PEntax LX 250 Bulk Film Back.jpg (17k)

Modern Classic SLRs Series :
Pentax LX - Message Board/Guestbook

Industry wide indications and ceasing film body development by Pentax altogether in early 2003 more than suggest the manual focus Pentax LX will not be having an upgrade (except, perhaps for very rare Limited Edition Models hand assembled by special commission by the new HoyaPentax Corporation). In 2008 Pentax became a division of Hoya Corporation, which had together with Pentax released jointly developed professional grade optics (since 2005); Pentax has shifted its attention to development of auto focus Digital SLRs having build qualities constructed for the long run--now with weather seals--like the LX. You may use this site for common support and sharing of mutual users knowledge or experiences among yourselves. You may also use this message board as a guestbook for the advanced users Pentax SLR cameras from the LX forward, including many such auto focus film cameras, and Pentax digital SLR cameras. We keep the site going too for the WORD SEARCH FEATURE found here as to its magnificent K mount system user archives: as have been shared here for many years. Have an inquiry related to Pentax gear? First try KEYING IN YOUR KEY WORD(S) for a preexisting archived response on your subject of inquiry from this LX site. If your inquiry or sharing is from advanced users K10D, K20D, or K200D SLR needs, proceed on to t NEW PENTAX ADVANCED USERS K10D, K20D SLR site.

This LX site was specifically created for the great Pentax LX SLR camera model(s), and now has incorporated increased opportunity for an expanded interchange with the introductions of the Pentax K10D, K20D, and K200D SLRs to include advanced and professional digital user models. Interchange is encouraged with the intention to continue as a forum for advanced system users of past K-mount film based SLR systems and the mentioned Pentax DSLRs. With decreasing forum traffic here, and enthusiasts moving on with SLR digital imaging products futures, we hope the continued convenience of this site and its past Pentax advanced LX users data archives--provided by the database KEY WORD SEARCH FEATURE found here--can be very useful to you. Most past site user techniques, systems components, and lenses of Pentax advanced applications--as have been past examined by users on this site--are still of use regarding the newest Pentax SLRs. Please don't mail us with other than constructive suggestions or to rectify mistakes found within this site, thank you. Since this is a non-profitable resource site, maintained by professional and advanced system users, the developer of this site reserves the rights to censor or delete any inappropriate, unrelated, misleading or excessively hostile messages posted herein. If your intention is to dispose of your Pentax cameras or its accompanying accessories and/or you are looking for a used model, or even for any of its system components: please use a separate section with a higher volume of related traffic for these purposes: on the
Free Trade Zone site instead. The Photography In Malaysia sites sponsor has no Guestbook standing on its own, because it is an integral part of the MIR site. But if you want to leave a note on your experience of visiting our site and its service, you may use the MIR's Guestbook found at another new window by clicking on the Guestbook Link.

Add a Posting to the Message Board
A kind reminder: Please do not misuse of this message board system.

Main Index Page of Pentax LX SLR Website

The respective Message Boards are some of the HARDEST hit sections of the PIM served sites; if, at any one time, the traffic is high--the table of contents or individual pages may take a while to load your input data, or our's. So, just be patient. If your interaction stalls, just click on the 'Reload' or 'Refresh' button on your browser menu once to re-attempt interaction here. Thank you. Welcome to MIR!

Search keyword(s)(Case Sensitive) within :
     

 



1. From : Jay Hart (ibcom@onebox.com)
Url : http://
Date : 03:37 AM Wednesday 24 December, 2003

All, FYI I largely agree with the findings of the review Globetrotter posts below for the D *ist. Someone could make some money designing and building an existing grip front extender to take care of the under-bunched hand. The door for the CF card is indeed problematic. But, excepting the Fuji S2, Canon top of the line DSLR, and the Kodak DSLR there simply is no better camera in this pricerange and format. I say this after shooting and handling many in this range: and still find this body easier to use than all others not listed above. So, it is wise to wait for the bugs to be released, from updated firmware, and, perhaps, a second edtion. The imaging compares with its counterparts, except at ISO ratings above 800, where Canon exceeds this (but in all fairness it took their sensor four generations to get there, this is Pentax's first offer).

Consider that Nikon's 80 series body constitutes three offers in the DSLR marketplace. FOr me, personally, this is too large a body for this format size--as is the new Olympus so. I will wait for the next edition of Pentax DSLR. The manufacturer will survive on its other marketplace offerings in the meantime. The lens is postively reviewed, along with some other features. Unlike the reviewer, I like the AA battery option, as the MA rating of the new rechargeables is comparative to Alkalines, and the battery type is readily available everywhere.

