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 : Jay (email@example.com)
Url : http://
Date : 11:29 AM Wednesday 21 September, 2005
Velvia Pro 100. The reviews on color and object reality versimilitude (believability in context) rendering are not good coming in on this latest transparency ISO 100 emulsion scheduled to totally replace the ISO 50 Velvia emulsion at the end of the year. I think Fuji is carried away on the grain structure as objectifying the load for this film's credibility alone, and may be brain dead on the reasons Velvia 50 was embraced by so many professionals for so long. The film seems to emulate what presents as problems on some digital sensor and central camera processor combinations: with strange color, contrast presenting a weird reality rendering, out of this world results, etc.
Lets hope Kodak does not drop its extra color high saturation emulsions in the shift to digital, though it has drastically cut back on film production. At least they do not seem to appear from another planet. I am wondering if some kind of organization of professional users worldwide does not need to emerge to collectivley address these manufacturers with our ongoing needs. The marketplace by nature, and camera user loyalty interests by nature have permitted R and D to continue offering innovative and numerous repetitive products at a competitive pace, but, often without directly considering their audience--past and present--as to what constitutes reality and actual professional need. The manufacturers advertising has led us as consumers for years on a path of gear lust, gear desire, and gear bells and whistles stimulus-response. Now we see annual models on inkjets, in addition to bikes and skis.
Certainly we have benefitted from the technical quality emerging from competition. However, considering how long 35mm has been around and useful, it is appalling that we continue to be led by what the eye sees and responds to through advertising and product reviews, without real input avenues to the design process and product development process as a central factor of meeting real and evolving user needs. 35mm has suvived for decades as a high quality creative medium, and, in the process, offered some walls and floors to the camera industry, its focus, and its regard. Is it time for a professional photographer consumer government body to form?
Losing the common denominator of a solid common small format to link manufacturers to users of various levels of sophistication is now proving costly, by letting only the manufacturers determine what will be in the marketplace. Will we be duped to take any result of a marketing stance by a film maker just to have film available? We need Velvia as it was, not as it is set to be. It is going surrealistic. Can we now rally to form a consensus for professional user expression through formal associations and avenues of response to such rampant uncontrolled capitalism to change such outcomes? The gear development model we have accepted to date is to consider and comment on what the makers make, how these products work or do not work well, and what we will then purchase. Is it time to form new alliances to communicate with these cadres of equipment use choice-without-choice?
Will marketing methods alone now determine what may require our considered reassembly for restoration for a considered propriety as to and acceptable and decent standard for professional photographers to embrace? What then can be offended professionals common cause, in spite of their various equipment and manufacturer preferences and loyalties? How shall we respond to this latest insult on our integrity of use? Shall we accept this imposed disadvantage to what has been, or, shall we now address its fragmenting and disorienting nature? --Jay2. From : Philip Ashman (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Url : http://
Date : 04:08 AM Saturday 17 September, 2005
Thanks very much Jay. I had obviously not considered it that way and it is more than likely that for my purpose a simple upgrade to the bargain dual 1V from the dual 111 would suffice and be a good investment. I'll have to check my bank balance again, but may well do as you suggest. Appreciate the advice, most welcome. Cheers Phil3. From : Jay (email@example.com)
Url : http://
Date : 01:43 PM Friday 16 September, 2005
Phil, I was also attempting to say that the Minolta Dimage IV is a worthwhile upgrade as well. It has the density, the 16 bit option for detailed workup selection, and renders well: all just with a little less resolution than the more expensive unit. It is a bargain, really. And that is tricky, because for 95% of scan uses it is better than most of the competition, and far better than the original elite scan or the Dimage III. It would serve as a champion until film is not available. --Jay
4. From : Philip Ashman (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Url : http://
Date : 07:39 PM Thursday 15 September, 2005
Thanks Jay, I have indeed toyed for a while now with the idea of upgrading my scanner to an Elite 5400, but cost is now an issue having spent what I had spare on the *istds. I will, however, still keep it as a probable option when funds do hopefully become available. It is annoying having made a scan as best you can only to find that it in no way comes close to the quality of the original slide, even when it is only for web posting. Anything that would be a significant improvement would indeed be a bonus and worth the investment. With autumn almost upon us I'm now looking forward to my LX loaded with velvia 50 and some trips out in the countryside far from the madding crowd! cheers all. Phil5. From : Jay (email@example.com)
Url : http://
Date : 06:28 PM Wednesday 14 September, 2005
Phil, Unfortunately, Minolta did not add effective color and shadow depth to their scanner line for effective digital file results quality until making the Dimage IV. Prior to this change results indeed did disappoint. My original Minolta Quick Scan 35 too lacks the depth I find inherent on the Elite 5400 and Elite II 5400 (manufactured ten years later). The effective density now achieved is greater than that of the original film on the present Dimage units, and the Elite 5400 series scanners. Nikon too makes good scanners, with acceptable snap and density. --Jay6. From : Philip Ashman (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Url : http://
Date : 04:06 PM Wednesday 14 September, 2005
Thanks Jay for your comments and advice. I certainly agree that if I was to move from purely an amateur pleasure photographer to a pro wishing to achieve publication (chance would be a fine thing!) then I would need to reconsider matters as to future camera choices for the reasons you state. Not to say that should Pentax bring out a far superior 35mm DSLR that I won't upgrade, but for now I'm happy and enjoying the *istds tremendously. I do have a Dimage Scan Dual 111 for converting my LX slide images to digital, but I am not too well skilled at scanning and although I can produce fairly acceptable large MP file scans from velvia 50 and sensia 100 slides, I am often disappointed with the results. That may of course simply be me not having the required skills as oppose to any equipment failings! LOL.
