Re: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
Rob wrote: I suppose that if they look like they've hammered nails at least they have an excuse not work, I wonder if the prevalence of sticky mirror is closely related to climate? Most that I have ever seen here have also suffered the problem yet I recall that many of the PDMLers located in far colder climates have seen far fewer sticky mirror problems. I bought my LX in the summer of 1981. It never developed the sticky mirror syndrome. It has never been used in temperate parts of the world either. In 2000, when the camera was 19 years old it developed its first fault; a switch broke so that automatic exposure didn't work anymore. At service they replaced the mirror bumpers and the resistors under the ISO dial and at the lens mount. This is done routinely at service. Anyway, the camera never developed the sticky mirror syndrome and I do believe the problem is temperature dependent. Pål - 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: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
Alan wrote: I share the view of Dave O'brien on the LX. However, I have learnt that on this list, one can only praise the mighty LX. Afterall, it's the only PRO Pentax 135 body over the years. If Pentax had made something like F4 or F5, Ithe LX would have been forgotten long ago. Not that I don't like the LX, just that if it would be as reliable as most other non-PRO bodies. It's a frustrated feeling when one felt when the LX would quit anytime on an important trip. The Nikon F4 is pretty much forgotten by now whereas the F3 and LX are not. As far as I know the LX is a truly reliable machine. The problems actually comes from non-use. If the camera stays in the closed for years the rubber may go bad and the resistors (old type only) may corrode. Both are easy and cheap fixes. Cost no more than regular CLA on any camera something that should be done anyway when the camera is 10+ years old. Pål - 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: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
I bought my second LX 3 years or so ago, and had a complete overhaul done to it before using it. This included replacing the iso resistor, and the mirror bumpers and all the foam seals. The iso resistor needs replacing again. ...Then they screwed you. New resistors should be of gold type. They never need replacing again. Also, you can fix the resistor problem by simply keep turning the aperture coupling lever and/or iso dial repeatedly until the problem disapear. I do love these cameras dearly, but they are not in the same league as a Nikon F2 or F3 for reliability. Not even close. I beg to differ. Mine saw 10 field seasons of hard use while I was working as i field geologist in the toughest conditions. It had no protection and has been dropped and beaten beyond recognition. It has shortcircuited on me several times due to water/rain - water seeped into the camera because the bottom plate was beaten beyond recognition. The camera was still working because of mechanical shutter speeds. After drying it the electronics starts working again. In the last five years or so it has been repeatedly, often several times a day, brought in and out of my hot car to outside temperatures of - 10 degree C or more. Stuff not recommended in the camera manuals. Still condensing has never made the camera malfunction to this day. I don't know how many films I've run through it in the last 20+ years but I've changed the pressure plate thrice due to wear. Pål - 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: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
If you won't, or can't, properly maintain your gear, then move to a disposable camera and then you'll have nothing to complain about. Thanks for the insult. I will shut up now. regards, Alan Chan _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.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: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
- Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff Subject: Re: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...) I don't quite understand the complaints about the LX. nip In 1975, I bought a Nikon F2s, which, over the next 13 years served me faithfully through thick and thin. It survived tens of thousands of miles on a motorcycle, a fall down a mountainside, at least 2 serious car accidents and a myriad of other abuses. In that time, it went into the shop once, about 6 months after hitting the windscreen of my car at 30 miles per hour. It finally died after being drowned in some river in Pennsylvania. Even then, it could have been saved if the owner of it had intervened properly. In 1988, I switched to Pentax and bought an LX. Over the next 13 years of relatively gentle use, it has gone into the shop no fewer than 5 times for some sort of sevice work. My other two LX's, both completely refurbished less than 3 years and 2 years ago respectively are ready for service again. If you won't, or can't, properly maintain your gear, then move to a disposable camera and then you'll have nothing to complain about. Sorry, I didn't realize that we had to revere the LX. I will try to be more respectful of your deity in the future. 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: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
I am well aware that there are many people who do not have such a high regard of the LX. In fact, as I once posted here when I was looking for my first LX, one camera shop strongly advised me against buying one, as they were constant trouble and wouldn't accept one in part exchange. This advice all fell on stony ground with me, as I have had two decades of trouble free ownership with two MXs. My LX was returned to the dealer with a fault after a couple of weeks ownership (faulty latch). I got it back yesterday; it's now fine. Has this put me off the LX - no! As many people have pointed out, it was/is a pro camera and I would imagine that most lead quite a hard life. After all, they were a tool for a job like a company car! Plus of course any LX you buy now is a good few years old. Just my viewpoint.. Malcolm -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Alan Chan Sent: 26 January 2002 04:32 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...) I share the view of Dave O'brien on the LX. However, I have learnt that on this list, one can only praise the mighty LX. Afterall, it's the only PRO Pentax 135 body over the years. If Pentax had made something like F4 or F5, Ithe LX would have been forgotten long ago. Not that I don't like the LX, just that if it would be as reliable as most other non-PRO bodies. It's a frustrated feeling when one felt when the LX would quit anytime on an important trip. regards, Alan Chan My immediate reaction to holding an LX is: so what's wrong with this one? Every *single* second hand one I've seen and handled so far had a real showstopper of a problem - the last two I looked at (in David Chan's shop in Kowloon) had non-functioning meters, sticky mirrors and looked like they'd been used to hammer nails with. Hi Dave, I suppose that if they look like they've hammered nails at least they have an excuse not work, I wonder if the prevalence of sticky mirror is closely related to climate? Most that I have ever seen here have also suffered the problem yet I recall that many of the PDMLers located in far colder climates have seen far fewer sticky mirror problems. I still don't believe however that the LX is any less reliable than many other cameras (including others that I have owned). My near new Contax RTS developed problems, F2 needed a new shutter, G2 wouldn't focus accurately, M6 had RF alignment problems and sticky slow shutter speeds... _ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx - 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: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
My own LX experience is closer to that of Alan Chan's. My first one was purchased brand new in the late 80's and has actually had a really soft life. Once I realized i couldn't depend on it to fire a flash when I wanted it to, I retired it from any sort of professional shooting, and decided that it would be my personal pleasure camera. The K-1000 got a lot of use as a wedding camera. I used it on a copy stand for a few years shooting copy negs and slides and doing slide duping and the like. It probably had a few thousand shutter cycles in this application. It developed sticky mirror about 4 years after I bought it, and went to Pentax twice, and then I finally fixed it myself. I had to have the bumper replaced a couple of years ago, and the iso resistor has since gone flakey. I bought my second LX 3 years or so ago, and had a complete overhaul done to it before using it. This included replacing the iso resistor, and the mirror bumpers and all the foam seals. The iso resistor needs replacing again. I bought my third LX almost 2 years ago, and it now needs a new iso resistor, and the foam seals need replacing since I bought it. Consequently, at the moment, I have 3 LX's that have all been serviced within the past 5 years, that have some sort of problem which will require service. I do love these cameras dearly, but they are not in the same league as a Nikon F2 or F3 for reliability. Not even close. - 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: Metering (WAS: RE: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...))
Oh, Jody, don't start it all again, please ;-) ! Frantisek Friday, January 25, 2002, 2:14:12 PM, Jody wrote: J Sorry to reply to such an old email. I think one or J two people have confused the terms accuracy and J precision. There is a difference. [really old thread deleted] Good light, Frantisek Vlcek - 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: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
On Friday, January 25, 2002, at 07:58 AM, dave o'brien wrote: Pentax: give us a 67III with an OTF meter. Lord know, there's enough room in that mirror box for a damn beer cooler, let alone the extra sensors required for OTF metering. Right on! I'm not the only one. :) Hey, the camera you can take with you to your grave that's rumored to be in production -- could it be an OTF-metering 67? I mean, they could BURY YOU in the mirror box! (image in Aaron's head: Judge Reinhold in Ruthless People, selling the kid giant speakers that he doesn't need, shouting over how loud they are, 'and when you die, they'll bury you in them!!') -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: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
On 25 Jan 2002 at 20:58, dave o'brien wrote: My immediate reaction to holding an LX is: so what's wrong with this one? Every *single* second hand one I've seen and handled so far had a real showstopper of a problem - the last two I looked at (in David Chan's shop in Kowloon) had non-functioning meters, sticky mirrors and looked like they'd been used to hammer nails with. Hi Dave, I suppose that if they look like they've hammered nails at least they have an excuse not work, I wonder if the prevalence of sticky mirror is closely related to climate? Most that I have ever seen here have also suffered the problem yet I recall that many of the PDMLers located in far colder climates have seen far fewer sticky mirror problems. I still don't believe however that the LX is any less reliable than many other cameras (including others that I have owned). My near new Contax RTS developed problems, F2 needed a new shutter, G2 wouldn't focus accurately, M6 had RF alignment problems and sticky slow shutter speeds... Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.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: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
I share the view of Dave O'brien on the LX. However, I have learnt that on this list, one can only praise the mighty LX. Afterall, it's the only PRO Pentax 135 body over the years. If Pentax had made something like F4 or F5, Ithe LX would have been forgotten long ago. Not that I don't like the LX, just that if it would be as reliable as most other non-PRO bodies. It's a frustrated feeling when one felt when the LX would quit anytime on an important trip. regards, Alan Chan My immediate reaction to holding an LX is: so what's wrong with this one? Every *single* second hand one I've seen and handled so far had a real showstopper of a problem - the last two I looked at (in David Chan's shop in Kowloon) had non-functioning meters, sticky mirrors and looked like they'd been used to hammer nails with. Hi Dave, I suppose that if they look like they've hammered nails at least they have an excuse not work, I wonder if the prevalence of sticky mirror is closely related to climate? Most that I have ever seen here have also suffered the problem yet I recall that many of the PDMLers located in far colder climates have seen far fewer sticky mirror problems. I still don't believe however that the LX is any less reliable than many other cameras (including others that I have owned). My near new Contax RTS developed problems, F2 needed a new shutter, G2 wouldn't focus accurately, M6 had RF alignment problems and sticky slow shutter speeds... _ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx - 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[8]: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
Rob Studdert wrote: My solution to this little dilemma was to employ a Manfrotto head with hex QR and the Bogen 3288 Manfrotto 340 Elbow Bracket, works a well but there is the slightest flex in the casting. I've been thinking along similar lines as I use the 029 head which uses the hexagonal plates. The tilting doesn't worry me much right now as the 45mm lens is pretty light but I'll have to see about longer lenses when I get them. Cheers, - Dave David A. Mann, B.E. (Elec) Why is it that if an adult behaves like a child they lock him up, while children are allowed to run free on the streets? -- Garfield - 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: Metering (WAS: RE: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...))
Shel Correct and precise are not the same thing. Eg decimals are precise but frequently inaccurate, whereas fractions are both precise and accurate. :) Regards Jim Shel wrote: If all meters are correct (precise), then shouldn't all meters give the same readings of the same scene under the same circumstances? - 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: Metering (WAS: RE: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...))
Jim wrote: Correct and precise are not the same thing. Eg decimals are precise but frequently inaccurate, whereas fractions are both precise and accurate. Except for irrational numbers such as pi or e, which you can't fully represent with either a decimal or a fraction. Cheers, - Dave David A. Mann, B.E. (Elec) Why is it that if an adult behaves like a child they lock him up, while children are allowed to run free on the streets? -- Garfield - 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: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
What is the difference between the Z-1p and MZ-S? I have noticed that the MZ-S gives a little bit darker, more saturated slides - like pro calibre Nikons used to do. All the best! Raimo Personal photography homepage at http://personal.inet.fi/private/raimo.korhonen -Alkuperäinen viesti- Lähettäjä: Pål Audun Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Päivä: 13. tammikuuta 2002 14:03 Aihe: Re: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...) Bruce wrote: You know, it is an interesting thing, that perhaps there is really something to the precision of the meter. I find it curious that none of the advertising from any of the main makers (Pentax, Nikon, Canon, Minolta) ever make any claims over the precision and consistency of their meters. They all talk about the capabilities (color sensitivity, 5000 sensors, low light, etc.) but they don't talk about the quality of the meter. Is it because it can't be measured very well or demonstrated or ??? No. Its because it is a feature taken for granted. All meters are basically precise. There might be some differences in calibrations; eg. like between the Z-1p and MZ-S. Anyway, all the current Pentaxes offers ultra-precise meters. Pål - 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: Metering (WAS: RE: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...))
