SV: WHY PENTAX? WAS: Re: Pentax -- Canon

2003-03-23 Thread Jens Bladt
Right Arthur.
Offcource if you sue a tele lens, the caera meter will often do a better
job.
I once saw a broadcast about a project, where street children were
photographing with a
K1000 and an incident light meter. The shots were brilliant. Since then I
usen my Lunasix a lot.
Regards
Jens
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Artur Ledóchowski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 23. marts 2003 10:03
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: Re: WHY PENTAX? WAS: Re: Pentax -- Canon


- Original Message -
From: Mark Cassino [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: WHY PENTAX? WAS: Re: Pentax -- Canon


These days I carry an ambient
 light meter with me at all times.  That's not because Pentax can't meter
 accurately. That's because no reflective light meter will be as accurate
as
 an ambient light meter.

Absolutely! This is what I'm going to do in the nearest future - get an
incident light meter, exactly due to the reason you've stated. Actually I
must say, that I tend to use matrix metering less and less. I prefer to use
spot metering+ML button (with my Z-1p) and I'm perfectly happy when using
the SuperA with its c/w metering. But the incident light meter allows me to
maintain total control over exposure and its readings are incomparably more
accurate...
Regards
Artur



SV: WHY PENTAX? WAS: Re: Pentax -- Canon

2003-03-22 Thread Jens Bladt
Hi
Ther are many reason for staying with Pentax or buying into a Pentax system.
These are some of them, IMO:
Durability (they may brake if you drop them - otherwise hardly ever - more
than 80% of my repair cost were my own fault)
Reliability, yet cutting edge technology
Long time lens mount compatibility (use 30 years old lenses on brand new
camera or vise versa)
High quality glass - and still reasonably affordable
Brilliant user interface; few buttons, no gimmicks; made like tools, not
toys
Models don't change too fast (supporting repair for many years)
Huge number of used lenses and accessories available of many brands
(K-mount).

If you have 10.000 USD you could buy any camera equipment.
If you have 1.000 USD, buy a Pentax and e few lenses, and keep buliding up
your system over the next 3 decades

Regards
Jens

-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Peter Jansen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 22. marts 2003 20:39
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: WHY PENTAX? WAS: Re: Pentax -- Canon


From the exchange of e-mails below from Roland  Alan,
why are we using Pentax?? Doesn't sound like a
good system to buy into, and even long-time PDMLer's
are making arguements against it.

For me it is cost at the moment. I just expanding on
my manual Pentax stuff slowly. I'd rather put my $$$
in film, trips, and marketing my work than a new
system that may not improve my photography hugely
(though this will change I'm sure).

Any thoughts?




--- Alan Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 But Pentax has had 28-105's for a long time.
 FA 28-105 f/4-5.6, 28-105 f/4-5.6 (IF) and now the
 f/3.2-4.5.
 I don't understand you here.

 Aside from some Tamron rebadged zooms, the choice of
 true Pentax FA zooms
 are quite limited when compared to C, N  M. They
 have many good quality
 consumer zooms (I don't mean those truely low
 quality lenses), but Pentax
 was stuck with FA28-105/4.5-5.6, and now the
 FA20-35/4  FA24-90/3.5-4.5.
 Still, the choice is rather limited.

 My FA 135 f/2.8 is built like a tank, I'm sure that
 it can stand the attack
 of missiles. It's a full metal construction. I also
 like the build quality
 of my FA 28 f/2.8 and FA 50 f/1.7. They feels very
 solid with great
 mechanics. I like the build quality of my FA 28-105
 f/3.2-4.5. It's much
 more solid than my FA 28-70 f/4 was. So, FA lenses
 are *not* cheaply built
 - except from some consumer zooms.

 I can assure you the FA135/2.8 was not built like a
 tank. The focus ring
 feels truely bad, so to the FA100/2.8. These lenses
 have metal shells and
 quite ok, but it's no Nikkor AF lenses (similar
 lenses).

 The FA* 80-200 f/2.8 is more expensive than the
 competition, but the other
 lenses are not. In fact, some are even less
 expensive. The FA* 28-70 f/2.8
 is the least expensive 28-70 f/2.8 on the market
 from a major manufacturer,
 and the FA 28-105 f/3.2-4.5 AL (IF) is less
 expensive than Nikon AF 28-105
 f/3.5-4.5. The 50 f/1.4 is the least expensive 50
 f/1.4 on the market, same
 with is true for the legendary FA 100 f/2.8
 Macro.Well, they were when I
 checked Cyberphoto (http//www.cyberphoto.se).

 If I remember correctly, most FA* lenses were more
 expensive than Nikkor AF
 and similar to EOS equivalent. The FA*80-200 and
 FA*28-70 were selling like
 US$16xx  US$12xx respectively. The FA*200/2.8
 costed US$12xx too. The only
 truely affordable * lens was FA*24/2, and the FA*85
  FA*300/4.5 were
 selling at US$8xx. If you take into the account that
 EOS lenses had much
 better AF ability, the FA* lenses were overpriced
 indeed. Some of these
 lenses are cheaper these days, but at the same time,
 every manufacturers
 have moved forward and produced updated versions
 while Pentax is still
 selling the new old stocks at the lower but still
 not quite competitive
 price tags.

 But the entry level lenses are very plastic with no
 distance information
 scale. Canon even has plastic prime lenses with
 plastic lens mounts (like
 the 50 f/1.8). Now, all Pentax prime lenses has
 higher quality than that.

 But one EF50/1.8 doesn't represent the whole system.
 In fact, this 50mm is
 the only poorly built prime lens in the whole EOS
 line.

 this has never happened to any of my MZ-bodies.

 Because the whole thing is plastic, except the
 mount. They are ok for so
 long as you don't mount some rather heavy lenses on
 it and handle it rough.
 For heavy lenses, Z-1, Z-1p  MZ-S are the only
 choices.

 The more I use my MZ-5n, the more I like it. It's a
 beautiful camera.

 A well designed camera, but not without its own
 problem.

 regards,
 Alan Chan


_
 MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months
 FREE*.
 http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus



__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com