Re: Why Pentax?
Hi All! Wow! I didn't expect it to grow in such a large and interesting thread. I enjoyed reading all responses. Thanks to all who responded! Below is my response to Boris' questions/comments (somebody else also mentioned the same). Sun Jan 17 00:09:07 CST 2010 Boris Liberman wrote: In the last 2-3 years, I started taking photos at dance events, and that's where quick and accurate AF matters, and low light performance and an accurate flash are important. So, why am I still using Pentax, and buying new bodies and lenses? That's a good question. E.g. why don't you buy yourself a special (not Pentax) kit for low light (dance events) shooting? Assuming, of course, you've got the money. You got it, - since I am not being paid for this, - I do not feel I can buy a separate kit for low light. I looked at what is the price of a Nikon DSLR body that would do well in low light. I might be mistaking, but that alone was pushing $2K. Adding some reasonable analog of 17-70/4 or something of that sort and a flash, - that all together will go well over $3K. There is yet another factor. My wife has already suggested that we should get a mule, - to haul around the photo gear. As for Pentax, I am currently evaluating if I should exchange the K-7 for a K-x for a better low-light performance. Some say it outshoots all of its siblings and generally is the best low-light low-price offering on the market today. Since this is rather strong and broad statement, careful examination thereof is in order. I tried it this weekend, and I am interested to see the results on the large screen. But first I need to feed the dragons and clean out the volcanoes. I like that the choice of the AF mode, ISO and exponometry mode in the K-7 is done by physical switches, not via the menu. Good, but do you change AF mode, ISO and metering mode all that often at shoot-time??? Yes, for the dance events that I mentioned ( http://42graphy.org/swing ), I usually use AF-C. For shooting people standing, I switch to AF-S. I found a workaround for that: On *ist DS I was enabling AF-C via Sport mode when I needed to switch quickly back and force. ISO - if you want to switch between flash and no flash - you need to switch ISO. Even for no-flash photography, - I might switch ISO - in an attempt to minimize ISO if possible, and increase it more only when it cannot be done otherwise. I don't switch metering mode that often. I either keep it on Matrix, center-weighted (which, I believe, is green on K-7) or on center. Igor -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Pentax?
2010/1/17 Margus Männik mar...@eol.ee: The most surprising part is, that we don't take any less GOOD pictures than C, N, O or S owners MARK! -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: Why Pentax?
First camera was a Practika, then a Fujica - but my first real camera was a Pentax MX - I chose Pentax because at the time (back in 1980) it was considered a camera for artists - while Nikon and Canon were more the beaters for the pro snappers. I wanted to be associated with a discerning elite, not a gang of ruffians. Real arthouse photographers used Pentax gear and I loved that. My first SLR was a Zenit E, which one of my uncles gave me for my 18th birthday. When I decided I wanted a better quality camera I surveyed everything I could reasonably afford and the MX gave the best bang for the buck without forcing automation on me. At the time my best photo buddy had an Olympus OM-1, but I couldn't justify the extra cost of one of them over the MX. I can't remember which Nikons and Canons I compared, but they were much more expensive and gave you nothing extra, other than brand value for whatever that's worth. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: Why Pentax?
I was pointed to Pentax by a friend who owned one, and at the time I had my first camera, a Voigtlander Vito CD: nice camera, fixed lens but good quality, built-in rangefinder and selenium cell light-meter. I was intrigued by the possibility of more than one lens, and he was good enough to lend me his kit for a day or so to check it out. Result was, there being no way to buy cameras on the island we then lived on, another friend bought my SV for me on her way home via Singapore. When I got back to England a couple of years later, I started to get more lenses, so when I upgraded later, staying with Pentax made sense. In earlier discussions we've had in this group over issues such as AF speed, metering accuracy, write speed, the outcome has normally been that for some, these are deal-breakers, for others not. For me, they're not as not much of my photography is compromised by them: occasionally I'd like faster AF, usually when trying to take shots of speeding grand-children. Exposure accuracy on my film Pentaxes has always been good, and I find the *ist-D gets it right most often. I think it's always a case of YMMV, isn't it? John in Brisbane -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Pentax?
If Pentax had of come out with a Dslr back in 2000, 2001 when i decided to go digital with the equine work, i probably would have bought it. The only reason i went Nikon, and have stayed with them as well as Pentax, was it was basically the only choice at the time. The D1 was/is a nice big, heavy work horse, felt great in my hands and was a steal at $5000 used. I know Canon had the 20/30D series around then aswell. A used one presented itself and i took the bait. I still have my SP500 and K1000 as well as M42 glass. Just cannot bear myself to sell any of it. Dave On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 3:39 PM, wendy beard pointyp...@gmail.com wrote: The K7 looks nice :-) If I want decent low-light focusing, good continuous autofocus and accurate metering I have my Canons Wendy -- Documenting Life in Rural Ontario. www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ York Region, Ontario, Canada -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Pentax?
2010/1/16 Igor Roshchin s...@komkon.org: I would be glad to hear what others have to say about these thoughts. My Pentax history In the northern winter of '93/'94 I was travelling around Alberta B.C. with my dad, happily snapping away with my first SLR, Minolta SRT-101. It was an awesome trip I got to see my shots quite soon after taking them because we were having the film processed locally almost straight away (this is very cool when driving around meeting family and being able to show them photos from where you have been,and more importantly who you had just seen). Then one day I walked into a mall and made the mistake of visiting some hole-in-the wall photographic store. I picked up a brochure for the P/Pz-20. Much paging through said brochure saw me fall in love. My uncle took me to his local dealer in Red Deer (McBain Camera) some weeks later. The rest as they say is history. I had that camera and the FA 28-105mm PZ for many years and it served me well. I drifted away from photography. But my interest was rekindled with the news of the release of it *istD. I started shooting film again and I ordered my first Ltd. Lens (31mm) when I went in to pick up the lens, I asked to have a look at the *istD. Needless to say that that was a very expensive day. The purchase of that first DSLR saw me invest in a lot more glass. FA 31mm, FA 50mm, FA 77mm, FA 80-200mm f2.8, FA 200mm f2.8, FA 300mm f4.5.etc, etc, etc... Then came the K10D, followed by the K20D. The cameras were great, but my needs were changing and the persistence of high ISO noise sensor amp glow continually frustrated me. I've now been shooting almost exclusively with the D700 for about 18months. I've shot more frames on that body than I did with the K10/20D combined. I'm happy I made the change. Nikon glass is crap by comparison, but the quality of camera, and the IQ makes up for it. Cheers, Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Pentax?
My first SLR was an MX with an M50 f1.7 lens bought new in 1981 (before I know about second hand gear). I still own them. Since then I have been slowly buying new gear, upgrading and building up to my current kit. Every lens is Pentax (with the exception of 3 Olympus macro lenses I use on a set of bellows), flashes are Pentax. Yes there are idiosyncrasies to the gear, but we get to know each other and generally work well together. I've always liked the feel of the Pentax cameras and every Canon I've picked up feels horrid (to me at least). My slow approach to upgrading means that I could probably have changed brands completely over any given 4 year period over the past 29 years. Given the lenses I now own and the fact I have no desire to be parted from any of them (I only want the weather resistant 100 macro that will soon be released (Is there another brand with weather resistant lenses?)), I'm probably with Pentax for another 10 years at least. If there were no more Pentax and technology moved on to the point I felt I needed new gear I would look at Nikon and possibly Sony, but Pentax is not so far behind or so unreliable that I have any desire to change now. Leon MX, Super A, Z1p, MZ-S, *ist D and some modern stuff. 2010/1/16 Igor Roshchin s...@komkon.org: In view of various comments from people about K-7 and K-x, I've been thinking, - why am I shooting with Pentax? This is a summary of my thoughts - I'd like to hear what others think about this. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: Why Pentax?
have no desire to be parted from any of them (I only want the weather resistant 100 macro that will soon be released (Is there another brand with weather resistant lenses?)) Olympus -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Leon Altoff Sent: 16 January 2010 12:25 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Why Pentax? My first SLR was an MX with an M50 f1.7 lens bought new in 1981 (before I know about second hand gear). I still own them. Since then I have been slowly buying new gear, upgrading and building up to my current kit. Every lens is Pentax (with the exception of 3 Olympus macro lenses I use on a set of bellows), flashes are Pentax. Yes there are idiosyncrasies to the gear, but we get to know each other and generally work well together. I've always liked the feel of the Pentax cameras and every Canon I've picked up feels horrid (to me at least). My slow approach to upgrading means that I could probably have changed brands completely over any given 4 year period over the past 29 years. Given the lenses I now own and the fact I have no desire to be parted from any of them (I only want the weather resistant 100 macro that will soon be released (Is there another brand with weather resistant lenses?)), I'm probably with Pentax for another 10 years at least. If there were no more Pentax and technology moved on to the point I felt I needed new gear I would look at Nikon and possibly Sony, but Pentax is not so far behind or so unreliable that I have any desire to change now. Leon MX, Super A, Z1p, MZ-S, *ist D and some modern stuff. 2010/1/16 Igor Roshchin s...@komkon.org: In view of various comments from people about K-7 and K-x, I've been thinking, - why am I shooting with Pentax? This is a summary of my thoughts - I'd like to hear what others think about this. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Pentax?
As a practical matter, I'm not shooting Pentax anymore. I do have a K2 and a Cosina C1s along with 2 K mount and 2 M42 primes, 3 of which are Pentax lenses. All get used occasionally. Frankly, I like Pentax's glass better than Nikons, but dislike the lack of availability of the sort of lenses I prefer to work with (fast, smallish primes). Right now my primary systems are Nikon film, LTM/M mount film and 4/3/m43 digital. I've also got a bit of OM gear and some Minolta AF kit. I'm likely going to thin the herd this year but I haven't decided whether or not the last 35mm SLR system will be Nikon MF kit or Minolta AF kit. Sadly, Pentax just doesn't make the grade, there's just not enough options in Pentax bodies with the features I want: Good handling, available 3+ fps, good viewfinder, at least 1/4000 max shutter, AA or S76/LR44 batteries as an option at least). In fact there are exactly no options from Pentax with the features I want while there are several Nikon and Minolta options, the PZ-1p comes closest but fails on batteries, the MZ-S fails on fps, both are very expensive for their level of performance (particularly the MZ-S which was never a high-performance body). For digital I'm either going to stay with the Oly and Panasonic kit or move to a Sony FF/Panasonic m43 setup. I've been seriously impressed by the A900 and A850 and the latter is a steal compared to the competition. -Adam On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Igor Roshchin s...@komkon.org wrote: In view of various comments from people about K-7 and K-x, I've been thinking, - why am I shooting with Pentax? This is a summary of my thoughts - I'd like to hear what others think about this. In the past few weeks I realized that compared to other brand DSLR's Pentax DSLRs (even the flagman K-7) has serious problems. In crude terms: 1. The AF sucks. 2. The low-light performance sucks. 3. The P-TTL performance is inconsistent (I don't know how I-TTL/E-TTL etc. are in that regard - any comments?) So, I was re-thinking my use of Pentax. I started with ZX-5n back in 1997. The reason I chose it over Nikon was that I didn't like ergonomics of N70/F70, and couldn't afford N90. ZX-5n had incredible ergonomics, especially after coming from an all-manual SLR (Kiev-19) where I could set everything blind-folded; ZX-5n had all-analog knobs and buttons. Despite lack of continuous AF that is found in Nikon models, I enjoyed my ZX-5n greatly. When the time came to buy a DSLR, I thought if I should switch to a Nikon, but decided to get *ist DS. And I've been rather happy with it for over 4.5 years by now. Yes, the low-light performance has been bothering me a lot, and while until recently I didn't suffer much from the shortcomings of the AF, - I just learned to work around it. In the last 2-3 years, I started taking photos at dance events, and that's where quick and accurate AF matters, and low light performance and an accurate flash are important. So, why am I still using Pentax, and buying new bodies and lenses? While thinking about it, I recalled a very old joke about two worms. A son and his father are seating in a pile of bull sh.. manure, and talking: -- Daddy, is it nice to live in that grove across the field? -- Yes, son. -- Daddy, is there plenty of food over there? -- Yes, son. -- Then why, daddy, we live in this pile of bull sh..? -- Because that's our Motherland. ... I still like Pentax. I don't like at all the consumer line of Canons (Rebels etc.). I seem to like mid-line of Nikon's circa 2005-2008 but have almost no idea about their more recent (and higher) models. I've been looking at Panasonics that are highly regarded by some PDMLers, but I am not sure if they have that good AF and low-light performance. As for Pentax, I am currently evaluating if I should exchange the K-7 for a K-x for a better low-light performance. I just got a K-x that I will try in action during the weekend. My first impression of a K-x is that functionality- and layout-wise, it is very reminiscent of the DS. But I was rather disappointed by the lack of the small top status display. I don't mind the versitality of the AA's (I use them for the flash anyway). K-x is lighter, but compared to K-7 the feel a bit plasticy; more so than that for DS. I like that the choice of the AF mode, ISO and exponometry mode in the K-7 is done by physical switches, not via the menu. I would be glad to hear what others have to say about these thoughts. Igor PS. The obvious short response BS is not accepted. ;-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the
Re: Why Pentax?
