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
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
Re: WHY PENTAX? WAS: Re: Pentax -- Canon
Yes - when you watch the camera meter move the setting all over the place, and then realize that you are just looking at different things in the same light, it becomes apparent that evaluative metering systems really can't do it. Aside from an incident meter (I should of used the correct term) just carrying a gray card and metering off it does fine. That's not to say that I don't use evaluative metering - one of the things I really like about the Mz-S is that with a quick flick of a switch you can see the exposures as set by evaluative, spot, and center weighted metering, and you can better understand what's going on. While one metering system may be more accurate in some circumstances than another, the degree of difference is pretty negligible. The whole idea of marketing is to What really impressed me was when I learned about the zone system in a class last year - not only in terms of determining exposure, but also in terms of integrating over or under development of the film into the exposure system. The fullness and accuracy of the system was a real eye opener - so far beyond something that one could expect a camera and a computer chip to do. - MCC At 10:03 AM 3/23/2003 +0100, you wrote: - 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 - - - - - - - - - - Mark Cassino Kalamazoo, MI [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - - - - - - - - Photos: http://www.markcassino.com - - - - - - - - - -
Re: WHY PENTAX? WAS: Re: Pentax -- Canon
Mark. This is one thing i never really had a handle on,up until 2 years or so ago. Having read many posts on the subject in those 2 years, made me realize how much i did NOT know about taking good pictures.Now that i understand light/metering better,i am taking better pictures(IMHOG) I too carry an ambient meter and now a spot as well.However now i seem to spend more time looking through meters than the camera. LOL Having proved to myself the metering differences in the camera and ambient i can now carry on trusting these readings and my own judgments.(I did this over the winter by taking one shot metered by camera and one by external meter.The difference is quite visibile) Thanks to all who have helped in this matter over the years. Dave Mark Cassino wrote:(snipped) I take a lot of photos. Most of them suck. Some are OK and once or twice a year I take one that seems to be good. Some time ago I went shooting with a friend who uses a Nikon F5. We were heading out to a lighthouse that was covered in ice - black steel, white ice, overcast sky. When we arrived I made some comments - mostly thinking out loud - about how to best meter for the situation. My friend just laughed and told me that his F5's metering was so great that he did not need to worry about stuff like that. I wound up taking a spot meter reading off of a surface that looked to be 18% grey, and based my overall meter readings on that. My friend did not have to worry about that - he was free to just shoot away and trust his camera to get it right. But at the end of the day, his shots were totally screwed up, mine were right on. Reflecting on it, I realize that the idea that not thinking about the correct exposure somehow liberates one to focus on composition is absolutely absurd. I mean, as a photographer, if you are not thinking about light, what *are* you thinking about? 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. Understanding light - a goal I hope to achieve some day - would be a far greater advantage than anything you can buy in a camera system. - - - - - - - - - - Mark Cassino Kalamazoo, MI [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - - - - - - - - Photos: http://www.markcassino.com - - - - - - - - - - -- Honour - that virtue of the unjust! -Albert Camus
Re: WHY PENTAX? WAS: Re: Pentax -- Canon
Paul wrote: Excellent post, Mark. I enjoyed it thoroughly. But one of your statements is an absolute falsehood. You wrote: I take a lot of photos. Most of them suck. Some are OK and once or twice a year I take one that seems to be good. I agree with Paul. I think your post explains why you often times come up with these breathtaking photos. You are always looking to improve both your work and your knowledge of photography. Your F-5 story reminds me of a boss I had at Ritz camera. He had the F-5 and the expensive lenses. By his own admission he knew little if anything of the mechanics of photography, and his work showed it, but he bought the f-5 for the superior metering. Your post has one other positive effect. I think I'm going to start using my handheld meter more often. BUTCH Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself. Hermann Hess (Damien)
Vs: WHY PENTAX? WAS: Re: Pentax -- Canon
Thank you Cotty (and Mark) for reminding us what this is all about. All the best! Raimo Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho -Alkuperäinen viesti- Lähettäjä: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Päivä: 23. maaliskuuta 2003 14:47 Aihe: Re: WHY PENTAX? WAS: Re: Pentax -- Canon Okay, now that I've calmed down, and read past the first paragraph (and commented thereupon in another post g), I have to congratulate you, Mark, for an excellent post. In a much more modest way, taking far fewer shots than I'm sure you do (I shoot, on average a roll or two a week), I try to improve what I do each time out. I try to learn from my mistakes, often re-shoot subjects when the opportunity presents itself, try to improve my compositiion, learn what the light's doing, and how I should react to it. It's been a long, slow process, but it's a large part of the fun (and frustration g) of this hobby of mine - and I know I have a long way to go. As many know here, my equipment is much more modest