jeg

Better? For what application? Most professional gear is excellent and you decide which features and format you want -- a RZ/RB67 is a very different camera than a 6x6 Hasselblad or a Bronica 645 rangefinder. Photographers don't use Mamiyas because they cannot afford Hasselblad, but because the cameras fits their style, workflow and expectations. For example, if image quality is paramount, larger negative size always beats a smaller format, while the later is often more convenient or has other, desirable features. A small Mamiya M645 Super kit with the AE prism and motor grip gives you a very easy-to-use camera with all the advantages of a MUCH larger format than 35mm. If you prefer tripod work, it is less suited and you should look at the various 6x6, 6x7 or 6x8 camera designs. Fore casual or candid shooting, a rangefinder or TLR might be better, so check out these camera types if you are interested in this kind of photography. There is no "perfect" all-round camera, only specialized tools that give you huge advantages while having drawbacks in some aspects. Welcome to medium format!

So you want a plate camera. Fine. The best way to use them is by getting a contemporary roll film adapter (i.e., Rollex, Rada cassette) and shooting modern 120 roll film (in 6x9 format) with it. First get the roll film back, then buy a matching plate camera (the roll film adapters come for 6.5x9, 9x12 and possibly larger formats). Sheet film is just too much hassle and too expensive to be fun in the long run. The roll film adapter just works like a regular medium format back, so no need to load it in darkness. Frame counting is done by a ruby window in the back.

I cannot see your link, so I can't advise you there. The 105mm f/2.4 is a Pentax 67 lens which will not fit any Mamiya 6x7 camera. Better research this topic a bit more.

The problem is, that both your current Canon lenses and those two Samsung lenses are just cheap consumer zooms. Image quality is probably pretty equal, but since these kinds of lenses are rarely compared by serious photographers/reviewers, one can not be sure. But make no mistake: No kit will give you the best each camera body can theoretically archieve.

 

Canon has the advantage that there is a huge lens line-up available, both used and new, and that there are many, many fine prime and zoom lenses in all flavours available. With adapters you can even mount and use lots of manual focus gear, which the Samsung can also do to a limited degree (at the very least, Pentax K, M42 and possibly Nikon adapters should be available). Canon offers all kinds of accessories and system components, but everything has its price, though. Who knows how long Pentax/Samsung will stay in the market, but if you feel satisfied with what they currently have, there is no need worrying about the limits of their system.

 

And yes, apertures stay the same, but the APS-C size focal lengths must be multiplicated by 1.5x to get the equivalent angle-of-view for 35mm/full-frame format.

<div></div>

<center>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3167114">

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3167114-lg.jpg"

title="click_me!" hspace="5 vspace="10">

<br><i>Not Welcome Mr. Bush</i></a></center>

<center>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/5275476">

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/5275476-lg.jpg"

title="click_me!" hspace="5 vspace="10">

<br><i>Balaclava</i></a></center>

<div></div>

<center>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/6485485">

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6485485-md.jpg"

title="click_me!" hspace="5 vspace="10">

<br><i>Tokyo Signs...</i></a></center>

<div></div>

Picture quality-wise they are about equal and you will hardly notice any difference in real life photography.

 

But that fact is, size and weight and ergonomics are different. These are major issues and it can only decided by you which camera you prefer. I like my cameras big and sturdy, so I use a 20D (couldn't afford anything bigger). Both have their advantages and drawbacks, so check them both out in a photo store, handle them and get the one you find more enjoyable.

I think that anything put over the pop-up flash will dramatically reduce its range, making the whole approach pretty useless. But you can always give it a try with a digital camera.

As Mark said, the dirt of a dusty lens or fungus will not show up on images, but the condition may reduce contrast and promote other optical aberrations.

<p>

<a href="http://www.deansphotographica.com/deans_of_idaho/old_stuff_pages/dirtylenstest/dirtylenstest.html">Here</a> is a nice webpage with pictures that were taken with a bad case of dirt and lens fungus. Enjoy.

Where is the fast (and lightweight and small) prime lenses option?

 

At least I agree with Emre, (2) is the worst choice. I'd check out the lenses in your local photo store and see how they handle on your camera (e.g., weight-wise etc) and get the one(s) you feel most comfortable with. Image quality should be pretty equal in most real life situations, but at least try one or two prime lenses for comparison.

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

AT? What's that? Tokina AT-X series lenses are/were made for several camera mounts.

 

The old Canon FD lenses are about the only ones which are not practically to use on EOS bodies. M42, Nikon F, Leica R, Olympus OM and Pentax K (crop factor bodies only?) lenses can be attached to Canon digital SLRs and used with manual focusing and stop-down metering. It takes some practice and with some lenses exposure compensation must be used (up to +1 stop to archieve a "normal" exposure), but if you are not categorically against manual focus, it can make a world of inexpensive lenses available.

 

A great wide angle prime is the Tokina AT-X 17mm f/3.5 autofocus lens. Costs used about the same as the EF 20mm. We all hope Canon will bring out some crop-factor super-wide primes, but for now they only offer zoom lenses.