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 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 replace film for the time being. A year or two down the road - when >> the cameras are getting to be like 486's or Pentiums - well, maybe... >> >> So I don't find today's digital offerings to be terribly compelling >> (despite the fact that I am really looking forward to the *ist D.) >> >> - - - - - - - - - - >> Mark Cassino >> Kalamazoo, MI >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> - - - - - - - - - - >> Photos: >> http://www.markcassino.com >> - - - - - - - - - - > >-- >"Honour - that virtue of the unjust!" >-Albert Camus > >
