Thank you for your articulate, polite, well-reasoned response. Many of us
are fanatical about our chosen brand of camera! (That doesn't just go for
me and my fellow Pentaxians, of course.) I enjoy reading AMATEUR more than
most other major photography magazines, because of the balnced, fair reviews
of photo gear. You just don't seem as beholden to the camera makers as our
Stateside mags are. I plan to get my hands on an MZ-S soon, try it out, and
be my own judge. (I also plan to look at an LX, and make a choice between
the 2.)
Jim Moniz
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 2:55 AM
Subject: RE: Amateur Photographer Review of MZ-S
> Re: Amateur Photographer review of MZ-S
>
> I am glad so many of you have taken time to read my review of this camera.
I
> really don't mind people not agreeing with what I wrote, as we are all
> intelligent and all have opinions. However, I do wish some of you would
take the
> time to read it more carefully and without prejudice. Some of the
comments,
> mostly from people who have already bought the camera or who want to buy
the
> camera, make it obvious the writers are not prepared to read with an open
mind,
> and wish only to take what they want from the article. And those who
suggest
> that a negative review has anything to do with advertising should be
ashamed.
> The MZ-S is an exciting camera and from the moment I first saw it I was
looking
> forward to getting one to use and test. I spoke extensively with the
Japanese
> design team last September so I believe I probably have a better
understanding
> of what Pentax is trying achieve with this model than most people. And I
wanted
> it to be a spectacular camera. It is well built and the basic design idea
> appears to be very good.
> As many of you have agreed this really isn't a 'professionally' equipped
AF SLR.
> The build might be 'professional' but the specification does not match the
> standards we have come to expect from this type of camera - namely an
autofocus
> 35mm SLR. It does not actually match the expectations of a 'high end' AF
SLR if
> we take models such as the EOS 3, F100 etc. as being representative of
this
> level.
> I use a lot of different cameras on a day to day basis and I am familiar
with a
> number of different handling systems. My criticism of some of the handling
> aspects of this model are based on comparisons of the methods other
> manufacturers employ. My experience allows me to see how other people do
things
> in a more logical way, and to rate one system against another. When I say
> something is not as straight forward as it could be it means there are a
number
> of alternative routes to achieving the same result that require less time
or
> operating of buttons or dials. This applies, in this case, particularly to
my
> remarks about the ISO controls. In what other camera is ISO setting split
into
> two areas on the camera? Surely incorporating a DX setting into the menu
of the
> main ISO button would allow auto reading and manual adjustments to be
dealt with
> at the same time. This is how the majority of other cameras do it and it
is
> easier and more logical. This is why I criticized the methods of the MZ-S
> system, and if you read the review carefully you will see that this is
exactly
> what I said.
> I never compare Pentax with Canon or Nikon or Minolta or whoever. Apart
from in
> the introduction of a test I always deal with each individual model as an
item
> separate from the brand or the range. It stands on its own merits and
falls by
> its negative points.
> The MZ-S is a very nice camera, the AF is excellent and the metering is
very
> good. Something I didn't mention in the test, and which some people have
> contacted me about, is over lapping frames - of which I had more than a
couple
> of instances. But the MZ-S is not what it was billed as - namely a pro
SLR.
>
> Please read tests more carefully before bashing me in front of the whole
world.
> Please remember that there will be people reading your comments who will
not get
> to read the test you are commenting on. In their eyes I look as though I
have
> taken no trouble over the test and have not made any effort to understand
the
> camera - or read the hand book as someone commented. This is inaccurate,
> defamatory and actually personally offensive. There is no other magazine
in this
> country, or in most of the world, that tests as much photographic
equipment as
> AP does. There are few magazines that go into so much depth or go to as
much
> trouble to find out about the product and to test as many aspects of the
> cameras' features. Where else can you read a nine page test of this
camera? Asd
> I said earlier you don't have to agree with what we say but please have
some
> respect for our experience and extensive testing proceedures.
>
> Anyway, enough of me. Damien Demolder. Technical Editor. Amateur
Photographer.
>
>
> This E-mail is from IPC Media Ltd whose registered office is at Kings
> Reach Tower, Stamford Street, London SE1 9LS, registered number
53626.
>
> The contents and any attachments to it include information that is
> private and confidential and should only be read by those persons to
> whom they are addressed. IPC Media accepts no liability for any loss
> or damage suffered by any person arising from the use of this e-mail.
> Neither IPC Media nor the sender accepts any responsibility for
> viruses and it is your responsibility to check the email and
> attachments (if any).
> No contracts may be concluded on behalf of IPC Media by means of
> e-mail communications.
>
> If you have received this e-mail in error, please destroy and delete
> the message from your computer.
>
> -
> 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 .