than yours (and many on this list); as much as I might like to have a few more things, I must say that I'm more or less satisfied with what I have in terms of satisfying my present needs. I use exclusively manual focus, mechanical shuttered gear (except for my Yashica Electro 35 and Minolta HiMatic F - both very old cameras). There are ~very few~ times that I'll critique one of my shots, and say, If I had another piece of gear, I'd have been able to nail that one!. Invariably, it's I didn't catch the light just right, or I didn't notice those shadows, or A slightly different angle/perspective would have worked better. Never, A N with auto-focus would have gotten a better result. I have a few friends who have much newer, more expensive equipment. They use their auto-focus gear as point and shoots. They take snapshots, and their work shows it. I could probably take pretty much the same stuff I do now with many other systems. As much as I love my Pentaxes, it really is the photographer behind the viewfinder that takes the shot. That's not to say that I take issue with those who say that C or N have better auto-focus, or quieter bodies, or better exposure systems - that may or may not be true. I just wonder if switching systems will make anyone a better photographer, or improve their images significantly. Again, Mark, thanks for a wonderful, well thought out commentary. cheers, frank Mark Cassino wrote: I take a lot of photos. Most of them suck. Some are OK and once or twice a year I take one that seems to be good. The idea that a different brand of camera would somehow change this equation strikes me as utterly absurd. The failure is always within me - I don't SEE, I look at the object but not the light, I don't have the presence of mind to make the obvious decisions. To me, each and every unsatisfactory photo is a kick in that ass to dig deeper into myself and learn more. So I spend time in the library learning about my subject, I scout out locations and plan shots more vigorously, I try to imagine what shot will actually express what a want to say and how that could be achieved. Putting my energies into getting a new camera system, or this lens or that, would just be a distraction. It would be easier and less challenging - but it would accomplish nothing. My Pentax system has served me very well. I have lenses to cover 14mm to 800mm**, and everything in between. I can count the items I bought new on my fingers and had no problem finding or buying things off ebay, KEH, Cameta, or other used photo outlets. ** (The 800mm is an A* 400 f2.8 and matching Smc-2x-L teleconverter.) I use my gear in pretty demanding circumstances and aside from my used LX, nothing has had any problems. Just to put that in perspective - I carry three bodies in my standard kit, another when I take the birding / telephoto kit, and have 4 more k mount bodies in reserve. I shoot in rain, fog, snow, mud, - it's not like I'm in a war zone but I give the cameras a good workout. They have nicks and scratches, but have held up just fine. I have no problems with the Pentax system. The only feature that I would like to see is image stabilization, which might be useful for a few shots. Otherwise, the AF in the Mz-S is spot on. USM would be nice and quiet, but doesn't seem to be that significant. (If you really need quiet, use a rangefinder.) With the Pentax system I have mirror lock up in the bodies I use most often (Mz-S, Pz-1p, LX), a low light metering system that simply cannot be beat (LX), and cool lenses that offer great creative opportunities (F-17-28 fisheye, Rikenon 55mm f1.2, Kiron 104 f2.8, and Takumar 500 f4.5). Pentax AF bodies also offer trap focus, which I find to be an invaluable tool. Some time ago I went shooting with a friend who uses a Nikon F5. We were heading out to a lighthouse
Re: WHY PENTAX? WAS: Re: Pentax -- Canon
Same here. I have owned and used Practica (first SLR), Canon, Olympus, Nikon and Pentax. Price is not the issue. Feel, size, interface and SMC glass are issues. There are a few situations where more technology is helpful, but for what I do, not many. Pentax technology has been adequate in those situations for me. I have ridden out the dissatisfaction storms on the list many times. During a storm, I get a little worked up and start to question a bit, but find that once I calm down and really examine what I am doing and need, that Pentax is just fine. Presently I am shooting an MX and 67II - having recently sold my 2 MZ-S bodies. All my glass is FA for 35mm so I don't have the issue with the *is that many do. I had planned on picking one up when it is released and will look closely at doing so. I am probably not typical because I have purchased most of my equipment new and have used both old and new bodies with enjoyment from both styles. Bruce Saturday, March 22, 2003, 12:36:04 PM, you wrote: SH I know that is not true for me Bruce. When I started using Pentax I had used SH and given up on Nikon and then Olympus (inconsistent metering, frequent SH expensive repairs to recalibrate), Canon seemed gimmicky, Minolta seemed SH primitive, Pentax seemed easy to use and had a good reputation. When I SH resumed photography after a few years lapse, I bought an AF body and stuck SH with Pentax because I remembered my Nikon experience, Canon seemed gimmicky SH and complicated, Minolta seemed primitive, and the PZ-1p not only looked SH nice and felt good but also allowed me to use my old lenses. A minor bonus, SH but still important. I never asked the price on any of the cameras along the SH way, it just was not a factor. SH Stan SH on 3/22/03 1:52 PM, Bruce Rubenstein at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For all but a handful of people here, cost is the first 3 reasons for Pentax. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For me it is cost at the moment.
