(Reply to posts from Bob Walkden and Shel Belinkoff, copy included below)
Hi guys,
I know you both love LX's, but let's put things in perspective. A new LX
plus a finder, plus winder or drives is/was a pretty serious investment, so
it better would have some serious all-round qualities for people like you
too select it.
The MZ-S seems to be around the 1000$ mark, so is quite a bit cheaper. There
is no point in comparing specs between different worlds, but let's say both
are quite capable in operating a shutter in such a way an image appears on
the film plane.
I have wondered a bit why this camera wouldn't be suitable for "scientific,
macro and copy work".
When equipped with a grid screen and whatever other screens, a focus
magnifier, a 90° refconverter, and perhaps a grip loaded with rechargeable
batteries for astrophotography, most problems can be tackled. Or perhaps all
of these fields in photography were invented after the first
interchangeable, or 100% viewfinder was made.
", through the point-and-shoot functionality of the day, "
Any complaints there? Yes no smiley mode :-(
"to heavy-duty photojournalism"
The body seems heavy duty enough, or perhaps 5fps is the minimum a PJ can be
seen in public with?
They use slow digital camera's now, I heard.
I'm not saying that the MZ-S is the perfect camera, my personal preference
would have been a 0.85x viewfinder f.i. (and drop the high eyerelief and the
diopter correction instead)
But if Bob can live with the 0.80x magnification RX viewfinder, and if a
2000$ RTSiii, or Leica R8, also has a 0.75x, who am I to complain. The
CDI-site reporter said it was a nice viewfinder, let's hope that will be
confirmed.
I'm also not saying that the MZ-S is the most suitable tool for any
thinkable job, but one can't say that of an LX either. And if one compares
it with a Contax RX, I suspect this camera will come quite close, perhaps
even beat it, even as a manual focus camera. Just take the bother to REALLY
look to what this camera seems to be offering.
So I AM saying that in my belief, although based on some pictures and
incomplete specs, the MZ-S is an all-round camera, suitable to many types of
(35mm) photography, and suitable for many photographers.
And I'm sorry to say this, but arguments like "does not address the concerns
of a fairly large part of the market", or "adressed to tripodless consumers"
don't sound very convincing too me.
BTW I also don't understand some others, who just seem interested in
comparing price tickets and feature lists. There is a lot more to a tool, to
be used more ore less intensly, over a number of years, then the shear
feature list too me. I have the impression however that this is only
accounted for if there is some form of "image" attached to the product.
So for commercial succes, a lot will depend on the marketing, and on the way
the camera will be received in the press.
Just my ramblings,
Erwin
COPY of original mail from Shell Belinkoff:
Bob Walkden wrote:
> Erwin Vereecken wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > I agree, I think we are looking at a nice robust all-rounder
And then Bob said:
> a camera which does not address the concerns of a fairly large part of
> the market cannot be considered an all-rounder. An all-rounder is a
> camera like the LX which could be used for the full range of 35mm
> activities at the time. From scientific, macro and copy work, through the
> point-and-shoot functionality of the day, to heavy-duty photojournalism.
>
> A camera which can't do all of these things is not an all-rounder.
And then Shel Belinkoff added:
>I agree with your definition of an "all-rounder" but I also feel
>that the MZ-S ~does~ address the concerns and needs of a large
>part of the market, which is the general consumer, who is not
>particularly interested in macro photography, photo journalism,
>astro photography, or scientific photography. They want some
>whiz-bang features that make shooting painless, and which they
>can use for family photos and travel pictures. None of my
>non-photographer friends have ever done anything other than
>point and shoot with their gear. Never have they even adjusted
>exposure to compensate for back lighting of the subject, used
>more than the standard fixed or a simple zoom lens, and rarely,
>if ever, used a tripod. In fact, none of them even have a
>tripod.
>Photography is no longer just for photographers.
-
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 .
