So, Godfrey, you tell me (unless I misunderstand you) that my purchase of three older Limited lenses was in a sense a waste of money? ;-) (<-- please notice the smiley).
Well, let us not dwell one more time in digital vs film vs medium format vs whatever debate. Indeed you're right. Although I maintain that my point of view still has its right to exist. However, the results I was and am getting from older lenses satisfy me perfectly both on film and on *istD. Whatever I have seen on the net from you was just as good if not better for various reasons. I trust it the big prints you make definitely look good and I hope to be able to see them in person one day. Yet, I should tell you that even simple 10x15 cm prints with portraits of my daughter playing in the play-yard from 31 limited at f/2.8 to f/4 amazed me with their three-dimensionality. To my personal perception the effect is still more pronounced on film (Fuji NPC 160 processed by professional lab in Tel Aviv (<-- close to the best I can get without doing it myself) than on digital. Probably K10D may change that. Probably I am still too unexperienced and my technique needs improvement. Again, just my thinking out loud about the subject. In fact, a friend of mine suggested that since I use lenses beyond 77 mm of focal length so rarely I should simply choose not to shoot in these focal distances thereby saving my head from ache and money in the wallet. On 11/28/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Boris, > > I am not a bleeding edge lover or an equipment geek. I'm a > photographer. I don't like to make allusions or generalizations like > that. I buy new equipment to further my photographic work, nothing else. > > My attitudes in regard to what lenses to buy are colored by the fact > that with the kind of quality we get out of the 6 and now 10Mpixel > Pentax DSLRs, I see absolutely no point in shooting 35mm film at all > anymore (except for reasons of nostalgia). If I need more quality for > larger size printing, the only direction to go is medium format or > larger at this time. And I await the Pentax 645D. Others with more > specialized needs, like Ralf's industrial night shots and > astrophotography, might still need 35mm film's characteristics, but > those are not my concerns. > > So I wouldn't even consider biasing new lens purchases to accommodate > a 35mm SLR at this point ... it's a complete waste of money in my > eyes. I would only buy new lenses for the new DSLR bodies. The best > lenses for the current and future bodies are the ones Pentax is > producing now, not the ones they produced in the past. > > It's nice that the older lenses can be used successfully and perform > well on the DSLR bodies, but it is irrelevant to my new lens purchases. > > G > > > > On Nov 28, 2006, at 5:22 AM, Boris Liberman wrote: > > > Godfrey, I want to be able to use my lenses both on film and on > > digital. Why? Just because! I mean no offense, it is just that I shoot > > few film frames every now and then. > > > > It appears to me (although I may be potentially wrong) that > > photography as a technology has submitted itself to Moore's law. Thus > > I cannot be sure if in so many months some kind of breakthrough will > > happen that will make me very unhappy. Since I don't deal in gear but > > rather use it, I decided I should be very careful not to bleed my > > money all over the bleeding edge... > > > > Again, no offense, just my considerations. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
