Hi
Ther are many reason for staying with Pentax or buying into a Pentax system.
These are some of them, IMO:
Durability (they may brake if you drop them - otherwise hardly ever - more
than 80% of my repair cost were my own fault)
Reliability, yet cutting edge technology
Long time lens mount compatibility (use 30 years old lenses on brand new
camera or vise versa)
High quality glass - and still reasonably affordable
Brilliant user interface; few buttons, no gimmicks; made like tools, not
toys
Models don't change too fast (supporting repair for many years)
Huge number of used lenses and accessories available of many brands
(K-mount).
If you have 10.000 USD you could buy any camera equipment.
If you have 1.000 USD, buy a Pentax and e few lenses, and keep buliding up
your system over the next 3 decades
Regards
Jens
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Peter Jansen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 22. marts 2003 20:39
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: WHY PENTAX? WAS: Re: Pentax -- Canon
From the exchange of e-mails below from Roland Alan,
why are we using Pentax?? Doesn't sound like a
good system to buy into, and even long-time PDMLer's
are making arguements against it.
For me it is cost at the moment. I just expanding on
my manual Pentax stuff slowly. I'd rather put my $$$
in film, trips, and marketing my work than a new
system that may not improve my photography hugely
(though this will change I'm sure).
Any thoughts?
--- Alan Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But Pentax has had 28-105's for a long time.
FA 28-105 f/4-5.6, 28-105 f/4-5.6 (IF) and now the
f/3.2-4.5.
I don't understand you here.
Aside from some Tamron rebadged zooms, the choice of
true Pentax FA zooms
are quite limited when compared to C, N M. They
have many good quality
consumer zooms (I don't mean those truely low
quality lenses), but Pentax
was stuck with FA28-105/4.5-5.6, and now the
FA20-35/4 FA24-90/3.5-4.5.
Still, the choice is rather limited.
My FA 135 f/2.8 is built like a tank, I'm sure that
it can stand the attack
of missiles. It's a full metal construction. I also
like the build quality
of my FA 28 f/2.8 and FA 50 f/1.7. They feels very
solid with great
mechanics. I like the build quality of my FA 28-105
f/3.2-4.5. It's much
more solid than my FA 28-70 f/4 was. So, FA lenses
are *not* cheaply built
- except from some consumer zooms.
I can assure you the FA135/2.8 was not built like a
tank. The focus ring
feels truely bad, so to the FA100/2.8. These lenses
have metal shells and
quite ok, but it's no Nikkor AF lenses (similar
lenses).
The FA* 80-200 f/2.8 is more expensive than the
competition, but the other
lenses are not. In fact, some are even less
expensive. The FA* 28-70 f/2.8
is the least expensive 28-70 f/2.8 on the market
from a major manufacturer,
and the FA 28-105 f/3.2-4.5 AL (IF) is less
expensive than Nikon AF 28-105
f/3.5-4.5. The 50 f/1.4 is the least expensive 50
f/1.4 on the market, same
with is true for the legendary FA 100 f/2.8
Macro.Well, they were when I
checked Cyberphoto (http//www.cyberphoto.se).
If I remember correctly, most FA* lenses were more
expensive than Nikkor AF
and similar to EOS equivalent. The FA*80-200 and
FA*28-70 were selling like
US$16xx US$12xx respectively. The FA*200/2.8
costed US$12xx too. The only
truely affordable * lens was FA*24/2, and the FA*85
FA*300/4.5 were
selling at US$8xx. If you take into the account that
EOS lenses had much
better AF ability, the FA* lenses were overpriced
indeed. Some of these
lenses are cheaper these days, but at the same time,
every manufacturers
have moved forward and produced updated versions
while Pentax is still
selling the new old stocks at the lower but still
not quite competitive
price tags.
But the entry level lenses are very plastic with no
distance information
scale. Canon even has plastic prime lenses with
plastic lens mounts (like
the 50 f/1.8). Now, all Pentax prime lenses has
higher quality than that.
But one EF50/1.8 doesn't represent the whole system.
In fact, this 50mm is
the only poorly built prime lens in the whole EOS
line.
this has never happened to any of my MZ-bodies.
Because the whole thing is plastic, except the
mount. They are ok for so
long as you don't mount some rather heavy lenses on
it and handle it rough.
For heavy lenses, Z-1, Z-1p MZ-S are the only
choices.
The more I use my MZ-5n, the more I like it. It's a
beautiful camera.
A well designed camera, but not without its own
problem.
regards,
Alan Chan
_
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months
FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com
