Re: MZ-S exposure compensation (WAS: Re: One Last Film Body Survey)
the promotional literature when program mode was introduced in the Super Program said so. every camera since then offering a P mode does stepless shutter speed or aperture as appropriate. Herb - Original Message - From: "Steve Jolly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 9:19 AM Subject: Re: MZ-S exposure compensation (WAS: Re: One Last Film Body Survey) > Interesting - you're saying that the shutter speeds are only *shown* > quantised, in the viewfinder (and other) displays? If so, does the same > principle apply to automatically-controlled apertures on cameras with Tv > and P exposure modes?
Re: MZ-S exposure compensation (WAS: Re: One Last Film Body Survey)
Steve Jolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Mark Roberts wrote: >> And *any* electronically-controlled shutter offers stepless speeds when >> in autoexposure mode :) > >Interesting - you're saying that the shutter speeds are only *shown* >quantised, in the viewfinder (and other) displays? Yes. >If so, does the same principle apply to automatically-controlled apertures >on cameras with Tv and P exposure modes? Good question. I'd assume so, mainly because it would require *more* work from the designers to limit the control mechanisms to just certain specific values. It's easier from an engineering standpoint to make these things continuously variable and it works better (potentially, at least) for the photographer, too. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: MZ-S exposure compensation (WAS: Re: One Last Film Body Survey)
Mark Roberts wrote: And *any* electronically-controlled shutter offers stepless speeds when in autoexposure mode :) Interesting - you're saying that the shutter speeds are only *shown* quantised, in the viewfinder (and other) displays? If so, does the same principle apply to automatically-controlled apertures on cameras with Tv and P exposure modes? S
Re: Mechanical Camera Shutter Cams - was MZ-S exposure compensation (WAS: Re: One Last Film Body Survey)
Lon Williamson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Mark Roberts wrote: > >> In all the Pentax cameras I'm aware of, shutter speed is controlled by a >> *single* cam. Having a continuous surface, this cam can give >> "in-between" shutter speeds simply by setting it between the settings on >> the shutter speed dial. > >Can you give us a list of the cameras you're aware of? K1000, KM and KX (and by extension, the Spotmatics, since they were mechanically pretty much the same) as well as the MX. Also the K2, even though its shutter was controlled electronically. >And is this true for the slow speeds as well? I think so but I'd have to check. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: MZ-S exposure compensation (WAS: Re: One Last Film Body Survey)
Steve Jolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Mark Roberts wrote: >> In all the Pentax cameras I'm aware of, shutter speed is controlled by a >> *single* cam. Having a continuous surface, this cam can give >> "in-between" shutter speeds simply by setting it between the settings on >> the shutter speed dial. > >I assume you're only talking about cameras with mechanical shutter speed >controls? (M42, K-series, and MX? Others?) Well the K2 has electronic shutter speed control and the "in-between" technique works with that camera, too. The shutter speed control is a potentiometer inside the shutter speed dial which naturally is capable of an infinite number of settings. And *any* electronically-controlled shutter offers stepless speeds when in autoexposure mode :) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: MZ-S exposure compensation (WAS: Re: One Last Film Body Survey)
Mark Roberts wrote: In all the Pentax cameras I'm aware of, shutter speed is controlled by a *single* cam. Having a continuous surface, this cam can give "in-between" shutter speeds simply by setting it between the settings on the shutter speed dial. I assume you're only talking about cameras with mechanical shutter speed controls? (M42, K-series, and MX? Others?) S
Re: Mechanical Camera Shutter Cams - was MZ-S exposure compensation (WAS: Re: One Last Film Body Survey)
Can you give us a list of the cameras you're aware of? And is this true for the slow speeds as well? Mark Roberts wrote: In all the Pentax cameras I'm aware of, shutter speed is controlled by a *single* cam. Having a continuous surface, this cam can give "in-between" shutter speeds simply by setting it between the settings on the shutter speed dial.
Re: MZ-S exposure compensation (WAS: Re: One Last Film Body Survey)
I'm pretty sure K bodies can do this, too. I once tested a KM, firing at a white wall using flash, from 1/60th to 1/1000, including guestimated half-stops. The shutter progressed smoothly in the sequenced photos, ie the guestimate 1/90 showed a little less shutter than 1/125, etc. I don't know if the K shutter is stepless below synch, though. William Robb wrote: The Nikon F2 shutter was able to give infinitely variable shutter speeds from it's sync speed up to it's top speed.
Re: Re: One Last Film Body Survey
Damn! LOL! Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan > After stripped and reassembled on myself, Workbenches are much more useful for this sort of thing. 8-)
Re: Re: One Last Film Body Survey
Hi, > > From: "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2004/10/24 Sun PM 11:13:51 GMT > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: One Last Film Body Survey > > After stripped and reassembled on myself, Workbenches are much more useful for this sort of thing. 8-) - Email provided by http://www.ntlhome.com/
Re: One Last Film Body Survey
After stripped and reassembled on myself, I have to say I much prefer electronic shutter for much better accuracy & reliability. The MX is a real joy to use, except for slides... :-( Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan Same here. My choice would be an updated MX with mirror lock-up and ISO range up to 6400.
Re: One Last Film Body Survey
Same here. My choice would be an updated MX with mirror lock-up and ISO range up to 6400. Jason Poh --- Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Boy, I have to agree with Graywolf here. If Pentax > were to make one > last film body, for me, it would be a brand new, > black MX - just like > the old one. > > -- > Best regards, > Bruce > > > Thursday, October 21, 2004, 12:06:10 PM, you wrote: > > G> Well, Pentax started selling a camera in 1977 > that met all my needs featurewise. > > G> Time has shown a few weaknesses in that camera. > G> 1. The top and bottom plates could be studier. > G> 2. The light seals would be better if they were > felt instead of foam. > G> 3. The foam mirror dampner was cheap, but they > really should have done something > G> more durable. > G> 4. They might have used jeweled bearings, like in > watches, in the shutter. > G> 5. The meter mechanics could have been more > durable. > > G> Other than those, and you will notice that they > are all things that you would > G> only care about on a camera you planned on > keeping forever, I can think of > G> nothing that has been added to cameras since the > MX that I need to take better > G> photos. > > G> Features are for sales droids to make you think > you need to replace whatever you > G> have because it is old fashioned. None of them > are actually needed to take > G> better photos, if you know what you are doing. > > G> -- > > G> Bob Blakely wrote: > >> I've thought about this a lot... > >> > >> It would be an LX (size, weight, fit, feel, > changeable finders) plus: > >> > >>Modes: Add Shutter-Priority AE mode. > >>MeteringSpot meter choice. > >>Shutter: 1/4000th second. > >>Sync: to 1/250 second. > >>ISO: to 64000. > >>Focus:through separate motor drive, > and > >> Focus confirm without motor > drive. > >> (Sensor on light box floor > as part of metering > >> sensor.) > >> Mount sensors/contacts for > future servos in lenses. > >>Media:Easily exchanged Film, Digital > backs. > >>Cost: <$1500.00, Body only, with > basic finder > >> add <$500 for motor drive > with coupled Autofocus > >> servo. > >> add <$200 for winder without > Autofocus servo. > >> add <$2000 for Digital back > with 36x24mm, ~14MP > >> sensor. > >>User replaceable min > 2GB microdrives. > >> add <$1000 for Digital back > with 24x16mm, ~6MP sensor. > >>User replaceable min > 2GB microdrives. > >>Control: Firmware updatable. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Bob... > >> > >>> Fra: Collin Brendemuehl > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> > >>> If Pentax were to produce one last new film > cameras, what would you > >>> want it > >>> to be? > >>> > >>> My choice would be something like the LX but cut > cost by eliminating the > >>> removable finder and use a different mirror > bumper system that doesn't > >>> need > >>> regular maintenance (sticky mirror). Add the > other modes, "A" interface, > >>> and a spot meter & we're set. Probably a $500 > body. But built to last a > >>> lifetime. > >>> > >>> Personally, the AF cameras of Pentax haven't > excited me. They're > >>> either too > >>> plasticky (ZX/MZ) or too difficult to hold > (PZ/Z). But I've not > >>> having held > >>> the MZ-S yet. Maybe a scaled-down, affordable > MZ-S would be useful as > >>> well. > >>> > >>> Sincerely, > >>> > >>> C. Brendemuehl > >>> > >>> 'Politics is supposed to be the second oldest > profession. I have come to > >>> realize that it bears a very close resemblance > to the first.' Ronald > >>> Reagan > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > >>> Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > ___ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com
Re: MZ-S exposure compensation (WAS: Re: One Last Film Body Survey)
True for the MX as well, except the speed between 1/30s & 1/60s. But then again, the mechanical shutter is not that accurate there might not be any practical meaning to do so. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan In all the Pentax cameras I'm aware of, shutter speed is controlled by a *single* cam. Having a continuous surface, this cam can give "in-between" shutter speeds simply by setting it between the settings on the shutter speed dial.
