If the MZ-60 (and *ist) looks like a plastic toy, my MZ-6 is closer to the MZ-5, I guess. The *ist (film) is not for me... it feels like it'll break in my hands. I'm wonder, how close to the MZ-5 (and how far from *ist) is the MZ-6? The top of the camera can be scratched, the back moves about 1/4mm when I press it and I'm sure the camera won't survive if I'll drop it. But... it seems a lot better than *ist (and than MZ-60, I guess). Do you have any info about the MZ-6 (or other cameras) internal structure?
Alex Sarbu (who wants Heavy Metal-style cameras. Hmm... I've heard that Zenits are made from steel :-) ) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Brogden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2003 3:15 AM Subject: Re: Has Pentax missed again? > > > Except that Pentax *has* been going there for a long time. Their > entry-level film SLRs aren't any better built than Canon's Rebels or > Nikon's F55/F75. As fun as it is to slag Canon, it's not really fair to > criticize a Rebel for falling apart when used professionally day in and > day out. They're simple not built for that and not marketed for that, and > a Pentax MZ-60 or MZ-6 would fall apart just as quickly. > > True, the Rebel Digital (300D) might fall apart under similar use, but > again... it's not built for that. If you want to get a camera to use > professionally, frequently or roughly, get a 10D or a D100. The Rebel > Digital just isn't made for that kind of use, and to my knowledge Canon > hasn't claimed otherwise. > > chris --------------------------------------------------------------- Acasa.ro vine cu albumele, tu vino doar cu pozele ;) http://poze.acasa.ro/
