Hi! I have MZ-10 for the past year and have a strange problem of battery consumption being very very high. One set of batteries ( 2 pieces as recommended) does not last more than a role! When I showed it to the Authorised Pentax people here - they are giving conflicting opinions and so I thought I will try a simple test myself -- for which I bought a multimeter yesterday. Need a help/favor from anyone having MZ10 ( ZX-10) or MZ-50 ( ZX-50) ... can you please tell me the current consumption (in milliamp) when the camera is in idle (OFF) mode and when it is just SWITCHED.
Thanks and Cheers A On Fri, 11 Oct 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote : >pentax-discuss-d Digest Volume 02 : Issue 22 > >Today's Topics: > RE: Oh, 645! (dreamy sigh) [ gfen ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > Re: DSLR - I know, I know [ "David Brooks" ><[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > Re: DSLR - I know, I know [ Brendan ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > Re: Oh, 645! (dreamy sigh) [ gfen ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > Re: Re[2]: DSLR - I know, I know [ "Steve Desjardins" ><DesJardinS@wlu. ] > Re: Oh yeah? Well mine's bigger! (wa [ Christian Skofteland ><c_skofteland@ ] > Re: "PhotoJournalist Style" question [ Bob Blakely ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > RE: Re[2]: DSLR - I know, I know [ "Rubenstein, Bruce M >(Bruce)" <brub ] > RE: "PhotoJournalist Style" question [ "tom" ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > Re: Re[2]: DSLR - I know, I know [ Mark Roberts ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > RE: Oh, 645! (dreamy sigh) [ "MANGUM,MARK >(HP-USA,ex1)" <mark_ma ] > Re: 6mp Digital [ Cotty ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > OT: Time to upgrade! [ "Collin Brendemuehl" ><collinb@@safe ] > RE: Oh, 645! (dreamy sigh) [ gfen ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > Re MX [ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >] > Re: Oh, 645! (dreamy sigh) [ "Bill D. Casselberry" ><bcasselb@ore ] > Re: Digital! I got digital! [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] >(Heiko Hamann) ] >On Fri, 11 Oct 2002, MANGUM,MARK (HP-USA,ex1) wrote: > > Question 1, > > All the 645 screens are still available, check B&H > >Noted, I also ran across someone selling them on ebay, as well. I >was >hoping someone might have one, and a strap/lugs available for >sale here.. >Never hurts to try, and conviently enough, it is Friday.. > > > Qustion 3, > > The display is divided into two sections, MODE and >Settings. > > The top half is the MODE display, thats where you see 'AUTO' > > The bottom half displays the settings. It shows f-stop in >Av, > > shutter speed in Tv and ISO when the ISO button is pressed. > >Right, so those labels off to teh side of the display (Av/Tv/ISO) >don't >actually have any corresponding dots or something IN the >display? > >I don't think I'm explaining the question right, and perhaps part >of it is >just that I'm used to minmal things, and those screened on labels >don't >actually NEED to be there, other than ot say, "hey, these things >display >in this window" > >IE, the compenstation window says "EF" next to a window that only >has the >+/-# in it. The exposure window is labled "EX" and has nothing in >the >display except the number of shots. > > > The 645 has two different eye cups available, The standard eye >cup > > is round and screws onto the eyepiece. The large eyecup is >about and > > inch high and 1 1/2 inch wide. It screws on from the inside of >the > > eyecup by using a coin or such > >Bing! That's the screw I couldn't figure out. I was looking on >the bottom >and around it for where the screw was, withou noticing, as you >said, teh >eyepiece itself becomes the screw. > > > The manual explains all of this fairly well. > >Understood, but the graphics aren't very clear in teh webbed >version of >it.. the manual did, however, explain the strange pulsing >viewfinder >displays and why I was unable to dryfire with the insert in, but >no film. >Trust me, my initial bafflement was much longer before I read teh >docs. >Thanks for the compliment Brendan.Is that just because i'm >holding your >poster hostage<VBG> >Your correct,i still like to play with film,especially now that >i'm in the >develop and print stage of my life. >BTW when instructor says to put 10 oz of developer in the tank,HE >MEANS IT >not 8 or 9.