Olympus OM-4 vs Pentax LX

wrote:

Leicaflex SL or SL-2. They're 30-40 years old and still work great.
The lenses are plentiful and superb.


As much as I don't like the tone of the posting, I do agree with the
statement.

On the plus side:
They have the brightest & most accurate focussing screens I've ever seen.
Also the smoothest and most dampened shutter & mirror operation.
Some of the lenses are fantastic.
Spotmeter!
Accurate focus + low vibration + great lens = GOOD!

On the negative side:
Weight (esp. the lenses)!
Cost; despite the prices having greatly fallen (thank you digital!),
they are still much more expensive than comparable Pentax or Olympus
equipment.
Also, for the SL, the number of usable ultra-wideangle lenses is very
limited (though it is with teles that the focussing & dampening
advantages of the Leicaflexes really comes out).
Not all lenses are worth what they cost, but then some are...


Don't waste your money on either of those pieces of crap.


Here I totally disagree, especially concerning Pentaxes (which I have
often and happily used).
I've rarely used Olympuses, but have always had the impression that they
were overpriced for what they offer (o.k. Leica-haters; here's your
chance...)
: )


--
"Daddy! Daddy!! A nice man at the market took our old Leicaflex and
180mm Apo-Telyt and gave me a MAGICAL camera with 20x digital zoom and
anti red-eye function!!!"
"Well done Jack! YeeeHaw!! Now we can take some really good pikkers!!!"

Back in the early 80s I had a chance to test a Leicaflex side by side
with my Pentax LX. I shot a series of pictures comparing the following
lenses:

Leica 35mm - Pentax-M 28mm f2.8
Leica 50mm - Pentax-M 50mm f4 macro
Leica 135mm - Pentax-M 100mm f2.8

I cannot remember the Leicaflex model or the maximum apertures of
Leica lenses; but they were the ones current at that time. They were
supplied by Leica Canada as part of a promotion to "try a Leica for a
day" In the hopes that one would buy one.

The pictures were taken on Kodachrome 25 for maximum sharpness, and
both cameras were mounted on tripods. The first slide on each roll of
film was a photograph of the other camera. Both films were processed
by Kodak Canada.

When the films were processed and returned uncut in strips, I asked
the son of the owner of the camera store where I dealt, to choose the
Leica slides. He inspected both film strips with a Pentax 20X
magnifier and selected one as being shot by the Leicaflex. I then
asked him which camera was pictured at the front of the strip. It was
the Leicaflex. The pictures he thought were taken by the Leicaflex had
been taken by the Pentax LX. His father, who was a bit of a
Leicaphile, also inspected the film strips and appeared somewhat upset
by the results.

At the time of the tests I used Leica Ms for all of my available-light
work. Therefore, having no need for high-speed lenses, when I
purchased Pentax lenses, they were the slower f2.8 and f4 ones. These
ones, I expect, would be easier to correct. Also the pictures were
taken outside at around f8, rather than wide open.

This was not a definitive test; but it proved to me that, certainly in
some areas, the Pentax lenses could hold their own against some of the
best. I was happy with the results because the circumstances of the
test mirrored the situations in which I expected to use the Pentax and
its lenses, outdoors for architectural and other work.

Charles Kinghorn

On 14 Apr 2005 19:25:24 -0700, wrote:

Leicaflex SL or SL-2. They're 30-40 years old and still work great.

The lenses are plentiful and superb.

Don't waste your money on either of those pieces of crap.

Check with KEH or look on e-bay.



Duncan J Murray wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Duncan J Murray wrote:
Any opinions?

Why is the LX praised as being a modern classic, when it seems
technically
inferior to the OM4?

Duncan.

Both are crap...

who cares...?

I may not have made it clear that I was in fact comparing two cameras
I was
thinking of buying, and therefore thought were both excellent, rather
than,
as you obviously misunderstood me, for trying to work out which one
comes
second worse on the all time worst 35mm cameras ever made. For
interest's
sake, please tell me what is at the opposite end of your intriging
list, so
that I may enlightened (and don't spend any money on a crap camera).

Duncan.

Most lenses are pretty good at f/8. the real test is near maximun
aperture. that's where the Leica lenses would trounce the Pentax
optics.

