Thanks for the comparison. You mentioned you would like a modern LX. What
does that mean? AF, spot meter? Please describe.
Thanks,
Bruce Dayton
Sacramento, CA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 1:27 PM
Subject: Re: MZ-S vs. LX
> Bruce wrote:
>
> > I'm curious. At least Pål, and maybe others have both LX and MZ-S. We
have
> > compared quite often the PZ-1p and MZ-S, but not really the LX vs. MZ-S.
> > Other than low light metering, is there anything else about the LX that
> > would have you keep both bodies? Anybody with experience?
>
>
> I've used the LX for 20 years and run about 70 rolls through the MZ-S so I
now have firm opinions about these two cameras and how they compare to each
other.
> Let me first say that the LX will always have a paricular place in my
photography due to its low light metering capabilities. This is important to
me but probably not for most photographers. The LX will keep this place
until Pentax release another body that can do the same trick as the LX.
>
> I now have a camera setup consisting of the MZ-S, LX and 645n and I feel
this to be a very nice combination where the different bodies can do
different task and where all are really enjoyable in use. I use the MZ-S
exclusively for bird photography; I never use the LX. The MZ-S pluses here
are AF, metering and built in motor drive. I used the Z-1p for this use as
well due to the built in motor drive and metering but I choose the MZ-S
equally much because I enjoy using it. The Z-1p looked and felt odd in the
companionship with my other bodies. I never took the Z-1p for landscape
shooting while my MZ-S may often be the prefered choice. A case in point is
using mirror prefire on both camera. On the Z-1p it ment turning a dial,
pressing a button while turning another dial and scrolling trhough a meny.
This had to be repeated every time the camera had been turned off. No such
thing with the MZ-S. I feel the MZ-S is very much in tune with the LX but
offers other functions the LX is m!
> issing.
>
> The MZ-S is not the camera I can replace an LX with. My main
dissapointment with the MZ-S is it battery consumption. You can avoid this
hassle with the battery grip but that makes it big and bulky. The MZ-S feels
like real camera and I really don't think the LX score much compare to it
when it comes to feel and built.
> I would choose the MZ-S over the LX if I expect to shoot Macro and/or
birds whereas the LX will be the choice if there was a posibility for low
light shooting. Also, due to its mechanical shutter the LX is the choice for
(very) remote areas.
>
> However, what I really want is a modern version of the LX. This is more
and more clear to me.
>
>
> 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 .
>
-
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 .
