alex_kinnan

<p>The early comments about grain reminded me of my first experience with Lucky Colour film back around 1994 -- I described it to whoever was unfortunate enough to be nearby that it was quite remarkable: A 100-speed film with the grain of a 400-speed film! Lovely packaging back then, though...</p>

<p>K1000's a great camera, but I suspect the reason you've heard it mentioned so much in regards to getting started is because for many years, pre-digital, it was the most easily obtainable and cost-effective solution. Nowadays, though, there's no small number of really good 35mm SLRs available for very little money; very little compared to what they originally cost, anyway. Outside of some collectible models, now you're more likely to pay a premium for condition, rather than feature-set. Thus a well-kept or fully restored K1000 might well run you more than a worn-out T-50 or X-700.</p>

<p>I have a K1000, and really like it; I also have a couple of SRTs and I think they're a bit nicer. Among other things, the Minoltas have split focusing aids, which my K1000 does not (making it kind of hard to focus in low light).</p>

<p>As others have said, the great thing about Minolta MD-mount and Canon FD-mount cameras is that most of the current DSLRs can't easily use their lenses, thus the prices on some really great lenses are still relatively low (though that might change as more folks take up 4/3 systems). Of course, there are collectible outliers that will always be pricey -- there are no good deals to be had on, say a Minolta MD 85mm f/2 or any of Canon's L-Series FD models. :)</p>

<p>That all being said, the one thing in the K1000's favour is that there's no shortage of lenses available for it. In fact, ANY K-mount camera might be a good idea based on that; including some of Pentax's own, much better models. I have to admit, that, if I had the money to spend, I would love to outfit my old K1000 or my cheap and light ZX-M with, say, a 31mm Ltd. :)</p>

<p>Ah... But you did ask a specific question about two models. Given that, my short answer is to go for the Minolta; I just picked my 102 up and fired off a few frames. It's just that little bit nicer all around.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Arnab: Terrific shots, so luminous and inviting!<br>

Bob B: Outstanding model work -- the interior comes across as almost completely real!</p>

<p>I'm hoping that it's an Ektar 800 that has the overall image quality of the old Ektar 25.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Anti-shake is reserved for the cheapie P&S cams."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not completely true; not considering some of the very nice and not cheapie-at-all cameras from Sony, Pentax, and Olympus...</p>

<blockquote>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you can find one, the Cosina-made Voigtländer 125mm f/2.5 SL Macro Apo-Lanthar seems well regarded and has, quite frankly, produced most of the best looking macros I've yet seen. Pictures from it have a lush luminosity that almost defies belief...</p>

<p>Just in case anybody from KEH is checking in on this forum, the last three times I tried visiting the site (yesterday and today), I was only able to get on once; so there's still apparently some bugs and whatnot...</p>

<p>Limits? Yes. Mostly from not knowing enough about things I would like to know more about and be better at, photographically speaking.</p>

<p>For my type of shooting, if I had the chops I would like to have, then my Zorki 3M + Jupiter 50/2 and some Tri-X would probably do me just fine. :)</p>

<p>I was just comparison shopping a K7 and a 50D yesterday. The shop FINALLY had a working battery in its sample K7 (they didn't the past two or three times I had gone to look at it). I didn't have much time with the Pentax, and didn't get to try it with anything other than a 50-200mm zoom. The Canon seemed to be a noticeable bit faster "operationally" -- focus, and that sort of thing, but the Pentax was significantly quieter and seemed decently quick compared to, say, my *ist DL which, while I love, seems to move slower than my Canon EOS 620 from 1987!</p>

<p>I like the way both cameras feel in the hand and, in a more cash-rich personal world, I would have both right now... I would say that, if you need a really, really fast camera with access to lots of accessories, get the Canon. If you want a really quiet camera (as in hardly noticeable mirror-slap and shutter noise) with access to a small number of exquisite prime lenses that Canon can only sort-of compete with at much higher prices, then go for the K7.</p>

<p>Not that it matters to most, but the K7 is a prettier-looking camera, while the 50D is more gritty and "cyber" looking.</p>

