Hi, Not really disagreeing with what is said, but as a counterpoint, I have found that focussing my M*300/4 on the ZX-5n to be *much* easier than with either the ME or ME Super. I like the big bright viewfinders with my f/1.4 and f/2 lenses, but they are kind of dark and grainy by f/4, and that's 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 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 everyone has to. Although, I notice that with 35mm my style has > become poisoned by this technique.. Its tough to manually focus even the > MX now, without the beep. > > Damn the 645, I'm forever spoiled on 35mm finders, I guess. > > > But that is about my only disappointment. I've been extremely > > impressed with how accurate the light meter is. I had to do a fair > > amount of compensation with the K-1000 (by hit and miss manually). The > > ZX-5n has an exposure compensation dial built-in. So far I haven't had > > to use it. (Though probably one of these days I should learn *how* to > > use it.) > > I've also become pretty amazed at just how easy it is to do flash through > a TTL camera, as well. To the point where I'm just a little surprised I > was so apprehensive about it. This is a place where I really adore the -5n > over the MX by far and away. I need to learn how to use the exposure comp > dial to manipulate the flash output, but I've been too lazy to really > care, lately. > > -- > http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. > http://www.eighteenpercent.com <-> photography and portfolio. >
