Old Nikon vs Old Pentax
MJS
appears emaculate and comes with a one year warranty from one of the local
repair shops.......it has recently had a cla....
I have been using Pentax older models ie Spotmatic with a 50 1.4 - 300
f4....135 etc......
Would i be moving up by buying the Nikormat....
Lens's for the Nikormat seem to be readily available though a little more
expensive than the Pentax equipment i have gathered over the years.....
I enjoy using the older equipment and have no desire to use the later
plastic...auto everything photo stuff out there now.....
Any input would be appreciated......
Merv
Martin Francis
Buy a crummy old ME, or a nice new MZ-S (sorry, ROW designation) or anything
in between and use some classy ol' glass on 'em.
If I were buying Pentax now, i'd go for... er, well, i'd do some research
and find a decent body for not much money; i'd rush back to the store I work
at and buy the 50/1.7 SMC-A we have for £19 (minus staff discount :-) ), and
find a 28/2.8 and then do some saving, before getting a 67-mount 105/2.4 and
adapter, as it's a truly great lens IMO.
--
Martin
http://www.btinternet.com/~mcsalty
Bhup
F + nikkor 50mm F1.4 v Spotmatic 11+SMC 50mm F1.4 and the pentax was the
clear winner . That test was conducted in 1975
B
"MJS" <for...@mts.net> wrote in message
news:iwpLa.19051$I7.2...@news1.mts.net...
Grant Dixon
Way back when, I did lots of freelance and my workhorse was a Spotmatic with
SMC-Takumar lenses of 35 mm f/2, 55 mm f/1/4, and an 85 mm f/2. At the
same time I was also working for a studio and used Nikon with there version
the same lenses. While the Nikon were a lot easier to change they were no
better as far as results. In fact test of the day gave the nod to the 85 mm
Takumar and even on all the other two lenses, although in real working
conditions I found no difference. To lesser degrees I also used and owned
SMC-Takumar 24 mm f/3.5, 135 mm f/2.5, 200 mm f/4 and a 100 mm f/4
Bellows-Takumar and can vouch for them all as fine pieces of glass.
The only reason to trade is if you want the ability to change lenses
slightly faster of course you could stick with Pentex and with the savings
put it toward buying extra bodies. I always used at least two.
In any event you will be happy with either system.
Grant
Bandicoot
I once had a chance to make exactly this comparison: I was using Spotmatics
and the people I was working for had me using a couple of Nikkormats. I
preferred the Pentax lenses.
The Nikkormats were quite nice bodies, and seemed more 'sophisticated' than
the Spotmatics, but not really any better. Build is similar - Nikon feels
more like heavy engineering, and Pentax more like watchmaking, but the
quality is much the same.
The Nikkormat does have a reputation now for a part - I forget which one -
that is no longer obtainable (other than from a donor body) when it wears
out. I'm sure you could find out all about this on the Nikon list.
Peter
Tony Spadaro
Nikkormat. You are simply buying trouble. I know of at least two sitting on
shelves for several years now bacause the owners were told that the parts
needed simply don't exist except on old Nikkormats, most of which have the
same problems.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
New email - Contact on the Menyou page.
"MJS" <for...@mts.net> wrote in message
news:iwpLa.19051$I7.2...@news1.mts.net...
Pierre L
recently. In terms of late 1960's to mid 1970's SLRs, a Nikkormat is not
better than a Pentax. Pentax was easier to use, for one thing. If you want
to buy a used Pentax that is better than just a Spotmatic, look for an MX.
Pierre
"MJS" <for...@mts.net> wrote in message
news:iwpLa.19051$I7.2...@news1.mts.net...
Ken Rosenbaum
"Pierre L" <pier...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nBsLa.7560$Fe3.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> I own Nikon now, but I was a Pentax user, various models, from the 1970's
to
> recently. In terms of late 1960's to mid 1970's SLRs, a Nikkormat is not
> better than a Pentax. Pentax was easier to use, for one thing. If you want
> to buy a used Pentax that is better than just a Spotmatic, look for an MX.
> Pierre
>
with some Pentax-M lenses. The camera handles absolutely beautifully. With a
40mm pancake 2.8 lens, it's almost pocketable. I just picked up my third MX
body, which I need like a hole in the head, but old MX bodies in truly fine
shape don't become available every day. And I can even use all my old
screw-mount Takumars with an adapter.
Ken
MJS
the possibility of going MX bodies....i like the idea of being able to adapt
my lens's to the newer body......
Sometimes i get that urge and a i am sure a lot of us do sometimes....where
you see a camera and say ...i got to have that.....and need it......the old
stuff in good shape looks so nice to me.....I am sure the same is true for a
lot on new equipment too.....
Anyway thanks again.....
Merv
"Ken Rosenbaum" <kenros...@accessNOSPAMtoledo.com> wrote in message
news:vfsn3jd...@corp.supernews.com...
Chris Quayle
There wasn't a Nikkormat Ftb, though IIRC, there was a Canon of that
name. Sounds like an FTN to me, which was one of the earlier Nikkormats.
