Having been an owner of both PZ-1p's and MZ-S's I am struggling to see why there is such strong words being thrown back and forth about these two cameras. I feel that I have mastered both systems and think they both do a great job as a photographic tool. If one only stops to think about what is important to them they may find that one or the other is the better choice. In my opinion, neither is a bad camera. Both are quite full featured and very usable.
I suspect that the most that can be said is the PZ-1p was not as successful as any of us would have liked. How successful the MZ-S will be remains to be seen. John may be correct in that Pentax may never be able to compete again with the top end Nikon/Canon offerings. Maybe they are best served in a more upscale connoisseur market. Many times what is right for a company is not the most right direction for the current users. If Pentax has to go a direction that doesn't suit some or most of us, they will have to weigh the loss of those old users versus future sales. Bruce Dayton Wednesday, December 26, 2001, 5:24:10 PM, you wrote: JM> On Wed, 26 Dec 2001 20:51:48 +0100, you wrote: >>Some of us actually celebrated the demise of the Z-1p JM> ...and some of us regret replacing the top model PZ1p with the JM> mid-range MZ-S. In my opinion, history will judge the MZ-S as an JM> overpriced yuppie-pretending-to-be-artist's toy, much like the Contax JM> G1 or N1. JM> I love this quote from a G1 reviewer, which in my mind also sums up JM> the Contax N1 and Pentax MZ-S: "The exact application for which this JM> camera was designed is unclear, except that price and availability JM> point to a decidedly upscale demographic." JM> It is not surprising to hear MZ-S owners proclaim its lack of features JM> as a desirable feature in itself, because they never could figure out JM> how to successfully and easily access the useful features of a JM> previous camera. JM> And come on guys - is the MZ-S really all that well built? I mean, JM> does it have weather sealing that will hold back a piddling fog? Is it JM> sealed as well as the EOS 1v? Or do we drag out the price-performance JM> argument when comparing the EOS 1v and MZ-S, and in the next breath JM> loudly proclaim that the PZ1p is "bad" because the PZ1p provides JM> excellent value for the money? JM> Does anyone really think Pentax did not leave room for an improved JM> model MZ-Sn, for example something with faster max shutter speed, JM> faster flash sync, and maybe a couple of other features? Or, more JM> likely, isn't it true that the MZ-S only exists at all because Pentax JM> needed a design frame for their digital camera? JM> Introducing a new model such as the MZ-S as the be-all and end-all of JM> Pentax film cameras would go against the obvious current and ancient JM> history of Pentax design. The PZ1p does not have a direct upgrade JM> because Pentax fell out of competition against Nikon and Canon and JM> Minolta in the mid and upper range AF camera *systems*, not because of JM> any fault in the design of the PZ1p itself. JM> If anything, they made the Pz1 too good; and the improved Pz1p too JM> good, and failed to reach the next level with an upgraded Pz1p because JM> ot system issues, and because Pentax side-tracked themselves with JM> selling point-and-shoots, and selling upscale point-and-shoots like JM> the whole MZ series. JM> As for price-performance, well, Pentax has a long and honorable JM> history of providing good value for camera buyers, going at least back JM> to the Spotmatic era and continuing through today. Back then, Pentax JM> priced three different sets with only a ten or twenty dollar JM> difference between each level. Remember Pentax is the manufacturer who JM> hung a ring around an f1.8 lens to cut its max aperture back to f2, so JM> some poor schmuck could afford to buy a Pentax kit ten bucks cheaper, JM> with no serious compromise in quality. JM> In my mind, there's only three reasons to own Pentax at all: first is JM> the excellent Pentax glass, with its first-rate coatings. Second is JM> related to the first: backwards compatibliity with fine older lenses. JM> But the real kicker is value for money. If I had unlimited funds, and JM> became convinced Canon lenses would please me as well as my Pentax JM> lenses, I switch tomorrow. Or, more likely, I would have switched a JM> long time ago. JM> The PZ1p is a fine camera in the hands of anyone not looking for a JM> yuppie toy to make themselves feel good about owning "a fine piece of JM> machinery." If one is looking for a camera to impress those who know JM> nothing, a Pz1p works just as well as an MZ-S. If one is looking for a JM> camera to take pictures, the Pz1p outperforms the MZ-S. JM> And if anyone thinks the MZ-S is all that great, just wait til Pentax JM> dumps the K-mount. It may happen, guys. Pentax changed mounts once JM> before, and might change again. If Pentax wants to adopt modern lens JM> design with HSM and IF technology, changing mounts might be more JM> profitable than designing around the limitations of the K-mount. JM> But I truly think Pentax in no longer interested in anything except JM> the "upscale demographics", and will focus not on professional or even JM> serious photographers, but instead on aspiring yuppies who want to JM> take pictures with a camera they think will impress somebody, if only JM> themselves. Sort of a poor boys Contax. JM> The bad thing is, Pentax is again way behind the market. Being a yuppy JM> went out with the dot coms. JM> -- JM> John Mustarde JM> www.photolin.com JM> - JM> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, JM> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to JM> 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 .
