Pentax FF and the K-1 is still relatively young. The lenses favoured by most of those looking to buy a high-end DSLR basically fall into a selection from the following: 15-30, 24-70/2.8, 70-210/2.8, 100-400 (these are the 'Flagship' lenses and represent the bulk of the lenses used by CaNikon high-end users). The emphasis on these 'high-end' options creates large, heavy & expensive zoom lenses. Affordable 28-105 & 70-300 are also needed. Prime users are catered for by the Ltd 31, 43 & 77 and FA50/DA50.

The problem with WA primes is that a whole family is needed - most of which can be achieved from the current zooms. Sales of WA primes are going to be limited, but you'd need at least: 20/2.8, 24/2, 28/2.8, 35/2 - in all cases, sales of each of these individual lenses are going to be tiny (all apart from a 28/2.8 would be very expensive and even that wouldn't be 'inexpensive'). Independent manufacturers can re-coup the development costs across all mount varieties.

When I was looking for an FA 20/24mm (I couldn't decide which), I'd have loved to be able to choose from 20/4 & 24/2.8 (I don't need a large aperture WA, I may have gone for both). Being limited to the 20/2.8 & 24/2 (both of which were expensive and rare) I ended up with the FA 20-35/4 - a lens which is much more sensible to me than a huge 15-30.

WA lenses always suffer from CA, the only question is how much is acceptable or not.

John.

I used a changing bag, dev tank, thermometer, washing up bowl (as a water bath), couple of graduate measures & chemical bottles and a large 2 litre jug (for the final wash with repeated tank fills/empties) - oh and a timer.

Film wise, XP2 is convenient for C-41 processing but not the best for B&W development - it includes an orange film base similar to that for C-41 films to help the mini-labs. This isn't as easy to scan as a 'proper' B&W film. I'd suggest films like Ilford FP4+ & HP5+ (not the finest grain but they are easy to process).

Developer wise, I used ready mixed concentrate (Ilfosol-S) instead of powder (has a shorter shelf life but one job less to do).

The hardest part is the choreography needed to prep the next stage whilst doing the current 'thing' - when the developer goes in I rinse the measures and start measuring the stop (in between agitations). it's a good idea to visualise the whole process before you start.

Sacrifice a film and practise loading it into the spiral in the changing bag (if you have problems put everything in the dev tank, close the lid and stop for a break - it can get quite hot in the bag). Make sure you have everything you need in the changing bag before you start: tank (and centre post if required), reel(s) [some multi-reel tanks need all reels loaded], tank lid, film, scissors etc. Make sure your reel width matches the film width (some adjustable reels have a minimum width narrower than 35mm film).

If you haven't looked yet, have a look at the Ilford site: link

With super-wide lenses you get huge depth of field (and trying to be selective with it can be a problem), not having AF isn't really a big deal. The effects of vignetting from APS-C lenses on FF depends on focal length and selected aperture. Most lenses suffer from light fall-off towards the corners to some degree - how obvious it is varies with subject and scrutiny etc.

John.

I've used TC's (2x and occasionally 3x) with a variety of formats (APS-C, 135, 645 & P6x7), with a good 'standard' lens or longer they usually work reasonably well (comparing them to the equivalent 'longer' lens). The only combination I've had problems with was a Vivitar 2x M42 TC with a SMC-Tak 50/1.4 on a Spotmatic (all very used) - there was a weird artefact dead centre of the image I couldn't account for. The same TC on a SMC-Tak 135mm worked fine.

For portraits (where sharpness isn 't necessarily the most important aspect) the results might be exactly what you're looking for.

That said, if you haven't already got a TC (or unless you can find one cheaply), I'd consider another lens - my suggestion would be an SMC-Tak 105/2.8 or similar - not ridiculously expensive like an 85/1.8 or 85/2 and easier to find than K mount 85 or 105 lenses (excepting £££ for the 77 Ltd). Another option may be the K 135/2.5 - although a bit long for portraits it ultimately depends how much space you have.

You don't mention which format - if APS-C a 50/1.4 (or f/1.7 or perhaps f/2) is more than adequate given the scaling factor.

Some TC's seem expensive and only viable if you're going to use them heavily, the HD 1.4x springs to mind as does the vintage Pentax-F 1.4x 'AF adapter' - the later would provide limited AF capability with M42 lenses!

John.

