Search Results - PentaxForums.com

The Latest

Forum

Cameras

Page 1 of 2

⟶

Showing results 1 to 25 of 26 Search:

Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals 04-07-2021, 06:06 AM

Wild rumour/wish fulfillment fantasy about new Pentax film camera?????
Posted By KX-Digital

Replies: 30
Views: 3,058

Super-8 is 8mm wide film with a small magnet strip for audio. It was preceded by Double-8 and Single-8. These three have always been amateur films. It was very low quality, worse than VHS.

Hollywood of course used 35mm film (24 frames/s 18×24mm). In between there was the semiprofessional 16mm film which was mostly used by documentary filmers but a few camera companies made stills cameras for 16mm film too. Among these are Minolta and Steky.

Forum: Pentax DSLR and Camera Articles 11-18-2019, 10:50 AM

K-70 Underexposed Photo Reports
Posted By KX-Digital

Replies: 153
Views: 37,525

Sorry if i go offtopic but as this comes up, we have to -as ee say here - set the points in the i's to get it right.

I don't know about the UK Consumers Rights Act, it proves though there are different National laws.

Quote:

But even under EU law you have 2 years, so go for it:
FAQs - Guarantees and returns - Your Europe

EU law is not binding. Individual countries need to work them out in national laws - that are binding.

EU-regulations are directly binding themselves but this is nit an EU-regulation, unfortunately.

Unfortunately incorrect. It depends on the national law. Most countries copied the 2 years in their national laws, some didn't.

In the Netherlands there is not a legally required warranty. There is a however a conformity law which - in one way goes much further, but on the other hand is less.

If the product fails within 6 months the seller has to prove it due to the buyer fault or chose to repair or replace. After 6 months the buyer has to prove it is production fault.

On the other hand, conformity contains an expected lifespan depending on the kind of product and price. If a product with an expected lifespan of 5 years (thus 60 months) fails after 18 months the product is repaired but the owner has to pay 18/60th, thus 30% of the repair for the 18 months of use. So that solenoid repair of $263, thus €240 after 18 months would cost €80 + 21% vat (€16.80) or totally € 96.80 / $106.50

If it failed after 9 months, thus inside the 1 year us/australia/canada warranty, the Dutch owner would still have to pay €48/$52.80

Next to that, unless Pentax changed their policy recently in the last 2 years, they don't repair products which are no longer manufactured. How they handle this if it is still under warranty i have no idea.

Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 09-18-2019, 03:42 AM

Only one Pentax dealer left in Norway?
Posted By KX-Digital

Replies: 57
Views: 5,720

The approach in Europe, since the Hoya takeover, seems to be focused on disappearing completely. In fact, the 2001 introduced MZ-S didn't catch on here (overpriced?, downgrade from Z-1 which was already downgrade from LX), and from then until the K10 introduced in 2007 i would not have stepped in as Pentax was not offering anything worthwhile buying (except lenses, of course the FA limiteds). Showing the path upward the K20 and k200 were developed before the takeover of Hoya, the first batch tagged "Pentax Corporation" but soon bottom-tagged "Hoya Corporation". They closed all Pentax branded importing and representative offices giving importership to companies* that handled several dozens of brands, clearly had other interests and usually lost items sent in for (warranty) repair. (e.g. De Beukelaar, now down to 26 including Kodak, Minox, Braun, Kenro, Ilford, Tamron)

Ricoh seems to do better in bringing out attractive slr's and lenses but visibility in the brick-and-mortar stores is not improving (still virtually none, maybe 2 in the country) and the number of webstores carrying Pentax is declining too.
In those webstores that do still carry Pentax, the assortment of Pentax gear is declining too. The 18-55 and 50-200 they all sell but very little that is better.

Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 07-19-2019, 02:02 AM

Which one is the sharpest of these 3 lenses?
Posted By KX-Digital

Replies: 17
Views: 21,181

According to read reviews and tests all the Takumar and Pentax 50/1.4's are great, wonderful bokeh, good sharpness and better than nearly all other 50/1.4's because it has a group of 2 elements which on the sides they are glued together are curved while other brands have elements with flat sides glued together here.

