Flavio wrote:
> I can understand the disappointment at the limited finder coverage but
> it isn't worse than the current cameras' and it surely limit costs.
I don't agree here, first of all a large finder coverage is a specialised
tool in my opinion, and useless for an all-round camera. All "normal"
printing services I used, even professional grade, crop the image slightly.
I do understand that full-frame printers don't like the fact that they might
include some disturbing details in the edges, but it would be far worse for
an all-round camera if one had to guess what part of the subject would be on
the print/mounted slide or not. I think the 92% is just the best compromise
here.
Limiting costs is bullshit in my opinion. Just suppose the 35mm format would
have been 22x33 mm, instead of 24x36 mm. In that case we all would have 100%
viewfinders now, even on the cheapest MZ30. How much cheaper would an MZ30
be with a 92% coverage of that 22x33mm format? Two Dollars? So how much
more expensive would an MZ-30, or an MZ-S be with a 100% finder? two dollars
and 10cents?
In my opinion the viewfinder coverage is chosen for practical reasons. The
camera's with 100% finder just form a different, more specialised tool. In
my guess the cost myth is caused by the fact that these camera's, and
viewfinderparts for it, are produced in smaller batches, and the myth is
used to get some extra dollars out of the pockets of those who need that
specialised tool.
What I do have problems with, is that now all top models, of all seven major
35mm manufacturers, manual or autofocus, have a .75x magnification (see my
viewfinder magnification post)
> All in all I can see this more and more like the Z1-p upgrade we've been
> asking for 'til now.
> The only actual limitations vs. the Z1-p are in the shutter and winder
> performance, where the advanced amateur target might not have big needs.
Reducing the max. sync., and travel speed of the shutter blades, by a half
stop (0.71 x factor), also halves the forces (0.71x0.71=0.5) and shake in
and from the shutter. So it could not only have been for compactness, but
also just a sensible choice, for robustness and quietness, and reduced shake
in combination with the mirror pre-fire.
As far as the winder is concerned, 2.5fps could also be seen as a sensible
choice for an all-rounder, but a selectable speed with and without the
booster/grip would have been better I think. (Still hoping here)
>. I'm not going to buy
>thee camera in the near future (got a Z1-p when it was already 4 years
>old). I just feel it as a good product in the current market.
I agree, I think we are looking at a nice robust all-rounder, which can be
seen as an replacement for the Z1-p, targeted at all-round usefullness and
quality feel, while keeping just one eye on the price-ticket.
Bought too much stuff recently, so also not in the near future for me, but
so far I like it though. That midroll change is really neat :-).
People waiting for a budget Pentax version of the Eos1v with 15-800 IS USM
however, ;-)
Erwin
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
