On 28.08.2007, at 02:21 , Adam Maas wrote:
I'd say all 3 of the class of '80 Pro SLR's were superb. New F1's
still
sell for prices similar to an LX and F3's are only cheap because
they're
so common, having sold in numbers far exceeding the LX and New F1 (New
F1's are probably the rarest
On 28.08.2007, at 03:18 , Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On the other hand, max X sync speed was 1/80 sec, the TTL flash
sensor was pitiable, and the little LCD readout in the finder was a
far cry from the nice LEDs of the FM or swinging needle of the FE2,
both of which were easier to see and more
Tough call. I still enjoy the mechanical feel of the SP500 and the MX,
but the MZ-S with the grip just fit perfectly in my hand. I came across
it the other day, and rather wistfully fired a few blanks. I now I
should sell the damn thing while it's still worth something, but I just
don't want to
Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:
On 28.08.2007, at 02:21 , Adam Maas wrote:
I'd say all 3 of the class of '80 Pro SLR's were superb. New F1's
still
sell for prices similar to an LX and F3's are only cheap because
they're
so common, having sold in numbers far exceeding the LX and New F1 (New
@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Film slrs
LOL
The LX had more features and was arguably prettier to look at, but I
could use a Nikon F2 as a hammer and re-shingle a roof with it, and
it would still be in perfect alignment and take exceptional
photographs for another lifetime. Some of us valued that far
- Original Message -
From: Adam Maas
Subject: Re: Film slrs
They're extremely uncommon around here. I never see them (Any F1 is a rare
thing, even the common FD bodies are thin on the ground in southern
ontario).
Twenty years of no lens support from the manufacturer will do
On 28/08/07, Cesar, discombobulated, unleashed:
But overall I would have to say that my LXen have been hardy and pretty
to look at - even before I reskinned a few of mine :-)
Looks like a good juncture to drag up a relevant link ;-))
http://www.cottysnaps.com/snaps/photoessays/essays/snake.html
What was the last great 35mm slr that Pentax made? The *ist, or the
MZ-S?
Jim A.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
MZ-S for all the features... Regards, Bob S.
On 8/27/07, Jim Apilado [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What was the last great 35mm slr that Pentax made? The *ist, or the
MZ-S?
Jim A.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
--
PDML
: Monday, August 27, 2007 7:09 PM
Subject: Film slrs
What was the last great 35mm slr that Pentax made? The *ist, or the
MZ-S?
Jim A.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http
Jim Apilado wrote:
What was the last great 35mm slr that Pentax made? The *ist,
or the MZ-S?
No LX?
Malcolm
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
- Original Message -
From: Jim Apilado
Subject: Film slrs
What was the last great 35mm slr that Pentax made? The *ist, or the
MZ-S?
The LX.
William Robb
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Depends on your criteria, I'd say the MZ-S but you could make a good
case for the *ist, (everything you love about the *ist-Ds unfortunately
everything you hate about it as well).
Jim Apilado wrote:
What was the last great 35mm slr that Pentax made? The *ist, or the
MZ-S?
Jim A.
On 27/08/07, Jim Apilado, discombobulated, unleashed:
What was the last great 35mm slr that Pentax made? The *ist, or the
MZ-S?
The MX :-)
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
--
PDML
. g
- Original Message -
From: Jim Apilado [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 7:09 PM
Subject: Film slrs
What was the last great 35mm slr that Pentax made? The *ist, or the
MZ-S?
Jim A.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail
The last great 35mm SLR? The MX. The only things I can see that would have
improved the MX are better quality seals and a bit of ruggedization. The only
near great after that were the LX and the MZ-S. The did make a lot of consumer
crap although most of them were OK for what they were.
Of
On 8/27/07, Jim Apilado [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What was the last great 35mm slr that Pentax made? The *ist, or the
MZ-S?
The Spotmatic.
cheers,
frank
--
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
The LX.
