I've decided that within the next year (specifically, before September 2005) I would like to move up to AF. This is mainly because I will be in Australia doing some shoots at the World Solar Challenge, where MF didn't quite cut it last time I was out. I'd also like to move into more sports, where AF would be a huge advantage.
My dilemma is this:
- should I stay with Pentax, or go with Nikon (I'm leaning towards a used F4)
- If I stay with Pentax, should I go with PZ1P or MZ-S?
I've read various reports here on the list of Pentax slowly pulling faster pro grade lenses. This has me concerned, as I will need those lenses later (e.g., 85/1.4 to replace my current MF 85/1.4, 24/2 to replace 24/2.8 I am using now, etc.).
The PZ1P and F4 go for comparable prices (albeit not comparable condition) on KEH, which I have been using as a quasi-benchmark for my price checks. No matter where I go, I will end up buying new lenses in AF to replace my current MF lineup.
From my research and contemplating the subject, here's what I've come up with:
Pentax:
Pro:
I can use my old MF lenses for now
Currently lenses are available, and used market is so-so for finding the fast lenses I'll need later
I am very familiar with the system, and the quality of the lenses; I will not have to change much in terms of darkroom work to compensate for a new lens "type"
If I find a good deal on an AF lens *NOW*, I can buy it and still use it on my Super Program
Has 3 of the 4 lenses I desire: 35/2.0, 24/2.0, 85/1.4
Con:
Pentax seems to be pulling out, and making pro grade stuff less available
ZERO rental support; if I need a particular lens in AF, I can't get it anywhere else, to my knowledge in Toronto, Canada
Pentax lacks a good mid-range telephoto (e.g., 135/2.0), although they do offer the 135/2.8 which is FA, not FA*
Nikon:
Pro:
F4 is a proven workhorse
Cost is comparable to PZ1P @ ~$500 for used body
TONNES of rental support
Has the key lenses I want: 35/2.0, 135/2.0, 24/2.0, 85/1.4
Con:
I'll end up starting from scratch in terms of lens lineup
Looking at side by side prints by myself and a friends F90X a few years ago, the Nikon had more contrast; this means more fiddling in the darkroom to get my procedure's down to the way I want them again.
My renting is a minor issue at the moment. No matter who I go with, my first lens will undoubtedly be either the 35/2.0 from Pentax, or the 35/2.0 D from Nikon, and from there work up to a mid-telephoto, wider zoom, then telephoto. However for sports and the like, I'll need longer and faster lenses, and this is a problem area for Pentax, only in terms of availability.
Build quality is a VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE. I'll be dealing with harsh environments: lots of bumping around, lots of jostling; extreme temperatures (-20 when I shoot at home up to 45+ when I shoot in the summer); lots of moisture (think dance clubs with 1000+ people all crammed into a tiny room, and everyone is sweating). When I came back from the outback last time, I had sand in my socks, which were *in my bag*, so I don't want to risk sand or moisture getting into the bodies. Lens build is also important. While I've been extremely happy with my all metal K-mount MF lenses, the newer Pentax lenses look pretty plasticy to me; I'm not sure how they'll hold up.
I'd like to here comments from anybody out there who has used PZ1P, MZ-S or F4. I love my Pentax system as it is, and have built up quite a collection of gear (a bunch of lenses, a bellows [ easily one of my favorite toys; I love Macro work ], motor drives, etc.) and it has treated me well. However for AF everything changes, mainly in terms of availability (Pentax has a small market share) and build quality (everything these days seems to be made of plastic).
Cheers, Patrick
