Re: What's all the fuss about the DOF Preview
I hav noticed that my old LX can be very quiet if the Mirror lock is engaged I beleive the mirror is the noisy part.. Phil > I'd suppose not as even after a CLA and replacement foam and > bumpers, the two older LX that I had still made the noise, > albeit somewhat muted and not quite as metallic. However, the > newer LX have, as I understand it, a redesigned mirror box, > and that may have something to do with why they are quieter. > -- - 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[2]: What's all the fuss about the DOF Preview
Hi, it might be worth mentioning, for anybody who hasn't used a Leica, that, unlike an slr, the image size in the viewfinder doesn't change when you change the framelines. So whatever lens you have on the camera the view through the finder is the same. The framelines are there simply for framing the subject and the longer the lens, the smaller the framelines. --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sunday, July 08, 2001, 2:06:02 AM, you wrote: > Andreas Wirtz wrote: >> Isn't this same like zooming on SLR cameras ? > No, it is not. [...] - 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: What's all the fuss about the DOF Preview
Andreas Wirtz wrote: > > --- Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Another wonderful feature is that the different > > frame lines can be brought into view just by > > moving the frame selector lever on the front of > > the camera. > Isn't this same like zooming on SLR cameras ? No, it is not. Try using a zoom and seeing what's going on outside of the frame. With an SLR you cannot compare, in the same viewfinder and at the same time, more than one focal length. Also, you must have a lens attached with an SLR - that is not necessary with the Leica, so you can place a lensless camera to your eye, move the frame selector lever, and decide which lens is best for your vision of the scene, and then mount the appropriate lens. I'm not suggesting that the rangefinder method is "better" than an SLR, just trying to help you, and others interested in this, what the differences are. -- 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: What's all the fuss about the DOF Preview
Mike Johnston wrote: > Anyone know yet what the serial number > range of LX's ended up being? The one I bought about a year ago had the number 5359***, and one that was about a year older, based upon its original purchase date, is numbered 5351*** I have one numbered 532 and that has the older shutter. However, some older bodies were retrofitted with the new shutter box, and, it seems, that the serial number on the base plate is not always sequential to production. Nonetheless, you'll do well to look for numbers above 5355*** to be sure you're getting the latest model. > As for the above, I've always thought that Pentaxes > are the SLR equivalent of Leicas. Actually I held that > opinion about the Spotmatics I was astonished when I got my first Leica - an M3. Side-by-side with a Spotmatic one could see a remarkable number of similarities in design, size, weight, and ergonomics. Apart from the pentaprism, both cameras are about the same height, the Spotmatic is just a scosh wider, and the depth of their bodies are just about identical, with the exception of the protruding area where the Pentax lens mount is. They both have their edges rounded to one degree or another, allowing for a comfortable grip. What this means is that they feel quite similar when being held in shooting position. Weigh each body without their lenses. The Leica actually feels a little heavier. Specs I've seen put the M3 at 595 grams, the Pentaxes just before the Spotmatic at about 575 grams, and the Spotmatic at about 600 grams. Add a 50mm lens of their time, and their balance is very similar, too. These two cameras have much in common considering that they sprang from two entirely different cultures and are of different designs. IOW, both Pentax and Leica got the basic design - the ergonomics - right. Both feel very comfortable in the hand, both have controls that are easy to use and feel properly located for most people, and both are respected and sometimes even coveted forty and fifty years later. Both the Leica M2/3/4 and the early Pentaxes were built conservatively, with thought towards simplicity, durability, and longevity. Both are, IMO, examples of elegant design. > Boy, would this ever get me in trouble over on > the Leica list. Please, nobody quote me. You're already in trouble over there. Your name has come up a few times and has sparked "spirited" debate amongst the pro- and con- Johnston factions. -- 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: What's all the fuss about the DOF Preview
Shel B. wrote: > I really think the LX and the Leica complement each other very > well. The MX and Leica are also quite nice together. Thanks for all the comments, Shel, especially about the noise level. It would be worth it to me to seek out a later camera. Anyone know yet what the serial number range of LX's ended up being? As for the above, I've always thought that Pentaxes are the SLR equivalent of Leicas. Actually I held that opinion about the Spotmatics (their Achilles-heel metering aside) , because the later cameras (with the possible exception of the MX), nice though they are, don't quite live up to the description. But the LX does. Boy, would this ever get me in trouble over on the Leica list. Please, nobody quote me. --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: What's all the fuss about the DOF Preview
--- Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Another wonderful feature is that the different > frame lines > can be brought into view just by moving the frame > selector > lever on the front of the camera. One needn't > change lenses > in order to see which lens will provide the optimal > perspective, or cropping, of the subject. This will > work for > lenses of 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 75mm, 90mm, and 135mm, > depending > on viewfinder and camera specs. In fact, one > doesn't even > need a lens on the camera to get this to work. It's > a nice > feature ... perhaps an even more valuable feature > than DOF > preview in some cases Isn't this same like zooming on SLR cameras ? Andreas Wirtz __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.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: What's all the fuss about the DOF Preview
On Sat, 7 Jul 2001, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > I really think the LX and the Leica complement each other very > well. The MX and Leica are also quite nice together. Right now my MX and my M6 are alone together inside my camera bag. I think they are having fun. Maybe in a few months I'll get little rangefinders with DOF preview... :-) -- --- Juan J. Buhler | Sr. FX Animator @ PDI | Photos at http://www.jbuhler.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: What's all the fuss about the DOF Preview
Mike Johnston wrote: > The rangefinder Leica enables you to see what's > outside of the frame as well as what's inside > of the frame. Another wonderful feature is that the different frame lines can be brought into view just by moving the frame selector lever on the front of the camera. One needn't change lenses in order to see which lens will provide the optimal perspective, or cropping, of the subject. This will work for lenses of 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 75mm, 90mm, and 135mm, depending on viewfinder and camera specs. In fact, one doesn't even need a lens on the camera to get this to work. It's a nice feature ... perhaps an even more valuable feature than DOF preview in some cases. OTOH, I do like DOF preview on SLR cameras, and I use it often. I really think the LX and the Leica complement each other very well. The MX and Leica are also quite nice together. -- 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: What's all the fuss about the DOF Preview
Hi Mike ... I read the Gibson interview just a day or so back, so I suppose his comment was in the forefront of my mind, although I have heard others express the same thought in a very similar manner. I really didn't think much about their origin when I typed those words. As for the LX noise, it varies from camera to camera, and, it seems, depends a lot on which lens is attached. I have three LX, and the older one makes that "sproing" sound in just about every instance. However, I have two newer models, one of which I recently purchased new myself, and their sound is more like a quiet "thunk". However, when I placed a K24/2.8 on the newest body, the shutter sounded like the older camera. I was very upset, thinking that I'd damaged the body somehow. But when I changed to another lens the camera went back to making the quieter, more substantial sound of the new body. I've also heard some list members note that the sound changed after a CLA. So, while you are correct in terms of what you hear with your LX and with whatever lens(es) you're using, it's not true of all LX under all circumstances. This of course in no way diminishes the fact that, in all cases, the LX is louder than a Leica. Mike Johnston wrote: > > Shel B. wrote: > > > I think the best feature about true rangefinder cameras is the > > viewfinder. With the Leica, as with others, one is able to > > see outside the frame lines, and can watch the scene and the > > action unfold in front of you. One makes a photograph based > > on the presence or absence of various aspects of the subject, > > and is able to anticipate a photographic "decisive moment" by > > what's taking place outside the frame line. With a reflex, > > the camera tells you what it sees. > > Shel, > Great post, but should you be giving credit to Ralph Gibson for that last > line? There's an interview with Gibson at: > > http://www.bermangraphics.com/press/ralphgibson.htm > > where he says: > > "Here's what really happens. I'll explain. I have spent forty years working > with the rangefinder. The rangefinder Leica enables you to see what's > outside of the frame as well as what's inside of the frame. You make a kind > of decision predicated on the presence and/or the absence of various aspects > of your subject. With a reflex, the camera tells you what it sees, and half > the time it's out of focus. You could follow a reflex around the world just > to focus it until you came across the picture. With a rangefinder you see > something. You take the picture and you continue to look at