Re: Dumb designs (Was Re: Pentax flashes / changing platforms)
Yes it's pure manual focus. At 04:42 PM 9/15/2002 -0400, you wrote: Yes, you are correct there. My problem is my city sucks for carrying much. Sure I'll find 2 or 3 MZ bodies, but not all at the same store, at the one I go to, they had the MZ-S, an MZ-30 and another I don't remembertherefore, no choice, and perhaps never having a chance to take a closer look at the MZ-M. I'm torn between a second body and a new lens. I'm considering the new 24-90 and the 20-35 f/4 wide zoom. Am I correct in that the MZ-M doesn't even have AF and is only for those that want to manual focus? Bah, maybe I'll go buy a P4 2.x ghz :) Brad Dobo - Original Message - From: Peter Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2002 3:10 PM Subject: Re: Dumb designs (Was Re: Pentax flashes / changing platforms) Before you decide not to get an MZ-M go out and look at one.
Re: Pentax flashes / changing platforms
Rac This gets back to my point: if I am ill-informed it's because the Pentax system is a morass of tech details. (Nikon is also a morass when it comes to compatibility of older lenses with Rac certain bodies, another reason why Canon EOS appeals to me, one system without the hassles of semi-backward compatibility.) You think so. But read a good EOS faq, and you will see that the compatibility isn't that good either. Like the accessories changing (remote releases, for example), flashes changing, etc. Rac If I'm going to spend more $ on a body, then a new EOS becomes Rac attractive when you figure in the prices of new EOS lenses as opposed to Pentax AF offerings (see my previous Rac post). Well, you haven't obviously priced the good EOS optics. e.g. primes. Pentax offers the cheapest 1.4/50, 2/35 and 2/24 lenses from ANY brand in autofocus, and these lenses are among the best of any. EOS L zooms are about as expensive as from Pentax, or even more. Their primes are quite more expensive, the EOS 1.8/50 costs about as much as a 1.4/50 from pentax IIRC. Rac Could someone explain to me all the differences between all Type A Rac and Type B flash units in 25 words or less? Ok, I will try :) T flashes have analog TTL. They work on ALL pentax bodies. FT flashes have digital TTL, they work only on AUTOFOCUS bodies, but offer advanced features like second curtain synch, program mode,... Enough? Rac Of course, I bought the ZX-M, the camera that was more or less a replacement from the K1000. But unlike my old K1000, I have to worry if my Made In Japan Vivitar 283 flash is going to fry the Rac electronics in my ZX-M. So much for backwards compatibility. What a nonsense! The same flash will fry your EOS, and you aren't complaining. NO PENTAX FLASH will ever fry your electronics. BUT VIVITAR ISN'T PENTAX, dammit! It's a different maker! It's like saying that Nikon is crap because when you stick a Pentax flash on it it doesn't work! Rac I find it interesting that a couple of people on this list act touchy when I mention that Pentax ain't perfect. As I said before, no platform is. I think that the EOS one *might* be better for Rac me than staying with Pentax. Sorry if I called your baby ugly when I stated my ill-informed opinion. It's not about opinion, that's of course yours to make. It's about ill-worded statements like the one above about Vivitar flash. Good light, Frantisek Vlcek
Re: Pentax flashes / changing platforms
Not quite - The Canon 50mm 1.8 standard lens is $150 CDN @ a number of retailers. The Pentax 50mm 1.7 standard lens is $270 CDN @ the same retailers. I too have been considering a switch so that's the reason for the price check on the items mentioned but I'm waiting it out till after Photokina :) Cheers, Dave Original Message: - From: Frantisek Vlcek [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 14:19:06 +0200 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax flashes / changing platforms snip Their (Canon) primes are quite more expensive, the EOS 1.8/50 costs about as much as a 1.4/50 from pentax IIRC. /snip mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .
