In bright sunlight the high shutter speeds can be wonderful assets. I
have
speeds up to 1/8000 in pentax and even a 1/12000 in a minolta body.
If you
want to blur your background in a portrait type image in bright
sunlight
you'll need the fast speeds to run f2 range aperatures.
On 5 Mar 2003, Levente -Levi- Littvay wrote:
This brings up another Q I had for a long time but I never got around
asking... Beyod the 1/4000 exposure versus the 1/2000, is there any
difference between these two?
I believe people also say teh MZ-3's mirror box is, supposedly, a
flatter black.
On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Taz wrote:
I'm not familiar with the MX so I can't accurately compare, but the ZX-M has
been compared as the modern K1000. It is a nice little camera, emphasis on
little, but does not support autofocus or onboard flash if that is where you
I was going to pick up an ZX-M
In a message dated 3/6/2003 9:27:37 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I love my ZX-5n. I love everything about it, except I've been spoiled by
bigger and better viewfinders. When I use the ZX-5n to manually focus,
which is what I preferred, I _had_ to rely on the autofocus
On Thu, 6 Mar 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am only familiar with the K-1000 and ZX-5n. I too am a little
disappointed that the manual focus has to rely on the beep (or I do).
There is not enough indication in the viewfinder to *really* tell when
things are in focus manually.
I think
where the 5n shines for me.
And I hate that annoying beep. :-)
William in Utah.
- Original Message -
From: gfen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 8:27 AM
Subject: Re: MZ-3 vs ZX(or MZ)-5n (EX: Re: *ist v. MZ or ZX series)
On Thu, 6 Mar 2003 [EMAIL
On Thursday, Mar 6, 2003, at 00:49 US/Pacific,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In bright sunlight the high shutter speeds can be wonderful assets. I
have
speeds up to 1/8000 in pentax and even a 1/12000 in a minolta body.
If you
want to blur your background in a portrait type image in bright
Boris,
I am suprised that you aren't happy with the ZX-L and AF220T. I use
that combination for all my indoor flash shots, and I am very pleased
with the results.
First of all I need to acknowledge Bruce Dayton's help in improving my
flash shots. He is a great resource for flash questions.
-Original Message-
From: gfen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Bruce Dayton wrote:
I'll try to help here. Full flash pictures tend to look
a bit harsh.
Shadows can look unnatural and colors/shading are
affected. So the
basic idea is to add enough fill light to
There is no set formula. A rule of thumb would be to start 1 stop
down for shadow fill and 2 stops down for catchlights. The more soft
and diffused your main light source, the less fill you need.
If you are using a camera that does not have exposure compensation,
just don't use TTL mode on the
-Original Message-
From: gfen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Bruce Rubenstein wrote:
Fill flash is used to compress the contrast of a scene (subject to
background) so it fits into the dynamic range of the
film. For people,
usually -1 to -2 stops of fill to
-Original Message-
From: gfen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, tom wrote:
Most SLR's have an exposure comp dial to do this.
The 645's exposure compsensation will also affect TTL flash
as well, then?
Yes. You just need to set the aperture and shutter speed manually.
-Original Message-
From: gfen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, tom wrote:
the subject. Most on-camera softboxes just have the
diffuser material.
Noted. I actually didn't think there were oncamera
softboxes until I first
saw the little Lumiquest job in a shop.
-Original Message-
From: gfen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I personally prefer the Sto-fen Omni-Bounce, but yes, I like the
softbox better then the bouncer.
I think I'm leaning towards the Lumiquest ones just because
I think I
prefer the way they appear to nicely fold up
My hunch is that the camera that handles most like the MX is the ZX-5n.
This brings up another Q I had for a long time but I never got around
asking... Beyod the 1/4000 exposure versus the 1/2000, is there any
difference between these two?
Is the MZ-3 not available in the US? (that SUCKS)
This brings up another Q I had for a long time but I never got around
asking... Beyod the 1/4000 exposure versus the 1/2000, is there any
difference between these two?
1/100s vs 1/125s x-sync. Other than that, I think they are identical.
regards,
Alan Chan
I'm not familiar with the MX so I can't accurately compare, but the ZX-M has
been compared as the modern K1000. It is a nice little camera, emphasis on
little, but does not support autofocus or onboard flash if that is where you
want to go. It does have DOF preview though. Retail is very
Levente,
One thing to remember about the ZX-5n/3 bodies. Because they have a
physical shutter speed dial, they can only represent a certain number
of shutter speeds. So the MZ-3 loses one slow speed setting to gain
the 1/4000 on the top end.
Also, the faster shutter usually has a higher flash
PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 12:05 AM
Subject: Re: MZ-3 vs ZX(or MZ)-5n (EX: Re: *ist v. MZ or ZX series)
Levente,
One thing to remember about the ZX-5n/3 bodies. Because they have a
physical shutter speed dial, they can only represent a certain number
of shutter speeds. So the MZ
19 matches
Mail list logo
