Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-11-2012, 06:03 PM   #16
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,704

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.


QuoteOriginally posted by Rude Quote
I shot with a K5 for over a year as my primary camera. Rented a 5D (original) to shoot a wedding and currently shoot with a D700.

5D - I don't care what measurement sites say about high ISO quality, the camera doesn't go over ISO 1600. I'd be shocked to see any real world use that showed it superior to the K5 in low light shooting. The camera is very basic, very easy to use. You can get good results, but I kept my K5 which was just so much more advanced, it didn't seem worth it to "downgrade" just to get full frame. You can shoot with older glass or f/4 L glass and get great results (1 or 2 lenses) for under $2K.

D700 - also a very simple/straightforward tool to use. However, the image quality was superior enough to get me to switch. Of course, I got mine at a great deal ($1,250) so for under 2K, I was able to use a 35-70 f/2.8 and a 50 f/1.4 for less than $2k. The improved autofocus was enough to justify, and the image quality was superior to what I had with the K5. Yes, also 12 MP like the 5D, but it's hard to explain why the image quality is so good. Nikon has a TON of used glass that is high-quality, including great manual focus stuff.
QuoteOriginally posted by RioRico Quote
The A in A850 and A900 stands for Alpha, the Minolta Maxxum mount (AF; register= 44.5mm).
The older M/MD mount (MF; register= 43.7mm) isn't compatible with Alpha, can only focus to infinity with an optical adapter.
Sony-Minolta Alpha register is just shorter than M42 and PK (register= 45.46mm); Pentax glass CAN be used on Alpha bodies.
Adapters cost US$3+ for M42 (Sony M42 adapt Alpha | eBay) and US$23+ for PK (Sony PK adapt Alpha | eBay). <-- click linx

Thanks for the inputs guys.
The internal rationalizing keeps churning in my head, the reasons/arguments more or less the same as what have been mentioned here.


QuoteOriginally posted by ihasa Quote
There would be a lot of stuff I'd miss, going for a 5d. I think I'll wait and watch on this one. Who knows the D600 might ratchet used D700/5D prices down even more when it comes out, or it might be cheap enough for me to stretch to. Who knows, even Pentax might bring out a reasonably priced FF... Time being, I'll continue loving my K7!
For now it seems same conclusion for me. (ie. wait)
I decided to be more daring with my 67 film usage for portrait use to satisfy that shallow DOF for same FOV urge.
I'll wait for this year to see if Pentax has any FF plans. (I don't see that Pentax has any maneuvering space anymore with regards to not moving to FF within this year or next)
By end of the year or early next, it will be clearer regarding Pentax and all the FF bodies discussed here will have dropped to hopefully acceptable (for me) prices to consider a 3-4th system.

06-13-2012, 01:31 PM   #17
Veteran Member
sb in ak's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Omaha, NE
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 612
I haven't used the 5D, but have a 20D which is of the same era. The screen sucks, but the camera is known for taking great photos. I own a 5DII that I may be trading out for a K5 due to the small size of the later. (The 5DII is huge for traveling or backpacking). Take note that the 5D is also known for a problem in which the mirror falls off--something Canon will fix for free (and will preemptively fix for free). Just be aware.

A few thoughts on the 5DII:

The 5DII's screen is a huge improvement on the 20D. The 21MP makes it possible to crop in nicely. The 5D is known for sucking dust, and that is a minimal problem on the 5DII with its better sealing and sensor cleaning system. AF is a little lacking but fine unless you're doing sports or wildlife IMO (I mostly use the center point and recompose method). Video is a nice addition that the 5D and D700 lack. I really don't use that much as I'm much more into stills, but it could prove very useful.

And a few other annoyances: no lock on the top mode dial. I bump that thing all of the time and several times I've grabbed my camera quickly and when I go to take the shot, I'm now on bulb mode or something. REALLY annoying. The on-off button is annoying. Overall build is pretty good but not spectacular.

The 5DII can probably be had for 1400 in a good shape.
06-13-2012, 10:42 PM   #18
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 42,007
Cheapest route to quality FF digital?

Any quality 35mm film SLR (generally less that $75 USD) + a relatively decent film scanner ($250-$500 USD). Better yet, get a Pentax 645N kit + Epson V700. Sorry...just had to say it.


Steve
06-14-2012, 07:10 AM   #19
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,263
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
Cheapest route to quality FF digital?

Any quality 35mm film SLR (generally less that $75 USD) + a relatively decent film scanner ($250-$500 USD). Better yet, get a Pentax 645N kit + Epson V700. Sorry...just had to say it.
35mm? 645? Feh. Pipsqueaks. Get a 6x9 folder, or a Fuji 69 or 612 or 617. Resolution up the yazoo.

06-14-2012, 11:00 AM   #20
Pentaxian
ducdao's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Montreal/Vermont
Posts: 2,160
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
Cheapest route to quality FF digital?

Any quality 35mm film SLR (generally less that $75 USD) + a relatively decent film scanner ($250-$500 USD). Better yet, get a Pentax 645N kit + Epson V700. Sorry...just had to say it.


Steve
Will not come that cheap when you include the cost of buying films...that will not be easy to be found.
06-14-2012, 12:14 PM   #21
Junior Member
chrish's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: buffalo
Posts: 42
Buy some 100' rolls and bulk load!
06-14-2012, 07:25 PM   #22
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 42,007
QuoteOriginally posted by ducdao Quote
Will not come that cheap when you include the cost of buying films...that will not be easy to be found.
Spoil sport...