I read your comparison with the Summilux (alas no images anymore) which is of quite a later date (introducted 1969, produced 1970) than the Super-Takumar (1964-1971 for 7 element, 1964-1966 for 8 element), especially because the one you included is the older 8-element version which thus also has an element more and thus as a result is more vulnerable to flare. Moreover, in 1971 Pentax introduced the S-M-C version. Leica updated their R-50/1.5 from 2-cam to 3-cam during its lifetime and likely had it updated to multicoating too but I can't find when. Your summilux thus may have been multicoated. Now in 1979 updated their 50/1.4 from series vii filter-size to 55mm filter-size and replacing the clip-on hood for a built-in hood. Some count his as the second version, others still as version 1 as the optics didn't change. Another nice twist is that the next version, thus either called second or third version but it is the last one, which has a 60mm filter size and also features a ROM-chip, like the 'Planar-killer' Super-Takumar has 8 elements in 7 groups.

Now the last Summilux-R being considerably better accordng to Leica fans may qualify for 'the one best' 50mm but generally this title has always gone to the Summicron 50/2.0.

Forum: Lens Clubs 07-15-2019, 05:57 AM

DA Limited Zoom Club
Posted By KX-Digital

Replies: 1,029
Views: 231,657

pbancr i can fully understand purchase of te 20-40 ans sale of one of the primes but what made you decide the FA35/2.0 in favour of the FA31/1.8 ? The limited is faster (although only maginally) and had a much better build quality.

BTW i just got me the FA35/2.0 as i couldn't justify the high price of the 31.
Choosing in the 90's the A24 and A35-105(over the F35-105) to accompany my Z-1 but now finding the A35-105 heavy, i had been considering both A35/2.8 (very small) or A35/2.0 (as the difference between 2.8 and 3.5 of my smc-Takumar 35/3.5 is very small) but reading the FA had very good manualfocussing and higher sharpness and finding one not much higher priced i chose the FA.

I will not be using the FA35 on my K200 for which am still considering a replacement. The 20-40, 15 and 77 limited are going to be options if it is going to be aps-c but i do want a bigger viewfinder. The K-1 has its price but mostly its size and weight against it.

Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 03-15-2019, 07:14 AM

77m Filters, they ok?
Posted By KX-Digital

Replies: 22
Views: 1,745

The difference between the 49/52 and 77/82 lenses is quite big, but otherwise a good solution to lenses with different filtersizes is a square filter system like that of Kood, Cokin, Formatt Hitech, Lee and Singh-Ray (growing quality and price, not all available brands though). Cokin certainly is not the best in filter quality but their A- and P-system did provide for modular hoods that can be attached to the holder (and that to the lens). This is the best way to use both filter and hood. The Lee system does have a hood but that is in quite a different league size-wise and thus bulky and awkward to use.

There is a new Chinese made filter-system that is cheaper than Singh-Ray but more expensive than Formatt Hitech which also sports some kind of hood. I cannot remember the brandname though.

Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras 03-15-2019, 07:04 AM

PZ-1p Battery Issue?
Posted By KX-Digital

Replies: 5
Views: 819

You may have found the same issue as te Minolta 7000 i was given some time ago. It does work perfectly without film but when film is loaded, after transporting a few frames (between 2 and 4) it blocks. It seems like the motor doesn't have enough power anymore. The cause in my Minolta may very wel be hardend lubrification, dust and sand in the gears or both but i have no idea how to open and clean it and then reassemble it.

Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 03-15-2019, 06:59 AM

Lens roadmap: Tanaka-san spills the beans
Posted By KX-Digital

Replies: 360
Views: 33,409

Glad they continue the SLR K-mount line, and especially going smaller with the KP (still too big compared to a fullframe MX or LX).
Therefore i hope they will bring out a mirrorless too. Preferably fullframe like the Sony A7-line but in design more like the Fuji XT-3. Fullframe because of adapting my lenses with a K-mount LA-EA4 equivalent to the new mirrorless mount but... in the end the size of the sensor is less important than the size of the viewfinder, which is too small on all aps-c d-slr's regardless of brand. Having an LA-AE4 and LA-AE2 equivalents would take away the need to bring out native lenses in short term and actually, because sensors need more telecentric designs, most native lenses would be just like slr-lenses, just with a longer tube.

Mirrorless is better than an slr for adapting lenses (e.g. Canon FD, Minolta MD, Konica AR) but mostly for video purposes. A dedicated EVF viewfinder is essential though which is where the K-01 failed, next to it being too early as technology wasn't really ready for it then. An alternative, as for the video part, would be to adopt the pellicle mirror of the SLT line but then it will still be difficult to reduce the size of the camera and the FFD would remain the same.

Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 02-19-2019, 05:46 AM

FA* 85 vs A* 85
Posted By KX-Digital

Replies: 15
Views: 4,294

That depends entirely on the focusing screen. However adamyau mentions he uses the LX a lot and on that focusing screen, assuming he has the standard SC-21 installed, it makes quite a difference and with an SA-23, SE-60, SG-60 or MX SA-3 even more. If he happens to have an SA-26, SC-26 or SC-69 it will probably not make such a difference but those are not well suitable for a short and fast lens.

Partially you are right though as fact is the focusing screens of all Pentax AF-slr's and D-SLR's* do suck. These screens are have optimised brightness for the small-aperture autofocus lenses Pentax was making at the time and as stated by Pentax then, can not be used to accurately (manual-)focus fast primes. Even the AF-system is not accurate enough to be used with lenses faster than 2.8 although they work fine if closed to 2.8 or smaller so focussing inaccuracy falls inside the depth of field. It is the reason i mounted an MX screen SC-1 and later an LX screen SA-23 in my Z-1 (the SC-21 however doesn't fit), mounted a cut down Canon Ec-L in my K200d and will buy a Canon Ec-A for my next Pentax D-SLR.

The screen of the Minolta 300si is, however bright, very suitable for manual focussing.

*(i have not seen a manualfocus d-slr yet, neither from Pentax or from any other manufacturer). With those it doesn't make a difference because the screen is not brighter and is those screens are specifically said by Pentax to be not suitable for fast

Forum: Pentax Full Frame 02-18-2019, 03:24 AM

Da* 85
Posted By KX-Digital

Replies: 35
Views: 3,535

That would be comparatively cheap. Convert €1500 to dollar and you may have a possible price, then double that and convert to Euro for the price here. It could beasily be $2000 or $2500 though.

Still, i cannot judge the coming DFA* 85 but whatever the DFA* will be, the FA* will still be an amazing lens. It was specifically optimised for portrait though and for general use the A* 85 was even better.

However I fear that if it grows as much as the FA 50/1.4 grew to become the DFA*50/1.4 the DFA* 85 will weigh 3kg. That is too much for me.

Forum: Lens Clubs 11-29-2018, 05:46 AM

Pentax Lenses on FF Club
Posted By KX-Digital

Replies: 1,015
Views: 196,495

He should be arrested and locked up far away from any photographic equipment until that lever and guard grow back on.

I have a Bayonet Takumar 135/2.5 like that as well, the lever is shortened and the lens won't close on my K200d, nor on any other of my Pentaxes and thus i paid too much for a useless lens.
I only noticed after arriving home (bought it on a second-hand trade show) and testing it with several camera's (first thought is was a K200d incompatibility).

Forum: General Photography 10-30-2018, 02:36 AM

E-Bay is weird
Posted By KX-Digital

Replies: 28
Views: 2,868

Maybe i should ask you to bid for me.

When i check on eBay all it offers me is items double those prices. The site filters what yoy get to see. It filters items out that, according to ebay won't ship to me, but also others. I had items in my watch-list that i found on ebay.com (or ebay.de) which won't turn up if search with its name on ebay.nl and vice versa although the seller does have my place in its sending options.

$45 for a Spotmatic, here one has to add a 1 in front of that figure and then those are the cheap ones damaged and with scratches and partially working, the fully working you have to replace the $ by a € (that is add 25%) and the minty ones go higher.

Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II 10-25-2018, 09:24 AM

Replacement focusing screens now available for K-1
Posted By KX-Digital

Replies: 63
Views: 21,369

Then i might need to put a defunct MZ-M on my list, just to get another screen. Unless the screen of the K-1 is seriously better than the other Pentax screens since they adapted autofocus. Otherwise the best bet in a Canon screen.

Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 10-06-2018, 01:04 PM

Aperture ring not working on K3
Posted By KX-Digital

Replies: 5
Views: 1,097

That is what i don't like of Pentax d-slr's. Using the green button for manual is cumbersome. Furthermore despite all my K-mount lenses are A-type (except the Vivitar 400/5.6 that i do not use anymore, the lovely 55/1.8 and a Vivitar 1.5x converter) i still prefer using the aperture ring as i find thumb-controls, especially the thumb-dial awkward.

Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 09-30-2018, 05:28 PM

Issues with my Pentax ME Super
Posted By KX-Digital

Replies: 13
Views: 1,407

As the OP is in Europe forget about the CLA, it is nearly impossible. Nobody does that anymore in Europe, at least not for Pentax (Leica, Rolleiflex yes) Sending it to USA is an option but add $40-45 shipping cost there and the same amount back plus add VAT of 21% on both the value of the camera and the shipping cost. While the UK is still in the EU, sending it there is slightly cheaper (still international mail cost) but the number of repairshops doing Pentax has halved this year. After a hard Brexit (no deal between UK and EU) one might have to add import duties up to 25% (on top of the VAT) and customs processing time of about 1 year.

Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II 09-30-2018, 05:14 PM

Replacement focusing screens now available for K-1
Posted By KX-Digital

Replies: 63
Views: 21,369

I do indeed need to correct my assumption. Although the MX-screen fits perfectly in my Z-1, the SA-21 (for the LX) i recently purchased certainly does not fit the Z-1. The short end is about half a mm wider (i measured them but forgot the actual values) than the SC-1 (for the MX). The standard screen of the LX, the SC-21 is halfway in between and doesn't fit in the Z-1 either. I am now considering purchasing an SA-1 or getting the diagonal split-image screen from a defect ME SE or K1000SE (which unfortunately both were never sold in Europe so postage will cost a lot)

If the screen of the K-1 is indeed larger, then the LX screen may still fit in. It might be that it shifts or doesn't centre exactly but as the frame that should hold it locks it in place it might be fine. 3mm difference in with is a lot though, i doubt the frame is wide enough to compensate that.

As for the other brands you mention, I know the Minolta screen is thicker. The Canon Ee-S might be adapted by sanding off a bit on the edges but then i recommend getting a screen from focusingscreen.com

Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II 09-30-2018, 04:44 PM

K-1 and old manual lenses
Posted By KX-Digital

Replies: 16
Views: 1,820

The only solution to that is inserting a focusing screen that is actually suitable for manual focussing (matt or ground glass with or without microprism's and/or split-image). Currently I have a Canon Ec-L in my K200d but my next d-slr will get an Ec-A. The Ec-B has a normal horizontal split image, the S-type is plain matt. For those who prefer Nikon screens there are the F6-A, F6-J and F6-L which have horizontal split image, microsprisms and diagonal split-image respectively. I got mine from focusingscreen.com but there are other suppliers some of which make their own screens instead of adapting other brands.

If i ever buy another brand d-slr it will most probably be because of the focusing screen. It has always surprised me how bad the screens of my Z-1 and K200d were for manual focussing. I recently was given a Minolta 300si and although it too is an autofocus camera the screen is perfectly usable for manual focussing, contrary to my AF-Pentaxes.

Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II 08-20-2018, 02:16 PM

Replacement focusing screens now available for K-1
Posted By KX-Digital

Replies: 63
Views: 21,369

Well I know my answer here is a bit late. I am a Pentax user since 1993 when I bought a Z-1, that is the non-US version of th PZ-1. Before that I was using a Ricoh KR-10super (since 1987) which having a K-mount is one reason I got the Z-1 in the first place (as I could keep using my lenses which at that time included a Vivitar 400/5.6, a Panagor 24/2.5 and an M42-lens) and the other reasons were that I wanted depth-of-field-preview, AE-lock button, spotmetering (for using with the zone system) shutterspeedpriority-AE, mostly for use with long lenses, and preferably half-stop shutterspeeds all of which the Z-1 offered and the Ricoh didn't. Most of these the Ricoh XR-X offered also but I had heard bad things about it. The Z-1 did have one negative aspect which is the built-in Motortransport (I'd rather have a separate winder/motordrive) and I had no use for the autofocus as building quality of manual-focus lenses was way better (and I had 2 failing on me too, both Sigma brand) and I could perfectly focus with manual-focus camera's I'd used before.

Now where the Z-1 disappointed is that it was impossible to focus manually with the built-in focusing-screen. I did buy the screen with the marking for the spot-metering but as for focussing it was no better. For years I used the focus-indicator-led but that was awkward and slow.

Now about half a year later I got a KX, mostly because it is a mechanical camera and j loved it because it had a proper focusing-screen.

In 2009 I finally made the step to digital with a K200d which did disappoint me for the focussing and when I read about alternative focusing-screens, from eBay, Katz-Eye and Focusingscreens.com I purchased an Ec-L type from the last one which I have been happy about ever since.

Now over time I also got me a worn-out MX and an LX and i read the screens if the MX fit in the LX too. This was officially supported by Pentax but the older MX screens are a bit darker and the newer were available in more and better variants.

