Wasn't it Diane Arbus that use to capture these kind of images?
What is the most rugged F and why?
-
A
- Thread starter Ariston
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy WTB: Pentax LX for parts, or.
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
For Sale FS: Voigtlander Helomar 240mm f/3.5 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale Kodak TMax 400, expired, 150 ft rolls
- Started by MCB18
-
For Sale FS: TTH Cooke Series V 12x10 Lens Eq. Focus 16.3 inch
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
Sold SOLD!
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
Wasn't it Diane Arbus that use to capture these kind of images?
. . . impressive until you compare it to the Pentax LX . . .
If you can find an LX that still works..
Sover Wong had to repair my DP-12 finder. Like the others, the resistor ring wears out.
Now it's repaired, it should last a good long time.
If you can find an LX that still works..
I'm trying to find one that doesn't as a project camera . . .
I'm trying to find one that doesn't as a project camera . . .
You're on pentaxforums. Plenty there.
Here are two current threads. I'm sure they'd be happy to sell on those lumps:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums...scussion/417535-pentax-lx-does-not-power.html
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums.../417168-curious-pentax-lx-meter-behavior.html
I bought a camera from KEH listed "as-is, not working". When I got it, i put batteries in it and it's been good to go.ever since some 10 years ago now . . .
I bought my first LX from KEH over 10 years ago now- in excellent condition, and it's still good to go. Bought another off auction "belong to a relative and don't know if it works" not long after and it too is still good to go.
Is it just luck or is it statistics?
Les, I've not said that center-weighted meters never require a compensation in backlights. Only matrical coupled with Artificial Intelligence (Neural Network digital procesing, F5/6) solved that in a mostly sound way.
What I say is that (for Pros, shooting events and the like) F2 center weighted metering provided a way more consistent metering than the OTF of the LX, requiring a compensation only a fraction of the times the OTF does.
As most of the sensitivity of the F2 is in the 12mm circle then background has little weight, if backlighted area is not very strong and large then you are mostly exposing for the near subject, if the Pro photographer pulled EI some 1/2 stop the CN film then he was in the safe side in most of the shots, having to play attention to exposure in not many situations. Contrary to that, the OTF reading in the LX required the constant attetion from the Pro, it was quite easy to use a well wrong exposure when being busy with expression and composition.
This is clear, the LX was a totally Pro segment camera, but most of the Pros of the time (shooting events) wanted center weighted metering.
Additionally:
Let's compare the F3 to the LX both sold since 1980 until around 2000...
The F3 has an exposure memory retention button and the the LX not. Man... for a Pro this was a deal breaking issue for the LX !!! A Pro needs that button !!!
Probably the OTF did not allow that button easily as reading was integrated during exposure, while the instant reading of the F3 meter did, and it could be stored offering the right exposure easy/fast.
For example, you have the newlyweds with a too strong backlight, with the F3 you point to the ground enough to not take much sky, then you retain exposure, frame and shot. This was fast, you spent 2 seconds...
Not a surprise that LX was a commercial pitfall in the Pro segment...
Last edited:
I for one refuse to buy any electronic camera that I cannot lock the exposure on. This is a very necessary feature.
Center weighted OTF metering is not inferior to not OTF center weighted metering.
From MIR site http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/canonf1n/metering/index.htm
Why Canon opposing to the mainstream of metering method adopted by many others such as putting a metering cell inside the mirror box instead? Canon claimed their tests performed in Canon's laboratories showed that the cell-in-the mirro-box method are more suited for aperture-priority AE mode, but does not function too smoothly when operating in shutter priority AE mode. (Because metering is performed after the lens has been stopped down, film plane metering systems often require shutter speed readjustments for maximum accuracy.) And since the New F-1 has shutter priority automation when it couples along with a motor drive or winder, this has become a technical requirement. Canon also claimed Film plane (TTL OTF) metering systems may pose some problems in using special films having a different reflective surface, including infrared film where they felt that TTL OTF system would limit the full performance of a professional-grade camera. The best course, according to Canon, would be to upgrade the focal plane metering system. Was it true or merely a marketing decision ? But it did made the Canon New F-1 has something that can be picked on by its rivals, whatever the desision made, Canon ate their own words by incorporating the TTL/OTF metering feature in another classic, the marvelous Canon T90 back in 1986 - the only thing significant feature in that camera is, the focusing method was replaced by dual SPCs, one under the mirror box and another at the eyepiece.
