Bill wrote:
> What happened to make film transport speed so important? Didn't sports > photogs learn how to use their equipment and get great shots in the days > before high speed motordrives? When I was shooting for our college yearbook > back in 1962-63, I used a rangefinder 35 and a Speed Graphic, and with a > little practice was able to anticipate when to press the shutter. To me > this makes much more sense than burning 10 or 12 rolls of film per game and > hoping the camera had enough intelligence to anticipate the exact moment for > the shot. I have a hard time understanding why Pentax choose only 2,5fps rate of the MZ-S. Probably a spasm of common sense; after all very few shoot with 5fps and in tune with a no-nonsense approach they rather put priorities of having a precise and durable film transport. They strongly misjudged the psychlogical effect though. I believe the slow film transport is the main reason that people insist that the MZ-S is under specified. It is like a camera with 2,5FPS must be cheap. Its apparently hard to see through those superficial specifications. Some seem to forget the fact that only a fraction of the LX and F3 sold, being professional cameras and all, ever enjoyed a motor drive. So its no wonder that Pentax, who never catered to the sports photographers anyway, choose not to emphasise this feature. P�l - 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 .
