Pal, I may not have explained myself properly. I meant that the LX is a better (nicer) tool with which too create macro images than the Z-1 using the FA 100mm f2.8 macro lens. The Z-1 AF system causes the FA 100mm macro to hunt somewhat at close focusing distances, and the metering system consistently overexposes by anywhere between 1/3 and 2/3 of a stop (depending upon the film too). The LX metering is deadly accurate, using the FA 100mm as a MF lens is easy, and the LX has mirror lock up to prevent shutter vibration. This alone does contribute somewhat towards producing sharper final images at slower shutter speeds, and I very seldom shoot without a tripod, cable release and with the mirror locked up on my LX (whether I am deep in the bush or not :):):)). Naturally, once the shutter speed extends beyond about 1/60th it no longer matters that the Z-1 doesn't have mirror lock. Using the self-timer/pre-fire option on a pz-1p will (hopefully) serve the same purpose.
I have just bought a pz-1p; so it will be interesting too see if the metering displays the same tendencies as my old z-1, as I would expect it too. Knowing that the camera meters a certain way of course, means it is easy to compensate accordingly. The AF system of the pz-1p will still hunt, as it is the same SAFOX II system that is used in the Z-1 (I bought the pz-1p for the flash exposure compensation feature more than anything else). As for whether one camera takes better shots than another camera - the short answer is of course not. It is the glass, and how well the photographer uses the equipment they have. Then again, there are a lot of very experienced contributors to this list who prefer using their LX for macro work, and have other bodies for other purposes or preferences. I have used both my Z-1 and my LX for macro work, and whether or not the trannies are actually better or worse doesn't really matter. It's all subjective anyway. I just really like crawling around in the dirt with my LX and FA 100mm....they are both beautiful pieces of equipment. Cheers (from the bush...) Pause... Tch..tch..tchhhh.tchh...tch... "What's that Skip?....the wind was moving the native orchids out of frame and you've recomposed for me while I was making a cup of tea..." "Gee Sonny, I wish I had a friend who was that helpful....." Shaun Canning Archaeology Department La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, 3086. Phone: 0414-967 644 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: P�l Jensen [mailto:paaljensen@;sensewave.com] Sent: Saturday, 9 November 2002 10:53 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: LX MAcro Question Shaun wrote: >I can only compare this to the results I > got with my z-1 and the same lens. The LX produces truly superior images. > The z-1 was a great camera, but the LX produces much nicer macro shots > (maybe it is all the mirror lock, but I don't think so). Huh? I think you have to go further into the bush to get anyone to believe that a camera creates better images than another. I've never noticed that my LX take better images than the Z-1p I once owned. >ZMetering is just a > non-event with the LX and close-up work. Set too auto and forget really. Isn't that the case with any modern camera? P�l