... and that's the kind of comment that makes me laugh out loud. There's no such thing as a meter that's 100% correct all of the time. Pål Audun Jensen wrote: And BTW I'm right; the LX meter is 100% correct all of the time. -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/ - 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: Metering (WAS: RE: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...))
So far mine are. They do exactly what they are designed and intended to do 100% of the time. If that's not what I want, I adjust. Regards, Bob... Let us contemplate our forefathers, and posterity, and resolve to maintain the rights bequeathed to us from the former, for the sake of the latter. The necessity of the times, more than ever, calls for our utmost circumspection, deliberation, fortitude, and perseverance. Let us remember that 'if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom.' It is a very serious consideration that millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event. - Samuel Adams, 1771 From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... and that's the kind of comment that makes me laugh out loud. There's no such thing as a meter that's 100% correct all of the time. Pål Audun Jensen wrote: And BTW I'm right; the LX meter is 100% correct all of the time. - 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 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 .
Re: Re[8]: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
On Sunday, January 13, 2002, at 02:48 AM, David A. Mann wrote: I was seriously lusting after a 67II a while back, until I compared its features with the 67/6x7. Doing that saved me a lot of money when I realised that the extra features weren't really applicable to my shooting. Yup, me too. I bought an original 67 (new) a few weeks before the 67II came out. Bruce was saying that he really liked the feel of the 67II when he held it, though, so we're enabling him for the camera that will suit his needs best. :) -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[2]: Metering (WAS: RE: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...))
Hi, Pål is being rather mischievously equivocal. He knows perfectly well what people mean when in a normal conversation they say 'the meter is wrong'. --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sunday, January 13, 2002, 4:00:10 PM, you wrote: ... and that's the kind of comment that makes me laugh out loud. There's no such thing as a meter that's 100% correct all of the time. Pål Audun Jensen wrote: And BTW I'm right; the LX meter is 100% correct all of the time. - 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 .
Vs: Metering (WAS: RE: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...))
How did you measure them? I do not think laughing is enough. All the best! Raimo Personal photography homepage at http://personal.inet.fi/private/raimo.korhonen -Alkuperäinen viesti- Lähettäjä: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Päivä: 13. tammikuuta 2002 17:51 Aihe: Re: Metering (WAS: RE: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)) ... and that's the kind of comment that makes me laugh out loud. There's no such thing as a meter that's 100% correct all of the time. Pål Audun Jensen wrote: And BTW I'm right; the LX meter is 100% correct all of the time. -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/ - 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[10]: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
On Sunday, January 13, 2002, at 03:00 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote: I believe the 67II will also work with the Digital TTL flashes also (I have 3 AF360FGZ's and an AF280T). All the more reason to get it! Really, if you need a 16x20 to sell your EPO on it, I'll see what I can do. -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[12]: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
Aaron, Actually, it might help. Being able to see the quality difference could make a difference! Let me know what you can scare up and how much it would cost. Thanks, Bruce Dayton Sunday, January 13, 2002, 1:44:46 PM, you wrote: AR On Sunday, January 13, 2002, at 03:00 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote: I believe the 67II will also work with the Digital TTL flashes also (I have 3 AF360FGZ's and an AF280T). AR All the more reason to get it! Really, if you need a 16x20 to sell your AR EPO on it, I'll see what I can do. 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 .
Metering (was Re: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
Hi, Frantisek wrote: **: BTW, I have never had good luck with spotmetering faces of dark to black skinned people - what is the best zone to put the spot reading on? I hesitate to get involved in this thread, but I wrote this reply before the thread sort of spiralled down a little, so I'd like to send it because it has some value and I have photographed an awful lot of black people. I've never had a problem with this, even with full-face portraits of very dark-skinned people. In general it's best, imo, to use incident metering, which is very accurate and is not affected either by subject reflectivity or by colour temperature, which I believe can affect spot-metered subjects. If you can't use incident metering then I'd recommend substitution metering, ie measure something that's close enough to 18% and in the same light as your subject. It can happen that the person's face is so dark that you can't pick out much detail. This tends to happen when you're shooting in bright sunlight and the scene is very contrasty. If your film can't handle the contrast range then you have to make a sacrifice - highlights or shadow detail. But this is not a metering problem, it's a film latitude problem. Solutions include using a film with wider latitude, and shooting in less contrasty conditions either by moving your subject into the shade, or adding some fill light with a flash (deprecated g) or a reflector. I've found the best conditions for photographing in Africa to be at the beginning and end of the day when the shadows are long, or during slightly overcast periods. The low sun, while still having high contrast, gives a brightness range within the capabilities of Kodachrome 64 and the colour of the light makes people's skin look really beautiful, imo. --- Bob - 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: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
Hi Bruce, I really can't answer your question with any authority. I can only say that my LX meter is certainly more accurate than my other meters, but my other cameras are older models: MX, Spotmatic Fs, etc. The LX meter' also seems to be more accurate at a range of lighting conditions than my Pentax Spotmeter V or my Vivitar 285 meter. I was merely responding in good humor to your point that , in spite of all the differences that have been pointed out, you continue to point out that it is normal. I guess it all boils down to a definition of normal. Yes, it is normal in that it does read a center weighted pattern. It is not normal in the extent of its range or in the manner it takes a reading when in aperture priority mode. Whether it is more accurate than other center weighted meters, I cannot say with certainty. Whether all center-weighted meters are the same merely because they read a center-weighted pattern, I cannot say with certainty. But I find that doubtful. Paul Bruce Dayton wrote: Paul, I keep trying to stop asking questions, but you guys keep making statements that need clarifying. Other than Mike Johnston making a statement that many meters are inaccurate, I really haven't heard much about most center weighted meters be inaccurate. Do you have any other information that you can share with us to that end? I would love to hear it. Are most other Pentax bodies center weighted meters inaccurate? Or is it mostly other brands or what? Bruce Dayton Friday, January 11, 2002, 4:25:57 PM, you wrote: PS I guess we've now concluded that it's a normal center weighted meter with PS low light usage sensitivity and a reactive shutter and off the film PS metering. Which, of course, means that it's not a normal center weighted PS meter. It's also a very accurate center weighted meter, which seems to be PS somewhat rare among the rank and file of in-camera meters. In other words, PS it's very good. No one said it was Godlike. Just very good. PS Paul PS 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? Bruce Dayton Friday, January 11, 2002, 12:37:23 PM, you wrote: AR On Friday, January 11, 2002, at 01:31 AM, Bruce Dayton wrote: I'm trying to figure out why everyone thinks the LX meter is so fantastic. Other than low light sensitivity, isn't it just a normal center weighted meter? AR I like it for its low light sensitivity and because it will alter AR exposure time part way through a long exposure if the lighting AR conditions change. 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 . PS - PS This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, PS go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to PS 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 . - 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: Metering (WAS: RE: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...))
J. C. O'Connell wrote: Wrong! All built in camera meters are only accurate when aimed at a subject with 18 % reflectance. Try taking a picture of a white car or a black car using a built in camera meter. You will get two different readings BOTH of which are wrong. Of course. But we're assuming some ability to judge the reflectivity of the subject matter and a subsequent exposure compensation. Knowing my LX, and how its meter responds I would shot the white car with the exposure compensation dial set between 2X and 3X, and I would shoot the black car at -2X. Based on experience, I can say that these would fall within 1/2 stop of my incident meter reading. And, based on experience, the exposures would be slightly superior, because I would be shooting in ap priority mode and taking advantage of the stepless shutter speed, rather than merely picking a half stop detent and fixed shutter speed. But I like the incident meter, and use it extensively. Paul - 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: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
Not necessarily. I can think of numerous occasions where one might want to open the shutter for a shot and wait for a certain lighting condition to occur. I've done it several times. The one I recall specifically is when I wanted to shoot a Dodge Ram that was driving up a mountain in the dark. Because this was part of a television shoot, I knew that a lightning machine was going to be fired at some point during the run, so I merely set my lens at a small enough spot that would preclude the truck's headlights from providing adequate illumination, opened the shutter, and waited for the lightning machine to fire. You can see it at http://pug.komkon.org/01aug/mtgoat.html I've been thinking about trying something similar in my basement table top studio, using multiple flash fires from the same, manually operated strobe. I'd set the strobe at 1/16th power and fire it into a reflector from different locations around the subject. J. C. O'Connell wrote: I like it for its low light sensitivity and because it will alter exposure time part way through a long exposure if the lighting conditions change. -Aaron If the lighting conditions change during the exposure isnt the photograph going to be screw up anyway??? JCO - 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: Face reflectivity of different ethnics (was: Re: getting LX-worth it? (repairs,...))
J. C. O'Connell wrote: Putting a dark skinned face at zone 5 will cause everexposure, It probably should be closer to zone 3 which would mean giving 2 stops LESS exposure than the spot meter reading. A zone 3 exposure will render it almost solid black, rather than a shade of gray. I had some experience with this when I taught in a Chicago high school where the students were African Americans. I did a lot of yearbook photography and taught an after school photography class, so I shot numerous portraits and general people shots. Skin tones varied, of course, from white to very dark brown, but I found that in most cases, metering to even zone IV resulted in an unattractive, overly dark representation and general underexposure. On extremely tight shots of very dark skin with extremely tight framing, zone 4 exposures were nice. For most shots, even tightly framed shots of individuals with average skin color, the zone 5 meter reading was better. Paul - 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: Metering (WAS: RE: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...))
J. C. O'Connell wrote: gray scale edges. The incidence metering technique gives the best POSSIBLE exposure with a given film. But the only way to capture what your talking about is to change to lower contrast film, using a spot meter or an in camera meter with the same film/developer is not going to help one bit JCO It can. And there are cases, where a direct incidence meter reading does not give the best possible exposure. I've shot subjects where it was important that the shadow detail be recorded, but the scene included both full sun and shadow. I knew I wanted the shadow area to fall at zone 3, so I aimed my spotmeter at the shadow area, took a reading, and underexposed two stops from that reading. That places the shadows at zone 3. An incidence meter reading would have been in full sun from camera position, and would have placed the shadows at zone 2 or lower. Paul - 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: Metering (WAS: RE: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...))
No one's arguing the need for high latitude film for this. For what you've said to be true, all films would have to have the same latitude below the reference density and all films would have to have the same latitude above the reference density. This is simply not so. Regards, Bob... Let us contemplate our forefathers, and posterity, and resolve to maintain the rights bequeathed to us from the former, for the sake of the latter. The necessity of the times, more than ever, calls for our utmost circumspection, deliberation, fortitude, and perseverance. Let us remember that 'if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom.' It is a very serious consideration that millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event. - Samuel Adams, 1771 - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 11:30 PM Subject: RE: Metering (WAS: RE: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)) Number 3.Some claim that using an incident light meter always gives the best exposure. Bull. Example: You are taking a photo of a bride and groom. The groom in wearing black with some pattern in his tux you want to reproduce as best as possible. The bride is wearing white with delicate white patterns you want to reproduce as best as possible. The goal here is more about getting the extremes within the latitude of the film and (if necessary) adjusting other areas in the darkroom. It's about getting as much information on the film as possible to give you choices later. This will not necessarily work by simply using an incident light meter. It depends on the characteristics of the film and how it works at the gray scale edges. The incidence metering technique gives the best POSSIBLE exposure with a given film. But the only way to capture what your talking about is to change to lower contrast film, using a spot meter or an in camera meter with the same film/developer is not going to help one bit JCO - 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: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
Mike Johnston wrote: I find it curious that none of the advertising from any of the main makers (Pentax, Nikon, Canon, Minolta) ever make any claims over the precision and consistency of their meters. [snip] It's because the market doesn't respond to the claims by buying one over the other. IOW, people don't care. Or people just don't notice, since most people shoot mostly color negative film and only have 4x6 machine prints made. In that case, if exposure is off by plus or minus a stop because of a poorly calibrated meter it generally won't matter except to very critical viewers. I recall that John Shaw, in one of his early books, stressed the importance of testing meter accuracy when starting to use a new camera. He said that none of his three (or more -- not sure how many) Nikons had meters calibrated the same, and he tested by metering on a mid-tone and then marked each body by the amount it was off so he could always adjust the ISO dialed in to compensate. - 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: Metering (WAS: RE: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...))
