Re: LX Repairs at Independent Shops

I had my LX repaired locally. Well, not so much repaired as had the sticky mirror fixed. I took it in to my local camera shop and they gave me the address and telephone number of the man that they used. Told me that if they sent it off it would cost me 35 gld so it'd be cheaper if I took it my

Re: LX Repairs at Independent Shops

- Original Message - From: "Mark Cassino" < > > This time is it is the mirror lock up function / self timer that is not > working. The mirror goes only half way up when the level reaches it's full > swing. The self timer, well, just plain does nothing I think I would let the local

Re: LX Repairs at Independent Shops

Hi Mark, I had my LX repaired at a non pentax repair shop, however the lady that repaired it did used to work for Pentax. They did an excellent job. I did have to take it back once as they forgot to replace the pad that the mirror rests on. During the service they also replaced the mirror assembl

RE: LX and K 50 1.2 for Sale or Trade for Pentax AF

Te la cambio por una Z1p con un 28/70 2,6 2,8 Tokina y varias pantallas de enfoque. -Mensaje original- De: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] En nombre de [EMAIL PROTECTED] Enviado el: miércoles, 21 de noviembre de 2001 18:00 Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Asunto: LX and K 50 1.2 for S

Re: LX condition (was - Love at the first sight?)

On 12 Nov 2001, at 10:05, Matamoros, Cesar A. wrote: > So, who has the roughest looking LX? Some of the details of mine > can be found on my LX tribute page at > http://cesar_abdul.homestead.com/LX.html http://members.ozemail.com.au/~geroc/reallyroughlx.jpg :-) Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUST

Re: LX History (was: Re: LX on eBay -- worth buying?)

I look for three things in a used LX: good overall condition, the second meter button on the exposure compensation dial, and the 3200 asa setting on the film speed adjustment dial. If it has all of these, it can generally be repaired and adjusted for good service. Paul Jerome wrote: > > >> This

Re: LX History (was: Re: LX on eBay -- worth buying?)

>> This got me thinking. Why above 535?? Is there a website >or other >> source of info that chronicles the LX ? Especially with >reference to >> serial numbers versus time ? > >http://members.iinet.net.au/~cam/serial/ This link doesn't contains enough serials/date to be of help when inspect

Re: LX on ebay - worth buying?

<< In this case, you need to be looking for a specimen with the FA-1W "doghouse", as these kennels are rather expensive to buy seperately. >> £200 is an absolute steal for a new one. Less if you are outside the EEC. Kind regards Petre - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To u

RE: LX battery check?

> -Original Message- > From: Skofteland, Christian [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 11:47 AM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: RE: LX battery check? > > The lock up is a warning that the batteries failed while in auto.

Re: LX battery check?

"William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Whether alkaline batteries will die rapidly enough for the > battery warning to not work is something I do not know. It's not an unreasonable assumption, though. An important selling point of alkaline is that they have a very sharp cutoff when they r

Re: LX History (was: Re: LX on eBay -- worth buying?)

On 25 Oct 2001, at 16:21, William Robb wrote: > > This got me thinking. Why above 535?? Is there a website > or other > > source of info that chronicles the LX ? Especially with > reference to > > serial numbers versus time ? > > http://members.iinet.net.au/~cam/serial/ But be aware that th

Re: LX Rebuild (was Re: LX on eBay -- worth buying?)

At 08:30 PM 10/25/2001 -0400, Geoff Moes wrote: >Did you request this as a rebuild or did you specify each thing you >wanted them to do to it? I included a letter that described the sticky mirror and infinity focus problem, and requested that they check it over completely and do a CLA. They sen

RE: LX on eBay -- worth buying?

On 25 Oct 2001, at 13:41, David Hatfield wrote: > Thanks, David! > > Didn't know this was a fellow PDML'r or I would have just asked for info > direct. I think I'm going to take Shel's advice, though, and wait until I > have a chance to get my hands on an LX to try out for a while before making

Re: LX Rebuild (was Re: LX on eBay -- worth buying?)

