Pentax K8.4/f2.8 Fish-Eye
Hi everybody on the PDML, I have been silent for a while. Wich does not mean that I am out of Pentax. On the contrary: After considering the decision for a whole year, in August I bought an *ist D - which I enjoy! Now, however, I am back with a question concerning the Pentax K8.4/f2.8 Fish-Eye that was for sale in spring. Does somebody know what it sold for? Greetings from gray and rainy Hamburg, Arnold
Re: Another Limited lens
I really wonder whether it is the same or a very similar optical formula as in the M40/f2.8. If so, the image circle should be large enough to cover the full frame. No need or even no way to scale it down. However, the lack of an aperture ring makes the DA40/f2.8 really limited in its abilities and absolutely unattractive for me. I'll stick to the original M40/f2.8 and to the FA43/f1.9. Arnold Mark Roberts schrieb: They were thinking that they could sell a *tiny lens with excellent optical quality to go with their incredibly compact new DSLR... while investing virtually no RD money into the project (assuming they're re-using the old M 40/2.8 optical formula and just scaling it down to a smaller image circle). They've obviously been paying attention to the selling prices of theold M40/2.8 on eBay.
Re: European PDMLM at Photokina?
Hello Katrin, Half a year ago I suggested that there should be such a meeting. However, unfortunately, I won't be able to join as I will be away in the Ukraine. Arnold [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: Hi, will there a pdml meeting at the photokina? Bye Katrin
Re: 50 or 100 mm
I agree with JCO. DOF depends on the magnifcation by the lens. At typical object distances (1m), the short focal length (e.g. 10mm) lenses of digital cameras can be used at almost constant and very small (1:100) magnification, hence the large DOF. Arnold Jens Bladt schrieb: I'm sure most of us agree to th opposite. Sertainly a 100 mm gives you less DOF than a 50 mm. That's why smaller formats - lika many digital cameras - have larger DOF, provided the same angle of view is obtained by a shorter focal length.Jens J. C. O'Connell wrote: W R O N G ! ! the 100mm will have exact same DOF as the 50mm at the same magnification and aperture. focal length has no effect on DOF, it is determined solely by magnification and aperture.JCO -Original Message
Re: Macro Talk
Yes. Arnold Lon Williamson schrieb: I assume that at half life size, the M's front element would be farther away from the subject than this A lens. Is that correct?
Re: 50 or 100 mm
At 1:1 magnification, the F/FA100/f2.8 as well as the new DFA100/f2.8 all are near 75mm lenses. You can see that from the working distance which, at 1:1, is roughly four times the focal length. For the FA/F100/f2.8, at 1:1, the working distance is 310 millimters, thus the focal length at 1:1 is near 310mm/4=77,5mm. For the DFA100/f2.8, at 1:1, the working distance is 300 millimters, thus the focal length at 1:1 is near 300mm/4=75mm. The focal length of all these lenses varies due to the FREE (fixed rear element extension) design. Arnold J. C. O'Connell schrieb: If I had to go with only one macro lens it would be about a 75mm but nobody makes one! I do use 75mm/80mm macro lenses on a bellows but with a bellows the maximum focus distance is very limited and often too close. JCO
Re: Caveman goes digital
I guess that Pentax Japan does read at least some discussion forums. Whether this includes the PDML I do not know. Maybe the Japanese formus are sufficient input. I guess that the Japanese Pentax fans do have similar wishes and complaints as we do. However, I do know for sure that Pentax Japan communicates with the Pentax subsidiaries throughout the world that are responsible for selling what Pentax produces. They do tell Pentax Japan what product they think they need. Pentax Japan listens, and in some cases even reacts as has been asked for. So if there is something that we (e.g. the PDML) want, we need to try and convince Pentax subsidiaries to fight for us. This has happened, and it has worked. Thank you, Pentax! Arnold Kenneth Waller schrieb: Because someone is (at) Pentax is known (or at least believed :-) to read this discussion list, there's a tendency to imagine we're an important factor in the Pentax decision-making procedure. I wonder if anyone on the list has any reason to believe this is true, at least from Pentax USA? I've been a follower of the list since back when Pentax sponsored the list and even then never got an inkling they paid attention to us. I remember asking this of one of the higher ups @ Pentax USA and he said in so many words they had to take what Pentax Japan gave them. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2004 2:40 PM Subject: Re: Caveman goes digital I agree. Because someone is Pentax is known (or at least believed :-) to read this discussion list, there's a tendency to imagine we're an important factor in the Pentax decision-making procedure. Personally I think this is pretty much wishful thinking - I'm not sure I'd want to be thought responsible for many of the decisions coming from Pentax. But if we're going to claim credit, then I'd just like to remind the list members that I described *exactly* the technique Pentax now use (right down to suggesting which button to use) back when we were first discussing the *ist-D, as the best that could be achieved in firmware. It's hard to say. The upgrade may have been in response to complaints here and elsewhere, it may have been an oversight, or just a matter of continuing development. In any case, I'm very pleased with the *istD. I can produce very nice 12 x 18 prints if I shot RAW and res-up in PhotoShop CS during RAW conversion. Paul On Aug 8, 2004, at 11:02 AM, Caveman wrote: Thanks, I was not aware of the firmware update. How did this happen, did PDML send to Pentax headquarters a commando that banged them in the head with tripods and 600mm lenses ? Paul Stenquist wrote: All of your pentax lenses are useable on the *istD. I have some FA lenses, but I prefer many of my K-series versions and shoot with them. The first release *istD did not have the necessary firmware to meter with K lenses. The new ones do, and they work fine.
Re: PAW: Dancing on spines
Sehr hübsch Arnold Hans Imglueck schrieb: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2595608size=lg This is a crab spider (? don't know whether this is the correct translation of 'Krabbenspinne') preparing the spin off from the top of a thistle: It sets out a long thread (cannot be seen) and hopes that it will stick to something else. Comments are welcome! Ragards, Hans. _ 23a mail
Re: Further Clarification, Please: FA 77
The FA77 /f1.8 Ltd. is quite good at wide apertures, and it is superb at and above f4 where it outperforms all Pentax 85mm lenses. See http://www.arnoldstark.de/pentax.htm, especially http://www.arnoldstark.de/aufloesung85er.htm Don't worry: The FA77/f1.8 is a great lens. You cannot go wrong with it. BTW: To me, the resolution numbers that Yoshihiko Takinami found for some lenses (especially the FA77/f1.8 and the M85/f2) are not consistent with my own results which are much higher for these lenses. Now, which results are true? Well, I guess that it is easy to measure a resolution that is lower than provided by the lens, but it is near impossible to measure a resolution that is too high. Arnold Joseph Tainter schrieb: I would have bought this by now if I could find one. Thankfully, Lasse just reminded me of Yoshi's page, where there are test results on it. The numbers at wide apertures don't look good: 55 from f1.8 all the way to f4.0. (That is, the lens does not improve until f5.6.) The FA 43, which many malign for its wide-open performance, is just as good as the 77 wide open, and improves by f2.8. Both lenses are far weaker than the FA 50 f1.4 wide open, which in turn is weaker than the FA 50 f1.7 (which I have) wide open. (The 1.7 is not on Yoshi's page, but the F version was tested on Photodo.) (Yes, I know, one of you smart-***es will tell me that the FA 50 f1.4 is far better at 1.4 than the FA 50 f1.7 is.) Popular Photography, OTOH, reported that the FA 77 does quite nicely at wide apertures. When I asked about this lens a few weeks ago, list members who own it said likewise. Here's how I would use it: Since my zooms are high-quality, I use primes primarily in low light, and use them at large apertures, including wide open. If I like an image, I print it at 7 x 10 (i.e., A4) or thereabouts on my Epson 870. I don't expect lenses to be perfect at large apertures, but do I need them to be decent enough for such enlargement. My FA 31 is, but so far I have not found any tests of it like Yoshi's. So, owners of the FA 77, may I trouble you again for your assessment of how this lens performs at wide apertures? Will images be suitable for enlargement to the size I indicated? If you gave me your assessment before, please give it to me again. The fact that Lens A is weaker wide open than Lens B does not mean that Lens A will not give decent enlargements at the size I need. This is what I am trying to ascertain. Thanks, everyone, Joe
Re: Further Clarification, Please: FA 77
Yes, the A/F/FA50/f1.4 and the FA85/f1.4 are a little bit soft at wide open. However, they are great for portraits especailly at wide open. At f1.4 the depth of field is so shallow that the sharpness of the lens can be seen at one spot (one distance), only, anyway. For example, I have some wonderful portraits that I shot with the FA85 at f1.4 and with the M85 at f2 that I have not been able to reproduce with lenses with sharper lenses like the A85 and K85. Arnold Alan Chan schrieb: FA43 is not great at all wide open and is about the same as M50/1.4 at f2 (very slightly sharper and slightly worse bokeh (bright ring)). I have found A50/1.7 is obviously sharper than A50/1.4 at wide open, and that shows when manual focusing w/o split image (but maybe just low contrast high resolution, I don't know). The same is true when comparing FA77 against FA*85 (FA77 being sharper). For both A50/1.4 FA*85, sharpness starts to improve dramatically at f4 or smaller. I certainly would not shot at f1.4 for these 2 lenses as I considered the results to soft even on small prints. Wish I can answer your question directly, but I am redundant to do so with my incomplete experience. Alan Chan
Re: Further Clarification, Please: FA 77
Well, it is of course possible, that any specific sample of some lens is not well aligned. However, in my test the A*85/f1.4 did perform quite well at wide open, and I guess that a misalignment would show especially at wide. To me it seems that the A*85/f1.4 is optimized for wide open performance, for high contrast at wide open, and for infinity. Let us not forget that the measured resolution is valid for one object distance, only, in each measurement. Maybe in your test the distance was bigger than in mine? Arnold Rob Studdert schrieb: Your measurements and more importantly trends don't correlate at all well with mine for the A*85/1.4 either. My 50mm tests in this same series to which I'm referring do however align quite well with most other tests that I'm aware of. Maybe your A*85/1.4 has an alignment problem? I have yet to do a technical appraisal of the comparative performance of my A*85/1.4 and 77LTD however given my experience with both lenses I don't expect to observe the differential that you measured. But back to the initial question the 77LTD can be used quite successfully wide open. IMHO there is really nothing else that you can buy in PK mount that will be as good in AF, so your choices are limited in any case
Re: To ME or not to ME
The ME Super has a very well damped mirror. There actually is a real shock absorber (like in a car) which is placed beneath the mirror box. I have a brochure on the ME Super where this is shown and explained. And it is true: The ME Super really is much more quiet than the Super A or any other Pentax SLR from that era. Arnold John Forbes schrieb: I also disagree about it shaking like a wet dog. Mine was certainly no worse than my PZ-1p, which is better than my SFXs and K1000 and Spottie. Can't remember if the ME Super shook, doggilly or otherwise, but it's a long time ago. I did buy the Super A straight after the theft of the MES, and it just seemed like a similar camera with better features. Probably Bill Robb's got more use than mind did, and started to rattle a bit. John On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 21:14:57 CDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John said, regarding the Super A and the ME Super: They are sufficiently similar that they both take the ME Winder II. If they are different, there's barely a millimetre in it. They DO have different shutters, so they don't sound the same. I must admit, I made the comment assuming that the Super A and the SuperProgram are the same bodies, differing only in colour. I have owned both the ME Super and the SuperProgram, with a brief overlap, but only handled the Super A in the absence of both the others. According to the published specs, the dimensions of the two bodies (ME Super and SuperProgram) are as follows: SuperProgram -- 131mm W x 86.5mm H x 47.5mm D ME Super -- 131.5mm W x 83mm H x 49.5mm D they're pretty close but not quite the same shape, which could account for the earlier comment that the ME Super felt -- what was it, sleeker? Certainly it explains them feeling different in the hands, especially with a weight difference as well. Also it's apparent from the figures that they aren't the same body. The SuperProgram and the Program Plus, however (I think the outside-US names would be SuperA and ProgramA) have exactly the same published dimensions. Those could well be the same body with different features; perhaps they're the ones you were thinking about? ERN
Re: 43 Limited (WAS: Opinions wanted: 16-45 vs. 20-35 vs. 24-90)
So what is the lens that survived the distillation process in the 40-55mm focal length range? Actually, the choice of a lens depends much on the choice of the other lenses. If you like the 35/f2, the 43 would be too close, wouldn't it? If you have a 28mm wide-angle, the 43 fits much better. Naturally, the type of camera is important, too. Arnold Rob Studdert wrote: My current lens kit has been formed by a process of distillation and the 43mm LTD wasn't magic enough to entice me to keep it even in glorious jet black.
K24s
Hi, I would like to know: How does the K24/f3.5 compare to the K24/f2.8 with respect to contrast, distortion, vignetting, and corner resolution? Arnold
Re: Pentax F-series lenses??
