-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Brooks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 18 July 2001 10:18
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: MZ-S review in Amateur Photographer (first UK review)
>Hi MZ-S fans
>Yesterday's Amateur Photographer magazine contained an ill-informed
review
>of the MZ-S, in which almost all of the reviewer's complaints could be
>attributed to having not read the manual properly, or having not taken
the
>trouble to learn how to use the camera.
>
>For example:
>He complained that moving from manual to shutter priority was difficult
and
>cumbersome, complaining that there seemed not to be enough controls on
the
>body to do this, then going on to say that you had to move the aperture
ring
>to the "A" setting (sounds easy enough to me).
To me this just came across as confused english rather than complaining.
I think he meant that the aperture ring and finction dial alone was not
enough to go back to full auto so the green button is there to set
shutter to auto.
>He also complained that he had to change the ISO setting for each of
the ten
>rolls of Elite Chrome EC100 that he rated at ISO400, before going on to
say
>that the auto-DX speed setting can be permanently over-ridden using one
of
>the Pentax functions.
I read this too, and thought I am glad it works the way it does. Do
other cameras stick at the overriden setting until you tell them
otherwise? If this was the case then you would have to check what was
set every time you load a film just to be safe. I would rather always
have the standard ISO for a film every time I insert it and overrride it
when I want - it only takes an instant. I think the MZ-S has perfect
compromise here.
>In the handling section of the review, no mention was made of the
quality of
>construction and materials, and the improvement in handling this
imparts.
>This was left to the very end of the review, where it was noted very
>succinctly that construction was "better than average".
To be honest I dont really see where this affects handling, but was very
dissapointed that the build quality was not acknowledged in the
comparison to rivals section which said 'less features than others at
price point' and 'more comparable to F80 et al in features' and
therefore concluded it was overpriced. This would be correct to some
degree if it were not for the fact that build quality costs.
>The advance rate, and the rewinding speed, were heavily criticised.
That has been done here too, so they are justified to do so, although I
thought rewind speed was rather too important to the reviewer. He
moaned that in a 4 lap bike race, changing films was a nightmare as it
took 7 secs longer than C***n to rewind and 5 secs longer than N***n.
If time is that crucial to your work, have two bodies and change film
between races. The advance rate will continue to be criticised, but is
the price paid for a smaller body - fine by me.
>All in all this was not a favourable review, I am sure that Pentax will
be
>disappointed by this review, as my experience of trying the MZ-S in the
>local Jessops, and reading comments on the PDML, indicates a much more
>favourable response to this fine camera from those who have researched
its
>modus operandi, and welcome something a little different.
I didnt see the review as quite as bad as you, but then I have ordered
one - so perhaps I read with rose tinted specs. To someone more
impartial, it might push me towards the opposition. They just gave no
merit to the build quality, size and weight, which is the main reason
why some compromises have had to be made.
>I hate to say this, but the illustrious Pentax Clover (crazy name,
crazy
>guy/gal) may have a point. If positive magazine reviews are needed to
give
>sales a boost, and Pentax is surely in this business to make money,
they
>need to launch a "robocamera" Canon clone with an exposure "mode"
selector
>dial.
Or perhaps advertise the advantages of the products they have?
Have you seen ANY ads for the MZ-S telling us how its the most robust
camera around?
Or ads selling lenses informing the public at large how good SMC is?
Perhaps with a bit of guidance from Pentax as to why the camera is what
it is and costs what it does, the magazine might understand better.
>Personally I love the way the MZ5n works in that "modes" are selected
simply
>by choosing whether or not to automate the two exposure controls. I
believe
>the MZ-S improves on this great system particularly in the shutter
speed
>selection as choosing a shutter speed manually does not involve
rotating the
>dial through the extreme speeds ie to go from A to 1/60s on the MZ5n
you
>have to run through all the speeds from 1/2000s down to 1/60s - not a
big
>deal but the MZ-S offers an improvement.
Fine by me, but I still wish there was a PF to allow changing aperture
on the body in some way. I suppose I can live with it though.
Lets hope the other mags 'get' the MZ-S and notice the build quality!
Rob
-
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 .
