All Forum Comments
Comment by mattie posted on Lens cross reference at 13/08/2004 - 10:16
Hi Steve
Very unlikely, even if you can bodge up/buy an adapter (the physical lens mounts are all very different), you'll lose pretty much all of the information and features of the lens (and maybe even metering). Modern lenses provide the body with quite a bit of info, such as focal length (amount of 'zoom'), focus distance, aperture etc., which the camera body takes into consideration when focussing and (especially) metering. As digital SLRs are perhaps the most modern, they take advantage of all of this, hence if you use a lens the camera cannot communicate with (as will be the case using Pentax lenses on Canon, Nikon Sigma etc. SLRs) they will be handicapped. I'm not even sure if the camera will be able to operate the lens aperture, and I'm almost certain the autofocus won't work.
I would suggest that the price of digital SLR is such that you might want to invest in a decent lens anyway, and one that is specifically designed for that camera - I don't know what you have already, if they're the standard Mz/Z series zoom lenses, you might want to upgrade anyway.
So the short answer is even if you could, which I'm not sure, it wouldn't be very good.
As an aside, Pentax are allegedly bringing out a cheap DSLR, when it turns up is anyone's guess - it's what I'm holding out for anyway. I would suggest, though, that you make your decision about which marque you want to go with soon, before you invest a great deal of money.
Hope this helps
Cheers
Matt
Very unlikely, even if you can bodge up/buy an adapter (the physical lens mounts are all very different), you'll lose pretty much all of the information and features of the lens (and maybe even metering). Modern lenses provide the body with quite a bit of info, such as focal length (amount of 'zoom'), focus distance, aperture etc., which the camera body takes into consideration when focussing and (especially) metering. As digital SLRs are perhaps the most modern, they take advantage of all of this, hence if you use a lens the camera cannot communicate with (as will be the case using Pentax lenses on Canon, Nikon Sigma etc. SLRs) they will be handicapped. I'm not even sure if the camera will be able to operate the lens aperture, and I'm almost certain the autofocus won't work.
I would suggest that the price of digital SLR is such that you might want to invest in a decent lens anyway, and one that is specifically designed for that camera - I don't know what you have already, if they're the standard Mz/Z series zoom lenses, you might want to upgrade anyway.
So the short answer is even if you could, which I'm not sure, it wouldn't be very good.
As an aside, Pentax are allegedly bringing out a cheap DSLR, when it turns up is anyone's guess - it's what I'm holding out for anyway. I would suggest, though, that you make your decision about which marque you want to go with soon, before you invest a great deal of money.
Hope this helps
Cheers
Matt
Comment by mattie posted on Lens cross reference at 12/08/2004 - 21:04
I'd agree with MattMatic, but suggest that less experienced people will struggle to handhold a camera at 1/60 of a second - if you can reach 1 second that is really quite an achievement, and it requires a lot of practise.
I would also mention that, if you're photographing people candidly indoors (by candidly I mean they aren't aware of you) then you can't do anything about them moving - there is simply no practical way* you can get sharp images of crowds in low light without using flash (the duration of the flash is tiny, around 1/10000 of a second, helping to 'freeze' movement). However, in many situations, such as your shot of what appears to be people in a church, that is not always an option.
As MattMatic suggests, try a tripod or a fixed surface for support, but try to avoid having people in your shots as they won't be still during the exposure. you don't have to pay much for a tripod, as digital cameras are so light, and you could even get a little tabletop one.
Cheers
Matt
*There are methods such as changing iso ratings, but I don't know if you can do this on your camera or how much quality you would sacrifice, so I don't recommend it.
I would also mention that, if you're photographing people candidly indoors (by candidly I mean they aren't aware of you) then you can't do anything about them moving - there is simply no practical way* you can get sharp images of crowds in low light without using flash (the duration of the flash is tiny, around 1/10000 of a second, helping to 'freeze' movement). However, in many situations, such as your shot of what appears to be people in a church, that is not always an option.
