Re: A butchered (AKA "modern") LX
Geez, Jody, get a life! Crawl out of your cave and look around. It's a brave new world. Bruce Dayton Sacramento, CA - Original Message - From: "Jody" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 7:58 AM Subject: Re: A butchered (AKA "modern") LX > You don't want an LX. Why not try a Minolta or Canon? > I'm sure they would have something more in line with > your way of thinking. Is the MZ-S good enough for you, > or do you want to butcher that too? > > I'm sorry, but: > LX+AF+Spotmeter=I don't know, but it certainly > wouldn't be an LX. They are well known as an MF > camera. > And once they start putting AF on cameras, the > manufacturers suddenly think, hey what do we need > interchangeable focussing screens for? We can just put > a plain screen on, nobody will want to manual focus, > our AF is so responsive and accurate. And then: who > uses DOF preview or MLU anymore? They are so last > century. And then, suddenly, you don't have an LX > anymore, you have just an ornery (sic) AF camera. You > might as well get a Minolta or a Canon. > > Jody. > > --- Pel_Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Bruce wrote: > > > > >You mentioned you would like a modern LX. What > > > does that mean? AF, spot meter? Please describe. > > > > > > It means AF and spot metering for sure. Otherwise it > > means keeping as much of essence of the LX as > > posible. What this really means in reality is > > something I would know when I see it. The fact > > remains that camera engineers is better than most of > > us of seeing deep into a camera. They may come up > > with brilliant things we now have no concept of or > > didn't think of. > Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger > - > 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 . - 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 .
Re: A butchered (AKA "modern") LX
Jody, This reminds me of the discussions around putting lights in @ Wrigley Field. (That's BASEBALL for you fereigners.) But it's still Wrigley. (And the Cubs are still the Cubs.) Collin >From: Jody <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >or do you want to butcher that too? > > >I'm sorry, but: >LX+AF+Spotmeter=I don't know, but it certainly >wouldn't be an LX. They are well known as an MF >camera. >And then: who uses DOF preview or MLU anymore? >They are so last >century. And then, suddenly, you don't have an LX >anymore, you have just an ornery (sic) AF camera. >You might as well get a Minolta or >a Canon. >Jody. - 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 .
Re: A butchered (AKA "modern") LX
I want a small, black camera with the following characteristics: Metal frame, top, and bottom. Interchangable viewfinder system. CW IDM metering, Spot metering (Matrix would be nice Shutter speed: minutes to 1/2000 sec min, plus B DOF preview Mirror lock up Modes: Aperture Priority, Shutter priority Separate, detachable motor drive, AF drive. ISO 16-6400 Auto bracketing, 1/3 stops (with motor drive attached) This is not a Minolta or Canon. This sounds like an LX with spot metering and optional AF to me. I harbor no illusions that it will ever exist. Regards, Bob... - Original Message - From: "Jody" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 7:58 AM Subject: Re: A butchered (AKA "modern") LX > You don't want an LX. Why not try a Minolta or Canon? > I'm sure they would have something more in line with > your way of thinking. Is the MZ-S good enough for you, > or do you want to butcher that too? > > I'm sorry, but: > LX+AF+Spotmeter=I don't know, but it certainly > wouldn't be an LX. They are well known as an MF > camera. > And once they start putting AF on cameras, the > manufacturers suddenly think, hey what do we need > interchangeable focussing screens for? We can just put > a plain screen on, nobody will want to manual focus, > our AF is so responsive and accurate. And then: who > uses DOF preview or MLU anymore? They are so last > century. And then, suddenly, you don't have an LX > anymore, you have just an ornery (sic) AF camera. You > might as well get a Minolta or a Canon. > > Jody. > > --- Pel_Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Bruce wrote: > > > > >You mentioned you would like a modern LX. What > > > does that mean? AF, spot meter? Please describe. > > > > > > It means AF and spot metering for sure. Otherwise it > > means keeping as much of essence of the LX as > > posible. What this really means in reality is > > something I would know when I see it. The fact > > remains that camera engineers is better than most of > > us of seeing deep into a camera. They may come up > > with brilliant things we now have no concept of or > > didn't think of. > Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger > - > 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 . - 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 .
