No sealing a all! They took all the foam out of the back door seals. I like the PZ-1 and PZ-1p, but this feature still irritates me! ...also had a new PZ-1 stop (lost it's mind) in the drizzel one summer day. I've taken to the LXen in the bad weather. Regards, Bob S.
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 16:06:35 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm curious about the "far better sealing" comment by Mr Francis. I was not > > aware of a deficiency in the sealing on the PZ-1. > > > > ERN > > William Robb wrote: > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > >>> Pentax hasn't made a 35mm pro camera since the LX. .... > > >> > > >> > > >> PZ-1, PZ-1p. > > >> > > > > > > Not according to the definitions of the pros that I hang out with. > > > > > > William Robb > > > > and John Francis said: "Not bad, but not pro. Needs far better sealing, for > a start." > > and Margus M�nnik said: > > one of our pros outlisted Z-1p because " a pro camera NEVER has built-in > > flash"... Actually, since we're talking about Pentax equipment, it's > > "pro"' enough compared to some other cameras called as such. > > > To comment on the "built-in flash" thing: Everybody seems to have his own > checklist. I recall, on another list, there was someone insisting the PZ-1 > couldn't be a pro camera because it didn't have an interchangeable prism. I > don't think *that* definition could still be sticking ... Frankly I believe > that if either Canon or Nikon marketed a camera with a built-in flash and > promoted it as a pro camera, we wouldn't hear that it was disqualified. We > might hear instead that it's a "first". (Has it happened yet? I don't keep up > with their various models any more.) > > We've established many times, including quite recently, that we cannot reach > a consensus on what makes a "pro" camera. I happen to think that if the > maker markets it as a pro camera, and some pros in fact use it on the job > and find it durable and reliable and effective, then it's a pro camera. > Having specs comparable to those of other brands of "pro" camera from the > same era would also help to make the case. This is why I consider the PZ-1 > and PZ-1p to be pro cameras. > > I'm curious about the "far better sealing" comment by Mr Francis. I was not > aware of a deficiency in the sealing on the PZ-1. > > ERN > >