Hello whereever possible, I replaced my FA lenses with F lenses because of the better build quality, the better materials, the better feel, and also the better mechanics. It is true that the focusing ring of F lenses is narrow. However, once you get used to the narrowness, the actual focussing feel is at least as good as with the FA lenses. For me, the F series is the K series of the Pentax auto focus lenses. Yes, there are holes in the F series primes line-up. However, that does not reduce the value of the F primes that exist. I own the F28/f2.8, F50/f1.4, F50/f1.7, F50/f2.8, F100/f2.8, F135/f2.8, F*300/f4.5, and I am happy with all of them. The only one that was updatet optically by an FA lens was the 28. Also, I do not agree with the statement Personally, my gripe with F lenses is that they are for the most part cheesy zooms--a lot of the good stuff either died off in the K or A era or was only updated as FA rather than F. Which cheesy zooms do you mean? The F24-50 is optically identical to the A24-50 The F28-80 is optically identical to the A28-80 and way better than the FA28-80s. OK, the A28-135/f4 was not replaced by an F lens, however, the FA28-200 was not a replacemet, either. The F35-70 is optically identical to the A35-70/f3.5-4.5 The F35-105/f4-5.6 was slower than the great A35-105/f3.5, however, it is not a bad zoom at all The F35-135 is optically identical to the A35-135 The F70-210/f4-5.6 was slower than the great A70-210/f4, however, it is of the same quality. The F*250-600/f5.6 was an improvement over the K135-600/f6.7. Speeking of cheesy zooms, the ones that come to my mind are the FA28-80/f3.5-4.5, FA70-200/F4-5.6, and the FA28-200. Arnold [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: I haven't run anything like a proper test, but so far I'd agree with you on the F* 300/4.5. I suspect it will test better than the other slow 300s I have to put against it. IMHO no 300/4.5 is going to work well on a 2x converter (too dark), and from what I've heard most 2x converters cause a loss of quality that most professionals find intolerable. F lenses are hard to find used, and presumably impossible to find new. They aren't exactly attractive, and they don't have the build quality of even the A lenses. Manual focus with them is not great (in common with early AF lenses from other manufacturers). Most of the good ones appear to be optically identical to the A versions. All of these seem to be valid reasons why the F lenses are unpopular. Personally, my gripe with F lenses is that they are for the most part cheesy zooms--a lot of the good stuff either died off in the K or A era or was only updated as FA rather than F. Given the lens focal lengths and apertures that I would like to carry, there are almost no F versions (no wides wider than 28, no 28/2.0, no 35, only a soft-focus 85, no 200, only the 600/4 for big glass). There are A versions, and often FA versions. Really the only NEW F primes I can think of are the 300/4.5 and the 135/2.8, both of which are well regarded, and the 600/4 which we understandably don't hear much about. DJE
What battery for the Spotmatic F
Hello, what kind of battery does the Spotmatic F require? Arnold
RE: 77 limited or 85* for portraits/canndids
I have had them all: FA*85/f1.4, A*85/f1.4, K85/f1.8, M85/f2, FA77/f1.8. This is what I think: - The 1.4s are simply too big and heavy for everyday use, and too intimidating for portraits. Thus I sold them. - The FA*85/f1.4 and the M85/f2 are specialists for portraits. Do not use them at open aperture for anything else. However, stopped down they are excellent in every respect. Yes, at f5.6-f11 they are very sharp. - The A*85/f1.4 seems to be optimised for high contrast at open aperture. It is good for available light photography but not so good for portraits or close-ups. - The K85/f1.8 and the FA77/f1.8 seem to be the best all-purpose lenses with the 77 offering the higher resolution, and with the K85 offering the longer focal length. - At the same aperture, the M85/f2 gives the smoothest background/biggest blur. - However, the bokeh of the K85/f1.8 seems to be the most natural. Arnold
RE: 77 limited or 85* for portraits/canndids
I have had them all: FA*85/f1.4, A*85/f1.4, K85/f1.8, M85/f2, FA77/f1.8. This is what I think: - The 1.4s are simply too big and heavy for everyday use, and too intimidating for portraits. Thus I sold them. - The FA*85/f1.4 and the M85/f2 are specialists for portraits. Do not use them at open aperture for anything else. However, stopped down they are excellent in every respect. Yes, at f5.6-f11 they are very sharp. - The A*85/f1.4 seems to be optimized for high contrast at open aperture. It is good for available light photography but not so good for portraits or close-ups. - The K85/f1.8 and the FA77/f1.8 seem to be the best all-purpose lenses with the 77 offering the higher resolution, and with the K85 offering the longer focal length. - At the same aperture, the M85/f2 gives the smoothest background/biggest blur. - However, the bokeh of the K85/f1.8 seems to be the most natural. Arnold
Re: Pentax * ist D doing badly in Fotomagazin test
Well, I guess that you are kidding. Quality never was a problem with German lenses. What really caused the death of Germany's camera industry was cheaper and more innovative (with respect to camera technology) competition from Japan. The Pentax Spotmatic was a major nail to the coffin of Zeiss Ikon and others. Interestingly, last year there was a large story in Fotomagazin titled Durchbruch der Spiegelreflexen (Breakthrough of the SLRs). This article reviewed the SLR history and the contributions from Leica, Zeiss, Nikon, Canon, Olympus and some others. However, the author managed to fully ignore Pentax. Not a single word about the Spotmatic! Unbelievable but true. I wrote a letter to the Magazine which was never answered. However, the Magazine printed one or two letters of other irritated readers. The original Fotomagazin test of the *ist D was published in the issue 12/2003. If I remember correctly from reading in the shop (I never bought that issue) the score on resolution was so low that it could have been only cause either by misfocusing or some other manipulation. Arnold Shawn K. schrieb: They're just mad because Pentax lenses are superior to all the high priced,high falutin german made stuff...
Re: only MZ60 and *ist?
The homepage of the Hungarian Pentax importer (www.slach.hu) states that MZ60 and *ist are the only 35mm Pentax SLR bodies in production, the other models still in stock will run out this year. Are they right? Yes. I have been told the same by a Pentax sales person. Arnold
Re: European PDML Meeting 2004
Hi, I am happy that you like the idea to have a European PDML Meeting in Cologne at the Photokina (28.9.2004-3.10.2004)! To make this meeting a success, I think that we should start preparations right now and discuss the following questions: - On which exact day(s) should the meeting take place? Who is going to Photokina anyway, and on which days? Is it right that Saturday, Octobre 2nd would be most convenient day for most? - Or maybe we could have a prelude on Friday, have the main event at Photokina on Saturday, and have an excursion to some nice place in or near Cologne on Sunday? keller.schaefer schrieb: I could offer to find a nice place to gather in the afternoon, after the Photokina visit - to put some cameras on the table and do some Pentax-talk. - How fortunate that you are from Cologne! Thanks for your offer! I guess it would be great if you can suggest something that could be our European PDML Meeting at Photokina Pub? Maybe the place that you suggest could be near (or identical) to a nice non-expensive place where some of us could find board and lodging? - I guess that Heiko and I can arrang something with the Pentax staff. Are there any other contacts that we could exploit? Greetings from Hamburg, Arnold
Re: those 150s
Hi, I do not know whether it has been mentioned before, but in one of those Pentax lens booklets from the 70s, Pentax claims that the K150/f4 was one of the best medium telephotos on the market. Arnold
Re: version 1.1
HORRRAAAY Friends, we have improved K-mount compatability. Now, with the lens off A, putting the camera into manual and pressing the green button will give the correct shutter speed. EV comp im manual is a nice touch. The ist D camera just got a whole lot better. HORRRAAAY again! A big THANK YOU to Pentax for listening to us, for reading our letters, and for caring for our complaints This may be the best answer that you possibly could have given Another big THANK YOU to the Pentax staff who pushed, took and implemented this decision NOW I'll start saving for an *ist D Arnold
Re: Soon to be new istD owners
I am Arnold Shel Belinkoff schrieb: So, how many of the list are now considering the istD now that it will work better with the K and M lenses? I'm now giving it some thought. shel
Re: *ist D: hooray!
As much as I not really know, the coming *ist D news may really be worth a HHHOORRRAAAYYY Arnold
Christmas present to myself...
Hi, I just received my new MZ-S! What a a great camera! PLUS: It is the silver version! And it takes all k-mount lenses ;-) I especially like the viewfinder which is very clear, i.e. manual focussing is a joy Arnold
DA16-45: No aperture rings any more?
From the Pentax.com press release: Coupled with a simple, functional design and the elimination of an aperture ring, this new mechanism considerably improves the camera's operability. They are talikn about the new Quick Shift Focus System, however, the sentence also implies, that Pentax is trying to sell the lack of an aperture ring as improved operability. It is even more evident in the German press release: Zusammen mit dem Verzicht auf einen Blendenring führt dies zu einem erheblich verbesserten Bedienungskomfort der Kamera (Togehter with the renouncement of an aperture ring, this (the Quick Shift Focus System) leads to considerably improved easo of operation of the camera). Shall we never again see a new Pentax lens with aperture ring? Arnold
DA16-45: End of all aperture rings?
From the Pentax press release: Coupled with a simple, functional design and the elimination of an aperture ring, this new mechanism considerably improves the camera's operability. They are talikn about the new Quick Shift Focus System, however, the sentence also implies, that Pentax is trying to sell the lack of an aperture ring as improved operability. It is even more evident in the German press release: Zusammen mit dem Verzicht auf einen Blendenring führt dies zu einem erheblich verbesserten Bedienungskomfort der Kamera (Togehter with the renouncement of an aperture ring, this (the Quick Shift Focus System) leads to considerably improved easo of operation of the camera). Shall we never again see a new Pentax lens with aperture ring? Arnold
Re: SAFOX VIII problems?
Hi Thomas, I am very much looking forward for your report whether and how Pentax will be able to fix the AF accuracy of your *ist D! Arnold Thomas Stach schrieb: I've not only heard of this, I'm experiencing it with my Starkistdee itself. Very annoying. I've tested it with my FA 24, 35, 50 and 85 - the camera always seems to actually focus a bit closer. Haven't tested thouroughly the F 135 and F*300 so far, but the body will go to Pentax Hamburg within the next days for service, we're already in contact. And then it's wait and see.. :-/
Re: 28/3.5 shift Lens cap wanted
This lens cap is still available new, and it is relatively cheap (just 8 Euros), although it is metal. It is the same cap as the cap for the A15/f3.5. Check whether your photo store can order it for you. Mine did so when I asked for it (Pentax item number 006997). Arnold Leon Altoff schrieb: Ever since I bought my first Pentax in 1980 I have wanted to have a play with one of these shift lenses. Today one arrived in a box complete with a case (very beaten up, but it's there), but no lens cap. The glass on this is perfect and I would like to keep it that way, so does anyone happen to have a spare lens cap for one of these sitting around? If not does anyone know if you can still buy them? Or failing that can someone who has one of these lenses please let me know what the lens cap is like so I can look for one that will fit and work? Leon http://www.bluering.org.au http://www.bluering.org.au/leon
Re: New Pentax SMC-DA 3.5-4.5/15-26
I have the information that a pre-production DA16-45 just arrived at Pentax Europe (Hamburg), so I guess that it will be available soon. Arnold Rüdiger Neumann schrieb: Hallo infos on the coming DA16-45 are on http://www.aohc.it/pressrelease/lns0308e.htm regards Rüdiger
Re: I really like the MZ-S!
Jose R. Rodriguez schrieb: Even though the *istD is a very nice camera, I have recently considered purchasing the MZ-S. I just ordered one... I really like all of its feature, especially the way it handles and that the body is made of a magnesium alloy. ... for exactly the same reasons. I especially like the user interface an the data imprinting function. That being said, I think/hope that Pentax updates it with at least the following improvements: * updated AF system (SAFOX VIII or better) w/improved AF selector The AF selector of the MZ-S is not bad, its just that everybody seems to use it the wrong way. It is easy to use if you don't take he camera from your eye. With the left hand holding the camera from below with the left thumb being on the left of the lens mount, use the left index finger to push the AF selector button, and use the right thumb and/or index finger to turn the wheel to select the AF sensor. It seems to me that SAFOX VII is not at all worse than SAFOX VIII. OK, there is no cross sensor, but if you KNOW that the selected AF sensor is a horizontal or vertical one, you know what it can and will do, thus that you can act and select accordingly. With SAFOX VIII. you never know what the sensor is concentrating on: horizontal or vertical structures. Also, I am under the impression that the linear sensors of SAFOX VII are more precise and work better in low light. * improved weather sealing (closer to the LX) * magnesium alloy camera back (not plastic) these of course would be nice * 1/3 stop exposure adjustment * 1/8000 sec top shutter speed * 1/250 sync speed these only could be available by making the body larger, and 1/8000 shutter speed I never need. * at least 3+ fps (not as important as the others above) not at all important to me I know this has been discussed in the past, but what are the chances Pentax will put out a MZ-Sn, when it appears that all the rave is digital... I would say that the chances are nil. There is a much bigger chance that Penbax will discontinue more analogue SLRs and introduce more DSLRs. Already, the MZ3 is no longer made. Who knows what model will be next? The MZ-S never was a high volume camera. I doubt that Pentax is earning money with it. They probably only introduced it to have a top model at all, in order not to loose all ambitious Pentax photographers. Now the *ist D took over this function. The MZ-S already seems like a leftover from the past. Grab one while it is still available Arnold
strange dedicated lens hood
Today I was at a photo fair (Fotoflohmarkt) here in Hamburg. I discovered a very starnge dedicated rectangular lens hood: The hood for the SMC Pentax 1:1.4 35mm lens So even if that lens was never sold, the hood was. The seller wanted 35 Euros which I considered to be way too much for an item that I well never be able to use, as I never can own that lens.. .However, I did buy a metal round hood for my 135/f2.5 or 200/f4 Arnold
Re: FAJ 18-35 vs. FA 20-35?
