How do Pentax and Canon's top AF lenses compare?
Lewis Lang
color rendition, which I feel is better/more pleasing/life-like than Canon's
non-L lenses (especially the non-L zooms). Canon L lenses are second in
contrast/color rendition and "depth"/life-like clarity only to Zeiss and Leica
(and a few others, but I'll stop the list here...).
Pentax seems to be (at least wanting to) playing catch up w/ Canon w/ its MZ-S,
*ist (which I still don't know how its pronounced unless its "the camera
formerly known as ist"), the possibility of a *ist 35mm SLR camera line w/
higher/better featured models, *ist digital and its 3 ltd lenses (not to
mention its 28-70/2.8 and 70-210/2.8 lenses) and the possibility of IS in the
(near?) future. This has got me thinking/wondering about how each manufacturers
top lens lines compares...
Has anybody on this group owned and tried (on 35mm film, I'm not talking DSLR
here) Pentax Ltd. lenses (and their high quality 1.4 primes and fast f/2.8
zooms) verses the Canon L EOS lenses (primes and zooms)? What did you find were
the differences, if any in contrast, resolution, color rendition, bokeh and
just genral "character"/signature of the lenses? I realise that focal lengths
(especially w/ Pentax's odd prime/ffl lenses might not be comparable across
brands (unless, let's say, a fixed focal length 31mm Pentax Ltd. lens or a
Pentax 24mm f/2 FA/AL? fixed lens is compared w/ either a 24-70 or 16-35/2.8 L
zooms at their 31mm and 24mm focal lengths ;-)), but I would love to hear about
comparisons of each brands top lens lines lines, from those who've actually
shot film and blown them up and/or slide projected them up to 11x14" and larger
sizes (I'm not really interested in hearing what great 4x6" prints off of color
negative film they make ;-)). Any experiences/opinions w/ reality (real life
expierences, not just all conjecture) to back them up would be mostL;-)y
appreciated.
TIA
Regards,
Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm
Remove "nospam" to reply
Magnus W
news:20030418002032...@mb-m02.aol.com:
> Pentax seems to be (at least wanting to) playing catch up w/ Canon w/
> its MZ-S,
The drawback of the MZ-S is speed. Motor speed 2.5fps? What's that? A Dynax
5 is faster. It also has a slow(ish) shutter, but I could live with that.
The vertical grip lacks a shutter speed control, however, which is a major
omission. I won't be exchanging my Dynax 7 for a MZ-S.
Actually the MZ-S reminds me a little of the 9xi... some good concepts, but
"not quite there yet".
> *ist (which I still don't know how its pronounced
"Czarist".
Willie wjb
same a cars.
Mine does 250 Km/hour, so what!
it doesn't tell anything about using the car.
Only if you have the need for speed this is a valid argument.
"Magnus W" <va...@death-star.spam-trap.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93616DE78389...@212.83.64.229...
Willie wjb
brands at home.
I started with minolta (x300) and made the step over to pentax because of
quality and exchangebility of lenses.
I now own the MZ-S which is used for threathre shooting and all kinds of
photography nature/portrait/studio etc.. it's a good alround camera which
very easy ways to accomplish things. From P to manual, just set the diafragm
ring from A to the desired value, Set a different time, just turn the wheel.
That's pentax, they talk with people before building the camera's.
I can use old lenses on all bodies. I can even use my 67 lenses on the MZ-S
with an adaptor!
Pentax does not have a large budget such as canon or nikon, but they make
damn good cameras. Besides that i use a pentax 67 with the 135/4.0 macro and
55mm 4.0. I love this large reflex. I just have the right feeling when
holding it. Because that's what i must have, feeling otherwise my pictures
will be influenced. So search a camera which 'feels good'.
Optical:
I own the SMC 1.4 50mm which had a test several years ago along with leica
and other brands and resulted that this lens was better than leica's. My 67
lenses are hell sharp, my 55mm has no distortion at all.
There are a lot of tests, but you will have to read several to get a good
view on lenses.
Globally the pentax F, FA lenses marked with a * are top lenses. I have the
new 24-90 Asferical lens which is very sharp too.
I think the pentax lenses are somewhat more expensive than other brands
because pentax does not dump lenses on the market. I sold my Z1-p last year
(bought it 7 year ago) and got 60% of the new value back. If you look at
second hand stuff you will see that there's a lot of canon/nikon stuff
available and less pentax. Some will say thats because pentax doens't sell
so much, but i explain this as that pentax owners do not sell their stuff if
they have it because of the quality. I make prints to 40x50 cm from b/w and
color negs. If you see the pic and say Wowww! That's what i makes a top lens
for you and if everybody who is saying 'it suchs', who cares! It must be
good for you and not for someone who owns a different brand and wants you to
know that only his brand is ok.
I hope you can do something with my message to let you get some important
points to make up your mind.
Regards,
Willie Jan Bons
www.foto-art.nl
"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20030418002032...@mb-m02.aol.com...
Magnus W
news:3e9fcceb$0$57486$1b62...@news.euronet.nl:
> do you shoot 5 pics /sec every day?
No.
> Only if you have the need for speed this is a valid argument.
Sometimes I have. Did you have an argument?
Pål Jensen
"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> skrev i melding
news:20030418002032...@mb-m02.aol.com...
> I have always admired Pentax for its excellent bokeh (as well as its
natural
> color rendition, which I feel is better/more pleasing/life-like than
Canon's
> non-L lenses (especially the non-L zooms). Canon L lenses are second in
> contrast/color rendition and "depth"/life-like clarity only to Zeiss and
Leica
> (and a few others, but I'll stop the list here...).
Yes, Pentax lenses are more "German" in look and generally (depending on
taste of course) have a more pleasant look than both Nikon and Canon lenses.
Many, if not most, of the Pentax FA* lenses, who are mostly designed by the
same legendary lens designer (Mr. Harakawa) as the Pentax Limiteds (the 43
and 77 mm), have this look.- In addition to 3D look, Pentax lenses have the
best flare control in busines.
Lewis Lang
>Subject: Re: How do Pentax and Canon's top AF lenses compare?
>From: Magnus W va...@death-star.spam-trap.com
>Date: Fri, Apr 18, 2003 8:48 AM
>Message-id: <Xns93616DE78389...@212.83.64.229>
>
>cont...@aol.comnospam (Lewis Lang) wrote in
>news:20030418002032...@mb-m02.aol.com:
>
>> Pentax seems to be (at least wanting to) playing catch up w/ Canon w/
>> its MZ-S,
>
>The drawback of the MZ-S is speed. Motor speed 2.5fps? What's that? A Dynax
>
>5 is faster.
Yup :-)
It also has a slow(ish) shutter, but I could live with that.
>
You mean a long shutter lag, mirror return, and/or something else
>The vertical grip lacks a shutter speed control, however, which is a major
>
>omission. I won't be exchanging my Dynax 7 for a MZ-S.
>
On the day I bought my Maxxum 7 at B&H I also tried out the MZ-Z w/ vertical
grip - even w/ the lesser motor drive speed of the S it was still a tough
choice. I found the Pentax small, easy to hold, and for lack of a better term -
"sensual". Aside from any obvious features the M7 still had a brighter
viewfinder but the S seemed to have alot higher eyepoint, which made it even a
tougher call. What decided it for me was both the price (the S was several
hundred dollars more) and the fact that I already owned some Maxxum lenses, a
600si and a 5400HS flash. If the S were priced lower, I might have been
shooting Pentax today. As it were, the M7 (and I know I will heel howels from
other "brand loyalists" on this) is probably the best specced camera at any
price on the market - what you get in a small, light, fully featured camera is
unbeatable/unbelievable.
>Actually the MZ-S reminds me a little of the 9xi... some good concepts,
>but
>"not quite there yet".
They should have at least give it a 4-5 fps motordrive (like a PZ-1p), but I
have a feeling that it would have necessitated making the body slightly larger
than they were willing to...
>
>> *ist (which I still don't know how its pronounced
>
>"Czarist".
Surely you jest, unless its made now in the former Soviet Union/Russia ;-).
Perhaps "asterisk ist" or "star ist" or "the camera formerly known as 'ist'"
(this is odd, since the camera was never known as anything yet since it hasn't
been released yet)? Canon, I believe, once had a Rebel class camera they called
"the kiss", or something like that, that I believe they marketed in Japan.
Perhaps this is an attempt at another cutesy (though unpronouncable) name. I
find the name irritating as at least I can pronounce a "numbers name" like
Contax 167MT or a "letters name" like a Contax Aria, but is this a harbinger of
future cameras to be called "(&$^&%^_!!_*&$*!!!+"? If so, give me a boring set
of numbers any time for a name over this "secret code naming"...
Lewis Lang
>Date: Fri, Apr 18, 2003 10:00 AM
>Message-id: <3e9fcceb$0$57486$1b62...@news.euronet.nl>
>
>do you shoot 5 pics /sec every day?
>same a cars.
>Mine does 250 Km/hour, so what!
>it doesn't tell anything about using the car.
>
>Only if you have the need for speed this is a valid argument.
Willie:
Fast motor drives are also good for being able to capture a quick series of
expressions. For that purpose, for me, about 3 f.p.s. would seem about minimum,
though at times I have eeked by w/ a minimum 2 f.p.s. Its just easier/makes me
more confident to know that *when I need it* that speed is there, regardless of
how often I use that feature (which for people shots is often enough).
2.5 f.p.s. is kind of miserly for a camera in the 2000's, especially one that
is being marketed to an upscale/serious market at serious prices, but I have a
feeling Pentax reduced the motordrive speed so they could fit the motor into a
smaller/more compact body. So, while I understand their reasoning, I don't
necessarily agree with it - I would have liked a slightly larger body w/ a
faster motor drive. Perhaps a future MZ or *ist camera will have this
feature... "We shall see..." :-)
Lewis Lang
>Message-id: <3e9fd26d$0$57462$1b62...@news.euronet.nl>
>
>I think the problem is that someone owns a brand, and doesn't have any other
>brands at home.
I currently own Maxxum, Nikon MF, Canon EOS and Contax and in the past have
owned Konica, Rollei, Pentax and Leica 35mm gear. I have written an article for
Shutterbug comparing a Leica R-6 and lenses compared to an A2(e, I believe) w/
Canon L lenses. SO you definitely think wrong, if you are referring to me...
>I started with minolta (x300) and made the step over to pentax because of
>quality and exchangebility of lenses.
>
>I now own the MZ-S which is used for threathre shooting and all kinds of
>photography nature/portrait/studio etc.. it's a good alround camera which
>very easy ways to accomplish things. From P to manual, just set the diafragm
>ring from A to the desired value, Set a different time, just turn the wheel.
>That's pentax, they talk with people before building the camera's.
>I can use old lenses on all bodies. I can even use my 67 lenses on the MZ-S
>with an adaptor!
>Pentax does not have a large budget such as canon or nikon, but they make
>damn good cameras. Besides that i use a pentax 67 with the 135/4.0 macro
>and
>55mm 4.0. I love this large reflex. I just have the right feeling when
>holding it. Because that's what i must have, feeling otherwise my pictures
>will be influenced. So search a camera which 'feels good'.
>
Thanks, but I know this already. I was really more interested in a comparison
of Canon's top glass to Pentax's top glass *in 35mm* because that's what this
newsgroup is about. Though thanks for sharing your feelings/thoughts w/ us.
>Optical:
>I own the SMC 1.4 50mm which had a test several years ago along with leica
>and other brands and resulted that this lens was better than leica's.
Define "better"...
My
>67
>lenses are hell sharp, my 55mm has no distortion at all.
>There are a lot of tests, but you will have to read several to get a good
>view on lenses.
No need to, I've shot w/ my friend's Pentax 645 and 67 equipment. The main
failing of his 67 lenses were that they had horrible chromatic aberration
(especially the fisheye which had lateral color bands as thick as a magic
marker outline) that would show up in some lighting situations and not others.
I know about Pentax's good bokeh, color and sharpness in medium format and in
35mm, I was more interested in their high end Ltd. lenses and premium large
aperture AF lenses. I have seen results from the A* (manual focus) 135/1.8 as
well as the 85/1.4 in their AF mount. I wanted more input/comparison on the
Pentax high class glass *in 35mm* vs. Canon's L range...
>Globally the pentax F, FA lenses marked with a * are top lenses. I have
>the
>new 24-90 Asferical lens which is very sharp too.
