Listen, this gets really offensive. You have been warned. Send the kids out of the house. I am all liquored up and shouting. ----- Original Message ----- From: "petit miam" Subject: MZ-30 manual. > I was reading my MZ-30 manual the other day. Well > months ago now, but just rediscovered this incomplete > mail in my drafts folder. There are some kind of odd > things in it. > > 1. For portraits auto-program: The manual says "the > telephoto lens produces a portrait in crisp focus > against the out-of-focus back-ground, while the wide > angle lens enables you to shoot group photography or > snapshots in sharp and clear focus with the extended > depth-of-field." > How does the lens selection change the DOF? And I > would have thought if anything, the tele lens would > enhance the DOF, not reduce it. I think the lens tells the camera what focal range it is (wide, normal, telephoto). If the lens tells the camera it is a telephoto, the camera goes into a sort of shutter preferred program mode, which will tend to keep the aperture open fairly wide, thereby limiting depth of field. With a wide angle, the converse is the case, with the camera allowing a much lower shutter speed, and hence a smaller aperture, thereby enhancing depth of field. This of course presumes that one is actually changing the reproduction ratio when changing focal length. > > 2. When talking about exposure modes, the manual > always says "set lens aperture ring to [A]". As if you > would have it set on anything else ever, when the > shutter won't fire otherwise. The first roll of film I shot with my 77 was with an MZ-30. I couldn't get the damned thing to fire because I was trying to choose discreet apertures with the control on the lens, the old fashioned way. With that camera, there are several exposure modes, and a no exposure mode. I, of course, found the one way to make the camera stop working completely, besides throwing it against a wall. > > 3. The manual mentions the trailing-shutter-curtain > flash function using the built-in flash, but do you > think it mentions how to obtain it? Well this > information is nowhere in the manual. I don't even > think it is possible. I suspect it is something you will find in the flash manual, not the camera manual. > > 4. For manual focussing, it says you can use the matt > frame surrounding the autofocus screen. I don't see > one, just a few fine lines marking out a square. There > is nothing matt about it, it is as shiny as they come, > and completely useless for manual focus. The entire screen is the matt frame. The screen may well be useless for manual focus, as it is probably optimized for bright viewing rather than manual focussing. > > 5. For close-up program mode it says this mode favours > smaller apertures for increased DOF. But I always use > large apertures for close-ups. I don't want something > in the background to interfere with my shots. Why > would you use small apertures for this? Close focussing really limits depth of field, no matter what aperture you are using. In PHD mode, the macro program will try to give as much depth of field as possible. Most often, this is desired. From the perspective of a photofinisher, this is a good thing. I can easily explain off colour lighting, or too slow of a shutter speed causing a problem, but the average punter has a real problem grasping the concept of depth of filed being tied to the size of the aperture and the reproduction ratio. Or even depth of field. They just are pissed that their thousand dollar camera takes out of focus pictures. Especially since they spent the grand to get away from the crap that their fifty dollar camera churned out. Here is an idea for a PUG theme. Why don't we do a disposable camera themed gallery. Obviously, it will have no Pentax content, but it is pretty damned inclusive. I wonder if eye controlled autofocus will (has) bred an entire new group of photographers who will never be able to grasp the concept of depth of field? It seems to me that if wherever you look in the viewfinder the camera brings it into focus, whether near or far, the concept of depth of filed will be difficult to grasp. Its always all in focus, as far as looking through the camera is concerned. I blame all this on the bastards that have foisted fully automatic cameras on the general populace. Now that the pricks have made no mind photography possible, there are far to many people out there practicing photography without using their minds. When some moron come up to the counter and says I must have screwed up his stupid picture because he just spent a grand and a half on a camera and, his pictures are no better than the 50 dollar Kodak he just tossed in the trash, I really want to strangle the jerk for being too stupid to live. Unfortunately, an expensive camera used like a point and shoot with no knowedge base is little better than a cheap point and shoot used the same way. Except the bokeh is better on the expensive one. And you want to get me started about fill flash being easier now than in the manual flash days??? Well, you don't, but you just did. Several years ago, I tried to do what my mentor told me to do, and pass on what I had been taught to someone else. Anyway, along came this guy who seemed interested. I though, now I can pay it forward, so to speak. Unfortunately, Mr Moron bought an EOS1 with the EZ400 flash. Never trust something that says "easy" when it comes to photography. Photography is not easy. Photography comes from practice, and learning, and practical experience. And making mistakes, often expesive ones. And learning from those mistakes. You can learn some of it from a book, or from a mentor, but you won't be good at it without practice and experience. You learn it by going out and doing it. Hopefully the book will plant the seed of curiosity. Anyway, Mr. Moron decided to do some portraits one day. He set his EZ400 to -3 stop (he wanted the background to be high key) and proceeded to take 4 rolls of film where the subject was in full sun and the background was in shade. It was, of course, the fault of the photo lab. So, Mike, fill flash sure is easier to do now, with TTL Auto, providing you know what the hell you are doing. And providing you have sufficient depth of knowledge to know when setting the damned flash to -3 isn't going to be an exersice in stupidity. And while I am at it, since when is saying I don't like a particular camera, and telling the reasons why it doesn't work for me a devolution into insulting every person who likes that particular instrument? And why is not knowing why a separate auto focus button would be of any use equated with rejecting a camera that has that particular tool? And can you really buy a "Crack Whore Barbie" at Wal-Mart? I want to know. Heres the deal, as I see it. Your thoughts may vary, and frankly I don't care. What works for me is all that matters to me. What works for you is all that should matter to you. If I want to be an offensive jerk and tell you why what works for me works for me, and what works for you doesn't work for me, don't get all upset and have a tantrum about it. I have enough tantrums for all of us. As a matter of fact, I am having one now. > > 6. Here is a funny example of "Engrish" for you. > "Light values are measured in six segments within the > image field, enabling an optional exposure to be made > under a variety of lighting conditions." > So it is up to you whether to make the exposure or > not. Do you think perhaps they mean "optimal"? > Check this link if you don't know what I mean by > Engrish: http://www.engrish.com/ > This will give you a laugh, unless of course you are > Japanese, in which case you won't understand the big > deal. Engrish is a hoot. William (I behaved myself for 6 months, mostly) Robb - 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://pug.komkon.org .
