|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
11-11-2018, 05:33 AM
|
| |
If I understand correctly, they have the same films that CineStill offers plus an ISO 250 film (CineStill 800T is really a 500 film, they also have a 50, but no 250 afaik), but they'll already charge you for the development of the film the moment you buy it? And that's supposed to be the most exciting thing in film photography right now?
Or is it different filmstock? I didn't like the 50D Cinestill and stay away from trying the "800T", because Portra 400 always seems to be the better choice and cheaper. If that Silbersalz thing is something completly new, I'd like to be convinced. Pleas share your thoughts about it when you tested it!
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
09-21-2018, 03:21 AM
|
| |
Haven't recieved my first batch of film back, yet, but only heard and read good things about Mein Film Lab. Their prices aren't bad, either, especially after I took a look at Pixelgrain posted above. I guess Pixelgrain offers quality to a point that I didn't reach, yet.
Usually, I only get my film developed CityLab in Berlin. They charge around 3 € for a standard development (120 or 135) without prints or scans and most often I can pick it up the same day (they don't do E-6, though. They send it to some other lab and it takes up to 10 days). I then scan at home. If it's just snapshots or slide film, I drop my film off at a drugstore (Rossmann or dm), but 120 film can take them two weeks at times, 135 takes under a week when you're lucky. Their prints (from scans) aren't what I'd call great, though and they won't pull, push, cross whatever. Development and a batch of prints is around 3 to 5 Euros, I never ordered scans from them, so if you just want your film developed and some "proof prints" that's probably the cheapest option as long as you are patient.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
02-12-2018, 07:26 AM
|
| |
Batteries shouldn't have anything to do with it as you fiddle in and advance the film manually (I guess you know from your first roll?)
What exactly does "it won't load onto the take up spool" mean?
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
01-20-2018, 11:54 AM
|
| |
Wow. This looks like a fun lens and for that price more than worth it. Really like the shots from inside the cathedral. Are these wide open? I have been looking for a real ultra wide K-mount lens for my film cameras lately (preferably MF as I don't really use AF-bodies) and it's really hard to find a bargain. Never heard of the Sigma so I guess I'll have to dig in and see if there's a non-AF version of it in K-mount. I have a Zenitar Fisheye, but I really would like to have something more rectangular. Distortion on the Sigma doesn't look too bad.
Does anyone have any recommendations on ultra-wide lenses that often get overlooked?
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
01-20-2018, 04:07 AM
|
| |
Are you aware of the crop factor? Your beloved, versatile 50mm will have a much narrower field of view on a crop-dslr (all models except the K-1), comparable to a 75mm lens on your film cameras. That put me off, as I mostly prefer normal to wide lenses.
I started with film, too, and was thrilled by Pentax's backward compatibility. Got a K-5 back then. A very good camera, still, but getting a little old. No focus peaking, for example. Not that I would have liked to use the backscreen to focus, anyway.
I got the magnifier eye cup, which I can really recommend and I hacked me a split focus screen from an old scrap film body. All fun, but in the end I love film and using the classic film bodies much much more. I barely take out the dslr anymore.
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
01-17-2018, 09:02 AM
|
| |
The camera can't shoot with a higher shutter speed than 1/160, that's the fastest shutter speed at which the whole frame area is fully exposed (this can vary by model and maker, Pentax seems to be on the low side here) and thus allows for the flash light to hit the whole sensor area at once. At higher speeds, the second shutter curtain closes before the first one traveled the whole distance. If you'd use a higher shutter speed, the duration of the flash is too short to hit all areas of the sensor and you'd see a black bar on the frame. To avoid this, the camera simply doesn't allow any higher shutter speed when using flash.