I've heard this too and seen it on the web (I know, not the best place to judge
alens's qualities). I've also seen in magazines excellent results from the
20-35/4 zoom and the older 28-105. I have seen as actual prints the 28-105
newest Pentax zoom which is sharper than the previous 28-70/4 but not as
pleasing, though still Ok, bokeh. While all these lenses may be ecellent, they
are not in Pentax's top range of fast glass and neither are they LTd. lenses...
>I think the pentax lenses are somewhat more expensive than other brands
>because pentax does not dump lenses on the market.
I think that Pentax doesn't dump lenses on the market because their market base
is not as large as Canon/Nikon/etc. but this is just my conjecture. Pentax has
quite a full range, though, and supposedly, some of the best lenses in its
class (I hear/have seen in mags great comments/examples about the sharpness of
their 100 f/2.8 macro lens).
I sold my Z1-p last year
>(bought it 7 year ago) and got 60% of the new value back. If you look at
>second hand stuff you will see that there's a lot of canon/nikon stuff
>available and less pentax. Some will say thats because pentax doens't sell
>so much, but i explain this as that pentax owners do not sell their stuff
>if
>they have it because of the quality. I make prints to 40x50 cm from b/w
>and
>color negs. If you see the pic and say Wowww! That's what i makes a top
>lens
>for you and if everybody who is saying 'it suchs', who cares! It must be
>good for you and not for someone who owns a different brand and wants you
>to
>know that only his brand is ok.
>
Yes, I know and have given similar advice in the past to others.
>I hope you can do something with my message to let you get some important
>points to make up your mind.
>
>Regards,
>
>Willie Jan Bons
>www.foto-art.nl
No, but thanks for trying though, What I really wanted was a comparison between
Pentax's top glass and Canon L. But thanks for sharing your thoughts, anyways.
Lewis Lang
>Subject: Re: How do Pentax and Canon's top AF lenses compare?
>From: "Pål Jensen" paalj...@sensewave.com
>Date: Fri, Apr 18, 2003 1:14 PM
>Message-id: <tQSna.4866$8g5....@news2.e.nsc.no>
>
>
>"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> skrev i melding
>news:20030418002032...@mb-m02.aol.com...
>> I have always admired Pentax for its excellent bokeh (as well as its
>natural
>> color rendition, which I feel is better/more pleasing/life-like than
>Canon's
>> non-L lenses (especially the non-L zooms). Canon L lenses are second in
>> contrast/color rendition and "depth"/life-like clarity only to Zeiss and
>Leica
>> (and a few others, but I'll stop the list here...).
>
>
>Yes, Pentax lenses are more "German" in look and generally (depending on
>taste of course) have a more pleasant look than both Nikon and Canon lenses.
I would say, that at the very least, Pentax bokeh reminds me of Leica bokeh -
but for less money though ;-).
>Many, if not most, of the Pentax FA* lenses, who are mostly designed by
>the
>same legendary lens designer (Mr. Harakawa) as the Pentax Limiteds (the
>43
>and 77 mm), have this look.- In addition to 3D look, Pentax lenses have
>the
>best flare control in busines.
I compared my 28mm/2.8 Distagon T* to a similar Pentax lens pointing it at the
sun and it came out slightly better in the flare control department, but only
just slightly. Otherwise I would agree. I think Zeiss's sharpness in terms of
edge acutance (I haven't measured resolution) is "snappier" which gives the
Zeiss a sort of "paper cut out" look where edges of objects eem to separte
better from their surrounds. The Zeiss lenses do this even better than Leica
lenses, however the Leica lenses tend to have more subtle separation of
tonality/hues than the Zeiss so its a matter of pick your flavor here. Pentax
seems closer to Leica in bokeh and "naturalness" (tonal/hue discrimination)
while closer to Zeiss in the anti-flare department. I believe I remember
pointing my multi-element 28-135/4 Pentax A lens into the sun and getting
virtually no flare - now that's lens coating for you!
Have you shot w/ Canon L (which lenses?) in addition to the Pentax LTD. lenses?
What were there differences in sharpness, contrast, etc.? From what little I
could tell on the web, the 43mm LTD, though reputed to be soft wide open, had a
feeling of clarity similar to a Leica M lens. I am particularly interested in
the top class wide angles and wide angle zooms of both brands as most of my
people work is shot wide (excepting some headshots , of course ;-)).
Thanks.
Gregory L. Hansen
Lewis Lang <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote:
>Has anybody on this group owned and tried (on 35mm film, I'm not talking DSLR
>here) Pentax Ltd. lenses (and their high quality 1.4 primes and fast f/2.8
>zooms) verses the Canon L EOS lenses (primes and zooms)? What did you find were
I've never tried those lenses. But here's an article by Mike Johnston on
the matter.
http://luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-05-02.shtml
--
"Don't try to teach a pig how to sing. You'll waste your time and annoy
the pig."
Lewis Lang
>Date: Fri, Apr 18, 2003 7:11 PM
>Message-id: <V5Yna.30847$4P1.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
>
>x-no-archive: yes
>"Willie wjb" <wjb...@nomail.nl> wrote in message
>news:3e9fd26d$0$57462$1b62...@news.euronet.nl...
>
>> I started with minolta (x300) and made the step over to pentax because
>of
>> quality and exchangebility of lenses.
>
>
>> I can use old lenses on all bodies. I can even use my 67 lenses on the
>MZ-S
>> with an adaptor!
>
>
>> Optical:
>> I own the SMC 1.4 50mm which had a test several years ago along with leica
>> and other brands and resulted that this lens was better than leica's.
>
>
>Bob Monaghan's Lens Supersite has the test results that you are referring
>to:
>
>"Identical scenes were shot with modern Leica M6, 50mm f/2 Summicron lens
>and 1964 Pentax Spotmatic with 50mm f/1.4 Super-Takumar at f/8 on Kodak
>Tmax
>100. Each, when enlarged to 8x12 inches - using glass negative carriers
>for
>maximum flatness - produced virtually identical high-quality prints "
>
>They also tested a Minolta normal lens against the Leica Summicron, and
>the
>Minolta was sharper!
>
>Here is the link to the test results:
>
>http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/rangefinder.html#keppler
>
>For some unique insights about the classic screw-mount 50mm f/1.4 Super
>Multi-Coated Takumar lens, have a look at this article that appeared in
>The
>Luminous Landscape:
>
>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-11-24.shtml
>
>"All these lenses are classic Planar designs, as are more or less every
>fast
>50mm except for the Leica M lens, which is an idiosyncratic design unique
>to
>Leica; but where most makers have economized by making the surfaces between
>the fourth and fifth elements flat, Pentax has always stuck with the
>original design and used cemented spherical surfaces there. Aside from being
>more expensive to manufacture, this results in a lens that is slightly less
>sharp at infinity in the plane of focus, but that has better off-axis
>aberration correction and thus, better bokeh or blur."
>
>'The rest of the visual differences can be accounted for by subtle
>differences in coating processes over the years, as well as the changing
>fashions in mechanical lens barrel construction. Early Pentax multicoating
>was superior to every company's except Zeiss's, which equaled it, and even
>today Pentax has better lens coatings than, say, Nikon or Olympus. The early
>Takumar designs were gorgeously built - they're just about the
>smoothest-focusing lenses ever made, Leica not excepted. This excellent
>mechanical construction and "feel" lasted through the SMCP-M lens, which
>handles marvelously (for me, the commonplace SMCP-M lens is just about ideal
>in terms of size, weight, feel, and handling). The "A" lens with its
>typical, tacky 1970s design style is pretty cheaply put together by
>comparison, and of course the autofocus lenses suffer from the same problems
>as virtually all AF lenses except Pentax's own Limiteds, in that they're
>mostly plastic and feel relatively cheap."
>
>'As for Pentax's Limited 43mm normal, it's an entirely different kettle
>of
>fish. It doesn't resemble the 50mm much at all. It's a very high-resolution
>lens with very low flare. A different look altogether."
>
>"The construction quality of the classic 7-element Super-Takumar was
>superb - not quite as good as the Zeiss lenses of the day but better than
>the Zeiss/Contax lenses available now."
>
>The passages quoted above refer to the classic Takumar designs from the
>early 70s. They may not accurately reflect Pentax lens design philosophy
>of
>today. But it does offer a glimpse of what those great lenses were all
>about.
Thanks for the info, Jeremy, though I have seen those links (and the Pop
article Keppler was quoted from) before. The one error I believe is the A
lenses. I believe they came out at about the smae time as the Super Program
which was in 1983 (or possibly late '82 at the earliest) as I got a Super
program around that time. I even rmember the ad for it. Though the M mount
lenses were built superiorly I think that the A lenses ar given a short shrift
(or whatever the word is), the construction of the 50/1.7 A and 28-135 A lens I
had was, if not up to Zeiss standards, still superb, and equals if not exceeds
most MF lenses made today and certainly the AF lenses in terms of construction.
They had excepttional sharpness and color too, except for the zoom I mentioned
above which at/near 135mm grew very soft indeed...
Pål Jensen
"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> skrev i melding
> I compared my 28mm/2.8 Distagon T* to a similar Pentax lens pointing it at
the
> sun and it came out slightly better in the flare control department, but
only
> just slightly.
Well, if this was not the latest AF version, the pentax 28/2.8 lenses are
generally regarded as dogs. However, their flare performance are all great
(with the weird exception of the FA645 45/2.8 - no idea why).
> Have you shot w/ Canon L (which lenses?) in addition to the Pentax LTD.
lenses?
I have not shot Canon L lenses although there are many who has compared them
to Pentax glasses. Recently someone said that the L lenses looked different
than Pentax high-end glass but that he liked both. With your test it is
pretty obvious what you like the most. In generaø, Pentax pro lenses are
just a great as any others but they have certain characteristics. Otherwise,
I use to spot lens characteristics in my many nature photography books and
you definitely get an idea about bokeh and rendering of various lenses. It
is absolutely clear to me that the Pentax telephotos display a more 3D look
than almost any other japanese lenses.
> What were there differences in sharpness, contrast, etc.? From what little
I
> could tell on the web, the 43mm LTD, though reputed to be soft wide open,
had a
> feeling of clarity similar to a Leica M lens. I am particularly interested
in
> the top class wide angles and wide angle zooms of both brands as most of
my
> people work is shot wide (excepting some headshots , of course ;-)).
The 43 Limited is great but it is the "weakest" Limited lens in performance.
The 77 Limited is exceptional in its 3D/depth/bokeh department making images
look almost stereoscopic. Interestingly, the Limited lenses were made in
cooperation with a famous japanese photographer (whose name I have
forgotten) with these particualr qualities in mind. They used trial and
error method by fine tuning various optical aberrations. They basically
turned off the computer and fine tuned image quality by evaluating
photographs.
BTW There are rumors picked up at PMA about a 16-35/ 2.8 or 3,5 and a new
16/2.8 lesn for fall release.
Lewis Lang
>Date: Fri, Apr 18, 2003 7:35 PM
>Message-id: <b7pk21$e18$1...@hood.uits.indiana.edu>
>
>In article <20030418002032...@mb-m02.aol.com>,
>Lewis Lang <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote:
>
>>Has anybody on this group owned and tried (on 35mm film, I'm not talking
>DSLR
>>here) Pentax Ltd. lenses (and their high quality 1.4 primes and fast f/2.8
>>zooms) verses the Canon L EOS lenses (primes and zooms)? What did you find
>were
>
>I've never tried those lenses. But here's an article by Mike Johnston on
>
>the matter.
>
> http://luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-05-02.shtml
Gregory/others:
Thanks for the links. But I have read those that were suggested (Bob Maugham's
site, Luminous Landscape, photo.net, others) before. I was really hoping form
some real/actual experienced people w/ both lens lines's top glass. Not that I
don't appreciate the efforts of you all posting these links, because I do, its
just that I've read them all before, have owned Pentax (though not the A* gear)
and Canon L (MF) equipment in the past, but not at the same time, and was
hoping for some real experiences, not just links and quotes.
Pål Jensen
"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> skrev i melding
>What I really wanted was a comparison between
> Pentax's top glass and Canon L.
For what it is worth, I usually get the comment that my images seems to be
glowing from within and that they have a certain look. It is true, although
I personally didn't noticing at first. It is not the film because it is
there whether I shoot Kodachrome or Velvia. It is the lenses
BTW The 31 Limited is fantastic.
Lewis Lang
>Date: Fri, Apr 18, 2003 9:47 PM
>Message-id: <Rl_na.5160$b71....@news4.e.nsc.no>
Thanks Pal. Which lenses specifically have this glow from w/i? Can you describe
that look more matter of factly? In what ways do these lenses glow form w/i,
detail, contrast, bokeh and/or some other expressable or inexpressable
quality(s)?
