Pal wrote:
snip
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
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
Tom wrote:
I still suspect the MZ-S will suffer the same fate as the PZ-1p.
Possibly but I suspect its designed to have that fate. The Z-1p was crammed with
features, used some cheap materials and agressively priced (from day one; dumped from
day two). So basically they were dependent on
To tell you an even bigger truth, the thing I like most about Pentax is
this
list and the PUG.
Tom C.
I agree, and I like the LX too (just a bit)
:-)
Albano
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget
From: aimcompute [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To tell you an even bigger truth, the thing I like most about Pentax is
this
list and the PUG.
I definitely agree on that point...
Mark
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the
I still suspect the MZ-S will suffer the same fate as the PZ-1p.
I have the feeling that the MZ-S would do a lot better than the Z-1p. One
major reason the Z-1p failed (imo) is that it wasn't unique in any way. It's
bulky, it's AF is primitive, it's plastic, and ??? If there is one thing
6 matches
Mail list logo
