Damien wrote:
> As many of you have agreed this really isn't a 'professionally' equipped AF SLR.
This is a meaningless statement and only a matter of definition. There are cameras
with all equipment levels thats labeled professional. If you mean that a camera that
doesn't do the same as a camera Canon label professional can't be professional, then
you're right.
> The build might be 'professional' but the specification does not match the
> standards we have come to expect from this type of camera - namely an autofocus
> 35mm SLR.
What do you mean? Doesn't it meet the standards for a 35mm AF slr? Or doesn't it meet
the standards of "this" type of camera? But what other camera is of "this" type? As
far as I can tell the MZ-S is pretty unique and is what should be stressed in a camera
review.
>It does not actually match the expectations of a 'high end' AF SLR if
> we take models such as the EOS 3, F100 etc. as being representative of this
> level.
The MZ-S isn't supposed to have the features of the EOS3; simplicity and ease of
operation has been design goals. Herbert Keppler labeled it "All you need is what you
get". Again you miss the point. Its OK to be of the opinion that EOS3 is better idea
but failing to see the concept with its weight and cost saving, not to mention quick
and simple operation, is unforgivable.
>in what other camera is ISO setting split into
> two areas on the camera?
Most cameras I think. You press a button or turn a dial while setting the value with a
command dial or dedicated dial. Even the LX work like this. I don't get the problem.
I admit that on the MZ-S you turn a dial to the ISO setting and then set the ISO with
the command dial. On the LX and many other cameras you press a button and then turn a
dial. It may be that turning a dial and then turning another dial is bad and not
preferable to pressing a button and turning a dial. Most people, however, will have a
hard time making this a big deal. Of course you can have deidicated buttons for every
function but again the design goal was simplicity which you seem to miss.
>Surely incorporating a DX setting into the menu of the
> main ISO button would allow auto reading and manual adjustments to be dealt with
> at the same time.
It is. I use DX and manual set film speed interchangeably all the time. I dial in the
ISO value when push film; leave it when I don't. Can you tell me any camera where you
don't have to man ually set ISO when you don't rate the film for the value printed on
the box? I don't get this.
You seem to think that manual ISO setting only work when the DX setting is disabled.
If you do, reading the manual will help to clear up this misunderstanding.
>This is how the majority of other cameras do it and it is
> easier and more logical. This is why I criticized the methods of the MZ-S
> system, and if you read the review carefully you will see that this is exactly
> what I said.
Maybe thats what you said (I haven't read the original review) but it makes no sense -
see above.
> I never compare Pentax with Canon or Nikon or Minolta or whoever. Apart from in
> the introduction of a test I always deal with each individual model as an item
> separate from the brand or the range. It stands on its own merits and falls by
> its negative points.
Not true. Above you tell us how it fails compared to the EOS3 and F100 without taking
into consideration its built and size/weight and uncomplicated use, which is the main
reason its different from the above mentioned cameras in the first place. Also you
fail to see that interface you criticise is part of the concept.
> Please read tests more carefully before bashing me in front of the whole world.
> Please remember that there will be people reading your comments who will not get
> to read the test you are commenting on. In their eyes I look as though I have
> taken no trouble over the test and have not made any effort to understand the
> camera - or read the hand book as someone commented.
Please read the manual so you know how the camera operates. Also, stop taking yourself
seriously. Disagreeing with your, in my opinion, ill informed opinions isn't bashing
for the whole world. Just another opinion.
Youre not alone though among reviewers of different kind who have a hard time dealing
with the internet. People will to a lesser extent than previously seek product
information and opinions in magazine reviews; nothing beats hands-on personal
experience.
I had a similar experience of pissed-off reviewers a few years back in a Norwegian
Audio newsgroup. Me and others critizised the Norwegian Audio magazines tendency to
proclaim every new Norwegian backyard high-end amplifier as the worlds best. Many of
us had owned these amplifiers and couldn't agree. Particularly an infameous test of a
bloody expensive Mark Levinson amplifier tested against a Norwegian amplifier, the
test performed at the home of the designer of the latter amplifier. Needles to mention
the outcome of the test. Anyway, a few issues later there were editorials about these
terrible internet mafia guys who dared questioning the reviewers credibility. This is
all about people getting pissed-off because not everybody take everything they say as
the thruth and nothing but the goddamn truth. Some of us use our own senses and
experience to form our own opinion.
I don't think the MZ-S is a perfect camera, but it annoys me when people forget the
concept.
Anyway, I think that you didn't give the camera a conceptually fair assessment. Not
getting the copncept is like criticizing, say, the Pentax 67 for not offering AF and
10fps motor drive. You can always question whether the concept is sound or not but
thats a different discussion.
Pål
-
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 .