TIA
Lewis Lang
>Subject: Re: How do Pentax and Canon's top AF lenses compare?
>From: "Pål Jensen" paalj...@sensewave.com
>Date: Fri, Apr 18, 2003 9:42 PM
>Message-id: <yh_na.5158$b71....@news4.e.nsc.no>
>
>
>"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> skrev i melding
>news:20030418152241.19044.00000326@mb-
>> I compared my 28mm/2.8 Distagon T* to a similar Pentax lens pointing it
>at
>the
>> sun and it came out slightly better in the flare control department, but
>only
>> just slightly.
>
>
>Well, if this was not the latest AF version, the pentax 28/2.8 lenses are
>generally regarded as dogs. However, their flare performance are all great
>(with the weird exception of the FA645 45/2.8 - no idea why).
>
>> Have you shot w/ Canon L (which lenses?) in addition to the Pentax LTD.
>lenses?
>
>I have not shot Canon L lenses although there are many who has compared
>them
>to Pentax glasses.
In what/which ways have they compared them and found them similar or not?
Recently someone said that the L lenses looked different
>than Pentax high-end glass but that he liked both. With your test it is
>pretty obvious what you like the most.
Which test? I only did an anti-flare test between the Pentax and the Zeiss
which is no "reflection" (pardon the pun) on whose coatings I like better, just
an anecdote on how the Zeiss handled the flare slightly better than the Pentax
- only a very slight difference, w/ my Tamron zoom crapping out in the flare
department and giving a sort of milky haze. I still haven't tested Canon L
against Pentax Ltd/pro/fast glass and hence my questions...
In generaø, Pentax pro lenses are
>just a great as any others but they have certain characteristics. Otherwise,
>I use to spot lens characteristics in my many nature photography books and
>you definitely get an idea about bokeh and rendering of various lenses.
Most people don't know or care, but it seems to me that both you and I seem
attuned to "lens signatures"... and look at other's pictures (as well as for
the enjoyment of the pictures/images themselves) w/ an eye towards
reading/gleaming which lens most likely formed the image and why we believe its
that particular lens.
>It
>is absolutely clear to me that the Pentax telephotos display a more 3D look
>than almost any other japanese lenses.
>
In clarity w/i the subject's tones, in separation of the subject from the
background, overall?...
>> What were there differences in sharpness, contrast, etc.? From what little
>I
>> could tell on the web, the 43mm LTD, though reputed to be soft wide open,
>had a
>> feeling of clarity similar to a Leica M lens. I am particularly interested
>in
>> the top class wide angles and wide angle zooms of both brands as most
>of
>my
>> people work is shot wide (excepting some headshots , of course ;-)).
>
>
>The 43 Limited is great but it is the "weakest" Limited lens in performance.
Mainly wide open or all over is this weakness? Which aspects of this lens do
you consider weak and why?
>The 77 Limited is exceptional in its 3D/depth/bokeh department making images
>look almost stereoscopic.
Does the 31mm have this 3D quality? Do you own the 31 LTD? How good is it wide
open in sharpness/contrast/bokeh/color rendition?
Interestingly, the Limited lenses were made in
>cooperation with a famous japanese photographer (whose name I have
>forgotten) with these particualr qualities in mind. They used trial and
>error method by fine tuning various optical aberrations. They basically
>turned off the computer and fine tuned image quality by evaluating
>photographs.
>BTW There are rumors picked up at PMA about a 16-35/ 2.8 or 3,5 and a new
>16/2.8 lesn for fall release.
Sounds great! Are you talking about these new rumored releases being LTD lenses
or "just" standard pro fast glass?
REgards,
Gregory L. Hansen
Lewis Lang <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote:
>>Subject: Re: How do Pentax and Canon's top AF lenses compare?
>>From: glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen)
>>Date: Fri, Apr 18, 2003 7:35 PM
>>Message-id: <b7pk21$e18$1...@hood.uits.indiana.edu>
>>
>>In article <20030418002032...@mb-m02.aol.com>,
>>Lewis Lang <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote:
>>
>>>Has anybody on this group owned and tried (on 35mm film, I'm not talking
>>DSLR
>>>here) Pentax Ltd. lenses (and their high quality 1.4 primes and fast f/2.8
>>>zooms) verses the Canon L EOS lenses (primes and zooms)? What did you find
>>were
>>
>>I've never tried those lenses. But here's an article by Mike Johnston on
>>
>>the matter.
>>
>> http://luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-05-02.shtml
>
>Gregory/others:
>
>Thanks for the links. But I have read those that were suggested (Bob Maugham's
>site, Luminous Landscape, photo.net, others) before. I was really hoping form
>some real/actual experienced people w/ both lens lines's top glass. Not that I
>don't appreciate the efforts of you all posting these links, because I do, its
>just that I've read them all before, have owned Pentax (though not the A* gear)
>and Canon L (MF) equipment in the past, but not at the same time, and was
>hoping for some real experiences, not just links and quotes.
I'm glad you understand Usenet so well. It can be frustrating to ask a
question and be told why you don't need to know the answer, but then I
remember the people are being as helpful as they can.
Anyway, try asking on the Pentax e-mailing list, I'm sure some of them use
Limiteds. Pentax Discussion Mailing List, PDML, for Googling if the link
doesn't work.
http://www.tfkp.physik.uni-erlangen.de/~ralf/photo/PDML/Welcome.html
Lewis Lang
>From: glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen)
>Message-id: <b7qc43$m2e$6...@hood.uits.indiana.edu>
Thanks for the link/suggestion (also been there ;-), but for the archive). I
had hoped it wouldn't come down to having to join a mailing list/etc. to ask
this question (I already spend too much time on the web/emails/etc) but...
Thanks again.
Regards,
Bill Martin
back in the '7os, don't know if they do now. And I've always felt that
my Pentax lenses do just as well as my Minolta lenses. I think the Leica
mystique may simply be in the very high quality engineering and
construction. I had an old screw-mount Leica that I used to just love to
trip the shutter for, there was just something in the way it felt and
sounded.
Jeremy wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
> "Willie wjb" <wjb...@nomail.nl> wrote in message
> news:3e9fd26d$0$57462$1b62...@news.euronet.nl...
>
>
>>I started with minolta (x300) and made the step over to pentax because of
>>quality and exchangebility of lenses.
>
>
> snip
>
>
>>I can use old lenses on all bodies. I can even use my 67 lenses on the
>
> MZ-S
>
>>with an adaptor!
>
>
> snip
>
>
>>Optical:
>>I own the SMC 1.4 50mm which had a test several years ago along with leica
>>and other brands and resulted that this lens was better than leica's.
>
Bandicoot
many: I don't own both...
So I can only opine about Pentax lenses that I know intimately versus the
pictures I've seen taken by other people who use Canon. I hope you can find
someone who can make a real comparison because it would be interesting, but
for what its worth this is my view:
First off, I started using Pentax a long time ago, and loved the lenses. I
used various other cameras at various times, particularly Nikon, but Pentax
lenses were always my favourites (had some Zeiss Contax lenses I liked too)
and Pentax remained my main 35mm system. Two issues are overriding in my
remaining with Pentax: the lenses (most important issue for any system
choice) and the ergonomics. Pentax bodies handle well and I find they have
intuitive control layouts. I also like their relative compactness: I often
use three or more different types of film at a time, and carrying three
Pentax bodies is a lot easier than three comparable Canons or Nikons.
As far as what I like in an image is concerned: in colour I shoot mostly
landscapes, gardens, and plants, plus some wildlife, animal portraits, and
'natural abstracts' - films like Velvia, Provia, Ektachrome E100VS, and (for
lower contrast) the Portra negative films. I like saturated landscapes, but
for the plant and garden work tend to go with a much more muted and lower
contrast approach. In B&W I shoot mostly rather 'gritty' architectural and
industrial landscapes - films like HP5 and Tri-X, but also some of the newer
fine grained films like Fuji Acros. To suit me and this range of subjects
there are some characteristics of lenses that matter more than others:
- Good flare rejection is vital;
- Bokeh must be non-distracting, especially background bokeh for the plant
portrait work;
- Drawing matters a lot for the 'architectural landscapes', but less so in
the natural world;
- Flatness of plane is important for the plant portraits and 'natural
abstracts'
- Sharpness matters for almost everything, and for the landscapes needs to
reach the corners _at the apertures I use_.
- A good sense of 'three dimensionality' really helps with the subjects that
interest me.
What matters less is corner to corner sharpness wide open - the subjects for
which I need corner sharpness don't need wide apertures and vice versa; AF
speed and noise are helpful but not priorities.
To meet these criteria I use primes more than zooms. This means I want
lenses that aren't too heavy or bulky! they need to be robust enough to
survive 'on the road' too.
I use all three of the Limited lenses, and have fixed focal length lenses in
regular use from all the K mount variations: K, M, A, F, and FA. (OK, none
of the FAJ lenses, or the KF) And zooms from all these varaiations too,
though these are used less often. My other most use 35mm system is the
Hasselblad X-Pan, so I have the (Fuji) lenses from that as my main
non-Pentax yard-sticks. I also have an Angenieux zoom that I am very fond
of, a Tamron 300mm f2.8 that I like and a Sigma 135-400 that I tolerate...
The following is based on the lenses I use, so may not apply to the more
consumer oriented lenses, zooms in particular.
So that sets the context for my comments.
My _impression_ is that the Canon L lenses have the edge in corner
sharpness wide open, and in flatness of field _except_ with macro lenses,
where Pentax wins. Canon obviously focuses more quietly, perhaps faster
(though this is body dependent too) and IS is available.
There are a couple of exceptions to this: the Pentax macro lenses are all
sharper - I feel - than their Canon equivalents, and the Pentax 200mm f2.8
FA* also seems to me to beat the Canon even wide open.
I think Pentax bokeh is better than the L lenses - or at least, is more
pleasing to my eye. The limited lenses are especially good in this regard,
but it is a Pentax family characteristic. Longer lenses always tend to have
less attractive bokeh as a rule, and I do find that the Pentax 200 f2.8
FA*'s can be a little unattractive, but only when measured against that of a
50mm, say _for a 200_ it is still very good - the problem is this lens is
so sharp that I often look at the slides and forget they weren't taken with
a 50mm.
I am in no doubt that Pentax's SMC coating is still the best. Flare
rejection is amazing and this also leads to very high contrast and saturated
colours. Everyone else seems to be improving their coatings, and so the
Pentax advantage is less dramatic here than it used to be, but it is still
worthwhile for me. Zeiss T* and Fujinon EBC seem _to me_ to be the next
best.
The final area where I feel Pentax has an edge is in the sense of
three -dimensionality images possess. I'm never quite sure what produces
this effect - accutance and contrast must both be important, but I think it
more complex than just that. Canon images to me seem just a little more
picture-like while I find Pentax 'transports me' better to the scene. This
is probably another very personal thing. The Canon approach seems
archetypically Japanese, while in this respect the Pentax's seem to me more
like German lenses than other Japanese makers (but then, Fuji to some extent
shares this character).
Also very personal: I prefer Pentax's colour rendition, which is saturated
but 'plausible'. This is a characteristic that tends to vary more between
lenses and has changed more over time than some of the other 'family
traits' - but as a generalisation I just happen to like Pentax's colour
choices.
So this is my general impression: Pentax for coating and stopped down
performance, Canon for AF speed and noise and - marginally - for wide open
performance. The other things are, I suspect, very much a matter of
personal preference.
Now, about the Limited lenses. These all seem to have the basic Pentax
character, but with the best aspects somewhat 'more so'. In particular, the
coating seems even better and the sense of three-dimensionality is quite
amazing. Slides taken with the 77mm that I was looking at on the lightbox
the other day looked so three dimensional I caught myself unconsciously
moving my head from side to side to see 'behind' things. This is a hard
thing to describe, but you know it when you see it.
The other thing the Limited lenses do spectacularly well is their control of
comma. This is especially noticeable, of course, in any night scene that
includes light sources, which are rendered more clearly as points - even at
the edges - than with any other lenses I know, and this is a subject area
where the excellent flare control really makes a difference too. Passing
through Las Vegas in February I went down to the strip at night to finish up
a roll of E100VS and took only the three limited lenses with me. I'm amazed
by the results, which are some of the better city night-scenes I've done,
without really trying on this occasion. Certainly, they will be my first
choices for this sort of work in future.
