[Eyewanders]

Congrats on the MZ-3! I think you'll really like it.
You can basically shoot it like an autofocus MX.

Now THAT statement, the latter, is like music to my ears. Apparently I have chosen wisely.

---------- Post added 07-18-15 at 11:07 AM ----------

Send me your film

Aw, come on - at least split it with me.

---------- Post added 07-18-15 at 11:28 AM ----------

I know some of you are still very much into films. But when I look at the printed photos from my film days, they all look dull, usually not sharp and flat; usually bright areas are too bright and dark areas are too dark with limited dynamic range compare to my digital photos produced from k-3. There must be something I am not seeing that you folks are harping on and still enjoy photos using films. I wouldn't mind if you can enlighten me.... thanks in advance...
I have quite a few film cameras and I like the look of the classic look. Other than that, I don't think I will use them to take photos; and I have a few rolls of old unused kodak films still in the freezer.

A bit off-topic, but I'll bite... and I'll say it with one recent image (about 5 days ago) on Fuji Reala, which is not even my favorite emulsion. I did VERY little to this scan in Lightroom. Far far less than I'd have done (as *always* seems to be the case) than I'd have done with a RAW or JPG from my K-3. Film allows me to put more energy into taking and exploring photos and less energy into editing digital files. My 2 cents.



I have to work for my shots on film, and the payoff is the ratio of "keepers" compared to when I'm shooting digital is probably 10 times higher.

---------- Post added 07-18-15 at 11:31 AM ----------

I bought a reasonably priced but jammed up MZ-3 with the intention of sending it to Eric for repair and upgrade.
As expected the motor had the usual cracked plastic gear; he replaced it with the improved motor with metal gear.
Eric also replaced the stock focusing screen with one from a ZX-M/MZ-M for greatly improved manual focus.

Chris

That's all good information to know. Thanks!

---------- Post added 07-18-15 at 11:33 AM ----------

- Film is more fun
- The old cameras are more fun
- Already full frame and no "keeping up with the Jones's"
- Medium format film
- Switching films types is like getting a new camera
- Digital shots look too sterile
- B&W is always better on film

I'm sure others can expand.

Phil.

Testify!

[builttospill]

Another vote for the MZ-3. I like it quite a bit, but use my *ist more. I purchased a *ist and PZ-1p at the same time to compare. The PZ-1p was loaded with features, but I never used them because I am used to the older, manual cameras. I have all the K-series bodies and many more. The PZ-1p was big and awkward, and didn't feel right in my hands.

The *ist felt great in my hands with the grip attached. Using it is very similar to my K10D. I like the *ist because the grip takes AA batteries so I don't have to buy the expensive batteries that fit inside the camera. The entire package is small and lightweight for travel.

You may need to upgrade the gear in your MZ-3 before it's ready for prime time. I'm getting mine ready to send to Eric.

---------- Post added 07-20-15 at 03:35 PM ----------

- Digital shots look too sterile

This.

There must be something I am not seeing that you folks are harping on and still enjoy photos using films. I wouldn't mind if you can enlighten me.... thanks in advance...

A lot of the enjoyment of film comes from the process, not just the quality of the final product. I see too many people machine-gunning away with their digital camera and think what a waste of time it is to sort through that many photos. When I am using film I slow down. There aren't a lot of settings to mess with. I don't have to adjust sharpness, contrast, and more. I don't have to process a RAW digital file. Instead I focus on composition and take the photo. One photo. Because I've taken my time and am more deliberate, I get better results.

With a decent lens and good processing the results are fantastic, even with cheap film. This one certainly isn't dull in color:

Pentax MX, FA* 80-200, Walgreen's 200 Film

[OldChE]

I bought a reasonably priced but jammed up MZ-3 with the intention of sending it to Eric for repair and upgrade.
As expected the motor had the usual cracked plastic gear; he replaced it with the improved motor with metal gear.
Eric also replaced the stock focusing screen with one from a ZX-M/MZ-M for greatly improved manual focus.

Chris

Chris - who is Eric? And how much does the gear repair and focus screen change cost? In case I need that for my zx5n. Oh. I just bought a zx-L on shopgoodwill, we'll see if it works. Does the ZXL use the plastic gear too?

