Re: More help from LX Illuminati
On 6 Nov 2002 at 22:21, William Robb wrote: The results of my test are quite interesting, as they confirm your findings, but do not limit the problem to the new shutter style. In fact my two old style shuttered cameras were both the best and the worst. What I did find fascinating is the results when the mirror was locked. I think this indicates the problem may have something to do with the mirror, more so than the shutter. Mine are all over the place too, I had more problems with my older body. I can't say that I recall having such experiences in the field. However I'm normally not at ISO3200/f22/1sec in a dim room and I normally have film loaded. I'll have to load up with some dodgy film and test again in a real scenario. I was a little surprised though I must say. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: More help from LX Illuminati
On 7 Nov 2002 at 1:47, Anton Browne wrote: Thank you for your replies and responses. I shoot singers in low light situations (web site to come) I use 3200 ISO film with 50mm 1.2, 85mm 1.4 135mm 1.8 lenses wide open, a monopod is employed. Shutter speeds are 1/15 to 1/60. Using a slower film results in movement blur (believe me, blurred mouths are not attractive). I use exactly the same kit less the monopod plus an FA24f2 and sometimes LTD31/1.8 when I am out shooting bands however I seem to be able to get away with 800ISO film in most instances, how dark are the venues that you shoot in? I only really use film at EI3200 in the dark. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: More help from LX Illuminati
On 7 Nov 2002 at 16:58, William Robb wrote: I do wonder if it isn't some sort of noise (for lack of a better word) caused by the mirror movement. Something like a very small static charge could, I suppose, cause the timing circuit (which goes through the iso resistor) to goof the exposures. Something like this would affect the camera more when the meter is set to it's most sensitive setting. Did anyone else run this test with the mirror locked? And if so, was the camera more repeatable? It does sound like a very reasonable explanation, the areas that could be affected are the ISO resistor array and the aperture position resistor array. The system is analogue and at the settings at which the problem occurs it is at the extremes. The LX metering system is wholly undamped so that it can respond near instantaneously to electronic flash so any very short duration discontinuity could potentially throw the metering out of spec. Also the original design only accommodated ISO1600 films at the fastest, I believe the retro-fit to my old one was simply the addition of a new ISO dial with a longer resistor array, no other circuit components were changed. I will test mine with the mirror up and report the results when I find some spare time. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re[2]: More help from LX Illuminati
Fellow LX Users, I was somewhat disgusted to find that both of mine (one new style, one old) both exhibit the same erratic behavior. I use the word disgusted because I have, very recently, had both of them CLA'd by Pentax USA (for a combined cost of $410). Has anyone been keeping score or noting any trends? Have the older LXs shown less of a propensity for erratic shutters? I wish I had been keeping a tally. Best, Lance PS: Anyone have an MD motor drive (for the K2DMD) that they would be willing to sell? Please contact me off-list. - Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 12:12:08 -0600 From: Ryan K. Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: More help from LX Illuminati Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ditto here- checked it last night. I had run into this before, while shooting Delta, but thought my camera was unique. So where do we go to get the new firmware? (tongue in cheek), R Jose R. Rodriguez wrote: Wow! Same thing with my recently CLA'd LX (old style shutter). I would have never found this out; I only shoot @ 800 ISO or slower... On mine, the incorrect shutter appears to be approximately 1/30 sec. instead of 2 seconds. Regards, Jose R. Rodriguez --
Re[3]: More help from LX Illuminati