Build of the Limited lenses is excellent too: they are AF lenses that can be
used manually just as easily. (The FA* lenses with focus clutches share
this.) The older manual lenses also have excellent build, though I am not
so taken with some of the more modern AF zooms in this respect. The F* and
FA* lenses, however, are beautifully built. Canon's L build is also
luxurious, but happens to appeal to me less. Besides, I like aperture
rings. Canon lenses seem to be lighter, for equivalent spec., in some cases
though.
With the * lenses, the ones I know well are the 135mm f1.8 A*, 200mm f2.8
FA*, 300mm f4 A*, 300mm f4.5 F* and 600mm f4 F*. I like all of these very
much, especially the 200 which really does produce images you could mistake
for having been taken with a standard lens. (Though not a * lens, the 100mm
f2.8 FA macro is also in this category.) Both the 300s are also spectacular
lenses: very sharp indeed and with some of that striking sense of
three-dimensionality (the F* may be a little better in both of these areas,
but the A* is so easy to hand-hold that it still has its place as well.)
The 85mm f1.4 A* and FA* are frequently cited by others as being truly
outstanding, but I have no experience of these, and I like both my 85mm f1.8
K and 77mm f1.8 Limited that I doubt I'll ever get myself one of the 1.4s.
The * lens I don't have and really want is the 200mm f4 macro - the A* and
FA* versions are each desirable, in their own ways - these lenses are
amongst the sharpest ever made by anyone and handle beautifully too.
In the * area (fast &/or long ED glass) I really don't know the Canon lenses
well enough to make a good comparison, but I have to say that my 600mm
produces images I like better in terms of colour rendition and contrat than
those I've seem from Canon 500 and 600mm lenses. However, IS will be a
totally over-riding factor for many at these sort of lengths.
These comments major on what I like about the Pentax lenses, I suppose,
because it is for the things I like about them that I choose to use them.
Any weaknesses largely fall into areas that don't affect my style of work -
otherwise I wouldn't use them. I guess this goes for any 'personal' review,
but I should make the point: the Pentax lenses I use are without exception
the best _I know of_ for the work I do - if you do different work or have
different taste you may have other choices.... (though I still think that
if more people tried Pentax before they bought into other systems, they
might never switch...)
My (many) pennies' worth,
Peter
--
Bandicoot
[SNIP]
>
> Thanks for the info, Jeremy, though I have seen those links (and the Pop
> article Keppler was quoted from) before. The one error I believe is the A
> lenses. I believe they came out at about the smae time as the Super
Program
> which was in 1983 (or possibly late '82 at the earliest) as I got a Super
> program around that time. I even rmember the ad for it. Though the M mount
> lenses were built superiorly I think that the A lenses ar given a short
shrift
> (or whatever the word is), the construction of the 50/1.7 A and 28-135 A
lens I
> had was, if not up to Zeiss standards, still superb, and equals if not
exceeds
> most MF lenses made today and certainly the AF lenses in terms of
construction.
> They had excepttional sharpness and color too, except for the zoom I
mentioned
> above which at/near 135mm grew very soft indeed...
>
I'd second that. The A lenses don't have the bomb proof look that the K and
M, lenses had - but once in the hand they feel pretty much the same. That
silky focus action is still there. Everyone seems 'down on' the A lenses,
but I think it is a myth.
Peter
Magnus W
>> It also has a slow(ish) shutter, but I could live with that.
>
> You mean a long shutter lag, mirror return, and/or something else
No, I am thinking about the actual shutter. It's a minor niggle, but it's
still irritating with a "professional" camera with 1/180 as x-sync. Neither
fish nor flesh.
> On the day I bought my Maxxum 7 at B&H I also tried out the MZ-Z w/
> vertical grip - even w/ the lesser motor drive speed of the S it was
> still a tough choice. I found the Pentax small, easy to hold, and for
> lack of a better term - "sensual". Aside from any obvious features the
> M7 still had a brighter viewfinder but the S seemed to have alot
> higher eyepoint, which made it even a tougher call. What decided it
> for me was both the price (the S was several hundred dollars more) and
> the fact that I already owned some Maxxum lenses, a 600si and a 5400HS
> flash. If the S were priced lower, I might have been shooting Pentax
> today. As it were, the M7 (and I know I will heel howels from other
> "brand loyalists" on this) is probably the best specced camera at any
> price on the market - what you get in a small, light, fully featured
> camera is unbeatable/unbelievable.
I agree with everything you said above. I was a Pentax user, and sometimes
I regret the switch -- there has been some gorgeous cameras and lenses in
the pentax line. But then I think about Pentax' will to lead the race,
which seems to be even less than Minolta's, and then I'm happy again ;-)
> They should have at least give it a 4-5 fps motordrive (like a PZ-1p),
> but I have a feeling that it would have necessitated making the body
> slightly larger than they were willing to...
I'd rather not say what I think about a company sacrificing usability for
size. The Dynax 7 is also rather small, and it can do 4fps -- which for me
is on the borderline, not because I fire away on continuous mode but
because I want the ability to time and catch the moments. With a slow
camera, I can't.
>>> *ist (which I still don't know how its pronounced
>>
>>"Czarist".
>
> Surely you jest,
[snip]
Surely, but I think it's a good interpretation anyway ;-)
Lewis Lang
>Date: Sun, Apr 20, 2003 4:03 PM
>Message-id: <105085470...@iapetus.uk.clara.net>
Hi Peter:
A superb review Peter. Thanks very much. The only part I don't quite understand
is when you say...
>- Drawing matters a lot for the 'architectural landscapes', but less so
>in
>the natural world;
By "drawing", do you mean linear distortion (ie. barrel or pincushion
distortion), three dimensionality (contrast and micro contrast) or some other
quality?
Which Pentax SLRs are you currently using and why?
If you have any experience with the MZ-S do you find the mirror return time
and/or the shutter lag, either in standard AF, AF activation by the back button
(which is what I used mostly when I used/played w/ the MZ-S) or manual focus,
to be a little "slow" (I think I did at the photo show but this may be the
result of the model I was using being the "demo" model, so perhaps only that
particular camera had that problem - my Maxxum 7 is very fast both for shutter
lag and mirror return...).
Again, thanks for a startlingly refreshing, detailed, personal honest review. I
hope Pentax brings out some IS lenses soon (as well as some wider angle ltd.
lenses) as this will start to more level the playing field between it and
Canon (when Minolta will get around to doing IS or even a DSLR is anybody's
guess).
Lewis Lang
>Date: Sun, Apr 20, 2003 5:43 PM
>Message-id: <Xns9363C8AADF3F...@212.83.64.229>
>
>cont...@aol.comnospam (Lewis Lang) wrote in
>news:20030418144227...@mb-m07.aol.com:
>
>>> It also has a slow(ish) shutter, but I could live with that.
>>
>> You mean a long shutter lag, mirror return, and/or something else
>
>No, I am thinking about the actual shutter. It's a minor niggle, but it's
>
>still irritating with a "professional" camera with 1/180 as x-sync. Neither
>
>fish nor flesh.
>
So its just the flash sync being too low for you that's a problem w/ the
shutter, nothing else/no other aspects?...
>> On the day I bought my Maxxum 7 at B&H I also tried out the MZ-Z w/
>> vertical grip - even w/ the lesser motor drive speed of the S it was
>> still a tough choice. I found the Pentax small, easy to hold, and for
>> lack of a better term - "sensual". Aside from any obvious features the
>> M7 still had a brighter viewfinder but the S seemed to have alot
>> higher eyepoint, which made it even a tougher call. What decided it
>> for me was both the price (the S was several hundred dollars more) and
>> the fact that I already owned some Maxxum lenses, a 600si and a 5400HS
>> flash. If the S were priced lower, I might have been shooting Pentax
>> today. As it were, the M7 (and I know I will heel howels from other
>> "brand loyalists" on this) is probably the best specced camera at any
>
>> price on the market - what you get in a small, light, fully featured
>> camera is unbeatable/unbelievable.
>
>I agree with everything you said above. I was a Pentax user, and sometimes
>
>I regret the switch -- there has been some gorgeous cameras and lenses in
>
>the pentax line. But then I think about Pentax' will to lead the race,
>which seems to be even less than Minolta's, and then I'm happy again ;-)
>
Don't get too happy, at least Pentax is releasing a substantially new SLR as
well as a DSLR after many years of "sleeping in the '90's" (making infinite
variations on the ZX-5/n theme).
>> They should have at least give it a 4-5 fps motordrive (like a PZ-1p),
>> but I have a feeling that it would have necessitated making the body
>> slightly larger than they were willing to...
>
>I'd rather not say what I think about a company sacrificing usability for
>
>size. The Dynax 7 is also rather small, and it can do 4fps -- which for
>me
>is on the borderline, not because I fire away on continuous mode but
>because I want the ability to time and catch the moments. With a slow
>camera, I can't.
>
Another reason I'm glad I own a 7 for. But a higher level *ist (if there is
one) may rectify this...
>>>> *ist (which I still don't know how its pronounced
>>>
>>>"Czarist".
>>
>> Surely you jest,
>[snip]
>
>Surely, but I think it's a good interpretation anyway ;-)
I prefer "the camera formerly known as camera" ;-)
Regards,
Lewis
Lewis Lang
>Date: Sun, Apr 20, 2003 4:11 PM
>Message-id: <105085516...@iapetus.uk.clara.net>
Everybody (or at least, many people) seemed to be down on the Nikon Series E
lenses when they were released, yet I find those also (I owned a 75-150/3.5 and
currently own a 50/1.8) to be sturdy well built lenses of excellent optical
quality, and the Pentax A lenses should have even better construction, so I
think you're right about the A lenses being mostly thought of as lower
build/etc. due to their looks not their construction - all wipe the floor
compared to most brand's 35mm SLR AF lenses today in both feel and construction
(some Ltd. and Carl Zeiss N lenses excepted of course ;-))
Bandicoot
[SNIP]
> Hi Peter:
>
> A superb review Peter. Thanks very much.
Thank you...
> The only part I don't quite understand
> is when you say...
>
> >- Drawing matters a lot for the 'architectural landscapes', but less so
> >in
> >the natural world;
>
> By "drawing", do you mean linear distortion (ie. barrel or pincushion
> distortion), three dimensionality (contrast and micro contrast) or some
other
> quality?
Distortion - sorry, old fashioned phrase that may not have crossed the
Atlantic.
>
> Which Pentax SLRs are you currently using and why?
LX (3), MX (2), MZ-S (1), and MZ-3 (1).
The LXs are my workhorses: I don't need (or want) AF for landscapes and they
are solid, reliable, well dust-sealed, small for their spec., the
interchangeable finders are superb. I could go on, but basically, I just
really like them. The shutter is noisy and only goes up to 1/2000, and
flash sync. is not fast, but none of this matters for the work I use them
for. The meter is superb - OK, it is only old fashioned centre weighted,
but then I use a spot or incident meter mostly anyway and centre-weighted is
very predictable: when it is going to get a scene wrong I can reliably guess
by how much and put in the compensation. This is good to have as a reliable
fall-back if I want to grab a shot in a hurry. The winder is very nice too,
and the motor-drive, on the rare occasions I need one, is also rather good.
I can carry three of these bodies in not much more space than one Nikon F5
would take in my bag ;-)
The MX is totally mechanical: the battery powers nothing other than the
meter. No flash automation, nothing fancy at all. But very small and
light, and robust in a way that small and light cameras usually aren't. The
winder for these is good too, though it doesn't rewind the roll. I like the
MX as a backup, as a fourth body if all my LXs are in use (I can't really
kid myself that I need to buy any more LX bodies...) Doesn't have mirror
lock-up, but can be tricked into pre-firing the mirror if necessary. With
the 40mm 'pancake' lens I really can fit one of these in my pocket.
The LX doesn't - these days - exactly shout "pro." at passers by, but the MX
is more unobtrusive still. I don't do a lot of candid or 'street' shooting,
but when I am in a good place and feel like doing some this is a
surprisingly good camera for the job. The MX also just feels nice.
The MZ-S I got on trial from a friendly dealer while I decide if I was going
to have a use for AF or not, and I very quickly decided to keep it. It
handles beautifully, and while it lacks a few features of the LX that I'd
like it to have, on balance it is a good package. I use it with the grip
attached almost all the time. It really annoys me that the rubber eyecup
comes off so easily and gets lost - but if that is the worst point of a
camera I guess it can't be too bad!
I keep the MZ-S permanently loaded up and in a bag with a small selection of
lenses and a flash as my 'grab-bag'. This is ready to go if something just
'comes up' and is very versatile. I still prefer an LX for a carefully
planned and metered shot taken from a tripod in a previously scouted
location - but the MZ-S is a very fast to use and intuitive camera to have
to hand when I just don't know what I'm going to see next. It is also my
preferred body for 'action' which is not my main focus of activity, but this
is a good body when I need it, slowish frame advance notwithstanding.
