michael_pimentel1

Wow Wigwam,

So, you misread my posts, provide no useful information, and I'm to blame. I don't need your insults or condescending attitude.

I'm off this thread.

Hello,

Sorry. But, I'm not a troll.

I wasn't certain if Pentax Repair still sold spare parts... there was a time that they did. I actually emailed Pentax USA but never got a reply.

Then, someone here mentioned calling Pentax. I tried using a number I had from the last time I sent something in for repair about 10 years ago from the Pentax place in Golden, CO but no one there could help me except to say that the repair facility moved to Westminster. I called that number and spoke to the customer service people and after looking up the part number, I was told that the camera had to be sent in for repairs.

All I was doing was saying thanks to those that pointed me in the right direction- common courtesy. I guess I won't be doing that on this board anymore since it creates so much suspicion.

BTW, your Pentax version is an autofocus camera if I'm not mistaken and designed with interchangeable focusing screens to take the place of the Pentax LX. Those screens in the MZ-S weren't designed to fit the camera I'm talking about. That Pentax version is a manual focus camera, the MZ-M but branded here in the US as a ZX-M. The body chasis is fundamentally the same as the MZ-S but the mechanics are very different.

One of the differences is the focusing screen; though it is not interchangeable on the ZX-M it is pretty easy to replace- and, what I've found is that spare parts like these always come in handy when you've got to deal with relatively delicate things like focusing screens- like the Pentax K1000, some spare screens purchased from Pentax Repair over 10 years ago kept me from retiring an otherwise good camera something which I won't be able to do with a ZX-M.

And trying to use an MZ-S screen on an MZ-M/ZX-M? I don't know about that. I've read where some have used manual screens on an autofocus camera but not the other way around. I'd guess that the autofocus grids on those screens might make manual focusing difficult but I don't have any experience with that.

As for grousing, you bet I am. I just spent a couple hundred on a camera that I know I'll have to ditch within ten years- just as I'm getting used to the thing- because it'll be irrepairable; meanwhile my old Spotmatic, MX, ME Super, MG, K1000 and Canonet will keep going and going. It just doesn't seem right.

Hello,

The simple answer is the glass: what it's made of, how it's made, what it's characteristics are in bending light, etc... That in turn, affects the design. The goal being to create an image with a little distortion but as much sharpness as possible. The problem is that as you increase sharpness distortion increases too- it has to do with how wave lenghts of light goes through the glass and bends.

Basically, all lenses are divided into three broad groups: single element, bi-element, and the Hastings triplet and most lenses use a combination of such designs. The problem with lens designs is that each element (basically, a glass lens) introduces distortion, vignetting, and chromatic aberration because of the way the light bends as it passes through the glass and this affects the sharpness of the image.

The theoretical answer rests with something called geometric physics and optics. That's a long and complex subject that takes years to learn- too complicated for me- but that forms the basis for designing and understanding lenses.

The only practical way to find out which lens is better is to take photos with the lens. Look at them. And, if you like the photos from a particular lens, then be happy with it.

An alternative and less expensive way is to read test reports of a lens and if you're lucky you'll find a direct comparison. Then, you can decide for yourself. You'll also find out a general principle of geometric physics: all lens designs are compromises. So, one lens might be less flexible but it delivers sharper images or less distortion...

The worst way to decide is to ask people... there's just too much subjectivity in that. I for one think that image-wise my Russian copy of a 58mm f2 Zeiss Biotar is every bit as good a lens as is my 55mm f1.8 Takumar but I know a lot of people who wouldn't be caught dead using either one.

Hello,

Thanks for the information. I called Pentax. The parts and repair facility moved.

I was trying to get a focusing screen for an MX M/ZX M camera but it seems that you need to send the camera into them just to change that.

There was a time when you could walk in and buy spare parts from them. But, I guess those days are long gone.

Hello,

There was a time when the Pentax Repair Center in Golden Colorado would sell

spare parts to customers. Does anyone know if they still do this?

Michael

Hello Mars C,

Here's a link to a larger scale contraption to protect your camera from the elements. You can scale it down if you want but it's the same basic idea:

http://www.naturephotographers.net/es0601-1.html

It might look strange but you're better using this than using the (n)every ready case.

Michael

Hello,

If you're willing to send the camera to the MidWest, Pate's camera had an eBay offer to do the CLA for $49.99 and will give an estimate for any additional work just tell them you saw the offer on eBay.