<g> >Its amazing how many people want the 'instant gratification' >picture,but i >still say the quality is good.I think you and Aaron saw some >samples last >April ? >I don't have to worry about putting in grain on the Kodak HIE >film :) > >Dave > >----- Original Message ----- > From: "Brendan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 10:02 AM >Subject: Re: DSLR - I know, I know > > > > But Dave, the difference is that you are a real > > Photographer who likes film but shoots digital for > > buisness, not shooting digital for buisness and > > claiming to be a real photographer. Also the flip side > > is, people are willing to pay more for reduced > > quality, Dave you might not sell the blurry, out of > > focus images but others do!!!!! I actually have people > > not liking my work because it's to sharp, I have to > > intentionally soften prints ( B&W ) and make them > > grainy cause thats what they are used to. Digital is a > > great tool but it is reducing the value of the image, > > and placing more importance in technology. > > > > --- David Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I > > shoot my horse action stuff with both the Nikon D1 > > > and usually a K1000 of > > > SF-1.I'm getting around to finding faster Pentax > > > glass,but my 2 Nikon zooms > > > are both F2.8'. > > > I 'm one of these guys setting up computers at shows > > > and selling prints for > > > $20.00.If any are out of focus its because i'm not > > > paying attention and > > > shooting to late. > > > I dont sell those ones. > > > I inform every buyer about archival tests etc.Noone > > > has canceled an order > > > yet. > > > > > > Dave > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Brad Dobo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 4:06 AM > > > Subject: Re: DSLR - I know, I know > > > > > > > > > > Kevin, Bruce, > > > > > > > > ----- > Then for the low price of $8.95 they could > > > purchase one of more of > > > > > prints of the digital images. The prints were > > > 6x7. > > > > > On closer inspection the images were > > > > > blurred and often out of focus. This is no fault > > > of the camera but > > > > > of the photographer. The lens he was using was > > > far too slow to capture > > > > > anything moving without blurred hand or foot or > > > head.. > > > > > > > > > > It seems this photographer is one of many who > > > believe if you simply > > > > > pay mega dollars for a camera and a computer, > > > you can call yourself > > > > > a photographer. I can paint a fence, but I am > > > not an artist. > > > > > > > > When my brother played Junior A hockey here in > > > Ontario, they had a young > > > > (18-21yrs?) 'serious amateur' take pictures of > > > them on home games.. He > > > had > > > > quite a long telephoto (300-400mm?) and fast, > > > probably 2.8, used an older > > > > Nikon. As some of you know, it's a fast game and > > > getting that great shot > > > of > > > > a player in an indoor venue and small ice surface > > > with action without > > > others > > > > around (in the picture) is no small feat. The > > > parents and fans would buy > > > > them, he did the developing out of a van. They > > > were framed, with a nice > > > > mat/border? and the pictures were probably > > > something around 8x10. They > > > cost > > > > $50 a shot, but they were amazing. We have a > > > couple hanging around the > > > > house. Well worth it. Real quality. I suppose I > > > shouldn't call him a > > > > serious amateur, more of a professional. No > > > digital could compete with > > > that > > > > IMHO. > > > > > > > > > My sympathy lies with the parents and grand > > > parents who have > > > > > to pay these people to recieve second class > > > prints. For the > > > > > folk that payed up to $30.00 for and 7x10 (A4) > > > or purchased > > > > > the images for $20.00 per image I lament that > > > the archival > > > > > quality will be less than they expect and will > > > lose the > > > > > images quickly as the archival quality of the > > > prints comes > > > > > to the fore. > > > > > > > > > > Kind regards > > > > > Kevin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint > > > attachments. > > > > > See > > > > > http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html > > > > > Kevin Waterson > > > > > Byron Bay, Australia > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >______________________________________________________________________ > > Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca > > > > >Who said this has anything to do with a poster huh? ( >btw where is my poster!!!! my wall is waiting for it ) > > >--- David Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Thanks for the compliment Brendan.Is that just > > because i'm holding your > > poster hostage<VBG> > > Your correct,i still like to play with > > film,especially now that i'm in the > > develop and print stage of my life. > > BTW when instructor says to put 10 oz of developer > > in the tank,HE MEANS IT > > not 8 or 9.