Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-03-2014, 03:57 AM   #16
Pentaxian
Jonathan Mac's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Madrid, Spain
Posts: 3,905
If you like film, stick with it. You could probably get a cheap SLR for less than it would cost to repair your K1000, but they may not be as much to your liking. The P30 and ME Super are usually the cheapest options for Pentax SLRs. They're both nice but not as solid as the K series.

I haven't used a 67, but the original Pentax 645 is nice and I think you could get one with the 75mm lens for $400, but if you mostly shoot portraits you'd probably want a 150mm lens, which will be a bit more expensive. None of your current digital or 35mm lenses would work of course, so you'd need to invest in new ones.

There are other, quite cheap 645 SLRs from Bronica and Mamiya, but I haven't used any of them.

03-03-2014, 09:22 AM   #17
Senior Member
johnsey's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Fargo, ND
Posts: 110
Hi Spartan,

I do agree with several posters, repairing the camera will cost more than replacement. You should be able to pick up a replacement k1000 for under $50 (these bodies are abundant and many people sell off their kit cheap to clear closet space. If you a few k mount lenses I would suggest picking up a new body cheap at some point. If you plan to develop your own black and white I would lean this with 35mm as it is easier to roll and cheaper to shoot.

If your interested in going into medium format I would determinately encourage it. You mentioned you primarily do portraiture and landscape. I like a few others would suggest a 67 over a 645 in such a case. The 67 will be larger negatives, a heavier camera, but also as others noted a cheaper system as the 67 lenses can be be picked up for really inexpensive prices if you shop around and wait. The 67 can be handheld at a fast shutter and true the 645 would lend more to street photography type shooting, but you indicated portraiture and landscape as primary functions so I imagine you would be using a tripod pretty heavily(id leave the portability to k30 or the k1000). Both bodies have 3 generations of age 645,645n 645nII & 6x7, 67, 67II do some research on models so you know the pros and cons, plenty of people on the forum can help with debating which to buy when your ready to make the purchase. I'd suggest maybe getting a early one cheap that has some wear on it then upgrade to the 67II when you can afford it if start to invest in the system. Given what you shoot maybe get a 45mm or 55mm and a 165mm or 200mm to start for the 67.

You'll probably end up send rolls in to be processed if you shoot 120, especially if you shoot transparency film, which trust me you will And you'll want to get access to a good film scanner, probably through the local college unless you want to spend some money on your own.

You could also pick up a Holga while your saving up and start dabbling in medium format that way.
03-03-2014, 03:09 PM   #18
Pentaxian
Jonathan Mac's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Madrid, Spain
Posts: 3,905
I would have to disagree that a 67 system would be cheaper than a 645. I use 645 simply because I can't afford a 67 system, though I would love one.

The 645 is just small enough that I can travel with it though, which I suspect I wouldn't practically be able to do with a 67. The 67 will certainly provide bigger negatives and higher image quality and resolution, and if you can get one within your budget and the size and weight won't be a problem, then I suspect that would be your best option.
03-03-2014, 04:19 PM   #19
Site Supporter




Join Date: Aug 2012
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 345
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by johnsey Quote
Hi Spartan,
You'll probably end up send rolls in to be processed if you shoot 120, especially if you shoot transparency film, which trust me you will And you'll want to get access to a good film scanner, probably through the local college unless you want to spend some money on your own.
I have little to no experience getting film developed. How much on average does getting a roll developed run? I mentioned to a friend that I was considering a film camera to shoot with, and they warned me that "film is a hassle" and "developing is expensive..." While I expect it to be pricier and more difficult, I still want to do it. (Even on my "starving student" budget) Any words of advice or suggestions there?

QuoteOriginally posted by Jonathan Mac Quote
I would have to disagree that a 67 system would be cheaper than a 645. I use 645 simply because I can't afford a 67 system, though I would love one.

The 645 is just small enough that I can travel with it though, which I suspect I wouldn't practically be able to do with a 67. The 67 will certainly provide bigger negatives and higher image quality and resolution, and if you can get one within your budget and the size and weight won't be a problem, then I suspect that would be your best option.
I think I'd go with the 67. The 645 would certainly be lighter, but I'd be using the camera for more specialised shooting, (especially considering the cost per shot associated with MF film) so weight is less concerning to me. And I could always adapt 67 lenses to a 645 system if I do decide to go smaller.
And places I'd need to hike to, I don't mind carrying heavier gear to get a shot.

(Sorry about all of the questions, I'm just a noob who started off on digital.)