Do you have any proof for the FA0-35 being much better? In my opinion, the low price of the FA-J18-35 are a result of 1.) the omission of the aperture ring, 2.) a plastic lens mount, and 3.) the slow speed of this lens. Other than that I see no evidence that the FA-J18-35 is inferior to the FA20-35, neither optically nor mechanically. Arnold Joseph Tainter schrieb: Heiko, the FA 20-35 f4 is one of Pentax's best. It has been my favorite lens, and the one that has given me keeper after keeper. The FAJ is a cheap, entry-level lens, created so that digital kits can be offered at a low price. If you can afford the FA 20-35, it will be much better. Joe
Re: *ist-D in DPReview Pentax Forum
For the *ist D, the FA-J 18-35 is not bad at all, as its limited zooming range and speed much help its optical quality! IMHO and from my 2-day experience the FA-J is as good as the chip of the *ist D requires it to be. Arnold Joseph Tainter schrieb: I hope, hope, hope, hope that Pentax is sending the *ist-D out to reviewers with good lenses (preferably at least one Limited), rather than just the cheapo zooms. Nope, it looks like it is being reviewed with the FAJ 18-35. Joe
Re: FAJ 18-35 vs. FA 20-35?
Do you have any proof for this? In my opinion, the low price of the FA-J18-35 are a result of 1.) the omission of the aperture ring, 2.) a plastic lens mount, and 3.) of the slow speed of this lens. Other than that I see no evidence that the FA-J18-35 is inferiour to the FA20-35, neither optically nor mechanically. Arnold Joseph Tainter schrieb: Heiko, the FA 20-35 f4 is one of Pentax's best. It has been my favorite lens, and the one that has given me keeper after keeper. The FAJ is a cheap, entry-level lens, created so that digital kits can be offered at a low price. If you can afford the FA 20-35, it will be much better. Joe
contax/yashica bayonet mount -- k mount ?
Hi everybody, the prices are dropping for used Carl Zeiss lenses for Contax/Yashica bayonet mount. Some of these lenses do have no Pentax equivalents which makes them rather interesting to me, e.g. the Planars 100/f2 and 135/f2 or the Distagons 18/f4, 35/f1.4. Thus I have one question: Can the mount of such Zeiss bayonet mount lens be modified in such a way that such lens can be applied to k-mount cameras like the LX (without using an adapter that increases the distance from lens to body)? Any help wuld be appriciated! Arnold
FA-J 18-35/f4-5.6 quality
Actually, the FA-J 18-35 is not so bad. Optically my impression is that it is good enough at least for the *ist D. With that my test shots @18 mm show that the resolution is as high as the *ist D can use(~50 line pairs per millimter) even wide open, and even in the corner of the *ist D sensor. Barrel distortion is there, of course, but light fall-off is not too bad. Mechanically, the build quality of the FA-J 18-35 is somewhat better than that of the FA28-70 better, except for the plastic mount. It sure feels better than the other FA-J zooms which feel as cheap as they are (60$ and 130$), the focusing rings of which are a joke, and the front elemement of which rotate upon focusing. The 18-35 does have a focusing ring with distance scale that one can actually use manually, and the front element does not rotate. I think that as a standard zoom for the *ist D, the FA-J 18-35 is not a bad choice. If it had an aperture ring, I would really consider buying it ;-) Arnold Mark Roberts schrieb: Anyway, since the cameras appeal to a wider audience than the lenses they are bound to attract more attention, scrutiny and criticism.
*ist and K/M lenses
The *ist I played with last weekend along with the *ist D behaved just like the *ist D with K/M lenses: Av mode: wide open only, correctly metered; Manual mode: no metering but lens stops down to selected value. The trick to unlock the lens in AV mode to have it stop down worked, too. Arnold
Re: My own little *ist D review (fwd)
In manual mode, the *ist D does stop down a K or M lens (or A/F/FA lenses that are not in A position). Only it does not meter. It is in Av mode (metered!) that a K or M lens (or A/F/FA lenses that are not in A position) does not get stopped down but stays wide open all the time (unless one unlocks the lens and turns it 15 degrees anti-clockwise, so that one gets stopping down and real aperture metering). Arnold Chris Brogden wrote: So if the Nikon D100 will stop down an MF lens in manual mode (no meter), then it's actually a step ahead of the *istD, which won't even stop down an MF Pentax K-mount lens. That's sad.
Re: *istD Question
Yes it will. You as an owner of many srcrew mount lenses can really be happy with the *ist D! Arnold J. C. O'Connell schrieb: Does anybody know if the *istD will work in aperture priority mode with a screwmount lens mounted via the adapter? (lens pre-stopped down of course) JCO J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com
Re: My *ist D review is now complete
Robert Gonzalez schrieb: Thanks Boz, very interesting. Some of the Pentax images look slightly underexposed as compared to the Canon images. By the look of them, I'd say that the sensor is pretty much close to or exceeding the limits of the lenses. I.e., you can really see the difference with a very good lens as opposed to just a good lens. I do not agree. I measured that the sensor of the *ist D resolves 50 line pairs per millimeter. See my test shots at http://www.arnoldstark.de/bilder/030914_istD_testtafellinien.jpg. The area displayed is from the image center. Its size on the test chart is 7x10 centimeters while the whole test chart is 92x62 centimeters and fills the whole frame. 50 line pairs per millimeter is easily achieved with all lenses that we used ast f8 - if and when properly focussed. So if in the images of Bojidars review you notice some insufficient resolution that is probably due just to poor auto-focusing. As you can see in my manually focussed shots (best shots when focus bracketing) of the resolution test target, at f8, with the *ist D, the resolution is the same for the FA43/f1.9 Limited and the cheap zoom FA-J 18-35/f4-5.6 @18mm. Now I have measured that the 43 limited can resolve more than 80 line pairs per millimeter on Agfapan25. Thus the sensor and focusing accuracy are the limiting factors. The resolving power of the lenses is not: I would also like to point out, that with saturation, sharpness and contrast each set to +1, the images taken with the *ist D are more pleasing than those taken at 0 The sensor of the EOS 10 D probably resolves a little bit more than that of the *ist D - unfortunately we did not yet find the opportunity to do a resolution test with the 10D. However, the sensor of the 10D is a little bit smaller, too, so that the total number of line pairs being resolved should be on par with the *ist D. Arnold The 5 image continuous max keeps bugging me when they had originally said max. I wonder if its because you had noise reduction turned on? Cheers, rg Bojidar Dimitrov wrote: Hi, Reachable from the main KMP page: http://KMP.BDimitrov.de/ Cheers, Boz
My own little *ist D review
As reviews of the *ist D are flying in here is my own little contribution. I have been able to play with the *ist D pre-production model serial number 5645034 last weekend. I helped Boz in taking pictures for his comparison with the Canon 10D (see his review at http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/bodies/digital/review.html), and I did my own little experiments, especially some resolution test. See some of my test shots taken with the 43 Lmited and the FA-J 18-35/f4-5.6 at http://www.arnoldstark.de/bilder/030914_istD_testtafellinien.jpg. The area displayed is from the image center. Its size on the test chart is 10x7 centimeters while the whole test chart is 92x62 centimeters and fills the whole frame. The shots taken with the 43 Limitzed were taken at a distance of 188cm, i.e. the magnification was 1:42.7. The shots shown are the best ones from a series of manually (focus bracketing) as well as automatically focused shots (The AF of the *ist D sometimes snaps at different positions.). From the most narrow line pairs being resoved, I measured the resolution to be 50 line pairs per millimeter for both lenses at f8. This value is not bad but well below the resoving power of the 43 Limited (I have measured that the 43 limited can resolve more than 80 line pairs per millimeter on Agfapan25.). This is no surprise: To test the limits of the resoving power of this lens, one would need a sensor with 4 times as many pixels. As you can see, the images taken with the camera settings for saturation, sharpness and contrast each set to +1, are more pleasing than those taken at 0 Now, beyond resolution, this is what I like about the *ist D: - small yet rigid body that is easy to hold - easy to understand controls most of which are easy to operate, too - the menu is easy to understand, and selecting user functions is easy, too. - I manged to figure out all I needed and wanted WITHOUT manual. - relatively large and bright viewfinder with lots of information which can be well seen. - compatibilty with older flashes, A and F lenses. - instant image control (which is still new to me). - very good histogram and full information about picture when pressing the info button. - lots of user functions. - image quality sufficient for computer use and prints up to 20cm x 30 cm. - there still is more than enough reason for using my film cameras for big prints and slides. - the focusing noise actually does not disturb me. I can get used to: - having to change the settings for saturation, sharpness and contrast away from the standard settings - having to selecet the aperture from the body. - operating the 4-way/OK controller which needs a little practise as it is just a little bit too small. - plastic outer body on sturdy steel chassis. - battery consumption seems to be normal for a digital SLR but is of course way beyond what I know from film cameras... Things that are not so nice: - AF is fast but not always accurate on this particular pre-production model. - crippled k-mount: - battery compartment door is difficult to close and looks like it will have to be replaced at some time. On the topic of compatibilty with K- and M lenses I again confirm that in manual mode, a K or M lens (as well as a A/F/FA lens not in A position) would stop down, but unfortunately no metering is available. However, as one can judge the image right after taking it, one can take a test shot, judge it, adjust aperture and shutter speed and just take another (and yet another) picture -at least with subjects and lighting conditions that don't change.In AV mode, with K and M lenses (as well as with A/F/FA lenses not in A position), one gets operation wide-open, only. The aperture simply will not stop down to the value selected on the aperture ring, but it will stay wide open all the time, not only when metering but also when DOF previewing as well as during exposure. The metering is correct for wide open. To have the lens stop down to the selected value in AV mode, one needs to unlock the lens and turn it 15 degrees anti-clockwise. The aperture levers of camera and lens disengage so that the diaphragm stops down. In AV mode, one can thus have real aperture metering, even with exposure lock (With srew mount and manual aperture lenses one always gets this withiout having to unlock the lens). I have tried this several time, and it works well enough. However, one must take care that the lens stays in the right position. Others have suggested a solution for this problem. Will I eventually buy the *ist D? Yes! Unless Pentax soon presents a follow-up model with better k-mount compatibility (it would be sufficient not to switch the meter ON when DOF previewing in manual and/or AV mode) Arnold
Re: My own little *ist D review
No. Arnold This would really be a very drastic way to have the *ist D meter with K and M lenses at alle apertures. However, it would only work in Av mode. In manual mode the meter would still be OFF. And you would have to use your crippled lenses with real aperture metering, only, on your film bodies, too. Can you explain exactly why it would not work in manual mode? Surely you set the camera to a certain shutter speed via the main dial, and the lens to the aperture, and the scale inside the viewfinder shows you whether you are underexposing, right on, or over-exposing, no? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: My own little *ist D review
Cotty schrieb: No??? Why not? Well, in maual mode, the *ist D simply does not meter with any lens that is not set to A position. Why they chose tthe *ist D to behave like this, only the Pentax engineers would be able to explain. Arnold
Re: Lens test in German Color Foto
I agree that MTF charts may be more meaningful than global numeric results. CF does display those MTF charts, however, I cannot post them here And there really is a strong correlation betwenn the MTF charts and CF's global numeric results. I also agree that it would be a lot more helpful if all lenses were tested at the same effective aperture numbers. I believe that photodo's global numeric results all referred to f4 and f8? This is of course more convenient for comparison than tests at wide open and two stops down. Still, even with the latter method it is not so difficult to understand, that a f2.8 zoom lens with 70 points for its performance at f2.8 and f5.6 is better than a f4 zoom lens with 70 points for its performance at f4 and f8. Taking this into account, the FA*28-70/f2.8 and the FA*80-200/f2.8 clearly are Pentax's best zoom lenses according to CF testing. Thus I would not say that CF's lens tests produce ridiculous results. Arnold Alin Flaider schrieb: Arnold wrote: AS comparable. In their test reports they clearly state that the results AS for lenses of different speeds cannot be compared directly. Really Arnold, then what good are these results for!? After all, people are more likely to decide between different lenses of the same brand, rather then between similar offering of P and C! Moreover, knowing very well how a lens performs they want to see where another one stands relative to their own reference. I'm afraid CF results suffer from the same syndrome Photodo once did. These global numeric results quantify too many factors to be meaningful. I'd rather stick to the MTF charts - there I can see the contrast and resolution on center and edges at various apertures, I can even get an idea of the boke (!). Indeed the MTF allows me to make a direct comparison between 28-70/4 and 200/2.8. Once I decide over the optical output I can then take into account speed, focal length, size, price, etc. I do understand that MTFs are harder to digest by most readers, but then these can be translated in simpler terms without necessarily resorting to overall figures that lend themselves easily to meaningless comparisons. Servus, Alin AS Also one AS must take into account, that for a super wide angle zoom like the AS FA20-35/f4 a good performance is harder to achievbe than for a zoom like AS the FA28-70/f4, so 70 points for the 20-35 is much more of an AS achievement than 69 points for the 28-70/f4. Also, a zoom with larger AS zooming range usually does not perform as well as a zoom with smaller AS zooming range.