Re: MZ-S exposure compensation (WAS: Re: One Last Film Body Survey)
Thanks for the info. All the best! Raimo K Personal photography homepage at: http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho - Original Message - From: "Mark Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004 4:00 PM Subject: Re: MZ-S exposure compensation (WAS: Re: One Last Film Body Survey) > "Raimo K" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Is this true for K 1000? > > Yes. > > >Not all mechanical shutters can do this because the speeds are controlled by > >cams, different one for each speed. > > In all the Pentax cameras I'm aware of, shutter speed is controlled by a > *single* cam. Having a continuous surface, this cam can give > "in-between" shutter speeds simply by setting it between the settings on > the shutter speed dial. > > > -- > Mark Roberts > Photography and writing > www.robertstech.com >
Re: MZ-S exposure compensation (WAS: Re: One Last Film Body Survey)
Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >"Raimo K" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Is this true for K 1000? > >Yes. > >>Not all mechanical shutters can do this because the speeds are controlled by >>cams, different one for each speed. > >In all the Pentax cameras I'm aware of, shutter speed is controlled by a >*single* cam. Correcting myself here: In the K1000 (and KM and KX) there are two separate cams, one for shutter speeds above 1/30 and one for 1/30 and below. >Having a continuous surface, this cam can give >"in-between" shutter speeds simply by setting it between the settings on >the shutter speed dial. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: MZ-S exposure compensation (WAS: Re: One Last Film Body Survey)
"Raimo K" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Is this true for K 1000? Yes. >Not all mechanical shutters can do this because the speeds are controlled by >cams, different one for each speed. In all the Pentax cameras I'm aware of, shutter speed is controlled by a *single* cam. Having a continuous surface, this cam can give "in-between" shutter speeds simply by setting it between the settings on the shutter speed dial. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: MZ-S exposure compensation (WAS: Re: One Last Film Body Survey)
- Original Message - From: "Raimo K" Subject: Re: MZ-S exposure compensation (WAS: Re: One Last Film Body Survey) Is this true for K 1000? Not all mechanical shutters can do this because the speeds are controlled by cams, different one for each speed. The only one I know to be capable of this is the one in Leica rangefinder cameras and even it not between all speeds. The Nikon F2 shutter was able to give infinitely variable shutter speeds from it's sync speed up to it's top speed. William Robb
Re: MZ-S exposure compensation (WAS: Re: One Last Film Body Survey)
Is this true for K 1000? Not all mechanical shutters can do this because the speeds are controlled by cams, different one for each speed. The only one I know to be capable of this is the one in Leica rangefinder cameras and even it not between all speeds. But yes, there can be more because most of mechanical focal-plane shutters are modelled after Leica. All the best! Raimo K Personal photography homepage at: http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho - Original Message - From: "Mark Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2004 1:41 AM Subject: Re: MZ-S exposure compensation (WAS: Re: One Last Film Body Survey) > Henri Toivonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Even with mechanical cameras like the K1000 you could get "in-between" > shutter speeds by balancing the shutter speed dial between settings. > > -- > Mark Roberts > Photography and writing > www.robertstech.com >
Re: One Last Film Body Survey
Patrick, you can't do it using the Exposure Compensation dial: however, you can change the ISO setting in 1/3 steps using the procedure on Page 36 of the manual. HTH John Coyle Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: "Patrick Genovese" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 8:27 AM Subject: Re: One Last Film Body Survey paal Maybe i'm nitpciking or i'm missing something. Let's say I want to under/overexpose a shot by 1/3 of a stop on an MZ-S how do you you do it ? Patrick
Re: MZ-S exposure compensation (WAS: Re: One Last Film Body Survey)
Henri Toivonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Tom Reese wrote: > >>Patrick asked: >> >>"Let's say I want to under/overexpose a shot by 1/3 of a stop on an MZ-S how >>do you you do it ?" >> >>You can get precise exposure adjustments by adjusting the ISO speed. For >>example, to give it just a little more light, adjust the ISO to 90 for ISO >>100 slide film. Setting it to ISO 110 would give you just a little less >>light. >> >>Tom Reese >> >> >Slighly OT, but could someone explain to me how the camera achieves this? >I thought there were only the set possible shutter speeds and aperture >stops. The shutter and aperture are electrically controlled and actually have an infinite (well *almost* infinite!) range of possible settings. The camera only *displays* the standard values, choosing the ones that are closest to the shutter speed and aperture that the camera is really using. Even with mechanical cameras like the K1000 you could get "in-between" shutter speeds by balancing the shutter speed dial between settings. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: MZ-S exposure compensation (WAS: Re: One Last Film Body Survey)
Tom Reese wrote: Patrick asked: "Let's say I want to under/overexpose a shot by 1/3 of a stop on an MZ-S how do you you do it ?" You can get precise exposure adjustments by adjusting the ISO speed. For example, to give it just a little more light, adjust the ISO to 90 for ISO 100 slide film. Setting it to ISO 110 would give you just a little less light. Tom Reese Slighly OT, but could someone explain to me how the camera achieves this? I thought there were only the set possible shutter speeds and aperture stops. /Henri
Re: MZ-S exposure compensation (WAS: Re: One Last Film Body Survey)
Patrick asked: "Let's say I want to under/overexpose a shot by 1/3 of a stop on an MZ-S how do you you do it ?" You can get precise exposure adjustments by adjusting the ISO speed. For example, to give it just a little more light, adjust the ISO to 90 for ISO 100 slide film. Setting it to ISO 110 would give you just a little less light. Tom Reese
Re: MZ-S exposure compensation (WAS: Re: One Last Film Body Survey)
Paal, Any more such tips ? keep em coming :-) Patrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Patrick wrote: Let's say I want to under/overexpose a shot by 1/3 of a stop on an MZ-S how do you you do it ? REPLY: Put the exposure compensation dial about two thirds between the 0 value and the 0,5 value; in other words between the click stops. Pål
Re: MZ-S exposure compensation (WAS: Re: One Last Film Body Survey)
You're kidding right! I thought I knew the MZ-S.. Cool Tip :-) Patrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Patrick wrote: Let's say I want to under/overexpose a shot by 1/3 of a stop on an MZ-S how do you you do it ? REPLY: Put the exposure compensation dial about two thirds between the 0 value and the 0,5 value; in other words between the click stops. Pål
Re: MZ-S exposure compensation (WAS: Re: One Last Film Body Survey)
Pål Jensen wrote: Patrick wrote: Let's say I want to under/overexpose a shot by 1/3 of a stop on an MZ-S how do you you do it ? REPLY: Put the exposure compensation dial about two thirds between the 0 value and the 0,5 value; in other words between the click stops. Incidentally, this method also works on all the old bodies with analogue exposure compensation dials (ME Super, Super A etc). S
MZ-S exposure compensation (WAS: Re: One Last Film Body Survey)
Patrick wrote: Let's say I want to under/overexpose a shot by 1/3 of a stop on an MZ-S how do you you do it ? REPLY: Put the exposure compensation dial about two thirds between the 0 value and the 0,5 value; in other words between the click stops. Pål
Re: One Last Film Body Survey
Patrick, you can't do it using the Exposure Compensation dial: however, you can change the ISO setting in 1/3 steps using the procedure on Page 36 of the manual. HTH John Coyle Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: "Patrick Genovese" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 8:27 AM Subject: Re: One Last Film Body Survey paal Maybe i'm nitpciking or i'm missing something. Let's say I want to under/overexpose a shot by 1/3 of a stop on an MZ-S how do you you do it ? Patrick
Re: One Last Film Body Survey
"Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >MZ-S with an aperture wheel on the body, metal back, fill flash compensation >and AF assist without RTF-flash. Add a rear-panel AF-sensor selector like the ist-D (and the ist-D sensor layout) and I'll sign up on that one. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: One Last Film Body Survey
