david_smith53

I can't say I've seen a lot of eBay prices over $120, although for stone mint I could believe it. $100 - $120 seems to be the consistent price.

 

Dave

Changing the exposure is not changing the ISO, the same exposure (ie. 1/60 @f8 for ISO 100, 1/500 @f8 for ISO 800) will yield two similarly exposed yet different looking photos (800 = more grain). What you are describing would be the same as turning the ISO dial on a film camera, what he is describing would be the same as changing the film.

 

I have no pet peeves with Pentax, unfortunately due to circumstances I am using mostly Nikon now, and I dearly miss my Pentax, particularly my K lenses which feel infinitely better than the AIS glass. I do have a pet peeve with the plastic self-timer that just broke on my FE2, wish it was metal like the KX.

 

Dave

Thanks Jeff, I certainly know that it is. It's been several months since the K2 was stolen, and I've been missing it quite a bit. I've been looking for the right KX since.

 

With the lens off, the lever looks fine, it just seems to move slowly. I'll just take it for the overhaul. Thanks guys.

 

Dave

Just received a KX to replace my stolen K2. The mirror upswing seems

to get slower as the aperature gets wider, at f1.4 it takes nearly a

second after the shutter button is depressed before the mirror makes

it all the way up and the shutter is actually opened. I'm assuming

this is not normal? Same results with the lens off. At smaller

aperatures, say f11, the mirror goes up quite quickly although

probably a bit slower than other SLR's I've had. Anyone know about this?

 

Dave

Speaking of foam, I had a look inside my MZ-5 the other day, and other

than a piece around the film window I don't see any foam or traces of

foam anywhere. Are there cameras that don't use any or is it that

long gone?

 

Dave

The 100/2.8 usually seems to command a fair bit of money. If you just want a longer lens (rather than the 100/2.8 specifically) and don't want to spend too much money, you might try the M 135/3.5. They are usually quite affordable and I would think image quality would be equal to the 100/2.8, I can't make any criticisms of mine (although it's a K). In some cases it's nice to have a bigger maximum aperature but you're going to pay quite a bit for that for the same image quality.

 

Dave

Dean,

 

One thing that I suggest is if you're into manual focus and you're going to get a manual body you would do well to get one with a split-screen or microprism. Most K1000's do not have this, although the K1000se's do. Neither do any autofocus cameras. Like you mention the manual focus lenses are much nicer to manual focus than the f and fa lenses (no surprise). I'm a happy K2 owner. For what it's worth, I had to take mine into the shop a little while back for a repair and got to talking with the guy in the shop for a while. He was saying that most of the older Pentax camera's are getting hard to repair as parts are getting hard to find. He said the K1000 was the one for which parts are readily available and recommended it over the K2, KX, and MX. Having said that, he did a great job of overhauling my camera for what was to me reasonable money, and I have no complaints about K2 ownership.

 

Dave

Does the MZ-5n have MLU? I think it has the others.

 

Dave

Chris, the SMC-A 135/2.8 is supposedly the one exception to the SMC line, I believe it wasn't manufactured by Pentax (I could be wrong about that) but it is also considered not to be very good. You could just use faster film for shooting at 3.5, I would think optically the 135/3.5 would be considerably better than your zoom, or you could shell out for the 135/2.5 K or M. Check out

 

http://stans-photography.info/

 

Dave

For what it's worth my 135/2.5 Tak is made in Japan, still wouldn't recommend it.

 

Dave

I think many would say that this is one of the poorer lenses with the Pentax name on it, I have it and can't say that I disagree. Color contrast and sharpness both leave something to be desired compared to an SMC Pentax, although I've read from some people that for this reason it makes a nice portrait lens because it's "forgiving". I don't think the coating or lack thereof is as significant as the optical construction compared to an SMC 135. The bottom line is it is not worth much, maybe $35, and if you could give up a stop the SMC-M 135/3.5 is relatively inexpensive and a truly excellent lens.

 

Dave

$650 for a K1000 and a Spotmatic and some flash equipment is more than a little steep, anyone looking to spend that kind of money would surely get something else. I think you'd be lucky to get $175.

 

Dave

Monetarily not worth a whole lot but you could take some GREAT pictures with it. Probably the 50mm lens is considerably better than the other two, but they might be decent too. The K1000 is a great camera, if you aren't interested in photography find someone that is and give it to them, there is more reward in that than the $100 you might get for it. Better still investigate photography yourself, in particular the K1000 is an excellent camera with which to learn the basic principles of photography (and a long-standing requisite for photography classes).