Did you request this as a rebuild or did you specify each thing you wanted them to do to it? Geoff > At 05:24 PM 10/25/2001 -0400, Geoff Moes wrote: > >What exactly is a rebuild, what does it include and how much does it > >run? > > When I sent this LX back to ebay they basically replaced almo

LX History (was: Re: LX on eBay -- worth buying?)

>I'd suggest you find an LX and use it for a while, and then, if you like >it, buy a newer model, with a serial number above 535. This got me thinking. Why above 535?? Is there a website or other source of info that chronicles the LX ? Especially with reference to serial numbers versus

RE: LX on eBay -- worth buying?

at's your user ID if you use eBay so we can help each other out? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of David P. Chernicoff Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 12:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: LX on eBay -- worth buying? The LX li

Re: LX battery check?

I use alcalines (76A or A76, don't remember) in my LX. They last a pair of months (I'm not a hardcore user), and give some days of flickering leds before dying, not just minutes. Anyway I would love to switch to silver oxide for longer life. What's the designation of them? (like 76A for alcalines

Re: LX battery check?

>>> Were you using silver oxide batteries >>> (the preferred type) or some other type >>> (alkaline or lithium)? > Alkalines. As Bill points out, this is probably your problem. The LX calls for silver oxide batteries. I have used lithium, but am not comfortable with them in the LX. I have n

Re: LX on eBay -- worth buying?

The LX listed on ebay is mine. I've decided to get rid of all of my manual focus bodies (just keeping a PZ1 and PZ1p) because I've discovered what looks in focus to me often isn't (function of aging and already bad vision). I don't have the problem with focus when I wear contact lenses, just w

RE: LX on eBay -- worth buying?

the plunge, I'll drop you a line. Thanks again! Dave -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 11:32 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: LX on eBay -- worth buying? David ... The question i

RE: LX on eBay -- worth buying?

I'd like to see the list of questions Shel perhaps others would too? Regards, /\/\ick... ++ || __/) Mick Maguire | | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (_/) ICQ: 48609010 | \/

Re: LX battery check?

- Original Message - From: "Sas Gabor" Subject: Re: LX battery check? > Hi, > > On 25 Oct 2001 at 8:29, William Robb wrote: > > The LX has a built in battery check. When the LEDs start > > flickering, it is time to replace the batteries. Your desript

Re: LX battery check?

Hi, On 25 Oct 2001 at 8:29, William Robb wrote: > The LX has a built in battery check. When the LEDs start > flickering, it is time to replace the batteries. Your desription > sounds like this didn't happen. I'm not sure, because I didn't know what to look for. > Were you using silver oxide >

RE: LX battery check?

Hi, On 25 Oct 2001 at 10:38, Skofteland, Christian wrote: > The LED's are supposed to flash to indicate low battery Where you > on Automatic or was the dial on 1? It was on Auto. Gabor - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and fol

RE: LX battery check?

The LED's are supposed to flash to indicate low battery Where you on Automatic or was the dial on 1? Christian Skofteland System Administrator ServerVault Inc. "Securing the Internet" (703)652-5971 (Direct) (703)333-5900 (Main) [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -Original

Re: LX battery check?

The LX has a built in battery check. When the LEDs start flickering, it is time to replace the batteries. Your desription sounds like this didn't happen. Were you using silver oxide batteries (the preferred type) or some other type (alkaline or lithium)? William Robb - Original Message - F

RE: LX aperture priority shutter speeds

This is correct. Pentax models that have aperture priority have been stepless since the days of the first ES camera. Kent Gittings -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of PAUL STENQUIST Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2001 7:58 AM To: Pentax List Subj

Re: LX Meter Readout

Nenad writes: >My understanding is that the LX is specified as follows: Maximum shutter >speed of 125 seconds with 100ASA film and a f1.2 lens, set to f1.2. That would be the maximum specified accurate exposure. Even at those settings, the metering system will hold the shutter open longer as req

Re: LX Meter Readout

To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 4:57 AM Subject: RE: LX Meter Readout > Does anyone know what the maximum shuter length is on the LX on > auto. I have read somewhere (the manual I think) that it is 250 > seconds, however, I also remember reading on the web some one