Been done before by bigger I meant more coverage (100% if possible) I beleive the coverage on the MZ-S is around 92%. Its been done before: Minolta Dynax 9 .73X magnification, 100% coverage, 22mm eyepoint Nikon F5 .75X magnification, 100% coverage, 20.5mm eyepoint magnifcation is fine as it is on the MZ-S i beleive its .75x. The higher eyepoint is the thing that I would really apreceate coz I wear specs and am a left eye shooter. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: These are opposites. You can not have both. High magnification means a bigger finder image and a shorter eyepoint. The best you can do is find an acceptable compromise. I personally prefer higher magnification as long as I can still see the whole viewfinder screen even if that means I have to cock my head a bit. -- At 06:29 AM 10/21/2004 -0400, Patrick Genovese wrote: For me it would be an MZ-S with the following changes. 1. Slightly bigger viewfinder and higher eyepoint.
Re: One Last Film Body Survey
paal Maybe i'm nitpciking or i'm missing something. Let's say I want to under/overexpose a shot by 1/3 of a stop on an MZ-S how do you you do it ? Patrick
Re: One Last Film Body Survey
Patrick wrote: You can't manually dial in an exposure shift of 1/3 of a stop! REPLY: Technically, you're probably correct. You can only dial in something like 1/289564 of a stop. Or, say, 1/3112634s, but I don't think it matters the least! Pål
Re: One Last Film Body Survey
Patrick wrote: I very much doubt Lieca had a digital back in mind when they designed the R8 but they made the back work with it. Now if you start with that target (DSLR+FILM) in mind you are at an advantage. Pentax can save money coz they can amortise the development of the camera platform over a longer time. >From a customer's POV you are offering customers a value proposition with respect to >upgradeability and backward compatibility. I guess that people especially cash >strapped amateurs would be prepared to pay a lttle bit extra for "resistance to >obsolesence", I know I would. Just image it you can send in your back and get it >upgraded from a 10MP to a 16MP for 25%-40% of the price of a new DSLR. A modular >design of the digital side of the camera would enable that to be possible. There may >need to be compromises e.g larger / heavier bodies. REPLY: Digital back for existing (or future for that matter) cameras are one of those things that seems like a good idea superficially (like that "digital film" thing) but is really downright stupid (in my opinion) when one start thinking about it. It is an answer to a question nobody (at least not many) asked. People who buy digital cameras usually do it in order not to use film. Those who do not buy a digital camera for this reason usually find that they stop using their comparable film cameras anyway after they aquire a digital cameras that do the same job. Digital back exist only for those products that are so borderline that fully integrated digital solutions are not (yet) financially viable, and incidentally, the digital backs in question are hardly financially viable either. For a hybrid DSLR/film to makes sense the prospective buyer must fit a host of criterias, all rather silly: a) He (or she) must want to shoot both film and digital and he must insist on doing this with exactly the one and the same body. It doesn't matter that 99,999% of customer who potentially want to shoot both film and digital with an SLR already own a perfectly useful film slr anyway, this customer obviously don't want the advantage of having separate film and digiutal bodies where one of them will presumably work after the other fails. The concept of a backup is usually considered a plus but not by this photographer. b) He must be willing to pay 50-100% more than a comparable DSLR alone costs. c) He will accept a engineering nightmare of a camera as a DSLR and film slr's set totally different demands on a camera. This camera will not be a particularly great DSLR or a great film slr. Oh...and he will be willing to take the weight penalty like having to carry the dead weight and added complexity of carrying a film transport when shooting digitally. Like that Leica that will turn into a DSLR with film wind lever. The argument of modular design as a cheap insurance of backwards compatibility doesn't hold water. For digital it will be overwhelmingly expensive. The modular approach didn't even work well for film cameras where such a move costed significantly less. Even the pro cameras, once signatured by modular features, are now without it all together. Look at Nikons from the F from 1959 to the new F6. The last to go was the interchangeable finders. I don't really like this development but when you look at the history of the slr you'll see that it is the total intergration of a feature the really means sucesss. As soon as a feature is treated as an accessory or an add-on it either flop or doesn't really take off. Examples are autofocus, motor drives and winders and even electronic features activated by cards. AF was originally treated like another feature for existing cameras (eg. Nikon F3 and Pentax ME-F) but didn't take off wholesale until Minolta integrated it into a whole system a! nd created the concept of "autofocus camera". Only relatively minor percentage of eg. Pentax ME buyers bought a winder for it. 15 years later every camera had one built in an almost every one of them were smaller an lighter than an ME with a winder. Note that cameras with built in motors doesn't have a manual film winding. The engineers probably figured out that the reason you bought a camera with motor drive was in order not to have to wind the film manually. Quite reasonable. It is also cheaper meaning you get more for less a formula that is usually sucessful even if some find it regretful. Minolta tried to enable the user to customize their camera by buying cards that reprogrammed certain aspects of the camera. However, as electronics are cheap and there really is no end for wht you can program into a chip with no significant effect on cost anyway, so such solutions are just a waste of money. A total intergration is in the end cheaper and it also make it possible for an! engineer to tailor the product and maximize its performance for its i ntended usage. Digital is an even more fundamental "feature" than all the others and tre
Re: One Last Film Body Survey
Boy, I have to agree with Graywolf here. If Pentax were to make one last film body, for me, it would be a brand new, black MX - just like the old one. -- Best regards, Bruce Thursday, October 21, 2004, 12:06:10 PM, you wrote: G> Well, Pentax started selling a camera in 1977 that met all my needs featurewise. G> Time has shown a few weaknesses in that camera. G> 1. The top and bottom plates could be studier. G> 2. The light seals would be better if they were felt instead of foam. G> 3. The foam mirror dampner was cheap, but they really should have done something G> more durable. G> 4. They might have used jeweled bearings, like in watches, in the shutter. G> 5. The meter mechanics could have been more durable. G> Other than those, and you will notice that they are all things that you would G> only care about on a camera you planned on keeping forever, I can think of G> nothing that has been added to cameras since the MX that I need to take better G> photos. G> Features are for sales droids to make you think you need to replace whatever you G> have because it is old fashioned. None of them are actually needed to take G> better photos, if you know what you are doing. G> -- G> Bob Blakely wrote: >> I've thought about this a lot... >> >> It would be an LX (size, weight, fit, feel, changeable finders) plus: >> >>Modes: Add Shutter-Priority AE mode. >>MeteringSpot meter choice. >>Shutter: 1/4000th second. >>Sync: to 1/250 second. >>ISO: to 64000. >>Focus:through separate motor drive, and >> Focus confirm without motor drive. >> (Sensor on light box floor as part of metering >> sensor.) >> Mount sensors/contacts for future servos in lenses. >>Media:Easily exchanged Film, Digital backs. >>Cost: <$1500.00, Body only, with basic finder >> add <$500 for motor drive with coupled Autofocus >> servo. >> add <$200 for winder without Autofocus servo. >> add <$2000 for Digital back with 36x24mm, ~14MP >> sensor. >>User replaceable min 2GB microdrives. >> add <$1000 for Digital back with 24x16mm, ~6MP sensor. >>User replaceable min 2GB microdrives. >>Control: Firmware updatable. >> >> Regards, >> Bob... >> >>> Fra: Collin Brendemuehl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >>> If Pentax were to produce one last new film cameras, what would you >>> want it >>> to be? >>> >>> My choice would be something like the LX but cut cost by eliminating the >>> removable finder and use a different mirror bumper system that doesn't >>> need >>> regular maintenance (sticky mirror). Add the other modes, "A" interface, >>> and a spot meter & we're set. Probably a $500 body. But built to last a >>> lifetime. >>> >>> Personally, the AF cameras of Pentax haven't excited me. They're >>> either too >>> plasticky (ZX/MZ) or too difficult to hold (PZ/Z). But I've not >>> having held >>> the MZ-S yet. Maybe a scaled-down, affordable MZ-S would be useful as >>> well. >>> >>> Sincerely, >>> >>> C. Brendemuehl >>> >>> 'Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to >>> realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.' Ronald >>> Reagan >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>
