andrewg_ny

<p>Looks pretty good, Alice! <br> I agree with Spencer and Tony, probably better to leave a lens scratch alone. Same goes with anything on the mirror or focusing screen -- you're liable to make it worse rather than better.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Not sure if I missed this...is this a black or chrome-bodied MX?</p> <p>Also unclear on how deep the scratches/engraving is or how high your standards are for the final finish. What I describe here is unlikely to yield a professional fresh-from-the-factory quality finish, but should remove the (presumeably ugly) scrawlings of a previous owner.</p> <p>I imagine one could probably file down the scratches (maybe use some sort of smaller Dremel bit?) but this will obviously ruin any surrounding finish as well. Once smoothed I imagine one could repaint that area but it will probably not match the rest that well. I would think the different paint would be less noticeable on a black body, the silver would be harder to match. It's also probably that your paint will be less durable than the factory's finish.</p> <p>If you attempt this repair when the camera is still assembled you might want to take some care to avoid debris from your filing entering the camera. Perhaps wrap the whole camera in tape & plastic except for the small area that you need to abrade.</p>

<p>Again, not e-mount but Pentax offers a high-quality 20-40/2.8-4 in K-mount. It is just ever-so-slightly bigger than your average APS-C SLR 18-55/3.5-5.6 kit lens. No doubt those pesky laws of physics prevented them from making it faster without sacrificing quality/size. Possibly a similar-spec'ed lens could be a little smaller if designed for the shorter-backfocus e-mount. For comparison, consider Fujifilm's 18-55/2.8-4 (also above-average quality) which has a slightly longer zoom range but is designed for a shorter-backfocus mount. The Fujifilm lens is just about identical in size to the Pentax but weighs 50g more, and takes a 58mm rather than 55mm filter. Between these two lenses you can imagine what a similar e-mount lens would entail. Furthermore, the Sigma 18-35/1.8 already mentioned is relatively enormous despite the modest zoom range.</p>

<p>The K3 is a fine camera but I'm skeptical that you'd find it better than the D7000 in terms of daylight AF, particular continuous/tracking. You might find other things about the K3 you'd like better but that probably isn't one of them. I would also probably pick Nikon's dedicated flash system over Pentax's. <br> Not sure how fps/buffering performance compares between D7000 and K3.</p>

<p>I don't own a Instax camera but it's fairly typical for that control to turn off the flash. It's also typical (and rather annoying) for point & shoot film cameras to reset the flash back to 'on' whenever you power the camera off & back on.</p> <p>It does sound from your description like the button might be bad. Not sure if that model has any indicator (viewfinder light or mark on the rear LCD) to tell you whether it's on or off?</p> <p>Sorry can't be more helpful. I'm assuming you've also checked some of the other forums like Flickr groups and lomography.</p>

<p>Javier, the gentleman in photo #3 appears to share your enthusiasm.</p>

<p>Not certain, but <a href="http://www.tocad.com/services.html">ToCAD</a> may still service Contax cameras. Please let us know if you find anything out. I have an Aria that I've been meaning to try out (it really is a beautiful camera). Seems to work OK so far but I haven't run any film through it yet.</p>

<p>How well a step-down ring would work would could depend a lot on the lens it's being used. Wide angle lenses tend to be much more sensitive to vignetting, where even a <strong><em>properly</em></strong> sized filter's ring can appear in the corner of the image (this is why they have those slim filters). <br> A fairly obvious down-side of step-up adapters would be incompatibility with lens hoods.</p>

<p>I can't say a lot about the current batch of waterproof compacts specifically but as a reference, I think the output from my BSI 1/2.33" Pentax Q is generally better than my 1/1.7 LX5. So I think it might be possible that a modern 1/2.33" sensor can outdo an older 1/1.7" sensor (like the LX3). The waterproof models' lenses are probably not as good though as the fast leica-branded zooms on the LX3 or LX5.</p>

<p>I was imagining that there are a good number of enthusiasts with pro-grade DSLR kits that might be more likely to make such a switch.</p>

<p>I have never understood why Pentax's green-button stop-down metering is as inaccurate as it has seemed to be for me. You'd think it could be *more* accurate since instead of simulating the aperture as done for open-aperture metering, it could actually measure the light with the lens stopped down.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Most people would call that sensor (which is in the prism and thus does use reflex mirror-reflected light) the <em>lightmeter</em>. Agree with Paul, the mirror would have to be pretty terrible to throw off exposure that much, and I'd expect that kind of terrible to be visible through the viewfinder.</p>