In total, there were 4 all manual Nikkormat models + some aperture
priority autoexpeosure models. The manual only models were:
FT: Non ai lenses, whole scene average metering, mercury cell power
FTN: Non ai lenses, centre weighted metering, mercury cell power
FT2: Non ai lenses, ditto, 'F2' cosmetics, silver (SR44) cell power
FT3: Ai lenses, ditto, ditto, ditto
You can identify an FTN by the upper case N above the meter window on
the rewind side. If this is missing and there is no FT2 or FT3 ident on
the camera, then it's an FT, which is not the most desirable in terms of
metering.
Have rebuilt many Nikkormats and a few Spotmatics and while both are
good and have good lenses, the Nikkormat is better engineering
internally. Stuff like solid brass machined rack in the shutter advance
mechanism vs pressings in the Pentax, for example and much more besides.
They don't wear out, just need a cla and foam replacement every few
years. Contrary to myth, the metering ring doesn't wear out either, but
the track can get get dirty over the years to the point that you get
poor contact. A clean usually fixes this. They are quite a joy to work
on and you can get the mirror box assy out to reveal the internals in
about 15-20 minutes with practice. The shutter assy comes out as a
complete subassembly for cleaning. All stuff that keeps the cost of
maintenance down. There are also plenty of used / fixer examples cheap
on Ebay if you need spares. The best of bunch is the FT3, which takes ai
lenses and thus will work with all lenses which have the ai tab on the
aperture ring. That means everything right up to the present, except for
G series.
In comparison with the Spotmatic, (Have examples of both) the Nikkormat
is, IMO, a better handling camera overall. Simple stuff like meter
switch on the advance lever rather than the fiddly Spotmatic meter
switch that I always forget to turn off, convenient mirror lock up and
self timer, lens stop down button on the top deck all contribute to ease
of handling.
If the price seems right, go for it. I doubt you will be disappointed. I
have the FT2 that I bought new in 1975 and it's still faultless in
use...
Chris
T P
This could be a recipe for a flame war along the lines of 1990s/200s
Nikon versus Canon. However ...
The Nikkormat and the Spotmatic are both competent camera bodies. If
you are going to choose between the brands it should really be on the
basis of the lenses, where the differences are significant.
Generally, from the outset, F Nikkors have been optimised for
sharpness and low rectilinear distortion at the expense of other
desirable qualities such as the smooth rendition of out of focus parts
of the shot (sometimes called smooth "bokeh"), especially highlights.
Screw mount Takumars were a more rounded design, where sharpness was
not pursued to the exclusion of good bokeh.
Unfortunately, the screw mount Pentax designs do tend to suffer from
significantly higher rectilinear distortion than would normally be
acceptable from Nikkors. This was partly corrected in later Pentax
bayonet mount fixed focal length designs, but taken as a whole, the
Pentax zooms have never been low on rectilinear distortion.
It is still true to say that later Pentax lenses do tend to distort
more than contemporary Nikkors, although many still retain the smooth
bokeh more often associated with Zeiss and Leica glass. All depends
on what you want out of your lenses, and their purpose.
It is possible to own a Nikon outfit with lenses that have good or
even outstanding bokeh, but you have to be *very* selective about
which Nikkors you buy. It is possible to buy a much wider range of
Pentax lenses with good or even outstanding bokeh, but these do tend
to suffer from levels of rectilinear distortion that many Nikon users
would find totally unacceptable.
You must choose which lens range best suits *you*.
Bill Martin
used market.
Ken Rosenbaum
"Bill Martin" <wcma...@vnet.net> wrote in message
news:3EFEDD61...@vnet.net...
> Or an old Pentax Super Program! One of the ost uder-rated cameras on the
> used market.
>
You ar sooooo right about this fine camera. An easy-to-use full manual mode,
plus the addition of program or aperture-priority for grab shots. Also, it
has TTL flash metering. Not much different in size than the MX I enjoy, but
there are occasions when this is the one I grab. Uses 'A' not 'M' lenses for
full program or shutter priority, but can also use all the 'M' lenses.
Screwthread lenses need an adapter. I find the Super Program and MX a dandy
combo.
Ken
Bill Martin
camera, but the Super Programs are the ones I almost always use. Can't
think of anything else I'd want on them except maybe for spot metering.
I'm fond of my K2 and KX also, but the Super P's are better cameras, in
my opinion.
T P
>I find the Super Program and MX a dandy
>combo.
Same here, except my 'Super Programs' are called Super A.
LEDMRVM
>camera, but the Super Programs are the ones I almost always use. Can't
>think of anything else I'd want on them except maybe for spot metering.
You might mention that the ZX5 (and the ZX5n) can also be manual everything or
aperture preferred or shutter preferred using the instant access outboard
layout.
Ed
George Mann
wrote:
>Since the 35 and, especially the 50mm normal lenses are almost always the
>sharpest, lightest and best color-corrected in any manufacturer's range, I
>can make do with virtually any major brand of camera. Really, how much of a
>difference is there going to be between Nikon vs. Minolta, vs. Canon, vs.
>Pentax, vs. Zeiss in the normal, or moderate telephoto lens ranges? Not
>enough to make me switch, that's for sure!
>
I have used them all. Zeiss IS better. I was instantly converted. I
believe that you will be too! ;o )
George Mann
George Mann
Are you happy with your current system?
