|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
05-09-2011, 12:44 PM
|
| |
I think it depends on the lenses you want to use, more than anything. If you like zoom lenses, high ISO performance is more important because you have less light to work with and thus you have to substitute with a higher sensitivity if you want to keep the same aperture/shutter speed. In that scenario, the K-r delivers the goods. More menus and less buttons does make for a more finicky workflow.
However, this is coming from a fellow who just returned a K-r because of the lack of weather-resilience, which is a deal-killing feature out here on the Wet Coast.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
05-09-2011, 09:01 AM
|
| |
I don't know if "it's clear" or not that the next version of those cameras would be better. I seem to recall a lot of gripe over the 60D's images being poor in noise control, worse than the 50D, because the bumped the resolution again. Also, the D7000 vs. the D90. Yes, the D7000 is a more advanced package, but it doesn't handle as well and isn't aimed at "semi-pro" users as much as the D90 was. Small gripes, but I'm sure you'd find Canon or Nikon users with lots to say about their brands. Pentax is recovering, albeit slowly, from not having a DSLR on the market until 2003 and thus missing that crucial R&D stage. The Kr and K5 are the first bodies in a long time where I've looked at them and gone "Wow, this is Pentax?" My Kr blew me away in terms of it's speed and responsiveness. I only took it back because of a lack of WR being a deal killer.
That said, I guess that wasn't the subject. :) Just jumping to their defense.
I think that Pentax has a much bigger following in Europe than they do in North America. Make of that what you will, whether it's a lack of effective advertising, an entrenched user base, or a lack of familiarity with the Pentax brand. Which is unfortunate, because they are slowly becoming just as competitive and just as not-to-be-trifled-with as the big boys. DPReview just named the K5 one of the best APS-C cameras on the market, bar none. Attention will be had.
The last time I saw a Pentax user was two years ago, when I was out shooting with my K200D. The fellow had a K10D, said he loved it. I also take a lot of flak from friends over my choice of camera. Not the Spotmatic as much, they think that's cool, but the K200D they just didn't get why I would be so attached to it, despite numerous square-offs between the K200D, the Rebel XTi, and the D80, our respective cameras, and me repeatedly showing them up. :)
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
05-09-2011, 08:41 AM
|
| |
Thank you for the offer, but I'm afraid I'll have to pass. :) The K-x is the K-r's predecessor. A friend of mine has one and he uses it primarily out in the wilds and parks. He takes great pictures with it, but he bought it at Future Shop, where the dude told him it had WR (it doesn't) and he very nearly killed it finding that out. If it doesn't have WR, it's just not in the running for me.
This is an interesting point, because I've been on eBay, and the K20D is selling for $700-800 there, which is two to three hundred more than I'd pay for the one I've found locally, if I bought it. That said, camera bodies depreciate like cars, so I'm not sure I'd make that $500 back in a year, let's say. Although by the time another year floats by used K5s may be easier to come by.
Yeah, that's the argument I'm having with myself. If I pick up the K20D, I could be out shooting tomorrow, but I may not get the money back in time, or for whatever reason the camera gods may make me it's "last owner", if you will. How reliable was the K20D? How do you see how many shutter firings it has on it? If the unit is "high mileage", it may not be worth it.
It sounds like I'll be avoiding the K-7, then. The performance of high-ISO shots on the K-r was brilliant, and I'm to understand the K-5 is better still. The K20D and K200D had noise, but it was a pleasant, mostly luminance based noise that could either be removed or toned down to make it look like film, almost.
I just found a fellow in Victoria with a four-month-old K5, selling it for $1200. That I could afford, if barely. Maybe I should jump?
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
05-08-2011, 09:18 PM
|
| |
That is exactly the dilemma. I'm not as concerned about the money, as if I waited for awhile I could afford the K5. It's not like it's impossible. I'm just wondering if the wait is worth it, and if the extra bits are worth more than a grand.
@ Adam: Thanks! I haven't handled a K20d much (going to try it out on Tuesday), but if the K7/K5 ends of "feeling" better, then that will be that.
On an aside: I'm seeing a lot of kits on eBay. K5 + two lenses (the 18-55 WR and 50-200 WR) for $1600. That's the price of a body on it's own in the shops. Most of the sellers seem to be in Taiwan/Hong Kong however; is this worth considering as an option?
