Did you know this about Pentax?

yvon_bourque2 · November 25, 2010

Timing is everything. So many of you, including myself, do wish that Pentax would have produced a Full Frame DSLR. Did you know that the first Full Frame DSLR was actually designed by Pentax, but the wrong timing and other factors prevented them to release what would have been the first Full Frame, 6 megapixels DSLR, in 2001. Here is a press release issued on February 10, 2001: DENVER, Colorado (February 10, 2001) . . . PENTAX Corporation will preview a new digital autofocus SLR camera (The MZ-D)) at the PMA (Photo Marketing Association) Show held in Orlando, February 11-14, 2001. The addition of this advanced digital SLR camera complements one of the most extensive photographic lines of any manufacturer in the industry including 35mm, APS, medium format and digital for various levels of photographers.

<tbody>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

<td >

The MZ-S was the last 35mm camera that Pentax produced. I loved the design. Actually it wasn't their last 35mm, the *ist was, but the MZ-s was the last flagship model..

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

Created along the same developmental concept lines as the new PENTAX MZ-S professional 35mm autofocus SLR camera, this high-end digital SLR will feature a 35mm-film-sized, six megapixel CCD image sensor as well as a DSP and other digital processing components. This package was jointly developed with Philips Electronics in order to realize high-grade image quality, top-level performance and compact dimensions simultaneously. Offering compatibility with the existing PENTAX KAF2 lens mount, it will also accept PENTAX 645-system and 67-system interchangeable lenses (when used with an adapter). This high-performance digital autofocus SLR camera will be ideal for advanced amateurs and professionals who demand top quality images and SLR maneuverability.

The camera will be compatible with four new accessories introduced for the new MZ-S 35mm SLR camera including: 1.) BG-10 Battery Grip, 2.) CS-105 & CS-130 Cable Switches, 3.) TS-110 Release Timer Switch, and the 4.) AF360FGZ Dedicated Flash Unit. The final product specifications, pricing and marketing dates will be announced at a later time.

<tbody>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

<td >

This DSLR still appeals to me today. I think the design is incredibly beautiful. Who's to say that Pentax couldn't reuse this design with a new / current Full Frame CMOS sensor!

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<tbody>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

<td >

The LCD screen is small in today's standards, but look at the top panel of the camera...pure beauty. Remember that this was in 2001, that's ancient in digital technology, and yet Pentax was at the forefront of Full Frame DSLR.

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

So why wasn't it ever mass produced?

Well, as it turned out, the Phillips sensor fail to deliver. Actually, Contax were to introduced a new DSLR as well, based on this same sensor, but the failure to deliver from Phillips actually drove Contax to extinction. Aren't you glad that Pentax was strong to hang in there? If that sensor would have succeeded in producing great images, Pentax would have been ahead of Nikon and Canon. It took them a while to get back on their digital feet, but now with the 645D, the K-5 and the K-r, Pentax is definitely in the game.

<tbody>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

<td >

The picture above was Pentax first design of a mirrorless digital camera...way ahead of everyone else. The year...1997. It was going to use Pentax "K" mount. It was never released, but it seems like the idea was a good one, look at all the mirror-less cameras out on the market today.

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

This was a sample of a camera Pentax designed years ago (1997, yet never released): a K-mount digital CCD camera with with no mirror assembly, just live preview on the LCD.

I am fascinated by the 'Pentax Design Studio'concept model of this ultra-compact Digital K-SLR from 1997

Note that Nikon's flagship model was the D1 at the time, with only an APS-C sensor @ 2.7 megapixels. Canon had the EOS-1D with a Panasonic 1.3x APS-C sensor with 4 megapixels. Nobody else had a Full Frame in the works. Technically speaking, and timing wise, if the Phillips sensor would have delivered, Pentax would have had the best DSLR way at the beginning of the DSLR revolution. But it isn't over yet, and with the current line of DSLRs, I am confident that Pentax will be at the top in the near future. Hang in there, the Pentax world is about to change the game. Thanks for reading. Yvon Bourque

pbarnes · November 25, 2010

Ah, the simple twists of fate...

dshombert · November 25, 2010

The Contax camera (N Digital) actually came into existence. Not sure how many got made, but enough that one turns up on eekBay or KEH every so often. It was outwardly similar to the Contax N, a truly fine camera (geez, why did I sell that thing...), along the same lines as the similarity between this and the MZ-S. The consensus seemed to be that the image quality was crap (due to the sensor), but they apparently have collector value - there's one at KEH right now for a paltry $1950.

renatoa · November 26, 2010

I can't believe that even now, after K5 show the truth about sensor size an performance, there is still people happy to carry such bricks...

yvon_bourque2 · November 26, 2010

Renato, the point of my thread is that Pentax would have been the first company to have a full frame DSLR. The timing was wrong and Phillips sensor failed. I have the K-5 and I am extatic about it. Pentax has the APS-C DSLR for most photographers and the 645D Medium format that actually surpasses any of the Full Frame cameras.

The thread is simply to show that Pentax is and always was ahead of it's time.

michael_elenko · November 26, 2010

I can't believe that even now, after K5 show the truth about sensor size an performance, there is still people happy to carry such bricks...