I was taking about when you want to caputre BOTH very light highlights and Deep shadows, what you describe only helps the shadows. JCO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Paul Stenquist Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2002 8:27 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Metering (WAS: RE: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)) J. C. O'Connell wrote: gray scale edges. The incidence metering technique gives the best POSSIBLE exposure with a given film. But the only way to capture what your talking about is to change to lower contrast film, using a spot meter or an in camera meter with the same film/developer is not going to help one bit JCO It can. And there are cases, where a direct incidence meter reading does not give the best possible exposure. I've shot subjects where it was important that the shadow detail be recorded, but the scene included both full sun and shadow. I knew I wanted the shadow area to fall at zone 3, so I aimed my spotmeter at the shadow area, took a reading, and underexposed two stops from that reading. That places the shadows at zone 3. An incidence meter reading would have been in full sun from camera position, and would have placed the shadows at zone 2 or lower. Paul - 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[4]: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
- Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: Re[4]: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...) Something to think about: The Pentax 6x7 is a full averaging meter. No center weighting, no multi patterning. Nothing fancy. In many ways, a TTL incidence meter, if there is such a thing. There is no such thing as a TTL incidence meter ALL TTL meters are reflective. It's a pure TTL REFLECTANCE meter. Does the word metaphor mean anything to you? My negatives using the 6x7 are consistently accurate to the point that my contact sheets are almost always 10 identically exposed frames per film. Your scenes must not have been difficult. Back lighting, large areas of sky. Very bright or dark subjects will throw a reflectance meter way off track. It probably helps that the 67 in not AE, that usually makes things worse. There is no such thing as a difficult scene to meter. 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[4]: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
- Original Message - From: Rob Studdert Subject: Re: Re[4]: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...) On 12 Jan 2002 at 0:57, William Robb wrote: Something to think about: The Pentax 6x7 is a full averaging meter. No center weighting, no multi patterning. Nothing fancy. I could never get my head around that meter, I had to resort to external metering, I can cope with full frame average outside the VF but inside I see the scene centre weighted, each to their own I guess. It's pretty easy. If you are shooting negative film, aim the camera down for metering. If you are shooting chrome, aim the camera up for metering. Center weighted meters are what happens when the manufacturer turns a bug into a feature. 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: Metering (WAS: RE: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...))
Hi Tom, In my example, I could have used an incident meter if the shadow area was within reach or extended to where the camera was positioned. However, a wide range of values might have moved me to pull out a spotmeter in any case. In general, where scenes include a wide range of highlight and shadow, I like to use the spotmeter to see where different parts of the scene might fall, and what I might miss if I shoot an exposure right in the middle. Like I said before, I've worked with DPs who use incident meters almost exclusively as well as those who use spots almost exclusively. In terms of the car shooters, I've noticed that the outdoor or location shooters are more likely to use incident meters because the lighting is more consistent, while the studio guys shooting under the big Fisher light boxes will tend to use spots because they have to deal with extreme highlights. But as you said, they may use both. Again, I agree that it is good to get a first reading with an incident meter, then check your highlights and shadows with the spotmeter. I enjoy using meters and thinking about what might be an optimum exposure for a given photograph. And I enjoy discussing it as well (although it seems to irritate some members.) I guess one could say that the more you meter and the more you think, the better your exposures will be. Of course, the thinking part is the most important step in the process. But you know that. Paul Tom Rittenhouse wrote: And just to be contrary you could have used your incident meter and openned up two stops. Paul, you are the one who said motion picture people use both spotmeters and meters. In my experience they usually use an incident meter to set exposure, and a spot meter to check reflectance. Then if the relectance of something is out of range they adjust the lighting on it. I have never even heard of motion picture people using a spotmeter to set basic exposure. Your comments? Ciao, graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] It can. And there are cases, where a direct incidence meter reading does not give the best possible exposure. I've shot subjects where it was important that the shadow detail be recorded, but the scene included both full sun and shadow. I knew I wanted the shadow area to fall at zone 3, so I aimed my spotmeter at the shadow area, took a reading, and underexposed two stops from that reading. That places the shadows at zone 3. An incidence meter reading would have been in full sun from camera position, and would have placed the shadows at zone 2 or lower. - 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: Metering (WAS: RE: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...))
On Friday, January 11, 2002, at 12:29 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Tell me something - if the LX meter is so perfect, why do people continue to bracket their exposures? They would be bracketing if they are unsure of how they've used the meter. I don't seem to recall any of these posts praising the LX meter that say yeah, I put it on full auto and don't think about anything at all! Mine certainly haven't. Please don't chide us from crimes we have not committed. ;) Personally, I find myself bracketing very rarely, and only in cases when I'm concerned that the range of light in the scene is going to blow out or block up at one end or the other. Of the thirty rolls of film I shot on my Christmas holiday trip, I bracketed two shots for focus (I was concerned about the edge of an image falling out of focus when enlarged -- and it did, so I'm glad I bracketed there), and on a number of shots varied my composition, but I don't believe that I bracketed for exposure at all. I have one image that I let the snow get a little bit too bright for my tastes (though had I exposed darker I likely would have lost the shadows). I'm more likely to bracket when using my little Sekonic than when shooting with my LX when the subject is more distant from me, since the Sekonic doesn't have a spot. -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: Re[4]: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
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? It's a nice, accurate, centre weighted meter. What I was trying to say was that the low light stuff was exactly why I like it so much. I feel your question is like asking other than the small size and sharp lenses and build quality, what's so good about a Leica? The sensitivity and OTF nature of the meter are precisely what I value about the LX. The interchangeable finders are good, too, but the meter makes the camera for me. -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: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
On Saturday, January 12, 2002, at 07:46 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: I've been thinking about trying something similar in my basement table top studio, using multiple flash fires from the same, manually operated strobe. I'd set the strobe at 1/16th power and fire it into a reflector from different locations around the subject. Oooh ooh I've done this! The results can be fabulous and very smooth and soft. -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: 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: Re[8]: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
On Friday, January 11, 2002, at 06:49 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote: Maybe if I had an LX, I would start to use it where it actually is an advantage over other bodies, but alas, I think I would lean toward the 67II if I am going to be spending money on another body. The 67II has many of the LX's best features, in terms of finders, screens, accessories and so forth, as well as build quality and excellent ergonomics. If you don't find the LX's meter a temptation, well, you NEED a 67II. ;) -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[10]: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
Aaron, Must resist...Must resist...Must resist Bruce Dayton Saturday, January 12, 2002, 6:36:27 PM, you wrote: AR On Friday, January 11, 2002, at 06:49 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote: Maybe if I had an LX, I would start to use it where it actually is an advantage over other bodies, but alas, I think I would lean toward the 67II if I am going to be spending money on another body. AR The 67II has many of the LX's best features, in terms of finders, AR screens, accessories and so forth, as well as build quality and AR excellent ergonomics. If you don't find the LX's meter a temptation, AR well, you NEED a 67II. ;) 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: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
Bruce Dayton wrote: I'm trying to figure out why everyone thinks the LX meter is so fantastic. Other than low light sensitivity, isn't it just a normal center weighted meter? No. In aperture priority mode, it reads off of the film plane. Judging by results, that seems to work very well. Isn't it mostly about understanding the equipment and how it works to be able to use it wisely? I think that's always the case. Paul - 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 .
Metering (WAS: RE: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...))
JCO wrote: In camera meters are very stupid to the point that a simple guess can easily be more accurate than even an LX with certain subjects. Certainly not. The LX meter and any other correctly calibrated meter is right 100% of the time. Very true to the point that in order to compensate for the in cameras meter's dumbness you end up guessing anyway. Thats why I use sunny f16 or an incident meter and manual exposure. It yeilds more consistant results than an in camera meter does. Whatever meter you use, consistent results are dependent whether or not the photographer knows what he wants and know how to use the meter. All meters are equal in this regard independent on whether the meter is physically located in a camera body or not. The advantage of meters like in the LX is that you can set exposure more accurate than 1/3 of a stop something that's impossible to do consistently with any hand-held meter. Pål - 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: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
Shel wrote: SB nor did I say that I shun meters. Rather, for much of the photography SB that I do, I tend to meter the general scene, and then put the meter SB away. If the light remains the same, there's no need to continually I often do the same, especially in concert photography (unless really changing lights), where I spotmeter the faces, put them on Zone 6 ** and shoot away, remembering the meter output for the few (2-3) light levels the person at the lighting pult usually uses, changing between them for my exposures by eye. It works quite well usually. **: BTW, I have never had good luck with spotmetering faces of dark to black skinned people - what is the best zone to put the spot reading on? Especially with people of middle African origin - dark but not completely darkskinned, and of course people of completely black skin colour - what is the proper zone to put a spot reading of their face on?) //Please - nothing rascist in this question - English is not my primary language so I really don't know what is no longer considered correct or polite in some matters, as it can change faster than I can update my knowledge// Good light, Frantisek - 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: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Priority: NORMAL X-Mailer: Execmail for Win32 Version 5.0.1 Build (55) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Don't worry, I don't believe you will have offended anybody (unless they're very sensitive)! My hypothesis as to why (spot) metering of darker faces doesn't work is as follows. The lightmeter assumes 18% gray reflectance. However, in this case, the reflectance will be much lower. In an attempt to turn the image into an 18% gray image, the lightmeter will overexpose. Therefore you need to underexpose by maybe a stop or two, but I'm guessing. The opposite is true if you try photographing something really white eg snow or possibly sand at midday. (I hope I've got this the right way round...) If anyone has a definitive answer, I too would be interested to know as I'm about to go travelling around Mali. Cheers, Henry Frantisek Vlcek wrote: **: BTW, I have never had good luck with spotmetering faces of dark to black skinned people - what is the best zone to put the spot reading on? Especially with people of middle African origin - dark but not completely darkskinned, and of course people of completely black skin colour - what is the proper zone to put a spot reading of their face on?) //Please - nothing rascist in this question - English is not my primary language so I really don't know what is no longer considered correct or polite in some matters, as it can change faster than I can update my knowledge// -- Henry Knowles, Electrical Electronic Engineering [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: Re[2]: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/pentaxlx/ Click on metering. Regards, Bob... Let us contemplate our forefathers, and posterity, and resolve to maintain the rights bequeathed to us from the former, for the sake of the latter. The necessity of the times, more than ever, calls for our utmost circumspection, deliberation, fortitude, and perseverance. Let us remember that 'if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom.' It is a very serious consideration that millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event. - Samuel Adams, 1771 From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Paul, I'm trying to figure out why everyone thinks the LX meter is so fantastic. Other than low light sensitivity, isn't it just a normal center weighted meter? Does it have special powers that other center weighted meters don't (outside of low light sensitivity)? Isn't it mostly about understanding the equipment and how it works to be able to use it wisely? Bruce Dayton Thursday, January 10, 2002, 8:24:30 PM, you wrote: PS I agree that an incident meter or a spot meter and careful calculation are PS superior to an in-camera meter, but the LX in -camera meter is very, very good PS and is far superior to guessing. Even when that guess is made by an experienced PS an knowledgable photograher. Of course you have to consider what's in frame and PS what your meter is reading. BTW, I've been using an incident meter (an old but PS very accurate Vivitar 285) with my 6x7 and am quite pleased with the results. PS Paul PS J. C. O'Connell wrote: [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Paul Stenquist Shel Belinkoff wrote: Spot metering on the LX would be nice, but since I don't use a meter much these days, I don't really care too much one way or another. I'm surprised that some people (not just you Shel) shun meters, yet agonize over ten seconds more or less development time, or whether to use this developer or that. An exposure that's off by 1/3 of a stop will do just as much to upset the balance of a negative as will 30 seconds too much development. The grain structure of a given developer and film will be affected significantly by half a stop too much or too little exposure. I don't understand why someone would not use a meter. Even in full sun, sunny sixteen exposures can be affected by airborne pollution or other atmospheric conditions. No one can consistently guess exposures to within more than half a stop. No one. Period. A meter is an invaluable tool much of the time. And with an LX, one can employ near faultless OTF metering with stepless shutter speeds in auto exposure aperture priority mode, so speed and spontaneity are not an issue. I don't understand the advantage of working without it. Paul The simple fact is that ALL in camera meters are reflectance type meters and can give errors ( sometimes gross ) depending on what they are pointed at. I use an INCIDENT hand held meter for critical exposures and transfer the exposure settings manually to the camera for this very reason. Another big problem with in camera meters is they give different exposure values as the camera is moved around EVEN THOUGH THE LIGHT HASNT CHANGED!! I once shot an entire roll of slide film very fast ( motor drive) with the camera on AE and the exposures varied all over the place. VERY annoying. Never again. AE is OK for neg film due to latitude and corrections in printing but it sucks for slide film especially when the lighting conditions are not changing. Since I have been using hand held incident meter my exposures have been near perfect. It doesnt work if lighting conditions are changing rapidly, but then again I dont like to shoot under those conditions to begin with since good lighting conditions is probably the single most important factor in getting a good photograph. JCO - 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[4]: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
