Re: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon?
Hi, Patrick Pritchard wrote: I've never really liked Canon. Not sure why; I've used them, but then again only the lower grade stuff such as the Rebel X. Perhaps an EOS-1 might be better? Can anyone comment on the EOS-1 AF, or point me to some resources? I've had a good play with a 3. [And Cotty let me hold his, once 8-)] For some reason, I find them unwieldy and unpleasant to use. There seems to be a lack of delicacy to the controls. That's probably a good thing for a PJ uberkamera but, for me, it detracts from the pleasure of using it. mike
RE: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon?
You may want to look at the F90X. I bought on last year as a back up AF body for my D1,just incase it went down, i could still shoot film at my horse shows and salvage some sales. Its a nice camera,AF is fast and the body feels very rugged. I found a site on the web that had a comparison of the 90X and F4(which i was going to buy)but the features of the 90X looked a lot better than the F4,so i bought it. Payed around $850 Canadian with battery grip which enables verticasl shooting. Dave PS i'll see if i can find the site in my bookmarks -Original Message- Original Message - AF From: Patrick Pritchard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hello all. I've decided that within the next year (specifically, before September 2005) I would like to move up to AF. This is mainly because I will be in Australia doing some shoots at the World Solar Challenge, where MF didn't quite cut it last time I was out. I'd also like to move into more sports, where AF would be a huge advantage. My dilemma is this: - should I stay with Pentax, or go with Nikon (I'm leaning towards a used F4) - If I stay with Pentax, should I go with PZ1P or MZ-S? AF (snip)
Re: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon?
Hi, If fast AF is what you need, the Nikon F100 is faster than the F4 or F5. Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California - Original Message - From: Patrick Pritchard [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 6:15 PM Subject: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon? Hello all. I've decided that within the next year (specifically, before September 2005) I would like to move up to AF. This is mainly because I will be in Australia doing some shoots at the World Solar Challenge, where MF didn't quite cut it last time I was out. I'd also like to move into more sports, where AF would be a huge advantage. My dilemma is this: - should I stay with Pentax, or go with Nikon (I'm leaning towards a used F4) - If I stay with Pentax, should I go with PZ1P or MZ-S? I've read various reports here on the list of Pentax slowly pulling faster pro grade lenses. This has me concerned, as I will need those lenses later (e.g., 85/1.4 to replace my current MF 85/1.4, 24/2 to replace 24/2.8 I am using now, etc.). The PZ1P and F4 go for comparable prices (albeit not comparable condition) on KEH, which I have been using as a quasi-benchmark for my price checks. No matter where I go, I will end up buying new lenses in AF to replace my current MF lineup. From my research and contemplating the subject, here's what I've come up with: Pentax: Pro: I can use my old MF lenses for now Currently lenses are available, and used market is so-so for finding the fast lenses I'll need later I am very familiar with the system, and the quality of the lenses; I will not have to change much in terms of darkroom work to compensate for a new lens type If I find a good deal on an AF lens *NOW*, I can buy it and still use it on my Super Program Has 3 of the 4 lenses I desire: 35/2.0, 24/2.0, 85/1.4 Con: Pentax seems to be pulling out, and making pro grade stuff less available ZERO rental support; if I need a particular lens in AF, I can't get it anywhere else, to my knowledge in Toronto, Canada Pentax lacks a good mid-range telephoto (e.g., 135/2.0), although they do offer the 135/2.8 which is FA, not FA* Nikon: Pro: F4 is a proven workhorse Cost is comparable to PZ1P @ ~$500 for used body TONNES of rental support Has the key lenses I want: 35/2.0, 135/2.0, 24/2.0, 85/1.4 Con: I'll end up starting from scratch in terms of lens lineup Looking at side by side prints by myself and a friends F90X a few years ago, the Nikon had more contrast; this means more fiddling in the darkroom to get my procedure's down to the way I want them again. My renting is a minor issue at the moment. No matter who I go with, my first lens will undoubtedly be either the 