Re: WHY PENTAX? WAS: Re: Pentax -- Canon
Well stated Mark. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Mark Cassino [EMAIL PROTECTED] Snip, snip, snip I take a lot of photos. Most of them suck. Some are OK and once or twice a year I take one that seems to be good. The idea that a different brand of camera would somehow change this equation strikes me as utterly absurd. The failure is always within me - I don't SEE, I look at the object but not the light, I don't have the presence of mind to make the obvious decisions. To me, each and every unsatisfactory photo is a kick in that ass to dig deeper into myself and learn more. So I spend time in the library learning about my subject, I scout out locations and plan shots more vigorously, I try to imagine what shot will actually express what a want to say and how that could be achieved. Putting my energies into getting a new camera system, or this lens or that, would just be a distraction. It would be easier and less challenging - but it would accomplish nothing. My Pentax system has served me very well. I have lenses to cover 14mm to 800mm**, and everything in between. I can count the items I bought new on my fingers and had no problem finding or buying things off ebay, KEH, Cameta, or other used photo outlets. ** (The 800mm is an A* 400 f2.8 and matching Smc-2x-L teleconverter.) I use my gear in pretty demanding circumstances and aside from my used LX, nothing has had any problems. Just to put that in perspective - I carry three bodies in my standard kit, another when I take the birding / telephoto kit, and have 4 more k mount bodies in reserve. I shoot in rain, fog, snow, mud, - it's not like I'm in a war zone but I give the cameras a good workout. They have nicks and scratches, but have held up just fine. I have no problems with the Pentax system. The only feature that I would like to see is image stabilization, which might be useful for a few shots. Otherwise, the AF in the Mz-S is spot on. USM would be nice and quiet, but doesn't seem to be that significant. (If you really need quiet, use a rangefinder.) With the Pentax system I have mirror lock up in the bodies I use most often (Mz-S, Pz-1p, LX), a low light metering system that simply cannot be beat (LX), and cool lenses that offer great creative opportunities (F-17-28 fisheye, Rikenon 55mm f1.2, Kiron 104 f2.8, and Takumar 500 f4.5). Pentax AF bodies also offer trap focus, which I find to be an invaluable tool. Some time ago I went shooting with a friend who uses a Nikon F5. We were heading out to a lighthouse that was covered in ice - black steel, white ice, overcast sky. When we arrived I made some comments - mostly thinking out loud - about how to best meter for the situation. My friend just laughed and told me that his F5's metering was so great that he did not need to worry about stuff like that. I wound up taking a spot meter reading off of a surface that looked to be 18% grey, and based my overall meter readings on that. My friend did not have to worry about that - he was free to just shoot away and trust his camera to get it right. But at the end of the day, his shots were totally screwed up, mine were right on. Reflecting on it, I realize that the idea that not thinking about the correct exposure somehow liberates one to focus on composition is absolutely absurd. I mean, as a photographer, if you are not thinking about light, what *are* you thinking about? 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. Understanding light - a goal I hope to achieve some day - would be a far greater advantage than anything you can buy in a camera system. One of the things I really value about Pentax is that they never mislead me. My Pentax cameras are quality products with the essential features I needed, but I was never conned into the shallow thought that the camera was somehow going to do it for me. So I think your plan is right on. Look into yourself and stretch your understanding and your vision. Spend your money on film and trips to the locations you want to shoot. Develop your own style, get unique shots, and do it with your Pentax gear. If you understand light, if you have vision, if you have a relationship with your subject, then camera brand is irrelevant. If you lack understanding, then dickering around about camera specs is as good a diversion as any other. Snapshots taken with the latest and greasiest camera system would probably be really good (for snapshots.) - MCC PS: In the digital realm, while I love digital photography and figure that film will die before I do, today's high end camera remind me of the 286 and 386 computers of the mid 80's. They seemed real impressive at the time, but a year later were obsolete. I'll provably pop for an *ist D, but it won't
Re: WHY PENTAX? WAS: Re: Pentax -- Canon
