Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
08-28-2021, 01:20 AM
|
|
If you really want to use a lens without aperture ring, only some film bodies will offer manual or aperture-priority operation. Essentially the Z/PZ series, the *ist, and the ZX/MZ series with the exception of the MZ-S, -3, -5, -5n, or -M. Any body A-series or newer that that supports shutter-priority operation should work OK in that mode. So that adds all the MZ/ZX bodies, the Super Program/Program A, and the SF series on top of those which offer body manual aperture control.
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
04-06-2019, 11:05 AM
|
|
This is EXACTLY what I was going to ask.
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
02-17-2019, 11:31 AM
|
|
I know this, am confused as to what OP is actually trying to do.
MZ-6/ZX-L has same modes & buttons, but MZ-30 can’t use the aperture ring, must use in-body aperture control, meaning lens must be left on ‘A’ for all modes. Both aperture and shutter are controlled by the exposure lever near the shutter button.
When shooting shutter or aperture priority the button on the side of the lens mount (usually left thumb while shooting) changes the exposure lever to exposure compensation. When shooting manual, it switches between aperture and shutter speed.
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
02-17-2019, 09:40 AM
|
|
What lens do you have now?
When you say ‘couldn’t get a shutter speed to register at all’ I’m wondering what is amiss.
I have a MZ-6 with similar controls.
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
02-17-2019, 09:05 AM
|
|
For what it’s worth, the ‘A’ on an aperture ring means auto-aperture, otherwise known as shutter-priority.
I think you’ve already touched on the main, somewhat unusual compatibility issue with some of the budget MZ/ZX models, they actually require the lenses capable of auto-aperture.
Looking for prime or zoom? Autofocus or manual?
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
04-19-2018, 01:13 PM
|
|
For wider angle, soft out-of-focus areas are typically hard to come by without relatively close focus distance and/or good distance separation to the background. The difference between f2.8 and f/4 is not that huge in this regard. There are a few outliers like Sigma 24/1.4 but I think DA 21/3.2 Limited is hard to beat if you like the useful mild-wide angle of view that mobile phone cameras usually provide. What is out of focus with this lens is pleasant enough.
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
01-31-2018, 07:28 AM
|
|
If you’re trying film-era Pentax zooms on APS-C, I always liked the FA 24-90 3.5-4.5. At 70mm it was noticeably sharper than F35-70, smc F28-80, FA28-70/4, and FA28-105/3.2-4.5. I think I found it also slightly sharper than DA17-70/4 at 70mm. It did not match DA70/2.4 limited, but was the best of the numerous zooms I tried at this length.
I did not test other lengths as rigorously, it was an experiment because I had so many 70mm-capable lenses on hand.
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
11-02-2017, 02:36 PM
|
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
10-27-2017, 06:08 PM
|
|
I think others are trying to describe similar approaches but I'll try to spell out what I'm thinking:
Use shoulder strap such as blackrapid or similar. These normally attach with an quick-release to a d-ring that screws into to a tripod socket.
You can attach one d-ring to the camera body and another second d-ring to your lens-mounted-foot's socket.
When a light lens is attached, fix the strap to the body's d-ring. When the heavy lens is attached, move the strap to the lens foot d-ring.
Perhaps forgo the traditional body neck-strap, or switch to one with quick-release fittings.
|
Forum: Pentax Q
04-04-2017, 09:17 AM
|
|
The 02 seems to have the nicest build, as the 08 and 06 both seem a little more plastic-y -- in particular, the zoom rings. I think Pentax had a little more 'premium' quality in the initial release (which included the 01 and 02) with the also-nicest-built original Q, but were stressing cost control with later body and lens releases.
My biggest issue with Q lenses is actually the flare on the 01. I may be mis-labeling it as 'flare' -- what I think it is are internal reflections, possibly off the sensor. It has a real tendency to produce big, usually unattractive pink artifacts if there's much of a light source in the frame, and a hood doesn't help with this. I don't think the zooms suffer this nearly as often or badly.
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
03-28-2017, 09:23 AM
|
|
This agrees with another common-sense observation -- at minimum focus, this is approximately where the zoom ring starts to have an effect with the DA*60-250. I have seen people say 125 or 135mm but it appears to me that the angle-of-view approximately agrees with the markings for 150mm.
I'm not sure just how much to trust calculations based on quoted specifications because I don't completely trust that manufacturers are consistent with how they quote these specs.
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
03-27-2017, 08:33 AM
|
|
If you have a preference for the longer 120, you're in luck because it's also quite a bit cheaper, especially if you go for the manual focus version.
One other possibility in this range is adapting a Pentax 67 105/2.4 (maybe the fastest Pentax medium format lens?), though this isn't a macro lens but I imagine could be combined with your tubes. That would of course require finding the 645 => 67 adapter.
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
03-22-2017, 06:23 PM
|
|
I think it's almost a no-brainer to try any of the Pentax 55-300 variants as an upgrade to a 50-200. I own both the original DA55-300 and DA*60-250 plus the 1.4x TC. The size and weight is significant where I would only bring the 60-250 on outings where I anticipate using it a bunch. The 55-300 is compact and light enough that it will likely come on more casual outings where I'm less certain I'll want to use telephoto much. Note that it's still f4-4.5 all the way out to 190mm.
