[AldaCZ]

Oldskool combo

[kb244]

The trigger advance is a little odd to use. I must say, though, that it's probably the most solid feeling camera I've ever held.

I feel that way with just about every 1940s to 1960s Canon rangefinder I ever held, especially the P which at the time was far faster and more practical to use than a Leica IIIc while still being able to use it's lens if you were die-hard for the lens, but flexible in the body area.

[WPRESTO]

As probably everyone on this thread knows, Canon continued the base-plate lever for film advance when they introduced the original Canonflex, but changed it so it swung back, into your face, operated by a small tab that folded down for use, up for storage. Even when it first appeared, I thought it an exceptionally awkward system, and I always suspected that many Canonflex sales were lost to the Nikon F on the basis of that feature alone.

The Canon EF I had for a while (so I could use a Canon 24mm TSS) was like a brass brick, but the camera that really felt like it had escaped from the end of a barbel was the original "bull's eye" Contarex. I remember picking one up at a used photo equipment multi-dealer sale, and quickly adding my other hand to hold it.

[g026r]

The Canon EF I had for a while (so I could use a Canon 24mm TSS) was like a brass brick, but the camera that really felt like it had escaped from the end of a barbel was the original "bull's eye" Contarex. I remember picking one up at a used photo equipment multi-dealer sale, and quickly adding my other hand to hold it.

Zeiss? Overdoing something? Get out of here!

[WPRESTO]

Zeiss? Overdoing something? Get out of here!

No doubt Contarex owners were just as glad they never offered an add-on auto-winder.

[g026r]

No doubt Contarex owners were just as glad they never offered an add-on auto-winder.

It would probably have featured an additional 700 parts (or is that only an additional 700 parts?) and increased the weight to close to 2kg.

I'm guessing Canon likely got the idea for their baseplate winder from Leitz. There had been one for the IIIf and IIIg, and I want to say that the original MP, with similar baseplate film advance, was released at around the same time as the VT.

[cooltouch]

Going to see if I can find the meter pattern for the MX, I know it's center-weighted but just wondering roughly how much of the center in case I want to meter off the shadow/highlight and compensate.,

Let us know if you find this. I've wondered the same thing. I suspect the LX's pattern is the same, or at least very similar. There's this bit of info on the LX. The pattern shown is based on a test Modern Photography conducted in 1981.

http://www.reocities.com/sorefeets/lx/lx_pat.htm

---

Last edited by cooltouch; 03-11-2017 at 11:54 AM.

[WPRESTO]

FYI: The Contarex Bull's eye weighed 910g without the lens.

[K-Three]

Let us know if you find this. I've wondered the same thing. I suspect the LX's pattern is the same, or at least very similar. There's this bit of info on the LX. The pattern shown is based on a test Modern Photography conducted in 1981.

Pentax LX Metering Pattern

MX pattern from a Pentax Sales Brochure, I've got similar brochures for the LX, but no pattern graphic, just "Center Weighted" in the text

[cooltouch]

Pretty close. Here's the LX image supposedly from the MP article. Similar but different. I can't decide which I like better.



Yours is purtier lookin'.

[K-Three]

Yours is purtier lookin'.

Back when Pentax spent some money on marketing,
The brochure is 10 or 12 pages, 8.5 x 11, on good stock, in full color,
Over the years I picked up ones for most of the M series, the LX and some of the P series.
I don't think I've found any printed marketing material for any of the digital cameras.

[Jonathan Mac]

Back when Pentax spent some money on marketing,
The brochure is 10 or 12 pages, 8.5 x 11, on good stock, in full color,
Over the years I picked up ones for most of the M series, the LX and some of the P series.
I don't think I've found any printed marketing material for any of the digital cameras.

I have a Pentax K3 brochure that I picked up in a photography shop here in Madrid, I used to drool over it before I finally got my hands on it. That brochure is to a large part responsible for me getting the K3 rather than the (at the time) still available and much cheaper K5II.

I like printed photographic equipment brochures but I can't bring myself to pay for any of it, I just keep whatever interesting stuff comes my way.

[kb244]

MX pattern from a Pentax Sales Brochure, I've got similar brochures for the LX, but no pattern graphic, just "Center Weighted" in the text

Thanks, figured it would be more bottom emphasis (so that in landscapes the sky doesn't completely overwhelm the meter reading compared to the ground), though I'm kind of confused how the % adds up, is it saying that light from 100% of the dead center is factored, and just outside that range only 60% of the light of that region, and then the reading % wise of all those readings are averaged?

Cuz usually what I'm trying to do when I'm metering shadow against mid against highly I'm pointing the center at what I would consider say the shadow I would want least some detail in, and going up a stop or two from there depending on the film I'm using.

[WPRESTO]

I have a Pentax K3 brochure that I picked up in a photography shop here in Madrid, I used to drool over it before I finally got my hands on it.

Friends & I who were into photography in High school used to take the slick brochures from a local camera store to thumb through for many wasted hours. I especially liked the ones from Rollei and Linhof with their casual "obviously logical design" and "of course it produces outstanding images" wording. We always referred to these little booklets as "drool sheets."

[cooltouch]

Thanks, figured it would be more bottom emphasis (so that in landscapes the sky doesn't completely overwhelm the meter reading compared to the ground), though I'm kind of confused how the % adds up, is it saying that light from 100% of the dead center is factored, and just outside that range only 60% of the light of that region, and then the reading % wise of all those readings are averaged?

Cuz usually what I'm trying to do when I'm metering shadow against mid against highly I'm pointing the center at what I would consider say the shadow I would want least some detail in, and going up a stop or two from there depending on the film I'm using.

What I find interesting about both patterns is that 100% spot in the center. To me, that means "spot meter," and if the camera can be aimed accurately, it should work as one. But I suppose you're right in that some averaging is taking place. Still, the LX's pattern is tight and is reminiscent to me of the Nikon F3's simpler but very effective 80/20 pattern. The MX's is not as tight, but should still be tight enough to keep spurious light sources from affecting the metering too much. It's definitely bottom-centerweighted, which can be effective when shooting subjects against the sky outdoors in landscape mode. But when one rotates the camera to a vertical position, it's gonna bias exposure to the right if you rotate the camera counterclockwise and to the left if you rotate it clockwise. The LX's pattern shows some bottom centerweighting also, but it's tighter and more centrally balanced, so it probably won't skew exposure as much when rotated.

I own both an LX and an MX, but I'm a recent owner of both, so I don't have enough experience shooting with them yet to have developed any sort of feel for the way they tend to bias exposure. That will just take some time and at least several rolls of film. So my above comments are simply based on evaluations of the patterns and, unfortunately, not yet experience.

I think it's important to remember that all a camera's meter wants to do is interpret a scene as 18% gray. So when metering a shadow area, it's helpful to remember this. A camera will want to open up exposure when metering a shadow area to 18% gray -- a mid-tone -- when you may want to keep the shadow area at least somewhat dark. Unless you really do want to open up the shadows so they're a mid-tone. So be careful not to open up too much or you'll probably have burn-through in your highlights areas. I would instead look for mid-tones in the subject area and meter off these. A good way to open up the shadows, yet preserve the highs and mid-tones is to use fill-flash. I find it works very well.