HI! PJ From the exchange of e-mails below from Roland Alan, PJ why are we using Pentax?? Doesn't sound like a PJ good system to buy into, and even long-time PDMLer's PJ are making arguements against it. PJ For me it is cost at the moment. I just expanding on PJ my manual Pentax stuff slowly. I'd rather put my $$$ PJ in film, trips, and marketing my work than a new PJ system that may not improve my photography hugely PJ (though this will change I'm sure). PJ Any thoughts? It wasn't cost for me. I had my budget and one way or another I was going to spend it. It was partially backwards compatibility and partially (laugh and/or point you fingers at me all you want) it was the comparison of PDF booklets for MZ-5n/MZ-6/Nikon F-80. My wife and I really liked Pentax ergonomics versus that of Nikon. Also my friend who convinced me to buy 50 mm lens (thanks, thanks, thanks to him) has Nikon N-70 - very unusual camera to operate. In my position the choice hasd little meaning - anything I'd buy would take pictures way better than I was taking ever before. In fact, I find all this talk about Pentax vs Canon because Bojidar decided to make Canon his main tool rather strange. Everyone has their needs and buys equipment accordingly. Later I met penta-club forums (Russian spoken) and PDML. Naturally being able to talk with fellow Pentax users is great. Though I am certain there're Canon and Nikon forums of one design or another. Anyway, it boils down to this: my choice was pretty much random but really don't regret it. Furthermore, if I had to do it all over again with the experience I have at the moment, I'd buy couple of ME Supers, one 50 mm, one 28 mm, and one 135 mm prime lenses of any reasonable flavor. Then I'd add some regular zoom just for some flexibility in weight. The rest would have been spent on film and practice. Now you have my cents. --- Boris Liberman www.geocities.com/dunno57 www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=38625
Re: WHY PENTAX? WAS: Re: Pentax -- Canon
På søndag, 23. mars 2003, kl. 06:36, skrev Mark Cassino: At 11:38 AM 3/22/2003 -0800, you wrote: For me it is cost at the moment. I just expanding on my manual Pentax stuff slowly. I'd rather put my $$$ 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? I take a lot of photos. Most of them suck. Some are OK and once or twice a year I take one that seems to be good. The idea that a different brand of camera would somehow change this equation strikes me as utterly absurd. The failure is always within me - I don't SEE, I look at the object but not the light, I don't have the presence of mind to make the obvious decisions. To me, each and every unsatisfactory photo is a kick in that ass to dig deeper into myself and learn more. So I spend time in the library learning about my subject, I scout out locations and plan shots more vigorously, I try to imagine what shot will actually express what a want to say and how that could be achieved. Putting my energies into getting a new camera system, or this lens or that, would just be a distraction. It would be easier and less challenging - but it would accomplish nothing. I find several good points here, the camera system is, after all, just a tool. I don´t think the trademark on the camera has much influence over a good photographer. Most of the worlds greatest photographs have been made using cameras without any automatic features. Why we use Pentax is a difficult question. For my part, it simply because my father had this nice screw mount Pentax 135mm 2.5 with a K adapter, and I could borrow it if I bought a Pentax. I´ve continued using it because they never failed, though rain or snow, in rain forests or during week-long expeditions tenting in the Norwegian mountains with temperatures down to -20 C. Also, after more than 20 years I guess I´ve adapted to their way of thinking. It´s convenient, I don´t have to think much to get the pictures I want. As a result I like the equipment they make. Why should anybody want to change? Maybe Pentax have their disadvantages, but I´m lazy, I think the others have different problems and I don´t want to have to think to much about technical things when taking pictures. I stick to the devil I know. Also, I guess I should say Hello! I´m new here, although I´ve been watching the archives for some time. Jostein Øksne convinced me last week that I should subscribe. So I guess you´ve got one more Norwegian here :-) Dag Thrane
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
Re: WHY PENTAX? WAS: Re: Pentax -- Canon
From: Peter Jansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 11:38:56 -0800 (PST) why are we using Pentax?? The optical character of the lenses (low flare, nice colour rendition, lifelike images). Ergonomics, handling, compact size and low weight Fast AF performance and accurate metering systems Easy to find 2nd hand gear at low prices (K, M and A, F and FA are harder to find 2nd hand, but when found - they often has a low price) Few compatibility problems with 3rd party lenses Design The sound of the shutter And - finally - value for money. Best wishes, Roland _ Hitta rätt köpare på MSN Köp Sälj http://www.msn.se/koposalj
SV: WHY PENTAX? WAS: Re: Pentax -- Canon
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