<p>I've been making occasional use of an A2 since about two years ago and I really like it. Something about the shutter release and the ergonomics appeal to me, as well as the relatively quiet operation. I was lucky to get one where the mirror bumper foam hadn't melted yet, so it had clean shutter blades. The top command dial did break on me, though, so now I have to be careful to not nudge the thing lest my modes get changed without my wanting them changed...</p>

<p>Seeing as the camera is kind of quiet, I would suggest pairing it with a quiet lens -- a USM lens. Perhaps a 50/1.4, if the budget allows, or a 35/1.4L...</p>

<p>Also, I have to concur with Tom Burke's words on the EOS 600. I have a 650, a 620, and a 630 and I have to say they are still one of the best-looking and nicest to hold SLR designs I have tried. Unfortunately for mine, the 650 and the 630 are starting to exhibit foam-melt... Also, they are rather LOUD in operation... Someday, I would like to actually find an affordable RT in good shape, as I figure they have to be at least a little bit quieter. As it stands, though, RTs go for rather allot if they work properly...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Interesting stuff. I suspect SDM will be fantastic, once they get it all sorted out, so there's a reason to stick with Pentax. Still, it is a bit worrisome, as I was finally thinking of moving up to an SDM lens (along with a camera that can actuate it). The stories I've heard got me thinking of a move to Canon, but then it seems like all the new Canon stuff has problems with "err99" messages resulting from lens incompatibilities (and which makes me wonder why any pros still use that brand). It makes me wonder if there's a nice, simple database that clearly shows which cameras and lenses to buy from which manufacturers...</p>

<p>I had not heard about any such metering issues with the K20d. Is this common? I get pretty good results using the AE-L button on my *ist DL for metering with manual lenses. Should I expect less decent results if I finally switch to a K10d or K20d?</p>

<p>Is there really a significant difference in performance in the AA-cell using cameras when using rechargeables versus Lithiums? I've only ever used the latter in my DL once or twice, due to cost, and thought *maybe* things seemed snappier, but I wasn't sure if it was a placebo kind of thing or not. Like maybe I wanted it to be snappier since I had paid ten dollars for a set of four disposable batteries... </p>

<p>Normally, I use Eneloops, and have been for nearly two years. I'm looking at a K-x with the intention of continuing to use the Sanyo batteries, unless someone can convince me that the performance would be measurably better with 1.5v cells. I have my doubts, as I would have assumed Pentax would almost certainly have designed their AA cameras around the fact that most folks are going to opt for NiMH rechargeables; so they would have based the gear around a 4.8v system...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>To add my 2 cents to Josh's AA rant, I would have to say that I agree...The AA thing is ok for me because of the low number of Images Daniel takes...But here is the thing. For his K100D super, he has 1 set of CRV-3 lithium rechargeable batteries that are awesome...They provide the full 6 volts the camera needs to perform its best. AA lithium's or non rechargeables are also 6V..<strong>BUT</strong> <strong>AA rechargeables are a max of 4.8 volts.</strong> ..This hurts frame rate and auto focus speed for obvious reasons...I am hoping this new K-X will also accept CRV-3's otherwise it will need to be $9.00 a pop every time I need to put batteries in the thing....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Use the lens elements as components in your personal defense system... when the time comes.</p>

<p>I agree with the sentiment that Canon needs to get some digital FD-mount product on the shelves. M4/3 would be nice, too, but resurrecting FD is important.</p>

<p>It should also be noted that the EOS IX (not the "lite" version) is one of the coolest-looking cameras ever made. Totally cyberiffic.</p>

<p>I have an original Elan that is staggeringly quiet. I'd still use it if it hadn't succumbed to the dreaded "melting foam" goop; shutter won't even fire now. A pity, as it's a great camera to hold and use. If you can find one with a shutter that's not gunked-up, then that would be the way to go...</p>

