On Sun, 15 Jul 2001, William Robb wrote:
> So, with much trepidation, I went off to see the MZ-S on Friday. Nice
> camera. It seems really solid, much more so than the Mincanniks that
> it competes with.
I find the F100 to be more solid, but way too heavy for my
liking. Compared to the LX and its MF ilk, the MZ-S still feels flimsy to
me, but it's better than most of what's out there.
> I liked where most of the buttons were, but there seems to be a lot of
> them. Having the AF fire up from a separate button is kind of cool,
> though I don't know what purpose it serves.
Try focusing a Nikon F65 without taking a photo... hard to do. Sometimes
you need to AF without taking a shot acidentally.
> camera with depth of field preview is really nice in this era of
> mindless photography. Nice touch to have it on this camera, but the
> switch is in the wrong place for me.
I kinda like it. :)
> I suspect I could get used to it pretty quickly, but this is one of
> those things that they should try to keep the same from camera to
> camera, and from era to era.
Ah, just bring back the LX's DOF-P/MLU/self-timer lever and I'll be happy.
> Then I ran into something called PF. PF is the noise a leaky tire
> makes. There seemed to be a lot of PF. I think I counted 20 of them.
> Very inscrutable, just PF this and PF that, with no clue given as to
> what they are. Hmmm, this is not good. I recall this was why I didn't
> like the PZ-1 and it's ilk too.
I find it hard to understand why people hate the PF options. I mean,
they're something that you set once and then *forget about and leave
alone*. Do you want to be able to shoot before the flash is fully
charged? Do you want the AF beep on or off? Leader in or out? Geez,
just read the manual once, set it up the way you like it, then forget
about it. They give you the option to do stuff you wouldn't normally be
able to do, but if you don't want to use them, then don't.
> The camera seems very quiet, though very high pitched. I think I will
> take Leica to the store next week some time and see if the noise it
> makes bothers her.
I'm not fond of the high-pitched noise.
> They didn't have a new prime lens to go on it, and seemed dismayed
> when I insisted they put a prime on. The only one they had was a used
> 50mm f/1.7 (which I bought for 50 bucks, so now my wife has a prime
> lens for her MZ-5, but Don's photo no longer has a prime lens in the
> store). And they call themselves a pro shop. Does no one use primes
> any more? I noticed that all they had for all their cameras were
> zooms.
Why don't we stock them? Very, very few people buy them. Why don't they
buy them? Partly because we don't stock them, and partly because built-in
flashes, faster and finer-grained films, brighter focusing screens, and
the fact that most people won't print above 4x6 and (rarely) 8x10 inches
have all made the quality of prime lenses less important than the
convenience of a zoom. And most people buy cameras to record memories,
not to create art.
That being said, I wish we carried more primes. It's hard to sell what
you don't have.
> How can you take a good picture with that little discipline? Ah well,
> that is what people want, I guess. Make it fast and easy, no one wants
> to work at it now.
Very few people want to walk everywhere, or even drive a 60 year old car,
when a newer one can get them where they want to go faster and easier.
Sure, computerized cars may not be as easy to repair in 10 years, but some
people care more about having a tool that gets them from point A to point
B as easily as possible than they do about constructing a challenging
transportation experience so that they can overcome the difficulties.
Manual photography is similarly a skill that comparatively few people want
(or, arguably, need). Does every photography purist use a typewriter
instead of a computer for word-processing? Why not a goose quill? All
you need is black marks on a page. For the record, I agree with the
points that Bill makes, but I'm not fond of the snobbery that often creeps
into the points.
> So I won't be buying an MZ-S. It wouldn't make me a better
> photographer. Just a lazier one. It seems an odd beast.
> Everything is there for it to be a great modern camera. It has
> lots of buttons and gizmos. It beeps. It has PF. Lots of PF.
> None of this will make better pictures. The picture is still
> between me and the subject. The camera is something in between.
> I think the less between me and the picture, the better.
Well said. Good argument for a Leica or an Asahiflex. :)
chris
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