</blockquote>

Come now, for some of us the sensor is tertiary to what a whole system offers. The body is at most half the solution. Please provide me with a current wide-angle shift tilt lens that fits the K-5 and I'll drop my brick. Why don't you throw in a 100-400mm zoom as well, and maybe an f4 400mm available new.

ME

mountainvisions · November 26, 2010

yeah but if Pentax had a FF camera the above lenses wouldn't exist either! Nothing to do with sensor size at all, simple issue of market share and scale. Pentax once had more share and did produce the above lenses but as a company with perhaps 5% of share it certainly will not be anytime soon.

andrewg_ny · November 26, 2010

I don't see how that MZ-D could possibly be compatible with BG-10 grip like that quote suggests...that has got to be a mistake.

Also, while I share some affection for the MZ-S design, and as cool as it looks, it would be somewhat hard to imagine this being a huge success in today's market--its ergonomics are basically a modern twist on archaic designs where aperture rings are required for full functionality and exposure comp is controlled via the left hand, nearly impossible to do when the camera is held to the eye. In its defense though, when you use MZ-S you probably don't use exposure comp like you might with a digital camera--HyperManual/HyperProgram is implemented so elegantly that you easily jump right from Av to manual with a touch of the shutter speed dial.

mountainvisions · November 26, 2010

ME,

(this is mostly a fun poke, please don't take it personally or even seriously)...

it's easy to say the sensor is tertiary when Canon sensors typically fail to be the best sensors on the market time and time again! Looking at the top 6 sensors, no Canon, I do see Nikon, Pentax and Phase One though...;-)

On a more serious note, does anyone wonder if perhaps Canon should start using 3rd party sensors. Seems like a huge waste of R&D goes into it's sensor design only to be bested by other brands. Of course if they did cut an arm off the R&D budget, it would just mean more marketing (more print and TV ads for us to deal with, like the full page ad saying in camera SR sucks that Canon put out a few years ago) and more ability to stock lenses no one buys. Forget I said anything...keep dumping R&D into sensor design!

michael_elenko · November 26, 2010

Geez Justin, your mother's maiden name didn't happen to have been, um, Pentax, eh?

ME

anirbanbanerjee · November 27, 2010

Pentax had the first autofocus system too, but that wasn't a commercial success and was bested by Minolta's AF system. Advance 25 years and look where the winner in that race is in the photographic market!

The MZ-S is a camera that fits my hands best, but I do wish they had put an aperture control wheel on the body.

jeff_drew4 · November 27, 2010

I just put another roll of Ektar in my MZS w/24-90. . . SWEET! Kool-aid GOOD!

jeff_drew4 · November 27, 2010

I just put another roll of Ektar in my MZS w/24-90. . . SWEET! Kool-aid GOOD!

andrewg_ny · November 28, 2010

I think Canon may sometimes use third-party sensors in their compacts. Anyway, even if Canon's current crop of sensors appears to lag the latest from Sony, they aren't that far behind and I don't think its hurting their business all that much.

mountainvisions · November 29, 2010

Andrew,

I said it mostly jokingly, but consider that it's not just about sales, it's about R&D cost.

I know Canon's marketing and R&D budget = Pentax net revenue, so i'm thinking cutting R&D might actually sell more cameras...more money for ads! It's not like using Sony and Kodak sensors has crippled Leica, Nikon, Pentax and Olympus!

I'd be singing a different tune of Canon sensors were usually the best, but thus far, I don't recall Canon having a #1 sensor in since I've been reviewing DXO test data. Then in head to head subjective testing when Canon has been challenged it typically doesn't win either. I mean Nikon beat Canon in high ISO with it's first full framer considering Canon had a several year headstart! And I'm pretty sure the high MP D3X beat out Canons offering as well.

Now here is the disclaimer, I raise my argument because we all know that it's equally ridiculous as the "canon has the best system" argument. True it has the most lenses, but considering most people need 3-5 lenses it's hardly a relevant issue if you can get the 3-5 you need!

14mm 2.8l · November 29, 2010

Andrew, I think you're right about the point and shoot Canon sensors, they're Sony made CCD, from what I've read.

Justin you're right too. Nikon makes compelling products. I recently bought a 2nd D700 and completed my wide angle Nikkor lens kit buy adding a 24-70mm 2.8 Nikon lens, with it's $300 off instant rebate.

Either this D700 cost me less than $400 more than a Pentax K-5 or D700 cost me less than $700 more than Pentax K-5.

I needed the 24-70mm 2.8 Nikon lens so their annual promo rewarded me with $300 off on a lens I really wanted when I bought a camera I had to have. Wife and I don't share cameras, different settings, different diopters, so for me I have to own two bodies. It was either buy two 5D Mark II, or better yet wait for two 5D Mark III, or buy one more Nikon D700 and a lens I really wanted and needed for $1,100 less outlay than two current Canon full frame cameras would run me a couple weeks ago.

Both Nikon and Canon Instant Rebates are so cool, no boxes to cut, no forms to mail, no time to wait, ...

Nikon and Canon Holiday rebates are a real and tangible cash savings at point of sale. Done Deal !!!