<p>These are really terrific! I especially like the newsstand one (as I like that part of the city in general and may even have my own pix of it) and the tilted one with the woman in boots. The exposures look very good and have a weight to them that I have been missing in my digital stuff of late. If I could afford the processing, I'd seriously consider dusting off my K1000 or my X-700 and shooting AND THEN PROCESSING a bunch of rolls during the course of an afternoon. I live just down the street from downtown, so I guess I should keep an eye open for a guy with a K-7, so I can see what they look like in the wild! :)</p>

<p>I've never really liked it when people at the top of their game swagger about openly with the radiance of all they know glowing about them, and the sort-of messianic aggressiveness of the initial post certainly got my hackles up on that front. Moreover, as someone who is only now contemplating moving up to a basic umbrella and reflector setup from natural light, it frustrates me from the perspective of someone feeling like he is being shamed prematurely for his decision, and because I have to now wonder if I will be wasting my money and time.<br /> <br /> <br /> That aside, I can't be too hard on the OP because his work is terrific and he *does* get the Pentax brand out there. Plus, as I'd actually like to work with him one day, it seems as a good a time as any to eschew some of the harsher language that I originally thought to use. :)<br /> <br /> <br /> Also. I really like Brooks' portrait from 1972. Wish I could get B&W to look so good...<br /></p>

<p>I'd try to find a good deal on an EOS body for lens compatibility. The 600-series bodies feel especially good in the hand, in a way that just makes a person want to pick them up and use them. There was even a manual focus model, that took EF lenses, but had a real manual focusing screen in the finder. Those are a bit rarer than the easily found 650-620-630 bodies. They even seem less common than the RT.<br /> <br /> <br /> The one big thing I would advise if you were planning to go with <em>any</em> pre Elan II body is to be extra careful to check the condition of the shutter blades and mirror bumper. That whole generation of EOS bodies had foam parts that tended to get gooey over the years. If there's oily gunk on the shutter blades, take a pass or figure on getting it fixed. I have an original Elan that can barely actuate its blades due to gunk, that I got on eBay; as well as a 630 that still seems to work, but has some streaking on its blades.<br /> <br /> <br /> As far as performance goes; well, newer is probably better, but it's worth remembering that things got pretty good pretty fast, especially in EOS land. While no one ever seems to recommend the original 650 (unless it's on eBay or in a yard sale and has a fine lens attached to it), I must say that my 620, 630, 10s, and A2 all do a fine job. The 620 is supposedly "slow", and yet I think it focuses just fine and is the nicest one of the bunch in many ways, though I must admit that the meter in the 10s is one of the most dead-on accurate I've ever had in a camera.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> <em>"Seth, I shoot film exclusively and don't "tweak" my photos for two reasons:<br /> <br /> 1) I don't like post processing. I'm a photographer because I like taking pictures, not sitting in front of a computer..."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed! I take umbrage, to a degree, when it is suggested that "it's not photography" if one doesn't do one's own processing and printing. Many well-known photographers had other people process and print their film, partly because they knew that there were advantages to having someone handle the printing who had spent as much time and effort mastering that as the shooter had mastering the acquisition of good imagery. Some seem to think that just because Ansel Adams spent days working on each print, that that's the only way a serious photographer would do it. Fact is, that was just ONE way, and it only worked for him because he had the unique talent for it and his style of photography meant that he probably didn't have 1000 images from an event to sort through and PP.<br /> <br /> <br /> Personally, I like the act of finding and taking a photo; of operating the camera. I can't say I enjoy post-processing the images much, especially when they're vast in number. The thing is, I still consider it photography. Photographers photograph, printers print; and there's nothing wrong with that. It drives me crazy to have to sit in front of a computer even longer than I would, just to get the images I want, so yeah, if I could swing it, I'd have someone else do it, someone whose judgment I trust; and I would still consider the final product MY picture. <br /> <br /> <br /> Maybe if I had a more ergonomic computer setup, it would be a different story. As it is, editing pix from a trip or an event causes me all sorts of aches and pain and makes me tell myself repeatedly that, if I could afford it, I'd probably only shoot film and take it to a pro lab. But I can't, and there's hardly any decent non-expensive labs left it seems. So I shoot mostly digital, and accept the fact that I won't be getting the most out of my images because doing so can be uncomfortable, and because, quite frankly, tweaking a single picture for hours and hours doesn't really get me all that excited... I don't think there's anything wrong with the people that DO enjoy it, but I don't like when some of those folks (especially over on the DPReview forums) make a point of telling everyone how taking your film/files to a printer means it's not photography.</p>