Re: Pentax flashes / changing platforms
I think Chris's point here is that Pentax has so far created only two partially incompatible bodys intentionally. These body's by the way were intended for beginners who didn't have a previous investment in Pentax equipment. They are still way ahead of Canon and Minolta who abandoned their old lens mounts when they went auto focus, and Nikon who have more than a few incompatibilities in their line. So lets set the record straight you would rather buy into a system who's manufacturer has in the past said in effect F**k the users, they'll replace all their equipment when we say so, to one who at least tries to retain backward compatibility, and usually succeeds. I'm sure if Pentax created a new system with a new mount entirely from scratch it would be at least as consistent as the Canon EOS system, at least for a while. At 01:48 AM 9/12/2002 -0400, Ray wrote: Christopher Lillja on Wed, 11 Sep 2002 06:18:36 wrote: Full aperture metering simply means that the camera meters as it should, producing a correct exposure or reading without having to stop down. All current major SLRs work this way, including Canon. There are only a handful of K mount bodies (ie. ZX30, ZX60) that don't support all K mount lenses to the full extent of capabilities shared by both the camera and lens. I meant to say open-aperture. See the ZX-50 info from pentax.com below. I had stated: But is that any worse that a particular Pentax body that claims to be compatible with K mount lenses but only at full aperture metering or whatever it's called? Chris observed: This is one of the most ridiculous, ill-informed statements I've ever seen on this list. ThanX. I try my best. I admit I used the wrong term, full aperture metering, when I should've said open aperture metering -- whatever THAT is. I remember glancing at an instruction manual for one of the lower-priced Pentax bodies -- it might've been the ZX-50 -- and from what I could decipher from the semi-translated text it sounded as if the camera could only use a K mount lens set at its maximum aperture, such as f2 on my 50mm, for the Av setting. Please correct me if I'm wrong. This gets back to my point: if I am ill-informed it's because the Pentax system is a morass of tech details. (Nikon is also a morass when it comes to compatibility of older lenses with certain bodies, another reason why Canon EOS appeals to me, one system without the hassles of semi-backward compatibility.) Could someone explain to me all the differences between all Type A and Type B flash units in 25 words or less? Below I've pasted info from the Pentax Website on their lower-priced bodies, that handful that you mentioned. I don't think I'm ill-informed when I say that that Pentax has abandoned backwards compatibility with K mounts with its affordable AF models. If I'm going to spend more $ on a body, then a new EOS becomes attractive when you figure in the prices of new EOS lenses as opposed to Pentax AF offerings (see my previous post). ZX-50: Usable Lenses: Pentax FA, F, A, M and K lenses. (When the aperture ring is set at other than the A position, aperture-priority at open-aperture or unmetered manual are available.) ZX-60: Usable Lenses: Pentax KAF2- and KAF-mount lenses. ZX-30: Usable Lenses: Pentax KAF2, KAF and KA-mount lenses. When the aperture ring is set at other than the A position, shutter release is locked. Of course, I bought the ZX-M, the camera that was more or less a replacement from the K1000. But unlike my old K1000, I have to worry if my Made In Japan Vivitar 283 flash is going to fry the electronics in my ZX-M. So much for backwards compatibility. I find it interesting that a couple of people on this list act touchy when I mention that Pentax ain't perfect. As I said before, no platform is. I think that the EOS one *might* be better for me than staying with Pentax. Sorry if I called your baby ugly when I stated my ill-informed opinion. Ray
Re: Pentax flashes / changing platforms
Ray wrote: This gets back to my point: if I am ill-informed it's because the Pentax system is a morass of tech details. (Nikon is also a morass when it comes to compatibility of older lenses with certain bodies, another reason why Canon EOS appeals to me, one system without the hassles of semi-backward compatibility.) This is not a valid argument. Canon EOS is compatible. So is Pentax FA. Below I've pasted info from the Pentax Website on their lower-priced bodies, that handful that you mentioned. I don't think I'm ill-informed when I say that that Pentax has abandoned backwards compatibility with K mounts with its affordable AF models An so did Canon; on all bodies, not only the cheap ones. You cannot use older Canon FD lenses on EOS bodies. All Pentax cameras can use FA lenses like Canon with their EF lenses. Pål
Re: Pentax flashes / changing platforms
I'm an EX canon FD user I find Pentax's backward compatability the best of all the systems out there. You only showed us the 3 exceptions and they are the bottom of the barrel entry level cameras, Nikon and Canon both do the same with their low end cameras, why is Pentax being singled out as abandoning backwards compatability when they have strived so hard to keep it with only a few ( and expected ) exceptions. Ray wrote: Below I've pasted info from the Pentax Website on their lower-priced bodies, that handful that you mentioned. I don't think I'm ill-informed when I say that that Pentax has abandoned backwards compatibility with K mounts with its affordable AF models __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: Pentax flashes / changing platforms
Perhaps you should also compare prices of the 50/1.4 s before jumping to conclusions? There's a reason why the Canon 50/1.8II is cheaper plastic bayonet (would they really do that on a prime? - yes) As I said, ugly surprises You're going to wish you bought the 1.4 anyway Chris L. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/12/02 08:37AM Not quite - The Canon 50mm 1.8 standard lens is $150 CDN @ a number of retailers. The Pentax 50mm 1.7 standard lens is $270 CDN @ the same retailers. I too have been considering a switch so that's the reason for the price check on the items mentioned but I'm waiting it out till after Photokina :) Cheers, Dave Original Message: - From: Frantisek Vlcek [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 14:19:06 +0200 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax flashes / changing platforms snip Their (Canon) primes are quite more expensive, the EOS 1.8/50 costs about as much as a 1.4/50 from pentax IIRC. /snip mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .
Forwards and backwards (was Re: Pentax flashes / changing platforms)
The concept of forwards and backwards compatibility is only intelligible if everyone uses the terms in a similar manner. Backwards compatibility is generally understood to mean being able to use new accessories (lenses, flashes, etc.) on old cameras. Forwards compatibility is old accessories on new cameras. Then there is mechanical and electrical information interface compatibility. There can be good mechanical compatibility (mount the thing), but crummy functionality (flash will no longer work in TTL mode, lens supports limited metering, etc.) Pentax has good mechanical forward compatibility of lenses: screw to K (with adaptor), but poor backwards - K to screw. The flashes have good forwards compatibility, but poor backwards. Aperture coupling issues in newer cameras is the same can of worms that Nikon has (aside from G lenses which are much worse). Nikon lens mount, mechanical, backwards compatibility (one has to be very specific here) is perfect: the latest Nikon lens can be physically mounted (without damage) to their first SLR. Forwards and functional lens compatibility is much messier (but I do manage to use a single set of lenses, with full functionality, across MF and AF bodies). Nikon flash compatibility (both ways) is excellent: their latest TTL flash can be used on the first body that had TTL flash, retain TTL flash and visa versa. From: Christopher Lillja (and severely limited backwards compatibility in the Nikon system, and now forward compatibility, with the debut of the G series lenses, unuseable on MF bodies).
RE: Re[2]: Pentax flashes / changing platforms
Bruce, My comparison of prices was based on Frantisek Vlcek's original quote. I merely pointed out what was listed. I haven't got a clue wrt the build quality - if it was all plastic and the image was as sharp as a Zeiss lens - I'd go for the Pentax, regardless - so build quality is moot to this discussion. You'll recall that Frantisek Vlcek's statement was that the 50 f1.8 was the SAME cost as the Pentax f1.4 which of course just isn't true. Dave Original Message: - From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 07:21:48 -0700 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re[2]: Pentax flashes / changing platforms david, The price on the 50's is quite interesting - and should not be a good reference. Basically, the Canon and Nikon 1.8 versions are cheaper than the Pentax one. There is a simple reason - build quality. The Pentax one is built in the same manner as the 1.4 - that is to say, mechanically well built. The Canon and Nikon are both built very cheaply - much like a consumer zoom. The 1.4's from both of these companies are much, much better mechanically. The Pentax 1.4 is cheaper than the Canon and Nikon. You really should compare apples to apples. I am sure there are cases where there is a cheaper Pentax product where it is because of poorer quality that it is cheaper. Bruce Thursday, September 12, 2002, 5:37:18 AM, you wrote: dcsc Not quite - The Canon 50mm 1.8 standard lens is $150 CDN @ a number of dcsc retailers. The Pentax 50mm 1.7 standard lens is $270 CDN @ the same dcsc retailers. dcsc I too have been considering a switch so that's the reason for the price dcsc check on the items mentioned but I'm waiting it out till after Photokina :) dcsc Cheers, dcsc Dave dcsc Original Message: dcsc - dcsc From: Frantisek Vlcek [EMAIL PROTECTED] dcsc Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 14:19:06 +0200 dcsc To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] dcsc Subject: Re: Pentax flashes / changing platforms dcsc snip dcsc Their (Canon) primes are quite more expensive, the EOS 1.8/50 costs about dcsc as much as a 1.4/50 from pentax IIRC. dcsc /snip dcsc dcsc mail2web - Check your email from the web at dcsc http://mail2web.com/ . mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .
Re: Pentax flashes / changing platforms
Ray wrote: True. But I was talking about my plain K mount lenses. You cannot compare plain K lenses with Canon EF lenses. Plain K lenses are comparable to Canon FD lenses. Try to mount those FD on a EOS camera and I'll sure that you'll end up a lot more confused than trying to mount a K-mount lens on a Pentax AF camera! Pål
Re: Pentax flashes / changing platforms
Ray wrote: Someone made the argument that at least Pentax tried to keep its older lenses usable in its platform while Canon abandoned the FD mount. That's true. But there's is an advantage to an all-new lens mount and camera system: much more compatibility because you don't have to factor in older lenses and flashes. No. It's not more compatibility, but less compatibility. I cannot understand the argument that having great compatibility is worse than having less compatibility. If the compatibility is confusing, stay with AF lenses only, like with Canon - no difference between Canon and Pentax is this regard. Pentax is certainly no worse off by offering the compatibility (which you again don't have to take advantage of) Canon doesn't. Pål
Re: Pentax flashes / changing platforms
On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Christopher Lillja wrote: Read When a 'USM motor is not a 'USM' motor on Photo.net... Do you have a link? I couldn't find it. chris
Re: Pentax flashes / changing platforms
On 10 Sep 2002 at 14:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So I do think I have some valid reasons to consider switching to EOS. And it's not because Canon is cooler; it's because the Canon system seems to be a better tool for me. Pentax gear is generally excellent for use in available light, you need to use flash with the Canon glass to counter the poor contrast :-) Jump before you get too encumbered otherwise you may become bitter and twisted. Good luck, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