The MZ-3 may be unfamiliar: it is not available in North America. This is
an MZ-5n with a different shutter, giving a 1/4000 top speed and a faster
flash sync.
I got this when I found I sometimes needed a second AF body. I thought
about having two MZ-S bodies, but for an occasional need this was an
expensive solution. Also, while there is much to be said for having
multiple bodies that are the same and being wholly familiar with them so
that use is instinctive - there is also something to be said for the second
body being small and light. The MZ-3 is certainly very light, and this
makes it not just a second body when I need one for animal shoots, but a
good 'only' body when I have to climb a tree or do something equally dumb.
It also has an incredibly simple and intuitive (to someone who grew up with
mechanical cameras) control interface. This is something I like, but it
also makes my plan of having a second body that is not the same as the
primary one (for my AF kit) much more practical: two different and complex
interfaces would be confusing and probably lead to missed shots, with this
one that doesn't happen.
With all these bodies it is Pentax's characteristic compactness and
straightforward user interface that I like. Before the MXs and LXs I used
two Spotmatics and an SP II - not quite as compact, but more or less the
same idea.
>
> If you have any experience with the MZ-S do you find the mirror return
time
> and/or the shutter lag, either in standard AF, AF activation by the back
button
> (which is what I used mostly when I used/played w/ the MZ-S) or manual
focus,
> to be a little "slow" (I think I did at the photo show but this may be the
> result of the model I was using being the "demo" model, so perhaps only
that
> particular camera had that problem - my Maxxum 7 is very fast both for
shutter
> lag and mirror return...).
Hmmm, hadn't noticed this, but then I wasn't looking. This is also the
first AF (other than compact) camera I bought, so my experience is not that
wide - and for my sort of shooting this isn't usually as critical as it
might be some people. I have visitors this weekend, and my spare room is
the room that the MZ-S bag is sitting in - as I'm typing this at night after
they've gone to bed I can't go and get it to play about. I'll have a little
play with it giving particular attention to this and get back to you. It
does - from memory - have more lag than an LX, but then I would probably
have expected that anyway.
>
> Again, thanks for a startlingly refreshing, detailed, personal honest
review.
Aww, don't say that. I'm wearing a crew-neck jumper and would like still to
be able to get it off over my head when I go to bed...
> I hope Pentax brings out some IS lenses soon (as well as some wider angle
ltd.
> lenses) as this will start to more level the playing field between it and
> Canon (when Minolta will get around to doing IS or even a DSLR is
anybody's
> guess).
Me too! The rumour of an 18mm Limited is interesting, and recently a 16mm
has been rumoured too. I just hope if it happens, that I'll be able to
afford one!
>
> Regards,
>
> Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
>
> http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm
Peter
Lewis Lang
>> If you have any experience with the MZ-S do you find the mirror return
>time
>> and/or the shutter lag, either in standard AF, AF activation by the back
>button
>> (which is what I used mostly when I used/played w/ the MZ-S) or manual
>focus,
>> to be a little "slow" (I think I did at the photo show but this may be
>the
>> result of the model I was using being the "demo" model, so perhaps only
>that
>> particular camera had that problem - my Maxxum 7 is very fast both for
>shutter
>> lag and mirror return...).
>
>Hmmm, hadn't noticed this, but then I wasn't looking. This is also the
>first AF (other than compact) camera I bought, so my experience is not that
>wide - and for my sort of shooting this isn't usually as critical as it
>might be some people. I have visitors this weekend, and my spare room is
>the room that the MZ-S bag is sitting in - as I'm typing this at night after
>they've gone to bed I can't go and get it to play about. I'll have a little
>play with it giving particular attention to this and get back to you. It
>does - from memory - have more lag than an LX, but then I would probably
>have expected that anyway.
Please let me know how both the shutter lag and the mirror return compares w/
your other cameras (LX, MX, and MZ-3) and would you describe both of these
qualities (shutter lag/mirror return) as instantaneous, near instantaneous, I
can easily see the black out in the viewfinder but its longish, I could read
Finnegan's Wake 3 times and go out to McD's for an egg Mcmuffin before either
the mirror returns and/or the shutter fires (shutter lag). :-)
>
> Again, thanks for a startlingly refreshing, detailed, personal honest
review.
>Aww, don't say that. I'm wearing a crew-neck jumper and would like still
>to
>be able to get it off over my head when I go to bed...
Time for bigger necked crew-neck jumpers ;-)
Thanks yet again for your detailed/insightful analysis of how you use your
equipment/when for what purposes (...he says as Peters head floats off like a
hot air balloon into the night sky over Great Britain... ;-)).
Regards,
Lewis
Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm
Remove "nospam" to reply
Gregory L. Hansen
Lewis Lang <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote:
>>Subject: Re: How do Pentax and Canon's top AF lenses compare?
>>From: glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen)
>>Message-id: <b7qc43$m2e$6...@hood.uits.indiana.edu>
>>Limiteds. Pentax Discussion Mailing List, PDML, for Googling if the link
>>
>>doesn't work.
>>
>>http://www.tfkp.physik.uni-erlangen.de/~ralf/photo/PDML/Welcome.html
>
>Thanks for the link/suggestion (also been there ;-), but for the archive). I
>had hoped it wouldn't come down to having to join a mailing list/etc. to ask
>this question (I already spend too much time on the web/emails/etc) but...
Okay, is this more helpful?
And a picture taken with a 43mm Ltd.
http://www3.telus.net/wlachan/FA43/s0000014.jpg
Pierre L
"Jeremy" <jer...@no-spam-thanks.com> wrote in message
news:aZVoa.35779$4P1.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
[snip]>
> I have perceived a certain tactile gratification from using the SMC
> Takumars, but I do not believe that the A lenses were in any way inferior
> optically. Neither were they so markedly superior optically that I would
> have wanted to upgrade to them, either. After all, "tactile
gratification,"
> itself a vague, nebulous concept, hardly translates into better images.
> Still, that warm, fuzzy feeling in one's stomach from using those
> smooth-focusing Takumar lenses is enough to keep some of us interested in
> using them. Fortunately, the margin of improvement in today's optics is
> small enough that, at least for me, the advantages of modernizing are not
> justified.
>
> And you certainly can't beat those prices for SMC Takumars on the used
> market! Lots of bang for the buck, in terms of optical quality, don't you
> think?
>
>
I used mostly a 50mm SMC-Pentax A lens in the 1980's. I don't recall at this
point if it was a 1.7, since I don't have it anymore (I think it was
though). I've used many lenses since, other makes on other cameras, but I
still think it was the sharpest lens I ever had. Even my wife, who isn't at
all into photography, can tell the difference. She says you can see it in
the eyes. On the other hand, I still have perfectly preserved prints from a
50mm Takumar that came with my first Pentax SP1000 in 1976. They are even
sharper I think, but I can't compare, because those are all slow B&W film.
Amazing how good kit lenses were back then, compared to today's junk. I
think having used such lenses in the past is why I'm not prepared to forego
optical quality of a prime lens for the convenience of a zoom.
Pierre
T.P
>
>I have never felt any need to move out of the SMC Takumar line of screw
>mounts, so I really do not know a lot about the A series
Anyone contemplating reading any of your ridiculous postings on here
in future should read the above statement now, and remember it well.
Your knowledge and experience consists **entirely** of using a line of
lenses that was good in its day, but is now very dated in several key
respects. Because you have never used anything else, you are
completely blind to those aspects which are the most dated.
I have no doubt that you are a very nice chap who knows quite a lot
about subjects outside 35mm photography, so this can in no way be
inferred to be a personal attack. I am merely pointing out that your
postings on 35mm photography serve not to inform, but only to mislead.
It's time you admitted to yourself what is already apparent to any
knowledgeable person: that you know **absolutely nothing** about
anything outside the Pentax screw mount lens system, and it's time you
stopped making fatuous comparisons with lens systems you have zero
knowledge and experience of.
T.P
>One of the articles on The Luminous Landscape quotes a Japanese camera
>executive as saying that, if the 50mm SMC Takumar f/1.4 normal lens could be
>manufactured and marketed today, it would sell for somewhere between US
>$1200--$1500 dollars!
It would also be unacceptable in today's market because of its optical
flaws that have long been designed out of competing designs, plus
Pentax's own later lenses.
Screw mount Pentax Super- and SMC Takumars were very good lenses in
their time, but they fall well short of today's higher standards.
Of course, you wouldn't know that, Jeremy, as you have never used
anything else, and you are still firmly stuck in the 1970s.
Lewis Lang
>And you certainly can't beat those prices for SMC Takumars on the used
>market! Lots of bang for the buck, in terms of optical quality, don't you
>think?
Most definitely! Fortunately, w/ a good deal of its bodies, past and present,
Pentax allows yout o pick and choose the best of all the Pentax lenses as per
mechanical/optical preference...
Lewis Lang
Thanks, I've been to Erwin Puts' Leica site and read his opinions, though I do
thank you for your quote.
>Since every designer has their own objectives, there comes a point where
>lens comparisons between major brands becomes an exercise of comparing
>apples with oranges.
Usually this is considered a bad thing, comparing apples w/ oranges, but when
it comes to a lenses "signature" (residual aberrations, bokeh, contrast,
microcontrast, color balance, color saturation, etc.) it is exactly what
somebody must do in order to get what they want. No one factor for me is worth
comparing across brands, ie. the typical apples to apples comparison of
resolution or some other quality, what I am interested in is "a different
flavor", perhaps a mango, pehaps a lime, perhaps whatever combination of lens
qualitie_s_ that will give me the "flavor" I prefer.
Mike Johnston, on Luminous Landscape, says that the Nikon and Olympus 50's are
not the best (forget what exact term he uses) lenses despite there reputations
for being so. But that's his opinion as well as his taste preference. Stopped
down at least, I haven't seen anything sharper than the Olympus 50/1.8 lest it
be an equivalently sharp Leica/Contax/Schneider SLR lens. And while Leica M
lenses have greats separation of tones w/i the subject's hues/tones, I have yet
to see the separation of planes of focus I've seen in the Nikon Series E 50/1.8
lens. Zeiss lenses have great Acutance/edge contrast which makes the
sides/edges of objects stand out form their out of focus or even slightly soft
backgrounds. Leica, as I've just said, has great microcontrast (separation of
tones/hues) within the subject that gives it a larger format/more 3-D look. BUt
the Nikon 50/1.8 Series E lens seems to pop/separate not just one plane from
all the other planes but all the planes (in or out of focus) from each other in
a way that seems more than just 3-D but hyper stereo. Additionally, it has the
advantage of smoothing out/subdueing the fine details in an out of focus
background (possibly foreground too but I haven't checked on this) which makes
the subject stand out better from the background because the background, being
less detailed, becomes less obtrusive to the eye/cals less attention to itself
- its as if the backgrounds had a slight soft focus filter whereas the
subject/in focus part remains pin sharp. I have tested this against lenses of
near to equal aperture and focal length, and, even though my Yashica 50/2 ML
lens has smoother bokeh, I prefer the bokeh effect of the Nikon Series E, which
while not near as smooth as the Yashica (yet hardly ugly even though its not
perfect gaussian blur) makes a much better "portrait" lens because of the way
it subdues fine details in the background. The Pentax A 50/1.7 had pillow soft
bokeh that I prefer to just about anything (especially on oof background
vegetation), nice color saturation and sharpness, an "open/natural look" to it,
which makes it an equal to the 50 Series E but in a different way. Most people
won't know or care about any of this. And even the few who do know about these
optical effects/signatures/"flavorings" may not care. But I do. It matters to
me. Sometimes its the small things that make all the difference in the world.
So for most people, the closest thing they may get to subtlety is when they put
in a different speed film in their camera, however I am not most people, and
though I can make/take great pictures with any lens, part of the "experience"
for me goes beyond the mere tactile qualities/joy of ownership of using and/or
playing w/ a well constructed optic or even an optically excellent optic, what
counts for me, what's "best" for me, beyond the image itself, is how well the
subtleties of a lenses signature match and _enhance_ the viewing pleasure of
the subject and how well these qualities not only fit the subject but my
overall vision. For classic portraiture I would prefer the signature of a
Pentax over the harder edge surreal look of a Zeiss lens and possibly over a
Nikon/Nikkor lens unless its the 50 E I just mentioned or the 75-150/3.5 E or
the 105/2.5 AIS. For PJ work and more surreal fine art work Zeiss and any
Nikkor/Minolta (especially the 24-50/4 Maxxum) would do me find w/ their
emphasis on sharpness over bokeh, though the 24-50 Maxxum has nice bokeh
stopped down a bit and very nice color saturation too).
