Thomas, Short reply to a long question:
Either get the MZ-S or Go digital. For that, you might as well wait just a bit longer to see if the *ist D is going to do the job for you or not. You mentioned you like small cameras and the digitals are not that small. So the *ist D might be up your alley. Bruce Saturday, June 7, 2003, 11:54:40 PM, you wrote: TH> Hello Folks, TH> I am an enthusist photographer, not a professional, but I take a lot of TH> pictures. Landscapes, autos, and lots of close up to macro stuff, like TH> flowers, knives, and bits of machinery. TH> I prefer inanimate objects, but have taken good pictures of people if TH> they forget I'm there and I can take many shots of them. If I "love" TH> the subject (again usually inanimate objects) I often get what I TH> consider awesome photos. TH> I "never" use flash (okay maybe a little fill-in if I absolutely _have_ TH> to, but it makes me feel like I've failed somehow). I usually use ASA TH> 400-3200 unless I'm shooting for detail where I'm "forced" to use ASA TH> 25-100. I like low light, night and early morning. TH> I like small compact cameras. I could never get used to a F3HP, it was TH> just too big and clunky! TH> I typically use a metered "manual" mode even if AE or SE or a program TH> exposure mode is available, but I'd use AE if I needed to. I want to TH> compose and set exposure with the lens wide open, then have it close TH> down when I shoot. TH> I prefer the, oh I don't know what to call it, the drama or focus of TH> B&W photography and I "see in B&W" but I have a really good color sense TH> (like matching colors, using complimentary colors - I even taught TH> ceramic underglazing) so if I take my time I've made good color TH> pictures, but usually of slower moving subjects like flowers ;-). TH> Once I bought a Epson Color 800 and now my new Epson 2200, I've taken TH> to having my B&W negs or color slides scanned (PhotoCD and a friend's TH> Nikon CoolScan). Then I use Photoshop and make my own prints. I'm in TH> the market for my own film/slide scanner. TH> I started with my Dad's Leica IIIg with a 50mm Summicron (if I remember TH> correctly) , which took "magical" pictures where the subject somehow TH> stood apart from the rest of the picture. I remember a remarkable roll TH> of casual shots I made of my little brother in his sandbox that came TH> out like I was a pro at LIFE magazine. TH> But when I was old enough to realize what I was holding, I got scared TH> and bought a Konica Auto S2 rangefinder, with which I created some my TH> best pictures, albeit after hours of cropping and exposure experiments TH> in the darkroom. (I will still take it out for barbecues or other TH> occasions where I don't want to bother with the SLRs.) TH> Then I was convinced to buy an SLR to use different lenses, and found a TH> whole world of close-up pictures, wide angle and telephoto. My tool was TH> a Minolta SRT-101 with a few MD lenses. I bought the body and the 50mm TH> lens and my Dad bought a 28mm and a 100mm, When I left home, I left the TH> Minolta behind. TH> When I could afford another SLR, I found the Pentax MX (with 50mm 1.4 M TH> lens) and felt like I had found the "perfect" camera. Bright viewfinder TH> with good coverage, unobtrusive LED metering and shutter speed TH> indicators and even the aperture showed with that little prism window. TH> DOF, mechanical shutter, that 1.4 lens, oh gosh I could go on and on, TH> as I'm sure most of you can imagine. :-) Soon came more lenses, TH> filters, macro, shades, a couple more MX bodies, winders and so forth. TH> I even played with an LX for a while, loaned to me, and I really TH> appreciated the more sensitive meter, and of course the quality of the TH> body, but I actually preferred the viewfinder of the MX. (I could not TH> afford an LX then, anyway!) TH> Now I seem to be at a crossroad, one you have probably travelled past TH> already, and I am hoping you can help me choose a path. As much as I TH> love my old Pentax equipment, it all seems to be getting awfully old, TH> and I keep having to send bodies out more often for repair and TH> adjustment, breaking those winder battery door screws, and even my baby TH> 1.4M doesn't mount like it used to. TH> One response (as it seems to me) is to buy more MX bodies and Pentax TH> SMC-M lenses, in the best condition I can find, and just keep going the TH> way I have been. TH> Another way to go seems to be to "move up" to a used LX body, as the MX TH> bodies are what is getting the most expensive and troublesome to TH> maintain, and keep collecting SMC-M or -A lenses. TH> But I can imagine circumstances when AF would extend my domain, for TH> pictures of fast moving objects that are difficult to keep in focus TH> manually. (Can you say Laguna Seca?) And I've made plenty of "metering TH> mistakes" that might have been prevented by the newer matrix metering TH> systems. TH> So, another way to go seems to be to step up to the plate and buy TH> either an MZ-3 (black) or an MZ-S, then start buying FA lenses. From TH> what I've read online there are some _fine_ FA lenses. I'm thinking the TH> 35mm FA f/2, 50mm FA f/2.8 Macro, 100mm FA f/2.8 Macro and 200mm FA TH> f/2.8 would make a good shopping list. But which body? Is the added TH> expense of the MZ-S worth it compared to the MZ-3? Remember I'm a TH> simple man, and not all that concerned with "Hyper" modes and so forth, TH> I'm just looking for a modern replacement for my MXs. TH> But do you think I'll be able to live with the newer bodies? I _read_ TH> that the viewfinders are no-where-near as bright as the old MX/LX and TH> if I found the LX finder a bit busy, I can imagine what I'll think of TH> the MZs. I live in sleepy Santa Cruz CA, so please don't advise me to TH> head down to my "local" camera shop and look at both of the MZ cameras, TH> there ain't no such thing. I haven't seen an MZ-S even in the "big" TH> camera shops in San Jose, and of course we don't get the MZ-3 here in TH> the United States. I did see an MZ-5n on the shelf, but they were "too TH> busy" to let me play with it. >8-[ TH> And then there's the D word! :-) It seems a bit early to me, but my TH> older brother has been using a C*n*n D60 and now a D10 with a bunch of TH> C*n*n lenses and swears by them. And since I'm scanning my film and TH> printing to an inkjet out of Photoshop, I certainly can't get on a high TH> horse about film resolution and so forth can I? Is this really the TH> answer? Move to digital rather than spend more monry on film based TH> bodies? TH> So what do _you_ think? TH> [ ] Keep buying used MXs ? TH> [ ] Buy a used LX? TH> Or do I move on to an AF body? And if I go AF, which MZ? TH> [ ] An MZ-3 (black)? TH> [ ] An MZ-S? TH> Or, TH> [ ] Move to digital (either now, C*n*n with RAW output, or wait for TH> the mythical Pentax D)? TH> Sorry for the rambling tale, but I thought the background might help. TH> Thanks for listening! TH> - THaller
