[Blue]

Pentaxeros, very interesting - thanks for the patents.
But if anyone is hoping Pentax will resurrect the old prototype - it won't happen, and for a good reason. The old MZ-S body, made for a film camera was only good for a "hack" job like on the first DSLRs; now is very much inadequate. What's the chance of Pentax using that instead of a modern, K-5-like body? Zero.
In other words: most likely, the drawing was just made up - they needed a DSLR drawing so they made one, no relation with any real product.

It could be that some of those prototypes have been reworked.

[TaoMaas]

It could be that some of those prototypes have been reworked.

I'm wondering if you might be right. Pentax may take the route that they did with the 645 digital...just use what they'd already developed. It would make sense, actually. It would allow them to come out with a FF camera by just upgrading the sensor and the electronics. Eh...maybe release a couple of zooms to go with it, but otherwise just throw it against the wall and see what sticks.

[Kunzite]

It could be that some of those prototypes have been reworked.

No, I don't buy it.
First, the drawing doesn't resemble the "MZ-D" prototype. Yeah, there is that dial but many other things won't fit.
But most important: what's worth keeping, from that prototype? The interface is no good - it must be dual wheel. The shutter/mirror/aperture mechanism is no good - 2.5fps? The AF is no good, same for the outdated metering system. The electronics are no good. Bigger LCD is a must. "Integrated grip" is no good, it makes the camera way too big. Space must be made for the SR system. The viewfinder... it's more or less OK, but superimposed AF points must be added.
What's left, then? Next to nothing. OTOH, Pentax is quite competent at making camera bodies, is not like they have to reuse old SLR designs. Why not scale up the (modern) K-5 design, instead of reusing a 2001, made for film one?

Did I say the interface is no good? This means the single control wheel that was supposedly recognized in that drawing won't make it in a final product. So what are we talking about?
If Pentax will launch a "FF" DSLR, it will be quite different from the old "MZ-D". Believing otherwise is like believing the next Nikon flagship will be a reworked D1.

[Macario]

No, I don't buy it.
First, the drawing doesn't resemble the "MZ-D" prototype. Yeah, there is that dial but many other things won't fit.
But most important: what's worth keeping, from that prototype? The interface is no good - it must be dual wheel. The shutter/mirror/aperture mechanism is no good - 2.5fps? The AF is no good, same for the outdated metering system. The electronics are no good. Bigger LCD is a must. "Integrated grip" is no good, it makes the camera way too big. Space must be made for the SR system. The viewfinder... it's more or less OK, but superimposed AF points must be added.
What's left, then? Next to nothing. OTOH, Pentax is quite competent at making camera bodies, is not like they have to reuse old SLR designs. Why not scale up the (modern) K-5 design, instead of reusing a 2001, made for film one?

Did I say the interface is no good? This means the single control wheel that was supposedly recognized in that drawing won't make it in a final product. So what are we talking about?
If Pentax will launch a "FF" DSLR, it will be quite different from the old "MZ-D". Believing otherwise is like believing the next Nikon flagship will be a reworked D1.

Well the interface just is a preference. I love the interface of the MZ-S. It is just fantastic, one of the quickest ways to switch between M, Av and Tv modes. Just if they would come out with it, they do need new lenses, as you do need a aperture ring to be able to use Av setting.
And the AF is excelent on the MZ-S, a month ago used it again, and it is just so quick, I think even quicker than the one in my K-7.
And the 2.5FPS was not due to mirror/shutter mechanism. They did stick with 2.5FPS to have less noise from the winder, as with the MZ-S being relativly small, they couldn't fit a lot of sound proofing in it.
I am personally not really looking forward to a FF pentax, as I am satisfied with my K-7, it works fine for me. But if they would revive the MZ-D, well then I will be very temted to buy one, as I just love the ergoniomics of that camera (MZ-S, the film sister)

[Macario]

Oh, and I forgot, the metering might be outdated by the segments (only 6), but it worked in a very clever way. They way it meters, there is nothing outdated about it ( had perfect negatives a month ago with it, and never ever used spotmetering, always the segment)

[Kunzite]

I disagree.
The interface is not "just a preference"; as you said the MZ-S is made to work with lenses with aperture rings. Introducing an incompatibility with newly released lenses (think DA*) is stupid - it won't happen.
The AF... yes, it's fast; but is it precise enough? Will it stand up to pixel peeping? And 6 linear AF points, how does it looks compared with Nikon's 51 (15 cross)? A flagship using an outdated AF system, now that's a brilliant idea. NOT!
Same about going back from 77-zone metering to 6; lots of people will congratulate Pentax... by going to Nikon.
Are you sure the mirror/shutter can reliably handle 5fps, because I'm afraid that would be the minimum requirement for a commercially successful product? (the K-r can do 6, btw).