I started with a ME in '78 and left the camera shop lusting for more lenses. I bought more of the M lenses, then a Super Program, then a PZ-1. Then I found this list and the house filled up with Pentax gear - screwmount to 67's. Digital has been a great for me and with the K-7, I no longer miss Kodachrome. Regards, Bob S. On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 7:34 PM, paul stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote: In 1973 the guy who drove the race car I wrenched asked me if I wanted to buy a screw mount Mamiya 1000 DTl and two lenses.: a Mamiya 55/1.8 and a Vivitar 200/3.5. I was just getting into magazine journalism, so I bought them. A year or two later I added a Vivitar 20mm/3.5 and a Mamiya 135/2.8. I used them for quite a few years, eventually replacing the Mamiya body with a Fuji and a used Pentax H3v. Made plenty of money with those cameras. In later years I cut way back on the journalism and the cameras sat for a while. But I was a screw mount fan, so some years later I bought a couple of Spotmatic Fs and a bunch of Pentax screw mount lenses. I even bought a Spotmatic Motor Drive. Then I thought I really ought to have an LX, then an MX, and of course more lenses. Got back into journalism and added still more lenses and bodies. Then came digital, so naturally I went with a camera that would mount all my K lenses. I'm on my fifth Pentax digital now. Love the K7. Low light is good enough for me. Wouldn't mind better autofocus, but I can make this setup work. I'd switch if I was shooting football or working a heavy photo-J beat, but for what I'm doing, Pentax is just fine. Still have a lot of my screw mount equipment. The Vivitar 200/3.5, which has some duct tape holding the manual/auto switch in place and plenty of cleaning scratches on the front element, has a place of honor in my displace case. Paul -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Pentax?
Sorry, I guess the WHY PENTAX is I fell in love with the camera and lenses early for compact size and quality. Later, this list hss played a big role in informing me about Pentax and giving me confidence in buying new Pentax offerings. Regards, Bob S. On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 8:24 AM, Bob Sullivan rf.sulli...@gmail.com wrote: I started with a ME in '78 and left the camera shop lusting for more lenses. I bought more of the M lenses, then a Super Program, then a PZ-1. Then I found this list and the house filled up with Pentax gear - screwmount to 67's. Digital has been a great for me and with the K-7, I no longer miss Kodachrome. Regards, Bob S. On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 7:34 PM, paul stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote: In 1973 the guy who drove the race car I wrenched asked me if I wanted to buy a screw mount Mamiya 1000 DTl and two lenses.: a Mamiya 55/1.8 and a Vivitar 200/3.5. I was just getting into magazine journalism, so I bought them. A year or two later I added a Vivitar 20mm/3.5 and a Mamiya 135/2.8. I used them for quite a few years, eventually replacing the Mamiya body with a Fuji and a used Pentax H3v. Made plenty of money with those cameras. In later years I cut way back on the journalism and the cameras sat for a while. But I was a screw mount fan, so some years later I bought a couple of Spotmatic Fs and a bunch of Pentax screw mount lenses. I even bought a Spotmatic Motor Drive. Then I thought I really ought to have an LX, then an MX, and of course more lenses. Got back into journalism and added still more lenses and bodies. Then came digital, so naturally I went with a camera that would mount all my K lenses. I'm on my fifth Pentax digital now. Love the K7. Low light is good enough for me. Wouldn't mind better autofocus, but I can make this setup work. I'd switch if I was shooting football or working a heavy photo-J beat, but for what I'm doing, Pentax is just fine. Still have a lot of my screw mount equipment. The Vivitar 200/3.5, which has some duct tape holding the manual/auto switch in place and plenty of cleaning scratches on the front element, has a place of honor in my displace case. Paul -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Pentax?
I'll always miss Kodachrome. sob.
On 1/16/2010 9:24 AM, Bob Sullivan wrote:
I started with a ME in '78 and left the camera shop lusting for more lenses.
I bought more of the M lenses, then a Super Program, then a PZ-1.
Then I found this list and the house filled up with Pentax gear -
screwmount to 67's.
Digital has been a great for me and with the K-7, I no longer miss Kodachrome.
Regards, Bob S.
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 7:34 PM, paul stenquistpnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote:
In 1973 the guy who drove the race car I wrenched asked me if I wanted to buy a
screw mount Mamiya 1000 DTl and two lenses.: a Mamiya 55/1.8 and a Vivitar
200/3.5. I was just getting into magazine journalism, so I bought them. A year
or two later I added a Vivitar 20mm/3.5 and a Mamiya 135/2.8. I used them for
quite a few years, eventually replacing the Mamiya body with a Fuji and a used
Pentax H3v. Made plenty of money with those cameras. In later years I cut way
back on the journalism and the cameras sat for a while. But I was a screw mount
fan, so some years later I bought a couple of Spotmatic Fs and a bunch of
Pentax screw mount lenses. I even bought a Spotmatic Motor Drive. Then I
thought I really ought to have an LX, then an MX, and of course more lenses.
Got back into journalism and added still more lenses and bodies. Then came
digital, so naturally I went with a camera that would mount all my K lenses.
I'm on my fifth Pentax digital now. Love the K7. Low light is good enough for
me. Wouldn't mind better autofocus, but I can make this setup work. I'd switch
if I was shooting football or working a heavy photo-J beat, but for what I'm
doing, Pentax is just fine. Still have a lot of my screw mount equipment. The
Vivitar 200/3.5, which has some duct tape holding the manual/auto switch in
place and plenty of cleaning scratches on the front element, has a place of
honor in my displace case.
Paul
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Courier
New;}}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to Thunderbird 3.0 and the
interface subtly weird.\par
}
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
Re: Why Pentax?
On 1/15/2010 11:22 PM, Subash wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 09:23:27 +0530
Subashpdml.l...@gmail.com wrote:
in fact, i got myself a k50/1.2 (which i still have) and an m28/2.8
months before i got myself the *ist DS. and a query about whether the
k50/1.2 was worth buying at about US$100 then was what brought me to
the PDML, circa september 2006 :)
what i actually wanted to add there was that i found pentax and PDML
almost simultaneously. fwiw, the PDML has been a major part of my
'pentax experience' :)
My condolences.
--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Courier
New;}}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to Thunderbird 3.0 and the
interface subtly weird.\par
}
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
Re: Why Pentax?
Mark! On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 7:59 AM, P. J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote: I'll always miss Kodachrome. sob. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: Why Pentax?
Why Pentax? It's the masochistic streak in me. My other system is Miranda. -- Steve Sharpe d...@eastlink.ca http://earth.delith.com/photo_gallery.html -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Pentax?
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 11:39:03AM -0600, William Robb scripsit: - Original Message - From: Igor Roshchin I would be glad to hear what others have to say about these thoughts. I like Pentax glass and I have a lot of it. This is a very strong incentive to stay with the brand and bleat at them until they come up with the perfect camera. Price/performance, notably viewfinder, lenses, and image quality. I don't seem to take pictures in conditions where the AF matters hugely (flying birds, but that's a the-challenge-is-half-the-fun situation anyway) or in light conditions where high ISO is of great concern. I don't own a flash. -- Graydon -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Pentax?
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:53:51PM -0600, William Robb scripsit: Pentax: It's excellent pilow stuffing. My dog won't let me near it so I can't use it, much less change systems. http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/pictures/newer_still/1719.html Took that with your camera phone, did you? Aside from the obvious situational merits, I really like how the colour palette works in that one. -- Graydon -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Pentax?
Call it brand loyalty but I simply like Pentax... It cannot be blind faith since I started out with a Minolta SRT-101 (my dad's) when I was 7 years old, got my own Olympus PEN-EE when I turned 10, then a Canon Datematic for high school then finally getting my hands on the Spotmatic by my senior year. I flirted with a Canon AE-1 during college but traded that for a MX in the mid-1980s and stayed with Pentax ever since. Occasionally, I would 'visit' other brands whenever I can borrow friend's cams: Nikon FM10, Minolta 505si(?), NIkon F3, Nikon 6006 (or was it 6060?), Canon 1000Fn, Nikon D100, D70s and I did work for a studio that assigned a Minolta Dimage A1 and a Canon 20D for my use. At the end of the day, with whatever real or perceived handicap or limitation that Pentax suffers from, I still like it. So there. PS The fact that Pentax bodies are assembled in the Philippines has nothing to do with it... On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 1:36 AM, Igor Roshchin s...@komkon.org wrote: In view of various comments from people about K-7 and K-x, I've been thinking, - why am I shooting with Pentax? This is a summary of my thoughts - I'd like to hear what others think about this. In the past few weeks I realized that compared to other brand DSLR's Pentax DSLRs (even the flagman K-7) has serious problems. In crude terms: 1. The AF sucks. 2. The low-light performance sucks. 3. The P-TTL performance is inconsistent (I don't know how I-TTL/E-TTL etc. are in that regard - any comments?) So, I was re-thinking my use of Pentax. I started with ZX-5n back in 1997. The reason I chose it over Nikon was that I didn't like ergonomics of N70/F70, and couldn't afford N90. ZX-5n had incredible ergonomics, especially after coming from an all-manual SLR (Kiev-19) where I could set everything blind-folded; ZX-5n had all-analog knobs and buttons. Despite lack of continuous AF that is found in Nikon models, I enjoyed my ZX-5n greatly. When the time came to buy a DSLR, I thought if I should switch to a Nikon, but decided to get *ist DS. And I've been rather happy with it for over 4.5 years by now. Yes, the low-light performance has been bothering me a lot, and while until recently I didn't suffer much from the shortcomings of the AF, - I just learned to work around it. In the last 2-3 years, I started taking photos at dance events, and that's where quick and accurate AF matters, and low light performance and an accurate flash are important. So, why am I still using Pentax, and buying new bodies and lenses? While thinking about it, I recalled a very old joke about two worms. A son and his father are seating in a pile of bull sh.. manure, and talking: -- Daddy, is it nice to live in that grove across the field? -- Yes, son. -- Daddy, is there plenty of food over there? -- Yes, son. -- Then why, daddy, we live in this pile of bull sh..? -- Because that's our Motherland. ... I still like Pentax. I don't like at all the consumer line of Canons (Rebels etc.). I seem to like mid-line of Nikon's circa 2005-2008 but have almost no idea about their more recent (and higher) models. I've been looking at Panasonics that are highly regarded by some PDMLers, but I am not sure if they have that good AF and low-light performance. As for Pentax, I am currently evaluating if I should exchange the K-7 for a K-x for a better low-light performance. I just got a K-x that I will try in action during the weekend. My first impression of a K-x is that functionality- and layout-wise, it is very reminiscent of the DS. But I was rather disappointed by the lack of the small top status display. I don't mind the versitality of the AA's (I use them for the flash anyway). K-x is lighter, but compared to K-7 the feel a bit plasticy; more so than that for DS. I like that the choice of the AF mode, ISO and exponometry mode in the K-7 is done by physical switches, not via the menu. I would be glad to hear what others have to say about these thoughts. Igor PS. The obvious short response BS is not accepted. ;-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Bong Manayon http://www.bong.uni.cc -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Pentax?
First camera was a Practika, then a Fujica - but my first real camera was a Pentax MX - I chose Pentax because at the time (back in 1980) it was considered a camera for artists - while Nikon and Canon were more the beaters for the pro snappers. I wanted to be associated with a discerning elite, not a gang of ruffians. Real arthouse photographers used Pentax gear and I loved that. A spate of cameras followed, including more MXen and LXen, and a slew of glass. But just a couple of years into this century I waited for Pentax to bring out a DSLR while Canon were introducing their second (the D60 after the D30) and changed after the MZ-D died. So how shallow am I ! But always wanting the best of both worlds, I took some Pentax glass with me to Canon, just because I could. I wish Pentax could reclaim that arthouse feel to the brand. Just a fond memory now. Ah well. -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche -- http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Pentax?
Cotty escribió: . I wanted to be associated with a discerning elite, not a gang of ruffians. Then why are you here at the PDML? ;-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Pentax?
Cotty wrote: Real arthouse photographers used Pentax gear and I loved that. You *are* submitting a couple of photos to the PDML Annual and photo exhibit, right? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Pentax?
