gzisis69
Established
sorry for the late response but i have a problem with my laptop and i cant find all the fotos to upload them in better quality. I talked with many people and i think i found the reason i get some photos that are not that sharp. i am wearing glasses so sometimes i noticed that i cant see perfectly through the viewfinder to focus. what can i do to focus better ? maybe an eyecup or should i send the camera with lens to repair ? or should i try another camera ? i like the mx a lot and also the way it balances with the 1.7 but the focusing problem drives me crazy. it focuses but some photos are not tack sharp..
james.liam
Well-known
I'm with Doug on the ZK lenses. While the Zeiss 1,4/50 isn't my favorite, the 2/35, 2,8.28 and 2.8/25 are all superlative lenses.
CMur12
Veteran
I wear glasses with graduated lenses, so I have to get the right part of the eyeglass lens in front of the finder. It seems I just do it naturally. If you just recently got graduated lenses, you might just need to get used to them. If you don't have graduated lenses, then this doesn't apply to you.
I don't think an eyecup would help. In my experience, it pushes the eyeglass lens away from the finder. I only find an eyecup useful when viewing with the naked eye.
It's possible that there is a problem in the camera that is preventing accurate focus, such as a misaligned mirror or a focusing screen not properly inserted.
You might benefit from another thread here about cameras that are easy to focus:
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=171218
- Murray
Huss
Veteran
Try a diopter.
CMur12
Veteran
My thought is that a diopter won't work if gzisis69's glasses don't work. A diopter allows you to get your eye closer to the finder, which allows you to see more of the image, but it doesn't correct better than prescription eyeglasses.
The success of a diopter would also depend on if gzisis69 has astigmatism. I have a lot of astigmatism, so a diopter leaves too much uncorrected for me. Fortunately, I can see the finder well even with graduated eyeglass lenses.
- Murray
The success of a diopter would also depend on if gzisis69 has astigmatism. I have a lot of astigmatism, so a diopter leaves too much uncorrected for me. Fortunately, I can see the finder well even with graduated eyeglass lenses.
- Murray
Michael Markey
Veteran
Must admit I don`t find my MX among the easiest of cameras to focus ( my SL even more so) .
I wear glasses but have no trouble with focus peaking systems or my RF`s .
I wear glasses but have no trouble with focus peaking systems or my RF`s .
Then it is time to move onto autofocus.
Huss
Veteran
It depends on what g's eye condition is.
I've found that my MX is kinda hard to focus while wearing glasses as there is so little eye point relief. i.e. I have to have my eye smushed against the finder to see everything clearly. Wearing glasses forces my eye to be further back than ideal.
This is where cameras with big eye relief like the Nikon F3HP are great.
So, it may help, depending on g's needs.
Going off on a tangent - the one thing that bugs me about the MX is the very long film winder lever throw...
Jeremy Z
Well-known
Is it possible you're just itching for a new camera/system and inventing some flaws to help justify it? If so, just admit it and let's move on; we've all been there. ;-)
I had the Pentax-A 50/2, which was not considered their best 50, but it was still excellent. I think any lack of sharpness or contrast is probably attributable to something else: processing, camera shake or subject movement, etc. Or maybe the lens is dirty or fungusy or something?
If you want something newer, the Zeiss Planar is not it. It was designed in 1896. (and is still considered excellent today) I had the 50/1.4 T* Planar for my Yashica FX-3 Super back in the 90s, and it was great, but not any better than any other 50 mm prime I've had. (50/1.9 Yashinon, 50/2 Pentax-A, 50/1.8 AI-S Nikkor, 50/1.4 AI Nikkor, 50/1.8 Canon FD, 50/1.7 Rokkor, 50/1.8 Zuiko...)
I had the Pentax-A 50/2, which was not considered their best 50, but it was still excellent. I think any lack of sharpness or contrast is probably attributable to something else: processing, camera shake or subject movement, etc. Or maybe the lens is dirty or fungusy or something?
If you want something newer, the Zeiss Planar is not it. It was designed in 1896. (and is still considered excellent today) I had the 50/1.4 T* Planar for my Yashica FX-3 Super back in the 90s, and it was great, but not any better than any other 50 mm prime I've had. (50/1.9 Yashinon, 50/2 Pentax-A, 50/1.8 AI-S Nikkor, 50/1.4 AI Nikkor, 50/1.8 Canon FD, 50/1.7 Rokkor, 50/1.8 Zuiko...)
BernardL
Well-known
YES! Three weeks, considerations on the "character" of Zeiss, Leitz, and whatnot, a number of people trying to help, five dozen posts, to reach this:
gzisis69
Established
i saw a lot of fotos on internet, talked with many friends who have many cameras and i decided to try to find it with my pentax. If others can make good use of it i must be able to do so too. i want to send the camera and the lenses for a good cla. i live in germany. Does anyone knows a good repair shop ?
Jeremy Z
Well-known
I had one of those for a short while. It was a great design; Pentax really had a nice touch.
I think I did the same thing, but went to a Nikon FM first.
I liked it and missed it so much, I recommended it to a friend. It crapped out on him for no obvious reason, and he promptly went and got a Nikon SLR.