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 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 > - - - - - - - - - - > > >
