But the examples of the ZD and the Pentax (as well as the Contax N1) differ in that these products weren't delayed by months, they were delayed by years and years - an average of 4 in most cases, hence my reaction.
Obviously there is no Pentax out there to judge or compare, but if they learned from the mistakes of the ZD they might have something interesting.
Actually, had the Mamiya ZD just been built better and ready to go without issues it probably would have been successful if the price was competitive to the top of the line Canons or Nikons.
But it wasn't, it had a small limited lcd, smallish buffer, those Mamiya plastic lenses, low iso, a challenged workflow and the web lit up with quality issues the moment it came out.
But in reality the ZD was pretty much obsolete by the time they had it working, which doesn't mean it doesn't have value, it just means it's was a very limited camera.
Since we're talking about future cameras, I believe we're really at the start, not the middle or end of where these things are going and unless the Pentax, or any camera for that matter, comes out with features that are more than just megapixels or frame size, it's probably just another small niche camera that will appeal to a limited group.
What I would like to see is a camera that doesn't stop me from anything and that includes multi point autofocus (also in live view mode), obviously live view with a detailed zoom feature, a series of lenses that are more standard in their throw and diameters (like the Zeiss mini primes) and a solid workflow that is intuitive.
Since the start of digital capture, still and motion, it's been a process of make it up as we go along and though it's probably not in a manufacturer's best interest to standardize everything, from lens mounts to file format, it is in the users best interest.
As a working professional I can give you 20 reasons why I would shoot any camera and consequently 20 reasons why I wouldn't, even on the same project, but the one thing I need more than any feature is more time, or better put less time learning and adapting to new stuff, just for the sake of having new stuff.
If I look around my studio at the cameras I own, Leica, Nikon, Canon, Contax/Phase and today look at everything that is out there new there is not an actual compelling reason for me to change or add anything. Sure a M9 is slightly better than an M8, a P40+ slightly better than a P30+ but not so far advanced that it's going to make that much difference in the work I do, or allow me to do something I can't do now.
The only camera I see that is even close to offering what I don't currently have is the Panasonic GH1 (I guess that's what it is called) because even though it's small, somewhat limited in still use, it will accept almost any lens, (including PL mounts), it will semi autofocus with live view and even though the camera may be out of date in a year, it almost warrants an investment in $30,000 worth of the new Cooke or Zeiss mini primes, because the PL mount is not going to become obsolete.
I'm not saying that the Panasonic is the all for everything camera, or the pinnacle because it's not, but if I was starting fresh with a new camera line or format, I would look at what this offers and try to take it up about 10 notches, because then it will be worth 10 times the price.
It's interesting that the cameras we like vs. the cameras we use. I love the Contax, love the little Leica and use them less than any camera, just because they have certain limitations and I guess that's where I'm going with this, I don't understand any new camera at any price that has limitations.
IMO.
BC