Hi Igor: Great thread, and the responses have been fun to read. My own history starts with the MX, which regrettably I sold because of money. Then acquired a Canon T90 much later (which I still have), though didn't use it much. I stopped photography for a good long while, but years back I bought a little Pentax film point shoot (which I still have somewhere)--for honeymoon shots. With the digital boom, I purchased a Kodak P S and used that thing constantly until it died. I got another with more advanced features, and used that for a good long while, then one night I was on the net learning about DSLRs googled Pentax and decided on K10D--and I've never looked back. It would be fair to say that my positive experience with the MX greatly influenced a return to Pentax for a DSLR, and I've been very, very happy with my decision. I love the Pentax glass I have. And frankly, I can't complain about the two Pentax bodies I have. As I grow, I might have different demands, but for right now, I'm a very happy camper, I know I haven't used the K20D to its full potential. I look forward to the future with Pentax-- PDML, which has been a great adventure for me. Cheers, Christine - Original Message - From: Igor Roshchin s...@komkon.org To: PDML@pdml.net Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 11:36 AM Subject: Why Pentax? In view of various comments from people about K-7 and K-x, I've been thinking, - why am I shooting with Pentax? This is a summary of my thoughts - I'd like to hear what others think about this. In the past few weeks I realized that compared to other brand DSLR's Pentax DSLRs (even the flagman K-7) has serious problems. In crude terms: 1. The AF sucks. 2. The low-light performance sucks. 3. The P-TTL performance is inconsistent (I don't know how I-TTL/E-TTL etc. are in that regard - any comments?) So, I was re-thinking my use of Pentax. I started with ZX-5n back in 1997. The reason I chose it over Nikon was that I didn't like ergonomics of N70/F70, and couldn't afford N90. ZX-5n had incredible ergonomics, especially after coming from an all-manual SLR (Kiev-19) where I could set everything blind-folded; ZX-5n had all-analog knobs and buttons. Despite lack of continuous AF that is found in Nikon models, I enjoyed my ZX-5n greatly. When the time came to buy a DSLR, I thought if I should switch to a Nikon, but decided to get *ist DS. And I've been rather happy with it for over 4.5 years by now. Yes, the low-light performance has been bothering me a lot, and while until recently I didn't suffer much from the shortcomings of the AF, - I just learned to work around it. In the last 2-3 years, I started taking photos at dance events, and that's where quick and accurate AF matters, and low light performance and an accurate flash are important. So, why am I still using Pentax, and buying new bodies and lenses? While thinking about it, I recalled a very old joke about two worms. A son and his father are seating in a pile of bull sh.. manure, and talking: -- Daddy, is it nice to live in that grove across the field? -- Yes, son. -- Daddy, is there plenty of food over there? -- Yes, son. -- Then why, daddy, we live in this pile of bull sh..? -- Because that's our Motherland. ... I still like Pentax. I don't like at all the consumer line of Canons (Rebels etc.). I seem to like mid-line of Nikon's circa 2005-2008 but have almost no idea about their more recent (and higher) models. I've been looking at Panasonics that are highly regarded by some PDMLers, but I am not sure if they have that good AF and low-light performance. As for Pentax, I am currently evaluating if I should exchange the K-7 for a K-x for a better low-light performance. I just got a K-x that I will try in action during the weekend. My first impression of a K-x is that functionality- and layout-wise, it is very reminiscent of the DS. But I was rather disappointed by the lack of the small top status display. I don't mind the versitality of the AA's (I use them for the flash anyway). K-x is lighter, but compared to K-7 the feel a bit plasticy; more so than that for DS. I like that the choice of the AF mode, ISO and exponometry mode in the K-7 is done by physical switches, not via the menu. I would be glad to hear what others have to say about these thoughts. Igor PS. The obvious short response BS is not accepted. ;-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Pentax?
My Pentax history starts with an Asahi Spotmatic, back in 1966. Later I aquired a Honeywell Spotmatic, a Pentax Spotmatic for my son, a ProgramPlus, a 6X7, and an MZ-5. Like you, I love Pentax glass. Many of my old lenses can still be used in my *istD. I also have an Optio S that I carry when I don't want a larger camera and a K-2000 that I keep in the car for photos of local wildlife and to record Rotary meetings and other events. After 44 years, I would feel like an traitor if I shot with anything but a Pentax. Dan Matyola On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Christine Aguila cagu...@earthlink.net wrote: Hi Igor: Great thread, and the responses have been fun to read. My own history starts with the MX, which regrettably I sold because of money. Then acquired a Canon T90 much later (which I still have), though didn't use it much. I stopped photography for a good long while, but years back I bought a little Pentax film point shoot (which I still have somewhere)--for honeymoon shots. With the digital boom, I purchased a Kodak P S and used that thing constantly until it died. I got another with more advanced features, and used that for a good long while, then one night I was on the net learning about DSLRs googled Pentax and decided on K10D--and I've never looked back. It would be fair to say that my positive experience with the MX greatly influenced a return to Pentax for a DSLR, and I've been very, very happy with my decision. I love the Pentax glass I have. And frankly, I can't complain about the two Pentax bodies I have. As I grow, I might have different demands, but for right now, I'm a very happy camper, I know I haven't used the K20D to its full potential. I look forward to the future with Pentax-- PDML, which has been a great adventure for me. Cheers, Christine - Original Message - From: Igor Roshchin s...@komkon.org To: PDML@pdml.net Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 11:36 AM Subject: Why Pentax? In view of various comments from people about K-7 and K-x, I've been thinking, - why am I shooting with Pentax? This is a summary of my thoughts - I'd like to hear what others think about this. In the past few weeks I realized that compared to other brand DSLR's Pentax DSLRs (even the flagman K-7) has serious problems. In crude terms: 1. The AF sucks. 2. The low-light performance sucks. 3. The P-TTL performance is inconsistent (I don't know how I-TTL/E-TTL etc. are in that regard - any comments?) So, I was re-thinking my use of Pentax. I started with ZX-5n back in 1997. The reason I chose it over Nikon was that I didn't like ergonomics of N70/F70, and couldn't afford N90. ZX-5n had incredible ergonomics, especially after coming from an all-manual SLR (Kiev-19) where I could set everything blind-folded; ZX-5n had all-analog knobs and buttons. Despite lack of continuous AF that is found in Nikon models, I enjoyed my ZX-5n greatly. When the time came to buy a DSLR, I thought if I should switch to a Nikon, but decided to get *ist DS. And I've been rather happy with it for over 4.5 years by now. Yes, the low-light performance has been bothering me a lot, and while until recently I didn't suffer much from the shortcomings of the AF, - I just learned to work around it. In the last 2-3 years, I started taking photos at dance events, and that's where quick and accurate AF matters, and low light performance and an accurate flash are important. So, why am I still using Pentax, and buying new bodies and lenses? While thinking about it, I recalled a very old joke about two worms. A son and his father are seating in a pile of bull sh.. manure, and talking: -- Daddy, is it nice to live in that grove across the field? -- Yes, son. -- Daddy, is there plenty of food over there? -- Yes, son. -- Then why, daddy, we live in this pile of bull sh..? -- Because that's our Motherland. ... I still like Pentax. I don't like at all the consumer line of Canons (Rebels etc.). I seem to like mid-line of Nikon's circa 2005-2008 but have almost no idea about their more recent (and higher) models. I've been looking at Panasonics that are highly regarded by some PDMLers, but I am not sure if they have that good AF and low-light performance. As for Pentax, I am currently evaluating if I should exchange the K-7 for a K-x for a better low-light performance. I just got a K-x that I will try in action during the weekend. My first impression of a K-x is that functionality- and layout-wise, it is very reminiscent of the DS. But I was rather disappointed by the lack of the small top status display. I don't mind the versitality of the AA's (I use them for the flash anyway). K-x is lighter, but compared to K-7 the feel a bit plasticy; more so than that for DS. I like that the choice of the AF mode, ISO and exponometry mode in the K-7 is done by physical switches, not via the menu. I would be glad to hear what others
Re: Why Pentax?
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:00:25 -0500 P. J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote: On 1/15/2010 11:22 PM, Subash wrote: On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 09:23:27 +0530 Subashpdml.l...@gmail.com wrote: in fact, i got myself a k50/1.2 (which i still have) and an m28/2.8 months before i got myself the *ist DS. and a query about whether the k50/1.2 was worth buying at about US$100 then was what brought me to the PDML, circa september 2006 :) what i actually wanted to add there was that i found pentax and PDML almost simultaneously. fwiw, the PDML has been a major part of my 'pentax experience' :) My condolences. am glad *somebody* understands... :) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Pentax?
On 16/1/10, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed: You *are* submitting a couple of photos to the PDML Annual and photo exhibit, right? I've chosen one but having trouble with the second. I'll get there. I haven't done much shooting of late, just a couple of paid commissions. *ist Ds though and Pentax glass :) -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche -- http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Pentax?
From: Daniel J. Matyola danmaty...@gmail.com Like you, I love Pentax glass. Hear, hear. Craftmanship, like photographic results, should count, and Pentax scores high on this point, in my view. Take the DA 21mm: it's all metal construction is elegant and durable--it floored me to see a mock-velvet lined lens cap--didn't expect that upon my 1st introduction to that lens. Lens hood design is quite nifty, and it's just an all-around groovy lens, producing nice photographic results. Cheers, Christine -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Pentax?
Subject: Re: Why Pentax? 2010/1/16 Igor Roshchin s...@komkon.org: I would be glad to hear what others have to say about these thoughts Well for starters, Pentax Spotmatic was the first SLR I ever used, around 1967. I borrowed one from a work friend shot some races with it @ Mosport. I loved the results even tho I only had use of one lens, a 135mm. Prior to that I had been using my brother's Zeiss Ikon Contina a Voightlander folder. Another work friend was drafted and while in Viet Nam offered to get me a camera @ the PX. Since I was familiar with the Spotmatic so that's what I bought. The savings were significant - I believe I paid something like $89 USD for an Asahi Spotmatic with a 1.4 50mm (?) lens. Over the years I acquired more lenses, mostly Pentax, never experienced and letdown with the equipment so I never had a reason to switch brands - always thought Nikon was a bit pretentious, still do. Picked up an ES MX. I moved into a job that required me using a camera so I again chose Pentax (SF!, PZ1 PZ1P). About then, late 80's I started to run into problems getting my Pentax fix locally (buying equipment that is), Contacted a Pentax district sales guy who understood the problem he started selling me Pentax stuff @ his prices. Bought stuff I probably never would without his pricing - MZ-S, 600mm F4 etc. As Pentax digital SLR's so did I - first the *istD, K10D K20D. As I've said I've never had a reason not to buy Pentax. YMMV Kenneth Waller http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f . -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Pentax?
Not me. Never cared for the stuff. --- On Sat, 1/16/10, P. J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote: I'll always miss Kodachrome. sob. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Pentax?
Pentax fits my hands. And when you work with your hands and they hurt all the time that is very very important! I could afford Pentax. I had a reasonable job, I could buy lots of stuff for my Pentax and not feel like I got taken. The glass is good! Very good in my opinion. When I touched my first Pentax I knew it was mine! That was my pz-70. Then when I went digital it was the same feeling. Help me support Autism research! Join my team! http://www.walknowforautism.org/stlouis/blubiconsbuddies http://stampmine.blogspot.com/http://samsphotopage.blogspot.com/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Pentax?
Rick Womer wrote: --- On Sat, 1/16/10, P. J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote: I'll always miss Kodachrome. sob. Not me. Never cared for the stuff. Same here. There were a few photographers who seemed to be able to work wonders with it (Steve McCurry comes to mind), but they were very few and far between as far as I can tell. I hated its look 99% of the time. Glad to see it go. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Pentax?
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 01:47:19PM -0500, Daniel J. Matyola wrote: After 44 years, I would feel like an traitor if I shot with anything but a Pentax. I don't feel that strongly. I borrowed a D100 back before Pentax had a DSLR, and a few years later a friend let me use a D1 for a day at the track. I've rented Canon gear when I didn't have the lenses I needed in my bag. But I'm far too heavily invested in Pentax glass to think about going to anything else, even though probably 90% or more of what I shoot now is taken using equipment I've picked up in the last 3 years (the K10D, the 16-50 and the 50-135). Getting the equivalents of what I can use for that final 10% would cost me a fortune to replace in any other mount. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Pentax?
On Jan 16, 2010, at 6:07 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: Rick Womer wrote: --- On Sat, 1/16/10, P. J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote: I'll always miss Kodachrome. sob. Not me. Never cared for the stuff. Same here. There were a few photographers who seemed to be able to work wonders with it (Steve McCurry comes to mind), but they were very few and far between as far as I can tell. I hated its look 99% of the time. Glad to see it go. I agree. I enjoyed playing with it. And I love the kodachrome's my uncle shot fifty to sixty years ago. But I wouldn't want to go there again. Paul -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Pentax?
Why Pentax? I couldn't come up with a good reason, so I went with Canon. Note I started with the K-1000 and liked it. Went Pentax Digital with the DS then the K-100. I liked the size of the lenses compared to Canon (much smaller and lighter weight) and I do think Pentax glass is good. But I like zooms, and it took them about two years to come out with the promised new zooms (for DSLRs). So that's where they lost me, the marketing phase, the lag-time from announcement to in-the-stores. I got tired of waiting and sold my K-100 and remaining Pentax lenses. And, note, I took tons of good shots in the time it took for them to finally make the zooms I wanted available. In other words, I would have lost a lot of shots waiting. (I am not that fond of most primes.) Anyway, that should be no surprise to a lot of you, because you know you had to wait a long time -- Pentax marketing leaves a lot to be desired. I, however, still have a Pentax Optio A40 and in some situations it is dandy. Like a recent trip to Disneyland, when I didn't want to lug a big camera around the park. Marnie aka Doe :-) - We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Pentax?
