----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Ewins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 11:31 PM Subject: Re: Michael Reichmann's take on current marketplace (inc stuff on Pentax digital)
> > But the Pentax 67 can't take any backs, and the ones on the Pentax 645 > > are inserts, not full backs. > > So what. All Pentax needs to do is introduce a digital only body that will > take the 645 lenses (and via the adapter, 67 lenses) and that is taken care > of. A digital only body would be a clean sheet of paper apart from the lens > mount. Naturally a modified 645 is most likley, but there is no need to try > and cater for film AND digital when a digital body would be not that much > more expensive than a digital back. > If it was a "back" configuration, other folks could introduce backs and we could have a third party market as well. In addition, this would keep us up to date more than a single-source solution. You could buy whatever back you could afford/need. > The one thing that I think they should introduce is an interface cable that > lets you talk to the firmware, and perhaps a little static RAM so that you > can add to it. Then you could download the latest nifty PF from the net and > install it. I'm sure that there a lot of nerds out there who would buy an > open-source camera, just so that they could play with the software. Likewise > there are probably third party companies that would happily sell you useful > updates, just like the replacement scanner drivers that you can buy now. > Wasn't that kodak's idea? R
