[mikeSF]

nice one Jay

[LFLee]

Yea... That's the main concern.. I can only imagine there are some who will go ballistic when it is not user-selectable.. Hehe!

The A7 A7r has it as selectable.... but PENTAX may not, just like the SDM/Screw drive ....

[mee]

For me, I just can't wait for the day Pentax launches a FF camera which will detect DA lenses attached and auto-set to shoot crop mode only.

LoL! I wanna see how many of the believers of "DA lenses have been proven to work on FF" will die believing that DA lenses will work on FF.. Haha!
Will work and allowed to work is 2 different things.. LoL!

I suspect you are correct in this.. hahaha..

Sad but amusing if there was a 'new' D-FA version released which was the exact same lens as the DA, but with a firmware allowing FF usage.. and costing 40% more..

[SyncGuy]

Haha... You've found one already!

Going ballistic is fine, but along the line of OP, not until you have a seizure please.. Nevertheless, do still include my name in your will.. As i will do to you too..

The A7 A7r has it as selectable.... but PENTAX may not, just like the SDM/Screw drive ....

Actually, i'm pretty afraid that those who indeed died while awaiting for Pentax FF, all died in vain...

Because Pentax has always had FF with interchangeable "sensors" too boot! They have been having backward compatibility for all lenses and therefore bodies! Yes! It's the good old film...

And yet again, people refused to see the answer for FF from Pentax; the newly announced slide copier! Now you get MF too with pricings that are within the reach of normal mortal...

[justinr]

Going ballistic is fine, but along the line of OP, not until you have a seizure please.. Nevertheless, do still include my name in your will.. As i will do to you too..



Actually, i'm pretty afraid that those who indeed died while awaiting for Pentax FF, all died in vain...

Because Pentax has always had FF with interchangeable "sensors" too boot! They have been having backward compatibility for all lenses and therefore bodies! Yes! It's the good old film...

And yet again, people refused to see the answer for FF from Pentax; the newly announced slide copier! Now you get MF too with pricings that are within the reach of normal mortal...

Until that is you work out the cost of buying, developing and scanning film to a decent resolution. I recently did the sums for another place and it worked out at just over $2 per MF frame, and that was not drum scanning which you really need for the best results. A new Nikon D800 works out at about the same as 1,500 shots on 120 and it will produce images just as good. My 12mp D3 certainly does better than the Bronicas I used to run. Even if you spent $10,000 on an entry level dMF system it would still pay for itself within 5,000 shots.

[LFLee]

Until that is you work out the cost of buying, developing and scanning film to a decent resolution. I recently did the sums for another place and it worked out at just over $2 per MF frame, and that was not drum scanning which you really need for the best results. A new Nikon D800 works out at about the same as 1,500 shots on 120 and it will produce images just as good. My 12mp D3 certainly does better than the Bronicas I used to run. Even if you spent $10,000 on an entry level dMF system it would still pay for itself within 5,000 shots.

that is if you can afford a $10k MF?
But for people who can only buy a camera like K3, which, in two years, will lost half it value as new model came out. let say it lost $600, this amount of $ you get yourself 300 MF negatives.
I think is a pretty good trade off?

not to mention you can show off those old MF cameras...

[dtmateojr]

Until that is you work out the cost of buying, developing and scanning film to a decent resolution. I recently did the sums for another place and it worked out at just over $2 per MF frame, and that was not drum scanning which you really need for the best results. A new Nikon D800 works out at about the same as 1,500 shots on 120 and it will produce images just as good. My 12mp D3 certainly does better than the Bronicas I used to run. Even if you spent $10,000 on an entry level dMF system it would still pay for itself within 5,000 shots.

I think you should be measuring the value of the keepers instead of counting the selfies you posted in facebook. If a film shooter takes a dozen shots of his rotting toe nail then film becomes an expensive alternative. Digital photography is very good at making cheap shots. Cheap because you can delete the bad photos and "cheap" because those photos precisely don't mean anything.

When you do get a keeper, a film shot is many times more valuable than the digital counterpart because it is unique. A digital shot can have gazillions of exact copies but there would always be just a single instance of the film shot. If you do value your photos, film is not really as expensive as most people think.