Now over time i started to realise i did no longer like the K200d so much, not only because of the unreliable autofocus, but also because I couldn't use my lenses the way I did before and because the aps-c viewfinder is so small.

Last year I was reading here on Pentax forums about people cutting screens from defect ME-super to fit them in their aps-c Pentaxes.

Now last December I realized that what I didn't like about the Z-1 was in the first place the focusing-screen and that I did have a good screen in my defect MX, wondered if it might fit in the Z-1and wouldn't lose even if it didn't.

And to my surprise the MX screen perfectly fits the Z-1. I don't know if the light-meter is affected (the LX is holy in this respect) but that can be compensated for (or one can use another meter) and so far I have not found any noticeable difference in the exposure.

Now all the Pentaxes basically have the same system of replacing the focusing-screen so I wouldn't be surprised if these screens also fit the K-1.

Forum: Pentax Price Watch 04-06-2018, 11:44 PM

PENTAX FA* 85mm f1.4
Posted By KX-Digital

Replies: 17
Views: 2,603

Thanks for the alert.

This lens (or actually the A*) was on my wishlist in the '90s and early '00s. When in 2001, i first went on vacation after getting a job, i doubted on purchasing it to bring along next to 24, 35-105 and 200 for evening shots. Reasoning there might not always be time enough to change from wide-angle to zoom and vise-versa i chose for the Tokina AT-X 2.8 28-80. The lens that i should have bought then was a 35/2.0 but eBay wasn't that common and the 35 was not in the Pentax Catalogus then.

Although the AT-X is in many respects a great lens, in handling it is beaten by the 35-105 due to its weight and size, especially the filter-diameter.

In 2003 i met my wife and priorities changed. Then in 2009 i bought the K200d and went digital. Now for digital the field-of-view is totally different. As a result this focal length doesn't appeal anymore. This might be different for those who have K1 though. For myself, even though i am returning to film (especially slidefilm) i will not likely put it on my wishlist again. The lenses that i value are 24mm, 35mm, a fast 60mm (or 55), a 105 and a 200. Anything with a filter-size of 77 or 72 is out of the question too.

As for those that are interested, i assume they haven been checking eBay themselves.

Forum: Pentax Lens Articles 02-20-2018, 06:11 AM

Sticky: How to use/meter Manual & M42 Lenses on all Pentax DSLRs (K-1, K-3, K-5, K-30, etc)
Posted By KX-Digital

Replies: 358
Views: 416,485

Hi

I have been reading this thread the past days and notices two things
1) it keeps attracting new postst
2) it seems behaviour is different with different models and even firmwares. Especially the K30 and K50 behave weird and unreliable.

My first camera was a then 5 years old Ricoh KR-10 super with Rikenon 50/2.0 and Osawa 70-150mm 3.8 which was soon supplemented with a Sigma 28mm 2.8 and later with a Vivitar 400mm 5.6 later. After breakdown of the 28, selling the 50 for a Sigma 35-70mm 2.8, which also broke down, and replacing that with an pentax-m 50mm 1.7 (which i still have), for a wide-angle i settled for an Aus Jena Flektogon 20mm 2.8 for ƒ250 which was at that time one fifth of the price of a Pentax 20mm. The Flektogon being an M42-lens of course needed an adapter to be used on the Ricoh and the one sold to me was the genuine Pentax version. Later i bought a 24mm K-mount Panagor and some other M-lenses.

Missing AE-lock, depth-of-field-preview, shutter-speed-priority (for use with the 400mm) and having read about the zone sytem (spotmetering) in 1993 i purchased a Z-1 which had all of that and to which i bought the A 35-105mm 3.5 as AF lenses were not build as tough, especially not the FA-types. My need for fast available-light lenses was filled with a Jupiter-8 85mm and a Panagor 35mm both 2.0. I also got me an S1a with a 55mm 1.8.

These lenses I have used on my Z-1 and on my 2008 K200D using the M42-adapter. In fact the first thing i did when purchasing the K200D was to set the custom function 'Allow using aperture ring' and some other custom functions (as i did on the Z-1). I deem myself lucky these lenses work on the K200D as described in Adams opening post. There are however a few details i'd like to mention.