Lower speeds are generally no problem, because the shutter will stay fully open for some amount of time, when you use them. If ambient light is so low that the sensor doesn't register much or anything, it doesn't matter if the shutter stays open for 2 seconds or 1/160 of a second - the amount of light from the flash is responsible for the exposure then. That could explain why all exposures seem to look the same. If there's enough ambient light available, you should be able to notice some effects of overexposure (most likely motion blur, which a tripod would rule out). Unless your camera is set up to compensate for this automatically (highlight correction, for example? Don't know about the avaiable features on the K70 and how you set it up).
I am no expert on flash photography, but this maybe will give some hints about stuff to look into.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
09-08-2017, 04:42 AM
|
| |
I get what you're saying. Of course there's a chance that both shutter curtains will travel at different speeds when they're out of synch. The way you described it initially, it sounded (at least to me) like you were saying that the whole frame should be visible at once when the shutter is fired at 1/1000s. When you fire the shutter at above flash synch speed (depends on the camera model, with the KM, KX, MX etc. it should be 1/60s if memory serves me right), there's only a small gap between both curtains that will travel across the frame, so at no point will it be fully opened at speeds above that.
Should the second shutter be faster than the first, the gap would close before it reaches the end of the frame, blocking the view at one side of the frame, I guess that's what I (or anyone else) should be looking for? The shutter curtains could still be out of synch without being noticable to the naked eye at such speeds. I'd say the most effective way to check this would be a test roll of film. If you shoot it against the sky or an evenly lit wall at high speeds and one half of the frame is/gets darker than the other or there's even a black bar at one side of the frame, that's a pretty clear sign. You actually see that quite often with older cameras, true.
Edit:
Oh, and I just tried it with sevral cameras. There's one I am not too sure about its qualities, as I haven't put a whole roll of film through it in a long time, another one that I use quite often and know it works well enough (both with cloth shutters travelling horizontally, one mechanical, the other with electric shutter speeds) and they both looked promising. Then I tried it with my ME super with a vertically travelling electronic shutter where I noticed that on film it sometimes shows me a darker bar close to the edge of the frame (in very bright lit situations and a background that allows for evaluation only). Admittedly, its top shutter speed is 1/2000, which is way too fast for my not too old eyes, but it didn't seem to be off any more than what I could see through the other cameras. What I'm saying is that your technique probably is good enough to tell if there's something considerably broken, but in most cases, you'll only know after going through some film with the camera in question.
Not sure why I'm wasting so much space and people's time for this.. I for sure don't want to tell people to stay away from your advice or criticize you, just adding my two cents.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
09-08-2017, 02:44 AM
|
| |
Can I get me one of those at Home Depot? It sure looks nice in a backyard. Tired of mowing all the lawn, so I'm looking for a nice decorative piece to take up some space.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
09-08-2017, 02:39 AM
|
| |
I don't quite get it. According to this, the camera should have a synch speed of 1/1000s? As far as I know you'll only see the whole frame at once at 1/60 and lower. Maybe you should be more precise in describing what Jellygeist/we should be looking for.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
09-06-2017, 08:21 AM
|
| |
So let me get this right: If I want to do macro work, I should try to keep ISO as low as possible for clean images, a small aperture for more depth of field (very important at such a close distance) and shutter speed as high as possible as long as it is in synch with my flash. Balancing these factors I should keep the exposure triangle in mind to get a good exposure and I also shouldn't forget to focus. I think I got it.
But why did you have to start another sperate thread for this rather basic information? While you seem to know a lot about macro photography and there might be some great advice hidden in all these threads, I'm not sure if you know how an internet forum works? Maybe I can help you in exchange for your macro guide:
It's going to be really hard for people to find all the single threads you started in a few days from now as they will be spread all over the forums. Threads that have new posts in them will go to the top, others will disappear somewhere in the lower register and will finally be forgotten. That could become a problem, especially as there are a lot of people who start new threads about the most different things all the time. So if you want to make a series, try to keep the thread names close so that people can find all of them with one simple search. Also, it helps to have links to the other threads within each thread. Even better, compile everything within one single thread so that all valuable information will be gathered there. This also helps keeping the forum itself 'clean' as there are other people using it, too (remember). In a way this is all about structure. Speaking of structure, it helps to structure the single posts, too. People will be able to read them without a headache and get all the valuable information from them without frustration. A good way to create a coherent post/thread is to read it one more time before you publish it. If what you wrote doesn't make sense to you, it probably doesn't to others. Also paragraphs (note to self). It's also a good idea to ask yourself 'Why do I post this?', a simple, but effective question that every forum user should ask themselves from time to time.