-- Original message --
From: Jim Apilado [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What was the last great 35mm slr that Pentax made? The *ist, or the
MZ-S?
Jim A.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
--
It wasn't the last, it was the next to last...
Malcolm Smith wrote:
Jim Apilado wrote:
What was the last great 35mm slr that Pentax made? The *ist,
or the MZ-S?
No LX?
Malcolm
--
Remember, it’s pillage then burn.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
On Aug 27, 2007, at 10:09 AM, Jim Apilado wrote:
What was the last great 35mm slr that Pentax made? The *ist, or the
MZ-S?
If I'd happened across the MZ-S in 1999-2000, I would have been using
Pentax gear five or six years earlier than I did. It feels great in
the hand.
The *ist never
The MX is a superb body crippled by a lack of eye relief. I like the LX better,
even as a manual camera. But I'm a viewfinder whore.
-Adam
graywolf wrote:
The last great 35mm SLR? The MX. The only things I can see that would have
improved the MX are better quality seals and a bit of
frank theriault wrote:
On 8/27/07, Jim Apilado [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What was the last great 35mm slr that Pentax made? The *ist, or the
MZ-S?
The Spotmatic.
The 67 ;-)
(Someone had to say it...)
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
Jim Apilado wrote:
What was the last great 35mm slr that Pentax made? The *ist, or the
MZ-S?
I can't resist mentioning the MZ-5n, of course...
Jim A.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Jim Apilado wrote:
What was the last great 35mm slr that Pentax made? The *ist, or the
MZ-S?
Jim A.
LX. It's the only K mount body I ever became fond of. The MZ-S is nice, but was
more a case of a very nice body with not enough inside (I'd take an F90x for
the same money, double the
respects too little,
too late.
Tom C.
From: graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Film slrs
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 13:50:40 -0400
The last great 35mm SLR? The MX. The only things I can see that would have
On Aug 27, 2007, at 12:10 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
frank theriault wrote:
On 8/27/07, Jim Apilado [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What was the last great 35mm slr that Pentax made? The *ist, or the
MZ-S?
The Spotmatic.
The 67 ;-)
(Someone had to say it...)
But the 67 isn't a 35mm SLR. It's
- Original Message -
From: Tom C
Subject: Re: Film slrs
I'd go with the MX as well.
I loved my PZ-1p for all it was feature wise, and IMO it had really good
metering.
I never owned an LX, but I was frankly afraid to because of the
repair/service frequency I saw anecdotally
Once I receive my KX, I will be better equipped to respond to this
interesting discussion...
Glen
On Aug 27, 2007, at 4:30 PM, William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Tom C
Subject: Re: Film slrs
I'd go with the MX as well.
I loved my PZ-1p for all it was feature wise
Definitely the LX
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Aug 27, 2007, at 12:10 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
frank theriault wrote:
On 8/27/07, Jim Apilado [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What was the last great 35mm slr that Pentax made? The *ist, or the
MZ-S?
The Spotmatic.
The 67 ;-)
(Someone had to say it...)
But the 67
I was expecting that
Cheers
Brian
++
Brian Walters
Western Sydney, Australia
http://members.westnet.com.au/brianwal/SL/
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/brianwalters
Quoting Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 27/08/07, Jim Apilado, discombobulated, unleashed:
://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/brianwalters
Quoting Glen Tortorella [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Once I receive my KX, I will be better equipped to respond to this
interesting discussion...
Glen
On Aug 27, 2007, at 4:30 PM, William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Tom C
Subject: Re: Film
What Bob said.
Kenneth Waller
http://tinyurl.com/272u2f
- Original Message -
From: Bob Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Film slrs
MZ-S for all the features... Regards, Bob S.
On 8/27/07, Jim Apilado [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What was the last great 35mm slr that Pentax
The LX.
No other contender, and not by ANY brand.