George Mann
John Halliwell
writes
>Yes, I have 2 of them. I do have a ZX-5 auto everything which is a nice
>camera, but the Super Programs are the ones I almost always use. Can't
>think of anything else I'd want on them except maybe for spot metering.
>I'm fond of my K2 and KX also, but the Super P's are better cameras, in
>my opinion.
The biggest omission on the Super-A (Super Program) is the lack of a
meter lock. You can use manual but the LCD display only shows 1 stop
increments which could be better.
By comparison, the MX LEDs show half stops very clearly and even quarter
stops in some conditions (two LEDs dimly lit). Aside from my LXs (both
need a CLA), the MX is my preferred camera for reasons I can't really
work out.
--
John
Preston, Lancs, UK.
Photos at http://www.photopia.demon.co.uk
Bandicoot
news:sHArJLA+C2$+E...@photopia.demon.co.uk...
[SNIP]
> Aside from my LXs (both
> need a CLA), the MX is my preferred camera for reasons I can't really
> work out.
>
There _is_ something very nice about the MX. LXs are my main working
bodies, and I have a couple of new all-singing AF bodies (including an MZ-S)
but there is just something about the MX. Reminds me of the marketing
slogan Pentax used many years ago: "just hold a Pentax" - certainly Pentax
has always had the best ergonomics, and the way the MX is so small yet never
'fiddly' is wonderful.
Peter
Bandicoot
news:vfsn3jd...@corp.supernews.com...
> This advice from Pierre is right on target. I recently started using an MX
> with some Pentax-M lenses. The camera handles absolutely beautifully. With
a
> 40mm pancake 2.8 lens, it's almost pocketable.
Buy coats with bigger pockets! It fits in mine...
;-)
Peter
el sid
spotmatics and the nikkormat was that the nikkormat used easier to change
bayonet mount lenses, had wide open centerweighted metering fast electronic
flash sync speed . i did try out both when they were new and chose the
nikkormat over the pentax spotmatic for the above reasons and, for my
eyesight, the nikkormat was easier to focus.
"George Mann" <nob...@home.com> wrote in message
news:kcnufv85lk0bg6llk...@4ax.com...
T P
>
>There _is_ something very nice about the MX. LXs are my main working
>bodies, and I have a couple of new all-singing AF bodies (including an MZ-S)
>but there is just something about the MX. Reminds me of the marketing
>slogan Pentax used many years ago: "just hold a Pentax" - certainly Pentax
>has always had the best ergonomics, and the way the MX is so small yet never
>'fiddly' is wonderful.
Beautifully put, Peter. From 1974 to 1986 I used the Olympus OM
system, and the OM-1 and OM-2 bodies were certainly 'fiddly' in use,
especially the shutter speed dial.
The MX is about the same size as the OM-1 yet is in no way fiddly. It
handles as well as the slightly larger Nikon FE2/FM2 - and that is
high praise indeed.
T P
>
>I have used them all. Zeiss IS better. I was instantly converted. I
>believe that you will be too! ;o )
Jeremy has never used anything other than his Pentax screw mount
lenses, and is therefore incapable of making comparisons with anything
else. Yet he continues to post complete nonsense, mainly based on
editorial in magazines whose integrity is known to be suspect, and
completely fails to be aware of the failings of his gear.
There is a vast gulf of difference between the performance of Pentax
screw mount lenses and Leica glass. There is a similar gulf between
screw mount Pentax and Carl Zeiss (Japan) lenses for Contax. But
Jeremy is cocooned in his own ignorance and could never know that.
It's also wrong to suggest that Leicaflex/Leica R is expensive, when
older bodies and lenses can be picked up for surprisingly low prices.
The near-bulletproof residual value of used Leica M equipment does not
translate to Leica R, and you can make up a fine outfit for
surprisingly little money. The superb Carl Zeiss optics for Contax
are also surprisingly cheap for the sublime quality they provide.
I repeat, there is a *vast* gulf of difference between the performance
of Pentax screw mount lenses and that of Leica/Carl Zeiss glass. Only
those with their head buried in the silica would not be aware of that.
;-)
Olaf Ulrich
Pierre L
easy to change lenses, and you didn't need to do anything else like to index
the lens after mounting it. By the time I bought my Spotmatic, it certainly
metered with the lens wide open. I chose Pentax at the time because I liked
the ergonomics better. I didn't like the implementation of some settings
(like shutter speed) on the Nikkormats.
Pierre
"el sid" <217l...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:dcOLa.1816$_c1....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Pierre L
"T P" <t...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:vnvvfv81lh15at6s3...@4ax.com...
I'm not so sure about that. The old Pentax Takumar lenses were pretty darned
good. However, we're looking at it in retrospect. The Japanese Carl Zeiss
lenses made their appearance much later than the screw-mount Takumars.
Pierre
Lewis Lang
>From: Ala...@aol.com (Alan)
>Date: Mon, Jun 30, 2003 4:18 PM
>Message-id: <267766ad.03063...@posting.google.com>
>
>Years ago, probably in the 80's, Popular Photography took identical
>pictures with cameras on tripods and similar lenses with different
>makes of cameras and the manufacturer's lens. As I recall, they used
>Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus, and Minolta cameras. When the
>resulting slides were shown in a side by side comparison, nobody could
>tell which slides came from which camera.
