|
Forum: Post Your Photos!
08-05-2011, 01:39 PM
|
 | Nature Ticha
Posted By
focca |
Replies: 14
Views: 1,638
|
|
Hi, this my new lens and new cat, what did you think about it?
:confused:
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
08-29-2009, 02:05 PM
|
| |
As much as i like the bokeh from the f1.2, a lens, no matter how good, is only worthwhile if you are using it.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
07-27-2011, 09:22 AM
|
| |
(Note: It is my recent ownership of the Pentax K-5--and the extensive discussion of that camera on this website-- that has led to this posting.)
I am astounded by the change in attitude that photographers have undergone in recent years. I recall when in the late 1970s the Pentax MX was newly released; at that time virtually all professionals, and most serious amateurs, were shooting with wholly mechanical, fully manual cameras. The Nikon F2, Canon F1, the Olympus OM-1-- and, of course, the MX-- were what these ‘serious’ shooters typically embraced. (Photojournalists and many travel photographers were hooked on their Leicas.) And when asked why this was the answer was always the same: RELIABILITY.
A working professional simply could not risk down-time with the new breed of electronic cameras (Some of you may recall the initially reserved reaction to the Contax RTS.) Travel and nature photographers who were braving the elements--shooting on a freezing mountain top or in a steamy jungle--simply would not tolerate being shut-down by an electronic failure. And for this reason, many carried hand-held meters that were either immune to battery failure (like the Sekonic L-398) or capable of quick battery replacement.
Slowly, the electronic shutter and exposure automation were embraced . However, a mechanical back-up was considered mandatory. (Note that even that the ‘electronic’ Pentax LX still had mechanical speeds.) But my how times have changed!
Today many photographers--hooked on auto-focus and programmed exposure--seem not overly concerned when their cameras lock-up or suffer from ‘mirror-flutter’ or cannot focus accurately on their intended subject. Even some working professionals appear to take these shortcomings as ‘facts of photographic life.’
But my question is this: Have we, with our modern digital cameras, really advanced photographically?
No doubt the ‘digital revolution’ has in many ways made photography more convenient. (Though I think the convenience factor is greatly over-stated.) But when I think of the recurring cost of upgrading to the 'latest technology' and the frustration of electronic failures, I begin to question the nature of our 'progress'. And this questioning becomes even greater when I look at the final product--the actual prints--made from my aging mechanical cameras (Pentax MX and Contax S2), and my new digital wonders ( Pentax K-7 and K-5); when I do this I am led to ask ‘Has it all been worth it?'
I'm not so sure that it has.
(P.S. I never sold my vinyl LPs, and I am currently shopping for a high-end analog turntable.)
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
07-14-2011, 04:33 AM
|
| |
To this and similar entries in this thread: I don't thik this is quite "fair" to Pentax. The adapter was introduced at the same time that Pentax introduced the K-mount in 1975. And it has remained unchanged since then.
Imaging that you were a Spotmatic owner in those days with a significant stock of (excellent and expensive for that time) Takumars. Your beloved Spotmatic dies and you need a new camera body. You would NOT want to buy an entire new set of K-mount optics but rather buy a new body and convert it (reversibly) into an 42-body. And that is the solution Pentax offered their loyal customers then. (Think about other manufacturers - no names mentioned - who have changed their mounts on more than one occasion and supported their existing users with......nothing!).
It is only very recently, that the mixed use of M-42, manual SMC Pentax K, M, and KA lenses together with contemporay fully atomatic lenses have become "fashion" and the adapter was designed at a time where DSLRs were way beyond science fiction.
It is a matter of system design philosophy, but to me, Pentax's choice way back in 1975 makes very good sense - notably, as seen from a user perspective!!!
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
07-09-2011, 08:22 AM
|
| |
No, lenses won't be renamed because MOVING A LENS DOES NOT CHANGE THE FOCAL LENGTH! 50mm is 50mm whether it's on 4x5, 645, 135/FF, APS-C, m4/3, Q, whatever. Focal length is a property of the lens, not of the mount not frame. A 50mm lens does not magically change its length. Forget that you ever heard of crap.factor. I wish that the marketing wonk who devised crap.factor could be found and tried and tortured and executed. Argh!! :fedup:
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
07-01-2011, 08:11 AM
|
| |
Vision? There was no Pentax "vision" because Hoya had no vision for the brand, other than to keep it afloat long enough to sell off anyway. I guess in that they succeeded. Oh well.
Here's hoping that Ricoh realizes that they've bought much more than a simple camera company. They've bought generations of strangely stubborn loyal customers.
Please don't let us down Ricoh!
Mike
|
