IL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 9:19 AM
Subject: Re: MZ-S exposure compensation (WAS: Re: One Last Film Body Survey)
> Interesting - you're saying that the shutter speeds are only *shown*
> quantised, in the viewfinder (and other) displays? If so, does the same
&
Steve Jolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Mark Roberts wrote:
>> And *any* electronically-controlled shutter offers stepless speeds when
>> in autoexposure mode :)
>
>Interesting - you're saying that the shutter speeds are only *shown*
>quantised, in the viewfinder (and other) displays?
Yes.
>I
Mark Roberts wrote:
And *any* electronically-controlled shutter offers stepless speeds when
in autoexposure mode :)
Interesting - you're saying that the shutter speeds are only *shown*
quantised, in the viewfinder (and other) displays? If so, does the same
principle apply to automatically-contro
Lon Williamson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Mark Roberts wrote:
>
>> In all the Pentax cameras I'm aware of, shutter speed is controlled by a
>> *single* cam. Having a continuous surface, this cam can give
>> "in-between" shutter speeds simply by setting it between the settings on
>> the shutter sp
Steve Jolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Mark Roberts wrote:
>> In all the Pentax cameras I'm aware of, shutter speed is controlled by a
>> *single* cam. Having a continuous surface, this cam can give
>> "in-between" shutter speeds simply by setting it between the settings on
>> the shutter speed d
Mark Roberts wrote:
In all the Pentax cameras I'm aware of, shutter speed is controlled by a
*single* cam. Having a continuous surface, this cam can give
"in-between" shutter speeds simply by setting it between the settings on
the shutter speed dial.
I assume you're only talking about cameras with
Can you give us a list of the cameras you're aware of?
And is this true for the slow speeds as well?
Mark Roberts wrote:
In all the Pentax cameras I'm aware of, shutter speed is controlled by a
*single* cam. Having a continuous surface, this cam can give
"in-between" shutter speeds simply by settin
I'm pretty sure K bodies can do this, too.
I once tested a KM, firing at a white wall using
flash, from 1/60th to 1/1000, including guestimated
half-stops. The shutter progressed smoothly in
the sequenced photos, ie the guestimate 1/90 showed
a little less shutter than 1/125, etc. I don't know
if
Damn! LOL!
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
> After stripped and reassembled on myself,
Workbenches are much more useful for this sort of thing. 8-)
Hi,
>
> From: "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2004/10/24 Sun PM 11:13:51 GMT
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: One Last Film Body Survey
>
> After stripped and reassembled on myself,
Workbenches are much m
After stripped and reassembled on myself, I have to say I much prefer
electronic shutter for much better accuracy & reliability. The MX is a real
joy to use, except for slides... :-(
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
Same here. My choice would be an updated MX with
mirror lock-up and ISO r
Same here. My choice would be an updated MX with
mirror lock-up and ISO range up to 6400.
Jason Poh
--- Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Boy, I have to agree with Graywolf here. If Pentax
> were to make one
> last film body, for me, it would be a brand new,
> black MX - just like
> th
True for the MX as well, except the speed between 1/30s & 1/60s. But then
again, the mechanical shutter is not that accurate there might not be any
practical meaning to do so.
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
In all the Pentax cameras I'm aware of, shutter speed is controlled by a
*single*
compensation (WAS: Re: One Last Film Body Survey)
> "Raimo K" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Is this true for K 1000?
>
> Yes.
>
> >Not all mechanical shutters can do this because the speeds are controlled
by
> >cams, different one for e
Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Raimo K" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Is this true for K 1000?
>
>Yes.
>
>>Not all mechanical shutters can do this because the speeds are controlled by
>>cams, different one for each speed.
>
>In all the Pentax cameras I'm aware of, shutter speed is con
"Raimo K" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Is this true for K 1000?
Yes.
>Not all mechanical shutters can do this because the speeds are controlled by
>cams, different one for each speed.
