[PPPPPP42]

I just gave up on my Super Program, I could send it to Eric again, but it was in such sorry shape due to water damage before I got it that he had to really work to get it working perfect the first time, especially since it was an early model which he said had internal differences than all the rest of them. I wouldn't have bothered but I had inherited it so it had sentimental value. Eventually it just became my favorite camera for its versatile function and ability.

Thankfully these are long lived and cheap so I just picked out one from ebay for $20 which is about 27000 later in serial number than mine so it should be a fair bit newer and looks like new, without the tell tale green water staining in the crevices on the outside mine has (I actually had rust damage on the rear door).

Hafta see how it looks when (if) I get it and decide if it needs to go to Eric for a CLA. The seals used on these were better than earlier years for durability I think and the mostly electronic parts don't really seem to fall out of adjustment.

I SHOULD just finally move on from film, but until they get a DSLR FF with as big and bright a viewfinder as these have there's not a chance in hell that's happening.

Oh, and the idiot that designed the lens mount aperture connections on these should be shot, anyone who has ever tried to take one off will understand why. SO MANY PARTS, damn near impossible to reassemble. Didn't need to come off but in the end it didn't matter anyways.

[stevebrot]

Glad you were able to find an inexpensive replacement. I know just how you feel. A few years back my original Ricoh XR7, which I bought new in 1982 and carried over thousands of miles of mountains and trails, suffered terminal damage to its mirror box from an encounter with a defective Zenitar 16/2.8 Fisheye. I was really bummed. Fortunately I quickly found a replacement XR7 from Goodwill on eBay as part of a two lens kit for $25. I traded the lenses to the local camera repair guy for a CLA and was a happy camper again. The replacement body was a little rough cosmetically, but my tech was able to use my old camera as a donor so that the best parts from both went into the one I still use today.


Steve

[Medium FormatPro]

I SHOULD just finally move on from film, but until they get a DSLR FF with as big and bright a viewfinder as these have there's not a chance in hell that's happening

Both the flagship FF's from Canon and Nikon have viewfinders that are as big and bright as most film slr's; including any that were offered by Pentax; with perhaps the exception of the Pentax LX.

[Jonathan Mac]

I think you should stick with film as long as you like, and enjoy it. Shame about your camera biting the dust, but there are many more out there.

[LesDMess]

Both the flagship FF's from Canon and Nikon have viewfinders that are as big and bright as most film slr's; including any that were offered by Pentax; with perhaps the exception of the Pentax LX.

Both Canon and Nikon designed their viewfinders better for people who wear glasses and therefore have far smaller magnifications then Pentax in general.

[48548]

Both Canon and Nikon designed their viewfinders better for people who wear glasses and therefore have far smaller magnifications then Pentax in general.

I hope I don't lose my 20/15 vision anytime soon, hahaha.

[PPPPPP42]

I'm actually down to a decision to go mainly black and white and buy the $250 or so in supplies that I need to make the darkroom stuff I have work (including 100 foot roll of 400 film for the loader) or switch to extremely infrequent usage because I had to move too far away from the Target that did film development and CD only for about $2.50 a roll. The joke of a walgreens wants like $7 on discount days, I don't know why they bother.
So it was more just because the camera was cheap and I like having a working one around that I decided to replace it, not sure how much I will use it.

---

Last edited by PPPPPP42; 02-25-2013 at 04:44 PM.

[jakeblues]

I'm actually down to a decision to go mainly black and white and buy the $250 or so in supplies that I need to make the darkroom stuff I have work (including 100 foot roll of 400 film for the loader) or switch to extremely infrequent usage

Do the first of these things. All BW is a really satisfying way to go.

[ChopperCharles]

A nice Pentax autofocus film camera wouldn't be a bad second option. Although, the versatility of the APS-c digital sensor is not to be dismissed so easily. The high ISO settings make photography possible where photography was never possible before. Low light photos are looking really good at ISO6400, with less grain than ISO1600 film. Shutter speeds just aren't available when using film.

That being said, I still shoot film all the time. It has a different quality to it that I enjoy. But, scanned negatives are only about 6 megapixel. You can scan them higher, but you won't get any more detail out of them.

Charles.

[stevebrot]

But, scanned negatives are only about 6 megapixel. You can scan them higher, but you won't get any more detail out of them.

Buy a better scanner...

Truly, though, much depends on the film and the skill of the operator. My experience with a fine-grain negative and good technique is that detail is still there at 4000 dpi which calculates to about 21 megapixels with a 35mm negative.


Steve

FWIW, the calculated 21 megapixel value that is often quoted for a 4000 dpi scan is a little misleading. There is more to an image than the digital resolution. Even RAW camera output from a digital sensor has gone through an image processor that adjusts color and boundary contrast and corrects for artifact. Scanned images (even TIFF), unfortunately, are not quite so robust and often "fall apart" with even gentle post-processing. For that reason, I pretty much avoid commenting on digital vs. film threads. To me, the two media are simply different. Both are good.