what you're > seeing. The rangefinder is ideally coupled to the perceptive act, the act of > perception. Where as the reflex, I only use them if I have to do extreme > close-ups." > > > > It has been demonstrated time after time that people are less > > concerned about being photographed with a Leica than with an > > SLR. Perhaps it's because the camera has an old-fashioned and > > non-professional look to it, or because the lenses are smaller > > and don't pose quite the threat, or because the camera is > > quieter ... it doesn't matter, people accept being > > photographed with a rangefinder more easily than with an SLR. > > This is so true. Sometimes I thnk Leicas are literally invisible. I'll never > forget the time I was sitting on a couch next to my girlfriend's > grandmother, an old woman who was camera shy. I was fooling with my Leica as > I talked to her. Darned if I wasn't able to take a few pictures of her > without her even noticing. She was looking right at me, talking, and didn't > have any clue that I was actually taking pictures. Amazing. > > > Of course I'd never give up my LX cameras. They make a great > > combination with the Leica. > > The _only_ bad thing about the LX (IMHO) is the excessive shutter noise. > Compared to a Leica it's like a steel trap springing shut. "Clack-SPROING!" > > --Mike > > P.S. Giving credit where credit is due, thanks to Bob Meier for sending me > the Gibson interview URL. > > - > 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 . -- 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: What's all the fuss about the DOF Preview
Frank Theriault wrote: > I wasn't trying to say that slr's are better > than rangefinders at all. I was merely pointing > out what I perceive as a few advantages. > Rangefinders have their advantages, too. Less > vibration, quieter, more compact, fewer moving > parts. Hi Frank ... I think the best feature about true rangefinder cameras is the viewfinder. With the Leica, as with others, one is able to see outside the frame lines, and can watch the scene and the action unfold in front of you. One makes a photograph based on the presence or absence of various aspects of the subject, and is able to anticipate a photographic "decisive moment" by what's taking place outside the frame line. With a reflex, the camera tells you what it sees. Having used a Leica quite a bit lately, I can tell you that going back to an SLR is like looking through a tunnel or a small tube - the view is quite restricted by comparison. If one likes to photograph people or scenes in which there is some action, the rangefinder offers, IMO, a much better viewfinder, especially with lenses in the 28mm - 90mm range. Of course, the rangefinder is much quieter, and more unobtrusive. A Leica, for example, will get you photos that just wouldn't be possible with an SLR. The MX and ME Super, for example, are actually smaller than the Leica, and weigh less, too, yet their noisy shutter, and (mostly) larger lenses, make for a less stealthful and more annoying camera in many instances. One exposure with an SLR in a quiet room alerts everyone to the fact that someone's taking pictures. It has been demonstrated time after time that people are less concerned about being photographed with a Leica than with an SLR. Perhaps it's because the camera has an old-fashioned and non-professional look to it, or because the lenses are smaller and don't pose quite the threat, or because the camera is quieter ... it doesn't matter, people accept being photographed with a rangefinder more easily than with an SLR. I suggest seeing the movie "Pecker" to see an example of this, albeit a somewhat exaggerated example. For the techno-enabled the Leica is a poor choice. There's no auto exposure, auto rewind, data imprinting, matrix or multi-segment metering (heck, only the most recent even have meters, and they're quite rudimentary), no custom functions, etc. It's only the photographer and the camera, with the photographer calling all the shots. The camera never interferes with your intentions, but, unlike many wunder-SLRs, one must develop more of a relationship with the Leica in order to get the best results. In many ways the Leica is much slower to operate. Film loading and rewind are slower, and slower yet with earlier models, yet, once loaded and in shooting mode, the camera is amazingly fast to use. Of course I'd never give up my LX cameras. They make a great combination with the Leica. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > You failed to mention the problem of parallaxe. Current Leicas (for almost the last 50 years) correct for parallax. -- 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: What's all the fuss about the DOF Preview
If you're worried about looking like a yuppie, put the formulas into a programmable calculator and look like a geek instead! Todd At 03:32 PM 7/6/01 -0400, you wrote: >BTW: I've heard of people using software that generates depth of field tables or >at least calculates it for you at a given distance/aperture/focal length. Anyone >know if this kind of software is available for the Palm or other PDA? That might >almost convince me to buy one of those things, despite their yuppie stigma. > >-- - 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[2]: What's all the fuss about the DOF Preview
