The PZ1-P was as feature-rich as the top-end competitors, and a third of
the price. That was a consequence of lower build quality.
John
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 17:36:36 +0100, John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 10:20:04PM -0400, P. J. Alling wrote:
<Soapbox>
(apologys to all the
PZ/Z1-p lovers out there, but it was feature wise out classed by
everyone else, when features began to matter more than performance).
</soapbox>
That's not how I remember it. I compared a PZ-1p to the contemporary
Nikon N90, and it was a fairly close call, feature-for-feature. Quite
a few of the N90 features required the additional multi-function back,
too, which made it significantly more expensive than the PZ-1p.
Mind you, the N90 felt much more solid in the hand, and the shutter
release was much crisper.
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.1/104 - Release Date: 16/09/2005
