debashish

<p>Picture shows La Martiniere College Lucknow, a school founded with the endowment left by an ingenious Frenchman Claude Martin who had a remarkable career in 18th century India, soldiering, casting guns, running indigo farms, importing a hot-air balloon after hearing of the exploits of the Montgolfier brothers back home. Martin died in 1800 and is buried in the building shown which he named Constantia. The central portion was Constantia, and the wings were added after it became a school. Martin's money was used to build schools in Calcutta and Lyon, his birthplace. </p><div></div>

<p>In my case, all pictures from the previous week were record shots of groups of people. Hence I have to go back to March 2013 from a visit to Cork in Southern Ireland. The building was used as an asylum for the mentally handicapped but many who were not ill were reportedly confined there in less enlightened times.<br>

Chhayanat</p><div></div>

<p>The picture shows some abandoned cottages in County Clare, south-western Ireland, an area ravaged by famine in the past, leading to considerable migration. Samsung GX20; Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 35mm f/2.4; 160/f.5.6, ISO 125.</p><div></div>

<p>I had forgotten how nice the MX was with black and white. Thanks for the reminder. It will help me to run some film through the two MX bodies I still have. I am uploading a picture with an Asian theme: a portrait of a man from the rural surroundings who had come to see the great rock-cut temples of Ellora in the Aurangabad district of western India. It is B&W but not film, taken with a Samsung GX20 and the 16-45 Pentax lens.<br>

Chhayanat</p><div></div>

<p>I had forgotten how nice the MX was with black and white. Thanks for the reminder. It will help me to run some film through the two MX bodies I still have.<br>

Chhayanat</p>

<p>Douglas Stemke: 'Common Loon, Pentax K7 Pentax A 600mm f5.6 +1.4X-L TC ISO 800. Cropped, exposure corrected in photoshop'<br>

A bird called the Great Northern Diver migrates to the eastern Atlantic coast in winter. I understand it's the European name for the Common Loon <em>Gavia immer </em>but those we see in Ireland migrate from Northern Europe. In winter, it's a much duller bird, but its substantial proportions are easily apparent even in the broad expanse of the sea. <br>

Matt Burt: 'Next is electronic dance music at a local club I'm shooting some social media photos for. <br />K-5 & Tamron 28-75/2.8<br>

This would be a powerful picture if enlarged. Even in the restricted size it is compelling. <br>

Chhayanat</p>

<p> </p>

<p>This is at a polo match in Ireland. Someone, probably a fellow spectator, came in the way but I refrained from cropping all of unwanted bit out, as it nothing would have remained of the picture.</p><div></div>

<p>Landscape. Donegal, Western Ireland.</p><div></div>

<p>Sorry I saw this late as I don't get alerts by email. By function selector I meant manual exposure mode or M on the top left hand dial of the GX20. SAF is Single Autofocus on the focus mode selector switch at the front of the camera.<br>

Chhayanat</p>

 

<p>Something rather different. A flamenco dancer at a Madrid restaurant. Samsung GX20 SMCP-M 50/1.4. Cropped after converting to b&w.<br>

Chhayanat</p><div></div>

<p>Atlantic coastline of Ireland. Kilkee, County Clare.</p><div></div>

<p>I use a Samsung GX20 and have had focus problems of exactly the same nature as faced by Darren Connolly. If there is a prominent foreground object with a lot of potential focus points in the distance the foreground object sometimes has poor focus while the background is in focus. The lens in my case was the Pentax-DA 16-45mm/f4.0. Settings were SAF, function selector at M, focus using the central focus point. In the EXIF metadata I saw two instances with poor results where the OIS (Samsung jargon for SR) was stated to be 'Not Ready'.<br>

Focussing with a Pentax-M lens was satisfactory. Having written the above, I must say that Darren's model is not terribly out of focus even on enlargement, but it is still not acceptably sharp. Suggestions would be welcome.</p>

 

<p>Taken from a moving vehicle on the Brasov-Ploesti road in Romania. The light was spectacular.</p><div></div>

<p>Unposed picture of a lady with a cigarette holder. Hardly technically perfect - the focus has locked on her right palm - but overall the picture is better than a posed one would have been.<br>

Sorry. I wasn't prompted to upload a picture. I am giving up for now in case there is repeat fiasco.</p>

<p>Farm in Covasna, Romania. Horse was far away. Brought closer with SMCP-M 80-200 f4.5. Shot from edge of road. Not the best light at mid-day.</p><div></div>

<p>I did think about the Olympus OM1 when I bought the MX. The fit and finish were better, the British fashion professionals Lichfield, Bailey <em>et al</em>, were promoting Olympus and, more importantly for me, the bird photographer, Eric Hosking, chose Olympus besides his medium format work. I nearly bought an olive green Canon F1 (the circs. are described elsewhere on photo.net). Eventually, I chose Pentax because it had the cheapest 400mm, and was almost fully modular. Although not foreseeable then, it was a better choice than Olympus or Canon in the digital age with a bunch of old lenses.<br>

I have reviewed the MX in Pentaxforums. It is not an unfavourable review, but the limitations have to be stated, especially by a long-term user.</p>

