Mongoose

Joined: 16th November 2006

All Forum Comments

Topics Created Topics Contributed Forum Comments Photo Comments

All Forum Comments

Mongoose
Quote:
My DIGITAL pics are not good enough for printing out to exhibition size!
My best ones are on FILM !
surely if you're not satisfied with the quality this is a reason for shooting at maximum resolution, not turning it down?

Comment by Mongoose posted on Dogs with the 135mm f2.5 SMC Takumar at 14/05/2007 - 10:39

Mongoose
thats what Sunday evenings are for


I just checked with a quick google and the MD mount flange to film distance is about 2mm shorter than that for the K mount, so non-optical adaptors which allow infinity focus are not possible.

Comment by Mongoose posted on Minolta to K-mount converter at 14/05/2007 - 10:37

Mongoose
I'm pretty sure that's just the same adaptor viewed from the other side, and the listing only mentions one adaptor to go M42 lens to Maxxum bayonet.

Even if that is a K bayonet, that still makes it an M42 to K adaptor rather than a Minolta to K adaptor as the OP desires.

Comment by Mongoose posted on Minolta to K-mount converter at 14/05/2007 - 08:39

Mongoose
no, that one is for putting M42 thread lenses on a Minolta body


unfortunately, the existence of that adaptor implies that one for Minolta to K mount is probably impossible without adding optics to the system, since K mount has the same flange to film distance as M42 and from the look of it Maxxum is ever so slightly shorter.

Comment by Mongoose posted on Minolta to K-mount converter at 13/05/2007 - 23:27

Mongoose
Quote:
I have a DS which works just about the same as the D in terms of metering or doesn't it?
as far as I know, they certainly work great on my DL2

Comment by Mongoose posted on aperture blades at 13/05/2007 - 22:17

Mongoose
I picked up a Practika with a similar set of lenses for almost nothing.

My lenses are Zeiss Jena models, a 35 F2.4 and 135 F2.8. Both are lovely lenses and work particularly well combined with an M42 adaptor and a *istD series body. Not so great with the K10D because of the well documented exposure issues, but even there works pretty well.

Comment by Mongoose posted on aperture blades at 13/05/2007 - 22:02

Mongoose
idea,

the viewfinder hasn't changed since the original K series, assuming that you could get hold of one, how about one of the old viewfinder magnifiers?

it should still fit, it will only magnify the middle of the finder but better than nothing?

Comment by Mongoose posted on Why do we put up with small viewfinders? at 13/05/2007 - 22:36

Mongoose
Quote:
so from the viewfinder size we are getting to the full-frame discussion again... *sigh*
it is the only fully valid reason for going full frame, the two are interlinked.

Comment by Mongoose posted on Why do we put up with small viewfinders? at 13/05/2007 - 22:17

Mongoose
well theres always the Leica R9 with matching digital back, if you are made of money.

Comment by Mongoose posted on Why do we put up with small viewfinders? at 13/05/2007 - 22:16

Mongoose
its all down to basic optics

the more you magnify an image, the dimmer it gets.

The image starts off the same size as the sensor, therefore if you want to have an image the same size as you would get from a 35mm camera, you have to crank up the magnification. The various camera manufacturers have selected the magnification on their viewfinders to result in what they think is the best combination of size and brightness.

Pentax viewfinders (yes, even the *ist DL and K100D, compared to other pentamirrors) are the best on the market. If you doubt this, take a trip to your local Jessops and ask them to let you have a look through a Nikon D50 or D70, but be warned you may get claustrophobia.

If you want a larger viewfinder, the only way you're going to get it is a ***** 5D or 1Ds.

Comment by Mongoose posted on Why do we put up with small viewfinders? at 13/05/2007 - 21:47

Proudly supporting Pentax User

Samsung Logo Asahi Pentax Logo