Bob Walkden wrote:
> Possibly. In these little aeroplanes
> it is in fact very easy to get
> through to the cabin. When I was
> flying over Lake Tana I was rather
> disconcerted when the cabin door rolled
> upon and revealed the pilot
> peering at a fully-open map held
> against the windscree
Hi,
Peter Loveday wrote:
>> One of the rules of flying internally is: no batteries allowed in the
>> passenger part of the plane. They have to go in the hold.
> I've heard of this before; do they try to present any actual justification
> as to why batteries in the plane are not allowed, or is i
> One of the rules of flying internally is: no batteries allowed in the
> passenger part of the plane. They have to go in the hold.
I've heard of this before; do they try to present any actual justification
as to why batteries in the plane are not allowed, or is it just one of
those unexplained r
> Indeed not. But the point, which I didn't make
> explicit, was that
> winders in the old days could be taken off the camera
> and the camera
> could be used without it. I don't know if this true
> of the FM3A, but
> it is certainly true of the LX.
Yes, Bob, it's true of the FM3A. The motor dri
Hi,
Aaron Reynolds wrote:
> Bob...the FM3A's winder is unlikely to be fully mechanical. :)
Indeed not. But the point, which I didn't make explicit, was that
winders in the old days could be taken off the camera and the camera
could be used without it. I don't know if this true of the FM3A, but
> Bob...the FM3A's winder is unlikely to be fully mechanical. :)
>
> Methinks you need to rethink your argument. A76s are
> small and cheap,
> and the LX doesn't exactly eat them. If you need the
> motor drive you
> need the motor drive, but then you'd need a motor
> drive for the FM3A, too.
>
Bob Walkden wrote:
> But just as there
> are some people who really use Land Cruisers rather than Ferraris for
> rough-tough macho purposes, so there are some photographers who do need
> battery-free failsafe camera operation, and I cite myself as an example.
> Before they were stolen I used
It seems most of the early LX cameras develop sticky mirror problems
after 15 years or so. And since most of those that we've encountered on
ebay and from other sources of used equipment are older and have never
been serviced, the sticky mirror problem is common to us. But once the
problem has bee
Alan wrote:
> To me anyway, I do not considered the LX that reliable after all the sticky
> mirror problem, mirror box problem, broken shutter curtain, and the
> electronic problems that associated with the ASA dial. It's a very very
> lovely camera... but requires dedicated amount of repair c
Alan Chan wrote:
> It's true that the one that I had was old style. Just wondering, since you
> have owned 5 LX over the years, how many of them had sticky mirror problem,
> and which?
Only one, which was the second oldest. Another was also
serviced by Pentax, but that wasn't for sticky mirro
>... But, the problems you describe are found on older cameras,
>made before upgrades to the mirror box. There have been, I am
>told, many changes and upgrades to the LX over the years.
>Someone once said that there were 42 changes to the mirror box
>alone. I don't know how accurate that is, but
Alan Chan wrote:
> To me anyway, I do not considered the LX that reliable after all the sticky
> mirror problem, mirror box problem, broken shutter curtain, and the
> electronic problems that associated with the ASA dial. It's a very very
> lovely camera... but requires dedicated amount of repair
On Sat, 10 Feb 2001, Wieland Willker wrote:
> > The only thing I wish were improved would be to make the viewfinder better
> > suited to manual focussing, such as by increasing the magnification and
> > offering a focussing screen with focussing aids (ie-center split, etc.).
> > That said, I've go
>What is the problem with the viewfinder? I have only MX so far. Is it
>different form MX/ME
>Super style?
>What is the "in-focus indicator"?
>All comments welcome!
>
>Best wishes
> Wieland, thinking about an Z1p
Compared to MX, the viewfinder of the Z-1p is dimmer, smaller (the
magnificati
>Wieland:
>"The Nikon users are in heaven. What about us? I don't need a computer with
>motor, I
>want a
>REAL CAMERA(tm)."
>
>
>REPLY:
>We still have the LX which is frankly far superior to the FM3a in all
>respects.
