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!
1. From : Peter (email@example.com)
Url : http://
Date : 10:04 PM Wednesday 04 December, 2002
A small question (concerning a small lense):
Has anyone been using an LX together with the 40 mm/2.8 pancake lense? It seems to have a nice focal length, but how is it optically? How is it to handle?2. From : GLOBETROTTER (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Url : http://
Date : 07:02 PM Tuesday 03 December, 2002
Sorry about the delay in answering all questions, folks - but I'm very busy at the moment writing final chapters and editing photos for my new book - "GLOBETROTTER'S QUEST". I will get back to this site as soon as I find some spare time away from the work schedule...!
Regards. Globetrotter.3. From : Jay Hart (email@example.com)
Url : http://
Date : 05:46 AM Friday 29 November, 2002
Thanks, Globetrotter. You mentioned the use too at one time of east German film working for you. Was this in or near east Germany? How does the quality of light render there on their film? This brings up an earlier point of discussion: available sunlight quality being different around the world by different atmosphere conditions and latitude/longitude.
I recall photographing Henry Moore, the innovative and late British Sculptor, in Florence, Italy, in late 1971 (in November, I believe). He, his wife, and a city representative walked around at the Ft. Belvidere, where his sculptures were to be flown in from all over the world for an international exhibit. He placed them on paper at various stations around the campus grounds: for the light qualities from certain angles that would best bring out the uniqueness of the semi-abstract form of his sculptures not yet on site. This was a few months in advance of the show.
He had had a long love affair with Italy, its stone quarries, and its location for originating the material used for much of his work. It was natural for the Italian government to return the selection favor, as they flew in his famous work on military aircraft, as on loan later for the show there, from around the world.
I used for the first time Italian color slide film in Italy (at the time bought in Florence, but sold in the USA at the time as a 3M product), as well as Ilford B&W films long used. This was used after weeks of touring the fine art sites in Florence, and getting a feel for the way master painters of the area rendered color and light. In the USA--having lived in northern Illinois prior to going to Italy, and having traveled the US West for mountain sport--the use of the Italian made 3M emulsions rendered terrible results as to the palette. But someone had lifted my Kodachrome and I needed film fast. I think it was called "Peruzicolor" there. The results were excellent, and similar in light quality to that of the frescoes and area classic paintings and artisitc portraits in oil. This showed my mind something about the quality of light, the intelligence of local science and culture in applying it, and learning from such. As an American I could not be anything but humbled by this fact, it had a long impression as to the value of local photographic science found in practice where traveling. I try to connect with local shops and galleries, if only briefly, when traveling (and always learn something talking with folks wherever). I was elated at the difference between the local emulsion as used there,in Italy,and in the USA.
So, as to polarizers effecting the quality of light, as you mentioned, perhaps the linear polarizer LX IDM metering application I have seen being outstanding with the LX has most often been at high altitude (where the angle of the sunlight is least disturbed by the atmosphere). G. Rowell and Barbara Rowell originated many images at high altitude, or in pristine environs as less effected by industrialization and its additions to atmospheric haze and light pollution. Any other thoughts out there on the sunlight/available light atmospheric conditions and results you have had from your experience?
As a sidetracked thought, because much moutain light photography can be affected by snow, in addition to polarization being needed to overcome glare, exposure compensation is often called for. As I use the meter in the LX most often on "automatic" this does involve turning the ASA/ISO filmspeed dial for that occasional bracketing needed in such situations. Other challenges at high altitude are: increased contrast, harsh shadows, often barren landscape (needing something not barren in the foreground to brighten up the scene), and quick weather changes (even in the same part of the day one had consistent sunlight, this can shift rapidly to wind, clouds, storms, and sleet and snow, then back to sunlight even in summer). Thanks for your ear! --Jay Hart4. From : GLOBETROTTER (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Url : http://
Date : 04:33 PM Thursday 28 November, 2002
When I photograph wild fish from above water, I have found that using a polorizer filter on a long telephoto not only cuts through surface glare, but is also able to increase colour saturation and detail in water plants, leaves and stones etc on the bottom. I need very strong sunlight in these situations, because the light-sapping effects of the polorizer will often force me to use too slow a shutter speed to freeze fish motion, or prevent efficient stopping down of aperture to increase depth of field. Velvia rated at 40 ISO is my preferred film, but sunlight is often not good enough to use it, so I’m forced to use a faster emulsion, such as 100 ISO Sensia. (A point worth mentioning here is that although I use Fuji Velvia rated at 40 ISO in an LX body, I will rate the same film at normal 50 ISO when using a Pentax Z1p with modern segment metering. I’ve found that the Z1p’s metering system tends to over-expose certain subjects, but the LX is usually ‘bang on the nail’).