<g> > > Its amazing how many people want the 'instant > > gratification' picture,but i > > still say the quality is good.I think you and Aaron > > saw some samples last > > April ? > > I don't have to worry about putting in grain on the > > Kodak HIE film :) > > > > Dave > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Brendan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 10:02 AM > > Subject: Re: DSLR - I know, I know > > > > > > > But Dave, the difference is that you are a real > > > Photographer who likes film but shoots digital for > > > buisness, not shooting digital for buisness and > > > claiming to be a real photographer. Also the flip > > side > > > is, people are willing to pay more for reduced > > > quality, Dave you might not sell the blurry, out > > of > > > focus images but others do!!!!! I actually have > > people > > > not liking my work because it's to sharp, I have > > to > > > intentionally soften prints ( B&W ) and make them > > > grainy cause thats what they are used to. Digital > > is a > > > great tool but it is reducing the value of the > > image, > > > and placing more importance in technology. > > > > > > --- David Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I > > > shoot my horse action stuff with both the Nikon D1 > > > > and usually a K1000 of > > > > SF-1.I'm getting around to finding faster Pentax > > > > glass,but my 2 Nikon zooms > > > > are both F2.8'. > > > > I 'm one of these guys setting up computers at > > shows > > > > and selling prints for > > > > $20.00.If any are out of focus its because i'm > > not > > > > paying attention and > > > > shooting to late. > > > > I dont sell those ones. > > > > I inform every buyer about archival tests > > etc.Noone > > > > has canceled an order > > > > yet. > > > > > > > > Dave > >______________________________________________________________________ >Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca >On Fri, 11 Oct 2002, gfen wrote: > > I'm also trying tofigure out the "accessory hole for vertical >mounting" or > > whatever it was called does.. Its just to the top and front of >the > > vertical tripod socket. > >FYI: I saw no mention of it in the manual, before someone points >out that >I should read it. I swear, I did! >Bruce, > >Thanks for the tips. I'll pass them along to him. I certainly >agree >. . . . remove that step of the process. > > >Bruce > >Does anyone remember the Monty Python bit about the Austrailian >Philosophy dept. where everyone was named "Bruce"? >;-))) >The LX ;-) wasn't listed either..... > >By the way, it's a T-mount lens with a fixed f9 aperture. > >Let's see 600-1000 f9 would be probably more like f11 at >1000mm.... add a 2x >converter for an effective 2000mm f/32 (or f22 at best). So what >you're >looking through is a shaky dark tube. Try focusing on that >little bird in >the tree with that.... Not to mention the horrible color >aberrations and >soft images provided by cheap non-coated glass. > >Jeeez! $360 buck for that piece of crap. Who buys these >things? (B&H has >it for $299). For comparison, my 300 F4 APO Macro AF Sigma cost >$300... > >Vivitar makes one of the best 105mm macro lenses (Series 1), why >do they >cheapen their name with this abomination? > >Christian > >On Friday 11 October 2002 01:20, Brad Dobo wrote: > > Too bad, it doesn't list the MZ-S in there...and I was going >to buy it too > > > > :) > > > > Brad Dobo > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Debra Wilborn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 11:44 PM > > Subject: Oh yeah? Well mine's bigger! (was Re: Mmmmmm) > > > > > When I worked for the student newspaper, out > > > photographers had this *thing* about showing off their > > > big lenses, always trying to out-do one another. It > > > must be a guy thing. > > > > > > >http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1387632388 > > > > > > Deb in TX > > > > > > --- Shaun Canning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Someone want to lend me a couple a grand? > > > > > > >http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1387520130 > > > > > > > Shaun Canning > > > > PhD Student > > > > Department of Archaeology > > > > School of European and Historical Studies > > > > La Trobe University, Bundoora, Vic, 3086. > > > > > > > > Phone: 0414-967644 > > > > e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > > Do you Yahoo!? > > > Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More > > > http://faith.yahoo.com >In my home town, the local press photogs had their 35mm lenses >mounted on >their cameras so long I think they were rusted on. Oh yeah, the >shutter was >permanently positioned at f/8. > >Regards, >Bob... >Does the D100 have a control for contrast? Some digitals do. If >it does, it would make it less necessary to tweak things later. > >BR > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > He agreed, but said that he had hoped that > > taking digital images would basically remove that step of the >process. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Ok.. > > Here's the rub: > > what lenses would you suggest for a > > reportage/photojournalistic style of > > shooting for a wedding or event ? > > > > I've had a few people say that they would use "standard" > > lenses and only go > > as wide as 28mm. > > > > I just somehow keep thinking that 24mm may be ok but I > > could be totally > > wrong. > > > > What's everyone think ? > >This sort of photography is like any other sort of photography - >you >can choose to do your own thing, or you can try and copy what >other >people do. > >Do you like to shoot people with a 24? If so, go for it. > >For the available 35mm light stuff, I use the 24/2 and 85/1.4. >I >probably use the 24 more often. Of course, you have to get right >in >there. > >When I have to switch to flash, I'm generally using the >28-70/2.8. > >Bruce is right, you generally don't want to use something this >wide >with groups due to edge distortion. I don't like to go wider than >35 >for that sort of thing. > >tv >"Steve Desjardins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Bruce, > > > >Thanks for the tips. I'll pass them along to him. I certainly >agree > >. . . . remove that step of the process. > > > >Bruce > > > >Does anyone remember the Monty Python bit about the >Austrailian > >Philosophy dept. where everyone was named "Bruce"? > >;-))) > >It's hot enough to boil a monkey's bum in here! > >-- >Mark Roberts >www.robertstech.com >Photography and writing >The best I can remember is they are there for info only >purposes. > > > >Right, so those labels off to teh side of the display >(Av/Tv/ISO) don't > >actually have any corresponding dots or something IN the >display? > > >I'll look at my 645n and see if it's on that also. I can't recall >the >hole you're asking about but I only rented a 645 for 2 months >before >I decided that the 645 was the way to go (Sorry 67'ers). I then >bought >the 645n. > > > I'm also trying tofigure out the "accessory hole for vertical >mounting" or > > whatever it was called does.. Its just to the top and front of >the > > vertical tripod socket. > > >I might have a 645 strap with lugs at home, I'll get back to you >later. >Send me your email and we can take it OT if you want. > > > >Noted, I also ran across someone selling them on ebay, as well. >I was > >hoping someone might have one, and a strap/lugs available for >sale here.. > >Never hurts to try, and conviently enough, it is Friday.. > > > >Mark Mangum >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Okay, you've got me scratching my head. How can it be a real >print, if > >> it was made from a digital image? You need a light >transmitting negative > >> to make a "real" print. > > > >I would classify anything that's not an inkjet style print as >being a real > >print, as I was under the impression the new digital machines > from Fuji > >and Noritsu both just scan the negative/slide/raw jpeg image >and make them > >that way.. > >Dye-sublimation print?? > >Cotty > >____________________________________ >Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at >http://www.macads.co.uk/ >____________________________________ >Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! >http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps >____________________________________ >Going from 4x5 to 8x10. >(Yes, I found a bargain. What else?) >Got a bunch of 4x5 & 35mm stuff to part with: > >Busch Pressman 'D' $150 > Good condition. Far from perfect. Top rangefinder. > Very practical camera body with useful features. > With lensboard, no lens. > >Xenar 150/4.5 in Copal 1 $200 > Glass is perfect. Shutter is right on. > Shows a little paint wear. > Only one lack -- I had to make my own aperture scale. > But it does the job nicely. > (Close enough for government work?) > >Schneider Angulon 90/6.8 $200 > Shutter works fine. Glass is great. > >Majestic Tripod $250 > Geared head. Built like a tank. > Two-shaft legs. Raises up high for ease of use. > (I actually have 2 of these but need to part with one > to gather more funds for the unit.) > >Pentax MX with winder. $150 > Black body. > A bit rough but perfectly usable. > Meter is good. > (Actually the meter is off by 1 stop because > I have a brighter LX screen installed. > Set to ISO-50 to shoot ISO-100 film.) > >Slik macro focusing rail. $75 > Geared, bi-directional, locking. > Very solidly built. > >Film holders $50 > 10 4x5. Some old Graphic. Most modern. > >Kodak Ektagraphic III A $100 > Autofocus slide projector. > With Lens. 125mm/f3.2. > Includes a 140-slide tray. > >4x5 sheet film. $30 > Plus-X, Tri-X, & a bit of other stuff. > >More details & photos available on request. > >Collin >KC8TKA >On Fri, 11 Oct 2002, MANGUM,MARK (HP-USA,ex1) wrote: > > The best I can remember is they are there for info only >purposes. > >Works for me, that's kinda what I figured, but I wanted to ensure >the LCD >wasn't broken or misdisplaying while I've still got a chance to >send it >back. > > > I'll look at my 645n and see if it's on that also. I can't >recall the > > hole you're asking about but I only rented a 645 for 2 months >before > > I decided that the 645 was the way to go (Sorry 67'ers). I >then bought > > the 645n. > >There's two mystery holes around the tripod socket. One is inline >with the >socket hole, and towards the