The newer Pentaxes will work best with that old lens. One of the reasons
why is lower magnification. I like the larger image in older cameras, but
the light is spread to a much larger area so the image is dimmer. Newer
cameras have a brighter image due to smaller area.
Also, way back then the cameras where designed with the idea that a fast
normal lens (F2 or less) would probably be mounted most of the time, and
most people would not be using lenses slower than F2.8 most of the time.
Nowadays, slow zooms are the norm, and cameras like the ZX-M are designed
for zoom lenses with maximum apertures like F5.6 at the long end. The
ZX-M's focus aids (split image/microprism) will continue to function at
F6.9, while on a camera like the ME they would just black out and become
useless. The downside to the ZX-M focus screen is that it's harder to
focus fast lenses.
So basically you'll find that F6.9 lens a lot easier to use on the ZX-M -
the viewfinder image will be much improved, plus aperture priority is
always nice to have when using manual diaphram lenses.
As for concert photography, it's hard to say as I have never done anything
like that. I would always try to get close, but I guess that's not
possible in many situations. If you do your own printing, you could always
get a good lens like a K 200mm F4 (or the F2.5), or A 200mm F2.8, and crop
later. While this may hurt in terms of grain, the Pentax will probably be
a lot sharper than that 400mm (I'm guessing), so the results may end up
better.
Another thing to think about is that grainy B&W images with motion blur
might end up being the most interesting. Take a look at some CD covers -
many are technically terrible, but still are excellent images.
Todd
At 11:37 PM 7/22/01 EDT, you wrote:
>Greetings all,
>
>Are the viewing screens of older Pentaxes significantly darker than those
in
>newer bodies (specifically the ZX/MZ series)?
>
>I was looking for a long prime lens and thought I'd try a screwmount. A
>saleman showed me a third party 400mm f/6.9; quite a bit slower than I
would
>have liked , but quite affordable. Not having my camera with me, the
>salesman obligingly mounted the lens in question on an older Pentax body.
>I was concerned that f/6.9 would be too slow for my purpose, but was really
>astonished to see just how dark everything appeared, even with the lens
wide
>open. Since I planned to use the lens for evening outdoor concert
>photography, I concluded this lens was just too slow, not for me and left
>without purchasing it.
>
>Some time later, I was playing around with an automatic diaphragm lens and
>the DOF preview of my ZX-M in what seemed to be lighting similar to the
>store. Even stopped down beyond f/8, everything seemed brighter, clearer
>and more manageable. I began to wonder if it was not just the slowness of
>the lens itself, but perhaps a relative darkness of the older Pentax screen
>(I think it was a Program A), or more probably a combination of the two
that
>disappointed me in the store.
>
>Would this relative darkness be true of all view screens prior to ZX/MZ
>series and particularly of the K series? (I'm thinking about acquiring a
>mechanical body as a backup and to use with heavier lenses).
>
>This little episode has also caused me to question the criteria I'm using to
>choose a lens for my stated purpose (i.e. outdoor evening concert
>photography). Not always being able to get close enough to the action, a
>long lens seems to be what I need. Besides, even when close enough, I want
>to fill the frame with the intended image. However, the circumstances
>often present difficult lighting situations and a fast lens also seems
>necessary. Affordability issues rule out purchasing a fast, long
>(300-400mm)lens, so I've chosen to look for length rather than speed. Does
>this seem sensible?
>
>I'm mostly shooting slides these days and aside from the personal
enjoyment,
>I'm not at all sure what the ultimate use of the images might be (e.g stock
>photography, gallery prints, or, dare I think, a published work?). I
>suppose a fast lens with a shorter focal length could do the job, but (not
>to re-open a can of worms) my personal preference is to have the initial
>exposure as close as possible to the desired final result. This is
probably
>because I don't process or print any of my own film, nor have I any darkroom
>or digital editing skills yet.
>
>Given the purpose and constraints (real and imagined) I've mentioned what
>would you recommend I look for? If I have to make a choice between speed
>and length, which would be more useful or appropriate?
>
>Thanks in advance for any help you can offer.
>
>Mike Ray
>
-
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 .
