On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, cwo 20995 wrote:
> Chris,
>
> This is my last reply to you about the PZ-1pN subject.
So much for rational discussion. Why? All I did was ask you to stop
speaking in generalities when criticizing Pentax. "Pentax bad, Nikon
good" arguments are f****** annoying to read. I don't have a problem with
anyone not liking Pentax or preferring the advantages that another brand
offers, but I *do* have a problem with people making blanket statements
and sweeping generalizations.
> My first question was solely about PZ-1p. You answered
> me with a question about MZ-S. Why? Only God knows.
Ok, let's back up. You wrote:
<start quote>
> I just would like to understand one simple thing: why Pentax didn¥t
> develop a new PZ-1p version? With few improvements (more efficient
> autofocus, AA battery grip) it could become a professional camera able
> to face its competitors! Besides, Pentax users that are becoming
> professionals (like me) could keep their Pentax systems instead of
> going to another brands... Why Pentax abandoned professionals? Any
> ideas?
<end quote>
You implied that either (1) you didn't know about the MZ-S, or (2) you
thought that the MZ-S wasn't a "pro" camera in the same league as the
F100. Pentax didn't make a new PZ-1p because they made the MZ-S
instead. What's so hard to understand about that? Since you knew about
the MZ-S, but obviously thought that a revised Z1-p would be superior and
more pro, I asked you, "What benefits would an upgraded Z1-p offer that
the MZ-S wouldn't?" A perfectly fair question, given your post.
> You kept asking me to compare PZ-1p and MZ-S while my
> first question was solely about PZ-1p. Why? Only God
> knows.
Ok, here's the answer. You asked why they didn't revise the Z1-p?
Because they made the MZ-S instead. Why? Who knows? Probably because
the "Z" series bodies never sold as well as the "MZ" series.
> Then you started talking about MZ-S, PZ-1p and
> F100 (while my question was the same).
Your question went from a question about why they didn't revise the Z1-p
(presumably instead of making the MZ-S) to why anyone would pay more than
$700 for an MZ-S to whay anyone would by an MZ-S if they could get a Nikon
for the same price. Why did you suddenly start saying that Nikon had a
superior range of lenses and accessories? God only knows. :)
> Why? Only God knows. Well, I answered your questions. If my arguments
> are not enough for you, I´m sorry.
Look, I'm trying to be helpful. When you asked why Pentax didn't upgrade
the Z1-p, I asked you why they should have, given that the MZ-S is a sweet
little camera. *You never answered this question about what you wanted in
a 'pro' Z1-p that the MZ-S didn't have.*
When you responded by saying that they were still abandoning the pro
market by making the MZ-S too expensive, I asked you how it was a poorer
value than the similarly-priced F100. *You never answered this question
specifically, either, other than to ask why anyone would buy the MZ-S when
they could get a Nikon system for the same money.*
That's when I took the time to list--at length--some reasons why people
might want to get an MZ-S instead of a Nikon. I then asked you why you
would say that the Nikon system was better than Pentax's. I don't care
either way if you think it is or not, but if you are going to argue that
it is, then back it up. Don't walk on to a Pentax list, ask "Why a
photographer should spend (let´s say) US$1000 on a MZ-S if he can have the
same features (I don´t agree that they have the same features but it´s ok)
on a F90X or F100 for the same price, plus a wide range of lenses,
electronic / mechanical bodies and accessories that Pentax doesn´t offer?"
and expect not to be asked what bodies and accessories you're referring
to.
As you may have noticed, I like both Nikon and Pentax; they're both good
systems. I get just pissed off when someone comes on here saying that
Pentax has abandoned the pro market (I'm assuming you mean 35mm PJ
market... there is no such thing as a general "pro"), but doesn't supply
any specifics. If you could at least tell us how the MZ-S is not as pro
as a Nikon or Canon, then we could suggest ways that you could work around
those inadequacies, or things that the MZ-S can do that other cameras
can't, or--failing that--we can at least suggest what other camera might
be suitable for you, given your specific needs and wishes. But if you're
not going to be specific and want to just complain about the lack of a
"pro" camera without specifying what a pro camera is to you and what the
MZ-S lacks, then don't expect to be taken seriously.
Consider this argument:
A: "Pentax has abandoned the pro market!"
B: "Ok, maybe they have, but which "pro" market are you talking about? How
is the MZ-S not pro enough?"
A: "It just isn't / It's too expensive / It's just not a pro camera"
B: "It's the same price as the comparable F100. What's wrong with it?"
A: "It's not a Nikon."
No wonder we're jumping down peoples' throats and telling them to shut up
and take some damn pictures. :) You need to be specific, not general, as
the above example should show.
> OTOH,
> I´ll try to have a little conversation with God. Maybe
> he could figure out why you did all this mess!
Let me know what (S)He says... I'd love to know! :)
chris
-
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 .