I’ve not used the ‘increased warmth Polorizers’ that Galen Rowell often used, but I’ve been meaning to buy one to try for quite a while – so maybe I should give them a trial. I’ve also seen some superb results with the ‘Yellow Polorizer’ (another filter worth buying), but you do need to be more careful with it and only use on certain subjects and conditions. I’ve had some success on occasions using a polorizer filter combined with a grey graduation filter – especially when the background is in sunlight and the foreground is in deep shadow. The ultra-thin mounted filters made by companies such as Hoya do give some advantages in prevention of vignette in corners when wide-angle lenses are combined with polorizers. I prefer to use a much larger filter (such as a 77mm polorizer on a 24mm lens with 67mm filter thread) combined with a step-down filter.
I don’t believe that most modern films – which tend to have a strong red bias – need the addition of a slight ‘warming’ filter as much as earlier films did (Kodak Ektachrome for example). A film such as Velvia often has enough colours to not need any further enhancement; but an added polorizer does often tend to make images almost 3-dimencial and stunning with its vibrant colour enhancement. Of course, there are occasions when a film with gentler, more grainy pallet may be preferred – I’ve produced some nice photos in the past using films produced in eastern Germany, where their subdued colours have added to the drama or atmosphere of a particular photo – such as a swan gliding through the mist at dawn; yet even when presented with a similar scene today, I’m more inclined to use a richer-coloured, ultra fine Fuji film.
5. From : Jay Hart (email@example.com)
Url : http://
Date : 02:21 AM Thursday 28 November, 2002
So, Globtrotter, I am curious if you have ever tried a slight warming filter, or any of the new warming polarizers when shooting on overcast or overhead sun-lit days? Or know anyone who has tried these with predictable and improved results? Or do you feel that the newer saturated emulsions completely solve the old blue cast problems known with the first E3 and E4 transparency emulsions? RSVP
Sunlight differs in quality by resident atmosphere all over this planet, high altitude daylight, for example, differs from South American, African or Mediterranian daylight. One does not understand why the old masters painted the way they did, as to color mix, until one goes to their locations. Near oceans and seas too daylight differs from inland light. As one is "writng (imaging) with light", it seems Globetrotters experience with spectrum saturation issues is worth observing in one's own shooting results. I wonder too who uses which film and filtration in which environs to tweak color balancing and color shifts>or to achieve certain effects.
FYI, I too primarily use the meter in the automatic position, and have both types of polarizers from 43.5 to 82 mm. I still find myself selecting both, primarily according to what presents in a scene as to atmospheric conditions and color needs. The circular is certainly the safest bet. It is trusted first. --Jay
As I said there are times, when reflection is a factor of environment, to use a polarizer on wideangles, but it is not essential, especially toward late afternoon or early morning when one may need to be at a wider aperture than 5.6 to 11. This to me represents the grace of the possibility. I wonder if Globetrotter just uses polarizers on long teles too, when filtration is needed to cut haze or other atmosphereic interference, or just or added UV filtration, when the polarizer takes away too much incoming light? --Jay
6. From : GLOBETROTTER (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Url : http://
Date : 01:09 AM Thursday 28 November, 2002
I agree with most of what Jay has just said about polorizing filters, but not all. I use polorizing filters extensively in my work, both with telephotos and wide-angle lenses. I have found a very marked (and most often, improved) difference in using a polorizer filter compared to without. A large percentage of these photos using a wide-angle are of landscapes which include a river or lake as part of the shot, so the reduction of reflections are a major help. But this is not the only reason for using a polorizer on a wideangle lens (my main lenses are the Pentax M 28mm f/2, and FA 24mm f2), because even when Velvia transparency film is in the dark chamber I prefer the added colour saturation of blue/red/green layers of the spectrum in resulting images. This is especially noticeable in mid-day photography when the placing of a polarizer filter over the wide-angle has given me a saleable shot, in difficult conditions. I must add here that I generally use the fast F2 lenses at f/5.6-f/22 for added depth-of-field and the main advantage to me of the ‘high-speed’ glass is their positive aid when using manual focus.
