On Monday, March 22, 2004, at 10:48 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote:
Along with that, even though the FA 135/2.8 isn't a * lens, it is built like a tank much like the * lenses. It's a very good performer.
Is this true of most Pentax AF? Having never dealt with Pentax AF before, I'm not sure of build quality in general. My thoughts on Pentax are all based on older early 1980s gear, which as I said previously, has been excellent.
My personal hunch is that the Nikon or Canon pro grade bodies are going to be more rugged and better at AF. Much as I love Pentax, for what you are describing, it may not be the best choice.
-- Best regards, Bruce
Monday, March 22, 2004, 6:28:50 PM, you wrote:
AF> By all reports the (P)Z1p is a dustcatcher. That could be a problem in
AF> central Australia. Rob Studdert could probably tell you what you need to
AF> know regarding this. If your choice is Pentax then the MZ-S might be
AF> better. It doesn't have gaskets against dust penetration as did the LX (and
AF> I think the top level Nikons) but is built to very close tolerances with the
AF> intention of resisting dust and moisture, or so I've read.
AF> regards, AF> Anthony Farr
AF> ----- Original Message ----- AF> From: "Patrick Pritchard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
AF> (snip)Hello all.
I've decided that within the next year (specifically, before September
2005) I would like to move up to AF. This is mainly because I will be
in Australia doing some shoots at the World Solar Challenge, where MF
didn't quite cut it last time I was out. I'd also like to move into
more sports, where AF would be a huge advantage.
My dilemma is this:
- should I stay with Pentax, or go with Nikon (I'm leaning towards a used F4) - If I stay with Pentax, should I go with PZ1P or MZ-S?
