Final (hopefully!) MZ-6/ZX-L questions

[scott_gardner1]

Yeah, hard to believe, but I'm still mulling this. This is a classic case of

Internet head dancing (banging?). If I could handle the cameras in question

for five minutes, this would be decided already. It's down to the MZ-6/ZX-L

and MZ-5n/ZX-5n. Z-1p/PZ-1p are out due to cost considerations. This will be

the film body to compliment a K100d or K10D -- also yet to be decided.

 

Anyway . . .

 

The MZ-6/ZX-L has electronic rather than mechanical aperture control -- in

contrast to the MZ-5n/ZX-5n. One benefit is that it can control the aperture

of newer lenses that don't have an aperture ring. However, that seems to

include only the "budget" FA-J lenses which I'm not likely to buy as I seem to

be very good at ignoring the niceties of a "budget". ;o)

 

The only other lenses I've found that lack a ring are "D(igital)" and designed

for cropped sensor cameras and therefore not capable of covering the 35mm frame

so why worry about using them?

 

So, I have to wonder if there's any real benefit to electronic aperture

control. Am I missing something?

 

One other consideration is that the shutter of the MZ-6/ZX-L is electronically

controlled and in manual mode can be set from 30 seconds to 1/4000. In manual

mode the MZ-5n/ZX-5n is mechanically settable from 2 seconds to 1/2000.

 

I would have purchased an MZ-6/ZX-L already but for concerns about the

viewfinder. The MZ-5n/ZX-5n has a .80x pentaprism, (which Bojidar describes

as "a bit small") so the .70x pentamirror of the MZ-6/ZX-L promises to be even

smaller AND dimmer. Of course, without looking through it myself, it's tough

to judge if it will work for me. I'll be using a mixture of MF and AF lenses.

 

I've had opinions of the MZ-6/ZX-L VF ranging from "It's dark and tiny! Are

you crazy!" to "It's not that bad; similar to a crop sensor dSLR."

 

I suppose I could just buy one of each and make my own comparison and sell or

return the one that suits me less but I'd like to avoid that aggravation if I

can.

 

Any further wisdom to offer before I take the leap?

 

TIA (again!)!/Scott

[scott_gardner1]

BTW, just for fun, I called Pentax U.S. support to ask for their input.

 

The rep really tried to be helpful, but it was clear he was uncomfortable talking about what he termed "old cameras". I mean, after all, they were discontinued in 2005. He ended up asking a supervisor who told him to tell me the "MZ-5n/ZX-5n is a better choice because it's more professional".

 

Hard to argue with that logic.

 

:rolleyes:

[andrewg_ny]

I own both and can tell you that in most respects I prefer the ZX-L. While I have used aperture rings on the MZ-5n, P3n, etc. I actually find the electronic aperture control easier. To my fingers, aperture rings from lens to lens are inconsistently stiff, sometimes a little 'notchy', and not in a good way. With the electronic control, all lenses feel the same, and you can change settings more quickly and ergonomically without repositioning your hands as much. Similarly the Exp. Comp control is also available without repositioning your hands--unlike the -5n which requires you to operate a separate dial on the upper right of the body.

 

Electronic shutter control carries the additional benefit of EV 1/2 stops, while the manual dial on the MZ-5n has only full stops.

 

Both bodies are pretty darn good though--it mostly comes down to taste in the control style--the -5n has a "classic" 35mm SLR-type controls that many are still comfortable with, and the ZX-L has something a little more modern and closer to the D-SLR--in this way it is a LOT like a single e-dial design like the K100D.

 

It is true, the viewfinder on the -5n is a little larger, but not particularly bright. To my eye, the viewfinder on the ZX-L is nearly identical to my *ist DS2 and K10D--so probably a smidgen better than the K100D.

 

Other differences:

 

* -5n has panorama feature. Many will never use this.

 

* -5n has direct access to matrix/center/spot metering. The ZX-L has only matrix and can be configured to use spot when using AE-L--acceptable but not quite as flexible.

