|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
02-27-2023, 06:43 AM
|
| |
While most of the MZ/ZX line of cameras have been plagued by reliability issues around the mirror motor gear, the MZ-S seems to have fared better. But there's still a lot of speculation around exactly which parts of the MZ-S benefited from better build quality. I've repaired several lower model MZ cameras (MZ-X's from here on out) and I'm just diving into my first MZ-S repair. This MZ-S is an earlier model with a serial number 4621021 and Japan listed as the country of manufacture. So I come bearing some answers...but also a few questions.
Structural Components
It's pretty clear from just holding the camera that the body panels are more robust. On MZ-X's all of the body panels are plastic. Glass filled polycarbonate. On the MZ-S the top, bottom and front panel (around the lens mount) are magnesium, but the film door and front side panels are plastic. Additionally, the inner chassis is plastic on all these cameras.
Shutter
All MZ-X cameras use the same shutter. I've taken one apart and it's pretty cheap. All of the frames and armatures that move the blades are plastic. The MZ-S has a different shutter. I haven't dissected one but, from the outside, it's clearly on another level. Nearly all of the moving components appear to be metal. Probably necessary to get the slightly higher sync speed as well as increase reliability and longevity.
Core mechanicals
This is the most interesting bit for me. Here is where we find the infamous mirror motor. It drives the gear set on the right side of these images, which in turn powers several core functions of the camera. We have a lever that controls the aperture (red), a lever that cocks the shutter (green), and a lever that moves the mirror (blue). Let's start at the motor and move down the line.
These pics show motors taken from each type of camera. The motors with brass gears are both from MZ-X cameras (those are replacement gears not factory parts). The motor with the flat sides is from an MZ-S and is slightly larger, probably due to the higher frame rate (2.5 fps vs 2 fps). The gear in this MZ-S was plastic but it's not the same gear as the one found in MZ-X's. It appears to be made of a different type of plastic and it also has a more robust collar around the top. The gear was functioning before I started the repair, but on close inspection it's still cracked. However, it's entirely possible that this gear is less prone to failure than the MZ-X gear. The other important note is that this is an 11 tooth gear (mod 0.3) rather than a 13 tooth gear (mod 0.25) found in MZ-X's. I'm guessing the different motor and frame rate speeds required different gearing. So if you have spare gears laying around for your MZ-3 they won't work in an MZ-S.
The next difference is the shutter charging lever. This is plastic on MZ-X's but I've never seen one broken. I'm guessing the MZ-S shutter has more tension in the curtains and takes more force to charge, so they thought an upgrade to a metal part was prudent.
Lastly, and most concerning, is the mirror drive lever, which is plastic on both the MZ-S and MZ-X's. I frequently see MZ's with broken mirror drive levers. Maybe 30-40% of mirror lock-ups I've repaired have been caused by broken mirror levers. And it was also broken on this MZ-S. So this is the big question...When Pentax started putting brass motor gears in MZ-S's did they also start upgrading other parts. I can see arguments in both directions. If all of the MZ-S's in the world had plastic mirror drive levers, I would expect a lot more of them to be be broken. On the other hand, maybe fixing the motor gear removed the primary failure mode and was enough to keep the MZ-S off the radar of internet forum readers. Guess the only way to find out will be to eventually open up a later model MZ-S.
Pic of a broken mirror drive lever beside the replacement part I use.
|
|
Forum: Pentax KP
09-30-2023, 08:03 AM
|
| |
Pentax did a mistake by not making a KP II. I’m afraid they won’t ever release a body like it again, so my suggestion is buy while it’s available.
|
|
Forum: Product Suggestions and Feedback
07-23-2021, 06:35 AM
|
| |
For the majority of my shooting I'm with you all the way!
Being able to change all the relevant settings with either my right thumb or forefinger, with the camera to my eye and my left hand supporting and zooming my long lens, is a habit I'd struggle to break ;)
|
|
Forum: Product Suggestions and Feedback
07-15-2021, 08:58 AM
|
| |
I think it could be really cool, however I'd want it to be FF. Shooting everything with a 1.5x crop gets annoying, especially if you wanted to use vintage glass along with the vintage stylings of the camera.
|
|
Forum: Product Suggestions and Feedback
07-14-2021, 10:21 AM
|
| |
I would. In the meantime my silver KP is retro enough, and has better photo specs than the Zfc
|
|
Forum: Product Suggestions and Feedback
07-14-2021, 07:28 AM
|
| |
I still find, after a couple of decades shooting with the melted blob style of DSLR, that the controls are a bit opaque. I like the Fuji implementation, with an aperture ring on the lens and shutter speed dial on the body. TAv mode in a retro control style body could be implemented by putting an auto function on the ISO dial.
|
|
Forum: Product Suggestions and Feedback
07-13-2021, 04:14 PM
|
| |
With the likes of Fujifilm, Leica, Olympus, and now even Nikon, all doing fairly well with their releases of retro cameras, who else would love to see a retro looking Pentax DSLR ?
