Alin,
While I was writing that, I kept having the feeling I had seen the foam
around the film window on other cameras, but could not dredge up a specific
memory, which is why I mentioned it could be common. Glad you cleared that
up for me. It's tough getting old.
Actually, I did point the camera at traffic going by outside, where it was
very sunny, if cold, and the camera had no trouble with hunting at all. We
were inside a relatively dim restaurant (Applebee's, for state-side
reference. I can recommend the fried chicken salad) and I was harassing the
other customers by randomly focusing on them. I didn't notice any hunt there
either. In fact, at times when I was expecting the central sensor to
activate, one of the outlying sensors would grab onto something else with
more contrast. That was one of the reasons I said the system was quick and
decisive.
Doug
Doug wrote:
DB> 3.) It is well put together. I was especially impressed with the
DB> way the back fits to the body. There are a series of ridges-- I
DB> believe there are two on the body and one on the door, but I may
DB> have that backwards-- that go together to form a seal. The
DB> one ridge fits between the two. Very well done.
I just have rewound the film on my MZ-5N in order to open the back
and check it: it has the very same sealing, perhaps with the exception
of a bit of place between the opposite ridges. Unless the MZ-S has an
additional rubber fitting, there is nothing new here.
DB> I also noticed a
DB> foam square around the inside of the film window. That could be a
DB> common thing on cameras, but I don't recall ever seeing it
DB> before.
Yes, it's common even on the simplest camera and designed to block
the light streaks around the film cannister.
DB> The magnesium shell feels solid. I squeezed it and ther
DB> e was no give whatsoever. It feels like it should be around for a
DB> while.
This is remarkable indeed. Both MZ-5N and Z-1p backs give up a
millimeter or so when squeezed. Nothing to worry about as it doesn't
affect the film plane alignment, but still a nasty feeling of insecure
grip, especially with heavy lenses.
DB> 4.) For Alan Chan, I examined the finder window and, for the life
DB> of me, I couldn't determine if it was glass or plastic. My money
DB> is on glass, though. It's that kind of camera.
Hard to tell on an MZ-5N too. Until someone scratches his MZ-S
eyepiece on purpose, under controlled, reproducible conditions, of
course we won't know it for sure. ;o)
DB> 7.) The AF is quick and decisive. To test it, I used my
DB> FA*80-200/2.8 (keeping an eye on that focus scale window in case
DB> it decided to leap off the lens), and it had no trouble with
DB> either the camera-selected or user-selected sensors. I got it to
DB> hunt, but really, it was a tough scene, some thin branches with a
DB> brightly colored BP station in the background, and I was using a
DB> single sensor. To be fair, since not everybody has a 80-200/2.8, I
DB> also mounted the new 24-90 on there and pointed it around the
DB> place. Though the viewfinder was noticeably darker, the camera
DB> seemed to handle it just fine.
Actually no one tested it with moving subjects, like the street
crowd in a sunny day, or a walking person towards the camera in a dim
bar - something that usually makes the MZ-5N hunt for focus more than
it's acceptable to take the picture.
Servus, Alin
-
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 .