35/2.0 from Pentax, or the 35/2.0 D from Nikon, and from there work up to a mid-telephoto, wider zoom, then telephoto. However for sports and the like, I'll need longer and faster lenses, and this is a problem area for Pentax, only in terms of availability. Build quality is a VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE. I'll be dealing with harsh environments: lots of bumping around, lots of jostling; extreme temperatures (-20 when I shoot at home up to 45+ when I shoot in the summer); lots of moisture (think dance clubs with 1000+ people all crammed into a tiny room, and everyone is sweating). When I came back from the outback last time, I had sand in my socks, which were *in my bag*, so I don't want to risk sand or moisture getting into the bodies. Lens build is also important. While I've been extremely happy with my all metal K-mount MF lenses, the newer Pentax lenses look pretty plasticy to me; I'm not sure how they'll hold up. I'd like to here comments from anybody out there who has used PZ1P, MZ-S or F4. I love my Pentax system as it is, and have built up quite a collection of gear (a bunch of lenses, a bellows [ easily one of my favorite toys; I love Macro work ], motor drives, etc.) and it has treated me well. However for AF everything changes, mainly in terms of availability (Pentax has a small market share) and build quality (everything these days seems to be made of plastic). Cheers, Patrick
Re: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon?
On Tuesday, March 23, 2004, at 12:03 AM, tom wrote: It's been a few years, but iirc, it was pretty bad. It's nickname was the best manual focus camera Nikon ever made. *WOW*. Yes, I have received other eMails regarding this off of the list, and I hear it repeatedly. I haven't done much research into Nikon's AF yet, basing most of my opinions on the market share, which I know is a flawed approach. blush Technically. Nikon put out a few versions of AF between the F4 and F5. The only other alternative to F4 is an F100, but that brings me back up to MZ-S prices.
RE: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon?
My dilemma is this: - should I stay with Pentax, or go with Nikon (I'm leaning towards a used F4) If I remember correctly, F4 was said to be the greatest manual focus camera ever. Yes, you read it correctly, I said manual focus. The first Nikon with good AF was F90 if I am not mistaken, and F90X which was a hugely successful model, then the F5 F100. The F801s which I had, had inferior AF to the Z-1p, and I would expect the same for previous models. My friend's F90X has slightly better AF than my Z-1p, but for some reason it also produces very annoying noise during AF. - If I stay with Pentax, should I go with PZ1P or MZ-S? The single AF sensor is a serious limiting factor for any moving subjects imho. I've read various reports here on the list of Pentax slowly pulling faster pro grade lenses. This has me concerned, as I will need those lenses later (e.g., 85/1.4 to replace my current MF 85/1.4, 24/2 to replace 24/2.8 I am using now, etc.). I think nobody really knows here. The way I see it, Pentax is either retreating from 135, or on its way to produce USM like lenses. To replace FA/FA* lenses with another set of non-USM lenses doesn't make sense. The PZ1P and F4 go for comparable prices (albeit not comparable condition) on KEH, which I have been using as a quasi-benchmark for my price checks. No matter where I go, I will end up buying new lenses in AF to replace my current MF lineup. Why bother Pentax or Nikon then? Why not go Canon to enjoy full USM IS capability? You would be fooling yourself to believe Z-1p or MZ-S offer the same AF ability as high end Canon. Being able to use IS without tripod is a big plus as well. Regards, Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan _ Free yourself from those irritating pop-up ads with MSn Premium. Get 2months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon?
Well, if it is no sealed, then no way the MZ-S will be nearly as dust resistance as the LX. The dust water will get inside the MZ-S from the dials in no time. Regards, Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan If your choice is Pentax then the MZ-S might be better. It doesn't have gaskets against dust penetration as did the LX (and I think the top level Nikons) but is built to very close tolerances with the intention of resisting dust and moisture, or so I've read. _ MSN Premium with Virus Guard and Firewall* from McAfee® Security : 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon?