Re: Lens test in German Color Foto
Sylwester wrote: Taht's just another proof how stupid some tests could be... I just remember, that in CF tests, older kit lens - FA 28-80/3.5-5.6 was better than not only FA 28-70/4 AL, but even it proved to be better than FA* 28-70/2.8... Maybe the magazine has to be read and judged with a little bit more care. I read this magazine as well as others for quite a while. CF changed its testing procedure about 2 years back. At the same time they hired an engineer educated for this kind of testing. I think that the test results show a lot of consistency since then, not less than CD'I tests. What is your basis on calling stupid the result, that the 29-90 is slightly better than the 28-105, however both are mediocre? I do not know which of the lenses is really better, but from my own experience I can confirm that the 28-105/f3.2-4.5 is mediocre, and that the FA28-70/f4 is somewhat better but not much. You are right in observing that CF tests are carried out at wide open and two stops down. So the FA28-80/f3,5-5,6 tested at about f4 and f8 can indeed get results similar to those of the FA28-70/f2.8 tested at f2.8 and at f5.6. However, CF does not claim that the results are comparable. In their test reports they clearly state that the results for lenses of different speeds cannot be compared directly. Also one must take into account, that for a super wide angle zoom like the FA20-35/f4 a good performance is harder to achievbe than for a zoom like the FA28-70/f4, so 70 points for the 20-35 is much more of an achievement than 69 points for the 28-70/f4. Also, a zoom with larger zooming range usually does not perform as well as a zoom with smaller zooming range. Please take these remarks into account when evaluating the following CF test results for all Pentax zooms tested: F17-28/f3,5-4,5 Fisheye Zoom: 72 points FA20-35/f4: 70 points FA24-90/f3,5-4,5: 67 points FA28-70/f2.8: 74 points FA28-70/f4: 69 points FA28-80/f3,5-5,6: 73 points FA28-90/f3,5-5,6: 69 points FA28-105/f3,2-4,5: 66 points FA28-105/f4-5.6: 73 points FA28-200/f3,8-5,6: 64 points FA80-200/f2,8: 76 points FA80-320/f4,5-5.6: 71 points FA100-300/f4,7-5,8: 73 points. Arnold Sylwester Pietrzyk schrieb: on 10.09.03 17:32, Boris Liberman at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pentax SMC-FA 3,5-5.6/28-90mm, (130 Euros) 28/50/90mm: 68/75/65 pts, averag 69 pts. Pentax SMC-FA 3,2-4,5/28-105mm, (300 Euros) 28/70/105mm: 66/66/65 pts, average 66 pts. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems like the first of the two is a kit zoom lens, which can be bought in States for less than $100. The second one is at least one class higher and can be bought in States for $200 (Adorama). So how come the prices? How come the ratings? Or I am missing something very basic here... Taht's just another proof how stupid some tests could be... I just remember, that in CF tests, older kit lens - FA 28-80/3.5-5.6 was better than not only FA 28-70/4 AL, but even it proved to be better than FA* 28-70/2.8... I haven't seen more stupid results than in this magazine. If you want to see antoher test of these two particulat lenses (28-105 and 28-90) go to www.popphoto.com - they just make prints and then visual inspection - results are at tables at different enlargements and apertures (hint: 28-105 is better).
Re: OK, exactly what can a *istD do in these respects?
With Ks and Ms you get nothing. No metering at all so you will have to use a hand-held meter or guess. some have suggested adjusting to ISO settings to use these lenses but I have no idea what they mean. On the pre-production models, with K and M lenses, you get metered wide-open operation in AV mode, only. The aperture simply will not stop down to the value selected on the aperture ring, but it will stay wide open all the time, when DOF previewing as well as during exposure. The metering and automatically selected shutter are correct for wide open. To override this behaviour, one can unlock the lens and turn it 15 degrees anti-clockwise. The aperture levers of camera and lens disengage so that the diaphragm stops down. In AV mode, one can thus have real aperture metering. However, one must take care not to drop the lens. To avoid the danger of dropping the lens, you would have to make a simple modification on the lens mount, making a second notch 9 mm from the first one (to lock the lens at the right position), just like Andre wrote. In manual mode, a K or M lens would stop down, however, no metering is available. However, there may still be a tiny little hope that the production model (or a later model) behaves better. Arnold
Re: OK, exactly what can a *istD do in these respects?
Yes. That is 100% how the pre-production *ist D work. Arnold Steve Larson schrieb: Hi Arnold, Just for simplification (simple minds need that), if I were to put a K mount on the Starkist D, set the camera to AV, I will get metering wide open? If I set the camera to full manual I get no metering, but the camera will stop down the lens? If that`s the case shooting static images are not a problem as you could snap off a frame and check the LCD and make adjustments for proper exposure as Graywolf explained. Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California Arnold Stark wrote: On the pre-production models, with K and M lenses, you get metered wide-open operation in AV mode, only. The aperture simply will not stop down to the value selected on the aperture ring, but it will stay wide open all the time, when DOF previewing as well as during exposure. The metering and automatically selected shutter are correct for wide open.
Re: After K2: Super A/Program or...
I can confirm that the Super A is quite a loud camera - i.e. the combimed sound of mirror and shutter is much louder than that of the ME Super, which is very well damped, and even louder than that of the K2. For this reason I like the ME Super better than the Super A, but the ME super is known for more frequently developing electronic problems. The ME Super as well as the Super A/Super Program feature vertical run metal blade shutters (just like the K2) but with 1/2000 second as the shortest shutter speed (as opposed to 1/1000 on the K2). The Super A/Super Program also features TV and program modes with A/F and FA lenses as well as TTL flash. Another upgrade option for the K2 would be the K2 DMD which has the same great (for good lighting conditions) viewfinder, and which adds not only data and motor drive options but also the following features: - display of the aperture in the viewfinder - a warning in the viewfinder if an exposure factor is selected - memory lock. - viewfinder blind for correctly exposed self-timer operation in AV mode. Xtra class cameras which I would also consider are the KX and the MX - both highly reliable fully manual mechanical bodies with full information viewfinders, with the MX being smaller and quieter - and the LX, of course, which in my opinion is the best of the non-AF Pentax 35mm bodies - but only if it does not have a sticky mirror (servicing of the LX is quite expensive but at least it is still available). Arnold Paul Delcour schrieb: Meaning the Super A/Program is loud? I have a K2 and was just considering getting a Super A/Program. But there have been so many models after the K2 (which I still deeply love) that I've completely lost my way among them trying to determine which one would be the one for me. My K2 has served me now for 25 years on end without any fault whatsoever. Didn't shoot that much in all those years, maybe some 400 films, but it's a difficult count. So far the K2 has never disappointed me, so why change? Unless you know better... :-) Paul Delcour PS anyone else from Holland?
Re: What cameras do you use; why and for what?
Today my bag is packed with a LX (loaded with Kodachrome 64) plus 6 lenses: A20, K28/f3.5, M40, K55/f1.8, M85/f2, K135/f3.5. The LX is replaced by a K2 DMD, KX or KM now and then.Other lenses that I pick frequently for walking around are K28/f2, K28/f3.5 Shift, K35/f2, FA43,/1.9 K50/f1.4, FA77/1.8, F100/f2.8 Macro, K100/f4 Macro, K135/f2.5, FA200/f2.8. For flash photography I often use a Z1-P. My MZ5-N sees little use lately. The MX that was my only camera for years now is in the hands of my wife Arnold
Re: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial CoverageLenses)
As one of those who have had opportunities to hold and try the *ist D repeatedly I would like to say that the look, the feel and the user interface of the *ist D are really really nice. I had similar feelings when I first tried the MZ5N, but the *ist D looks and feels a lot more more solid. The design of the *ist may lack anything sensational except size, but I would advise everybody to hold and try the *ist D before calling it ugly. I am absoultely happy with the design! It is only the compatibilty issue of course which makes me wait and see for something better. However, yesterday I was able to try and confirm that the *ist D works with K lenses that are disengaged and then turned 15° anti-clockwise. The lens sits still firmly, the aperture is closed to the selected value, of course, the camera meter really works in AV mode, and the shutter speed is selected according to the selected aperture. However, the danger of dropping the lens is there, and I am not going to drill holes into the mount of the lens for another locking position, so I still ask for better compatibilty. Arnold
Re: istD release with lens M
With the pre-production *ist D it was like this: Release with M lens + Lens not in A Position + Aperture priority mode = Full aperture during exposure, shutter speed selected automatically Release with M lens + Lens not in A Position + Manual mode = No metering but the lens will stop down during exposure. Arnold (still asking for stop down metering with all lenses not in A position, as available with fully manual lenses like K500/f4.5 or with M42 lenses) Hans Imglueck schrieb: If it is set to on then the camera will release, when a lens is set to manual aperture (aperture ring not in A mode, which is always the case for M/K lenses) otherwise the camera will not release. Note: When the aperture ring is not in A mode, the lens will be always wide open during exposure. Cheers, Hans. --- Simon King [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi All, Anyone hazard a guess as to exactly what the Release with lens M custom function on the istD will do? I realise speculation is fairly unusual on the list, but thought someone may have a go. Cheers, Simon PS - Maybe it sends a signal back to Pentax HQ when it's turned on, and if enough people activate it they will release a DSLR with K/M compatibility. _ 23a mail
Re: No more M lens mountings?
