MZ-S or *IST D

Hello there. I am about to upgrade to a new camera. Right now I have a Pentax ZX-7. I am trying to decide whether to purchase a MZ-S now or to wait for a new Pentax digital to come out at the end of the year that should be an improvement over the *IST D. I have a Benq film scanner but am thinking about upgrading that as well if I stay with film.

If I go with the MZ-S I would probably switch over to digital in a few years when the sensor size and resolution improves. Any thoughts or suggestions?? :

Buy my MZS kit?

I don't know what you mean by "sensor size improves". If you are hoping it will get bigger, then you are in for a disappointment. Pentax are now wedded to the APS-sized sensor, and are producing new lenses for it which will not fill a 35mm frame.

As sensor resolution increases, APS-sized sensors will in a couple of years have the same resolution as today's 35mm sensors.

The market will soon be awash with second-hand film cameras, so unless you are made of money I wouldn't recommend shelling out on a new MZ-S.

Like all high-tech kit, digital cameras lose value rapidly too, and in a year's time the *ist D will no doubt sell for around £600. However, the great advantage of digital over film is that it costs nothing to press the shutter.

What this means is that you can experiment to your heart's content, and get instant results. With digital you will become a better photographer, and take lots more pictures. Sounds a bit Utopian, but it's true!

Go digi now. It's inevitable, and whenever you do, you'll kick yourself for not doing it sooner.

I forgot to answer your second point, about resolution. The output of the *ist D is very good, and certainly comparable to 35mm film in most circumstances. If you curently use 35mm, the *ist D will suit you fine. It won't match medium format, though, so I wouldn't recommend it for a landscape photographer who uses a 6x7 or 6x9.

It's also far better than scanned negs or slides. Throw away the scanner!

George

So it seems I should go digital. I have heard so many good things about the MZ-S. GG, why are you selling your MZ-S kit??? What do you think of that camera??

I have to agree with George

I haven't touched my film Z1 since getting the *istD, and IMO my abilities have improved drastically since going fully digital. I've taken about 3500 images in 7 months (which is quite low compared to other digi users), which is quite a saving in film

I am, right now, retouching some wedding images from last year on Fuji NPS and Fuji Provia and I cannot believe the difference in quality. The images are almost flooded with grain, and now I can't wait to do a wedding with the *ist-D

Coupled with Photoshop, the *ist-D is a formidable tool.

Matt

I am leaning towards digital now. I am going to wait until the next batch of dslr's come out. Does anyone know when Pentax will come out with theirs???

Buying the MZ-S is not necessarily a mistake. I shoot with my Sony DSC-707 and with my MX-6. I use a Nikon film scanner.
Shooting digitally or scanning film generate enormous needs for new storage. Digital storage is unstable. CDs can suddenly deteriorate. Cds do take up space. Hard drives do die.
I have noted that when I scan a slide especially a grainless slide like Ektachrome I save a lot of time. The scan is virtually perfect, or it is not . Very little time wasted in my graphic software. I can save the results to CD and mail them to my stock agency. I do not have to waste disk space saving to my hard drive because the slide is my storage medium. I put a small jpeg in my archive and put the slide back in the yellow box.
There a major advantages to a DSLR if you shoot a high ISO, but not at 100 ISO - no grain. There are major advantages to the MZ-S: you maintain the artistic depth of field effects of your lenses (Everything is not in focus like my Sony!), your wide angle lenses are wide, and you save on storage.
Cheers,
Bob
In Arabia

Thanks for the information. Maybe I am crazy but I can still see a difference between film and digital. But maybe it's just me. That is why I was thinking of purchasing the MZ-S now and getting the digital in a couple years. By then digital may be better than film as far as resolution. Just my reasoning.

It not just the resolution that's different. Digital has a linear response, while film is logarithmic. "Out of the box" digitals (especially the consumer cameras) tend to be over saturated, and a bit clinical, IMO. The *istD is very film-like, and once you've got the hang of the response (much like learning the difference between negative and slide) it's great

Oh yes, and as has been said, there's a large investment in auxilliary pieces of kit - large cards, portable storage, etc etc. However, in my experience CD and DVD storage is not much different to slide storage. Some of my slides were not stored properly and they've got mold growing. And I've not had a CD fail yet, in 8 years of burning (mostly use TDK branded disks and store them well).

Like all cameras, it's what you make it, not just the resolution, number of bits etc etc.

My advice is to take a look at www.ephotozine.com (run by Peter Bargh who runs this site) - you might be pleasantly surprised at the results of digital www.pbase.com also has a search ability - you can search by camera model and you'll see the results, just like film, range from average to sublime.

Matt