Re: WHY PENTAX? WAS: Re: Pentax -- Canon
Artur wrote: Remember - it's all about taking pictures after all... If I come to any other conclusion, I'l let you know:) Well said Artur. Like I mentioned earlier, unless the latest and the greatest can improve your photography immensely, then??? --- Artur_Ledóchowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Peter Jansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: WHY PENTAX? WAS: Re: Pentax -- Canon From the exchange of e-mails below from Roland Alan, why are we using Pentax?? I've been thinking of it for quite a while. So far I've come to two basic conclusions: - the backward compatibility has always been the most important Pentax feature for me. I love the idea because it allows me to use various 3rd-party weird lenses like 20mm, 16mm Fisheye, 35mm shift, bellows/extension tubes etc that have the basic version of the K-mount and so are cheap enough for me. I simply cannot afford the respective Pentax orginal products... I also love the idea of using the same lenses (i.e. ONE set of lenses) with my Z-1p and SuperA, as I carry both of them with me almost every time. All of the above constitute the reason of my fear of the possibility of abandoning the backward compatibility by Pentax (I'm reffering now, of course, to the rumours of the *ist) - as I'm not a pro, I simply don't need, not to mention can't afford, features like USM, IS etc... AF is a device that is supposed to automatically focus a lens and the Pentax AF is good enough for me in doing its job - it's fast and sensitive and I can switch to the manual focusing if the AF is too loud. And because I always use central sensors (or array of sensors like in MZ-5n etc), I don't need zounds of sensors placed across the whole image field. I also believe that more metering segments doesn't necessary mean better exposure metering. I consider the both 6- and 8-segment matrixes by Pentax to be very good and don't need any 45-segment matrix or something... Regards Artur __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com
Re: WHY PENTAX? WAS: Re: Pentax -- Canon
On March 22, 2003 04:56 pm, Peter Jansen wrote: Well said Artur. Like I mentioned earlier, unless the latest and the greatest can improve your photography immensely, then??? Depending on what you're doing latest and greatest varies from a big yawn to essential. For me it's all a yawn. I've got a camera with 22 of bellows draw that I can stick a pretty big lens on. All it needs is a heavy old fashion tripod. When it comes to the 35mm world all those added features are just added wasted weight for me. If you need them you need them. I don't. I've no need. No interest. I don't understand the need for people to convert others. Use what fills your needs. If that's not enough use what excites you. BUT understand different people have different needs,wants,fetishes. Nick
Re: WHY PENTAX? WAS: Re: Pentax -- Canon
On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 11:38:56 -0800 (PST), you wrote: From the exchange of e-mails below from Roland Alan, why are we using Pentax?? Right now I'm storing Pentax gear, not using it, except for an occasional photo using a bellows and the D100. But that will change soon. I'll again be a full-fledged Pentax aficionado when the *istD arrives, assuming it is as good as I think it will be. When I used film, Pentax was the proper choice for me. The PZ1p was (and still is) the best camera I ever wanted. Ergonomically designed and full-featured, it beat the competition in every category that mattered to me. I kept three of them around all the time. The *istD will make or break my continuation with Pentax. I don't intend to go back to using film. For example, today the wife and I went to the Desert Botanical Gardens, where I shot the equivalent of ten rolls. The photos are downloading into a folder as I type. No muss, no fuss, no expensive film, no wait for developing, no scan time, no negs or prints to store. Just the pure enjoyment of taking pictures and viewing them. I still think Pentax has a lot to offer for photo hobbyists. But I'm not going to be one of those who say stick with Pentax because I still like one particular discontinued camera. Pentax will succeed or fail with or without my business. I hope they succeed, because until last year Pentax never failed to provide me with excellent photo equipment at the right price. I also hope Pentax succeeds with a first-rate DSLR because I have a boatload of Pentax lenses sitting unused in the closet. -- John Mustarde www.photolin.com
Re: WHY PENTAX? WAS: Re: Pentax -- Canon
Since Roland was defending Pentax, I saw little or no need to defend as well. I just tried to point out the flaws of Pentax. That doesn't mean I don't like Pentax, but trying to say Pentax isn't perfect. Just think it this way, if Pentax were so perfect, why most people used Canon Nikon? It is important for anyone or any company to recognize their shortcomings and improve upon them. If they even failed to pin point admit their flaws, what hope do they have? This is something to think about. regards, Alan Chan 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 $$$ in film, trips, and marketing my work than a new system that may not improve my photography hugely (though this will change I'm sure). Any thoughts? _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Re: WHY PENTAX? WAS: Re: Pentax -- Canon