Re: One Last Film Body Survey
>If Pentax were to produce one last new film cameras, > what would you want it to be? >My choice would be something like the LX but cut cost > by eliminating the removable finder and use a different mirror bumper >system that doesn't need regular maintenance (sticky mirror). > Add the other modes, "A" interface, and a spot meter & we're set. >Probably a $500 body. But built to last a lifetime. I don't think anybody can build a $500 body that is "built to last a lifetime" anymore. The Nikon FM-3a MIGHT be such a creature. Realistically, nobody builds $500 bodies anymore. >Personally, the AF cameras of Pentax haven't excited me. >They're either too plasticky (ZX/MZ) or too difficult to hold (PZ/Z). I guess given what I currently do with Pentax I'd like to see something like an updated MX or a well-built ZX-M with AF. It'd be small and straightforward, with mechanical connections but the ability to use various forms of automation. Ideally, it'd be at least partly mechanically controlled. One could also look at such a camera as a smaller and more modern LX, but I agree that the "system camera" features such as a removable prism and add-on motor-drive are unnessesary. It wouldn't be cheap due to the build quality, but $500 might be achievable. Unfortunately, from what I understand Nikon isn't selling a lot of FM-3a cameras... DJE
Re: One Last Film Body Survey
Well, Pentax started selling a camera in 1977 that met all my needs featurewise. Time has shown a few weaknesses in that camera. 1. The top and bottom plates could be studier. 2. The light seals would be better if they were felt instead of foam. 3. The foam mirror dampner was cheap, but they really should have done something more durable. 4. They might have used jeweled bearings, like in watches, in the shutter. 5. The meter mechanics could have been more durable. Other than those, and you will notice that they are all things that you would only care about on a camera you planned on keeping forever, I can think of nothing that has been added to cameras since the MX that I need to take better photos. Features are for sales droids to make you think you need to replace whatever you have because it is old fashioned. None of them are actually needed to take better photos, if you know what you are doing. -- Bob Blakely wrote: I've thought about this a lot... It would be an LX (size, weight, fit, feel, changeable finders) plus: Modes: Add Shutter-Priority AE mode. MeteringSpot meter choice. Shutter: 1/4000th second. Sync: to 1/250 second. ISO: to 64000. Focus:through separate motor drive, and Focus confirm without motor drive. (Sensor on light box floor as part of metering sensor.) Mount sensors/contacts for future servos in lenses. Media:Easily exchanged Film, Digital backs. Cost: <$1500.00, Body only, with basic finder add <$500 for motor drive with coupled Autofocus servo. add <$200 for winder without Autofocus servo. add <$2000 for Digital back with 36x24mm, ~14MP sensor. User replaceable min 2GB microdrives. add <$1000 for Digital back with 24x16mm, ~6MP sensor. User replaceable min 2GB microdrives. Control: Firmware updatable. Regards, Bob... Fra: Collin Brendemuehl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If Pentax were to produce one last new film cameras, what would you want it to be? My choice would be something like the LX but cut cost by eliminating the removable finder and use a different mirror bumper system that doesn't need regular maintenance (sticky mirror). Add the other modes, "A" interface, and a spot meter & we're set. Probably a $500 body. But built to last a lifetime. Personally, the AF cameras of Pentax haven't excited me. They're either too plasticky (ZX/MZ) or too difficult to hold (PZ/Z). But I've not having held the MZ-S yet. Maybe a scaled-down, affordable MZ-S would be useful as well. Sincerely, C. Brendemuehl 'Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.' Ronald Reagan Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: One Last Film Body Survey
I've thought about this a lot... It would be an LX (size, weight, fit, feel, changeable finders) plus: Modes: Add Shutter-Priority AE mode. MeteringSpot meter choice. Shutter: 1/4000th second. Sync: to 1/250 second. ISO: to 64000. Focus:through separate motor drive, and Focus confirm without motor drive. (Sensor on light box floor as part of metering sensor.) Mount sensors/contacts for future servos in lenses. Media:Easily exchanged Film, Digital backs. Cost: <$1500.00, Body only, with basic finder add <$500 for motor drive with coupled Autofocus servo. add <$200 for winder without Autofocus servo. add <$2000 for Digital back with 36x24mm, ~14MP sensor. User replaceable min 2GB microdrives. add <$1000 for Digital back with 24x16mm, ~6MP sensor. User replaceable min 2GB microdrives. Control: Firmware updatable. Regards, Bob... Fra: Collin Brendemuehl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If Pentax were to produce one last new film cameras, what would you want it to be? My choice would be something like the LX but cut cost by eliminating the removable finder and use a different mirror bumper system that doesn't need regular maintenance (sticky mirror). Add the other modes, "A" interface, and a spot meter & we're set. Probably a $500 body. But built to last a lifetime. Personally, the AF cameras of Pentax haven't excited me. They're either too plasticky (ZX/MZ) or too difficult to hold (PZ/Z). But I've not having held the MZ-S yet. Maybe a scaled-down, affordable MZ-S would be useful as well. Sincerely, C. Brendemuehl 'Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.' Ronald Reagan Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net
RE: One Last Film Body Survey
MZ-S with an aperture wheel on the body, metal back, fill flash compensation and AF assist without RTF-flash. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Collin Brendemuehl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 20. oktober 2004 16:03 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: One Last Film Body Survey If Pentax were to produce one last new film cameras, what would you want it to be? My choice would be something like the LX but cut cost by eliminating the removable finder and use a different mirror bumper system that doesn't need regular maintenance (sticky mirror). Add the other modes, "A" interface, and a spot meter & we're set. Probably a $500 body. But built to last a lifetime. Personally, the AF cameras of Pentax haven't excited me. They're either too plasticky (ZX/MZ) or too difficult to hold (PZ/Z). But I've not having held the MZ-S yet. Maybe a scaled-down, affordable MZ-S would be useful as well. Sincerely, C. Brendemuehl 'Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.' Ronald Reagan Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net
Re: One Last Film Body Survey
On 21/10/04, Graywolf, discombobulated, unleashed: > I personally prefer higher magnification as long as I can still see >the whole viewfinder screen even if that means I have to cock my head a bit. Oi, non of that here - this is a family list ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: One Last Film Body Survey
These are opposites. You can not have both. High magnification means a bigger finder image and a shorter eyepoint. The best you can do is find an acceptable compromise. I personally prefer higher magnification as long as I can still see the whole viewfinder screen even if that means I have to cock my head a bit. -- At 06:29 AM 10/21/2004 -0400, Patrick Genovese wrote: For me it would be an MZ-S with the following changes. 1. Slightly bigger viewfinder and higher eyepoint. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: One Last Film Body Survey
