Re: Silent Lenses
What's with this obsession with digital? I showed my flatmate my new LX. He said I shouldn't have wasted my money. He said I already have a camera (my MZ-30), and I should have got a digital so that I can manipulate the images on my computer. I don't want digital. I bought an LX because that was what I wanted. My MZ-30 is so automated. I think I will use it for snapshots only. If I had wanted a P&S digital, I would have got a P&S digital. I don't want to manipulate anything on my computer. I don't want a camera where you just push the button and it's done. I want to have far more control over the photo than that. Jody. --- Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ivan Prenosil wrote: > > > If you are after silence, why not use digital ? > > HAR! You must be new here . I'm an anachronism, > and have been > described as the poster child for manual cameras. > Digital is of no > value for much of the photography that I do. I'm > pretty much a > chemical darkroom user and B&W shooter. > > -- > Shel Belinkoff > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help? Donate cash, emergency relief information http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/ - 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: Silent Lenses
"Mark D." wrote: > I think a picture of Shel shooting with a D1 and 70-200/2.8 is worthy of a > PUG submission Someone find me a pic of Shel, Photoshop's already up and running. ;) But it couldn't be a good zoom -- he would need to be shooting a D1 with a Tamron 28-300. -Aaron - 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: Silent Lenses
A scroll of mail from "Ivan Prenosil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Thu, 13 Sep 2001 15:40:06 +0200 Read it? y >You can easily hear what noise is produced by operating diaphragm >(i.e. without film advance, mirror slap, shutter noise, AF) - just press DOF button. > >If you are after silence, why not use digital ? Shel? Digital? I think an easel and paints are closer to Shel's technology level. *grin* dave "nice and quiet too" - 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: Silent Lenses
From: Aaron Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > "Mark D." wrote: > > > > Go get > > a Nikon D1x and a few zooms. LOL > --- > > As if the digital wasn't bad enough! *snicker* > > Thanks, I needed that. Aaron, I think a picture of Shel shooting with a D1 and 70-200/2.8 is worthy of a PUG submission Mark - 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: Silent Lenses
"Mark D." wrote: > > Go get > a Nikon D1x and a few zooms. LOL --- As if the digital wasn't bad enough! *snicker* Thanks, I needed that. -Aaron - 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: Silent Lenses
The Olympus E-10 does this too. However, you can turn the sound off in the Canon G1 and the Olympus E-10 so if silent is what you want, silent is what you get. Len --- > Quietness wasn't a particularly marketable feature, > however, so Canon turned > its attentions elsewhere. I think it's almost amusing > that the Canon G1 and > G2 digital cameras included a synthetic "shutter > noise" broadcast with a > tiny speaker so users can tell when the picture is > being recorded. > > --Mike - 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: Silent Lenses
Shel wrote: > However, it doesn't answer my question. > These lenses contain the mechanism to operate the auto diaphragm, and > the camera will still have the mechanism to operate the auto diaphragm > with K-mount lenses. What I'm trying to get a handle on is just how > quiet and stealthful a contemporary SLR can be be made to operate, The quietest SLR I can remember using (during my years of testing dozens of them for magazines--I've probably at least operated several hundred different ones) was the original Canon EOS Elan. At least when new, they were remarkably quiet. (The quietest full-sized _camera_ was the Hexar, although these got noisier as they aged.) I'm not sure the preoccupation with the stopdown diaphragm is warranted, though. On many SLRs you can test this simply by pressing the d.o.f. preview, and on many SLRs this is not significantly noisy IMO. The pellicle-mirror EOS RT wasn't terribly quiet, because a hinged plate with the meter sensor on it slapped down out of the way during exposure from its resting position behind the beam splitter. It wasn't noisy, but it wasn't quiet, either. Quietness wasn't a particularly marketable feature, however, so Canon turned its attentions elsewhere. I think it's almost amusing that the Canon G1 and G2 digital cameras included a synthetic "shutter noise" broadcast with a tiny speaker so users can tell when the picture is being recorded. --Mike - 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: Silent Lenses
Tom wrote: > Most of the noise comes from the mirror, Shel. The lens mechanism is fairly > silent. The shutter is > no more noisy than on a Leica. I don't know which "the" shutter you mean, but I'm not sure I agree with you, Tom. The more robust shutters with higher sync-speeds especially can contribute a lot to overall noise. All you need to do is lock up the mirror on an LX and fire the shutter to see what I mean. --Mike - 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: Silent Lenses
