Something is bothering me a bit...
I have heard repeated references to Pentax cameras vs.
other brands in relation to admirably smaller size.
For instance, the N**** F5 and C**** EOS-1V are
decried as monsters and behemoths - as though, of
course, we wouldn't one of those. And a post of
perhaps two months ago mentioned that one fairly
consistent commonality amongst Pentaxers is a penchant
for compact bodies. The PZ bodies have been called
here an attempt of Pentax to be like N****. The MZ-S,
as well as both the LX and the potential newer
autofocus LX, are routinely discussed with an eye
toward compactness as a major, perhaps foremost,
design objective. All this has made me wonder: am I
perhaps missing the point of Pentax cameras?
I routinely use a PZ-1p, which to me is almost perfect
in size (though perhaps a tad small) - and I have
hands which are on the slightly small side of average
for an adult male. When I occasionally go to my ZX or
K body, I find them almost ridiculously small - and
certainly far too small to balance any telephoto over
135/2.8. At least in pictures, the EOS-1V looks to me
reasonably comfortable to hold, though perhaps it
would be a bit heavy for a 35mm; and in N****, though
I haven't used an F5, the smaller F100 anyway feels
acceptable. I long for an updated PZ-1p (w/ better
AF) of the same or slightly larger size - though if
this is "bad business" I wouldn't want Pentax to do
this, or to abandon what is perhaps their hard-core
fan base.
When I sold cameras, I always wondered in amazement at
people buying compact cameras who thought that
something like the Canon Z135 was just unbelievably
huge. In the same way, I really wonder at people who
find the PZ-1p large, and the ZX bodies "just right".
I guess I can understand if one is a serious hiker and
if shaving ounces off one's shorts or shoelaces would
make a difference (though even then, the fact that I
drink twice as much water as anyone I know would far
outweigh any such considerations for myself). I know
a bicyclist who uses a seat that is horribly
uncomfortable just because it is like a half-ounce
less than a more comfortable one - and this is even in
practicing. Why does everything have to be so small
and light? What did everyone here do before 35mm came
along?
If a PZ-1p is too large, anything larger WAY too
large, and a MZ-S just right, can one possibly be
using large-aperture telephotos? If I'm going hiking,
my choice is whether to carry a 200/2.8 AND 300/4.5 or
just one - not whether to choose a camera that is a
hair smaller but which will compromise the handling of
my shooting.
IS the PZ-1p not a "real" Pentax? Are all true
Pentax's very small and relatively low-tech? Was it
"right" for C**** and N**** and M****** to make
larger, high-tech cameras, but wrong for O****** and
Pentax?
I'm drawn to Pentax for the same reason I was drawn to
Konica - for the optics I enjoy. The Konica and
Pentax 50mm lenses are my favorites. I love Pentax
lenses. Am I alone here? When we discuss bodies on
this list, I feel like I'm with the wrong brand. I
drool over a Contax RTSIII more than an LX, and over a
MAXXUM 9ti more than an MZ-S. But I have to remember
I'm in this for the optics and not the light boxes.
Maybe my next purchase will be a 67II - anyone care to
enable me?
Chaso
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
-
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 .
