On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, cwo 20995 wrote: > > What benefits would an upgraded Z1-P (or a > > Nikon F100) offer that the MZ-S wouldn't? > > The second question will be: What benefits > > does the MZ-S offer that the Z1-p and F100 > > don't? > > I think you didn´t understand me. Why a photographer should spend > (let´s say) US$1000 on a MZ-S if he can have the same features (I > don´t agree that they have the same features but it´s ok) on a F90X or > F100 for the same price, plus a wide range of lenses, electronic / > mechanical bodies and accessories that Pentax doesn´t offer? I was answering your earlier question as to why Pentax didn't ofer an updated Z1-p model to stay competitive. My question to you was: why would an updated Z1-p be better than the MZ-S? I don't think I misinterpreted your question there. So your question now basically boils down to this: If a photographer can get an MZ-S and an F100 for the same price, why would they choose the MZ-S? Here's a few possible answers: (1) They like the built-in flash, data imprinting, instant control over all shooting modes, the extra AF point <g> and the small size and weight, and they would rather have these features than the extra weight and better viewfinder of the F100. (2) They like the fact that they can use any Pentax lens on the MZ-S. Not only the K-mount ones (K, M, A, F and FA), but *both* of the screwmounts (M37 and M42) with an adapter, and even the medium format lenses with an adapter. This is an incredibly versatile system. (3) They find the MZ-S easier to use than the F100. It seems to have quite an intuitive design (as does the F100, IMO), but its ability to switch between shooting modes just by changing the shutter speed and aperture is something that Nikon users can only dream of. When it comes down to it, the F100 is better in some ways and the MZ-S in others. I personally found the F100 too heavy for my relatively casual shooting needs, even though I liked its build quality. A lighter F100 with similar build quality and a built-in flash for basic fill-in would have been perfect, and it looks like that's what the MZ-S offers. You give up frames-per-second and a larger viewfinder in favour of a smaller body (which a lot of people like), built-in flash, etc. Depending on the importance you attach to each of these features you could go with either of these cameras and get a good piece of photographic equipment. As far as systems go, Nikon and Pentax both have a lot of things that the other doesn't. Nikon gives you a 2.8 wide angle zoom; Pentax has the 17-28 fisheye zoom. Pentax offers a 1.7x AF teleconverter that lets you AF with MF lenses, soft 28 and 85mm lenses, a 200mm macro (does Nikon? I can't remember), a 2000mm reflex lens, 400-600 reflex, 250-600/5.6, and all of the system accessories that they've made since *1975*. Not to mention the outstanding Limited lenses with exceptional build quality and optical performance. Both Nikon and Pentax have very good systems, and it's up to the individual which one to go with. I don't think you can say "A or B are better" as a general rule. Since you're talking about brands now, and not the specific models any more, why do you think that they should buy a Nikon instead of a Pentax? Why do you think it's okay to spend $1000 on an F100 but not on an MZ-S? Stop talking in general terms and be specific, please. > PS. Please, don´t understand my message as a "Nikon future user > attack", ok? If you don't want to come across like you're blindly attacking Pentax, then *please* don't be so general in your criticisms. If you post something implying that it's okay to spend $1000 on a Nikon but not on a comparable Pentax without giving any reasons for this, it's hard to treat it as a serious complaint. Why do you think the MZ-S is not worth it? Be specific. You originally posted that Pentax abandoned the pro market by not updating the Z1-p. I asked what was wrong with the MZ-S... what it lacked that an updated Z1-p would have. You then changed your criticism from Z1-p2 vs. MZ to criticizing the price of the MZ-S and saying that this would deter pro users. I responded that pro users are not deterred by high prices, and that if they'll pay $1000 for an F100 they'll pay it for an MZ-S. Now you're implying that the Nikon is worth it while the Pentax is not because of their systems and accessories. You shift arguments continually without addressing any of my points, AND, to make matters worse, you don't give any concrete examples of what features or accessories you're talking about. chris - 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 .