At 06:29 AM 10/21/2004 -0400, Patrick Genovese wrote: For me it would be an MZ-S with the following changes. 1. Slightly bigger viewfinder and higher eyepoint. I don't know if they could fit this in with the current top plate, but I'd like it if they could. 2. Preferably an interchangeable finder. Not necessary for me. 3. Faster AF and more accurate servo AF. Maybe a more powerful motor could be used in an update? Faster/better AF is always welcome. The *ist uses SAFOX VIII - Could the MZ-S AF logic be upgraded? 4. Slightly bigger grip closer to the Z-1P's gip (with at option to add a handstrap). 5. Faster frame rate say 5 fps would be enough If the tiny Minolta (Maxxum,Dynax)-5 can do 3fps, then the MZ-S should be able to do more than 2.5fps. I'd be real happy with 4 fps. 6. Quieter operation 7. Metal back (or something that feels more robust). There were rumors of an MZ-S Limited edition in Japan with a metal back. Can anyone confirm this? Could this back be made as a service part to replace current MZ-S backs? 8. Improved exposure data imprinting e.g print actual exposure time on Bulb exposures. 9. Higher flash sync 1/250 10. Built in flash exposure compensation. available in all modes. with a separate compensation scale / indicator in the viewfinder. 11. Exposure adjustments in 1/3 stops. Even it this requires aperture control using a thumbwheel on the body. 12. And last but not least (Digital option via a digital back a' la Leica R9) (Dreams dreams dreams!!!) Film/digital hybrids are dead ends. How about an updated release of the MZ-SD with updated sensor/electronics? My desired film camera is the MZ-S + 4fps, upgraded AF, metal back, aperture control from the body. Better finder eye-relief would be nice too, but I'd be happy with the other improvements. --Mike
Re: One Last Film Body Survey
You can't manually dial in an exposure shift of 1/3 of a stop! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Patrick wrote: 11 Why not its a new body - or at least exp compensation in 1/3 stops. An easy way to do that may be to feed an offset ISO rating to the metering system. REPLY: Huh? Huh Huh?? The MZ-S already has stepless exposure compensation. What kind of improvement would it be to give it 1/3 stop increments instead??? Pål
Re: One Last Film Body Survey
Body in black anodized aluminum or magnesium, feels like Super A with Motor Drive A attached except lighter weight, LX FB/FC finder, or interchangeable, TTL, DX, databack, digital back, 5 fps, "A" mode. - Original Message - From: "Collin Brendemuehl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 9:03 AM Subject: One Last Film Body Survey > If Pentax were to produce one last new film cameras, what would you want it to be? > > My choice would be something like the LX but cut cost by eliminating the removable finder and use a different mirror bumper system that doesn't need regular maintenance (sticky mirror). Add the other modes, "A" interface, and a spot meter & we're set. Probably a $500 body. But built to last a lifetime. > > Personally, the AF cameras of Pentax haven't excited me. They're either too plasticky (ZX/MZ) or too difficult to hold (PZ/Z). But I've not having held the MZ-S yet. Maybe a scaled-down, affordable MZ-S would be useful as well. > > Sincerely, > > C. Brendemuehl > > 'Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.' Ronald Reagan > > > > > > > Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net > > > > > >
Re: One Last Film Body Survey
Patrick wrote: 11 Why not its a new body - or at least exp compensation in 1/3 stops. An easy way to do that may be to feed an offset ISO rating to the metering system. REPLY: Huh? Huh Huh?? The MZ-S already has stepless exposure compensation. What kind of improvement would it be to give it 1/3 stop increments instead??? Pål
Re: One Last Film Body Survey
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Patrick Genovese mused: For me it would be an MZ-S with the following changes. 1. Slightly bigger viewfinder and higher eyepoint. Possible. 2. Preferably an interchangeable finder. Implausible - that would need to be designed in, not added later. We're talking about a new camera so why not. Having said that it is not a top priority especially if they upgrade the viewfinder. 3. Faster AF and more accurate servo AF. Doubtful - there may not be room for a larger motor. Pentax's fixation with diminutive bodies sometimes works against them while I like the way the MZ-S handles I don't think that being a little bit bigger would have hurt it. By bigger i don't mean a behemoth like an F5 or a 1V. just enough to allow the deisgners a bit of extra elbow room with things like AF motors. Perhaps some weather sealing and sound deadening. 4. Slightly bigger grip closer to the Z-1P's gip (with at option to add a handstrap). 5. Faster frame rate say 5 fps would be enough 6. Quieter operation Pick one :-) Others manage it why not Pentax. The thing that bothers me most is the motordrive racket. 7. Metal back (or something that feels more robust). 8. Improved exposure data imprinting e.g print actual exposure time on Bulb exposures. 9. Higher flash sync 1/250 10. Built in flash exposure compensation. available in all modes. with a separate compensation scale / indicator in the viewfinder. 11. Exposure adjustments in 1/3 stops. Even it this requires aperture control using a thumbwheel on the body. But that wouldn't be an MZ-S ... No it would'nt, But we are daydreaming of something better and lets' face it 7 (the back) is easy. 8 just a software update. 9 they had that with the Z1-P. 10 (exposure compensation) again the Z1-P had it v/v flash exp compensation in viewfinder display a scale would be gr8 but a numerical display would do. 11 Why not its a new body - or at least exp compensation in 1/3 stops. An easy way to do that may be to feed an offset ISO rating to the metering system. 12. And last but not least (Digital option via a digital back a' la Leica R9) (Dreams dreams dreams!!!) A camera like that would not just be a film swansong but it could serve as a platform for future DSLR development and may even make commercial sense. No new 35mm film camera is likely to make commercial sense. I expect that Nikon will lose money on the F6. Even Canon (who are probably the only company who could sell enough film bodies to recoup development costs) don't seem to be bringing out a new body to complement the EOS-1v. I agree but if you design a new body and you are going to use most development on a DSLR as well then it just might make sense. Nor, for that matter, will an interchangeable film/digital camera ever be available at a price point most amateurs are prepared to consider. I very much doubt Lieca had a digital back in mind when they designed the R8 but they made the back work with it. Now if you start with that target (DSLR+FILM) in mind you are at an advantage. Pentax can save money coz they can amortise the development of the camera platform over a longer time. From a customer's POV you are offering customers a value proposition with respect to upgradeability and backward compatibility. I guess that people especially cash strapped amateurs would be prepared to pay a lttle bit extra for "resistance to obsolesence", I know I would. Just image it you can send in your back and get it upgraded from a 10MP to a 16MP for 25%-40% of the price of a new DSLR. A modular design of the digital side of the camera would enable that to be possible. There may need to be compromises e.g larger / heavier bodies. Rgds Patrick
Re: One Last Film Body Survey
Patrick Genovese mused: > > For me it would be an MZ-S with the following changes. > > 1. Slightly bigger viewfinder and higher eyepoint. Possible. > 2. Preferably an interchangeable finder. Implausible - that would need to be designed in, not added later. > 3. Faster AF and more accurate servo AF. Doubtful - there may not be room for a larger motor. > 4. Slightly bigger grip closer to the Z-1P's gip (with at option to add > a handstrap). > 5. Faster frame rate say 5 fps would be enough > 6. Quieter operation Pick one :-) > 7. Metal back (or something that feels more robust). > 8. Improved exposure data imprinting e.g print actual exposure time on > Bulb exposures. > 9. Higher flash sync 1/250 > 10. Built in flash exposure compensation. available in all modes. with a > separate compensation scale / indicator in the viewfinder. > 11. Exposure adjustments in 1/3 stops. Even it this requires aperture > control using a thumbwheel on the body. But that wouldn't be an MZ-S ... > 12. And last but not least (Digital option via a digital back a' la > Leica R9) (Dreams dreams dreams!!!) > > A camera like that would not just be a film swansong but it could serve > as a platform for future DSLR development and may even make commercial > sense. No new 35mm film camera is likely to make commercial sense. I expect that Nikon will lose money on the F6. Even Canon (who are probably the only company who could sell enough film bodies to recoup development costs) don't seem to be bringing out a new body to complement the EOS-1v. Nor, for that matter, will an interchangeable film/digital camera ever be available at a price point most amateurs are prepared to consider.