Re: LX Meter Readout

On Thursday, October 18, 2001, at 04:57 PM, Geoff Moes wrote: > Does anyone know what the maximum shuter length is on the LX on > auto. I have read somewhere (the manual I think) that it is 250 > seconds, however, I also remember reading on the web some one > sayingthat they did a 45 minute expo

RE: LX Meter Readout

On 18 Oct 2001, at 16:57, Geoff Moes wrote: > Does anyone know what the maximum shuter length is on the LX on > auto. I have read somewhere (the manual I think) that it is 250 > seconds, however, I also remember reading on the web some one > sayingthat they did a 45 minute exposure on auto. A

RE: LX Meter Readout

production. Thanks, Geoff From: "Skofteland, Christian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject:RE: LX Meter Readout Date sent: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 09:

Re: LX Meter Readout

On 17 Oct 2001, at 22:49, William Robb wrote: > However, I have no idea of how > fine the shutter speeds are stepped (I don't believe they are > continuously variable, but very finely stepped), which matters > in this sort of discussion. For all intents and purposes it is a continuously variable

Re: LX Meter Readout

- Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" Subject: LX Meter Readout > I've been meaning to ask this for some time, and I suppose the > question is appropriate for other cameras with built-in meters as > well. > > When the LX is set on auto pilot the shutter speed is shown in the > view

Re: LX Frame Spacing (Was Re: MZ-S; Built to last)

Is this the ultimate Pentax taboo? Isn't there a trend regarding Pentax film transport reliability? I have owned three ME Supers and one MX. All but one of the ME Supers has demonstrated uneven frame spacing at some point. Fortunately, in my case, I mananged to get them all repaired under warr

Re: LX flash question

Thanks Steve and William. I was thinking about something wrong when it happened to only one LX, but all acting the same way... My first LX was purchased in 1997 and I never noticed that... probably because for daylight flash work I usually switch to other cameras. You never stop learning... Thank

Re: LX flash question

- Original Message - From: "Gianfranco Irlanda" < Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 6:23 PM Subject: LX flash question > Hi everybody, > > Maybe some LX owner could help me to understand the strange > behaviour of my various LX when the AF280T is on the camera. > What happened is that

Re: LX flash question

Hi Gianfranco, That`s what my LX does also, so I think it`s a normal behavior. When there is enough light it won`t fire the flash in TTL, if you need fill flash, take it off of TTL. Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California - Original Message - From: "Gianfranco Irlanda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: LX v MX/ME-S (was Re: An equipment epiphany: no MZ-S for me, yet)

Since the MX is a manual mechanical camera I would think that having exposure compensation would be redundant. I agree with most of Shel's other points, except that since the MX is all mechanical it gives you the full range of shutter speeds without batteries. At 08:33 AM 9/5/2001 -0700, you wro

Re: LX shutter failure

You just can't trust those old cameras. Doug sorry, David. Hope you get it fixed. At 7:16 AM -07009/16/01, David S. wrote, or at least typed: >My LX shutter totally failed while in the Canadian Rockies. It failed while >at 1/250 in manual mode. Battery removal or inserting new batteries does

Re: LX v MX/ME-S (was Re: An equipment epiphany: no MZ-S for me,yet)

Shel Belinkoff wrote: > The interchangeable viewfinders > are a wonderful and valuable feature that neither the MX nor the ME-S > has. The interchangeable focusing screens on the LX are another great > feature, which the MX has but with much more limited options, and the > ME-S doesn't offer at

RE: LX v MX/ME-S (was Re: An equipment epiphany: no MZ-S for me, yet)

Shel Belinkoff wrote: "The LX allows the use of a grip without having to attach a winder, unlike the MX or ME-S." When I received my LX it had the Grip-B which I removed (along with the strap) as an ungainly eye-sore. Well, I didn't want to lose it so after playing with the came

RE: LX Viewfinder magnification?

according to: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/thepentaxlx.html#AccessoriesFindermo delsanddetails the magnification is 0.9 The original LX brochure states 95% horizontal and 98% vertical. hope this helps. Christian Skofteland -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto

Re: LX Viewfinder magnification?

