[stevebrot]

Not all the AF Pentax models have poor build quality and there are plenty of people who are fond of them.

Are the PZ line or MZ-S inferior to the MX and LX? I guess it depends on what one needs from the camera. All four are competent tools with the MZ-S representing the high point of Pentax AF film camera sophistication.

But back to the OPs topic, which of the AF models ishas the most reliable AF mechanics?

I don't see where he asked that, though such would be valuable information if it were known.


Steve

[redrockcoulee]

I like the size and weight of the MZ5N and MZ7. I also have a K1000 but find it harder to focus as there is no diopter adjustment. I use AF and MF lenses and usually shoot in aperture priority. For reasons other than being a purist I much prefer my Hasselblad for film and the larger viewfinder makes it easier to focus. I got the K1000 free with lens, at the prices of film cameras get a K series or MX and try it out. At one time we had a ME or Super Program and never really liked it.

[IgorZ]

I never held MZ-S or a PZ-1, but LX is so much more solid than my MZ-7 (RIP). There are the objective reasons why LX is a great camera, but the small size and a solid feel makes it a pleasure to use.

As for focusing... I haven't used AF lenses for a couple of years, but using legacy MF lenses, especially fast primes wide open, I'd say I probably have more hits with a k-5 than with LX, but I am not sure if that's because I just delete the misses from the k-5 right away...

---------- Post added 08-12-17 at 08:15 PM ----------

Actually, I should correct that. I was thinking of my recent experience shooting my kids playing in low light with a slow film... In normal circumstances I find it easier to focus with LX because you actually see where they focus is. With the k-5 there is focus confirmation, but it's not always clear where it focused...

[ctrout]

I don't see where he asked that, though such would be valuable information if it were known.


Steve

I think I'm getting alzheimer's or something. Not the first time I've made this kind of mistake today. I was thinking of a different theread that I had just read.

[twilhelm]

I'd like to say it's all subjective, and it probably is. But I grew up with a small, well built camera that I could drop on the concrete and pick up and use as though nothing happened. And of course there's the joy of ground glass or a split image. Seriously though, the way the old cameras were designed, with practice I could hit my focus faster and have a higher keeper rate than the early autofocus systems.

[gofour3]

For some people, myself included, it could be an age related thing. I grew up using a fully manual Pentax KX and for me that's a camera that feels just "right". Also I have and never will have any use for Auto Focus.

The most advanced 35mm camera that I have is a Pentax P5, with it's various programs modes that I never use. A P5 is already getting too complicated for me, so a later AF film body with all those dials/menus is of no interest.

Phil.

[LesDMess]

It's nice to have the flexibility of the LX system but I would bet that the vast majority of users have no need for any but the standard viewfinder and will most likely never need the long exposure low light metering capability of the LX either.

The OP didn't ask for necessity and majority as factors. I don't know why he ask such a question, perhaps he is just wondering why some of us - likely not a majority either, use manual focus cameras or perhaps he is looking for a solution like I was.

There is no doubt that if you don't have the viewfinders, you will likely find a way around using one.




In fact, the Pentax LX - unlike all other interchangeable viewfinder cameras ever released, can be fully utilized with the viewfinder removed.




Because all the others (Canon, Minolts, Nikon, etc.), light entering the viewfinder will influence their meter. Or you can't meter without it. Or you you can't see the functions without it.




As far as near endless aperture priority autoexposure mode, I used to have the state of the art Canon EOS system and when I took this shot on Fuji Velvia, it could not autoexpose past 30 seconds because all Canons with AV mode are hard coded limited to this.



I figured then that if the Canon EOS could not do what I wanted, there couldn't possibly be any other camera that could and I would have to settle for manual mode.


But I tried every AV capable camera I could get my hands on before I finally found one camera that is capable of this and that is the Pentax LX. So sometime later, I revisited that scene and took this shot using aperture priority with Kodak Ektar 100. Took > 40minutes for this exposure.




In these really dark settings, the biggest and brightest viewfinder in the LX is very important for critical focus and there are no autofocus cameras that can come close to this as obviously they are more reliant on the camera achieving this.

I probably have as many reasons why I use manual focus cameras as I do manual focus cameras . . .

[Jonathan Mac]

Is there a single autofocus Pentax film SLR that doesn't suffer from the dreaded plastic stripped gears?

The older generation rather than the newer MZ ones. AF and winding are noisier, cameras are bigger and much heavier, but no stripped gears.

There are many reasons but specifically to the LX are:

1. The only camera - past or present by any brand, that can aperture priority autoexpose a scene for as long as it takes - even hours long, all the while adjusting exposure based on the scenes lighting conditions.