I use all my LX bodies with the speed dial locked on auto for most of my photography – and this is indeed where I have found a circular polorizer filter is necessary. It IS possible to get good results using a normal linear filter, but if you dial the filter for fullest polorizer effect for most of your shots (like I do), expecially when you are at right-angles to a powerful sun, then the LX will incorrectly expose some of those photos. I rolled a lot of films through the LX before I noticed the difference (because a large number seem ‘perfect’ using a linear), but like Jay remarked – there definitely is a problem in certain situations. I therefore would advise you to use a circular polorizer on the LX.
Polorizer filters are indeed a major help in a lot of my photography; I’ve even found them useful on certain grey and overcast days when a bland scene has been markedly improved with careful use of the filter.
With long telephotos (300mm,400,500mm,600mm) I tend to not use the polorizer for most wildlife shots – because of it’s light-quenching of f/stops and need for fast shutter speeds – but I do use the polorizer on big telephotos when I’m photographing wild fish in a river or lake and need to cut through glare. They can also give marked improvement to a long-distance landscape image – helping to cut through glare, haze, and add contrast plus colour saturation to sky, clouds and mountains.
7. From : Jay Hart (email@example.com)
Url : http://
Date : 05:15 PM Wednesday 27 November, 2002
Miro, Thanks for writing and sharing your interest in meter reading reiability and performance issues (apparently presenting when moving from one environment to another), your use of polarizers, transparency film, and multiple LX bodies (if I understood you correctly). It sounded like you experienced discrepancies between inside home environs light readings results and other environments: as to what the camera would apparently consistently do and not do. Thanks for your use outline of apparent differences when shooting through a polarizer on an initial light reading axis, and changing to a 10-15 degree shift left or right from that initial light reading axis overexposing from the intial reading established on intial axis (again, if I understood you correctly).
I want to state again that 3200 at f 1.4 is outside of the published coupling range of the light meter. This most likely represents an inability of the meter system to deal with this setting for choosing an actual shutter speed by its use in certain lighting conditions (perhaps not in others?). If you had experience with it working at home, or giving a reading and result at home, then nonperformance elsewhere, I would ask: what changed? The batteries in use are affected by heat, cold, and humidity in the camera, and, especially, so can motor drive or winder batteries be so performance affected. Maintaining their voltage and amperage changes in different extreme environments is a factor of LX use. They make remote battery packs for the motor drive in order to keep the batteries away from environmental extremes often present in the far North in summer or winter (my wife is from Norway and I the mountains of Colorado where batteries often need such protection going from inside to outside in summer and winter). Alkalines, for example, are unreliable in cold as well as high heat weather. Are your meter batteries alkalines, or silver based? Another possibility is that the available light conditions changed, or an accurate motor/winder interface coupling was compromised by moving the equipment around, or contacts between it and the camera were bumped, or are dirty, or the meter contacts made under the ISO/ASA camera film speed dial on its rotation were somehow finding corrosion or condensation in the way of making a good and reliable meter system connection (when going from one environment into another environment). Condensation can happen in heat or cold in changing environments. Acclimation of cameras and lenses to and from different environments can occur by double plastic bagging and slow adaptaion to different temperatures or humidities. Ever take a camera out of a warm car into winter and regret it for the condensation covering the surface of the lens and body; this also effects all the electronics and power sources used by the camera.
One advantage to having work done in Colorado, at Pentax USA, is that it is generally done in a moisture humidity free environment, then sealed up with new gaskets. Whereas work done in a high humidity environment so sealed, or, worse, finished without new gaskets, could result in contact or variable resistor corrosion or condensation changes when camera use and storage environments change (such as going from inside to outside, or from home to another building, etc.). The gaskets placed in the body in a humidity free environment overcome this possiblity. These statements represent shots in the dark as to possibilities affecting your use of the LX. No one disbelieves your experience, just because it has not been my own. What I wrote was to stimulate healthy and informative chat.