I believe this information, and it severly dampens my enthusiasm for the Pentax system. However, as I have pointed out before, if you allow stop-down metering, K and M lenses as well as newer lenses not in A position would still be usable at all apertures. Interestingly, a few weeks ago, when I was on my holidays in Lemberg /L'vov/L'viv in the Ukraine, I bought a Russian Zenit 122K. This primitive SLR features a K mount without aperture simulator coupling ring! And it works! With stop-down metering! With all k-mount lenses! Now if Zenit is able to implement this, Pentax should be able, too. Or is Pentax technology inferior to Zenit technology? ;-) Arnold Rob Brigham schrieb: From Roland Karlsson on dpreview: I have been talking to Pentax Sweden. The information I got was that Pentax see no profit in supporting the very limited number of users that still have working M lenses and that no new cameras will have the diaphragm coupling. Now - not all information you get is reliable - but the answer I got was technically correct - so it is someone that knows what it is all about - at least on the technical level. On extra info was - development will go forward and not backward. I don't exectly know what this mean, so I leave it to you to make your own conclusions. Roland
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in AmericanPhotomagazine)
Pål Jensen schrieb: A screw mount lens will be stopped down when mounted. A K/M lens will be wide open regardless of aperture set on the lens. Hence, the camera need to stop down (with a motor) when metering with the latter. How does it know it is a K/M lens and not a screw mount lens? REPLY: The camera need not know whether the lens is screw mount or k-mount. If the lens is screw mount, then it is already stopped down and the camera trying to close the aperture has no effect. If the lens is k-mount DOF preview stops down the lens. This will be an awful solution both technically and in use only to please extremely few users. REPLY: This is what is already is implemented in *ist and *ist D (unfortunately without metering when DOF preview is activated). It is not an awful solution but straightforward. What if you forget to active DOF preview when metering? REPLY: With a lens not in A position, metering should only be ON when DOF preview is activated. Actually, this would probably save battery power. What if you accidentally use the same procedure with an FA lens out of habit? REPLY: With an FA lens in A position, the meter should be OFF when DOF previewing. With the same lens not in A position, the meter should only be ON when DOF previewing. Quite simple, isn't it? How can you confuse the meter being ON or OFF? Is the exposure value remembered by the camera or are stucked in manual mode only? If it use exposure lock then the camera must be designed so that it locks the metered value when activating DOF preview only with K/M lenses. REPLY: See above: With a lens in A position, there is (and should be) no metering when DOF previewing. With any lens (FA, F, A, K, M, screw) not being in A position, metering should only be active when DOF previewing, and the measured value could be locked when DOF preview is ended. The idea is probbaly to make a camera thats easy to use. The above make it truly crippled not to mention confusing. REPLY: I hope your confusion is cured by now. Pentax really had three choices. 1) Stick to the old KAF2 mount. 2) KAF2 with electronic metering . 3) Two separate metering systems 1)+2). 1) would probably make the *ist D incompatible with future lenses hence doing the customers no favour. 2) is what they did. 3) would be both awkward in engineering and expensive. REPLY: It would only cost a few hours of programming and rewriting instrucion manuals. Stop-down metering as described by me would neither require any changes in the hardware nor would it complicate the use of the camera. On the contrary: The camera would be much easier to use with the built-in meter than without it. Customers won't pay for it. REPLY: Customers would not need to pay for it as it wouldn't have costed anything extra if Pentax had thought of it in the first place, and to update the camera software now would be payed for a lot of times by the extra cameras that would be sold, even if it were just a few. Arnold
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in AmericanPhotomagazine)
Pål, Isn't it wide open metering a simpler solution? Right, but with K- and M-lenses you need an aperture simulator coupling ring to be able to have that. Without such ring (and I already accept the absence of it on the *ist D as a fact) you can have metering only for the maximum aperture (as implemented in *ist and *ist D) or with the lens stopped down. Theres an exposure bar in the finder; if you set the aperture three stop from wide open, just dial in +3. Simple. Are you going to dial in + 7 for f16 with the M50/f1.4? I fear that a camera manufacturer who release a camera where you have to activate the DOF preview before metering and then note the exposure, switch to manual exposure and then dial it in, will be promptly laughed out of business. I never suggested such scheme. I am under the impression that you don't really care to understand what I write. I suggested a much simpler scheme: Plain stop down metering. Let me repeat: Provided that you have any lens that is not in A position the meter wouldn't work until DOF preview would be activated. In manual mode there would then be the bar showing over- or underexposure. In aperture priotity mode, the metered value could be locked when DOF preview would be left. That's all. No switching between modes would be required. However, the way the *ist D is now it will really be laughed at: When using a K lens, you need to measure the time that the camera would choose for maximum aperture. Then one needs to calculate the correct time for the chosen aperture, swtich to manual mode and dial in the calculated time. That is ridiculous, it is hilarious. In fact, the current solution with wide open metering would be faster and simpler in use. Only in another universe. Arnold
Re: MC APO Telezenitar-K 300mm f/4.5
I use Netscape 7.0. From the Anzeigen (display) menue I choose Zeichenkodierung and then Kyrillisch (Windows-1251). 35 Russian Rubels are 1 Euro. Arnold Kristian-H. Schuessler schrieb: Hallo Arnold, how do you manage to read from e-mails and and in www russian letters as russian letter and not as any nonsense? I use last version of Outlook Express. And how much Euro or US-$ is one Russ.Rubel ? Sincerely Yours Kristian-Heinrich Schüssler - Original Message - From: Arnold Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: PDML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 11:13 PM Subject: MC APO Telezenitar-K 300mm f/4.5 I just looked at the russian Zenit homepage: http://www.zenit-foto.ru/index.htm and I found some interesting lenses in k-mount like the fish-eye lens MC
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in AmericanPhoto magazine)
Well, the LX can use M42 lenses via the screw mount adapater. With this adapter, the LX can use all M42 lenses at all apertures, and the meter works at all apertures too. There is no such adapter for plain K-mount lenses for the *ist D to achieve the same functionality. However, the *ist D works almost as well with M42 lenses as does the LX. Can you explain to me why the *ist D (in aperture priority mode) meters at all apertures with M42 lenses but not with plain k-mount lenses? Maybe I should replace some of my k-mount classics by the equivalent SMC Takumars as those are more up-to-date? Arnold Pål Jensen schrieb: Arnold wrote: It would have been better not to have added your two sentences because they simply and absolutely are not true. I, for example, am in the market for a new Pentax DSLR, and I only WILL try to get such a camera in a yard sale or at Ebay for 20% of retail, if it won't have better backwards compatibilty than the pre-production models that we have seen. I only spend real money on new products when they are convincing and not unneccessarily devalued. REPLY: It IS true. You are just an exception. The funny thing is that the *ist D has better compatibility than the LX had when released. The LX was only fully compatible with 5 year old lenses compared to the *ist D 20 year! The LX was compatible with future lenses and I expect the *ist D to be as well. The LX didn't have the selection of compatible lenses when new as the *ist D has. Still, people bought it anyway! Pål
Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
How do you know that it is plastic? The sample that I handled was so stiff/hard that I thought it was magnesium although it was as light as plastic. I still am not sure. Are you? Arnold What finish? Is it plastic or magnesium? I'm afraid it's plastic.
MC APO Telezenitar-K 300mm f/4.5
I just looked at the russian Zenit homepage: http://www.zenit-foto.ru/index.htm and I found some interesting lenses in k-mount like the fish-eye lens MC Zenitar-K 16mm/f2.8 for 2530 Rubel, the MC Variozenitar-K 25-45mm f/2.8-3.5 for 6050 Rubel and especially the new MC APO Telezenitar-K 300mm f/4.5 for 12480 Rubel. The latter lens has 7 elements in 6 groups, focuses down to 3 meters, takes 72mm filters, has 80mm diameter, is 155mm long and weighs 990 grams. Even the resolution is given: 60 line pair/mm in the image centre, 35 lpm at the edge. (Beware: This information is visible in the russian description of this lens, only. The english version decribes a 135/f2.8 screw mount lens) Has anybody seen or held or even tested this lens? Can it be seen or ordered somewhere? Arnold
Re: Pentax announced development of digital medium format
What 'K' lenses are in the current catalogue? K28/f3.5 Shift, K500/f4.5, K1000/f8, Mirror lenses? Arnold Sylwester Pietrzyk schrieb: All 'K' lenses (maybe except for 100f4 bellows - I am not sure if it has automatic diaphragm) in current catalog uses stop-down metering and thus are fully compatible with *ist cameras.
Re: non-A lenses and the *ist (D)
Hi Heiko, But OTOH you can use your old lenses better than every Nikon D100 or Canon D60/10D user can do. Well, I wouldn't consider buying into Nikon or Canon. However, getting a 4000 dpi slide scanner for me is an alternative to buying a DSLR. I have only a SMC-M 50/1.7 and a (often underestimated but in my eyes wonderful) SMC-M 100/2.8 left. Both fit very firmly into my MZ-5n when they are unlocked and turned a little bit. But I don't know if this applicable to all lenses/bodies. Well, 3 out of 4 lenses that I tried on my MZ5N sat firmly, one did not. Also, the position in which the aperture levers are disengaged but the lens still sits frmly is only ~5 degrees wide If you want the trick to work well, you would need another hole in the mount of the lens so that it would have a 2nd locking position. Shall I drill holes in all my K- and M-series lenses? I don't know, but if those lenses would be very important for me, and there would be no adequate A/F/FA-replacement, and if this modification would be necessary to use them safely - yes - then I would do that. I think this is far better than doing without those lenses or even changing to another system. Well, I might do so, too, if there was no alternative, however I prefer to first ask Pentax whether they really want me to damage my K- and M series lenses so that I can use them on the *ist D I think a software update of the *ist D (to enable metering when DOF preview is activated) would be a much better solution! Yes, that would be better for an experienced user as you and me. But I'm quite sure that Pentax won't make this modification as the meter would show false data when you have chosen another aperture as wide open and DOFP is not pressed. To prevent this, you have to deactivate the meter when DOFP is not pressed in manual mode. Sounds like a bigger modification... I do not think that this is a big modification. Actually, the DOF preview position of the main switch already activates the illumination of the extrenal LCD display of the camera - it could switch on and off the meter just as easily. Arnold
Re: non-A lenses and the *ist (D)
Hi Heiko, Well, I might do so, too, if there was no alternative, however I prefer to first ask Pentax whether they really want me to damage my K- and M series lenses so that I can use them on the *ist D That might be the best option - wait and see. Did you contact Pentax concerning this problem? Well, I have asked Pentax about the k-mount compatibilty problem, and there may even come an answer, but I did not yet ask them about drilling holes into lens mounts. I hope they render superflous asking such question I do not think that this is a big modification. Actually, the DOF preview position of the main switch already activates the illumination of the extrenal LCD display of the camera - it could switch on and off the meter just as easily. Sounds easy, but I'm afraid that there might be too much ifs for realising it afterwards. If they would have asked us earlier..=:-[ I insist that a software update should easily cure the problem. The way the *ist and the *ist D are programmed now, in aperture priority mode (which really is an open aperture mode when there is a K or M lens attached) the light meter and the viewfinder information are switched OFF while DOF preview is activated and ON while DOF preview is not activated. It should be quite quite easy to have it just the other way around in aperture priority mode or manual mode: Light meter OFF when DOF preview is not activated and ON when DOF preview is activated. I do not know wheter Pentax is flexible AND interested enough to change the camera software at this point. I hope they are, and I hope that they listen to us. Long-time Pentax enthusiasts still using K- and M-series lenses (and cameras!) may only be a minority among the potential buyers of the *ist D, but I would say that we are not negligible, and if we like the camera, we can convince lots of others to buy the camera, too. I am quite sure that Pentax is not that flexible enough to change the camera hardware at this point, so there is no hope for the *ist D being fully compatibe with the k-mount. However, Pentax probably is already developing the next DSLR, as digital production cycles are short. If they hear us and Japanese Pentax-enthusiasts now, maybe the DSLR after the *ist D will have full compatibilty with the k-mount? Arnold
Re: Compatibility
Hi Jens, both cameras have no aperture simulator but we do know that after properly setting the according custom function the *ist and a pre-production *ist D can work with K and M lenses - either in metered open aperture mode (aka aperture priority mode) in which the aperture stays open all the time (when DOF preview is activated as well as during exposure) - or in manual mode WITHOUT metering I am asking Pentax to update the camera software so that the production *ist D also meters in REAL aperture priority mode OR in manual mode when DOF preview is activated (stop down metering), which is the only feasible way without aperture simulator. Arnold Jens Bladt schrieb: Hi all Do we know for a fact, that the two *ist cameras do not support the use of K and M-lenses - that they will not work with these cameras? It's improtant to me because I have quite a few good K and M lenses. PENTAX USA clearly states they do (at the Web site). Some funktions will not work, though. Which? Multi segment metering. Others? To owners of the *ist: Please tell us what works and what doesn't. Thanks Best Regards Jens
Re: non-A lenses and the *ist (D)
I do not have an *ist, but I know this camera and the *ist D, and I am sure that this trick really works, as after unlocking the lens and turning it ~20 degrees, the *ist (or *ist D) has no possibilty to open the aperture via the lens's aperture lever, as the lens's aperture lever can't be pressed by the camera anymore. However, as I said earlier, this is an awkward manner of operation. The lens sits on the k-mount unlocked. Turning the aperture ring or the focusing ring easily turns the whole lens - either so that the camera opens the aperture, or so that the lens is fully released and can fall off the camera. If you want the trick to work well, you would need another hole in the mount of the lens so that it would have a 2nd locking position. Shall I drill holes in all my K- and M-series lenses? I think a software update of the *ist D (to enable metering when DOF preview is activated) would be a much better solution! Arnold P.S. http://www.digitalfotonetz.de/ is good, but why does it load so slowly? Heiko Hamann schrieb: Hi, could those lucky ones with a *ist please try this old trick: - set your *ist to Av - attach a non-A lens - choose a small apperture - unlock the lens an turn it some milimeters, until the aperture closes - the lens should still fit firmly Now: Can you choose another aperture on the lens and does the *ist meter correctly? If this works, it would be a sufficient workaround for me (and probably others interested in the *istD) to use any older lens in aperture priority. Cheers, Heiko
Re: Pentax dropping M Shift, A 15/3.5, ...
Dropping the 15f3.5 and the 28/f3.5 Shift after 30 years is no bad thing (especially if one already has them:-). However, the question is, will Pentax eventually present up-to-date successors? Or will there be no Shift lens at all, and no lenses shorter than the 17-28 Fish-Eye Zoom and the new FA-J 18-35? I can't believe that Pentax will leave its 35mm system like that, especially with the 1.5x factor of the digital sensors. More extreme wide-angle lenses must eventually be coming. hopefully WITH aperture ring, so that they are usable on older cameras, too, and in * or Limited quality. Arnold.
Re: Pentax proudly presents a new lens mount, the KAF3
Alexander, When I invested into new and old Pentax equipment I did so because of the compatibilty of the k-mount. Suddenly this compatibilty is reduced for effectively no particular reason at all. Pentax is NOT just doing what everybody else does: Pentax changed its mount already in 1975. They have advertised the compatibilty of the k-mount ever since the SFX. Now they are effectively changing their mount for the 2nd time - which other manufacturer changed their mount twice? And even if they were doing like everybody else, this would not make their move any better. Everybody else doing something bad is no excuse for me doing so, too. Yes, I can use my A, F and FA lenses on the *ist D, and even if there was full compatibilty they certainly match it much better than K-and M-series lenses. However, I still can not see why Pentax decides that I should NOT be able to sensibly use my older lenses on the *ist D as well. I myself want to be able to decide which of my Pentax lenses I use on the *ist D. I am adult and can take my own decisions. Arnold Then most of your stuff will fit the *istD. You said in an earlier post that the you have a complete line-up of AF lenses. I can't help I find this continuous whining highly exaggregated. And irrational. Pentax just did what every other company is doing.
Re: Paradigm change of Pentax and the consequences (long)
Well, I checked all custum functions that were available on the pre-production *ist D, and I can tell you that stop-down metering was not there. Arnold Personally, I think when we really get to examine the *ist-D in person we will find that they have allowed stop-down metering - I expect it may be hidden in a custom Pentax Function.
Re: K on *ist D compatible without metering?
The meter works in aperture priority mode for all lenses, including K, M and M42, however, in aperture priority mode, K and M lenses will stay wide open during exposure no matter what aperture you choose on the lens. No metering is available in manual mode. Arnold Andre Langevin schrieb: Will the K, M and M42 lenses work on the new bodies without metering? I know this is evident to most but I've not been able to read much PDML for weeks and have not followed the recent discussions on the new mount.
