Funny,
I had the same reaction to the LX when I handled Shel's. I didn't
particularly care for the way the meter display works and it didn't make me
want to get one. The feel and style for me, coupled with the series of
issues they all seem to have, just couldn't make me want one. I suspect you
actually have to use it a couple of times to start to fall in love with it.
The MZ-S is the same way. My first time handling it, I just compared it to
the PZ-1p I normally shoot with. It didn't jump out as *wow*, this is the
greatest thing since sliced bread. However, the more I use it, the more I
like it. There are a few controls placed in places I wouldn't have thought,
but they usually end up being in a good location. You are correct in
stating it is somewhat like a SuperProgram with AF, but the controls are
easier to work.
To the MZ-S's credit, it made me want to get it, where the LX did not.
Bruce Dayton
Sacramento, CA
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Pentax Discuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2001 3:46 PM
Subject: Why I won't be buying an MZ-S, and other ramblings with a rant at
the very end.
> So, with much trepidation, I went off to see the MZ-S on Friday.
> Nice camera. It seems really solid, much more so than the
> Mincanniks that it competes with. It wasn't overly large, which
> the Mincanniks most certainly are. They didn't have a battery
> grip for it, so I only got to see it with the lithioids running
> it.
> I liked where most of the buttons were, but there seems to be a
> lot of them. Having the AF fire up from a separate button is
> kind of cool, though I don't know what purpose it serves.
> Perhaps with the battery grip on, you need it. Choosing an AF
> sensor was pretty easy, though why they put the switch where the
> depth of field preview should be is beyond me. On that note, a
> camera with depth of field preview is really nice in this era of
> mindless photography. Nice touch to have it on this camera, but
> the switch is in the wrong place for me.
> I suspect I could get used to it pretty quickly, but this is one
> of those things that they should try to keep the same from
> camera to camera, and from era to era.
> The camera was very easy to use on manual and aperture preferred
> automatic, which makes me happy, as those are my preferred
> methods of choosing exposure.
> Then I ran into something called PF. PF is the noise a leaky
> tire makes. There seemed to be a lot of PF. I think I counted 20
> of them. Very inscrutable, just PF this and PF that, with no
> clue given as to what they are. Hmmm, this is not good. I recall
> this was why I didn't like the PZ-1 and it's ilk too.
> The camera seems very quiet, though very high pitched. I think I
> will take Leica to the store next week some time and see if the
> noise it makes bothers her.
> Over all, it did feel quite comfortable in my hands, but I
> didn't fall in love it.
> It is no LX in that regard.
> Perhaps I am just a Luddite, although I do like my wife's MZ-5.
> It reminds me of a Super Program with autofocus, although not a
> solidly constructed. It doesn't have PF.
> I walked into the store hoping that the MZ-S would not be a
> modernized LX. I was hoping this because I am not in a financial
> position to buy one, although I would have if I had liked it
> enough. As it was, I found the MZ-S to be a very nice camera,
> but more camera than I need in many respects, and less camera
> than I would want in a few respects.
> It is no LX replacement though.
> I think the slow drive speed will hurt it, not because it needs
> faster than 2.5 fps, but because it is eclipsed by the
> competition in this area, and we have been led to believe that
> drive speed is important.
> I was taught that it is more important to push the button at the
> right time, and that motor drives usually meant you had a shot
> taken slightly before, and slightly after the one you wanted. My
> experience with them has proven this to be true in many picture
> taking situations.
> They didn't have a new prime lens to go on it, and seemed
> dismayed when I insisted they put a prime on. The only one they
> had was a used 50mm f/1.7 (which I bought for 50 bucks, so now
> my
> wife has a prime lens for her MZ-5, but Don's photo no longer
> has a prime lens in the store).
> And they call themselves a pro shop.
> Does no one use primes any more? I noticed that all they had for
> all their cameras were zooms.
> How can you take a good picture with that little discipline? Ah
> well, that is what people want, I guess.
> Make it fast and easy, no one wants to work at it now.
> I find this very sad. People look at my pictures and say I must
> have a really good camera.
> Like as if that matters.
> I am sure Mordecai Richler had a good typewriter.
> I wonder if there is a market for a person to hire himself out
> as a vacation photographer? It seems like just one small step
> further down the road from where the market is now.
> It might be a good way to see the world.
> So I won't be buying an MZ-S. It wouldn't make me a better
> photographer. Just a lazier one. It seems an odd beast.
> Everything is there for it to be a great modern camera. It has
> lots of buttons and gizmos. It beeps. It has PF. Lots of PF.
> None of this will make better pictures. The picture is still
> between me and the subject. The camera is something in between.
> I think the less between me and the picture, the better.
> Thanks
> William Robb
>
>
>
>
> -
> 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 .
