Shel, Your are one big piece of shit for giving Kathy those kind of comments, which she in no way was asking for.
(Sorry all about my language.) Kathy, don't pay any attention to him. He is kind of... well, different in some respects. Lasse ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 4:45 PM Subject: Re: which one to choose? > Hi Kathy, > > So, you're buying a camera without ever having seen or tried it. > Frankly, you're doing yourself a disservice. How do you know it'll be > comfortable to hold or easy to use, or even that it will suit you? Just > because the specs look good, or some people on the list have suggested > that it's a "good" camera, is no reason to buy one sight unseen. > > And the photos you've seen in the PUG gallery are worthless for judging > a camera body. Apart from the fact they're on a web site, which means > they're small and lacking any real detail, I'll guarantee that there can > be ten or a hundred real photos laid side by side, taken with different > bodies, heck, even different brands, and you'd not be able to tell which > camera made what photograph. It's not the camera that lends a > photograph its qualities, IAC, it's the lens and the processing and > printing that make the difference. And there are enough tricks and > techniques that one can use when preparing a photo for the web that the > skill of the person doing the editing is often far more important than > either the camera, the lens, or even the correct exposure and processing > of the film. If you'd like, I can show you three versions of the same > photo, all edited from the same print, and all looking quite different, > as the image was edited by three different people. > > Recently I showed a few Leica enthusiasts a photo made on an old > Spotmatic with an equally as old Super Takumar 50mm lens - one that > wasn't even multi-coated. They were all impressed with the "quality of > Leica lenses". I didn't have the heart to burst their bubble and tell > 'em the photo was made with an old, beat-up, $10.00 lens, not one of the > newer, $1000.00 Leica jewels. > > You may be very happy with the PZ-1p - or you may not. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > Thank you, Robert. I had a dilemma - have been going to upgrade my camera > > body from ZX-50 (which I have enjoyed) because I wanted a few more advanced > > functions. I was thinking about waiting until I could afford a MZ-S, but > > after comparing all of the features and the added cost of the MZ-S (which I > > wouldn't have for some time), I decided to buy a PZ-1p (Adorama had a demo > > that they said was in mint condition) for a good price. I think I made a > > good choice, and I can't wait until the camera arrives in a couple of days. > > I figured this will be the film camera I will use for years to come, and I > > know I will be happy with it. Somewhere down the road, maybe in a year, > > probably two, I will get a Pentax digital camera. Then I should be set for > > life with two dream cameras. I liked what you said about the PZ-1p, and I > > have seen some fantastic photos taken with it on the PUG gallery. I have > > never seen a PZ-1p in person, though. Can you think of any suggestions to > > offer someone who is switching from a "beginner" camera to a PZ-1p. I'd > > appreciate any comments. > > -- > Shel Belinkoff - 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 .
