This is where the finer points come in. You're correct that the body, not the lens, does the metering but the camera still needs to know a few things. What actually happens is that the body doesn't know what aperture is selected on the k-mount lens and assumes that it is at the widest setting - you can then manually (by manually I mean in your head!) compute the correct exposure when you change aperture, always bearing in mind that the meter will be registering massive underexposure when you do so (I don't actually know if the meter even switches on, I would assume it does as there's no real reason for it not to). I don't even know how the camera deduces the maximum aperture, it might even assume all lenses are f1 - does anyone have any detail on this? As an example, if the maximum aperture is known by the camera to be f4, if you select f8 you will have to add 2 stops to the shutter speed compared to what the meter indicates, if you go to f16 you will have to add 4 stops to the shutter. All this must be done externally, either through controlling shutter speed manually or adding exposure compensation. All that is missing from the 'crippled' mount is a little lever, which measures the selected aperture on the lens. Whilst omitted from cheaper cameras on cost grounds, I'm a bit confused as to why it was omitted from the *ist which is a pretty well equipped camera - perhaps to push people towards investing in new lenses? As a further aside, the MZ-50 and MZ-60 don't even allow the shutter to fire if there's a lens off of 'A' attached (unless you short some connections, see this really good website - http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/ - for details), at least the *ist allows that small luxury.

"what makes you think that metering modes (spot, center weihgt, zone) are not working correctly with A lenses?"

I'm not sure where I implied this, or if I've read your question correctly. If you look at all A or F/FA (or, I presume, FAJ lenses) there are a series of metal connections which give information to the camera body. This, I believe, is more to do with things such as focus distance and zoom settings (please feel free to correct me on this) and allows the matrix metering to function - it uses such information to deduce, for instance, landscapes or portraits when confronted by a bright central area which could be construed by a metering system as either a person's face or a lake - the focus distance will indicate which is which. If you use a k-mount lens on a 'non-crippled' mount, for example the PZ-1p, you can meter properly with K-mounts but you can't use matrix metring, only centre-weighted or spot. Not of relevance really, but I mention out of interest.

I think you're right that the option is buried in the CF to protect 'newbies', the camera probably won't reveal that it can't read aperture and will simply always meter as for the largest aperture, and if you don't know it's doing it that could cause problems. It makes sense that people who understand the problem can still use k-mount lenses, although with restricted metering, but people who might be caught out aren't subjected to it.

Cheers
Matt

"not true. i can use non A lenses on my *ist. "

My comment was true in a sense. What you say is strictly correct, however I'm trying to avoid complicating the issue with caveats. You can physically attach a k-mount lens to the *ist and fire the shutter (using the Custom Function), but you lose pretty much all functionality, including metering. Some people don't consider this 'using' a lens, especially (I'd suggest) those new to photography - whilst not wanting to jump to conclusions, I'd suggest the person to whom my reply was directed falls into this category (Sas, apologies if this isn't true). It depends upon your interpretation of 'using' a lens. Extending your logic, you can go and buy an adapter to fit practically any lens to the *ist (leicas, Nikkors etc.) and be able to fire the shutter and not much else. In this respect such third party lenses will perform in exactly the same manner as a K-mount - it therefore seems reasonable to argue that you can't really 'use' a K-mount lens any more than you can a canon lens on the *ist.

The point I am making, whilst attempting to steer clear of fine points, is that k-mount lenses do not work in entirety with the *ist. Why do you think it's a Custom Function setting?


"p.s. maybe try reading manual "

I understand your point without reference to a manual. Besides, I don't have a *ist (as I made clear earlier), hence no manual.

Hi

I've only used the MZ-50, but I assume the others (including the MZ-60) also suffer from the 'crippled mount' - at least that's what I infer from the fact it doesn't work off-'A' setting.