<p>' '"not that the MX viewfinders were that good"<br>

???<br>

I hear the OM-1 had a better viewfinder, and maybe medium and large format cameras; but the MX had/has one of the best 35mm viewfinders available. 0.97 magnification, 95% coverage... pretty darn good.'<br>

I forgot to mention that I still have the two MX bodies and I had a look through their viewfinders. They are better than the DSLRs, certainly, and the coverage is very good, but the view through them was nowhere near that through the Nikon F2AS or the Canon F1n and even the Nikon FE (at a more approachable price) gave a clearer view with better contrast. This was particularly true with super-telephotos. I have the relevant focussing screens for use with the long lenses and they are simply not as good as their Nikon counterparts of the time. I used both under difficult field conditions, not against a chart.</p>

 

<p>For Yvonne Bourque:<br>

Your English is quite comprehensible. No-one should be dismissive of a viewpoint genuinely held. I responded at such length because I thought you had something to say and, should the need arise, shall do so again.</p>

<p>Yvon Bourque: I have a few comments on your original post.<br>

You have chosen a very good time to post. Digital is mature and there are fewer questions on where it stands next to film.<br>

Much depends upon ones age, outlook and background. Overall, I have to agree with you. Till 2008, I used two MX bodies since 1981. I still have all the SMCP-M lenses, six in all ranging from 28 to 400mm. Now I use them with the K200D and GX20 together with the 12-24 and 16-45 Schneider/Pentax zooms.<br>

The film results, though quite dependent upon the studio, were more satisfying than JPEGs right out the box, in which latter we are told that several settings have to be done right than just the three settings of focus, aperture and shutter required in the past; occasionally, there was the film speed to push for transparencies. Sometimes we are told to shoot in RAW/DNG and adjust later.<br>

We are told by assorted Pentax knight-errants how wonderful either their obsolescent or their latest Pentax DSLR is, how wrong we have been with our settings and how Pentax is always right because it makes you <em>work </em>for your photograph. <br>

Pentax boasts that almost every Pentax lens ever made works with every Pentax digital camera. It is not an idle boast. But do these older lenses meter properly with Pentax DSLRs? I am afraid not. It is an eternal guessing game with most manual lenses where the lens meters differently at different apertures. What a riddle, unless one changes the focussing screen and invalidates the warranty on the Samsung. Even when the focussing screen is changed, some apertures are still hide-and-seek. <br>

I did tolerably well with the SMCP-M 400mm f5.6 with the MX. For flying birds against the sky I overexposed by two stops on the metered exposure for the sky. Nothing exceptional but I had a predictable result. If the battery failed I guessed and often got it right. In the digital age I am completely unable to get a predictable result. I sometimes feel that I have dropped my lens on a rock. A Pentax aficionado has said on Flickr, unless I have misunderstood him, that there is nothing wrong with the 400mm f5.6 lens, there is something wrong with him: it does very well from f11 onwards. This might be acceptable to him, but any telephoto which does well at f11 is hardly a wonderful lens. I have practically no shots on film at f11, except landscapes against the sun. What happened? I understand that I can boost to about ISO 1600 with the GX20 but can I get to f11 with 1000/sec for a flying bird? Probably not, except in the Indian or African mid-summer.<br>

Viewfinders for DSLRs, not only Pentax but others as well, are quite substandard; not that the MX viewfinders were that good. Much of the problem lies with these digital viewfinders: mirror boxes or pentaprisms are equally unresponsive.<br>

On the other hand, I <em>can</em> try for a better white balance with DNG pictures. I <em>can</em> fill foreground without overexposing the sky. I <em>can sometimes</em> use layers to keep contrasted foreground and background intact. Such tricks are possible in the darkroom as well, but in digital pictures, they are <em>that</em> much easier.<br>

So it's a mix. But those who knew how to take pictures with fully manual cameras will often feel dissatisfied with the digital age. It is a more democratic but more difficult age where you are laid off without it being your fault. The 1929 Depression is a long time away but the confusion carries forward.</p>

 

<p>Optical viewfinder, metal body, fast focussing with a manual focus option, ability to set aperture and shutter speed separately. Ability to take pictures in RAW. These would be the desirable qualities in a high quality compact. Samsung's lens is about as fast as the fastest supplied with film rangefinders. </p>

<p>The uncomplicated picture with the senior year housemates has very nice colour reminiscent of Nat. Geographic pictures of the film days. Congratulations, both for the picture and the graduation of your son. </p>

<p>Dawn in Sibiu, an old town in central Romania. Pentax K200D Schneider 12-24/f4; 1/15th at f4 ISO 200.</p><div></div>

<p>Bought 3 MX bodies beginning 1981. Still have two but after digital they haven't seen any use. New users should remember to check that the film is wound snugly on to the take-up spool while loading before closing the back. Otherwise a blank roll might be the result. <br>

The MX is a very reliable camera which can take very nice pictures as the ones above show.</p>

 

<p>Parker made a metal overlay pen with swastika symbols before the First World War. For Subbarayan Prasanna: some remarkable pictures of a remarkable country</p>

<p>First two of Robert Colameco and both from Dorus Oshiva are outstanding in my opinion. This without prejudice to many other remarkable ones in this POW.<br>

Mine was a attempt to create a geometrical pattern with the dog somewhere in the middle. The picture didn't produce sufficient contrast.</p><div></div>