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
05-08-2011, 08:40 PM
|
| |
So, my three day old Kr is now back in the hands of Lens & Shutter. It had great speed and the images were very striking, but I've decided I can't deal without weather sealing, and I got upset with the lack of physical controls vs. the K5/K7. No fault of the camera's, I just think I jumped too soon.
This begs the question: what to get instead. Obviously the K5 is the other new option, other than it costing a small mint, which unless I wait a few months, I can't really afford. I suppose I could wait. However, being an impatient youth, I'd itching to be out shooting. I could look for a used K7, but everything I've read says get the K5 instead because of the better sensor, noise performance, and overall speed.
Or I could go cheep on it. I found a K20d in the local camera trading shop. It's selling for $500, with the grip and two batteries. Now, I accept that this won't be at all as fast as the K5 or even the K7, but for a body used primarily for outdoor model, architecture, street and landscape photography, would it suffice? The images I've seen from this body certainly aren't anything to sneeze at.
Thoughts?
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
05-08-2011, 07:36 PM
|
| |
Thanks Marc. I should have given it a bit more thought before I posed the question. :o Guess I was just a little excited.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-r
05-07-2011, 10:26 PM
|
| |
I installed it on mine the night I brought it home. Just figured it would be good to get it over with before I became used to the operation of the camera with the older software. Thusfar, no issues. I haven't noticed the battery indicator or front-focusing issues that others have mentioned, either, so read in that what you will.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
05-06-2011, 06:27 PM
|
| |
Hey everyone. I've been registered here for a long while but haven't been on because I sold my K200D, put my Spotmatic in a shoebox, and didn't do much photography for the better part of two years. I went back to it last month only to have the atrociously climbing cost of film give my wallet a cardiac arrest. :fedup:
Anyways, long story short, after handling the K5 and Kr in the shops, I picked up a Kr. I can't say enough how spectacular the difference is between my old K200D and this thing. Focus speed has massively improved. White balance is almost always spot on, and is even better (same with the focus) now that I've updated the firmware. Images are sharp, and the noise performance for high-ISO images sure made a galactic jump between now and 2008. I can shoot usable images at 3200, and they become even better if I get out the noise-reduction tools.
I have a couple of Takumar lenses for which I need to get an adapter. But I wanted to know what people would suggest as lenses for this camera? I bought the kit with the 18-55 because the kit that includes the DA 35/2.4 isn't available around here. I'd like to pick up the 35. Any other suggestions? I'm looking at used manual focus lenses too, so suggestions there would be awesome. I know my Takumars, but I don't know the other series very well (although I do know that I want SMC Pentax A series lenses as a minimum so that I can set aperture through the camera).
Anyways, thanks for any suggestions. It's nice to have a digital again after over two years without.
|
|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
08-01-2010, 08:41 AM
|
| |
Okay, so I've hit my first couple of snags already.
The quality of the scans are fantastic, by the way. The problem I'm having, however, is with the software (or at least I think it's with the software). I've tried multiple strips of negatives from different batches and still find a light purple/white band near the top that spans the width of the scan. Some scans it's not noticeable, but most scans have it.
Also, Digital ICE was working, and now is not. I'll select Digital ICE and do a preview scan, which goes fine, and then the software unchecked the Digital ICE box after the preview scan is complete. I re-enable the box, and tell it to perform the whole scan, which goes alright, but it comes back with scans that obviously didn't make it through the Digital ICE filter, but took just as long to produce. I'm using C41 based color negative film (Ektar, actually) so I don't understand why it would be a problem, or better yet, why it would have worked before (I got about 10 frames scanned before I noticed the issue). I've restarted the system a few times, and am running in Professional mode on the software.
So far, impressed with the picture quality, but not so with the crap software and unpredictable results.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
07-30-2010, 10:37 PM
|
| |
I've never seen one of these with boxes intact, let alone in such good condition. A gorgeous camera, pickles!
|
|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
07-30-2010, 10:30 PM
|
| |
I picked up a V600 this evening, and will look into what you've suggested. Thank you John. And thanks everyone for the help. I'll post some results when I get the knack of it.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
07-29-2010, 11:51 AM
|
| |
The mirror return issue is fixable. :) That's how my inherited Spottie started to fail. About six months after I started putting it through it's paces, the mirror wouldn't come back down at speeds slower than 60th. You had to fire off a few frames before the mirror would return (obviously not practical if the camera is loaded). The CLA fixed that up.