Re: A butchered (AKA "modern") LX
I confess I'm not familiar with an F5. Is it really true then that I can remove a winder and the autofocus drive and associated weight? (Gotta be able to drop down to a light weight here.) Is CW IDM metering really available? Tell me all about it! Regards, Bob... From: "Skofteland, Christian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > sounds like an F5... > > From: Bob Blakely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > I want a small, black camera with the following characteristics: > > Metal frame, top, and bottom. > Interchangable viewfinder system. > CW IDM metering, Spot metering (Matrix would be nice > Shutter speed: minutes to 1/2000 sec min, plus B > DOF preview > Mirror lock up > Modes: Aperture Priority, Shutter priority > Separate, detachable motor drive, AF drive. > ISO 16-6400 > Auto bracketing, 1/3 stops (with motor drive attached) > > This is not a Minolta or Canon. This sounds like an LX with spot metering > and optional AF to me. I harbor no illusions that it will ever exist. - 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 .
RE: A butchered (AKA "modern") LX
Hey, I was just suggesting that if you want a FULL featured SLR that does everything an LX does (interchangeable finders, focusing screens, etc.) with all the auto-focus, -auto-program, auto-film critiquing in a "modern" SLR then the F5 is the only autofocus SLR system that has those features. Sure you have a ten pound behemoth to lug around vs. a svelte (non-AF) LX but sometimes you have to make sacrifices... The LX has everything I need! Spot metering? I can use a hand-held meter or mount a long telephoto. AF? ha! I laugh in the face of AF! Shutter Priority? Give me one reason why? Matrix metering? Like I can't judge how I want a photo exposed... I'm not knocking all those wonderful auto-everything cameras. They are wonders of modern technology. They just don't have a use in my camera bag. Although the day I photographed a friend racing his car trap focus and predictive AF would have been nice! :-) DOH! Christian Skofteland -Original Message- From: Bob Blakely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 9:25 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: A butchered (AKA "modern") LX I confess I'm not familiar with an F5. Is it really true then that I can remove a winder and the autofocus drive and associated weight? (Gotta be able to drop down to a light weight here.) Is CW IDM metering really available? Tell me all about it! Regards, Bob... From: "Skofteland, Christian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > sounds like an F5... > > From: Bob Blakely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > I want a small, black camera with the following characteristics: > > Metal frame, top, and bottom. > Interchangable viewfinder system. > CW IDM metering, Spot metering (Matrix would be nice > Shutter speed: minutes to 1/2000 sec min, plus B > DOF preview > Mirror lock up > Modes: Aperture Priority, Shutter priority > Separate, detachable motor drive, AF drive. > ISO 16-6400 > Auto bracketing, 1/3 stops (with motor drive attached) > > This is not a Minolta or Canon. This sounds like an LX with spot metering > and optional AF to me. I harbor no illusions that it will ever exist. - 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 . - 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 .
Re: A butchered (AKA "modern") LX
Christian wrote: > The LX has everything I need! But thats not what its all about. The fact remains that the LX is out of production because not enough people were buying them anymore. The camera was past its selling date. And this is not due to some evil conspiration. The LX doesn't have what the market now expects in a fine camera. After all, the LX was sold for nearly 21 years so nobody has any right to complain; there has been plenty of time to aquire one and the use market is full of them. However, many of us (and apparently Pentax as well) think Pentax should take the LX philosophy to the next step so that its more in tune with contemporary tastes. Note that this is no threat to current LX owners who are happy with theirs; an updated LX wont magically transform current LX'es into modern AF marvels. How this should be done is of course debatable but enough characteristics of the LX needs to be preserved so that any follow-up can be recognized as related to the LX. Pel - 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 .