Lance, This doesn't appear to be a problem with repair or service. It seems to be a design flaw in the LX. I'm not sure if it is fixable. Bruce Thursday, November 7, 2002, 3:23:02 PM, you wrote: LO Fellow LX Users, LO I was somewhat disgusted to find that both of mine (one new style, one old) LO both exhibit the same erratic behavior. I use the word disgusted because I LO have, very recently, had both of them CLA'd by Pentax USA (for a combined LO cost of $410). LO Has anyone been keeping score or noting any trends? Have the older LXs LO shown less of a propensity for erratic shutters? I wish I had been keeping LO a tally. LO Best, LO Lance LO PS: Anyone have an MD motor drive (for the K2DMD) that they would be LO willing to sell? Please contact me off-list. LO LO - Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 12:12:08 -0600 From: Ryan K. Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: More help from LX Illuminati Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ditto here- checked it last night. I had run into this before, while shooting Delta, but thought my camera was unique. So where do we go to get the new firmware? (tongue in cheek), R Jose R. Rodriguez wrote: Wow! Same thing with my recently CLA'd LX (old style shutter). I would have never found this out; I only shoot @ 800 ISO or slower... On mine, LO the incorrect shutter appears to be approximately 1/30 sec. instead of 2 seconds. Regards, Jose R. Rodriguez --
Re: Re[2]: More help from LX Illuminati
On 7 Nov 2002 at 18:23, Lance Overholt wrote: Has anyone been keeping score or noting any trends? Have the older LXs shown less of a propensity for erratic shutters? I wish I had been keeping a tally. Hi Lance, I'm sure that they'll respond this way brand new straight out of the box and in any case I can't see when this would be a problem since there is little advantage in using 3200ISO film if the shutter speeds are longer than what could be hand held. As I mentioned I've never encountered the problem in practice and I shoot ISO3200 film pretty regularly. I don't mean to excuse it it's just that it would rarely create a problem in real situations. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: Re[2]: More help from LX Illuminati
- Original Message - From: Lance Overholt Subject: Re[2]: More help from LX Illuminati Fellow LX Users, I was somewhat disgusted to find that both of mine (one new style, one old) both exhibit the same erratic behavior. I use the word disgusted because I have, very recently, had both of them CLA'd by Pentax USA (for a combined cost of $410). Has anyone been keeping score or noting any trends? Have the older LXs shown less of a propensity for erratic shutters? I wish I had been keeping a tally. I really don't think this is a shutter problem. I am inclined to think it is an unfortunate function of the design of the TTL system which allows it to react so well to rapidly changing light conditions. I think the term is tanstaafl or some such. I am certainly not disgusted by the fact that the camera isn't quite right beyond the extreme end of it's original design parameter. William Robb
More help from LX Illuminati
Thank you for your replies and responses. I shoot singers in low light situations (web site to come) I use 3200 ISO film with 50mm 1.2, 85mm 1.4 135mm 1.8 lenses wide open, a monopod is employed. Shutter speeds are 1/15 to 1/60. Using a slower film results in movement blur (believe me, blurred mouths are not attractive). The concentration for focusing alone is enough to make me sweat, the 135 wide open has minuscule depth of focus and of course the singers are swaying back and forth. Slower film is out of the question, a tripod is no use because movement blur excludes slower shutter speeds and I dont think Pentax or anyone else makes f0.1 lenses!!! The 3200 setting it is then. Robin of Harrow Technical has done a fine job of CLA-ing my 6X7, K100, KX MX, I sent him the troublesome LX for a CLA and pointed out the erratic shutter on Auto at 3200. The camera was returned serviced but the erratic shutter persisted. I sent it back and Robin ended up keeping it for several months. He cleaned and then replaced the ISO circuit board, he then replaced the CPU and board twice. He cleaned and adjusted the timing switches, etc. etc. in short he exhausted all possibilities. Robin considered it a matter of professional pride and persuaded me to let him keep the camera a while longer, this was so he could take it to a colleague. Alas, eventually he admitted defeat and returned the camera still faulty. It was then that I decided to send it to Pentax UK. Pentax UK inspected the camera and said they could fix and CLA for £104. This was cheaper that buying another so I said go-ahead. The camera was returned (CLAd again!) but hey! The shutter was still erratic, back it went to Pentax UK, back it came to me but hey! The shutter was still erratic. I phoned the Technical Supervisor who said there is nothing wrong with the camera he then sent a letter to this effect. Pentax UK may not consider