14mm 2.8l · November 29, 2010

As Canon's full frame cameras were mentioned, I thought I'd add this linky to this thread.

Canon's first full frame dslr , 1Ds , came to market and sold to eager buyers in November 2002, some 20 months after Pentax announced & coincidentally shown off their Full Frame K-Mount at numerous major imaging shows. It was more than an official Pentax announcement, the Full Frame K-Mount toured.

Canon 1Ds sold for just $1,000 more than Full Frame K-Mount's February 2001 "announced" launch price of $7,000:

<a href="http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/dslr/data/1995-2004/2002_eos-1ds.html?lang=us&categ=crn&page=1995-2004">http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/dslr/data/1995-2004/2002_eos-1ds.html?lang=us&categ=crn&page=1995-2004</a>

As of today, Canon has offered 5 full frame dslrs, & two are current.

Nikon currently offers three full frame dslrs.

Sony offers two full frame dslrs.

Leica offers one full frame dslr.

mountainvisions · December 2, 2010

Lindy,

Full frame is Fools Frame...a niche market. Sony is stopping production on it's FF is it not? I thought it was, perhaps I'm misinformed. In which case I appologize for my ignorance.

Congrats to Leica, they are a niche company, they can make anything they want and sell it at whatever price, no questions asked. Is the S2 IQ better than the Pentax 645D? Probably not, but it cost 4X more!

Kodaks full framer was well regarded, but it didn't keep kodak afloat making DSLRs.

The test have shown, full frame doesn't compete with medium format in IQ, but APS-C does! Especially when the DOF advantage is tossed in making the 1 stop FF gets at higher ISO minimal. Remember the $500 K-x held it's own with full frame cameras at high ISO, yet the cheapest full frame camera is almost 5X as much (well say 4X with sales). Doesn't seem like a good deal to me.

Don't bother telling me that your lenses are the same focal length (rather FOV) they always were. It's irrelevant. Some people use APS-C, 645, 6x7, and large format cameras and juggle FOV...imagine the mental math games they have to play! if that is the best arguement for full frame, it proves my point that it's a niche market. Of course, I don't really think about things in terms of FL, only FOV. I know what my 55mm prime looks like on my 645, and my 21mm prime on my K-7 (hint, the same), and magically the world still spins. Full frame is a market for people who couldn't get used to the 35mm lenses they grew up on not having the same FOV. After a few weeks I wasn't an issue for me. Sadly, a big chunk of the consumer market started with digital and 35mm lenses FOVs are meaningless numbers. It might be just as hard for them to go to 35mm FOVs as it was for you to go to APS-C or 4/3s FOVs.

However, and I mean this seriously, I am glad to see that you are happy with your system. I think the Nikon system is pretty damn good if compactness isn't something you care deeply about. Then again, I really don't think there is a bad system on the market, heck, Sony makes great optics and probably usable camera bodies. Bottom line, you can't go wrong!

14mm 2.8l · December 2, 2010

Yes, these are great times. Everyone makes great gear. Its been a long, strange gear buying trip for me. For years, having adapted Nikon lenses to Canon its seems so logical to use Nikon Dslrs to drive my Nikon glass.

For me, D700 is easily best camera I've used and Nikon 14-24mm 2.8 is best 14mm or 15mm I've ever owned. This Nikon zoom is my 5th ultra wide rectilinear I've owned & shot with.

On Monday I received Thom Hogan's three D700 books & software to get the most out of D700. <a href="http://www.bythom.com/nikond700guide.htm">http://www.bythom.com/nikond700guide.htm</a>

Yes, I hear you, Lex's "Fool Frame" plays well here in Pentax. It played well in Nikon Forums too, up until Nikon launched D3 Fool Frame, followed immediately by D700 FF, & D3s FF, & D3x FF.

Yes, medium format digital is better, and at $10,000 minimum admission price, it should be.

For the $10,000 outlay I got us Two D700, a 14-24mm 2.8, a 24-70mm 2.8, a 70-300mm VRII, a 300mm 2.8N manual focus super tele, and 7 other classic Nikon made manual focus lenses. All acquired with a few hundred dollars spare change in my pocket. I got us, for us, a complete system for two people, two cameras versus a 645D which last time I looked still hasn't hit USA marketplace:

<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/739072-REG/Pentax_17971_645D_Digital_SLR_Camera.html">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/739072-REG/Pentax_17971_645D_Digital_SLR_Camera.html</a>

When its actually for sale, I wonder why 645D "cannot be ordered on the web" ?

Once 645D is available in USA here's the handy link to all new in the box 645D lenses, or I should say "Lens" :

<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?ci=467&N=4289357685+4289301464">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?ci=467&N=4289357685+4289301464</a>

These are great times, many choices in imaging.

I'll give high praise to Pentax, K-5 looks to be the very best aps-c camera available in 2010. Thus K-5 starts out as #1 in 2011 too.

Too bad for me that Pentax K-5 is not Fool Frame, or it would have been a serious contender for the Full Frame format Pentax glass and Pentax mount lenses and assessories I still own.

;^)

Sign In

Did you know this about Pentax?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in