Congrats on the MZ-S! I'll bet you'll love it. It is a wonderful body to use.
-- Best regards, Bruce Thursday, February 12, 2004, 11:51:14 AM, you wrote: JB> You are right, Bruce. JB> I know, but when a film camera goes "outdated", it still can make state of JB> the art photographs - they still make better and better films (?). If I want JB> to keep up with the newest technology, I just buy a state of the art film. JB> With digital, I'd have to buy a new camera... JB> I seem to meet people all the time, saying: "Oh, really, haven't YOU gone JB> digital yet???? (They know my best hobby is photogrphy). All the family JB> photo shooteres have gone digital by now. Just not me (except for my small JB> 4MP diggy - just for the fun of of it). Anyway, I bougt a MZ-S today. So, I JB> have two years of Cheep shooting, that is two years till break even point. JB> At that time I'll buy the *ist D, which I'm sure, is a great camera - event JB> in two years time - when I can get one for the price of a MZ-S. JB> All the best JB> Jens JB> -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- JB> Fra: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] JB> Sendt: 11. februar 2004 23:51 JB> Til: Jens Bladt JB> Emne: Re: SV: MZ-S vs. *ist D JB> Hello Jens, JB> While your argument of buying a new camera every few years is JB> partially true, I don't fully agree. As cameras change and evolve, JB> the original capability and functionality don't go bad, they just JB> don't compete with newer features. Just as an MX or SuperProgram JB> don't compete with the features on the *ist or MZ-S. It doesn't mean JB> that you HAVE to buy a new camera. You can still use the old ones JB> within the capabilities that they support. Digital is the same way. JB> My 3-4 year old Coolpix 990 still works fine and takes pictures just JB> like it did. The same holds true for a Canon D30. JB> As to build quality being a factor, certainly something like an MZ-S JB> should outlast an *ist film body. Of course, I could buy 3 *ists for JB> the cost of each MZ-S (not that I would). My original suggestion of JB> the *ist film was as a supplement to your PZ-1, when the use for JB> those features was needed. The MZ-S will compete for use with your JB> PZ-1. JB> On the digital front perhaps what you are really saying is that your JB> WANT to upgrade will be strong enough to cause you to buy a new camera JB> every few years. Certainly the camera makers would be happy if you did. JB> That doesn't mean that you need to. My local lab still has and uses 2 JB> Nikon D1's and doesn't see a need to replace them yet. As to justification, JB> unless one is selling pictures, it is very hard to even justify an SLR JB> over a good P&S these days. Face it, we really enjoy the hobby, and JB> SLR type cameras make it much more fun than using a P&S (not to JB> mention results). The same goes for digital. The DSLR just makes the JB> hobby more fun, for those that choose to afford it. The working pro JB> (one who earns money from their pictures) can play with the math end of JB> things to see if it is something that can be justified. JB> As to the build quality and longevity of the *istD, that remains to be JB> seen. It certainly feels as well built to me as the PZ-1p. JB> -- JB> Best regards, JB> Bruce JB> Wednesday, February 11, 2004, 1:30:14 PM, you wrote: JB>> Hi Bruce JB>> I never really thought about the *ist. JB>> I guess, I want great build quality. Just like Pentax, I tend to stick JB> to JB>> one body for a long time(?). I had the PZ-1 for 12 years, and it works JB> and JB>> looks just like the day I bought it. I shoot app. ONE roll a week - for JB>> private use. And some more at work. My greatest worry about going JB> digital JB>> is, that I'll have to buy a new body every two or three years - as it is JB> the JB>> case with (other) computers. Very soon 8MP or 10MP will be the pro JB> standard. JB>> And we'll al be writing to PDML about the new fabulous Pentax D10. JB>> That's the reason I don't really believe the economic math concerning JB> film JB>> vs. digital. They seem to forget that. Going digital means buying a new JB> body JB>> every three years - that's 700$/570? per year. My PZ-1 has only cost me JB> what JB>> is equivalent to 1 roll of film every 10 days! The 'ist D will cost the