|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
04-09-2024, 09:09 PM
|
| |
In my case, I was shopping for items of top quality, top condition, not cheap price. I was looking for highly rated vendors with plenty of feedback. I agree that the rating system used by many sellers now seems to be highly variable and even questionable.
A decade or dozen years ago, buying from Japan was more of a "no issues" experience all of the time. These days, either sellers have changed hands (thus preserving the long feedback record) or some have simply abandoned honesty in the pursuit of profits.
My experiences have been more along the lines of asaru in recent years. For those who have purchased one or two items, I might politely suggest that's a small sample size compared to many purchases over years. Run into one of the poorer sellers and it becomes a hassle at top dollar until the credit finally comes back.
---------- Post added 04-09-24 at 11:12 PM ----------
Interesting, as I'd written about two particularly bad cases that I experienced, not including the "well, I'll keep it, but it's not exactly what was described or what I expected" situations.
Like, as another example, a lens that did appear to be in good condition and clean, but the case it was enclosed in was riddled with mildew and caused a stink in the house, so that I threw the case into the outside garbage can. That doesn't inspire high confidence.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
04-07-2024, 09:48 PM
|
| |
Rather than all good experiences, I'd say mine are about half and half. Some have been good. Others are very carefully worded to give the impression that an item is in very good condition, but there's a little wiggle room in the wording. The ubiquitous "it won't affect images" or similar language should be suspect unless there are very good images showing the lens to be reasonably clean with the listing.
My advice would be to accept no one's word for anything, but to use your own light (cellphone flashlight works well) to make an inspection of your own. I've written before about weird cases, like a "mint" lens, "like new for sure" that had a chip in an internal element and not on the edge. Or a lens where "usual dust won't affect images" was a large black lump between two internal elements.
So, proceed with caution. Know prices back home (or have a way to check them) and inspect lenses closely. Some of the current sellers are sullying the reputation of previously good sellers. I assume that would be the same for used shops, as many purport to be used camera businesses or "photography professionals" on the auction site.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
04-09-2024, 05:07 PM
|
| |
Did you get these on E-bay and report them to their buyer protection folks?
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
04-09-2024, 04:52 PM
|
| |
A year ago I scored one with a B+W UV filter for 47k CZK from the Estonian shop Photopoint. With the standard 2-year EU warranty. It was some discount but they have them often.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
03-22-2024, 08:15 PM
|
| |
My first digital camera was a point-and-shoot with no optical viewfinder. You had to use the LCD at the back of the camera to focus and compose. At first I found this awkward, but I soon got used to it and it became a non issue. I especially like the fact that you could shoot from the hip, meaning that you did not have to raise the camera to eye level to get the shot. What I didn't like about shooting this way is that during bright sunlit days, the LCD would sometimes black-out, or would become very hard to see. This is one of the main reasons I have not switched to mirrorless cameras, although I hear they solved that problem now...
Shooting through an optical viewfinder gives you more of a sense of intimacy with your subject, since everything around you is blocked out. However, you still have the responsibility to remove distracting objects and to compose the image in a pleasing way.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
03-20-2024, 07:29 PM
|
| |
Hello, I have been in photography a very long time, 50yrs +, I just started using my new Pentax KF for a couple weeks now. I would like advise about my technique of using the viewfinder instead of the LCD screen. I have used SLR cameras since the Sixties, and find myself not using the LCD except for menu adjustments. Am I missing out on the abilities of these new digital cameras by not using the LCD? Any thoughts would be appreciated thanks.
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
03-19-2024, 03:19 PM
|
| |
When for many years I was shooting film, I very often shot slides. If I would be giving out sets of prints, then I would shoot print film. In fact, as a total beginner, where there was NO auto-anything, all SLR cameras and lenses offered just manual focus, and ONLY had one exposure "mode"- the manual exposure "mode". You set your own aperture and shutter speed, according to your interpretation of the camera's meter indicator. Very conservative pros and enthusiasts of those times actually turned up their noses at using a camera's meter, considering even having such a device as being "amateurish", instead of using a hand-held meter!
My advanced advisor, who had his own darkroom, suggested I shoot just slides because they were cheaper for processing, more accurate in showing the actual exposure results for me to learn by, and better for compact storage. My exposed film was usually sent to Kodak for processing, as I recall. To get various color palettes and/or to address various lighting conditions, one had to obtain an appropriate film type and sensitivity. I had a lot to learn.
Today, everything is much easier in our digital age. Easier to learn, if we take the time to do it, and much easier if we want our own dark room to do our own processing. Just install some computer software, set up some controls on the camera, and away we go! We have many options right there at our fingertips! I find camaras of today to be absolutely amazing. If we choose to set up our processing using the camera's processor, we have an amazingly sophisticated control system for that. Don't even have to send our SD card to Kodak!!