Re: K on *ist D compatible without metering?
The meter works in aperture priority mode for all lenses, including K, M and M42, however, in aperture priority mode, K and M lenses will stay wide open during exposure no matter what aperture you choose on the lens. No metering is available in manual mode, however, all aperture values can be selected, and the lens really stops down in manual mode during exposure or when DOF previewing. Arnold Andre Langevin schrieb: Will the K, M and M42 lenses work on the new bodies without metering? I know this is evident to most but I've not been able to read much PDML for weeks and have not followed the recent discussions on the new mount.
Re: Pentax proudly presents a new lens mount, the KAF3
On the contrary: Especially as the competition is fierce Pentax cannot afford to drop compatibilty for no particular reason at all. I can understand dropping the aperture ring on cheap consumer zooms. Dropping the 5-20$ aperture simulator on a 1500$ camera already makes very little sense. Dropping the aperture simulator AND not allowing stop-down metering with old lenses makes no sense at all and doesn't save money, it only puts off old and new customers. Arnold Pål Jensen schrieb: That only stress the fact that the competition is fierce and that Pentax cannot build in compatibility with over 20 year old lenses. If Canon had bothered with FD compatibility on their DSLR's maybe Pentax would have bothered with K/M compatibility...
Re: To Pentax in Japan (does anybody have their email address?)
Pål, you and the Pentax staff better ask themselves: 1.) If people stick to 20+ year old gear and even buy so much of Pentax's old gear, what qualities does this old gear offer that the new gear does not offer? - IMO the old gear offers better build quality and better value for money than the new gear. When I turned to Pentax in 1989, I bough a Super A, an A50/f1.4 and an A28/f2.8 new. Then for years I bought only used gear (MXs, K,M,A-series lenses), and lots of it, as I could not afford the new gear, and as I did not like the auto focus bodies. Then came the MZ5-N which convinced me. I bought it and several new, convincing lenses (FA24, FA35, FA43, FA50/f2.8, FA77, FA85, FA135, FA300) which I could afford. Now I am back to the used market because it is cheaper (also for FA lenses) and because I am still a fan of manual gear which is not available new. 2.) What old and new qualities must our new gear offer so that users of old gear turn to buy new stuff? - IMO the new gear needs uncompromised quality, good value for money, and new features unavailable with the old gear. Like more Limited lenses, fully compatible high quality bodies (both digital and analogue), and IS. I will keep waiting. Arnold Pål Jensen schrieb: Perhaps thats exactly what they did: they do give a rats ass. If they have been following this list, they cannot come to other conclusion that those who insist of using K and M lenses are persons who buy everything cheap on e-bay and has never bought a new Pentax item in their life.
Re: To Pentax in Japan (does anybody have their email address?)
Hi Pål, Many stick to the equipment of the era from when they got into photography. For me this would be the M, A and F bodies and lenses. However, today my favourites are K-series, LX, F/FA*, Limiteds. I do not seem to be in accordance with the many - but heavily influenced by the PDML ;-) Nikon ressurected the FM2 in the form of the FM3a but buyers are simply too few. I wonder what Nikon expected. Didn't they know their own FM2 sales numbers? Actually, I think that to the conservative type of photographers that were supposed to buy the FM3a, the FM2 still is the more convincing product, while the FM3a simply is too electronic In addition, there are no shortage of well built modern equipment. It is just that many complain about its cost which is silly really, as doesn't really cost more, often less, compared to older stuff when adjusted for inflation etc. I do not complain about the prices of new equipment. Pentax prices generally are OK. However, the build quality of some items - especially zooms - could be better. Just compare the build qualtiy of the FA24-90 to that of the first generation of AF zooms (e.g. F28-80 or F35-105) If you own 30 lenses you certainly could afford new gear if you stuck to a more normal number of lenses :o) Well, the big number of old lenses happened only after I had acquired some new AF lenses I can't see the problem; you own a complete set of lenses compatible with a Pentax DSLR. Yes, but I want to decide which k-mount lens I may use on an *ist D. I do not want Pentax to take the decision for me. Naturally, AF lenses much better fit the *ist D. However, if I want to use the *ist D with a particular K- or M-series lens - e.g. the K17/f4 Fish-Eye, or the M85/f2, my favourite portrait lens, or the K28/f3.5, which is better than my F28/f2.8 - then I do neither need nor want Pentax do decide for me that I should not be able to meter properly with any such lens when combined with the *ist D. I am quite certain that stop-down-metering would only require some minor reprogramming of the camera, and I want Pentax to do it for the benefit of all users of k-mount equipment, and I guess it would do no harm at all but only good to the number of *ist Ds that will be sold. The *ist D falls into the most competitive area of DSLR's where the price envelope is being pushed. I don't think Pentax can afford extravagant compatibility for a minority where the competition and market leaders can not. An aperture simluator may be expensive, but how can 5 lines of software to enable metering with stopped down k-mount lenses be expensive. Arnold
Re: To Pentax in Japan (does anybody have their email address?)
Sorry if I did not describe things clearly. Yes, on the *ist D a non-metered manual mode is available with K- and M series lenses. DOF preview is available, too. One can even meter with the camera in AV mode at open aperture, then switch to manual mode and calculate what the shutter time should be at the chosen aperture. However, this kind of operation is awfully slow and complicated. Arnold Anthony Farr schrieb: Does this mean in non-metered manual mode, all apertures are available with K/M lenses? That wasn't clear from your earlier report. It wasn't even clear that a non-metered mode was available. If it's true then I'd be happy enough, as I'm not as married to the concept of internal meters as others obviously are.
Re: Pentax k-mount
I won't either buy a Nikon or Canon DSLR. If Pentax does not hear us and does not offer better compatibilty on a DSLR that I can afford, then I will either buy a better film scanner, or I will wait for Cosina to bring a DSLR in true k-mount. Or I willpull out the memory chip and reprogram that *ist D camera myself. It can' take more than 15 minutes to implement metering in manual mode with DOF preview activated. Arnold Ryan Charron schrieb: As far as I'm concerned, I will not buy a Nikon or Canon DSLR that doesn't use Pentax lenses.Ryan I want you to know that 1.) I will buy a new Pentax digital SLR body ONLY, if it offers a correctly metered mode with K-series and M-series lenses at all apertures.
*ist D revisited
Thanks to a good Pentax contact and to a very kind invitation I was today able to inspect a pre-production *ist D which has just arrived in Germany. This pre-productioncamera body is believed to be not a prototype anymore but equivalent to the final model except for some last software modifications. Also there was an *ist that I could compare the *ist D to. I brough FA, A, K and screw mount lenses to try them all. The good news (some of it may be old news, though): - the *ist D is solid - much more solid than the *ist, and also heavier, but not heavy. The body seems to be made of magnesium alloy or something like that. - the body of the *ist D is small but its grip is big enough to hold the body comfortably. - the user interface is very clear and owes much to the (P)Z1 family (hyper modes, 2 wheels etc...) - the CCD sensor is protected by a glass just in front of it. - when compared to the *ist, the 11 focus sensors of the *ist D cover a larger relative area. - Focus sensor selection is easy, and AF speed seems to be quite fast. - 2s mirror prefire self-timer - Everything works fine with lenses in A position. The not-so-good news - like the pototype shown at the CeBit, this *ist D does not feature an aperture simulator, so there is no mechanical transfer of information about the aperture selected on the lens - With a lens not in A position the body fires only if this is enabled by the according custom function - In aperture priority mode, with a K-mount lens not in A position, the camera chooses the shutter speed as if the lens was set at open aperture. And really, the aperture stays open during exposure, no matter what aperture is set on the lens, as the lens's aperture lever is not released by the camera but stays pressed down, so that the aperture stays open. I guess the same is true for the *ist. - In aperture priority mode, with a K-mount lens not in A position, DOF preview can be operated, and the operation can be heard, too, however, the aperture stays open all the same. Well, this is logical, as the aperture really will stay open during exposure. - In manual mode, with a lens not in A position, the meter does not work, but DOF preview does, just like with the *ist. This really is a shame. Why do the programmers of the camera not just turn the meter ON with DOF preview activated for manual mode? - In aperture priority mode, the camera and its meter work correctly with manual aperture lenses like K28/f3.5 Shift, K500/f4.5, K1000/f8, and Srew Mount lenses with K-mount adaptor. -the batteries do not last long Let's hope (never stop hoping) that the compatibilty issue will be bettered in a software update or in an updated *ist D or in the successor of the *ist D - this could be one advatage of the short production cycles of the digital age. Arnold
Re: *ist D revisited
Hi Christian - In manual mode, with a lens not in A position, the meter does not work, but DOF preview does, just like with the *ist. This really is a shame. Why do the programmers of the camera not just turn the meter ON with DOF preview activated for manual mode? This makes no sense at all. How can the body stop the lens down with the DOF preview if there is no mechanical link between body and lens? I don't understand how this could possibly work. If the DOF preview can stop the lens down than the body should be able to do the same during exposure, just like a K or M series camera. Well, there is one mechanical coupling between body and lens - instead of two like on REAL K-mount lenses combined with REAL k-mount bodies. The aperture simulator coupling is missing, but the lever opening and closing the aperture is still there - and still needs to be there with A/F/FA lenses too. Even with A/F/FA lenses the aperture is closed via mechanical coupling (in any mode of the camera), and DOF preview is activated alike - In aperture priority mode, the camera and its meter work correctly with manual aperture lenses like K28/f3.5 Shift, K500/f4.5, K1000/f8, and Srew Mount lenses with K-mount adaptor. What do you mean meter work correctly? You just stated that in Aperture priority the lens stayed open regardless of what aperture was selected and that the meter reading reflected only the wide-open aperture. Manual aperture lenses stops down by tehmselves. No coupling between lens and body is required. Perhaps with screw-mount lenses it would work like the LX in Aperture priority does with theses lenses because the lens is stopping itself down and the meter is getting a stopped-down reading. Exactly! I really can't wait to see a full-production version of the *ist-D. The pre-prod sample you saw seems remarkably like the prototypes that were at the various shows. The prototypes were hand-assembled and -painted, this body clearly wasn't. I do not expect any mechanical or electronical changes anymore. Only the software will see a minor revision to make the camera speak all languages fluently. At the moment it is not able to speak proper German yet. Arnold
Re: *ist D revisited
Hi Alan 1) There is one thing I don't understand. If the aperture always stays wide open in AV mode when the lens is not set to 'A', why does the metering matter anyway Who is going to use it this way? Well, just rename the AV mode (when the lens is not set to 'A') to open apertrue mode, then teh metering makes sense. 2) If the metering works in AV mode, why not manual mode? Did Pentax purposely design it this way to force 'pre-A' lenses out of the picture? Or is there any design limitation which I cannot see? In manual mode the lens really stops down during the exposure, only the body does not know how much it would stop down. Due to the lacking information about the selected aperture, the body is not able to meter while the aperture is still open. Metering would only be possible if the meter would work with DOF preview activated. This, unfortunately, the Pentax ingeneers did not implement. 3) I don't expect you checked this (who would?), but I asked anyway. Does the lenses stay 100% wide open when it was set wide open on the camera? I know my Z-1p doesn't. Just curious. Sorry, no, I did not check this.. However, I checked this on my Z1-P, and I can tell you that mine does not behave like this. Arnold
Re: Hello and lots and lots for sale
That one is very very well written! Arnold Bojidar Dimitrov schrieb: Hello everybody, I guess that this is a message from the great beyond... First of all, please visit http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/for_sale/items/ in order to see my long list of items for sale. I will wait for 10-14 days, and will then sell all remaining items on eBay. Feel free to group items together and to make me offers, but please remain realistic. The list contains lenses, bodies, lots LX accessories, manuals, cases, hoods, etc. Otherwise, what's been happening with me? It has been a couple of months since I started my Canon excursion. At first it was just an experiment and a protest against Pentax's recent product releases: - *ist camera incompatible with K/M lenses, - FAJ lenses, - possibility of *ist D not supporting K/M lenses, - still no USM technology, - still no IS technology - still no DSLR, - ... At present Canon EOS is my primary system, and since I cannot afford to own two systems, I am selling off my Pentax gear. This is a sad event, but I am convinced (internally, for me) that whatever products Pentax might release, I will be able to get equivalents from Canon, and I (personally) will not regret my move. Yes, I know, it is like voting for Microsoft and joining the Big bad Brother, but I do not feel that it is MY job to save Pentax. Through the existence and maintenance of the KMP, I feel that I have done my part. So, most of you want to ask, what are my impressions from Canon? Well, here are the negative sides: - Canon's equipment is generally larger and heavier, - Canon's lens coating is slightly inferior to SMC, - Canon's non-pro bodies have small viewfinders and no spot-meters. On the positive side are things like: - a complete palette of high-quality products, bodies, lenses, flashes - undisputed leader in small-format digital photography - top technology: USM, IS, AF teleconverts - very high availability of new and used products, generally lower prices than the competition In the end, what does this mean? Well, if Pentax builds the products that YOU need, then there is no need for YOU to consider another brand. Pentax products are generally well designed and well built, and sometimes they are better than the competition. The trouble starts when Pentax allows gaping holes in their products lines and when they abandon compatibility with older products. This all bothered me, so I looked elsewhere. This was my personal decision, and now I do not even look on eBay any more because I have everything that I need: - a small and light film-based kit: EOS 30 (Elan 7e), 24/2.8 + 28-105/3.5-4.5 - a serious-amateur film-based kit: EOS 30 (Elan 7e), 20-35/3.5-4.5, 50/1.8, 100/2.8 Macro, 70-200/4, 400/5.6, external flash - a serious digital kit: Canon 10D + any Canon lens that I own. I am happy, and now that I do not spend so much time on eBay, PDML or KMP, I have lots of time to go shooting. I ordered the 10D immediately after I learned that Pentax has delayed the *ist D. Within two hours of receiving the 10D, I was lucky to shoot the following image: http://www.bdimitrov.de/private/wood_warbler.jpg I was using the EF 400/5.6 USM L lens and built-in flash. On the DSLR the lens appears to be 640/5.6, and the cropped out image covers about 70% of the entire image. Within an hour of taking the image, I had it touched up in PainShopPro and printed out. What an amazing experience! And in the end, just a warning to those considering the *ist D. Regardless of how much the body costs, plan on spending twice as much. You will probably need a MicroDrive or two, extra batteries, a charger, probably a couple of new lenses, you will need to upgrade your computer, your printer will NEVER be good enough, and you WILL want to buy insurance for your new body. So, if you have to collect the last dollars for the DSLR, then consider waiting for 6 months or so. Not following this advice will quickly lead you to my situation --- emergency sale of every piece of non-essential equipment... Best wishes to all, Boz
Re: smc m 28mm f2 vs smc k 28mm 3.5
I do have the K28/f2, K28/f3.5, M28/f2 and F28/f2.8. Of these the K28/f3.5 is in my pfoto bag most often, as it is really, really sharp, offers superb build quality, the size is very convenient, and the focusing feel is perfect. I pick the much bigger K28/f2 only if I foresee that I need the speed. The F28/f2.8 I pick only in combination with an AF camera. The M28/f2 I own longer than the others, and I can confirm that it has very high resolution. However, it seems to me, that the K28/f3.5 has slightly higher contrast. Arnold adphoto schrieb: hi since i twice missed the 30mm 2.8 on ebay. i am now considering these two. i looked at a reolution test and it seems that the 28mm m f2 is better. anyone care to elaborate on either of these two.