Have patience the ancients will understand... Otis Shel Belinkoff wrote: > I know all of that, but you keep missing the other points in my posts. > > Mick Maguire wrote: > > > > There is no auto diaphragm connector on the K mount adaptor. The diaphragm > > stays closed down all the while like cameras used to in the 50's (or very > > much like DOF preview these days), so you wouldn't get ant noise from the > > diaphragm closing up when you fired the shutter. I have one of these > > adapters and use it to attach the takumar lenses and extension tubes etc > > from my old Spotmatic onto my SF1n bodies. > > -- > Shel Belinkoff > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > - > 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: Silent Lenses
Now you have spoiled all their fun... Otis Ivan Prenosil wrote: > You can easily hear what noise is produced by operating diaphragm > (i.e. without film advance, mirror slap, shutter noise, AF) - just press DOF button. > > If you are after silence, why not use digital ? > > Ivan > - > 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: Silent Lenses
Tom Rittenhouse wrote: > > Or, why not get a Visoflex for your Leica. > These were common years ago for macro and > long telephoto photography. Heavy, complex, cumbersome, & changing lenses is a bit of a PITA. -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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: Silent Lenses
Or, why not get a Visoflex for your Leica. These were common years ago for macro and long telephoto photography. --graywolf Chris Brogden wrote: > > On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > > Chris Brogden wrote: > > > > > Or to keep the regular bright mirror, it shouldn't be hard to make a > > > manually-controlled mirror. Use MLU to raise it, then just lower it > > > manually afterwards if you want. That could be made ultra-quiet. > > > > If I understand you correctly, using MLU would preclude seeing > > anything through the viewfinder. The mirror would have to move out of > > the way at the instant of exposure. > > Not necessarily at the exact instant. I'm thinking something like a > two-part shutter release, where a light touch will move the mirror up (a > little slower than it does now, but silently) and a firmer touch will > complete the exposure. Or put a separate MLU button right beside the > shutter. The idea is to silently raise the mirror just before the > exposure, then lower it afterwards. Granted it's not the quickest way to > do things, but then if you're using preset lenses and stop-down metering > you're not exactly a speed demon as it is. :) > > chris > - > 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 . -- Tom Rittenhouse Graywolf Photo Charlotte, NC, USA - 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: Silent Lenses
A few grams here, a few grams there - it all adds up. And then there's the issue of size. The mechanisms involved take up space. Remove the mechanisms and you may be able to reduce the size of the camera and lenses, which, in turn, usually saves weight. Anyway, it's just a bit of a fantasy, possibly to take my mind off some other larger and more depressing issues. Mick Maguire wrote: > > I doubt that the mechanism in the camera makes that much noise at all. try > using the DOF preview that would give an idea. I would also guess that the > weight of the whole diaphragm closing and metering mechanism would only be a > few grams. Most of the weight of a camera is in the rest of the body: film > advance mechanism, viewfinder and housings. -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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: Silent Lenses
I doubt that the mechanism in the camera makes that much noise at all. try using the DOF preview that would give an idea. I would also guess that the weight of the whole diaphragm closing and metering mechanism would only be a few grams. Most of the weight of a camera is in the rest of the body: film advance mechanism, viewfinder and housings. Regards, /\/\ick... ++ __/) Mick Maguire | | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (_/) ICQ: 48609010 | \/ | \ /---+ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 10:47 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Silent Lenses Tom Rittenhouse wrote: > > Most of the noise comes from the mirror, Shel. I know that. > The lens mechanism is fairly silent. I don't know how much noise the lens mechanism (within the lens) makes, but I agree that it's minimal. However, there is also the mechanism within the camera body that activates the mechanism in the lens. Additionally, it's not just noise I'd like to reduce, but size and weight as well. It seems to me that by removing the mechanics related to operating the lens diaphragm, and removing the mechanism that's used for metering purposes, a smaller, lighter camera could be built. Remember, Pentax had to make the mount larger when they went to open aperture metering, and before the 42mm screw mount Pentax used an even smaller diameter lens mount. The smaller mount was workable, at least in part, because the lens had no diaphragm mechanism and didn't require any coupling to a light meter. > The shutter is no more noisy than on a Leica. I suppose that would vary with the shutter design. I'd wager that a vertical travel, metal focal plane shutter is louder than a horizontal travel cloth shutter. Of course, it's hard to measure the sound of just the shutter since the mirror is always in play. However, I believe that a shutter can be made to be ~very~ quiet, IAC. -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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: Silent Lenses