Along with that, even though the FA 135/2.8 isn't a * lens, it is built like a tank much like the * lenses. It's a very good performer. The body is built like a tank, but the focusing mecnahism is not. It is loose and lacks precision for manual focus. Optically, it is inferior to the M135/3.5 near wide open. Still a fine AF lens though. My personal hunch is that the Nikon or Canon pro grade bodies are going to be more rugged and better at AF. Much as I love Pentax, for what you are describing, it may not be the best choice. Same way I feel. Regards, Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan _ Add photos to your messages with MSN Premium. Get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon?
This I know. It isn't an issue of the AF being the top notch, but given that F4 was the flagship at one point, and a LOT of people used it, the AF can't be *that* bad, all things considered. Because lots of people were using manual focus with the F4 back then. g Regards, Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan _ MSN Premium includes powerful parental controls and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon?
I think that the last Pentax camera body that was really well sealed was the LX. The PZ-1p certainly is not, and I think that the MZ-S is not either. Actually the LX is not only the last sealed camera, but the ONLY one too in the entire Pentax history so it is quite unrealistic to expect Pentax will do it again. Regards, Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN Premium. Get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon?
On Thursday, August 23, 2001, at 03:13 AM, Alan Chan wrote: My dilemma is this: - should I stay with Pentax, or go with Nikon (I'm leaning towards a used F4) If I remember correctly, F4 was said to be the greatest manual focus camera ever. Yes, you read it correctly, I said manual focus. The first Nikon with good AF was F90 if I am not mistaken, and F90X which was a hugely successful model, then the F5 F100. The F801s which I had, had inferior AF to the Z-1p, and I would expect the same for previous models. My friend's F90X has slightly better AF than my Z-1p, but for some reason it also produces very annoying noise during AF. Yes. A friend had the F90 when it first came out, and loved the AF in it. I guess I was mistaken on my assumptions for the F4 then. Why bother Pentax or Nikon then? Why not go Canon to enjoy full USM IS capability? You would be fooling yourself to believe Z-1p or MZ-S offer the same AF ability as high end Canon. Being able to use IS without tripod is a big plus as well. I've never really liked Canon. Not sure why; I've used them, but then again only the lower grade stuff such as the Rebel X. Perhaps an EOS-1 might be better? Can anyone comment on the EOS-1 AF, or point me to some resources?
Re: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon?
This I know. It isn't an issue of the AF being the top notch, but given that F4 was the flagship at one point, and a LOT of people used it, the AF can't be *that* bad, all things considered. The F-4 was Nikon's first AF pro body. The AF is primitive compared to current top of the line models. It is also IIRC Nikon's heaviest film body, however the sealing and duty cycle are pro caliber. Nikon lenses also have a certain look to them, high acutance but not always pleasing bokeh. I would sit down and decide which features are most important to you. If the sealing and duty cycle is the F-4 may still be your best option though a used F-100 might suit your needs and has a faster AF. The PZ-1p is the most pro speced Pentax AF body and it has a good reputation for being dependable, but it is not sealed, has no PC socket and uses a lithium battery. If you can live with those features I would go with the Pentax as you already have some MF lenses, having an all manual back up body is very handy (K-1000) and you may find especially with wide angles that you're happy with MF. Also $500 sound steep for a PZ-1p. I bought my Z-1p in mint condition for $300 (thanks again Leon) and have been very happy with it. I would think with a little perseverance you could find one in that price range too. Butch Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself. Hermann Hesse (Demian)
Re: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon?
