[Dartmoor Dave]

You speak truth, Pacerr. And personally I’m quite willing to buy a new DSLR and shim the screen to suit my own manual focus needs. I just wanted to make others aware that it’s a job they might have to undertake before they start blaming their lenses.

I’ve been shooting with Pentax since 1980, and I stick with the brand because nobody else comes close to similar quality at a similar price. Although I confess that if I could afford that Rolls Royce and gold Rolex that you mentioned, I’d probably buy a Leica.

[pacerr]

I could afford that Rolls Royce and gold Rolex that you mentioned, I’d probably buy a Leica.

Wouldn't we all be tempted, Dave?

As a po'-boy, though, I'm happy with my wall shelves full'a old Pentax stuff an' a few new DSLR's.

[stevebrot]

Pentax COULD design and produce bodies such that each incremental manufacturing tolerance was miniscule and each unit had a custom, hand-fitted VF shim to accommodate residual assembly variations -- and they COULD replace all tooling weekly to maintain perfect tolerances and QA goals -- and they COULD conduct 100% QA sampling -- and those of us with a Rolls Royce with driver and a gold Rolex or three could maybe afford 'em.

Pentax used to produce cameras where the principals of Deming's teachings were applied and continuous improvement was the rule. Now days, the mantra is "good enough for the intended purpose" and the intended purpose is AF with a slight nod being given to non-AF use cases. Pity that the AF systems are poorly suited for fine focus.

Note that I reference the past both in this post and the one you quoted. The tolerances for the mirror box used to be sufficiently close that shimming was the exception rather than the rule. It was expected that the end user would be able to swap the screens on the Pentax MX without having to check the calibration against the focal plane. Proper manufacture of the mirror box and light path is not rocket science, it is simply not a current priority.

Those vintage cameras were mass produced, though with human labor rather than robotics. I own multiple film bodies (Pentax, Ricoh, and Minolta) and the viewfinders on each are spot on despite being built using manual processes.

Yes, I hear whistling with those old bodies and it is excellent whistling, but there is no pig in sight. With my modern AF dSLRs, they only whistle if prodded and massaged because whistling was not in their design spec.


Steve

[ivanvernon]

+1

A well set up good focusing screen, such as the Canon EE-S from focusingscreen.com, makes all the difference. Since on APS sensor you are only using the centre area of old lenses, sharpness, distortion and CA are often as good or better than that of modern lenses. It is only the coatings and hence contrast and flare resistance that are sometimes worse. As for cost, there is no comparison - used old manual focus Pentax lenses can be ridiculously cheap.

Some of my shots taken with old Pentax lenses :

SMC Pentax M 50mm f1.4
SMC Pentax A 50mm f2/f1.7
SMC Pentax M 75-150mm f4
SMC Pentax M 80-200mm f4.5
SMC Pentax M 135m f3.5

Great photos and a real argument in favor of the old lenses.

[pacerr]

Note that I reference the past both in this post and the one you quoted.

Nuthin' personal, Steve -- you an' I've both been there. Just a POV for the record with the hope that some of the newer folks appreciate the marvelous advances of recent technology. The scope of the things we can do today with so little experience of the limits of past technology constantly amazes me.

H2

[kentishrev]

+1
Some of my shots taken with old Pentax lenses :

SMC Pentax M 50mm f1.4
SMC Pentax A 50mm f2/f1.7
SMC Pentax M 75-150mm f4
SMC Pentax M 80-200mm f4.5
SMC Pentax M 135m f3.5

Some really wonderful pictures here - particularly like the M Prime selections. Thank you for sharing.