Michael

Hello,

I use only film cameras. I can't comment on digital.

If I read you correctly, you're concerned about your camera equipment.

1) Lost or stolen equipment. Don't worry about it. You really can't do much to keep that from happening. But, you can take precautions to minimize your loss. I'd buy insurance against theft or have that added to my existing policy and make a list of the equipment I'm bringing and note the serial numbers if any and keep this in the money belt I use while travelling. I'd avoid using a gadget bag and keep that in the hotel along with my other luggage and I'd use either a holster case or no case at all depending on what I'm shooting. Otherwise, I'd just stuff any film in a fanny pack or belt pack using a shoulder strap for added support.

2) Damage. The simplest way to minimize this is by bringing along some clear zip-lock style bags that can easily fit over your camera and lens and rubber bands. Put, the camera body in this and seal it and practice changing the lens with the camera inside. This will lessen the chance of condensation forming and ultimately fungus formation when going from an air conditioned environment like a hotel to the out doors and the chance of dirt getting on the inner parts of the camera. If the weather's good then fold the bag and stuff it in your pocket. If the weather's bad, keep the bag on the camera while letting the lens stick through the opening, and wrap the rubber band around the lens barrel. This'll protect the camera from water, dust, wind, and sand- this works great when you're at the beach.

You should be able to focus as you normally do or if your lens still has depth of field scales you can adjust the settings to point and shoot at objects between those distances and get reasonably sharp images. If your lens doesn't have DOF markings then use this rule of thumb for 35 mm film at f16 with a 25mm lens set it to 4.5 feet and the images should be acceptably sharp between 3 ft to infinity for a 50 mm set it to 15 feet and your DOF is about 10 feet to infinity.

Mike

Hello,

I have a Cokin A system myself with a linear and circular polarizer and numerous filters. And, I had a similar problem with color print film.

This is what I did: I shot a roll of color slide film and one of color print film of the same scenes using the same polarizer. I had them both developed. Then, showed the images to the lab tech and asked that the lab tech not color correct any of the prints that I marked- "no color correction, please". I got the prints that I wanted as I wanted and they looked very much like the slides. That pretty much fixed my filtering problems.

Michael

Hello,

I've been using cameras since the 1960s. Over that time, I'd learned a bit

about cleaning my equipment. Here're some tips about Focus Screen and Lens

Cleaning.

This way, some others might be able to avoid a problem I had with my first

attempt at cleaning a focus screen using a method from a photo forum on the web

which suggested isopropyl alcohol, freon, and ether. Big mistake.

If this isn't the place for this information, then let me know and I'll put it

elsewhere. But, I wish someone had posted something like this for me when my

viewfinder and focus screen became dirty. Anyway, if there are comments or

corrections, by all means let me know.

Michael

Lens Cleaning Tools (Cheap version)

Lens Pen (Large Lady�s Blush Brush)

Microfiber towel (KimWipes)

Static Master Brush (Assorted Sable Hair Brushes or Small Lady�s Blush Brush)

Tool Master 2 inch (Hardware Store 2 inch

Camera brush Synthetic or Natural Hair Bristle Brush)

Medium Tooth brush

Rocket Blower (Ear Syringe Bulb)

Dust-Off Canned Air (Ear Syringe Bulb)

Cotton Swabs

Cotton Balls

Lens Cleaning Solution

Two small dishes

To Clean a Focus Screen:

Avoid all solvents except water. I�ve read the email and emailed some people

who make third party focus screens. I hope I got their remarks correct.

From Bill Maxwell: Any other solvents will permanently fog the acrylic on the

focus screen.

From Rachel Katz, KatzEye Optics:

Caution: �DO NOT USE alcohol, nail polish remover, paint thinner, Windex,

commercial lens cleaning solutions, or any other sort of solvent. Some of them

might be safe, but you use them at your own risk - the plastic of the focusing

screen can be softened and smeared by solvents. Also, DO NOT dry-rub the

focusing screen with a lens cloth or lens tissue - it will almost certainly

scratch. And finally, although it might seem obvious, DO NOT touch the either

face of the screen with bare fingers - fingerprints are very difficult to get

off. Hold the screen only by the edges or by the tab and if you want to be

really safe, put on some latex gloves before you do any serious handling (like

the washing procedure above).�

From Beattie Intenscreen: Try to avoid cleaning a focusing screen.