By all accounts, OTF metering is equal to and in some cases superior to not OTF.
So a pro asseses the scene, determines it is backlit, meters the ground, holds that buttion, then recomposes the shot.
With the LX - as well as the F2 and all other center weighted metering cameras or those (pros or otherwise) who don't want to take so many steps because they know how to meter, composes the shot in manual mode and adjust exposure to compensate for the high contrast scene.
Exposure lock is not a mutually excusive feature and can be implemented in OTF cameras because the OM-4 has this. That Pentax didn't provide AE lock on the LX is one of those life's mysteries that may never be known. My guess is adjusting the shutter button in those cases is far simpler.
So according to you the LX was not commercially acceptable to the pro segment because it lacked that button? Apparently most pros seemed to prefer fully mechanical then.
Again on MIR http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikonf3ver2/htmls/index1.htm
I have great respect for Mr. TATENO, Yokoyuki on his positive remarks on the Nikon F3 but in real life, the initial stage of the launch of the new camera was not that well received (At least in my country and around South East Asian countries and Hong Kong Market). I remember quite clearly the mechanical Nikon F2AS was retailed higher than the new professional camera body. In a SEAsian regional sporting event, a year and a half after its debut, I hardly noticed any photojournalists holding a Nikon F3 but plenty with F2 motorized bodies.
First the LX lacked center weighted metering (it does), then OTF center weighted metering is inferior to not OTF center weighted metering (it isn't) , then the lack of exposure hold is because OTF center weighted metering doesn't allow it (not so) and now OTF center weighted metering on the LX cause it's commercial success in the pro segment - no evidence of this. Anything else?
If you can find an LX that still works..
One of the reasons I haven't bought one yet. My F5 is as reliable as they get. I would like an LX however.............
And they probably took a couple of incident readings & made the exposure, rather than taking 35 irrelevant spotmeter readings and regurgitating several poorly digested books/ websites about cameras they haven't used!
Trying get back on topic, I think the F with the plain prism is my preference for durability (and simplicity) in the F series. I also strongly prefer how it feels and handles compared to the rest of the F system cameras. The F5 is ok to use, but it's not necessarily the 'better' camera - it was clearly designed to best/ equal the spec sheet of the EOS 1 - and sort out Nikon's reputation for slow AF in its top line camera.
Last edited:
I just had mine serviced and it is working properly, all gone through. But it seems that there are an unusually high number of defective LXs compared to pro cameras of the same age from Nikon and Canon.
I am tempted to sell mine off as I have too many cameras, but I'm having a lot of fun with it at the moment. While it doesn't do anything in regular shooting i.e. not extremely long exposures, that my K2, MX, P30T or SuperA cannot, it just feels satisfying solid and dense for such a small tight package.
If I sell it, I may also unload the rest of my Pentax gear because I have three other SLR systems as well - Nikon, Leica and Minolta. And to be frank, that is also 2 too many!
I like the look of the F, and I have a superbly beat up black one with the meterless finder, as well as a chrome one with the meterless finder. But in use the equivalent meterless F2 is far superior. The shutter button is in a far more comfortable spot, and the film back does not have to come off to change film. Everything about the F2 is an improvement over the F. Apart from, arguably, looks.
I'm curious, how does an F handle better than an F2?
Of course, the F2 was an obsolete design also in manufacturing cost terms. The F3 design was of course a more advanced design also in tems of manufacturing economy. The F3 had to compete with the Canon F1.
Look, also when the F2 was launched Nikon has to manufacture the F for two years because photographers of the time were very conservative, thay had to wait until a new model/system was well tested. Today one has now doubt a D6 will be better than the D5.
By no means the F3 is inferior to the F2 for a Pro, one may like a mechanical camera, and one may have (semi) incompatible lenses. Pre-Ai lenses have to be metered Step-Down in the F3. You have to press the DOF button to meter and shot ! The F3 suposed the Pro transition to the electronic cameras, and this took some time, like any important change. Even the Film to Digital transition took several years.
By all accounts, OTF metering is inferior.
Look the F3 has an OTF included, if is used to meter the exposure when using flash, but they also include a meter in the viewfinder for very good reasons.
> Each film has a different reflectiveness, with different scattering, so each film meters a bit different.
> Ponderated mode and exposure retention are harder to implement in the design.
