tung

<p>Thanks all for the responses. That's a wealth of good info!</p>

<p>I'm thinking of getting the Pentax K-x. There are kits with one or both of the DA-L lenses; one is wide-normal zoom, the other is the 55-300 zoom.</p>

<p>I'm not clear on the difference in the various Pentax lenses. What I'm confused about is difference between DA and DA-L, and also various mounts that are available. I also would love to get one or two faster prime lenses. I would consider used and possibly manual-focus as well, although auto-focus would be preferable.</p>

<p>Whatever I do will be on a budget and I can't afford to buy everything at once, of course!<br>

Suggestions pls?</p>

<p>Sheldon, that sounds like a good idea.</p>

<p>What about the slotted ends, though? Aren't the 120 slots a lot bigger than the slot "keys" in 620 cameras?</p>

<p>Zack,<br>

If I were in your shoes, I would consider a better TLR like Rollei. But if you're looking for larger than 6x6, I think that Speed Graphic suggestion is worth a shot.<br>

I like your portrait page, but it leaves me wondering... does that crab claw have bluetooth?</p>

<p>I'm pretty sure there's a reasonable non-paranormal answer to this funky angel anomaly:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.fox2now.com/news/ktvi-angel-football-game-photo-120209,0,7710380.story">http://www.fox2now.com/news/ktvi-angel-football-game-photo-120209,0,7710380.story</a></p>

<p>In his book <em>Looking for Carroll Beckwith, </em>Robert Snow, after taking a bet and undergoing a past life regression hypnosis session, discovers a past life as a painter named Carroll Beckwith. He remembers painting portraits, which enabled him to make a living as an artist, but were not very satisfying artistically.</p>

<p>If I had two Pentax 67/67ii bodies, I would use 220 more often. Right now I often find the shots that I want to take require a different film than what I have in the body.</p>

<p>Incandescent light requires a blue filter (something like 80A + 82B). Fluorescent light requires a different filter. You can shop the usual places and find more info on these.</p>

<p>Incandescent light can also be corrected by using tungsten film.</p>

<p>But if you're going to scan the film, I would suggest skipping the filters and adjusting the color post processing.</p>

<p>Gentlemen, thanks for the suggestions about the gloves. I've never seen them before!</p>

<p>Andrew, I feel your pain; I'm working mostly with 6x7 frames as well, and one at a time is kind of silly and definitely a pain.</p>

<p>I recently acquired an Epson V500 photo scanner, and it's been working quite well for my 35mm slides. But I'm having some trouble handling my 120 film to scan it. I often have to cut the film so that the frame I want to scan is in the correct area on the plastic template that goes on the scanner bed. When handling and positioning the film, it seems almost impossible not to get fingerprints on the frames.</p>

<p>Anyone have any suggestions or pointers on this?</p>

<p>Ed: I agree that the Disc cameras were maybe not such a good idea! I don't think the disc format made the cameras any smaller than the 110 cameras.<br>

Could you imagine, if they were made, the size of a 35mm disc camera? And let's get ridiculous for a moment.. a 4x5 large format disc camera? I think that disc would have to be around the size of a tractor tire!</p>

<p>Dominique, I'd recommend getting either a faster zoom or a couple of really fast primes. Probably not by Sunday, but for next time?</p>

<p>Max.. I'll just add that at amateur venues, along with the lightning you described, you can get some pretty good thunder!!</p>

<p>I suspect it wasn't packed properly. Really well-packed items should be able to sustain the average fall.</p>

<p>I would think if you add one or more batteries and wire them in parallel that would give you more time. But you should experiment with it first. And don't hold me responsible if it kills your light!</p>

<p>The 120 film has a paper backing, while the 220 film only has paper at the ends, so I would imagine the plate switch would move the film by an amount equal to the thickness of the paper. As Steve says, I can't imagine it would be a dramatic difference - should be pretty slight.</p>

<p>Don't know if it affects the film winding.</p>

<p>Clark, it seems like a good amount of the decent medium format gear I've been considering was new in the 70s and 80s, so I agree that the 70s in general weren't all bad. But my parents knew nothing of those cameras. They were not photographers, so they got what was pushed to the general public. And what was pushed was pretty bad.</p>

