>Its all about balance and in my opinion the MZ-S achieve that balance. I'm
>sure some disagree. Anyway, small size has been an important design goal
>for Pentax the last 25 years and the funny part is that every single one
>camera marketed by Pentax were small size (for what it does) has been
>design goals have all been runaway sucesses, while every "big" 35mm Pentax,
>with the exception of the K1000, has not. Hence, the MZ-S is hardly
>suprising.
>As for customer surveys: well, hanging around here the last five years has
>indeed crystalized out some direction the majority of Pentax fans wants.
>The MZ-1 discussion has been endless and small size, tough built and lack
>of gimmicks has been design characteristics the majority seems to want in a
>Pentax. At least this is my impression.
I have felt the same too, it seems Pentax has been good at compact SLRs only
over the years. For feature packed models, the other 3 have a lot more to
offer (no one really wanted to compete with the size of an F5 anyway).
>Unlikely. I can't see why Pentax should go through all the bother to make
>the camera as small as possible when they could have saved cost and put the
>whole thing in an Z-1p size body. All the small, capable cameras made have
>costed extra money to develop due to their small size. This include the
>Pentax M-series cameras, the 645 and the Olympus OM-series. The MZ-S is
>quite an achievement in miniaturization; never before has such a capable
>camera been seen in such a small body.
Ahh... you mean a notebook computer... now it make sense...
regards,
Alan Chan
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
-
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 .