> It is a dead technologic way, with no feasible evolution to the matrix mode than ruled since 1983 (FA) as the metering way that rocked. By 1983 OTF was obsolete in technical terms, still the transitions take some time in the market. Every designer saw the OTF obsolete by 1983.
No doubt we may take perfect shots with the OTF, as mentioned I had been a OM-2 user and I know it quite well, but the Nikon center-weighted system was superior, and OTF was in the wrong direction of the industrial evolution, being a barrier for the future electronic technification.
First, compare the LX to the F3, both released in 1981.
The F3 has 80% of the sensitivity in the 12mm circle, in a "event" shooting you only have to correct for the backlight in not many situations, with the LX you have to correct every backlight, one by one, can't you see the F3 advantage?
With all respect, this is also funny
When by 1983 Olympus could have the Exposure Lock button in the OM-4 evolution, Nikon was releasing the FA with MATRIX METER. Game over.
This was (mostly) the final nail in the OTF cofin, with no possible evolution to the advanced Matrix. Kaput.
To add more beating to the OTF... (beyond the Distance information) Matrix could allow future Matrix metering for the flash, metering from a Pre-Flash, which delivered a perfect flash control. Pre-digital times flash was used a lot indoors by Pros (today we have high digital ISO)... flash control was critical. Pointing how OTF was an obsolete way for the industry.
Look, in retrospective, the OTF (as main meter) is a total pitfall, an industrial decision that killed the Pentax chances to hit in the Pro market. Pentax was quite naive in that game. Not saying OTF is bad for any of us... Not many of us shot weddings on film today. José Villa uses a MF Contax 645 with spot and CW
But he will never underexpose because he toasts every frame
He meters Spot in the shadow, add what he pulls CN film by default.In summary, OTF arrangement got later the important features, and as Matrix was released it could not follow the evolution anymore.
Of course not everyone requires a matrix meter. Sally Mann is what illuminates may personal path, and she meters by smelling the wind. But Pros having to shot hard all day long didn't want that OTF, and this had a serious impact.
Last edited:
Really like this !
This is probably just my perception, but I've found the F2 to feel a little more delicate (more like an extremely refined and delicately balanced mechanical object) whereas the F seems a little more rugged - and not pushing the limits of the technology as much as the F2. I also prefer how the F sits in my hands - and the shutter release position and removable back don't bother me at all.
How do you think the F5's flash meter and various automatic metering modes check for adequate exposure?
her last exhibition is specially impressive, those big prints... it would be difficult to hung another thing in the same wall without the thing falling to the ground... a crazy atonishing work..
The F3 has no meter in the viewfinder. It only has one meter and it's in the mirror box.I have all the finders for the F3 and none have electronic contacts to facilitate metering in them. You're probably thinking about the OM2 which has metering cels in the viewfinder when in manual mode and metering cels in the mirror box for aperture priority and flash metering.
MIR has a good description of the F3 metering -> http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikonf3ver2/htmls/index.htm
You conducted testing of this yourself or are you referencing something? I'm betting you didn't test yourself but maybe missing a link for your reference so I'll help a brother out by citing this excerpt from 1975 Modern Photography magazine . . . Their conclusion, "about 1/6 of an f stop. In other words, it was negligible"
So all respondents here extolling the virtues of their favorite long been out of production cameras should move on to more technologically advanced devices? Or do you mean just for those who struggle with metering on their obsolete cameras . . .
So if I use my F3 I will have less backlit event situations but if I use my LX will have more backlit situations that will cause me to compensate for each . . . lost me there . . .
When by 1983 Olympus could have the Exposure Lock button in the OM-4 evolution, Nikon was releasing the FA with MATRIX METER. Game over.
This was (mostly) the final nail in the OTF cofin, with no possible evolution to the advanced Matrix. Kaput.
To add more beating to the OTF... (beyond the Distance information) Matrix could allow future Matrix metering for the flash, metering from a Pre-Flash, which delivered a perfect flash control. Pre-digital times flash was used a lot indoors by Pros (today we have high digital ISO)... flash control was critical. Pointing how OTF was an obsolete way for the industry.
Look, in retrospective, the OTF (as main meter) is a total pitfall, an industrial decision that killed the Pentax chances to hit in the Pro market. Pentax was quite naive in that game. Not saying OTF is bad for any of us... Not many of us shot weddings on film today. José Villa uses a MF Contax 645 with spot and CW
But he will never underexpose because he toasts every frame
In summary, OTF arrangement got later the important features, and as Matrix was released it could not follow the evolution anymore.