In all the Pentax cameras I'm aware of, shutter speed is controlled by a
*single* cam. Having a continuous surf
- Original Message -
From: "Raimo K"
Subject: Re: MZ-S exposure compensation (WAS: Re: One Last Film Body
Survey)
Is this true for K 1000?
Not all mechanical shutters can do this because the speeds are
controlled by
cams, different one for each speed. The only one I
, 2004 1:41 AM
Subject: Re: MZ-S exposure compensation (WAS: Re: One Last Film Body Survey)
> Henri Toivonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Even with mechanical cameras like the K1000 you could get "in-between"
> shutter speeds by balancing the shutter speed dial between
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 8:27 AM
Subject: Re: One Last Film Body Survey
paal
Maybe i'm nitpciking or i'm missing something.
Let's say I want to under/overexpose a shot by 1/3 of a stop on an MZ-S
how do you you do it ?
Patrick
Henri Toivonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Tom Reese wrote:
>
>>Patrick asked:
>>
>>"Let's say I want to under/overexpose a shot by 1/3 of a stop on an MZ-S how
>>do you you do it ?"
>>
>>You can get precise exposure adjustments by adjusting the ISO speed. For
>>example, to give it just a little m
Tom Reese wrote:
Patrick asked:
"Let's say I want to under/overexpose a shot by 1/3 of a stop on an MZ-S how
do you you do it ?"
You can get precise exposure adjustments by adjusting the ISO speed. For
example, to give it just a little more light, adjust the ISO to 90 for ISO
100 slide film. Settin
Patrick asked:
"Let's say I want to under/overexpose a shot by 1/3 of a stop on an MZ-S how
do you you do it ?"
You can get precise exposure adjustments by adjusting the ISO speed. For
example, to give it just a little more light, adjust the ISO to 90 for ISO
100 slide film. Setting it to ISO 110
Paal,
Any more such tips ? keep em coming :-)
Patrick
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Patrick wrote:
Let's say I want to under/overexpose a shot by 1/3 of a stop on an MZ-S how do you you
do it ?
REPLY:
Put the exposure compensation dial about two thirds between the 0 value and the 0,5
value; in other
You're kidding right!
I thought I knew the MZ-S.. Cool Tip :-)
Patrick
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Patrick wrote:
Let's say I want to under/overexpose a shot by 1/3 of a stop on an MZ-S how do you you
do it ?
REPLY:
Put the exposure compensation dial about two thirds between the 0 value and the 0,5
Pål Jensen wrote:
Patrick wrote:
Let's say I want to under/overexpose a shot by 1/3 of a stop on an MZ-S how do you you
do it ?
REPLY:
Put the exposure compensation dial about two thirds between the 0 value and the 0,5
value; in other words between the click stops.
Incidentally, this method also
Patrick wrote:
Let's say I want to under/overexpose a shot by 1/3 of a stop on an MZ-S how do you you
do it ?
REPLY:
Put the exposure compensation dial about two thirds between the 0 value and the 0,5
value; in other words between the click stops.
Pål
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 8:27 AM
Subject: Re: One Last Film Body Survey
paal
Maybe i'm nitpciking or i'm missing something.
Let's say I want to under/overexpose a shot by 1/3 of a stop on an MZ-S
how do you you do it ?
Patrick
"Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>MZ-S with an aperture wheel on the body, metal back, fill flash compensation
>and AF assist without RTF-flash.
Add a rear-panel AF-sensor selector like the ist-D (and the ist-D sensor
layout) and I'll sign up on that one.
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and
Been done before
by bigger I meant more coverage (100% if possible) I beleive the
coverage on the MZ-S is around 92%.
Its been done before:
Minolta Dynax 9 .73X magnification, 100% coverage, 22mm eyepoint
Nikon F5 .75X magnification, 100% coverage, 20.5mm eyepoint
magnifcation is fine as
paal
Maybe i'm nitpciking or i'm missing something.
Let's say I want to under/overexpose a shot by 1/3 of a stop on an MZ-S
how do you you do it ?
Patrick
Patrick wrote:
You can't manually dial in an exposure shift of 1/3 of a stop!