"Mark D." wrote: > ROTFLMAO! Yeah Shel?!?!? Seriously, if > you're after silence, why not use digital!?!?!? Quieter than a Leica. Go get > a Nikon D1x and a few zooms. LOL I'm running out the door now. -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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: Silent Lenses
"Juan J. Buhler" wrote: > But the lens design itself has to be different to accomodate for the distance > to the film mandated by the mirror. I think this is what makes SLR lenses > bigger, not the auto diaphragm. Think about the early Pentax lenses, before there was any diaphragm operation. The mount was smaller than the 42mm screw mount - something on the order of the 39mm LTM, maybe a scosh smaller. Then came the lenses w/auto diaphragm and the mount became larger. > I wonder why you'd ask this. Because I was playing around with adapting a Pentax hood to a Leica lens, and just started wondering about how close to a Leica in design and operation a Pentax could be made. The M2 and M3 have no Leica nomenclature on them that's observable when looking at the camera head on, and seeing the M3 with a Pentax logo on the lens hood just moved my thinking along those lines. Think about it for a moment: The Pentax MX is substantially smaller than a Leica, so, by stripping out as much stuff as possible my thought was to make a very quiet SLR and, perhaps, have smaller lenses as well. Part of the idea came from the fact that Pentax makes the 43mm LTD in LTM, which, as noted earlier, probably has no diaphragm coupling, and no AF stuff within the barrel. I suspect that this is a very small lens. As I write this it occurs to me that it would be very cool to be able to adapt some Leica lenses to an MX or MX-like body. While the wide angle lenses might not be able to be adapted, I suspect the lenses 50mm and above could be. Anyway, the real reason i ask this is because I'm a person with great curiosity. > Do you feel you'd like to have a TTL viewfinder > on a Leica? I feel that way myself, haven't gotten > used to focusing with the M6 at all. I'm too used > to focusing on the ground glass on the MX... No, I like the Leica just fine, although it's taken me a while to get used to its operation. The focusing and viewfinder came easily to me. However, when I put the 90mm Elmarit on the M3 I had a problem since I was expecting the image to be magnified, so it took me a couple of rolls of film to adjust. I like being able to see outside the frame lines, and a TTL finder would ruin that. -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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: Silent Lenses
sure seems that way. Personally I don't buy the adverts which claim that the lens is permanently welded to the body in order to make the digital camera function better (keeping dust out etc.)... A simple bit of coated glass behind the lens mount or in front of the sensor array could do that. the real reason is it would be dearer to make the lens removable. Regards, /\/\ick... ++ __/) Mick Maguire | | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (_/) ICQ: 48609010 | \/ Tel: (603) 643-2302| \ /---+ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Farr Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 9:42 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Silent Lenses Wouldn't a pellicle mirror be a practical way to keep dust off the sensor of an intechangeable lens digital SLR? That way the sensor could remain sealed during lens changes. Regards, Anthony Farr - Original Message - From: "Mike Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Shel wrote: > > > A pellicle mirror diverts some light and would cause the finder to be > > darker still. > > I don't agree. I used an EOS RT for a year and was never bothered by any > perceived dimness in the finder. The finder was fine. The problem with > Pellicle mirrors is that they cut two thirds of a stop out of the light that > gets to the film. > > Although that never bothered me either. > > I really think that the unpopularity of pellicle mirrors has to do with > peoples' tendency to "shop on paper" more than with reality. Photographers > just dislike the idea of it _theoretically_, without having had sufficient > firsthand experience of it to really judge. > > I really liked that camera. > > --Mike > - - 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: Silent Lenses