It's simple - Canon consumer cameras (especialy their user interfaces) do suck even more and we can not afford comparable piles of Nikkor glass. Olympus is no-no. Sony has all the same sucking problems as Pentax does plus some extra. Also, we already happen to have Pentaxes and as all those brand-changes are simply a form of financial suicide, we take pictures with 'em. The most surprising part is, that we don't take any less GOOD pictures than C, N, O or S owners (at least I don't get less good shots with my K20D than all those fancy otherbranders and darksiders that I review every month). BR, Margus Igor Roshchin wrote: In view of various comments from people about K-7 and K-x, I've been thinking, - why am I shooting with Pentax? This is a summary of my thoughts - I'd like to hear what others think about this. In the past few weeks I realized that compared to other brand DSLR's Pentax DSLRs (even the flagman K-7) has serious problems. In crude terms: 1. The AF sucks. 2. The low-light performance sucks. 3. The P-TTL performance is inconsistent (I don't know how I-TTL/E-TTL etc. are in that regard - any comments?) ... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Pentax?
Hi! Igor, my reply is between your lines. On 1/15/2010 7:36 PM, Igor Roshchin wrote: In view of various comments from people about K-7 and K-x, I've been thinking, - why am I shooting with Pentax? 'Cause I like the glass and 'cause I invested enough and 'cause I am lazy enough not to want to move. In the past few weeks I realized that compared to other brand DSLR's Pentax DSLRs (even the flagman K-7) has serious problems. In crude terms: 1. The AF sucks. 2. The low-light performance sucks. Having considerable experience with *istD, K10D and K-7 and limited experience with *istDS, K100D and K20D I should say that K-7 has the best AF of the Pentax line up so far. Is it good enough *for you* - how could I tell. It is _mostly_ good enough for me. It is likely that K-x outdoes K-7 re low light shooting. I, for one, have the very first camera in years that can shoot at ISO 1600 and ISO 2000 and get good results. Again, I generally shoot between ISO 100 and ISO 400 and way more often at ISO 100 than anything else. 3. The P-TTL performance is inconsistent (I don't know how I-TTL/E-TTL etc. are in that regard - any comments?) I played only once (like for an hour or so) with 360th flash. It wasn't hmmm well, it wasn't straightforward. I am using old SCA 3701 and old Metz flash that work for me. But I shoot very little with flash... So, I was re-thinking my use of Pentax. ... I enjoyed my ZX-5n greatly. Likewise, Julia and I chose MZ-5n on top of F-80 but got MZ-6 at the end. It still works, the little fella... In the last 2-3 years, I started taking photos at dance events, and that's where quick and accurate AF matters, and low light performance and an accurate flash are important. So, why am I still using Pentax, and buying new bodies and lenses? That's a good question. E.g. why don't you buy yourself a special (not Pentax) kit for low light (dance events) shooting? Assuming, of course, you've got the money. I still like Pentax. Count me in. I don't like at all the consumer line of Canons (Rebels etc.). Me too... I seem to like mid-line of Nikon's circa 2005-2008 but have almost no idea about their more recent (and higher) models. I kind of dislike their colors. Yes, I know with proper processing any reasonable color can be obtained and all that. But I kind of like Pentax and Canon's colors better. I've been looking at Panasonics that are highly regarded by some PDMLers, but I am not sure if they have that good AF and low-light performance. I should've bought that Panasonic GF-1 camera for Galia with 20/1.7 pancake, but I confused it with Olympus offering and went on buying K-7 and giving her my K10D. I might have made a mistake... As for Pentax, I am currently evaluating if I should exchange the K-7 for a K-x for a better low-light performance. Some say it outshoots all of its siblings and generally is the best low-light low-price offering on the market today. Since this is rather strong and broad statement, careful examination thereof is in order. I like that the choice of the AF mode, ISO and exponometry mode in the K-7 is done by physical switches, not via the menu. Good, but do you change AF mode, ISO and metering mode all that often at shoot-time??? I would be glad to hear what others have to say about these thoughts. Here you have mine. Hope it helps... Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Why Pentax?
In view of various comments from people about K-7 and K-x, I've been thinking, - why am I shooting with Pentax? This is a summary of my thoughts - I'd like to hear what others think about this. In the past few weeks I realized that compared to other brand DSLR's Pentax DSLRs (even the flagman K-7) has serious problems. In crude terms: 1. The AF sucks. 2. The low-light performance sucks. 3. The P-TTL performance is inconsistent (I don't know how I-TTL/E-TTL etc. are in that regard - any comments?) So, I was re-thinking my use of Pentax. I started with ZX-5n back in 1997. The reason I chose it over Nikon was that I didn't like ergonomics of N70/F70, and couldn't afford N90. ZX-5n had incredible ergonomics, especially after coming from an all-manual SLR (Kiev-19) where I could set everything blind-folded; ZX-5n had all-analog knobs and buttons. Despite lack of continuous AF that is found in Nikon models, I enjoyed my ZX-5n greatly. When the time came to buy a DSLR, I thought if I should switch to a Nikon, but decided to get *ist DS. And I've been rather happy with it for over 4.5 years by now. Yes, the low-light performance has been bothering me a lot, and while until recently I didn't suffer much from the shortcomings of the AF, - I just learned to work around it. In the last 2-3 years, I started taking photos at dance events, and that's where quick and accurate AF matters, and low light performance and an accurate flash are important. So, why am I still using Pentax, and buying new bodies and lenses? While thinking about it, I recalled a very old joke about two worms. A son and his father are seating in a pile of bull sh.. manure, and talking: -- Daddy, is it nice to live in that grove across the field? -- Yes, son. -- Daddy, is there plenty of food over there? -- Yes, son. -- Then why, daddy, we live in this pile of bull sh..? -- Because that's our Motherland. ... I still like Pentax. I don't like at all the consumer line of Canons (Rebels etc.). I seem to like mid-line of Nikon's circa 2005-2008 but have almost no idea about their more recent (and higher) models. I've been looking at Panasonics that are highly regarded by some PDMLers, but I am not sure if they have that good AF and low-light performance. As for Pentax, I am currently evaluating if I should exchange the K-7 for a K-x for a better low-light performance. I just got a K-x that I will try in action during the weekend. My first impression of a K-x is that functionality- and layout-wise, it is very reminiscent of the DS. But I was rather disappointed by the lack of the small top status display. I don't mind the versitality of the AA's (I use them for the flash anyway). K-x is lighter, but compared to K-7 the feel a bit plasticy; more so than that for DS. I like that the choice of the AF mode, ISO and exponometry mode in the K-7 is done by physical switches, not via the menu. I would be glad to hear what others have to say about these thoughts. Igor PS. The obvious short response BS is not accepted. ;-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Pentax?
- Original Message - From: Igor Roshchin Subject: Why Pentax? I would be glad to hear what others have to say about these thoughts. I like Pentax glass and I have a lot of it. This is a very strong incentive to stay with the brand and bleat at them until they come up with the perfect camera. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Pentax?
I'm with them for basically 5 reasons: 1. My first SLR was a $50 MX. And I continued to buy glass, to where when I went to an AF SLR, it made economic sense to go with Pentax instead of a Nikon 8008s. 2. My style/subject doesn't usually require high AF performance, high frame rate, or stellar high ISO performance, so the benefit of switching is less for me than it may be for others. 3. It still is a sizeable piece of change to go with a new body and lens lineup. 4. I'm lazy. 5. William Robb I'm not happy that Pentax is where they're at, at the moment. It's better than several years ago. Despite the above I could change systems at some point. Tom On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 10:39 AM, William Robb war...@gmail.com wrote: - Original Message - From: Igor Roshchin Subject: Why Pentax? I would be glad to hear what others have to say about these thoughts. I like Pentax glass and I have a lot of it. This is a very strong incentive to stay with the brand and bleat at them until they come up with the perfect camera. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: Why Pentax?
I would be glad to hear what others have to say about these thoughts. I like Pentax glass and I have a lot of it. This is a very strong incentive to stay with the brand and bleat at them until they come up with the perfect camera. Won't be long now. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Pentax?
2010/1/15 Igor Roshchin s...@komkon.org: PS. The obvious short response BS is not accepted. ;-) If I thought changing brands would make me a better photographer, I'd do it. If changing brands would promote you the same way, why hesitate? Jostein Who thinks all your crude premises BS. Sorry about that. -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Pentax?
- Original Message - From: Tom C Subject: Re: Why Pentax? I'm with them for basically 5 reasons: 1. My first SLR was a $50 MX. And I continued to buy glass, to where when I went to an AF SLR, it made economic sense to go with Pentax instead of a Nikon 8008s. 2. My style/subject doesn't usually require high AF performance, high frame rate, or stellar high ISO performance, so the benefit of switching is less for me than it may be for others. 3. It still is a sizeable piece of change to go with a new body and lens lineup. 4. I'm lazy. 5. William Robb I'm not happy that Pentax is where they're at, at the moment. It's better than several years ago. Despite the above I could change systems at some point. We'd still be best friends if you switched to Nikon. I expect we'd still be friends if you switched to Canon. Friends don't let friends buy Sony. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Pentax?
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Igor Roshchin s...@komkon.org wrote: In view of various comments from people about K-7 and K-x, I've been thinking, - why am I shooting with Pentax? This is a summary of my thoughts - I'd like to hear what others think about this. In the past few weeks I realized that compared to other brand DSLR's Pentax DSLRs (even the flagman K-7) has serious problems. In crude terms: 1. The AF sucks. 2. The low-light performance sucks. 3. The P-TTL performance is inconsistent (I don't know how I-TTL/E-TTL etc. are in that regard - any comments?) Snipped the rest: I TTL works very well, for me any way, and agree on the P TTL, my results are all over the place. So i some times ask my self why i still have Pentax. -Like Bill, i like the glass. -I have more Pentax glass than Nikon, but have faster Nikon zooms. -Less colour fiddles with the Pentax as opposed to my newer Nikon's. About equal with my older Nikon's. -Had Pentax since 1971, so maybe some brand loyalty here. - Heather Locklear. Dave -- Documenting Life in Rural Ontario. www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ York Region, Ontario, Canada -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Pentax?
:-) The Sony gear just doesn't interest me that much, I guess largely because if I were change systems it would not be to go to the 3rd player, it would be to #1 or #2, both of which have a better lens selection. On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 11:45 AM, William Robb war...@gmail.com wrote: - Original Message - From: Tom C Subject: Re: Why Pentax? I'm with them for basically 5 reasons: 1. My first SLR was a $50 MX. And I continued to buy glass, to where when I went to an AF SLR, it made economic sense to go with Pentax instead of a Nikon 8008s. 2. My style/subject doesn't usually require high AF performance, high frame rate, or stellar high ISO performance, so the benefit of switching is less for me than it may be for others. 3. It still is a sizeable piece of change to go with a new body and lens lineup. 4. I'm lazy. 5. William Robb I'm not happy that Pentax is where they're at, at the moment. It's better than several years ago. Despite the above I could change systems at some point. We'd still be best friends if you switched to Nikon. I expect we'd still be friends if you switched to Canon. Friends don't let friends buy Sony. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Pentax?
Pentax: It's excellent pilow stuffing. My dog won't let me near it so I can't use it, much less change systems. http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/pictures/newer_still/1719.html William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Pentax?
My first SLR was an old Praktika I bought back in 1967 or so. It lasted a while but eventually needed work on the shutter, probably around 1970 or so. The only repair shop in the area I could find for Praktika was some guy working out of his house. He sold the house and moved away without bothering to let me know to come pick up my camera. I did without a SLR, relying on point 'n shoot 110 cameras various Polaroid 600 instant cameras until around 1980 - 1983 I think, when I bought a Pentax A3000 from the PX at Ft. Bragg. I kept that one for maybe a year, then traded it in on a used K1000 SE (brown silver). I kept the K1000 as my backup when I bought a used Super Program. For some reason I had the K1000 out, and the Super Program packed in my ruck sack when the ruck sack bounced out of the back of a deuce and a half on a convoy, and was run over by the next truck in line. The Army replaced the damaged uniforms ruck sack. I bought a new Super Program from the PX at Ft. Hood. That second Super Program is packed away now with the batteries removed. Eventually, around 1990 or so, I bought a used LX which, along with the K1000, did for me until early 2003 when I finally broke down and bought a used PZ-1P Tokina ATX Pro 287 from KEH and entered the auto-focus era. After mobilization, I bought a *ist-D on Feb 21, 2004 and departed for Iraq on Feb 27, 2004. The PZ-1P never came out of my B-bag while I was deployed. Bought my K10D in early 2007 ... IF I remember correctly. Over the years, I've acquired some decent glass for Pentax, my current workhorse being that Tokina ATX Pro 287. So the short answer is ... 1. Pentax was the brand the PX carried back in the 1980s. 2. To change brands now I'd have to replace a lot of good glass. I might yet do that if I *HAVE* to ... I'm hoping not to have to. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Pentax?