<p>For APS-C, Pentax has the unique 10-17 fisheye zoom, this gets you 180 degrees at 10mm. For film full-frame, Pentax has the similar-but-older-and-discontinued F17-28 fisheye zoom -- again, 180 degrees at 17mm. Both are autofocus on Pentax bodies.</p> <p>These of course are frame-filling <em><strong>fisheye</strong> </em>lenses, with a significant characteristic distortion. These are NOT the type of fisheye that produce a circular image (like, I believe the Sigma 4.5) -- they do fill the frame from corner to corner. If the horizon or a vertical cuts across the middle of the frame, that line will be straight. However, lines will become increasingly curved the further from the center.</p> <p>The 17mm end of the fisheye is wider than you think -- angle-of-view wise, it pretty much starts (wideness-wise) where the 12-24 leaves off at 12mm. It is much less fishy at the 17mm end, but still much more distorted than the 12-24. You probably don't want to think strictly about focal length but instead angle-of-view. The 10mm of this lens gets you 180 degrees, while the Sigma 4.5mm also gets you 180 degrees with an even shorter focal length.</p> <p>Tokina made a version of Pentax's 10-17 zoom for Canon and Nikon APS-C as well though it's not priced quite as attractively as the Pentax. For Canon full-frame, it would be possible to adapt the F17-28 with an inexpensive adapter. That lens has an aperture ring (good for adapting). The 10-17 does not have an aperture ring, I don't know if they have aperture-control available for K => EOS adapters. Manual focus for these is pretty easy since they have tons of depth-of-field.</p> <p>The Pentax 10-17 is a pretty good deal, relatively inexpensive and about the size of the 18-55 kit lens (a little better built & a smidge heavier). I find myself more likely to bring it along than the bulkier 12-24 -- for wide rectillinear often the tiny & good 15/4 limited or the wide end of 16-45 or 17-70 I'm likely to be carrying as well is enough ... then if I really want ultra-wide, I can really go there with the 10-17.</p> <p>Whether this sort of view and distortion will satisfy your colleague's research is another story though -- perhaps find <a href=" on Flickr</a> and see if that kind of view would be of use to you or your colleague.</p>

<p>KS-1 is slightly newer and smaller but I (and I suspect most here) would probably lean towards the K50 with dual e-dials, WR, a better grip, and more traditional looks if any price difference was no concern. But at some of those special prices either is a super choice.</p>

<p>Jason, I think any of the dual-dial models would satisfy your ergonomics requirements. The K200D itself was essentially a marriage of K10D guts & weather sealing with K100D's viewfinder & ergonomics. So any of K10D, K20D, K-7, K-5*, K30, K50, K3* would probably be suitable. All have better pentaprism viewfinders (K-7 and later have 100% coverage).</p> <p>If buying today on a budget, I'd probably aim for at least a K-5. The 16mp Sony CMOS sensor is notably better than the 14mp Samsung sensor in its predecessor K-7 and K20D, and you already know what the 10MP CCD in the K10D/K200D can do. If you're generally happy with performance and IQ with your K200D, a K10D, K20D, or K-7 will still be as good or better though in pretty much all aspects (except for AA battery support, if you like that).</p> <p>The AF has generally improved over time. It still probably doesn't match some of the competition but the better bodies generally have stronger AF motors. Starting with K-5ii, the AF sensors became more sensitive and now generally work better in lower light.</p> <p>As Andrew Gillis noted, that long exposure issue is by design, I think it's typically called 'dark frame subtraction' or 'long exposure noise reduction'...and the length of time for that second exposure matches the time of the shot you just took. If you search for these terms, I think you'll see other photographers discussing (complaining about) it -- some models *might* allow it to be turned off, but in others turning it off (if possible) might require accessing a hidden debug menu. Some cameras might have different shutter speed thresholds for when it gets enabled or possibly dependent on shooting mode (bulb vs. M vs. Av vs Tv etc.).</p>

<p>The rumors & prototypes I've seen mentioned to date suggest no built-in flash. With K-3ii, there's some flimsy excuse of integrated GPS...I have to think it should be quite possible to incorporate both.</p> <p>Assuming Pentax doesn't include the RTF...it's a shame that the AF-201FG appears not to include wireless-PTTL support. I kind of like the look of the AF-201FG but it's still a little too simple (also no HSS). One of the nice things about having RTF is use as wireless commander. It kind of stinks to need a flash as large and costly as AF-360FGZ to act as commander. I continue to wish that Pentax would make a model in-between that takes 2xAA's (or possibly Li-ion) but is full-featured, similar to Olympus FL-36...sort of a mini AF-360FGZ ii. Sacrifice a little power and recycle speed for size & weight.</p> <p>Can someone enlighten me as to why 1/250 shutter is so important? It's only a 1/2 stop difference vs. 1/180...if 1/180 means shutter can last longer, be quieter, perhaps produce less vibration and at the same time cost less...it might be worth that economy.</p> <p>I wonder whether Pentax should pursue what some other cameramakers have done -- two models with different sensors. I'm thinking that a significant number of users would prefer something like 24mp with bigger photosites and less processing burden, while others would want max resolution. Either that or split the difference with something like 32mp (no idea whether there is a current sensor of this resolution available).</p> <p>Personally I will watch with great interest but am unlikely to be an early adopter. I hope FF system development doesn't bring product development for other Pentax/Ricoh systems (APS-C, Q, 645, GR) to a screeching halt.</p>