This isn't too big a deal, you can simply leave the lens in 'A' and control aperture via the camera body (set to programme or aperture priority, modes 'P' and 'Av' respectively). You won't be able to use older k-mount lenses very easily, as there is no way the body can control the aperture or read information regarding it from the lens.

There are 2 reasons why these cameras have such mounts. The first is cost, as it requires additional mechanisms, hence cheaper cameras such as the MZ-50 don't have it. The second is that Pentax is now (sadly, in my opinion) following the method employed by pretty much everyone and removing the aperture ring from lenses entirely, and using a control on the camera body in its place (this is why the *ist doesn't allow for shooting off-'A'). I wish they'd kept the option open of allowing the use of K-mount lenses.

'These pentax bodies are no better than a P&S camera.'

Well, I can't agree. The *ist is actually a very fine camera. The others are decent, entry level SLRs that represent considerable improvement over point and shoots.

Simply put, you can control aperture, just not using the aperture ring. Leave it on 'A' and use the camera controls ands you'll be fine.

Matt

Hi Anikgol

I'd agree with George on this one, the 400FTZ seems to be a lot cheaper. I paid around £100 for mine second hand, it works really well with my MZ-3, the exposures are always spot on.

However, fill flash is a nightmare, the 360FGZ has flash comp control built in to let you set the ratio you require (usually 1 and 1/2 stops under, if memory serves me correctly) This would be a particular bonus as you can only effectively specify fill flash from the body of the MZ-3 if you shoot in manual mode where the exposure comp switch 'converts' to flash comp. The PZ-1p lets you control flash comp outside of your ambient light control, a great feature which has sadly never appeared on any other Pentax camera I've used*. The 360FGZ gets around all of this by having flash exposure controls built-in. However, it doesn't have swivel - I don't know what wireless is or what it does, perhaps it lets you shoot with flash off-hotshoe with suitable camera, alleviating problem of no swivel?

I've heard the 360FGZ is very capable flash, but aside from fill flash problems the 400FTZ works well with the MZ-3 and is quite a bit cheaper than the others.

Hope this helps

Matt

* I've not used *ist or *istD

1:5 means that something will appear at 1/5 of its size on the film. It's not a particularly close lens, but for a zoom that isn't too bad at all - the lenses that go to 1:1 (where the image will be life-size on the film) are invariably prime lenses (lenes that don't zoom) and cost quite a lot of money.

I'm not sure what the 'x' means, I'd suggest it means that the macro rating varies with zoom.

Matt

Something to be wary of - a lot of cheaper lenses claim to be 'macro' when they aren't really. All macro really means is that the lens can focus at very short distances, in other words you can get very close up. If you have to stand well back you probably don't have a 'genuine' macro lens, although the 'macro' designation could just mean it can focus a lot closer than other comparable lenses. If you look on your lens, there should be a number of the form 1:1, 1:2 or 1:3 - the lower the second number the closer you can get and the larger the object will appear. Alternatively, and assuming there is a focus scale on the lens (a simple set of markings that indicate at what distance the lens is focused), what is the smallest quoted focusing distance on your lens?

The zoom range of 80-200 is useful for sport or, occasionally, wildlife at the 200mm end. Between 80 and 100 is good for portraits, as it is perhaps the most flattering of focal lengths (no bulging noses or receding hairlines!)

The 'A' setting allows for the camera body to control the lens aperture, although not all camera bodies have this capability - I've never used a K1000, hence I'm not sure, but I don't think it's able to do this.

Hope this helps
Matt

Sad news indeed, not least for the poor s*ds in Manchester who'll probably lose their jobs over this.

Hopefully they'll keep running for a while, restructure and come out stronger - I'm hoping their troubles are partially the result of trying to maintain too varied a product line, maybe a reshuffle is needed. What films and papers do you reckon they'll keep? I'm hoping Delta stays, and HP5 has always seemed a good seller.

I suppose most of us knew something like this was coming, I just hoped Ilford had the mass and expertise to ride through it, obviously not.

fingers crossed.

