ERN, I'm a happy pentax user, but... My record with NEW Pentax cameras is not great.
My original ME failed after 3-4 years of use and I paid to repair it when the standoff spring on the wind lever broke and put a metal piece into the plastic film advance gears. My Super Program died in the first 6 months. I took it to the Pentax repair center in Chicago and the guy started to ask if it was under warranty then stopped himself. It had only been out for 7 months! They repaired it for free. My PZ-1 went crazy in the drizzle at a Pig Roast (autofocus was hunting). It was 6 months new and went back to Pentax under the original warranty. I had to send the new camera plus the 28-80 lens. It took a dissatisfying 2+ months to get it back from Colorado. I've used 20-30 other, used Pentax cameras. They all worked just fine...except each of four LX cameras needed a CLA for sticky mirror. This was to be expected. I've never thought of Pentax manufacturing as inferior, or quality plagued. But after the early purchase of the Super Program and PZ-1, I don't want to be an early adopter of any new pentax cameras. I'd rather wait for the bugs to be ironed out. Regards, Bob S. On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 13:46:26 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Quoting Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Hmmm... To some extend this is right for me too. > > But I guess I just got used to all the nice features - sofisticated Matrix > > metering (I rarely have to make corrections anymore with the MZ-S - *istD. > > I > > did with the PZ-1) .... > > Is it just that people handle their gear differently, or is Pentax quality > really inconsistent between different individual samples of the same model? > > For instance the above comment about exposure. I don't recall having to make > corrections to the way the PZ-1 made exposures, but the *istD needs much more > tweaking (also, unfortunately, a lot more tweaking than images from the Optio > 550!) I have to put much more thought into using the *istD than the PZ-1, in > other words, on the technical side, than when using any other autoexposure > Pentax camera I own. (It is still, mercifully, less work than using the all- > manual meterless TLRs and rangefinders I have.) > > And then there was the comment about the PZ-1's lack of sealing. Someone's > camera quit in a drizzle. I've had my PZ-1 since Christmas 1995 and used it > professionally in various weather conditions and at least twice in situations > near waterfalls where I had to wipe the spray off the front of the lens > between shots (all shots). Rain. Freezing cold. Humid tropical beaches. > Delivery room ... (OK, nothing there to bother the *camera*!) It's never quit > or gone crazy. The only problem I've ever had with that camera was a little > crack on the baseplate. The local dealer (there was one at the time) easily > replaced the baseplate. It truly was news to me that it's not well sealed -- > I've never noticed stuff getting in. > > This is a general question, since there's also the big difference between > people who've found the LX a wonderfully reliable instrument and others whose > experience seems to be that it requires repair more frequently than any other > camera. > > It's also a straight question, not an attempt at sarcasm or trying to stir up > arguments. > > ERN > >