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
03-17-2024, 09:19 AM
|
| |
without starting a battle over this, getting the settings "absolutely perfect" for each and every shot, or using the cameras capabilities to the fullest, will always require some form of compromise, which i am certain someone will always be able to improve upon given an infinite amount of time in lightroom.
Don't get me wrong here, i shoot 100% jpeg, and am quite satisfied with the results. and usually use shots straight out of the camera, my most common PP is crop, because with wildlife and especially birding you always need to crop in unless you are lucky. it is not about having to run to the computer every time just to see a print, on that i am sure we are in 100% agreement.
it is about having a shot that can stand on its own merits. and on this yes you should in most cases get it straight out of the camera. that is what i mean by "good enough", i believe we are really saying the same thing here.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
03-13-2024, 01:28 PM
|
| |
If we assume that’s a bright sunny-16 kind of day, then it should have been great.
Even if the lens was stopping all the way down, doesn’t the Takumar Bayonet only go to f16? Between that and the shutter speed you couldn’t have gotten more than two stops underexposed if you tried.
I think that’s got to be the film or the processing. Not the camera or lens.
-Eric
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
03-13-2024, 04:38 PM
|
| |
Polaroid used to sell a 35mm film that came with a chemical pack you used in a small developing machine.
The results were "lo-fi", and it wasn't inexpensive, but it was really neat...
My niece and her friends use caffeinol... developing with instant coffee... cheap and readily available...
And I think I'm with Tony Z. Under $250 with a good lens and the right controls and I'll likely bite...
-Eric
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
03-12-2024, 02:59 PM
|
| |
If your lens was stopping down more than it should, that would be really hard to do...
If the lens had a sticky/slow aperture, it would tend to overexpose, not underexpose...
So I don't think it's the lens...
It is possible your shutter is going faster than you think...
There are ways to see if that's the case... I think even using a cell phone shooting slow motion video of the shutter.
For a photo on a bright sunny day, use Sunny 16 to sanity-check the meter.
On that bright sunny day, with 400 speed film, you should get something like 1/1000 and f8-f11 showing as correct.
And if you shoot at 1/1000 and f8, it should not be underexposed (even if the shutter is not adjusting, 1/1000 is as fast as it will go). Adjust the aperture down for slower films.
The streakiness on the images, though, looks like an issue with processing.
And there are things on the images that look like tiny bubbles or pebbles... that doesn't look right, either... worn out chemistry, perhaps?
This, for example, is a horribly expired and horribly treated piece of Fuji 800... camera was fine, processing was fine... but it shares the lousy color and washed-out nature of yours... and the negatives are really thin...
-Eric
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
03-12-2024, 12:23 PM
|
| |
I've read a few comments in the thread about the "lo-fi" aspects of half-frame...
If the camera's lens is decent, focus and exposure are fairly accurate, fine grain film is used (along with chemistry and processing technique that don't accentuate the grain), and reproduction is at sensible sizes (e.g. half the maximum you'd be happy with for 35mm "full frame") then there's no reason for the resulting images to be "lo-fi" in nature. Clearly, you're not likely to shoot half-frame if you want to produce large prints for wall hanging (although they may have a certain artistic charm)... but for album or desk prints, inclusion in a photo book, or viewing on a typical laptop screen / tablet / other mobile device, the half-frame format is more than adequate.
Some folks have a tendency to conflate half-frame 135 with toy cameras, which typically have low quality lenses and limited (if any) exposure control... but I think we can reasonably expect much better from any Pentax half-frame camera.
A forum contact recently loaned me some 1960s-vintage 126 negatives for scanning tests. The images are comparable in size to 35mm full frame, just with a different aspect ratio. These photos look great, but they're undeniably "lo-fi" - not as a result of the film or image dimensions, but because of the lens. Actually, I wouldn't change a thing on these photos - they look marvellous and really evoke the 1960s feel, in terms of both image content and quality...
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
03-02-2024, 03:37 AM
|
| |
You may want to find a correction lens adapter M.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
03-08-2024, 02:03 PM
|
| |
If you think about it while holding your head at just the right angle, the compact zoom cameras of the 1990s are about as close as we’ve seen to something like the TLR being used here…
If you look at an IQZoom/Espio 140 or something, the viewfinder is a completely separate lens arrangement incorporating usually a prism and mirror as well as a lcd overlay to indicate parallax.
Those viewfinders are usually not awesome, and they have no way to preview depth of field, but it is likely the only sensible way to get a non-SLR viewfinder with that much zoom.
-Eric
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
03-08-2024, 11:11 AM
|
| |
Was my starter kit too in 1978. Check the condition of the foam seals for the mirror damper, but if they are ok you are good to go. The Centre Weighted light meter is good, but can deceive in white/dark background situations.
You will love the simplicity of the camera. I still use mine.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
03-08-2024, 09:00 AM
|
| |
Twin lens reflex (TLR) is meant for cheap manual focus. You use the upper lens to manually turn it into focus (using ground glass) and by doing so, the coupled lower lens achieves focus as well. You're right with the weight and expense. That's why medium format TLRs are simple 80mm.