BTW, film is not that expensive. No, you can't spray 'n pray until your shutter breaks (and they do...I have a friend who is on her third 7D). But, you can get great larger format results for the subjects where that is needed and for a low entry fee and moderate ongoing expense. I know many people who are shooting 35mm film and getting photos that are impossible on APS-C. Doubly true for medium format. Things get expensive when you go up to large format, but if the big negative is what it takes, film is a heck of a lot cheaper than a scanning back!


Steve

(...has shot about 50% film during the last 5 years and total investment is still less than a FF dSLR despite investment in 35mm, MF, and LF gear and scanners to match...)

06-14-2012, 10:20 PM   #23
Inactive Account




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Wellington
Posts: 969
I just noticed Steves suggestion of a MF film camera and scanner which is a great idea and one I have been pondering. Do you develop yourself or do you send them away?
In either case what are the ballpark costs in doing this per 100 shots?
06-15-2012, 03:54 AM   #24
Veteran Member
ihasa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: West Midlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,066
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
Sorry...just had to say it.


Steve
Yep, someone always has to chime in with that old chestnut

Yes, I do take 35mm shots, and get them scanned professionally (don't take enough to buy a scanner myself). It's not quite the same as digital though is it . Film grain certainly puts our concerns about digital noise into perspective! Although of course the grain can often work well for the shot (e.g. B&W). I also find the cost of film subconsciously deters me from experimenting, and I miss the instant feedback.

I just think that 35mm digital sensors hit a sweet spot of image quality and cost - APSC is nearly as good and a bit cheaper, but the cost difference is closing.
06-15-2012, 07:13 AM   #25
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 42,007
QuoteOriginally posted by Tonto Quote
I just noticed Steves suggestion of a MF film camera and scanner which is a great idea and one I have been pondering. Do you develop yourself or do you send them away?
In either case what are the ballpark costs in doing this per 100 shots?
I don't know about Aussie prices. Here in the U.S., I generally figure about $0.10 a frame for 35mm film. I develop my own B&W and have a local lab do the C-41 color. They charge me $3 a roll, develop only. So $0.20 a frame or less for 35mm. For 120, the price per roll for film is about the same as is the cost to process. You can do the math.

The big issue with film is time, not money. Time to arrange or do the processing and time to do or arrange for a quality scan. Digital is so much more convenient. The main advantages to using film are well-stated elsewhere and it is enough to say that price is only part of the equation, particularly in relation to medium and large format.


Steve
06-15-2012, 08:11 AM   #26
Pentaxian
ducdao's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Montreal/Vermont
Posts: 2,160
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
Spoil sport...
Nah, I'm just being realistic.
06-15-2012, 10:44 AM   #27
Inactive Account




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Wellington
Posts: 969
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
I don't know about Aussie prices. Here in the U.S., I generally figure about $0.10 a frame for 35mm film. I develop my own B&W and have a local lab do the C-41 color. They charge me $3 a roll, develop only. So $0.20 a frame or less for 35mm. For 120, the price per roll for film is about the same as is the cost to process. You can do the math.

The big issue with film is time, not money. Time to arrange or do the processing and time to do or arrange for a quality scan. Digital is so much more convenient. The main advantages to using film are well-stated elsewhere and it is enough to say that price is only part of the equation, particularly in relation to medium and large format.


Steve
Thanks, I was expecting more for developing- its been so long since I did a roll of 35mm myself!
06-17-2012, 05:56 PM   #28
Veteran Member
twitch's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,571
I get a roll of C41 film developed in Melbourne at "BigW" (same as "woolworths" in Sydney?) for $4.95. That's the cheapest I found here.
06-17-2012, 07:52 PM   #29
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,704
QuoteOriginally posted by Tonto Quote
I just noticed Steves suggestion of a MF film camera and scanner which is a great idea and one I have been pondering. Do you develop yourself or do you send them away?
In either case what are the ballpark costs in doing this per 100 shots?

I'm not sure if its the most convenient way and the setup can cost as much or near to a 2nd hand 5D now.
With the coming of the rumored D600, I'd expect 2nd hand prices for 5D, 5DII and D700 to fall a bit more once the rumor becomes firm.


The DOF for same FOV is different of course if you use MF.
The downside is translation to digital which is lengthy (dev>scan>optimize) and can be hard (good quality -dust free scans)


My recommendation is to do film for the sake of film, not for the sake of translating it to digital.
The whole process takes time (development > proper scan > proper PP ).
35mm film will not match any of the new DSLRs in resolution.
MF film does better of course.



Some MF gear and a good scanner sets you back the cost of a 2nd hand 5D. Something to think about.


I still do some film (35mm, 6x6, 6x7).
Copy them with my K5+100macro (got a Canon 9000F scanner, but other than the larger file, its not worth the trouble most of the time)
The ones I like after reviewing the digitized version, I'd send for printing.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
ff, frame
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
low budget wide angle lense options? Jim85IROC Pentax K-r 7 03-18-2012 07:13 AM
*low budget 2 flash system manybobs Flashes, Lighting, and Studio 5 02-21-2011 05:29 PM
For Sale - Sold: Another Low Budget Zoom Takumar-F 70-210mm (US) Nowhere Matt Sold Items 5 06-29-2010 11:10 AM
Low budget flash triggers? luke_sheff Flashes, Lighting, and Studio 4 02-21-2010 08:24 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:14 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top