If you have no choice then try the following:

Particles: From Beattie Intenscreen

If the particles are small and light you can use the syringe bulb to blow these

away. If the particles are too large or hard and you must clean the screen then

pour distilled water through a coffee filter into two clean and empty 20 oz

bottles.

Label one bottle Focus Screen Cleaning Solution I.

To the second bottle:

1) add 1 drop of dish-washing liquid to 1 cup of distilled water

2) cap the bottle

3) shake well

Label this Focus Screen Cleaning Solution II.

Moisten a small sable hair brush with Solution I and dab the particle on the

screen until it begins to dissolve. Use the brush to lift off any hard

particles from the focus screen. If that fails, then try Solution II. If that

fails, then you�ll have to remove the focus screen.

Try not to touch the screen with your bare hands (cotton gloves sold by Porter�s

work well here) and handle the screen only by the edges. Fill a small dish with

Solution I and soak the screen in that for an hour or until the particles lift

away. Repeat with Solution II if necessary. Then rinse the screen in warm

water. If that fails, use a small sable brush to gently nudge the particles off

the screen.

Once clear, rinse the screen in cold water. Then, take the screen and blow the

water off of it using the bulb syringe. This will avoid water marks as the

water evaporates. If necessary place the screen on a bed of KimWipes once the

screen is dry. Do not rub the screen.

For oil or fingerprint smudges: From Rachel Katz, KatzEye Optics in the Pentax

Forum-

�If the screen has become fingerprinted, contaminated with oil, or heavily

soiled somehow, it is possible to wash the screen. Avoid this if at all

possible, but if you have serious dirt or oil that won't respond to the gentler

methods, here is what you should do. Get a very soft artist's brush - red sable

works nicely. Wet the screen with warm tap water; place a drop of liquid dish

soap (like Dawn) directly on the screen. Wet the

brush and work the soap thoroughly into the screen. On the matte (prism) side,

you can use any motion you'd like. On the other side, there is a Fresnel lens

that has a series of concentric grooves; to clean them properly, you will need

to work in circles starting at the middle and getting progressively larger. When

you're done, rinse thoroughly in warm water using the brush to help the soap get

off. Then, follow with another thorough rinse, this time in dead cold water.

Finally, blow the water off the screen with canned air (making sure not to

freeze it) or a big bulb blower (like a rocket blower). The key is to blow the

water off the screen before it can evaporate and leave water spots.�

Lens cleaning:

The Body Keeping the Front and Rear Lens elements capped:

1) Use the large Nylon brush for the rubber grips

2) Use a small tooth brush for smaller areas

3) Use a Bower Bulb to clear away any debris (avoid using Canned Air

on any areas that aren�t covered or enclosed due to the residue)

The Glass Avoid cleaning if at all possible. Use a filter to prevent dirt or

grime but, when that fails:

1) Use a Lens Brush or Blusher Brush to lift off large or hard particles

2) If that fails, use a cotton soaked with lens cleaner and dab on the lens.

Then, use the

Blusher Brush or Sable hair brush to lift large or hard particles.

Afterward, use a

an ear irrigation bulb to blow off any remaining small soft particles.

3) Dab �don�t wipe- any excess cleaning solution with Kim Wipes or a microfiber

cloth

and continue until the Lens Element looks clean.

4) Use the Blower Bulb to blow away any small soft remaining particles like dust.

5) Use fresh Kim Wipes or a clean microfiber cloth and gently wipe the glass in

horizontal strokes.

Lens Cleaning Solution: Use your favorite or try this one at your own risk:

1 oz. Windex with Ammonia or 1 oz. Glass Plus

1 oz 91% or Better Isopropyl Alcohol or Denatured Alcohol

10 oz Distilled Water

2 drops of liquid fabric softener (Optional)

2 drops of Kodak Photo Flo (Optional)

Coffee Filter

12-20 oz bottle

Using a coffee filter, strain all of the ingredients into the bottle. Stopper

the lid. Shake the contents. And, it�s all done. To use: Mix at half strength

for regular cleaning; at full strength for tougher stains.

This solution works very well and is based on the cleaning fluid used by

Arkansas Space Observatory. The ingredients are very nearly the same as those

used by camera repair technicians representing Pentax, Olympus, Leitz,

Schneider, and Nikon that I�d met at various camera shows.

