The classic manual camera is the MX (my opinion!) with top speed dial and centre-weighted metering.

The MZ 3 and 5 models can be used in exactly the same way, top speed dial and centre weighted metering. However, you add matrix and spot metering, motorised film wind, autofocus if you want it (you don't have to use it) and all in a body which is probably lighter than the MX, although not quite as small.

The MZ-M (ZX-M) is cheaper, has fewer functions and is much more "plasticky" although it does everything an ME Super would do (such is progress!)

AS the cameras mentioned are relatively recent the prices may well be higher, so I think you have keen choices to make.

Whichever one you choose, the quality of the pictures remains in the photographer's hands....They are all perfectly capable cameras. eBay could be your most likely source, but do buy carefully.

If I remember rightly, I think the MZ-M only has two-segment metering, not really any sophistication in that respect.

The MZ-5, MZ-5n and MZ-3 all work very well in manual modes and they would be my first choice.

If you want a fully manual camera, then a second hand MX is definitely my favourite. I was using one today, and they are sweet to use!

Thanks for the link, Gordon, I've had a look at your very interesting site and I'll have a longer browse at the galleries later on!

Hi Kim

That would be possible to do, but in this particular context we were looking for the maximum quality obtainable from each camera. I was generally interested in how they delivered quality, Paul was looking to check that his new Nikon zoom was critically sharp. One limitation was that the Nikon zoom ended up on the Fuji S2 Pro, and there are umpteen different parameters that we could have set for the camera. So we set every camera at the midpoint for sharpening, colour saturation and so on, but at the maximum JPEG quality.

So many possible choices....

I just thought I'd add a little more info regarding the methodology of the test we did.

I set up a still life subject on a 20"x16" area, comprising a book, a street map atlas and a small weighing balance. This gave me colours, bold outlines and graded fine detail (on the street map and the wood grain of the balance). It was lit by large window light, the camera aperture was selected at f8 (f6.3 for the smaller chips) and the exposure regulated by aperture priority auto exposure. Obviously a very solid (Manfrotto) tripod was used.

The pictures were taken with each camera/lens combination in turn, framing identically, and the unmodified files were saved as JPEG maximum quality and examined. The files were then optimised in Photoshop and saved as a modified version before further examination.

Within these parameters, the results were surprising but pretty clear, and I won't be using the 24-90mm zoom for this sort of subject. Noe would I want a Fuji S2 Pro with Nikkor lens, at least not the one tested!

But the *istDS with 18-55 came out very well, more so when the tonal qualities are taken into account. The 750Z with its 9 element in 7 groups aspheric lens is superb and will be a constant companion when photography is not the main issue of the day.

However, it is very fair to say that when testing a lens all the perameters should be considered, including:

Focusing distance (some lenses are better close up, some better at infinity)
Aperture (optimum apertures vary)
Zoom setting (quality varies throughout the zoom range)
CCD (how much is due to CCD quality, how much to lens quality, how much to the match between the two?)
Design parameters of lens (high resolution may mean low contrast, there is a mass of balancing to do in the design parameters of any lens)
Subject matter (some lenses are better designed for some subjects than others)

And so on. When I've got a spare week I might pursue it further!

What you are both saying is undoubtably right, but there was a purpose for the parameters of this test, and it found the information that my friend required.

But you should try it out, because the sharpness and resolution of the 750Z was quite remarkable. There was no real sign of over-sharpening either. Where it did slightly fall down was in the noise level (unsurprisingly) but even that, at ISO 100, was not too excessive.

Anyway, exercises like this are a bit of fun on long Saturday afternoons....

Right, the results are ready....

And the Nikon lens proved itself to be on a par with the *istDS with the DA 18-55mm lens.

But it is not quite as simple as that. The Nikon lens revealed marginally superior fine detail, but bear in mind that it could have been extra resolution from the Fuji CCD, which gives a 12MP output from its 6MP chip. It was only marginally better fine resolution as well.

However, the Pentax lens was clearly superior in its colour rendering and in the contrast and overall sharpness. This could also be a property of the CCD as well as the lens.

So, if you want vibrant colour, high sharpness, low noise and lack of artefacts the Pentax had the edge.

If you want a little more resolution then the Nikon/Fuji combination had the edge, just.

So it was joint third place for the *istDS + 18-55 and the Fuji S2 Pro + Nikon 28-105, with the same caveats on the conclusions as before.

An interesting exercise, and a surprise win for the 750Z! Don't forget that I was evaluating sharpness and detail reproduction, not any other lens properties....

A friend of mine is very unhappy with the quality of his Nikon zoom lenses, so we are doing a test on them a little later today to check them out. I've already run the test on various Pentax and other items, and the results are rather interesting.

This is only applicable to the close up still life set I have assembled, so it makes no comment on longer distance work, and it is also only applicable to one aperture of f8 for SLR lenses, and f6.3 approx for the smaller formats of CCD. (I was trying to offset slightly differences in DOF).

So I had the set and took the pictures with the following results:

The Winner: Pentax Optio 750Z. Staggeringly sharp, although slightly noisier but not obtrusively so.

Runner Up: Fuji Finepix S7000 Almost as sharp, but a less pleasant noise structure, so not so good pictorially but very sharp in close ups.

3rd: Pentax *istDS with 18-55mm DA lens. Almost as sharp as the above two, but not quite, but a more pleasant rendering and no noise.

4th: Pentax *istDS with 24-90mm FA lens. Not as good as the digital lens by quite a margin. Edges relatively soft.

5th: Pentax *istDS with 35-70mm f4 A lens. Dreadful by comparison. This one does not have the same fine detail rendering and is quite doft at the edges. I shall leave this for film cameras, where it performs well, and for portraits on digital, where it also gives very nice rendering of skin tones.

A little later I shall tell you how the Nikon 28-105mm zoom fared on the Fuji S2 Pro. I might have to delay the report to watch "Doctor Who", but I'm sure you will understand!

The LX should be OK with its OTF metering, but presumably cameras like the MX where we are measuring the brightness of the ground glass screen would need to have this taken into account. If you had a three stop increase in brightness this would presumably mean a 3 stop adjustment to the reading.

I have also heard that although the Beattie screens are bright, their focusing acutance is not as good as the standard screens. This would mean you would have a bright image that did not have the same definite focus point.

I would imagine this brightness becomes a help when using ultra-wide lenses with red filters or long, slow telephotos! In the former case, if the light is dull as well then you might as well compose the picture with eyes shut!

The *istDL has a penta mirror viewfinder, as opposed to a pentaprism. It also has a larger TFT screen - 2.5" instead of 2". There may be other subtle differences that are not yet apparent.