That doesn't surprise me. Small differences are still differences and just
because a magazine full of professional writers (and perhaps even some
professional photographers) can't tell the the differences doesn't mean there
aren't any, especially at larger (11x14" and 16x20" and beyond) enlargements.
The subtleties that are not apparent or meaningful or important to you ("you"
in particular or in general) may be the make or break for me at larger
enlargements. Just because 5 different brand lenses can all form good to great
images (or even the same level of great images) doesn't mean that one should
play Oedipus and purposely blind one self to the subtleties of equally
excellent lenses' signatures. Equally seen does not necessarily mean equal in
reality. There's more to a lens than sharpness alone. Why care? Why care about
the difference between a laundry list and a love letter? Both are collections
of words with meanings, but vastly different in effect and other subtleties. Or
the difference between a casual record/snap shot of a family member(s) and say
one of Margaret Cameron's portraits or Charles Lutwidge Dogson's (Lewis
Carroll's) photos of Alice Lidell or his sublime narrative theatrical tableaus.
Not ever good lens is good for you, its the subtle qualities (bokeh, color
rendition, tonal gradation/3D clarity as well as the "funky" defects that give
alens "character" (spherical aberration, light fall off, internal vignetting,
distribution/eveness of focus) which work or don't for your vision. Some sh*tty
equipment has made some great photographs (w/ lots of help from their
photographers ;-)) and the wrold is full of homogenously technical excellent
work too. Don't agree w/ my analogies? You are free to make up your own...
Choose your lenses (and subjects and treatment and whatever) with the heart and
awareness, not blind homogeneity of seeing...
One should choose a Pentax screwmount lens (or any other lens from ancient to
modern) because it suits their vision, not just because Pop (or whomever) gives
a stamp of acceptable excellence/mediocrity/homogeneity to a group of lenses.
All lenses _aren't_ the same, despitw what any magazine says.
Regards,
Lewis
Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm
Remove "nospam" to reply
T P
>Years ago, probably in the 80's, Popular Photography took identical
>pictures with cameras on tripods and similar lenses with different
>makes of cameras and the manufacturer's lens. As I recall, they used
>Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus, and Minolta cameras. When the
>resulting slides were shown in a side by side comparison, nobody could
>tell which slides came from which camera.
... and poor dumb Jeremy read it and has been quoting it ever since!
"Bait and Switch Monthly" is not exactly a reliable source of data,
but it is a very reliable source of disinformation.
Lewis Lang
>Date: Mon, Jun 30, 2003 6:57 PM
>Message-id: <UK%La.72107$Io.67...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
>
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>
>> All lenses _aren't_ the same, despitw what any magazine says.
>
>while it is correct, it is irrelevant to the poster's question.
>
I was addressing the point that quoted that one magazine said that all 50mm
lenses they tested were essentialy the same. I am well aware of what the
original question was as I have read through this thread. Just wanted to make a
point that _regardless of needs_ one should not take any magazine's assesment
of lens homogeneity as gospel.
>I was replying in an earlier post, suggesting that for most casual
>applications, the differences among the major brands of normal lenses were
>insignificant. At 5x7 or even 8x10, and for amateur, as opposed to
>professional applications, the biggest discernable difference is going to
>be
>price. (And, remember, the poster was talking about two 25-year old
>systems, not asking if he should switch from old Pentax to new Nikon).
See above.
>He
>asked if he should switch out of Pentax screw to go to Nikormat. I replied
>that it hardly seemed worth it, especially in view of his investment in
>Pentax. It hardly seemed likely that a 25-year-old Nikon body and lens
>were
>going to significantly outperform a similarly-old Pentax combination.
>
True. As has been mentioned, the main advantages would be that the Nikon's
bayonette F mount would be slightly faster if not easier to mount/dismount.
Nikon may or maynot have lenses that were (and are) not available in Pentax
screw mount or more recent Pentax mounts, such as a 35/1.4. The main
difference/reason he should be switching systems for the lenses is if the
Nikon's lenses were somehow more automatic than the Pentaxes' (other than the
bayonette factor) and if he preferred the lens signature of the Pentax's to the
Nikon's lenses.
>If he had Nikon, and asked if he should switch to Pentax, I'd have given
>him
>the same answer: "No. Why bother?"
>
Indeed.
>Professionals have more exacting criteria to make a decision like that.
>But, if the poster were a professional, he wouldn't have asked that question
>on a NG, and I wouldn't have presumed to know enough about his unique
>circumstances to respond to him.
>
Even professionals don't have experience w/ all areas/brands of equipment. ,
for instance, have minimal exposure to the screw mount Pentax or other lenses
as I started to get real serious about photography at the openbing of the Super
Program/Nikon F3 era. I've only shot minimally w/ screw mount lenses (a Mamiya
Sekor? 35mm) though I have been impressed by its performance. A more
modernized/reliable new screw mount camera might be something worthwhile if it
could have at least more modern features (1/250 sec. flash sync, TTL flash,
different exposure and metering modes, etc.) some of the durability and well
made craftsmanship of the older screwmount cameras like the Spotmatic rather
than be just another Cosinikonlympus clone. Something in the area of a Nikon
FM3a or Super Program/Pentax LX-like screwmount camera might be a success...
>What I'm saying is that you're right, but you're wrong--all at once. . .
