|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
12-24-2023, 01:21 AM
|
| |
The ping is fairly common on SLRs from different makers.
My LX has the ping. It occurs with both the first shutter curtain movement and the second curtain movement, but is louder with the second. It also pings slightly upon winding, but much quieter. If you tension the wind lever a bit right after the shutter closes, it will stop the ping, suggesting that there could have been a way to snub the shutter noise.
Too bad Pentax didn't put something in there to snub the ping- it could possibly be as simple as a plastic sleeve in the right place on a spring, or something similar. On the other hand, I wonder if it could be the titanium curtains themselves pinging, which would probably be more difficult to stop.
The shutter volume and the ping are one of the few things I don't like about the LX. The camera is so refined in other ways that it's out of character to have the unrefined shutter sound. Compare it to a Nikon F3, which has a much more refined shutter sound.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
01-12-2023, 02:31 AM
|
| |
Light enters a lens at many different angles at the same time. Only some of it can make an image at the focus plane. With the lens at infinity, light rays which are parallel will make an image which is in sharp focus. Diverging rays from objects closer are still entering, but they can't come to focus at the film plane. They will come to focus at a point behind the film plane, and any image they form will be blurred. Extending the lens away from the film plane by turning the focus ring brings divergent rays' plane of focus onto the film plane, while the parallel (infinity) rays no longer come into sharp focus. Extension tubes do the same thing, just more dramatically. As the extension increases to bring closer objects into focus, the distance the image is projected increases, so the image gets larger. The opening for the film or sensor stays the same size, so it sees only the smaller central part of the image as the image gets larger. The image on the film or sensor is thus magnified.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
01-12-2023, 12:41 AM
|
| |
No advantage. Macros are optimized for close distance, highly corrected, with high resolution and flatness of field. Reversing it will not improve it.
When all I had was a 55mm 1.8 lens (decades ago) I got many very good close-up and macro shots with a reversing ring, with tubes for getting even closer. When I got a 55mm 3.5 macro, I tried it reversed and found no benefit, except the deeper front element to filter ring distance gave a bit more magnification. That wasn't worth the loss of auto diaphragm, and the uncertainty of possible loss of optical quality.
A lens optimized for infinity will give better results reversed than not, at macro range. The reason is that the proper light path is restored, or nearly so. That is, normally the distance from lens to subject is much larger than the distance from lens to film. In or near the macro range with a reversed lens of normal or shorter focal length, the distance to the subject is much shorter, approximating the distance from lens to film, so the light follows the approximate path light normally does, only in the opposite direction. That is, it enters the rear (mount side) of the reversed lens at or near the same angle it normally exits the lens.
With the addition of tubes or bellows the distance from lens to film is increased, and the light even more closely follows the path through the reversed lens as it does through the unreversed lens set at closest focus.
I just tried gaining better magnification by attaching the 100mm macro normally, racked out to 1:2, then reverse attaching the 50mm macro to its front, as a highly corrected front diopter. It increased the magnification to around 4:1, but left almost no working distance and vignetted. The deep recess of the elements kept it further from the front element and made it less effective. Then I tried the f/2 50mm on the front instead and got about the same magnification, much less vignetting, and about 1 inch working distance.
I tried reversing the 100mm/f4 macro, and couldn't get it to focus without adding extension tubes and it reduced magnification by about a factor of 2, compared to normally mounted on the same tubes and set to infinity. I'm guessing that the 100 being a telephoto, reversing it is like looking through the opposite end of a telescope, minimizing instead of magnifying.
Overall, I think tubes or bellows are better with macro lenses, with the lenses unreversed.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
09-22-2022, 03:44 PM
|
| |
I expect an improvement in places where it's lagging behind the competition, such as video. I don't need video, and would personally be happy without it, but it appears that it's a necessity at that level. I don't need high continuous shooting speed either, but that's an obvious necessity for many others, so better buffering and clearing. I think at this point, bringing things like that up to snuff is more important than pushing the envelope on MPs and such.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
09-19-2012, 02:28 AM
|
| |
Bring back the aperture coupler.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
04-26-2012, 03:13 PM
|
| |
Sounds like he has a quite strong prescription. I have the FA-1W finder which gives a little less magnification than the standard FA-1, and have eye relief very close to what I get with my Nikon F3HP. I can see the entire screen with glasses, but have to be a little more careful to keep my eye centered than with the Nikon.
|
|
Forum: General Talk
01-02-2012, 04:00 AM
|
| |
Peace and happiness to all!
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
10-23-2011, 04:28 AM
|
| |
My preferred consumer grade film is Elitechrome.
|
|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
10-22-2011, 11:37 PM
|
| |
Steve-
As Nikon has not been able to reproduce the problem to their satisfaction, something comes to mind. It could be the cable between the scanner and your computer.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
10-09-2010, 02:12 PM
|
| |
Well, you sort of put yourself at a disadvantage.
Kodachrome is not great under heavy overcast, and underexposure in that situation doesn't help it either. Sunlight is where it really shines, and a little underexposure will make the colors deeper. It looks nice exposed at box speed, and that's where I usually shoot it.
Kodachrome can be harder to scan than other transparency films, as it tends to go blue, and infrared dust scanning usually doesn't work well. It needs a different scanning profile than the E-6 films, too.
E-6 films usually scan easily. For heavy overcast a highly saturated film like Velvia or Extra Color Ektachrome will do nicely.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
10-09-2010, 01:45 PM
|
| |
That's nothing to be bragging about.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
10-03-2010, 12:51 AM
|
| |
The ST701 has a plain screw mount and will take any plain screw mount lens, like a Super-Takumar. The 801, 901, etc. will also take them, and meter stopped down. The back of the lens will depress the lock pin on the the body along with a secondary pin that tells the body a non-meter-coupled lens is attached. I have not heard of any problem with SMC Takumars.
The interference problem comes when meter-coupled lenses like the EBC Fujinons are mounted on cameras with wide front flanges, like the K-mount cameras. This is caused by a small lug at the back of the aperture ring that contacts the open-aperture ring that encircles the Fujica lens mount on the 801, 901, etc. The lug can be removed, though that would turn the lens into a stop-down-metering only lens.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
06-13-2009, 02:09 AM
|
| |
Why not just get a split/microprism screen for an LX? They are very bright and clear. They are still available brand new for about $20. The number is SC-21. You can find them and others used as well from KEH, ebay, etc. The MX screen (SC-1) is not as bright but is the same dimension.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
05-04-2009, 11:11 AM
|
| |
The difference isn't much. It's doubtful they'd go to the trouble. Funny, DxO has the pixel pitch as being different.
|