Charles Kinghorn wrote:
Back in the early 80s I had a chance to test a Leicaflex side by side
with my Pentax LX. I shot a series of pictures comparing the
following
lenses:

Leica 35mm - Pentax-M 28mm f2.8
Leica 50mm - Pentax-M 50mm f4 macro
Leica 135mm - Pentax-M 100mm f2.8

I cannot remember the Leicaflex model or the maximum apertures of
Leica lenses; but they were the ones current at that time. They were
supplied by Leica Canada as part of a promotion to "try a Leica for a
day" In the hopes that one would buy one.

The pictures were taken on Kodachrome 25 for maximum sharpness, and
both cameras were mounted on tripods. The first slide on each roll of
film was a photograph of the other camera. Both films were processed
by Kodak Canada.

When the films were processed and returned uncut in strips, I asked
the son of the owner of the camera store where I dealt, to choose the
Leica slides. He inspected both film strips with a Pentax 20X
magnifier and selected one as being shot by the Leicaflex. I then
asked him which camera was pictured at the front of the strip. It was
the Leicaflex. The pictures he thought were taken by the Leicaflex
had
been taken by the Pentax LX. His father, who was a bit of a
Leicaphile, also inspected the film strips and appeared somewhat
upset
by the results.

At the time of the tests I used Leica Ms for all of my
available-light
work. Therefore, having no need for high-speed lenses, when I
purchased Pentax lenses, they were the slower f2.8 and f4 ones. These
ones, I expect, would be easier to correct. Also the pictures were
taken outside at around f8, rather than wide open.

This was not a definitive test; but it proved to me that, certainly
in
some areas, the Pentax lenses could hold their own against some of
the
best. I was happy with the results because the circumstances of the
test mirrored the situations in which I expected to use the Pentax
and
its lenses, outdoors for architectural and other work.

Charles Kinghorn

On 14 Apr 2005 19:25:24 -0700, wrote:

Leicaflex SL or SL-2. They're 30-40 years old and still work great.

The lenses are plentiful and superb.

Don't waste your money on either of those pieces of crap.

Check with KEH or look on e-bay.



Duncan J Murray wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Duncan J Murray wrote:
Any opinions?

Why is the LX praised as being a modern classic, when it seems
technically
inferior to the OM4?

Duncan.

Both are crap...

who cares...?

I may not have made it clear that I was in fact comparing two
cameras
I was
thinking of buying, and therefore thought were both excellent,
rather
than,
as you obviously misunderstood me, for trying to work out which
one
comes
second worse on the all time worst 35mm cameras ever made. For
interest's
sake, please tell me what is at the opposite end of your intriging
list, so
that I may enlightened (and don't spend any money on a crap
camera).

Duncan.

"Bandicoot" wrote in message
...
"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...
"Duncan J Murray"

wrote:

[SNIP]

Some of the "star performers" of the Pentax range actually have a star
to let you know which they are, including an outstanding SMC PENTAX-A*
85mm f/1.4 and a 300mm. They tend to sell for big money, but there
are other gems too, at lower prices, notably:

The 135mm f1.8 A* is another very fine lens in the star series, which
continues into the current AF lenses too, with the F* and FA* ranges,
whihc
both work just as well on manual focus bodies. The 200m f2.8 FA*, in
particular, is a wonderful lens.

I keep hearing good things about the * lenses, shame I can't afford any of
them!



24mm f/3.5 K, 28mm f/2.8 A, 35mm f/2 K and A, 50mm f/1.4 K and A, 50mm
f/1.7 M and A, 50mm f/2.0 K, M and A, 105mm f/2.8 M, 200mm f/4 K, M
and A. In zooms, I would strongly recommend the 35-105mm f/3.5 A,
which offers very good sharpness, low distortion and excellent bokeh.
The 70-210mm f/4 A is good but not outstanding. There is also a
28-70mm f/4 autofocus lens that is optically outstanding but costs
very little.

I'd go along with all of that, except for maybe not feeling that the 200mm
f4 is as strong as the others mentioned - except in the A* (macro)
version.