A lot of very heavy handling can cause said mechanical workings to drift out of whack, but generally, we're talking a lifetime of very heavy handling before noticeable issues occur, if people's experiences here are anything to go by.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
07-29-2010, 09:30 AM
|
| |
Anything that used the traditional K sized body (so the whole K series, and the Spotmatic for 12 years prior to that) is a tank of a camera. They weigh about a 1.5lbs without a lens on them, and most of that is the painted brass top and bottom covers. The K1000, because it was in production for so long, slowly got cheapened (the covers went to plastic over time among other changes), but if you've got one of the original varieties, your camera will take all manner of punishment.
The first of my two Spotties was used by my father at many a rock-concert in the 70s in Vancouver, and has seen more than it's fair share of knocks. He kept the leather ever-ready case on it, and when I inherited it, all it needed was a CLA and it's been working good as new for the last two years.
They don't build anything like that anymore.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
07-29-2010, 09:19 AM
|
| |
Hey everyone, just a quickie this time. I was going through the review database and noticed a distinct lack of any mention of cameras before the K1000/K2. Is there a reason for this? As far as the modern world is concerned, as we all shoot film, we're all dinosaurs anyway, so leaving out the M42 crowd seems like an arbitrary line in the sand. Most people are not going to go looking for an M42 kit to fuel their film passions for multiple reasons (ever try switching a screwmount in a sea of people at a concert without fumbling the lens?), but lots of people may inherit one, as I did, and wish to know more. Heck, I was so enamored with my Spotmatic F that I bought a second one.
Cameras that could be added: SV series, Spotmatic, Spotmatic II, Spotmatic ES and ES II, and Spotmatic F would all be helpful.
|
|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
07-28-2010, 07:46 PM
|
| |
This could just be the negatives, but this looks a wee bit soft for a 7200dpi image. Thanks for providing a scan though! Based on the color casts, I'm guessing your "unknown 200 asa film" is probably a a Fujicolor of some kind. I've always noticed old Fuji negs (and the Superia color film line) to have very strong green/magenta tendencies.
---------- Post added 07-28-10 at 08:44 PM ----------
Also, on the campaign trail:
I found this review: Scanner Review: Epson Perfection V600
Now, yes, the V600 wasn't part of the original deal. But the world of scanning is getting murkier and murkier as I dive deeper and deeper. You see, for reasons that may or may not have anything to do with me buying a Super Takumar 85/1.9 recently, I've become acutely aware of just how much money a V700 is, so I've been searching for some justification for those dollars. As it turns out, perhaps looking for justification is the best thing I could have done.
It looks as though, at least to me, this review points out two things. The first, if you take a look at the three-way comparison between the V600, V700, and HP scanners on the Yellowstone scan, the V600 produces the most lifelike colors of the lot using EpsonScan. More important, and something I had trouble getting my head around, is that the V600 scans are sharper. If you look again at the three way, and compare the 600/700 images blown up, there is a leafless tree just right of centre in the frame, and the branches, aside from being a warmer color, are notably sharper at the pixel level. This was intriguing considering the $400 price difference.
Secondly, I don't think I'm going to be happy with either the EpsonScan or the SilverFast software that comes with the V700. EpsonScan does not produce reliable color scans of negatives (online and first-hand, as my previous flatbed, a 4490, couldn't properly reproduce color negatives without massive corrective intervention either). SilverFast, at least the version that comes with the V700, doesn't allow for multiple exposures, nor does it do ICC profiling, something I'd have to pony up another $100+ for if I wanted a solution from LaserSoft. Thus the price of the V700 is going skyward.
In this vein, this review provided something else. If you head down the page and take a look at the three-way comparison for the V600/V700/V600 using VueScan, there is a clear benefit to having a profiled scanning program, not to mention the ability to inform the scanning program itself what kind of film you are attempting to scan. Thus, VueScan I think will be the software I'll want to be using.
Which brings us down to crunch time. I can get a V600 for around $250 with my discount from work. Add $80 for VueScan with all the pro bells and whistles, and you have a $330 price tag. The V700 is $550 with taxes (heavily discounted through work of course because off-the-shelf they are $649), plus $80 for VueScan, and you have a $300 difference, which may or may not be even seeable unless I want to pore over pixel-level details all day (and which EpsonScan seemed to prove was a non-issue, see Yellowstone comparison above). One concern that has been expressed is the difference in DMax measurement, 3.4 vs 4. I understand what DMax is and why a higher one is better, but my question is, if you do multiple exposures, do you not make up for a lack of DMax?