RE: A butchered (AKA "modern") LX
I'd like to see what Pentax comes up with. I won't rush out to buy it because I'm sure it will be very expensive. Also, with all those features it would have to be bigger than expected. I would think of it as comparing the F3 to the LX. Therefore the modern counterpart to the F3 being the F5 and the F5 is a monstrosity. Christian Skofteland -Original Message- From: Pel Jensen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 11:47 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: A butchered (AKA "modern") LX Christian wrote: > The LX has everything I need! But thats not what its all about. The fact remains that the LX is out of production because not enough people were buying them anymore. The camera was past its selling date. And this is not due to some evil conspiration. The LX doesn't have what the market now expects in a fine camera. After all, the LX was sold for nearly 21 years so nobody has any right to complain; there has been plenty of time to aquire one and the use market is full of them. However, many of us (and apparently Pentax as well) think Pentax should take the LX philosophy to the next step so that its more in tune with contemporary tastes. Note that this is no threat to current LX owners who are happy with theirs; an updated LX wont magically transform current LX'es into modern AF marvels. How this should be done is of course debatable but enough characteristics of the LX needs to be preserved so that any follow-up can be recognized as related to the LX. Pel - 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 . - 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 .
Re: A butchered (AKA "modern") LX
From: "Skofteland, Christian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > [skipped] > > Also, with all those features it would have to be bigger than expected. I > would think of it as comparing the F3 to the LX. Therefore the modern > counterpart to the F3 being the F5 and the F5 is a monstrosity. > I don't want a monstrosity either, Christian. That's why I still prefer the winder or motor drive to remain a separate package along with the motor, servo elect. and battery (same?) required for AF. This would leave me the light weight option. (I suppose the camera without the Battery and motor(s) attached would still be capable of focus confirmation and snap in focus running off the little button batteries.) This is not the way the world of today is though. These days, if you get it, it's inseparably packaged. Pretty soon, a full featured 35mm camera with normal lens will weigh as much as a 67II with lens. Regards, Bob... - 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 .
Re: A butchered (AKA "modern") LX
Short answer no. There is no need for for a long answer. At 06:25 AM 9/4/2001 -0700, you wrote: >I confess I'm not familiar with an F5. Is it really true then that I can >remove a winder and the autofocus drive and associated weight? (Gotta be >able to drop down to a light weight here.) Is CW IDM metering really >available? Tell me all about it! > >Regards, >Bob... > >From: "Skofteland, Christian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > sounds like an F5... > > > > From: Bob Blakely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > I want a small, black camera with the following characteristics: > > > > Metal frame, top, and bottom. > > Interchangable viewfinder system. > > CW IDM metering, Spot metering (Matrix would be nice > > Shutter speed: minutes to 1/2000 sec min, plus B > > DOF preview > > Mirror lock up > > Modes: Aperture Priority, Shutter priority > > Separate, detachable motor drive, AF drive. > > ISO 16-6400 > > Auto bracketing, 1/3 stops (with motor drive attached) > > > > This is not a Minolta or Canon. This sounds like an LX with spot metering > > and optional AF to me. I harbor no illusions that it will ever exist. >- >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 . - 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 .
Re: A butchered (AKA "modern") LX
A scroll of mail from "Skofteland, Christian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Tue, 4 Sep 2001 09:10:32 -0400 Read it? y >oops! I neglected the "small" requirement... Also neglected the IDM requirement. An F5 is a fine camera, but it's comparable to a 6x7 in terms or bulk. Great meter (meters in color!) (3d metering, like a Z-1p) and motor, superb build quality and it feels great in your hand: like a high quality laser rifle. Their second hand prices haven't dropped much from new. I know at least one pro who bought it for the build quality and I don't want one, though. I want a Z-1p with IDM and better AF. Pentax could easily make an F5 killer from the Z-1p if they gave up on small size. Just upgrade the AF and the fps, and add the interval timer back. dave - 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 .