By all reports the (P)Z1p is a dustcatcher. That could be a problem in central Australia. Rob Studdert could probably tell you what you need to know regarding this. If your choice is Pentax then the MZ-S might be better. It doesn't have gaskets against dust penetration as did the LX (and I think the top level Nikons) but is built to very close tolerances with the intention of resisting dust and moisture, or so I've read. regards, Anthony Farr - Original Message - From: Patrick Pritchard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hello all. I've decided that within the next year (specifically, before September 2005) I would like to move up to AF. This is mainly because I will be in Australia doing some shoots at the World Solar Challenge, where MF didn't quite cut it last time I was out. I'd also like to move into more sports, where AF would be a huge advantage. My dilemma is this: - should I stay with Pentax, or go with Nikon (I'm leaning towards a used F4) - If I stay with Pentax, should I go with PZ1P or MZ-S? (snip)
Re: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon?
Patrick Pritchard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've read various reports here on the list of Pentax slowly pulling faster pro grade lenses. What? Who posted that??? -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon?
Along with that, even though the FA 135/2.8 isn't a * lens, it is built like a tank much like the * lenses. It's a very good performer. My personal hunch is that the Nikon or Canon pro grade bodies are going to be more rugged and better at AF. Much as I love Pentax, for what you are describing, it may not be the best choice. -- Best regards, Bruce Monday, March 22, 2004, 6:28:50 PM, you wrote: AF By all reports the (P)Z1p is a dustcatcher. That could be a problem in AF central Australia. Rob Studdert could probably tell you what you need to AF know regarding this. If your choice is Pentax then the MZ-S might be AF better. It doesn't have gaskets against dust penetration as did the LX (and AF I think the top level Nikons) but is built to very close tolerances with the AF intention of resisting dust and moisture, or so I've read. AF regards, AF Anthony Farr AF - Original Message - AF From: Patrick Pritchard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hello all. I've decided that within the next year (specifically, before September 2005) I would like to move up to AF. This is mainly because I will be in Australia doing some shoots at the World Solar Challenge, where MF didn't quite cut it last time I was out. I'd also like to move into more sports, where AF would be a huge advantage. My dilemma is this: - should I stay with Pentax, or go with Nikon (I'm leaning towards a used F4) - If I stay with Pentax, should I go with PZ1P or MZ-S? AF (snip)
RE: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon?
The AF on the F4 ain't exactly going to set the world on fire. If you want noticeably better AF you need to buy one of Nikon or Canon's current (or maybe a generation back) pro bodies. The mid level or older pro bodies aren't any better than the MZ-S. tv -Original Message- From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 10:48 PM To: Anthony Farr Subject: Re: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon? Along with that, even though the FA 135/2.8 isn't a * lens, it is built like a tank much like the * lenses. It's a very good performer. My personal hunch is that the Nikon or Canon pro grade bodies are going to be more rugged and better at AF. Much as I love Pentax, for what you are describing, it may not be the best choice. -- Best regards, Bruce Monday, March 22, 2004, 6:28:50 PM, you wrote: AF By all reports the (P)Z1p is a dustcatcher. That could be a problem in AF central Australia. Rob Studdert could probably tell you what you need to AF know regarding this. If your choice is Pentax then the MZ-S might be AF better. It doesn't have gaskets against dust penetration as did the LX (and AF I think the top level Nikons) but is built to very close tolerances with the AF intention of resisting dust and moisture, or so I've read. AF regards, AF Anthony Farr AF - Original Message - AF From: Patrick Pritchard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hello all. I've decided that within the next year (specifically, before September 2005) I would like to move up to AF. This is mainly because I will be in Australia doing some shoots at the World Solar Challenge, where MF didn't quite cut it last time I was out. I'd also like to move into more sports, where AF would be a huge advantage. My dilemma is this: - should I stay with Pentax, or go with Nikon (I'm leaning towards a used F4) - If I stay with Pentax, should I go with PZ1P or MZ-S? AF (snip)
Re: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon?