Of course not everyone requires a matrix meter. Sally Mann is what illuminates may personal path, and she meters by smelling the wind. But Pros having to shot hard all day long didn't want that OTF, and this had a serious impact.
So your argument here is that the OM-4 with OTF multispot metering, shadows and highlights metering, automatic exposure metering is "kaput" yet José Villa's MF Contax 645 with spot and CW is ok
And that if you don't use a meter - like Sally Mann well that's ok too.
I guess the conclusion that can be inferred from this is that all other metering - or in Sally Mann's case non-metering, is ok but just not OTF metering of any kind even though one can apparently take perfect exposures with them too . . .
There several differences...
1) How fast and convenient you arrive at 1/60@f8 decision
2) One method mat say 1/60@f8 and the other 1/125@f8
3) One method mat say 1/60@f8 and the other 1/125@f4
I like to use both my F3 and my LX, but they don't compare to my XK.
There is a reason Jaguar named their cars after this camera. It's total Herman Munster awesomeness.
XK = Jaguar when Jaguar was Jaguar
LX = some sort of cheap Ford.
F3 = a bad grade in school. (See now, Canon got it right with their A1)
There is a reason Jaguar named their cars after this camera. It's total Herman Munster awesomeness.
XK = Jaguar when Jaguar was Jaguar
LX = some sort of cheap Ford.
F3 = a bad grade in school. (See now, Canon got it right with their A1)
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2009
- Messages
- 4,307
- Format
- 35mm
You won’t convince me. I always thought that Matrix metering was nothing more than marketing.
I'm sorry, but the Minolta XK is one of the goofiest looking cameras I have ever seen!
Yes, of course... sorry, I had to not say in the viewfinder... I was mixing F2 and F3...
The paper you point says 1/6 of a stop... I tested that in the 1980s when I was using an OM-2 and a FM2, all borrowed intermitently (and a Canon AE sometimes), at one point I compared both to expose consistently not matering the camera I had. Of course both three were able to deliver perfect exposures in practice, but the OM-2 had a variability that I judged 1/3 to 1/2 stops worse than the FM2.
that "about" 1/6 of stop from film reflectivity is an "about", someday it can be 1/3, then add that (OM-2) the same bright point has not the same effect if it is at the top or at the bottom... because of angle and distance to the sensors.
So all respondents here extolling the virtues of their favorite long been out of production cameras should move on to more technologically advanced devices? Or do you mean just for those who struggle with metering on their obsolete cameras . . .
Yeah... my favourite system is that showed by Sally, second place is Sunny 16, and Spot meter which unfortunately I use the most.
Les... this is quite easy... With the F3 the 12mm circle has 80% os the weight, if your subject also takes 50% of the frame then the backlight may contribute with a 8% of the weight and it will have a little impact, it can make you underexpose by 1/4 stop.
With the LX, if backlight also takes 50% of the frame it can lead you to underexpose the near subject by 1 stop or 1.5 stop, if the backlight is 2 or 3 stops brighter...
Sure, do you have a doubt on that? I find it quite straight !!!
Hey, Les... don't deformate the arguments...
I told the Villas' case, mostly spot metering the shadows, to point that every Pro has its own way, even the (mostly) Top one in the wedding sector. The Sally's also illustrates that even we can meter by smelling the air. Another thing is what shaped the evolution of the cameras and why some brands brands seized the Pro market...
The 1983 "OM-4 with OTF multispot metering" was obsolete compared to the 1983 Nikon FA with matrix meter.
Today Matrix meter is the standard, and the OTF virually disapeared many decades ago, because overall is a lower performer technology, industrially speaking.
I guess the conclusion that can be inferred from this is that all other metering - or in Sally Mann's case non-metering, is ok but just not OTF metering of any kind even though one can apparently take perfect exposures with them too . . .
Personally, we can expose perfectly with any kind of meter... incident sekonic or reflective Pentax-V, Ponderated, Matricial or OTF. And everyone has his preferences...
Another thing is what ruled in the industry, what manufacturers got the Pro Market... Nikon clearly starred in the Pro 35mm market (alongside with Canon) and this was not by chance. Minolta also had a nice Pro niche with excellent gear. Pentax and Olympus lost that war in the early 1980s, still Pentax did a nice job in the 35mm Prosumer/Consumer segments. We all know that !
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |