Re: anybody still shoot film?
On Sep 24, 2005, at 10:29 PM, Rob Studdert wrote: You'll have to forgive us, some here have been scanning personally and professionally for well over ten years. I myself am up to my 5th film scanner purchase (current is LS-8000) and my first film scans date back well over ten years. As have I. But scanning *twice* is not really a problem, which is what was implied by the original follow-up.
Re: anybody still shoot film?
I shoot a variety of film. My two SuperProgram's are using Delta 400 now, my RB67 uses a mix of FP4+ and Delta 100, and for Macro work (Pentax auto bellows) I'm starting to use Pan F+. I'm also investing in a film scanner soon, and I don't think I'll ever go the DSLR route. Why? If I shoot film today, and scan it in a 2700 DPI scanner, five years from now when I can afford a 5000 DPI scanner I can *rescan at 5000 DPI*. If I shoot digital today at 6.2 MP, five years from now when I can afford a 12 MP DSLR, I can't reshoot the photos I've already shot at 6.2 MP. Film makes sense; it provides a nice baseline against the ever-changing landscape of digital darkroom technologies. :) -p
Re: anybody still shoot film?
On Sep 24, 2005, at 2:57 PM, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Sat, 24 Sep 2005, Patrick Pritchard wrote: I'm also investing in a film scanner soon, and I don't think I'll ever go the DSLR route. Why? If I shoot film today, and scan it in a 2700 DPI scanner, five years from now when I can afford a 5000 DPI scanner I can *rescan at 5000 DPI*. I am choking at the possibility of scanning once. You are planning to scan twice? Not at the same time. I'm simply pointing out a fact: if you buy a DSLR now, you are locked down to that DPI, regardless of what comes out in the future. Besides, what is wrong with scanning twice anyways? Kostas
Pentax Buy Sell list?
Hello all. I haven't been on this list in a long time. It's nice to see that it is just as active as when I left. I'd like to know if anyone knows of a Pentax buy and sell list. On the Macintosh, there is a swap mailing list. Is there an equivalent for Pentax, or am I stuck with rec.photo.marketplace* variants and ebay? -Patrick
Re: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon?
On Tuesday, March 23, 2004, at 12:03 AM, tom wrote: It's been a few years, but iirc, it was pretty bad. It's nickname was the best manual focus camera Nikon ever made. *WOW*. Yes, I have received other eMails regarding this off of the list, and I hear it repeatedly. I haven't done much research into Nikon's AF yet, basing most of my opinions on the market share, which I know is a flawed approach. blush Technically. Nikon put out a few versions of AF between the F4 and F5. The only other alternative to F4 is an F100, but that brings me back up to MZ-S prices.
Re: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon?
On Thursday, August 23, 2001, at 03:13 AM, Alan Chan wrote: My dilemma is this: - should I stay with Pentax, or go with Nikon (I'm leaning towards a used F4) If I remember correctly, F4 was said to be the greatest manual focus camera ever. Yes, you read it correctly, I said manual focus. The first Nikon with good AF was F90 if I am not mistaken, and F90X which was a hugely successful model, then the F5 F100. The F801s which I had, had inferior AF to the Z-1p, and I would expect the same for previous models. My friend's F90X has slightly better AF than my Z-1p, but for some reason it also produces very annoying noise during AF. Yes. A friend had the F90 when it first came out, and loved the AF in it. I guess I was mistaken on my assumptions for the F4 then. Why bother Pentax or Nikon then? Why not go Canon to enjoy full USM IS capability? You would be fooling yourself to believe Z-1p or MZ-S offer the same AF ability as high end Canon. Being able to use IS without tripod is a big plus as well. I've never really liked Canon. Not sure why; I've used them, but then again only the lower grade stuff such as the Rebel X. Perhaps an EOS-1 might be better? Can anyone comment on the EOS-1 AF, or point me to some resources?
Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon?
Hello all. 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
Re: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon?
On Monday, March 22, 2004, at 10:48 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote: Along with that, even though the FA 135/2.8 isn't a * lens, it is built like a tank much like the * lenses. It's a very good performer. Is this true of most Pentax AF? Having never dealt with Pentax AF before, I'm not sure of build quality in general. My thoughts on Pentax are all based on older early 1980s gear, which as I said previously, has been excellent. My personal hunch is that the Nikon or Canon pro grade bodies are going to be more rugged and better at AF. Much as I love Pentax, for what you are describing, it may not be the best choice. -- Best regards, Bruce Monday, March 22, 2004, 6:28:50 PM, you wrote: AF By all reports the (P)Z1p is a dustcatcher. That could be a problem in AF central Australia. Rob Studdert could probably tell you what you need to AF know regarding this. If your choice is Pentax then the MZ-S might be AF better. It doesn't have gaskets against dust penetration as did the LX (and AF I think the top level Nikons) but is built to very close tolerances with the AF intention of resisting dust and moisture, or so I've read. AF regards, AF Anthony Farr AF - Original Message - AF From: Patrick Pritchard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hello all. 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? AF (snip)
Re: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon?
On Monday, March 22, 2004, at 10:18 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: Patrick Pritchard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've read various reports here on the list of Pentax slowly pulling faster pro grade lenses. What? Who posted that??? Well, it has been since March 16, 2004 since that is when I re-subscribed to the list. While no-one has given direct evidence, there was something anecdotal about ... when they run out of the glass they'll stop producing certain lenses ... or something along those lines. -Patrick -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon?
On Monday, March 22, 2004, at 11:15 PM, tom wrote: The AF on the F4 ain't exactly going to set the world on fire. If you want noticeably better AF you need to buy one of Nikon or Canon's current (or maybe a generation back) pro bodies. The mid level or older pro bodies aren't any better than the MZ-S. This I know. It isn't an issue of the AF being the top notch, but given that F4 was the flagship at one point, and a LOT of people used it, the AF can't be *that* bad, all things considered. MZ-S is still double the price of F4. And by your definition, isn't the F4 one generation behind the current pro line? Pro being F5? Or was the F4S somewhere in between? -patrick tv -Original Message- From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 10:48 PM To: Anthony Farr Subject: Re: Moving to AF: PZ1P or MZ-S? Pentax or Nikon? Along with that, even though the FA 135/2.8 isn't a * lens, it is built like a tank much like the * lenses. It's a very good performer. My personal hunch is that the Nikon or Canon pro grade bodies are going to be more rugged and better at AF. Much as I love Pentax, for what you are describing, it may not be the best choice. -- Best regards, Bruce Monday, March 22, 2004, 6:28:50 PM, you wrote: AF By all reports the (P)Z1p is a dustcatcher. That could be a problem in AF central Australia. Rob Studdert could probably tell you what you need to AF know regarding this. If your choice is Pentax then the MZ-S might be AF better. It doesn't have gaskets against dust penetration as did the LX (and AF I think the top level Nikons) but is built to very close tolerances with the AF intention of resisting dust and moisture, or so I've read. AF regards, AF Anthony Farr AF - Original Message - AF From: Patrick Pritchard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hello all. 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? AF (snip)