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 Click on metering. 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] Paul, I'm trying to figure out why everyone thinks the LX meter is so fantastic. Other than low light sensitivity, isn't it just a normal center weighted meter? Does it have special powers that other center weighted meters don't (outside of low light sensitivity)? Isn't it mostly about understanding the equipment and how it works to be able to use it wisely? Bruce Dayton Thursday, January 10, 2002, 8:24:30 PM, you wrote: PS I agree that an incident meter or a spot meter and careful calculation BB are PS superior to an in-camera meter, but the LX in -camera meter is very, BB very good PS and is far superior to guessing. Even when that guess is made by an BB experienced PS an knowledgable photograher. Of course you have to consider what's in BB frame and PS what your meter is reading. BTW, I've been using an incident meter (an BB old but PS very accurate Vivitar 285) with my 6x7 and am quite pleased with the BB results. PS Paul PS J. C. O'Connell wrote: [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Paul Stenquist Shel Belinkoff wrote: Spot metering on the LX would be nice, but since I don't use a BB meter much these days, I don't really care too much one way or another. I'm surprised that some people (not just you Shel) shun meters, yet agonize over ten seconds more or less development time, or whether to use BB this developer or that. An exposure that's off by 1/3 of a stop will do BB just as much to upset the balance of a negative as will 30 seconds too much development. The grain structure of a given developer and film will BB be affected significantly by half a stop too much or too little BB exposure. I don't understand why someone would not use a meter. Even in full sun, sunny sixteen exposures can be affected by airborne pollution or BB other atmospheric conditions. No one can consistently guess exposures to BB within more than half a stop. No one. Period. A meter is an invaluable tool BB much of the time. And with an LX, one can employ near faultless OTF BB metering with stepless shutter speeds in auto exposure aperture priority mode, BB so speed and spontaneity are not an issue. I don't understand the advantage of working without it. Paul The simple fact is that ALL in camera meters are reflectance type BB meters and can give errors ( sometimes gross ) depending on what they are BB pointed at. I use an INCIDENT hand held meter for critical exposures and BB transfer the exposure settings manually to the camera for this very reason. Another big problem with in camera meters is they give different BB exposure values as the camera is moved around EVEN THOUGH THE LIGHT HASNT BB CHANGED!! I once shot an entire roll of slide film very fast ( motor drive) with the camera on AE and the exposures varied all over the place. VERY BB annoying. Never again. AE is OK for neg film due to latitude and corrections in printing but it sucks for slide film especially when the lighting conditions are BB not changing. Since I have been using hand held incident meter my exposures have been BB near perfect. It doesnt work if lighting conditions are changing rapidly, but then BB again I dont like to shoot under those conditions to begin with since good lighting conditions is probably the single most important factor in getting a good BB photograph. JCO 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
Re: Re[4]: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
Because the LX meters off the film plane and not through the focus screen, it is not sensitive to the brightness (translucence) of the focus screen as is the MX or any other camera that has to meter through the screen. This allows the use of many different types of screens without having to compensate separately for each screen (or no screen at all in special circumstances). It also makes possible the use of a myriad of finders (or no finder at all!) while maintaining the ability to meter in a consistent manner. Regards, Bob... Let us contemplate our forefathers, and posterity, and resolve to maintain the rights bequeathed to us from the former, for the sake of the latter. The necessity of the times, more than ever, calls for our utmost circumspection, deliberation, fortitude, and perseverance. Let us remember that 'if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom.' It is a very serious consideration that millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event. - Samuel Adams, 1771 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/ - 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: Metering (WAS: RE: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...))
Pal, you are quite mistaken. Leaving the camera on automatic can cause exposure problems. Here's one example taken from a commentary by Kirk Tuck, in which he describes metering a scene in which the light doesn't change: When I meter my hand it meters the light falling on it and that light doesn't change during the shoot. When I shoot with the Leica I leave the exposure alone and since there is no option for auto-exposure I don't have the temptation to use it. When I used the F5 I was always lured by the siren call of advertising onto the rocks of multi-matrix super integrated automation. When I pointed the camera at the doctor's white coat the camera tried to compensate, kinda. When the camera pointed at the dark sweater of a patient the camera tried to compensate, kinda. According to my lab, this kinda automatic compensation means that most rolls of pro film are all over the map compared with film received ten years ago. Further, getting LX specific, the LX meter is bottom center weighted (http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/cameras/lx/lx_pat.html) which means that, if you turn the camera from horizontal to vertical to shoot the same scene in the same lighting, the camera may change the exposure due to the different relationship of dark to light elements in the scene. If one relies solely on automation for metering, rather than interpreting the scene and using one's brain to set the final exposure, there is a very good chance that the exposure will be off by some degree. JCO is right. Without involvement by the photographer a meter can be a pretty stupid thing, and staunch reliance on meter readings - regardless of what meter or what type of meter - is sometimes a very foolish approach. Tell me something - if the LX meter is so perfect, why do people continue to bracket their exposures? Pål Audun Jensen wrote: JCO wrote: In camera meters are very stupid to the point that a simple guess can easily be more accurate than even an LX with certain subjects. Certainly not. The LX meter and any other correctly calibrated meter is right 100% of the time. Very true to the point that in order to compensate for the in cameras meter's dumbness you end up guessing anyway. Thats why I use sunny f16 or an incident meter and manual exposure. It yeilds more consistant results than an in camera meter does. Whatever meter you use, consistent results are dependent whether or not the photographer knows what he wants and know how to use the meter. All meters are equal in this regard independent on whether the meter is physically located in a camera body or not. The advantage of meters like in the LX is that you can set exposure more accurate than 1/3 of a stop something that's impossible to do consistently with any hand-held meter. -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/ - 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[2]: Metering (WAS: RE: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...))
Shel, Very well put. The meter is just a tool. When understood and used properly, it can help you produce good results. When misunderstood or used poorly, it will be fooled quite often. Bruce Friday, January 11, 2002, 9:29:10 AM, you wrote: SB Pal, you are quite mistaken. Leaving the camera on automatic can cause SB exposure problems. Here's one example taken from a commentary by Kirk SB Tuck, in which he describes metering a scene in which the light doesn't SB change: SB When I meter my hand it meters the light falling on it and SB that light doesn't change during the shoot. When I shoot SB with the Leica I leave the exposure alone and since there SB is no option for auto-exposure I don't have the temptation SB to use it. When I used the F5 I was always lured by the siren SB call of advertising onto the rocks of multi-matrix super SB integrated automation. When I pointed the camera at the SB doctor's white coat the camera tried to compensate, kinda. SB When the camera pointed at the dark sweater of a patient SB the camera tried to compensate, kinda. According to my lab, SB this kinda automatic compensation means that most rolls of SB pro film are all over the map compared with film received SB ten years ago. SB Further, getting LX specific, the LX meter is bottom center weighted SB (http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/cameras/lx/lx_pat.html) which SB means that, if you turn the camera from horizontal to vertical to shoot SB the same scene in the same lighting, the camera may change the exposure SB due to the different relationship of dark to light elements in the SB scene. SB If one relies solely on automation for metering, rather than SB interpreting the scene and using one's brain to set the final exposure, SB there is a very good chance that the exposure will be off by some SB degree. JCO is right. Without involvement by the photographer a meter SB can be a pretty stupid thing, and staunch reliance on meter readings - SB regardless of what meter or what type of meter - is sometimes a very SB foolish approach. SB Tell me something - if the LX meter is so perfect, why do people SB continue to bracket their exposures? SB Pål Audun Jensen wrote: JCO wrote: In camera meters are very stupid to the point that a simple guess can easily be more accurate than even an LX with certain subjects. Certainly not. The LX meter and any other correctly calibrated meter is right 100% of the time. Very true to the point that in order to compensate for the in cameras meter's dumbness you end up guessing anyway. Thats why I use sunny f16 or an incident meter and manual exposure. It yeilds more consistant results than an in camera meter does. Whatever meter you use, consistent results are dependent whether or not the photographer knows what he wants and know how to use the meter. All meters are equal in this regard independent on whether the meter is physically located in a camera body or not. The advantage of meters like in the LX is that you can set exposure more accurate than 1/3 of a stop something that's impossible to do consistently with any hand-held meter. - 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: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
Isn't it mostly about understanding the equipment and how it works to be able to use it wisely? I think that's always the case. I think it also helps if the device is accurate and consistent, which some in-camera meters really aren't. I used to have an SPF, for instance, that would meter fairly accurately down to a certain lowish light level and then STOP metering accurately while continuing to give what LOOKED like active readouts! Very frustrating. You needed a meter to know when the light levels had gotten to the point that the meter wouldn't work! Also, many meters are non-linear. The might be accurate at EV10 but high at EV 15 and low at EV5 (or whatever). Lots of meters aren't very well color-corrected, either. That is, the same luminance of red or green will result in different readings when the readings ought to be identical. Don't forget that system flare affects meter accuracy, too. And finally, a lot of in-camera metering systems just contain a lot of slop and don't work repeatably. Some old meters needed to be charged by being exposed to brighter light before they would work with lower light. Some in-camera meters don't give the same reading for the same control subject time after time. Saying that the LX has a great meter really means that it avoids a whole rat's-nest of problems that variably afflict other in-camera meters--often enough, without the operator being very aware of them. The Leica M6 has a great meter too. Lots of cameras really don't. What's happened with meters over the decades has been interesting. Forty years ago photographers resisted any sort of in-camera meter. Then they wanted spot meters so they would know exactly what they were measuring. Then they wanted full-field meters (now called center-weighted) so they wouldn't have to spot meter. Now, since most photographers don't understand metering any more, we're to the point that we prefer the cameras to actually adjust for the scene FOR us, since we're apparently too thick to do it for ourselves. I've always thought it odd that most Matrix-type meters actually change a camera's exposure settings ON THEIR OWN--without telling the camera operator what adjustment has been made! One nice feature of the Contax Aria is that it has a scale in the viewfinder that shows the degree of adjustment between multi-segment metering and CW metering. An obvious feature. I should have thought that it would be a feature all photographers would have demanded as a matter of course after the advent of the Nikon FA (the first camera with multi-segment evaluative metering), but evidently, no. --Mike J. The 37th Frame, an independent newsletter for photographers www.37thframe.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: 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[2]: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
On Friday, January 11, 2002, at 01:31 AM, Bruce Dayton wrote: I'm trying to figure out why everyone thinks the LX meter is so fantastic. Other than low light sensitivity, isn't it just a normal center weighted meter? I like it for its low light sensitivity and because it will alter exposure time part way through a long exposure if the lighting conditions change. -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[4]: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
Aaron, Guess I phrased that badly. Other than low light *usage* (sensitivity and reaction-shutter), isn't it just a normal center weighted meter? Bruce Dayton Friday, January 11, 2002, 12:37:23 PM, you wrote: AR On Friday, January 11, 2002, at 01:31 AM, Bruce Dayton wrote: I'm trying to figure out why everyone thinks the LX meter is so fantastic. Other than low light sensitivity, isn't it just a normal center weighted meter? AR I like it for its low light sensitivity and because it will alter AR exposure time part way through a long exposure if the lighting AR conditions change. 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: Re[4]: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
It is, however, sensitive to the reflectivity of the film itself which seems to vary somewhat from film to film. Len --- - Original Message - From: Bob Blakely [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:54 AM Subject: Re: Re[4]: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...) Because the LX meters off the film plane and not through the focus screen, it is not sensitive to the brightness (translucence) of the focus screen as is the MX or any other camera that has to meter through the screen. This allows the use of many different types of screens without having to compensate separately for each screen (or no screen at all in special circumstances). It also makes possible the use of a myriad of finders (or no finder at all!) while maintaining the ability to meter in a consistent manner. Regards, Bob... Let us contemplate our forefathers, and posterity, and resolve to maintain the rights bequeathed to us from the former, for the sake of the latter. The necessity of the times, more than ever, calls for our utmost circumspection, deliberation, fortitude, and perseverance. Let us remember that 'if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom.' It is a very serious consideration that millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event. - Samuel Adams, 1771 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 / - 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 .