On Monday, March 22, 2004, at 10:48 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote: Along with that, even though the FA 135/2.8 isn't a * lens, it is built like a tank much like the * lenses. It's a very good performer. Is this true of most Pentax AF? Having never dealt with Pentax AF before, I'm not sure of build quality in general. My thoughts on Pentax are all based on older early 1980s gear, which as I said previously, has been excellent. My personal hunch is that the Nikon or Canon pro grade bodies are going to be more rugged and better at AF. Much as I love Pentax, for what you are describing, it may not be the best choice. -- Best regards, Bruce Monday, March 22, 2004, 6:28:50 PM, you wrote: AF By all reports the (P)Z1p is a dustcatcher. That could be a problem in AF central Australia. Rob Studdert could probably tell you what you need to AF know regarding this. If your choice is Pentax then the MZ-S might be AF better. It doesn't have gaskets against dust penetration as did the LX (and AF I think the top level Nikons) but is built to very close tolerances with the AF intention of resisting dust and moisture, or so I've read. AF regards, AF Anthony Farr AF - Original Message - AF From: Patrick Pritchard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hello all. I've decided that within the next year (specifically, before September 2005) I would like to move up to AF. This is mainly because I will be in Australia doing some shoots at the World Solar Challenge, where MF didn't quite cut it last time I was out. I'd also like to move into more sports, where AF would be a huge advantage. My dilemma is this: - should I stay with Pentax, or go with Nikon (I'm leaning towards a used F4) - If I stay with Pentax, should I go with PZ1P or MZ-S? AF (snip)
Re: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon?
On Monday, March 22, 2004, at 10:18 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: Patrick Pritchard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've read various reports here on the list of Pentax slowly pulling faster pro grade lenses. What? Who posted that??? Well, it has been since March 16, 2004 since that is when I re-subscribed to the list. While no-one has given direct evidence, there was something anecdotal about ... when they run out of the glass they'll stop producing certain lenses ... or something along those lines. -Patrick -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon?
On Monday, March 22, 2004, at 11:15 PM, tom wrote: The AF on the F4 ain't exactly going to set the world on fire. If you want noticeably better AF you need to buy one of Nikon or Canon's current (or maybe a generation back) pro bodies. The mid level or older pro bodies aren't any better than the MZ-S. This I know. It isn't an issue of the AF being the top notch, but given that F4 was the flagship at one point, and a LOT of people used it, the AF can't be *that* bad, all things considered. MZ-S is still double the price of F4. And by your definition, isn't the F4 one generation behind the current pro line? Pro being F5? Or was the F4S somewhere in between? -patrick tv -Original Message- From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 10:48 PM To: Anthony Farr Subject: Re: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon? Along with that, even though the FA 135/2.8 isn't a * lens, it is built like a tank much like the * lenses. It's a very good performer. My personal hunch is that the Nikon or Canon pro grade bodies are going to be more rugged and better at AF. Much as I love Pentax, for what you are describing, it may not be the best choice. -- Best regards, Bruce Monday, March 22, 2004, 6:28:50 PM, you wrote: AF By all reports the (P)Z1p is a dustcatcher. That could be a problem in AF central Australia. Rob Studdert could probably tell you what you need to AF know regarding this. If your choice is Pentax then the MZ-S might be AF better. It doesn't have gaskets against dust penetration as did the LX (and AF I think the top level Nikons) but is built to very close tolerances with the AF intention of resisting dust and moisture, or so I've read. AF regards, AF Anthony Farr AF - Original Message - AF From: Patrick Pritchard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hello all. I've decided that within the next year (specifically, before September 2005) I would like to move up to AF. This is mainly because I will be in Australia doing some shoots at the World Solar Challenge, where MF didn't quite cut it last time I was out. I'd also like to move into more sports, where AF would be a huge advantage. My dilemma is this: - should I stay with Pentax, or go with Nikon (I'm leaning towards a used F4) - If I stay with Pentax, should I go with PZ1P or MZ-S? AF (snip)
RE: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon?
