The Land-Rover in front of the Comet (headlights in the radiator grill rather than the wings) dates it to before '68 or '69. The plane in the distance behind is more likely a DC-4 or DC-6 (more likely), a DC-3 would be much shorter at that distance I think.

I'm late to this and missed the original thread so can't really comment on it, however the gist I'm picking up from this thread leads me to agree with the consensus. Normally (usually at least) when posts are deleted there's a reason stated, whilst I don't always agree with the reason, knowing the grounds for it usually puts it into perspective.

I was surprised to see 7 pages of comments on a thread only a couple of days old, more surprised to see the first comment from a moderator on page 5 or there-abouts.

John.

Thanks Bjørn, just what I wanted - another lens to think about!

A wonderful comment, perfectly phrased!

John.

Beautiful shots Bjørn,

I like 1 & 3 best, I'm drawn to the first one by the colours and the general feeling it portrays. I like the tree filling the corner of the frame in the top right. The third is also good, I'd consider cropping the top & bottom of this for a 'pano'. The shadow of the boat at the right-hand edge of the frame is just cut-off at the edge - a very minor point though.

The second one feels very 'in your face' from the perspective, it might have been what you were trying to achieve but it's a little overpowering for me. In the fourth the cabin being square-on and cut-off to the left doesn't work for me (obviously I don't know what your other options may have been at the time).

I get my MF scans done commercially with the film processing - these are low res scans that only get a fraction of the IQ from the image but they're enough for the web. Higher quality scans are too expensive, I'm looking at a scanner but I'll need a substantial PC upgrade before it would work.

How do you find the 55-110 zoom compared to the 45 when shooting? I've got the 45 & 75 and wondering whether this zoom would be something worth considering.

John.

Apart from the odd PU competition, I haven't entered (or been judged) in any photo competitions (apart from one in 2003 - I think). I'm strict with my images, I don't clone anything out (or in), I only apply contrast/colour/exposure changes across the whole image and rarely crop. I'm completely against 'pimping' a boring sky into one that looks like a huge thunderstorm is on the way. I'd use filters when shooting if necessary, but the image contents stay as they were when I tripped the shutter.

With scans from film transparencies, I try to maintain the look of the trannie on my lightbox. My biggest problem with digital shots is getting my monitor calibration correct/consistent as I don't have a good 'original' non-digital reference to work from.

That said, there's no reason why 'excessive perfection' can't still be an issue - but if I have to work too hard for an image, I usually decide it's not really there and look for something else. Afterwards I'll often castigate myself for slightly sloppy composition (things cut off or framed too tightly), slightly OOF or shots with shake.

EDIT: I've taken one in-camera HDR shot with my K-5 which probably contradicts being strict with my images, I also use sharpening and noise reduction for high ISO shooting in post, but again across the whole image.

As others have said, a meaningless (and unanswered) poll. If you're used to a particular film and well practiced in exposing, processing and printing it, then it could be easier than using a less well practiced digital camera. All film cameras will record the same image on the same emulsion in the above case - for digital it depends on the sensor, camera firmware, post processing software and operator workflow.

It doesn't matter as long as you (or if pro - your clients) get the result you (or they) are looking for. Sticking a good 6x7 transparency on a light box blows away a digital image on a monitor IMHO. The one thing that is easier with film is archiving - chuck the negatives in a draw and have done with it - none of these striped RAID arrays, CD burning every couple of years and cloud storage (anybody read the T's & C's properly).

The whole process is different - sometimes I just prefer to use a film camera (as Gravelrash commented - the ritual).

The F lenses feel better built than the FA ones, although the focusing ring is lighter and less smooth - but this probably allows faster screw-drive AF. The lenses were designed for the SF series of cameras that had lower torque AF screw-drive motors than later film cameras (e.g. Z-1) and today's DSLRs are probably faster still.

Compared to a DA50/1.8, these lenses are better built, have an aperture ring & DoF markings and guaranteed FF coverage. I have an F50/1.7 and simply wouldn't sell it.

This is my big issue with the forum, the Ads (often for non-Pentax camera gear) that annoy me. I used to be a member of PU in the film days for the magazines, and until recently paid to be a PU member of this forum but not anymore. There are so many Ads (several animated ones on-screen at once) and I can't justify paying and being subjected to the level of advertising.

I've decided to start supporting the US forum instead because Ads disappear when you log in. I also frequent other non-commercial forums and find them much more interesting as a result.

As for Ad Blockers, I'm a bit old school and don't knowingly download random bits of software off the web...

John.

In my film days I decided to move to Canon, I'd decided that my Z-1 simply wasn't good enough, and jumped in for an EOS 5, 28-135 IS USM & vertical grip. On paper it promised the world, 5 AF points (eye-controlled), 5fps, super fast/silent AF. I even managed to get an old (pre-Ebay) Tamron ADII EOS adapter (Hen's teeth in those days).

I forget the price I paid in the mid-90's (not really but I don't want to think about it), it was a huge (and very expensive) mistake. I never got used to the 'ergonomics', the lens broke, then the camera so I chucked it in a cupboard and probably still have it somewhere.

I went medium format after that (Mamiya 645, Bronica SQ) until getting a K-5 a couple of years ago and more recently some P6x7 gear. I never sold the Z-1, F50/1.7, FA28-80/3.5-4.7 and various other lenses which allowed me to have a head start when I bought my K-5.

I don't think running two systems works, you always feel you have the wrong system or the wrong lenses, better to sell everything and start afresh - after thinking very very carefully. After shooting Pentax, everything else feels clunky to me - my P67 feels more alive and responsive than the EOS 5 ever did.

That's a Lido?

The first on is well composed given the 'industrial' nature of the surroundings and I like the reflections. The Heron stands out against the cluttered background well.