Re: A butchered (AKA "modern") LX
David wrote: > Dave O'Brien writes: > > > Pentax could easily make an F5 killer from the Z-1p if they gave up on > > small size. Just upgrade the AF and the fps, and add the interval > > timer back. > > I'm not sure that Pentax would want to go down that path. BTW that body > would have to be an absolute dream-camera to pull people off the F5. I doubt it. People who want an F5 will buy one if for nothing else but for the Nikon name. Pentax should stick to making pentaxes. A case in point is Canon who for about 20 years tried to make Nikon F series copies; they even copied the name calling theirs F1. Canon didn't really get of the ground in this price segment until they ignored what Nikon did and started making Canon's. Hence, whatever Pentax do in the upper classes they should make Pentaxes. > My ideal camera would see a return to separating the motordrive from the > body. There are times when small and quiet are paramount. They should but is it realistic? I can see only one possible reason these day for removing motor drive from the camera body. That is if they decide to keep the mechanical shutter. It then makes sense. It also means that all power hungry parts must be detached from the camera, pretty much like Bob and others have suggested. This means that the basic camera body can work with modest battery resources. However, getting full AF and motor drive will make the camera big and heavy but not more so than the F5. Todays trend is including everything in the body and the idea is to turn off the features you don't want. It may bring value for money but do nothing for reducing complexity or for reducing size and weight. When a high end AF 35mm slr weight more than an AF medium format slr with built in motor drive it stops making sense. At least, such 35mm photography is then only about convenience not portability. The problem is that a highly modular slr could be very expensive. For one thing, Pentax have said that the LX sucessor won't maintain interchangeable viewfinders (That was five years ago - they might have changed their priorities). This most likely due to conflict with metering. I'm convinced that Pentax choose OTF metering in the LX in order to make it easy and affordable to use interchangeable viewfinders without affecting metering. Pål - 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 .
Re: A butchered (AKA "modern") LX
- Original Message - From: "David A. Mann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (snip) > My ideal camera would see a return to separating the motordrive from the > body. There are times when small and quiet are paramount. (snip) Economics is the cold hard reason for getting rid of the thumb-lever from the film advance system. Not just the lever itself but the gearing that went with it. And don't forget that the camera plus motor would then need to bear the expense of a camera bottom plate and a motor top plate that an integrated camera/motor doesn't need, plus the coupling mechanism and electrical contacts that would be simple straight-through wiring on a camera/motor unit. Plus the lever area would be another dust entry point that has been eliminated on the combined unit. All future cameras need is a slow, silent winding mode (can't be too hard if Canon can do it) and non auto rewind (I noticed recently that Nikon F4s retained a manual rewind crank, don't know if it continued on the F5). When a camera tries to be everything to everybody we get dinosaurs like the Nikon F5 and Canon EOS1V. If you want a small and quiet camera why not get a rangefinder, there are several good system rangefinders to choose from. The argument that they are unsuited to longer than 135mm lenses is a crock because if you need more than that then quietness is not such a big issue (OK maybe in a theatre but if you're that far back amongst the audience then you're obviously not an accredited photographer so should you really be taking photographs?). Regards, Anthony Farr - 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 .
Re: A butchered (AKA "modern") LX
Double YES Not to mention going light. The future does not look good for the film advance lever. It seems like good business sense to make a modular camera, you get sucked in by the body, then you want the winder/motordrive. I imagine the MZ-s would be quite a bit smaller if you could detach the winder. Maybe Pentax will surprise us since their philosophy has always been "small is good". Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California - Original Message - From: "Bob Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 1:42 PM Subject: Re: A butchered (AKA "modern") LX > Yes! > > From: "David A. Mann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > My ideal camera would see a return to separating the motordrive from the > > body. There are times when small and quiet are paramount. - 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 .
Re: A butchered (AKA "modern") LX
A scroll of mail from "Anthony Farr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Fri, 7 Sep 2001 17:30:21 +1000 Read it? y >All future cameras need is a slow, silent winding mode (can't be too >hard if Canon can do it) and non auto rewind (I noticed recently that >Nikon F4s retained a manual rewind crank, don't know if it continued on >the F5). I seem to recall my friend with the F5 pointing out the manual rewind feature on it. It's easy to knock it as being huge and heavy, which it is, but it's still a damn fine camera. dave - 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 .