Others I'd add to the list that I have used and particularly like are the
30mm f2.8 K (not easy to find), 85mm f1.8 K, and the 135mm f2.5 K (not the
'Takumar bayonet' f2.5 version, which is a budget alternative and not
nearly
so good.) I personally like the 120mm f2.8 as well, but this is also hard
to find. The 28mm f3.5 K and 35mm f3.5K are also excellent, and quite
light. The rectilinear super-wides are very good too: the 15, 18, and
20 -
though none of these is an inexpensive purchase.

All the Pentax macro lenses are very good, though the current 100mm f3.5
is
a budget alternative to the top-of-the-line f2.8, and is said to perform
accordingly - the f2.8 is spectacularly good.

Can macro lenses be used for normal photography as well? As in, can they
focus on infinity? And how does the picture look using it in this way?


I have a number of Pentax zoom lenses, mostly newer ones, and can vouch
strongly for the 28-70mm f4 FA AL - it is more or less the optical equal
of
the f2.8, but at a fraction of the cost, size, and weight. The current
24-90mm is very good too. I don't have a Pentax zoom in the 80-200 range,
so can't comment here (I use an Angenieux 70-210 instead, and find it fits
well with the 'look' of the Pentax glass.) Oh, well, I do have the
80-320,
and it is good for the price and the range, but I only use it when I
_really_ need to cover all that range in a single lens, which is not
often.

24-90 seems a very nice lens. Very useful focal length range - 24mm is
great for landscape, and 90mm for portraits! I have a 35-70, which often
just doesn't quite reach enough


I have used all of the listed lenses. There are others with good
reputations but I haven't used them so cannot credibly recommend them.

If only more posters adopted that attitude!

[SNIP]

The Pentax LX is a superb working tool, one that was never adequately
marketed so it didn't sell so well against such cameras as the Nikon
F3. Beware the deterioration of the mirror bumper foam and felt light
traps that signals the need for a thorough service, including the
replacement of several rubber components in the mirror system which,
when perished, give incorrect infinity focus. This service can be
carried out by Pentax UK, although many UK Pentax enthusiasts go to
Asahi Photo in London, who do an excellent job for under £100, which
will last for about 15 years until it needs doing again.

Pentax UK claims that they use new materials when they replace the foam
and
rubber compononents, and the newer ones should have a much longer life. I
don't know that anyone has had them long enough to find out for sure yet,
of
course...

Nice to know that they claim that. I used to use a very good electronic
organiser called a 'psion' - they were excellent in every way, except that
the screen cable broke every 1-2 years, and cost £70 to replace. psion knew
it was a fault, but I think they quite liked the business it generated (they
went out of business, though, I would say it serves them right, but now
there isn't a replacement).


I like the 'look' I get with Pentax glass better than any other 35mm
system
that I've used, but this is a very personal thing. It seems to me more of
a
close match to the look I get with my Schneider lenses for medium and
large
format than other 35mm manufacturers, and is often said to be the most
'German' looking of all the Japanese makers, with which I would agree. I
might marginally prefer Leica for black and white, but it is marginal: for
colour Pentax remains my favourite. And the SMC coating is unbeaten.



Peter

Ahh Pentax, so undervalued! (Like me really...)

Duncan.

"Bandicoot" wrote in message
...
"Duncan J Murray"

wrote in message ...
"Bandicoot" wrote in message
...
"Duncan J Murray"

wrote in message ...
Any opinions?

Why is the LX praised as being a modern classic, when it seems
technically inferior to the OM4?

Duncan.

I suppose the flippant answer would be that most LXs ever made still
work...

And the OM4? Do they break down a lot? That would be a definite
negative
for me...

Well... The LX has a reputation for going on forever, though you need to
have the mirror buffers, damping foam, etc. replaced. The OMs used to be
teased by many pro.s as feeling too fragile, and I know they never had the
reliability of the Nikon Fs that most such users carried - but then few
things other than bricks have the build of a Nikon F or a Pentax LX, so I
wouldn't necessarily let that worry you. I was deliberately being
flippant
by reviving an old joke.

