Ooh! I've got it! A Digital Auto 110 with a 4/3 sensor and
interchangeable mounts for 4/3, 110 and M42 lenses. And a little auto
actuator bar thingy for the M42 lenses so JCO will STFU.
On 11/21/08, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But you could make a bloody small camera with a still much larger than
> P&S sensor. Unfortunately Oly/Panny have already gone there with Micro
> 4/3rds.
>
> -Adam
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 4:18 PM, PN Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The big problem with a 110-sized DSLR is that small sensors suck. End of
> > story.
> > Paul
> > On Nov 21, 2008, at 4:03 PM, John Celio wrote:
> >
> >>> More demand for Auto110 lens usage than M42?
> >>> Shirley,You cant be serious.
> >>
> >> I am serious, and don't call me Shirley.
> >>
> >> It actually has nothing to do with the lenses and everything to do with
> >> size.
> >>
> >> These days, consumers want small, smaller and smallest. Back in 2002,
> >> when I started selling cameras, people were amazed at how small the
> >> little digital P&S cams were, but still wanted something smaller ("I
> >> want pocket-size" was something we heard a lot). When the Pentax Optio
> >> S came out, we sold boatloads of them because it really was pocket
> >> sized, and nothing else came close.
> >>
> >> dSLRs follow the same trend, as can be seen in the Km/K2000, the latest
> >> Rebels and the smaller Olympus bodies. Then you have Micro 4/3rds,
> >> which is even smaller yet (though whether you can call them SLR cameras
> >> is debatable, IMO).
> >>
> >> I would bet real money that if you had an M42 dSLR and an Auto110 dSLR
> >> and presented them to consumers, the latter would sell like hotcakes
> >> while the former would sell maybe a crate and then rot in a warehouse
> >> somewhere. Consumers (that is, the people who actually provide the
> >> profits that keep companies afloat, as opposed to enthusiasts like
> >> yourself who mostly spend money on used equipment) will not buy a large
> >> camera that lacks modern conveniences. I will admit that the Auto110
> >> also lacks features, but it would be much easier to add autofocus, for
> >> instance, to a bayonet-based lens system compared to a threaded system.
> >>
> >> My point is, using the Auto110 as a basis for a new dSLR would make an
> >> awful lot more sense than M42 for reasons of size, convenience, size,
> >> cost and size. Did I mention size?
> >>
> >> Neither camera will likely ever exist, though. There are not enough
> >> people who would buy an M42 camera, and Pentax probably doesn't have the
> >> funds to ressurrect Auto110 on a gamble that it might make money.
> >>
> >>
> >> Note to Pentax: if you do ever make an Auto110 camera, I want credit. ;)
> >>
> >> John Celio
> >>
> >> --
> >> http://www.neovenator.com
> >> http://www.cafepress.com/neovenatorphoto
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> >> [email protected]
> >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
> >> follow the directions.
> >
> >
> > --
> > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> > [email protected]
> > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
> > follow the directions.
> >
>
>
>
>
> --
> M. Adam Maas
> http://www.mawz.ca
> Explorations of the City Around Us.
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> [email protected]
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
> follow the directions.
>
--
Scott Loveless
New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, USA
http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
