Film slrs

What was the last great 35mm slr that Pentax made? The *ist, or the MZ-S? Jim A. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Film slrs

MZ-S for all the features... Regards, Bob S. On 8/27/07, Jim Apilado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What was the last great 35mm slr that Pentax made? The *ist, or the > MZ-S? > > Jim A. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > --

Re: Film slrs

l List" Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 7:09 PM Subject: Film slrs > What was the last great 35mm slr that Pentax made? The *ist, or the > MZ-S? > > Jim A. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

RE: Film slrs

Jim Apilado wrote: > What was the last great 35mm slr that Pentax made? The *ist, > or the MZ-S? No LX? Malcolm -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Film slrs

- Original Message - From: "Jim Apilado" Subject: Film slrs > What was the last great 35mm slr that Pentax made? The *ist, or the > MZ-S? The LX. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Film slrs

Depends on your criteria, I'd say the MZ-S but you could make a good case for the *ist, (everything you love about the *ist-Ds unfortunately everything you hate about it as well). Jim Apilado wrote: > What was the last great 35mm slr that Pentax made? The *ist, or the > MZ-S? > > Jim A. > >

Re: Film slrs

On 27/08/07, Jim Apilado, discombobulated, unleashed: >What was the last great 35mm slr that Pentax made? The *ist, or the >MZ-S? The MX :-) -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDM

Re: Film slrs

ut how to get his flash working with his D. > - Original Message - > From: "Jim Apilado" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" > Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 7:09 PM > Subject: Film slrs > > > >> What was the las

Re: Film slrs

The last great 35mm SLR? The MX. The only things I can see that would have improved the MX are better quality seals and a bit of ruggedization. The only near great after that were the LX and the MZ-S. The did make a lot of consumer crap although most of them were OK for what they were. Of cours

Re: Film slrs

On 8/27/07, Jim Apilado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What was the last great 35mm slr that Pentax made? The *ist, or the > MZ-S? The Spotmatic. cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman

Re: Film slrs

The LX. -- Original message -- From: Jim Apilado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > What was the last great 35mm slr that Pentax made? The *ist, or the > MZ-S? > > Jim A. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.n

Re: Film slrs

It wasn't the last, it was the next to last... Malcolm Smith wrote: > Jim Apilado wrote: > > >> What was the last great 35mm slr that Pentax made? The *ist, >> or the MZ-S? >> > > No LX? > > Malcolm > > > -- Remember, it’s pillage then burn. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML

Re: Film slrs

On Aug 27, 2007, at 10:09 AM, Jim Apilado wrote: > What was the last great 35mm slr that Pentax made? The *ist, or the > MZ-S? If I'd happened across the MZ-S in 1999-2000, I would have been using Pentax gear five or six years earlier than I did. It feels great in the hand. The *ist never

Re: Film slrs

The MX is a superb body crippled by a lack of eye relief. I like the LX better, even as a manual camera. But I'm a viewfinder whore. -Adam graywolf wrote: > The last great 35mm SLR? The MX. The only things I can see that would have > improved the MX are better quality seals and a bit of rugged

Re: Film slrs

frank theriault wrote: >On 8/27/07, Jim Apilado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> What was the last great 35mm slr that Pentax made? The *ist, or the >> MZ-S? > >The Spotmatic. The 67 ;-) (Someone had to say it...) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/p

Re: Film slrs

Jim Apilado wrote: > What was the last great 35mm slr that Pentax made? The *ist, or the > MZ-S? > I can't resist mentioning the MZ-5n, of course... > Jim A. > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Film slrs

Jim Apilado wrote: > What was the last great 35mm slr that Pentax made? The *ist, or the > MZ-S? > > Jim A. > LX. It's the only K mount body I ever became fond of. The MZ-S is nice, but was more a case of a very nice body with not enough inside (I'd take an F90x for the same money, double t

Re: Film slrs

as in many respects too little, too late. Tom C. >From: graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >Subject: Re: Film slrs >Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 13:50:40 -0400 > >The last great 35mm SLR? The MX. The only things I can

