Olympus OM-4 vs Pentax LX

Seems like a very nice camera. Funny I've never heard of it before.

On the other hand, not that this is normally a consideration, it does look
exceptionally unstylish. Kind of '60s future domestic kitchen style. Like,
maybe just a bit too injudicious with the metal.

Duncan.

wrote in message
ups.com...
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.

Duncan J Murray wrote:
Seems like a very nice camera. Funny I've never heard of it before.

On the other hand, not that this is normally a consideration, it does look
exceptionally unstylish. Kind of '60s future domestic kitchen style. Like,
maybe just a bit too injudicious with the metal.

Duncan.

wrote in message
ups.com...

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



While you're checking out obscure German cameras with great lenses, take
a look at the Rolleiflex 3003 ("My Precioussss!")

http://www.cameraquest.com/rol3003.htm

I wouldn't recommned it as a first or only camera, but really is special.
The 35mm f/1.4 lens is my absolute favorite.

I have only the Pentax 28mm shift lens. I have also the 2x
teleconverter as a way to convert it to a 56mm shift lens. I got this
idea from the Mamiya web site where they indicated their
teleconverter, which I have, could be used with the Mamiya shift lens
to extend it. I tested the Pentax combination, and the results seemed
reasonable; but I have not used it in the field. And the one time I
used the Mamiya combination, I wasn't really satisfied with the
results. I have not heard of the Ukrainian lenses.

I have also run tests of correcting the verticals in Photoshop. This
is quite possible; but there tends to be a slight squashing or
elongation of the image as a result, depending on whether one pulls
out the upper corners of the image or pushes in the lower corners when
correcting the verticals. Maybe half and half will do the trick?

Charles

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 00:03:16 +0100, "Bandicoot"
wrote:

"Charles Kinghorn" wrote in message
.. .
I was waiting for some one to say that about the loupe. I even thought
of beating you to it by making my own comment; but I decided to wait
and see.

Yes, I do use my Pentaxes (I have an MX as well) for architectural
work. Also a Mamiya 645. I have shift lenses for both these systems.


Do you have only the Pentax 28mm shift lens, or have you tried anything
else? I have the 28, but have wondered about trying one of the Ukrainian
35mm T&S lenses. I also have a shift adapter that lets me put P6 mount
lenses on a Pentax, which will allow an enormous amount of shift, but of
course not with anything any wider than about 45mm - but it's a nice trick
for litte money all the same.

What I liked about the Pentax LX when compared to the Leicaflex were
the two features the latter did not have: mirror lockup and no need to
cover the eye-piece when standing away from the camera (the Pentax
reads off the film plane during exposure; the Leicaflex had an
eye-piece blind or cover to avoid extraneous light entering the
eye-piece and affecting exposure).


Yes, I keep forgetting how lucky we are with not needing an eyepiece blind.
I recently took a series of night shots working _very_ fast as I was in a
location that was about to lock up for the night, and so estimated an
exposure compensation and then left the meter to get on with it, bracketing
a half stop each way on the comp. dial. Longest exposure about 90 some
seconds, results perfect, whole job done in five minutes. I love that
meter.



Peter


Peter

While you're checking out obscure German cameras with great lenses, take
a look at the Rolleiflex 3003 ("My Precioussss!")

http://www.cameraquest.com/rol3003.htm

I wouldn't recommned it as a first or only camera, but really is special.
The 35mm f/1.4 lens is my absolute favorite.

Crazy camera - people must think they're being filmed! I suppose you have
the 42mm pentax convertor? I'd imagine it'd make it easier to make up a
collection fairly rapidly. But, you're right - I couldn't see this as an
only camera.

I like the sound of a 31/4" disk drive back - kind of retro. Shame my
laptop doesn't know what a floppy even is...

Duncan.

While you're checking out obscure German cameras with great lenses, take
a look at the Rolleiflex 3003 ("My Precioussss!")

http://www.cameraquest.com/rol3003.htm

I wouldn't recommned it as a first or only camera, but really is special.
The 35mm f/1.4 lens is my absolute favorite.

Crazy camera - people must think they're being filmed! I suppose you have
the 42mm pentax convertor? I'd imagine it'd make it easier to make up a
collection fairly rapidly. But, you're right - I couldn't see this as an
only camera.

I like the sound of a 31/4" disk drive back - kind of retro. Shame my
laptop doesn't know what a floppy even is...

Duncan.

Duncan J Murray wrote:
While you're checking out obscure German cameras with great lenses, take
a look at the Rolleiflex 3003 ("My Precioussss!")

http://www.cameraquest.com/rol3003.htm

I wouldn't recommned it as a first or only camera, but really is special.
The 35mm f/1.4 lens is my absolute favorite.


Crazy camera - people must think they're being filmed! I suppose you have
the 42mm pentax convertor? I'd imagine it'd make it easier to make up a
collection fairly rapidly.

I do have (several) M42 converters, which makes up for the lack of
original long teles and other hard to find lenses.
And yes, I get lots of questions about it: Many people ask if it's the
latest digital model.
: )

But, you're right - I couldn't see this as an
only camera.

In the Rollei system there is also the SL35 (a sort of Pentax Spotmatic
clone - but I like the real Spotmatic much better) and the SL35-E. Also
others existed, but are best avoided.