At 11:38 AM 3/22/2003 -0800, you wrote: From the exchange of e-mails below from Roland Alan, why are we using Pentax?? Doesn't sound like a good system to buy into, and even long-time PDMLer's are making arguements against it. For me it is cost at the moment. I just expanding on my manual Pentax stuff slowly. I'd rather put my $$$ 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? I take a lot of photos. Most of them suck. Some are OK and once or twice a year I take one that seems to be good. The idea that a different brand of camera would somehow change this equation strikes me as utterly absurd. The failure is always within me - I don't SEE, I look at the object but not the light, I don't have the presence of mind to make the obvious decisions. To me, each and every unsatisfactory photo is a kick in that ass to dig deeper into myself and learn more. So I spend time in the library learning about my subject, I scout out locations and plan shots more vigorously, I try to imagine what shot will actually express what a want to say and how that could be achieved. Putting my energies into getting a new camera system, or this lens or that, would just be a distraction. It would be easier and less challenging - but it would accomplish nothing. My Pentax system has served me very well. I have lenses to cover 14mm to 800mm**, and everything in between. I can count the items I bought new on my fingers and had no problem finding or buying things off ebay, KEH, Cameta, or other used photo outlets. ** (The 800mm is an A* 400 f2.8 and matching Smc-2x-L teleconverter.) I use my gear in pretty demanding circumstances and aside from my used LX, nothing has had any problems. Just to put that in perspective - I carry three bodies in my standard kit, another when I take the birding / telephoto kit, and have 4 more k mount bodies in reserve. I shoot in rain, fog, snow, mud, - it's not like I'm in a war zone but I give the cameras a good workout. They have nicks and scratches, but have held up just fine. I have no problems with the Pentax system. The only feature that I would like to see is image stabilization, which might be useful for a few shots. Otherwise, the AF in the Mz-S is spot on. USM would be nice and quiet, but doesn't seem to be that significant. (If you really need quiet, use a rangefinder.) With the Pentax system I have mirror lock up in the bodies I use most often (Mz-S, Pz-1p, LX), a low light metering system that simply cannot be beat (LX), and cool lenses that offer great creative opportunities (F-17-28 fisheye, Rikenon 55mm f1.2, Kiron 104 f2.8, and Takumar 500 f4.5). Pentax AF bodies also offer trap focus, which I find to be an invaluable tool. Some time ago I went shooting with a friend who uses a Nikon F5. We were heading out to a lighthouse that was covered in ice - black steel, white ice, overcast sky. When we arrived I made some comments - mostly thinking out loud - about how to best meter for the situation. My friend just laughed and told me that his F5's metering was so great that he did not need to worry about stuff like that. I wound up taking a spot meter reading off of a surface that looked to be 18% grey, and based my overall meter readings on that. My friend did not have to worry about that - he was free to just shoot away and trust his camera to get it right. But at the end of the day, his shots were totally screwed up, mine were right on. Reflecting on it, I realize that the idea that not thinking about the correct exposure somehow liberates one to focus on composition is absolutely absurd. I mean, as a photographer, if you are not thinking about light, what *are* you thinking about? 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. Understanding light - a goal I hope to achieve some day - would be a far greater advantage than anything you can buy in a camera system. One of the things I really value about Pentax is that they never mislead me. My Pentax cameras are quality products with the essential features I needed, but I was never conned into the shallow thought that the camera was somehow going to do it for me. So I think your plan is right on. Look into yourself and stretch your understanding and your vision. Spend your money on film and trips to the locations you want to shoot. Develop your own style, get unique shots, and do it with your Pentax gear. If you understand light, if you have vision, if you have a relationship with your subject, then camera brand is irrelevant. If you lack understanding, then dickering around about camera specs is as good a diversion as any other. Snapshots taken with the latest and greasiest camera system would
