[phreon]

That's just stubborn. KX but digital is old school.

Is it? The Kx is old school? To many of us, not really - it still feels more like a computer than a camera. I'd love a simple dSLR. Something that would be the equivalent of the ME Super with a full frame sensor crammed into it. Nikon did it - they brought out the DF, the direct descendent of the F1. All the primary controls are on the body. Had I known about it before purchasing the K3, I would have seriously considered it.

That being said, I still love my K3

---

Last edited by phreon; 12-14-2013 at 09:05 PM.

[rbefly]

Okay. I bookmarked these links. Thanks for them.


Do you think it's possible to learn photography just by shooting a lot and trying different settings? Because to be frank I am not so big on lots of reading and book study, and it seems like my photography study and reading list is growing longer and longer and piling up big time! LOL

Hi David,
To answer your question, yes. But it will take longer and you'll have lots of 'rejects' along the way. Some errors will teach you, others could be avoided.
Everyone learns in different ways, but there are time-proven shortcuts. Probably the most important one is 'Understand the tool before you use it'.
Another is 'Practice, practice, practice'.
Many people are more comfortable seeing the rules and guidelines in print (with accompanying photos, in this case), their mind is experienced in retaining information by that method. They usually will have a pile of books, and they use them.
Others prefer learning by direct interaction with an instructor, or (say) a more informal learning group. For those, perhaps a photo club. meetup or photo-related courses/classes would be best.
And some are most comfortable alone, just clicking away, learning as they go. This takes real discipline, you have to ask the right questions ('Why didn't this come out right?') and somehow come up with the right answer. Trial and error. In other words, everything provided by the first two methods, they will have to understand and do, themselves. Correctly.
My suggestion is to use bits of each, even though you may feel most at ease with # 3. Gather a few recommended references and read them, but first, read the users' manual and highlight the important parts.
Try taking a class or two, or join a club, one that has informal 'meetups' or photo walks, trips and outings. You'll find many other members who are in a similar position and a few 'old hands' who can readily answer questions and offer helpful tips.
And last, practice! Shoot alone, be critical when you view your photos, look at great photography (the library is a great resource) and try to figure out what the photographer did. But now, you'll have several places (the books, clubs, classes, online forums) to get answers quickly.
Use everything at your disposal, have a plan and stick to it.
JMO, YMMV,
Ron
P.S. The second part of the 'joke' about the f/1.4 lens is this; Most people consider an f/2.8 lens to be 'fast', and have shallow depth-of-field.
An f/1.4 is TWO FULL stops faster and has incredible light-gathering ability. But, anyone who understands photography in general and lens operation in particular, would also know that the depth-of-field in such a lens would be tiny. They would, without question, accept the tradeoff of shallow DOF and difficult focusing, for the capability of capturing a photo in near-impossible conditions.
So, criticizing an f/1.4 lens for being hard to focus is not only patently ridiculous, but displays an ignorance of the photographic process. Trying to sound knowledgable, while proving quite the opposite.

[PPPPPP42]

Hmm, I guess old school isn't even just the gear itself but how you use it. In thinking about it I still like to lock down all the fancy auto features at the beginning of the day as if I were shooting a roll of film because I don't trust the blasted thing. I like to keep the raw files for just that reason, I pick an ISO and I know that no funny business with white balance has occurred to my image without my knowledge.

I find myself shooting all film lately though as I despise the joke they call a viewfinder on DSLR's even with the upgraded focusing screen. But then I am used the to the bay window on my Super Program with FF lenses.
I find it strange that people say AF has issues with F1.4 since I find my A50 1.4 to be the easiest to focus especially on my Super Program (K1000 is a little harder). Almost comically easy in fact because it makes the whole ground glass and micro-prism collar totally pop out at you when going in and out of focus on any given point.

[Dartmoor Dave]

Forgive me but I enjoyed reading your post and I am kind of new so now I would like to know apart from the absence of film what controls are so different between the K1000 and my K5 for example?

Your K5 gives you the same manual controls as a K1000 if you choose to use them, but I personally feel that the control layout on a digital replica of the K1000 would be simpler and arguably more instinctive to use. To get an idea of what I mean, have a look at the ecstatic reception the Nikon DF has received from “old school” reviewers.

But here’s what I really mean by old school, and it has nothing to do with whether you’re using film or digital, or the vintage of your DSLR:

Old school means taking conscious control of the photographic process, so that everything you get in the final image is the result of a decision you made. I cringe when I read forum comments like, “The camera underexposed the shot” Or, “The autofocus chose the wrong subject.”

Darn it, it’s your job to thoroughly understand your equipment, and use it with control and consideration, so that the end result is as close as possible to the photograph you pre-visualised at the moment you pressed the shutter. Everything you ever learn about photographic technique should be directed towards that goal.

I suppose it’s possible that some people might understand the focus and exposure algorithms used by their DSLRs so thoroughly that they can set full auto and still be able to pre-visualise their shots. But I can’t, which is why I prefer to work in manual.