If that fails, other lens cleaning solutions that can be used by applying the

liquid to the lens with a cotton tip applicator:

Full Strength Alcohol

Vinegar (Acetic Acid-Plain)

Ammonia

Acetone (Take care to avoid touching painted areas of the lens)

Use these at your own risk and in small amounts. They can do any combination of

the following and ruin a lens: seep into the lens element, remove the paint on a

lens, remove the lens coating, fog or smear the glass element, and dissolve the

helicoid grease in a lens.

If all else fails:

You can turn the lens into a soft focus lens by using an old UV filter attached

to the front element. Put a bit of masking tape in the center of the filter�s

glass. Then use Automotive Rubbing Compound over the unmasked area of the lens

so that the center of the lens is relatively clear.

Hello Alan,

I need the focus screen for the Pentax MX. Do you think you can sell that to me?

Michael Pimentel

Hello,

Thanks for the information.

Jeff, you're right. Yesterday, I tried a Grid focusing screen that I got off of ebay which was described as a split focuing screen but turned out to be a grid much like the one you described. Though designed for a Pentax LX I tried the screen in my Pentax MX, the gridlines seem to make it easier to focus and the viewfinder isn't as cluttered with the focusing aids- split scree and microprism- gone.

Michael

Hello,

Thanks for the response. Grid lines seem to be the way to go.

Michale

Hello,

If you had a choice of focusing screen for any format of camera would you get

one with or without the grids?

Michael

Hello Bob,

If the Zone VI came out in the 1970s-80s then it probably was.

I was member of the Sierra Club then and I remember Ansel Adams gushing about how great this tripod based on the sort of thing he used would be for his f64 bunch. Then, I saw it and thought that it was a surveyors tripod with a Large Format camera attached. Big Deal. But, people like Mr. Adams were still gushing about the thing. That was the sort of tripod Mr. Adams said was rock steady and gave super sharp images.

Sorry for the digression... Anyway, for stability for an SLR with a long and heavy lens a platform for the camera and lens to rest on top of the ball head would do it.

Michael

Hello,

If I remember right the Zone VI was based on a surveyor's tripod design... wasn't it?

Anyway, if you're going to use the D200 or a 35mm SLR sized camera with a long lens then, you might want to build a carrier tray or cradle for the camera to give added stability. Pop Photo had a how-to back in the 70's or 80's. It was basically a long piece of flat wood (as long as the lens and camera) fitted to hold the lens and camera in place with a 3/8 or 1/4 inch bolt, washers, and wing-nuts.

Good luck with the tripod,

Michael Pimentel

Hello,

Talk about throwbacks... Using 19th century technology for the 21st century?

I'd used wooden tripods for other things: mostly telescopes and surveying. Those are very sturdy as long as they're on ground as in dirt. The pointed spikes can be pounded in place to hold the thing securely.

As for photography, Muir, Weston, Adams... all of them had wooden tripods at one time or another.

Michael Pimentel

Hello,

I got an email from Bill Maxwell. He could custom build a focusing screen for me at a minimum of $200 but that's a bit too pricey for me. That leaves the Brightscreen 20/20 or the Beattie- about $100-180 as possibilities. I've left some inquiries with Brightscreen about their focusing screen.

In the meantime I'll try an LX SA21 in an MX and see what happens.

Michael

Hello,

Thanks for the input so far.

I did some checking on the web. It's pretty much hit or miss I suppose. The incompatibility stems from the way the two cameras meter things and the way that the Fresnel lens lines are cut (?).

As for the Beattie Intenscreen, on the Pentax UK sites, they're touting this as an improvement for Pentax systems with user replaceable focusing screens and some places are selling them there for about 70 pounds sterling (same stock number and price for the LX and MX) but the Beattie web site only advertises the screen for an LX. BTW, which one did you get? Did you get the one with the diagonal split screen?

I'd read somewhere about focusing screens 'treated' by Bill Maxwell to get a bright screen for the LX and MX. They're called HiLux or some such... I think it was in Pop Photo... Anyway, his screens were top rated and I was wondering if anyone had any information about those screens.

Likewise I'd read about a company selling something called BrightScreen 20/20 which sells focusing screens for the LX, MX, and PZ.

Thanks,

Michael

Hello,

I was looking for a replacement focusing screen for a Pentax MX. I was

wondering if anyone has tried the Pentax LX screens (basically, the same

dimensions as the MX but brighter screen could result in underexposed readings),

the Maxwell, Beattie Intenscreen, or the BrightScreens? Has anyone had

experience with these?

Thanks for any help,

Michael

Hello,

This is an interesting thread.