I'm up and I'm down, I'm inside and I'm outside at the same time, "I'm a
television man"... where are the Talking Heads when you need them ;-)?
>Just my 2-cents' worth of wisdom, T.P.'s assessment notwithstanding. :-)
Everybodt's entitled to their few cents worth of wisdom, even me ;-).
Bandicoot
That's interesting to hear. I'd always looked upon OMs as looking very
MX-like in size, but I never got into Olympus (except the XA). They clearly
packed more sophisticated features into that tiny body than the no-frills
mechanical MX, but somehow _looked_ fiddly to me - interesting to hear
experience that goes with that.
The FE and FM bodies were the only time I seriously considered switching to
Nikon (I later used employers' Nikons, but never had it as my own system).
At the time I couldn't afford an LX, and I was seriously tempted. In
retrospect I'm very glad I didn't change, as I expect that Pentax glass
would only have led to me, expensively, switching back again before now.
But the FE2 was nice.
Peter
Bandicoot
news:267766ad.03063...@posting.google.com...
> Years ago, probably in the 80's, Popular Photography took identical
> pictures with cameras on tripods and similar lenses with different
> makes of cameras and the manufacturer's lens. As I recall, they used
> Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus, and Minolta cameras. When the
> resulting slides were shown in a side by side comparison, nobody could
> tell which slides came from which camera.
>
Do I presume correctly that you mean they projected the slides? At the
distances at which projected slides are normally viewed it wouldn't surprise
me if relatively small differences in resolution, accutance, chromaticism,
etc, were invisible. A projected slide subtends quite a small angle at the
eye of the viewer sitting back to look at it from a 'normal' distance, and
so equates to only a fairly small enlargement. Ah, but they could have
walked up to the screen for a closer look? - well yes, and then they'd have
seen the texture of the screen itself...
More to the point, what were the lenses used to photograph? Anyone
remember? I imagine the kind of differences that would show up in slide
projection - not those 'technical' characteristics referred to above but
matters of 'interpretation' such as colour saturation and, especially,
bokeh - would only tend to become apparent in certain types of scene. If
they used highly detailed, evenly lit, distant landscapes all shot at the
hyperfocal, then most of theses differences would be far less apparent.
Any experimental data is only meaningful once we understand how the
experiment was conducted - and whilst I'm guessing, I can well imagine that
the approach I would most expect Pop. Photo. to have taken is along these
lines, and so rather unlikely to reveal the differences that do exist, and
particularly not those differences that most matter.
Peter
Michael Scarpitti
> I have the opportunity to buy a Nikormat Ftb...with 1.4 lens..50mm..It
> appears emaculate and comes with a one year warranty from one of the local
> repair shops.......it has recently had a cla....
> I have been using Pentax older models ie Spotmatic with a 50 1.4 - 300
> f4....135 etc......
> Would i be moving up by buying the Nikormat....
> Lens's for the Nikormat seem to be readily available though a little more
> expensive than the Pentax equipment i have gathered over the years.....
> I enjoy using the older equipment and have no desire to use the later
> plastic...auto everything photo stuff out there now.....
> Any input would be appreciated......
> Merv
WHAT? Old Leica will beat either of them hands down..
columbotrek
70s, 80, & 90s I was using my Minolta SRT 101. Then went with Nikon in
2000 to have access to the Nikon Glass. I suppose I was influnced by 30
years of remembering how I wanted a nikon "F" back then my Minolta was
new. But if you rent or think you might want to rent those high $
lenses for those special occausions you will need either a Nikon or
Canon mount. I just don't see any Pentax 35mm glass for rent. Nikon
still has retro bodies and glass in current production. I don't recall
if the Nikromat uses AIS lenses or not. If it does, then it will also
be able to use any of the AF lenses around including the new Zooms which
are sweet.
T P
>
>That's interesting to hear. I'd always looked upon OMs as looking very
>MX-like in size, but I never got into Olympus (except the XA). They clearly
>packed more sophisticated features into that tiny body than the no-frills
>mechanical MX, but somehow _looked_ fiddly to me - interesting to hear
>experience that goes with that.
What I disliked most about the OM bodies was the positioning of the
shutter speed dial around the lens throat. It was a royal pain in the
ass, trying to adjust focus, aperture *and* shutter speed all with the
left hand.
>The FE and FM bodies were the only time I seriously considered switching to
>Nikon (I later used employers' Nikons, but never had it as my own system).
>At the time I couldn't afford an LX, and I was seriously tempted. In
>retrospect I'm very glad I didn't change, as I expect that Pentax glass
>would only have led to me, expensively, switching back again before now.
If you like the look of Pentax lenses, especially the bokeh, there are
very few choices in the Nikkor range of lenses that would reproduce
the same look. I do like the sharpness and low distortion of most
Nikkors, but (except in a few, rare cases) Nikon bokeh sucks.
>But the FE2 was nice.
Yes, my favourite camera body *ever*. Just enough automation,
reasonably light and compact, superb build.
Just a shame about the bokeh!
Going off at a tangent, I recently took a Contax RX and five Carl
Zeiss (Japan) lenses in part exchange for my EOS 1D. Unless it sells
first, I'm going to try shooting with it (and the Leica M outfit) on
my next overseas trip, which I had to cancel because of the Iraq war.
