> William Robb wrote: > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > >>> Pentax hasn't made a 35mm pro camera since the LX. .... > >> > >> > >> PZ-1, PZ-1p. > >> > > > > Not according to the definitions of the pros that I hang out with. > > > > William Robb > > and John Francis said: "Not bad, but not pro. Needs far better sealing, for a start."
and Margus Männik said: > one of our pros outlisted Z-1p because " a pro camera NEVER has built-in > flash"... Actually, since we're talking about Pentax equipment, it's > "pro"' enough compared to some other cameras called as such. To comment on the "built-in flash" thing: Everybody seems to have his own checklist. I recall, on another list, there was someone insisting the PZ-1 couldn't be a pro camera because it didn't have an interchangeable prism. I don't think *that* definition could still be sticking ... Frankly I believe that if either Canon or Nikon marketed a camera with a built-in flash and promoted it as a pro camera, we wouldn't hear that it was disqualified. We might hear instead that it's a "first". (Has it happened yet? I don't keep up with their various models any more.) We've established many times, including quite recently, that we cannot reach a consensus on what makes a "pro" camera. I happen to think that if the maker markets it as a pro camera, and some pros in fact use it on the job and find it durable and reliable and effective, then it's a pro camera. Having specs comparable to those of other brands of "pro" camera from the same era would also help to make the case. This is why I consider the PZ-1 and PZ-1p to be pro cameras. I'm curious about the "far better sealing" comment by Mr Francis. I was not aware of a deficiency in the sealing on the PZ-1. ERN