Hence my "obsession" w/ two apparently equal top notch lens lines - I'm looking
for "the flavor" (the subtleties) - or as Erwin Puts might put it "the correct
balance of residual aberrations for my taste"/obsession ;-). :-)
Lewis Lang
>Okay, is this more helpful?
>
> http://plg.komkon.org/
>
Somewhat :-). Been there before but it seems they've added some more links/test
of Pentax lenses.
>And a picture taken with a 43mm Ltd.
>
> http://www3.telus.net/wlachan/FA43/s0000014.jpg
Highlights are slightly bright ringed but otherwise the bokeh is pleasing and
the color seems good/saturated and natural. Sharpness (other than it being the
web) is hard to tell mostly because of the small depth of field which I'm
assuming is because your shooting at or near minimum focusing distance. Thanks
for the links. Any people shots w/ this lens?
Willie wjb
"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20030418144848...@mb-m07.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: How do Pentax and Canon's top AF lenses compare?
> >From: "Willie wjb" wjb...@nomail.nl
> >Date: Fri, Apr 18, 2003 10:00 AM
> >Message-id: <3e9fcceb$0$57486$1b62...@news.euronet.nl>
> >
> >do you shoot 5 pics /sec every day?
> >same a cars.
> >Mine does 250 Km/hour, so what!
> >it doesn't tell anything about using the car.
> >
> >Only if you have the need for speed this is a valid argument.
>
> Willie:
>
> Fast motor drives are also good for being able to capture a quick series
of
> expressions. For that purpose, for me, about 3 f.p.s. would seem about
minimum,
> though at times I have eeked by w/ a minimum 2 f.p.s. Its just
easier/makes me
> more confident to know that *when I need it* that speed is there,
regardless of
> how often I use that feature (which for people shots is often enough).
>
> 2.5 f.p.s. is kind of miserly for a camera in the 2000's, especially one
that
> is being marketed to an upscale/serious market at serious prices, but I
have a
> feeling Pentax reduced the motordrive speed so they could fit the motor
into a
> smaller/more compact body. So, while I understand their reasoning, I don't
> necessarily agree with it - I would have liked a slightly larger body w/ a
> faster motor drive. Perhaps a future MZ or *ist camera will have this
> feature... "We shall see..." :-)
>
> Regards,
Bandicoot
[SNIP]
> Please let me know how both the shutter lag and the mirror return compares
w/
> your other cameras (LX, MX, and MZ-3) and would you describe both of these
> qualities (shutter lag/mirror return) as instantaneous, near
instantaneous, I
> can easily see the black out in the viewfinder but its longish, I could
read
> Finnegan's Wake 3 times and go out to McD's for an egg Mcmuffin before
either
> the mirror returns and/or the shutter fires (shutter lag). :-)
This is going to take a little time! I'll have to wait till my Easter
visitors have gone home, I think - I'll try to do something at the end of
this week and post again then.
>
> Time for bigger necked crew-neck jumpers ;-)
Awww, but this one is my favourite...
>
> Thanks yet again for your detailed/insightful analysis of how you use your
> equipment/when for what purposes (...he says as Peters head floats off
like a
> hot air balloon into the night sky over Great Britain... ;-)).
Hey, careful with that air rifle Eugene...
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Lewis
>
> Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
>
> http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm
>
> Remove "nospam" to reply
Peter
Magnus W
> the *ist camera has the same body as the Mz-S
Absolutely not. As one can see in the images
http://www.penta-
club.org/penta/info_desk/equipment/by_type/cameras/slr/content/pentax_mz_s/
images/more/cam_pentax_mz_s_grip_bg10_front_big.jpg
http://www.pentax.com/eWebEditPro2/upload/IST.jpg
http://www.pentax.com/eWebEditPro2/upload/istD_1(72dpi).JPG
the three cameras (MZ-S, *ist, *ist D) are very different. Internally, the
digital camera is much more like the standard *ist than anything else, with
the shared features 16-zone matrix metering system and 11-point AF -- none
of these features exists in any other Pentax camera.
Lewis Lang
>your
>> equipment/when for what purposes (...he says as Peters head floats off
>like a
>> hot air balloon into the night sky over Great Britain... ;-)).
>
>Hey, careful with that air rifle Eugene...
Don't quite get the reference, but it sounds funny, so I'll laugh anyways :-)
Lewis Lang
>Message-id: <3ea4faab$0$49375$1b62...@news.euronet.nl>
>
>the *ist camera has the same body as the Mz-S
Huh? Heh? Hee? Hoh? Are you kidding? They don't look anything alike...
Gregory L. Hansen
Lewis Lang <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote:
>Hi Gregory"
>
>>Okay, is this more helpful?
>>
>> http://plg.komkon.org/
>>
>
>Somewhat :-). Been there before but it seems they've added some more links/test
>of Pentax lenses.
>
>>And a picture taken with a 43mm Ltd.
>>
>> http://www3.telus.net/wlachan/FA43/s0000014.jpg
>
>Highlights are slightly bright ringed but otherwise the bokeh is pleasing and
>the color seems good/saturated and natural. Sharpness (other than it being the
>web) is hard to tell mostly because of the small depth of field which I'm
>assuming is because your shooting at or near minimum focusing distance. Thanks
>for the links. Any people shots w/ this lens?
I actually got those links yesterday from the PDML and I thought of you.
There just happens to be a long thread about bokeh in mainly the 43mm, and
links to a number of sample photos have been listed. So if ever there
was a time to waste even more of your time by joining the list, now is
probably it.
Lewis Lang
>Date: Tue, Apr 22, 2003 1:59 PM
>Message-id: <b83hsh$m5o$1...@hood.uits.indiana.edu>
>
>In article <20030421224031...@mb-m12.aol.com>,
>Lewis Lang <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote:
>>Hi Gregory"
>>
>>>Okay, is this more helpful?
>>>
>>> http://plg.komkon.org/
>>>
>>
>>Somewhat :-). Been there before but it seems they've added some more
links/test
>>of Pentax lenses.
>>
>>>And a picture taken with a 43mm Ltd.
>>>
>>> http://www3.telus.net/wlachan/FA43/s0000014.jpg
>>
>>Highlights are slightly bright ringed but otherwise the bokeh is pleasing
>and
>>the color seems good/saturated and natural. Sharpness (other than it being
>the
>>web) is hard to tell mostly because of the small depth of field which I'm
>>assuming is because your shooting at or near minimum focusing distance.
>Thanks
>>for the links. Any people shots w/ this lens?
>
>I actually got those links yesterday from the PDML and I thought of you.
>
Thanks for thinking of me/the link(s).
>There just happens to be a long thread about bokeh in mainly the 43mm, and
>
>links to a number of sample photos have been listed.
Sounds interesting, Ill check it out in the archives.
So if ever there
>was a time to waste even more of your time by joining the list, now is
>probably it.
Perhaps, but I still prefer the archives at this point, but thanks for the
suggestion. :-)
Regards,
Lewis
Leon Mlakar
>
> Again, thanks for a startlingly refreshing, detailed, personal honest
review.
>
days to find resolution tests, charts and other factual data but it is much
harder to find educated opinions that grew from the use of the lenses (or
other gadgets).
Leon
Magnus W
> So its just the flash sync being too low for you that's a problem w/
> the shutter, nothing else/no other aspects?...
Not really. I guess I am miffed by the non-inclusion of a staple feature
for professional cameras; the 1/250 (or higher) x-sync. Why not use the Z-1
shutter? It was 1/8000 and 1/250. It is mostly a non-issue and there are
much worse omissions, but still, why make the new professional camera (in
most respects the most "professional" AF camera Pentax has produced)
/worse/ than the Z-1 models in some respects? Coupled to the high price,
this attitude offends me somewhat. So call me crazy ;-)
> Don't get too happy, at least Pentax is releasing a substantially new
> SLR as well as a DSLR after many years of "sleeping in the '90's"
> (making infinite variations on the ZX-5/n theme).
Well, the ZX-5 series was quite a nice one. In the meantime however,
Minolta has released a couple of absolutely fantastic cameras, two digital
SLR's, and some outstanding lenses to boot. And I don't agree with you that
the 43mm Limited had good bokeh/OOF, by the way ;-)
> Another reason I'm glad I own a 7 for. But a higher level *ist (if
> there is one) may rectify this...
I am afraid there won't be one (just speculation). Pentax seems to never be
able to position their cameras in a specific segment; they are all over the
place, price and feature-wise, and the model names doesn't make any sense.
> I prefer "the camera formerly known as camera" ;-)
I can drink to that, but if the Czarist is a Prince, what will the future
top-of-the-line Pentax you hope for be called? Pentax #Romanov? The
possibilities are staggering.
Lewis Lang
>Date: Wed, Apr 23, 2003 9:19 AM
>Message-id: <Xns936673312E62...@212.83.64.229>
>
>cont...@aol.comnospam (Lewis Lang) wrote in
>news:20030420170237...@mb-m24.aol.com:
>
>> So its just the flash sync being too low for you that's a problem w/
>> the shutter, nothing else/no other aspects?...
>
>Not really. I guess I am miffed by the non-inclusion of a staple feature
>
>for professional cameras; the 1/250 (or higher) x-sync. Why not use the
>Z-1
>shutter? It was 1/8000 and 1/250. It is mostly a non-issue and there are
>
>much worse omissions, but still, why make the new professional camera (in
>
>most respects the most "professional" AF camera Pentax has produced)
>/worse/ than the Z-1 models in some respects? Coupled to the high price,
>
>this attitude offends me somewhat. So call me crazy ;-)
>
I call you sensible, a shame when even an out of production Nikon 8008/s has
better flash sync than most modern Pentaxes (or whatever is plural for
Pentax)...
>> Don't get too happy, at least Pentax is releasing a substantially new
>> SLR as well as a DSLR after many years of "sleeping in the '90's"
>> (making infinite variations on the ZX-5/n theme).
>
>Well, the ZX-5 series was quite a nice one.
Yes.
In the meantime however,
>Minolta has released a couple of absolutely fantastic cameras, two digital
>
>SLR's, and some outstanding lenses to boot. And I don't agree with you that
>
>the 43mm Limited had good bokeh/OOF, by the way ;-)
>
Did I really say that about the 43mm? My memory must be shot - about the Nikon
50/1.8 E that would be true (despite what others might say), but my experience
of 43 bokeh is limited only to the web and on the PDML I've heard both good and
bad things said about its bokeh quallity. Too bad the Series E isn't available
in Pentax or Maxxum mounts... :-(
>> Another reason I'm glad I own a 7 for. But a higher level *ist (if
>> there is one) may rectify this...
>
>I am afraid there won't be one (just speculation). Pentax seems to never
>be
>able to position their cameras in a specific segment; they are all over
>the
>place, price and feature-wise, and the model names doesn't make any sense.
>
They do if you believe in "elliptical qualities of existence" (don't ask, OK,
I'll tell you anyways since your not asking ;-), this is art double speak for
giving something critical qualities that only exist in the art critics warped
self-gratifying imagination but not in any reality more substantial than a
cartoon ;-) - in other words, one has to ask, how can something have elliptical
qualities of existence, it either exists or it doesn't exist, its like being
"almost pregnant", you either are or you ain't - as for the *ist (what a joke
of a name!) the asterisk must be some art critics B.S. speak for "the camera
that has elliptical qualities of existence" which makes about as much sense as
naming my shoe laces Joesephine the III and blackberry pie, no, naming my shoe
laces that would have more "taste" and make more sense as they actually do
exist to be named - is the "*" in "*ist" just a wildcard that means "fill in
the blank"?, and why should I even care if the camera simultaneously
does/doesn't exist? - "I think, therefore I might have elliptical qualities of
non/existence" - Descartes, almost pregnant w/ insight on a full half deck w/
probability factors of 1000:1 depending on how elliptical his existence is... -
or as Ralph Kramden once said... "bang, pow, to the moon Alice" and the moon
replied "Alice doesn't live here anymore" she's Slim Fasted herself out of her
elliptical almost existence). What was the question?????? :-)
>> I prefer "the camera formerly known as camera" ;-)
>
>I can drink to that, but if the Czarist is a Prince, what will the future
>
>top-of-the-line Pentax you hope for be called?
