ill-equiped snapshots

[vuk_vuksanovic]

the nice thing about the pentax "ist" cameras is that they're nice and small, so

you don't usually think twice about bringing one along. i've been doing this on

some of my bike rides by the lake and this morning i mounted the legendary

tamron 90mm f/2.5 macro in anticipation of some close-ups of wet rocks. that

was the plan but then i ran into some friendly birds...

<br><br>

<a href='http://vukfoto.com/swann/'>click here for pictures</a>

<br><br>

i'm going to have to go back with a more appropriate lens and a film camera.

<br><br>

vuk.

[vuk_vuksanovic]

...was referring to the digital "ist" cameras (i've got a DS2)...

[jim nichols]

Great shots! I don't see how you can improve on most of those.

[mountainvisions]

what are you looking to improve?

 

i'm a film fan myself but i've had no complaints in terms of image quality.

 

I still prefer film but scanning is a pain. I take my film camera places I don't like to take my digital (backpacking, climbing, ect) when I want more then a point and shoot.

[ivo_miesen]

>I take my film camera places I don't like to take my digital (backpacking, climbing, ect) when I want more then a point and shoot.

 

Untill this winter I reasoned the same. But after having some problems with the quality of current slide film on sale in my area I decided to take my istDs with me on cycling tours through the Caucasus and Bosnia&Hercegovina. Didn't regret it one minute, the camera stood up to the task brilliantly. Despite the battering the camera took it worked perfectly. The only problempoint proved to be the Imagetank, wrecked one on the road to the Caucasus, then 2nd one I took to Bosnia is having quite some hick-ups. So that should be your only doubt, the storage capacity.

[vuk_vuksanovic]

what i was getting at primarily is that a 90mm macro lens with awful bokeh isn't quite what you want to have as your only lens when running into some friendly swanns. i was severely limited in playing with DOF and just shot everything at a small aperture to avoid problems. also, given the dynamic ragne of the bird's colouration, film is certainly the better way of capturing all the tonality, although things did work out fairly well in shot #2.

 

thanks for the comments.

 

vuk.

[mountainvisions]

A $400 body might not expensive for some but for me it's still pricey. I've taken my DSLR on day hikes but the dust is an issue.

 

My preference for film is that I lose no quality (actually gain plenty) and can toss the body off a cliff, laugh, buy another and I'm out $100 and a roll of film.

 

The film bodies (ist 35, and Program series) are also lighter then digital.

 

Storage is also an issue. I have a portable HD that is about the size of a deck of cards but it's another electronic gadget to fail or need power.

 

I prefer simple cameras in the backcountry cause a dead camera is just a paperweight that I need to pack out. I shoot less but I also worry less.