For the "high-end" compact we might expect a modern rangefinder "mechanism"/ device to find out a subject distance and then drive (screw-drive?) the distance setting of a K-mount lens accordingly.
Feeling silly, I would build a Frankenstein - DIY twin lens reflex camera with dual K-mount, the upper one for digital readout of the KAF info and then manually adjust the lower lens to match that, to get a half-frame (or square! 24x24) frame on film through the lower lens. It would be a digital & analog hybrid. Heck - I would send the info from the upper lens to some augmented reality glasses and still get a 35mm film exposed, based on that.
Since we will have to wait (a lot) for the second / third / fourth step of the Pentax film project experiment, I would not rule out augmented reality to inform me through glasses what a film-loaded compact camera would see. And still expose film.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
03-08-2024, 09:23 AM
|
| |
Not just mirror slap, but shutter-induced vibrations too (TLRs usually utilise leaf sutter). Both are significant for MF size of film, where TLRs were present. And leaf shutters have the benefits of their own: flash sync speed, and no distortion of moving objects.
Also weight, MF-size mirror+prism+shutter are not small. So that second lens is, somehow, compensated.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
03-08-2024, 08:28 AM
|
| |
No, the dof is too often not enough.
I had a zone-focused film compact back in the days, with the 32/2.8 lens which was too sharp for the task. Like with AF errors, when there's a person or smth in the portrait focus zone, it's not that the pictire is not sharp enough (that would be tolerable). But often there is something else in a better focus than the subject, super annoying.
You can improve this by decreasing the overall quality of the image, so the misses won't be too obvious. This could be done with the less sharp lens, or with a smaller media. Half-frame probably will not be enough, think 110 film.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
03-08-2024, 08:29 AM
|
| |
I like the TLR concept! :D However, asaru is right. This TLR will certainly not be the second step and neither the third step.
While I do have a lot of lenses, the doubling of them on a single camera is limited to some fixed focal length (such as for a normal field of view, 50mm equivalent) and not many glass elements, just pancake. Bye-bye K-mount zooms.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
03-07-2024, 03:07 PM
|
| |
There are two Kodak-branded cameras that yield 72 images per rolls and a few Lomography cameras, probably a couple more. Not sure if any of those are warranteed, but I am not sure if the zone focus, manual winding Pentax will be either.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
03-07-2024, 05:36 AM
|
| |
I don’t believe there is actually much noticeable difference between the quality of half-frame and full-frame film photos. Digital photographers spend too much time thinking in terms of MP.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
03-07-2024, 02:09 AM
|
| |
I certainly agree when you say, ". . . note that low-fi is not the same as low quality. . . "
It follows from this that in some cases a "low-fi" photograph with low sharpness and high grain can subjectively be considered better quality than a "hi-fi" photograph with high sharpness and low grain. In which case, it is indeed a fallacy to assume that photographs with "objectively better quality" are always better.
Your point seems to be that there is a hard upper limit to the objective technical standards that can be achieved with half frame, and that's certainly a valid point. Clearly you, like many others, would have preferred a full frame camera with more technical headroom in terms of the objectively measurable stuff, rather than a half frame that imposes technical limitations that you don't want. But the market that Pentax is aiming for with the half frame camera is younger photographers who are actively seeking out "lo-fi" technologies because they consider them more "authentic". They are also a market that's likely to prefer a camera that works out cheaper per frame in terms of film and developing.
You're not the intended market and you won't be buying one, and that's fine. I'm not the intended market either, although it's quite likely that I will buy one. My own point is that it's wrong for the older photographers who make up most of the membership if this forum to try to tell all those bright-eyed youngsters that their choices and preferences are objectively wrong.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
03-07-2024, 06:49 AM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
03-05-2024, 09:26 AM
|
| |
I think there will be long between new digital cameras, film or no film. The way I see it, DSLR is such a mature technology that Pentax has pretty much reached the ceiling for what THEY can do - unless they want to try to become a completely different brand (Leica. With just as high prices). They rely on sensors and all kind of specialized stuff, they cannot make themself - they "just" stitch all these units together. Film they can make - it is mostly mechanical and optical engineering, what they are best at.
Each and every guy here waiting for a K1 III have slightly different needs and wants, and half will be disappointed once it arrives (and slam the door). Meanwhile the APS C-brigade will start talking about how their life have come to a halt while they have been waiting for K3 IV (which should have feature A and B, but absolutely avoid feature C.
I am pretty sure we'll see an K1 III eventually, and then later another C. But there will be several years between each release now. Enter film ...
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
03-04-2024, 01:08 PM
|
| |
As much as I like the idea, the reality will be probably a home pickup/delivery. A courier picks the unprocessed film, and delivers it developed, cut and sleeved. A human in urban areas, maybe a drone in less populated places.
Or a travelling film developer: a van arrives to the village, processes all the people's films, next visit in 6 months :)
|
