In article ,
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
'It would have to incorporate a full-frame sensor'.

See what I wrote? It's still up there. It would have to incorporate
a full-frame sensor, *or else the viewfinder would be wrong*. That's
absolutely true.

The Kodak backs are not full frame. Did you check which trick they used
to reuse existing finders? It is so trivial I'm not going to spell
it out. (Download the DCS 460 manual for a really nice overview).

And then I claim that it's not a viable product if the viewfinder is
wrong. You can argue with that, since we haven't tried the
experiment; so far it's just my opinion.

Kodak did try it. They sold lots of them at very high prices. That makes
it a viable product to me.

I doubt it. You can't do special cameras like the D2H if you are stuck
with older mirror/shutter mechanisms.

Why not? And are the mirror/shutter mechanisms of the N80 and N70,
which recent digital products are based on, in any way superior to the
mirror/shutter mechanism in the F5 or F100?

The D2H is an improvement over the F5. It is better then what Nikon build
before.

Seperate backs will be a good marketing strategy when the market is close
the saturation. When people buy your cameras as fast as you can produce
them, it is not a good strategy.

When the market is close to saturation, there will be very few
film-based bodies in the market at all, and most of them won't have
interchangeable backs.

The DSLR market may saturate before everybody has dropped film. The D70/D100
and even the D1 don't work well well manual focus lenses.
I don't know how many people simply refuse to buy a Nikon DSLR until
they come with one that does works for them.


--
The Electronic Monk was a labor-saving device, like a dishwasher or a video
recorder. [...] Video recorders watched tedious television for you, thus saving
you the bother of looking at it yourself; Electronic Monks believed things for
you, [...] -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency