conrad_drake

<blockquote><i>

The new body is the Bessaflex by Cosina Voigtlander.</i>

<blockquote>

Available from Mr. Gandy at <a href="http://cameraquest.com/inventor.htm">CameraQuest</a>. No relation etc. etc.

Today, Yashica Electro 35 G. Yesterday, the Rollop Lipca TLR (except the film advance is playing up) Next, maybe the Retina 1C. Who knows. But there's usually film in an MX or the mju II (gasp!)

Or should I take the final lesson of Pentax model-policy: They never built no perfect camera.</i>

<p>Ah, but to this neo-luddite, the LX is it.

<p>Except for the lack of a rangefinder and leaf shutter

<p>And the lack of replaceable backs. With film plane tilt. And...

<blockquote>

Andy Aitken , sep 16, 2004; 10:15 a.m.<br>

You can use the brighter LX focussing screens in the MX but they affect the metering (MX metering is in the prism while LX metering is in the body) so you would have to work out an exposure compensation by comparison with another camera or meter.

</blockquote>

I've heard this, and I've also heard the opposite - that LX screens can be used. Now whether some adjustment is needed I'm not sure. Unfortunately (for this thread) I'm hoping not to have to see the local Pentax guru for some months (when an old Zeiss folder of mine will get a CLA). He'd have an opinion, and one I'd believe.

<p> Anyone else care to throw their hat in?

Would be nice on a ME/MX. But you'd end up with weird shaped negatives - being a "D" lense it probably won't light the whole of a neg.

Why buy a US$900 digital body if you're short on cash? That's somewhere between one and two hundred processed rolls of C41 at todays prices (depending on where & how you get it done) Many more B&W if you DIY. (Regardless of format, prints cost money)

 

Budget digital is sub US$100 - particularily if you have only one focal length!

 

And, so far, no-one knows if the non-A lenses will even work on the "budget" DSLR.

Three reasons:

<ol>

<li> I've got four (OK, two are the ol'man's)

<li> relatively cheap and very good glass

<li> small, built like bricks, still repairable

</ol>

Now, this is not to say that I don't want an LX, nor a PK mount body with a QUIET shutter, but for the $$ they are a damn good solution

<p>

Oh - if you've got problems with focusing screens, they are replaceable & available in a number of patterns.

There was a rather good Pentax lens comparison site which is no longer live in my bookmarks. It listed all of the lenses & various comments/measurements from various sources.

 

The general comment is that the M and A are pretty damn similar, with 1.4A being the only clear improvement over an M. F and FA don't seem to cause much difference either. The pancake (40mm), F1.2 and the "limited" (43mm) are apparently* noticably different as they have different design goals. The 50F2 is noted as rather good, but the 55 f2 seemed particularily unloved, if my memory serves me correctly.

 

Myself, the extra 1/2 stop & fwd compatibility means the 1.4A is my standard lense - I dohave a M1.7 which rarely now gets out. *I also have a 40mm but it doesn't get used as much as one might expect - at least not until I graft a K mount onto a leaf shutter body!

 

I have a sneaking suspicion that I would not be able to distinguish between the 1.4A and 1.7M without a tripod, cable release and very careful focussing!

 

Some points of interest:

http://ca.geocities.com/spirope/pentlens.html

Which, in addition to some numbers & comments says "A large number of tests of modern Pentax lenses can be found on the Internet at www.photodo.com."

 

The ultimate on line reference remains http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/ - I note that he now has some lense resolution results - which would _suggest_ the 1.4A or 2.8 macro based on resolution.

That would be most annoying - it's annoying enough in the '70s MX (and one of the major advantages of the LX) but, for me, frankly unacceptable in a '00s digiwundersnapper. What's the point of a 50/1.2 if you can't do available light at IS03200?

I have and have had several Yash electro range finders - GS, GSN, 35CC and a few others. Also have both sets of aux lenses.

 

My favorite are the larger models - nicest feel (the 35CC may have a glorious lense & be the most "valuable" but the shutter action feels/sounds cheap in comparison).

 

Prices are a little all over the place, but these cameras are plentiful & _should_ be cheap. Accessories are worth what someone is willing to pay.

 

If you're shopping in person, make sure the camera goes "clunk" as you wind the film on. O'wise something is broken. Try and take a battery (and adapter if needed) to ensure metering is OK.