back of the camera.. perhaps that's >the >"accessory" hole, the other one is infront of the socket, and to >teh top >(inline with the corner), and is actually a little screw socket >covered by >a plastic disc.. Its not the PC cord hole, as that lives by the >back of >the camera. > > > >-- >http://www.eighteenpercent.com - >http://www.infotainment.org > photography - being no part of >it >Hello Francis > >The MX is 20 years old +/- all of these cameras will have rotting >foam in the mirror box and around the back. I know it's an >expense but I suggest getting the camera CLA'd anyway. You should >then be okay for another 20 years. It's worth it, a serviced MX >is lovely to use, particularly with an 85 f1.4 - which dwarfs the >little MX. > >I bought a mint- KX recently, a few months later I was in a shop >trying a lens that I was considering purchasing, using the KX as >the test body. When I took the lens off bits of rotten foam >dropped out onto the counter. The assistant wasn't impressed. > >Regards >Anton > >_______________________________________________________________________ >Freeserve AnyTime, only �13.99 per month with one month's FREE >trial! >For more information visit http://www.freeserve.com/time/ or call >free on 0800 970 8890 >gfen wrote: > > > There's two mystery holes around the tripod socket. One is >inline with the > > socket hole, and towards the back of the camera.. perhaps >that's the > > "accessory" hole, the other one is infront of the socket, and >to teh top > > (inline with the corner), and is actually a little screw >socket covered by > > a plastic disc.. Its not the PC cord hole, as that lives by >the back of > > the camera. > > probably an alignment hole for an accessory tripod plate. To > keep things from sliding around w/ long heavy glass. > > Bill > > >--------------------------------------------------------- > Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast > > >http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >--------------------------------------------------------- >Hi Anthony, > >on 11 Oct 02 you wrote in pentax.list: > > >The unfortunate situation (for Pentax and her fans) is that >C*n*n is a > >big-time manufacturer of electronic imaging systems and not >just for > >photographic applications. It's office products division is >BIG, by > >comparison the resources that it applies to digital photography >must be a > >mere blip on the balance sheet. > >You're right. At the moment Canon seems to be a technological >leader in >35mm photography. Not even Nikon has comparable USM or IS lenses. >But >Canon's strategy might be also quite risky: they must have >invested a >lot of money into research and development but I can't imagine >that a >11MP Canon 1Ds can compete with a 14MP Kodak that cost only a >half. So >Nikon is in a quite good situation - they don't risk too much >with new >but rapdily obsolete products. On the other hand Kodak is their >placeholder for the Nikon system. It might get really thrilling. >I've >got the feeling that most producers are waiting for the first >step of >the competitors. Or they simply wait for an acceptable >availability of >e.g. 10MP chips. But the future seems to be wide open... > > >AND YET it's efforts are enough to put them > >at the head of the digital pack. When a C*n*n imaging chip >becomes > >available, it is available to themselves first and exclusively. >The only > >way a competitor can compete evenly is to hope another >electronic > >corporation can get a similarly specified chip to market in as >timely a > >fashion. > >That's a point for Canon. Who else produces these chips? >Philips, >Canon,...? > > >OTOH Pentax is a customer for electronic imaging components. >It has to wait > >until a supplier develops a chip before a digicam can be >designed to > >incorporate it. > >This might be the reason for Pentax's joint ventures with HP >and >actually Casio. Comparable to Leica&Panasonic. > >... > >and is not fully sorted even then. In which event the much >touted new > >camera is below its competitors' benchmarks too early in its >life to return > >the investment made in it. > >Yes, but this might happen to Canon, also. Compare the new Eos >1Ds and >the Kodak DCS14n. > > >The bigger risk is that major imaging-chip developers would >rather direct > >their significant investments towards camera makers whose >customers are > >prepared to pay a fair price. > >I would pay a fair price;-) But you're right - the chip >manufacturers >will prefer those camera makers that promise a bigger market. If >you >measure Pentax's market potential by the market share of the MZ-S >as >only pro-modell, than Pentax won't be the number one candidate >for a >chip developer. So we have to hope, that the amount of >manufactured chip >increases rapidly and the competition between the chip >developers >changes the chip market from a seller market into a buyer >market. > > >The future keeps thrilling... > >Regards, Heiko
