Why do no camera makers make a "full frame" digital sensor that uses the full image circle of the 35mm lenses, but has an aspect ratio closer to 4:3 or 4:5?? MF cameras are designed so the "standard" print sizes don't lose the ends of the frame, like the 3:2 of 35mm or APS-C.

It all started when a Leica designer put two movie frames together to use movie film in the cameras. This has caused endless grief for people who sometimes even scribe their focusing screens to indicate what the true useful area of the photograph will be.

So when the sensors were designed, you'd think they would say "hey, we can make a sensor that will let people who make A4 or A3 prints use more of the pixels". You'd be naive to think that. They stick with what they have even if it doesn't work.

So now we have the 4x6 snapshot, not a very pleasing shape. I used to buy4x5 paper in boxes, now they don't make that any more!!

Only Olympus has done anything sensable with its 4:3 sensor, and fortunately it's possible to get an adapter to use those jewel-like K mount lenses on the E-1 and E-300. So Pentax just lost a sale of a second digital body, I'll just buy the E-2 and an adaptor when it comes out, and Pentax loses out!

Just to throw a spanner into the works, there are some lenses where you can control the zoom from the camera body, but you need a body that'll have the right controls. Seems silly to me, I am perfetly hapy zooming with a ring, but some folks like fancy gizmos!

Why not just look for a used MX? I don't need no STINKIN' batteries!! Bwahahaha!!

You can download the entire manual from Pentax. You'll use up a lot of paper, but it's all there.

Basically, the *st D has a feature set that is easy to use on the job. It doesn't have "scene" modes to clutter up the dial. Pretty much all functions can be accesses while holding the camera up to your eye.

It is a pretty common pattern among camera makers to bring out the full pro model first, and then more hobbyist oriented models later. I had the choice of all three cameras, the L is not at all suitable for what I need, and the S is lower cost, but it just doesn't operate in a way that makes my job easier. The L seems to be designed for people who like go put a camera on automatic, and don't do much tweaking.

They are all good cameras, and a competent photographer can make a decent photo with pretty much any camera. But certain convieniences and operating methods make it a lot easier for someone who needs to use the camera on a daily basis.

Back in the day, the MX was really the first pro Pentax I ever owned. Why the MX ax opposed to the K1000? It has DOF preview, and at the time a camera that could operate without batteries was considered essential. The LX was marketed more heavily to pros, but the MX showed up in newsrooms across the country.

I don't mean to put down any camera. I have a point and shoot that I keep around in case I don't have my *st D or Mamaiya with me. But for day to day ease of use, the D just seems to be more suited to the working phogtographer.

THe *st D, which is not in poduction any more, is the pro-level Pentax DSLR. The *st DS was the enthusiast-level camera, and the *st DL is for soccer moms and such. I suspect the nest series of digitals, hopefully with a better name, will probably start out with a D2 of some kind, leading to a D2S and a D2L.

Or not.

My cat often gets excited and stares at something I can't see.

Cats are nocturnal sight-hunters. It would be an evolutionary advantage to them if their eyes could not only get double use out of every photon/light wave (reflective surface behind the retina), but "see" the heat-signature of prey. In other words, infared.

Bees see ultraviolet, there are ultraviolet patterns on flowers that humans can't see. They aren't there for us, they are for the bees!

Makes you wonder......

Just out of curiosity, do you still need to use the IR focusing mark on the lens? With film cameras, there was a slight shift of focal plane with infared light.

I tested my *st D in a dark room with a TV remote. It will see IR light. But to get real IR photos, you need a filter that blocks the visible part of the spctrum.

Nobody has the perfect solution (see above)


I use a Seconic meter, or if I use the camera's "multi segment" meter I always check the histogram right away. Center weighted metering is a lot more predictable, I use the *st D with center weighted metering just like my MX and it all comes out fine.

No multisegment computerized meter is going to work perfectly, it's just a silly gimmick for lazy photographers. I think Nikon started it, and everyone else followed along.

Get yourself a decent Sekonic meter, and learn how to use ambient metering, or set the camera for center-weighted. It's a lot more predictable!