From: Ivan Prenosil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > You can easily hear what noise is produced by operating diaphragm > (i.e. without film advance, mirror slap, shutter noise, AF) - just press DOF button. > > If you are after silence, why not use digital ? ROTFLMAO! Yeah Shel?!?!? Seriously, if you're after silence, why not use digital!?!?!? Quieter than a Leica. Go get a Nikon D1x and a few zooms. LOL Mark - 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: Silent Lenses
Most of the noise comes from the mirror, Shel. The lens mechanism is fairly silent. The shutter is no more noisy than on a Leica. --graywolf Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > Perhaps I was a bit vague with my question, but the thought occurred > to me today, while adapting a Pentax hood to a Leica lens, that a > fully manual SLR in the style of a Leica might be an interesting > concept. Imagine - no batteries, no functions to fiddle with, no > built-in winder or unneeded electronics, no need for a mechanism to > operate the lens diaphragm, but a beautiful viewfinder, a nice, quiet > shutter, a well-damped and quiet mirror - something like a Leica with > a pentaprism. -- Tom Rittenhouse Graywolf Photo Charlotte, NC, USA - 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: Silent Lenses
There is no auto diaphragm connector on the K mount adaptor. The diaphragm stays closed down all the while like cameras used to in the 50's (or very much like DOF preview these days), so you wouldn't get ant noise from the diaphragm closing up when you fired the shutter. I have one of these adapters and use it to attach the takumar lenses and extension tubes etc from my old Spotmatic onto my SF1n bodies. Regards, /\/\ick... ++ __/) Mick Maguire | | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (_/) ICQ: 48609010 | \/ Tel: (603) 643-2302| \ /---+ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 11:52 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Silent Lenses Bob Rapp wrote: > > Shel, > Try a "K" adaptor and screw an old (but fabulous) SMC Takumar on and try > it using the manual/auto selector.. They may be heavier, but they have > lasted one generation and will last several more. Thanks for your suggestion. However, it doesn't answer my question. These lenses contain the mechanism to operate the auto diaphragm, and the camera will still have the mechanism to operate the auto diaphragm with K-mount lenses. What I'm trying to get a handle on is just how quiet and stealthful a contemporary SLR can be be made to operate, and if the camera might be able to be made smaller and more inconspicuous by eliminating some of the mechanical parts. Perhaps I was a bit vague with my question, but the thought occurred to me today, while adapting a Pentax hood to a Leica lens, that a fully manual SLR in the style of a Leica might be an interesting concept. Imagine - no batteries, no functions to fiddle with, no built-in winder or unneeded electronics, no need for a mechanism to operate the lens diaphragm, but a beautiful viewfinder, a nice, quiet shutter, a well-damped and quiet mirror - something like a Leica with a pentaprism. While fiddling with the lens hood, I was once again reminded that the Leica-M is about the same size and roughly the same weight as the Spotmatic, but the size of some lenses and the noise of the camera get in the way of some types of shooting. So, I started to imagine an even more stripped down MX with lenses that were even smaller than current lenses - Leica-like in size. It occurred to me that by removing the diaphragm operation a lens could be made smaller and lighter. This camera could be made with good, durable material and high-end craftsmanship, and perhaps fit a very special niche. Pentax already has the smaller, high-quality Ltd lenses, of which the 43mm is available in a Leica mount, which, I assume, means no autofocus stuff inside of it, and no auto-diaphragm mechanism to contend with. I suspect that most people on the list would discount such a retro camera in a heartbeat, but for those who like rangefinders, and who appreciate the benefits of an SLR, this "stealth" Pentax might be an interesting addition to ones gear. -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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: Silent Lenses
Comparing my preset 135mm f/3.5 Takumar to my SMCT version, there is a size savings but the difference in sound is not significant between them. It's not enough to make me opt for the preset, even if the lens formula and coatings were current technology. It's the mirror and shutter that make the most noise. My M 3 is super quiet but even there, the tick of the shutter can be heard in quiet environs. ppro > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff > Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 10:50 PM > To: Pentax List > Subject: Silent Lenses > > > > Assuming one is willing to give up the automatic diaphragm on SLR > Pentax lenses, and use them only as a manually operated spot down > lens, how much size and weight might be saved on a given focal length > lens? Also, how much quieter might camera operation be by eliminating > that lens feature and the mechanical mechanism within the camera that > operates the lens diaphragm? IOW, all we'd get is the sound of the > shutter and the return mirror. > -- > Shel Belinkoff > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > - > 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: Silent Lenses