As MattMatic suggests, try a tripod or a fixed surface for support, but try to avoid having people in your shots as they won't be still during the exposure. you don't have to pay much for a tripod, as digital cameras are so light, and you could even get a little tabletop one.
Cheers
Matt
*There are methods such as changing iso ratings, but I don't know if you can do this on your camera or how much quality you would sacrifice, so I don't recommend it.
Comment by mattie posted on new user, please help. at 05/08/2004 - 17:09
Hi
Apologies, but this isn't an answer to the query but a follow-on question for Kim C. I was under the impression that the matte field was the ground area normally found around split fields (the bit where the to sides 'line up' when in focus) in the centre of MF cameras. I thought that the matte field worked by only becoming 'transparent' when the subject they covered was in focus - this only happens at exactly the point of focus, in effect the depth of field is tiny.
My AF camera doesn't have this feature, or the split screen.
Have I misunderstood what a matte screen is?
Cheers
Matt
Apologies, but this isn't an answer to the query but a follow-on question for Kim C. I was under the impression that the matte field was the ground area normally found around split fields (the bit where the to sides 'line up' when in focus) in the centre of MF cameras. I thought that the matte field worked by only becoming 'transparent' when the subject they covered was in focus - this only happens at exactly the point of focus, in effect the depth of field is tiny.
My AF camera doesn't have this feature, or the split screen.
Have I misunderstood what a matte screen is?
Cheers
Matt
Comment by mattie posted on Where is the matte field??? at 05/08/2004 - 17:14
Hi
sounds silly, but check battery. Some cameras lock in weird positions when battery is low, although in mirror-up position is pretty weird!
Matt
sounds silly, but check battery. Some cameras lock in weird positions when battery is low, although in mirror-up position is pretty weird!
Matt
Comment by mattie posted on Broke Z1 SE, is it worth fixing. at 05/08/2004 - 13:33
Hi
I'd consider what you really want from photography (or a particular phtography session) before choosing.
Even most professional photographers only get around half-a-dozen really good shots from a 36-shot roll of 35mm film (although I'm sure there are others who will claim more success!) so printing each and every shot is not important. I tend to only print one slide from about 3 films, meaning that I can get a really decent, large print for the same price as having a load of pretty poor prints. If you're after keepsakes or momentos, negatives are probably better as you can print those off wholsesale very cheaply, but if you want to get some decent shots to put on the wall, I'd recommend slide as the quality tends to be better and the prices for large prints, done well, are not so different for negative and slide - I should qualify that by stating I am referring to a decent handprinted image (around £15-£25 depending who, where and how large the print is). You can also get them digitally scanned and printed, in which case it makes little difference if you have slide or negative, and it also tends to be cheaper as there is less labour involved.
Also, as Kim rightly states, slide film is much less tolerant of exposure error, and hence represents the sharpest learnnig curve - every mistake is magnified, making it easier to improve your technique (although a bit disheartening at first!). If you can take good shots reliably with slide film, negative film is a doddle!
Whichever you choose, you will still be able to get decent images with either, good negative film is still good, just not as good generally as slide.
Hope this helps
Matt
I'd consider what you really want from photography (or a particular phtography session) before choosing.
Even most professional photographers only get around half-a-dozen really good shots from a 36-shot roll of 35mm film (although I'm sure there are others who will claim more success!) so printing each and every shot is not important. I tend to only print one slide from about 3 films, meaning that I can get a really decent, large print for the same price as having a load of pretty poor prints. If you're after keepsakes or momentos, negatives are probably better as you can print those off wholsesale very cheaply, but if you want to get some decent shots to put on the wall, I'd recommend slide as the quality tends to be better and the prices for large prints, done well, are not so different for negative and slide - I should qualify that by stating I am referring to a decent handprinted image (around £15-£25 depending who, where and how large the print is). You can also get them digitally scanned and printed, in which case it makes little difference if you have slide or negative, and it also tends to be cheaper as there is less labour involved.