Albano! Actually, Boz's site does. Go to http://www.BDimitrov.de/kmp/ and click "Focusing" on the bottom banner. Then, under the heading "Interchangeable Viewfinders", click "Viewfinders". FA-1 = 0.90 FA-1W = 0.80~0.88 (varies with diopter setting?) Regards, Bob... From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: LX and Auto Exposure

Jostein Øksne wrote: > > ... > > The LX is no smarter than any other camera with average or centre- > weight metering. It just keeps working under dimmer light > conditions than most. :-) > ... I would disegree, here. The LX IS indeed smarter then other cameras in that it performs an integrati

Re: LX Screens and hairy bits

Call me heretic, but you might want to look at the manual Ricoh bodies. The XR-2 is particularly impressive, and typically sells for a nominal amount. AFAIK, all of the manual Rioch have mirror pre-fire via the self timer. One your set the time the mirror filps, the lens stops down, the bod

Re: LX Long Exposure Metering

Flavio Minelli wrote: > AFAIR the LX manual stated an exposure limit of 125 seconds, much less > than what you experimented...not that I have one, though. I have made 20 minute long exposures on auto with my LX. Two weeks ago at Goat Island I made some great two to five minute exposures of th

Re: LX Long Exposure Metering

Mark Cassino wrote: > > ... > I had wondered about the exposure range and whether the camera would > shut off in the absence of light altogether or was limited to some maximum > exposure time, but it looks like it can meter for a long time. > ... Hello Mark, AFAIR the LX manual stated an exposur

Re: LX Gold & 50mm f1.2

Mike wrote: > From UK dealer Ffordes (not a typo) £750. A Gold LX for £750 must be the steal of the century. Pål - 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 h

Re: Aurora Borealis shooting (WAS: Re: LX OTF metering, useful to you?)

On Mon, 13 Aug 2001 23:20:05 +0200, P†l Jensen wrote: > Jim Zuckerman tells in one of his books that he uses "chemical > heating" for his MF camera and tape it to the camera back. What > the hell is that? Where can it be found? Could he be talking about those little "keep warm" packets that you

Re: LX OTF metering, useful to you?

Bruce Dayton wrote: > It > sounds like the rule of thumb is if you shoot lots of low light stuff, the > OTF is very valuable, but if you are shooting brighter stuff, it is no > better than any other center weighted meter. Does that sound right to you > LX owners? Sounds about right. Of course

Re: LX OTF metering, useful to you?

Hi, consider a lens with a slowly closing aperture or a 3rd party lens which has a poor aperture simulation function. The LX will produce pictures with correct amount of light ! A camera without OTF can't do that. I had myself the bug with the slow aperture blades. The meter showed 1/60 but the

RE: Aurora Borealis shooting (WAS: Re: LX OTF metering, useful to you?)

Michel, The time window of darkness without moon is definately short between half moons. But why give up a good night completely? What latitude do you live at, btw? Jostein > -Original Message- > From: Michel Adam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] [...] > As for the moon, do you have a trick? I

Re: Aurora Borealis shooting (WAS: Re: LX OTF metering, useful to you?)

at your back, reasonably low on the horizon, with the aurora happening on the other side of the sky. Michel - Original Message - From: "Bob Rapp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 13, 2001 5:32 AM Subject: Re: Aurora Borealis sho

Re: Aurora Borealis shooting (WAS: Re: LX OTF metering, useful to you?)

l Message - From: "Michel Adam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 13, 2001 7:13 PM Subject: RE: Aurora Borealis shooting (WAS: Re: LX OTF metering, useful to you?) > > Would it not result in a more detailed, less 'diffuse' im

Re: LX OTF metering, useful to you?

Hi, On 11 Aug 2001, at 19:13:17 -0700 (PDT), Tonghang Zhou wrote: > I have some LXes and very pleased with them. But I don't > understand why the OTF metering is that useful, considering > especially how much this feature costs in the Olympus OM > cameras. Have a look at my submission to the L

RE: Aurora Borealis shooting (WAS: Re: LX OTF metering, useful to you?)

