Hello Pat, The way I read the question was your FAVORITE - mine was the MX. If it was the most useful or most used or some such, it would NOT be the MX. Rather like some of the things you said. At this point it would be the *istD, followed by the MZ-S.
-- Best regards, Bruce Tuesday, July 5, 2005, 7:48:35 PM, you wrote: PW> Shel wrote: PW> < With a decent lens and a properly functioning camera body, would you PW> expect PW> the results to be any different than with a new Captain Whiz-Bang camera? PW> All the bells and whistles in the world don't change a thing wrt the light hitting the film. >> PW> Well, yes and no. I replaced my cherished MX with an MZ-5 because I'd PW> sometimes miss shots when I didn't focus or set the exposure quickly enough. PW> The MZ-5n, with its exposure lock and DOF preview, was easier to use, so I PW> traded in the MZ-5 after only 3 months with it. PW> As for the MZ-S, the better metering, better autofocus, greater range of PW> shutter speeds, as well as half-speeds, and the ability to use remote PW> control allow me to get shots that would be difficult or impossible with the PW> other cameras. PW> In certain circumstances, such as consistent outdoor lighting, patient PW> subjects, sufficiently bright lighting, the availability of an assistant PW> (instead of a remote release), for example, any quality camera will enable PW> you to make a good picture. However, there are many times when some of the PW> "convenience" features become necessities. PW> With Pentaxes, generally speaking, the features are useful, and not just PW> frills. PW> Pat White