People seem to think that just because things are small means they aren't
well-made and reliable (though fragile, I concede). People think for
things to be well-made, they need a Nikon F ; I mean, what torture do they
put their camera through? No one would say a genuine swiss watch was not
well-made, but then no-one would go rock-climbing with one either and expect
to keep time afterwards! Then again, the romantic idea of travelling to
far-off parts of the world, with your trusty camera recording the extreme
and untouched lands you encountered does have a certain appeal. I think I
would take a Pentax MX or a Nikon F (couldn't afford a Leica) (actually
couldn't afford a Nikon F just at the moment, anyway, let alone a
round-the-world trip!!! - we can all dream!)


If you intend to work a lot in the field miles from repair facilities, in
adverse conditions, and depend on your camera for your income, maybe you
wouldn't use an OM - but then in that situation whatever you used you'd be
carring a couple of spares. In a more benign environment I wouldn't feel
worried:

I'd trust the 'toughness' of an old OM more than many modern
cameras.

Definetely. I think the OM series showed that good quality could be made
into a small body (that is small for SLR of course - there was leica).



But more seriously, I think if you handle one, you'll know the answer.
And while I much prefer the LX, the OM4Ti should surely be counted as
something of a classic too, though more for its electronics than
anything else -
this isn't a case of "there can only be one".

I've handled both the LX and the OM4 (not Ti), and found the OM4 to be
extremely competent, particularly regarding the funky lcd metering, which
seems to be precise to 1/3 stop, and very comprehensive with exposure
lock
and spot metering. I think it is more on the gadgety side, especially re
the highlight and shadow buttons which are totally unecessary, and are
not
adjustable for different film.

Some people love those highlight and shadow meter options, but I probably
wouldn't see much use for them - if I'm using a spot meter (which I do, a
separate one, a lot) I'd rather make my own decisions about how far to
bias
the exposure up or down from the highlight, shadow, or whatever else I
choose to meter on.

They go +2 and -2, which I suppose is sensible, but totally depends on the
film, and might be a bit too far for Fuji Sensia, and no where near correct
for negative colour, let alone black and white!


When I have to use an in camera meter, I love the LX's very _predictable_
meter, and can cheerily decide how to adjust my exposure around the meter
reading. It is superb for long exposures too.


I suppose that the LX has a much more professional feel to it, with the
safe
exposure compensation and sturdy parts.

I like the way it handles, and it does feel very 'solid' to me. I also
make
a reasonable amount of use of the interchangeable viewfinders. The dust
sealing really works too. I have five of them - 'nuff said...

Do you find exposure compensation a bit unwieldy? I nearly dropped the
camera when looking at it...!



What about the optics? How does Olympus glass compare to Pentax glass
around this era?

I've answered this below, by adding my own comments to Tony's post on this
subject. Basically, there are some great Zuiko lenses, but the Pentax
line
has a more consistently high quality - and personally I really like the
'look' I get with Pentax glass.


Thanks for you reply
Duncan.

When the films were processed and returned uncut in strips, I asked
the son of the owner of the camera store where I dealt, to choose the
Leica slides. He inspected both film strips with a Pentax 20X
magnifier and selected one as being shot by the Leicaflex. I then
asked him which camera was pictured at the front of the strip. It was
the Leicaflex. The pictures he thought were taken by the Leicaflex had
been taken by the Pentax LX. His father, who was a bit of a
Leicaphile, also inspected the film strips and appeared somewhat upset
by the results.

At the time of the tests I used Leica Ms for all of my available-light
work. Therefore, having no need for high-speed lenses, when I
purchased Pentax lenses, they were the slower f2.8 and f4 ones. These
ones, I expect, would be easier to correct. Also the pictures were
taken outside at around f8, rather than wide open.

This was not a definitive test; but it proved to me that, certainly in
some areas, the Pentax lenses could hold their own against some of the
best. I was happy with the results because the circumstances of the
test mirrored the situations in which I expected to use the Pentax and
its lenses, outdoors for architectural and other work.

Charles Kinghorn

Ahhhh... But didn't you know that the Pentax loupe is biased for photos
taken with Pentax??!!!!

Thank you for your post - I presume you stayed with Pentax for your
architechural work?

Duncan.

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...
"Duncan J Murray"

wrote:

There are some very good Zuiko OM lenses, notably the wide aperture
fixed focal lengths and the most recent MC lenses. There are some
very poor ones too. The zooms were disappointing by the standards of
the 1970s and 1980s, and even more so by today's standards.

