Ralf Engelmann wrote:
>
> Carlos Royo wrote:
>
> > Please explain to us what you mean when you write "young
> > and wild camera". ...
> > it (MZ-S) seems to me the kind of camera we have been
> > longing for: light, small, sturdy, with almost every useful
> > feature needed for nearly everyone.
>
> That's a 100% subjective view and a truncated citation.
I agree in what you say: it's a 100% subjective view. And about
truncated citations ... well, I try to keep citations as small as
possible, and, by the way, I wouldn't call them "truncated", unless you
want to attribute me hidden intentions which I, simply, don't have.
But you haven't explained the meaning of that expression yet, or why you
think the MZ-S is a camera for "retired people" "or a luxury camera" or
"a camera for slow people". But, of course, those are your subjective
views, and they don't need a logical explanation. But the problem is
that you write them as if they were the ultimate truth.
> I would say the same about my 8 years old Z-20. However, others talk
> about Z-series cameras as if they fell apart any second since in
> their eyes these are Canon copies. They are not. In fact, MZ-5 & co.
> are EOS 500 copies (the first small size / dial control camera,
> introduction 1993).
I really don't see how the MZ-5 can be considered a EOS 500 copy. The
only thing in which they are similar is size, but the concept and
hadling of those cameras is completely different.
> The company that stood the small size/low
> weight trend for the longest time was indeed Nikon. However, such
> camera historic analysis is not very welcome here.
No, I think it is welcome.
Almost all camera makers have manufactured small camera bodies. But
Nikons, in the second half of the seventies, were particularly bulky,
and that was the time when Pentax released models such as the ME, MX or
ME Super.
But this is not the point, I think.
> That's maybe the biggest difference
> in our discussion. I don't need anything. However, I am ready to
> change whatever components if I have a clear benefit. My heart does
> not depend on the F80 (or a FA* 600mm). Others really need an
> advanced camera, since they have planned such a purchase since years
> and Pentax didn't offer anything. Of course they think different
> about the MZ-S.
>
I have to say that I also "don't need anything". The bodies I have are
adequate for my photography, and, although there are things that I miss
in them, and things which I find distracting or not necessary. One thing
is sure: I will never find the perfect camera. The closest thing to it
is my MX. I really don't know if 6-point AF is really a useful thing, or
if it is only a gimmick which doesn't allow you to concentrate in what
is really important, the composition of the final image.
But if I fancy buying the new body, and I still have to consider things
such as price, which is still unknown, now I know that the MZ-S has got
some features I really like.
> I somehow feel this discussion might be futile though, but I had the
> impression I should add some thoughts from Planet N nevertheless.
>
Your views and contributions are always welcome, Ralf. I don't mind if
they come from "Planet N", as you write. I don't live in Planet Pentax,
and my views don't come from that planet, or anywhere else, they are
only my own independent thoughts.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Royo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Zaragoza (Aragon) - Spain
------------------------------------------------------------------
-
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 .
