Hi John, I wasn't commenting on the MZ-S battery consumption, as I don't own one. I was however, commenting on the rate at which the Z-1 chews up 2cr5 batteries. My old Z-1 would last for about 15 rolls of 36 before it was unusable with AF glass. All I ever wanted for it was a vertical grip that would take AA's. I tend to get off the beaten track a bit and have been caught without enough spare batteries a few times. Luckily though, I have been able to haul out the LX and just keep going. There's an engineering fellow in the USA who has been threatening to release vertical grips for the Z-1 for ages, but he doesn't seem to be getting any closer to a release date. They look good in prototype though.
For now, I might sit things out and rely on my LX. When the dust settles a bit and we all know what Pentax are doing then I may decide to purchase a new camera. It will be either the z-1p or the new film flagship (I will be purchasing a DSLR regardless, unless it is really crappy). The only way I will purchase the film flagship over a z-1p is if it makes me feel comfortable enough to let go of my LX (relax only joking folks). cheers Shaun Canning PhD Student Archaeology Department La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia, 3086. e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: 0414-967 644 -----Original Message----- From: John Coyle [mailto:jcoyle@;powerup.com.au] Sent: Thursday, 31 October 2002 10:55 To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: MZ-S vs Z-1p Hi Shaun: Would you believe I am still on my first set of batteries for the MZ-S, after nearly a year? I can't recall how many films I have put through, but it's a fair few. I have played extensively with the flash and tested the autofocus assist, and it gets to go out with me every day, when I have it switched on 'just in case'. Along with a couple of others who have complained that it chews batteries, maybe you should have it checked for battery drain when switched off, or even check that you are not accidentally leaving it on all the time? If the forecast DSLR is indeed built on the same basic chassis as the MZ-S, I would expect all the accessories to fit, as there would be little point in changing the mechanics of the fit: IMHO, the change between the original MZ-fit accessories and the MZ-S set was to accommodate additional control information, and that is now accomplished. If, on the other hand, you want to wait for the film flagship, all bets are off! Since Pentax are reported to have said it will be based on a completely new chassis, I don't think we have any way of knowing how it will be put together, and therefore whether anything (except hopefully, our glass) will fit it. John Coyle Brisbane, Australia On Thursday, October 31, 2002 9:22 AM, Shaun Canning [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: > Thanks for the first replies everyone. The catch-22 for me is if it is > going > to be worth changing over to an MZ-S now (and need a new cable release > and > flash etc to get it all to work properly) or wait until the fabled > DSLR or > new film flagship arrives? If I buy an MZ-S there is no guarantee that > the > extras will be universal (i.e. the cable release and flash). We still > haven't really heard anything about the film flagship. Everyone seems > hell > bent on the DSLR. What's happening Pal? Have you heard anymore about > the > film flagship? Of course, it could be worse. At least I can get the > parts I > want for my camera's, hey Brad? > > I am 'stuck' with an LX only at the moment, which I must say is not > really > that much of a tragedy (I love my LX). However, I do have a genuine > need for > flash bracketing, flash exposure compensation and AF. The z-1p is a > great > camera, except for those stupid damned 2CR5 batteries that seem to > evaporate > when they are taken out of the packet. From what has been on the list > lately > though, it seems that the MZ-S chews up the batteries as well. > > Hmmm.... the dilemmas of being a Pentaxian. > > Will they...wont they...wish they did.... > > Shaun Canning > PhD Student > Archaeology Department > La Trobe University, Bundoora, > Australia, 3086. > > e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Phone: 0414-967 644 > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Jones [mailto:pdml@;nrg666.com] > Sent: Wednesday, 30 October 2002 04:47 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: MZ-S vs Z-1p > > Hi, > > I've had both and the MZ-S hunts alot less, in both well lit and low > light > situations. > > I only ever used the central sensor on the MZ-S. > > Regards, > Paul Jones > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Shaun Canning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 4:41 PM > Subject: RE: MZ-S vs Z-1p > > > > Thanks Bruce > > > > Shaun Canning > > PhD Student > > Archaeology Department > > La Trobe University, Bundoora, > > Australia, 3086. > > > > e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Phone: 0414-967 644 > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:bkdayton@;rcsis.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, 30 October 2002 03:56 > > To: Shaun Canning > > Subject: Re: MZ-S vs Z-1p > > > > Shaun, > > > > I used to own 2 PZ-1p's and sold them for 2 MZ-S's. There are > > three > > aspects to the AF to consider: > > > > 1) AF Speed. Part of this is the > > power of the motor and part the algorithms used to achieve final > > focus. The MZ-S seems to me to achieve final focus slightly > > quicker > > and with less hunting that the PZ-1p - although the PZ-1p motor is > > quite powerful and is no slouch at all. > > > > 2) Low light sensitivity - Here I have found the MZ-S to be > > noticeably > > better than the PZ-1p. > > > > 3) Multiple sensors - Obviously, since the PZ-1p only has one > > central > > sensor, the MZ-S does a better job here. > > > > Remember that these are quite different cameras in handling and > > interface. If you really liked the interface of the PZ-1 you might > > prefer a PZ-1p. The MZ-S is a bit more traditional in interface. > > > > Given the opportunity to choose between the two again, I would > > choose > > the MZ-S again. The P-TTL, high speed and wireless flash system is > > clearly superior to the PZ-1p and I find that feature more > > important > > than AF. I shot a wedding over the weekend. Along with heavy use > > of > > the P67II, I used the wireless flash capability of the MZ-S for > > quite > > a few shots - all manual focus with the FA*85/1.4 and FA 35/2. > > > > In defense of the PZ-1p, it has faster FPS, and one handed > > operation > > with the spin dials. Truly a great robocamera design. > > > > If I can be of any other help, please don't hesitate to ask. > > > > > > Bruce > > > > > > > > Tuesday, October 29, 2002, 8:31:39 PM, you wrote: > > > > SC> Can anyone who has owned both these cameras tell me how much > > effective > > SC> difference there is in the AF speed between the SAFOX II system > > of the > > SC> z/pz-1p and the SFOX VII of the MZ-S? The z-1 I owned until > > recently > was > > SC> pretty good with all of my AF lenses, other than a Tokina 80-200 > > > > ATX-Pro, > > SC> which was sometimes a bit slow. I am interested in upgrading my > > film > > SLR, > > SC> and can't choose between the MZ-S or a second hand Z-1p. Then > > again, I > > may > > SC> just wait for the DSLR if we ever get to see what the damn > > thing > really > > SC> looks like and goes like..... > > > > SC> Shaun Canning > > SC> PhD Student > > SC> Archaeology Department > > SC> La Trobe University, Bundoora, > > SC> Australia, 3086. > > > > SC> e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > SC> Phone: 0414-967 644 > >
