[Lowell Goudge]

The more sophisticated models of the Z series (named PZ in the US) come very near to Pentax DSLRs in respect of handling and settings.

The follower MZ series (ZX in the US) was a bit of a "back to the roots". The MZ5n is really a Super A/Super Program with built-in winder, flash, and AF (and added bracketing, but much worse VF, but then it was ment to be used with AF lenses). Handling and controls are very near to the Super A, so different from today's bodies.

The follower of the MZ/ZX, the *ist, could also qualify. But I have never touched one, so I can only guess from specs and what I've heard.

EDIT:
Some of of the Z/PZ bodies don't offer a mode dial, instead you are slightly shifting a kind of switch; but the function is the same. With the Z20/MZ20 and better models, you can even run through all possible fitting exposure time/aperture combinations, llike with DSLRs. Keep in mind all these bodies don't support HSM lenses (but power zooms instead).

I have a real issue with my PZ1. It is simply too close to a DSLR. Every time I use it I find myself looking at the back of it waiting for the image to appearI

[RobA_Oz]

Isn't the *ist a 6.1 MP digital camera?

Charles.

You're thinking of the *istD. We didn't see many of the *ist film versions here, although they were released at the same time.

[ChopperCharles]

There aren't any *ist film cameras on eBay, so that's unobtanium. Looks like the ZX-30 is the ticket. Readily available, inexpensive, and has a mode dial self timer, double exposure, in-camera aperture control... Looks like the ticket.

Charles.

[eddie1960]

I've seen the *ist on ebay but not often. You can probably score an mz/zx5n for maybe $10 more than the 30 and its a far superior camera

[RKKS08]

There are many posters pointing at the MZ5n.
Sorry, but I couldn't agree less.

The MZ5n fits perfectly to what I like as a film camera (but I was using ME Super and Super A for nearly 2 decades several times a week). I would not hesitate to recommend it to every one who wants a tool which offers the standard automatic modes, and alternatively can be used like a fully mechanical camera of the seventies, as the controls are mostly like in past times.

However, I understood the OP wants a camera which can be handled as close as possible to his DSLR (which means, more or less, a computer with built-in SLR). The MZ5n offers the opposite. Its handling is basically old style, electronics and automatics were added as a bonus - and AF, Winder, and flash are built in.

I prefer this philosophy, but there are also some disadvantages like missing program shift. the fact that lenses without aperture ring cannot be used in Av and M mode, and no possibility for duplicate exposures on one frame.

[aurele]

the fact that lenses without aperture ring cannot be used in Av

false ! the MZ-5n handle very well any lens that have KA or further KAF mount (except AF with KAF3).

Fact is the MZ-5n don't have direct Av mode. You use Tv mode to set speed and get an aperture set by the body.

i use all my DA lenses (except 18-55) on my MZ-5n without any flaws.

However, you are right, there is no M mode available if you don't have aperture ring on the lens.

[eddie1960]

the really true feel like your DSLR camera is the PZ1-P
dual wheels and full controls
or the MZs
Or the *ist

all the others will be a compromise
budget for the purchase is a determining factor

[stevebrot]

BUT, I want a film SLR that I can use my DA lenses on

Oh!!! So it is not so much that you need a film camera with a control layout similar to a Pentax dSLR as much as it is that you need a film camera that is able to control the aperture from the body!

Well...pretty much any Pentax SLR that supports programmed exposure will work for you with varying degrees of control. For example, my Super Program will work in P and Sv mode quite nicely with a DA lens. The main issue is that most of the DA lenses will vignette to some extent. There are probably at least a dozen recent threads on exactly this matter. Perhaps it is time to post a sticky detailing the basic facts?


Steve B.

[RobA_Oz]

IMO that's an accurate definition of a DSLR - and why I don't own one.

Chris

Well, it's very hard to own a modern car (or even motorcycle) let alone a mobile phone, without there being a micro-processor installed somewhere in it. So, if you (speaking generally, not particularly) have a belief that computers are the work of Satan because of the capability of producing the Number of the Beast (in common with a pencil) a lot of your life is going to be spent avoiding any device that uses micro-electronics. Of course, no one who believed that would be participating in this discussion, anyway.