The Kodak and Hasselblad backs for medium format are what is being used now by pros, along with the three small format offerings listed at the top of this posting. Nikon's faster burst rate cameras too are being used, at higher prices than the D-100. If you like their bodies and lenses, and cannot wait for generation two, go for these at this time to go digital. But only the Fuji is reasonably priced per pixel resolution rating, and offers higher file size interpolation for the landscape shooter. But it uses two different battery types. I look for the next Pentax DSLR, and will not jump ship now, as I have a Kodak Back in use and can wait. I will pick up a small viewfinder equivalent of a 28-105mm digital zoom camera with 5MP to experiment with. What will you guys do??? --Jay


2. From : GLOBETROTTER (globetrotterworld@hotmail.com)
Url : http://
Date : 07:22 PM Tuesday 23 December, 2003

Anton - For a review of the Pentax *ist, giving the major problems of this camera, plus some details of how it performs at high ISO speeds in low-light conditions (needed for your Jazz photos, Anton) - check this website: http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/pentax-istd.shtml MERRY CHRISTMAS & HAPPY NEW YEAR to all at MIR!


3. From : Anton (handmaid@fsmail.net)
Url : http://
Date : 04:18 PM Monday 22 December, 2003

Digital Schmigital: Over on the PDML there's a thread about the *istD crashing and freezing, requiring a re-boot by removal of the batteries. Never heard the like of it with an LX. Ha!


4. From : Anton (handmaid@fsmail.net)
Url : http://
Date : 04:04 PM Monday 22 December, 2003

Ian's prediction of 'what goes around, comes around' came around pretty quick. I bought a replacement LX Winder form Mifsud's Photographic in Devon UK, described over the phone by the assistant as Exc+ when it arrived it looked good and worked well and I was happy - despite it being quite expensive - until I noticed that the rewind lever on the back was missing (looks like it's just come unscrewed and fallen off sometime) I scanned the winder and emailed Misud's with a description and the photo attached. Fortunately the assistant remembered the winder looking the way it does and simply didn't realise there was meant to be a lever on the exposed bush. To their credit they apologised and offered a complete refund or a reduction to £64 ($113). I accepted the reduction as I often rewind manually anyway. Robin (technician) is reasonably confident that a lever will turn up before too long. If I pay £10 for a lever, this whole winder fiasco will actually show me a profit of £1... not bad eh? AB


5. From : Ian (ian@ity.co.uk)
Url : http://
Date : 01:19 AM Sunday 21 December, 2003

Monochrome inkjet. I do it regularly. I like the results. Not as good as a good wet print (goes without saying). But often good enough. There is of course the question of ink permanence. Decide for yourself, but I won't recommend them for archiving (stating the obvious). Also, watch out for banding. The tonal range is limited compared to wet, so some images just never look right, others work fine. Printing in black gives nice results although printing in CMY can be a good bail-out if you need better perception of gradations (they can get wedgy in black only). But watch out for a magenta cast when printing CMY. I use a four colour Epson, run it at 2880 dpi (flat-out) with a high res image sent at around 720-800 dpi (to fit A4). If the scan is good, I just print it, no sharpening, no nothing. Easy. Given the choice though, I'd rather use a dye-sub printer, but I don't have one any more. - Ian.


6. From : Ian (ian@ity.co.uk)
Url : http://homepage.mac.com/iant1
Date : 10:45 PM Saturday 20 December, 2003

Jay, the images in the galleries are web style, i.e. small, none are over 1024 pixels. They are merely for viewing. Once the image has loaded double click it to open in a separate window at it's max size. One of the files listed in the file share is a full res image (circa 5MB).

Regarding scanning, I always scan at max res. Then burn to CD and archive. Then I've only had to scan once, and can knock-out data-reduced jpgs etc on demand. If I lose or damage the neg/slide, I've always got it's digital master on disc. As the years tick by, and tech improves, your archive contains the best of the day. This is just me, and my workflow. I'm just about to put up a shot I did last week "Danny". Do I see a hint of vignette? A35-105f3.5. So far I'm very impressed with this lens, although I feel it might be just a tad soft. Opinions welcome. I've always been a thing photographer, portraits are rare for me. So say kind things. -Ian.


7. From : Jay Hart (ibcom@onebox.com)
Url : http://
Date : 12:52 PM Saturday 20 December, 2003

Internet web graphics are set at 72 dpi for mac computer monitors and 96 dpi for windows computer monitors. The only advantage of posting a large file size is for viewing other than on the web. In other words, if one likes a representative photo, shown on the web, and a larger Tiff or High Grade JPEG of it is downloadable, one can make a high quality large print from such a file. Otherwise it is overkill and will not show up any better over a web-based page or file in order to resolve to be viewed at a greater dpi (by so scanning and so posting, nothing is really gained for web viewing. even the web color palette is much more limited than what monitors can reproduce.).