"T*ist", the camera formerly known as a T* coating - I can see it now, Chubby
Checker (forgive me, the eliptical anti-chess piece formerly known as Chubby
Checker) sings... "C'mmon baby, lets do the T*ist...".
Pentax #Romanov? The
>possibilities are staggering.
Only if the designer who names the next *ist drinks too much Vodka... or is it
V*dka? ;-) :-)
Pål Jensen
"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> skrev i melding
news:20030418180449...@mb-m02.aol.com...
> Thanks Pal. Which lenses specifically have this glow from w/i?
The FA* lenses and the Limiteds
>Can you describe
> that look more matter of factly? In what ways do these lenses glow form
w/i,
> detail, contrast, bokeh and/or some other expressable or inexpressable
> quality(s)?
It is very hard to describe. It is one of those subtle effects that few
notice :o)
Pål Jensen
"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> skrev i melding
> Which test?
Eh... It was supposed to be "taste" :o)
> In clarity w/i the subject's tones, in separation of the subject from the
> background, overall?...
Particularly in separation of the subject from the background. It often give
the image more feeling of depth.
> >The 43 Limited is great but it is the "weakest" Limited lens in
performance.
>
> Mainly wide open or all over is this weakness? Which aspects of this lens
do
> you consider weak and why?
It is weaker at apertures wider than F:4; both in sharpness and light
fall-off at the corners.
> Does the 31mm have this 3D quality? Do you own the 31 LTD? How good is it
wide
> open in sharpness/contrast/bokeh/color rendition?
I do have the 31 Limited. I've never checked out the bokeh. I use the lens
for landscapes and aurora borealis shooting. Basically everything is in
focus with my use of this poarticular lens. It is exceptionally good at wide
apertures with great contrast and sharpness.
> Sounds great! Are you talking about these new rumored releases being LTD
lenses
> or "just" standard pro fast glass?
No idea. I don't know wehther the 16/2.8 and 16.35/2.8 rumor is true.
However, what I do know is that pentax insiders claims that the "good
lenses" (whatever that means) comes in the fall.
Pål Jensen
"Bandicoot" <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> skrev i melding
news:105085470...@iapetus.uk.clara.net...
> The other thing the Limited lenses do spectacularly well is their control
of
> comma. This is especially noticeable, of course, in any night scene that
> includes light sources, which are rendered more clearly as points - even
at
> the edges - than with any other lenses I know, and this is a subject area
> where the excellent flare control really makes a difference too.
Not surprising. The Limited lenses sports Pentax ghostless coating which was
developed for the japanese police for traffic surveylance purposes. This
coating is particularly effective for reading car number plates in darkness.
Pål Jensen
> Me too! The rumour of an 18mm Limited is interesting, and recently a 16mm
> has been rumoured too. I just hope if it happens, that I'll be able to
> afford one!
There never was a rumor that the 18mm was Limited. Pentax distributors got
the number for an 18/2.8 lens a couple of years ago. I believe it was a
plain FA lens. It never materialized. It could be that Pentax decided to
drop the idea and go wider with the rumored 16/2.8 lens. At least this makes
sense from a DSLR perspective.
Bandicoot
news:T4Bpa.6450$b71....@news4.e.nsc.no...
I know what Pål means - I see the effect, but am also at something of a loss
to describe it. Luminosity is a character I often try to give my slides,
and these lenses seem to be good at it.
Peter
Lewis Lang
>Date: Wed, Apr 23, 2003 6:46 PM
>Message-id: <T9Bpa.6452$b71....@news4.e.nsc.no>
Thanks for your comments Pål.
On a semi-related topic/note, how does the FA 50 f/1.4 (which is supposed to be
sharper than the 43mm at? or below f/4), compare to the FA and the A 50/1.7?
Lewis Lang
>From: "Pål Jensen" paalj...@sensewave.com
>Message-id: <T4Bpa.6450$b71....@news4.e.nsc.no>
Do any of the other (besides FA* and Limiteds) Pentax lenses have this "glow" -
perhaps one of the 50mms? The prints I have from my Pentax A 50/1.7 seem to
have both exceptional sharpness/clarity, natural/saturated color and wonderful
"Leica-like" soft bokeh. I don't know if you'd define this as a "glow" but its
definitely a "look". My 28-135/4 A lens was also particularly sharp at the wide
angle lens w/ nice color (similar "Pentax family qualities"/signature) but not
nearly as good as the prime/A 50mm, so I'm not sure at what point of
clarity/color/etc. a "look" becomes a "glow"...
Thanks.
Regards,
Lewis
Lewis Lang
>Date: Wed, Apr 23, 2003 7:06 PM
>Message-id: <10511248...@iris.uk.clara.net>
Thanks Peter. Perhaps its both the separation of tones/hues w/i the subject
("clarity"), as well as the separation of the subject from the background/other
planes ("3-Dness")?
Lewis Lang
>Date: Wed, Apr 23, 2003 6:50 PM
>Message-id: <3eBpa.6459$b71....@news4.e.nsc.no>
16mm/2.8 rectilinear or full frame fisheye?
TIA
Lewis Lang
>Date: Thu, Apr 24, 2003 3:37 PM
>Message-id: <VwTpa.38513$ey1.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
>
>x-no-archive: yes
>"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
>> I have always admired Pentax for its excellent bokeh (as well as its
>natural
>> color rendition, which I feel is better/more pleasing/life-like than
>Canon's
>> non-L lenses (especially the non-L zooms). Canon L lenses are second in
>> contrast/color rendition and "depth"/life-like clarity only to Zeiss and
>Leica
>
>
>Your post begs the question "What specific objectives do the major lens
>manufacturers incorporate into their optical designs?"
>
>I'm unsure of whether this question can even be answered empirically.
>According to Bob Monaghan's Lens Super Site, many OEM manufacturers are
>subcontracting out parts of their line to 3rd party manufacturers. With
>regard to Pentax, in particular, I read somewhere on this NG that at least
>one of their lenses is now made entirely by one of the low-end 3rd party
>makers. The lens may be badged "pentax," but it was not made in a Pentax
>facility. I don't know if even the optical specifications were designed
>by
>Pentax engineers.
Most likely Pentax saw a design they liked and decided to use it for their line
w/ appropriate modifications to the coatings, cosmetics, etc. I believe you are
talking about the 28-200 and the previous version 28-105mm zooms, both made by
Tamron, an excellent 3rd party maker (their 90mm macros are renowned for their
sharpness and smooth bokeh and their 17mm/3.5 ain't too bad either ;-)). I
believe their budget 100/3.5 macro is the Vivitar (a.k.a. Cosina?) rebadged). I
have no problem with this so long as both the quality and the QC is good,
though I would probably want to test out, if possible, any "budget" "3OEM"
(original party manufacturer from a third party source) lens just to make sure
if it had those very family qualities (bokeh, color rendition, contrast,
sharpness, contrast, etc.) I would come to expect in such a lens had Pentax
made it themselves. If not, I might opt for a used (older or newer) Pentax that
was OEM all the way. It would really depend ogn the lens's qualities, my needs
and my budget at the time. There's nothing wrong w/ 3rd party lenses per se,
whether from the OEM or via 3OEM, the point is to be aware of what you
want/need and choose wisely.
>
>So, even if there WERE definable optical characteristics associated with,
>say, Pentax lenses, can we assume that those characteristics are typical
>of
>the entire lineup? I suspect not.
>
Testing would be needed...
>Even Leica has some of their lenses manufactured by Minolta.
I know, I owned and/or used some of them - in particular the 16mm Leica fisheye
and the 24mm f/2.8 which are both designed by Minolta (the latter sorely in
need of a redesign in my opinion). There was also at least one 35-70 f/4? or
3.5? that was designed by Minolta and possibly one of their 70/80-200/210mm
zooms too, though I forget which at the moment. Zeiss supposedly makes the
Leica 15mm R lens.
Is it possible
>for a Minolta design, which is made using Minolta glass, to have consistent
>optical characteristics with Leitz glass?
>
The two companies have along history together and Minolta actually manufactured
lenses for the CLE (rangefinder) that accepted both Minolta and Leica M mount
lenses long before Konica was even thinking about the M mount. The R3, R4, R5
(R6?) and possibly even the R7? are based on MInolta body designs. I don't know
how much important lens design data the two companies have shared over the past
30 or so years of collaborations but I would trust Minolta to make a good Leica
lens to Leica specs/glass? as much as any other maker, perhaps more if Zeiss
and Pentax (who'se lens's bokeh resembles Leica as much if not more than
Minolta) didn't exist... Schneider (and Angeneuix, spelling?) also made lenses
for Leica, and even lowly Sigma had a 28-70 Leica snatched for their own R lens
line. It wouldn't surprise me if one day a Pentax Limited design showed up as
either a Leica branded (not just the mount but w/ cosmetics and possibly
coatings and design parameters to meet Leica's standards) M or R mount lens - I
believe one of the Limited lenses, the 43mm?, was also released in M (or
screw?) mount. One of Leica's past?/present point and shoots was actually a
rebadged/cherry picked MInolta, though I forget which model it was...
>The problem is made more difficult because many of the differences are
>subtle and not easily quantified empirically. How does one measure a
>characteristic such as "glow?"
>
Its not important how/whether one can measure the aberrations and/or design
characteristics that would produce such a glow, just that somebody can build
it, and you be able to see it and use it. One of the better Leica glow lenses
is actually a Konica which has similar characteristics in its original Hexar's
35m f/2 to Leica's classic non-asph 35mm f/2 Summicron. Another was the
Schneider 50/1.9? for their Reflex Retina. Also, it doesn't take a science
degree or being able to decipher sagital and tangential MTF chart readings to
look at such signature"glow" lens qualities as bokeh, tonality,
3-dimensionality, etc.
>These obstacles notwithstanding, I would still be interested in learning
>if
>there are any characteristics that are unique to any given lens
>manufacturer's line--even if it can be stated in only a general way.
>
Of course there are. Its not only in the choice of glass, optical design, etc.
but in overall look including but not limited to bokeh, contrast verses
resolution, eveness of resolution across the frame, which aberrations are
corrected and why, etc.
>We've already seen the lens test done by Herbert Keppler that measured both
>the SMC Takumar and the Minolta normal lenses to be sharper than the
>equivalent Leitz design--even though the Leitz product sold for many times
>the prices of either the Takumar or the Minolta.
There's more to heaven and earth than sharpness. Most lenses are decently
sharp, not all have great micro-contrast and separation of
planes/3-dimensionality and not all have pleasing bokeh in addition to their
sharpness, or are free of lateral color, or have good correction of linear
distortion or are sharp from wide open to stopped down - almost any lens can be
sharp at f/8 if focused properly...
There are obviously other
>characteristics that might justify the purchase price of the Leitz lens--but
>no one ever states specifically what those charasteristics actually are.
>
See above.
>Erwin Puts suggests that there may be as many as 50 separate charactistics
>that could be compared among lenses of different brands. Unfortunately,
>even he does not say what those characteristics are.
>
This may or may not be important, however what is important is knowing what
qualities _you_ are looking for in a lens's "signature" beyond just the
"signature " of the branding label stenciled (or whatever/however) onto the
lens that says "Pentax" or "Leica" or "Minolta" or "Tamron" or "whatever" (my
favorite brand, "whatever" ;-)).
>Bob Monaghan suggests on one of his web pages that he gives the benefit
>of
>the doubt to Leitz over Pentax
The benfit of dout over what particularly?
--and he estimates a 10 or 15% margin of
>better overall quality--but he, too, does not state specifically in what
>way
>the Leitz lenses are better (certainly not in lines-per-millimeter!)
>
I almost always choose my lenses very carefully so whatever lens(es) I chose
would be the best anyways regardless if they are/were very expensive or very
cheap, so while knowing the overall quality of a line of lenses is important,
it matters less if you know which lenses in a lens line are the stellar ones to
go after. For example, I doubt that many if any zooms in the 24-50mm f/4
range/type are as sharp wide open to stopped down, have as good color or focus
as closely or have as good bokeh or as much correction of linear distortion as
my Maxxum 24-50, though the Nikon 25-50mm/4 AIS comes closest in otpical
quality.
>I have been chided previously for my stubbornness in sticking with SMC
>Takumar lenses from the early 70s. But I ask, in all sincerity, can anyone
>show me how switching up to something else would result in significantly
>better results?
I could not say as my area of expertise doesn't cover the optical qualities of
the Pentax screw mount Takumar lenses. Leica, Zeiss, and (some) Olympus would
give your lesnes a run for the money in the sharpness, bokeh, contrast, etc
departments but most of these would be prohibitively expensive even used
(haven't checked used Oly prices so I can't comment there but some of their new
prices, at least for the bodies if not the lenses are heading up there in the
economic stratosphere).
