pink, just to complete the picture
My favorite was the guy who put a Q onto the back end of Pentax 67 800mm lens.........

07-20-2013, 07:23 AM   #24
Site Supporter
shaolen's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Phoenix AZ
Posts: 793
I thought the prototype they made was called the MZ-D
07-20-2013, 07:27 AM   #25
Site Supporter
shaolen's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Phoenix AZ
Posts: 793
aha! I was right. Here it is Pentax MZ-D - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
07-22-2013, 03:50 AM   #26
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 818
QuoteOriginally posted by shaolen Quote
Hmmm... Good find! Say, so did anyone bring this up with Jim or whatever-his-name-is?
07-22-2013, 04:05 AM   #27
Banned




Join Date: May 2010
Location: Back to my Walkabout Creek
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,541
QuoteOriginally posted by SyncGuy Quote
Hmmm... Good find! Say, so did anyone bring this up with Jim or whatever-his-name-is?
/
/
Jim is new to Pentax brand. Although he probably knows more about Pentax now than 8 moths ago, don't press it hard on him
08-01-2013, 12:07 PM   #28
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 37
QuoteOriginally posted by boriscleto Quote
Unfortunately the sensor available at the time, the Philips FTF3020-C was not commercially viable. Contax used the same sensor in their Contax N Digital and it put them out of business...it had noise issues at ISO 100 and higher. When it was launched it cost about what a 645D costs now.

Contax N Digital Review

I hate to do it but here is the DPReview preview...

Pentax 6mp Digital SLR hands-on: Digital Photography Review

Battery life would have been a big problem. 4 1600mAh batteries only lasted about 100 shots on the Contax.
I take issue with the idea that it cost what it did back then ($7000 or probably about $9000 in today's dollars - I'm rounding to the nearest thousand). It was the first freakin' full frame camera! Plus Contax wasn't exactly a mainstream company (and still isn't: look at Zeiss today) so it wasn't geared at the "consumer" or even "prosumer." This was in digital photography's toddler years and there would of course have been an early adopter tax involved, especially with the high end.

A 645D at intro ($10000) would have cost around $8000 back then - clearly not possible, relatively speaking, back then, but I would say that the Contax was equivalently similar (spec and price-wise). The other way of looking at it was that Canon had just introduced the D30 (3 MP APS-C) based on a mid-range body for $3000-ish, or about $4000 today. What could you buy today for $4000? Oh right, a "mid-range" full frame Nikon D800(E) or Canon 5D mk iii (i.e. not a top end D3/D4 or 1-series)...

Canon and Kodak didn't come out with their full frames until a year or two later (depending on announcement/availability dates) and theirs didn't seem to garner the same level of "how much?" questioning (the Canon 1Ds was $8000). Remember that the successive models from Canon (D60, 10D, etc.) were progressively better with similar or cheaper prices, eventually culminating with the first digital Rebel at $1000. Which makes me wonder where Pentax would be today if they had pursued this more intently (well, with a business model more like Canon's, not Contax).

Plus you have to recall that the sensor was actually a re-purposed one for medium format. Not to mention it went down to ISO 25. Instead of looking at the advantages of something with that sensitivity (e.g. no polarizers! killing ambient lighting and strobes for bright conditions wide open! long exposures!), "reviews" seemed to take issue with noise issues at ISO 200/400 (3-4 stops above base, so not essentially different from 800-1600-3200 today), and I'm sure would have been dealt with with NR software by now. Same thing with battery life - for the time, not bad considering it was a monster sensor, probably intended for studio shooting (i.e. AC adapter).

I'm not disagreeing with the general sentiments about the various early cameras, but you have to take things in both historical and product line contexts.
08-01-2013, 12:41 PM   #29
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,714
QuoteOriginally posted by thigmo Quote
Which makes me wonder where Pentax would be today if they had pursued this more intently (well, with a business model more like Canon's, not Contax).
Probably flatbroke and out off bussiness.
08-01-2013, 01:30 PM   #30
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,345
Probably.
Just because Canon did it doesn't means Pentax should have been able to.
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!
full-frame, mz-s, pentax
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Wanted - Acquired: Pentax MZ-S sandro3 Sold Items 2 01-10-2013 10:43 AM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax MZ-S, Mint ironlionzion Sold Items 4 05-29-2012 12:13 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax MZ-S camera hillhong Sold Items 3 10-18-2011 10:53 AM
Mz-s ae-l Jazz28 Pentax Film SLR Discussion 3 10-12-2011 03:35 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:38 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