Also, as Kim rightly states, slide film is much less tolerant of exposure error, and hence represents the sharpest learnnig curve - every mistake is magnified, making it easier to improve your technique (although a bit disheartening at first!). If you can take good shots reliably with slide film, negative film is a doddle!
Whichever you choose, you will still be able to get decent images with either, good negative film is still good, just not as good generally as slide.
Hope this helps
Matt
Comment by mattie posted on sorry newbie question!!! at 05/08/2004 - 13:27
Hi
To keep Kim C happy, I'm going to plug the MX!
Seriously, I've used the MX quite a lot and it's a great camera, fantastic clear, bright viewfinder and simple controls. The only downside is the price, although as it's so rugged you can go for a pretty scuffed version for not too much.
I can't really provide a comparison, as the only older generation manual focus camera I've used is the MX.
Matt
To keep Kim C happy, I'm going to plug the MX!
Seriously, I've used the MX quite a lot and it's a great camera, fantastic clear, bright viewfinder and simple controls. The only downside is the price, although as it's so rugged you can go for a pretty scuffed version for not too much.
I can't really provide a comparison, as the only older generation manual focus camera I've used is the MX.
Matt
Comment by mattie posted on Spotmatic Vs ME Super at 02/08/2004 - 18:18
Hi Kimbo
I think the reason they have to ask is that there is a requirement that you are a UK taxpayer - I used to be a student tax-dodger and had to turn them down when they asked for this gift, it got quite a few rather cold looks from some of the National Trust staff!
In terms of 7dayshop and mx2, they have only recently started listing the VAT aspects on their website, as they have been under pressure to do so. I am not sure (and a cursory look on the internet hasn't revealed) if they are required to consider the entire order and then add VAT to that, they currently just consider the VAT requirements for each individual product and ignore the overall order value. Even if they're not charging VAT correctly it's their concern, as they are supposed to charge the VAT, however as I have mentioned earlier a few people got stung for VAT and admin charges ordering from them. In mitigation, these were for items that were demonstrably more expensive than £18, so if you're just ordering film you should be OK. I think it might be quite difficult for a 'non-photo' person to deduce the value of film - I once bought a job lot of sensia in a large multi-pack for around £30 and didn't get charged VAT, mainly because 7dayshop didnt put VAT on anything at that time, but I would suggest that even now a customs officer would be hard-pressed to figure how much such a bundle of film was worth. With a digital SLR body, I think anyone could guess it's going to be worth more than £18!
DLab7 came very high up a recent test by (I think) practical photographer magazine in a recent group test. They are very cheap and technically pretty good although I have had quite long waits for returned slides. I still rate Fuji dev of Fuji film as the best, but DLab7 is the best 'independent' I've used.
Cheers
Matt
I think the reason they have to ask is that there is a requirement that you are a UK taxpayer - I used to be a student tax-dodger and had to turn them down when they asked for this gift, it got quite a few rather cold looks from some of the National Trust staff!
In terms of 7dayshop and mx2, they have only recently started listing the VAT aspects on their website, as they have been under pressure to do so. I am not sure (and a cursory look on the internet hasn't revealed) if they are required to consider the entire order and then add VAT to that, they currently just consider the VAT requirements for each individual product and ignore the overall order value. Even if they're not charging VAT correctly it's their concern, as they are supposed to charge the VAT, however as I have mentioned earlier a few people got stung for VAT and admin charges ordering from them. In mitigation, these were for items that were demonstrably more expensive than £18, so if you're just ordering film you should be OK. I think it might be quite difficult for a 'non-photo' person to deduce the value of film - I once bought a job lot of sensia in a large multi-pack for around £30 and didn't get charged VAT, mainly because 7dayshop didnt put VAT on anything at that time, but I would suggest that even now a customs officer would be hard-pressed to figure how much such a bundle of film was worth. With a digital SLR body, I think anyone could guess it's going to be worth more than £18!