REPLY:
Technically, you're probably correct. You can only dial in something like 1/289564 of
a stop. Or, say, 1/3112634s, but I don't think it matters the least!
Pål
Patrick wrote:
I very much doubt Lieca had a digital back in mind when they designed the R8 but they
made the back work with it. Now if you start with that target (DSLR+FILM) in mind you
are at an advantage. Pentax can save money coz they can amortise the development of
the camera platform over
Boy, I have to agree with Graywolf here. If Pentax were to make one
last film body, for me, it would be a brand new, black MX - just like
the old one.
--
Best regards,
Bruce
Thursday, October 21, 2004, 12:06:10 PM, you wrote:
G> Well, Pentax started selling a camera in 1977 that met all my ne
>If Pentax were to produce one last new film cameras,
> what would you want it to be?
>My choice would be something like the LX but cut cost
> by eliminating the removable finder and use a different mirror bumper
>system that doesn't need regular maintenance (sticky mirror).
> Add the other mode
Well, Pentax started selling a camera in 1977 that met all my needs featurewise.
Time has shown a few weaknesses in that camera.
1. The top and bottom plates could be studier.
2. The light seals would be better if they were felt instead of foam.
3. The foam mirror dampner was cheap, but they really
I've thought about this a lot...
It would be an LX (size, weight, fit, feel, changeable finders) plus:
Modes: Add Shutter-Priority AE mode.
MeteringSpot meter choice.
Shutter: 1/4000th second.
Sync: to 1/250 second.
ISO: to 64000.
Focus:th
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: One Last Film Body Survey
If Pentax were to produce one last new film cameras, what would you want it
to be?
My choice would be something like the LX but cut cost by eliminating the
removable finder and use a different mirror bumper system that doesn't need
regular mainte
On 21/10/04, Graywolf, discombobulated, unleashed:
> I personally prefer higher magnification as long as I can still see
>the whole viewfinder screen even if that means I have to cock my head a bit.
Oi, non of that here - this is a family list ;-)
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | P
These are opposites. You can not have both. High magnification means a bigger
finder image and a shorter eyepoint. The best you can do is find an acceptable
compromise. I personally prefer higher magnification as long as I can still see
the whole viewfinder screen even if that means I have to co
At 06:29 AM 10/21/2004 -0400, Patrick Genovese wrote:
For me it would be an MZ-S with the following changes.
1. Slightly bigger viewfinder and higher eyepoint.
I don't know if they could fit this in with the current top plate, but I'd
like it if they could.
2. Preferably an interchangeable finde
You can't manually dial in an exposure shift of 1/3 of a stop!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Patrick wrote:
11 Why not its a new body - or at least exp compensation in 1/3 stops. An easy way to
do that may be to feed an offset ISO rating to the metering system.
REPLY:
Huh? Huh Huh??
The MZ-S a
PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 9:03 AM
Subject: One Last Film Body Survey
> If Pentax were to produce one last new film cameras, what would you want
it to be?
>
> My choice would be something like the LX but cut cost by eliminating the
removable
Patrick wrote:
11 Why not its a new body - or at least exp compensation in 1/3 stops. An easy way to
do that may be to feed an offset ISO rating to the metering system.
REPLY:
Huh? Huh Huh??
The MZ-S already has stepless exposure compensation. What kind of improvement would it
be to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Patrick Genovese mused:
For me it would be an MZ-S with the following changes.
1. Slightly bigger viewfinder and higher eyepoint.
Possible.
2. Preferably an interchangeable finder.
Implausible - that would need to be designed in, not added later.
We're t
Patrick Genovese mused:
>
> For me it would be an MZ-S with the following changes.
>
> 1. Slightly bigger viewfinder and higher eyepoint.
Possible.
> 2. Preferably an interchangeable finder.
Implausible - that would need to be designed in, not added later.
> 3. Faster AF and more accurate se
For me it would be an MZ-S with the following changes.
1. Slightly bigger viewfinder and higher eyepoint.
2. Preferably an interchangeable finder.
3. Faster AF and more accurate servo AF.
4. Slightly bigger grip closer to the Z-1P's gip (with at option to add
a handstrap).