A photograph that has not been pre-visualised before you take it is, by definition, a snapshot.

(Please don't take any of this personally. I’m really surprised to find myself having such a rant. I didn’t realise I felt quite so strongly about it.)

[monochrome]

Is it? The Kx is old school? To many of us, not really - it still feels more like a computer than a camera. I'd love a simple dSLR. Something that would be the equivalent of the ME Super with a full frame sensor crammed into it. Nikon did it - they brought out the DF, the direct descendent of the F1. All the primary controls are on the body. Had I known about it before purchasing the K3, I would have seriously considered it.

That being said, I still love my K3

This is my KX in the Camera database. see my avatar.



There's an old school discussion between users of the KM or KX and K1000 devotees in which we ask why someone would prefer the stripped down version of the original Pentax K-mount Holy Trinity (K2, KX, KM). The K1000 was essentially an SP1000 with a K-mnount, released as an afterthought 18 months after the original K-mounts. It was actually a commercial failure at first until photography classes caught on to its potential as a really cheap camera to use as a teaching camera.

[phreon]

This is my KX in the Camera database. see my avatar.



There's an old school discussion between users of the KM or KX and K1000 devotees in which we ask why someone would prefer the stripped down version of the original Pentax K-mount Holy Trinity (K2, KX, KM). The K1000 was essentially an SP1000 with a K-mnount, released as an afterthought 18 months after the original K-mounts. It was actually a commercial failure at first until photography classes caught on to its potential as a really cheap camera to use as a teaching camera.

I was thinking of the K-x, not the KX. A bit of a difference, eh?

[monochrome]

I was thinking of the K-x, not the KX. A bit of a difference, eh?

Yeah - that one-shot analog emulsion sensor is really old school!

[Dartmoor Dave]

This is my KX in the Camera database. see my avatar.

You caught me out too! I misread your earlier post as K-X instead of KX.

Back in Ye Olde Dayes the K2 was the one I wanted but the K1000 was what I could afford. But I'll happily take a digital version of any of the film era K series. Or the ME Super or MX. Or the LX. But not the auto only ones like the MV or the MG.

[monochrome]

I misread your earlier post as K-X instead of KX.

Happens all the time. I've tried the KM, K2 and K2DMD. ME, MESuper, MX, SuperProgram - my favorite is still the KX

Isn't ebay wonderful?

[gofour3]

Old school is wandering the streets with not just a Spotmatic (loaded with Kodak TX B&W no less) but TWO light meters strung around one's neck. Every shot I used both and I sure got some strange looks.....LOL (I think I've got that old Weston II dialed in...at least that's what the Gossen said but the real test is when the film comes back...)

You should see the looks I get with my Pentax 6x7’s and a light meter around my neck!

Phil.

[phreon]

You should see the looks I get with my Pentax 6x7’s and a light meter around my neck!

Phil.

Probably similar to the reaction a C330F with waist level viewfinder, grip/flash bracket, flash, bounce hood and cabling to make it work gets. "What is THAT?!?!", "Why does it have two lenses?!?"

Do people scream and run in horror as their ears bleed and buildings crumble after you hit the shutter release on that P67?

[DavidSKAF3]

Does Pentax market the same cameras under different names in different places, like, say, the Volkswagen Golfs and Rabbits?

[PJ1]

Does Pentax market the same cameras under different names in different places, like, say, the Volkswagen Golfs and Rabbits?

Way back around the turn of the century there was the Pentax MZ-5 in Australia (and some other places) which I believe was the same as the ZX-5 in the USA. It continued to associated models like the MZ-5n and ZX-5n.

[ramseybuckeye]

Does Pentax market the same cameras under different names in different places, like, say, the Volkswagen Golfs and Rabbits?

They have, I think the last time was the K-m or K2000 DSLRs just a few years ago. A lot of the auto focus film cameras had different names depending on which continent you bought it at.

Old school is taking photos with the hood mounted the correct way.

[FrankC]

Okay. I bookmarked these links. Thanks for them.


Do you think it's possible to learn photography just by shooting a lot and trying different settings? Because to be frank I am not so big on lots of reading and book study, and it seems like my photography study and reading list is growing longer and longer and piling up big time! LOL

No, not really. Shooting a lot will help, but you run into the problem of creating bad habits. "Shooting a lot" is relative term too - I take it to mean 3-4,000 frames per month. Which is doable if you're not working full time.

If you're not into reading photo textbooks, then at least buy photo books of photographers who do the type of photography that you're interested in. By looking at photo books you will enhance your visual library of photo ideas and elevate your standards as to what makes a good photo.


You're going to want to read up on compositional theory; there's no getting around it unless you've got a good mentor or instructor to tell you these things. It's one thing to look at a lot photo books, but if you don't understand why the photos are successful, then it's going to rather difficult to improve your skills.