03-03-2014, 05:13 PM   #20
Senior Member
johnsey's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Fargo, ND
Posts: 110
You can probably have the roll developed for less than 10bucks, by sending it to mail order or local processing shop. The Darkroom is quite popular and will even scan your negatives too, the super scan size is pretty high resolution and a good bang for buck if you do not have access to a film scanner and need to blow a few of them up. Check them out.
03-03-2014, 06:30 PM   #21
Senior Member
johnha's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Lancashire, UK
Posts: 250
QuoteOriginally posted by SpartanD63 Quote
I have little to no experience getting film developed. How much on average does getting a roll developed run? I mentioned to a friend that I was considering a film camera to shoot with, and they warned me that "film is a hassle" and "developing is expensive..." While I expect it to be pricier and more difficult, I still want to do it. (Even on my "starving student" budget) Any words of advice or suggestions there?
I'd encourage anybody to give medium format a go, but I think you should consider getting to grips with 35mm (film generally) before spending hundreds of dollars on a medium format camera. I started medium format on an inexpensive Lubitel, there are other TLR options that are cheap and lots of Holgas etc. Once you're familiar with the process of using medium format and seeing the results, you will be better able to decide which format is best for your work.

That said, if you want to go straight into medium format and are prepared to persevere with it, you need to research cameras etc. Get to a dealer with used gear and familarise yourself with the size, weight and handling, check out lens, prism and back prices (MF cameras are often modular) so you can start to get a feel for it.

John.
03-03-2014, 09:02 PM   #22
Site Supporter




Join Date: Aug 2012
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 345
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by johnha Quote
I'd encourage anybody to give medium format a go, but I think you should consider getting to grips with 35mm (film generally) before spending hundreds of dollars on a medium format camera. I started medium format on an inexpensive Lubitel, there are other TLR options that are cheap and lots of Holgas etc. Once you're familiar with the process of using medium format and seeing the results, you will be better able to decide which format is best for your work.

That said, if you want to go straight into medium format and are prepared to persevere with it, you need to research cameras etc. Get to a dealer with used gear and familarise yourself with the size, weight and handling, check out lens, prism and back prices (MF cameras are often modular) so you can start to get a feel for it.

John.
The reason I even considered MF was that I decided, film is going to be rather expensive anyway, why not consider going for MF instead of 35mm?
I don't think I'd be able to stand a TLR (reversed things really play with my head) and Holgas, while neat toys, don't exactly fit the reason I'm considering MF.

And trying any camera gear out is rather problematic for me. There isn't a shop within 75 miles that has camera equipment (aside from cheap DSLRs and P&S cameras), let alone old film stuff. The closest I've come to the 67 I'm considering was the 645D I saw at the sale in Denver a while back. I actually didn't mind the size of it. The viewfinder felt refreshingly large. Beyond those two observations, I have no firsthand knowledge of MF.
03-04-2014, 12:01 AM   #23
Pentaxian
PPPPPP42's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Wisconsin
Photos: Albums
Posts: 845
Buy a pair of 35mm Pentax Super Programs, they do everything and cost nothing. Ebay is littered with them.
That way you can have one film type in one and another film type in the other. Buy 24 exposure rolls instead of 36.
You could also do like I did, send your K1000 to eric to be fixed up like new and keep it as a functional collectible, and then buy a Super Program too. If you plan to use 200 and 400 film speed, use the 200 speed film in the K1000 as its lack of 2000 shutter speed limits your aperture options on sunny days.
Spend the money you save on a good film scanner or if you are ambitious buy one of the many darkrooms that people are near throwing away these days. I would suggest the Beseler 23c II with XL extension (the enlarger I have) because they are good quality despite being dirt cheap, well supported and can do both 35mm and 645 without trouble.
To do film economically I would suggest buying black and white film and developing the film yourself, whether or not you wet print or scan after that is up to you, but if you scan keep in mind you have to choose between web only, an expensive printer with even more expensive ink, or paying someone to print your stuff which is comically expensive.
It is possible to do color film totally at home but its more complex and you have to be much more precise in your procedures, wheras black and white can handle a shocking amount of sloppiness on things like time and temperature and still turn out good, plus you can use a red light to actually see what you are doing.

I would also love to do 645, but its totally impractical for me money wise to invest in a whole new system when I don't feel I even use my 35mm stuff to its full ability. Being able to make the larger high resolution prints is great till you see what darkroom paper costs in those sizes (or printing costs) and then you never end up doing it as much as you expected.

Research the capabilities of the 645 and 67 bodies, the lack of speeds and features (I don't just mean auto features) that many of the 35mm bodies have is a little surprising. For example all the Pentax bodies at least top out at 1000 shutter speed which wouldn't work for me because I use exclusively Ilford Delta 400 film with DDX developer so that I can get 400 speed with the super fine grain of much slower film but the speed to shoot in many more poorly lit situations with a reasonable shutter speed. The extra stop on the shutter speed (2000) makes up for that one stop when I want to use a wider aperture in brighter situations (a single flower in a sunny field for example).

Hmm, I think giving my 2 cents turned into at least a nickel there.