A friend of mine had a 50mm f1.8, which, from the small prints she got,
seemed extremely good, in terms of colour and contrast etc... So wondered
about the other lenses.

The 50mm f/1.8 is the sharpest lens in the Olympus OM system, and its
performance bears comparison with the best 50mm f/1.7-f/1.8 lenses
from other manufacturers. It was an immensely popular lens. Just try
to find one without fungus and cleaning marks!

That ties in with my friend's experience.


I have a 35-70mm SMC-A f3.5-4.5, which I've found to have excellent
colour,
contrast and resolution. I recently enlarged a photo taken at f8 at night
on fuji sensia 100 (or was it reala?) to 30x20", and the level of detail
was
astonishing (good, that is). Currently, being a poor student, this is the
only lens I have, though I am looking to a 50mm f1.7/f1.4 for my next
acquisition.

The 35-70mm A is a great performer. I have one that came with an MX
body I bought as a spare. By today's standards, the zoom range is
limited, but it is optically very good. Nikon made a comparable
35-70mm f/3.3-4.5 AIS, which was one of my favourite Nikkors.
Unfortunately Nikon allowed Cosina to use the Nikkor branding on a
cheap 35-70mm f/3.5-4.8 for the Nikon FE10/FM10, and that was a dog by
any standards.

The 35-70mm is great in terms of outright resolution (though not sharpness -
depends on your taste), colour and contrast. However, this isn't comparing
it to anything - just it's sort of absolute qualities. However, it's
achilles heel is distortion at the extremes (ok, at 35 and 70) - which you
need to watch out for. Personally, I don't mind, but it rules out some
shots, and if you're into Georgian architecture in a big way, I don't
recommend it!


Some of the "star performers" of the Pentax range actually have a star
to let you know which they are, including an outstanding SMC PENTAX-A*
85mm f/1.4 and a 300mm. They tend to sell for big money, but there
are other gems too, at lower prices, notably:

Ha ha! Logarithmically totally out of my price range! But I've heard
that
they are something special. (the 43mm lens looks very nice...)

The 43mm is a "Limited Edition" autofocus FA* lens, but it looks more
like a manual focus lens. There are also 31mm and 77mm "Limited
Edition" lenses. I have tried them all and don't particularly like
them, because the designers have given the sharpness at the expense of
bokeh. The 77mm is not too bad, but it just cannot compete with the
superlative 85mm f/1.4 A* for bokeh.

Interesting... I liked the idea of a 'ghostless coating'. Makes it sound
ethereal. Also, looking at the sharpness over the diameter of the image is
interesting - it's a smooth MTF curve, not often seen. I wondered if the
focal plane was spherical rather than rectilinear.


24mm f/3.5 K, 28mm f/2.8 A, 35mm f/2 K and A, 50mm f/1.4 K and A, 50mm
f/1.7 M and A, 50mm f/2.0 K, M and A, 105mm f/2.8 M, 200mm f/4 K, M
and A. In zooms, I would strongly recommend the 35-105mm f/3.5 A,
which offers very good sharpness, low distortion and excellent bokeh.
The 70-210mm f/4 A is good but not outstanding. There is also a
28-70mm f/4 autofocus lens that is optically outstanding but costs
very little.

A goldmine of information... many thanks. Although do you really think
the
50mm f2.0 is any good? It's just that I've actually got one, and havn't
used it since I got disappointing results from a trip to South Africa. I
think it had the resolution, but the colour was a bit bland and
non-contrasty. However, there are loads of other factors, like it being
in
rubbish condition, having no UV filter, and I can't remember the
processing.

I have a 50mm f/2 and it is just fine. The best of the 50mm lenses is
probably the f/1.7, although the f/1.4 K runs it pretty close and the
f/1.4 A beats the equivalent Leica M optic for its sublime combination
of sharpness and bokeh.

Interesting that you find the f1.7 better than the f1.4 - I think I'll save
myself £40 and go for the f1.7 (yes shock, horror, I don't have a standard
prime!).


I'm eyeing the 24mm and 28mm....

The 28mm f/2.8 A is the best of these, with the 28mm f/3.5 K not far
behind. Avoid the M.