0 ? As for the film flatness, I fear that cold temperatures will simply exacerbate the problems. One would need to keep the camera back warm without affecting the optics, assuming it makes a noticeable difference. Michel -Original Message- Subject: Aurora Borealis shooting (WAS: Re: LX OTF m

Aurora Borealis shooting (WAS: Re: LX OTF metering, useful to you?)

MIchel wrote: > Do you find it a problem that the city lights will shorten the > exposure too much when trying to get the Aurora on film? I avoid city lights when shooting auroras. I prefer no signs of the "hand of man" in my pictures. I do, howewer, usually include parts of the landscape in m

Re: LX Gallery

Thanks, Tom. Appreciate it. Joe > > And here I was going to complement you on " Maison Carrée, Nîmes ". :-) > > Tom C. > > Actually - quite a beautiful shot Joe. I'm envious. > > - Original Message - > From: "Joseph Tainter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wed

Re: LX Gallery

And here I was going to complement you on " Maison Carrée, Nîmes ". :-) Tom C. Actually - quite a beautiful shot Joe. I'm envious. - Original Message - From: "Joseph Tainter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 1:45 PM Subject: LX Gallery >

Re: LX OTF metering - unique?

t; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 4:33 PM Subject: Re: LX OTF metering - unique? > Ummm...Would the fact that film reflectivity is no longer uniform (as it was > in the 70's and 80's) have something to do with the fact that OTF is no

Re: LX OTF metering - unique?

Ummm...Would the fact that film reflectivity is no longer uniform (as it was in the 70's and 80's) have something to do with the fact that OTF is no longer in favour? RK - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don'

Re: LX II

Hi Gert, > They told me there is allready a Pentax LXII, but for > the Japanees Market only!!! I think they meant the "LX 2000" not the "LX II". Sincerely, Take Ueda, Osaka, Japan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.tripod.co.jp/hayatama/photo/ - This message is fro

LX CPU? (was Re: LX with AF, realy it works !)

Someone said: > > I was told by a Pentax rep. that they skipped the AE > > lock because the the exposure value (used in automatic > > mode) is not stored by the camera CPU. I've looked through all my LX, and several others. I've read Crawley's book about the camera. I've read countless threads

Re: LX CPU? (was Re: LX with AF, realy it works !)

Look these links; http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/pentaxlx/metering/metering.htm http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/pentaxlx/metering/exposure.htm http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/pentaxlx/flash/options.htm --- Shel Belinko

Re: LX CPU? (was Re: LX with AF, realy it works !)

Maybe we have a different idea of what a CPU is ... thanks. Alexander Krohe wrote: > > Look these links; > > >http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/pentaxlx/metering/metering.htm > > >http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/pentaxlx/metering/exposure.htm >

Re: Re: LX with AF, realy it works !

y, August 01, 2001 6:08 AM Subject: Re: Re: LX with AF, realy it works ! > Speaking of the self timer on the LX. Does anyone on the list with the LX > experience problems with the mirror lockup. I have notices that the button on > the self timer can be turned clockwise to tight

Re: Re: LX with AF, realy it works !

Speaking of the self timer on the LX. Does anyone on the list with the LX experience problems with the mirror lockup. I have notices that the button on the self timer can be turned clockwise to tighten the mirror lock-up mechanism. My mirror lockup often does not work and i have to tighten the

Re: LX with AF, realy it works !

Alin wrote: >It is my understanding that spot meter is located in the pentaprism >in the Olympus design and has nothing to do with its center >weighted OTF meter, placed behind the mirror. Yes, and that was what I suggested as a solution for a possible LXII in a previous post. Why

Re: LX with AF, realy it works !

Pål wrote: PJ> it is nevertheless fully possible to combine spot PJ> metering and OTF. In fact, the Olympus OM-4 has both OTF and spot PJ> metering; It is my understanding that spot meter is located in the pentaprism in the Olympus design and has nothing to do with its center weighted

Re: LX with AF, realy it works !