an exposure of 1/500th when it should be 1 sec to be wrong but I do. Whilst this was going on I purchased a supposedly mint- LX from a mail order shop, it had the newer shutter. I tested the camera and can you believe it displayed the same problem. I sent it back for refund. In the meantime Robin told me he had two LXs in for sale, one with the first shutter and one with the second. I asked him to test them and lo and behold the LX with the second shutter displayed erratic timing on 3200. The LX with the first shutter did not. (my other LX with first shutter does not either) I thank you for your responses but none of you has actually run the test. I know its a pain but it only takes five minutes. At present my feeling is that all second shutter LXs will display this fault at 3200 ISO. Have I just had a run of bad luck or can you confirm this? If you run the test I can put it to rest. Are you up for it? Thank you Anton Browne ___ Freeserve AnyTime, only £13.99 per month with one month's FREE trial! For more information visit http://www.freeserve.com/time/ or call free on 0800 970 8890
Re: More help from LX Illuminati
..and pointed out the erratic shutter on Auto at 3200. At present my feeling is that all second shutter LXs will display this fault at 3200 ISO. Have I just had a run of bad luck or can you confirm this? If you run the test I can put it to rest. Are you up for it? Thank you Anton Browne Just tried this on two LX's with old style shutter curtain. Same problem at 3200 ISO as your camera. Erratic timing once every four to ten shutter releases. Absolutely no erratic behavior at 800 ISO. Mark Rofini
RE: More help from LX Illuminati
Wow! Same thing with my recently CLA'd LX (old style shutter). I would have never found this out; I only shoot @ 800 ISO or slower... On mine, the incorrect shutter appears to be approximately 1/30 sec. instead of 2 seconds. Regards, Jose R. Rodriguez -Original Message- From: Rofini [mailto:mrofini;sprynet.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 8:19 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: More help from LX Illuminati ..and pointed out the erratic shutter on Auto at 3200. At present my feeling is that all second shutter LXs will display this fault at 3200 ISO. Have I just had a run of bad luck or can you confirm this? If you run the test I can put it to rest. Are you up for it? Thank you Anton Browne Just tried this on two LX's with old style shutter curtain. Same problem at 3200 ISO as your camera. Erratic timing once every four to ten shutter releases. Absolutely no erratic behavior at 800 ISO. Mark Rofini
Re: More help from LX Illuminati
At present my feeling is that all second shutter LXs will display this fault at 3200 ISO. Have I just had a run of bad luck or can you confirm this? If you run the test I can put it to rest. Are you up for it? Well, can't disprove it by me. I ran your test with my LX and it does indeed exhibit this annoying irregularity in shutter speeds at 3200 (also at the next notch down, I might add.) My LX has the later shutter (per your description). Hope this helps. It was certainly an interesting piece of information for me to get. ERNR
Re: More help from LX Illuminati
- Original Message - From: Anton Browne Subject: More help from LX Illuminati I thank you for your responses but none of you has actually run the test. I know it's a pain but it only takes five minutes. At present my feeling is that all second shutter LX's will display this fault at 3200 ISO. Have I just had a run of bad luck or can you confirm this? If you run the test I can put it to rest. Are you up for it? It took somewhat longer than 5 minutes. The results of my test on this subject are more easily viewed as a web page. Please see: http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/LX_test.html All three of my LX's have been recently serviced, all have come back from the shop within the last 6 weeks. All three had their ISO resistors replaced with new ones, so should not have any possibility of corrosion, and little possibility of dirt. The results of my test are quite interesting, as they confirm your findings, but do not limit the problem to the new shutter style. In fact my two old style shuttered cameras were both the best and the worst. What I did find fascinating is the results when the mirror was locked. I think this indicates the problem may have something to do with the mirror, more so than the shutter. William Robb
Re: More help from LX Illuminati
Those times were measured with a stopwatch, nit a shutter tester, so there is some human error in the measurements. William Robb
