- Original Message -
From: Mafud
Subject: Re: MZ-S better than Z-1p?
> You wouldn't expect PENTAX to shine even dully if being judged
by a
> Nikon-Canon-Leica crowd, or would you?
>
Actually, the Leica users I know universally respect Pentax. The
seem to be a better
In a message dated 2/15/01 10:47:27 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< hate to point this out, but the only reason I can see for objecting to
comparing Pentax to other brands is because you don't think Pentax would look
good with that kind of scrutiny.
William Robb >>
I
- Original Message -
From: Mafud
Subject: Re: MZ-S better than Z-1p?
> In a message dated 2/14/01 10:15:48 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> << If this is a "Pentax Praising List", say so and I shall
leave. >>
>
> One thi
;
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 9:21 PM
Subject: Re: MZ-S better than Z-1p?
> --- Alan Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But then what caused the Z-1p sells a lot cheaper in
> > the first place? Just
> > curious.
>
> BAD marketing strategy perhaps. I&#
--- Alan Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But then what caused the Z-1p sells a lot cheaper in
> the first place? Just
> curious.
BAD marketing strategy perhaps. I'd never heard of it
before joining the list. Wasn't until a few months ago
that it was finally listed on the Pentax Canada
website.
>Fairly, vacillators are spoilsports, nay sayers just for the hell of it,
>even
>making me angry at their rude behavior.
>
>Don't want, need or like the MZ-S or any PENTAX gear? Say so and move on to
>another thread...or another Mark.
>
>Mafud
Aren't we allowed to point out both the good and the
>Well, it didn't sell when it costed half Nikon money (Z-1p vs. F90). It
>only makes people believe its cheap because its crap. I cannt imagine how
>Pentax can manage to sell the same camera as Nikon do cheaper without
>loosing money.
But then what caused the Z-1p sells a lot cheaper in the fi
In a message dated 2/14/01 6:51:48 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< I cannt imagine how Pentax can manage to sell the same camera as Nikon do
cheaper without loosing money. >>
Pål, for those who *will* buy the MZ-S, nothing said here will dissuade them.
For those who ar
Alan wrote:
>If they sell as expensive as Nikon or Canon, most people would not
> buy.
Well, it didn't sell when it costed half Nikon money (Z-1p vs. F90). It only makes
people believe its cheap because its crap. I cannt imagine how Pentax can manage to
sell the same camera as Nikon do cheap
In a message dated 2/13/01 10:38:54 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< The Z-1p looks like shit, film chamber is totally worn and the
shutterblades are almost without paint due to wear. >>
In Cowboy country, they call that "riding them hard and putting them away
wet."
I t
Having had the opportunity to review a reasonable number of product programs, I have
observed that products that have their pricing/specs set without regard to competition
are seldom successful in meeting their other objectives.
PAUL STENQUIST wrote:
> The price of any product isn't necessaril
On Tue, 13 Feb 2001, [iso-8859-1] Pål Jensen wrote:
> On a pure feature count basis the MZ-S surpasses the Z-1p. The max
> shutter speed is only 1/4 stop lower; totally insignificant.
The difference between 1/6000 and 1/8000 is half a stop, right? 1/4000 to
1/8000 is a full stop, so I assumed t
Pål Jensen wrote:
>
> When released the Z-1p costed the same as the Nikon F90.
That might have been true in your part of the world, but it was
most definitely not true in the USA. I bought a PZ-1p as soon
as they hit the mail-order stores, and I paid $650.
I think an N90 *still* costs more tha
tom wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Not sure. Is there a way to tell?
>
> My older one used to belong to a NASCAR photographer and is beat to
> *hell*. The LCD is cracked, the AF motor is slower than on my new body,
> but it keeps humming along
Did you get it from Charlotte Camera?
The price of any product isn't necessarily determined in regard to the
price of other products. There are a number of other factors that must
be considered. Most important are these three: How many people will buy
the camera if we price it at $. Will we sell all we can produce at
that price? W
John Francis wrote:
>
> I wrote:
> >
> > My older one used to belong to a NASCAR photographer and is beat to
> > *hell*. The LCD is cracked, the AF motor is slower than on my new body,
> > but it keeps humming along
>
> Did you get it from Charlotte Camera?
> That was the back story on the b
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> What's *your* frame/roll count on *your* PZ-1p?
Hmmm... let's see... I'm up to close to 1,000 rolls
without a single hiccup. Well, except that the bottom
plate cracked, but that's not hindering my shooting.
It's just a little bitty crack, not even 1/8 inch long
bu
Good point Mafud! The truth of the matter is, we have an idea of how
durable the PZ-1p is. The new camera is as yet unproven.
I see a distinct tendency by some to simply equate newer with better.
The new MZ-S is just the next PZ-1p. I think taking any features away or
downgrading specs from t
Mafud wrote:
> Speaking of the durability of the PZ-1p:
> how many on the list have worn out a PZ-1p; or know of someone wearing out a
> PZ-1p; and after how many tens of thousands of frames?
>
> What's *your* frame/roll count on *your* PZ-1p?
Don't know the frame rate count on my Z-1p but I
Wieland wrote:
> This is not obvious to me.
> Ok, what is so much better with the MZ-S that is is almost trice the price of the
>Z-1p?
> (if your $1700 is correct).
> durability - ok. AF is better but one should expect this for a newer camera after 7
>years
> at no cost.
Maybe the same logic
Pål wrote:
> Its obvious to me that the MZ-S is in a completely different league
> than the Z-1p.
This is not obvious to me.
Ok, what is so much better with the MZ-S that is is almost trice the price of the Z-1p?
(if your $1700 is correct).
durability - ok. AF is better but one should expect this
Wieland wrote:
> Pål, what is up?
> First you've said again and again, that the MZ-S IS NOT the flagship and we can await
> something really cool later and now you say it IS the flagship and it IS cool,
The MZ-S is not THE flagship meaning there will be a camera above it. The MZ-S is
indeed t
Pål, what is up?
First you've said again and again, that the MZ-S IS NOT the flagship and we can await
something really cool later and now you say it IS the flagship and it IS cool, when it
is
obvious that is not much better than the Z-1p (if at all)?
Best wishes
Wieland
-
This message is
23 matches
Mail list logo