Perhaps in the realm of the price of the kp or k-70
Regards,
Michael
|
|
Forum: Product Suggestions and Feedback
08-25-2023, 03:38 PM
|
| |
There is certainly a big gap in the primes between 21 and 31mm, and a lens somewhere between those two focal lengths would certainly have appeal; maybe a couple of lenses. All sorts of ways to do it, but a couple of full frame 24mm lenses, one large but fast (say f/1.8) one inexpensive and compact but slower (say f/2.8) is one way. Another way would be to make the cheaper lens a pancake, a 27mm f/2.8. It would be the equivalent of the old 40mm M series lens, but for APS-C. Canon has already produced something similar at a good price, and it worked well.
|
|
Forum: Product Suggestions and Feedback
08-26-2023, 12:54 AM
|
| |
100mm? I'd much prefer a modern Pentax 135mm F2 lens.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-01
12-16-2019, 04:31 PM
|
| |
From an irrational standpoint, the unconventional design on the K-01 suffered a LOT of criticism. I always thought it was rather
smartly designed, but then again, there are folk who think Canon DSLRs are handsome cameras. Go figure.
From a practical standpoint, it lacks an EVF. >That<, IMO, is the K-01's principal fault.
The presence of a K-mount, with its long focal flange distance, is a contentious issue. Some applaud it, others do not. One way or
another, Pentax will have difficulty with most any mirrorless body because the K-mount will leave them damned if they do, damned
if they don't.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-01
12-16-2019, 04:10 PM
|
| |
Most replies have covered the main points. At launch time, the most controversial issues that were commented negatively on were the high price and the appearance. The lack of an EVF was possibly less controversial at that time, as the majority of contemporary mirrorless bodies also lacked them, but that changed fairly soon thereafter.
The owner of Pentax at the time (Hoya) also seemed to believe that a toy-like appearance (they would probably describe it as “fun”) would attract sales success, in the absence of any more serious technical advances, and they were probably correct, but mainly for the Japanese market, and more so in the many-coloured DSLR and Q bodies than elsewhere in the market. The Marc Newson design of the K-01 (which was also in keeping with his general industrial design hallmark) fitted that, but didn’t achieve wide popular acclaim in Western markets.
I’m one of those who believe that a less brick-like appearance and a good EVF (along with the fruits of technological progress since the K-01) could still contribute to a successful K-mount MILC, but I’m not holding my breath.
|
|
Forum: Product Suggestions and Feedback
08-24-2023, 10:55 AM
|
| |
filmamigo: What are you suggesting then, they recycle the optics from the A-series 24mm f2.8 and similar era 100mm f2.8? I haven't used either so I can't comment but I don't know if "today's customer" shooting digital is going to want to spend much for those lenses. I also don't think the Macro aspect is really the issue as you stated your Sigma 105 AF doesn't have nearly the challenge in locking in on the subject on your camera bodies vs. the Pentax 100mm Macro that you're using. I don't need actual Macro functionality all of the time, I just like having that close-focus option on command for focal lengths around 100mm.
I had to chuckle at the suggestion that the APS-C lens lineup at Pentax was put together while drunk. I get it. I feel like it wouldn't be so bad if there was still a company like Sigma or Tamron supporting the mount with new autofocusing lenses.
|
|
Forum: Product Suggestions and Feedback
08-24-2023, 10:30 AM
|
| |
Would love to see an array of modern Pentax lenses at a reasonable price point, some that did not cost the same amount as the camera body to buy new. In the meanwhile, I am comfortable using the lenses from many years of shooting with Pentax gear. For portraits and weddings I still use the SMC 135 F2.5 short telephoto, for car shows, static displays at air shows and many other things the SMC A 50mm (1.4, 1.7, or 2.0) or a Vivitar 24mm f2.8. They are all manual focus, but produce terrific images with all three bodies I use, and I am accustomed to the use so the lack of auto focus is seldom an issue. I have had several experiences with the auto focus locking on something waving in the foreground (weeds!) and refusing to "see" the actual subject.
