Quoting Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hmmm... To some extend this is right for me too. > But I guess I just got used to all the nice features - sofisticated Matrix > metering (I rarely have to make corrections anymore with the MZ-S - *istD. > I > did with the PZ-1) ....
Is it just that people handle their gear differently, or is Pentax quality really inconsistent between different individual samples of the same model? For instance the above comment about exposure. I don't recall having to make corrections to the way the PZ-1 made exposures, but the *istD needs much more tweaking (also, unfortunately, a lot more tweaking than images from the Optio 550!) I have to put much more thought into using the *istD than the PZ-1, in other words, on the technical side, than when using any other autoexposure Pentax camera I own. (It is still, mercifully, less work than using the all- manual meterless TLRs and rangefinders I have.) And then there was the comment about the PZ-1's lack of sealing. Someone's camera quit in a drizzle. I've had my PZ-1 since Christmas 1995 and used it professionally in various weather conditions and at least twice in situations near waterfalls where I had to wipe the spray off the front of the lens between shots (all shots). Rain. Freezing cold. Humid tropical beaches. Delivery room ... (OK, nothing there to bother the *camera*!) It's never quit or gone crazy. The only problem I've ever had with that camera was a little crack on the baseplate. The local dealer (there was one at the time) easily replaced the baseplate. It truly was news to me that it's not well sealed -- I've never noticed stuff getting in. This is a general question, since there's also the big difference between people who've found the LX a wonderfully reliable instrument and others whose experience seems to be that it requires repair more frequently than any other camera. It's also a straight question, not an attempt at sarcasm or trying to stir up arguments. ERN
