[fs999]

The best would be to revamp the *ist camera with the new features KAF4, 1/8000, bigger screen (not to see the film ), etc as it was sold $300 in 2004...

[jeallen01]

The best would be to revamp the *ist camera with the new features KAF4, 1/8000, bigger screen (not to see the film ), etc as it was sold $300 in 2004...

EXCEPT that the small viewfinder window on all the early Pentax DSLRs was far too small for many people who wear spectacles as they can't then see much of viewfinder image - that was why I never bought any DSLR until the GX10/K10D came out with a much larger window!

[Ontarian50]

While the *ist must have had its fans, they were few and far between. Lightweight plastic build, dim and small viewfinder, buzzy and noisy AF - Pentax at that time seemed in a race to the bottom with Minolta. To be fair, Nikon and Canon were at that time fishing in their waters with low cost models that carried their higher profile brand names: "Hey, I can buy a Canon for the price of that Pentax ..." Minolta seemed to come off the worst for it, with models that built reputations for unreliability.

And Pentax didn't really seem too fussed that their SLRs weren't topping the sales charts - they were doing really well with their Espio series that appealed to a much, much wider audience.

All the lower cost SLRs from that era are pretty much gathering dust these days. From my experience, nearly all those looking to pick up film photography are looking for a classic, chrome and leatherette, knobs and dials experience.

[womble]

... From my experience, nearly all those looking to pick up film photography are looking for a classic, chrome and leatherette, knobs and dials experience.

Very true. My collection starts getting a bit thin after the A series. I have a couple of S and Z series, no Ps, no MZs (at least working ones), nor a *ist. From all those, the only one I sometimes think about trying is the MZ-S.

K.

[RobA_Oz]

EXCEPT that the small viewfinder window on all the early Pentax DSLRs was far too small for many people who wear spectacles as they can't then see much of viewfinder image - that was why I never bought any DSLR until the GX10/K10D came out with a much larger window!

That’s a matter of the eye relief built into the viewfinder design, not the size of the eyepiece “window”. I’m sure a later viewfinder could be added.

I wonder where the tooling for the *ist/istD went? That’d be more to the point.

[jeallen01]

That’s a matter of the eye relief built into the viewfinder design, not the size of the eyepiece “window”. I’m sure a later viewfinder could be added..

In my case, I did try an early Pentax DSLR, but my glasses prevented my eye being near enough to see the whole viewfinder image - a redesigned viewfinder might help that, but I wouldn't be convinced until I tried one.

Also I'm not sure that a modern DSLR running off internal 2x AA batteries would run for very long, and the cost of the batteries would be definite "No, No" for me - apart from the extra size/weight of those as compared with the D-li109 that is used in the "base-level" Pentax DSLRs nowadays.

[Reciprocity]

In my case, I did try an early Pentax DSLR, but my glasses prevented my eye being near enough to see the whole viewfinder image - a redesigned viewfinder might help that, but I wouldn't be convinced until I tried one.

Also I'm not sure that a modern DSLR running off internal 2x AA batteries would run for very long, and the cost of the batteries would be definite "No, No" for me - apart from the extra size/weight of those as compared with the D-li109 that is used in the "base-level" Pentax DSLRs nowadays.

Yes, same problem here, I long sometimes for bigger viewfinders.

[fs999]

EXCEPT that the small viewfinder window on all the early Pentax DSLRs was far too small for many people who wear spectacles as they can't then see much of viewfinder image - that was why I never bought any DSLR until the GX10/K10D came out with a much larger window!

I didn't spoke from DSLR *ist (-D, -DS) but film SLR *ist like this one :

[RobA_Oz]

In my case, I did try an early Pentax DSLR, but my glasses prevented my eye being near enough to see the whole viewfinder image - a redesigned viewfinder might help that, but I wouldn't be convinced until I tried one.

Also I'm not sure that a modern DSLR running off internal 2x AA batteries would run for very long, and the cost of the batteries would be definite "No, No" for me - apart from the extra size/weight of those as compared with the D-li109 that is used in the "base-level" Pentax DSLRs nowadays.