[drmoss_ca]

Possibly an out-of-date opinion, but here I go. Many years ago I bought into Pentax, originally with a K1000 in 1977 and later with an ME Super. Some years and many life events later, my wife replaced her half frame Pen FT with an SF1. I was jealous (and stingy) enough to follow suit with an SF10. Spool forwards many years and many more life events: I'm still using film in 35mm, medium format (including a 645N) and even two large formats. I pick up her SF1 and discover it makes lovely photos with the 50mm/f1.4. It breaks, so KEH sends me a couple of bodies for ~$25 each. I still use it, and love the results, even though I also have a couple of film Leicas and a Nikon F6 also waiting for use each time I load a film. It's an easy point and shoot for film, but the results make it a good choice for many situations. A couple of examples:





Stupidly cheap, and remarkably good for the price!

Chris

[Pål Jensen]

1) Pentax LX was a really lovely manual-focus camera, a jewel. The high-eyepoint viewfinder was wonderful to use, especially because it could be rotated for viewing straight down for low-level macro work, but it was bulky. However, the LX is a rather dainty, fragile camera, requiring loving handling to prevent damage. The TTL flash system is complex with a primitively low synch speed. The similarly featured Nikon FA I had for a while was a far-far more rugged camera body with a 1/180 synch speed, but not as "nice.".

I have to disagree. The Nikon FA was a camera with the feature specs similar to the Canon A-1 (except for matrix metering of which it was first) with similar built; ie. plastic panels (I believe both the Canon and the Nikon used brass colored paint underneath the cover painting in order to show "brassing" when worn).
The LX was extremely durable camera, all metal with interchangeable viewfinders. It specs, design and price was similar to the Nikon F3. I used mine from 1981 until 2007. It still works perfectly.

[Eyewanders]

I have to disagree. The Nikon FA was a camera with the feature specs similar to the Canon A-1 (except for matrix metering of which it was first) with similar built; ie. plastic panels (I believe both the Canon and the Nikon used brass colored paint underneath the cover painting in order to show "brassing" when worn).
The LX was extremely durable camera, all metal with interchangeable viewfinders. It specs, design and price was similar to the Nikon F3. I used mine from 1981 until 2007. It still works perfectly.

My LX is arguably my favorite body, but I was intending to focus this thread on AF era bodies. Via info here I picked up an MZ-3 which arrived today and (excellent timing) I immediately put through the paces. Burned 3 rolls at some of my best friend's brewery opening today/tonight. The LX was also along with me and I used it for a roll as well, but I have to say the MZ-3 was a joy to shoot with. Certainly "cheaper" feeling than my other bodies due simply to all the plastic, but the price was cheap, all the niceties were there and the handling itself was wonderful. It's an incredibly comfortable camera. Huge fan in just one night... Will definitely see a lot of use.

[arnold]

I know some of you are still very much into films. But when I look at the printed photos from my film days, they all look dull, usually not sharp and flat; usually bright areas are too bright and dark areas are too dark with limited dynamic range compare to my digital photos produced from k-3. There must be something I am not seeing that you folks are harping on and still enjoy photos using films. I wouldn't mind if you can enlighten me.... thanks in advance...

This is a picture I took in 1961 on slide film, with a simple triplet lens. Over half a century and still crisp and sharp. Give it another try and consider it a challenge.

[UncleVanya]

I know some of you are still very much into films. But when I look at the printed photos from my film days, they all look dull, usually not sharp and flat; usually bright areas are too bright and dark areas are too dark with limited dynamic range compare to my digital photos produced from k-3. There must be something I am not seeing that you folks are harping on and still enjoy photos using films. I wouldn't mind if you can enlighten me.... thanks in advance...
I have quite a few film cameras and I like the look of the classic look. Other than that, I don't think I will use them to take photos; and I have a few rolls of old unused kodak films still in the freezer.

Depending on the film it may have faded. Also print film unless you did your own darkroom work was hard to get great results from unless you had a great lab. Do you have slides? Have they been well protected?

I'm too lazy to go back to film.

[aleonx3]

Thanks to all who responded to me on my query... I can appreciate all that and certainly have lots of respect for you guys (your passion and enjoyment in film). I certainly failed that when I was there at the time.

.... Do you have slides? Have they been well protected?
I'm too lazy to go back to film.

Only a few slides, not much.. but they were not good; in my film days I am just terrible and I just hated photography (did I? yes).

This is a picture I took in 1961 on slide film, with a simple triplet lens. Over half a century and still crisp and sharp. Give it another try and consider it a challenge.

It is certainly a great shot... I would never have dreamed that I could do that... now you have shown me that it could be done; wish I knew that in my film days.