5. Faster frame rate s
On 20 Oct 2004 at 18:38, William Robb wrote:
> Heck, they could probably build something that would use LX finders
> too.
> I happen to like interchangable finders, it's one of the things I
> miss with the DSLR.
That's why I still have an LX system.
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2
- Original Message -
From: "Bob Blakely"
Subject: Re: One Last Film Body Survey
If it doesn't have a exchangeable finders, it's just another
camera.
Heck, they could probably build something that would use LX finders
too.
I happen to like interchangable finders, it
- Original Message -
From: "Jon M"
Subject: (LX pricing) RE: One Last Film Body Survey
What did the LX sell for when new anyway?
I paid about $1600.00 (Can) with a viewfinder for the one I bought
new in 1988.
William Robb
Jon M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked:
> > It would be wonderful if you want to pay $3000.00 US
> or so. No make that $4000.00.
>
> I guess I'll be forced to stick with my $250 LX then.
> What did the LX sell for when new anyway?
Interesting topic...
In Italy they ranged, body+FA-1 finder, from ITL 1.
$500.00 to $600.00 if I remember correctly. (That didn't include a lens
or finder, those were extra).
Jon M wrote:
It would be wonderful if you want to pay $3000.00 US
or so. No make that $4000.00.
I guess I'll be forced to stick with my $250 LX then.
What did the LX sell for when new anyw
In the UK at one point (1988ish), body only (no viewfinder or lens) -
about £1650.
Jon M wrote:
It would be wonderful if you want to pay $3000.00 US
or so. No make that $4000.00.
I guess I'll be forced to stick with my $250 LX then.
What did the LX sell for when new anyway?
mike wilson wrote:
> If that's what I think (Land Rover?) then it is a better
> example than the other two mentioned. There is nothing as
> good in most ways as a LR for the job it does. Same for the
> LX. For both of them, minor tweaks would improve them but
> everyone wants different twea
> It would be wonderful if you want to pay $3000.00 US
or so. No make that $4000.00.
I guess I'll be forced to stick with my $250 LX then.
What did the LX sell for when new anyway?
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam pro
Hi,
Malcolm Smith wrote:
Pat White wrote:
The MZ-S already has three of those four things. Twenty-five
years ago, the LX was a great camera, but better cameras have
been made since then. Would you want a brand-new 1980
Mercedes or Corvette (never mind the collector value)?
Actually, yes. I h
If it doesn't have a exchangeable finders, it's just another camera.
Regards,
Bob...
From: "Collin Brendemuehl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
If Pentax were to produce one last new film cameras, what would you want
it to be?
My choice would be something like the LX but cut cost by eliminating the
removab
A body that feels like the Super A with motor drive A attached, except in light
weight aluminum or magnesium. Black, of course, with LX FB/FC type finder, DX,
5 frames/sec.,quiet advance, auto focus/manual with A mode.
>If Pentax were to produce one last new film cameras, what would you want
Pat White wrote:
> The MZ-S already has three of those four things. Twenty-five
> years ago, the LX was a great camera, but better cameras have
> been made since then. Would you want a brand-new 1980
> Mercedes or Corvette (never mind the collector value)?
Actually, yes. I have a specialist
"Collin Brendemuehl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Probably a $500 body. But built to last a lifetime.
???!
That's an "either/or" proposition.
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
Thats about what the FM3A was selling for. Why not get Cotty to perform
an mount transplant, ( I was going to say mountectomy because it sound
funnier but it's not as accurate).
Chris Brogden wrote:
Sounds like an FM3A with IDM metering and a spot meter added. Good
luck finding a body like tha
Sylwester wrote: For me it would be just enough to tweak MZ-S with rubber
enviromental seals,
bigger viewfinder (95%, 0.9x) and metal back...
That would make a great camera even better.
Then Jack wrote: Please, also, add motor drive (4fps OK), well dampened
shutter, auto bracketing and infrare
Collin Brendemuehl wrote:
The OM-2S Program comes pretty close.