Phew, that's a big chunk of text and I think I should have applied the guidelines I mentioned above to my own post here, but whatever.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
09-06-2017, 07:38 AM
|
| |
If it's the SMC Pentax one, shut off your computer already and go take some photos, #*%@!!!1
Even if it's not, 1.2 lenses are kind of legendary, even with some optical shortcomings.
Also, don't worry too much about CLAs and what not. Check that magic bag full of cameras and lenses and have some fun. If it's not obviously broken, you can just shoot a cheap roll of film with it to see if there's anything in it for you in the first place before you send it off for a repair. Develop a roll of film instead of developing a stomach ulcer before you even tried the camera. If something's wrong, you'll notice it. Even if something's wrong and you don't notice it, that's alright as long as it keeps you taking pictures and you're satisfied with what yo get.
While it seems to be a tendency for some people to have everything CLAed (take a look at a Leica forum, for example - or better, don't) as soon as it arrives in the mail, in my experience these old cameras often can handle sitting around in a basement for a few decades. There will be a few obvious duds from time to time, but most of the cameras I bought or was given worked great or at least well enough for me to decide if I wanted to keep them or have them repaired.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
09-02-2017, 03:24 PM
|
| |
If you're shooting RAW, you don't really need to have these turned on, do you? I don't have a K1, but on my K5, highlight and shadow correction eat up the most processing power. I'd rather fix things in post when something's off.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
09-01-2017, 02:27 AM
|
| |
Thanks for shedding some light on the topic! These things sure look like they came from outer space.
That's cool to hear from someone who actually used it. Quite what I imagined. That mechanism looks like an improvised workaround, for sure. Fascinating none the less.
I see some Agfa-Color lenses popping up from time to time. Mostly the 50mm 1.7. They sure look nice, I read that they were good performers, too. The question is if I really need another fifty, but I guess one day I'll pick one up. Got to like the fact that there are so many interesting vintage K-mount options floating around, many of them underdogs.
Not that I'm going to buy one of these, but if I did, chances would be closer to 4:1 that it would end up on one of my manual focus film cameras. If I wanted an autofocus fifty on my digital body, I'd take the F50 I have. If the Chinon Autofocus makes any kind of sense anywhere, it would be on an old film body.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
08-31-2017, 06:25 AM
|
| |
Looking at this picture, quite a lot, it seems :eek:
Didn't think it would be this huge.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
08-31-2017, 05:50 AM
|
| |
Most people know the Pentax ME-F. A camera that gave you autofocus with one special lens only (before autofocus was a thing) or to put it the other way around, a lens that gave you autofocus with one special body. While I always appreciated the historical value of the ME-F and its lens, it never really made me want to try it, because it was so limited. Now I stumbled across this: A 50mm f1.7 Chinon/Revuenon autofocus prime lens that if I understand correctly will give you autofocus on any K-mount body you attach it to.
Has anyone ever tried it? I wonder if it was just a gimmick, why there's so little info to find about it and if there are other focal lenghts or even other companies who tried the autofocus waters like this.
The picture is from a german craiglist variant by ebay, by the way. It's not my offer and I'm not promoting the sale. It's no direct link, I'm just too lazy to reupload the picture and I couldn't find any others quickly. If you look it up, though, you'll find that the owner doesn't ask that much money for it.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
08-31-2017, 05:37 AM
|
| |
Ok, I see. Thanks for correcting that!
Edit.