It should be interesting to compare the two systems. Sadly, I can't
take the Pentax outfit as well, but I might find space for an MX and
one or two lenses for comparison.
Bandicoot
> "Bandicoot" <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >That's interesting to hear. I'd always looked upon OMs as looking very
> >MX-like in size, but I never got into Olympus (except the XA). They
clearly
> >packed more sophisticated features into that tiny body than the no-frills
> >mechanical MX, but somehow _looked_ fiddly to me - interesting to hear
> >experience that goes with that.
>
> What I disliked most about the OM bodies was the positioning of the
> shutter speed dial around the lens throat. It was a royal pain in the
> ass, trying to adjust focus, aperture *and* shutter speed all with the
> left hand.
Same problem with the Nikkormat.
[SNIP]
> Going off at a tangent, I recently took a Contax RX and five Carl
> Zeiss (Japan) lenses in part exchange for my EOS 1D. Unless it sells
> first, I'm going to try shooting with it (and the Leica M outfit) on
> my next overseas trip, which I had to cancel because of the Iraq war.
>
> It should be interesting to compare the two systems. Sadly, I can't
> take the Pentax outfit as well, but I might find space for an MX and
> one or two lenses for comparison.
>
That will be intriguing indeed - do post some thoughts / results if you do
it.
Peter
Allan Brown
I bought my Nikkormat and why I bought a second one. To me, it feels natural
to adjust everything with one hand rather than two settings with one and the
shutter with the other.
More cameras should have been made that way.
Allan
Bandicoot <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> wrote in message
news:105714438...@iris.uk.clara.net...
Pierre L
common layout after the Nikkormat.
Pierre
"Allan Brown" <pab...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:HwCMa.4154$bD1.4...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Martin Francis
news:HwCMa.4154$bD1.4...@news20.bellglobal.com...
reasons
> I bought my Nikkormat and why I bought a second one. To me, it feels
natural
> to adjust everything with one hand rather than two settings with one and
the
> shutter with the other.
>
> More cameras should have been made that way.
It might seem that way, but in multiple samples of used Oly OM bodies i've
seen, the lens-mount shutterspeed dial freezes up and (when it eventually
unseizes, assuming you can get your fingers to grasp it properly) remains
stiff after some use.
Never used a Nikkormat, so I can't speak for them...
--
Martin
http://www.btinternet.com/~mcsalty
Ken Rosenbaum
"Martin Francis" <Mcs...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:bdvafe$1kh$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
> "Allan Brown" <pab...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:HwCMa.4154$bD1.4...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > Having the shutter speed dial around the lens throat was one of the
> reasons
> > I bought my Nikkormat and why I bought a second one. To me, it feels
> natural
> > to adjust everything with one hand rather than two settings with one and
> the
> > shutter with the other.
I recently picked up a gorgeous, almost mint, Nikkormat FS. That's the model
without the meter, necessitating use of sunny-16ths metering or a hand-held
meter. In any case, without having to keep the camera up to my eye while
metering, it makes not a whit of difference where the shutter speeds are
set.
While I'm still a fan of old Pentaxes, I am enjoying this old Nikon too.
Along with the occasional old Canon and old Minoltas like the XE5. There is
something very satisfying about the solid ker-chunk and substantial feel of
these classic gems.
Ken
>
T P
>More cameras should have been made that way.
Alas for you, the number of buyers who agreed with you was simply too
small to persuade Nikon to retain that particular control layout.
Frank Pittel
: x-no-archive: yes
:> "T P" <t...@nospam.com> wrote in message
:> > > Jeremy has never used anything other than his Pentax screw mount
:> > lenses, and is therefore incapable of making comparisons with anything
:> > else. Yet he continues to post complete nonsense, mainly based on
:> > editorial in magazines whose integrity is known to be suspect, and
:> > completely fails to be aware of the failings of his gear.
:> >
:> > There is a vast gulf of difference between the performance of Pentax
:> > screw mount lenses and Leica glass. There is a similar gulf between
:> > screw mount Pentax and Carl Zeiss (Japan) lenses for Contax. But
:> > Jeremy is cocooned in his own ignorance and could never know that.
:> >
: Oh, my! The most notorious TROLL on this NG again posts his poison-pen
: articles. You know, he used to anger me, but once I did a Google search on
: several of the names that he uses, and saw the radical, near-lunatic-fringe
: remarks that he posts on newsgroups far and wide, I realized that this is
: just a character that is emotionally less-than-stable.
: He persists in repeating that I have only Pentax gear from the 1970s. Where
: he got this idea I cannot guess. Why he has added me to his list of people
: whom he regularly stalks, is also something I cannot figure out.
You need to sometimes remind yourself the TP is just a troll to be used
for whatever entertainment value you can get.
: He apparently parrots phrases that appear in various magazine or internet
: photography sites, and he appears to get very angry whenever someone
: suggests that he doesn't know what he is talking about. That's when he
: posts his venomous comments.
I don't know about angry but I do know thatwhen he finds someone that
reacts to his troll he'll go out of his way to push the buttons of that
person.
: Despite his allegations to the contrary, there is a groundswell of agreement
: with the proposition that, at least in the normal lens focal lengths, there
: is very little difference in the resulting images, regardless of whether the
: lens that captured the image was a Nikon, Pentax, Minolta, Leitz, Zeiss,
: Canon, etc. One has only to do a cursory search of various photography
: sites to see tons of comments to that effect.