On your use of Polarizers, again, if I understood you correctly, you have had OK results with either type (circular and linear), on manual, even though the main SLR mirror has a secondary micro meter behind it, near the center of the image, which points deflected light downward, to the bottom of the mirror box (where the meter sensor is located). This deflected light is first linearly interlace oriented as a micro pattern on the main mirror surface, passing through and from the main mirror, as selected by an interlaced semi-transparent section of the main SLR mirror: some to go to the meter through the mentioned secondary mirror path, and some to go up to the viewfinder for viewing the image. With the addition of an on lens linear polarizer one can add that polarizer's new linear filtering of lightwaves as a multiple compounding factor to the already linear interlaced pathway of light passing through the main mirror to the secondary mirror on down to the meter sensor. As you pointed out, this is not a compounding factor leading to error with either a circular polarizer (on manual or automatic), nor either type of polarizer during the IDM metering made available in the split second after the mirror swings up out of the way during actual exposure on automatic. Thereby there is no double coontradictory linear polarizing of lightwaves coming through the lens and through mirror paths into the mirror box cavity which may occur using a linear polarizer for metered manual settings. The fact is, your experience on manual with both types not withstanding, a linear polarizer used for manual readings can give very wrong initial exposure information in the viewfinder's meter data. So, it is a matter of trust, which one to use. The SLR mirror's set-up for light passage two directions on a small part of it used for metering does not let another source for establishing linear polarization--other than by its own light passthrough through its own interlaced linearly oriented semi-transparent mirror "window"--to be made for establishing other than the metering method's own inherent internal polarization passthrough for reading the lightwaves from the lens image. To put on a linear polarizer filter in this metering path asks the meter to deal with twice polarizing the light in thereby two often conflicting linear lightwave planes, and usually throws the meter way off (as with globetrotters early Italian shooting experience with the LX). This may not be your experience, but it is so. On automatic the intial light reading made through the mirror is set aside for the split second camera choice of exposure made after the mirror swings up out of the way, giving an uncanny and accurate reading, even for TTL dedicated flash. This is accurate even for hours long exposure of, for example, of night sky.
What you may be experiencing with the off axis polarizer readings you describe, assuming you don't change the camera light settings of f-stop or shutter speed to compensate, is the horizon blue-light-away-from-sunaxis-effect. Looking away from the sun, in a contrary axis to it in a scene, one sees and captures the bluest sky on film with a polarizer filter. Moving toward the sun one increasingly sees and captures a "bald" sky. This means that moving toward the "bald" sky will change the available light from that first metered toward overexposure, and so without exposure compensation. This effect is most apparent when the sun is nearer the horizon, not directly overhead. The sun and earth move too on a rotational sequence according to where we are located, and the time of year, that is with clouds not withholding its available light as direct light. Clouds diffuse and change the color temperature and quality of the available light. Even so, if the sun is nearer the horizon, there will be brighter and less bright areas in a scene with cloud cover according to where the light source is located. So, notice the sky, and the brightness and color shift when moving toward the sun from an inital scene reading made away or slightly away from the sun. Certainly anywhere the sun is, unless directly overhead, it will cast in scene elongated shadows (often used for sundials, these shadows are the stuff of the early morning late afternoon depth effects of direct light and late and early warmer light, than that found midday). Usually the direction the shadows are being cast toward or beside, depending on other factors, is the bluest sky. The light source casting them is in the whitest bald sky. So, wherever one's intial polarized filter light reading is taken, it will often change as one moves from that initial reading's axis right or left with the corresponding movement of the angle of available source light. Perhaps your shooting is usually subconsciously made toward the bluest light on the horizon or away from the baldest sky (when and where possible, overcast not withstanding). It is not pleasant to shoot directly into the sun, so we naturally do otherwise. Even on overcast days there will be brighter and dimmer sections of skylight, according to where the sun is coming from and moving toward.
In summary, I originally wrote that use of any polarizer filter is not a problem when using LX metering on automatic. I too shoot about 98% transparency film: with either Fuji or Kodak's high saturation emulsions most often used. Generally a polarizer is not needed for wide angle lenses, but is for normal and telephoto lenses. This is because of optical design and radiant image capture by wideangles. Usually one will not see a distinguishable scenic difference between using wide angles with and without a polarizer regardless of blue horizon effect away from the sun. This is good news, for it means all wide angle wide apertures can be beneficially used when necessary for scenics. Shooting products or people through glass or near sand, snow, or water reflection is a completely different matter.
I think I covered your concerns, but, if not all of them, write back. Jay Hart firstname.lastname@example.org Toll free 877-396-8835 from most western countries and North America.8. From : Mico (email@example.com)
Url : http://
Date : 12:49 PM Wednesday 27 November, 2002
Sorry, 7-8 F stops UNDER EXPOSED images.9. From : Mico (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Url : http://
Date : 12:47 PM Wednesday 27 November, 2002
If you pointed your LX set on Auto mode at Kodak Gray Card, in your room, with the constant light (no fire balls, lightnings etc.) and got aprox. reading of 1/2 sec. , than pressed the shutter and got 1/2000 instead, what would you do? Would you grab your LX`s manual, or would you go for a help at the right place (service)?
Not to mention if you vere in the once-in- the- life-time oportunity, and got 7-8 F-stops over exposed image.