Don't misunderstand, I'm not bashing the MZ-S; it was a wonderful camera. But clinging to the past when everyone else is going forward is a fatal mistake.

[Macario]

Well, I know you do need the aperture ring, that is also what I said. AF, I do not know if it precise enough, it might be. And 6 AF point is enough, more than enough. And I really hope that Pentax doesn't go the Nikon way, as then you might aswell just buy Nikon. And with the metering, I still favour the 6 one over the 77 one. Why? For some reason I just get better exposed pics with the 6 segment metering. I sometimes think, that they just put the 77 segment metering because canikon also has it. And not because it is better.
I do not know if the shutter is reliable enough to do 5FPS, I only know they did limit the FPS to 2.5 because of noise of the winder

[Macario]

I disagree.
The interface is not "just a preference"; as you said the MZ-S is made to work with lenses with aperture rings. Introducing an incompatibility with newly released lenses (think DA*) is stupid - it won't happen.
The AF... yes, it's fast; but is it precise enough? Will it stand up to pixel peeping? And 6 linear AF points, how does it looks compared with Nikon's 51 (15 cross)? A flagship using an outdated AF system, now that's a brilliant idea. NOT!
Same about going back from 77-zone metering to 6; lots of people will congratulate Pentax... by going to Nikon.
Are you sure the mirror/shutter can reliably handle 5fps, because I'm afraid that would be the minimum requirement for a commercially successful product? (the K-r can do 6, btw).

Don't misunderstand, I'm not bashing the MZ-S; it was a wonderful camera. But clinging to the past when everyone else is going forward is a fatal mistake.

Oh and, most of the new DA lenses are for APS-C cameras, so they have to design new lenses anyway for a FF camera

[RonHendriks1966]

And with the metering, I still favour the 6 one over the 77 one. Why? For some reason I just get better exposed pics with the 6 segment metering. I sometimes think, that they just put the 77 segment metering because canikon also has it.

Well I think the main problem is dynamic range in high lights for digital. On film you had way more room and thus getting good exposed pictures.

Maybe in future we get sensors that differ in alowing light to the pixels by having no shutter, but electronical exposure time on the sensor. With that you can even vary the time of exposre between different sections/pixels. Making a HDR in just one shot.

[Kunzite]

Macario, you really like the MZ-S, do you? But you shouldn't ask Pentax to commit suicide, just because of this. Yes, suicide is what I'd call making an obsolete by design camera.
How about the DA* 55mm f/1.4, DA* 200mm f/2.8, DA* 300mm f/4, DA* 60-250 f/4? How about the D FA 100mm f/2.8 macro WR? Pentax would have to scrap them and make new versions, with aperture rings - that cost money and time, and will anger their customers. I'd be so happy not being able to use my DA* 60-250 that I'd switch to Nikon the same day; and I assure you, lots of people would follow.
How about using APS-C lenses in cropped mode? People are expecting this, and won't easily accept Pentax just had a nostalgia crisis at their expense.
Give me a single reason why Pentax should go back to the MZ-S interface; so far there are lots of arguments against it. Until you do, it won't happen.

About the shutter: there is no doubt that it must be changed; but it's not like MZ-S components are still in production anyway. Should they go to the extremes just to reuse some old, underperforming components? That's insane.

[TaoMaas]

...you shouldn't ask Pentax to commit suicide, just because of this. Yes, suicide is what I'd call making an obsolete by design camera.
I'd be so happy not being able to use my DA* 60-250 that I'd switch to Nikon the same day; and I assure you, lots of people would follow.

Oh, please! Stop being so dramatic! Right now, Pentax has NO FF camera. Anyone who wants FF is going to have to switch to Nikon/Canon anyway, aren't they? And by the way...it wouldn't be the MZ-D that was incompatible with the DA* lenses...it's the lenses. They were designed to be incompatible with past FF cameras that didn't offer in-body aperture control.

