Pal is also quite right in this aspect...
When I bought my PZ-1p, if the prices were more equivalent between an N90
and the PZ-1p, I would likely have gone with an N90 (even though I now know
that to be sinful). I had no investment in AF lenses.
I still suspect the MZ-S will suffer the same fate as the PZ-1p. I still
think they should not have reduced any specs from the PZ-1p, only made
improvements or additions.
Even then if Pentax produced the ultimate camera, I think name recognition,
advertising, and market dominance counts for everything. Pentax will never
dominate or even be 2nd place in the high 35mm market.
Tom C.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 1:00 PM
Subject: (P)Z-1 (WAS: My First Impressions on the MZ-S)
> Bucky wrote:
>
>
> > Thank you. If Pentax would just see their way clear to update the AF,
> > weatherproof the thing, and give us a vertical release, I would have no
> > complaints. Of course, I KNOW it's not gonna happen, but still...I do
> > remember something about reaches and grasps.
>
>
> Actually the Z-1 was weather sealed but Pentax changed their mind. They
also shelved the Z-1p sucessor, tentatively labeled Z-2, somewhere in the
mid 90's. The reason is pretty obvious: the Z-1(p) didn't sell. The LX sold
better in Japan than the Z-1p even in year 2000. The Z-1p didn't catch on
here where I live. Upon buying mine in '95 my Pentax rep told me it hadn't
really cought on. A few months back he said that they had practically
speaking stopped selling it years ago. I don't know where the the Z-1(p)
ever was popular.
> I suspect that Pentax simply decided to dump the price on the Z-1p instead
of spending more R&D on its sucessor - they may have lost less money on such
a move. This explains it price which was in the last few years way below any
comparable camera.
> Pentax now say that the Z-1p will evolve into it sucessor. I believe its
important to note the word evolve. Its most likely a very different beast
than the Z-1p and most likely way more expensive.
>
> I'll say the Z-1(p) is an excellent Canon anno 1989 but without the lure
of USM and an extensive lens line; not to mention brand lure. In 1992 the
Pentax lens line-up had serious holes. I simply believed that the Z-1p
failed, something it undeniably did, because Pentax users and non-Pentax
users alike couldn't figure out why they should buy an Z-1 instead of a
Canon or Minolta (or a Nikon for that matter). Back then, few had invested
heavily into Pentax AF lenses and if you wanted AF, even if you were a
Pentax user, you could just as well invest into EOS or something and this is
exactly what many did. At the time Pentax decided to reduce the price on the
Z-1p, the camera was seen as behind the pack.
>
> Pål
>
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
>
>
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