I have noticed that the new Pentax 645 digital camera is due out soon and although I have never used anything other than 35mm, I may well be having a look at that as nothing ventured, nothing gained and it would be nice to try a larger format.
Phil7. From : Jay (email@example.com)
Url : http://
Date : 04:41 AM Wednesday 14 September, 2005
The final sentence of the first paragraph of my last posting should read
There are pixel upgrade multiplcation software add-ons available for Photoshop and Corel Photopaint, but, to get to 48MB from 18MB [NOT 18MP, as was erroneously posted] does not rerender pixel detail well for publication use. One can go to agencies to buy better resolution and detail technology fixes, but this is expensive and unnecessary where the original shot is 8MP or higher.
8. From : Jay (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Url : http://
Date : 04:37 AM Wednesday 14 September, 2005
Also, I concur with the comments on the *istDs, DL, and DsII: that these are very high quality compact SLRs for good imaging use. It was not too long ago that a 6.1MP was at the high end of professional availability in any small format digital camera. But, 8+MP is more applicable to professional use, due to needed pixel upgrading software use required to achieve higher MB files for publication requirements. Recall that I was using a 6X4.5CM 14+MP back for several years for publication purposes and found that all pixel image upgrade programs needed at least 8MP to start with to achieve full magazine spread layout quality as rerendered accordingly. End use determines how many in-camera maximum rated pixels one really needs. I know shooters who shoot portraits and weddings quite successfully with the named Pentax D SLRs (however, not above A4 without some special expensive computer imaging lab digital rerendering processes). Publication use usually requires a 48MB file. Three times 6.1MP simply cannot deliver the quality they require via an 18MB file: for most magazine and publication uses. There are pixel upgrade multiplcation software add-ons available for Photoshop and Corel Photopaint, but, to get to 48MB from 18MP does not rerender detail well for publication use. One can go to agencies to buy better resolution and detail technology fixes, but this is expensive and unnecessary where the original shot is 8MP or higher.
Small format film scanners can take one's image via digital scans imaging files to wall size and better, so film will be used by professionals for probably another decade for such demands. After this, undoubtedly, digital sensors and in-camera processing chips will excel over today's finest films. --Jay9. From : Jay (email@example.com)
Url : http://
Date : 04:15 AM Wednesday 14 September, 2005
Sorry to have not commented on the charger. Save the end of the cord which plugs into the battery pack, cutting it a few inches away from the charger. Then locate the information on its connectors--as to what they carry--for the charger's replacement (see the Pentax USA website on literature or publications for this information if it is not in your available information at hand). You can then trace out those wires and splice and solder on a new charger/transformer by proper polarity output alignment. The system was not self regulating, in that the charger is always on. So, any modern AC Digital Universal Adaptor, which covers the voltage and mA output rating (or greater) of the original charger/transformer unit, most likely will substitute for the original charger (as soldered onto its battery pack connector).
AC Adaptors are now available as digital universal inherently regulated adaptors, usually with selectable voltage output, and with increased mA ratings (from 1200 to 2500mA is not uncommon). I got one at USD 13.00 recently, for another application. --Jay10. From : Jay (firstname.lastname@example.org)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 : 04:06 AM Wednesday 14 September, 2005
The Austrailian LX website (Digital Studio? If you look for a posting a year back or so, I put up a listing of a quantity of applicable LX websites for all our readers here, including that one) has a sub-selection which shows step-by-step how to replace these motordrive batteries yourself--while upholding the integrity of the battery pack through the process. As for a supply of the actual battery, they specify its battery code, so it can be obtained from any professional electronic or battery supply outlet, online, or in a big city. Even so, if I were doing what you describe needs doing, I would replace the nicads with the more modern alternatives in the same battery class (but with the highter 2000+ MA batteries now abvailable). --Jay
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.