[Blue]

Only cheaper to a point (i still shoot and love film)

Assume $4.50/roll for 36 exposures colour (this would be dirt cheap BTW)
Add $3/roll for process and (poor) drug store scan
this is 400 rolls or 14400 exposures
If you look at adding a high quality scanner to ger results more in line with FF camera then Nikon - Add 2000+ if you can even find one
or pay 10-15 per roll for higher quality scans

Doesn't take long to pay for a FF body


Even Shooting b/w and self processing and scanning on a flatbed
($3/roll 36 $1/roll processing cost - Epson Scanner $500)
625 rolls 22500 images

Don't get me wrong I shoot film (mostly b/w in 35 - a mix in 120) and love it. I shoot usually for the characteristic look of a film (ie velvia, or trix for instance) and because I have the gear and have shot film all my life. it's not a logical thing but really a sentimental thing almost
Up front the cost is lower, but amortized over say 2 years the FF digital has paid for itself. If you keep it only for the usual FF upgrade cycle (say 4 years currently) then it costs about 50% less to operate on digital vs film

for medium format despite the much higher cost of use it will take a lot longer to recoup a digital (even a "cheap" 645D)

thing is even if I had a FF camera I'd probably still shoot film frequently so for me it's just another expense

You also need to figure in hard drives, SD cards and software with the digital setup as well. Some people don't realize how much space they chew up with there out take images or even the time to winnow through several years of it. Granted, I use that stuff with film as well. However, My K2 won't need replaced because it is obsolete in 3 or 4 years from now like the D700 will be. That is unless film is discontinued all together.

[Blue]

No, I don't buy it.
First, the drawing doesn't resemble the "MZ-D" prototype. Yeah, there is that dial but many other things won't fit.
But most important: what's worth keeping, from that prototype? The interface is no good - it must be dual wheel. The shutter/mirror/aperture mechanism is no good - 2.5fps? The AF is no good, same for the outdated metering system. The electronics are no good. Bigger LCD is a must. "Integrated grip" is no good, it makes the camera way too big. Space must be made for the SR system. The viewfinder... it's more or less OK, but superimposed AF points must be added.
What's left, then? Next to nothing. OTOH, Pentax is quite competent at making camera bodies, is not like they have to reuse old SLR designs. Why not scale up the (modern) K-5 design, instead of reusing a 2001, made for film one?

Did I say the interface is no good? This means the single control wheel that was supposedly recognized in that drawing won't make it in a final product. So what are we talking about?
If Pentax will launch a "FF" DSLR, it will be quite different from the old "MZ-D". Believing otherwise is like believing the next Nikon flagship will be a reworked D1.

Fist off, you need to take a deep breath. I said it could be a reworked prototype, not a production model. Secondly, they and other companies often start out in the lab with something they have on hand. Go look up at there auto 110 digital project. I suspect that if Pentax is working on full frame, they did in fact start with the chasis and shutter from the MZ-D/K-1. There is a big difference in a working prototype and beta production version.

[eddie1960]

You also need to figure in hard drives, SD cards and software with the digital setup as well. Some people don't realize how much space they chew up with there out take images or even the time to winnow through several years of it. Granted, I use that stuff with film as well. However, My K2 won't need replaced because it is obsolete in 3 or 4 years from now like the D700 will be. That is unless film is discontinued all together.

True, storage has gotten dirt cheap though in the years since i first bought digital. I paid more for a 160 gb external drive than i did for 2 1 tb drives
same with SD cards I paid for a 1 gb about the same as I now pay for 16gb.

But i agree on obsolescence, I have 4 DSLR now and all of them would be considered obsolete.
my Film gear is only obsolete in name, as long as the film exists it will be fine (unless i can't get parts for maintenance)
My point was more to the fact that film is really not cheaper than FF digital (but it can be paid for in small increments rather than up front) IMO the real advantage to film comes in Medium format, or in B/W both of which i think superior to Digital (though Medium format digital has superseded film now it's cost is prohibitive and it would take eons to cost out the same - certainly longer than it would take for the digital to be obsolete and possibly longer than the digital would last - definitely one of the nice things about the old mechanical cameras is how long they last)

[Winder]

The size of the photosites is irrelevant. Four small sensels capture as much dynamic range as one sensel four times the size of one small one.
.

The problem is that if you increase the number on sensels you are also increasing the space needed for structure and circuitry.

The D3s =12MP and the D3x = 25MP. The larger more efficient sensels of the D3s outperform the smaller sensels of the D3x in every category.

Do you have a real world example of "Four small sensels capture as much dynamic range as one sensel four times the size of one small one."? Which 2 sensor can you use to demonstrate this?