Re: Film slrs

On Aug 27, 2007, at 12:10 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: > frank theriault wrote: > >> On 8/27/07, Jim Apilado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> What was the last great 35mm slr that Pentax made? The *ist, or the >>> MZ-S? >> >> The Spotmatic. > > The 67 ;-) > > (Someone had to say it...) But the 67 isn'

Re: Film slrs

- Original Message - From: "Tom C" Subject: Re: Film slrs > I'd go with the MX as well. > > I loved my PZ-1p for all it was feature wise, and IMO it had really good > metering. > > I never owned an LX, but I was frankly afraid to because of the

Re: Film slrs

Once I receive my KX, I will be better equipped to respond to this interesting discussion... Glen On Aug 27, 2007, at 4:30 PM, William Robb wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "Tom C" > Subject: Re: Film slrs > > >> I'd go with the MX as well

Re: Film slrs

Definitely the LX -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Film slrs

Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: >On Aug 27, 2007, at 12:10 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: > >> frank theriault wrote: >> >>> On 8/27/07, Jim Apilado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: What was the last great 35mm slr that Pentax made? The *ist, or the MZ-S? >>> >>> The Spotmatic. >> >> The 67 ;-) >> >> (Someo

Re: Film slrs

I was expecting that Cheers Brian ++ Brian Walters Western Sydney, Australia http://members.westnet.com.au/brianwal/SL/ http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/brianwalters Quoting Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On 27/08/07, Jim Apilado, discombobulated, unleashe

Re: Film slrs

> > - Original Message - > > From: "Tom C" > > Subject: Re: Film slrs > > > > > >> I'd go with the MX as well. > >> > >> I loved my PZ-1p for all it was feature wise, and IMO it had > >> really good > >>

Re: Film slrs

What Bob said. Kenneth Waller http://tinyurl.com/272u2f - Original Message - From: "Bob Sullivan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Film slrs > MZ-S for all the features... Regards, Bob S. > > On 8/27/07, Jim Apilado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >

Re: Film slrs

The LX. No other contender, and not by ANY brand. Which is why they still sell for (relatively) big bucks despite having been in production for more than 20 years. They are a jewel, a technological marvel. The *ist and the MZ-S may be fine cameras, but they are not the fine piece of elegant, i

Re: Film slrs

LOL The LX had more features and was arguably prettier to look at, but I could use a Nikon F2 as a hammer and re-shingle a roof with it, and it would still be in perfect alignment and take exceptional photographs for another lifetime. Some of us valued that far more than whether it was con

Re: Film slrs

I'd say all 3 of the class of '80 Pro SLR's were superb. New F1's still sell for prices similar to an LX and F3's are only cheap because they're so common, having sold in numbers far exceeding the LX and New F1 (New F1's are probably the rarest of the three, I've seen a total of two in my life)

Re: Film slrs

>>> What was the last great 35mm slr that Pentax made? The *ist, or the >>> MZ-S? >> >>The Spotmatic. > > The 67 ;-) > > (Someone had to say it...) The Auto110 (If you're going that way, I'll take the other road) John -- http://www.neovenator.com http://www.cafepress.com/neovenatorphoto --

Re: Film slrs

- Original Message - From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi" Subject: Re: Film slrs > LOL > > The LX had more features and was arguably prettier to look at, but I > could use a Nikon F2 as a hammer and re-shingle a roof with it, and > it would still be in perfect align

Re: Film slrs

On 28.08.2007, at 02:21 , Adam Maas wrote: > I'd say all 3 of the class of '80 Pro SLR's were superb. New F1's > still > sell for prices similar to an LX and F3's are only cheap because > they're > so common, having sold in numbers far exceeding the LX and New F1 (New > F1's are probably the ra

Re: Film slrs

Tough call. I still enjoy the mechanical feel of the SP500 and the MX, but the MZ-S with the grip just fit perfectly in my hand. I came across it the other day, and rather wistfully fired a few blanks. I now I should sell the damn thing while it's still worth something, but I just don't want to

Re: Film slrs

Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote: > On 28.08.2007, at 02:21 , Adam Maas wrote: >> I'd say all 3 of the class of '80 Pro SLR's were superb. New F1's >> still >> sell for prices similar to an LX and F3's are only cheap because >> they're >> so common, having sold in numbers far exceeding the LX and New F

