Carlos Royo wrote:
> Please explain to us what you mean when you write "young
> and wild camera". ...
> it (MZ-S) seems to me the kind of camera we have been
> longing for: light, small, sturdy, with almost every useful
> feature needed for nearly everyone.
That's a 100% subjective view and a truncated citation. My comment
was: "the MZ-S is definitely not for the ones wanting a young
and wild camera at an attractive price (e.g. Minolta 7)", and was
based on Texdances comment that the MZ-S will become a big hit.
> if I were you, Ralf, I would buy a Canon, and there's no pun
> intended in this. It is a sincere advice.
Here we are at the topic: Most brands offer different types of
cameras for different attitudes. The 15 years lasting and the 5 years
lasting one, the no-nonsense and the latest tech stuff one. At Pentax
this is not possible. They always jump around in their model policy,
and you will never know whether the camera type you like will be
still available or even updated in some years.
> My Z-1 will be 9 years old in a few months time, and it is
> working happily like the very first day, the same thing about
> my almost 13 year old SFX. I bet those Canons wouldn't stand
> the travels, bumps, Sahara or Thar dessert, jungles, or other
> ordeals they have had to live through.
I would say the same about my 8 years old Z-20. However, others talk
about Z-series cameras as if they fell apart any second since in
their eyes these are Canon copies. They are not. In fact, MZ-5 & co.
are EOS 500 copies (the first small size / dial control camera,
introduction 1993). The company that stood the small size/low
weight trend for the longest time was indeed Nikon. However, such
camera historic analysis is not very welcome here. But the result of
all this and Pentax new market niche is MZ-S. This won't be a problem
- the $1200 guys deserve a camera as much as any other group.
However, it seems that other price classes/camera types will
disappear now from the Pentax lineup, and this includes cameras in
the technically capable mid class, a class I always have found
especially attractive.
As far as F80 is concerned - I have enjoyed mine very well. I know
all the early series flaws and the built drawbacks. So far, mine has
not shown the typical diseases, but in case it will, I will write a
nice complain letter to Nikon for sure. BTW, I am sure they will
introduce a improved F85 in a not too far future, especially since
the F90 is discontinued now. I won't complain, since I have bought
the F80 exact to have certain features for the lowest possible price,
so I accept the moderate built quality without having a problem with
this. So far I had 9 months of good fun with this camera, and since
MZ-S is announced for June here and I am currently not ready to
justify for myself a camera expense in this price range, I think F80
will continue to pay back for me. That's maybe the biggest difference
in our discussion. I don't need anything. However, I am ready to
change whatever components if I have a clear benefit. My heart does
not depend on the F80 (or a FA* 600mm). Others really need an
advanced camera, since they have planned such a purchase since years
and Pentax didn't offer anything. Of course they think different
about the MZ-S.
I somehow feel this discussion might be futile though, but I had the
impression I should add some thoughts from Planet N nevertheless.
Ralf
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