Re: M-20/4 vs. K-24/2.8 ?
whickersworld schrieb: The 24mm f/2.8 Nikkors are effectively distortion-free. effectively distortion free is a nice expression effectively meaning either distortion is still greater than 0 or the distortion did not spoil any of my pictures. In these senses, the A20/f2.8 as well as the K24/f2.8 could be called distortion-free, too. However, the M20/f4 is not effectively distortion free as for me it did indeed produce some ugly distortion with the horizon near the upper image border. However, if one systematically MEASURES distortion (i.e. the bending of straight lines), there is no super-wide angle lens that I know of that really is distortion-free. For example, in 2001 German Color Foto tested 15 lenses of all major brands (including FA24/f2, FA20/f2.8, ands also the Nikkor 24/f2.8) with focal length between 19 and 24mm. No lens collected more than 5 points out of 10 for its distortion performance (with Leica and Zeiss performing best). Here is some test results on Pentax lenses from Chasseur d'images: FA20/f2.8: 0.5% barrel distortion; FA24/f2: 0.4% barrel distortion; A24/f2.8: 0.5% barrel distortion. Arnold
Re: M-20/4 vs. K-24/2.8 ?
Bothe lenses are quite sharp, however, the M20/f4 is not the best choice for architecture or when there are straight lines near the borders of the image as it features rather big distortion. However, the lens is really incredbily small, just right for the MX What other lenses do you have? If you already have a 28mm, take the M20/f4. Arnold
Re: M-20/4 vs. K-24/2.8 ?
The K or A24/f2.8 as well as the A or FA20/f2.8 are not free from distortion, either (which super-wide-angle lens is?), but the distortion of these lenses is much smaller as that of the M20/f4. The perspective of the 20mm lenses really is W -- I -- D -- E, I think too wide for a general wide angle. I would pair a 20mm lens with a 28-35mm lens. Arnold
Re: Complaints
Why don't you believe in the 11 point SAFOX VIII? Arnold Stark tested an *ist at CeBit and wrote here about his findings. He has found that it has several cross sensors, he didn't tested all of the sensors but he found several of them (I believe he found 3-4 sensors that were cross, of those he tested). According to reports from Japan, the *ist has 9 cross sensors. Chris wrote: I don't believe in the existence of 9 cross-sensors in a mid-level camera because that seems excessively high, and I don't believe every rumour I hear. I'll remain skeptical about this until I see the camera myself or hear reliable reports. I would like to clarify: When trying t focus on a simple horizontal line on a white wall, the centre sensors and 2 or 3 adjacent sensors were able to focus no matter whether I held the camera horizontally or vertically. I do not know whether these sensors are real cross sensors, but in thsi my test they offered the same functionality like cross sensors. The sensors on the very left and on the very right were able to focus only with one orientation, they obviously are vertical sensors. This is not a rumour but the result of an experiment. Arnold
Re: Complaints
I would like to clarify: When trying to focus on a simple VERTICAL line on a white wall, the centre sensors and 2 or 3 adjacent sensors of the *ist were able to focus no matter whether I held the camera horizontally or vertically. I do not know whether these sensors are real cross sensors, but in thsi my test they offered the same functionality like cross sensors. The sensors on the very left and on the very right were able to focus only with one orientation, they obviously are vertical sensors. This is not a rumour but the result of an experiment. Arnold
Re: *ist and TTL flash exposure with M-lenses
Boz wrote: Back to Arnold Stark's idea. If the *ist does DOF properly with K and M lenses and is able to combine DOF preview with exp. lock, then even most of the inconvenience of the crippled mount is solved. You simply press exp. lock WHILE HOLDING the DOF preview button. This is a great idea that does not cost Pentax anything in hardware and almost totally overcomes the limitations of the crippled mount, so it will be inexcusable if they did not implement it. On the other hand, even this will not work for flash exposures... I am happy that you like my idea! And I agree with you that it would be very hard to understand if Pentax would not implement such function. However, the MZ5 lacked DOF preview and exposure lock, and this was quite unforgivable, too (and this were the reasons why I didn't buy a Pentax AF camera until the MZ5-N came out). Also, I think that turning/pushing two buttons at a time with the same hand is awkward, so I suggest that the stopping down + measuring woul better be enabled by just activating DOF-preview AND/OR by pushing the exposure lock button - whenever the aperture ring of the lens either has no A position or is set at another position. Arnold
Re: Pentax -- Canon
Bojidar Dimitrov schrieb: Actually, the story I was hoping for is: Arnold puts an FA135/2.8 for sale on eBay. They buyer returns it because it is loose like hell. Arnold shows me the lens and asks for my honest opinion. We both agree that it has the same look and feel like a new FA 135/2.8. This all refers to the focusing ring, only. I agree with the buyer that the looseness of the focusing ring is surprising, but the lens is built in this way toachieve fast AF speed. I have no doubt that this lens focuses faster than any Canon 135mm lens ;-) PS: I have owned an FA 100/2.8 Macro, and it felt the same way. I have had such a lens, too, and it felt definietly much less loose than the FA135/f2.8. However, both the focusing rings of the F100/f2.8 and of the F135/f2.8 are not loose - that is why I prefer these lenses. The F100/f2.8 has now clamp screw beacuse it does not need one! The FA 24-90/3.5-4.5 and FA 80-320/4.5-5.6 feel thes ame, but they are plastic, so altogether they are even worse... I was particularly suprised by the mediocre build quality of the FA24-90 - a lans that expensive shoud have better built. At half the price, the build quality of the FA28-105/f3.2-4.5 is forgivable. The build quallity of zooms like the F28-80/f3.5-4.5, F35-105/f4-5.6 and F70-210/f4-5.6 is much better, so if you want such quality, there are still options to choose from - though the F28-80/f3.5-4.5 is hard to get. Obviously the people who own it stick to it Arnold
Re: Pentax -- Canon
Bojidar Dimitrov schrieb: I hope that Arnold will tell you a story about his FA 135/2.8. It IS built like a tank. Execpt for two unfortunate details: The lens is easily scratched on the barrel, and the focusing ring is much more loose than on other FA primes. I like the F135/f2.8 better. The optical quality, however, is superb. Arnold
Re: Good-bye Pentax (2)
Hi Boz, I am very unhappy that it were my K400/f5.6 and my M42/K500/f4.5 that made you turn away from Pentax. It is true that these wonderful all manual lenses need a lot of practice to get good results, however it is not only possible to get good results, you also would have gotten such results with just that: practice. Still I agree that especially with long telephotos auto-focus is very very helpful. I much prefer the F*300/f4.5 over the A/M*300/f4 for this reason (and for its better minimum focusing distance). However, it is not fair to compare an all automatic Canon EF400/f5.6 with an all manual K400/5.6. The answers that you get depend on the questions that you ask. I guess the FA*400/f5.6 would be a similar joy to use as is the EF400/f5.6, and the results would be more or less indistinguishable. OK, so now the FA*400/f5.6 is too expensive new (1600 Euros), and it is very hard to find used. I guess Pentax need not care much for customers that rarely buy their gear new, however, you could have gotten a used Sigma AF 400/f5.6 or a Tokina AF400/f5.6 in k-mount for about one third of what you paid for the used Canon, and you could have gotten a NEW Sigma 5,6/400 APO MACRO for less than what you paid for the used Canon EF400/f5.6, and I think the quality of this particular Sigma lens is quite good, too. You would still have switched away from Pentax but you would have stayed with the k-mount, and you would have been able to put that lens on your LX as well as on your Super A as well as on your MZ5-N. After all, two SLR systems (one AF and one manual focus) togehter are very hard to carry at one time. About the Pentax future I am much more optimistic than you are, and lately Pentax has given us reason for such optimism. Of course Pentax will never be good as Canon in being like Canon, and if you are fascinated by Canon's very own strengths then go for them. However, Canon will never be as good as Pentax in being like Pentax, either. See my email of yesterday for why I stick with Pentax.. Arnold
Why I stick to Pentax (was: Good-bye Pentax)
Lately we have seen a lot of What is wrong with Pentax, If Pentax won't deliver this product I will leave Pentax, Canon is stronger than Pentax, and the like, and we have seen some people, including the creator of the KMP, jump ship. Well, I believe that everybody on the PDML may jump ship and may have good reasons to do so. I even agree that the Canon AF system is more advanced and more complete. If someone wants IS, USM, eye-controlled AF sensor selection, AF teleconverters, and zooms like the 17-40/f4 USM or 70-200/f4 USM, then Canon EOS is the system to choose. I agree that it would be very good if Pentax would produce IS and USM lenses, AF teleconverters and zooms for enthusiastic amteurs. However, I would like to point out why in my eyes the Pentax 35mm SLR system is not inferior, and why I will stick to Pentax even if we will never see IS or USM in the Pentax system. 1.) The Pentax system contains manual focus and auto focus gear in one system. Overall, the system is even bigger than Canon's EOS system. 2.) KX, K2DMD, MX, LX, MZ5N, Z1-P - there just are no EOS equivalents. 3.) K-, M-, A-, A* and Limited series lenses - there just are no EOS equivalents. 4.) Holes in Pentax's AF lens line-up can be filled with non-AF gear or 3rd party gear. For example the A70-210/f4 or the Tokina AF 80-200/f2.8 are not worse than the 70-200/f4 USM. 5.) Actually, I seldom use zooms or teleconverters, anyway. Primes just are better, and Pentax's primes line-up is more than sufficient for me. See my focal length line-up: 15, 17, 20, 24, 28, 35, 40, 43, 50, 77, 85, 100, 120, 135, 150, 200, 300 and 500mm There is no Pentax 200/f1.8, but I wouldn't want to carry and pay such beast anyway. 6.) Small size and moderate weight of most Pentax gear make it very protable. My photo bag just could not carry as much Canon lenses as it carries Pentax lenses. Another example: The Canon 10 D is 55% more heavy than the *ist D !! 7.) SMC 8.) I like the well-designed user interface and the finders of most Pentax cameras, and I am used to them. When shooting the user interface and the viewfinder are more important than most other camera features. 9.) Some Pentax cameras offer less features than those of other companies, however, I often see that as an advantage. Less features are more easy to control. A good example is the MZ5-N. 10.) I doubt that AF with USM is much faster than AF with modern Pentax AF cameras, and I am sure that K-, M- and A lenses are more quiet than even USM. 11.) I would like IS for available light photography. However, not even Canon produces a fast IS normal prime. 12.) I like mechanics and direct control more than electronics and indirect control. 13.) With the exception of non-star FA series lenses, most Pentax gear just feels better than Canon gear to me. This, of course, is very subjective. 14.) While it is true that some Pentax items are hard to find, eventually everything can be found, and the chasing is fun. 15.) As SLR producer Pentax today is the underdog. Most of the time I am quite happy NOT to go with the flow, thus I like Pentax. 16.) PDML 17.) Good and friendly contact to Pentax Germany. 18.) Pentax invented the Japanese 35mm SLR, and I believe that Pentax will continue to develop its 35mm SLR system. The *ist and the *ist D are just the beginning, we will see more when the digital SLR becomes an affordable mass product, even a full frame DSLR. Greetings from Hamburg, Germany, Arnold
Re: F verses FA lenses
I had the FA*300/f4.5 and switched to the F*300/f4.5 for the following reasons: 1.) the hood of the F* is built-in, while the hood of the FA* is not built-in and too large for my taste 2.) The F* has a removable triopod mount, the FA* has not 3.) The F* has slightly better build quality nad is less easily scratched 4.) The F* offers slightly better manual focus feel (one of the very best on AF lenses9 The optics is the same, of course.. The only disadvantage of the F* is that you need not only to push/pull a ring on the lens to switch from AF to MF, but you also need to operate the switch of the camera. Arnold Butch Black schrieb: What are the differences between F and FA lenses? I checked on Boz's site and when there were both an F and FA variant they seem to have the same optical formula. I'm particularly interested in the difference in the F*300/4.5 verses the FA*300/4.5. I know that the F* has a tripod mount that the FA* doesn't. What I found interesting is that the FA* has a smaller diameter body of the same length as the F* but is 55 grams lighter. Also, I take it that the F* is less common then the FA* on the used market. BUTCH Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself. Hermann Hess (Damien)
Re: CeBit report: *ist, *istD, FAJ and Optios
Thanks for your nice report, Heiko. Now I will go to CeBit on Monday. Hopefully I will be able to try the *ist D and the *ist, like you were able to. Are there any features that PDML members would like me to check, and what questions should I ask? Arnold
Re: F verses FA lenses