[reeftool]

All the old timers already own a Pentax FF. It uses this stuff called "film".

[SyncGuy]

All the old timers already own a Pentax FF. It uses this stuff called "film".

Exactly.... And I don't think they ever realized that Pentax FF comes in the form of the new Slide Duplicator! Hey, there's no shutter life count in that, maybe up 100,000 depending on the model of camera used.. LoL!

And you can digitize 120 too! And.... It won't cost $10 grand, that I'm sure!

[mee]

All the old timers already own a Pentax FF. It uses this stuff called "film".

Ohhh so that is what you call that stuff. phew thanks.

So how do I install this 'film' () into that ancient camera body?

[Kayaker-J]

Gee, guys, I don't think it's an either/or situation! I plan to carry an ultralight film body as an auxiliary tool, when and where it seems appropriate to do so -- a Pentax ZX-M (a featherweight 330 grams); or the more capable Nikon FG-20 or N75 (each about 13.4 oz.), for example. Clearly, this gives me another option regarding the shallow DOF, bokeh thing. AND, an additional bonus is about +4 bits color depth via film! Does that matter? Well, see Londoner Ibraar Hussain's Contax G photos from his Pakistan adventure at Steve Huff's site for some truly striking environmental portraiture. There's no need to burn up a lot of net/price-y film frames -- just selectively go to it when it can yield the best or most complementary rendering. ...Or when you need to stretch the field of view with the lenses you have at hand (some DA's should work just fine, with only minor limitations). That's a win-win strategy in my book.

[SyncGuy]

Ohhh so that is what you call that stuff. phew thanks.

So how do I install this 'film' () into that ancient camera body?

Dude... No one says you can't use that with any camera.. All you need is to just use a duct tape for those camera that doesn't have an SD card port....
Just remember to load a film into the body still though.. Then carry on shooting...

[justinr]

I think you should be measuring the value of the keepers instead of counting the selfies you posted in facebook. If a film shooter takes a dozen shots of his rotting toe nail then film becomes an expensive alternative. Digital photography is very good at making cheap shots. Cheap because you can delete the bad photos and "cheap" because those photos precisely don't mean anything.

When you do get a keeper, a film shot is many times more valuable than the digital counterpart because it is unique. A digital shot can have gazillions of exact copies but there would always be just a single instance of the film shot. If you do value your photos, film is not really as expensive as most people think.

Personally I detest FB and am not too keen on the word 'keeper' either, it suggests a rather casual approach to shooting, but that's probably just old world snobbery.

Now I would fully agree that a well exposed negative is an object worthy of veneration in its own right. For a short while I did some LF work and each neg was as precious as diamond to me (if nobody else) but now 95% of my work is on a commercial basis so digital is an absolute no brainer. The FF I have now is kicking out shots with an image quality far exceeding that of a MF and a decent flatbed scanner, I can say that as I use some of my old film shots for one of the mags I contribute to and there is just no comparison, the D3 is far superior.

What it boils down to is that 120 film costs around $2 to produce and scan each frame on a 6X4.5 basis* That's the starting point for cost comparison and it is up to each individual to decide which way they want to go according to their budget and intended use. Shooting film is a different experience to digital and a good exercise in its own right. I am also still firmly of the opinion that digital cannot do decent B&W for that is a separate craft altogether.

*Based on 6x4.5, scanned by the lab (resolution unspecified) and are UK prices converted to dollars, so there is some leeway in there.

[mee]

Dude... No one says you can't use that with any camera.. All you need is to just use a duct tape for those camera that doesn't have an SD card port....
Just remember to load a film into the body still though.. Then carry on shooting...

So the film acts as a relay to the sd card much like the flu card acts as relay to a wifi device... a film tether!

I'm assuming first, though, one would be required to send in the film along with the sd card for the sd card photos to be 'exposed.'

[jogiba]

All the old timers already own a Pentax FF. It uses this stuff called "film".

Is a 35mm wide angle from a Pentax SLR still wide angle on the K-3 ?