Ralf wrote:
> Here we are at the topic: Most brands offer different types of
> cameras for different attitudes.
Not at all. Canon basically makes the same camera but at different price points. This
is good if you happen to like their philosophy. If not, you're lost. Lately, Nikon has
followed the same path. The F100 is basically a shrinked F5. The F80 a shrinken F100
etc.
Pentax do not follow this trend. Theres a tremendous gulf between the philosophy
behing the MZ-5, Z-1p and MZ-S.
>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.
This is very true indeed; its both a Pentax weakness and strength. Its not the jumping
thats bad in my opinion, but the fact that they have been absent for too long in some
segments.
Anyway, the EOS3/F100/Dynaxx 7 is anything but impressive in my pinion. They totally
lack design direction and vision. Their philosophy is to pack as much features as
possible, limited by price only - not by design philosophy, and selling it hoping it
therefore will suits all. Maybe its good strategy - but it certainly doesn't signalize
original thinking among the engineers or marketing people. During the 90's we have
almost only seen utterly vision-free cameras.
The MZ-S does indeed have direction. Its a strong statement in design and features.
Its equally strong statement as the MZ-5 was back in '95. Of course it won't suit all
but neither does a camera along the lines of the EOS3 or the Z-1p; these cameras are
compromised because they try do everything with danger of not doing anything
particularly good.
> 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).
This is not the case. Theres significant and deep principal difference between the
MZ-5 and any Canon. Just adding a dial to a Canon don't make any difference. The MZ-5
is camera with user interface that dates back to the original Pentax while the Canon
is not.
>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.
Maybe because it isn't true. Theres is no manufacturer who has been less concerned
about size than Nikon.
> 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.
Possibly, yes,. But Pentax have never been particularly sucessful in this segment.
Canon and Minolta are better bets here.
>
> As far as F80 is concerned - I have enjoyed mine very well.
I have a hard time understanding the logic of adding an F80 to a Z-1p and then
complain about the MZ-S. The combined cost of an F80 and a number lenses enough to be
able to enjoy it would probably cost the same as an MZ-S body. With an MZ-S you have a
far better body and don't have to double the lens selection.
Pål
-
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 .