I think for all intents and purposes, a V600 is the new leader in the debate. Anyone here have one, or want to dissuade me from my choice? I'm still open to all manner of debate on this, but I wanted to throw in my recent logic so everyone knows where I'm going with this. Thanks again for all your input!
|
|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
07-25-2010, 11:08 PM
|
| |
@ John: Thank you for the helpful advice! I would love to see your work.
@ Vendee: That's a pretty good image. Do you have one in color you could post? :)
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
07-24-2010, 05:54 PM
|
| |
They have, but the power that be have been more and more successful at delaying the products' appearance on the market, or worse, limiting it's functionality due to copyright concerns.
VHS was replaced with two different cassette formats, SVHS and DVHS. SVHS was a fantastic upgrade for those with standard VHS, because it actually allowed you to record a resolution beyond 240 horizontal lines. Problem was the machines and cassettes were too expensive to justify the upgrade, and you couldn't record SVHS quality material on regular old VHS cassettes. Try and find an SVHS cassette now. DVHS was Digital VHS, and it was JVC's replacement for VHS. This was an amazing idea; the cassettes recorded and played back HD content, and better still, stored it in raw digital video, as opposed to being compressed. Not only did this yield artifact-free HD playback, but it was virtually impossible to pirate: raw HD digital video weighs in at 3-4Gb of information per minute, which for your average 2 hour movie works out to 480Gb, a fantastic sum even by today's standards. And this was back in 1998! You could record incoming HD content just as you would standard definition on a VHS player, something that is difficult if nigh impossible today without being strapped down by an HD PVR, a monthly fee, and the inability to move the content off the hardware. Unfortunately, for all it's merits, it was atrociously priced at first (think $3500 for a deck), and the media and hype convinced everyone that the ability to have special features and a smaller physical medium far outweighed the potential advantages of recording and playing back high definition content, something that twelve years later, everyone now wants to do.
There have also been lots of hard drive and DVD based recording devices that were meant to replace the functionality of the VHS player, but none of them that I've seen ever replaced that "stick it in and record" simplicity of yore. And I think that's enough history for one post. :)
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
07-24-2010, 08:54 AM
|
| |
Hey guys, just wondering what to do with this. I've never shot fireworks before, on digital or film, but my plan was to bring the Spotmatic down to the fireworks show tonight in our town. I'll need a tripod, I know that much, but what else? What film ISO works best? Shutter speeds I should use? Should I shoot wide open or bring it down a few stops? Also, of my lenses below in my signature, what works best for this kind of thing? Telephoto, wide angle, or somewhere in between?
Thanks for any advice! :)
|
|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
07-24-2010, 07:46 AM
|
| |
Thank you very much Steve for the scan comparison! That was exactly what I was after. That's actually pretty astounding that the Epson got that much detail out of the negative. At 2400dpi you'd be hard pressed to tell any difference, and in the 4800dpi scan, the sampled area is tiny! I went looking for scanners on Ebay, and holy Hannah, the 5000 is going for 1.5x more than it was selling for retail. That's definitely not going to happen. Couldn't find the Minolta unit you mentioned, though I suppose I can keep my eye out.
Two more questions, if I may.
I think the V700 is definitely in the cards. However, I did notice at least one person mention the Plustek scanners. As these machines are dedicated scanners, how do they stack up? I'm wary of a brand I've never heard of before, but if they can best the Epson at the same price, it might be worth looking into.
Secondly, there seems to be quite the consensus of VueScan users here. I went to both LaserSoft and VueScan's web pages and, if I'm reading this right and it's not just morning, the full "professional" VueScan that allows raw format scans, IT8 calibration, and I assume multi-exposure as well, is only $80, which is an absolute steal compared to what LaserSoft wants for their product even without those features. I can only surmise that the VueScan software is not only the better deal but the better product as well then, based on the number of you who use it?
I'm off to find something online about the Plustek units. I have to say I'm not tickled pink about the idea of spending $550 on a scanner that I'll have to buy a new film carrier for to get acceptable scans, something the Plustek doesn't require. But I'll be back. Thanks so much for the information thus far guys. It's helping lots.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
07-24-2010, 07:27 AM
|
| |
$300 for the 105 is crazy. I paid that much for my SuperTak 85/1.9. Cosmetically it's not mint, but the glass was perfect, and you'd figure that's the important part right?