Face reflectivity of different ethnics (was: Re: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...))
HK Don't worry, I don't believe you will have offended anybody (unless HK they're very sensitive)! :) HK My hypothesis as to why (spot) metering of darker faces doesn't work is HK as follows. The lightmeter assumes 18% gray reflectance. However, in HK this case, the reflectance will be much lower. In an attempt to turn HK the image into an 18% gray image, the lightmeter will overexpose. HK Therefore you need to underexpose by maybe a stop or two, but I'm HK guessing. The opposite is true if you try photographing something HK really white eg snow or possibly sand at midday. (I hope I've got this HK the right way round...) But I am already figuring this into my exposure! I wrote in my post spotmetering faces and placing them at Zone 6 - that means because usual caucassian faces are about 1 stop brighter than medium gray (18% gray) for which meters are calibrated. So I need to open up one stop from the spotmeter reading. I use a simplified zone scale with the spotmeter, otherwise, it's almost useless. The problem is, I haven't figured yet how much the reflectivity of faces of dark skinned people (especially of certain ethnics, from middle Africa) differs from 18% gray. I know that for the caucassians, it's Zone 6. But what zone for them? Zone 4? 4.5? If it was normal portraits, I would be using incident metering. Best regards, Frantisek - 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: Face reflectivity of different ethnics (was: Re: getting LX -worth it? (repairs,...))
Frantisek ... It's not rocket science. It's not even brain surgery. If you're using a spot meter, meter the face and shoot at the indicated exposure. That will actually give you a little less than Zone V according to extrapolation of information from Kodak. Remember, all skin tones aren't equal, so you may have to run some tests to find which tones should fall into what zone. It's not always zone VI for Caucasians, either. If they have a tan, or a ruddy complexion, or are especially pale, you may have to adjust a bit. IOW, there is no simple, direct answer for all people under all situations. Go out and shoot some film, process it, print it, and see what the results are like. Frantisek Vlcek wrote: But I am already figuring this into my exposure! I wrote in my post spotmetering faces and placing them at Zone 6 - that means because usual caucassian faces are about 1 stop brighter than medium gray (18% gray) for which meters are calibrated. So I need to open up one stop from the spotmeter reading. I use a simplified zone scale with the spotmeter, otherwise, it's almost useless. The problem is, I haven't figured yet how much the reflectivity of faces of dark skinned people (especially of certain ethnics, from middle Africa) differs from 18% gray. I know that for the caucassians, it's Zone 6. But what zone for them? Zone 4? 4.5? If it was normal portraits, I would be using incident metering. -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/ - 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: Metering (WAS: RE: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...))
And even that's open to arguments these days. Kodak, in the instructions included with the grey card, says to meter the card and then open up ½-stop for a correct middle grey reading for average scenes. There have been numerous discussions in many venues as to whether some meters are calibrated for 18% grey or 13% grey. IAC, Pål is wrong and has been wrong about this for years. For some reason he wants to believe that a properly calibrated meter in one of these wunderkameras is always going to give precise and proper exposure. Please correct me, Pål, if I've misunderstood you - but that's what you seem to have been saying. J. C. O'Connell wrote: Wrong! All built in camera meters are only accurate when aimed at a subject with 18 % reflectance. -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/ - 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 .
Re: Metering (WAS: RE: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...))
- Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: Metering (WAS: RE: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)) The advantage of meters like in the LX is that you can set exposure more accurate than 1/3 of a stop something that's impossible to do consistently with any hand-held meter. Pål Wrong again , nearly all of the digital incident meters on the market are accurate to within 1/10 of a stop and the readouts are in 1/10 stops. My Minolta Autometer III which is 10 years old reads out fstop in 1/10 stop increments. Well, both right and wrong really. The handheld meter may well measure within 1/10 stop. Whether it is actually accurate to within 1/10 stop is another question. Presuming it is, you still need to be able to accurately transfer that reading to the camera, something that is well nigh impossible on any camera. My view camera lenses can be set fairly accurately to 1/6 stop with the aperture, but only full stops with the shutter. My miniature format and MF lenses can be set with repeatable accuracy to within 1/2 stop, and my tired old mechanical cameras can only be set to full stop shutter speeds as well. Come to think of it, my more modern MZ-5 has full stop shutter speeds as well. I don't know if the MZ-S or PZ series fairs better in this regard or not. 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[4]: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
I can get a 5 stop increase in meter reading from bright sunlight reflected off my glasses into my spotmatic meter. Mark Rofini Just another good reason to use a hand held meter and set the camera manually. JCO - 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]: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
I like it for its low light sensitivity and because it will alter exposure time part way through a long exposure if the lighting conditions change. -Aaron If the lighting conditions change during the exposure isnt the photograph going to be screw up anyway??? JCO - 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[4]: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Len Paris Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 5:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Re[4]: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...) It is, however, sensitive to the reflectivity of the film itself which seems to vary somewhat from film to film. Len Plus the reflectivity of the subject can fool it too. JCO - 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: Face reflectivity of different ethnics (was: Re: getting LX -worth it? (repairs,...))
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 6:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Face reflectivity of different ethnics (was: Re: getting LX -worth it? (repairs,...)) Frantisek ... It's not rocket science. It's not even brain surgery. If you're using a spot meter, meter the face and shoot at the indicated exposure. That will actually give you a little less than Zone V according to extrapolation of information from Kodak. Putting a dark skinned face at zone 5 will cause everexposure, It probably should be closer to zone 3 which would mean giving 2 stops LESS exposure than the spot meter reading. JCO - 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: Face reflectivity of different ethnics (was: Re: getting LX-worth it? (repairs,...))
You've quoted me out of context. Shame on you! There is no absolutely correct exposure for dark skinned people, which is what I said in my original post. Metering the face and using that exposure will not always give you overexposure, and it doesn't always give you Zone V, either. I said that it gives less than Zone V, based on Kodak's grey card instruction sheet. In addition, stopping down two stops to Zone III may cause a loss of detail and contrast in highlights, in and around the eyes, and in other shadow areas. There are many factors involved in getting a correct exposure for skin tones, and I made that clear to some extent in my original post. I suggested Zone V minus as a starting point, and that further tests would be advised. J. C. O'Connell wrote: Putting a dark skinned face at zone 5 will cause everexposure, It probably should be closer to zone 3 which would mean giving 2 stops LESS exposure than the spot meter reading. -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/ - 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: Face reflectivity of different ethnics (was: Re: getting LX-worth it? (repairs,...))
I think its much easier to just use an incidence meter right in front of the subject's face and use THAT reading. then the face will fall on the correct zone automatically. JCO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:00 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Face reflectivity of different ethnics (was: Re: getting LX-worth it? (repairs,...)) You've quoted me out of context. Shame on you! There is no absolutely correct exposure for dark skinned people, which is what I said in my original post. Metering the face and using that exposure will not always give you overexposure, and it doesn't always give you Zone V, either. I said that it gives less than Zone V, based on Kodak's grey card instruction sheet. In addition, stopping down two stops to Zone III may cause a loss of detail and contrast in highlights, in and around the eyes, and in other shadow areas. There are many factors involved in getting a correct exposure for skin tones, and I made that clear to some extent in my original post. I suggested Zone V minus as a starting point, and that further tests would be advised. J. C. O'Connell wrote: Putting a dark skinned face at zone 5 will cause everexposure, It probably should be closer to zone 3 which would mean giving 2 stops LESS exposure than the spot meter reading. -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/ - 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[4]: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
It is, however, sensitive to the reflectivity of the film itself which seems to vary somewhat from film to film. Len Plus the reflectivity of the subject can fool it too. JCO Yep. That's why when I'm in doubt I whip out my trusty Gossen for an incident reading. I will grant that multi-segment meters in cameras are a lot better than single area meters because they try to integrate the light differences and give an exposure that attempts to cover the range in the scene, but they can still be fooled by a large imbalance and skew the overall exposure. I have to believe that the Nikon F5, with its 1024 (IIRC) segments has a pretty good track record for not being fooled. But, if you want the middle gray parts of a scene to actually register as middle gray on film, I don't think anything is more accurate than an incident meter. I usually use the meter in the PZ-1p, tempered with a bit of judgement from experience, but the Gossen is always within reach when I need to be sure. Len --- - 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]: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
- Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: Re[2]: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...) I like it for its low light sensitivity and because it will alter exposure time part way through a long exposure if the lighting conditions change. -Aaron If the lighting conditions change during the exposure isnt the photograph going to be screw up anyway??? http://www.pdml.net/LX_Gallery/sasklx.html The lighting guy was changing the lights fast enough that I couldn't get an accurate manual exposure (I am no slouch with a camera, BTW). This was shot with the LX set to automatic. I recall being quite amazed while shooting this concert because the camera kept giving very diffeent readings from what it was indicating. The LX metering system in auto is quite an amazing piece of work. If the light levels drop during the exposure, the camera will continue to expose the film until the correct exposure is reached. If the light levels increase, the camera will cut off the exposure prior to what was indicated when the shutter was actuated when the correct exposure is achieved. In a normal auto exposure, or manual exposure situation, if the light level changes during exposure, the rxposure will be off. The beauty of the LX metering sustem is that it continues to meter the exposure while the exposure is happening, and therefore can react to changing light coditions during the exposure. It is unique in this particular feature. AFAIK, all other cameras stop metering the scene when the shutter is actuated. 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[4]: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
Rob, You know, it is an interesting thing, that perhaps there is really something to the precision of the meter. I find it curious that none of the advertising from any of the main makers (Pentax, Nikon, Canon, Minolta) ever make any claims over the precision and consistency of their meters. They all talk about the capabilities (color sensitivity, 5000 sensors, low light, etc.) but they don't talk about the quality of the meter. Is it because it can't be measured very well or demonstrated or ??? Bruce Dayton Friday, January 11, 2002, 10:48:36 PM, you wrote: RS On 11 Jan 2002 at 16:38, Bruce Dayton wrote: Paul, I keep trying to stop asking questions, but you guys keep making statements that need clarifying. Other than Mike Johnston making a statement that many meters are inaccurate, I really haven't heard much about most center weighted meters be inaccurate. Do you have any other information that you can share with us to that end? I would love to hear it. Are most other Pentax bodies center weighted meters inaccurate? Or is it mostly other brands or what? RS Hi Bruce, RS I can't quantify it scientifically either but the LX meter is very predictable, RS it is easy to learn how it behaves and to make consistently good exposures. As RS Mike said earlier, the M6 meter is a good meter too. The LX and M6 are my main RS cameras I get very consistent exposures from each, my Mamiya 7II apparently has RS an accurate spot meter but I can't drive it, I have to use external metering or RS my results stink (the LX and M6 make handy external meters :-) RS Like others have mentioned too, I think that internal spot-meters are way over RS rated, they are inconsistent in AOV and they most often don't offer the RS exposure calculation features offered on external meters. I have an MZ-S and RS whilst it makes a cool noise and offers AF capabilities it isn't a great RS advantage to me in my general subject matter and shooting style. It must be the RS same for many other LX users I am sure. RS Cheer, RS Rob Studdert RS HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA RS Tel +61-2-9554-4110 RS UTC(GMT) +10 Hours RS [EMAIL PROTECTED] RS http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html RS - RS This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, RS go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to RS 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: Metering (WAS: RE: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...))