Re: A butchered (AKA "modern") LX
A scroll of mail from "David A. Mann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Fri, 7 Sep 2001 08:20:02 +1200 Read it? y >Dave O'Brien writes: > >> Pentax could easily make an F5 killer from the Z-1p if they gave up on >> small size. Just upgrade the AF and the fps, and add the interval >> timer back. > > I'm not sure that Pentax would want to go down that path. BTW that body >would have to be an absolute dream-camera to pull people off the F5. I guess >they could cut development costs by using the 67II chassis. No, I don't think they would either. My point was that it wouldn't have taken much extra in the way of features to make a 35mm SLR which would rule the roost, but they'd have to give up some of the Pentax philosophy to do so. It probably would have been a little bigger than a Z-1p with grip strap. just look at the size of the N90 with winder versus the Z-1, two cameras similarly featured. And no, of course the Nikon/Canon crowd wouldn't have touched it purely because of the name. And the Pentax crowd would decry it as too big. dave - 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 .
Re: A butchered (AKA "modern") LX
You're probably right so far as what will be available from now on, nevertheless... From: "Anthony Farr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > From: "David A. Mann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > (snip) > > My ideal camera would see a return to separating the motordrive from > the > > body. There are times when small and quiet are paramount. > (snip) > > Economics is the cold hard reason for getting rid of the thumb-lever > from the film advance system. Not just the lever itself but the gearing > that went with it. And don't forget that the camera plus motor would > then need to bear the expense of a camera bottom plate and a motor top > plate that an integrated camera/motor doesn't need, plus the coupling > mechanism and electrical contacts that would be simple straight-through > wiring on a camera/motor unit. These are all good points so far as making the camera cheaper. I am willing to pay the extra necessary to obtain what I want. > Plus the lever area would be another > dust entry point that has been eliminated on the combined unit. Dust via this entry was never a significant problem. > All future cameras need is a slow, silent winding mode (can't be too > hard if Canon can do it) and non auto rewind (I noticed recently that > Nikon F4s retained a manual rewind crank, don't know if it continued on > the F5). If it winds at any speed for any significant number of rolls, then it has battery weight & bulk that I don't want. > When a camera tries to be everything to everybody we get dinosaurs like > the Nikon F5 and Canon EOS1V. If you want a small and quiet camera why > not get a rangefinder, there are several good system rangefinders to > choose from. I don't like rangefinders. Not best suited for macro work. Won't take large lenses. > The argument that they are unsuited to longer than 135mm > lenses is a crock because if you need more than that then quietness is > not such a big issue (OK maybe in a theatre but if you're that far back > amongst the audience then you're obviously not an accredited > photographer so should you really be taking photographs?). I don't care much about quietness, though it is a plus. Everything following "crock" is a crock. Your solution is to have multiple camera systems for the same format - a rangefinder to be small, light and quiet and an SLR to be large, heavy and noisy. So... ah... you got a rangefinder that uses the same lenses as this SLR? I don't have much good to say about having to duplicate about six very expensive lenses. Got a system there you want to recommend? Does that rangefinder have an autofocus option? Oh, yeah. Haul out the SLR (and separate lenses) for this. Your points may be good market points. Nevertheless, I know what I want. Regards, Bob... - 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 .