MY personal belief is the optics and the manufacture of optics has gotten
to the point were at the current technology there is little room for
improvement in prime lens. The fact is that there is little difference
between quality prime lenses and there hasn't been for a long time. Anyone
that's ever used them knows that the takumara (I hope I got that right
:-)) screw mount lenses for the spotmatic can hold it's own against any
modern Canon or Nikon lens. Heck I've got 50+ year old lenses for my 4x5
cameras that are tack sharp with good contrast and images taken with them
hold up against images taken with brand new $1,500+ lenses.
: [Of course, we all know that the infamous Mr. Poulsen knows better than the
: rest of us on these matters . . .]
He knows more about everything then anyone and if you ask him he'll be
happy to tell you so.
: For the photographer with very exacting requirements, there may be some
: reason to select one brand of normal lens over another. But, for the
: majority of casual photographers, like me, normal lenses are pretty much all
: up there in terms of low distortion, color correction and sharpness. They
: are, after all, virtually all based on Zeiss' Planar design, which is now
: over a century old.
They're often simple. I chose Canon over Nikon because the Canon fit
better in my hand. I know pro-photographers that went with Nikon because
they liked the balance better.
: So, to Mr. Poulsen, I say that it is time to get back into your hole and
: take your medicine. Or, better yet, why not take some photographs, rather
: than sit at your keyboard and belittle the rest of us with your vast store
: of non-knowledge?
The key to dealing with TP is to not let it get personal.
: Herbert Keppler, Ansel Adams and numerous others (all of whom were
: acknowledged as knowledgeable--unlike Tony Poulsen) have written that they
: saw little in the way of differences in the resulting images, regardless of
: which major brand was used. Who am I going to believe--those experts, or
: some looneybird who thinks he is a legend--in his own mind?
You forget that TP would look at an Ansel Adams original print and
complain about the bokeh.
--
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
f...@deepthought.com
Philip Homburg
In my opinion, the FM/FE/etc. style cameras and to the some extend the
F3 work better without a motor drive. The reasons is that without a
motor drive the film advance level tends to stand out, providing easy
access to the shutter speed dial.
I like the Nikkormat style layout because basically the same action changes
the aperture and the shutter speed. With the 'standard' layout, you first
have to decide whether to change the aperture or the shutter speed and
then move the appropriate hand.
Philip Homburg
John Miller
> In my opinion, the FM/FE/etc. style cameras and to the some extend the
> F3 work better without a motor drive. The reasons is that without a
> motor drive the film advance level tends to stand out, providing easy
> access to the shutter speed dial.
Pulling the advance lever away from the body switches on the meter. When
the motor drive is attached, switching the drive on turns on the camera
meter, so you don't need to pull the advance lever away from the body (but
you can, no problem).
Many of my colleagues and I preferred having the advance lever activate --
or more accurately, be able to turn off -- the meter, even with the motor
attached, so we put a tiny square of cellophane tape over one of the motor
drive contacts, thus disabling the meter switching from the motor drive.
--
John Miller
The whole world is a tuxedo and you are a pair of brown shoes.
-George Gobel
Philip Homburg
>Philip Homburg wrote:
>> In my opinion, the FM/FE/etc. style cameras and to the some extend the
>> F3 work better without a motor drive. The reasons is that without a
>> motor drive the film advance level tends to stand out, providing easy
>> access to the shutter speed dial.
>
>Pulling the advance lever away from the body switches on the meter. When
>the motor drive is attached, switching the drive on turns on the camera
>meter, so you don't need to pull the advance lever away from the body (but
>you can, no problem).
That is true for the MD-11, not for an MD-12.
>Many of my colleagues and I preferred having the advance lever activate --
>or more accurately, be able to turn off -- the meter, even with the motor
>attached, so we put a tiny square of cellophane tape over one of the motor
>drive contacts, thus disabling the meter switching from the motor drive.
Which camera are you talking about? I just checked, and found that my FA
behaves the way I remembered it (the MD-12 won't advance the film as long as
the advance lever is out), my FE2 gets very confused when I when I
release the shutter with the advance lever out and an MD-12 attached.
I can't remember how the F3 is supposed to behave.
Philip Homburg
John Miller
> In article <be473c$fr7$1...@n4vu.com>, John Miller <use...@n4vu.com> wrote:
>>Pulling the advance lever away from the body switches on the meter. When
>>the motor drive is attached, switching the drive on turns on the camera
>>meter, so you don't need to pull the advance lever away from the body (but
>>you can, no problem).
>
> That is true for the MD-11, not for an MD-12.
Yes, now that you mention it. I believe we had to do a trivial mod to get
the MD-12 to "behave." Perhaps it was as simple as the cellophane tape
trick (I've still got the MD-11/MD-12 repair manual around here someplace,
and could look it up).
> Which camera are you talking about? I just checked, and found that my FA
> behaves the way I remembered it (the MD-12 won't advance the film as long
> as the advance lever is out), my FE2 gets very confused when I when I
> release the shutter with the advance lever out and an MD-12 attached.
> I can't remember how the F3 is supposed to behave.