<p>This was a professional product, I have to think that a spare part like this would be available without the need to cannibalize other cameras. I would contact Pentax, repair people at KEH, or <a href="http://www.pentaxs.com/">Eric</a>.</p>

<p>Many pentax autofocus SLR models had optional (but common in used market) backs that could imprint the date. Many used examples of the more recent ZX/MZ series models have this option pre-installed. The feature was called "quartz date".<br> The Pentax MZ-S (a bit on the pricey side but nowhere near the cost of F6) has this built-in, prints shooting mode, shutter speed, aperture, metering mode, exposure comp, ISO, etc outside of the image area (between sprocket holes). I suspect this is similar to F6. A post on this <a href="/black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/00VJ9r">here</a>. I cannot recall whether it is possible for date/time to be captured between sprocket holes though. Pentax 645N and Nii medium format cameras could do this as well.<br> <br />There are also many compact non-SLR cameras from Pentax and other brands that could print dates into the image as well. </p> <p>I believe there was an optional data back for some Contax SLR models like the Aria as well.</p>

<p>Andrew, I think you're right, it probably corresponds to mechanical vs. electronically-controlled shutter. I find it noticeable vs. the P3n's dial which <em>can</em> be moved with your thumb. Even some electronic models though can be a little stiff for one finger -- I think the MZ-M and MZ-5 are in this group.</p>

<p>Are you asking whether it is better (given a fixed shutter speed and aperture) to brighten the image by increasing sensitivity (greater ISO value) in camera at image capture time vs. underexposing in-camera and boosting exposure when processing the RAW file?</p> <p>You can underexpose in-camera and brighten later but you're fighting the way the camera's designers intended it to work -- for one thing, images reviewed in-camera on the LCD may be too dark.</p>

<p>I imagine what you're wishing for is that when HSS/FP is enabled, higher shutter speeds will be engaged even in Av or P but it appears that the camera won't do this.</p> <p>I haven't used this much myself for flash but did you try <strong>TAv</strong> mode? The question is whether the camera will select an ISO that you're happy with. You might want to restrict maximum auto ISO as well if doing this. If not, M would probably be the way to go. </p> <p>TAv + flash might be described in the K10D manual, it probably is not mentioned in most manuals included with flashes (the AF360FGZ/AF540FGZ manuals that William cites pre-date TAv which was introduced by Pentax with your K10D).</p> <p>Bear in mind that when using P-TTL flash the flash power is automatically variable as well, and its output can be tweaked with flash exposure comp (on-body and possibly on-flash as well). When used in this manner, even M becomes a somewhat constrained autoexposure mode. </p>

<p>Usually just an aesthetic issue but minor dents in the pentaprism housing are common on the MX. Agree with others that the shutter speed dial tends to be a bit stiff (hard to spin with one fingertip, may need to grip with finger and thumb) and that with glasses you may not be able to see the corners of the viewfinder.<br> <br />If you like the idea of the MX, also consider the KX. The body is a little taller and heavier (it is a K1000 cousin), and it has similar features (DoF preview, shutter speed and aperture readout in viewfinder), except for the MX's motor drive capability...but adds mirror lockup that the MX lacks. The MX has a more modern meter with 5 LEDs in the viewfinder, while the KX has a nice matched needle system that I quite like in use.</p>

<p>Don't know about the filters...but that does sound like a nice portrait (?) lens for Q system.</p>

<p>Tim, I'm not sure whether you're likely to notice this in practice but one potential image quality advantage of the K-5 over the K-50 would be the 14-bit rather than 12-bit raw files. Just how much this spec advantage would show in your workflow output is not for me to guess.</p>

<p>Relatively inexpensive and decent telephoto lenses that are a nice match for this camera:</p> <ul> <li>Pentax-M 75-150/4 telephoto zoom</li> <li>Pentax-M 135/3.5 telephoto</li> <li>Pentax-M 85-200/4.5 telephoto zoom</li> </ul> <p>They're not super fast but they're optically pretty good, nicely built, and relatively compact to match the compact body...and they're readily available inexpensively. Some <a href="http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/">user reviews here.</a></p>