Shel wrote: > A pellicle mirror diverts some light and would cause the finder to be > darker still. I don't agree. I used an EOS RT for a year and was never bothered by any perceived dimness in the finder. The finder was fine. The problem with Pellicle mirrors is that they cut two thirds of a stop out of the light that gets to the film. Although that never bothered me either. I really think that the unpopularity of pellicle mirrors has to do with peoples' tendency to "shop on paper" more than with reality. Photographers just dislike the idea of it _theoretically_, without having had sufficient firsthand experience of it to really judge. I really liked that camera. --Mike - 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: Silent Lenses
Are you trying to re-invent Canon Pelix ? specs on same malaysian site which has LX specs adi sorescu - 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: Silent Lenses
Shel writes: > So, I started to imagine an > even more stripped down MX with lenses that were even smaller than > current lenses - Leica-like in size. But the lens design itself has to be different to accomodate for the distance to the film mandated by the mirror. I think this is what makes SLR lenses bigger, not the auto diaphragm. As for the noise, I think the mirror slap is the biggest culprit. How about a semi-transparent fixed mirror, like the Canon RTS (or whatever it was called)? I wonder why you'd ask this. Do you feel you'd like to have a TTL viewfinder on a Leica? I feel that way myself, haven't gotten used to focusing with the M6 at all. I'm too used to focusing on the ground glass on the MX... j = -- Juan J. Buhler http://www.jbuhler.com __ Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help? Donate cash, emergency relief information http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/ - 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: Silent Lenses
Bob Rapp wrote: > > Shel, > Try a "K" adaptor and screw an old (but fabulous) SMC Takumar on and try > it using the manual/auto selector.. They may be heavier, but they have > lasted one generation and will last several more. Thanks for your suggestion. However, it doesn't answer my question. These lenses contain the mechanism to operate the auto diaphragm, and the camera will still have the mechanism to operate the auto diaphragm with K-mount lenses. What I'm trying to get a handle on is just how quiet and stealthful a contemporary SLR can be be made to operate, and if the camera might be able to be made smaller and more inconspicuous by eliminating some of the mechanical parts. Perhaps I was a bit vague with my question, but the thought occurred to me today, while adapting a Pentax hood to a Leica lens, that a fully manual SLR in the style of a Leica might be an interesting concept. Imagine - no batteries, no functions to fiddle with, no built-in winder or unneeded electronics, no need for a mechanism to operate the lens diaphragm, but a beautiful viewfinder, a nice, quiet shutter, a well-damped and quiet mirror - something like a Leica with a pentaprism. While fiddling with the lens hood, I was once again reminded that the Leica-M is about the same size and roughly the same weight as the Spotmatic, but the size of some lenses and the noise of the camera get in the way of some types of shooting. So, I started to imagine an even more stripped down MX with lenses that were even smaller than current lenses - Leica-like in size. It occurred to me that by removing the diaphragm operation a lens could be made smaller and lighter. This camera could be made with good, durable material and high-end craftsmanship, and perhaps fit a very special niche. Pentax already has the smaller, high-quality Ltd lenses, of which the 43mm is available in a Leica mount, which, I assume, means no autofocus stuff inside of it, and no auto-diaphragm mechanism to contend with. I suspect that most people on the list would discount such a retro camera in a heartbeat, but for those who like rangefinders, and who appreciate the benefits of an SLR, this "stealth" Pentax might be an interesting addition to ones gear. -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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: Silent Lenses
Shel, Try a "K" adaptor and screw an old (but fabulous) SMC Takumar on and try it using the manual/auto selector.. They may be heavier, but they have lasted one generation and will last several more. Bob Rapp - Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 12:49 PM Subject: Silent Lenses > Assuming one is willing to give up the automatic diaphragm on SLR > Pentax lenses, and use them only as a manually operated spot down > lens, how much size and weight might be saved on a given focal length > lens? Also, how much quieter might camera operation be by eliminating > that lens feature and the mechanical mechanism within the camera that > operates the lens diaphragm? IOW, all we'd get is the sound of the > shutter and the return mirror. > -- > Shel Belinkoff > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > - > 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 .