Used Pentax lenses are easy to find (try eBay) and cost very little
money for such excellent optical quality. You will pay much more for
the few Zuikos that are optically their equals.

Good point. Looks like I'm tending towards Pentax here.

If you really like the OM4Ti, and have money to spend, I can put you
in touch with a used camera specialist who regularly offers the best
of the Zuikos in excellent to mint condition. But the prices are
several times what you would pay for Pentax lenses on eBay.

Thankyou, but I get the feeling I'm going to stick with Pentax. It was
always a factor that I am much more used to shutter speeds being near the
shutter release, and aperture control being near the aperture.


Hmmm... The LX sounds a great camera, apart from this sticky mirror
problem.
If I were to spend 200+ on an LX and then another 100 for servicing I
think
I'd be a touch disapointed. But if it last 15 years, then I suppose it
might be worth it.

I did exactly that; I bought an LX with a sticky mirror and had it
serviced. It has had a lot of hard use and is 100% reliable.

Isn't a hand held meter big, clunky, expensive and awkard to use?

Yes, but it is the best practical way of measuring incident, rather
than reflected light. If you are using slides, or digital, the
combination of an incident meter and reflected light spot meter in one
casing makes for a very versatile tool.

I have an excellent case (lowepro TLZ 1, FYI) which conveniently fits my
Super A, zoom lens, flash gun and tripod all in one. It could fit a spot
meter, too... but not sure what the point of that would be with the
Super-A, where I don't know if the shutter speeds bear any relation to SI
unit seconds, and the zoom changes aperture as you zoom.... hmmm.


Do you anything about the 50mm f1.8? I think that would be what I'd start
with if I were to go for an OM4 in the future.

See my comments near the top of this reply. There are a lot of worn
and neglected Zuiko 50mm f/1.8 lenses available. They seem especially
prone to fungus. If you manage to find a good one, they are an
excellent buy.

I currently have a Pentax Super-A, and the X-700 doesn't look too
dissimilar. I don't have any problems with the Super-A, apart from it
would
be nice to have a camera that feels more solid and with 100% viewfinder
coverage (or near there).

The Super-A is super solid. I have two, both of which I bought in
near mint condition. One is kept in reserve, the other has had a lot
of use but still keeps going. I have a shutter tester which checks
manual shutter speeds and auto exposure, and the Super-A is spot on.

Great camera. I kind of preferred my Program-A as it had a corrugated mode
selection switch (these little things make such a big difference), which
means it could be switched onto 'auto' long before I consciously considered
taking a picture. However, the achilles heel of the Program-A forced me to
move to the Super-A. First manual mode disappeared - leaving me with only
auto and +/-2 stops exposure! Er... then Program mode went, leaving only
aperture priority (no big deal, except convenience with flash gun), then
half of the apertures on the stopped-down side went the way of program mode
(22-11) - more a problem! However, it was around this time I took one of my
favourite pictures, which I entered for SI symmetry shoot-in earlier. Then
it started underexposing by 4 stops every other photo, and I decided to put
an end to it all. It currently retires on my shelf.

The Super-A is, indeed, Super. Manual mode works, which is a godsend for
me, and it's much more solidly built. It looks good too, though
unfortunately this is also a problem : it looks so good people keep
mistaking it for a digital camera (that is non-photographers of course), and
it attracts too much attention for candid photography. I've seen a Canon
QL-24 going for £20, which would be perfect for candids.

Actually, that's just reminded me of an amusing article I read in 'digital
photographer' magazine (an interesting high quality magazine would good
content, quality paper and printing, but flagrant disregard for 300dpi and
spelling) issue 26 - where they interviewed Nick Danziger about his really
excellent shots of Tony Blair and other polititians (they really are
absolutely fantastic photos - unposed, too). Then they had a little section
on equipment recommended for doing this type of shooting, including Canon
EOS 1D mark II with a huge 16-35mm f2.8 lens. I thought (and you will too
if you look at the photos), that's a bit odd - they're all in black and
white, and people don't seem to even notice the camera - surely it's not a
1D?! Then you look at the other section which shows his actual equipment -
a battered OM4ti with Neopan.