Alan wrote: > But also consider that no 6x7 SLR cameras have AF yet (but widely available > on 645 bodies), would Pentax do the same on the LX? Would people buy a pro. > body with AF these days? If so, how many list members have bought a brand > new LX body in the past few years? The situation

Re: LX with AF, realy it works !

Alin wrote: >Matrix? Maybe. Spot... unlikely. Light reflected by film or shutter >curtain is too diffused to make for a precise spot. Perhaps, but theres nothing preventing them from adding spotmeter, and maybe matrix, by cells in the prism. Particularly if they choose to use fixed pri

Re: LX with AF, realy it works !

> Kool. Where did you find those pics? > Steve Larson On my hard disk, Maybe experimenting with an old camcorder and a videograbber had something to do with it, or that large amount of messages about a LX successor with AF last week.. Or both :-) George - This message is from the Pentax-Discu

Re: LX with AF, realy it works !

>It's because K and M series are 2 different series, Since there was a screw mount Pentax "K" before the K1000/KM/KX/K2, you could say that the K itself is two different series...or one series that really has no cohesive principle behind it. The MX shared nothing but the lens mount with the ME/M

Re: LX with AF, realy it works !

>That's like the "X" Pentax bodies: KX MX LX They are quite different, to >the point that most people don't even think of them as a group. It's because K and M series are 2 different series, while the LX is seperated from any series as we know. I guess Pentax use the 'X' on their best body of

Re: LX with AF, realy it works !

>A clue to what could be done is to look at what Pentax did to the 67 to >turn it into the 67II. But also consider that no 6x7 SLR cameras have AF yet (but widely available on 645 bodies), would Pentax do the same on the LX? Would people buy a pro. body with AF these days? If so, how many list

Re: LX with AF, realy it works !

>I seriously doubt they will scavenge the old parts bin. Its probably much >cheaper to design it from scratch to comply with modern production methods. >The LX electronics are outdated - parts for it is not manufactured anymore. >Hence, electronics needs to be redesigned. I also strongly suspec

Re: LX with AF, realy it works !

>The only thing thats leaked out about the "new LX" is that it won't have >interchangeable viewfinders. Make sense to me, not many people would purchase an array of finders anyway these days. regards, Alan Chan _ Get your FREE do

Re: LX with AF, realy it works !

>But you could still call it an LX. Just look at Nikon and the various F >bodies: F, F2, F3, F4 and F5. I can't see why similar things can't be done >from an LX to an LXII. Well... I guess it's because the LX has been living for so long without any successor, it has become a cult classic which

Re: LX with AF, realy it works !

man, I have to stop working on posts while doing other stuff. Pay no attention to it. I'll try to clean it up and repost later. Doug where's my medication? At 1:51 PM -04007/31/01, Doug Brewer wrote, or at least typed: >Bill, > >Well, they just stopped making the LX. You can probably still fin

Re: LX with AF, realy it works !

Bill, Well, they just stopped making the LX. You can probably still find one new, if that's what you want. I'm sure Peter would do his best to hook you up. Sitting around whining that Pentax doesn't make a high quality, sparsely featured body just doesn't hold water, because they did just tha

Re: LX with AF, realy it works !

Pål wrote: PJ> Why not combine spot and matrix with OTF? Should be possible. Matrix? Maybe. Spot... unlikely. Light reflected by film or shutter curtain is too diffused to make for a precise spot. Servus, Alin - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go

Re: LX with AF, realy it works !

Alan Chan wrote: > I am sure many would disagree, but I consider > the infamous "sticky mirror" problem a major > design flaw. I believe the problem was corrected in later versions. -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] "Why should I use a meter? What if the darn thing broke on me whe

Re: LX with AF, realy it works !

Wasn't there a smiley after "techno-weenie"? I've used the term before (with a smiley), and that was certainly my intent. However, I stand by my premise that there are too many high tech solutions to simple problems, and that many, if not most, are marketing tools. Most people here know my posi

Re: LX with AF, really it works

Paal Jensen wrote: "All Pentax needs to do is to make a camera thats obviously is inspired by the original LX in design and looks and that fill a similar role in the line-up." We ~know~ that Pentax can do this, or else there would be no 6711 or 645n. Who's complaining about features on those came

Re: LX with AF, realy it works !

