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 that make the F100 cost way more than the Z-1p?
Remember also that Pentax has been litterally dumping the Z-1p the last years. When
released the Z-1p costed the same as the Nikon F90. Late in life of the F90 it sold
for $900 while the Z-1p was reduced to $500 (B+H). So a new Z-1p would costed
significantly more than the current one.
I have no problem with the price of the MZ-S and I doubt anyone else would have had if
it was a Nikon. Imagine the MZ-S made by Nikon as the F100 Compact. Sold for the same
price as the F100. Marketed at those who want F100 qualities but in a smaller body.
Nikon would have said that compensate for the slower motor, they had added mirror
prefire (made the Nikon users wild), data imprinting, an extra AF point, mid roll
rewind with memory. I can see all the whining on Pentax discuss wanting this Nikon
compact to be a Pentax- Luckily it is.
Pål
-
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 .