The editors of Modern Photography and Popular Photography back in the 60s and 80s recommended for photographers on a budget- that is, everyone who's not a professional- to purchase kits to get good results without spending a bundle. One of those kits composed of a Pre-Set Telephoto lens 400 mm to 500 mm and a Zenit (Modern Photo's Herb Klepper?) or other manual camera (Pop Photo's Cora Wright?).

Modern even put these lenses -mostly Cambron and Spiratone- through their tests to check for resolution and magnification. By those standards, the pre-Sets were all rated excellent. The mirror lenses thoughhad problems. Those results seem pretty consistent with what those in this thread are saying.

For those two young to remember, the Spiratone/Cambron 400 f6.3 and 500 f8 were preset lenses using a T-mount based on the Hastings Triplet formulae for telephoto lenses: classic, simple and elegant but unbelievably large and heavy. Those things had to be mounted on a tripod. You'd focus on an object then stop down using the "C-O" ring to get the proper exposure. A lot of other companies marketed the same sort of lens-and based on the specs- it could very well have been made by the same manufacturer: Sigma, Quantaray, Vivitar, Soligor, Tokina- you name it.

So, you can get very good photos under certain situations from a cheaper pre-set but as Pop Photo warned- don't expect the same results or versality with a hundred dollar lens that you'd get with a thousand dollar lens.

The question was whether the cost and expense was worth the price compared to the image obtained- and that depends on the intent of the photographer- if you're a professional making his living on selling photographs then the more expensive lens might be better but if you're a student or other photographer trying to get acceptable photos then you'll get "better pictures than (you) deserve (Herbert Klepper)" with the pre-sets.

Just my two cents,

Michael

Hello,

If you're in Massachusetts, head to Hunt's Camera and go to the book section.

For beginners, I'd look for anything by Michael Langford, Carl Shipman, the Hove books, or Magic Lantern series. For intermediate photographers, I'd go with the Ansel Adams books if you're one of the f64 sort and with the Peter Gowland books for portraiture; in the library, I'd look for Muybridge, O'Keefe and Weston. For advanced users, I'd recommend Electronics for Photographers, the Complete Dark Room, the Textbook for Geometric Optics, and the Guide for Photochemical Engineering.

Michael

Hello,

To answer your question about TCs and their use at 50mm or greater, it has to do with the lens formula using the old fixed focal lengths.

I believe that Modern Photography and Popular Photography did articles on this back in the 60s and 70s. Basically, lenses above 50mm use a formula that increases an image at a given focal length and the lens formulae for a TC does the same while lenses below 50 mm use a lens formulae that decrease the image which is the opposite of what a TC does. In theory, a telephoto lens (50mm or greater) would have almost no distortion with a TC while a wide angle lens would have a lot. And both magazines did tests that showed this when compared to a fixed focal lens with the same equivalent f-stop for instance a 28 mm lens at f4 with a TC was compared to a 55mm lens at f8 without a TC and a 50 mm lens at f8 with a TC was compared to a 100 mm lens at f16 without a TC and so on.

But, that was true of FIXED focal length lenses, it might not be ture with modern zooms and their formulae using a MATCHED TC. So, I doubt you'd notice much of a difference- though you'd lose about one-stop with your 1.4 TC- image wise you might not notice a difference. BTW, a matched TC is one with 7 elements compared that was specifically designed for that line of zoom lenses by the manufacturer while the more common 4 element TC was not. And yes, Modern did an article or two comparing the differences between MATCHED and Non-MATCHED TCs. The 7 element TC compared more favorably in image quality to a fixed lens than the 4 element TC.

Michael

Hello,

If you have access to gray duct tape then just use that. I have 35mm film plastic storage boxes that I got from Porter's Camera a few years ago and duct taped the back for my grey card.

To calibrate it against my meter, a Sekonic 158, I went outside on a sunny cloudless day, set the f-stop reading to 16 and set the dial to ASA 64 and aimed the meter at the duct tape. The shutter speed was close to 1/60. So, I figure my grey card is about 20% which for color print is close enough for me to the 18% grey cards.

Something even cheaper but smaller are the Kodak grey film cannisters or film caps... Those pieces of plastic are really close to 20% on my meter and come free with the film.

Michael

Hello,

Ask your instructor.

My first student camera which I still use was/is a Pentax K1000. I'd buy one used for learning basic photography. If you want to get something new, the Vivitar 38000 like the K1000 uses a K-Mount and is manual would be a good choice. The cost would be under $200 with lens.