Re: Film slrs

2007 8:04 PM >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >Subject: Re: Film slrs > >LOL > >The LX had more features and was arguably prettier to look at, but I >could use a Nikon F2 as a hammer and re-shingle a roof with it, and >it would still be in perfect alignment and take exception

Re: Film slrs

- Original Message - From: "Adam Maas" Subject: Re: Film slrs > > They're extremely uncommon around here. I never see them (Any F1 is a rare > thing, even the common FD bodies are thin on the ground in southern > ontario). > Twenty years of no lens

Re: Film slrs

On 28/08/07, Cesar, discombobulated, unleashed: >But overall I would have to say that my LXen have been hardy and pretty >to look at - even before I reskinned a few of mine :-) Looks like a good juncture to drag up a relevant link ;-))

Setting aperture -- film SLRs

A quick question, something I am curious about -- I've read a lot here about the compatibility of older lenses on newer bodies, but what about the other way? Specifically, on film bodies without a thumbwheel (MZ-S, ZX-5n, etc), how do you change the aperture when the lens is set on "A" or the

Re: Setting aperture -- film SLRs

Unca Mikey wrote: A quick question, something I am curious about -- I've read a lot here about the compatibility of older lenses on newer bodies, but what about the other way? Specifically, on film bodies without a thumbwheel (MZ-S, ZX-5n, etc), how do you change the aperture when the lens is

Re: Setting aperture -- film SLRs

I believe most of the newer film SLRs aside from the *ist and ZX-30/50/60 assume you want to be in program or shutter priority if the lens is set to "A" or lacks manual settings. The old bodies that don't utilize the "A" setting pretty much can't use a lens tha

RE: Setting aperture -- film SLRs

I think you've answered your own question Tom C. From: Unca Mikey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: PDML Subject: Setting aperture -- film SLRs Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 10:41:08 -0500 A quick question, something I am curious about -- I've read a

Re: Setting aperture -- film SLRs

To expand on Tom's ellipsis: On film bodies without an aperture control thumbwheel, you take the lens aperture ring off the "A" setting and use the aperture ring. For lenses that do not have an aperture ring, those bodies without aperture thumb wheels can control the aperture using Program

Re: Setting aperture -- film SLRs

On 4/11/06, Unca Mikey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Specifically, on film bodies without a thumbwheel (MZ-S, ZX-5n, etc), > how do you change the aperture when the lens is set on "A" or the > lens does not have an aperture ring? Is there a way to directly > change the aperture on the body? I assu

RE: Setting aperture -- film SLRs

re curious -- once one becomes used to that mode of operation and those lenses, the migration path is not to other film SLRs, but to a digital SLR! Fiendishly clever!All the other bodies with the crippled KAF look pretty low-end, plastic mounts, limited features, etc. *>UncaMikey ---&q

Re: Setting aperture -- film SLRs

On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 17:49:29 +0200, David Oswald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Unca Mikey wrote: A quick question, something I am curious about -- I've read a lot here about the compatibility of older lenses on newer bodies, but what about the other way? Specifically, on film bodies without

Re: Setting aperture -- film SLRs

On Apr 11, 2006, at 9:55 AM, Scott Loveless wrote: Are such lenses even usable on older bodies like the MX? The MX is manual only. Lenses set on A and lenses without aperture rings can only be used wide open. Fully stopped down, not wide open. Wide open would be easier for hand holding; fu

Re: Setting aperture -- film SLRs

On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 12:55:12PM -0400, Scott Loveless wrote: > > > > Are such lenses even usable on older bodies like the MX? > > The MX is manual only. Lenses set on A and lenses without aperture > rings can only be used wide open. I believe lenses set on "A" will behave as if set to f22 (al

Re: Setting aperture -- film SLRs

On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 19:00:08 +0200, Unca Mikey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: That makes the design of the *ist 35mm even more curious -- once one becomes used to that mode of operation and those lenses, the migration path is not to other film SLRs, but to a digital SLR! Fiendishly

Re: Setting aperture -- film SLRs

On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 19:11:25 +0200, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Apr 11, 2006, at 9:55 AM, Scott Loveless wrote: Are such lenses even usable on older bodies like the MX? The MX is manual only. Lenses set on A and lenses without aperture rings can only be used wide open.

