I had a chance to play with friends' Nikon gears couple of days ago. A F100 and a F5 I would suggest that if Canon is not considered, the F100 is a wonderful machine. The fastest shutter speed is 1/8000 and the fast built-in winder can allow you to finish a roll of film in no time! The AF is swift and accurate. The F5, even though it's the top of the class, I think it's very heavy and too much control and fiddly. So with my limited experience, I suggest the F100 with a grip. The MZS, a wonderful machine, but I think in this case, the Nikon is slightly better suited for the job.
Andy -----Original Message----- From: Patrick Pritchard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 12:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon? On Monday, March 22, 2004, at 11:15 PM, tom wrote: > The AF on the F4 ain't exactly going to set the world on fire. If you > want > noticeably better AF you need to buy one of Nikon or Canon's current > (or > maybe a generation back) pro bodies. The mid level or older pro bodies > aren't any better than the MZ-S. This I know. It isn't an issue of the AF being the top notch, but given that F4 was the flagship at one point, and a LOT of people used it, the AF can't be *that* bad, all things considered. MZ-S is still double the price of F4. And by your definition, isn't the F4 one generation behind the current pro line? Pro being F5? Or was the F4S somewhere in between? -patrick > > tv > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 10:48 PM >> To: Anthony Farr >> Subject: Re: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon? >> >> Along with that, even though the FA 135/2.8 isn't a * lens, >> it is built like a tank much like the * lenses. It's a very >> good performer. >> >> My personal hunch is that the Nikon or Canon pro grade bodies >> are going to be more rugged and better at AF. Much as I love >> Pentax, for what you are describing, it may not be the best choice. >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Bruce >> >> >> Monday, March 22, 2004, 6:28:50 PM, you wrote: >> >> AF> By all reports the (P)Z1p is a dustcatcher. That could >> be a problem in >> AF> central Australia. Rob Studdert could probably tell you >> what you need to >> AF> know regarding this. If your choice is Pentax then the >> MZ-S might be >> AF> better. It doesn't have gaskets against dust penetration >> as did the LX (and >> AF> I think the top level Nikons) but is built to very close >> tolerances with the >> AF> intention of resisting dust and moisture, or so I've read. >> >> AF> regards, >> AF> Anthony Farr >> >> AF> ----- Original Message ----- >> AF> From: "Patrick Pritchard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >>>> Hello all. >>>> >>>> I've decided that within the next year (specifically, >> before September >>>> 2005) I would like to move up to AF. This is mainly >> because I will be >>>> in Australia doing some shoots at the World Solar >> Challenge, where MF >>>> didn't quite cut it last time I was out. I'd also like to >> move into >>>> more sports, where AF would be a huge advantage. >>>> >>>> My dilemma is this: >>>> >>>> - should I stay with Pentax, or go with Nikon (I'm leaning >> towards a >>>> used F4) >>>> - If I stay with Pentax, should I go with PZ1P or MZ-S? >>>> >> AF> (snip) >> >> >> >> >> > > >
