Where would Pentax Be if...

BrendanPK · 09-19-2010, 10:29 PM

With all the k-5 hype and yes, I am reading as much as most of you are too It got me thinking about my long lost crush...

The MZ-sD had ever come out in 2001
From dpreview:

Quote:

Body Pentax design magnesium alloy case
Type SLR (body only)
Imager Philips 6 megapixel CCD
35mm full frame
12-bit progressive scan
12 µm pixel pitch
Image resolution 3072 x 2048
Image types JPEG, TIFF, RAW
Shutter speed Up to 1/6000 sec
Metering TTL six-segment metering
Lens mount Pentax KAF2 mount (645N & 67II lenses can be used)
Focus 6-point AF
Viewfinder TTL optical (true TTL)
LCD 2 inch TFT
Flash Built-in retractable flash unit (TTL)
Storage Dual slots:
one Compact Flash Type II
one PCMCIA Type II
Connectivity IEEE1394 (Firewire)
Sale date Summer 2001
Sale price Expected ~$7,000

Not too shabby at $7k when the D1's were still going for about $5k and they only had a 2.7mp APS-C chip and the D1X was around $7k also with a 5-6mp APS-C chip.
Now I know I know it was a doomed sensor that caused the downfall realy of the system, but god did I want one... Infact, I still do to this day wish I had this little gem in my collection and think, wow Pentax could have been #1 for a small moment in DSLR time and think how we would have had the K5 (less the MP count) probably by the time of the K10 or K20

RawheaD · 09-19-2010, 10:58 PM

Where would they be? Nobody can really answer that question. However, one thing you could do is think about where some of the "also-rans" in the DSLR arena are today; those who were aggressive in the early 21st century.

Kodak.
Fuji.
Contax.
Konica Minolta.

They all had aggressive, innovative DSLRs in the first half of the last decade. None of them make DSLRs anymore. Two of them don't even exist as camera makers.

So yes... where would Pentax be had they gone forth with the MZ-sD?

KungPOW · 09-20-2010, 12:31 AM

They would be gone. The sensor in that thing was crap, and the other company (contax) that used went under, largely because of their use of the same sensor.

Mr. B · 09-20-2010, 01:11 AM

I'm not too familiar with this, so I hope you won't mind me asking why was the sensor bad? Noise?

music_lover · 09-20-2010, 09:47 AM

nice looking camera, maybe one day Pentax will bring another one out to commpete with the top Canikon cameras

pxpaulx · 09-20-2010, 09:59 AM

...complete with commodore 64 interface.

**boriscleto** · 09-20-2010, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by Mr. B

I'm not too familiar with this, so I hope you won't mind me asking why was the sensor bad? Noise?

Contax N Digital - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

The imaging sensor was a Philips FTF3020-C, which had previously been used in the Jenoptik Eyelike medium format digital back. Pentax also planned to use the sensor in a full-frame digital SLR, the Pentax MZ-D, but abandoned work on the prototype in late 2001. The sensor featured ISO settings as low as ISO 25, but the reviews noted that it had a relatively high noise level above ISO 100.

**boriscleto** · 09-20-2010, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by pxpaulx

...complete with commodore 64 interface.

I wonder if it could play Choplifter...

pxpaulx · 09-20-2010, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by boriscleto

I wonder if it could play Choplifter...

Yes, the large dials on the top are for pitch and yaw.

Wheatfield · 09-20-2010, 11:03 AM

The MZ-D would have killed Pentax.

Mr. B · 09-20-2010, 01:42 PM

High noise above ISO 100...

What a piece of junk.
I do like the ISO 25 though.

Blue · 09-20-2010, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

The MZ-D would have killed Pentax.

My god, that body is big enough to house the sensor from the 645D.

Wheatfield · 09-20-2010, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by Blue

My god, that body is big enough to house the sensor from the 645D.

:sarcasm:

Wasn't it pretty much an MZ-S with a sensor?

Consider the specs for a moment.
The MZ-D has a 6 point AF.
Near as well a decade later, we have progressed to 11 points.

Blue · 09-20-2010, 08:10 PM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

Wasn't it pretty much an MZ-S with a sensor?

Consider the specs for a moment.
The MZ-D has a 6 point AF.
Near as well a decade later, we have progressed to 11 points.

The upper portion was based on the MZ-S, but the lower integrated grip area with the extra LCD makes it substantially larger than the MZ-S.

brofkand · 09-20-2010, 08:48 PM

Instead of being a subsidiary of Hoya, they'd be a subsidiary of Nikon or Canon. Maybe the K-Mount would be Sony's mount instead of Minolta's.

They almost certainly wouldn't be making cameras in 2010.