I congratulate you on your patience with squirmy children, would likely drive me nuts!
|
|
Forum: Product Suggestions and Feedback
08-24-2023, 10:03 AM
|
| |
take a look at the DA 20-40 Limited and you never will miss a 24 or 35
|
|
Forum: Product Suggestions and Feedback
08-24-2023, 09:56 AM
|
| |
A DFA135 1.8 would be nice. I love the rendering on the FA135 2.8, but more current optics, faster focus motor and a wider aperture would all be welcome improvements.
A fast 135 with smooth OOF is an under-appreciated focal length for full-frame portraits.
|
|
Forum: Product Suggestions and Feedback
08-24-2023, 09:30 AM
|
| |
I would so much rather have a, say, 26mm f2 than get the D-FA 21 f2.4 Ltd for my APS-C kit. I think people who suggest the 21 options for APS-C when this comes up simply not interested in a normal-for-crop lens and are instead wanting to emulate a 35mm lens.
We've got a 15-30 f2.8, I don't see interest in a 20-35 f2.8; I'd rather see a 17-35 f4 for full-frame, myself. Smaller, cover a bit more on the wide end.
|
|
Forum: Product Suggestions and Feedback
08-24-2023, 08:42 AM
|
| |
I agree with your suggestions. I would add a 20-35 zoom that accepts filters to your list. They had one years ago. Modernize it and make it an f2.8 and we are in business!!
Since we are at it, what happened to 300mm+ lenses?!
|
|
Forum: Product Suggestions and Feedback
08-24-2023, 07:01 AM
|
| |
24 mm on APS-C provides the same filed of view as 35 mm on full frame. And 35 mm on full frame always considered as must to have. Obviously there is 21mm limited lens but it is not exactly the same.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
08-12-2023, 08:08 AM
|
| |
I’m using the Samyang 16mm f/2 on APS-C which is an extremely fine astro lens. Wider would be better but I only have the 15mm Limited and it is no competition for the Samyang in this specific use case. You have to understand that longer exposures won’t help with meteors because their movement is the limiting factor. So you need wide f-stops and high ISO values, both of which negatively impact on image quality – you have to find the compromise that works best with your gear.
Most of the time I just set the camera on the tripod and let it take frame after frame as long as I will stay out, or, if possible, until the battery is empty. Easiest way is to lock a remote release and set the camera to continuous shooting. With the 16mm I find that with more than 10 seconds exposure star movement is beginning to appear; and, as mentioned, longer times will not help with the meteors. They will with the background, but this can be circumvented by stacking several frames. If you stack them in maximum mode (lighten layer mode in PS) you will get less noise but still the full brightness of individual meteors. This image was made with such an approach in 2015 with the K-5 II and the Samyang lens at f/2.4:
1508140537-76 Milky way and Perseids, 2015 by Wolfgang Kraus, on Flickr
|
|
Forum: General Photography
08-11-2023, 04:00 PM
|
| |
DA 21mm Limited, stopped down a bit will give the brighter stars and lights excellent starbursts, of course you'll need a higher ISO or longer exposure
|
|
Forum: General Photography
08-11-2023, 03:57 PM
|
| |
I agree you want the widest lens that gives sharp stars. That gives you more chance of catching a meteor no matter where it is in the sky. For me it’s the Samyang 14/2.8.
I shoot at f2.8 or 3.5 to get lots of light for the stars and meteors. Unlike the stars, the meteors are only in the sky for a few seconds, so you need to use a high ISO. I use 1600.
You will want to manually focus at infinity, on a bright star, or a distant light, then don’t touch the focus again. But occasionally zoom in on one of you pictures to make sure it is still in focus.
I like to use Astrotracer because I can get a 3-minute exposure, and often get multiple meteors in the same shot. I just start my 3-min exposure and cross my fingers!
|
|
Forum: General Photography
08-11-2023, 11:20 AM
|
| |
And figure out how to focus in the dark!!! Just running the focus ring to the infinity setting may not work.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
08-11-2023, 10:41 AM
|
| |
For me, I just want to get as many meteors in the frame as possible, I'll likely just open the shutter for 30 seconds or more and hope for the best.
Assuming the skies are clear, I'll be using my Takumar 17mm f4 Fisheye on a K-1.
On APS-C I would my 8mm Rokinon FE.
Otherwise, I'd use a wide non-FE prime so I could invert an graduated ND filter to cut out light pollution from the ground.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
08-11-2023, 07:42 AM
|
| |
Wide is generally better for seeing more meteors. Bigger apertures are certainly better for catching fainter meteors which means seeing more meteors. But the most important issue is corner-to-corner lens sharpness.
You might want to invest a little time tonight taking some nighttime test shots with each of your lenses just to see how they render the stars.
Have fun!
|
|
Forum: General Photography
08-11-2023, 07:31 AM
|
| |
| |