I'm pretty sure some of the Olympus OM cameras (the 2N maybe??) can also do this.

I use both manual and automatic film SLRs and enjoy them both, but the attraction of the manual ones is the pleasure of using such machines and their lenses. The build quality is also far better than newer models.

[08amczb]

Okey, so nostalgic feeling, and learning curves for some older fellow photographers the main reason.
The reliability and working even without a battery and lighter weight is a general advantage, I understand and appriciate this.
The better focus screen while definitly true is an interesting question. Mastering the autofocus or learning manual focusing is a similar task, I started with AF and I think MF is only mandatory in macro and some cerfully planned situations, or in really low light. For macro I use digital, because I can focus stack. For planned editoral shots I think the 135 format is small, the 67 or maybe the 645 system is much better. In low light the digital cameras has so much advantage I wouldn't try film. The film needs multiple photons in a time window to make a molecule permanently transformed, so it makes a nonlinear tonality in dark areas. Dark areas on a dark scene gets even darker. The other advantage is my KP has an insane ISO 819200, so I can make a test shoot at ISO 102400 quickly and set up the blub timer for the ISO 100 shoot according to the result. I can do HDR, focus stack, pixel shift or what I want and I get more dynamic range (exposeur latitude), and better color response. I can set the WB without filters. (And I can focus with the KP in near total darkness in live view magnification with focus peaking.)

The LX looks wonderful according to your experiance, but it's only another tool to make photographs I imagined. I always try to invest in gear that makes new opportunities. First I got a long lens, then a super wide angle, then fast primes, then the MZ-5n for bigger format then the KP for low light capabilities and advanced and more relaible autofocus. The digital or film 645 or 67 system would be another new opputunitie. It would extend the set of possible images I can make. So while I think using the LX would be a plesure it does not extend my capabilities.

I use the MZ-5n for family portraits and moments. Getting the paper images by default and the look of the film reminds me to my childhood. The other advantage is I have only a few shoots, so I plan more cerfully and I make less images, so I spend more time with the family without the digital camera.

Thanks for your opinions! I'am still interested in any new argument and opinion!

[LesDMess]

I'm pretty sure some of the Olympus OM cameras (the 2N maybe??) can also do this.

I also tried the Olympus cameras and it turns out the OM-2 (plain) can achieve 19 minutes at the lowest ASA settings. You can read more about it at Camtech Tech Pages - OM-2/2N

I appreciate the genius of Yoshihisa Maitani for creating the OM lineup. I am not sure if Pentax would have developed the LX - as well as the M series, if it were not for it.

[ChrisPlatt]

I never much cared for the otherworldly colors of nighttime long exposures.
But if corrected they'd look like they were taken in daylight, so why bother?

I find much greater pleasure in using a classic manual focus camera.
IMO the feel of a mostly plastic AF camera simply pales in comparison.

This is an important aspect of the photographic experience to me,
though admittedly not for everyone.

Chris

[ctrout]

I completely agree with you Chris. I'll add to that my opinion that not only build quality but also ergonomics play a big part for me as well. As much as I love all of my Pentaxes, the M series just feels too small in my hands while the Ks all feel too big and blocky. The Super A/Super Program almost feels right with the front and rear grip enhancements but the only one that Pentax has that feels close to perfect is the LX. If my KX felt in the hand the way my LX does, the KX would be my runaway favorite. As it si though, I'm torn between the KX and the LX as to which one I reach for first. I lean in the direction of the LX only because it just feels better in the hand and sometimes I like to be lazy and rely on aperture priority AE.

[aaacb]

It may be just more interest in vintage cameras and/or manual focus. For example, "pentax k1000" is twice as popular popular search term than recent digital models.
A zx-m (manual focus, plastic mount) costs more than a zx-5 or 7 or L (all better spec)

pentax k1000, pentax k-1, pentax k-3, pentax k-70 - Google Trends

[08amczb]

It may be just more interest in vintage cameras and/or manual focus. For example, "pentax k1000" is twice as popular popular search term than recent digital models.
A zx-m (manual focus, plastic mount) costs more than a zx-5 or 7 or L (all better spec)

pentax k1000, pentax k-1, pentax k-3, pentax k-70 - Google Trends

Only the K1000 is so popular:
pentax k1000, Pentax MX, Pentax LX, Pentax MZ-S, Pentax K-1 - Google Trends

[stevebrot]

I think I'm getting alzheimer's or something.

Me too...


Steve