On Sat, 19 Oct 2002, Shaun Canning wrote:
> $201.
Too rich for my tastes, now..
> Your camera won't be any less featured when something else comes out that
> costs more. The only thing that it'll lack is being "top of the line," but
> chances are, anyone and everyone you see isn't going to know that, unless
> you say, "hi, i'm brad and this is my TOP OF THE LINE slr" when you
Paul Stenquist wrote:
> Who will get his DSLR in a couple of years when they start showing up on
> ebay for five hundred bucks.
As will I for the same reasons.
Malcolm
Brad Dobo wrote:
>
which was developed first?
> The real MZ-S as a 35mm SLR or the 'MZ-D' that when abandoned, was converted
> to film?
The MZ-S and MZ-D were introduced at about the same time as two seperate
projects. The MZ-D wasn't converted to film.
>I'm also afraid of my existing lens no
: Thoughts on a film flagship
On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, Brad Dobo wrote:
> Why am I increasing aware that I got suckered when purchasing my MZ-S?
How would you have been "suckered?" You paid your money, you got your
camera. At the time, it was a fine piece of equipment, with nothing above
I know, it's odd, and it doesn't make much or any sense. But
wellneither does Pentax either :)
Brad Dobo
- Original Message -
From: "Treena Harp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 2:05 AM
Subject: Re: Th
- Original Message -
From: Doug Brewer
Subject: Re: Thoughts on a film flagship
> Why? Did it suddenly stop working when Pål posted about the
rumored new
> flagship?
>
>
> At 12:52 PM 10/18/02 -0400, Brad wrote:
>
>
> >Why am I increasing aware that I got suc
Why? Did it suddenly stop working when Pål posted about the rumored new
flagship?
At 12:52 PM 10/18/02 -0400, Brad wrote:
Why am I increasing aware that I got suckered when purchasing my MZ-S?
- Original Message -
From: "Glen O'Neal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Thoughts on a film flagship
> Personally I really love my PZ1-p. It has all the features I want and
need.
> I would love to see an upgraded version with a faster more accurate
> mu
You better re-read that sentence. I know what you mean, but the English
doesn't make sense!
> -Original Message-
> From: Glen O'Neal [mailto:goneal@;kc.rr.com]
> Sent: 18 October 2002 18:06
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Thoughts on a film flagship
&g
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Thoughts on a film flagship
Realistically Pentax's immanent film flagship may be it's last high-end film
camera. It seems it might go more in the high-tech direction (PZ-1p, Maxxum
7) or, alternatively, in the lower tech - an LX w/ AF sort of thing. O
Why am I increasing aware that I got suckered when purchasing my MZ-S?
[Brad Dobo]
You didn't get suckered - the MZ-S is a beautiful camera. But perhaps you
are alluding to the fact that it may not be a long-term flagship but,
rather, as some of us have speculated, a kind of stop-gap camera ne
Realistically Pentax's immanent film flagship may be it's last high-end film
camera. It seems it might go more in the high-tech direction (PZ-1p, Maxxum
7) or, alternatively, in the lower tech - an LX w/ AF sort of thing. Or
could it, like the Maxxum 9 and to some extent the MZ-s, hit both poi
13 matches
Mail list logo