The Nikon FM3A is a very fine camera, and can be obtained new for only
slightly more than the cost of a good used OM4Ti. There is a massive
choice of Nikon glass, and used manual focus Nikkors represent
incredible value because they don't meter on many Nikon AF cameras, so
they get sold on eBay at low prices.

Yes, the FM3A seems a very nice camera, at a reasonable price. However, I
was surprised to find it didn't have a 100% viewfinder (I thought most top
Nikon's did). And what you say about he glass is very enticing...
Particularly as they are Nikon lenses.

The FM, FE, FM2, FE2 and FM3A all have less-than-100% viewfinders.
The only Nikon film bodies with 100% viewfinders are the F, F2, F3,
F4, F5 and F6.

What's so hard about making 100% viewfinders? Surely, just a few more
percent...and we'd all be happy...?!


However, finding Nikon lenses with both good sharpness *and* the
"look" is not easy. Try the 24mm f/2.8, the 105mm f/2.5 and the 180mm
f/2.8 in AI or AIS versions. They are very good. But there isn't any
35mm Nikkor (out of the many different versions) that remotely
compares to the SMC Pentax K or A 35mm f/2.

That is surprising.

Not surprising when you think of Nikon's target market, professional
shooters, particularly photojournalists. Any finely graded rendition
of tones and smooth rendition of out-of-focus highlights is instantly
lost when you use an 85- or 133-line screen of the kind that was used
in newspaper reprographics departments. Nikon lenses are optimised
for sharpness and contrast, which is what newspaper picture editors
wish to see.

Makes sense in theory, I suppose. Lens design is fascinating. I'd love to
know what makes a lens sharp, as opposed to just being high resolution.
Maybe something to do with 'unsharp masking', whatever technique that was (I
presume optical). Then there's saturation, colour, contrast, resolution,
bokeh, drawing etc. etc. etc. You'd need to be some kind of god to
understand it all!


Do you know of any manual cameras with 100% or
near to that viewfinder coverage. My Super-A has 92%, which can be
slightly
annoying. The LX has an excellent 98%, FM3a 93%, Olympus OM4 97%, X-700
92%.

All the Nikon F{single digit} cameras have 100%, plus I think (not
sure) the Canon EOS 1, 1N and 1V have it.

The Pentax MX has 95%. That's another body worth considering; manual
focus, manual exposure, but it has interchangeable focusing screens
and is exceptionally robust. get a good one and it will last forever,
or until the electronics go phut! - but the shutter is purely
mechanical so you only lose metering. My favourite Pentax outfit was
LX + MX (or Super A) and five or six lenses.

Yes, Pentax MX is really really good camera - I think it could be the
ultimate travel camera - small, well-built, doesn't need batteries, great
lenses, inconspicuous. What more could you want?

Duncan.

"Duncan J Murray"

wrote in message ...

"Bandicoot" wrote in message
...
"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...
"Duncan J Murray"


[SNIP]

All the Pentax macro lenses are very good, though the current 100mm f3.5
is a budget alternative to the top-of-the-line f2.8, and is said to
perform
accordingly - the f2.8 is spectacularly good.

Can macro lenses be used for normal photography as well? As in, can they
focus on infinity? And how does the picture look using it in this way?

Yes, these will all also focus to infinity, and yes they can be used as
'normal' lenses. Two things make a lens a 'macro' lens (not counting all
those zooms with so-called macro functions that are nothing of the sort): it
has a focusing mount that lets you get close enough to get a life size image
on the film (strict definition, but half life size just about gets away with
still calling itself a 'proper' macro); and the optics have been optimised
to perform well at close distances (most lenses perform less well as you
focus close) and to have flat field, so that if you use it to photograph
something flat - to copy a map, say, wide open it will be in focus in the
corners at the same time as in the centre.

The focusing mount thing makes the lens bigger and heavier, but doesn't
affect its distance performance at all. The optical optimisation could in
theory, but in practice not: these tend to be the sharpest lenses in any
manufacturer's arsenal, and so their distance performance is at least as
good as that of a non-macro lens.