<p>I, too, am curious about it as at Anime Expo in L.A. thru this Sunday, Topaz, which has a stall in the exhibit hall, is selling Adjust, Simplify, DeNoise, and Vivacity in one package for $99. It sure *seems* like a good deal, but in these soft economic times, I want to get as many opinions on it as I can...</p>

<p>Does the lack of a "stroboscopic" mode mean one can't shoot off multiple, rapid-fire bursts with a 540, or is that a different thing entirely?</p>

<p>Thanks for the advice, so far. That list really *is* quite exhaustive and well-done, and has given me much to think about...<br /> <br /> <br /> Did I read that page correctly -- does the 540 not have a "stroboscopic" mode at all? I'm curious, because that seems like a standard high-end flash thing, and one I think I would like, if I understand its nature correctly. It's the thing one would use to analyze one's golf swing, is it not? Oddly enough, that *is* actually something I would like to do at some point, if I could. <br /> <br /> <br /> Also, does that affect the rate that one can fire off an annoying, yet at-times useful barrage of flash-pops? I ask, because one of the things that got me interested in the idea of a dedicated, "good" flash, versus the eBay cheapies I've been using manually for years now, was assisting on a shoot where we were doing "papparazi-style" pictures of folks entering a special event... The guy I was helping was using a Canon 20D and a 580ex II, and he was getting some great stuff by rapid-firing the flash as fast as his camera could shoot. I had seen another 580-user doing this at a different event and, while I found the strobing to be obnoxious, there was no denying that it got shots me and my DL + Vivitar SMS 30D could not hope to ever get! :) Could a K20D and 540 combo do that kind of thing at all? I know the rapid-fire thing is at reduced power, but still...<br /> <br /> <br /> At any rate, I would need a flash that could be bounced or fired straight at the subject without blowing things out. The onboard flash on my DL actually tends to really blow stuff out more than I'd like, which makes me wonder about Pentax's flash metering in general. I just shot an event tonight with a borrowed Nikon D200/SB-800 combo and found the flash did allot more of what I asked it to do than I have been accustomed to. Can I get that kind of "fire-and-forget" reliability/predictability with a 540 or the Sigma or Promaster?<br /> <br /> <br /> Also: That LumoPro sounds like a good bet for if I ever actually try to sit down and really absorb some of the information deluge over at Strobist... :)</p>

<p>Howdy,<br /> <br /> <br /> I'm currently trying to price myself a system to step up to from my *ist DL and small collection of lenses of various length and quality. I've been looking at something along the lines of a K20D with, maybe a Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 and an AF540fgz flash, as I really would like a decent strobe for once, having gotten by in the past with the cheapest old flashes I could find on eBay -- and they're slow and non-dedicated!<br /> <br /> <br /> The thing is, I've suddenly gotten a bee in my bonnet for the DA* 50-135mm and, having seen some terrific pix on the web from it, am thinking of trying to trim costs on the kit to try and swing one. To that effect, I have been considering dialing the body down to either a K200D or even a K2000, and the flash down to... Well, down to whatever third-party fully P-TTL unit folks here might recommend. The main thing is that I need it to be reasonably fast on the recycle, and to both bounce AND swivel.<br /> <br /> <br /> Now, I've seen the 540 is going for around $340, which seems like a good deal compared to Canon and Nikon top-shelf flashes. Is that because it's not as robust? Or is Pentax clearing them out in preparation for a new model? Regardless, I would need the recommended alternative to be substantially cheaper than that $340... Does anyone like Sigma make a decent alternative that people here have used and liked?</p>