Shel wrote: > More nonsense. Needing a viewfinder blind defeats one of the nicest > features about the LX, and, from the way you describe this atrocity > committed upon an LX, the interchangeable finders would have to go or > be modified substantially. The only thing thats leaked out about t

Re: LX with AF, realy it works !

Nenad wrot: > I am suggesting a minimalist approach in updating the LX - adding only what > is needed to make it worth buying (and keeping the price reasonable) in > today's market as opposed to 1980. Nice camera though the LX is, most would > agree that it is a flawed masterpiece (as with many

Re: LX with AF, realy it works !

Shel wrote: > It doesn't bother me Doug, it's just that adding all that stuff to an > LX makes it - well, not an LX. A clue to what could be done is to look at what Pentax did to the 67 to turn it into the 67II. Pål - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go

Re: LX with AF, realy it works !

Don wrote: > Thanks. From the pics the camera looks quite different. Perhaps Pentax will > re-issue the LX as a new and improved model. The picture just show an ordinary LX with an early 80's Ricoh AF lens. Pål - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http:

Re: LX with AF, realy it works !

Alan wrote: > I am sure many would disagree, but I consider the infamous "sticky mirror" > problem a major design flaw. And that only is enough to make the LX a not so > dependable camera because you would never know when the problem would strike > (quietly) in the field, until too late... If

Re: LX with AF, realy it works !

Todd wrote: > I think there is only so far you can go and still call it a LX. Adding AF > is a pretty big one, and when you start doing things like adding LCD > screens, extra switches, taking away the mechanical parts and replacing > them with electronic (such as the self timer, DOF preview, m

Re: LX with AF, realy it works !

george de fockert wrote: > ftp://icthuis.dyndns.org/pub/pentax/lx_af1.jpg While that's pretty spectacular...I don't want one. ;) -Aaron - 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

Re: LX with AF, realy it works !

But Shel, I =am= an LX user. I even appreciate it for what it is. I just don't let it define me. Todd did make a strong case against adding features to the LX. And he managed to do it without once calling anyone a techno-weenie. Doug At 10:10 PM -07007/30/01, Shel Belinkoff wrote, or at le

Re: LX with AF, realy it works !

. Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California - Original Message - From: "Todd Stanley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 9:40 PM Subject: Re: LX with AF, realy it works ! > > I think there is only so far you can go and still cal

Re: LX with AF, realy it works !

>I am suggesting a minimalist approach in updating the LX - adding only what >is needed to make it worth buying (and keeping the price reasonable) in >today's market as opposed to 1980. Nice camera though the LX is, most >would >agree that it is a flawed masterpiece (as with many Pentax cameras)

Re: LX with AF, realy it works !

I think there is only so far you can go and still call it a LX. Adding AF is a pretty big one, and when you start doing things like adding LCD screens, extra switches, taking away the mechanical parts and replacing them with electronic (such as the self timer, DOF preview, mechanical shutter spe

Re: LX with AF, realy it works !

Shel, Why does it bother you what someone else wants on a camera? It's not like anyone is going to come to your house and modify your cameras. Those of us who do not fear anything made in the last twenty years seem to think it's okay for you shoot with whatever you like; who gave you the right

Re: LX with AF, realy it works !

Ugly! Jim A. > From: "george de fockert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 22:41:34 +0200 > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: LX with AF, realy it works ! > > For those who can't wait, some spy pictures of a LX with working AF, looks > that pentax needed

Re: LX with AF, realy it works !

Kool. Where did you find those pics? Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California - Original Message - From: "george de fockert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 3:05 PM Subject: Re: LX with AF, realy it works ! > > >

RE: LX with AF, realy it works !

Thanks. From the pics the camera looks quite different. Perhaps Pentax will re-issue the LX as a new and improved model. Don W. -Original Message- From: george de fockert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: July 30, 2001 7:06 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: LX with AF, realy it works

<    4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   >