I'm sure I'm late on this thread, but there are a couple of points that Cameron makes that are worth commenting on:
On Sunday, November 24, 2002 4:27 AM, Cameron Hood [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: <SNIPPED> > > 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. The thickness of one's fingers is a problem with some lenses: I notice it particularly with my Sigma 17-35 zoom, where the aperture ring is only 6mm wide and sits about 2mm down in the 12 mm wide gap between the lens barrel and the body. With the 28-105 Pentax zoom, however, the aperture ring is 12mm wide and sits nearly flush with the barrel so is easy to use. in addition, the ring on the Pentax lens is much easier to turn with the left hand fingers reaching up from the base of the camera, in what is for me the natural position anyway. With every other lens I have, both Pentax and third party, the aperture ring is forward of the rear of the lens and is the widest part of the lens, so no problem. Philosophically, I prefer to set the aperture on the lens anyway, so I do not see this as a problem in terms of operational capability. If Cameron likes the AV wheel, of course, then his mileage varies. > As is the exposure compensation wheel, which you would have to use a lot because of the lack of an Av wheel; I do not follow this argument: why would you have to compensate simply because you use a different method for setting the aperture? . on the PZ-1, it is right by your thumb, and accessible and visible in the eyepiece. The exposure compensation wheel is right by your left thumb, and the effect is visible in the right-hand side of the viewfinder.. > 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. This is just plain wrong! You cannot maintain shutter priority if you have elected for aperture priority on any camera: the two are mutually contradictory. You do not have to go into the functions to set aperture priority, you do that by moving off the A setting on the lens. You do not have to go into the functions to change to shutter priority, you do that by turning the main control wheel until you get the shutter speed you want. Both those operations assume you are starting from full-auto. You go to full manual by setting the aperture and shutter speed you want, just as with every camera I have ever used. You go back to full-auto by, from aperture priority, setting the aperture ring back to A: from shutter priority, by pressing the green button at the front top of the camera. You go to aperture priority from full-manual by pressing the same button. Not a function in sight! The only point I can agree with here is that it would be useful to have icons as a reminder when setting the functions: by the way, I seldom find it necessary to change these in the field, since by definition they are semi-permanent settings. > > The good points are the build quality, Agreed - it's tough and great to work with > 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, My 28-105 matches quite well, as do my M-series lenses: it would be nice to have the option of a black Limited finish similar to the matt finish though. > and the autofocus system, which is light-years > behind the Canon system, but still the best of any Pentax camera. How so? I find it fast and accurate > 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, Um, wrap the neck-strap around your wrist? > and holding the camera out of an airplane window going at 160 miles an hour getting wide-angle > landscapes would also not be possible. You seriously expect Pentax to design for an application as unusual as this? How about a hot-air balloon mounting while they are at it? But see above anyway. 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. > Don't know about the damping - it either works or it doesn't and I can never recall in thirty years of active photography having the camera jump around because of mirror bounce, even with the heavier mechanisms of earlier times. I know some say that they want mirror lock up as an option, but I would suggest that is usually only useful in tripod-mounted, and probably macro photography. In any case, a camera securely fastened to a decent weight tripod is not going to suffer from mirror slap. As to your comments on moving from one mode to another, see above. > 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. The MZ-S has never been touted as the flagship, and to ask for it to compete with the top-of-the-range Nikon and Canon models at the price we are asked to pay is just plain ridiculous. If you really need 10fps, 45-point auto-focus, eye-control etc., then go buy the models that give you what you want: in Australia, you will pay at least half as much again as you will for the MZ-S. > SNIP> > Cameron > Incidentally, did you actually have a demonstration by someone who actually knows the way the camera works, because it certainly sounds more like you were left to your own devices! John Coyle Brisbane, Australia
