there was a press release on a pentax site tha gave a very complete description of the mz-s. it is a full 1/4 of a pound lighter then the pz1p. does not have the shutter speed or motor drive speed and exposuer compensation only goes 3 stops instead 4 . thats is an awful lot of money for only a few advances .
Mike, adding two cents to your point: How many professionals buy cameras and how many commited amateurs are there in the world. I suspect that is better to sell a u$s 500 camera to 10.000.000 people than a u$s 2000 to 50.000..... so Pentax goes for the first option. Intelligent move :-) Martin -----Original Message----- From: mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Monday, February 26, 2001 8:45 AM Subject: MZ-S worth >Hi all, > >Someone said >"I simply find it absurd to even imagine that Pentax or any >other manufacturer (Nikon and the F100), would make a body out >of something that is in any way, less than satisfactory for a >pro caliber camera." > >Once again we come back to definitions. My point in bringing in >comparisons to racing vehicles in the "body shell" thread was to >point out that "professionals" have different parameters to >"amateurs". If a machine disintegrates on the finish line after >winning the race - well, that's the price to be paid. It's >"done the job", the cost possibilities were factored into the >equation before the person decided to race and it was decided >that the cost was worth it. > >Trying to carry this over into camera construction; how long >should a "professional" model last? One year in >photojournalism? With a 75,000 cycle shutter life this equates >to 40 films per week before significant repair/servicing. >Certainly two years would seem to be the maximum at this rate >for any current model. All well and good, but I suspect many >businesses would take the view that the camera had "done its >job" by then and get rid of it. (This is where the racing >engine analogy falls down somewhat - all other things being >equal, repair/replacement of the shutter and film transport >should restore the camera to full functionality) > >Now if you were the design manager of a camera company, what >would your perspective be on a "professional" model which you >knew was going to be sold on after a few years at most by a >large proportion of your customers. Once they do that, it is >out of your ken and you are competing for repeat sales to the >original customer. Are you really going to build a body which >will last a decade or more, with all the associated cost? Or >will you go for the option which gives you a cost-effective >chance of lasting for the anticipated ownership of the buyer? I >strongly suspect the latter. > >One of the reasons I like Pentax is that the level of >compatability between different models leads me to think that >they are more interested in the committed amateur (and we all >are, aren't we?) than the "professional" market. It would be >really disappointing for me if they moved away from that. > >mike > >- >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 . > - 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 .