Re: A butchered (AKA "modern") LX
Bob, You're usually one of my favourite correspondents to PDML, but this time you've gone off half-cocked. The inconsistency of your argument is a joke. On one hand you say, > I am willing > to pay the extra necessary to obtain what I want. But later you contradict yourself thus, > Your solution is to have multiple camera systems for the > same format - a rangefinder to be small, light and quiet and an SLR to be > large, heavy and noisy. So... ah... you got a rangefinder that uses the same > lenses as this SLR? I don't have much good to say about having to duplicate > about six very expensive lenses. So not only do you actually begrudge spending more money to get the tools most suited to each specific task (although at first you talked like Daddy Warbucks ready to spend any amount to get exactly what you wanted), but your arguing point is the crock you accused mine of being. I never wrote that it was the purpose of an SLR to be "large, heavy and noisy". Only that it was the forte of 35mm rangefinder cameras to be small and quiet. One set of attributes ~does not~ force the alternative design of camera to possess diametrically opposite attributes. The Olympus OM-series is proof enough of that. No Pentax was ever so quiet :( > I don't have much good to say about having to duplicate > about six very expensive lenses. What would be the point of having a duplicated kit of lenses for both camera types, if you did in fact have both? Obviously if photomacrography was one of your tasks/interests you would only get macro lenses for your SLR. There would be no point to having a macro set-up for a rangefinder system if you had the option of an SLR system to hang it on. If you had a need for super-telephoto lenses you would only want them for your SLR system. Your choice for the wide to ultrawide range would have pluses and minuses with either system. Rangefinders as a rule have better wide lenses because their designs are not compromised by deep camera bodies, but I realise that some photographers feel a need to preview wide/ultrawide shots through the lens to avoid any nasty flare surprises. So some hard choices to be made there and perhaps one or two focal length duplications. But the fast-standard to short telephoto choice is a no-contest if it's for quiet and inconspicuous photography. Get the rangefinder lens. This is firmly in the realm of stealth photography, whether it's to avoid the edge of Greg Norman's tongue after you've upset his ten foot putt for the championship on the last hole of the last day of a tournament, to avoid a hissy-fit from surrounding theatre patrons who've paid to hear Kenneth Branagh's dulcet tones and not instant-return mirror, or to avoid being worked over by the dope-dealer you've just immortalised in gelatin and silver. Noise no problem? Then what's your point? Don't get a rangefinder and butt out of a exchange of views about "times when small and quiet are paramount". > I don't like rangefinders. Not best suited for macro work. Won't take large > lenses Did I tell anyone to ditch SLRs for rangefinders? Use the SLR where it's best, why wouldn't you? Once again you misrepresented my argument to score some cheap little point where in fact you had none. Everything else you wrote is deliberately provocative, self-aggrandising tripe. You know the answers to the mock-naive questions you posed. But for the record: * I believe Leicas can take SLR lenses with an appropriate adapter (scale focussing only) so by default Konica Hexars and the latest Cosina-Voigtlandter can too. Leica screw thread can be adapted to anything with a longer back focus so that includes the first two Cosina-Voigtlandters and countless ex-USSR knockoffs of Leicas. * No brand recommendations from me as I've no experience of ownership to base opinions on; * Not AFAIK. > Your points may be good market points. Nevertheless, I know what I want. > > Regards, > Bob... And I know what you ~won't~ get, and that's a manually wound new Pentax 35mm SLR. The mechanical age is finished. Get over it. Regards, Anthony Farr (who has no rangefinders or AF SLRs but ~can~ read the writing on the wall) - 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 .
Re: A butchered (AKA "modern") LX
Fine. Right. I'm a real idiot with inconsistent arguments and desires. You win the intellectual discussion. I still want what I want. It's still exactly what I described. From: "Anthony Farr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Bob, > You're usually one of my favourite correspondents to PDML, but this time > you've gone off half-cocked. The inconsistency of your argument is a > joke. > > On one hand you say, > > > I am willing > > to pay the extra necessary to obtain what I want. > > But later you contradict yourself thus, > > > Your solution is to have multiple camera systems for the > > same format - a rangefinder to be small, light and quiet and an SLR to > be > > large, heavy and noisy. So... ah... you got a rangefinder that uses > the same > > lenses as this SLR? I don't have much good to say about having to > duplicate > > about six very expensive lenses. > > So not only do you actually begrudge spending more money to get the > tools most