Re: One Last Film Body Survey
For me it would be an MZ-S with the following changes. 1. Slightly bigger viewfinder and higher eyepoint. 2. Preferably an interchangeable finder. 3. Faster AF and more accurate servo AF. 4. Slightly bigger grip closer to the Z-1P's gip (with at option to add a handstrap). 5. Faster frame rate say 5 fps would be enough 6. Quieter operation 7. Metal back (or something that feels more robust). 8. Improved exposure data imprinting e.g print actual exposure time on Bulb exposures. 9. Higher flash sync 1/250 10. Built in flash exposure compensation. available in all modes. with a separate compensation scale / indicator in the viewfinder. 11. Exposure adjustments in 1/3 stops. Even it this requires aperture control using a thumbwheel on the body. 12. And last but not least (Digital option via a digital back a' la Leica R9) (Dreams dreams dreams!!!) A camera like that would not just be a film swansong but it could serve as a platform for future DSLR development and may even make commercial sense. Patrick
Re: One Last Film Body Survey
On 20 Oct 2004 at 18:38, William Robb wrote: > Heck, they could probably build something that would use LX finders > too. > I happen to like interchangable finders, it's one of the things I > miss with the DSLR. That's why I still have an LX system. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: One Last Film Body Survey
- Original Message - From: "Bob Blakely" Subject: Re: One Last Film Body Survey If it doesn't have a exchangeable finders, it's just another camera. Heck, they could probably build something that would use LX finders too. I happen to like interchangable finders, it's one of the things I miss with the DSLR. William Robb
Re: (LX pricing) RE: One Last Film Body Survey
- Original Message - From: "Jon M" Subject: (LX pricing) RE: One Last Film Body Survey What did the LX sell for when new anyway? I paid about $1600.00 (Can) with a viewfinder for the one I bought new in 1988. William Robb
Re: (LX pricing) RE: One Last Film Body Survey
Jon M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked: > > It would be wonderful if you want to pay $3000.00 US > or so. No make that $4000.00. > > I guess I'll be forced to stick with my $250 LX then. > What did the LX sell for when new anyway? Interesting topic... In Italy they ranged, body+FA-1 finder, from ITL 1.650.000 to 5.000.000 during the period 1986-1997 (in US$ something like 1000 to 2500). I have a 1980 issue of a magazine with a hands on preview of the LX and a comparison to the Nikon F3; their supposition about the launch price was ITL 830.000 (around US$ 520). A couple of years ago I had a project in mind regarding exactly that, tracing the price variations of the LX over its life in the Italian market, with the proper exchange rate in US$. Ciao, Gianfranco = _ ___ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com
Re: (LX pricing) RE: One Last Film Body Survey
$500.00 to $600.00 if I remember correctly. (That didn't include a lens or finder, those were extra). Jon M wrote: It would be wonderful if you want to pay $3000.00 US or so. No make that $4000.00. I guess I'll be forced to stick with my $250 LX then. What did the LX sell for when new anyway? __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: (LX pricing) RE: One Last Film Body Survey
In the UK at one point (1988ish), body only (no viewfinder or lens) - about £1650. Jon M wrote: It would be wonderful if you want to pay $3000.00 US or so. No make that $4000.00. I guess I'll be forced to stick with my $250 LX then. What did the LX sell for when new anyway?
RE: One Last Film Body Survey
mike wilson wrote: > If that's what I think (Land Rover?) then it is a better > example than the other two mentioned. There is nothing as > good in most ways as a LR for the job it does. Same for the > LX. For both of them, minor tweaks would improve them but > everyone wants different tweaks. If you put _all_ the tweaks > on them, it would not be the same thing. Too heavy, too > complicated. The best bit about both of them is the modular > construction, so that the tweaks can be applied selectively. BUT > this is an expensive method of construction; labour intensive > and difficult to design properly. Therefore it is less > profitable than it could be. Therefore it doesn't get done. > In the beancounter manual, making less profit than you should > is the same (or maybe worse) than making a loss. > > The local brewery was making £6million a year nett profit. > That was deemed unacceptable, so it was closed with the loss > of 600 jobs. One more 6 and we would have had 666. I like > to think a committee of 6 beancounters was responsible. Yes, it's a Land-Rover so no surprise there. The LX has quite a few similarities with useful interchangeable parts and does the job. On both vehicles and cameras, manufacturers are at the mercy of beancounters who never understand the product. Malcolm
(LX pricing) RE: One Last Film Body Survey
> It would be wonderful if you want to pay $3000.00 US or so. No make that $4000.00. I guess I'll be forced to stick with my $250 LX then. What did the LX sell for when new anyway? __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: One Last Film Body Survey
Hi, Malcolm Smith wrote: Pat White wrote: The MZ-S already has three of those four things. Twenty-five years ago, the LX was a great camera, but better cameras have been made since then. Would you want a brand-new 1980 Mercedes or Corvette (never mind the collector value)? Actually, yes. I have a specialist dealer putting together a vehicle for me now that is no longer available. Should have it in 6 or so weeks. If that's what I think (Land Rover?) then it is a better example than the other two mentioned. There is nothing as good in most ways as a LR for the job it does. Same for the LX. For both of them, minor tweaks would improve them but everyone wants different tweaks. If you put _all_ the tweaks on them, it would not be the same thing. Too heavy, too complicated. The best bit about both of them is the modular construction, so that the tweaks can be applied selectively. BUT this is an expensive method of construction; labour intensive and difficult to design properly. Therefore it is less profitable than it could be. Therefore it doesn't get done. In the beancounter manual, making less profit than you should is the same (or maybe worse) than making a loss. The local brewery was making £6million a year nett profit. That was deemed unacceptable, so it was closed with the loss of 600 jobs. One more 6 and we would have had 666. I like to think a committee of 6 beancounters was responsible. mike
Re: One Last Film Body Survey
If it doesn't have a exchangeable finders, it's just another camera. Regards, Bob... From: "Collin Brendemuehl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> If Pentax were to produce one last new film cameras, what would you want it to be? My choice would be something like the LX but cut cost by eliminating the removable finder and use a different mirror bumper system that doesn't need regular maintenance (sticky mirror). Add the other modes, "A" interface, and a spot meter & we're set. Probably a $500 body. But built to last a lifetime. Personally, the AF cameras of Pentax haven't excited me. They're either too plasticky (ZX/MZ) or too difficult to hold (PZ/Z). But I've not having held the MZ-S yet. Maybe a scaled-down, affordable MZ-S would be useful as well.