In my view, I'd see more bang for the buck by moving up
>to
>medium format, rather than going from Pentax screw mounts to
>Nikon/Canon/Zeiss, or even to Pentax Limited lenses.
Yes, with one exception, an MZ-S (or whatever Pentax body) w/ a Pentax Limited
lens is likely to be a lot less wieght and smaller/portable than any medium
format body/lens SLR combination, even the Pentax 645 - its just a matter of
your needs for quality verses portability.
If I didn't already
>have made the investment in the present system, the case would not be so
>compelling. But what will I gain by replacing what I have now, at a cost
>of
>many thousands of dollars, in terms of SIGNIFICANTLY improved optical
>performance? Not much, I think.
>
So, no reason to switch then. If you ever get the urge to get something better
you can always rent it to see what if anything you are missing for your
needs... Consider yourself (or, at the very least, your wallet) fortunate in
that you don't need much more thanyou already have... Youcan spend more money
on film, photography books and coffee milk shakes ;-).
>Still, I often think about what direction I would go, if I had it to do
>all
>over again. Is a Canon or a Nikon lens going to change the way my images
>look?
>
Optically, yes, whether you find it to be a subtle or noticeable change. As far
as image content itself, no, though a good lens w/ the properties you want can
make the same image a more pleasing experience to behold.
>Does each brand of lens have its own "look?"
>
Yep, see (way) above.
>The only two generalities that I am aware of are as follows:
>
>1: Pentax lenses generally have good color saturation and pleasant bokeh.
>
>2: Leitz designs have a "plastic" look (a "glow") that is very pleasing
>to
>many photographers.
>
>Can we come up with a list of other design characteristics that come to
>mind?
>
Sure...
Leica
Sharp usually (and usably) from wide open to stopped down
Also pleasant bokeh, along w/ Pentax, some of the smoothest bokeh on this
planet
Exceptional mechanical design/quality of construction in *all* (that I'm aware
of) current lenses (I believe its helicoids use brass and aluminum? for their
smootheness/lack of friction?) - Leica lenses are usually heavier than their
Pentax counterparts because of this emphasis on quality metal construction.
Leica lenses have a different color balnce/rendition that goes beyond just the
saturation aspect.
Newer asph designs that have greater sharpness wide open than previous
generations of the same lens (but possibly at some slight sacrifice of
smoothness of bokeh over the previous non-asph version)
Pentax
An anti-reflective coating(s) second almost to none (except possibly Zeiss T*
coatings) for extremem reduction of flare even when a lens is pointed into the
sun. I've seen even Leica M lenses flare so Pentax, if not so much so for color
clarity as for just not being as susceptible to flare/ghosting may be the
"winner" here.
Lower, but still good mechanical materials/design (except for the Limiteds)
I'm sure others can name more "other" aspects but these are the ones that come
to my mind more or less immediately...
Probably minimal lateral color (chromnatic aberration) can be claimed for both
brands, except for the Pentax 67 lenses which have some (45mm) lateral color
under cerrtain conditions and the 35?/37? (can't remember the exact focal
length anymore) full frame fisheye which has so mauch lateral color it looks
like a child drew stripes around an obect w/ a colored magic marker.
I see Pentax as a brand having characteristics, not necesssarily optical
characteristics, but general characteristics in their approach to both Leica
and Canon and the now virtually defunct (except wha's left in the stores or in
the used market) Olympus lines. I can't see Leica coming out w/ a Rebel class
SLR (an entry level SLR like the RE or R4s but not like a features/build/price
of a Rebel class camera) and I don't see Canon, outside of their Rebel class
SLRs making anything nearly as compact as a Pentax. Pentax is filling a
Leica-like niche w/ their Limited lenses and their small, almost M-like SLRs,
with the MZ-S and perhaps to a lesser extent with their lest robust *ist (film
and digital) and with their ZX-5n variations. I would hope that Pentax would
come out w/ a similarly sized MZ-S+ or *ist+, either middle tier and/or flag
ship design w/ excellent robustness and a faster mtor drive speed (a sort of
Maxxum 7 w/ a Pentax KAF3 mount ;-)), a whole complete line of Limiteds,
Limited and regular zooms w/ IS/VR and I'm sure they will eventually.
Both Pentax and Minolta need to get off their heinies and tackle the pro market
w/ pro rental/serice centers. Minolta already has cameras (Maxxum 7 and 9) and
glass (G and other slect bests of their lines) that can handle this area. It
would build up both customer good will, brand status (for those who care about
such) and would be a great form of advertising. It would be nice to go into any
city and be able to rent or borrow a Pentax Limited or a Minolta G lens as you
can currently w/ Canon and Nikon. I think the manufacturers have really missed
the boat here. Minolta had a publication whose quality of images/printing was
second to none, "The Minolta Mirror" (almost more of a frequently issued book
than a mag). But w/ Minolta's and Pentax's (hopefully behind them) financial
problems abating (hopefully) and w/ Konica's purchasing of Minolta, perhaps, if
not stellar, the future will at least be brighter. Even Olympus used to have
pro areas of shops where you could rent out/try out appropriate glass in the
'80's. Canon used to have a showroom in NYC too in the '80's. Nikon used to
have (still does?) Nikon House in Rockefeller Center which was a pro Nikon
showroom/"candy shop" w/ excellent exhibits of photography.
Regards,
Lewis
Bandicoot
[SNIP]
> Please let me know how both the shutter lag and the mirror return compares
w/
> your other cameras (LX, MX, and MZ-3) and would you describe both of these
> qualities (shutter lag/mirror return) as instantaneous, near
instantaneous, I
> can easily see the black out in the viewfinder but its longish, I could
read
> Finnegan's Wake 3 times and go out to McD's for an egg Mcmuffin before
either
> the mirror returns and/or the shutter fires (shutter lag). :-)
[SNIP]
Lewis,
Well, I have at last found some time to make the promised comparisons.
Note that these are wholly subjective, based on me firing each shutter lots
of times and trying to 'get a feel for' what happens, rather than using any
sort of timing device to measure it exactly. I did the comparisons by
depressing the shutter button to the point that felt _to me_ as if it was
about to fire - the 'ready' position - and then seeing how fast it seemed to
go after I applied the extra pressure to make it do so. I tried all the
bodies in manual focus, and then tried both the AF ones with AF on, giving
them a nice contrasty target about seven feet away to focus on. I tried to
keep things fairly constant, and concentrated on testing at just 1/1000 and
1/125 (though see note about the LX below).
So, these _subjective_ results were:
Body - Shutter Lag / Mirror Blackout
MX - excellent / negligible
LX - extremely good / negligible
MZ-S - good / longer
MZ-3 - adequate / long
Which is about what I'd expect.
The MX is totally mechanical (maybe this should be in all caps...).
Pressure on the shutter release turns on the meter and then reaches a
'ready' position - from there the shutter seems to fire with a subjectively
more or less undetectable delay. the mirror returns very quickly indeed,
but is light so doesn't seem to cause much vibration.
The LX has a 'mechanical' shutter release button. Speeds are mechanical
above 1/75, but are electronically controlled below that. At 1/125 and
1/1000 I had a hard job telling a difference between this and the MX, but in
the end felt the LX had perhaps just a tiny bit more lag - I'd still class
it as a 'fast' camera though. The mirror black out lasts a fraction longer
than with the MX but is still pretty short. The mirror return does produce
quite a slap though, so there is a fair bit of vibration produced _after_
the shot is taken.
I tried comparing 1/60, 1/75 and 1/125 to see if the electronic and
mechanical speeds differed. After firing the shutter an awful lot, I
eventually decided that the electronic speeds might come with just a touch
more lag, though as these are the slower speeds anyway it is hard to tell.
I think if there is a real difference, it is pretty slight.
The MZ-S certainly seems to have more shutter lag than the LX. For an
electronic camera it still seems to me to be quite good, but the lag exists.
Nothing like the experience you describe though, so I guess the demo. you
looked at must have been on its way out. The mirror black out, however, is
much longer than with the first two - this is balanced by the return being
soft enough to produce hardly any vibration, even though this body weighs
less than the LX. The blackout doesn't bother me, but I can see how it
might bother some.
The MZ-3 seems to have quite a bit more lag than the MZ-S - this is hardly
surprising as it is the only 'amateur' body of the three in terms of its
original design brief. The mirror blackout is also longer. One thing I
became very aware of was how far the finger has to ease off on the shutter
button between shots before it 're-sets' for the next one. Set to the
continuous drive mode this didn't happen, and taking single shots in that
mode isn't hard (so long as you remember you are in it!) but in single shot
mode this could be an issue for anyone trying to keep on firing during fast
action.
Comparing the last two with AF on:
The MZ-S didn't seem to have significantly more lag either way. If I
focussed, held it, and then tripped the shutter it seemed to make no
difference; if I focussed and then 'let go' but left the lens where it was
(ie. the camera would still check that the subject was in focus, but
wouldn't then have to move the lens at all once it had confirmed it) it
_seemed_ a little slower, but not to any extent that would bother me.
The MZ-3, by contrast, seemed to have quite a lot more lag when AF was on.
Still nothing compared to most P&Ss, or to many digital compacts, but enough
that it would still be OK as a 'street' camera probably, but not for fast
action sports. Which, again, given its target market seems fair enough.
Well, I must say again these are totally subjective impressions, and may
even be wrong - but they are how the four cameras felt _to me_. What I
didn't do was put winders on the LX and MX bodies to see the effect of
electrical versus mechanical release - something for another day...
Hope this is some help!
Peter
Lewis Lang
>Date: Fri, May 2, 2003 1:27 AM
>Message-id: <105184163...@ersa.uk.clara.net>
Hi Peter:
Thanks for going to the time and trouble of doing this Peter. I am surprised
that shutterspeeds above 1/75 on the LX are "mechanical" as whenthe camera is
in aperture priority the cameras shutter speeds would have to be set/timed in
some kind of automic/timing circuit way. Perhaps your test was by only using
the camera in manual exposure mode? My main problem with the MZ-S was the
mirror blackout being extremely long to return, though if I mentioned that the
shutter lag (for me) was bad too, that's also possible, but its getting harder
to remember as I did this impromptu "test" many months back at PhotoExpo in NYC
in 2002... Could you define (in some approximate way) what you mean by the
MZ-S's mirror blackout being described as "longer"? A lot longer than the
MX/LX, somewhat longer, a little bit longer but barely detectably slightly
longer, what? :-) I wonder how the *ist and those *ists to follow will be in
the shutter lag/mirror black out department... Thanks again for doing the test.
Bandicoot
[SNIP]
>
> Hi Peter:
>
> Thanks for going to the time and trouble of doing this Peter. I am
surprised
> that shutterspeeds above 1/75 on the LX are "mechanical" as whenthe camera
is
> in aperture priority the cameras shutter speeds would have to be set/timed
in
> some kind of automic/timing circuit way. Perhaps your test was by only
using
> the camera in manual exposure mode?
Yes - I should have stated this, In Aperture Priority AE all the speeds are
set electronically, and are stepless from 1/4000 to a stated 125s - though
in fact the maximum limit for a metered speed seems to be much longer than
this. I tested only with manually set shutter speeds, partly to remove a
variable and partly because I was indoors on a dark night!
> My main problem with the MZ-S was the
> mirror blackout being extremely long to return, though if I mentioned that
the
> shutter lag (for me) was bad too, that's also possible, but its getting
harder
> to remember as I did this impromptu "test" many months back at PhotoExpo
in NYC
> in 2002... Could you define (in some approximate way) what you mean by the
> MZ-S's mirror blackout being described as "longer"? A lot longer than the
> MX/LX, somewhat longer, a little bit longer but barely detectably slightly
> longer, what? :-) I wonder how the *ist and those *ists to follow will be
in
> the shutter lag/mirror black out department... Thanks again for doing the
test.
A lot longer, though not, for me, bothersomely so. The MZ-3 is verging on
the point of being too much for me, but the MZ-S was OK - I can imagine it
might seem a bit long for some users.
Lewis Lang
>From: "Bandicoot" "insert_handle_here"@techemail.com
>Message-id: <105185846...@iapetus.uk.clara.net>
Thanks Peter. The MZ-3 must be really bad if its worse than the MZ-S... The
PZ1-p seemed pretty responsive to me in the past, I wonder if we'll see its
like again? Perhaps a PZ*ist? ;-) :-)