FM.
--
John Miller
Great minds run in great circles.
John Miller
> Ansel would have made quick works of the likes of Poulsen!
I think not. Do you understand?
--
John Miller
Mater artium necessitas.
[Necessity is the mother of invention].
Frank Pittel
: x-no-archive: yes
: "Frank Pittel" <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in message
: news:N92cnb1O-uV...@giganews.com...
:> You need to sometimes remind yourself the TP is just a troll to be used
:> for whatever entertainment value you can get.
: You're right on-target with that assessment!
: I rarely see any of his comments, because I've killfiled him. Every so
: often, I see him quoted in someone else's post.
: After running a Google search on several of his handles, and viewing all of
: the stuff he posts on many different newsgroups, I realized that he was just
: another of those looneybirds that seem to pop up, enriching our lives, every
: so often. For a while, he really got to me. No more. Now I chuckle.
TP can be amusing and I have to admit that I often enjoy watching people
react to him.
:> I don't know about angry but I do know thatwhen he finds someone that
:> reacts to his troll he'll go out of his way to push the buttons of that
:> person.
: Perhaps we should have a NG FAQ that describes his activities, for the
: benefit of newcomers. How many folks must he have driven away, after
: ridiculing them?
:> MY personal belief is the optics and the manufacture of optics has gotten
:> to the point were at the current technology there is little room for
:> improvement in prime lens. The fact is that there is little difference
:> between quality prime lenses and there hasn't been for a long time.
: Don't let Poulsen hear you say that :-)
I'll survive. :-) I'd be happy to debate the topic with TP but he won't do
that. Assuming that TP even responds he'll start by launching into a
personal attack and attempt to keep the conversation at that level.
:> The key to dealing with TP is to not let it get personal.
: He takes advantage of the fact that his victims don't realize that his abuse
: of them is part of a pattern. Once they become wise to it, they kust
: killfile him, as I did. Frankly, I sometimes wonder whether he has ever
: even handled a camera--or if he is just posting from a sanitarium somewhere
: in the rolling hills--where he is allowed to rant on the keyboard as an
: alternative to hurting anyone in person . . . Who knows? Stranger things
: have happened.
I've noticed that TP actually knows a lot about photography and most of his
posts are based on the truth. I do admit that I don't know where this
information comes from.
:> You forget that TP would look at an Ansel Adams original print and
:> complain about the bokeh.
: Ansel would have made quick works of the likes of Poulsen! Don't forget
: the ancient adage, "Opinions are like a**holes: Everybody has one!"
I don't think that Ansel would have bothered.
Frank Pittel
: Jeremy wrote:
:> Ansel would have made quick works of the likes of Poulsen!
: I think not. Do you understand?
No.
John Miller
> John Miller <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> : Jeremy wrote:
> :> Ansel would have made quick works of the likes of Poulsen!
>
> : I think not. Do you understand?
>
> No.
Your premise is that AA would have bothered
1) to spend time on Usenet
AND
2) if so, would have reacted to T.P.
I don't believe that combination of events ever would have taken place. No
need to respond; it's inarguable, in any case.
--
John Miller
You roll my log, and I will roll yours.
-Lucius Annaeus Seneca
LEDMRVM
>even human?
>
While I am interested in cameras, new and old, I don't give a damn about TP.
Discuss him until hell freezes if you like, but please change the subject line.
Regards and thanks,
Ed
Frank Pittel
: Frank Pittel wrote:
:> John Miller <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
:> : Jeremy wrote:
:> :> Ansel would have made quick works of the likes of Poulsen!
:>
:> : I think not. Do you understand?
:>
:> No.
: Your premise is that AA would have bothered
: 1) to spend time on Usenet
: AND
: 2) if so, would have reacted to T.P.
I made no such premise.
: I don't believe that combination of events ever would have taken place. No
: need to respond; it's inarguable, in any case.
If you say so. After all who knew Ansel Adams better then you?
Lewis Lang
>Date: Mon, Jul 7, 2003 2:36 AM
>Message-id: <rS-dnaulSI8...@giganews.com>
>
>John Miller <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>: Frank Pittel wrote:
>:> John Miller <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>:> : Jeremy wrote:
>:> :> Ansel would have made quick works of the likes of Poulsen!
>:>
>:> : I think not. Do you understand?
>:>
>:> No.
>
>: Your premise is that AA would have bothered
>: 1) to spend time on Usenet
>: AND
>: 2) if so, would have reacted to T.P.
>
>I made no such premise.
>
>: I don't believe that combination of events ever would have taken place.
> No
>: need to respond; it's inarguable, in any case.
>
>If you say so. After all who knew Ansel Adams better then you?
El Capitan? ;-)
Peter Chant
Frank Pittel <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> writes:
>
> If you say so. After all who knew Ansel Adams better then you?
Perhaps he would have preferred the TOTALLY DIGITAL D60!
Frank Pittel
: In article <rS-dnaulSI8...@giganews.com>,
: Frank Pittel <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> writes:
:>
:> If you say so. After all who knew Ansel Adams better then you?
: Perhaps he would have preferred the TOTALLY DIGITAL D60!
Actually Ansel Adams was excited by the thought of digital photography.
Of course he would have known better then to spam this 35mm group by
posting about it here. :-)