Number 3.Some claim that using an incident light meter always gives the best exposure. Bull. Example: You are taking a photo of a bride and groom. The groom in wearing black with some pattern in his tux you want to reproduce as best as possible. The bride is wearing white with delicate white patterns you want to reproduce as best as possible. The goal here is more about getting the extremes within the latitude of the film and (if necessary) adjusting other areas in the darkroom. It's about getting as much information on the film as possible to give you choices later. This will not necessarily work by simply using an incident light meter. It depends on the characteristics of the film and how it works at the gray scale edges. The incidence metering technique gives the best POSSIBLE exposure with a given film. But the only way to capture what your talking about is to change to lower contrast film, using a spot meter or an in camera meter with the same film/developer is not going to help one bit JCO - 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[4]: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
On 12 Jan 2002 at 2:22, J. C. O'Connell wrote: No one is listening to me. INCIDENCE meters do not get fooled by the reflectivity of the subject, they meter the light level FALLING on the objects, not the light reflected off them. Like everyone else seems to be saying, we appreciate the benefits of incident meters. I too love my little Gossen Luna Pro digital F, but I don't blindly trust it. You still need to make executive decisions, simply transcribing the meter reading to the camera dials won't guarantee an aesthetically pleasing photograph (nor necessarily a technically perfect exposure).. and that's what it's all about isn't it? Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.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: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
I think that if many people made contact sheets instead of prints, they'd be surprised at the sometimes widely varying quality of their exposures. Recently I was trying out a new MX and checking the meter. I pointed the camera at a lamp in my bedroom, with the light source centered. The camera showed one reading. I then moved the camera slightly, so the lamp was still in the finder, but just a little off center. The camera's meter indicated a different exposure was required, yet ABSOLUTELY NOTHING had changed in the way of lighting, or in the subject matter of the scene. By viewing the metering pattern of the camera (http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/cameras/mx/mx-meter-pattern.gif) it becomes clear that the meter will give that point source of light a different weight as the light moves from the center of the metering zone, thereby changing the recommended exposure, even though nothing has changed in the scene. Unless one knows and understands how the meter is reading the light and determining the exposure, the actual exposure could be either under or over the ideal exposure for that scene. Now, the nice thing about the MX is that the camera operator has to manually change the exposure, forcing the photographer to think a moment before pressing the shutter release. But, if one were using an automatic exposure system, every time the camera moved slightly, the exposure would change to some degree. The result is exactly what you, as a lab tech, see - widely varying exposures. Now - getting back to alternative methods of exposure - if one were using a spot meter here, the bright light source would be metered, and the resulting exposure would be made by opening up two or three stops from that reading, depending on the result the photographer was trying to obtain, and that setting would be used for all subsequent exposures of the scene, even if the camera position was moved. William Robb wrote: I compare this to what I see coming from the few fancy SLR cameras that come through my lab, and I cringe. I am also glad I don't have to make contact sheets from them. William Robb -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/ - 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[4]: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
On 12 Jan 2002 at 0:57, William Robb wrote: Something to think about: The Pentax 6x7 is a full averaging meter. No center weighting, no multi patterning. Nothing fancy. I could never get my head around that meter, I had to resort to external metering, I can cope with full frame average outside the VF but inside I see the scene centre weighted, each to their own I guess. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.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: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
Hi all, so it seems there are mostly happy users with few who were unlucky and had to spend fortune on repairs. So there is some risk I think. Well, I still don't know... I wanted the LX because I need a good main camera instead of my SFXn, keeping the K2DMD as a great backup or second body for colour/BW choices. I wanted a body that would be easy to use (I never got truly used to SFXn, I kept forgeting to set the iso or exposure compensation back to zero,... - not that it's a bad body, it's one of the last AF bodies with completely metal guts, quite rugged and with a better viewfinder than any later AF body with exception of MZ-S and maybe Z1p, but its not my style - I want knobs and dials: a Luddite camera b). A body which can operate even without batteries. That won't fail on me during shooting. But it seems even the LX isn't without quirks, and with my (bad) luck in camera purchases... I simply don't know. BTW, that's another question - any members had their LX fail them in any way during shooting? E.g. in India, or even plain studio at home :) ? Thanks a lot! Good light, Frantisek Vlcek - 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: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
Hello everyone, I found the best cure for the ailment of my LX was to put it in the attic in the spare camera bag and use the MX again. Malcolm :-( -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Frantisek Vlcek Sent: 10 January 2002 08:40 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...) Hi all, so it seems there are mostly happy users with few who were unlucky and had to spend fortune on repairs. So there is some risk I think. Well, I still don't know... I wanted the LX because I need a good main camera instead of my SFXn, keeping the K2DMD as a great backup or second body for colour/BW choices. I wanted a body that would be easy to use (I never got truly used to SFXn, I kept forgeting to set the iso or exposure compensation back to zero,... - not that it's a bad body, it's one of the last AF bodies with completely metal guts, quite rugged and with a better viewfinder than any later AF body with exception of MZ-S and maybe Z1p, but its not my style - I want knobs and dials: a Luddite camera b). A body which can operate even without batteries. That won't fail on me during shooting. But it seems even the LX isn't without quirks, and with my (bad) luck in camera purchases... I simply don't know. BTW, that's another question - any members had their LX fail them in any way during shooting? E.g. in India, or even plain studio at home :) ? Thanks a lot! Good light, Frantisek Vlcek - 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: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
I don't know about others, but I think Super A/Program and ME Super are some of the most reliable Pentax bodies. LX certainly is not on the list. regards, Alan Chan so it seems there are mostly happy users with few who were unlucky and had to spend fortune on repairs. So there is some risk I think. Well, I still don't know... I wanted the LX because I need a good main camera instead of my SFXn, keeping the K2DMD as a great backup or second body for colour/BW choices. I wanted a body that would be easy to use (I never got truly used to SFXn, I kept forgeting to set the iso or exposure compensation back to zero,... - not that it's a bad body, it's one of the last AF bodies with completely metal guts, quite rugged and with a better viewfinder than any later AF body with exception of MZ-S and maybe Z1p, but its not my style - I want knobs and dials: a Luddite camera b). A body which can operate even without batteries. That won't fail on me during shooting. But it seems even the LX isn't without quirks, and with my (bad) luck in camera purchases... I simply don't know. BTW, that's another question - any members had their LX fail them in any way during shooting? E.g. in India, or even plain studio at home :) ? _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.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[2]: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
Hi, BTW, that's another question - any members had their LX fail them in any way during shooting? E.g. in India, or even plain studio at home :) ? I bought my 1st LX after I'd been using 2 MXs and one of them repeatedly failed on me in Ethiopia. When I got back to the UK I traded it in for an LX. About 18 months later I was back in Africa with an LX, MX and Super A. The Super A and the LX both repeatedly failed on me in Ethiopia, Zanzibar and South Africa, and so did my A* 135/1.8 lens. They'd all been fine in the UK, so I guess it was the change of environment that triggered the problems at that particular time. Only my original bought-from-new MX and the other lenses kept on going. The MX had already been through many, many trips and changes of environment since I first bought it, so I think it was experienced at that sort of thing. When I got back I joined this forum and learned about the sticky mirror problem, which is what the LX problem was, so I had it fixed and the camera worked perfectly from then on. I got rid of the Super A and eventually bought 2 more LXs. One of them had the sticky mirror problem from the word 'go', which I didn't mind because I knew about it. The other was fine and never gave me any trouble iirc. I never got to take any of them back to Africa, but they did get some rough treatment, including winter temperatures in Moscow. It's almost impossible to predict how any used camera is going to react to a long-haul flight and dramatic change of environment. The best you can do is have plenty of cover and hope that at least one set doesn't fail. From the spec you've given you might prefer to buy a new Nikon FM3A, which has many of the great LX features (surpasses it in some ways), but then you'd have to get a whole bunch of their lenses too. --- Bob 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: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
The LX is a fine camera. However, It is not the most modern camera and cannot do many automatic things. I personally like manual cameras; the only SLRs I own are MXs and LXs. The question to buy one or not should be based on what you can afford and what your needs are. The LX has some distinct draw backs, if you need a quiet camera you may no want the LX, on the other hand if you are shooting a lot of low light stuff then you might want it. I personally love it, if you want a good mostly manual camera and can afford it and the repairs, if necessary, then get it. I think people, especially Americans suffer from the me too mentality. They all have X so I should buy X. If you do decide to get one, either buy one that has been recently CLAd or a later model with serial numbers 533 or 535, if a 538 exists it is probably worth it, although I have seen a lot of people make mistakes with the serial numbers. So I wouldnt be surprised that it was a 528 or a 533, I have a 523 that I though was a 529 for a while. Geoff - 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: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
Hi Frantisek, On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 09:39:54 +0100, Frantisek Vlcek wrote: BTW, that's another question - any members had their LX fail them in any way during shooting? E.g. in India, or even plain studio at home :) ? No failures here, except for the ones by the guy pressing the shutter release button. I'm still using the battery that was in it when I bought it. :-) TTYL, DougF - 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: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
For me, it's more than just that. The interchangeable screens and finders make this a very special camera, as do some of the neat accessories. Aaron Reynolds wrote: Like I keep saying, if Pentax sold a 67 with the LX OTF meter in it, I'd never need to buy another camera in my life. ;) I'm a big fan of my LX. -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/ - 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: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
Hey Bruce ... No need for the Nomex underwear, you just have different needs and preferences. Spot metering on the LX would be nice, but since I don't use a meter much these days, I don't really care too much one way or another. And since I don't use flash I couldn't care about flash sync ... in fact, none of the features you mentioned are ones that I have a need for. In the FWIW department, the low light shots I took last night were just fine with no signs of reciprocity failure. Others have mentioned this, too. Anyway, I'm just mentioning all this not to negate your comments but to emphasize the point that one camera may perform better, or be more comfortable to use, for one person than another. Blindly following list enablement is silly, although I'm not suggesting that Frantisek is doing that, as it seems he's looked into the features that are important to him. Having spent a few hours with a PZ-1p it became clear that it was not the camera for me, regardless of its modern features. The camera was uncomfortable to hold, had too many bells and whistles, lacked true MLU, interchangeable finders, the great tactile sensation of a black metal body, and a certain stealth quality. But that doesn't mean that it's a poor camera, or that it's not the ideal body for some people. As an addendum to my morning, coffee-inspired rambling, I received a 66 year old Leica the other day. Talk about retro - it doesn't even offer interchangeable lenses in the manner to which we've become accustomed, and the viewfinder is tiny, there's no film advance lever, just a knob, and film loading seems to require some contortionist skills. Nonetheless, it's a very appealing camera, and playing with it has shown that it has some advantages over more modern cameras, although ease of use may not be one of them. For example, my first reaction to there being no advance lever was that it would be a PITA to move the film along. But, after playing with it for a while I realized that I could turn the knob quite easily with just a finger, and that I didn't have to remove the camera from my eye to make way for the advance lever. IOW, advancing the film was very simple and easier for a left-eyed shooter like myself. With the collapsible lens the entire camera is only 42mm deep, and with a body that is both narrower and shorter than the MX, it fits easily into the pocket of most of my shirts, and into the pockets of my jeans, a feature that I like and which is somewhat important to me. So, while I don't see it as being a daily shooter, I do see its advantages and benefits, and recognize that it might have a place in ~my~ camera bag, while others will handily dismiss this little jewel in favor of the features provided by a bigger, louder, body with bigger lenses. Bruce Dayton wrote: I know it is probably a sacrilege to say so...but I have not been tempted by the LX. Even after handling one of Shel's. I don't feel that for my uses and needs that it really offers an over abundance of features. Unique to it are probably build quality and low-light metering. What is missing are things like spot metering, high speed flash synch, program shutter priority, easy flash fill, AF and simple things like you mentioned plague you - DX coding of film cartridges. I freely admit that there are some system things about the LX that aren't available to the MZ-S and PZ-1p, but those are things that I don't need very often or have never used so I don't know what I've been missing. In my hands, and for my uses, the LX is not the ideal camera. I don't shoot much low light, and if I did, I suspect that reciprocity failure creeps in pretty quick anyway - causing a need for bracketing. My night time experiments have turned out just fine without an LX. Yes, it might be a little better but not enough to warrant all the other things that I lose that I use more. I suspect, you should really try one. If you are one of those who becomes smitten with it, then by all means, get one. I think the advice is wise to plan on a good CLA to make sure you know the state of the camera. -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/ - 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: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
On Thursday, January 10, 2002, at 11:26 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: For me, it's more than just that. The interchangeable screens and finders make this a very special camera, as do some of the neat accessories. Yeah, but the ones I like/need/want can, for the most part, be had for the 6x7 already. There are only two reasons I don't use the 67 for everything: 1) it's too loud for quiet situations, like photographing musicians while they play (unless the band is Big Sugar, who I DID photograph with my 67, and no one heard me ;) ) 2) it doesn't have the LX's wicked OTF meter. -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: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
I found the best cure for the ailment of my LX was to put it in the attic in the spare camera bag and use the MX again. Hi Malcolm, Eh?? What's up with it??? Concerned, Cotty ___ Personal email traffic to [EMAIL PROTECTED] MacAds traffic to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Check out the UK Macintosh ads http://www.macads.co.uk - 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: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
I'll contact you off list my friend. Malcolm -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Cotty Sent: 10 January 2002 18:30 To: Pentax List Subject: RE: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...) I found the best cure for the ailment of my LX was to put it in the attic in the spare camera bag and use the MX again. Hi Malcolm, Eh?? What's up with it??? Concerned, Cotty ___ Personal email traffic to [EMAIL PROTECTED] MacAds traffic to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Check out the UK Macintosh ads http://www.macads.co.uk - 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: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
Shel Belinkoff wrote: Spot metering on the LX would be nice, but since I don't use a meter much these days, I don't really care too much one way or another. I'm surprised that some people (not just you Shel) shun meters, yet agonize over ten seconds more or less development time, or whether to use this developer or that. An exposure that's off by 1/3 of a stop will do just as much to upset the balance of a negative as will 30 seconds too much development. The grain structure of a given developer and film will be affected significantly by half a stop too much or too little exposure. I don't understand why someone would not use a meter. Even in full sun, sunny sixteen exposures can be affected by airborne pollution or other atmospheric conditions. No one can consistently guess exposures to within more than half a stop. No one. Period. A meter is an invaluable tool much of the time. And with an LX, one can employ near faultless OTF metering with stepless shutter speeds in auto exposure aperture priority mode, so speed and spontaneity are not an issue. I don't understand the advantage of working without it. Paul - 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: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
Subject: Re: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...) I agree that an incident meter or a spot meter and careful calculation are superior to an in-camera meter, but the LX in -camera meter is very, very good and is far superior to guessing. Even when that guess is made by an experienced an knowledgable photograher. Give me a clear sunny day and I bet I can guess the exposure better than an LX can when the subject matter is either very light or very dark. In camera meters are very stupid to the point that a simple guess can easily be more accurate than even an LX with certain subjects. Of course you have to consider what's in frame and what your meter is reading. Very true to the point that in order to compensate for the in cameras meter's dumbness you end up guessing anyway. Thats why I use sunny f16 or an incident meter and manual exposure. It yeilds more consistant results than an in camera meter does. BTW, I've been using an incident meter (an old but very accurate Vivitar 285) with my 6x7 and am quite pleased with the results. Paul You should be, thats the way to go J. C. O'Connell wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Paul Stenquist Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 10:43 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...) Shel Belinkoff wrote: Spot metering on the LX would be nice, but since I don't use a meter much these days, I don't really care too much one way or another. I'm surprised that some people (not just you Shel) shun meters, yet agonize over ten seconds more or less development time, or whether to use this developer or that. An exposure that's off by 1/3 of a stop will do just as much to upset the balance of a negative as will 30 seconds too much development. The grain structure of a given developer and film will be affected significantly by half a stop too much or too little exposure. I don't understand why someone would not use a meter. Even in full sun, sunny sixteen exposures can be affected by airborne pollution or other atmospheric conditions. No one can consistently guess exposures to within more than half a stop. No one. Period. A meter is an invaluable tool much of the time. And with an LX, one can employ near faultless OTF metering with stepless shutter speeds in auto exposure aperture priority mode, so speed and spontaneity are not an issue. I don't understand the advantage of working without it. Paul The simple fact is that ALL in camera meters are reflectance type meters and can give errors ( sometimes gross ) depending on what they are pointed at. I use an INCIDENT hand held meter for critical exposures and transfer the exposure settings manually to the camera for this very reason. Another big problem with in camera meters is they give different exposure values as the camera is moved around EVEN THOUGH THE LIGHT HASNT CHANGED!! I once shot an entire roll of slide film very fast ( motor drive) with the camera on AE and the exposures varied all over the place. VERY annoying. Never again. AE is OK for neg film due to latitude and corrections in printing but it sucks for slide film especially when the lighting conditions are not changing. Since I have been using hand held incident meter my exposures have been near perfect. It doesnt work if lighting conditions are changing rapidly, but then again I dont like to shoot under those conditions to begin with since good lighting conditions is probably the single most important factor in getting a good photograph. JCO - 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 . - 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]: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
Paul, I'm trying to figure out why everyone thinks the LX meter is so fantastic. Other than low light sensitivity, isn't it just a normal center weighted meter? Does it have special powers that other center weighted meters don't (outside of low light sensitivity)? Isn't it mostly about understanding the equipment and how it works to be able to use it wisely? Bruce Dayton Thursday, January 10, 2002, 8:24:30 PM, you wrote: PS I agree that an incident meter or a spot meter and careful calculation are PS superior to an in-camera meter, but the LX in -camera meter is very, very good PS and is far superior to guessing. Even when that guess is made by an experienced PS an knowledgable photograher. Of course you have to consider what's in frame and PS what your meter is reading. BTW, I've been using an incident meter (an old but PS very accurate Vivitar 285) with my 6x7 and am quite pleased with the results. PS Paul PS J. C. O'Connell wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Paul Stenquist Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 10:43 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...) Shel Belinkoff wrote: Spot metering on the LX would be nice, but since I don't use a meter much these days, I don't really care too much one way or another. I'm surprised that some people (not just you Shel) shun meters, yet agonize over ten seconds more or less development time, or whether to use this developer or that. An exposure that's off by 1/3 of a stop will do just as much to upset the balance of a negative as will 30 seconds too much development. The grain structure of a given developer and film will be affected significantly by half a stop too much or too little exposure. I don't understand why someone would not use a meter. Even in full sun, sunny sixteen exposures can be affected by airborne pollution or other atmospheric conditions. No one can consistently guess exposures to within more than half a stop. No one. Period. A meter is an invaluable tool much of the time. And with an LX, one can employ near faultless OTF metering with stepless shutter speeds in auto exposure aperture priority mode, so speed and spontaneity are not an issue. I don't understand the advantage of working without it. Paul The simple fact is that ALL in camera meters are reflectance type meters and can give errors ( sometimes gross ) depending on what they are pointed at. I use an INCIDENT hand held meter for critical exposures and transfer the exposure settings manually to the camera for this very reason. Another big problem with in camera meters is they give different exposure values as the camera is moved around EVEN THOUGH THE LIGHT HASNT CHANGED!! I once shot an entire roll of slide film very fast ( motor drive) with the camera on AE and the exposures varied all over the place. VERY annoying. Never again. AE is OK for neg film due to latitude and corrections in printing but it sucks for slide film especially when the lighting conditions are not changing. Since I have been using hand held incident meter my exposures have been near perfect. It doesnt work if lighting conditions are changing rapidly, but then again I dont like to shoot under those conditions to begin with since good lighting conditions is probably the single most important factor in getting a good photograph. JCO - 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 . PS - PS This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, PS go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to PS 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: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
Hi Bruce, I'm trying to figure out why everyone thinks the LX meter is so fantastic. If you're not going to be using it for photography in very low light, I don't see it as necessarily any better than other meters. However, if what you mean is the exposure system, then it does have some benefits since the meter will read the light and make adjustments during the exposure itself. How important is that in most situations? Not very, however if situations require exposures longer than, for example, 1/4 second in rapidly changing light, it can be helpful. Other than low light sensitivity, isn't it just a normal center weighted meter? Does it have special powers that other center weighted meters don't (outside of low light sensitivity)? See above. Isn't it mostly about understanding the equipment and how it works to be able to use it wisely? That's always the case, but if the system doesn't have the capability, you can't use it, no matter how wisely. Bruce Dayton Thursday, January 10, 2002, 8:24:30 PM, you wrote: PS I agree that an incident meter or a spot meter and careful calculation are PS superior to an in-camera meter, but the LX in -camera meter is very, very good PS and is far superior to guessing. Even when that guess is made by an experienced PS an knowledgable photograher. Of course you have to consider what's in frame and PS what your meter is reading. BTW, I've been using an incident meter (an old but PS very accurate Vivitar 285) with my 6x7 and am quite pleased with the results. PS Paul PS J. C. O'Connell wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Paul Stenquist Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 10:43 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...) Shel Belinkoff wrote: Spot metering on the LX would be nice, but since I don't use a meter much these days, I don't really care too much one way or another. I'm surprised that some people (not just you Shel) shun meters, yet agonize over ten seconds more or less development time, or whether to use this developer or that. An exposure that's off by 1/3 of a stop will do just as much to upset the balance of a negative as will 30 seconds too much development. The grain structure of a given developer and film will be affected significantly by half a stop too much or too little exposure. I don't understand why someone would not use a meter. Even in full sun, sunny sixteen exposures can be affected by airborne pollution or other atmospheric conditions. No one can consistently guess exposures to within more than half a stop. No one. Period. A meter is an invaluable tool much of the time. And with an LX, one can employ near faultless OTF metering with stepless shutter speeds in auto exposure aperture priority mode, so speed and spontaneity are not an issue. I don't understand the advantage of working without it. Paul The simple fact is that ALL in camera meters are reflectance type meters and can give errors ( sometimes gross ) depending on what they are pointed at. I use an INCIDENT hand held meter for critical exposures and transfer the exposure settings manually to the camera for this very reason. Another big problem with in camera meters is they give different exposure values as the camera is moved around EVEN THOUGH THE LIGHT HASNT CHANGED!! I once shot an entire roll of slide film very fast ( motor drive) with the camera on AE and the exposures varied all over the place. VERY annoying. Never again. AE is OK for neg film due to latitude and corrections in printing but it sucks for slide film especially when the lighting conditions are not changing. Since I have been using hand held incident meter my exposures have been near perfect. It doesnt work if lighting conditions are changing rapidly, but then again I dont like to shoot under those conditions to begin with since good lighting conditions is probably the single most important factor in getting a good photograph. JCO - 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 . PS - PS This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, PS go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to PS 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 . -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions
getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
