RE: MX, LX
[...] > appears to be good. The only minus to this body is the > engraved name J.Goldstein on the back plate below the winder > lever. (However, it's very neatly done). The LX comes with I wonder if he was Emmanuel's brother - that would make the camera very valuable indeed. "Ignorance is strength". -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: MX/LX focussing screen descrepance question
Thanks Seth & Rob for the input. I once was told that the enlargement factor of the fresnel lens was also fractionally different between the MX and LX screens. I know not if the former sentence is ape-bread but to me it sounds like it being possible. What function does the fresnel-lens (or other contraption) exactly have? __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/ - 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: MX/LX focussing screen discrepance question
On 10 May 2001, at 3:47, Hugo Kok wrote: > > Hi, > > Having heard/read about differences in metering properties of > respective focusing screens, I would like to ask if anybody can answer > this question: what is exactly the exposure compensation to be used > when inserting a LX-focusing screen into a MX-camera? > > And, if anybody has experience in above mentioned screen exchange: are > there still other differences that makes my trick less likely to work > out properly? > > Would be greatly thankfull for your comments. Hi Hugo, The newer LX screens are brighter than the MX screens and since the metering cells are placed after the screen in the MX the meter will read higher than the actual scene would meter externally. In the case of the LX since the metering type is off the film/shutter curtain/mirror the brightness of the screen plays no part in the meter sensitivity. The each screen will have a different effect on the meter of the MX therefore you should calibrate per screen. The task is not difficult, meter a blank constantly illuminated wall full screen with the old screen and note the meter value, fit the new screen, meter the same wall and adjust the ISO dial until the same meter value is shown, the difference in ISO settings is the compensation value. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 Fax +61-2-9554-9259 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html - 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: MX/LX focussing screen discrepance question
"Hugo Kok" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Having heard/read about differences in metering properties of > respective focusing screens, I would like to ask if anybody can answer > this question: what is exactly the exposure compensation to be used > when inserting a LX-focusing screen into a MX-camera? When I had my MX, the LX screen actually worked perfectly without any compensation. A friend of mine had to reduce metered exposure by 1/2 a stop. So my guess is that it depends on how well your meter is adjusted. > > And, if anybody has experience in above mentioned screen exchange: are > there still other differences that makes my trick less likely to work > out properly? Aside from light transmission, the screens are identical. In fact at one time Pentax recommended using LX screens on MX if you needed a new screen. - 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 .
