DWScott

<blockquote> <p>...but they say they don't do repairs now:<br /><a href="http://kohscamera.com/repair.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://kohscamera.com/repair.htm</a></p> </blockquote> <p>Oh no :-(</p>

Koh Cameras are the experts, and bought a lot of the factory stock.

<p>There is something to be said for having a reliable, known-good meter. You needn't break the bank, but I would get the newest meter you can afford. I like Sekonic - I find them to be very accurate and sturdy.</p> <p>For a little more than 100 US dollars, you can get the Sekonic L-208 brand new. This has everything you need to be your reference meter for a lifetime.</p> <p>If you would prefer digital, the L-308 is just under 200.</p> <p>Both can probably found at good used prices online (* bay).</p>

<p>I'd take a breath before getting too excited... the DJI Mavic and the GoPro Karma are both facing massive recalls. Nothing is perfect.<br> I've had a great deal of fun and success shooting with my Blade 350QX3 AP. Though I only shoot video with it, I've never extracted stills. My Dad has similarly enjoyed the Blade Chroma, with a much longer run-time on the battery.</p>

<p>The simple fact that the K1000 was listed as "required equipment" on photography class syllabi for 30 years has pushed the K1000 into cult status. That, and the fact that it represents the perfect "baseline" for what a modern manual camera should be. We don't even think about the features of the K1000 as "features" anymore (rapid return mirror that doesn't black out permanently when the shutter is fired; integrated shutter cocking/film winding; internal light meter; open aperture metering.)</p> <p>I actually think for learning about photography, the limits of a classic Spotmatic might actually be slightly better. Excepting the more-rare Spotmatic F and ES, the Spotmatics all forego open aperture metering. Having to use stop-down metering makes the student think about BOTH exposure and depth-of-field implications of every aperture adjustment. It also hammers home the concept of "higher F-stop number = darker image." For that reason, I recommend a good clean Spotmatic II, SP500 or SP1000. These cameras are super cheap and offer similar experience to your loaner K1000. Screwmount (M42) lenses are also cheap, and you needn't worry about any of the variations/generations that support open-aperture metering, because these cameras will use all of the lenses regardless.</p> <p>If you want to stick with the newer bayonet mount (Pentax K) then I recommend a newer camera altogether. The Pentax P3n is a very sturdy, very well spec'd manual focus camera. It doesn't have the classic chrome looks, so it goes for a song (I've seen them in the 5 dollar to 30 dollar range, regularly.) It offers a bit of automation if you want it (turn the shutter speed dial to A, and the lens aperture to A) or ignore those features and use it just like the K1000.</p>

Does the Nikon D750 compensate for different autofocus results under different wavelengths of light? I know with early Pentaxes I would often get perfect focus in daylight, but in low light tungsten, the results would be off. Pentax actually changed the cameras to adapt under different wavelengths.

I shot with a K5 for many years, and my best friend had a K5II. I noticed very little difference between these two cameras, especially on autofocus. I bought a K-S2 which would be close in performance to the K70. Again, not an autofocus upgrade. I switched so I could have an articulating LCD and to get higher resolution on a sensor without AA filter. To get the upgrade you are looking for, I think the K3II would be the best choice.

<div></div>

<p>Based on what you describe, Hasselblad V series will scratch your itch. Plus you can easily try a few rolls of Portra with a film back.<br> But if you are committed to only shooting digital, and never putting film through the camera, I think a Pentax 645D or 645Z makes more sense. Lots of great manual focus 645 and 6x7 lenses out there, and you get a body that you don't have to fuss with, and sensor technology that has advanced beyond those ten-year old backs.</p>