Re: One Last Film Body Survey
A body that feels like the Super A with motor drive A attached, except in light weight aluminum or magnesium. Black, of course, with LX FB/FC type finder, DX, 5 frames/sec.,quiet advance, auto focus/manual with A mode. >If Pentax were to produce one last new film cameras, what would you want it to be? > >My choice would be something like the LX but cut cost by eliminating the removable finder and use a different mirror bumper system that doesn't need regular maintenance (sticky mirror). Add the other modes, "A" interface, and a spot meter & we're set. Probably a $500 body. But built to last a lifetime. > >Personally, the AF cameras of Pentax haven't excited me. They're either too plasticky (ZX/MZ) or too difficult to hold (PZ/Z). But I've not having held the MZ-S yet. Maybe a scaled-down, affordable MZ-S would be useful as well. > >Sincerely, > >C. Brendemuehl > >'Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.' Ronald Reagan > > > > > > >Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net > > > > > > >
RE: One Last Film Body Survey
Pat White wrote: > The MZ-S already has three of those four things. Twenty-five > years ago, the LX was a great camera, but better cameras have > been made since then. Would you want a brand-new 1980 > Mercedes or Corvette (never mind the collector value)? Actually, yes. I have a specialist dealer putting together a vehicle for me now that is no longer available. Should have it in 6 or so weeks. Malcolm
Re: One Last Film Body Survey
"Collin Brendemuehl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Probably a $500 body. But built to last a lifetime. ???! That's an "either/or" proposition. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: One Last Film Body Survey
Thats about what the FM3A was selling for. Why not get Cotty to perform an mount transplant, ( I was going to say mountectomy because it sound funnier but it's not as accurate). Chris Brogden wrote: Sounds like an FM3A with IDM metering and a spot meter added. Good luck finding a body like that for $500. Chris On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:03:07 -0400, Collin Brendemuehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If Pentax were to produce one last new film cameras, what would you want it to be? My choice would be something like the LX but cut cost by eliminating the removable finder and use a different mirror bumper system that doesn't need regular maintenance (sticky mirror). Add the other modes, "A" interface, and a spot meter & we're set. Probably a $500 body. But built to last a lifetime. -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: One Last Film Body Survey
Sylwester wrote: For me it would be just enough to tweak MZ-S with rubber enviromental seals, bigger viewfinder (95%, 0.9x) and metal back... That would make a great camera even better. Then Jack wrote: Please, also, add motor drive (4fps OK), well dampened shutter, auto bracketing and infrared activated self timer, usable from either the front or back of the camera. The MZ-S already has three of those four things. Twenty-five years ago, the LX was a great camera, but better cameras have been made since then. Would you want a brand-new 1980 Mercedes or Corvette (never mind the collector value)? Pat White
Re: One Last Film Body Survey
Collin Brendemuehl wrote: The OM-2S Program comes pretty close. I really enjoy handling it. Nice body. I agree. Sadly, I traded mine off a few years ago. Can't go there again, because I sold off all my other Oly stuff, lenses and accesssories, and changed platforms to Pentax. I'm quite happy with Pentax, but nostalgic about how good the OM line was. keith whaley [...]
Re: One Last Film Body Survey
I like the specs on the OM-2S and love the lenses, but a local repair center claimed that the bodies have reliability problems. One of our local eBay speculators won't even touch them anymore after getting burned by several defective 2S's. I've never used them myself, though, so I'm just passing on what I've heard. Chris On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 13:38:55 -0400, Collin Brendemuehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The OM-2S Program comes pretty close. > I really enjoy handling it. Nice body. > > Sincerely, > > C. Brendemuehl > > 'Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize > that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.' Ronald Reagan > > > -- Original Message -- > From: Chris Brogden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:54:18 -0500 > > >Sounds like an FM3A with IDM metering and a spot meter added. Good > >luck finding a body like that for $500. > > > >Chris > > > > > >On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:03:07 -0400, Collin Brendemuehl > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> If Pentax were to produce one last new film cameras, what would you want it to be? > >> > >> My choice would be something like the LX but cut cost by eliminating the > >> removable finder and use a different mirror bumper system that doesn't need > >> regular maintenance (sticky mirror). Add the other modes, "A" interface, and a > >> spot meter & we're set. Probably a $500 body. But built to last a lifetime. > > > > > > > > Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net > >
Re: One Last Film Body Survey
The OM-2S Program comes pretty close. I really enjoy handling it. Nice body. Sincerely, C. Brendemuehl 'Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.' Ronald Reagan -- Original Message -- From: Chris Brogden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:54:18 -0500 >Sounds like an FM3A with IDM metering and a spot meter added. Good >luck finding a body like that for $500. > >Chris > > >On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:03:07 -0400, Collin Brendemuehl ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> If Pentax were to produce one last new film cameras, what would you want it to be? >> >> My choice would be something like the LX but cut cost by eliminating the removable >> finder and use a different mirror bumper system that doesn't need regular >> maintenance (sticky mirror). Add the other modes, "A" interface, and a spot meter >> & we're set. Probably a $500 body. But built to last a lifetime. > > Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net
RE: One Last Film Body Survey
Collin Brendemuehl wrote: > If Pentax were to produce one last new film cameras, what > would you want it to be? An updated LX, using the same type of materials. Thing is, I wouldn't buy one. Whilst I am a regular user of two LXs, what is in it for me to buy a new film camera? The LX does all I want right now and if I had the need for another body, what would tempt me to buy a new one at vast cost, when there are so many for sale now for reasonable sums, thanks to digital? For me, it's all a little too late. Sort of daft thing that the so called marketing dept. would recommend and subsequently produce though Malcolm
Re: One Last Film Body Survey
Sounds like an FM3A with IDM metering and a spot meter added. Good luck finding a body like that for $500. Chris On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:03:07 -0400, Collin Brendemuehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If Pentax were to produce one last new film cameras, what would you want it to be? > > My choice would be something like the LX but cut cost by eliminating the removable > finder and use a different mirror bumper system that doesn't need regular > maintenance (sticky mirror). Add the other modes, "A" interface, and a spot meter & > we're set. Probably a $500 body. But built to last a lifetime.
