|
Forum: Monthly Photo Contests
06-02-2016, 04:09 AM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax Forums Giveaways
01-26-2016, 05:31 PM
|
| |
Don't worry about the photo you've just taken. Worry about the three you'll miss while checking it on your camera.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
02-11-2014, 02:06 AM
|
| |
The US movie industry is full of illustrations of companies/brands that are not what they appear, as a result of splits/mergers/asset stripping etc. The history of MGM from the 1960s on is exemplary - hard to keep track on which company currently owns which bit of the old movie studio/distributor - and the most consistent use of the brand being the MGM Grand hotels and casinos, which has no remaining connection to the film company that went bankrupt in 2010. Does it matter? Do you enjoy an MGM film any more or less knowing it isn't made by the "real" MGM but is little more than a brand of convenience with a certain cachet? I don't think so. Same for Pentax. I am unable to see the name on the front of a camera through its viewfinder, and what I see through the viewfinder is all I care about. Let me pose this as a conundrum; if Ricoh announced tomorrow that the long awaited K mount full frame DSLR (and let's assume it is a reasonably priced, well built and specified piece of kit) is going into production and will be on sale in a couple of months, but that it would have Ricoh rather than Pentax on the front; would you want one or would the name put you off?
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
02-07-2014, 03:46 AM
|
| |
Bottom line, it's a niche brand in a difficult market. Long term I think the camera makers will live to regret moving to a technology that makes expensive cameras the consumable instead of cheap film. Fast big bucks maybe but long term viability is an issue. A return to a market based on cheaper consumables (durable digital cameras but much more printing of images) would favour companies like Canon and Ricoh, who have printing within their portfolios. Not so good for Nikon.
Personally, the K3 is an outstanding camera and I could not care less Whether it has Pentax or Ricoh on the front.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
03-09-2012, 04:21 AM
|
| |
Presumably that's the reason it has a built in, pull-out hood at the front of the lens. Mine seems fine with that in bright sunlight.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-31-2012, 02:58 AM
|
| |
If those drawings are anything to go by then that is one damn ugly camera. How could they get that so wrong when Sony and Fuji seem to be able to get it so right.
|
|
Forum: Monthly Photo Contests
01-05-2012, 04:37 AM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
07-07-2011, 04:32 AM
|
| |
I'd have to agree with cbaytan. Zeniths are temperamental. I've torn too many films having overshot the film and jammed the rewind mechanism as a result (it's almost impossible to know how many shots you've takes since the counter moves freely and can't be relied on). They do look kinda cool but you need to be incredibly disciplined about following all the arcane 'rules' for how to use them (the Russian philosophy seemed to be not to bother engineering solutions when they could write a rule instead, particularly one where the consequences of departing from the prescribed behaviours were generally catastrophic — actually, come to think of it, that was a very Soviet philosophy). You can use zeniths, they're dirt cheap and they can be okay. But you will have to follow the rules exactly or face disaster. Prackticas are more forgiving, every bit as cool and as cheap as zenits and much nicer to use. I picked one up recently for £2, mostly for the pentacon 50/1.8 lens which, I have to say, is just outstanding. very sharp from f2.8 and brutally sharp when stopped down to f5.6. Haven't read much about this lens but am very impressed, especially since it came with an immaculate Praktica body and ever-ready case attached for two quid. This Praktica has a cloth shutter so you'd want to be sure it hasn't got any pinholes before using it but it feels very usable and I will be putting a roll in soon to try it out. cbaytan's other suggestion of going for a screwmount pentax body is also a good idea.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
05-22-2011, 02:49 AM
|
| |
It's a camera I picked up cheap in a charity shop recently, mostly because the lens interested me, so I don't have any particular emotional commitment to the camera nor do I imagine it's of particular value either financially or historically. It's standard 8. I have no projector and films are pricey so I doubt I'll ever want to use it for its intended purpose. Having said that, it's in pristine condition and is a complete kit, with filters and a carrying case and I have a natural inclination not to trash things like this unnecessarily. So I probably couldn't bring myself to destroy the camera to get the lens off. I'm also a bit unsure about how aperture is controlled. On the cine camera exposure seems to be controlled automatically by electronic adjustment of the aperture to suit conditions. I can't see a manual way of setting aperture which may mean it will be useless on a DSLR.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
05-20-2011, 09:00 AM
|
| |
Not sure why this photo didn't appear before
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
05-18-2011, 03:20 AM
|
| |
Anyone have any idea how I can get this lens off this cine cam without whatever tool was specifically made for that job?
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
05-10-2011, 01:49 AM
|
| |
MZ-M with Walgreens 200 film. Auto-Takumar 135mm f2.5. Taken at f5.6.
 |
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
01-19-2011, 02:13 AM
|
| |
Can't argue with those fiveseven. Very nice. I especially like the cat shot with the ladybird. I had a chance to use my Jupiter yesterday and really like it (even if it does smell like a diesel engine). Mine's an M42 version: does your M39 one focus to infinity?
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
01-15-2011, 05:21 PM
|
| |
Anyone have any experience with this lens: Jupiter 11 135/4
only got it recently so haven't had a chance to check it out properly but it seems pretty sharp from a quick snap this evening
 |
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
01-03-2011, 05:11 AM
|
| |
Thanks to you all for the suggestions. If the sun ever shines again in London I'll pop an old lens on and have a go.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
12-30-2010, 10:28 AM
|
| |
Hi
This may seem like an odd request but can anyone recommend lenses I can use on my K-r that will tend to produce lens flare and other artefacts.
Thanks,
Mike
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
12-16-2010, 02:21 AM
|
| |
Hi Bobpur
Thanks for this. Might give this a go when I feel a bit more confident about modifying lenses.
Mike
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
12-15-2010, 06:23 PM
|
| |
Hi
I'm new to the world of DSLRs and have taken the plunge with a K-r, which I am very happy with. I've been playing around with an old CZJ Tessar 50mm F2.8 on it, as well some other older MF lenses. I really like the Tessar but one thing about it perplexes me. I use it on Av, which works fine, but underexposes by about two stops. It's not a problem as I just dial in the appropriate compensation but I was wondering what the explanation is. None of the other lenses I use require this. Is it a known characteristic of the Tessar and why?
|