<p>James Bryant, nice work. Loved Community Lake.</p>

<div></div>

<p>William W, that's essentially the same lighting setup I settled on for shooting with Bronica ETR bodies. For backup flashes I carry a Nikon SB 26 and SB 28 that work well in Auto mode. But the Metz hammerheads are the real workhorses, and the results are lovely.<br> Most importantly, the results are also PREDICTABLE. I rely on the thyristor auto on the Metz flashes, which is easily adjustable from the dial on top. It makes it easy to dial down the flash for day light fill, or just a little sparkle in the eyes.<br> I admit to shooting mostly digital now, but my setup remains the same. Camera is on full Manual, Metz hammerheads on Auto. I miss the high speed sync of the Bronica shutters, but have absolutely reliable, repeatable exposures.</p>

<p>Rick, I agree about the tonal qualities. Really nice. Is that with no filter (red, yellow, etc?)</p>

<p>Count me among the impressed... great effort to restore a piece of history to working condition!</p>

<p>A day late, but here's another one from Old Montreal.</p><div></div>

<div></div>

<p>These were all taken with the 90mm f/2.8 lens, which is quite small and light.</p><div></div>

<p>It was extremely hot out! In the upper 30's (celsius.)</p><div></div>

<p>Last week I took the Pentax 67 for a walk in Old Montreal. The film was Fuji Acros 100, shot with a yellow filter and developed with Diafine. The effect of Diafine and the yellow filter cancel each other out, allowing me to shoot at the film's box speed even with the filter on.</p><div></div>

<p>I love 135mm for portraits, and the plethora of good-to-excellent 135mm f/2.8 lenses suited me well. Yes, the 70/80-200mm 2.8 zooms killed this market, but I remain somewhat baffled by this. A decent 135mm 2.8 was very affordable, hence it was a common second lens after your camera body+50mm kit. I have yet to meet an affordable 80-200mm f/2.8 zoom. So the 2.8 zooms only explain the pro/serious amateur side of the equation.</p> <p>I fear on the consumer side, it's cheaper, slower, "super zooms" that ate this market. If you are shooting your kid at soccer practise, slap an 18-105mm on and don't worry about changing lenses. Of course, you would have been better off with the 135mm f/2.8 when trying to shoot your child's play in a dark auditorium or shooting hoops in a dim gymnasium.</p> <p>As an aside, it's interesting how different focal lengths feel comfortable for different people. The comment about 28mm and 135mm being "in-between" is familiar, but is actually how I feel about the much more common lengths of 35mm, 50mm and 80mm. (All on full frame 35mm film or sensors.)</p>

<p>There are adapters that work, they include an extra piece of glass to correct for the flange distance and permit focusing to infinity.</p> <p>I tried one out, in an attempt to use my nice Pentax M42 lens collection on a Nikon F3. It did work, but with some optical degradation. This was too big a trade-off for me. There's no point using "special" lenses if the results after adaptation don't match what the lenses are capable of.</p>

<p>Lovely first images! It looks like that K-1 is in good hands.</p> <p>But I have to raise a yellow card. First images from a new camera are required to be either a cat or a bookshelf. ;-)</p>

Important work I outsource the scans to a pro lab, and feel I get most of what I want from film. Even 35mm scanned well and at high resolution looks good. At home I have an Epson V500. I don't like any 35mm from it, but 120 is good enough for web scans and moderate prints. The limits of the V500 have led me to add a Pentax 67 to the arsenal, in addition to my preferred Bronica ETR (645.) Pro scans of 645 are stunning - but my home scans are just ok. The 67 gives me more satisfying results from the V500.

<p>Hold the camera upside down and get the old-fashioned effect of your moving subjects leaning forward... useful for bikes, cars, etc.</p>

<p>The foam always deteriorates eventually, and I don't know anything that will slow that.</p> <p>With a large number of vintage cameras and lenses in my collection, there are two things that will help keep the equipment serviceable in the long term.</p> <p>- Exercising the shutters regularly (give them a workout every three to six months) Obviously some cameras are easier to dry fire than others, but 35mm cameras of your vintage should be no problem.<br> - Ensuring lenses are stored perfectly dry, with no lenses that have any lens fungus.</p> <p>The other way to combat lens fungus is to store the lenses where they will receive UV light, uncapped. But managing dust will be more of an issue.</p>