Yup, I went and did what I should have done before posting: I checked it on my camera and of course it's the way Na Horuk said. I just remembered it differently, never used CiF much although I mostly use manual lenses. It limits you to the center focus point only and that's not really useful for me most of the time. Anyway, apoligies if my first comment came off a little rude, I will try to think at least twice and check once before hitting "post reply" next time.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
08-31-2017, 05:26 AM
|
| |
Don't see why you should start fumbling around with the lens release button? Simply switch the camera to MF, use the lens like any other manual focus lens. That is what the switch is there for. I wonder what you thought it would do. This will allow you to use catch in focus, there is no "trick" behind it and there's nothing to worry about. If you should use a lens that has an additional AF/MF switch, make sure to switch that to MF, too to disengage any mechanical connections that might not take manual operation too well.
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
08-29-2017, 02:15 AM
|
| |
Maybe that's because the end product of RAW processing is a jpeg (most of the time)?
Of course, a good jpeg straight from the camera is good and for most it probably is enough.
Let's assume that detail wasn't visible in either a jpeg nor a RAW capture of a scene. You'd have a harder time trying to pull it from the jpeg than from the RAW-file. So in that way, RAW Is "better". That's basically what you said.
What you make out of it is a question of knowing what you're going for, knowing what you're doing and taste. A horribly processed RAW file is worse than a good jpeg that's maybe missing shadow detail.
If anyone is satisfied with what their camera's picture profiles (as in jpeg) give them, that's I it. If you ever get to the point where you think that something's lacking or for example you look at someone else's photo and wonder why their highlights aren't blown, how they got such a clean image etc., maybe that's when you'll start exploring the depths of the RAW format. As in hitting the limits of a properly exposed jpeg.
For me, it's not only the technical aspect of it. None of the jpeg profiles in camera really meet my taste, so I'd rather start from scratch. And RAW is closer to that scratch, I lose nothing when shooting RAW. Looking at Norm's photos and having read a few of your comments here, I think I know you're going for a 'natural' capture of a scene and that's totally fine and it seems that you're pretty confident with what you get straight out of your equipment with a little processing. For some, including me, that's not where it ends. This doesn't mean one or the other approach is better.
I just sometimes get the impression that people expect magical photos because they set their camera to RAW. What you see on the display will still be the result of jpeg-processing in the camera. The file itself will just give you much more to play with afterwards. If you don't see that, you don't need it. Shooting RAW is not a must or makes you a better photographer. Understanding it can help at some point, when you know what you're looking for, though.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
08-28-2017, 06:46 AM
|
| |
Put it in a resin block. That would look pretty cool!
|
|
Forum: Travel, Events, and Groups
08-09-2017, 10:20 AM
|
| |
That's never a bad choice!
We tend to over analyze gear the more we get, I feel. While it's nice to have the choice, at some point every choice becomes a compromise. That's not the kind of feeling I want to grab a camera and leave the house with. I'm far from having boiled my lens park down, though. The 40 mm is a prime example. If I didn't have it, I wouldn't have to consider it all the time.
|
|
Forum: Travel, Events, and Groups
08-09-2017, 08:06 AM
|
| |
I feel you. Hope that you got over the fatigue, at last.
A radical suggestion: only bring the 40mm. Make your own single in-challenge, don't tie yourself down with the question over what lens to choose and delight yourself with one of the tiniest SLR-packages available. Nothing but taking photographs. Just slap it on the ME, bring a spare battery and then focus on the one thing when you finally get away from the conference.
Guaranteed end of photographers fatigue and less things to occupy your mind when there are so many things going on already.
|
|
Forum: Travel, Events, and Groups
08-09-2017, 07:34 AM
|
| |
X-sync and B are manual. I never ran into an Av-capable Pentax camera from that era where it wasn't like that (had/have the ME, ME super, MV and K2DMD). I also haven't run into any transport issues with my ME super. This doesn't rule issues out in general, but I'd be more concerned with the sticky shutter, which is a much more common problem with both the ME/ME super, as far as my experience goes. Since you don't have a super, it's a moot point, anyway.
