Other than the features already mentioned the 5n also offers 2 things that made it desirable to me when the 5 was not. 1. The on/off lever is easier to reach and use, plus that's all it does, on the 5 it also controls single/ continuous frame modes, I was always missing the first "click" and setting it to continuous and wasting film. 2. The 5n shutter/mirror/motor sound is MUCH more solid sounding than the 5, this leads me to believe the mechanics recieved a major update from the 5 to 5n. The 5n sound has been compared to a "Hamster Sneeze", a good comparison, it's very quiet. I own 2 5n's and am very fond of them.
don > -----Original Message----- > From: E.R.N. Reed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 7:37 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: auto focus body recommendation solicitation > > > I'm going to add some stuff in-line here (I've had breakfast since my > last response in this thread and may be thinking more clearly) > Tom Reese wrote: > > >Hi Scott, > > > >Based on what I see on Boz's site: > > > >The ZX-5n added DOF preview to the ZX-5. > > > > > That's what made me buy the -5n after being completely uninterested in > the -5. I *think* it also added AE lock ... and maybe autobracketing?? > > >The PZ-1P added mirror pre-fire to the PZ-1 (a version of mirror > lock-up - > >extremely useful for macro work) > > > > > It also added a meter scale in the viewfinder. The PZ-1 doesn't have it. > The ZX-5n, incidentally, does. > > >If you can choose between the two, I'd opt for the PZ-1P. It was Pentax's > >top of the line camera at the time. > > > >The PZ-1P gives you multiple exposure capability. > > > That's also on the PZ-1. > > I meant, and forgot, to mention that the ZX-5n is a *very* quiet camera > and the PZ-1 is *not.* > I also didn't mention that the focusing screen in the PZ-1 is > user-changeable, and Beattie Intenscreens carry (or carried?) screens > for the PZ-1. I have one in mine with a split-image focusing aid. If you > like that sort of thing. > > ERNR >