To me anyway, I do not considered the LX that reliable after all the sticky
Rob Wrote:
> See pics of *my* special 1/250th sync FM2:
>
> http://www.ozemail.com.au/~geroc/fs348.jpg
> http://www.ozemail.com.au/~geroc/fs345.jpg
I believe what you have is an FM2n, Rob. The FM2n is not marked
on the body any differently than the FM2. The FM2n has 14
discrete speeds on the
At 10:15 10.2.2001 -0600, you wrote:
>A number of cameras have electronically-controlled shutters that have backup
>mechanical speeds. This might be one single shutter speed or it may be many.
>
>However, *those* cameras don't have high sync speeds (what's the sync speed
>on the LX? I have no idea
On Sat, 10 Feb 2001, [iso-8859-1] Pål Jensen wrote:
> Ironically, the best manual camera I've seen is the Z-1p. For the
> knowledgable photographer it ofers unsurpassed manual control. If you
> compared it to the FM3A, you have to trade manual control on the latter
> for batteryless operation.
På
Oh, and by the way, Studdert, what are you doing with a damned _Nikon_??
Pentax ain't good enough for you?
--Mike
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http:/
Okay, the FM2 has a 1/200th sync speed.
The FM2*n* has a 1/250th sync speed (I didn't know that).
None of the FM2 shutters have electronic control that allows AE (automatic
exposure).
The FE cameras (and many others) have electronic control for AE, but don't
work without batteries--i.e., they'r
Rob wrote:
> See pics of *my* special 1/250th sync FM2:
>
> http://www.ozemail.com.au/~geroc/fs348.jpg
> http://www.ozemail.com.au/~geroc/fs345.jpg
>
> Cheers,
Well, you got me there--Nikon has always listed the sync speed at 1/200th.
Perhaps the sync speed simply isn't marked or the 1/250th
Wieland wrote:
"What will Pentax do to beat the FM3A??"
REPLY:
Certainly nothing. Nikon is possibly the only one among the large camera companies
with a market for such a camera in anything other than the smallest series.
a) There are more manual focus Nikon lenses out there than anythin
On 10 Feb 2001, at 2:26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 2/9/01 8:53:21 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> << Relatively few premium shutters even today manage a 1/250th sync speed,
> let alone mechanical ones. >>
>
> You did qualify (hedge) your statement
AFAIK, the original FM2 had 1/200x while the FM2n (the serial number should
have an 'n') have 1/250x. Another difference is that the shutter blades on
the original FM2, have honeycomb patterns.
regards,
Alan Chan
> > > My old FM2 had flash sync at 1/250th, its never been lower in the FM2x
> >
PROTECTED]>
Päivä: 10. helmikuuta 2001 5:54
Aihe: Re: Pentax LZ-A?
>Rob wrote:
>
>> My old FM2 had flash sync at 1/250th, its never been lower in the FM2x
>> models AFAIK
>
>
>The FM2 had a sync speed of 1/200th but it had a mechanical shutter with no
>AE. The FE2 had
In a message dated 2/9/01 8:53:21 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Relatively few premium shutters even today manage a 1/250th sync speed,
let alone mechanical ones. >>
You did qualify (hedge) your statement but PENTAX made four (4) cameras with
1/250 sync. So PENTAX and
On 9 Feb 2001, at 23:56, Chris Brogden wrote:
> The "N" on the back means that it's an FM2n, which has the 1/250 flash
> sync. See:
>
> http://www.picture-perfect.net/fm2review.shtml
Thanks Chris,
I never knew, maybe someone got a bargain, I sold it for CAD$650 near mint.
Cheers,
Rob Studde
On Sat, 10 Feb 2001, Rob Studdert wrote:
> > > My old FM2 had flash sync at 1/250th, its never been lower in the FM2x
> > > models AFAIK
> >
> > The FM2 had a sync speed of 1/200th but it had a mechanical shutter with no
> > AE. The FE2 had a sync speed of 1/250th and it had AE, but the shutter
On 9 Feb 2001, at 22:16, Mike Johnston wrote:
> Rob wrote:
>
> > My old FM2 had flash sync at 1/250th, its never been lower in the FM2x
> > models AFAIK
>
>
> The FM2 had a sync speed of 1/200th but it had a mechanical shutter with no
> AE. The FE2 had a sync speed of 1/250th and it had AE, bu
Rob wrote:
> My old FM2 had flash sync at 1/250th, its never been lower in the FM2x
> models AFAIK
The FM2 had a sync speed of 1/200th but it had a mechanical shutter with no
AE. The FE2 had a sync speed of 1/250th and it had AE, but the shutter
didn't work without a battery.