JB>> eqvivalent to 1 roll a day - that's ten times as much. JB>> Regards JB>> Jens JB>> -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- JB>> Fra: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] JB>> Sendt: 11. februar 2004 21:43 JB>> Til: Jens Bladt JB>> Emne: Re: MZ-S vs. *ist D JB>> Hello Jens, JB>> I had already sold off almost all my 35mm gear quite a while ago. So JB>> I started basically fresh on lens procurement for the *istD. So all JB>> my lenses are AF lenses. JB>> One thing to note, the *ist film body has the advanced AF and wireless JB>> flash operation of the MZ-S for a much smaller price. That is what I JB>> bought for a backup body until the time that I can afford another JB>> DSLR. The *ist film body sounds like it would be the perfect JB>> complement to your PZ-1p and still give you much money left over to JB>> put towards a digi or lenses or some such. JB>> -- JB>> Best regards, JB>> Bruce JB>> Wednesday, February 11, 2004, 10:01:23 AM, you wrote: JB>>> Hi Bruce JB>>> Very good point. JB>>> I allready own 5 Pentax film bodies... JB>>> I guess I was trying to convince my self, that I was't after a diggy, JB>> just JB>>> because it's a diggy. So I made my self the point, that I was after JB>> faster JB>>> autofocus, more focus points, and more measuring segments, compared to JB>> my JB>>> newest body - the PZ-1 (which I love using BTW). In fast changing JB>>> situations, people or animals moving arround e.i. the PZ-1 autofocus is JB>>> missing out. JB>>> Do you use K or M lenses with your *ist D? JB>>> How does it feel, having to push the green button frequently? JB>>> Regards JB>>> Jens JB>>> -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- JB>>> Fra: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] JB>>> Sendt: 11. februar 2004 18:32 JB>>> Til: Jens Bladt JB>>> Emne: Re: MZ-S vs. *ist D JB>>> Hello Jens, JB>>> The question you should have asked is if you can only have one camera, JB>>> would it be the *istD or the MZ-S, for those who either own both or JB>>> have owned both. JB>>> For me, while I certainly admire the MZ-S (owned 2 at one point), I JB>>> would most certainly go for the *istD (which is what I have done). JB>>> Like you, I am not in a position to own both. JB>>> Another thing to consider is how much use they get. For those who own JB>>> both, find out the percentage that they are used. From what I have JB>>> read so far, film usage has dropped dramatically for those who have JB>>> both. The needs/usages for film become more niche. Extreme WA, and JB>>> finely detailed landscapes (of course 35mm isn't the best choice here JB>>> anyway) come to mind. One doesn't need an MZ-S to cover those needs. JB>>> Any Pentax body will fill the bill. JB>>> -- JB>>> Best regards, JB>>> Bruce JB>>> Wednesday, February 11, 2004, 5:58:36 AM, you wrote: JB>>>> Thank you very much Rob, John and Steve JB>>>> I still can't make up my mind, choosing between the two. I'd really JB>> like JB>>> to JB>>>> have both. Then I wouldn't need other bodies, except maby for backup. JB>>>> The *ist D cost twice as much as the MZ-S, and doesn't works rather JB>>>> inconveniently (green button) with my 6 K or M mount lenses. On the JB>>> other JB>>>> hand - the convenience of a digital, that will work fine with my 6 A, JB> F JB>>> or JB>>>> FA mount lenses. I regret I didn't get the MZ-S when it was marketed JB> in JB>>>> 2001/2002. JB>>>> Jens JB>>>> -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- JB>>>> Fra: Steve Desjardins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] JB>>>> Sendt: 9. februar 2004 21:16 JB>>>> Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] JB>>>> Emne: Re: MZ-S vs. *ist D JB>>>> I agree with the others on most points. One difference is that the AF JB>>>> system D has cross sensors and the MZ-S doesn't, particularly the JB>>>> central one. I tend to use the single central sensor setting, but JB> have JB>>>> found I have to tilt the MZ-S to get a lock sometimes. As noted on JB>> this JB>>>> list, the D flash exposure works best when the ISO is set to 400. JB>>>> Steven Desjardins JB>>>> Department of Chemistry JB>>>> Washington and Lee University JB>>>> Lexington, VA 24450 JB>>>> (540) 458-8873 JB>>>> FAX: (540) 458-8878 JB>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