Downsides to using a macro for general photography: bigger, heavier, and
more expensive; almost always a stop or so slower than a non-macro of
equivalent focal length; often, but not always, has less attractive bokeh
than non-macro lenses. Exceptions to the latter are the Tamron 90mm, and
the Pentax macros, all of which seem to have very nice bokeh. (Personally,
I think good bokeh matters as much, if not more, in close work, so this is a
big Pentax plus for me.)



I have a number of Pentax zoom lenses, mostly newer ones, and can
vouch strongly for the 28-70mm f4 FA AL - it is more or less the optical
equal of the f2.8, but at a fraction of the cost, size, and weight. The
current 24-90mm is very good too. I don't have a Pentax zoom in the 80-
200 range, so can't comment here (I use an Angenieux 70-210 instead,
and find it fits well with the 'look' of the Pentax glass.) Oh, well, I
do have
the 80-320, and it is good for the price and the range, but I only use
it
when I _really_ need to cover all that range in a single lens, which
is not
often.

24-90 seems a very nice lens. Very useful focal length range - 24mm is
great for landscape, and 90mm for portraits! I have a 35-70, which often
just doesn't quite reach enough

Yes, it's an excellent range, and would probably be the lens I'd choose if I
was forced to only use one - though I'd hate to have such a choice forced on
me. It isn't cheap, but is very sharp, and is light for its range. The
20-35mm f4 is a good lens too, and makes a very nice companion to either the
24-90 or a 28-70. (There are good Pentax choices in the 28-105 range too.)

[SNIP]

Ahh Pentax, so undervalued! (Like me really...)

LOL! Me too...


Peter

"Duncan J Murray"

wrote in message ...

"Bandicoot" wrote in message
...
"Duncan J Murray"

wrote in message ...
"Bandicoot" wrote in message
...
"Duncan J Murray"


wrote in message ...
[SNIP]
People seem to think that just because things are small means they aren't
well-made and reliable (though fragile, I concede). People think for
things to be well-made, they need a Nikon F ; I mean, what torture do they
put their camera through? No one would say a genuine swiss watch was not
well-made, but then no-one would go rock-climbing with one either and
expect to keep time afterwards! Then again, the romantic idea of
travelling
to far-off parts of the world, with your trusty camera recording the
extreme
and untouched lands you encountered does have a certain appeal. I think I
would take a Pentax MX or a Nikon F (couldn't afford a Leica) (actually
couldn't afford a Nikon F just at the moment, anyway, let alone a
round-the-world trip!!! - we can all dream!)

I like the MX very much - have two of them - and it is an excellent
alternative/backup/lightweight second body with an LX.

I do use more recent 35mm SLRs too for the few things that really call for
AF, and there a Pentax MZ-S is backed up my an MZ-3, which is another very
light machine. The MZ-S is very light beside a Nikon, of course, yet the
time I accidentally banged it against the corner of my house, it knocked out
a chunk of brick from the house while the camera was _literally_
un-marked.

[SNIP]

When I have to use an in camera meter, I love the LX's very
_predictable_ meter, and can cheerily decide how to adjust my exposure
around the meter reading. It is superb for long exposures too.


I suppose that the LX has a much more professional feel to it, with the
safe exposure compensation and sturdy parts.

I like the way it handles, and it does feel very 'solid' to me. I also
make a reasonable amount of use of the interchangeable viewfinders. The
dust sealing really works too. I have five of them - 'nuff said...

Do you find exposure compensation a bit unwieldy? I nearly dropped the
camera when looking at it...!

It has always seemed fine to me, but I suppose I've had quite a while to get
used to it. Also, I'm not working fast and constantly changing the
compensation: mostly I use manual and a spotmeter, but if I am using auto
and the compenssation I will tend to work out what compensation I need for
a shot or sequence of shots and set it once, then change it only when I am
readying the next sequence. I do like the really big flag in the VF that
tells you that compensation is applied.

Like any camera, you get used to working with it, and your own working
methods evolve in parallel with the way you use it, I suppose.



Peter

wrote in message
oups.com...
Most lenses are pretty good at f/8. the real test is near maximun
aperture. that's where the Leica lenses would trounce the Pentax
optics.


Apart from this being hilarious in itself, your use of the word 'would' is
so enlightening. It's a plain statement that you haven't tried the
experiemnt, and aren't prepared to do so.

What a surprise.



Peter