Re: Re[6]: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
On Sunday, January 13, 2002, at 01:09 AM, Bruce Dayton wrote: So I am just trying to find out under what conditions (other than low light) my MZ-S's will fail me and an LX would not. Make sense? Makes total sense, and I totally can't answer that question. :) So just buy the 67II already, will ya? -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 .
Vs: Re[6]: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
IMO the low light condition is the only situation where the MZ-S is inferior compared to the LX. It can be argued that the integrated direct metering OTF during exposure is better when the light changes during long night exposure if e.g.. a car with lights on drives in the picture but IMO the image will be ruined anyway. All the best! Raimo Personal photography homepage at http://personal.inet.fi/private/raimo.korhonen -Alkuperäinen viesti- Lähettäjä: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Päivä: 13. tammikuuta 2002 18:11 Aihe: Re: Re[6]: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...) On Sunday, January 13, 2002, at 01:09 AM, Bruce Dayton wrote: So I am just trying to find out under what conditions (other than low light) my MZ-S's will fail me and an LX would not. Make sense? Makes total sense, and I totally can't answer that question. :) So just buy the 67II already, will ya? -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 . - 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: Re[6]: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
On Friday, January 11, 2002, at 02:36 PM, Bob Blakely wrote: I prefer CW metering over matrix metering because it's performance is predictable. I know if the meter is going to be over or under for given situations and use compensation accordingly. Amen! I know about a trillion times more about the scene I'm photographing than some engineer in a cubicle thousands of miles away two years ago. Let me know what the reading is, and let ME decided how to use that information. -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[6]: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
Aaron, I think the reason I asked the question like that is I keep hearing members of the list talk about the meter in situations that aren't related to low light sensitivity or metering OTF - In normal lighting. So I have been trying to find out if I have been deprived all these years. The low light sensitivity isn't an area where I would really benefit right now, but I wanted to know if my MZ-S's or my old PZ-1p's weren't going to meter as well center weighted as the LX (normal lighting - SS faster than 1/15). I don't know if this is making sense or not. When I held the LX and fiddled with it, I didn't get any wonderful feeling like Oh, I've got to get me one of these! I didn't particularly care for the meter display method and just didn't get the excitement that many have talked about. I know, I know, it's just me. I have been aware of the OTF capability from way back when the Olympus OM-2 came out, but that isn't an area where I really work much. But when people talk about the wonderful meter and they are *not* talking about the low light stuff, that IS an area that I am interested in. Until Mike Johnston stated that many camera meters are not very reliable and accurate, I felt that the bodies I have and have used did just fine with center weighted metering. So I am just trying to find out under what conditions (other than low light) my MZ-S's will fail me and an LX would not. Make sense? Thanks, Bruce Dayton Saturday, January 12, 2002, 2:38:08 PM, you wrote: AR On Friday, January 11, 2002, at 04:04 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote: Aaron, Guess I phrased that badly. Other than low light *usage* (sensitivity and reaction-shutter), isn't it just a normal center weighted meter? AR It's a nice, accurate, centre weighted meter. What I was trying to say AR was that the low light stuff was exactly why I like it so much. I feel AR your question is like asking other than the small size and sharp lenses AR and build quality, what's so good about a Leica? The sensitivity and AR OTF nature of the meter are precisely what I value about the LX. The AR interchangeable finders are good, too, but the meter makes the camera AR for me. AR -Aaron AR - AR This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, AR go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to AR 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[6]: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
Bob, What you say makes sense. It make the LX more versatile than many other cameras. It still doesn't make the usage of the center weighted only meter any better than other bodies. There are many on the list who seem to continually refer to the metering capability as something godlike. I feel like the kid who said The emporer has no clothes! For those who need and utilize the many finders and unusual focusing screens (by unusual I mean types that other cameras don't have available), I can see the LX being the proper camera, but a center weighted only meter in general is nothing special. Please bear in mind that I am not slamming the whole camera, merely stating the observation that I read repeatedly, about this wonderful meter (as the feature - not the versatility of finders) that doesn't seem all that special to me. On a side note - I found it odd that each year, Pop Photograhpy does a camera roundup where they list the main models of each maker. The LX has not been shown for a very long time, even though it could still be purchased new, when the Olympus OM-3,4 and Contax RTSII have always been featured. One wonders if there is a reason for that. Bruce Dayton Friday, January 11, 2002, 8:54:09 AM, you wrote: BB Because the LX meters off the film plane and not through the focus screen, it is not BB sensitive to the brightness (translucence) of the focus screen as is the MX or any other BB camera that has to meter through the screen. This allows the use of many different types BB of screens without having to compensate separately for each screen (or no screen at all in BB special circumstances). It also makes possible the use of a myriad of finders (or no BB finder at all!) while maintaining the ability to meter in a consistent manner. BB Regards, BB Bob... BB BB Let us contemplate our forefathers, and posterity, BB and resolve to maintain the rights bequeathed to us BB from the former, for the sake of the latter. BB The necessity of the times, more than ever, calls BB for our utmost circumspection, deliberation, fortitude, BB and perseverance. Let us remember that 'if we BB suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, BB we encourage it, and involve others in our doom.' BB It is a very serious consideration that millions yet BB unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event. BB - Samuel Adams, 1771 BB From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bob, Ok, I read through it. I still say, compared to modern cameras, that outside of low light readings, there doesn't appear to be anything overly special about using the meter in the LX. I understand it reads from the film plane, but outside of long exposures, I don't think that is much, if any, advantage over meters in the viewfinder. I'm trying to think where else it would have an advantage - fireworks, lightning. I think the lack of spot metering is a big take-away that has to be balanced against the low-light capability. Bruce Dayton Friday, January 11, 2002, 6:22:02 AM, you wrote: BB http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/pentaxlx/ BB - BB This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, BB go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to BB 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: Re[6]: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
- Original Message - From: Bruce Dayton Subject: Re[6]: getting LX - worth it? On a side note - I found it odd that each year, Pop Photograhpy does a camera roundup where they list the main models of each maker. The LX has not been shown for a very long time, even though it could still be purchased new, when the Olympus OM-3,4 and Contax RTSII have always been featured. One wonders if there is a reason for that. That would be because for the most part, Pop Phot has their heads up their asses. Herp Keppler being the notable exception. William Robb - 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: Re[6]: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
Actually, I would think it is because as a US magazine Pop Photo reports what Pentax USA sells. Pentax USA has not sold the LX for a long time though it continued to be available in other markets. Ciao, graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 1:12 PM Subject: Re: Re[6]: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...) - Original Message - From: Bruce Dayton Subject: Re[6]: getting LX - worth it? On a side note - I found it odd that each year, Pop Photograhpy does a camera roundup where they list the main models of each maker. The LX has not been shown for a very long time, even though it could still be purchased new, when the Olympus OM-3,4 and Contax RTSII have always been featured. One wonders if there is a reason for that. That would be because for the most part, Pop Phot has their heads up their asses. Herp Keppler being the notable exception. William Robb - 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 .
