than I'm likely to use off the top of my head.
Steve Jolly wrote:
Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:
Shel Belinkoff wrote on 26.10.04 13:37:
Laughing at you? Nope, just smiling because you got hold of a neat,
classic camera. Remember, some of my "daily shooters" are even older than
the KX by quite a margin.
<<relief>> ;-)
I never had a K camera, but recently got to test and use a few that were
donated to the 6th Street Photo Workshop, where I volunteer and teach a
basic photo class. I was impressed by these swell cameras, and decided
that I want to get one for myself, and at some point down the line am
looking to have my very own KX or KM
Exactly that's what I felt when I held KX for the first time :-)
And, the person most responsible for this infatuation is .... Keith Whaley.
Keith donated a K1000 and a KM, and I ran a roll of film thru each, which
got me hooked. Using the KM was especially sweet - loved the DOF preview -
with an old K55/1.8 lens I found in the back of my closet. That lens has a
particularly nice character, not overly sharp or contrasty, but able to
resolve a good amount of detail. The K bodies and some of the K lenses
make a wonderful combination, so much so that I just grabbed a nice looking
K50/1.4 off eBay (I've always wanted that lens but missed a few
opportunities) to supplement the 1.8
K50/1.4 would be nice... But what do you think about K50/1.2??? I suspect it
is quite soft wide open, but I wouldn't care if I'd have more opportunities
to take unblurred photos at dark places ;-)
The 50/1.2 lenses are only 1/3 of a stop faster than the K50/1.4, and *much* softer wide open - you'd be far better off pushing the film 1/3 of a stop to get the extra speed.
S
--
I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime.
--P.J. O'Rourke