Tom C wrote: I'm with them for basically 5 reasons: 1. My first SLR was a $50 MX. And I continued to buy glass, to where when I went to an AF SLR, it made economic sense to go with Pentax instead of a Nikon 8008s. 2. My style/subject doesn't usually require high AF performance, high frame rate, or stellar high ISO performance, so the benefit of switching is less for me than it may be for others. 3. It still is a sizeable piece of change to go with a new body and lens lineup. 4. I'm lazy. 5. William Robb That's great! My list is so close to this one that it isn't worth the effort to change the details. I'll replace the 5th item with the entire PDML, though. (Not that there's anything wrong with Bill Robb. Much.) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Pentax?
On Jan 15, 2010, at 9:36 AM, Igor Roshchin wrote: In view of various comments from people about K-7 and K-x, I've been thinking, - why am I shooting with Pentax? This is a summary of my thoughts - I'd like to hear what others think about this. There is no perfect camera. There may be a camera that is best for a particular job. For almost everyone on this list, Pentax gear has a tremendous economic advantage, we don't need to spend any more money to photograph with it. In general, there are things that Pentax does very well, generally in the performance for the price, or performance for the size category. The 4/3 systems may have size beat, a Leica M9 almost certainly wins in the performance for the size category, but not in the price category. I would love to have a K7, or possibly even a k-x for my DA40 as my fannypack camera. Even so, my K100 and DA40 is an awesome combination of size and performance. While I'm not in any sort of financial situation to do anything about it, I have come to reject the notion of only shooting with one brand of camera. There are many tasks that any camera can do a competent job of. However, there are some tasks that require a certain lens/ body combination to get the best results from. I expect that the people doing super-long telephoto work get a lot more performance for their dollar with APS-C. The crop factor works in their favor to get more reach from the lens. Also, at the long end, the lenses cost as much or more than the good bodies. On the other hand, I'd like a full frame for fast and wide shooting. Particular indoor available light, or night photography. A D700 with a 35/1.4, or a sigma 30/1.4 or Sigma 20/1.8 would be faster and wider than almost anything else. One advantage Pentax has, especially in the low and mid range, is image stabilization of fast glass. As far as I know, neither Canon nor Nikon have anything image stabilized faster than f/2.8. I don't know whether I'd be better at ISO 12,800 at f/2.8 with Canikon than 3200 at f/1.4 with Pentax. It probably depends on whether I was in a place where I could use a monopod. Most of us already have a setup that is the best for certain conditions. If there is something we need to do, there may be another brand that does a better job for what it would cost to do it with Pentax, or is possible to do with Pentax. Part of the reason that I bought Pentax, two years ago, was that I was willing to look at other brands, despite having some Nikon glass. There are things that I like, or dislike about all brands: Pentax: Like: price and size for performance. In body shake reduction. The level of performance I can afford. And, I must really emphasize the user level support network. It's very much like marque clubs that I've been in with underdog motorcycles and cars: Airhead BMWs, Miatas and any British sportscar. (interesting that back in the late 60's all of these were close to the top of the game) Dislike: The AF540 focusing metering availability of lenses etc. Nikon: Like: High end high ISO High end compatibility with older glass Metering flash Dislike: Buy-in cost for the performance I want The aperture ring works backwards (not an issue on DSLR but that's why I ended up using my SRT101 rather than my FE2) The lens mount turns backwards The poor backwards compatibility of the low end bodies. I've heard that the good glass is very expensive, especially for full frame, though the old 35mm glass could make up for this. Canon: Like: availability of lenses etc. A lot of stuff out there to borrow Some of their glass is supposed to be very good for the price Adapters for other brands of lenses from short register distance Dislike: I've never used a Canon that I like the feel of. A pro photographer, Nikon owning, friend said that he was very impressed with their 7D though, that it was actually usable. Sony: Like: Best price for full frame Dislike: Incompatibilities General asshattedness of Sony Olympus: Like: Size of bodies Dislike Size of sensors -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Pentax?
The K7 looks nice :-) If I want decent low-light focusing, good continuous autofocus and accurate metering I have my Canons Wendy On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Igor Roshchin s...@komkon.org wrote: In view of various comments from people about K-7 and K-x, I've been thinking, - why am I shooting with Pentax? This is a summary of my thoughts - I'd like to hear what others think about this. In the past few weeks I realized that compared to other brand DSLR's Pentax DSLRs (even the flagman K-7) has serious problems. In crude terms: 1. The AF sucks. 2. The low-light performance sucks. 3. The P-TTL performance is inconsistent (I don't know how I-TTL/E-TTL etc. are in that regard - any comments?) So, I was re-thinking my use of Pentax. I started with ZX-5n back in 1997. The reason I chose it over Nikon was that I didn't like ergonomics of N70/F70, and couldn't afford N90. ZX-5n had incredible ergonomics, especially after coming from an all-manual SLR (Kiev-19) where I could set everything blind-folded; ZX-5n had all-analog knobs and buttons. Despite lack of continuous AF that is found in Nikon models, I enjoyed my ZX-5n greatly. When the time came to buy a DSLR, I thought if I should switch to a Nikon, but decided to get *ist DS. And I've been rather happy with it for over 4.5 years by now. Yes, the low-light performance has been bothering me a lot, and while until recently I didn't suffer much from the shortcomings of the AF, - I just learned to work around it. In the last 2-3 years, I started taking photos at dance events, and that's where quick and accurate AF matters, and low light performance and an accurate flash are important. So, why am I still using Pentax, and buying new bodies and lenses? While thinking about it, I recalled a very old joke about two worms. A son and his father are seating in a pile of bull sh.. manure, and talking: -- Daddy, is it nice to live in that grove across the field? -- Yes, son. -- Daddy, is there plenty of food over there? -- Yes, son. -- Then why, daddy, we live in this pile of bull sh..? -- Because that's our Motherland. ... I still like Pentax. I don't like at all the consumer line of Canons (Rebels etc.). I seem to like mid-line of Nikon's circa 2005-2008 but have almost no idea about their more recent (and higher) models. I've been looking at Panasonics that are highly regarded by some PDMLers, but I am not sure if they have that good AF and low-light performance. As for Pentax, I am currently evaluating if I should exchange the K-7 for a K-x for a better low-light performance. I just got a K-x that I will try in action during the weekend. My first impression of a K-x is that functionality- and layout-wise, it is very reminiscent of the DS. But I was rather disappointed by the lack of the small top status display. I don't mind the versitality of the AA's (I use them for the flash anyway). K-x is lighter, but compared to K-7 the feel a bit plasticy; more so than that for DS. I like that the choice of the AF mode, ISO and exponometry mode in the K-7 is done by physical switches, not via the menu. I would be glad to hear what others have to say about these thoughts. Igor PS. The obvious short response BS is not accepted. ;-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Wendy Beard Carp, Ontario Canada -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Pentax?
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:36:17 -0500 (EST) Igor Roshchin s...@komkon.org wrote: I would be glad to hear what others have to say about these thoughts. I still have my SP500 with pentax I can still use the lenses from that era Diane Arbus taught a workshop to raise the $1000 she needed to buy a pentax When i can buy a new camera it may well be nikon for the full frame low light abilities. but I am content with my K10D for now and I can borrow my son's K20D because he has not sprung for any lenses of his own yet but did get an M42 PK adaptor for himself. -- Love is that condition in which the happiness of another person is essential to your own... Jealousy is a disease, love is a healthy condition.- Robert Heinlein -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Pentax?
HAR! That's called brand loyalty. :-) Igor Pentax: It's excellent pilow stuffing. MARK! Fri Jan 15 12:53:51 CST 2010 William Robb wrote: Pentax: It's excellent pilow stuffing. My dog won't let me near it so I can't use it, much less change systems. http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/pictures/newer_still/1719.html William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Pentax?
On 16/01/2010, wendy beard pointyp...@gmail.com wrote: The K7 looks nice :-) If I want decent low-light focusing, good continuous autofocus and accurate metering I have my Canons Best of both worlds ;-) -- Rob Studdert (Digital Image Studio) Tel: +61-418-166-870 UTC +10 Hours Gmail, eBay, Skype, Twitter, Facebook, Picasa: distudio -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Pentax?
(Not that there's anything wrong with Bill Robb. Much.)
I'd MARK! that but it might be too much of an inside joke...
On 1/15/2010 3:06 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Tom C wrote:
I'm with them for basically 5 reasons:
1. My first SLR was a $50 MX. And I continued to buy glass, to where
when I went to an AF SLR, it made economic sense to go with Pentax
instead of a Nikon 8008s.
2. My style/subject doesn't usually require high AF performance, high
frame rate, or stellar high ISO performance, so the benefit of
switching is less for me than it may be for others.
3. It still is a sizeable piece of change to go with a new body and lens lineup.
4. I'm lazy.
5. William Robb
That's great! My list is so close to this one that it isn't worth the
effort to change the details.
I'll replace the 5th item with the entire PDML, though.
(Not that there's anything wrong with Bill Robb. Much.)
--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Courier
New;}}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to Thunderbird 3.0 and the
interface subtly weird.\par
}
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
Re: Why Pentax?
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Igor Roshchin s...@komkon.org wrote: In view of various comments from people about K-7 and K-x, I've been thinking, - why am I shooting with Pentax? This is a summary of my thoughts - I'd like to hear what others think about this. snip PS. The obvious short response BS is not accepted. ;-) Why stick with Pentax? Well, my needs are simple. I don't need lots of features. I want a camera that works, that I can rely on. Let's face it, for my DSLR needs, every major manufacturer makes something that I could likely use to take the same photos that I do now. I've heard that some of the budget offerings from Canikon feel flimsy and cheap - now I've not actually used any of them so I'm not saying that from personal experience. However I'm happy with what I have and don't feel the need to upgrade or change brands. I can't see that I ever will. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Pentax?
At the beginning, it was price/performance. In 1984 we had a baby, and our Mamiya-Sekor SLR died in a fall. I went shopping, and quickly narrowed the choices to the Nikon N2000 and Pentax Super Program. The latter was =much= better put together, and I bought it. Then I got another one. And some lenses. Then a PZ-1... and a PZ-1p... and more lenses... and an istD... and more lenses... and a K10D... and still another lens or two. I really like the way my Pentax cameras handle. I like the lenses. In the K10D, I love the shake reduction. Better low-light performance would be nice, but I can wait. It is =certainly= not worth the bother of selling off my current system and buying another. Photographically, my limits are wetware, not firmware or hardware. So, I have no reason at all to switch systems. Rick http://photo.net/photos/RickW --- On Fri, 1/15/10, Igor Roshchin s...@komkon.org wrote: From: Igor Roshchin s...@komkon.org Subject: Why Pentax? To: PDML@pdml.net Date: Friday, January 15, 2010, 12:36 PM In view of various comments from people about K-7 and K-x, I've been thinking, - why am I shooting with Pentax? This is a summary of my thoughts - I'd like to hear what others think about this. In the past few weeks I realized that compared to other brand DSLR's Pentax DSLRs (even the flagman K-7) has serious problems. In crude terms: 1. The AF sucks. 2. The low-light performance sucks. 3. The P-TTL performance is inconsistent (I don't know how I-TTL/E-TTL etc. are in that regard - any comments?) So, I was re-thinking my use of Pentax. I started with ZX-5n back in 1997. The reason I chose it over Nikon was that I didn't like ergonomics of N70/F70, and couldn't afford N90. ZX-5n had incredible ergonomics, especially after coming from an all-manual SLR (Kiev-19) where I could set everything blind-folded; ZX-5n had all-analog knobs and buttons. Despite lack of continuous AF that is found in Nikon models, I enjoyed my ZX-5n greatly. When the time came to buy a DSLR, I thought if I should switch to a Nikon, but decided to get *ist DS. And I've been rather happy with it for over 4.5 years by now. Yes, the low-light performance has been bothering me a lot, and while until recently I didn't suffer much from the shortcomings of the AF, - I just learned to work around it. In the last 2-3 years, I started taking photos at dance events, and that's where quick and accurate AF matters, and low light performance and an accurate flash are important. So, why am I still using Pentax, and buying new bodies and lenses? While thinking about it, I recalled a very old joke about two worms. A son and his father are seating in a pile of bull sh.. manure, and talking: -- Daddy, is it nice to live in that grove across the field? -- Yes, son. -- Daddy, is there plenty of food over there? -- Yes, son. -- Then why, daddy, we live in this pile of bull sh..? -- Because that's our Motherland. ... I still like Pentax. I don't like at all the consumer line of Canons (Rebels etc.). I seem to like mid-line of Nikon's circa 2005-2008 but have almost no idea about their more recent (and higher) models. I've been looking at Panasonics that are highly regarded by some PDMLers, but I am not sure if they have that good AF and low-light performance. As for Pentax, I am currently evaluating if I should exchange the K-7 for a K-x for a better low-light performance. I just got a K-x that I will try in action during the weekend. My first impression of a K-x is that functionality- and layout-wise, it is very reminiscent of the DS. But I was rather disappointed by the lack of the small top status display. I don't mind the versitality of the AA's (I use them for the flash anyway). K-x is lighter, but compared to K-7 the feel a bit plasticy; more so than that for DS. I like that the choice of the AF mode, ISO and exponometry mode in the K-7 is done by physical switches, not via the menu. I would be glad to hear what others have to say about these thoughts. Igor PS. The obvious short response BS is not accepted. ;-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Pentax?