Hi George

It seems to be a common mistake (judging from google searches, giving quite a few use of the word reprocity). I wonder if it's associated with the idea of 'reproducing'? There is a logic that suggests you are reproducing exposures using different settings.

Apologies, I got mine the wrong way round in my post, using reprocity as the 'correct' and reciprocity as the alternative. I was attemping to indicate that there is some confusion over the correct spelling (sadly, I seem to be included in this), and both words are used synonymously - well, they would be if reprocity was in fact a word!

I will write 100 times, reciprocity...........

Matt

"what if i set the shutter speed on auto and the rest on manual?"

Hi Anikgol

what you are suggesting there is something called aperture priority - you select the aperture, and let the camera choose the appropriate shutter speed to go with it. In this mode, the shutter speed can go up to 30 seconds and, as Kim states, you can use the self timer. However, you are limited to 1 second in manual (where you select aperture AND shutter speed) as the dial only actually goes up to 1 second. I'm pretty sure you can still use the self-timer though.


I don't want to complicate the issue, but if you have long shutter times you start to get something called reprocity failure (or is it reciprocity failure, I'm not sure, there seem to be different spellings!). The problem comes down to the fact that film behaves a little differently in very low light levels (as would be seen with shutter speeds more than approx. 1 to 1.5 seconds). In effect, the sensitivity of the film changes, and you need a longer exposure than your meter will recommend - there is a linear relationship between the amount of light (controlled by aperture value) and the duration that light hits the film (the shutter speed). Under normal operating conditions halving the aperture (hence halving the 'light per second') requires double the time. However, at longer shutter speeds, this relationship breaks down and you actually need a bit more light. A simple way to imagine this is that if you had a candle 500 meters from the camera in an otherwise pitch-black room (bloody big room!), even if you left the shutter open indefinitely (and hence received some light onto the film, albeit tiny amounts) the film would never react to the candlelight as it just isn't intense enough to cause a photosensitive reaction in the film. For more detail (and a less confused explanation!), please see
http://www.agfanet.com/en/cafe/photocourse/classiccourse/9805/cont03.php3, from which I've pulled the following quote:

"Practically that only works in the range of 1-1/1000 s. Even exposures of over one second are underexposed. The effective useable film sensitivity declines with longer exposure. This is not linear and certainly not identical with different types of film. The exposure time has to be extended over and above the measured value.
"

the basic upshot is that most longer shutter speed exposures require that you add a bit of exposure on the end - you can use the exposure compensation if required, but most people (those who take night shots) tend to use the bulb setting with a cable release and lock. Further to this, and as Kim again states, the actual meter of a camera only has a certain 'sensitivity', the MZ-3 is pretty sensitive, better than the MZ-60, but not as good as the LX (which was the original Pentax 'Pro' level camera). In this respect, if you're looking to use longer exposures you might be best served by geting a cable release and adding some extra exposure time, as even if the meter is 'correct' there is no guarantee that the relationship between aperture and shutter speed will still hold.

I hope this helps, rather than just confuses

Matt

Hi John

sounds v strange, normally I'd just suggest a different developer as poor ones can give casts if the operator is inexperienced or inattentive. However, you say you've already tried that.

Lens etc. are extremely unlikely to be the cause - I have never heard of a colour cast from a lens.

I can think of only two things. The first is the light source - are you shooting in daylight? If so, then light source isn't a problem, if not, then try a few outdoors and see if the cast remains. The only alternative I can really see is the film - if it is out of date or exposed to high temperature during storage then this can give rise to colour casts.

I'm unsure why this cast occurs in certain parts of the print - flare is easily distinguished as a series of light shapes leading towards the source of the light. I would really suggest it's a film problem, unless you have this across different films. Try a new one, straight from the shop, to see what happens.

Other than that, I can't think of anything else off of the top of my head.

Cheers
Matt