suited to each specific task (although at first you talked > like Daddy Warbucks ready to spend any amount to get exactly what you > wanted), but your arguing point is the crock you accused mine of being. > > I never wrote that it was the purpose of an SLR to be "large, heavy and > noisy". Only that it was the forte of 35mm rangefinder cameras to be > small and quiet. One set of attributes ~does not~ force the alternative > design of camera to possess diametrically opposite attributes. The > Olympus OM-series is proof enough of that. No Pentax was ever so quiet > :( > > > I don't have much good to say about having to duplicate > > about six very expensive lenses. > > What would be the point of having a duplicated kit of lenses for both > camera types, if you did in fact have both? Obviously if > photomacrography was one of your tasks/interests you would only get > macro lenses for your SLR. There would be no point to having a macro > set-up for a rangefinder system if you had the option of an SLR system > to hang it on. If you had a need for super-telephoto lenses you would > only want them for your SLR system. Your choice for the wide to > ultrawide range would have pluses and minuses with either system. > Rangefinders as a rule have better wide lenses because their designs are > not compromised by deep camera bodies, but I realise that some > photographers feel a need to preview wide/ultrawide shots through the > lens to avoid any nasty flare surprises. So some hard choices to be made > there and perhaps one or two focal length duplications. > > But the fast-standard to short telephoto choice is a no-contest if it's > for quiet and inconspicuous photography. Get the rangefinder lens. This > is firmly in the realm of stealth photography, whether it's to avoid the > edge of Greg Norman's tongue after you've upset his ten foot putt for > the championship on the last hole of the last day of a tournament, to > avoid a hissy-fit from surrounding theatre patrons who've paid to hear > Kenneth Branagh's dulcet tones and not instant-return mirror, or to > avoid being worked over by the dope-dealer you've just immortalised in > gelatin and silver. > > Noise no problem? Then what's your point? Don't get a rangefinder and > butt out of a exchange of views about "times when small and quiet are > paramount". > > > I don't like rangefinders. Not best suited for macro work. Won't take > large > > lenses > > Did I tell anyone to ditch SLRs for rangefinders? Use the SLR where it's > best, why wouldn't you? Once again you misrepresented my argument to > score some cheap little point where in fact you had none. Everything > else you wrote is deliberately provocative, self-aggrandising tripe. You > know the answers to the mock-naive questions you posed. But for the > record: > > * I believe Leicas can take SLR lenses with an appropriate adapter > (scale focussing only) so by default Konica Hexars and the latest > Cosina-Voigtlandter can too. Leica screw thread can be adapted to > anything with a longer back focus so that includes the first two > Cosina-Voigtlandters and countless ex-USSR knockoffs of Leicas. > > * No brand recommendations from me as I've no experience of ownership to > base opinions on; > > * Not AFAIK. > > > Your points may be good market points. Nevertheless, I know what I > want. > > > > Regards, > > Bob... > > And I know what you ~won't~ get, and that's a manually wound new Pentax > 35mm SLR. The mechanical age is finished. Get over it. > > Regards, > Anthony Farr (who has no rangefinders or AF SLRs but ~can~ read the > writing on the wall) - 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 .
Re: A butchered (AKA "modern") LX
Bob, I don't believe that any idiot chooses to own a Pentax. Your desires can be as inconsistent as you like (but to me an inconsistent argument is like a red rag to a bull). If only Bill Gates or the Sultan of Brunei could be infected with the desire for an all manual Pentax then there would be many happy Pentaxians :) BTW my dream Pentax has no meter, interchangeable finders and screens, a manually raised and lowered mirror (slow tripod work a top priority, you see), the simplest shutter there is, and I don't care what type of film advance, I'd even settle for a big knurled knob to wind with. I'm not holding my breath. Regards, Anthony Farr - Original Message - From: "Bob Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Fine. > > Right. > > I'm a real idiot with inconsistent arguments and desires. > > You win the intellectual discussion. > > I still want what I want. > > It's still exactly what I described. - 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 .
Re: A butchered (AKA "modern") LX
A scroll of mail from "Anthony Farr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Sun, 9 Sep 2001 19:10:52 +1000 Read it? y >BTW my dream Pentax has no meter, interchangeable finders and screens, a >manually raised and lowered mirror (slow tripod work a top priority, you >see), the simplest shutter there is, and I don't care what type of film >advance, I'd even settle for a big knurled knob to wind with. I'm not >holding my breath. Sounds like an old 6x7. dave - 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 .