I bought my F*300/f4.5 for 422 Euros at Ebay Germany, and I sold my FA*300/f4.5 for 405 Euros - so I would say that there may be a price difference, but only a small one. With the exchange being as it is at the moment, $460 would have been very near to what I paid. However, the F* turns up less frequently. Arnold Butch Black schrieb: Next question; How does the used pricing differ between the F*300/4.5 and the FA*300/4.5? I'm using KEH as a guide for prices. They list FA* in excellent condition at $400. I just let an F* pass on E-Bay because it went over that (sold for $460 I believe). Are the F*'s more expensive then the FA*'s? if so by how much? BUTCH Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself. Hermann Hess (Damien)
Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
Hi Boz, I wrote the above as a SPECULATION, and I ask you to treat it as such. Until this time noone has solid facts, so your guess is as good as mine. Agreed. :-) - the *ist is designed from the ground up to be as small and light as possible, and probably as cheap as posible. I hold it for entirely possible that Pentax removed the aperturecoupling to save weight and size. From the price announced for the *ist (near that of MZ6 and MZ5N) my guess is that there will be one body above the *ist and one body below the *ist, and the latter one will be as cheap as possible. The only logical thought is that with CF 17 = 0 the *ist works like MZ-60 and with CF17 = 1 it works like MZ-50. It is one logical interpretation. The other one is that nowadays a beginner often is not able to work with manual aperture and Pentax cares for such people. - Pentax has released quite a few bodies lately with a crippled mount - Pentax releases lenses without aperture rings (hence without that aperture coupling) together with the *ist, and calls them perfect match. Well, it is a perfect match, whether the *ist supports lenses without A-setting or not. The latter source also expressed the expectation that FA-J will be limited to the cheapest price segment. The latter source could not say anthing about a new film body or DSLR a month ago. I would say that this source has simply read the press-releases himself, and repeats what he/she has read. I am not fully sure if a person in that position knows the technical operation of the mount as well as you and I do... I believe this source does, and right now this source is presenting the *ist and the *ist D at CeBit, so NOW this source should really know about the K-mount compatibility of *ist and *ist D - unfortunately the statement from this source that I referred to is from February 20th, so it might indeed be based on unreliable information rather than on a hands-on. Also, in the process of piecingtogether the KMP I have come across SO MANY wrong and inconsistent writings by Pentax (for items in production, mind you), that I will not be surprised by anything any more. I agree again. Let's go to CeBit and put an end to all this speculation! You are planning to go. Bring your favorite K-mount lens, and test things out! CeBit is already running... I indeed plan to go at the weekend. However, Heiko Hamann might bring reliable compatibilty news before that Arnold
Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
Hi again, One more thought: Maybe we are all right, and the *ist works with K- and M-lenses, but only with stop-down metering? Let me explain my idea a little more: If a camera (not necessarily the *ist) has no aperture simulator, it can still properly measure the amount of light provided that it does not meter at open aperture. As a camera like the *ist offers e l e c t r o n i c depth-of-field preview, such camera might automatically close the aperture with every lens that is not in A position. In this case the camera would not need to know the selected f-number (like it does not know with the K28/f3.5 shift lens). Arnold Boz wrote: I don't think so. Stop-down metering indicates that the lens lacks the mechanical aperture coupling. For example, if the aperture is deep into a tele lens, it is normally too complex to create a mechanical coupling between the aperture and the lens mount. This is why the Pentax shift lens has manual aperture and Canon's has fully automatic --- because they lead the aperture signals with flexible wires to the aperture-control mechanism which sits in front of the tilt-shift mechanism. The problem with the newset Pentax bodies is that the body is not able to read the aperture selected by the lens. It assumes widest aperture, and if you stop down 2 EV, the camera overexposes by 2 EV. I cannot imageine how much weight or money Pentax is saving by this, but it must be significant, since they have at least tree bodies with that mount (MZ/ZX 30, 50, 60).
Re: *ist and the lens mount.
I can see the page and have seen it before but I can see no such information. Arnold Roland Mabo schrieb: Hi gang, According to Pentax Germany and the press information PDF (http://www.pentax.de/pentaxeurope/pentaxeurope_prod/pentaxeurope/v2/de/photo/newsArea/news/PENTAXistA/prod.html), the *ist is only compatible with KAF2 (no power zoom), KAF and KA. Not K-mount. This means that the *ist has the same compatibility as MZ-60/30/50. It lacks a mechanical coupling of aperture. But it can take photos with K-mount lenses (if programmed from a Pentax Function), but it can't meter with them. This information was released March the 3rd and seems to be the latest, so I believe this information is quite reliable. In a sense, this is a logical move since the *ist is entry level (replaces the MZ-60, MZ-7 and MZ-6). I believe that the two more upmarket models (the replacement for the MZ-3/5n and the MZ-S) will feature KAF3 with full backwards compatibility. Best wishes, Roland _ Skaffa fler messengerkontakter - Vinn 10.000 i resecheckar! http://messenger.msn.se/promo
Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
Hi again, Boz, thanks for your excellent summary on DOF preview. However, all you write is in accordance with my idea: A camera capable of DOF preview that has the information that the aperture ring is not in A position could in principle stop down the lens by fully releasing the aperture coupler. The lens then would stop down to the selected aperture and the camera could measure the amount of light regardless of what the selected f-number is. If this would only happen while the release button of the camera were pressed half-way down, you would get shutter speed and DOF-information right then, and I wouldn't mind working with such a camera. Arnold Bojidar Dimitrov schrieb: Hi Arnold, I am not able to follow exactly: Let me explain my idea a little more: If a camera (not necessarily the *ist) has no aperture simulator, it can still properly measure the amount of light provided that it does not meter at open aperture. As a camera like the *ist offers e l e c t r o n i c depth-of-field preview, such camera might automatically close the aperture with every lens that is not in A position. In this case the camera would not need to know the selected f-number (like it does not know with the K28/f3.5 shift lens). Still, here is a small explanation of how DOF preview works. All lenses with aperture rings have a spring that tries to close down the aperture as much as possible. Moving the aperture coupling of the lens open the aperture. Thus, regardless of which aperture is selected via the aperture ring, the aperture can only move between fully open and the selected aperture. When you mount a lens on a body, as you turn the lens to lock it onto the body, the DOF lever of the body catches the lens aperture coupler and opens up the aperture. Now, when you select a numeric aperture (anything other than A) and press the DOF button, all that happens is that the aperture coupling is FULLY RELEASED, and the lens closes ONLY DOWN TO THE SELECTED aperture. This ONLY is a function of the lens, not the body. This works correctly with K and M lenses (with their non-linear aperture lever) and with A, FA and FA lenses (with their linear lever). Z/PZ cameras do the same also in P and Tv modes, and then the aperture closes down to the smallest lens aperture. This is of course wrong. So MZ/ZX bodies have electronic DOF preview where the lens aperture is released ONLY AS MUCH AS NECESSARY in order to set the f-stop selected by the body. This requires calculating the exact amount that the lever needs to be allowed to move, and thus does not owrk with K and M lenses. The DOF lever is the same one that controls the aperture during exposure, so it must be present on all bodies, even the *ist. And it needs to possess the functionality of selecting any chosen aperture, also on the *ist. Once again, the trouble with the crippled bodies is that they lack another lever. All bodies meter before the exposure, through the lens, using the aperture opening that the lens currently uses. Cameras that have the lever in question know how much the lens will close down during the exposure, and increase the shutter times accordingly. Lenses with manual diaphragms have such a lever, and that lever is at a constant position, thzus saying the aperture will not close down during exposure. Cameras that do not have this lever do not know how much the aperture will close down, so they assume 0. Thus the overexposure with the MZ-50. Now, the FAJ lenses have only one aperture setting, A, so they do not need such an indicator of how much the aperture will close during exposure. This is something that the body controls via the other (the DOF) lever. All I'm saying is that if the FAJ lenses do not have this functionality, and if they are a perfect match for the *ist, the *ist may not have the mechanical coupling to read the position of this non-existing lever. Hope this all makes at least a bit sense... Boz
Re: *ist and the lens mount.
It seems to me that I should believe Boz's speculations more than what Pentax officially writes. Still I will check the *ist IN REALITY in a few days Arnold Hans Imglueck schrieb: Hi Arnold, I saw it. It is in the PDF-File. So the *ist is not compatible with K- and M-lenses. Hopefully the *ist D is! Best regards, Hans. --- Arnold Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can see the page and have seen it before but I can see no such information. Arnold Roland Mabo schrieb: Hi gang, According to Pentax Germany and the press information PDF (http://www.pentax.de/pentaxeurope/pentaxeurope_prod/pentaxeurope/v2/de/photo/newsArea/news/PENTAXistA/prod.html), the *ist is only compatible with KAF2 (no power zoom), KAF and KA. Not K-mount. This means that the *ist has the same compatibility as MZ-60/30/50. It lacks a mechanical coupling of aperture. But it can take photos with K-mount lenses (if programmed from a Pentax Function), but it can't meter with them. This information was released March the 3rd and seems to be the latest, so I believe this information is quite reliable. In a sense, this is a logical move since the *ist is entry level (replaces the MZ-60, MZ-7 and MZ-6). I believe that the two more upmarket models (the replacement for the MZ-3/5n and the MZ-S) will feature KAF3 with full backwards compatibility. Best wishes, Roland _ Skaffa fler messengerkontakter - Vinn 10.000 i resecheckar! http://messenger.msn.se/promo _ 23a mail _ Select your own custom email address for FREE! Get [EMAIL PROTECTED] w/No Ads, 6MB, POP more! http://www.everyone.net/selectmail?campaign=tag
Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
Boz wrote: Conclusion: K and M equipment is obsolete. K and M buyers should buy Limited equipment (these people want good mechanical build, and nowadays that costs money). :-( Boz, you keep repeating the same wrong speculation, so I will quote again what Pentax USA writes: This is what they write on the *ist: Usable lenses - Pentax KAF2-(power zoom not available), KAF-, KA- and K-mount lenses (Autofocus possible with KA- and K-mount lenses using AF adapter) This is what they write on The *ist D: Compatible lenses: K, KA, KAF, and KAF2 mount lenses Usable, compatible, not at all obsolete. The compatibility of *ist and *ist D with K- and M lenses has been confirmed by serveral sources including Pentax Germany. The latter source also expressed the expectation that FA-J will be limited to the cheapest price segment. Let's go to CeBit and put an end to all this speculation! BTW: Have you seen the new design of the Pentax Germany pages at www.pentax.de? Arnold
Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
And here we go again Pål Jensen schrieb: I also originally believed that the *ist and *ist D was fully compatible but was told that only lenses with electroning contacts will work fully on the *ist. Well, of course you need electronic contacts to have the camera works fully with the lens (i.e. including program modes) This was due to the fact that they are regarded as entry level and therefore full, compatibilty isn't such a great deal for the target group. The have removed the aperture coupling for space/price reasons. Its functionality is like on the MZ-60. This is for the *ist. The *ist D may have different specifications. You write as if this were fact., however there is not a single proof that things are as you say. On the other hand we do have Pentax press releases claiming the compatibilty of the *ist with K lenses, and I have been told by a good source at Pentax Germany that the *ist IS compatible with K- and M-series lenses. Others have reported likewise from other sources. One more thought: Maybe we are all right, and the *ist works with K- and M-lenses, but only with stop-down metering? In another message Pål Jensen wrote: Of course, it might be that my information is wrong but I would not preorder the *ist if you plan to use K and M lenses with it. Yes, someone please get that camera into his hands and give us some 1st hand experience! Arnold
