[Marcus Rowland]

It is a retractable zoom so it need a mechanism for holding out/in the lens, and I believe the resitance on the zoom ring increases considetable when you start to retract it. So I do not think you will accidently turn off the camera.

One iteration of Nikon's 18-55 kit lens was designed so that you could make it a bit more compact when not in use by twisting the zoom ring until it retracted into a smaller but non-working position. The snag was that you could easily forget that you had done this and waste time trying to get the thing to work while it was still in the collapsed position, also that they occasionally stuck in the collapsed position requiring a professional service. The size change was only a couple of cm off the total length of the lens, hardly worth the hassle.

[Fogel70]

One iteration of Nikon's 18-55 kit lens was designed so that you could make it a bit more compact when not in use by twisting the zoom ring until it retracted into a smaller but non-working position. The snag was that you could easily forget that you had done this and waste time trying to get the thing to work while it was still in the collapsed position, also that they occasionally stuck in the collapsed position requiring a professional service. The size change was only a couple of cm off the total length of the lens, hardly worth the hassle.

Pentax has two lenses that work the same way. DA 18-50 and DA 55-300 PLM. I Believe the retractable mechanism is a weak spot on these lenses too.
But IMO it is Nice to have the option of really compact kit lenses.

I believe most manufacturers have retractable zoom lenses today. Even more so for mirrorless systems but on mirrorless the zoom is usually motorised so it retract automatically at off/on.

[Jonathan Mac]

One iteration of Nikon's 18-55 kit lens was designed so that you could make it a bit more compact when not in use by twisting the zoom ring until it retracted into a smaller but non-working position. The snag was that you could easily forget that you had done this and waste time trying to get the thing to work while it was still in the collapsed position, also that they occasionally stuck in the collapsed position requiring a professional service. The size change was only a couple of cm off the total length of the lens, hardly worth the hassle.

Rather than a daft feature this sounds like a good idea poorly implemented.

[tranq78]

A good feature that I'd like Pentax to put on all their cameras is the 2 second MLU. I really miss that on my current camera.

[Jonathan Mac]

A good feature that I'd like Pentax to put on all their cameras is the 2 second MLU. I really miss that on my current camera.

Don't they all have that? Which camera are you using?

I'd like a 5 second timer because if you're close that would often be enough time to get in place to include yourself for a group shot. 2 seconds isn't enough for that and ten is often more than is necessary.

[Lord Lucan]

Was it dumb for Pentax to have put an FP flash PC socket on the LX? Was anyone still using FP bulbs in 1980?

[DonV]

Was it dumb for Pentax to have put an FP flash PC socket on the LX? Was anyone still using FP bulbs in 1980?

I'm sure "someone" was !

I can imagine the "negativity of comments" had Pentax not included the FP terminal at that time.

I still have a few M3 bulbs- waiting- just in case I might need them; and a flash unit or two- though the correct battery may be a little tough to find today.

[tranq78]

Don't they all have that? Which camera are you using?

I'd like a 5 second timer because if you're close that would often be enough time to get in place to include yourself for a group shot. 2 seconds isn't enough for that and ten is often more than is necessary.

Our household has standardized on K-50 bodies which have only a 2 second timer, no MLU. Three of the four in our family have K-50 bodies, wife uses an older body. I know the K-50 out of date but I decided to put money into lenses.

I don't need the latest features and was exclusively a film user until 2014 when I got a K-50 for an extended trip to Asia. The decision to go K-50 for us was actually simple, I bought a K-50, DA18-135 and DA*50-135/2.8 for each of my 2 kids as this setup cost as much as the latest body. The kids can upgrade their cameras later if they want but they're set with good quality lenses. APS-C is fine for me, I've got full frame using film!

Would be nice to have a MLU timer in 2, 5, 10 second increments.

[Fogel70]

I do not think the hardware on K50 and other Pentax entry level DSLRs are capable of MLU. The believe the mirror and shutter can only be operated together on these cameras.

[m42man]

Always found DOF Preview a waste of time in the film days. I suppose it didn't cost much, so was an included feature.

Same with microprism areas on the focusing screen. Far too inaccurate. Much easier to use the matte area.

Even split-prism aids aren't quite accurate enough in these days of pixel-peeping. Very necessary for the wide-angle lenses though...

[mtkeller]

I do not think the hardware on K50 and other Pentax entry level DSLRs are capable of MLU. The believe the mirror and shutter can only be operated together on these cameras.

K-70 has MLU. My K-50 is off at Spencer's for IR conversion at the moment, so can't check what it's capable of.

[stevebrot]

Was anyone still using FP bulbs in 1980?

The short answer is yes...there were no other options for daylight fill flash with focal plane shutter under full sun. The longer answer is that FP was supported on both the MX and K-series bodies and also by competitor product (e.g. "New" F-1).


Steve

[stevebrot]

Always found DOF Preview a waste of time in the film days.

Waste of time, well that is easy. Don't use it!
While it has never been an accurate presentation (always shows too deep), optical DOF preview was better than nothing. I use it now as I used it then and on a fairly frequent basis.

Same with microprism areas on the focusing screen. Far too inaccurate. Much easier to use the matte area.

I assume you mean the "ground glass" donut of the traditional screen.
My experience is that the matte area is approximately equivalent depending on subject. The main problem matte area is that it is to a certain extent aperture sensitive.

Even split-prism aids aren't quite accurate enough in these days of pixel-peeping.

Who pixel-peeps except the photographer? I have a well-dialed-in Katz Eye screen in my K-3 and rank my options for fine focus on that camera as follows by focus sensitivity (poor to excellent)*.
PDAF using center spot
CDAF (equivalent to live view manual focus using focus peaking)
Manual focus using split-image on the Katz Eye
Manual focus using magnified live view, no focus peaking

Sorry to pick your comment apart, but those features have been part of my work flow since the early 1980s. I looks like you might as well have said that you feel that any focus screen aside from full ground-glass or laser-cut matte is dumb.


Steve

* The ability to detect OOF.

[m42man]

Sorry to pick your comment apart, but those features have been part of my work flow since the early 1980s. I looks like you might as well have said that you feel that any focus screen aside from full ground-glass or laser-cut matte is dumb.


Steve

That's OK - the thread's just a bit of fun anyway (isn't it?).

As for a plain focus screen - as I implied, you tend to need a (split-prism) focus aid for the wider lenses, despite it tending to get in the way for the longer lenses, in my opinion. But a surrounding microprism ring (which is very common) really does get in the way. In my opinion.

[DonV]

Everyone has a "favorite" screen for focusing- I believe it has a lot to do with what each individual "learned on or grew up with".