Bob Walkden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Hi, > >there's nothing very complex or difficult about the depth-of-field >calculations. It's a very simple matter to type a few formulas into a >spreadsheet, even one on a PDA. I put some into a spreadsheet and put >it on my website some time ago: >www.web-options.com/bob/files/optical.xls. Yeah, I have my own spreadsheet with different sheets for 35mm and 645. Just looking for a simple interface that would be easy to use in the field. For PC I could certainly write my own mini-app in VB or Access but I dodn't know about PDA availability. - 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[2]: What's all the fuss about the DOF Preview
Hi, there's nothing very complex or difficult about the depth-of-field calculations. It's a very simple matter to type a few formulas into a spreadsheet, even one on a PDA. I put some into a spreadsheet and put it on my website some time ago: www.web-options.com/bob/files/optical.xls. You're welcome to download it if you want. I got the formulas from "The professional guide to photo data" by Richard Platt. Everyone should have this book. Personally I find it easier to use the scale on the lens. --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Friday, July 06, 2001, 8:32:32 PM, you wrote: > BTW: I've heard of people using software that generates depth of field tables or > at least calculates it for you at a given distance/aperture/focal length. Anyone > know if this kind of software is available for the Palm or other PDA? That might > almost convince me to buy one of those things, despite their yuppie stigma. - 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: What's all the fuss about the DOF Preview
"Bill D. Casselberry" wrote:. > > Oh - don't get me wrong, I agree that SLRs are worlds better :) Hi, Bill, I wasn't trying to say that slr's are better than rangefinders at all. I was merely pointing out what I perceive as a few advantages. Rangefinders have their advantages, too. Less vibration, quieter, more compact, fewer moving parts. I mean, if someone wanted to give me a Leica... :-) regards, frank - 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: What's all the fuss about the DOF Preview
I wrote: > > ... just some thoughts from a guy who learned DOF from books and > > hands-on experience w/ old 6x6 folders and rangefinders ;^) ... then Frank wrote: > I dunno, Bill. To me, one of the main advantages of an slr over > a rangefinder camera is that you see (almost) exactly what the > film sees. Including dof when you stop down. Oh - don't get me wrong, I agree that SLRs are worlds better :) > You're right that doing it "by the numbers" is a good exercise, > and good to know how to do, but nothing beats seeing it through > the viewfinder, imho. Right - as you, I use a rather "crippled" combo of SuperProgram w/ m42 Takumars via the K-adapter for 95% of my photographing. I am effectively in "Permamnent DOF Preview Mode" since exposure must be made "at aperture". However, after having used the old 6x6 folder and then a few Canonets for earlier years in my latest round of "interest photographic", I just got my first SLR's a mere 5 or so years ago. By then I had become aware enough of DOF effects that I rarely relied on the mechanical preview - rather just the scales on the Takumars. Much easier than the charts I carried around w/ the non-SLR cameras. I like that my 6x9 Bessa II has a DOF scale incorporated into the focusing knob (no need for charts :^) > As far as the darker viewfinder making viewing the image "relatively > worthless", I've used bodies with stop-down metering exclusively > for the past 30 years or so. ... as above - I'm usually in "Permanent DOF Preview Mode" and am rather used to framing in the darkened viewfinder, knowing that my DOF is sufficient for my intentions. > I guess if ... < We! > ... can get used to it, anyone can! :-) Bill - Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb [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: What's all the fuss about the DOF Preview
I dunno, Bill. To me, one of the main advantages of an slr over a rangefinder camera is that you see (almost) exactly what the film sees. Including dof when you stop down. You're right that doing it "by the numbers" is a good exercise, and good to know how to do, but nothing beats seeing it through the viewfinder, imho. As far as the darker viewfinder making viewing the image "relatively worthless", I've used bodies with stop-down metering exclusively for the past 30 years or so. I guess if I can get used to it, anyone can! :-) regards, frank "Bill D. Casselberry" wrote: > Well, the "student" *should* learn DOF "by the numbers", as in > via a DOF scale on the lens and/or a DOF chart. This will give > him/her an innate sense of DOF at various aperture/focal length > combos and effectively negate the "need" for the convenience of > a preview function (which usually so darkens the viewfinder as to > be relatively worthless). > > ... just some thoughts from a guy who learned DOF from books and > hands-on experience w/ old 6x6 folders and rangefinders ;^) > > Bill > > - 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 .
