Motordrive vs winder and other questions


snib

Link Posted 12/10/2004 - 15:19
Hi everyone,

I've got a question about the difference between a motordrive (specifically Motor Drive A) and a winder, e.g:ME II - why does one cost around 100+ and the other around 35+? What does the motor drive do that the winder doesn't?

I'm about to become the owner of a P50, which can take either, I've had a look at the Pentax K-Mount page for details but it doesn't really tell me much on this occasion. I know the Motor Drive A has a higher fps speed but that's about it.

Also, I now have an autofocus MZ6 as well, I have a 28-80 Pentax-A lens to which I've fitted a linear polarizing filter. Do I need to change the filter to a circular one when it's on the MZ6 (bearing in mind it's a manual lens, so the autofocus shouldn't be affected)? The autofocus lens (Tamron 28-200) I got with the MZ6 is a different diameter so I couldn't use the same filter for both lenses anyway, this is obviously true of all filters I'll be buying - what would you recommend for common filters, buy several sizes of the same type to fit each lens I have or go for gel sheets which fit in an adapter?

Any advice appreciated.

johnriley

Link Posted 12/10/2004 - 18:39
A winder will typically deliver around 2 frames/sec, but a proper motor drive will give 5 or more frames/sec. The motor drive is for hard professional use.

When I buy lenses, wherever possible I try to ensure the filter sizes are the same. If you stick with Pentax lenses this will be easier. Most of my manual focus lenses take 49mm filters. Most of the recent ones takes 58mm. And some of the more exotic ones 67mm.

So I have a full range of filters in 49mm, the common ones in 58mm as well, and just the essentials in 67mm.

Your filter requirements will vary depending on your taste. For me, working mainly in monochrome, I use red and orange most commonly, plus sometimes green and blue (80A). I rarely use polarisers, but I do have one in 49mm.

In colour, I would suggest a skylight, an 81A for a warmer esult and a polariser.
Best regards, John

mattie

Link Posted 12/10/2004 - 19:25
In most autofocus cameras a linear polariser is used as part of the AF module, which is why you need a circular polariser if you want to keep AF.

However, some cameras also have a linear polariser as part of their metering system. That's as far as my knowledge goes, unfortunately I don't know which cameras have meters which use linear polarisers.

I'm not even sure how you could test, as the meter readings would be influenced by the polariser anyway, perhaps a few test shots to see what happens?

You can certainly try the system filters, which allow you to buy one large filter and use adapters to fit it onto other lenses. The Cokin, Hitech and Lee systems are all good, the Lee system is supposed to be very good but it is very expensive. Screw-in filters are good if you can manage to get lenses all wth the same diameter filter ring - a lot of Pentax primes and a few zooms use 49mm, hence this is a good size to get filters for (they're all pretty cheapat this size, they get more expensive as the diameter increases).

Matt

Dave_Evanson

Link Posted 12/10/2004 - 20:25
The LX required a circular polarising filter for the metering to work correctly and it could be true of most SLRs which meter off the film plane.
For the meter to work before the mirror is lifted light passes through a half silvered section of the mirror via a second small mirror to the light sensor which sits at the bottom of the camera facing the shutter - passing through the half silvered part of the main mirror polarises the light so you need to use a circular polarising filter which re-scatters the light as it enters the camera. During the actual exposure the LX would get the correct reading as it measures the light off the film plane and the shutter curtain so an auto-exposure is ok. But any readings taken manually would be prone to error with a linear polarising filter.

snib

Link Posted 12/10/2004 - 21:55
Thanks for the details.

At the moment the smallest diameter lens I have is a Tokina at 52mm, then the Pentax-A at 58mm and finally the Tamron at 62mm - a circular polarising filter (or any for that matter!) at that size isn't going to be particularly cheap.

I shoot a bit of both B&W and colour and have been improving over the last few months so I thought I'd try a few other techniques. So far I like the screw in filters (just skylight and polariser at the moment), but haven't tried anything else so can't really compare. What kind of mount is required for the square film filters, and does it work out any cheaper than screw-in types? The only advantage I can see is speed.

Regards,
Andy

johnriley

Link Posted 12/10/2004 - 22:06
The square Cokin-style filters have the drawbacks of being easily damaged and very susceptible to flare. Multi-coated glass filters are much better IMHO - I use SMC Pentax, B&W and Heliopan filters mainly. And a lens hood, which is cumbersome with square filter systems!

It would be nice (but expensive) if modern lenses used bayonet filter fittings like the old Rollei TLRs did. That is so much faster than screwing filters on and off lenses.

You could buy filters in the largest size you need (62mm) and some step-down rings to enable them to be used on the 58mm and 52mm fit lenses.
Best regards, John

Anonymous

Link Posted 08/11/2004 - 14:50
I HAVE TWO MES AND TWO SUPER As
THE A DRIVE IS A LOT FASTER THAN AN ME WINDER THE DRAWBACK WITH THE WINDER IS THE FACT THAT IT TAKES EIGHT BATTERIES APOSED TO TWO OR FOUR AND ARE HEAVY TO USE
FOR GENERAL USE YOU WOULD PROBLE BE BEST OFF WITH AN ME WINDER THOUGH I DONT USE THEM PERSONALLY I USE JESSOPS WINDERS WICH ARE TWO -THREE FRAMES A SECOND THE ME IS ONLY TWO
IF YOU CAN FIND AN A DRIVE GET ONE AND PUT IT ON EBAY THAY ARE LIKE ROCKING HORSE POO
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.