Sorry, you misunderstand me. I would NEVER get rid of my MZ-S! When the MZ-6 came out, I wished I had that as my backup body instead of the 30. With that I would probably be happier to use it than I am to use the 30. A year or two later and I am thinking "why bother with another film body". The MZ-S is all the film SLR I could ever need, and when I get a DSLR, there will no longer be any need for a backup film camera...
I am not sure if it is low enthusasm for the ist itself, or just low enthusiasm for investing any more money into film based cameras in general, but I don't feel the lust for more anymore... Now if the MZ-S broke, I would buy another in an instant! > -----Original Message----- > From: Sylwester Pietrzyk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 18 February 2003 20:55 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: *ist complete specifications > > > On Tuesday, Feb 18, 2003, at 17:50 Europe/Warsaw, Rob Brigham wrote: > > > > My mistake - that's a relief! > > > > I actually think I would prefer an mz-6 to this, unless I wanted to > > retain a common interface with a digital. Mind you, I have > the Mz-S > > and MZ-30, and while I would buy an ist or a 6 rather than the 30 > > today, I don't think I will buy another film camera. The > MZ-S will do > > me for a long time, and I cant remember the last time I > needed the 30 > > - its purely an emergency backup these days. > > Well, changing MZ-S for *ist would be pure nonsense. It would be just > like changing LX for a newer and better equipped P50 :-) > > > Regards > Sylwek > > > >