ISO 3200 and F 1,4 has nothing to do with that. As Anton asked, like many others from this list, I did the same test on my three Lx cameras and all vere fine, keeping shutter open for almost two minutes, at ISO 3200 and 1,4 F stop. But, all of them vere repaired at some point regarding the same problem. So, should I say that sticky mirror does not exist as a problem since I`ve never had it... and I have LX cameras for decade and a half. For more than three years, all of them are regularly exposed to Canada`s temparature extremes, both very low (aprox. -35, -40 while I shoot far North) or extreme humidity and almost tropic conditions during summer. Not very friendly enviroment for rubber shock absorbers , the main trouble -makers in sticky mirror case.
About polarizers; I must say that I use LX with polarizers mainly on Manual mode. And AUTO mode with polarizers is not the problem as IDM does not care about the second - mirror reading anyway. And when I started using them (long time ago) I bought circular polarizers, as adviced by many sources. And later, just out of curiosity, and to compare the difference, I did some pictures with linear ones. My (long) experience with polarizers (on Manual) is: no matter which polarizer you use, CIR.or LIN. if you use them fully effective, you are going to get 100% accurate results. But, if you move the axis 10-15% left or right, you are starting to get OVER exposed images. Finder is getting brighter, but meter reading is starting to go down! Vice-versa, when you put polarizer to "MAX", finder is getting darker but meter is rising up. That is veird, but it is how the second mirror affects the meter reading with polarizers. Maybe somebody could try it, just to make sure I am (not) crazy! Now, I work with both CIR. and LIN. polarizers, and I do not care since my pictures are perfectly exposed. And I shoot slides, not print film with 4 F stops +/ - tolerance. Heresy? No, I make for living with that approach for the past ten years. Why not plarizers with camera set on Auto? Because LX does not have bracketing, and I find it much faster to bracket manualy, with lens, than to fiddle with exposure compensation dial on auto. And NO, I do not bracket because I hunt the correct exposure with polarizers.10. From : Jay Hart (email@example.com)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
Url : http://
Date : 01:21 PM Monday 25 November, 2002
After reading this site for five years,and knowing the availability of clean used LXs, not very used LXs, may decrease, I want to challenge us all to rethink the total philosophy and scope of the site. I propose that the site, in addition to equipment technical and purchase chat, include photography and imaging chat which improves all of our shooting (granted by users of the LX and related Pentax gear). There are and will be continuos challenges to photography and imaging for all of us. We can learn from all, perhaps by classifying by areas of use the types of messages we can post, and the types of responses these may generate. Sustaining a site like this can lead others to admire the LX users, and the camera system,for savy and experience, as well as their new acquisition and functionality needs. For example, we could come up with catagories of use for the LX system and comment on how we have done so, so that all could benefit from the wonderfully variable reality of quality photography using the LX system. Globtrotter, for sure, mentions his travel use and applications (from many continents). Others could comment on use for weddings, commercial location shooting, star and astronomy, people, places, and product use. Whats the toughest situation youve addressed using the LX, and the most fun?
The neat thing about the LX system is that it was designed to hold up and be extremely rugged and handleable, and meet such challenges with excellence of application. Some questions we might answer for such a forum approach are, for instance:
what is the use of the extended viewfinder system in an age of autofocus? When is it vital to use those single focal length lenses, and why so? How can on camera and off camera flash use of the system get the best restults? What have field users learned about the system carrying it into rough environs? Etc.
Like fly fishing gear, using the LX system has almost infinite opportunities for its use in its arena of photographic problem solving, i.e. for applying and tweaking what medium (B&W, transparency, low speed negative, and high speed negative) one knows and uses best (as one gains experience over time)--wherever one uses it. Undoubtedly there are many of you with expertise and knowledge gained the hard way in various settings with these various mediums and the variety of LX gear Pentax put at our fingertips, as extensions of our bodies and minds. What LX gear and attachments do you like and why? How have these been there for you, even to the point of gaining a considered affection for your built up system? I am not requesting nostalgia, but insight and experience as part of the chat philosophy, with some few paragraphs posted with such an invitation based on use catagory shared thoughts, especially for this site. RSVP --Jay Hart firstname.lastname@example.org
Maintainers for Pentax LX Series SLR Camera Models Message Board:
Tony Davies-Patrick (Globetrotter) (email@example.com); Mico Smiljanic (firstname.lastname@example.org);
Jay Hart (email@example.com); Philip Ashman (firstname.lastname@example.org)
| 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
for New/Used photographic equipment
on Pentax LX SLR camera
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.