I wouldn't say the AF sucks. Maybe when compared to much more expensive Nikons, but as it is I think sucks is too strong. Sure, it needs improvement but then so do the resolution and iso range. I use Pentax because: 1. I like the glass 2. Brand loyalty (always used Pentax) 3. Price is right 4. I haven't had a camera fail and cost me money (either during a paid gig or for repairs) That's more than enough for me. -Brendan - Original Message From: Igor Roshchin s...@komkon.org To: PDML@pdml.net Sent: Fri, January 15, 2010 9:36:17 AM Subject: Why Pentax? In view of various comments from people about K-7 and K-x, I've been thinking, - why am I shooting with Pentax? This is a summary of my thoughts - I'd like to hear what others think about this. In the past few weeks I realized that compared to other brand DSLR's Pentax DSLRs (even the flagman K-7) has serious problems. In crude terms: 1. The AF sucks. 2. The low-light performance sucks. 3. The P-TTL performance is inconsistent (I don't know how I-TTL/E-TTL etc. are in that regard - any comments?) So, I was re-thinking my use of Pentax. I started with ZX-5n back in 1997. The reason I chose it over Nikon was that I didn't like ergonomics of N70/F70, and couldn't afford N90. ZX-5n had incredible ergonomics, especially after coming from an all-manual SLR (Kiev-19) where I could set everything blind-folded; ZX-5n had all-analog knobs and buttons. Despite lack of continuous AF that is found in Nikon models, I enjoyed my ZX-5n greatly. When the time came to buy a DSLR, I thought if I should switch to a Nikon, but decided to get *ist DS. And I've been rather happy with it for over 4.5 years by now. Yes, the low-light performance has been bothering me a lot, and while until recently I didn't suffer much from the shortcomings of the AF, - I just learned to work around it. In the last 2-3 years, I started taking photos at dance events, and that's where quick and accurate AF matters, and low light performance and an accurate flash are important. So, why am I still using Pentax, and buying new bodies and lenses? While thinking about it, I recalled a very old joke about two worms. A son and his father are seating in a pile of bull sh.. manure, and talking: -- Daddy, is it nice to live in that grove across the field? -- Yes, son. -- Daddy, is there plenty of food over there? -- Yes, son. -- Then why, daddy, we live in this pile of bull sh..? -- Because that's our Motherland. ... I still like Pentax. I don't like at all the consumer line of Canons (Rebels etc.). I seem to like mid-line of Nikon's circa 2005-2008 but have almost no idea about their more recent (and higher) models. I've been looking at Panasonics that are highly regarded by some PDMLers, but I am not sure if they have that good AF and low-light performance. As for Pentax, I am currently evaluating if I should exchange the K-7 for a K-x for a better low-light performance. I just got a K-x that I will try in action during the weekend. My first impression of a K-x is that functionality- and layout-wise, it is very reminiscent of the DS. But I was rather disappointed by the lack of the small top status display. I don't mind the versitality of the AA's (I use them for the flash anyway). K-x is lighter, but compared to K-7 the feel a bit plasticy; more so than that for DS. I like that the choice of the AF mode, ISO and exponometry mode in the K-7 is done by physical switches, not via the menu. I would be glad to hear what others have to say about these thoughts. Igor PS. The obvious short response BS is not accepted. ;-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Pentax?
In 1973 the guy who drove the race car I wrenched asked me if I wanted to buy a screw mount Mamiya 1000 DTl and two lenses.: a Mamiya 55/1.8 and a Vivitar 200/3.5. I was just getting into magazine journalism, so I bought them. A year or two later I added a Vivitar 20mm/3.5 and a Mamiya 135/2.8. I used them for quite a few years, eventually replacing the Mamiya body with a Fuji and a used Pentax H3v. Made plenty of money with those cameras. In later years I cut way back on the journalism and the cameras sat for a while. But I was a screw mount fan, so some years later I bought a couple of Spotmatic Fs and a bunch of Pentax screw mount lenses. I even bought a Spotmatic Motor Drive. Then I thought I really ought to have an LX, then an MX, and of course more lenses. Got back into journalism and added still more lenses and bodies. Then came digital, so naturally I went with a camera that would mount all my K lenses. I'm on my fifth Pentax digital now. Love the K7. Low light is good enough for me. Wouldn't mind better autofocus, but I can make this setup work. I'd switch if I was shooting football or working a heavy photo-J beat, but for what I'm doing, Pentax is just fine. Still have a lot of my screw mount equipment. The Vivitar 200/3.5, which has some duct tape holding the manual/auto switch in place and plenty of cleaning scratches on the front element, has a place of honor in my displace case. Paul -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Pentax?
Cool story Paul. On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 6:34 PM, paul stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote: In 1973 the guy who drove the race car I wrenched asked me if I wanted to buy a screw mount Mamiya 1000 DTl and two lenses.: a Mamiya 55/1.8 and a Vivitar 200/3.5. I was just getting into magazine journalism, so I bought them. A year or two later I added a Vivitar 20mm/3.5 and a Mamiya 135/2.8. I used them for quite a few years, eventually replacing the Mamiya body with a Fuji and a used Pentax H3v. Made plenty of money with those cameras. In later years I cut way back on the journalism and the cameras sat for a while. But I was a screw mount fan, so some years later I bought a couple of Spotmatic Fs and a bunch of Pentax screw mount lenses. I even bought a Spotmatic Motor Drive. Then I thought I really ought to have an LX, then an MX, and of course more lenses. Got back into journalism and added still more lenses and bodies. Then came digital, so naturally I went with a camera that would mount all my K lenses. I'm on my fifth Pentax digital now. Love the K7. Low light is good enough for me. Wouldn't mind better autofocus, but I can make this setup work. I'd switch if I was shooting football or working a heavy photo-J beat, but for what I'm doing, Pentax is just fine. Still have a lot of my screw mount equipment. The Vivitar 200/3.5, which has some duct tape holding the manual/auto switch in place and plenty of cleaning scratches on the front element, has a place of honor in my displace case. Paul -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Pentax?
LOL.
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 3:35 PM, P. J. Alling
webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote:
(Not that there's anything wrong with Bill Robb. Much.)
I'd MARK! that but it might be too much of an inside joke...
On 1/15/2010 3:06 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Tom C wrote:
I'm with them for basically 5 reasons:
1. My first SLR was a $50 MX. And I continued to buy glass, to where
when I went to an AF SLR, it made economic sense to go with Pentax
instead of a Nikon 8008s.
2. My style/subject doesn't usually require high AF performance, high
frame rate, or stellar high ISO performance, so the benefit of
switching is less for me than it may be for others.
3. It still is a sizeable piece of change to go with a new body and lens
lineup.
4. I'm lazy.
5. William Robb
That's great! My list is so close to this one that it isn't worth the
effort to change the details.
I'll replace the 5th item with the entire PDML, though.
(Not that there's anything wrong with Bill Robb. Much.)
--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0
Courier New;}}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to Thunderbird 3.0 and the
interface subtly weird.\par
}
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
Re: Why Pentax?
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:36:17 -0500 (EST) Igor Roshchin s...@komkon.org wrote: In view of various comments from people about K-7 and K-x, I've been thinking, - why am I shooting with Pentax? I would be glad to hear what others have to say about these thoughts. when i had made the decision to buy a dslr in 2006, it was a fairly big monetary investment at that time. so did a lot of reading (?) before making a decision and what convinced me to go for the *ist DS was pentax's backwards compatibility with old manual lenses (which were available in reasonable numbers; pentax was a fairly popular brand during the film days here). with a little nudge from cotty too.. :) of course it is a different matter that i went on to buy FA and DA lenses new later on... in fact, i got myself a k50/1.2 (which i still have) and an m28/2.8 months before i got myself the *ist DS. and a query about whether the k50/1.2 was worth buying at about US$100 then was what brought me to the PDML, circa september 2006 :) regards, subash -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Pentax?
Well, I got a Pentax film SLR hand-me-down from Dad, and then I married a woman who ahd one. So it's all their fault. That was then. Now it's *your* fault for being so interesting and friendly. -T -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Pentax?
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 09:23:27 +0530 Subash pdml.l...@gmail.com wrote: in fact, i got myself a k50/1.2 (which i still have) and an m28/2.8 months before i got myself the *ist DS. and a query about whether the k50/1.2 was worth buying at about US$100 then was what brought me to the PDML, circa september 2006 :) what i actually wanted to add there was that i found pentax and PDML almost simultaneously. fwiw, the PDML has been a major part of my 'pentax experience' :) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Pentax?
Decades back, I bought an ME, mainly for travel, because the brand had a solid reputation and it was one of the smallest lightest cameras on the market. The main competitor I considered was an Olympus OM, which offered similar advantages. My main lens was an 85/1.8 which partly compensated for the unskilled amateur's tendency to not get close enough. I was quite happy with both camera and lens, though I did occasionally wish for the extra control an MX would have given. However, I stopped travelling so didn't use it much. Then it was stolen and I didn't replace it. Now I'm travelling again, want a good camera again. Again, somewhat to my surprise, I find Pentax and Olympus the most attractive. In-body IS seems to me obviously the Right Thing. Pentax has the advantages of better compatibility with older lenses and those tiny Limited ones (especially the 70/2.4!) look utterly great if you want lightweight kit. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Pentax?
Because I'm too damned stupid to know when to say when. -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Pentax?
1972. Spotmatic II. 50mm/f1.4. Need I say more? First job out of college - first paycheck - first Pentax. Of course the Spotmatic F came out almost as soon as I bought that camera, so I was already wondering about enablement. Then the K mount came along, and I wondered about that too. Eventually I succumbed, and in 1976 I bought myself an MX. Still got it, although I haven't used it for around 5 years. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Why Pentax Takumar Screw lenses were/are all so good?
Nobody came up with the answer to my quiz why the Pentax Takumar Screw mount lenses were/are all so good? Answer : They were 200% optical bench tested before being sold in USA. Thats right, 200%. Every single final assembled Takumar Lens was optically bench tested at the Asahi factory in Japan before being imported into the USA by Honeywell. THEN, once Honeywell got them, Every single lens was optically bench tested AGAIN by Honeywell before being put for sale in USA. This is why ( along with the superb build quality ) there is such consistant high optical quality for these lenses as the dogs were all rejected in the process. I doubt that many lenses today are subjected to such high quality control. I am sure expensive ones still are, but not the entire lens series. It would be way too costly in today's market I would especially when the build quality of many lenses ( especially budget models ) would create more rejects. This brings up another thought, wouldnt it have been cool to work in that test dept and have a company discount to purchase the lenses? I mean, if a given lens had to meet say, 75 lp/mm to pass test, and they typically ran say, 80 to 85 lp/mm, what would be cool would be to sit aside and buy the occasional 90 to 95 lp/mm lens that might have squeaked thru once in a while. Employees get to buy the gems so to speak! I wonder if this actually occured, or maybe Pentax or Honeywell permitted it? That would interesting to find out. jco -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Why Pentax Takumar Screw lenses were/are all so good?
I worked for Honeywell when they were the importer for both Pentax and Rollei. While I worked in a totally different part of the company I did enjoy the employee pricing. jm From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' pdml@pdml.net Subject: Why Pentax Takumar Screw lenses were/are all so good? Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:04:42 -0500 Nobody came up with the answer to my quiz why the Pentax Takumar Screw mount lenses were/are all so good? Answer : They were 200% optical bench tested before being sold in USA. Thats right, 200%. Every single final assembled Takumar Lens was optically bench tested at the Asahi factory in Japan before being imported into the USA by Honeywell. THEN, once Honeywell got them, Every single lens was optically bench tested AGAIN by Honeywell before being put for sale in USA. This is why ( along with the superb build quality ) there is such consistant high optical quality for these lenses as the dogs were all rejected in the process. I doubt that many lenses today are subjected to such high quality control. I am sure expensive ones still are, but not the entire lens series. It would be way too costly in today's market I would especially when the build quality of many lenses ( especially budget models ) would create more rejects. This brings up another thought, wouldnt it have been cool to work in that test dept and have a company discount to purchase the lenses? I mean, if a given lens had to meet say, 75 lp/mm to pass test, and they typically ran say, 80 to 85 lp/mm, what would be cool would be to sit aside and buy the occasional 90 to 95 lp/mm lens that might have squeaked thru once in a while. Employees get to buy the gems so to speak! I wonder if this actually occured, or maybe Pentax or Honeywell permitted it? That would interesting to find out. jco -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Why Pentax Takumar Screw lenses were/are all so good?