Last edited by PPPPPP42; 03-04-2014 at 07:38 PM.
03-04-2014, 06:57 AM   #24
Senior Member
johnsey's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Fargo, ND
Posts: 110
QuoteOriginally posted by PPPPPP42 Quote
f the 35mm bodies have is a little surprising. For example all the Pentax bodies at least top out at 1000 shutter speed which wouldn't work for me because I use exclusively Ilford Delta 400 film with DDX developer so that I can get 400 speed with the super fine grain of much slower film but the speed to shoot in many more poorly lit situations with a reasonable shutter speed. The extra stop on the shutter speed (2000) makes up for that one stop when I want to use a wider aperture in brighter situations (a single flower in a sunny field for example).
Why not just shoot the 50 or 100 when its a nice day and save the 400 for the lower light. With ythe number of exposures on 120 film I cant imagine you shoot the same roll of film into several lighting situations. And even so, slowing down the shutter is far easier than speeding it up, just throw a ND or CPL on the lens and your good to go which you probably would want for an example like the sunny field flower anyway.

---------- Post added 03-04-2014 at 08:12 AM ----------

I think many of us agree that you can get your 35mm replaced real cheap and that would be a good idea for practicing developing your own film. Other than that, research the body and lens prices and find the right fit for your budget as you save up.

I wouldn't worry too much about extra equipment spending like an enlarger, scanner, or printer, unless you are doing a regular volume of it wouldn't be cost effective to invest in. I think you'll find at least to start that using a develop and scan service like The Darkroom and a print service like WHCC will fit any needs you have at a reasonable price.

Last edited by johnsey; 03-04-2014 at 07:13 AM.
03-04-2014, 08:12 AM   #25
New Member




Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 9
While I'm sure that the 67 will give you better image quality with its much larger negatives, and you could fix or replace a K1000 for next to nothing, let me just say that the Pentax 645n is my favorite camera. It's just so well designed and easy to use. It feels great in the hands. It has auto everything when you want it. These are subjective qualities, of course, and objectively, you'll be likely to get better results from the 67. But the 645n is comparably priced (I got mine with the AF 75 and manual 150 for about $500) and simple and very well designed. Can't say the same for the original 645, which kind of looks like an ergonomics disaster to me. Also, old 6x6 TLRs are abundant, cheap and fun. And you could even get and 500-series Hasselblad for pretty cheap, although I suspect the lenses would be painfully expensive.
03-04-2014, 08:30 AM   #26
New Member




Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 9
You can get okay scans from a cheap flatbed. Medium format scans on a flatbed (in my experience) are always better than 35mm scans on a flatbed. That said, they both still kind of suck. And anything that's going to produce really impressive scans will likely be VERY expensive. If you need really good scans, I'd say send them to NCPS or The Darkroom. I've mostly given up on scans and started printing them myself. Setting up a darkroom in the basement turned out to be a lot cheaper than a really good scanner. Also, 8x10 prints scan a lot better than negatives on a flatbed.
03-04-2014, 08:47 AM   #27
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 6,929
The smaller the negative, the more resolving power ( lp/mm thing) a scanner needs to have to get the best from the film. And that typically means a more expensive scanner. You can scan medium and large format much better with commodity scanners you will most likely find and willing to afford.
03-04-2014, 10:55 AM   #28
Site Supporter




Join Date: Aug 2012
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 345
Original Poster
I think I'm set on the MF (still not sure of either 67 or 645 format though) But I do think the idea of an inexpensive 35mm to get the hang of developing film is good.

I'm not sure if I'd need a scanner, as I've stumbled upon a box labeled "photo enlarger" in my grandparents' basement. I'll have to pull it out and take a look at it.

On the other hand, I also have a 13x19 printer I snagged for cheap for more important projects. While it wouldn't be as big as MF could handle, but it would work if I could get good scans.
03-04-2014, 06:12 PM   #29
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,185
QuoteOriginally posted by ChrisPlatt Quote
The selection of MF film scanners is limited, are they are very pricey ($1000+).

Chris
Unless you buy a perfectly adequate Epson v700. You don't need to scan a medium format negative at 4000 dpi to get very decent results.


Steve
03-04-2014, 07:03 PM   #30
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sydney
Posts: 671
V700 is cheap and I can't think of single decent 35mm scanner which isn't double or triple the price.
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!
35mm, bodies, color, date, developer, era, exposures, fiber, film, flower, ilford, issue, k-30, lens, medium format, mf, mirror, mx, paper, photos, repair 35mm slr, repair advice, roll, service, shots, shutter, situations, sports, suggestions
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax Medium Format Resources: 645 & 6x7 Cameras and Lenses, 645 & 6x7 Accessories Adam Pentax Medium Format 9 02-12-2017 03:38 AM
Pentax 645 and 6X7 or 67 lenses to PK Adk X Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 8 04-25-2012 03:24 PM
Pentax 645 120mm macro and Pentax 645 35mm lenses and Pentax 6x7 45mm lens. Newmoon Pentax Medium Format 11 03-14-2012 02:10 PM
Where'd you start - 35mm SLR or dSLR? johnmflores Pentax DSLR Discussion 89 08-20-2010 12:44 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:44 PM. | See also: NikonForums.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