>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 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
- - - - - - - - - -
