Hi Gilly,

I have an S4 and sometimes the shutter lag seems too long, however the answer for me was to switch off auto flash in reasonable light conditions, this avoids the need for the camera to charge the flash unit prior to the picture being taken. In your post you say which suggest you are firing the flash with most exposures.

Hi Brian,

Hanimex is (was?) an independant lens maker who produced their lenses in many different mounts. So with an unknown bayonet fitting it could be almost any make of camera from Canon to Yashica. Best bet would be to visit your local camera shop and see if they can identify the mount.

Good luck

I have to agree with Kim on this - I find the MZ-S the most intuitive AF SLR I have used. The disappointment of the SFX / SFXn cameras led me to stray to Canon for my AF system (I still own and use an EOS3 and EOS10D). While I have a Pentax Z1 it rarely comes out of the bag now - the MZ-S is just too good to use - it has those features which first attracted me to Pentax when I bought an MX, its small, light, robust and performs superbly. Prior to purchasing my first MZ-S I found the MZ5n the nearset thing to my trusty old MX (in layout and mode of operation it probably still is) but the MZ-S currently is best of breed for me at the moment.

Tough one, I am fortunate to have both of the cameras you are looking at. The MZ-S is definetly the camera which I pick up and use most often, normally with a Sigma 28-300 or a Sigma 90mm EX. Autofocus is excellent and metering spot on. When combined with the FA 50mm F1.7 it is a great lightweight but tough camera which I use when out hill walking.

The EOS3 is also a great camera - but bigger! I normally use it tri-pod mounted with a Sigma 300mm F2.8 HSM. No doubting the quality of the Canon glass or the build quality. The near silent focusing is a great boon when photographing wildlife.

You really do need to hold both cameras to see which suits you best, however I think that they are both quality bits of kit and you will have a great time with either - let us know which way you leap.

Regards

George, thanks for starting an interesting topic. However I can't really agree totally with the points you have made.
1. From a personal perspective the 'no-cost' side of digital shooting has no led me to greater experimentation, more likely a lazy approach to picture taking as I can always just delete the failures.
2. I do agree that the ability to see an effect instantly has benefits, though I am not sure it reduces lost shots - conversely I have found with the Grandchildren around that I have missed shots while admiring the instant play back from a few moments earlier!
3. Your argument about using the computer 'lightroom' for cropping and editing images is spot on. I find this even with scanned negs or slides - the quality of fixed focal length optics shines through.
4. Autofocus is here to stay! - having seen it move successfully into the medium format arena there can be no serious thoughts that the trend will be reversed.
5. The greater the popularity of zoom lenses the better the quality - but they are still judged against prime optics. Advances in design may improve both in the future.
6. I have not used any of the high street digital processors yet, but I do wonder if some of the problems around print quality from these outlets will be just the same regardless of the original media - and many people will use this form of print production rather than sit in front of the PC and produce thier own.
7. Anything that encourages more people into our hobby and help promote quality images must be a good thing. Interesting when browsing the numerous online galleries how many of the images are scanned from slides and negs rather than being 'straight' digital. No doubt though that direct digital imaging is gaining ground fast.

I scan most of my images from 35mm, medium format and can't really say that I find a great deal of difference in the effort required to manipulate these from straight digital images - likewise the quality from the scanned images is every bit as good. The main drawback with film is it is not instant, and a bit more care is required with the media to keep it clean and scratch free, but in its defense no hardware crash or corruption has ever robbed me of a film based image!

I seem to have got carried away here! - longer than my average post. I should end by saying I love my digital cameras (an Optio S4 and dare I say it a Canon 10D) but for now they co-exist comfortably with my more traditional film based kit with neither as yet being an automatic first choice (except the S4 which I carry everywhere)

Peter,

Mirror lenses do seemed to have waned in popularity in recent years. There are a few on sites like Ebay, but not many. I hope by the end of the week to be able to fully answer your question, I am expecting the arrival of an *ist and will try it with my Sigma 600mm mirror lens - I will let you know how it goes.

Hi Magpie,

For the K1000, independant non-dedicated flash guns such as the Vivitar 283 are ideal - not too expensive and plenty secondhand ones in good condition to be found. This is a versatile and powerful gun which should meet your needs - I have used 283s on Pentax MX and LX cameras for years with superb results.

My understanding of the digital zoom on these cameras is that the central part of the image is recorded (same as cropping the final image) and there is no trade off with unused 'capacity' because you are not shooting at maximum resolution. Anyway the answer in the situation you describe would surely be to shoot at maximum res and crop the final image.
With my S4 I usually shoot at maximum res and crop as need be - results are excellent.

Ron, The flesh is weak - I have succumbed to the lure of an *ist, and now eagerly await its arrival. I will post my thought in a week or so.

Phew!

More than just a little review- and more informative than many I have seen in the camera mags. Thanks Ron for the most entertaining read - I am almost tempted to try an *ist now (but still too attached to my 'M' series optics and cameras!)


Best wishes