<p>I think even the simple (but bulky) box cameras (of the 20s or so?) were capable of sharper, more contrasty and relatively grainless B&W photos.</p>

<p>My impression is that pro equipment just got better and better since the turn of the century, but consumer cameras and film quality has been like a rollercoaster ride. What I've got now from the 70s is a few photo albums with some really, really bad photos.</p>

<p>Joseph.. just thought about this: I can't use aperture-priority mode, but rather would have to use metered manual mode, since the exposure will be set for wide-open again once I set the DOF preview back to AUTO.</p>

<p>I'll have to play around with this when I get back home, but I think I'll also want to have one of the macro lenses in the near future.</p>

<p>Gentlemen, thank you both, I think I'm set!</p>

<p>My grandparents left a few boxes of old photographs. They are almost all B&W photos, and pretty small prints, but I was awestruck by how sharp they were (ok, maybe not the corners) and I've been able to scan them pretty well. Meanwhile, the pictures my wife and I have of us in our youth are just miserably bad.</p>

<p>So my photo hobby is sort of a reaction or rebellion against the bad photos of our youth.</p>

<p>Harry, the point I'm making is that consumer-level cameras pretty much sucked in the 70s and early 80s, but they were pretty decent back in the 30s-60s or so, from what I gather.</p>

<p>Grainy is not the half of it. Unsharp and low-contrast, as well. I'm sure the Pentax 110 SLR in somewhat-skilled hands would have done a better job than the pocket 110 cameras. It's just that the film and the cameras that were marketed towards the average consumer in the late 70s was not nearly as good as what was around years before.</p>

<p>I've got an Agfa bellows camera from the 30s that takes 620 that probably cranked out some pretty decent photos.</p>

<p>I'm still a beginner, but this is why I got into photography.</p>

<p>As a youngster, I had a 110 Kodak (or similar) camera that took really awful, grainy photos. If I asked my parents for a new camera, it was always another 110 that took bad photos, but maybe had a telephoto switch.</p>

<p>I really didn't know why the photos were so bad, but I was maybe 9 or 10.</p>

<p>When I was in my early teens, I found my parents' Argus C3 (35mm) and started using that, with somewhat decent results, even without good exposure skills. But I knew soon after that I'd want a good SLR eventually.</p>

<p>Several years ago, before my wife and I were married, I was at her parents' house and we were looking at her old family photos.</p>

<p>I was struck by how beautiful she was, but also by how bad the photos were. Many of them were from polariods, and some were prints from Kodak Instamatics or similar, but the worst were the prints from 110s from the 70s and 80s.</p>

<p>Soon after, I started looking at this website, and got much of the info I needed to start getting better pictures. So I bought a Yashica Mat 124G and a Nikon N70 film SLR. Finally, I started getting decent photos and several decent photos of my wife.</p>

<p>I've got an ok digital point-and-shoot, but recently bought the Pentax 67II and a few lenses, now that MF is more affordable. Eventually I might get a digital SLR, but I'm not looking forward to spending that kind of money!</p>

<p>So far, I'm really digging the large slides and negs I get from my MF cameras. I see now why many of the prints I see from 50 years ago are so sharp - I think most of those old B+Ws are contact prints from 620 and similar formats.</p>

<p>Too bad so many of us had to put up with the 110 format. What a huge step backward!!</p>

<p>Joseph: you're talking about the DOF preview switch? If I have to set it to manual, do I leave it there when I trip the shutter?<br>

Also, if that's the case, what is the purpose of the aperture lever on the tube that extends to the lens to close the aperture?</p>

<p>I've been experimenting with the inner-bayonet extension tube set for my Pentax 67II. I'm trying the shortest (#1?) tube with the 45mm lens.<br>

When I change the aperture, shouldn't the AE Pentaprism show different shutter speeds (slower when the aperture is smaller)? If I remove the extension tube, it behaves normally.</p>

<p>Of course, if you're into Holga photography, then you're ok!</p>