Hi All,
I was just thinking a few weeks ago (prior to the D800 release), that when Pentax finially got around to releasing it's 645D digital MF camera, that there have been amazingly very few reports of issues with the camera, individually or otherwise. It was amazingly free of global issues (affecting most bodies) or indiviudal bodies of specific owners. Yes, I'm sure there are a few, as there are with any camera. The same thing can be said of it's actually performance and it pretty much has received universal aclaim for getting it right, especially considering its price point.
Now that the Nikon D800 has been released, inital testing and use (its still early) clearly shows Nikon also did most everything right with this camera and it's been living up to expectations and more. Although the original D3 could certainly be added to this same catagory, the D800 in many ways is a break through camera at its price point much as the 645D was and both so far seem to have few glitches to go along with their steller performance.
That got me to thinking that maybe unforseen delays for cameras that were expected a number of years earlier, whether offically announced or simply updates were long ago expected for previous models, clearly may provide a vehicle for the each complany to "get it right". Obviously prototypes were developed and instead of cameras being released during the time frame expected, Pentax had it's delays due to financial considerations with the parcent company while Nikon had unforseen delays due to global tradgedies.
In either case, I suppose it gave an enormous amount of additional time to test and retest each prototype and not only make chnages where changes would benifit, but to ensure glitches were discovered and removed. There might have even been cases where additional technology as it became available, was incorporated in late prototypes. It might simply have been a better switch or internal elctronic component. In the case of the Pentax 645D, the sensor choice changed and so did body development.
The upshot is whether its due to comsumer pressure, or the decision to quickly roll out bodies to have uses updating frequently, I believe careful and relatively long term development and testing has now greatly benefited what these two bodies have to offer and although I don't know for certain, something tells me they wouldn't have been this way if they were released when most expected.
That's not to say a complany should delay endlessly and keep developing a product before its eventually release...just simply that pressure to get these products out the door, especially when consumers are clamering for them "now", hasn't always worked out well or to our benefit. In these two cases I think most would say they got their money's worth and I'm sure there are some other examples in the photo industry, where delays worked in a products favor. Just some personal thoughts.
Dave (D&A)
I was just thinking a few weeks ago (prior to the D800 release), that when Pentax finially got around to releasing it's 645D digital MF camera, that there have been amazingly very few reports of issues with the camera, individually or otherwise. It was amazingly free of global issues (affecting most bodies) or indiviudal bodies of specific owners. Yes, I'm sure there are a few, as there are with any camera. The same thing can be said of it's actually performance and it pretty much has received universal aclaim for getting it right, especially considering its price point.
Now that the Nikon D800 has been released, inital testing and use (its still early) clearly shows Nikon also did most everything right with this camera and it's been living up to expectations and more. Although the original D3 could certainly be added to this same catagory, the D800 in many ways is a break through camera at its price point much as the 645D was and both so far seem to have few glitches to go along with their steller performance.
That got me to thinking that maybe unforseen delays for cameras that were expected a number of years earlier, whether offically announced or simply updates were long ago expected for previous models, clearly may provide a vehicle for the each complany to "get it right". Obviously prototypes were developed and instead of cameras being released during the time frame expected, Pentax had it's delays due to financial considerations with the parcent company while Nikon had unforseen delays due to global tradgedies.
In either case, I suppose it gave an enormous amount of additional time to test and retest each prototype and not only make chnages where changes would benifit, but to ensure glitches were discovered and removed. There might have even been cases where additional technology as it became available, was incorporated in late prototypes. It might simply have been a better switch or internal elctronic component. In the case of the Pentax 645D, the sensor choice changed and so did body development.
The upshot is whether its due to comsumer pressure, or the decision to quickly roll out bodies to have uses updating frequently, I believe careful and relatively long term development and testing has now greatly benefited what these two bodies have to offer and although I don't know for certain, something tells me they wouldn't have been this way if they were released when most expected.
That's not to say a complany should delay endlessly and keep developing a product before its eventually release...just simply that pressure to get these products out the door, especially when consumers are clamering for them "now", hasn't always worked out well or to our benefit. In these two cases I think most would say they got their money's worth and I'm sure there are some other examples in the photo industry, where delays worked in a products favor. Just some personal thoughts.
Dave (D&A)