Monday, March 11, 2002, 5:36:09 PM, gfen wrote:
g I'm considering another body to add to my collection (actually, to replace
g the ZX-50, which gets passed on to a friend).
g The LX is out of the question. I'm not spending that much, but I notice
g people continually chatting up the KX and the
It was amazing
to observe the camera as it kept on figuring out the exposure.
Bac Yes...I remember your post about that series of shots. What I'd most like to
Bac try other than the astrophotograpy would be lightning pictures. I must admit,
Hi Brendan, few issues back of NatGeo there was a
Tuesday, March 12, 2002, 4:10:22 AM, Mark wrote:
MR Paul F. Stregevsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I read somewhere that this trick is a good way to shorten the life of your
MX. I thought it was on Peter Spiro's site
(http://ca.geocities.com/spirope/PentaxSLR.htm) but I don't find it there.
Tuesday, March 12, 2002, 3:05:52 AM, Rofini wrote:
R Paul writes:
.seriously consider the KX. Its the only Pentax
K mount that lets you combine MLU with the timer. And its the only
R one that
closes down the lens aperture as MLU is selected
R Both the KX and K2 let you combine mirror
Frantisek Vlcek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tuesday, March 12, 2002, 4:10:22 AM, Mark wrote:
MR Paul F. Stregevsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I read somewhere that this trick is a good way to shorten the life of your
MX. I thought it was on Peter Spiro's site
At 10:33 AM 3/12/2002 +0100, Frantisek Vlcek wrote:
Snip
Another thing to watch for and try yourself on the KX is the shutter
speed dial. On all the K2s and K2DMDs (which use the same style dial)
this was rather hard if not impossible to turn with my index finger
Snip
Sorry but the KX has the
Hi, Shel,
That reminds me of a quote attributed to Timothy Leary (but probably
mis-attributed) some time in the 60's: I've been using LSD every day for the
past ten years, and I don't find it addictive at all! ;-)
-frank
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
I've been doing this since 1967 with various
Tuesday, March 12, 2002, 7:46:02 PM, Mark wrote:
MR Peter Alling wrote:
Frantisek Vlcek wrote:
Snip
Another thing to watch for and try yourself on the KX is the shutter
speed dial. On all the K2s and K2DMDs (which use the same style dial)
this was rather hard if not impossible to turn with my
Tuesday, March 12, 2002, 5:16:08 PM, Shel wrote:
SB I've been doing this since 1967 with various Spotmatics and have never
SB had a problem. Maybe it takes more than 35 years for problems to
SB arise. I suppose that 35 years of using the technique would constitute
SB a reasonable test.
Thanks
On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, gfen wrote:
The LX is out of the question. I'm not spending that much, but I notice
people continually chatting up the KX and the MX, and was wondering which
one people tend to prefer. I was intrigued by some messages in the best
body thread going around that the KX has
gfen wrote:
I'm considering another body to add to my collection (actually, to replace
the ZX-50, which gets passed on to a friend).
The LX is out of the question. I'm not spending that much, but I notice
people continually chatting up the KX and the MX, and was wondering which
one people tend
And an MX with a K35/3.5 or an M50/2.0 *is* pretty much a pocket-sized
kit g.
Mark Roberts wrote:
An MX with a 43/1.9 is a gerat almost-pocket-sized kit.
--
Shel Belinkoff
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/
The MX is lighter than the KX. Both have real similar features but you can change out
the screens on the MX. KX has a higher ISO range.
Were it me, I have to say I'd wait and spend a little more for the LX. It's a nearly
perfect camera.
Brendan MacRae
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss
On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Mark Roberts wrote:
Well, neither the KX nor the MX has automatic exposure or any kind of TTL
flash capability. They both have cloth focal plane shutters that are limited
to 1/1000 sec as their fastest speed. The KX can't take a winder or motor
drive (unless you can find
Not for the MX.
gfen wrote:
The other main concern with this is in regards to just how they use their
batteries. Does these cameras need batteries to operate anything other
than the light meter?
--
Shel Belinkoff
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/
Unless you want a smaller, lighter, simpler, and less expensive camera.
A good LX is about 3X or more the price of a good MX ... that's more
than a little more.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Were it me, I have to say I'd wait and
spend a little more for the LX. It's a
nearly perfect camera.
On Mon, 11 Mar 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The MX is lighter than the KX. Both have real similar features but you can change
out the screens on the MX. KX has a higher ISO range.
Does the KX have a split screen?
Were it me, I have to say I'd wait and spend a little more for the LX. It's a
The MX is not expensive, rugged, small, and a lot of extras are still
available...you would not be sorry with one.
Dave
--
David Spaulding
Photographer
http://d.spaulding.tripod.com
From: gfen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 11:36:09 -0500 (EST)
To:
Sounds like you want a KX. MLU and mecahnical shutter speeds.