-Original Message- From: Patrick Pritchard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Monday, March 22, 2004, at 11:15 PM, tom wrote: The AF on the F4 ain't exactly going to set the world on fire. If you want noticeably better AF you need to buy one of Nikon or Canon's current (or maybe a generation back) pro bodies. The mid level or older pro bodies aren't any better than the MZ-S. This I know. It isn't an issue of the AF being the top notch, but given that F4 was the flagship at one point, and a LOT of people used it, the AF can't be *that* bad, all things considered. It's been a few years, but iirc, it was pretty bad. It's nickname was the best manual focus camera Nikon ever made. And by your definition, isn't the F4 one generation behind the current pro line? Technically. Nikon put out a few versions of AF between the F4 and F5. tv
RE: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon?
I have put the MZ-S beside an F100 with similar lenses and found the auto focus speeds to be the same, or at least imperceptible differences. David Madsen mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.davidmadsen.com -Original Message- From: tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 9:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon? The AF on the F4 ain't exactly going to set the world on fire. If you want noticeably better AF you need to buy one of Nikon or Canon's current (or maybe a generation back) pro bodies. The mid level or older pro bodies aren't any better than the MZ-S. tv -Original Message- From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 10:48 PM To: Anthony Farr Subject: Re: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon? Along with that, even though the FA 135/2.8 isn't a * lens, it is built like a tank much like the * lenses. It's a very good performer. My personal hunch is that the Nikon or Canon pro grade bodies are going to be more rugged and better at AF. Much as I love Pentax, for what you are describing, it may not be the best choice. -- Best regards, Bruce Monday, March 22, 2004, 6:28:50 PM, you wrote: AF By all reports the (P)Z1p is a dustcatcher. That could be a problem in AF central Australia. Rob Studdert could probably tell you what you need to AF know regarding this. If your choice is Pentax then the MZ-S might be AF better. It doesn't have gaskets against dust penetration as did the LX (and AF I think the top level Nikons) but is built to very close tolerances with the AF intention of resisting dust and moisture, or so I've read. AF regards, AF Anthony Farr AF - Original Message - AF From: Patrick Pritchard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hello all. I've decided that within the next year (specifically, before September 2005) I would like to move up to AF. This is mainly because I will be in Australia doing some shoots at the World Solar Challenge, where MF didn't quite cut it last time I was out. I'd also like to move into more sports, where AF would be a huge advantage. My dilemma is this: - should I stay with Pentax, or go with Nikon (I'm leaning towards a used F4) - If I stay with Pentax, should I go with PZ1P or MZ-S? AF (snip)
Re: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon?
I've heard a number of people described the Nikon F4 as Nikons best manual focus body. This I know. It isn't an issue of the AF being the top notch, but given that F4 was the flagship at one point, and a LOT of people used it, the AF can't be *that* bad, all things considered.
Re: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon?
The AF performance of Canon EOS 1n still performs very well when conpared to newer high end AF bodies. The price of these is quite good also in the current market, might be something worth considering. Patrick Pritchard wrote: On Monday, March 22, 2004, at 11:15 PM, tom wrote: The AF on the F4 ain't exactly going to set the world on fire. If you want noticeably better AF you need to buy one of Nikon or Canon's current (or maybe a generation back) pro bodies. The mid level or older pro bodies aren't any better than the MZ-S. This I know. It isn't an issue of the AF being the top notch, but given that F4 was the flagship at one point, and a LOT of people used it, the AF can't be *that* bad, all things considered. MZ-S is still double the price of F4. And by your definition, isn't the F4 one generation behind the current pro line? Pro being F5? Or was the F4S somewhere in between? -patrick tv -Original Message- From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 10:48 PM To: Anthony Farr Subject: Re: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon? Along with that, even though the FA 135/2.8 isn't a * lens, it is built like a tank much like the * lenses. It's a very good performer. My personal hunch is that the Nikon or Canon pro grade bodies are going to be more rugged and better at AF. Much as I love Pentax, for what you are describing, it may not be the best choice. -- Best regards, Bruce Monday, March 22, 2004, 6:28:50 PM, you wrote: AF By all reports the (P)Z1p is a dustcatcher. That could be a problem in AF central Australia. Rob Studdert could probably tell you what you need to AF know regarding this. If your choice is Pentax then the MZ-S might be AF better. It doesn't have gaskets against dust penetration as did the LX (and AF I think the top level Nikons) but is built to very close tolerances with the AF intention of resisting dust and moisture, or so I've read. AF regards, AF Anthony Farr AF - Original Message - AF From: Patrick Pritchard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hello all. I've decided that within the next year (specifically, before September 2005) I would like to move up to AF. This is mainly because I will be in Australia doing some shoots at the World Solar Challenge, where MF didn't quite cut it last time I was out. I'd also like to move into more sports, where AF would be a huge advantage. My dilemma is this: - should I stay with Pentax, or go with Nikon (I'm leaning towards a used F4) - If I stay with Pentax, should I go with PZ1P or MZ-S? AF (snip)
RE: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon?