..
A lot of the enjoyment of film comes from the process, not just the quality of the final product. I see too many people machine-gunning away with their digital camera and think what a waste of time it is to sort through that many photos. When I am using film I slow down. There aren't a lot of settings to mess with. I don't have to adjust sharpness, contrast, and more. I don't have to process a RAW digital file. Instead I focus on composition and take the photo. One photo. Because I've taken my time and am more deliberate, I get better results.

Yep agree, but I never had the courage to try to process the film myself.....just afraid of being a failure I guess...

I have to work for my shots on film, and the payoff is the ratio of "keepers" compared to when I'm shooting digital is probably 10 times higher.

Yes, that's why I have admiration for you guys having much the patience and have to "work" on getting your shots properly exposed and correct. OTOH, the new generation of DSLR camera users just snap away shots in cell-phone style are mostly adapted to spray-and-pray approach and have little or no appreciation of capturing photos in the film days. Over the years, I have learned my way and put in plenty of hours in my event photography. Even with my DSLR camera I felt the passion and enjoyment that you all share in film photography. Often times, I have to plan and wait (as you all do) and work on my shots (not based on luck). Here is an example with one of my photos recently taken in Canada day parade on (I stayed in steps with the drummers walking backwards and then time it to the moment I felt was right).

Send me your film

Argh... I think it is still deep down in the chest freezer... will have to find it first...

- Film is more fun
- The old cameras are more fun
- Already full frame and no "keeping up with the Jones's"
- Medium format film
- Switching films types is like getting a new camera
- Digital shots look too sterile
- B&W is always better on film

I'm sure others can expand.

Phil.

Thanks, Phil, agree with all points... except may be add 2 advantage points for digital (quick, easy to correct exposure mistakes).. For instance, if I need a quick snap (I mean I have to react fast), using a DSLR would be much easier to capture and correct in exposure. Again, here is an example from one of my event photos. As a side benefit, I learn to be alert and observant at all times when I have a camera in hand. May be it is an easy shot for you guys with your film camera...



---------- Post added 08-05-2015 at 11:14 PM ----------

Oh, yes, I forgot to mention one thing... I can choose my color profile when I develop my DNG files in Silkypix. Now, instead of Standard color profile, I choose "Film V1", the color is awesome especially in "red"... the best of both worlds, I like it...

Sorry, I digress from the OP's thread topic....

[aiwa]

My vote is for MZ-3. Will not go into more arguments here, as I already done it in this review: The best camera in the world! Pentax full frame MZ-3 By Aivaras Sidla | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS

Later, I bought MZ-S, as big fan of Pentax film cameras I just had to try it. I like it, but still MZ-3 is better, because it is easier to use and simpler.

[Eyewanders]

My vote is for MZ-3. Will not go into more arguments here, as I already done it in this review: The best camera in the world! Pentax full frame MZ-3 By Aivaras Sidla | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS

Later, I bought MZ-S, as big fan of Pentax film cameras I just had to try it. I like it, but still MZ-3 is better, because it is easier to use and simpler.

Hey Aivaras - I'm pretty much in love with mine after a couple weeks. It hasn't left my bag yet. Intutive, small, light, DX reads, and can't believe how happy the 43mm is on it. Powerful little package. I checked out your stream in the days before I bought mine - fantastic sets of photos, man. Cheers.

---------- Post added 08-06-15 at 10:13 AM ----------

This is a picture I took in 1961 on slide film, with a simple triplet lens. Over half a century and still crisp and sharp. Give it another try and consider it a challenge.

Fantastic photo.

[aiwa]

Thanks! Good luck shooting and spreading pentax film virus. and I'd like to see your captures on film, dont forget to share them.

[Eyewanders]

Thanks! Good luck shooting and spreading pentax film virus. and I'd like to see your captures on film, dont forget to share them.

No worries - most of my film shots are shot on Pentax bodies... link to my flickr stream in my signature. Just got the first few rolls back from the lab shot on the MZ-3 but I'm working 14 hour days on an event right now so not sure I'll have the energy to scan them in for a few more days til that is over.

[AquaDome]

I would put the MZ-S at the top of my "most-wanted" list. Until I get my hands on one, the SF-1n will do nicely.

Don't forget the 645n.

[LesDMess]

Oh, yes, I forgot to mention one thing... I can choose my color profile when I develop my DNG files in Silkypix. Now, instead of Standard color profile, I choose "Film V1", the color is awesome especially in "red"... the best of both worlds, I like it...

As long as you feel you are getting what you want out of it - from the camera to capture to results, that is all that matters. If you believe a film profile applied to your file does the job is a benefit. Whether it really is or not may not matter anyway.