John wrote: > And come on guys - is the MZ-S really all that well built?
Yes. The MZ-S is extremely well built. It will withstand impact far better than the LX. In addition, it's a workhorse with durable metal parts. It also built with precision and sports a highly precise film transport. >I mean, > does it have weather sealing that will hold back a piddling fog? Yes. > Is it > sealed as well as the EOS 1v? No > Or do we drag out the price-performance > argument when comparing the EOS 1v and MZ-S, and in the next breath > loudly proclaim that the PZ1p is "bad" because the PZ1p provides > excellent value for the money? That fully depends on how you judge value. Brand value is the value appreciated most by the buying public and thats why Nikon and Canon are so popular in this price segment. Built quality is another value to reckon with. > Does anyone really think Pentax did not leave room for an improved > model MZ-Sn, for example something with faster max shutter speed, > faster flash sync, and maybe a couple of other features? Yes they do. They are busy on a camera thats supposed to outperform the benchmark - the Minolta Dynaxx7. Considering that the Minolta is a failure in the marketplace and that Minolta looses money on it, it is qestionable whether the Pentax will ever reach the market. If it does, I'll bet it won't be cheap. I expect that if Pentax want to make a loss leader they will make sure it sells in small numbers. >Or, more > likely, isn't it true that the MZ-S only exists at all because Pentax > needed a design frame for their digital camera? Absolutely. But you will see no camera, with the possible exception of an LX follow up, thats made in a vacuum anymore. Even the MZ-series is basically the same camera in different configurations and the electronics of the 645n is lifted wholesale from the MZ-5. > Introducing a new model such as the MZ-S as the be-all and end-all of > Pentax film cameras would go against the obvious current and ancient > history of Pentax design. The PZ1p does not have a direct upgrade > because Pentax fell out of competition against Nikon and Canon and > Minolta in the mid and upper range AF camera *systems*, not because of > any fault in the design of the PZ1p itself. They fell out of the competition because their answer in this class didn't sell. It is really as simple as that. The reason it didn't sell was that it had no appeal outside the hardcore Pentax comunity. It also alienated the Pentax core user group. It is no coincidence that the next generation of AF Pentaxe weres much better received and much different. > > If anything, they made the Pz1 too good; and the improved Pz1p too > good, and failed to reach the next level with an upgraded Pz1p because > ot system issues, and because Pentax side-tracked themselves with > selling point-and-shoots, and selling upscale point-and-shoots like > the whole MZ series. This is again wrong. The whole Z-series were designed as P&S. Automation was the key word including the zooming function. The following upper end models had far more emphasis on manual usage; eg MZ-5 and MZ-S. > In my mind, there's only three reasons to own Pentax at all: first is > the excellent Pentax glass, with its first-rate coatings. Second is > related to the first: backwards compatibliity with fine older lenses. > But the real kicker is value for money. If I had unlimited funds, and > became convinced Canon lenses would please me as well as my Pentax > lenses, I switch tomorrow. Or, more likely, I would have switched a > long time ago. In my opinion Pentax have never offered more vaue for money than eg. Canon and Minolta. Quite the oposite in fact. All manufactuers make good lenses and the backward compatibility is of no concern for those who don't own older lenses. > And if anyone thinks the MZ-S is all that great, just wait til Pentax > dumps the K-mount. It may happen, guys. Pentax changed mounts once > before, and might change again. If Pentax wants to adopt modern lens > design with HSM and IF technology, changing mounts might be more > profitable than designing around the limitations of the K-mount. Theres no reason for dropping the K-mount. Its fully compatible with USM and IS. However, making asmaller digital slr system may make sense. > But I truly think Pentax in no longer interested in anything except > the "upscale demographics", and will focus not on professional or even > serious photographers, but instead on aspiring yuppies who want to > take pictures with a camera they think will impress somebody, if only > themselves. Sort of a poor boys Contax. Regardless what you call them, Pentax have discovered that a significant part of their consumerbase consist of connoisseurs willing to pay premium prices for premium products. Just look at the LX users and their willingness to pay high dollar for old lenses. Not taking advantage of this fact will be ignoring their customers. Making full featured camera for those who are not willing to pay for them would be suicidal. Not even Canon bothers with this. If you want a full featured Canon you have to go for the EOS3 costing twice as mcuh as the Z-1p. > The bad thing is, Pentax is again way behind the market. Being a yuppy > went out with the dot coms. On the contrary. Brand values has never been more important than now. If anything, Pentax seems to be at the forefront of current trends. Look a the Limited lenses already being copied by Nikon. Pentax have probably realised that selling anything cheap will automatically attract the customers. P�l - 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 .