Hello Patrick I have use both AF ans MF for the last 12 years. I think all the cameras you mention are nice and very high quality. I only own 3 AF lenses. If AF was so much better, I guess I would have had a lot more AF lenses by now! What is important is to get a camera you like to use. A camera the feels right for your kind of work. If it does, you'll get nice photgraphs. If all the buttons are in the wrong place, you might not. I recently got the MZ-S. I can tell you it's a joy to use. Kind of retro - has a button for each of the most important things (meter-mode, drive, bracketing, exposure comp., AF-mode, AE-lock, AF-lock, shutterspeed, aperture, choise of focus-point). Not MENU's. Easy - at a glance overview. Clean viewfinder with nothing att all inside the frame. Rarely hunting focus. It's is simply pleasing to hold and to fire. My favorite. I guess it's less expensive than the F4. Use the difference for AF lenses. All the best Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Patrick Pritchard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 23. marts 2004 03:15 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon? Hello all. I've decided that within the next year (specifically, before September 2005) I would like to move up to AF. This is mainly because I will be in Australia doing some shoots at the World Solar Challenge, where MF didn't quite cut it last time I was out. I'd also like to move into more sports, where AF would be a huge advantage. My dilemma is this: - should I stay with Pentax, or go with Nikon (I'm leaning towards a used F4) - If I stay with Pentax, should I go with PZ1P or MZ-S? I've read various reports here on the list of Pentax slowly pulling faster pro grade lenses. This has me concerned, as I will need those lenses later (e.g., 85/1.4 to replace my current MF 85/1.4, 24/2 to replace 24/2.8 I am using now, etc.). The PZ1P and F4 go for comparable prices (albeit not comparable condition) on KEH, which I have been using as a quasi-benchmark for my price checks. No matter where I go, I will end up buying new lenses in AF to replace my current MF lineup. From my research and contemplating the subject, here's what I've come up with: Pentax: Pro: I can use my old MF lenses for now Currently lenses are available, and used market is so-so for finding the fast lenses I'll need later I am very familiar with the system, and the quality of the lenses; I will not have to change much in terms of darkroom work to compensate for a new lens type If I find a good deal on an AF lens *NOW*, I can buy it and still use it on my Super Program Has 3 of the 4 lenses I desire: 35/2.0, 24/2.0, 85/1.4 Con: Pentax seems to be pulling out, and making pro grade stuff less available ZERO rental support; if I need a particular lens in AF, I can't get it anywhere else, to my knowledge in Toronto, Canada Pentax lacks a good mid-range telephoto (e.g., 135/2.0), although they do offer the 135/2.8 which is FA, not FA* Nikon: Pro: F4 is a proven workhorse Cost is comparable to PZ1P @ ~$500 for used body TONNES of rental support Has the key lenses I want: 35/2.0, 135/2.0, 24/2.0, 85/1.4 Con: I'll end up starting from scratch in terms of lens lineup Looking at side by side prints by myself and a friends F90X a few years ago, the Nikon had more contrast; this means more fiddling in the darkroom to get my procedure's down to the way I want them again. My renting is a minor issue at the moment. No matter who I go with, my first lens will undoubtedly be either the 35/2.0 from Pentax, or the 35/2.0 D from Nikon, and from there work up to a mid-telephoto, wider zoom, then telephoto. However for sports and the like, I'll need longer and faster lenses, and this is a problem area for Pentax, only in terms of availability. Build quality is a VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE. I'll be dealing with harsh environments: lots