> Okay; I find my ZX-M to have a good viewfinder (bright, clear, and
> understandable) when it comes to manually focusing lenses.
>
> Can the same be said for all other ZX (AF) bodies? (I do not have a store
> nearby that carries anything but the ZX30, to check this out, and I am not
> interested in the "30"...)
>
> Would a ZX5n, for instance, also have the same bright viewfinder for
> focusing manually when one needed (or wanted) to?
>
> And are there any AF ZX's I should beware of when it comes to manual
> focusing?
>
> I think that about covers it...,
> Dosk
Hi, its me again. Here you ask explicitly what I sort of implied in my
previous post.
Ok, I have experience with the MZ-5n and my wife owns a MZ-10 (now
discontinued). Apart from split image rangefinder this (MZ-10) is
supposed to be the same finder as your ZX-M. When buying the MZ-10 I
compared to a MZ-M and no differences apart from the rangefinder were
aparent to me. The finder of the new ZX-30 and ZX-7 are different,
and I have not handeled them. So I can't really comment here, but I
would be surprised if it is up to the MZ-5n. The 5n has a proper glass
prism none of the others has, therefore the camera is heavier.
The finder of the MZ-5n is better than the ZX-M you ask about.
The finder is brighter, clearer and easier to see with glasses than
the ZX-M. The readout in the finder is essentially the same between
the two. Having said all that, my wife's most favourite lens is a M100/2.8
which she uses on aperture priority with manual focus on her
MZ-10. She gets very good results with good focus. She doesn't wear
glasses though.
You get a spotmeter with the MZ-5n which you don't on the ZX-M and
also a metal lens mount. Otherwise the camera's are pretty much the
same, apart from the AF.
When having MF lenses in mind, the MZ-30 and MZ-50 are best
avoided. They can't read the aperture ring of M and K lenses. A lenses
are fine with these.
None of the AF cameras will offer a split image rangefinder. I perceive
that as a plus, since the finder is uncluttered and I get more in focus
results than with the split image rangefinder of my old Minolta (comparing
fast lenses, 2.0 or faster).
Ok, together with my previous post this should be an answer to your
question. Ask back (cc to me directly, I am not reading all of PDML,
it is just to much) if you want to know more. Joachim
PS: Here these cameras are called MZ which are called ZX in the
US. The part after the dash is indentically with Pentax.
-
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 .