 

Dave

Well I'm afraid I can't get much more technical, that's just my impression looking through it compared (as you suggested) to my K2, or any older camera for that matter. It seems to me while looking through the viewfinder that the eyepiece is plastic and all I can say is it has that look. Makes the composed shot look less inspiring to me. Just a preference, as I said, obviously a good camera.

 

My MZ-5 has spot-meter, maybe the "n" has a more exotic one? The DOF preview and exposure lock would both be welcome additions, so I see the popularity of the "n".

 

Dave

Well I don't want to rain on anyone's parade, but I have a couple of problems with the MZ-5 that I have. Perhaps I am wrong but I am under the impression that the only difference from the "n" is a couple of added features such as DOF preview, but the basic camera is the same.

 

I will certainly say that it takes good pictures and as noted above the controls don't require numerous sub-menus (with the exception of manual ISO override). However one thing that I hate about it is the plastic viewfinder. I don't know if this is the result of having to accomodate a pop-up flash but what a difference it is to look through a proper glass viewfinder. I don't know if the majority of modern cameras share this but it's a real annoyance for me.

 

Overall a good camera but it doesn't rate that highly with me.

 

Dave

For me I much prefer a microprism like the non-AF cameras have, but it is still relatively easy to focus properly with the MZ-5. It is very rare that I use AF with it. I don't have any working knowledge of the ZX-M but I would imagine it would be the same as the general design is quite similar.

 

Dave

Thanks for the responses. At the moment it's actually working again, after "coming to" the second time it has been working - I shot a roll of film today with no problem. If it happens again I will look into the sticky magnet, and yes it's the shutter that was stuck open. I'll keep my fingers crossed, thanks again.

 

Dave

I suddenly today started having problems with my shutter, it

occaisionally gets stuck open. By this I mean that at 1/125th shutter

speed it stayed open for around 6 hours, after which it spontaneously

closed. I then tried a number of test shots which seemed fine, and

then somewhere around #20 it stuck open again. Moving the shutter

speed dial does nothing, nor does changing any other setting. I've

had the camera for a good 8 months now without problem. Any thoughts

other than take it to the repair shop?

 

Dave

Boy are we talking about the same thing? I have an F 35-80 and it's really lousy. It feels as cheap as any lens I've ever held and optical quality is medium at best to me. There is a VERY noticeable difference in sharpness and color rendition compared to my FA 50/1.7 for example. Am I missing something here?

 

Dave

Bill, I've sometimes considered the same thing. However I have used some split-screen cameras as well and they black out in the same way. I also find it a bit easier to be absolutely precise with the microprism, and with a split-screen you're out of luck if the lines in your composition are parallel to the split. I find that sometimes shifting my eye very slightly up or down can help the blacking out, if you're dead on it won't black out even in relatively low light. Having said that, there are definitely times when I have difficulty with my 200/4.

 

Dave

I think all Pentax cameras with electronic shutters, starting with my K2 have stepless shutter speeds. Actually I think that follows in general with SLR cameras, that was one of the significant advantages of the electronic shutter when it came out in the 70's. So 1/395 is as possible as 1/396. I don't have the test data to prove it but I don't know how they could claim it if it wasn't the case.

 

Dave

I have Japanese Takumar 135/2.5 and don't find that bad at all. Certainly a little soft wide open but overall I would say decent.

 

Dave

Thanks guys I'll look out for it.

 

Dave

I recently purchased a K 28/3.5 and I would like to some day find the

appropriate hood for it. Seeing that all of the proceeding 28's use

the smaller 49mm thread, how do I find one the right size for the K?

The ones I have seen have no marking for which version they will go

with. Thanks.

I have been using a K2 for a little while now and have no reservations. It hasn't let me down and I love using it. I have read a lot of comments about the difficult ASA ring, and admittedly it is difficult to figure out but when used properly it's no problem. The trick is not to try to move both rings at the same time, it won't do this and you have to wiggle it back and forth like the comments above describe. But if you make sure the exposure compensation dial (black ring) is at the "1x" position, then push down on the ASA dial release button and turn *only the silver ring* by the grooves in it, it is easy to turn the dial from one end to the other.