of bumping around, lots of jostling; extreme temperatures (-20 when I shoot at home up to 45+ when I shoot in the summer); lots of moisture (think dance clubs with 1000+ people all crammed into a tiny room, and everyone is sweating). When I came back from the outback last time, I had sand in my socks, which were *in my bag*, so I don't want to risk sand or moisture getting into the bodies. Lens build is also important. While I've been extremely happy with my all metal K-mount MF lenses, the newer Pentax lenses look pretty plasticy to me; I'm not sure how they'll hold up. I'd like to here comments from anybody out there who has used PZ1P, MZ-S or F4. I love my Pentax system as it is, and have built up quite a collection of gear (a bunch of lenses, a bellows [ easily
RE: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon?
I had a chance to play with friends' Nikon gears couple of days ago. A F100 and a F5 I would suggest that if Canon is not considered, the F100 is a wonderful machine. The fastest shutter speed is 1/8000 and the fast built-in winder can allow you to finish a roll of film in no time! The AF is swift and accurate. The F5, even though it's the top of the class, I think it's very heavy and too much control and fiddly. So with my limited experience, I suggest the F100 with a grip. The MZS, a wonderful machine, but I think in this case, the Nikon is slightly better suited for the job. Andy -Original Message- From: Patrick Pritchard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 12:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon? On Monday, March 22, 2004, at 11:15 PM, tom wrote: The AF on the F4 ain't exactly going to set the world on fire. If you want noticeably better AF you need to buy one of Nikon or Canon's current (or maybe a generation back) pro bodies. The mid level or older pro bodies aren't any better than the MZ-S. This I know. It isn't an issue of the AF being the top notch, but given that F4 was the flagship at one point, and a LOT of people used it, the AF can't be *that* bad, all things considered. MZ-S is still double the price of F4. And by your definition, isn't the F4 one generation behind the current pro line? Pro being F5? Or was the F4S somewhere in between? -patrick tv -Original Message- From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 10:48 PM To: Anthony Farr Subject: Re: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon? Along with that, even though the FA 135/2.8 isn't a * lens, it is built like a tank much like the * lenses. It's a very good performer. My personal hunch is that the Nikon or Canon pro grade bodies are going to be more rugged and better at AF. Much as I love Pentax, for what you are describing, it may not be the best choice. -- Best regards, Bruce Monday, March 22, 2004, 6:28:50 PM, you wrote: AF By all reports the (P)Z1p is a dustcatcher. That could be a problem in AF central Australia. Rob Studdert could probably tell you what you need to AF know regarding this. If your choice is Pentax then the MZ-S might be AF better. It doesn't have gaskets against dust penetration as did the LX (and AF I think the top level Nikons) but is built to very close tolerances with the AF intention of resisting dust and moisture, or so I've read. AF regards, AF Anthony Farr AF - Original Message - AF From: Patrick Pritchard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hello all. I've decided that within the next year (specifically, before September 2005) I would like to move up to AF. This is mainly because I will be in Australia doing some shoots at the World Solar Challenge, where MF didn't quite cut it last time I was out. I'd also like to move into more sports, where AF would be a huge advantage. My dilemma is this: - should I stay with Pentax, or go with Nikon (I'm leaning towards a used F4) - If I stay with Pentax, should I go with PZ1P or MZ-S? AF (snip)
