I tend to make long exposures in RAW and sort in out in Photoshop. How does the LX cope with reciprocity failure? I've often wondered whether there is a digital sensor equivalent
Peter On 11/9/05, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The LX is an amazingly good camera for low light work. I've made perfect > exposures in a room that was completely dark but for a flickering TV > screen, the light from which was constantly changing. The LX, with the > shutter open, just kept measuring the light until the proper exposure was > made, times varied between around twenty to forty seconds. That evening I > got 36 perfectly exposed shots. Portraits by TV light ... y'gotta love it! > Add the new, brighter focusing screens and a fast lens, and you've got a > real low-light shooter. The nice thing with the LX is that if the light > changes during exposure, the metering system adjust while the exposure is > being made. > > Although I prefer the MX for daily shooting, it doesn't hold a candle to > the LX in low light situations. > > Shel > "You meet the nicest people with a Pentax" > > > > [Original Message] > > From: Godfrey DiGiorgi < > > > Hmm. Honestly, I'd go for an MX over an LX but then I always > > preferred the Nikon FM/FE over the F2-3 as well (except for the hp > > viewfinder). In truly low light, I never bother with the meter ... I > > use a Kodak Pocket Photo Guide with its table of available light > > exposure suggestions. :-) > > > > On Nov 8, 2005, at 7:31 PM, Adam Maas wrote: > > > > > Couple of Reasons. The LX meters down to EV-6.5 (I shoot a lot of > > > low-light stuff), offers aperture priority, a winder (I've been > > > spoiled by my AF Nikons), solid build and TTL flash. It's also > > > likely to still work in 5 years. > > >