Which is why they still sell for (relatively) big bucks despite having been
in production for more than 20 years. They are a jewel, a technological
marvel. The *ist and the MZ-S may be fine cameras, but they are not the fine
piece of elegant,
LOL
The LX had more features and was arguably prettier to look at, but I
could use a Nikon F2 as a hammer and re-shingle a roof with it, and
it would still be in perfect alignment and take exceptional
photographs for another lifetime. Some of us valued that far more
than whether it was
I'd say all 3 of the class of '80 Pro SLR's were superb. New F1's still
sell for prices similar to an LX and F3's are only cheap because they're
so common, having sold in numbers far exceeding the LX and New F1 (New
F1's are probably the rarest of the three, I've seen a total of two in
my
What was the last great 35mm slr that Pentax made? The *ist, or the
MZ-S?
The Spotmatic.
The 67 ;-)
(Someone had to say it...)
The Auto110
(If you're going that way, I'll take the other road)
John
--
http://www.neovenator.com
http://www.cafepress.com/neovenatorphoto
--
PDML
- Original Message -
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi
Subject: Re: Film slrs
LOL
The LX had more features and was arguably prettier to look at, but I
could use a Nikon F2 as a hammer and re-shingle a roof with it, and
it would still be in perfect alignment and take exceptional
photographs
I had two Fs, one F2 and two F3s over the years.
The F Photomic FTn was my first 35mm SLR, I bought the first one in
1969. Many memories in that one... It took me through High School and
my first college career. The F2 was a tank and a bit more convenient
in use, but it was already out of
- Original Message -
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi
Subject: Re: OT: Nikon F ... (Film slrs)
Reminiscences like this remind me of how much the camera industry has
changed. Nikon today is a very different company from what it was
when I got involved with photography, I'm sure the same can
Wanted to explain in another way, if it wasn't clear enough.
I understood well a while ago, but wasn't sure it was clear enough to everybody.
And your point is???
William Robb
--
--
Thibouille
--
*ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ...
A quick question, something I am curious about -- I've read a lot
here about the compatibility of older lenses on newer bodies, but
what about the other way?
Specifically, on film bodies without a thumbwheel (MZ-S, ZX-5n, etc),
how do you change the aperture when the lens is set on A or the
Unca Mikey wrote:
A quick question, something I am curious about -- I've read a lot here
about the compatibility of older lenses on newer bodies, but what about
the other way?
Specifically, on film bodies without a thumbwheel (MZ-S, ZX-5n, etc),
how do you change the aperture when the lens
I believe most of the newer film SLRs aside from the
*ist and ZX-30/50/60 assume you want to be in program
or shutter priority if the lens is set to A or lacks
manual settings.
The old bodies that don't utilize the A setting
pretty much can't use a lens that doesn't have manual
aperture settings
I think you've answered your own question
Tom C.
From: Unca Mikey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: PDML pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Setting aperture -- film SLRs
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 10:41:08 -0500
A quick question, something I am curious about -- I've
To expand on Tom's ellipsis:
On film bodies without an aperture control thumbwheel, you take the
lens aperture ring off the A setting and use the aperture ring.
For lenses that do not have an aperture ring, those bodies without
aperture thumb wheels can control the aperture using Program
On 4/11/06, Unca Mikey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Specifically, on film bodies without a thumbwheel (MZ-S, ZX-5n, etc),
how do you change the aperture when the lens is set on A or the
lens does not have an aperture ring? Is there a way to directly
change the aperture on the body? I assume you
-- once one
becomes used to that mode of operation and those lenses, the
migration path is not to other film SLRs, but to a digital SLR!
Fiendishly clever! G All the other bodies with the crippled KAF
look pretty low-end, plastic mounts, limited features, etc.
*UncaMikey
---Tom C [EMAIL
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 17:49:29 +0200, David Oswald [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Unca Mikey wrote:
A quick question, something I am curious about -- I've read a lot here
about the compatibility of older lenses on newer bodies, but what about
the other way?