DLab7 came very high up a recent test by (I think) practical photographer magazine in a recent group test. They are very cheap and technically pretty good although I have had quite long waits for returned slides. I still rate Fuji dev of Fuji film as the best, but DLab7 is the best 'independent' I've used.
Cheers
Matt
Comment by mattie posted on favourite film? at 02/08/2004 - 17:05
Hi Marcus
I agree with you, that high street retailers don't offer value for money as you have to pay for their time, rate and rent when you go in to buy film. However, 7dayshop has been avoiding VAT for a while - I stress that every order above £17.99 is subject to VAT, and they don't correctly value their packages.
I'm OK with this, because I think £18 is a pretty arbitrary level and (as you highlight) the saving are really pretty substantial - partly due to economy of scale and mail order model, but also partly due to not charging VAT. I have heard that 7dayshop have been gettting some heat over this, and hence VAT is now charged on their larger items (such as cameras and lenses, and other items they can't really claim are less than £18!) but not on the smaller orders, even those over £18.
I'm not sure how much longer this will last, but even if they have to charge VAT I would suggest they will remain a lot cheaper than high-street retailers.
Cheers
Matt
I agree with you, that high street retailers don't offer value for money as you have to pay for their time, rate and rent when you go in to buy film. However, 7dayshop has been avoiding VAT for a while - I stress that every order above £17.99 is subject to VAT, and they don't correctly value their packages.
I'm OK with this, because I think £18 is a pretty arbitrary level and (as you highlight) the saving are really pretty substantial - partly due to economy of scale and mail order model, but also partly due to not charging VAT. I have heard that 7dayshop have been gettting some heat over this, and hence VAT is now charged on their larger items (such as cameras and lenses, and other items they can't really claim are less than £18!) but not on the smaller orders, even those over £18.
I'm not sure how much longer this will last, but even if they have to charge VAT I would suggest they will remain a lot cheaper than high-street retailers.
Cheers
Matt
Comment by mattie posted on favourite film? at 31/07/2004 - 16:41
"Every purchase I have made from them has specified the actual value of the order on the packaging as opposed to a blanket £17"
Every single purchase I have made hasn't - it has had a pre-printed form quoting the value as £17.99. I still have the packaging (as an aside, very useful for sending film off for developing) and I checked last night. I haven't bought anything from there in a while (I bought a job lot of sensia for about £40ish, still going through that) so they might have changed their packaging in the meantime. As I mentioned, they are getting some pressure from customs as they are/were avoiding paying VAT on certain items which they should definitely be charging. This has been the case for a while, I have spent in excess of £500 over about 3 or 4 years and each package, every single one, was valued at £17.99 - it is actually printed as part of the pro forma, in other words the value cannot be changed for each package as it is forms part of the 'letterhead' of each label.
They also prefer sending many smaller packages, which they claim is to allow the postie to get it through the letterbox. I would suggest (being the cynic I am) that this is to help argue that the contents of each package are not worth much and that each package constitutes 1 order. If they put it all in 1 package (which, logic dictates, would be cheaper for them as there's less effort involved) this would be much harder to argue as being worth less than £18 (the personal import level which is why 7dayshop quote £17.99).
"Why on earth would I want pay "UK tax" on film purchases?"
You might not want to (after all, it's not like we don't pay enough taxes already!), but unfortunately you are/should be legally obliged to. This is the entire point I am making, 7dayshop and others were circumventing legal requirements regarding taxes, and you might also argue they were doing it in a quite deliberate manner. You might be happy to go along with this, as I have been (although I respect the law, I could get a ferry and buy it there so why can't I just order it?), however the taxman isn't. I'm not particularly bothered on anyone's personal take on this, all I am saying is that I have heard of cases where people have been stung with import duty when the taxman has questioned a purchase. I would also suggest that if you are buying only a little bit of film at a time you should be OK, but some larger purchases could cause problems.
