I should have been more clear, in my mind, "best film body" is more
like "most advanced body": if you consider AF 35mm bodies (because
that's what I'm considering, I do not hesitate btween LX and Ist-Ds,
the point is not there) id not see any other competition to the MZ-s
than the Z1 / Z1-p.
The thing is I have already a Z1.
----------------
Thibouille
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 16:39:02 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Quoting Bob Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > I'm a new owner of the MZ-S, so I haven't got any final impressions
> > yet, but I'd initially rank the PZ-1p and MZ-S at the top of the list.
> > ...the PZ-1p is best for flash compensation, high top shutter speed
> > (1/8000), and fast winding speed (3.5fps), plus it is comfortable if
> > somewhat BIG.
> > ...the PZ-1 is best for transparencies with a slower winding speed
> > (1.5fps?)
>
>
> Relying on the printed specs instead of my own measurements ('cause I haven't
> made any such measurements) the PZ-1p is supposed to wind at 4 fps and the PZ-
> 1 at 3 fps, which I think still makes it one of the faster speeds Pentax ever
> put into a camera body's built-in motor. Thus, both are faster than the MZ-S,
> as well as having faster shutters.
>
>
> > and the same top shutter speed, plus it has some
> > extraordinary interval timing capabilities hidden away under the PF
> > functions. Also comfortable and still BIG,
> > ...The MZ-S is much smaller and lighter. It is much more like the
> > standard Pentax 35mm camera offering with only minor compromises on
> > shutter speed (1/6000), and winder speed (2.5fps?). The other
> > features seem very comparable to the PZ-1p. I'd put it in the same
> > class as the LX in terms of fit and finish, and size and weight.
>
> When the MZ-S came out -- and when I was able to check one out in the store
> (there was a significant interval between these) I concluded, based on
> comparing specs and then on comparing the cameras, that for me the MZ-s could
> not replace the PZ-1. I thought at the time that the only way I'd ever go for
> an MZ-s was if something happpened to my ZX-5n (I wouldn't want to give up
> the -5n; I just like it; but the -S could *replace* it if need be, I
> thought). However, things have changed: The -5n is now out of commission, but
> I am unlikely to replace it (or repair it) because I now have an *istD; I
> just don't need something in the niche formerly occupied by my ZX-5n.
>
> But I do agree with the point, made elsewhere in the thread, that there
> probably is not *a* definite "best film body" made by Pentax. That's one
> reason I disagreed with the statement that the MZ-S was the "best film body" -
> - because I don't think it can be claimed that the MZ-S is a better body than
> the PZ-1, the PZ-1p, the LX, the 645N (and probably some others with which
> I'm not familiar) ... For me, as noted above, I felt that it was NOT a better
> body than the PZ-1. I would agree with putting it in a group of "the best
> bodies", but I don't think it stands out by itself.
>
> ERNR
>
>
--
------------------------
Thibouille
