Notes From The Top Left Corner

I tried to avoid mentioning earlier in this thread that, in my bid to clear out a number of cameras, I managed to divest myself of one, but somehow acquired three. One of those was a little Sony that has been converted to full spectrum. The second one was the fulfilment of a long held wish.
When the postman came to our front door, I told him that I had been waiting to hear that particular knock since 1987, because that's how long it is since I first decided that I wanted to own a Pentax LX.

Pentax LX.JPG
My wife has owned a beautiful Pentax MX, which I bought for her in the early 1990s and I am able to use this almost any time I please but I find it too small for me - despite having fairly small hands, I like my cameras to be a bit larger than that.
I managed to get hold of this LX for a very nice price. It was serviced last year and had spent its life as a little used spare body owned by a retired professional photographer.
For those who don't know, the LX is the only professional 35mm slr that Pentax made and it was stuffed full of innovation as well as most of the things that people expect from this level of camera. It has full weather sealing on all of the controls, interchangeable prisms and focussing screens, a body finish that is almost indestructible (black paint over black chrome!), mirror lock-up, a massive and bright viewfinder, brilliant metering system etc, etc.
One thing you find out pretty quickly as the owner of an LX is that, although Pentax made a bewildering range of accessories for the camera, the prices they now fetch are pretty eye watering. One of these was a grip that attached to the accessory studs on the front of the camera, which sold for the price of £14 back in the 1980s. They are just a moulded plastic construction with a steel plate screwed to the rear, which are slotted to accept the studs and there is a screw fastening near the bottom. These are commonly priced between £60 and £100, which is clearly madness, so the grip shown in the photo above is a 3D printed device that was made for me by some enterprising soul in Poland.
The camera is everything I hoped for. The size is perfect for me and it has a reassuring density without being too heavy. It feels utterly intuitive to use and the results I have got from it are great.
Very happy!
 
Well, that's a positive review. We look forward to seeing what comes out of it. I dare say you have enough lenses that will fit, but that 50mm 1.4 makes as good a combo as any. What took you so long?
 
Well, that's a positive review. We look forward to seeing what comes out of it. I dare say you have enough lenses that will fit, but that 50mm 1.4 makes as good a combo as any. What took you so long?

Hi Rob, yes I have quite a large range of good lenses that will work with it. Mischa has been acquiring some of the stunning Pentax Limited models of late, for her digital camera, but sadly these lack the aperture ring that I need for the LX.
What took me so long? I don't know...other priorities, making do with what's to hand or cheap, opportunistic purchases, the desire to experiment in a low risk fashion, all that and more maybe. Whatever it is, I kind of feel as though I don't need to buy any more 35mm cameras now - perhaps ever, hence my resolution to clear a few out.
 
That sure sound like a glowing review. Look forward to seeing what you can do with it.

I'm over the moon with it, Dave. I have had it for a few months now, so there are quite a few photos here that I have taken with it, but I will try to remember to note the camera used when I post a photo from it from now on.
 
I decided to discover whether Ilford Delta 3200, shot at 1600, is preferable at night to Delta 400 at the same speed and my suspicion was that the 400 would be preferable. This would be an easy test to do with a camera with a normal range of settings, so just for fun, I took a Zeiss Nettar that only allows a choice of 3 shutter speeds and a maximum aperture of f/4.5. No tripod!

I went to Lancaster railway station and shot a roll of each. They were both developed in the same tank of 1:100 rodinal for a semi-stand development, so there were no variables whatsoever from that aspect of the experiment.
Images are unedited.


FILM 1

1 delta test.JPG

2 delta test.JPG

3 delta test.JPG

Pretty sure there's some camera shake in this last one but I wanted to include it here because I took the same scene with the other film.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I did. It went in The Big Purge, when I sold everything except the Konica Hexar and a Mamiya 6 Folding Camera, and the money raised paid for a Leica Q2M.
Looking at my files, the only Nettar image I can find was taken by Rhona, my daughter. I like it:

Zeiss Nettar.jpg
 
Last edited:
Yes, I did. I went in The Big Purge, when I sold everything except the Konica Hexar and a Mamiya 6 Folding Camera, and the money raised paid for a Leica Q2M.
Looking at my files, the only Nettar image I can find was taken by Rhona, my daughter. I like it:

View attachment 17116
That's great. Every time I use mine, I'm inspired by its capabilities.
 
I'm thinking that set 1 is the Delta 400, I'm thinking the contrast and deep black shadows is resulting from the push.

I rather like the last shot in set 2, nice angle and good lighting.
 
I am a bit late here.

From an image quality point of view, the second set are the best. But for atmosphere, the platform shots from the first set work best for me, they feel rather creepy.
 
Film two for me. Nice experiment, and useful. Pretty crisp for hand held at night. TUO YAW! :)
Tuo yaw indeed!
Thanks for your thoughts, Brian. I've been meaning to compare the two films like this for a while because I have often thought the whole existance of Delta 3200, which is alleged to only be an ISO 1000 film anyway, is a bit questionable. I like Delta 400 and see no reason to buy the 3200. I suppose one could repeat the test at 3200. I have one roll left....
 
A fine set of studies of the empty station: I do love atmospheric images of places 'out of hours'. I do like Delta 400 and it was always my go-to film and I only reverted to the slower variant when there was too much light. I never really warmed to the high speed variant, but always proffered to push HP5 instead. As for these images, I prefer the extra atmosphere provided by the grain of the pulled 3200, but I prefer the contrast the the 400. Now if only you'd pushed some HP5 to 1600! ;)
 
No posts here since November! Here's something I've been doing in the interim.

I did a 'roll swap' with a friend. Peter Kay, who has made a couple of contributions to 35mmc.
We shot the same roll of film twice. I went first, loading a Pentax Super A with a roll of Fomapan 200, with ISO set to 400 in order to underexpose by a stop. I used a Pentax SMC M 50mm f/2 and an SMC M 135mm f/3.5 and went into Lancaster with the aim of shooting it all in an afternoon. When it was finished, I reloaded the film and handed it over to Peter. There were no rules other than to stick to shooting in landscape orientation. The only collaboration was for me to tell him that I had forgotten the only rule and that he should shoot frame 8 in portrait.
I've done this a few times but, on this occasion, there were a remarkable number of 'good' frames.

River and Canal
52883271415_97cff47c17_b.jpg
 
No there's an interesting idea. Double exposures can often lead to some surprisingly interesting outcomes, even when done in error. The above is a good example and by swapping the film you force randomness on the outcome: clever. I assume there must be some slight frame misalignment, but I assume you crop that away in post do you?
 
Back
Top