 

* The ZX-L has a nice orange-backlighted LCD on top with exposure information & current settings. On the -5n you have only a little frame counter, not illuminated. You can see settings on the manual analog controls (shutter dial, exp comp, aperture ring) but you won't see the actual exposure settings when using auto exposure except through the viewfinder. This also makes changing custom settings just a little more friendly (though not as friendly as a D-SLR's LCD menus).

 

* ZX-L offers 'scene' modes like portrait, landscape, action, etc. Don't know if you'll use them, but they are there.

 

* I believe ZX-L can work with same IR remote as D-SLR's...I don't think this is the case with the -5n, though I'm not 100% sure about this.

 

* While technically-speaking the DA lenses are designed for the smaller APS-C sensor, they will mount and work on 35mm SLR's. The DA40 will work perfectly, and some of the zooms will work but will start to vignette at wider angles. For example, by my eye the DA 16-45 will start vignetting at around 22mm (meaning it will work acceptably >22mm) and the DA 12-24 will work OK in the 18-24 range. I think the DA70 might work as well, but I don't have one.

 

I think you'll find it considerably easier to find a used -5n than a MZ-6/ZX-L however. The ZX-L is a little newer though so if you find one it may be in better shape. Not to muddy the waters too much but are PZ-1p bodies that much more expensive?

[scott_gardner1]

Andrew, many thanks for your detailed reply. You're the ideal respondent since you own both and have clearly made the time/effort to learn to use them.

 

I hadn't thought about the mechanical advantage of simply setting the lens rings on 'A' and controlling it via the electronic control. I've had the same experience with rings; some are definitely better than others.

 

Verrry interesting that the VF is favorably comparable to the dSLRs. I have been able to check those out and like 'em. That probably just tipped me to the ZX-L. An good example of how specifications need to be tempered by personal experience.

 

You're correct -- I'm very unlikely to use the 'scene modes' and panorama features. Spot metering, 1/2 stops, backlit LCD and the remote are certainly useful. BTW, that last item is indeed the same for the digicams. It's model CS-205. I'm told the Canon brand RS-60E3 and some copycats work as well.

 

Another advantage of the ZX-L is that it can share a flash with the digi-bodies.

 

From what I've seen, PZ-1p bodies with the same condition description are ~$100 more. They obviously offer more power (e.g., focus motor) and flexibility (interchangeable screens, etc.) but I doubt I'll need that capability. I shoot film for my own pleasure and digital for convenience and clients.

 

Many thanks!/Scott

[michael_kuhne]

I also have both models- for quite some time. I also have the PZ-1p. I use all three, too, depending on my needs at the time. I like the ZX-L so much, I bought a backup body when I came across a terrific deal on ebay from a dealer clearing stock.

 

The 5n has upgrades from the 5, including a better viewfinder for MF, which is slightly better than that of the ZX-L- which is comparable or better than a very good DSLR.

 

Andrews fine, detailed assessment is right on. But I'll offer some additions.

 

The 5n's VF is really tested as quite good all around for an AF camera. The PZ-1p received a very high rating. AF cameras do not generally have the magnification or are quite as bright as older MF cameras. Take a look through an ME Super with the same fast lens, you'll see it is true. But there are reasons- for one, more info must be squeezed into the VF and be visible. That of the ZX-L is still rated good.

 

I sometimes prefer the simple, easy controls of the 5n, and on-body metering controls, but overall I'd definitely go with the ZX-L. It is capable of more. For one thing, it has a very advanced flash system, and a higher standard in-body flash sync. It is capable of both TTL or P-TTL flash, depending on the flash unit. It can do wireless, multiple, and high-speed, also depending on the unit- the same flash units used on the current Pentax DSLRs.