A used 55-300 is not that expensive and you ought to be able to resell it without too much loss after trying it out for a while.
The 60-250 -- while superior in several respects -- is quite expensive, even more so if you get the TC as well.
I think you might want to give the cheaper and lighter lens a try. It's definitely a worthwhile upgrade over the 50-200 and better at the long end (where it counts) than any of the less expensive alternatives (Sigma, Tamron, or older Pentax FA telezooms reaching -3#0mm.)
|
Forum: Flashes, Lighting, and Studio
03-21-2017, 09:21 PM
|
|
There is also Metz 24 AF-1, less expensive. I think one of these uses 2xAA and the other 2xAAA? I don't think either Metz unit offers the manual 1/1 or 1/4 mode that the AF201FG does.
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
03-16-2017, 11:07 AM
|
|
It looks like the PZ 28-105 is the lens pictured in the PZ-1p's manual. It is on the heavy side but I don't think that's due only to the PZ feature -- it also long enjoyed a reputation as being Pentax's best 28-105 optically (though I imagine the new D-FA 28-105/3.5-5.6 is probably better). There was also a (IMO inferior) Tamron rebadge non-PZ FA 28-105/4-5.6 IF that was sold for a while in between these two models.
The very light and compact FA 28-105/3.2-4.5 was a pretty late pre-film release, maybe shortly after the pretty-good FA 24-90/3.5-4.5 announced with the MZ-S?
There was also a similarly-styled FA 28-80/3.5-5.6 that I believe was also sold in MZ/ZX-series kits (including MZ-6/ZX-L) before the newer FA 28-90 mentioned above.
I think the FA-J 28-80/3.5-5.6 was probably the kit lens with the *ist film camera?
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
03-16-2017, 10:23 AM
|
|
You might be right and it *might* be OK and do what you think it will. You can also often center the LED "needle" by changing the aperture 1/2 stop, though the availability of a 1/2 EV click-stop for that particular aperture setting would depend on the specific aperture and lens.
On the other hand, that fraction of a stop shouldn't be all that significant with negative film. If you're shooting slide film and you truly want more precision, possibly the MX isn't the very best choice.
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
11-16-2016, 10:48 AM
|
|
I don't think it's been roadmapped but I can imagine something like a 24-105 or 24-120 a somewhat likely release at some point. It would be anyone's guess whether Pentax would give either a star '*' moniker. If they have constant f/4 it would seem a little more likely, if they did variable aperture 24-120/3.5-5.6 instead, that would probably not get the star.
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
10-15-2016, 05:37 PM
|
|
Agree with this -- I think it's in a sweet area, a little wider than a 35-equivalent but with a perspective not quite as distorted as a 28-equiv would be.
The longer limited primes generally offer speed & bokeh that is noticeably improved from a zoom, but this is difficult to achieve in a wide angle. The qualities of the DA21 and DA15 are more subtle when compared to wide angle zooms. They're not generally faster, and combining this fact with the wider angle-of-view 'wow' bokeh becomes harder to come by, but they are compact, distort less, offer better flare & c/a performance.
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
10-15-2016, 10:15 AM
|
|
I know this is an old thread, but i like the idea.
This might be a good use of the left-side Raw-Fx button --
1. either must hold pressed to unlock while using other controls
2. or hold for 1sec to toggle lock/unlock
I guess an info screen lock toggle would be fine too.
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
10-13-2016, 08:30 PM
|
|
You might try shooting a little electronics cleaner into the e-dial and working it a bit. I offer no guarantees but this helped my balky *ist DS2 e-dial. I suspect there may be a little bit of crud in there.
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
09-24-2016, 03:51 PM
|
|
The designs can be a bit different.
Getting a short end of 50-60mm (as opposed to 70-100mm for a FF design) usually sacrifices FF compatibility.
Similarly, at the long end sometimes they can sometimes go with a slightly smaller front element for a given max aperture (though I think instead they've been preferring not to do this in favor of IQ, less vignetting, etc.)
It is disappointing that the DA* 60-250/4 and perhaps DA70/2.4 were just ever so slightly underdesigned for FF since they are oh-so-close to being legit D-FA (I know both are serviceable but it seems like it was short-sighted).
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
09-20-2016, 10:55 PM
|
|
I hope this is not the case. They've had a roadmapped tele/macro for a while, and I really wish in addition they'd also do a AF tele long zoom, like maybe a 28-105. The optical spec on their last FA 3.2-4.5 would be acceptable (obviously even faster even better) but AF/in-lens shutter & ND filter) and sized down (collapsible?) for Q-mount. A 28-105 would be something like 130-500, this would seem a handy addition to the Q continuum.
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
06-10-2016, 06:50 AM
|
|
Or if you go the Sony translucent fixed mirror approach.
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
06-09-2016, 10:54 PM
|
|
It's my understanding that many cameras use both -- features like face detection require CDAF, but use PDAF for speed, particular for continuous AF. Perhaps the hybrid approach you're thinking of is PDAF for the initial large adjustment followed by PDAF for final micro-adjust of focus.
|
Forum: Pentax Q
12-11-2015, 12:00 AM
|
|
Would you (or anyone else with an AF201FG and any Q body) mind uploading a picture of this flash mounted on a Q body?
|