Christian
On Monday 11 March 2002 12:49, gfen wrote:
I think what holds my interest is a cheap body with MLU and one that
doesn't have a serious reliance on battery power. I'd like to do some
astrophotography someday. As I said,
gfen wrote:
The other main concern with this is in regards to just how they use their
batteries. Does these cameras need batteries to operate anything other
than the light meter?
The MX and KX both work fine without batteries. They only need power for
the light meter.
--
Mark Roberts
I'm considering another body to add to my collection (actually, to replace
the ZX-50, which gets passed on to a friend).
Any have some input? Oh, wait.. I know you all have some input, so
does anyone want to share some input?
I don't want to spend a ton of cash on anything, because I can't
The MX viewfinder is actually a bit better than the KX and it has
interchangeable
screens that are mostly compatible with the LX screens.
At 12:24 PM 3/11/2002 -0500, you wrote:
On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Mark Roberts wrote:
Well, neither the KX nor the MX has automatic exposure or any kind of TTL
that's more
than a little more.
Shel,
Of course, you're right...in most cases.
But then, if you look around enough you can score a deal.
I bought mine for only a decent price...certainly no bargain, and I'm not rich. I just
think the extra expense so worth it that it outweighs the prospect of
The M50/1.7 is not noticeably bigger than the M50/2.0 I'd go with the former.
At 09:03 AM 3/11/2002 -0800, you wrote:
And an MX with a K35/3.5 or an M50/2.0 *is* pretty much a pocket-sized
kit g.
Mark Roberts wrote:
An MX with a 43/1.9 is a gerat almost-pocket-sized kit.
--
Shel Belinkoff
Actually, the exact same size, just heavier.
William in Utah.
Peter Alling wrote:
The M50/1.7 is not noticeably bigger than the M50/2.0 I'd go with the former.
At 09:03 AM 3/11/2002 -0800, you wrote:
And an MX with a K35/3.5 or an M50/2.0 *is* pretty much a pocket-sized
kit g.
Mark
It seems a process of elimination.
If you want/need the features of the LX, get it.
esp, advanced metering
( OTF TTL flash )
advanced construction
( seals and finders )
If you need MLU, but none else of the LX
get the KX
If you need it small and basic,
get the MX
Hi,
As I've mentioned here before, I absolutely love my new MX. But you
want MLU (which I really don't care about). But doesn't the MX have the
trick hidden MLU similar to the Spotmatic, by sort of tapping the
shutter release (not hard enough to trip the shutter? I've never tried it
on either
I've been a KX owner for only about a month, but I enjoy using it
immensely. Its ISO dial goes to 6400. Its metering uses the classic match
needle, if you prefer that kind of thing. It fits the hands nicely.
If you're an MLU enthusiast, seriously consider the KX. Its the only Pentax
K mount
Fred,
I can't recommend the Super Program for astrophotography; too much
vibration. Well, I guess for a 30-second exposure it wouldn't matter, but
watch out for those 1/30 second exposures. All this time that I felt that I
was a lousy available-light candid shooter, I now realize was partly
I read somewhere that this trick is a good way to shorten the life of your
MX. I thought it was on Peter Spiro's site
(http://ca.geocities.com/spirope/PentaxSLR.htm) but I don't find it there.
Boz's site, maybe?
frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But doesn't the MX have the trick
The extra expense isn't worth it if you've no need for the extra
features.
I agree...
No one will find a good LX for $250, I'll grant you that. But, I have seen
bodies go in the $300's, that's not a lot for an LX.
Yes, I use most of the features of the LX. In fact, I never really used AE
Paul writes:
.seriously consider the KX. Its the only Pentax
K mount that lets you combine MLU with the timer. And its the only
one that
closes down the lens aperture as MLU is selected
Both the KX and K2 let you combine mirror up with timer. The LX also
closes down the aperture when
Paul F. Stregevsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I read somewhere that this trick is a good way to shorten the life of your
MX. I thought it was on Peter Spiro's site
(http://ca.geocities.com/spirope/PentaxSLR.htm) but I don't find it there.
Boz's site, maybe?
I think this is an old myth. Using
Then the LX is a good choice for you. I used the metering system to
make some l-o-n-g exposures on night with the TV set as the only light
source. It was amazing to observe the camera in action. The set, of
course, would produce varying amounts of light output. It was amazing
to observe the
It's obviously not something that the camera was designed for. Basically,
you're jamming the mechanism. When I need MLU, I use a camera that
accommodates it.
Paul
Paul F. Stregevsky wrote:
I read somewhere that this trick is a good way to shorten the life of your
MX. I thought it was on Peter
35 matches
Mail list logo