Re: Setting aperture -- film SLRs

On 4/11/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Apr 11, 2006, at 9:55 AM, Scott Loveless wrote: > > >> Are such lenses even usable on older bodies like the MX? > > > > The MX is manual only. Lenses set on A and lenses without aperture > > rings can only be used wide open. > > Fully

Re: Setting aperture -- film SLRs

On Apr 11, 2006, at 10:26 AM, Lucas Rijnders wrote: On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 19:11:25 +0200, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Apr 11, 2006, at 9:55 AM, Scott Loveless wrote: Are such lenses even usable on older bodies like the MX? The MX is manual only. Lenses set on A and len

Re: Setting aperture -- film SLRs

> There are several Z- and MZ- (PZ- and ZX-, if you wish) bodies that allow > control of the aperture from the body. I am sure of the MZ-50, the Z-1 and > Z-1p. Z10 doesn't (well it is a P and M only camera). Z20, Z50, Z70 will also control the aperture from the body. > I suspect it couls also tr

Re: Setting aperture -- film SLRs

I believe that is a fair prediction based on what I've seen with my cameras. Pentax manuals do state that using the "A" setting on a body that doesn't support it will result in incorrect metering. As the aperture ring is closed down to "A", the aperture simulator tab on the mount continues to go p

Re: Setting aperture -- film SLRs

It depends on the lenses I think. Sometimes A equals 22, sometimes 32 ( or aperture is unreliable, you chose :). I guess that a lens showing 22 then A. You put that lens on your any *ist or Z1 etc in AV mode. If you can select 32, than A equals 32. Simple enough ;) On 4/11/06, Jon Myers <[EMAIL P

Re: Setting aperture -- film SLRs

Unca Mikey wrote: A quick question, something I am curious about -- I've read a lot here about the compatibility of older lenses on newer bodies, but what about the other way? Specifically, on film bodies without a thumbwheel (MZ-S, ZX-5n, etc), how do you change the aperture when the lens i

Re: Setting aperture -- film SLRs

You're MZ-S assumption is correct. Jack --- "E.R.N. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Unca Mikey wrote: > > > A quick question, something I am curious about -- I've read a lot > here > > about the compatibility of older lenses on newer bodies, but what > > about the other way? > > > > Specifi

Re: Setting aperture -- film SLRs

- Original Message - From: "Unca Mikey" Subject: Setting aperture -- film SLRs A quick question, something I am curious about -- I've read a lot here about the compatibility of older lenses on newer bodies, but what about the other way? Specifically, on film b

Re: Setting aperture -- film SLRs

m: "Unca Mikey" > Subject: Setting aperture -- film SLRs > > > >A quick question, something I am curious about -- I've read a lot here > >about the compatibility of older lenses on newer bodies, but what about the > >other way? > > > > Specifically, on

Re: Setting aperture -- film SLRs

- Original Message - From: "Thibouille" Subject: Re: Setting aperture -- film SLRs Yeah, so.. say you have a DA 14mm. You can use it on a SuperA/SuperProgram in either TV or P mode. Of course it won't cover the full 24x36 frame but that's another story ...

Re: Setting aperture -- film SLRs

Wanted to explain in another way, if it wasn't clear enough. I understood well a while ago, but wasn't sure it was clear enough to everybody. > And your point is??? > > William Robb -- -- Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ...

Re: OT: Nikon F ... (Film slrs)

I had two Fs, one F2 and two F3s over the years. The F Photomic FTn was my first 35mm SLR, I bought the first one in 1969. Many memories in that one... It took me through High School and my first college career. The F2 was a tank and a bit more convenient in use, but it was already out of da

Re: OT: Nikon F ... (Film slrs)

- Original Message - From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi" Subject: Re: OT: Nikon F ... (Film slrs) > Reminiscences like this remind me of how much the camera industry has > changed. Nikon today is a very different company from what it was > when I got involved with photography

Re: OT: Nikon F ... (Film slrs)

On 28.08.2007, at 03:18 , Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > On the other hand, max X sync speed was 1/80 sec, the TTL flash > sensor was pitiable, and the little LCD readout in the finder was a > far cry from the nice LEDs of the FM or swinging needle of the FE2, > both of which were easier to see and more