Hi bjolester,

Thanks for the feedback. I've checked the negs, shot three does have detail in the sky, shot four may have (the skies do look over exposed on my laptop, short of re-scanning them I don't think I can pull more detail out).

The S1a felt a bit wierd at first as it doesn't have any metering, but once you've picked your settings you're not distracted by any finder info. I'm mostly pleased it works and didn't really expect to get anything at all.

A couple more:

S1a, Super-Tak 28/3.5, HP5+



S1a, Super-Tak 55/1.8, HP5+

Several weeks ago I bought an S1a & Super-Tak 55/1.8 off Ebay, since then I've run a first Ilford HP5+ film through it (delayed by a similar K1000 purchase that has also had a film run through). I got the film processed and scanned by the Ilford lab in Mobberley.

Surprising how long it took me to work my way through 36 exposures when you've got film in the camera (trying to find shots worth recording). Metering was using my Sekonic L408b (I have since obtained a clip-on meter which looks like it reads reasonably accurately).

I didn't know what to expect given the age of the camera and tried various combinations of shutter speed, aperture and focus distance to try to find any faults. All the exposures were reasonably correct (excepting one bad on my part), there's no evidence of light leaks and frame spacing looks fine.

I tested the 'unmarked' 1/1000th speed but found half the frame un-exposed, the 1/500th speed shot was a quarter un-exposed, but all others look OK (possibly a sluggish shutter blind?).

Here are some of the shots:
S1a, Super-Tak 55/1.8, HP5+



S1a, Super-Tak 55/1.8, HP5+



S1a, Super-Tak 28/3.5, HP5+

If you could only convert it to SDM...

I too have thought about it several times. The real benefit to me would be to give me an incentive to produce better images. I'd guess the benefits of membership would outway the price of the fees (at least initially).

If you're awarded an RPS qualification, I think the letters after your name might help in some circumstances but not necessarily others. When I last looked there seemed to be several organisations offering accreditation for professional photographers. I got the impression that a lot of these were based on how to run a business, rather than on photographic merit.

I don't know what a 'fair' price would be. If you put enough 'ultra rare collectable' key words in the listing, somebody somewhere with more cash than sense may go for it. Although I'd have thought you'd have checked whether it worked before listing it 'for spares, not working' if you intended to check it during the week of the auction.

I've done lots of searching and read lots of forums on depth of field comparisons between APS-C & 135 sized sensors. Depending on the terminology used and abstracting viewing distance & circle of confusion (itself confusing to many), is the following correct (assuming a mythical Pentax 16MP 135 frame camera is available):

If I framed a shot with my M135/3.5 at 4m distance with the mythical 16MP 135 frame camera, and then my K-5 (same aperture) from 6m (to get the same framing), I'd end up with the same 'apparent' depth of field?

Finally, if the 135 sized sensor is 24MP instead of 16MP, does this make a difference?

John.

K-5, DA 17-70/4

The very short version of my experience is: I went into a shop looking for a micro 4/3rds system and walked out with a K-5 instead.

And that's it, the longer version: I looked at one (can't remember which one Oly or Pana) but one with an EVF in a fake Pentaprism - and not the OM-D. I panned the camera and saw a very laggy update in the finder and horrible aliasing on straight lines. I decided an EVF would annoy me all the time, spotted a K-r in the cabinet (not significantly larger), then a K-5, held it and bought it. It helped I had a load of Pentax lenses from my film days, but I had gone out to go micro 4/3rds.

Spotted an MEF 35-70 AF zoom on ebay (seller isn't sure if it's working or not): link