 

There are definite advantages of having BOTH aperture ring AND electronic control. Only the ZX-L and PZ-1p have both. The obvious is use of any lens type. Also, using the ring is often the quickest and easiest way to shift (other than the Hyper system) modes out of program and gain instant exposure control. Just grab the ring in one easy step. Even with the PZ-1p, it is sometimes very convenient if using metered manual mode, then quickly wanting aperture-priority for temporary use before returning to manual. Finally, the electronic control allows the aperture you set when using a variable-aperture zoom lens to stay stable where you set it, while changing zoom focal lengths (unless the lens is wide open). This can be an important and convenient feature.

 

The ZX-L is remarkably compact and lightweight. It is heavenly with a 43mm f/1.9 Limited on it.

 

I would also recommend getting the battery grip if you can, which takes standard or rechargeable NiMH AA's.

[james_lai]

Actually, the scene modes can be useful. I find the auto program setting works quite well in deciding which scene mode to use and have pretty much left my MZ-7 (the predecessor to the MZ-6) on auto program all the time. Give it a try, you might like it.

[michael_kuhne]

Not to misunderstand- Unlike the PZ-1p, with the ZX-L you cannot shift from manual to aperture priority using the aperture ring, but you can use it to instantly shift from program.

 

I did that once at a family gathering, as my cousin was shooting at the same time with a high-end Canon SLR. We had the cameras off and were talking. A situation came up with the kids, and we both knew we needed to open up the lenses to blur the cluttered background and also get maximum shutter speed. While he cranked his mode dial around, then turned his aperture wheel to wide open, I had grabbed the aperture ring and taken several shots!

[bryan_wolf]

"Not to misunderstand- Unlike the PZ-1p, with the ZX-L you cannot shift from manual to aperture priority using the aperture ring, but you can use it to instantly shift from program."

 

Just wanted to say that this does work for all modes but manual. So if you're in shutter priority, rotate the ring away from "A" and your in instantly in aperture priority. The ZX-L is a nice little camera. I already gave my other thoughts at the other site(Vertex Ninja), so I'll spare you the repeat Scott. Besides, others have already mentioned what's great about this camera far better than I could.

[scott_gardner1]

Well, an MZ-6/ZX-L it is then!

 

My primary concern was the VF. I suspect most of the negative comments posted about it came from people who compared it to the VFs of wonderful manual focus cameras. I have yet to use a camera with a better VF than my OM-4T fitted with a '2' series screen. It's like IMAX compared to a normal theatre.

 

What I didn't realize is how much additional flexibility the electronic controls offer. That kind of stuff doesn't make it into owners' manuals.

 

So, the pnet Pentax forum officially knows more about the actual use of Pentax cameras than Pentax.

 

Thanks to all!/Scott

[michael_kuhne]

The ZX-L/MZ-6 is a very popular Pentax model for good reasons. I think you will be able to find a perfect one with patience, and will enjoy its design and capabilities.

 

When going for maximum compactness, I just use the regular in-body CR-2 batteries. When compactness is not an issue and when using larger lenses, I use the battery grip.

 

Best of luck!

 

Mike

[bryan_wolf]

Ditto everything!

[unca mikey]

One other lens w/o an aperture ring that you may consider using with the ZX-L is the DA 40mm pancake lens. Although Pentax says this lens is for the digital sensor only, it works fine with no vignetting on 35mm film.

 

It's an excellent lens, too.

[scott_gardner1]

Now *that* is overengineering I can appreciate. The image circle of a "digital" lens that's large enough to cover full-frame.

 

Cool!/Scott

[michael_kuhne]

It is cool, too. The 40mm is very, VERY small. I have heard a few quibbles, though, about its fiddly lens cap, and even being prone to a bit of flare. I have an old MF Pentax 40mm f/2.8 that is just about the same size.

 

I think it was worth the extra cost for the 43mm f/1.9 Limited, myself. It is still very small, it does have the lens ring, a better lens hood, IMO, and a brighter, faster aperture. As soon as I look through it I can appreciate this difference right away compared with my 40mm f/2.8 lens.