In addition to all the seals advice (sticky mirrors are not unheard of) also check that the meter meters correctly on all shutter speeds and for all film speeds of interest. Check that changing Fstop/speed has the expected result on the meter.

 

Do this under "normal" light (EV 16 to say, 6) as the metering circuit has some limits!

 

One of my bodies doesn;t meter at 1/125 - annoying and signs that a CLA is not far away. I _hope_ that my service dude still has some of the appropriate bits stashed away: they are starting to get a little scarce.

</blockquote><i>Bye the way, have you any experience with the Electro CC? I have been considering getting one but they are going anywhere from $150 to $200 now. It looks like a great camera though. <p>Jim.</i></blockquote><p>

 

I've two GSNs and a CC. The CC shutter feel is not as nice as the GSN - but the smaller size makes up for it. My main complaint of the CC is that the ISO setting stops at 400 - I'm looking at hot-rodding mine (by changing the shutter discharge circuit to drop 3 stops) to run to 3200. Which would be much more useful. <p> It's not at the top of my intray, so don't hold your breath. IIRC, it <i>should</i> just be a simple resistor change.

<p>

CD

Apparently not unknown for this lense - see <A HREF="http://www.concentric.net/~smhalpin/LongComments.html#35 mm f/2.8 M">Detailed Commentson Pentax K-Mount Lenses</a>

<blockquote>

Since some of you are high end audiophiles, what is the best pair of headphones out there (<$2000). I live in a city and the intermittent sound of police, fire and ambulance sirens annoyingly punctuates the air, so I figured headphones are the answer to uninterrupted music. When I was into stereos, Stax Lambdas were the headphones of choice. Are they still the ones? Thanks in advance.

<p>

PS. What set up (CD player, etc.) do you recommend for proper headphone usage? TY.

</blockquote>

Probably the single most useful site on the web is

<a href="http://headphone.com/">Headphone Corp.</a> They specialise in making heaphone amps but also flog a large range of headphones and have <a href="http://headphone.com/layout.php?topicID=2">a lot of information</a><p>If I had my druthers it would be <a href="http://headwize2.powerpill.org/projects/showproj.php?file=gilmore_prj.htm">directly driven</a> Stax cans. Sennie HD600 are still highly regarded. Personally I'm pretty happy with my old stax (when I've got an amp) or my Grado SR60 (for portable use)

Cheap? Hard to go past a zeiss nettar folder or similar. Horribly unfashionable so a fraction of the price of an Ikonta. No RF or ground glass focusing - guess work only. Red window winding, simple shutters and (usually uncoated) lenses in the f4.5 to f6.3 range. Somewhere between $10 and $30 depending on cosmetics. Ebay is full of them.

 

Almost as cheap are the also-ran German TLRs. I have a Rollop Lipca. Never heard of them? Neither had I. But the f3.5 75mm Ennagon lense is fine (and coated) and the Protor SVS is a workhorse found in many cameras. The key issue seems to be the condition of the mirror and viewing screen - mine's OK but not as bright as some TLRs. Oh - this Lipca has a nifty counter/interlock system that works, ah, almost flawlessly. And all for $30- US, including lense hood and case. One day I'll get it TLA'd - when it needs it.

 

The other "cheap" camera (which I don't own) is the Kiev 60. This is a "real" SLR with exchangable lenses. It's big, it's heavy, it's 100% Soviet. Make sure it has a _working_ metering prism! See ebay for prices and google for the occasional issues.

Nick Name said: "The fact is, new cameras are equally capable of taking great pictures in whatever mode you choose to operate them in"

<p>

True. And if If you're after action shots in difficult light, well a modern P&S SLR might be the only option. And I had unlimited $$$ I'd run out and buy a new camera and lenses, regardless If E. Johnstone doesn't care about $$$, then that's fine. It certainly <a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/35mm/building-an-slr-system"> works for Phil</a> If $$$ are limited, getting an old camera often lands good, cheap glass. Frankly, that's why I'm still sticking to '70s tech. Cheap glass and a $100 CLA every ten years.