As said above, this issue isn't help by the fact that people are slapping them on digital cameras. Great idea and all, but it kinda leaves those of us with M42 cameras in the lurch.
|
|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
07-23-2010, 02:44 PM
|
| |
How does the V500 compare to the 4490? My previous foray into do-it-yourself scanning involved this machine, and I don't know if it was me or the machine, but the images I got were very soft. I was using Advanced mode in the EpsonScan software, 3200dpi scanning resolution, with Digital ICE on low. We sell the V500, V600, and V700 at work, so my price with discount would be very close to what you paid.
Do you have any examples? :)
|
|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
07-23-2010, 01:57 PM
|
| |
Apologies friends if this has been covered before. I searched the forum and couldn't find exactly what I was after, and of everyone on here, I assume you guys would be the ones in the know.
Recently, many of the labs in town have traded in their older printing/scanning systems for "Dry Lab" technology, which includes ink-based printing. Now, regardless of the merit of said printing technology, my concern is with the scanning. With the new equipment came new software and a new operator's desk/scanning unit, which produces absolutely abhorrent amounts of noise when scanning negatives, and reduces soft gradual tones to pixelated mush. So suffice it to say, I can shoot and develop my negatives, but cannot get them turned into digital files.
I'm narrowing down options for scanning machines. I've pored over testing examples, crops, resolution charts, etc for weeks now. The cheapest option with halfway decent quality seems to be a CanoScan 8800F. Not great, but livable, and still better than what I get at local labs. A much better option looks like the Epson V700, not only in physical specs (two lenses and 6400dpi, anyone?), but also in supplied software (it comes with SilverFast, which I'm told is a much better tool than the included EpsonScan, or CanoScan if we're talking about the Canon). The Canon can be had for around $200, the Epson will be $350 more. I've also kept an eye out, and almost had the chance to buy, a dedicated film scanner, but suffice it to say I've just about given up on that elusive dream. New machines are tremendously expensive, used machines are of questionable history and do not lend themselves well to shipping, and Nikon isn't listing the Coolscan 5000 on their website anymore, only the 9000, and the 5000 was the only one that could have possibly ever been in my price range with a lot of scrimping, saving, and patience.
I was wondering if anyone could offer guidance on the techniques they use, or some examples. I've been around the internet looking for examples, but couldn't find all that much. Also, does anyone have any experience with SilverFast, and does it make THAT much of a difference? Also, as an aside, I'm working with an iMac G4 at present, and an iBook field machine, both of which are on in years and lack USB2.0. Anyone happen to know if the Canon works with USB1.1? I've been able to pretty much guarantee that the Epson will do this, based on it's age and OS support.
Thanks in advance everyone for your help.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
07-22-2010, 11:01 PM
|
| |
Nice, I love big wides like that. They also had a SMC Tak 35/3.5 there, but those are a little bit more common (I've seem one maybe twice), and I have a 28/3.5 already, so I didn't see the need.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
07-22-2010, 07:37 AM
|
| |
I've always regretted not getting into film earlier so that I could have tried shooting Kodachrome. Everyone says the stuff borders on magic, and the slides that I have scanned and worked on for people seem to bear this out. Absolutely beautiful colors. And a shelf life! I had the privilege of scanning a wedding from the early 1950's on Kodachrome, and they looked like they were taken last week. Incredible stuff.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
07-21-2010, 09:54 PM
|
| |
So, has anyone come across any hidden treasure lately?
Here I was, trying to save money for a film scanner, and guess what I had to contend with today? I was in the camera shop at Market Square in Victoria this afternoon, chatting up the owner, when I asked if he had anything in the 85-105mm varieties for my Spotmatic. Expecting the usual answer, I was shocked when he pulled out a SuperTakumar 85! It had been traded in all of three days prior to today, hadn't been inventoried yet or graded. The cosmetics weren't perfect (some light wear and a name), but the glass was super clean with barely any dust in it. I thought about it for twenty minutes while I checked out the rest of the Square, then came back in to get it, as I wasn't sure the chance would ever present itself again (I rarely see lenses outside of the 50, 55, 135, and 200 for Takumars on the Island, and had never seen an 85 in person before). So I'm stoked, as I now have a better lens for people shots and portraiture, I'm just going to have to wait a little longer for the scanner.
Got any stories? :)
|
