Your lens apertures are getting sticky. They need to be CLA'd. The
diaphragm should snap into the same position every time and the opening
shouldn't change size depending on how fast or slow the diaphragm is
moving. Even cheep lenses shouldn't behave this way.
At 07:11 PM 7/11/2001 -0500, you
electronically Av
mode in MZ-S due to problems with Z1p. However, I have never experienced any
problems with this.
Arnie
- Original Message -
From: Alan Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 11:17 PM
Subject: RE: My First Impressions on the MZ-S
With all
I believe the problem was more likely caused by inaccurate calibration
(loose tolerance) of both the lenses and the Z-1ps (mechanical coupling). If
print films were used, you would not notice any difference at all.
regards,
Alan Chan
If this information is correct, it might seem like Pentax
I have not noticed and significate differences with my A lenses and the
ZX-M. So it's possible that Alan's camera simply needs adjusting, which
would make sense since they are all off by about the same amount.
Even if this is a problem, the PZ-1p's system makes more sense, as you
could then
Interesting. It could also be a problem they fixed with the ZX series
cameras, or maybe they are all supposed to do that and my camera is busted.
Another possibility is that it has something to do with the meter
inaccuracy problems with the PZ-1p, matrix metering, and A lenses?
Something
-Original Message-
From: petit miam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 10 July 2001 13:21
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: My First Impressions on the MZ-S
Not in my opinion. Aperture rings are great. Pentax
should make more of them.
I disagree - One per lens is plenty
In all
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