MEII Winder: (boxed & instructions): Works fine (although I'm not sure if I have the cover for the remote release) - £25 posted to the UK.

MX Winder: (intact battery compartment screw - gooey battery foam): This works and has an intact battery compartment screw (they seem to break easily). The foam inside the battery compartment has disintegrated (doesn't seem to be a problem but batteries end up with gooey black stuff all over) - £25 posted to the UK.

Payment via cleared cheque, bank transfer or Paypal (buyer pays fees).

Regards,

John.

Unlikely - I have enough film bodies and old lenses and it would have to be very special to trump my LX & P6x7. Since buying the P6x7 I basically stopped shooting my K-5 & 35mm bodies (apart from my LX).

The trouble is it would cost as much as (or more than) a DSLR and requires a thriving film sales & processing infrastructure. DSLRs use lots of hi-tech expensive components - but these mostly come ready assembled ready to be installed in the body (granted that has to be precise - but so do film cameras). Film cameras on the other hand required lots of individual, complex mechanical components to be built into the body equally precisely (film transport mechanisms are enormously complicated - and they're the easy bit). The cost of labour to make them well would be dis-proportionate.

The Nikon FM10 (all manual SLR) is on sale in B&H for $520 (over £400) with a 35-70 kit zoom, this is little more advanced than a K1000 and rumoured to be built by Cosina. To use modern (SDM) lenses you'd need a whole lot more automation.

Of course, if it was a Z-1 inside a magnesium body, using the battery out of a K-5 that could drive the PZ contacts to provide SDM with film rebate exposure recording... I could be persuaded ...

The thing with film cameras is that it's not the plastic AF ones people want but the older metal ones that look like proper cameras. A few years ago several young & trendy fashion brands were using manual focus cameras in advertising: link

Lomography revived film to an extent - but caused great disappointment when the hipsters realised that a K1000 can turn out high quality, sharp and correctly exposed photos instead of the washed out, out of focus and light leaking images they thought were cool.

The reality though is that it will be a fad - it's not like a vinyl record that you can keep playing - once the film & processing costs bite (and they're higher than ever) - it is likely to be a short run thing.

That said - I work in a very hi-tech office with lots of young people. They're all drooling over the latest CaNikon 'super-high-ISO' body until I break out my P67 "Wow!!! Does it do HD?"...

As has been said - you really need your own domain name that is social media friendly and need to sort out security and backup procedures. Your domain name has to work for the future, be serious and work well with logos etc. Domain names often need renewing every few years so you need to keep on top of that. You also need permission from the sitters to put their photos online (add it into your T's & C's).

As for the site, you can (I believe) drive a WordPress site from Flickr (host the images on Flickr but scrape them off for the WordPress site through a plugin - I don't know if this is transparent to site visitors). That way you only need to update Flickr (other site building & photo hosting sites probably allow this too!).

The important thing is to keep it up to date - if you're using a blog to promote work you need to keep blogging (don't let the last entry be years old). If you allow comments etc. you need to be able to moderate each one. If it were me I'd create a simple site with a good background, logo, simple text explaining your services, a dozen or so really really good images and a 'contact me' link - you need to include your address & phone numbers to remain credible (and probably legal).

There are a whole load of other gotcha's I can't think of right now - i.e. plugins used by your site might stop being supported (forcing a re-write etc).

John.

As suggested I'd look at a B&W film (my preference is Ilford). Think of it as the sensor in your DSLR but one you can change the characteristics of - all films have different 'looks' to them, some are more suited to a given application than others (fine grain/high speed etc.).

Processing isn't cheap, but being limited to 36 shots maximum makes you think harder (is the shot worth it). Check out processing costs, some labs might charge the same for 24 or 36 exposures.

Note though that ISO400 is generally regarded as a 'fast film' and Ilford Delta 3200 is about the highest ISO you can get (and needs push processing to get ISO 3200) - quite a change from a DSLR. You won't have shake reduction either so have to keep the shutter speed high enough to stop camera shake.

As for the LX system - it is extremely well engineered - I feel the only weak point these days is the Motordrive (the NiCd cells in the battery packs will all be shot by now). The winder is much more practical only taking 4 AAs - 2fps is fine for me (and it offers powered re-wind).

John.

Looks good. When I bought my LX it made all my previous gear seem more fragile and less well engineered. I had it serviced a couple of years ago (sticky mirror), which nudged me back into shooting film.

John.