That's what I meant by X and B, the flash sync speed and bulb. I think the 'clackier' is due to the lightweight housing. Like firing with no lens, or better still a rigid lens cap, on. Less mass to dampen the mirror return sound. The main reason I love the ME Super is that it has a pneumatic damper on the mirror mechanism. Very mellow sound. Ironically it's also a common source of trouble. It's what causes the shutter lag you sometimes see in the MES. You press the shutter release and anywhere from seconds to *hours* later the shutter finally fires.
Don > -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Wilensky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 7:43 PM > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: [PMX:###] Re: Pentax MV - Good or bad? > > > I think the MV, like the MG and ME, do have a mechanical speed at > 1/100, which is also the flash synch speed. When I had an MV I noticed > that the shutter, while it had the same specs as the ME, was either > "clackier" in operation or at least not nearly as well damped. > > Joe > > > On Mar 22, 2005, at 8:37 PM, Don Sanderson wrote: > > > Keith, when I think of 'mechanical camera' I think > > of one that only loses it's meter if the batteries > > die. > > The only one in the "M" line AFAIK that fits this > > description is the MX. > > What do you mean by mechanical? > > I haven't had an MV for a while but it seems to me > > that it qualifies as an 'electronic camera' in that > > all but X and B shutter speeds are battery dependent. > > I won't knock the MV, but I've had too many thru here > > that just didn't stand up very well under heavy use. > > The ME and MES just seem 'tougher' in their construction. > > The ME even had metal top and bottom covers. > > I did notice that the MV-1 seems to have several stronger > > components, presumably to make it suitable to take a > > power winder, which the MV won't. > > > > Don > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Keith Whaley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 7:23 PM > >> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > >> Subject: Re: Pentax MV - Good or bad? > >> > >> > >> The MV is a "gadget?" Please! > >> I have an MV-1 and love it. > >> Almost as much as I do my very similar MGs! > >> It's indeed a simplified version of the beloved ME, all of which lead > >> to > >> the much vaunted MX! > >> Number one, you have to like mechanical cameras, or all bets are off. > >> However, if you are okay with mechanical cameras, the MG, the MV and > >> the > >> MV-1 are very capable of providing you with excellent shots! > >> > >> In this case, at least, "cheap" does not equal poorly designed or > >> constructed... > >> > >> keith whaley > >> > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> > >>> Quoting frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >>> > >>> > >>>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 10:09:16 +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Is an MV something an enthusiast wants to be using? > >> > >>>> It's about the cheapest way you can use a k-mount lens. > >>>> > >>>> As far as whether an enthusiast wants to be using it, well, it seems > >>>> to me that an enthusiast uses whatever the heck they want to. If > >>>> one > >>>> is insecure about "what to use", well, photography is the wrong > >>>> thing > >>>> to be in. > >> > >>> Steve, Frank, Don, > >>> > >>> I ask because one comes attached to a 28/3.5 M lens I'm interested > >>> in. > >>> The body alone is $149, the lens alone is $149, the pair is > >> $179 ($Aust). > >>> > >>> I wondered if the body would have any resale value, or if it just a > >>> happy snap type of camera or perhaps had a history of problems, etc. > >>> > >>> I can see it is a fairly simple auto only gadget. > >>> > >>> Thanks :-) > >> > > >