<p>

But back to fundementals: why move to an SLR? I presume that it is to <li>a) get into "ground glass" focussing and <li> b) have a choice of focal lengths.<br> An SLR is only one way to achieve this -

St. Phil has a <a href="http://www.photo.net/making-photographs/camera">lot to say about different camera types</a>. Read it. Perhaps, for you, a view camera is a better "next step"<p>

While I'm an avid gear head, if you are <a href="http://www.photo.net/making-photographs/">into making pictures</a> getting hung up on camera bodies is a step in the wrong direction. At the end of the day, the body is just a light tight box to hold your film and mount your lense. Keep the wunderschnapper for af/ae snapping, find a small CHEAP digital to practice composition. Then think about what lense/camera system will suit what you are trying to capture or express. <p> If you decide on 35mm SLR, do read <a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/35mm/building-an-slr-systemhttp://www.photo.net/equipment/35mm/building-an-slr-system"> the photo.net guide </a>.

Ah, finally. Thanks Brian.

<p>

As for "no words". Pah! My predictions for the top repeated topics are:

<ol>

<li> are the limiteds better than a 50/1.4 super tak?

<li> how do I get my 50/1.4 super tak off this !@#$%ng zenit body?

<li> why can't I find an adapter to mount my PK lense on a leica a.k.a. why are pentax shutters SO LOUD?

<li> where can I get parts for my MX/LX/Spotmatic TLA?

<p>and my favorite...

<li> Where is the K-mount digital?

</ol>

The last will, of course, degenerate into a discussion of how the <a href=http://cameraquest.com/pentx110.htm">Pentax System 10</a> is just perfect for the current crop of sensors & Pentax should re-visit that mount.

<p>On the quiet shutter question, I'm investigating fitting a K mount onto an old Braun. I'll report when I pull my finger out & the local pentax guru stops laughing at me!

I've several MXs and the cameras and glass are rather good. As far as 35mm SLRs go it is one of the smallest around - and the 'M' series lenses are quite small. If you're used to "modern" zooms you'll be blown away by the size of the ME or MX - about the same as a Braun Paxette. (I've sold my ME but I believe it's a whisker smaller at 131.5 x 83 x 49.5 mm. The MX is much better built)

<p>

Yes, the pancake is the smallest available, but it's not _that_ much smaller than the M50 1.7. And it definitely not collapsible!

<p>

The definitive page on all things K-mount is <a href="http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/">Bojidar Dimitrov's Pentax K-Mount Page</a>

It's for a Braun Paxette - the 'E' indicates rangefinder coupling. Do you still have it?

One might argue that this discussion belongs in the <a href="http://www.photo.net/neighbor/opc.tcl?category_id=0">Neighbour</a> section however there is no doubt that it is relevant to anyone interested in LTM or Leica bayonet cameras.

<p>Given that Mr. Gandy is reading, I will say "thanks for the <a href="http://www.cameraquest.com/classics.htm">rangefinder support information</a>".

<p> (No, I'm not a customer)

You've travelled an interesting road. I haven't used the Koni so I'll not comment on them. I will reiterate my suggestion of trying another TLR - but given your budget and success with your current TLR you should at least try and have a serious look at the Mamiya C330/C220 range before committing to a non-ground glass solution. They are common enough that you should be able to find one to 'heft' in one of your major cities.

As someone else has mentioned - almost anywhere is up. A better TLR is the easy option, if you're happy using them. Most of the common choices have been mentioned - note that there were a host of 'other' German manufacturers (such as Rollop) who made honest TLRs in the '50s.

 

Just at the moment, the TLRs represent better value than the folding cameras - a non-famous-brand f3.5 lens in a Prontor SVS class shutter will cost less than $50US in a TLR, but as a folder it'll be nearer $75. (In either case a 'name' brand or model will push prices up)

Expensive? Relative to <b>what</b> other dead-quiet, interchangable-lens bodies available <b>new, today</b>.

<p>

That's the 'why' question - why can't someone bring the same solution to market any cheaper?

<p>

(Cosina/Voigtlander have certainly brought more <b>features</b> to the RF market more cheaply )

Thanks for the info - the $75 dollar sale price makes the Bessa-L a very cheap meter-with-a-film-holder. But quiet is important to me.

<p>

I do have a small, light, leafshutter RF with interchangeable lenses - a Paxette. But the shutter (Prontor SVS) is way too small to allow anything faster than f2.8 at 50mm

Just how loud/quiet are the various bessas? I've heard some Ms and they are the quietest non-leaf shutter I've heard. How does the bessa compare to say, a Yashica Electro or Canon QL G-III?