This thread gives some details:
http://www.amateurphotographer.com/cgi-bin/wwwthreads/showpost.pl?Board=Lounge&a...
Sorry to harp on, but Ithink this problem is only going to get worse as 7dayshop have expanded into lenes and bodies, which the taxman is going to have a much greater interest in.
I would also reinforce Kim's commnet regarding Fuji slide film, I would recommend getting it straight from Fuji with dev vouchers - it works out around the same price as buying from Geurnsey and having it devved there (£19.99 as opposed to around £21-£22 in Guernsey) but it would be a genuine fuji development.
I would second Marcus' point about finding a good devolper, try a few places and stick with the best - it is very hard to see the effects of things you have tried if there is no consistency from your developer.
Cheers
Matt
Every single purchase I have made hasn't - it has had a pre-printed form quoting the value as £17.99. I still have the packaging (as an aside, very useful for sending film off for developing) and I checked last night. I haven't bought anything from there in a while (I bought a job lot of sensia for about £40ish, still going through that) so they might have changed their packaging in the meantime. As I mentioned, they are getting some pressure from customs as they are/were avoiding paying VAT on certain items which they should definitely be charging. This has been the case for a while, I have spent in excess of £500 over about 3 or 4 years and each package, every single one, was valued at £17.99 - it is actually printed as part of the pro forma, in other words the value cannot be changed for each package as it is forms part of the 'letterhead' of each label.
They also prefer sending many smaller packages, which they claim is to allow the postie to get it through the letterbox. I would suggest (being the cynic I am) that this is to help argue that the contents of each package are not worth much and that each package constitutes 1 order. If they put it all in 1 package (which, logic dictates, would be cheaper for them as there's less effort involved) this would be much harder to argue as being worth less than £18 (the personal import level which is why 7dayshop quote £17.99).
"Why on earth would I want pay "UK tax" on film purchases?"
You might not want to (after all, it's not like we don't pay enough taxes already!), but unfortunately you are/should be legally obliged to. This is the entire point I am making, 7dayshop and others were circumventing legal requirements regarding taxes, and you might also argue they were doing it in a quite deliberate manner. You might be happy to go along with this, as I have been (although I respect the law, I could get a ferry and buy it there so why can't I just order it?), however the taxman isn't. I'm not particularly bothered on anyone's personal take on this, all I am saying is that I have heard of cases where people have been stung with import duty when the taxman has questioned a purchase. I would also suggest that if you are buying only a little bit of film at a time you should be OK, but some larger purchases could cause problems.
This thread gives some details:
http://www.amateurphotographer.com/cgi-bin/wwwthreads/showpost.pl?Board=Lounge&a...
Sorry to harp on, but Ithink this problem is only going to get worse as 7dayshop have expanded into lenes and bodies, which the taxman is going to have a much greater interest in.
I would also reinforce Kim's commnet regarding Fuji slide film, I would recommend getting it straight from Fuji with dev vouchers - it works out around the same price as buying from Geurnsey and having it devved there (£19.99 as opposed to around £21-£22 in Guernsey) but it would be a genuine fuji development.
I would second Marcus' point about finding a good devolper, try a few places and stick with the best - it is very hard to see the effects of things you have tried if there is no consistency from your developer.
Cheers
Matt
Comment by mattie posted on favourite film? at 30/07/2004 - 10:48
Just following on from George's statement, I think that the minor brands use the Pentax bayonet as it's an open standard, with no restriction - I was under the impression that most of the others are copyrighted and patented to death, hence no third party uses them. I don't know if this holds for the newer Pentax Autofocus mount though, and as I'm not expecting a manual focus DSLR anytime soon I don't reckon we'll see anything digital from Ricoh et al!
Going along with some of the other comments, I've heard the *istD is indeed a good camera, it seems to do well in tests as well.
Cheers
Matt