Re: One Last Film Body Survey
It would be wonderful if you want to pay $3000.00 US or so. No make that $4000.00. Jon M wrote: I'd also like something similar to the LX. Not sure if I'd want it to have AF as well or not though. Heck, why not just bring back an LX Super (LX + A-compatibility, improved mirror bumper, even better metering, yet retain compatibility with old LX accessories) ___ Do you Yahoo!? Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now. http://messenger.yahoo.com -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: One Last Film Body Survey
Please, also, add motor drive (4fps OK), well dampened shutter, auto bracketing and infrared activated self timer, usable from either the front or back of the camera. Not often used, but the reverse registering film rewind has been great. I'd, also, like a two-for-one sale. Jack --- John Whittingham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How about a (Black) Titanium bodied MZ-3 with mirror > lock up, multiple > exposure facility, faster AF, 1/250 flash synch and > detachable 7 fps motor > driveoh and a much bigger and brighter > viewfinder with > interchangeable screens. Not much to ask for > surely!! > > John > > > -- Original Message --- > From: "Collin Brendemuehl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:03:07 -0400 > Subject: One Last Film Body Survey > > > If Pentax were to produce one last new film > cameras, what would you > > want it to be? > > > > My choice would be something like the LX but cut > cost by eliminating > > the removable finder and use a different mirror > bumper system that > > doesn't need regular maintenance (sticky mirror). > Add the other > > modes, "A" interface, and a spot meter & we're > set. Probably a $500 > > body. But built to last a lifetime. > > > > Personally, the AF cameras of Pentax haven't > excited me. They're > > either too plasticky (ZX/MZ) or too difficult to > hold (PZ/Z). But > > I've not having held the MZ-S yet. Maybe a > scaled-down, affordable > > MZ-S would be useful as well. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > C. Brendemuehl > > > > 'Politics is supposed to be the second oldest > profession. I have > > come to realize that it bears a very close > resemblance to the > > first.' Ronald Reagan > > > > > > > Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net > --- End of Original Message --- > > ___ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com
Re: One Last Film Body Survey
I'd also like something similar to the LX. Not sure if I'd want it to have AF as well or not though. Heck, why not just bring back an LX Super (LX + A-compatibility, improved mirror bumper, even better metering, yet retain compatibility with old LX accessories) ___ Do you Yahoo!? Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now. http://messenger.yahoo.com
Re: One Last Film Body Survey
I could put up with that I guess. John -- Original Message --- From: Sylwester Pietrzyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 16:53:39 +0200 Subject: Re: One Last Film Body Survey > John Whittingham wrote on 20.10.04 16:37: > > > How about a (Black) Titanium bodied MZ-3 with mirror lock up, multiple > > exposure facility, faster AF, 1/250 flash synch and detachable 7 fps motor > > driveoh and a much bigger and brighter viewfinder with > > interchangeable screens. Not much to ask for surely!! > For me it would be just enough to tweak MZ-S with rubber > enviromental seals, bigger viewfinder (95%, 0.9x) and metal back... > > -- > Best Regards > Sylwek --- End of Original Message ---
Re: One Last Film Body Survey
- Original Message - From: "Collin Brendemuehl" Subject: Re: One Last Film Body Survey I've pretty much decided to be dual-media, as long as film and chemicals are still available. Negatives will definitely outlast me and any digital media that I might create. Plus they tend to contain a lot more information. I guess that's oen of those things which makes darkroom fulfilling. BTW, Anyone got a thermal press for mounting prints? I could use one. I'm not finished with mine yet. William Robb
Re: One Last Film Body Survey
John Whittingham wrote on 20.10.04 16:37: > How about a (Black) Titanium bodied MZ-3 with mirror lock up, multiple > exposure facility, faster AF, 1/250 flash synch and detachable 7 fps motor > driveoh and a much bigger and brighter viewfinder with > interchangeable screens. Not much to ask for surely!! For me it would be just enough to tweak MZ-S with rubber enviromental seals, bigger viewfinder (95%, 0.9x) and metal back... -- Best Regards Sylwek
Re: One Last Film Body Survey
How about a (Black) Titanium bodied MZ-3 with mirror lock up, multiple exposure facility, faster AF, 1/250 flash synch and detachable 7 fps motor driveoh and a much bigger and brighter viewfinder with interchangeable screens. Not much to ask for surely!! John -- Original Message --- From: "Collin Brendemuehl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:03:07 -0400 Subject: One Last Film Body Survey > If Pentax were to produce one last new film cameras, what would you > want it to be? > > My choice would be something like the LX but cut cost by eliminating > the removable finder and use a different mirror bumper system that > doesn't need regular maintenance (sticky mirror). Add the other > modes, "A" interface, and a spot meter & we're set. Probably a $500 > body. But built to last a lifetime. > > Personally, the AF cameras of Pentax haven't excited me. They're > either too plasticky (ZX/MZ) or too difficult to hold (PZ/Z). But > I've not having held the MZ-S yet. Maybe a scaled-down, affordable > MZ-S would be useful as well. > > Sincerely, > > C. Brendemuehl > > 'Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have > come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the > first.' Ronald Reagan > > > Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net --- End of Original Message ---
Re: One Last Film Body Survey
Hi Collin, In addition to your "new" LX suggestions, I'd like DX coding (senior requirement) that can be overridden, AE lock, mirror lock up separate from self timer and 'prox 1/200 flash sink. A 15MP interchangeable back would complete the fantasy. This is fun! Jack --- Collin Brendemuehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If Pentax were to produce one last new film cameras, > what would you want it to be? > > My choice would be something like the LX but cut > cost by eliminating the removable finder and use a > different mirror bumper system that doesn't need > regular maintenance (sticky mirror). Add the other > modes, "A" interface, and a spot meter & we're set. > Probably a $500 body. But built to last a lifetime. > > Personally, the AF cameras of Pentax haven't excited > me. They're either too plasticky (ZX/MZ) or too > difficult to hold (PZ/Z). But I've not having held > the MZ-S yet. Maybe a scaled-down, affordable MZ-S > would be useful as well. > > Sincerely, > > C. Brendemuehl > > 'Politics is supposed to be the second oldest > profession. I have come to realize that it bears a > very close resemblance to the first.' Ronald > Reagan > > > > > > > Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net > > > > > > __ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
Re: One Last Film Body Survey
I've pretty much decided to be dual-media, as long as film and chemicals are still available. Negatives will definitely outlast me and any digital media that I might create. Plus they tend to contain a lot more information. I guess that's oen of those things which makes darkroom fulfilling. BTW, Anyone got a thermal press for mounting prints? I could use one. They're getting hard to find because the new inks stand up against the heat so people are using them to mount their inkjet prints just like chemical prints from back in the olden days of film. Sincerely, C. Brendemuehl 'Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.' Ronald Reagan -- Original Message -- From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 08:05:04 -0600 > >- Original Message ----- >From: "Collin Brendemuehl" >Subject: One Last Film Body Survey > > >> If Pentax were to produce one last new film cameras, what would you >> want it to be? >> >> My choice would be something like the LX but cut cost by >> eliminating the removable finder and use a different mirror bumper >> system that doesn't need regular maintenance (sticky mirror). Add >> the other modes, "A" interface, and a spot meter & we're set. >> Probably a $500 body. But built to last a lifetime. > >A $500 body will only last a lifetime if it sits mostly on a shelf, >which is, I suppose, where film SLRs are headed. > >Since this proposed camera isn't going to sell enough units to make >money, I would like a camera to match the build qualities of the >limited lenses. > >William Robb > > > Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net
Re: One Last Film Body Survey
- Original Message - From: "Collin Brendemuehl" Subject: One Last Film Body Survey If Pentax were to produce one last new film cameras, what would you want it to be? My choice would be something like the LX but cut cost by eliminating the removable finder and use a different mirror bumper system that doesn't need regular maintenance (sticky mirror). Add the other modes, "A" interface, and a spot meter & we're set. Probably a $500 body. But built to last a lifetime. A $500 body will only last a lifetime if it sits mostly on a shelf, which is, I suppose, where film SLRs are headed. Since this proposed camera isn't going to sell enough units to make money, I would like a camera to match the build qualities of the limited lenses. William Robb
One Last Film Body Survey
If Pentax were to produce one last new film cameras, what would you want it to be? My choice would be something like the LX but cut cost by eliminating the removable finder and use a different mirror bumper system that doesn't need regular maintenance (sticky mirror). Add the other modes, "A" interface, and a spot meter & we're set. Probably a $500 body. But built to last a lifetime. Personally, the AF cameras of Pentax haven't excited me. They're either too plasticky (ZX/MZ) or too difficult to hold (PZ/Z). But I've not having held the MZ-S yet. Maybe a scaled-down, affordable MZ-S would be useful as well. Sincerely, C. Brendemuehl 'Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.' Ronald Reagan Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net