In that case I'd go for the MX. No electronic shutter to fail and much more fun to use, at least to me. Not that I ever ran into a drained battery. On a longer trip I'd rather take a spare one with me instead of relying on constant 1/125s.
If the 17mm is rectangular, that sounds like an interesting lens. If it was a fish-eye, I'd still bring another wide lens, because I'd use both for different purposes. With your selection I'd opt for 17mm + 50mm + 135mm for a rather compact kit. Following your philosophy that leaves some gaps, but rules aren't meant to be followed, are they?
I usually choose a kit of three out of a 16mm fish eye, 24mm, 35mm and 55mm. The 24 mm comes in when I decided against the 35mm or the fisheye. Smaller steps between focal lengths, but overall a smaller span to cover. Still keeps me at 3 lenses I'd take with me and I've not yet missed a longer lens. I've grown to like each of my lenses for their characteristics and each serves its own purpose, though. Maybe that's a factor to consider if you want to decide between say the 135 and the 80-200 zoom. So far the talk was mostly about covering focal lengths, size and weight of lenses, not their character.
|
|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
08-09-2017, 03:11 AM
|
| |
Yep, it's definitely visible there, too. Good to see that there's variation in characteristics even when using one and the same lens under just slightly different conditions.
By now I suspect there's some internal reflection thing going on or a small light leak on my camera. Will investigate into that further.
The good old triptych, by the way. Thanks for reminding me of these. I remember complimenting you on them when you posted a few in the film thread. I just recently drilled a wider hole in my Rolleiflex Panorama head (take that, purists and collectors!) to be able to use a 1/4" tripod screw. Now I just need my Yashica back and soon I'll be able to try some trip or more tychs, too. Years later.
|
|
Forum: Travel, Events, and Groups
08-09-2017, 01:28 AM
|
| |
Wouldn't the ME super be ideal then? Complete manual override plus bonus of 1/2000 fastest shutter speed.
Can't really help with the lenses. In general I prefer primes. I'll ramble a bit about the 40, if you don't mind.
As a travel kit, the 40mm is tempting at first sight, especially with an MX or ME. In my case it stays at home often, though, as I wouldn't want to miss a fast 50 and the 40 isn't wide enough to set it apart I in that regard and earn it a seat in the bag. Rather than that, it's slow and technically not the greatest lens (If my preferred aperture was around f8 or so, I would take it with me instead of a 50), so it's not as much an allrounder as a 50, which kind of defeats its purpose of a travel lens. For a day walk and some snapshots I like it, though, hard to beat.
A, M, K, M42, it's all the same to an ME, aperture priority works with all of them - it's the only mode it offers. The A setting is not recognized by the ME, as the A on the lens is needed for shutter priority or program mode.
ME super lets you pick shutter speeds, but no Tv or P on that, either. A lenses behave the same as M or K on these.
|
|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
08-08-2017, 02:01 PM
|
| |
Well, at least the automatic reset doesn't bother me anymore. Had a quick go and both scans still come out differently. Slightly more contrast and a tint of red on the one, less contrast and slightly more green on the other one. Will have to check if this is somehow related to differences in the lenses, placement on the scanner or what, but the most frustrating part of software not doing what I thought it should do is ruled out.
Not sure if this .gif will be displayed correctly, but I'll give it a try.
Otherwise you can visit this link to see an example. The link will expire in a few hours. Not really an impressive example, but I have people in most of my shots and I don't feel comfortable posting these. The tree was the first thing available from what was already loaded in the scanner. It's really obvious in the leaves in the top left corner, for example. Also the texture on the tree itself changes contrast somewhat. If you look at the rock in the lower right corner, you'll see the change in colour. Of course it's compressed heavily, but it's as visible in the original scans, as well.
|
