I have put the MZ-S beside an F100 with similar lenses and found the auto focus speeds to be the same, or at least imperceptible differences.
David Madsen mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.davidmadsen.com -----Original Message----- From: tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 9:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon? The AF on the F4 ain't exactly going to set the world on fire. If you want noticeably better AF you need to buy one of Nikon or Canon's current (or maybe a generation back) pro bodies. The mid level or older pro bodies aren't any better than the MZ-S. tv > -----Original Message----- > From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 10:48 PM > To: Anthony Farr > Subject: Re: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon? > > 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. > > 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]> > > >> 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? > >> > AF> (snip) > > > > >