Hi, so, is getting an LX body really worth it? I have an K2DMD body and a SFXn body which I will sell to fund the LX, BUT - is the LX really worth it? What about the horrid stories of sticky mirror and other nightmares? What if I am unlucky and get an LX which will need repair all the time? I want an LX because it is a system camera, unlike my K2DMD. The LX can use different screens, winders/motors, ... but my K2DMD can use only one rare motor (rather slow at 2.5fps), no screens (which is a pity, as the original screen is not up to todays standards),... Also, the K2 has quite noisy and vibrating shutter mechanism, even if mirror is locked up. Is the LX beter in this regard? Does it also lock up the aperture stopdown lever? So you LX users, no winks ;-) this time, are you really satisfied with your LX? Did you have to invest much money in the repair? Good light, Frantisek Vlcek - 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: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
I've had two early vintage LX [3200 ASA but prism release button doesn't activitate meter, no rollers on back cover, and old-style shutter curtain dot pattern] for a few years. I sent one for a CLA soon after I got it because of deteriorating foam around the focus screen. [I forget the cost]. Otherwise, I have not had any problem with sticky mirror or otherwise. I recall someone on this list mentioning a while back that a sticky mirror problem would be fixed by Pentax as part of a CLA, without additional cost. I think the general consensus is to factor in the cost of a CLA when you buy an LX, at least an older one. After a CLA, you should have a great camera that, at least in my limited experience, is reliable. However, I wouldn't think that an LX would be sold for parts just because of a sticky mirror problem. Is there something else? Steve - 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: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
I bought mine off eBay for a really good price and have not had it serviced. I've bought some new screens because I prefer matte focusing screens. As Cesar can attest mine is almost pristine (especially when compared to his hahahaha). I have never been happier. The LX has brought back a joy for photography that I had lost while struggling with crappy K-mount knock-offs (see also: Ricoh). Is it worth it? Do you like manual focus cameras with only AP autoexposure and metered manual and center weighted metering? Do you think OTF can be really as good as people say it is? You bet! ;-) Christian - Original Message - From: Frantisek Vlcek [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 4:53 PM Subject: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...) Hi, so, is getting an LX body really worth it? I have an K2DMD body and a SFXn body which I will sell to fund the LX, BUT - is the LX really worth it? What about the horrid stories of sticky mirror and other nightmares? What if I am unlucky and get an LX which will need repair all the time? I want an LX because it is a system camera, unlike my K2DMD. The LX can use different screens, winders/motors, ... but my K2DMD can use only one rare motor (rather slow at 2.5fps), no screens (which is a pity, as the original screen is not up to todays standards),... Also, the K2 has quite noisy and vibrating shutter mechanism, even if mirror is locked up. Is the LX beter in this regard? Does it also lock up the aperture stopdown lever? So you LX users, no winks ;-) this time, are you really satisfied with your LX? Did you have to invest much money in the repair? Good light, Frantisek Vlcek - 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: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
Warning: long message. Frantisek Vlcek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, so, is getting an LX body really worth it? I have an K2DMD body and a SFXn body which I will sell to fund the LX, BUT - is the LX really worth it? What about the horrid stories of sticky mirror and other nightmares? What if I am unlucky and get an LX which will need repair all the time? Hi Frantisek, I'm sure you'll receive a big amount of replies to your questions... My LX story: When I bought my first LX I had to collect every single coin I had, serching in the pockets to find the forgotten ones to fund the purchase of my life. Never heard at that time of a sticky mirror sindrome, never even thought of manythings, like do I really need it? and something. The LX was there. I had to buy it. It costed me all the money I, poor student, had at the time. When I developed the first roll I almost cried out what the h**l? because the frame spacing was uneven not using the winder, the exposure was a bit too generous, and I had had to wait a lot to obtain a new strap and the standard prism (she wore the FB1-FC1 finder). Nevertheless, I began to feel more used to the (few, be careful) flaws of the camera and started to use it more and more. My first paid job in photography was shot with this LX, I can say it paid for itself the first time I used it in a working situation. About its reliability, well... After the first moment of disappointment, the camera (which had been used a lot, but less than others I own) began to work almost flawlessly, with probably the highest % of properly exposed slides among all the cameras I had used before (including the Contax RX and the N F90x). When I last used it without any problem was during a two weeks vacation in the Eolian Islands. I had just bought the Z-1p, but decided to bring to Stromboli the LX instead. On the 14th and last day on the island the camera fell on a concrete floor from my open backpack that I was putting on my shoulders to go to the ferry... A bad fall. Finder cover dented (as you know) but camera still working in manual - even the meter keep working, although all the automatic functions were gone. Many days of anguish. I couldn't afford to have it repaired by the official assistance. I went to a repairman in Naples and asked him if he could repair it. The LX came back after almost five months. The repair was almost inexpensive, and it started a new life. Only I could not trust it completely (I was wrong, now I know, but then...) because the repairman was a bit too superficial with a lot of things; so I started to look for another LX. Meanwhile, I used this first body mostly for available light, handheld BW shots and the results were always amazing. Two years later the second LX was added to my equipment. I bought it in ugly conditions, with a mirror misaligned (repaired at no cost), at more or less the same cost of a CLA for the other one. When I started to actually use this second LX I realized what marvelous instrument it is and started again a heavy use of the first one, with no complaints. Then I bought another one... and then another one... and then a data back... and few screens... and another winder... and... Now I can be sure that every kind of situation I have to face I have a photographic system that can handle it at best. And I can also leave a couple of LX at home just in case... Also, the K2 has quite noisy and vibrating shutter mechanism, even if mirror is locked up. Is the LX beter in this regard? Does it also lock up the aperture stopdown lever? The LX is not that noisy (I own a K2 as well) but definitely not a silent camera. The early models have a metallic sound that can be annoying, but the recent ones produce a more dumped sound. When you engage the mirror lock up lever it stops the aperture down too. The noise drops a lot with the mirror locked up. So you LX users, no winks ;-) this time, are you really satisfied with your LX? Did you have to invest much money in the repair? I'm now completely satisfied with my four (once five...) LX. I can use different bodies for some jobs, I can chose MF when I need a huge enlargment, but the LX is my first choice for real photographic pleasure. At least in 35mm... But, as some of us use to say, YMMV... :-) Gianfranco = Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ - 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: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
Frantisek, I have purchased 2 LX's with sticky mirrors in the USA, for about $200 each. $400 is a good price here for a properly operating unit. I had the local guy do a new rubber bumper for $50 or so and the first one was fine for about a year, then it developed a dead spot on the aperture resistor... so I sent it off to a New York repair center. They fixed it, upgraded the metering circuitry (so the button for the viewfinder release activated the meter), and replaced the top under the winder because it had a dented. Total cost was about $175 for the work. I had the second LX serviced by Pentax, a CLA for about $150. I was apprehensive, but they were fine. My recommendation is... Find a way to buy the camera at a good price, and then pay for a good CLA. The interchangable screens, viewfinders, and Motor drive are worth the upgrade from the K2DMD and you will love TTL flash and working in the night. Regards, Bob S. - 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: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
o7an I think the general consensus is to factor in the cost o7an of a CLA when you buy an LX, at least an older one. o7an After a CLA, you should have a great camera that, at o7an least in my limited experience, is reliable. Hmm, and what would be the usual cost of CLA, in Europe? Please... :) o7an However, I wouldn't think that an LX would be sold for o7an parts just because of a sticky mirror problem. Is o7an there something else? I think it is because that shop has 7 day warranty for hidden defects, and so they must advertise the sticky mirror so it wouldn't return as a hidden defect camera. But the price is not any ridiculously low, it's just quite low. Good light, Frantisek Vlcek - 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: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
So you LX users, no winks ;-) this time, are you really satisfied with your LX? Did you have to invest much money in the repair? Frantisek, I doubt anyone can promise you that the camera you buy will be free or not from trouble. I think that any camera of a certain age requires maintenance and upkeep. It sounds like the LX you are stalking (!) will definitely need a Cleaning Lubrication and Adjustment, and within that CLA, there may well be things that need sorting that will add to the price of the CLA. That said, once done, there is no reason at all why a CLA'd LX should not go on for many years providing trouble-free operation. I bought mine from a PDMLer in France, and it had recently had a full CLA, one of the reasons I bought that one. However, I was fully expecting to have to have to pay for a CLA for any other LX out there of uncertain history. If the LX is a good price, is in good condition cosmetically, then a CLA will simply ad a good level of functionality to the camera. Sure, a CLA may show up a few failings, but once repaired, it will suddenly become a very usable, seriously capable machine, with build quality easily on a par with the very best photographic equipment ever made. Let me quickly recount my experience in buying a Leica from eBay, you may find it enlightening. I wanted a rangefinder with a built-in light meter, I wanted the best quality lens that could go on a rangefinder. I couldn't afford an M6, or even the certain earlier version (is it M4-P?), AND a lens. I *could* afford a Leica CL (Minolta built to Leitz design), and Summicron 40 mm lens. They're not as available as the M cameras, although a few come up on eBay. I found one advertised as working, in reasonable condition, history unknown. I hesitated, squirming and wrestling with thoughts of 'would it be okay mechanically?', 'would it break and cost megabucks?', and 'would I regret it?' In the end, I used the Buy-It-Now on eBay and took the plunge, fearing the worst. After all it was advertised as working. It *must* work, and in emails, the seller said it was. So at least it should work, but for how long? It duly arrived, and indeed seemed to work, except for the light meter, which didn't. At all. The rest if it seemed fine, except for a slight dent. I sent it to a chap I found near Hereford who repairs Leicas, and he did the CLA on it, and found numerous problems that he repaired, not least of which the meter. He completely stripped it down, and rebuilt it from scratch - including the lens. The camera cost me $500 odd on eBay, I got stung for import duty of another $150, and the CLA/repairs another $300. Which is a bit more than I would have paid from a dealer here in the UK, over the counter. But you know what? That little camera is now worth much more to me than the $950 I spent on it. I now know what that little camera has been through - I *know* that it is in perfect working order, that it will now function probably to the day I depart this mortal coil and exit to that great focal plane in the sky. And believe me - that is worth *much* more than $950 to me. I simply wouldn't sell it now. Not after seeing a friend's M6 cameras - too big. What I have is the satisfaction of knowing that the tool I use for a specific task is fully capable of functioning in the way that not only promotes confidence, but inspires me as well. If that little Leica had been an LX, I am positive that the feelings would have been identical. In my case, someone I trusted had had the work done already. In your case, you will have all the satisfaction I mentioned above, if you get your LX, and go through the process. You ask if 'you are really satisfied with your LX'. I have no hesitation at all in saying yes, I am completely satisfied with my LX, except that I now want another one to keep the first company! And an MZ-D. And a SMC 15 3.5, and LOL! I do hope this helps, Frantisek. Good light to you, and good luck in your decision. Cotty PS -;-) ___ Personal email traffic to [EMAIL PROTECTED] MacAds traffic to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Check out the UK Macintosh ads http://www.macads.co.uk - 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: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
On Wed, 9 Jan 2002 22:53:45 +0100, you wrote: Hi, so, is getting an LX body really worth it? I copied this from a private email of mine which I made earlier today. It may contain too much heresy for the PDMLers... so touchy persons please do not read. I have an LX. I like it a little, but I don't think it is the ultimate camera like so many PDMLers seem to think. It's just a pretty good manual focus camera with a really nice mirror lock-up lever and some neat accessories. However, the LX is terribly inconvenient to use with fill-flash, especially compared to the PZ1p. As for the low-light performance, well, on automatic it will turn the blackest night into medium gray as long as it can hold the shutter open long enough. For a shorter night exposure like fireworks, I would have to do some exposure compensation to keep from blowing out the highlights, or just use manual mode. But I'm not much for autoexposure on any camera - I like to switch between metering modes and decide for myself. I really like the mirror lock-up. The MLU lever, and it's neat position and ease of use, is almost enough all by itself to own an LX rather than any other manual focus 35mm camera. But I understand the MZ-S has some useful and conveniently placed buttons and levers also. What I use most is the sports finder, which is the system base plus the action finder. It gives the LX some unique and useful functionality compared to any other camera I have used. With the new, bright screens, the LX has become my primary manual focus camera. With the bright Pentax screens, it is easy to focus. Without them, I would probably stick with an ME Super instead of the LX. -- John Mustarde www.photolin.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: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
Hi Frantisek, On Wed, 9 Jan 2002 22:53:45 +0100, Frantisek Vlcek wrote: So you LX users, no winks ;-) this time, are you really satisfied with your LX? Yes. Did you have to invest much money in the repair? Nothing in a year and a half. I got it on ebay for about US$ 425 with FA-1 finder and Grip B. It's serial number 523 series, with the newer 3200 ASA setting, but with the older mirror box. No sign of sticky mirror yet, or any other trouble, though I'm thinking about sending it in for a CLA as a preventive measure. TTYL, DougF - 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 .
