Hi Pal, please see below.
PAJ> I beg to differ. I find the good, modern Pentax AF bodies far easier to
PAJ> focus than any manual focus Pentax I've used. I did side-by-side comparison
PAJ> with the LX and the Z-1p and whereas the LX (old type focusing screen) was
^^^^
I agree, but what's the point? You are IMHO comparing apples to oranges -
an old grainy and dark focusing screen with modern super bright
aspherical type screen... If both cameras had same screen, the much
higher magnification viewfinder of LX would be much easier to focus.
Solution - new screens in the LX, MX, ...
[...]
PAJ> Split images screens are in my opinion totally useless; like most
PAJ> photographers, the first thing I did was removing these screens from any
Totally? Sorry but surely not totally. Perhaps for your
application, yes. But not in all cases. For long fast lenses, I agree
- split-image is the worst for them. But for many other kinds of
photography, split-image focusing aid is absolutely needed...
especially with low magnification finder like MZ-S has. E.g.
- long lenses near infinity. Ever tried focusing your 600/4 wide
open at moon? I tried with 500/5.6, and I must admit, split-image
was the best.
- wide angle lenses, focused from about 3 meters farther away. With
superwides, image detail is so small you can't very well focus
them using plain matte screen, ESPECIALLY with low mag finder. A
split image helps tremendously.
... and there are other uses.
PAJ> new camera body. The split image screens are not common anymore because
PAJ> they aren't needed any longer. Older cameras needed these focus assist
They are not common because mf cameras are not common!
All mf cameras sold today have split-image/microprism focusing aid
screen. Look at Pentax, Nikon, Minolta, Cosina...
Or the MZ-M is no longer sold with splitimage C74 screen?
[...]
PAJ> brain to decide when an image is in focus and when its not. Again I take
PAJ> exception of the LX with the new screens (which are similar to the MZ-S
PAJ> screens anyway).
That's it! With ~same~ screens, any older high magnification camera
will be easier to focus than any newer low mag camera! LX has
0.95x (IIRC), MZ-S has 0.75x (0.77?). So from simple math, LX is
much more precise (it shows image detail higher magnified,
therefore easier to determine for eye if in focus or not).
PAJ> I also prefer the lower finder magnification because it does not detract
PAJ> from critical focusing and it makes it easier to compose because the whole
PAJ> image can be seen without wandering of the eye.
Of course, that's a dilemma. Easy focusing OR easy composing?
High eyepoint for eyeglass viewers OR high magnification for best
focusing? I wear glasses, but am considering using contact lenses
just for photography, it would make seeing whole finder much
easier.
Anyway, I though it would be nice to know if the MZ-S can use the
C74 splitimage screen, I can see the usability of such precise
focusing screen _at least_ for critical focus work in lenstesting
et cetera. OTOH, is there a clear (without AF zone markings)
screen for the MZ-S? I might get one to put in my older bodies
for long teles :)
Good light,
Frantisek Vlcek
-
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 .