J. C. O'Connell wrote: Nobody came up with the answer to my quiz why the Pentax Takumar Screw mount lenses were/are all so good? Answer : They were 200% optical bench tested before being sold in USA. Thats right, 200%. Every single final assembled Takumar Lens was optically bench tested at the Asahi factory in Japan before being imported into the USA by Honeywell. THEN, once Honeywell got them, Every single lens was optically bench tested AGAIN by Honeywell before being put for sale in USA. This is why ( along with the superb build quality ) there is such consistant high optical quality for these lenses as the dogs were all rejected in the process. How did the 20mm(?) (alleged) Bow-wow get through that? I doubt that many lenses today are subjected to such high quality control. I am sure expensive ones still are, but not the entire lens series. It would be way too costly in today's market I would especially when the build quality of many lenses ( especially budget models ) would create more rejects. This brings up another thought, wouldnt it have been cool to work in that test dept and have a company discount to purchase the lenses? I mean, if a given lens had to meet say, 75 lp/mm to pass test, and they typically ran say, 80 to 85 lp/mm, what would be cool would be to sit aside and buy the occasional 90 to 95 lp/mm lens that might have squeaked thru once in a while. Employees get to buy the gems so to speak! I wonder if this actually occured, or maybe Pentax or Honeywell permitted it? That would interesting to find out. jco -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Why Pentax Takumar Screw lenses were/are all so good?
On 14/02/07, mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How did the 20mm(?) (alleged) Bow-wow get through that? Most 20mm lenses were pretty ordinary at that stage in lens development so I guess they made spec ;-) -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Why Pentax Takumar Screw lenses were/are all so good?
Digital Image Studio wrote: On 14/02/07, mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How did the 20mm(?) (alleged) Bow-wow get through that? Most 20mm lenses were pretty ordinary at that stage in lens development so I guess they made spec ;-) Precisely. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Why Pentax Takumar Screw lenses were/are all so good?
They tested lenses against their design specifications. Not the designs themselves... mike wilson wrote: J. C. O'Connell wrote: Nobody came up with the answer to my quiz why the Pentax Takumar Screw mount lenses were/are all so good? Answer : They were 200% optical bench tested before being sold in USA. Thats right, 200%. Every single final assembled Takumar Lens was optically bench tested at the Asahi factory in Japan before being imported into the USA by Honeywell. THEN, once Honeywell got them, Every single lens was optically bench tested AGAIN by Honeywell before being put for sale in USA. This is why ( along with the superb build quality ) there is such consistant high optical quality for these lenses as the dogs were all rejected in the process. How did the 20mm(?) (alleged) Bow-wow get through that? I doubt that many lenses today are subjected to such high quality control. I am sure expensive ones still are, but not the entire lens series. It would be way too costly in today's market I would especially when the build quality of many lenses ( especially budget models ) would create more rejects. This brings up another thought, wouldnt it have been cool to work in that test dept and have a company discount to purchase the lenses? I mean, if a given lens had to meet say, 75 lp/mm to pass test, and they typically ran say, 80 to 85 lp/mm, what would be cool would be to sit aside and buy the occasional 90 to 95 lp/mm lens that might have squeaked thru once in a while. Employees get to buy the gems so to speak! I wonder if this actually occured, or maybe Pentax or Honeywell permitted it? That would interesting to find out. jco -- -- The more I know of men, the more I like my dog. -- Anne Louise Germaine de Stael -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Why Pentax Takumar Screw lenses were/are all so good?
At least all the bow wows were the same bow wows. :) I am sure every lens had different design and test specifications. The problem with the bow wow 20mm was mostly geometry which is by optical design, not assembly tolerances. I bet they most likely were only doing resolution tests, not geometry tests anyway. Dont forget either that when the 20mm super tak was introduced, it was the widest rectilinear lens they had ever made and they probably thought it was acceptable for the extreme focal length it offered...Not to me it isnt, but at least thats the only bow wow they really ever made in M42 super/ smc takumar series. Even their early zooms were better than that. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of mike wilson Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 5:03 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Why Pentax Takumar Screw lenses were/are all so good? J. C. O'Connell wrote: Nobody came up with the answer to my quiz why the Pentax Takumar Screw mount lenses were/are all so good? Answer : They were 200% optical bench tested before being sold in USA. Thats right, 200%. Every single final assembled Takumar Lens was optically bench tested at the Asahi factory in Japan before being imported into the USA by Honeywell. THEN, once Honeywell got them, Every single lens was optically bench tested AGAIN by Honeywell before being put for sale in USA. This is why ( along with the superb build quality ) there is such consistant high optical quality for these lenses as the dogs were all rejected in the process. How did the 20mm(?) (alleged) Bow-wow get through that? I doubt that many lenses today are subjected to such high quality control. I am sure expensive ones still are, but not the entire lens series. It would be way too costly in today's market I would especially when the build quality of many lenses ( especially budget models ) would create more rejects. This brings up another thought, wouldnt it have been cool to work in that test dept and have a company discount to purchase the lenses? I mean, if a given lens had to meet say, 75 lp/mm to pass test, and they typically ran say, 80 to 85 lp/mm, what would be cool would be to sit aside and buy the occasional 90 to 95 lp/mm lens that might have squeaked thru once in a while. Employees get to buy the gems so to speak! I wonder if this actually occured, or maybe Pentax or Honeywell permitted it? That would interesting to find out. jco -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Why Pentax Takumar Screw lenses were/are all so good?
yes, but so were zoom lenses when pentax introduced their first zooms but Pentax first zooms are excellent and dont bark. I still say they screwed up on that first 20mm. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of mike wilson Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 5:22 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Why Pentax Takumar Screw lenses were/are all so good? Digital Image Studio wrote: On 14/02/07, mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How did the 20mm(?) (alleged) Bow-wow get through that? Most 20mm lenses were pretty ordinary at that stage in lens development so I guess they made spec ;-) Precisely. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Why Pentax Takumar Screw lenses were/are all so good?
Hey JCO, if you love Taks so much, would you be at all interested in buying the ones I listed for sale last weekend? The fish-eye, at least, appears to be pretty rare. John -- http://www.neovenator.com http://www.cafepress.com/neovenatorphoto - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' pdml@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 10:04 AM Subject: Why Pentax Takumar Screw lenses were/are all so good? Nobody came up with the answer to my quiz why the Pentax Takumar Screw mount lenses were/are all so good? Answer : They were 200% optical bench tested before being sold in USA. Thats right, 200%. Every single final assembled Takumar Lens was optically bench tested at the Asahi factory in Japan before being imported into the USA by Honeywell. THEN, once Honeywell got them, Every single lens was optically bench tested AGAIN by Honeywell before being put for sale in USA. This is why ( along with the superb build quality ) there is such consistant high optical quality for these lenses as the dogs were all rejected in the process. I doubt that many lenses today are subjected to such high quality control. I am sure expensive ones still are, but not the entire lens series. It would be way too costly in today's market I would especially when the build quality of many lenses ( especially budget models ) would create more rejects. This brings up another thought, wouldnt it have been cool to work in that test dept and have a company discount to purchase the lenses? I mean, if a given lens had to meet say, 75 lp/mm to pass test, and they typically ran say, 80 to 85 lp/mm, what would be cool would be to sit aside and buy the occasional 90 to 95 lp/mm lens that might have squeaked thru once in a while. Employees get to buy the gems so to speak! I wonder if this actually occured, or maybe Pentax or Honeywell permitted it? That would interesting to find out. jco -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Why Pentax Takumar Screw lenses were/are all so good?
hey, guess you missed my earilier posts stating I already have an entire set of the super multi coated takumars. I think I finished collecting those about 5 years ago. Thanks for the heads-up though. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Celio Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 12:38 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Why Pentax Takumar Screw lenses were/are all so good? Hey JCO, if you love Taks so much, would you be at all interested in buying the ones I listed for sale last weekend? The fish-eye, at least, appears to be pretty rare. John -- http://www.neovenator.com http://www.cafepress.com/neovenatorphoto - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' pdml@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 10:04 AM Subject: Why Pentax Takumar Screw lenses were/are all so good? Nobody came up with the answer to my quiz why the Pentax Takumar Screw mount lenses were/are all so good? Answer : They were 200% optical bench tested before being sold in USA. Thats right, 200%. Every single final assembled Takumar Lens was optically bench tested at the Asahi factory in Japan before being imported into the USA by Honeywell. THEN, once Honeywell got them, Every single lens was optically bench tested AGAIN by Honeywell before being put for sale in USA. This is why ( along with the superb build quality ) there is such consistant high optical quality for these lenses as the dogs were all rejected in the process. I doubt that many lenses today are subjected to such high quality control. I am sure expensive ones still are, but not the entire lens series. It would be way too costly in today's market I would especially when the build quality of many lenses ( especially budget models ) would create more rejects. This brings up another thought, wouldnt it have been cool to work in that test dept and have a company discount to purchase the lenses? I mean, if a given lens had to meet say, 75 lp/mm to pass test, and they typically ran say, 80 to 85 lp/mm, what would be cool would be to sit aside and buy the occasional 90 to 95 lp/mm lens that might have squeaked thru once in a while. Employees get to buy the gems so to speak! I wonder if this actually occured, or maybe Pentax or Honeywell permitted it? That would interesting to find out. jco -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Why Pentax Cannot Supply Lenses
Perhaps Pentax are changing their assembly line to make all lenses more suitable for digital - extra multicoating on the rear element to reduce reflections for example? Nick
Why Pentax Cannot Supply Lenses
I heard through the grapevine that the lens assembler in Vietnam has been ill. Joe
Re: Why Pentax Cannot Supply Lenses
Yikes! Joe, are you pulling the collective leg, or are you serious? I'd be amazed that the lens assembly would bottleneck at one person, but I have heard more outrageous tales. It's obviously not a very robust manufacturing approach. t On 5/25/04 14:08, jtainter wrote: I heard through the grapevine that the lens assembler in Vietnam has been ill. Joe
Re: Why Pentax Cannot Supply Lenses
You know what? They took our advice and tightened the QC. And now none of their lenses was able to leave the factory. :-) Regards, Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan Yikes! Joe, are you pulling the collective leg, or are you serious? I'd be amazed that the lens assembly would bottleneck at one person, but I have heard more outrageous tales. It's obviously not a very robust manufacturing approach. _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN Premium. Get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: Why Pentax Cannot Supply Lenses
Yikes! Joe, are you pulling the collective leg, or are you serious? Of course I'm pulling the collective leg. OTOH, it is the best speculation I can come up with to explain why this company, which is known for its lenses, cannot manage to ship any (while simultaneously offering rebates on same). I don't know whether Pentax now does all lens assembly at the plant in Vietnam. It does appear, though, that they are in a manufacturing transition, which has involved not only relocation to a new country but cutbacks in capacity. Joe
AF extensions tubes - was Why Pentax *ist (35mm) isn't good?
Why would they correct the aperture value for the extension? This is just the same as having your lens at minimum focusing distance, surely the meter just reads that as less light coming through? Paul Ewins Melbourne, Australia -Original Message- From: Alin Flaider [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Do the Kenko AF tubes correct the transmitted aperture value with the extension tube's factor? - otherwise it messes with multisegment metering and it's pretty much useless. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.488 / Virus Database: 287 - Release Date: 5/06/2003
Re: Why Pentax *ist (35mm) isn't good?
Hi Jose, on 19 Jun 03 you wrote in pentax.list: I'm new in the forum, and it seems that the new Pentax *ist (35mm) is not a favourite among forum members. Can anybody explain me in a few words why? In addition to Len's and Grawolf's replies: The *ist has mount, that doesn't support older SMC/SMC-M lenses (non-A-lenses). There are many useres who don't like this idea (some of them have a notable number of those lenses and they are disappointed that the *istD won't support them in a sensible way). But if I remember correctly then you are using only A-lenses. So this issue won't be a problem for you. In other words, may I buy that camera, or the Nikon 75 or even the veteran Canon EOS 300 are better choices? I would prefer the *ist. The F75's viewfinder is terrible and I don't like Canon's user interface. I have tried the *ist on the Cebit this year and I was impressed by the fast AF, the good viewfinder and the ergonomic user interface. It has the most sophisticated AF system of all. There is one thing all these entry-level camera's have in common: they look and feel quite cheap because of their silver plastics finishing. Not comparable to a solid Super A...;-) Cheers, Heiko
Re: Why Pentax *ist (35mm) isn't good?
How about the auto extension tubes? The non-auto ones will work, of course - but auto ext. tubes behaves like KM lenses, afaik. If they won't work, I guess it's time for a new - A, maybe even FA - version. Alex
Re: Why Pentax *ist (35mm) isn't good?
Alex. The Kenko tubes have the AF 'screwdriver' connection. Plus all the electrical connections. And they are available in PAF. Kind regards Peter
Re: Why Pentax *ist (35mm) isn't good?
Yes, of course - I was talking about the Pentax tubes, as I really think they should be compatible with *ist, at least with *istD. I guess Pentax should upgrade them (at least as A variants), because some people will want to use them with *ist cameras; and I'm more than reasonable asking that (instead of full-mount compatibility). Btw: I have the Pentax auto ext tubes set; paid 39$ sh. Btw: I saw the *ist in a store (in Romania, I mean); I looked at it only a few minutes. It's so small... I think, smaller than MZ-60. It's also very light, and I didn't liked the wheel and the on/of/DOF switch. The lens mount is metal, but the base plate seems to be polycarbonate. The body is... well... cheap, you can scratch it easily - even the MZ-6 is much better. However, the viewfinder seems to be nicer than MZ-6's one, with a larger eyepiece (I think). - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 3:04 PM Subject: Re: Why Pentax *ist (35mm) isn't good? Alex. The Kenko tubes have the AF 'screwdriver' connection. Plus all the electrical connections. And they are available in PAF. Kind regards Peter
Re[2]: Why Pentax *ist (35mm) isn't good?
