Suggestions to Pentax

I've seen you say this before and so I have just tried this test with a combination of my SMC-M 100mm lens and the K20D with a Katzeye screen fitted. The edge of the box clearly doesn't line up after a movement of somewhat less than 15mm let alone 50mm.

I've been using split screen focussing since I got my ME Super in 1982 and have never had a problem with it. Since fitting the Katzeye in my K20D my ability to use older MF lenses has been transformed and I'd never go without a split screen again on my dSLRs. I can (and do) focus on the plain glass when I have to, especially on macro shots, but for general day to day photography the split screen makes a hell of a difference to me.

Obviously, with my Yashica Mat 124G and my Horseman I rely on just the ground glass (although in the case of the Horseman I also use a Pentax loup). The rangefinder on my FED2 is excellent. For my Lubitel 2, focussing? what focussing?

Best wishes, Kris.

I've never actually used a Katzeye and it would be nice if they were better than other screens, although I think they are just cut from other screens. A 100mm lens will pop into focus better than say a 50mm or 35mm, possibly you don't even need the split screen with it due to the positive way it pops in and out. I've just tried a 50mm on an OM2 which has a very bright and large screen and I couldn't get better than +/-25mm. I could focus on the lettering on the box via the pseudo ground glass and see it go unreadable at less than +/-25mm.

I've also posted this link before where they say focusing just isn't reliable by any means. All systems rely heavily on DOF.

When I've been testing lenses I've found the 2x Refconverter 'A' to be right about 1 shot in 4 at f/4 and below. I've posted this before.... this was focused using a 2x Refconverter 'A' MF and is right to the mm




I was doing some quick tests yesterday with a 50mm 'A' f/1.7 and 24-50mm 'A' f/4 just of a satellite dish using the green diamond to focus. It did seem that the Zoom was sharper than the Prime, but when I looked closer at the adjacent brickwork and some climbing roses the Zoom was focusing quite a bit in front and the prime quite a bit behind, so I'll have to repeat the test probably using an Eye-Fi card to check and adjust the focus for each shot. Very surprised though how good the Zoom is at f/4 and f/5.6 (better than a top prime) They were identical at f/8. The green diamond should be more accurate than any form of manual focusing because it's detecting an electric signal.

It would be nice if someone could actually do a proper test with a split screen?

Just tried a quick test with a 50mm f/2 lens and a Super-A and MX.

Opened a 35mm thick internal door so that I was looking at the thickness and face of the door at about 45deg. Had to move back to about 1.5 - 2m to get the thickness in the split image. The image lines up on the split on both sides of the thickness of the door, The distance will be 0.707 x 35 = 25mm approx. so the split screen can't be very accurate.

I also noticed how dim the MX screen is compared to the Super-A almost unusable inside the house, but the Super-A is very bright
I've another MX with a screen in it off the Limited Edition LX, I'll
have to see how that compares.

The screens for the MX and LX are different, so the LX one in the MX may not be suitable.

The MX should have a bright viewfinder thanks to its silver coated pentaprism, so if it's dull something is amiss.

I thought there were a couple of screens that fitted both John?

I agree that the MX should be bright enough to use inside, all mine are and I get good results without flash.

Re-checking the info, some screens do fit both, but I guess it's important to know which.

SC-1, SA-1, SA-3, SB-1, SD-1, SD-11, SE, SG and SI will fit both. The other 15 options are LX or SFX. There are later screens as well that are quite different again.

That info is as of 1987.

Thanks John.

Staying with the MX, How about a digital MX, without all the superflous programmes, designed to be light in the hand and simple to use.

After all, how many people use anything other than Av, Tv, M or P on the selection dial?

It's a fair point, but on the other hand it would have a limited market nd we don't have to use all the settings available on any DSLR. The fact that they are all there doesn't really disturb me as much.

Despite the fact that I really liked my MX, I don't hanker after one now and much prefer using my K-5.

There's not much difference. I've got 3 MX's and I've just had another look with the standard screen. The MX and Super A are very close in daylight. It was in tungsten light I looked last night. Even looking through them with a Pentax Digital Spotmeter there isn't much in it. They both have a very slight warm colour cast, might be due to age. Looking in a darkish room using them like an extinction meter I can still see a wicker basket with the Super A that I can't quite see with the MX, but hardly a big difference though. I suppose I should also compare then with a darker lens such as an f/4? The apparent distance of the Super-A screen suits me better.

Tried the split-screen on the edge of the door again and you can actually move up and down the door and it doesn't alter.... so not very accurate

The special LX screen I've got is the SC-69W/C v2 made for the Pentax LX 2000. Apart from the extra microprism collar and being better suited to longer lenses it looks the same brightness as the standard MX screen.

I previously had a bridge camera a Fuji S100fs, this had a crosshair in the viewfinder and whatever that crosshair was on was focussed even in very busy areas, also in the dark it had a very green light that was used to illuminate the subject and it focussed brilliantly even in total darkness... are you watching Pentax?

Wireless flash! Without having to use the pop up flash! Unless i'm missing a trick here.

I agree

It would be nice, but the advantage of using the built in flash is that the hardware is already built into the camera. To use a radio (or similar) system would mean using additional hardware expressly for that purpose which would add weight and cost - two things the average Pentax user is known to grumble about more often than not.

This is already out of date and wouldn't work with 3rd party receivers

Modern mount on units have 2 way wireless so they can receive a signal to trigger the camera and send another signal to fire the flash at the same time.

A wrieless flash system that can let you controll the output of the flash from the camera if the flash is set on manual. That would be so great for strobist photographers.

All pentax DSLR already have 4 channels, if it would use all channels you could controll 4 groups in total, more then enough for most.