AF-confirmation works on the Z-1 with M-lenses but not with M42-lenses. It does not work with my Vivitar 1.5x TC (anodized mount) but it does work if i use a K-mount extention/macro ring.
AF-confirmation works on the K200d with both M-lenses and M42-lenses.
Having extended experience of manual focusing with both the Z-1 and the K200D i have also come to the conclusion that this is not possible with the standard focusing screens. One really needs the AF-confirmation-led to blink or...
use another focusing screen. For several years i fitted into my K200D an Ec-L screen from focusingscreen.com. Recently i also discovered the screens of the Pentax MX (and LX) also fit in the Z-1 although that might affect light-metering.
I do need to thest the latter. I also discovered manual focusing is perfectly possible with the screen of a Minolta Dynax 300si and i wonder why the screens of Pentax are so much worse.

For me the easiest way to use the adapter is to screw it onto the lens and then mount the lens as if it were a K-mount. When removing the lens the adapter stays in the camera and has to be removed by pushing the spring with a fingernail. This is done easily provided one has long-enough fingernails. I have only one adapter and never dared to drill a hole in the lenses mount for the pin to lock them.

I have found that M42-lenses are generally cheap as long as it concerns third-party-brand lenses. This was already true in the nineties when M42-lenses were costed next to nothing but third-party bayonet-mount lenses were higher priced whether Pentax, Olympus, Minolta, Canon or Nikon mount. Nowadays third-party K-mount lenses are as cheap. Takumar lenses were not cheap then and still are asked more for than for third-party brands and the same goes for M42 lenses by Tomioka or by German manufacturers like Carl Zeiss*, Meyer Görlitz, Alpa, Schneider Kreuznach or the like.
(* with exception of Aus Jena 50mm 2.8 and 3.5, all Jena lenses are generally a bit lower priced than the others though)

Regards

Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II 12-19-2017, 02:52 PM

Any word on how K-1 Silver is selling?
Posted By KX-Digital

Replies: 24
Views: 3,253

I wish i had the money to buy a K1.
My current lenses:
A24/2.8, F50/1.7, M50/1.7, K55/1.8, A35-105/3.5, Tokina AT-X90M 'Bokina' 90/2.5 Macro, ATX100 100-300/4, ATX280 AF 28-80/2.8, Vivitar 400/5.6, Jupiter-9 85/2.0 (M42), Panagor 35/2.0 (M42) Super-Takumar 55/2.0 and 35/3.5
And a lousy DA18-55.

The Full-Frame would certainly fit my lenses better than my K200d even though it is way too big.

Current i am reverting to the LX as i like its size and especially its controls and how it operates, shutter-speed-knob and aperture on the lens.

Oh and i prefer Chrome/silver above black.

Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10-01-2010, 03:31 AM

Pentax 17-70/4 or Tamron 17-50/2.8?
Posted By KX-Digital

Replies: 19
Views: 33,609

As stated before, first descision is whether you want reach, speed (or both).
.
For me speed, although nice is not a big issue, if i want to use a fast lens, I will use a prime which usually beats the fastest zooms easily. At the moment I have smc 55/1.8, smc-f 50/1.7 smc-a 24/2.8 and in screw mount 35/2.0 and 80/2.0 lenses. I'd love to add a faster 24 though.
If you can't take the time to change lenses and cannot carry a second body with the other lens and therefore definately want your zoom-lens to be fast, the descision is clear. For those, I think the Pentax is the better choice, it has a slightly longer range to the wide-angle side (On film I always preferred the angle of view of the 24mm (16mm on APS-C) more pleasant than the more common 28mm (18mm on APS-C, for me a 24mm(16mm) therefore is a must. It also means ith will perform better at 18mm. The Tamron however is also god and much cheaper. For me however the fast zoom which is much larger, brings too much weight and has an immense (Ø77mm) filter-thread, thus raising the price for filters enourmously.
.
Image quality is another factor, the longer the zoom-range is usually the lower sharpness and the more difference between the ends and the optimum focal length (usually in the middle). With the Tamron 17-50, Pentax 16-50 and Pentax 17-70 I expect this not to be a big issue.
As vignetting, sharpness and most other lens faults tend to disappear when closing the aperture and most shot are not made wide open, I tend to give lower weight to these as to distortion. When shooting on film, It is impossible to correct this and although this can be done fairly good with digital processing, that only applies if the distortion is barrel-type or pincushion-type. Many lenses, (especially wide-angle-zooms) tend to have a combination (aka wave-type) which is nearly impossible to remove.
.
I have seen pictures, mostly from tests, where distortion is plain awful and therefore for me it is a break-point. It is however inherent to zoom-lenses, all zoom-lenses have it, either more or less. That is the price to pay for choosing a zoom-lens.
.
For me the zoom range of 17-70 is nearly ideal (starting at 16 would be perfect).
Thus if distortion is not too big, I'd go for the Pentax 17-70 which much better than the (cheaper) Sigma, has a constant aperture and is smaller.
Currently I have no idea whether the distortion of the 17-70 is too large for me or not, I have found few reviews of this lens and can't really compare because I don't have the distortion percentages for my Tokina 28-80/2.8 and smc-A 35-105/3.5 (my favourite zoom for film, digital equal would be 24-70, I use it together with smc-A 24 (hence starting at 16mm would be perfect) to compare with. If distortion is too much, my 1st choice would be the 16-45/4.0

Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras 09-27-2010, 06:21 AM

Pentax KX
Posted By KX-Digital

Replies: 11
Views: 67,595

Pros All mechanical, pleasant matte screen Cons no connection for winder/motordrive (separate version, but rare) no interchangable screens Rating 10 Price (U.S. Dollars) ƒ 250 (dutch guilders) Years Owned since 1994

I can recommend this camera: Yes

Value, Features, Performance & Size
For me the Pentax KX is the best camera I ever had. It is uncomplicated (yet full-featured), easily operated and runs very smooth.
1) Fast SPD (silicon photo diode) light-meter, contrary to the slow CdS meter of most contemprary competitors (including K1000 and KM).
2) Depth-of-field-preview, Mirror-Lock-Up (and Self-timer)
3) great matte focussing-screen and viewfinder with full exposure info (although not as bright as more recent camera's)
4) pleasant shutter-sound, although not as silent as many cloth-curtain-shutters. Just run it at 1/15 and you hear the same sound as that of the legendary Spotmatic-shutter.

Camera Review
For me the Pentax KX is the best camera I ever had. It is uncomplicated (yet full-featured), easily operated and runs very smooth.

This camera gives full controll to the user. I can fully confirm what Stevopedia wrote above here. I prefer it well above the MX and LX just because those miss the smoothness that the KX has. Despite MX has a motor-drive-connection and is more compact, I do not like it as much. The needle is more convenient as the led's and dials on the MX are way too difficult to adjust.

For me the best 35mm SLR's Pentax ever made are:
1) KX (this one from 1975, not the digital version of 2009)
2) LX not as smooth as the KX, but definately second and with so much extra I still regret not buying one in 1993 (instead of Z-1).
3) SV the most Elegant of all Pentaxes

Other competitors in the top 10: Super-A, K2(dmd), Z-1(p), SFXn, MZ-S.

In fact, I like KX and LX more than the Z-1. Nowadays I use a K200d but still like to incidentally use my S1a and would do so with the KX if I hadn't made it's shutter lock. (I would also still use the LX, but the one I bought has a back that opens when a film is inside)

background
I started photographing with my father's Voïgtlander Vitoret D (viewfinder) and Agfa Colorflex (reflex, inherited from my grand-dad) which both had an uncoupled selenium-lightmeter. I preferred the Agfa because I could accurately focus (using split-image) instead of setting the lens to an estimated distance only. For my first camera I settled for a secondhand Ricoh KR-10 super. That is how I entered the K-mount world.

In the following years I had a couple of lenses including a Vivitar 400mm f/5.6 which I used for birding, mostly using a shoulder-mount. As I wear glasses, it is not possible to advance the film with the camera at the eye, e.g. while following a the moving subject. Therefore I purchased a winder for the Ricoh. Despite that I constantly hit the limitations of that camera:
the lack of a depth-of-field preview, lack of AE-lock and high sensitivity to bright skies being the most important. In 1993 I bought a Pentax Z-1 which would addres all these issue's.

The KX seemed to me the perfect addendum to the Z-1 and indeed, since then the Ricoh has hardly been used.

Forum: Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 09-03-2010, 07:18 AM

Focusing manual lens with OEM focusing screen, is a split screen really needed?
Posted By KX-Digital

Replies: 16
Views: 12,642

It never did interfere with the spot-metering inside the Olympus OM4/OM4ti, OM2sp and OM3/OM3ti, nor with the one in Ricoh XR-X to mention just a few. Also for the Minolta 9000 which also had spotmetering Minolta offered a screen with a split-image-field.

Camera's where the ligh metering is not taken from the screen are generally not affected by the type of matte-screen installed (From Pentax this includes the LX). They do often need circular polarization-filers instead of regular ones.