Although my Minolta scanner is the same one as that just listed, there is very little use for its highest resolution for communications imagery through digital file sharing. It is only to some advantage for making large detailed prints. Otherwise scanning at half or less than that high resolution will suffice for most applications, including magazine page standards. The whole of ppi, dpi, and half tone lpi standards now available on scanners input generally exceed the reproduction output standards for web based digital file sharing, and even in regard to what is needed for most magazine reproduction graphic standards. As written prior here, the real gain of the most recent scanners, especially of transparencies, is increased color gradient depth. This means more hues, and details in shadows for viewing--where the media involved can reproduce such. On a web page it is not so detailed or colorful.
________________________________________

Perhaps it is not well known in Britain that Ilford and Kodak share many patents. The Ilford HP film is very very similar to Tri-x, and at one time in their emulsions evolution they may have been exactly the same emulsion design. Look at their developing chemistry too--these too are largely shared patents between these companies. In many instances this means the same contents with different product names.

I wonder if anyone on the messageboard has gone to the dry and room light darkroom idea for their own Black and White desktop printing? I still use my Beseler enlarger for occasional black and white work. It is not even a consideration here for color printing to be chemically based "wet lab" in origination. I have not yet turned out black and white inkjet prints, though I have many color display prints generated from this media.

So, I tried your site for posted images, and could not enlarge catalogued images there for individual viewing: help me out, what am I missing, or what do I need to do to so view? --Jay


8. From : Ian (ian@ity.co.uk)
Url : http://
Date : 09:14 PM Friday 19 December, 2003

Sorry about the file size, but it's old habit when outputing a test image. It's the original scan (5400DPI) slightly cropped. JPG does not compress greyscale very well (size wise). It's compression algorithm is optimized for colour. Because this was an optical test, I didn't want too many compression artifacts getting in the way. You can zoom in to 100% and checkout the edge resolution etc. right down at the grain level. I might be mistaken, but so far this lens is looking pretty good to me.

Tri-X is my all time favorite B+W film. You have to like contrast and grain. Else it's not for you. But it's worth remembering that it prints wonderfully, it's perfect at about 10x8" (from 35mm). It has an atmosphere and character all of it's own. The grain looks worse on-screen. It even injets really well at A4 too. Most (not all) of the B+W on my .mac gallery is Tri-X if you want to see more. In the mean time I'll be going through the rest of that current roll, more images to follow (I'll do web versions so your not driven mad with the file sizes). - Ian.


9. From : Anton (handmaid@fsmail.net)
Url : http://
Date : 05:10 PM Friday 19 December, 2003

Ian: I like the image, I've never used Tri-X before but you've got me thinking. One thing, the file is huge (5-6 MB) did you intend that? If not I suggest that after scanning at 300 DPI you resize to 96 DPI and make the longest side about 500 PX saved as a JPEG this will give you a file size of under 50 KB (compared tp 5000 KB at present!!) which will download in a jiffy. It will look the same on screen unless you star enlarging. AB


10. From : Anton (handmaid@fsmail.net)
Url : http://
Date : 03:51 PM Friday 19 December, 2003

Ian, I'm glad the winder went to yourself - that's not an issue - I just wonder at my behaviour sometimes. This is not the first time I've sold something and then bought another. It's not the second or the third or... This weekend I am to photograph a couple. I'll be using the LX with AF400T's and the wonderful Lastolite Umbrellaboxes on TTL flash. This will be for 'action' shots with them moving around. I then plan to use the 6X7 for some carefully 'posed' shots, trying to get one to blow up to 30" or so to frame as a gift.

Used the 35-105 and its close focus capability to photograph some items for eBay (don't know why I bother as I'll probably buy them back next week!) some film left in the camera was Fuji NPZ 800. Looking at the results of a zoom lens at close focus on fast film it's amazing. How things have improved over the last couple of decades. You'd have needed a Macro Prime and 100 ASA to achieve similar results 20 years ago. AB


PAGE | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 | 180 | 181 | 182 | 183 | 184 | 185 | 186 | 187 | 188 | 189 | 190 | 191 | 192 | 193 | 194 | 195 | 196 | 197 | 198 | 199 | 200 | 201 | 202 | 203 | 204 | 205 | 206 | 207 | 208 | 209 | 210 | 211 | 212 | 213 | 214 | 215 | 216 | 217




Maintainers for Pentax LX Series SLR Camera Models Message Board:
Tony Davies-Patrick (Globetrotter) (globetrotterworld@hotmail.com); Mico Smiljanic (micolx@netscape.net);
Jay Hart (ibcom@onebox.com); Philip Ashman (genesisphil@hotmail.com)

| Post a Message to the Message Board |

Archived Messages of Previous Postings
001-050 | 051-100 | 101-150 | 151-200

Back to Main Index Page of
Pentax LX SLR Camera Website


Back to Message Board of
Pentax LX
SLR Camera

Disposing/Looking
for New/Used photographic equipment

on Pentax LX SLR camera


Administrator Page

Home - Photography in Malaysia

Copyright © 2007. leofoo @. MIR Web Development Team.
Version three Re-Programmed by our in-house Fairuz Sulaiman, improved from original version by Ang Seng Leong ,Yeak Ngai Siew, Rizal Yahya, Halimaton Yahya (Members of the MIR Web Development Team)

MIR Guestbook On-line. Developed & Copyright@ 2001 by MIR Communications Sdn. Bhd.