Do the Kenko AF tubes correct the transmitted aperture value with the extension tube's factor? - otherwise it messes with multisegment metering and it's pretty much useless. Anyway, for this very reason, the A variety of tubes doesn't make any sense and we probably won't see it from Pentax. Instead, they'll come up directly with the FAJ tubes, that is if Pentax ever sees in its FAJ customers a potential market for specialty tools as macro tubes. Servus, Alin Peter wrote: Cac The Kenko tubes have the AF 'screwdriver' connection. Plus all the electrical Cac connections. Cac And they are available in PAF.
Why Pentax *ist (35mm) isnt good?
Im new in the forum, and it seems that the new Pentax *ist (35mm) is not a favourite among forum members. Can anybody explain me in a few words why? In other words, may I buy that camera, or the Nikon 75 or even the veteran Canon EOS 300 are better choices? I never had a AF camera (I own a Pentax P30t) so tell me your opinions about the best choice among the three mentioned bodies. Thanks
RE: Why Pentax *ist (35mm) isn´t good?
Part of the reason is because there are only a few people here that actually have one, so most people here have no real first-hand knowledge of it. Most of the opinions here are based on reading what other people say about it and then carrying that lack of knowledge to extremes. I recommend finding a camera store that will allow you to test it yourself. Bring a roll of film with you, load it up, and then put the camera through some tough tests to see how it performs. Len --- -Original Message- From: Jose Luis Gonzalez Martin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 6:12 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Why Pentax *ist (35mm) isn´t good? I´m new in the forum, and it seems that the new Pentax *ist (35mm) is not a favourite among forum members. Can anybody explain me in a few words why? In other words, may I buy that camera, or the Nikon 75 or even the veteran Canon EOS 300 are better choices? I never had a AF camera (I own a Pentax P30t) so tell me your opinions about the best choice among the three mentioned bodies. Thanks
Re: Why Pentax *ist (35mm) isn´t good?
I´m new in the forum, and it seems that the new Pentax *ist (35mm) is not a favourite among forum members. Can anybody explain me in a few words why? In other words, may I buy that camera, or the Nikon 75 or even the veteran Canon EOS 300 are better choices? I never had a AF camera (I own a Pentax P30t) so tell me your opinions about the best choice among the three mentioned bodies. I don't think the *ist is a bad camera at all, just that most members here don't like the crippled mount which was designed to dump the K/M lenses. But then again, this should not bother any new comers because they are going to buy AF lenses anyway. regards, Alan Chan _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: Why Pentax *ist (35mm) isn´t good?
Insufficient. According to Master Rubenstein, you have to check it for at least 6 months. cheers, caveman. Len Paris wrote: Part of the reason is because there are only a few people here that actually have one, so most people here have no real first-hand knowledge of it. Most of the opinions here are based on reading what other people say about it and then carrying that lack of knowledge to extremes. I recommend finding a camera store that will allow you to test it yourself. Bring a roll of film with you, load it up, and then put the camera through some tough tests to see how it performs.
Re: Why Pentax *ist (35mm) isn´t good?
What? Shoot some film? That's heresy on this list! Bill - Original Message - From: Len Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 7:30 PM Subject: RE: Why Pentax *ist (35mm) isn´t good? Part of the reason is because there are only a few people here that actually have one, so most people here have no real first-hand knowledge of it. Most of the opinions here are based on reading what other people say about it and then carrying that lack of knowledge to extremes. I recommend finding a camera store that will allow you to test it yourself. Bring a roll of film with you, load it up, and then put the camera through some tough tests to see how it performs. Len --- -Original Message- From: Jose Luis Gonzalez Martin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 6:12 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Why Pentax *ist (35mm) isn´t good? I´m new in the forum, and it seems that the new Pentax *ist (35mm) is not a favourite among forum members. Can anybody explain me in a few words why? In other words, may I buy that camera, or the Nikon 75 or even the veteran Canon EOS 300 are better choices? I never had a AF camera (I own a Pentax P30t) so tell me your opinions about the best choice among the three mentioned bodies. Thanks
Re: Why Pentax *ist (35mm) isn´t good?
How dare you suggest some of us shoot film with cameras. We haven't got time as spend all are free time arguing about features, lack of features, construction, advertising or what we would like to compare in the future. Now, back to the spec sheets and catalogues Bob Rapp - Original Message - From: Bill Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED] What? Shoot some film? That's heresy on this list! Bill
Re: Why Pentax *ist isn't good?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I´m new in the forum, and it seems that the new Pentax *ist (35mm) is not a favourite among forum members. This is a list of whiners! They want everything, but bought Pentax because it was cheap, an economical choice with good value. Pentax has been slow to introduce a digital camera that will allow the mounting of all the old 35mm lenses that are owned by folks in this forum. Now that Pentax is close to releasing a beginner's version of such a digital camera, these same folks are whining because some of their 30 year old equipment will not be compatible. So be it, I say! I've got some great lenses and some old cameras that produce wonderful images on film. This stuff can't be replaced at today's manufacturing costs and quality levels. I'm gonna keep using it and being happy! Regards, Bob S.
Re: Why Pentax *ist (35mm) isn´t good?
Before I look at the other replies, I want to respond to this. 1. on this list are some very, very experienced photographers who would look down their nose at any entry level camera. 2. the rumor is that the more advanced *ist Digital is going to have the same interface which dismays those who have been waiting years for Pentax to bring out an advanced digital slr. 3. there is a certain element of the if it ain't perfect it is junk attitude here. 4. no one here has any real experience with the camera because it is so new, so you are dealing with speculations from folks who have been disappointed before. Try back in 3 months and there will be a lot of real information on the camera here. 5. we hate the name. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Jose Luis Gonzalez Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 7:11 PM Subject: Why Pentax *ist (35mm) isn´t good? I´m new in the forum, and it seems that the new Pentax *ist (35mm) is not a favourite among forum members. Can anybody explain me in a few words why? In other words, may I buy that camera, or the Nikon 75 or even the veteran Canon EOS 300 are better choices? I never had a AF camera (I own a Pentax P30t) so tell me your opinions about the best choice among the three mentioned bodies. Thanks
RE: Why Pentax *ist (35mm) isn´t good?
Jose, to a very large extent, I agree with Len's response. While you are correct that the *ist (35mm) is not a favourite among forum members, I'd venture to say that the reason is that most of those voicing negative opinions on the camera would not buy it anyway unless it was on sale on eBay for 20% of the initial retail price. So few people here actually spend money on new Pentax equipment, that it's almost absurd to call this a list of Pentax supporters. So, while your assessment of the opinions may be accurate, as Len suggested, you have to also consider the people who tend to chime in. In addition, as Len alluded to, only about THREE active people (at most?) on this list have ever even used an *ist, and few (if any) have used it extensively enough to have a sound opinion on it already (in terms of usability, ergonomics, etc). Por eso, much of what you've heard has been bickering for the sake of bandwidth consumption. But with that said, one legitimate complaint that PDMLers have voiced (about 14 million times) is the concern of 100% compatibility between the new camera and any older lenses that they may own. Since you own a P30, then I suspect that this may be an issue for you also; but of course that depends specifically on what lenses you plan to use with the new camera. If they are Auto focus lenses (likely, since it's an AF camera you want to buy), then this will not be an issue with you. In my opinion, the *ist offers a lot for the price, and is a Fantastic purchase if it suits your personal needs. From a specifications standpoint, it's hard for me to see why this camera wouldn't be an absolute winner (if Pentax marketed it correctly). Lastly, I again have appeal to Len's response when he wrote: I recommend finding a camera store that will allow you to test it yourself. That is possibly the best advice you will hear from this entire thread. If you can, find someplace with a good reputation and a decent return policy (make sure it is in writing and the terms are clear). Play with the camera for a week (or however long), and by then you will know if it's for you, not to mention if there are compatibility issues with the lenses you intend to use. If it works for you, great. If not, then perhaps come back and ask the list for other suggestions. Of course, you could likely find it cheaper on the internet than at your local store... but consider the mark-up in cost the price you pay for being able to try before you buy. As they say in those Visa commercials, Priceless. _ Jerome D. Coombs-Reyes, PhD Candidate ISyE, Georgia Institute of Technology http://exposedfilm.net
Re: Why Pentax *ist (35mm) isnXt good?
Quoting Bob Rapp [EMAIL PROTECTED]: How dare you suggest some of us shoot film with cameras. Imagine that! I say we boot Bill (or WHOEVER suggested it!) from the list... that no good film burner! How dare they. If I used any of my film, then what would I keep in the fridge?...
RE: Why Pentax?
Paul wrote: Excellent post, Mark. I enjoyed it thoroughly. But one of your statements is an absolute falsehood. You 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. I agree with Paul. I think your post explains why you often times come up with these breathtaking photos. You are always looking to improve both your work and your knowledge of photography. Your F-5 story reminds me of a boss I had at Ritz camera. He had the F-5 and the expensive lenses. By his own admission he knew little if anything of the mechanics of photography, and his work showed it, but he bought the f-5 for the superior metering. Your post has one other positive effect. I think I'm going to start using my handheld meter more often. BUTCH Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself. Hermann Hess (Damien)
Re: WHY PENTAX (35mm)? WAS: Re: Pentax -- Canon
I'll go digital when a small format (APS/35mm) sized sensor can produce a 16 x 20 wall sized portrait like my Pentax WR-90 and PZ1-p can (and do).br Otherwise, small format digital imaging is a toy, like APS was, not the tool so many claim it is... unless of course you sell cars or real estate or insurace and other or owna digital for plebian pursuits and find that prints made on under $500 inkjets are Acceptable.br = Ed I get it done with YAHOO! DSL!
Re: WHY PENTAX? WAS: Re: Pentax -- Canon
- Original Message - From: Mark Cassino [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: WHY PENTAX? WAS: Re: Pentax -- Canon 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. Absolutely! This is what I'm going to do in the nearest future - get an incident light meter, exactly due to the reason you've stated. Actually I must say, that I tend to use matrix metering less and less. I prefer to use spot metering+ML button (with my Z-1p) and I'm perfectly happy when using the SuperA with its c/w metering. But the incident light meter allows me to maintain total control over exposure and its readings are incomparably more accurate... Regards Artur
SV: WHY PENTAX? WAS: Re: Pentax -- Canon
Right Arthur. Offcource if you sue a tele lens, the caera meter will often do a better job. I once saw a broadcast about a project, where street children were photographing with a K1000 and an incident light meter. The shots were brilliant. Since then I usen my Lunasix a lot. Regards Jens -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Artur Ledóchowski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 23. marts 2003 10:03 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: WHY PENTAX? WAS: Re: Pentax -- Canon - Original Message - From: Mark Cassino [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: WHY PENTAX? WAS: Re: Pentax -- Canon 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. Absolutely! This is what I'm going to do in the nearest future - get an incident light meter, exactly due to the reason you've stated. Actually I must say, that I tend to use matrix metering less and less. I prefer to use spot metering+ML button (with my Z-1p) and I'm perfectly happy when using the SuperA with its c/w metering. But the incident light meter allows me to maintain total control over exposure and its readings are incomparably more accurate... Regards Artur
Re: WHY PENTAX? WAS: Re: Pentax -- Canon
Yes - when you watch the camera meter move the setting all over the place, and then realize that you are just looking at different things in the same light, it becomes apparent that evaluative metering systems really can't do it. Aside from an incident meter (I should of used the correct term) just carrying a gray card and metering off it does fine. That's not to say that I don't use evaluative metering - one of the things I really like about the Mz-S is that with a quick flick of a switch you can see the exposures as set by evaluative, spot, and center weighted metering, and you can better understand what's going on. While one metering system may be more accurate in some circumstances than another, the degree of difference is pretty negligible. The whole idea of marketing is to What really impressed me was when I learned about the zone system in a class last year - not only in terms of determining exposure, but also in terms of integrating over or under development of the film into the exposure system. The fullness and accuracy of the system was a real eye opener - so far beyond something that one could expect a camera and a computer chip to do. - MCC At 10:03 AM 3/23/2003 +0100, you wrote: - Original Message - From: Mark Cassino [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: WHY PENTAX? WAS: Re: Pentax -- Canon 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. Absolutely! This is what I'm going to do in the nearest future - get an incident light meter, exactly due to the reason you've stated. Actually I must say, that I tend to use matrix metering less and less. I prefer to use spot metering+ML button (with my Z-1p) and I'm perfectly happy when using the SuperA with its c/w metering. But the incident light meter allows me to maintain total control over exposure and its readings are incomparably more accurate... Regards Artur - - - - - - - - - - Mark Cassino Kalamazoo, MI [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - - - - - - - - Photos: http://www.markcassino.com - - - - - - - - - -
