"Lack of Av wheel, what they were thinking?" They must have thought that with perfectly usable and natural aperture ring who needs an Av wheel - whatever that is. "Exposure compensation wheel ... accessible and visible in the eyepiece". Wheel in the eyepiece? What camera are you talking about? Sad to say but you think that a professional camera is the one that does the decisions for you, us humble amateurs have do the thinking ourselves. All the best! Raimo Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
-----Alkuper�inen viesti----- L�hett�j�: Cameron Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Vastaanottaja: Pentax Discussion Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> P�iv�: 24. marraskuuta 2002 3:13 Aihe: Why I won't be buying an MZ-S After having yet another go with that camera in a shop today, it reiterated in my mind why I haven't taken the plunge, and I am still mystified by why Pentax, with it's talented engineers and designers, cannot bring out a high end camera. The lack of an Av wheel is just deplorable; what were they thinking? They took a giant leap backwards ergonomically with that camera. What should have been a delight would truly be a nightmare for me: did they not try it out with their own high end glass before approving production? Anyone with fingers thicker that a six year old girl would have all sort of problems accessing the aperture ring quickly, which is why I never use the damn thing on the PZ1-P except when doing landscapes and using depth of field preview; it is just plain awkward. As is the exposure compensation wheel, which you would have to use a lot because of the lack of an Av wheel; on the PZ-1, it is right by your thumb, and accessible and visible in the eyepiece. And to have to delve deeply into the Pentax Functions menu, now greatly expanded and more confusing than ever (and, incidentally, lacking the icons that it has on the PZ series for easy identification in the field without the manual), in order to switch to aperture priority, and thereby loosing shutter priority until you delve in again, is just too slow and cumbersome to be considered for serious use. The good points are the build quality, if you ignore the fact that they don't actually make a single lens in any series that really matches the finish of the camera, and the autofocus system, which is light-years behind the Canon system, but still the best of any Pentax camera. The bayonette-mount battery grip is a nice touch, but again they blew it by not making a grip strap available; I cannot imagine walking through a crowded wedding, conference, or night club without one, and holding the camera out of an airplane window going at 160 miles an hour getting wide-angle landscapes would also not be possible. The mirror-damping is nice, but that should be easy to accomplish in a camera that can only shoot 2.5 frames a second, making it all but useless for sports, dogs, and action shots in general; Canon and Nikon have superior mirror damping at 10 frames a second. At times I find even the PZ-1 a bit slow, but not by much; but having the ability to go instantly from metered manual to program, or from program to aperture or shutter priority without taking the camera from the eye is essential in a pro-grade camera. The MZ-S is a lovely camera for landscapes, portraits, or anything slow and premeditated, but it has far too many limitations for serious professional use. Why on earth have they not brought out a flagship? To have had a camera with these capabilities in 1992, and to not improve upon it but rather take a giant leap backwards in performance and ergonomics in 2002 seems ludicrous to me. <snip> Still waiting impatiently, Cameron