Specifically, on film bodies without a
On Apr 11, 2006, at 9:55 AM, Scott Loveless wrote:
Are such lenses even usable on older bodies like the MX?
The MX is manual only. Lenses set on A and lenses without aperture
rings can only be used wide open.
Fully stopped down, not wide open.
Wide open would be easier for hand holding;
On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 12:55:12PM -0400, Scott Loveless wrote:
Are such lenses even usable on older bodies like the MX?
The MX is manual only. Lenses set on A and lenses without aperture
rings can only be used wide open.
I believe lenses set on A will behave as if set to f22 (although
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 19:00:08 +0200, Unca Mikey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That makes the design of the *ist 35mm even more curious -- once one
becomes used to that mode of operation and those lenses, the migration
path is not to other film SLRs, but to a digital SLR! Fiendishly
clever! G
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 19:11:25 +0200, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Apr 11, 2006, at 9:55 AM, Scott Loveless wrote:
Are such lenses even usable on older bodies like the MX?
The MX is manual only. Lenses set on A and lenses without aperture
rings can only be used wide open.
On 4/11/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 11, 2006, at 9:55 AM, Scott Loveless wrote:
Are such lenses even usable on older bodies like the MX?
The MX is manual only. Lenses set on A and lenses without aperture
rings can only be used wide open.
Fully stopped down,
On Apr 11, 2006, at 10:26 AM, Lucas Rijnders wrote:
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 19:11:25 +0200, Godfrey DiGiorgi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 11, 2006, at 9:55 AM, Scott Loveless wrote:
Are such lenses even usable on older bodies like the MX?
The MX is manual only. Lenses set on A and
There are several Z- and MZ- (PZ- and ZX-, if you wish) bodies that allow
control of the aperture from the body. I am sure of the MZ-50, the Z-1 and
Z-1p.
Z10 doesn't (well it is a P and M only camera). Z20, Z50, Z70 will
also control the aperture from the body.
I suspect it couls also true
I believe that is a fair prediction based on what I've
seen with my cameras. Pentax manuals do state that
using the A setting on a body that doesn't support
it will result in incorrect metering.
As the aperture ring is closed down to A, the
aperture simulator tab on the mount continues to go
past
It depends on the lenses I think.
Sometimes A equals 22, sometimes 32 ( or aperture is unreliable, you chose :).
I guess that a lens showing 22 then A. You put that lens on your any
*ist or Z1 etc in AV mode. If you can select 32, than A equals 32.
Simple enough ;)
On 4/11/06, Jon Myers [EMAIL
Unca Mikey wrote:
A quick question, something I am curious about -- I've read a lot here
about the compatibility of older lenses on newer bodies, but what
about the other way?
Specifically, on film bodies without a thumbwheel (MZ-S, ZX-5n, etc),
how do you change the aperture when the lens
You're MZ-S assumption is correct.
Jack
--- E.R.N. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unca Mikey wrote:
A quick question, something I am curious about -- I've read a lot
here
about the compatibility of older lenses on newer bodies, but what
about the other way?
Specifically, on film
- Original Message -
From: Unca Mikey
Subject: Setting aperture -- film SLRs
A quick question, something I am curious about -- I've read a lot here
about the compatibility of older lenses on newer bodies, but what about the
other way?
Specifically, on film bodies without
aperture -- film SLRs
A quick question, something I am curious about -- I've read a lot here
about the compatibility of older lenses on newer bodies, but what about the
other way?
Specifically, on film bodies without a thumbwheel (MZ-S, ZX-5n, etc), how
do you change the aperture when the lens
- Original Message -
From: Thibouille
Subject: Re: Setting aperture -- film SLRs
Yeah, so.. say you have a DA 14mm.
You can use it on a SuperA/SuperProgram in either TV or P mode.
Of course it won't cover the full 24x36 frame but that's another story ...
And your point
63 matches
Mail list logo