The SL35-E (aka Voigtländer VSL 3-E) is - in MY opinion - a really nice
camera, but in its time (late 70's-early 80's) had an awful reputation,
with many new ones failing to work right out of the box.
Even today, most don't work because of the same electronic problem which
manifests itself as a "lazy" mirror.
The good news is that the ones which now DO work properly will probably
keep working for a very long time (good electronics in the first place,
or fixed/upgraded ones along the way), and its bad reputation keeps the
price way down.
A great way to use Zeiss lenses cheaply, but not a camera I can
unreservedly recommend...

I like the sound of a 31/4" disk drive back - kind of retro. Shame my
laptop doesn't know what a floppy even is...

But the quality of a 1.44 magabyte image!
: (

Anyway, there's a lot to choose from in the weird & wonderful world of
cameras...

But the quality of a 1.44 magabyte image!
: (

Anyway, there's a lot to choose from in the weird & wonderful world of
cameras...

That's assuming it could take images that large. Imagine it could - it
would be like using a plate camera, in goes the disk, say cheese - Foomph!,
out it goes, into the chilled disk container, in goes the next one ....
Fantastic! And a pixel-packed 1.44meg image can be reasonably high quality,
too.

Bit of retro fun. One day people will be going on about the 'look' of early
digital cameras - just look at those gorgeous pixels! And the moire
fringing! Bayer artefacts?! I want them back!!!

Duncan (not seriously).

But the quality of a 1.44 magabyte image!
: (

Anyway, there's a lot to choose from in the weird & wonderful world of
cameras...

That's assuming it could take images that large. Imagine it could - it
would be like using a plate camera, in goes the disk, say cheese - Foomph!,
out it goes, into the chilled disk container, in goes the next one ....
Fantastic! And a pixel-packed 1.44meg image can be reasonably high quality,
too.

Bit of retro fun. One day people will be going on about the 'look' of early
digital cameras - just look at those gorgeous pixels! And the moire
fringing! Bayer artefacts?! I want them back!!!

Duncan (not seriously).

"Charles Kinghorn" wrote in message
...
I have only the Pentax 28mm shift lens. I have also the 2x
teleconverter as a way to convert it to a 56mm shift lens. I got this
idea from the Mamiya web site where they indicated their
teleconverter, which I have, could be used with the Mamiya shift lens
to extend it. I tested the Pentax combination, and the results seemed
reasonable; but I have not used it in the field. And the one time I
used the Mamiya combination, I wasn't really satisfied with the
results. I have not heard of the Ukrainian lenses.

Interesting idea, I can see why it _should_ work, though TCs really aren't
designed to work well with short lenses. I'll have to give it a try, and
will test it with the 1.4x TC as well, since I have one and that may well
produce less image degradation.


I have also run tests of correcting the verticals in Photoshop. This
is quite possible; but there tends to be a slight squashing or
elongation of the image as a result, depending on whether one pulls
out the upper corners of the image or pushes in the lower corners
when correcting the verticals. Maybe half and half will do the trick?

Likewise. I'd much rather get it right in camera though, since any PS
adjustment is reducing the eventual image qaulity (if only because it is
throwing part of it away).

When I do it in PS I usually pull out the top, and then stretch the image to
'correct' the proportions again - I use select_all and then free_transform
and just pull the top up a bit. It is hard to judge just how far to go, but
of course it is made much easier if there is anything circular in the image.
(Thanks to Lisa for putting me onto doing it this way.)



Peter

Two comments on your Photoshop technique:

1. Pulling out the top is what I tend to do as well, because it seems
to be the natural thing to do. Another posting some time ago, however,
pointed out that in doing this, you are spreading your fixed amount of
information over more pixels, thereby losing detail. I try now to
remember to push the bottom in instead.

2. Even with stretching there is still some distortion of the image
when compared to a photograph with the verticals corrected in the
camera. I do a lot of vertical correction in available-light shots
with people in them and am always concerned that the people will end
up with larger or smaller heads on their bodies, depending on the
method and extent of vertical correction.

The circle idea is a good one. Also, as I wrote the earlier reply, I
realized that half a pull-out on top and half a push-in on the bottom
may keep things in perspective! I'll have to try it.

Charles

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:55:51 +0100, "Bandicoot"
wrote:

"Charles Kinghorn" wrote in message
.. .
I have only the Pentax 28mm shift lens. I have also the 2x
teleconverter as a way to convert it to a 56mm shift lens. I got this
idea from the Mamiya web site where they indicated their
teleconverter, which I have, could be used with the Mamiya shift lens
to extend it. I tested the Pentax combination, and the results seemed
reasonable; but I have not used it in the field. And the one time I
used the Mamiya combination, I wasn't really satisfied with the
results. I have not heard of the Ukrainian lenses.

Interesting idea, I can see why it _should_ work, though TCs really aren't
designed to work well with short lenses. I'll have to give it a try, and
will test it with the 1.4x TC as well, since I have one and that may well
produce less image degradation.


I have also run tests of correcting the verticals in Photoshop. This
is quite possible; but there tends to be a slight squashing or
elongation of the image as a result, depending on whether one pulls
out the upper corners of the image or pushes in the lower corners
when correcting the verticals. Maybe half and half will do the trick?

Likewise. I'd much rather get it right in camera though, since any PS
adjustment is reducing the eventual image qaulity (if only because it is
throwing part of it away).

When I do it in PS I usually pull out the top, and then stretch the image to
'correct' the proportions again - I use select_all and then free_transform
and just pull the top up a bit. It is hard to judge just how far to go, but
of course it is made much easier if there is anything circular in the image.
(Thanks to Lisa for putting me onto doing it this way.)



Peter