Absolutely true

This is probably the true reason, but many people still prefer to manually focus, especially Pentax and Nikon users which can still use their MF lenses on their AF and digital camera's.

Forum: Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 09-03-2010, 06:50 AM

Split screen focus...
Posted By KX-Digital

Replies: 169
Views: 38,776

True, one can rotate the camera, in most cases. On a tripod however it is pretty awkward and when using a shoulder-grip (e.g. with a 400mm) it will mean you are too late with focussing.

When I started photographing, it was with a (my fathers) Voigtländer Vitoret D and Agfa Colorflex (inherited from my grandfather) and I always preferred the Agfa because I could focus accurately using the split-field. When the subject had only horizontal lines I rotated the camera. Then I bought my own first camera, a Ricoh KR10 super, which had a microprism-ring and a diagonal split-field.

Because diagonal lines in a subject are much more rare than horizontal lines, I almost never had to turn the camera again, I really loved it. Later I also learned the advantages of the micro-prisms around it, as wel as the disadvantages of the KR10 super (no depth-of-field preview, light-meter most sensitive above the centre so, if the frame had only a little bit of blue sky visible, exposures would be underexposed, no AE-Lock, noisy shutter (but very reliable, no shutter-speed-priority) and started looking for one that didn't have these and spotmetering. The first K-mount cameras adressing these wishes where the Ricoh XR-X and the Pentax Z-1.

From 1993 until 2002 (when I bought a Tokina ATX28-80/2.8AFpro) I have used the Z-1 mostly with MF-lenses (I only had a SMC-F 50/1.7 and 1.7×AF converter, all the rest was MF) and even after 2002 I have always preferred the SMC-A 35-105/3.5 above the 28-80.

Between 1993 and 2009 I have also used Pentax KX, MX, and LX bodies which (except for the KX) had horizontal split-field screens, and I have since valued the features and properties of these screens above the Ricoh-screen exept for the split-field being horizontal. The KX (the mechanical version of 1975) doesn't have a split-field or microprisms but despise that I really do love it's screen for it's accuracy and ease of use. For me the 1975 KX is the best Pentax ever made (hence my nick, registered before the Pentax announced the digital KM) even though the MX and especially LX have more features. The LX is my second favourite (very close) but I do not really like the MX.

I am currently reviewing options for an alternative screen for my K200d (and Z-1 for which Katz-Eye never came with one) to be able to focus my manual lenses (especially Tokina AT-X 100-300/4.0, SMC-A 24/2.8, Super-Takumar 55/1.8, Jupiter-9 80/2.0, Panagor 35/2.0, SMC-Takumar 35/3.5, Vivitar 400/5.6KM) more accurate. Katz-Eye screens are expensive, especially because one needs to add 6,7% import duties, and 19.5% VAT and they only offer horizontal split+microprism-ring with optional brackets/gridlines/cropguides.

Focusingscreen.com offers two kinds (FSB and FSL can't figure out the difference, FSB is much cheaper) and one with micro-prism and 45° split in their own Tradition Matte version and also offers kinds with only horizontal split or only micro-prism from Nikon (New Hexagon Matte) and Canon (Precision Matte), only 45° split (Nikon, New Hexagon Matte), Cross Split-image (Canon Precision Matte), plain matte (Canon Super precision matte) alongside the K-3 type screen though not all for Pentax. Still one has the option for only split, only micro-prism or cross-split at much lower prices, less than 40% of what Katz-Eye asks.

Katz-Eye is said to be better or (optibright) much better but I have no idea of the differences in quality and in how far it is worth it. Price of a screen with optibright-treatment (especial is also brackets/gridlines/cropguides are added) is way out of balance with the price of a new KX, KM/K2000, K200d, K100d (super).

Considering cutting to size a screen from a defect MF-slr*, either original Pentax or a Minolta Accute Matte screen (Minolta, e.g. X700, also used in Hasselblad) therefore is also an appealing option provided one can wait until such a camera is offered on a flea-market. (* I hate to see a good, working camera destroyed for it's parts even though it isnt used anymore as the post-capture processing is much more convenient. Nothing can match the feel of a purely mechanical camera like the KX, K1000, Spotmatic, S1a etc (LX comes close although it isn't purely mechanical, as an exception the MX is not my cup of tea. Further only the Super-A comes close.)

Search took 0.01 seconds | Showing results 1 to 25 of 26

Page 1 of 2

⟶

Forum Jump