I really enjoy handling it. Nice body.
I agree. Sadly, I traded mine off a few years ago.
Can't go there again, because I sold off all my other Oly stuff, lenses
and accesssories, and changed platforms to Pentax.
I'm quite happy wit
I like the specs on the OM-2S and love the lenses, but a local repair
center claimed that the bodies have reliability problems. One of our
local eBay speculators won't even touch them anymore after getting
burned by several defective 2S's. I've never used them myself,
though, so I'm just passing
The OM-2S Program comes pretty close.
I really enjoy handling it. Nice body.
Sincerely,
C. Brendemuehl
'Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that
it bears a very close resemblance to the first.' Ronald Reagan
-
Collin Brendemuehl wrote:
> If Pentax were to produce one last new film cameras, what
> would you want it to be?
An updated LX, using the same type of materials.
Thing is, I wouldn't buy one. Whilst I am a regular user of two LXs, what is
in it for me to buy a new film camera? The LX does all
Sounds like an FM3A with IDM metering and a spot meter added. Good
luck finding a body like that for $500.
Chris
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:03:07 -0400, Collin Brendemuehl
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If Pentax were to produce one last new film cameras, what would you want it to be?
>
> My choice
It would be wonderful if you want to pay $3000.00 US or so. No make
that $4000.00.
Jon M wrote:
I'd also like something similar to the LX. Not sure if
I'd want it to have AF as well or not though. Heck,
why not just bring back an LX Super (LX +
A-compatibility, improved mirror bumper, even bette
ngeable screens. Not much to ask for
> surely!!
>
> John
>
>
> -- Original Message ---
> From: "Collin Brendemuehl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:03:07 -0400
> Subject: One Last Film
I'd also like something similar to the LX. Not sure if
I'd want it to have AF as well or not though. Heck,
why not just bring back an LX Super (LX +
A-compatibility, improved mirror bumper, even better
metering, yet retain compatibility with old LX accessories)
__
I could put up with that I guess.
John
-- Original Message ---
From: Sylwester Pietrzyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 16:53:39 +0200
Subject: Re: One Last Film Body Survey
> John Whittingham wrote on 20.10.04 16:37:
>
>
- Original Message -
From: "Collin Brendemuehl"
Subject: Re: One Last Film Body Survey
I've pretty much decided to be dual-media, as long as film and
chemicals are still available. Negatives will definitely outlast
me and any digital media that I might create. Pl
John Whittingham wrote on 20.10.04 16:37:
> How about a (Black) Titanium bodied MZ-3 with mirror lock up, multiple
> exposure facility, faster AF, 1/250 flash synch and detachable 7 fps motor
> driveoh and a much bigger and brighter viewfinder with
> interchangeable screens. Not much to as
Message ---
From: "Collin Brendemuehl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:03:07 -0400
Subject: One Last Film Body Survey
> If Pentax were to produce one last new film cameras, what would you
> want it to be?
>
> My choice
Hi Collin,
In addition to your "new" LX suggestions, I'd like DX
coding (senior requirement) that can be overridden, AE
lock, mirror lock up separate from self timer and
'prox 1/200 flash sink.
A 15MP interchangeable back would complete the
fantasy. This is fun!
Jack
--- Collin Brendemuehl <[EMAIL
" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 08:05:04 -0600
>
>- Original Message -----
>From: "Collin Brendemuehl"
>Subject: One Last Film Body Survey
>
>
>> If Pentax were to produce one last new film cameras, what would yo
- Original Message -
From: "Collin Brendemuehl"
Subject: One Last Film Body Survey
If Pentax were to produce one last new film cameras, what would you
want it to be?
My choice would be something like the LX but cut cost by
eliminating the removable finder and use a differ
If Pentax were to produce one last new film cameras, what would you want it to be?
My choice would be something like the LX but cut cost by eliminating the removable
finder and use a different mirror bumper system that doesn't need regular maintenance
(sticky mirror). Add the other modes, "A" i
77 matches
Mail list logo