Without conducting a comparative test, my impression is that my K-1 has better eye relief than my other Pentax DSLRs (I do wear specs). Having said that, I added a Tenpa magnifier partly to increase the viewfinder image size, and partly to get my not-small nose a little further away from the rear screen.

I bought a pair of Eschenbach binoculars specifically because they were designed to allow for spectacle-wearers, and they work well, too.

I agree with your comments about the AA batteries, particularly with a DSLR that has WiFi, GPS and sensor-shift. However, the topic was about a new film SLR.

[fs999]

While the *ist must have had its fans, they were few and far between. Lightweight plastic build, dim and small viewfinder, buzzy and noisy AF - Pentax at that time seemed in a race to the bottom with Minolta. To be fair, Nikon and Canon were at that time fishing in their waters with low cost models that carried their higher profile brand names: "Hey, I can buy a Canon for the price of that Pentax ..." Minolta seemed to come off the worst for it, with models that built reputations for unreliability.

It's the smallest 35mm AF SLR ever build. We are not talking here to reproduce this camera, but use its film technology and mechanics to make a new camera with the parts of modern DSLR.

[RobA_Oz]

It's the smallest 35mm AF SLR ever build. We are not talking here to reproduce this camera, but use its film technology and mechanics to make a new camera with the parts of modern DSLR.

I bought a *istD simply because it looked and felt much more solidly built than its Canon 10D rival. While I had a few legacy Pentax lenses at the time, most of them were M42s, so a change of system wasn’t a huge barrier. The *ist series looks less solid in hindsight, but it certainly didn’t at the time.

I know that DSLR and MILC cameras are pushing into premium pricing territory, but I do wonder if a similarly-priced film SLR with contemporary technology would sell at a profit. I suspect not, and a cheap-and-cheerful one would be competing with good secondhand bodies or the odd new “student” offering, though I don’t recall seeing any of those lately.

[fs999]

I bought a *istD simply because it looked and felt much more solidly built than its Canon 10D rival. While I had a few legacy Pentax lenses at the time, most of them were M42s, so a change of system wasn’t a huge barrier. The *ist series looks less solid in hindsight, but it certainly didn’t at the time.

I know that DSLR and MILC cameras are pushing into premium pricing territory, but I do wonder if a similarly-priced film SLR with contemporary technology would sell at a profit. I suspect not, and a cheap-and-cheerful one would be competing with good secondhand bodies or the odd new “student” offering, though I don’t recall seeing any of those lately.

Digital *ist has nothing common with film *ist, only the beginning of the name

If a lot of people can buy a 645Z $8000, some will certainly be interested in a $3000 new film camera with latest technology...

[gofour3]

It's the smallest 35mm AF SLR ever build. We are not talking here to reproduce this camera, but use its film technology and mechanics to make a new camera with the parts of modern DSLR.

I bought a *ist film body a couple months ago and yes there's a lot of good features in that "little" body!

As long as the "new" *ist didn't have the crippled K-mount from the original, then I'd be happy.

Phil.

[RobA_Oz]

Digital *ist has nothing common with film *ist, only the beginning of the name

If a lot of people can buy a 645Z $8000, some will certainly be interested in a $3000 new film camera with latest technology...

I guess the Lomography wave has lasted long enough for tastes to have matured beyond Holgas and the like, so perhaps you’re right there.

I thought the film and digital *ists that were launched together shared a similar body. Obviously, the backs would have been different but I’d always thought the commonality of body and some systems (shutter, mirror, AF and AE systems) made the whole thing more financially attractive to the company.

[fs999]

I thought the film and digital *ists that were launched together shared a similar body. Obviously, the backs would have been different but I’d always thought the commonality of body and some systems (shutter, mirror, AF and AE systems) made the whole thing more financially attractive to the company.

Perhaps some parts are the same, but the mirror and the shutter don't have the same size (APS-C versus FF) and the placement and size of the parts and electronics can't be the same too...