09-19-2010, 10:29 PM	#1
BrendanPK Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Maryland Photos: Gallery Posts: 735	Where would Pentax Be if... With all the k-5 hype and yes, I am reading as much as most of you are too It got me thinking about my long lost crush... The MZ-sD had ever come out in 2001 From dpreview: Quote: Body Pentax design magnesium alloy case Type SLR (body only) Imager Philips 6 megapixel CCD 35mm full frame 12-bit progressive scan 12 µm pixel pitch Image resolution 3072 x 2048 Image types JPEG, TIFF, RAW Shutter speed Up to 1/6000 sec Metering TTL six-segment metering Lens mount Pentax KAF2 mount (645N & 67II lenses can be used) Focus 6-point AF Viewfinder TTL optical (true TTL) LCD 2 inch TFT Flash Built-in retractable flash unit (TTL) Storage Dual slots: one Compact Flash Type II one PCMCIA Type II Connectivity IEEE1394 (Firewire) Sale date Summer 2001 Sale price Expected ~$7,000 Not too shabby at $7k when the D1's were still going for about $5k and they only had a 2.7mp APS-C chip and the D1X was around $7k also with a 5-6mp APS-C chip. Now I know I know it was a doomed sensor that caused the downfall realy of the system, but god did I want one... Infact, I still do to this day wish I had this little gem in my collection and think, wow Pentax could have been #1 for a small moment in DSLR time and think how we would have had the K5 (less the MP count) probably by the time of the K10 or K20

09-19-2010, 10:58 PM	#2
RawheaD Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: MA, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 831	Where would they be? Nobody can really answer that question. However, one thing you could do is think about where some of the "also-rans" in the DSLR arena are today; those who were aggressive in the early 21st century. Kodak. Fuji. Contax. Konica Minolta. They all had aggressive, innovative DSLRs in the first half of the last decade. None of them make DSLRs anymore. Two of them don't even exist as camera makers. So yes... where would Pentax be had they gone forth with the MZ-sD?

09-20-2010, 12:31 AM	#3
KungPOW Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Vancouver, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,699	They would be gone. The sensor in that thing was crap, and the other company (contax) that used went under, largely because of their use of the same sensor.

09-20-2010, 01:11 AM	#4
Mr. B Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Varaždin, Croatia, Europe Photos: Gallery Posts: 295	I'm not too familiar with this, so I hope you won't mind me asking why was the sensor bad? Noise?

09-20-2010, 09:47 AM	#5
music_lover Guest	nice looking camera, maybe one day Pentax will bring another one out to commpete with the top Canikon cameras

09-20-2010, 09:59 AM	#6
pxpaulx Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Twin Cities, MN Posts: 2,867	...complete with commodore 64 interface.

09-20-2010, 10:45 AM	#7
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,475	Originally posted by Mr. B I'm not too familiar with this, so I hope you won't mind me asking why was the sensor bad? Noise? Contax N Digital - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Quote: The imaging sensor was a Philips FTF3020-C, which had previously been used in the Jenoptik Eyelike medium format digital back. Pentax also planned to use the sensor in a full-frame digital SLR, the Pentax MZ-D, but abandoned work on the prototype in late 2001. The sensor featured ISO settings as low as ISO 25, but the reviews noted that it had a relatively high noise level above ISO 100.

09-20-2010, 10:48 AM	#8
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,475	Originally posted by pxpaulx ...complete with commodore 64 interface. I wonder if it could play Choplifter...

09-20-2010, 10:52 AM	#9
pxpaulx Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Twin Cities, MN Posts: 2,867	Originally posted by boriscleto I wonder if it could play Choplifter... Yes, the large dials on the top are for pitch and yaw.

09-20-2010, 11:03 AM	#10
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,981	The MZ-D would have killed Pentax.

09-20-2010, 01:42 PM	#11
Mr. B Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Varaždin, Croatia, Europe Photos: Gallery Posts: 295	High noise above ISO 100... What a piece of junk. I do like the ISO 25 though.

09-20-2010, 04:32 PM	#12
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by Wheatfield The MZ-D would have killed Pentax. My god, that body is big enough to house the sensor from the 645D.

09-20-2010, 07:58 PM	#13
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,981	Originally posted by Blue My god, that body is big enough to house the sensor from the 645D. :sarcasm: Wasn't it pretty much an MZ-S with a sensor? Consider the specs for a moment. The MZ-D has a 6 point AF. Near as well a decade later, we have progressed to 11 points.

09-20-2010, 08:10 PM	#14
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by Wheatfield Wasn't it pretty much an MZ-S with a sensor? Consider the specs for a moment. The MZ-D has a 6 point AF. Near as well a decade later, we have progressed to 11 points. The upper portion was based on the MZ-S, but the lower integrated grip area with the extra LCD makes it substantially larger than the MZ-S.

09-20-2010, 08:48 PM	#15
brofkand Pentaxian Join Date: May 2009 Location: North Carolina Posts: 836	Instead of being a subsidiary of Hoya, they'd be a subsidiary of Nikon or Canon. Maybe the K-Mount would be Sony's mount instead of Minolta's. They almost certainly wouldn't be making cameras in 2010.