Seriously, a DSLR is no more a computer with a camera attached than a modern fridge is a computer with a cold storage cabinet attached. The primary purpose of such devices is not to facilitate user calculation or data manipulation, it's to undertake some other purpose, using digital processing as an aid. An accurate definition would be more like "a device for turning electromagnetic energy (light) into a 2D representation of a subject, using electromagnetic impulses for conversion and storage". Change the sixth and fifth last words into "chemical and material processes" and you have a film camera, not a chemical engineering plant.

Bet I haven't convinced you...

[RKKS08]

Bet I haven't convinced you...

You're right.
I am the last person to be hostile to computers - I have been working with them since I had to learn to program mainframes at university in 1971/1972. There is no doubt that a modern digital camera without a processor dwarfing a workstation CPU of the early eighties would not be possible.

And it can also not be questioned that user access to the more sophisticated details of the image processing would be crazy. The processing of the sensor data is much too complex.

But we are speaking about film cameras. And here we see 2 fundamental different philosophies: do you want to tell the camera what it should do and how it should do it, or do you just tell it what kind of result you want and let it decide how to achieve this. The MZ5n is of the first kind, and you have to know exactly not only what you want as a result, but also what the camera will do in a technical sense. For the first, only a minimum of computing capability is needed, the second is what I would call rather a computer which takes pictures.

For many of the other devices now controlled by processors, not a few are really dependent on this controls for reasons not so obvious. From my profession I know that in many cases precision manufacturing was partly replaced by extensive inherent measurement and correcting through microprocessors "on the fly" because this is much cheaper. Without these, mechanical precision in manufacturing would have to increase a lot.

And the tendency of electronics becoming the heart of the matter started much earlier. I remember back in 1973 the contract leader for the then frigate program of the German navy was not a shipyard, as one would think, but Siemens. Even then, building such a ship was much cheaper than supplying it with all its electronicly controlled functions.

Sorry for the OP I am kind of hijacking this thread, but I felt I had to answer.

[RobA_Oz]

Sorry for the OP I am kind of hijacking this thread, but I felt I had to answer.

Well, I think it was expanded, rather than hijacked, because the subject of the (digital control) film *ist and its digital sensor twin, the *istD, had already been broached. Having had a long relationship with a *istD (always thought it was an odd name, with or without the "D"), I'd be interested to see how well the film version worked. Sadly, as someone here pointed out, they seem to be practically unobtainium, which is a pity, as they would have to be candidates for proving their status in respect of the OP's original question.

[stevebrot]

I'd rather compose, focus, set aperture and shutter speed and shoot.
It's that simple and straightforward using a camera with classic controls.

Agreed. Despite the degree of sophistication offered by my K10D, I usually shoot it in Av or M mode with manual focus. That way, I am usually confident of my results. The only time I let the camera do all the work is when I am taking snapshots and I have to say, the K10D is a heck of a snapshot camera!

With my film cameras the frequency of use seems to be inversely proportional to their sophistication. My clumsy FSU rangefinders tend to be in the hand much more often than my Program Plus...go figure...


Steve

[ChopperCharles]

most of the time I leave my camera on Av or M, but always with autofocus enabled. I just want the ability to control the aperture via the camera, instead of the aperture ring. I don't like the "hold a button and press left or right on the rocker to change modes" thing, I just want to rotate the dial from Av to M or Tv. I want to be able to dial in exposure compensation, and perhaps flash compensation too (but flash compensation is not strictly encessary, as I can do that on the flash body itself) . I want a full manual mode where I can control aperture and shutter speed with the camera, without a seventeen step button press. I'd also like a better focus engine - but I exclusively use the center point and recompose method.

I like my sf10 well enough, it's just the interface feels clunky and I can't use my DAL lenses.

Charles.

[marklunch]

I own an MZ-3, bought from Ebay for £10! Does a great job, correct exposures, and the batteries last a long time, it takes TTL and P-TTL flashes too. Autofocus is quite quick. I highly recommend it.

[ChopperCharles]

The MZ-3 does not meet my requirements. It must have a mode dial with Tv, Av, and M modes for me to consider it.

Charles.