Which is why I sa
Hi,
Mike Johnston wrote:
> Bob wrote:
>> Finally, on a strictly logical basis, the analogy between film and
>> batteries doesn't work since (at least until the advent of digicams)
>> film is a sine qua non of photography, whereas batteries aren't.
> Bob,
> I was with you up till this point. M
Bob wrote:
> Finally, on a strictly logical basis, the analogy between film and
> batteries doesn't work since (at least until the advent of digicams)
> film is a sine qua non of photography, whereas batteries aren't.
Bob,
I was with you up till this point. My analogy wasn't meant to be
thoroug
> Anyway I'm not saying that the FM3A shutter is the best shutter ever made,
> or that it makes the FM3A into some kind of paragon of cameradom. In fact
I
> said rather the opposite, that the ideal manual, mechanical, metal
> "retro-classic" SLR has not yet been made. I didn't compare the FM3A to
Bill wrote:
> I've got a 30 year old Fujica ST-901 that has a stepless electronic shutter
> from 2 sec to 1/2000 on auto and 1/60 to 1/1000 plus B on manual. Doesn't
> sound like a big deal to me
Right, like your 30-year-old Fujica ST-901 has a 1/250th sync speed.
You guys might not care to
"Doug Brewer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So the big deal is that Nikon is going to market as
> "new" a type of shutter that the LX used for twenty
> years?
Seth also said:
Not exactly. FM3A mechanical shutter is supposed to operate at all
shutter speeds. LX only works at above 1/75. Aside fr
Doug wrote:
> I think I may be failing to grasp a key concept here. You said the mechanical
> speeds of the LX are only good in case of battery failure. Are you implying
> that the FM3A is designed to be usable as a full time manual? If so, why would
> they build it as an EM? Wouldn't the whole i
"Doug Brewer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2001 9:20 PM
Subject: Re: Pentax LZ-A?
> Yeah, I forgot about the slower speeds being unusable on the LX.
>
> I think I may be failing to grasp a key concept here. You sa
- Original Message -
From: "Doug Brewer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: February 8, 2001 10:20 PM
Subject: Re: Pentax LZ-A?
> Yeah, I forgot about the slower speeds being unusable on the
LX.
>
> I think I may be failing to grasp a
Yeah, I forgot about the slower speeds being unusable on the LX.
I think I may be failing to grasp a key concept here. You said the mechanical speeds
of the LX are only good in case of battery failure. Are you implying that the FM3A is
designed to be usable as a full time manual? If so, why wou
SETH wrote:
> Not exactly. FM3A mechanical shutter is supposed to operate at all
> shutter speeds. LX only works at above 1/75. Aside from that, LX
> is still a better (and more expensive) camera.
And the LX has a true MLU feature !! I notice that the advertising
material for the FM3A seems
Doug wrote:
> Mike,
>
> So the big deal is that Nikon is going to market as
> "new" a type of shutter that the LX used for twenty
> years?
>
> Doug
The LX only does the trick at 1/75th and faster. The FM3A does it at all
speeds. The LX shutter is hardly usable full time as a manual shutter--
"Bill Owens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've got a 30 year old Fujica ST-901 that has a stepless
electronic shutter
> from 2 sec to 1/2000 on auto and 1/60 to 1/1000 plus B on manual.
Doesn't
> sound like a big deal to me
It may not be, unless your batteries have died and you need to take
shot
I don't really expect Pentax to answer, as they never had anything to
compete with FM2n anyway. But if the so called "retro-camera" that some
people think Pentax might build is like the FM3a it would be nice.
Todd
At 10:02 AM 2/8/01 +0100, you wrote:
>What will Pentax do to beat the FM3A??
Mike,
So the big deal is that Nikon is going to market as
"new" a type of shutter that the LX used for twenty
years?
Doug
Quoting Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Sadly, and somewhat ironically, it may be that only a
company that is doing
> well with its "computers with motors" tha
Wieland wrote:
> What will Pentax do to beat the FM3A??
>
> THE WORLD IS WAITING!
>
> The Nikon users are in heaven. What about us? I don't need a computer with
> motor, I want a
> REAL CAMERA(tm).
Sadly, and somewhat ironically, it may be that only a company that is doing
well with its "
45 matches
Mail list logo
