VaderSS
6-Mar-2014, 11:27
Hello.
I have been taking pictures since I was about 6 years old, back in '76, starting with an Instamatic 100, moving to a 110 camera at 8 or so. About the same time, my father got a Pentax ME Super and I used that a lot as well, basically, any time he wasn't using it.
When I was 11, I found a Argoflex 75 in the attic, complete with a flash gun that took big flashbulbs. I started playing around with this, and loved the attention it got, especially when you would fire one of those big blue flashbulbs. I was impressed by the pictures it took as well, almost as good as my dad's SLR.
I used the Argoflex and my dad's SLR until I was 18 or so, when I purchased a Vivitar PS35 autofocus 35mm pocket camera, and stuck with that until I was 29, when I took a photography class. I dug out my dad's ME Super, but it needed work at that point, so I bought a Pentax Super A, which promptly failed. Then I used a friend's Olympus SLR for the class.
I enjoyed the photography class, I loved developing my own film and prints, and the instructor and art students thought I had a lot of talent. I was an engineering student, and am an engineer at heart, so I didn't speak the lingo, but still had a lot of fun listening to them describe what my photo's "meant"
When I got my first job as an engineer, in 2000, I bought the latest, but certainly not greatest, Pentax SLR, and had fun with that for a while, before digital became to seductive, and I switched to a Fuji Finepix 2800Z. I then bought a Panasonic FZ2, which I promptly destroyed in a fall, and replaced it with an FZ6. During this time with the digitals, I lost my passion for photography. I kept taking pictures mind you, but it was more of a means to record events, rather than as an artistic expression.
After 6 years with the FZ6, I looked at upgrading to the latest/greatest Panasonic, but I noticed the Pentax K01, a funky mirrorless DSLR quality camera that didn't know what it wanted to be. The K01 was an unmitigated disaster for Pentax, because it was too big to attract the typical mirrorless purchaser, and the lack of a viewfinder turned off most enthusiasts, myself included. The price however, for a camera that was full manual capable, with an almost pro-level feature set, and had an image capability rivaling the best of the best in DSLRs, while costing $500 with a pair of lenses, was simply too much for me to resist.
With my purchase of the K01, I had to buy a camera bag, because of its bulk and extra lenses. Suddenly, I was no longer throwing an "event recorder" in my bag, but hauling a camera around in a bulky bag. I started thinking in terms of artistic expression again. I became passionate about photography again. But something was lacking. The best of my images simply did not speak to me the way film generated images had once done.
I started researching the differences between digital and film, and realized we had been fed a lie. Digital is not capable of creating images as good as film can. It just can't do it, currently.
I still carry around the K01, and love it. I have an 8-16 Sigma, and a 18-135 Pentax lens. Those two lenses give me mind-boggling versatility and superb image quality. I just recognize it's limitations and understand the need for a film camera to capture those special images that really speak to me. The digital is wonderful for getting the image NOW, for getting images that would be lost forever, otherwise, and it is very, very convenient. But I wanted film as well.
Further research showed me that 35mm was not where I wanted to go. I decided that medium format was the way to go. I found a Ricoh Diacord G 120 film camera from the late '50s. It is fully manual, with no meter, but the Pentax has a great meter, so I take the shot with the Pentax first, then transfer the settings to the Ricoh. There is something wonderful about slowing down and taking a couple of frames with the film camera, and the resulting images are fantastic.
I also picked up a Minolta Instant Pro to play with the new Impossible Project film, and a '60s era Polaroid 100 to play around with Fuji's instant film. I have been having a ton of fun with photography lately.
So now I want to get into large format on a budget, say under $1000 total. I am wanting flexibility so I can try out different kinds of photography. With my other camera, I shoot just about everything you can think of. I looked at 4x5 first, then 5x7. The lack of film choices with the 5x7 is discouraging, but it looks like the cost and weight of 5x7 is not too much more than 4x5, and one can shoot 4x5 in a 5x7 camera. I do like antiques and wood, so I am considering the older wood cameras, but I am not ruling out more modem stuff. I'm still absorbing the huge amounts of information out there. I love that there is an active forum covering large format photography.
Wayne
I have been taking pictures since I was about 6 years old, back in '76, starting with an Instamatic 100, moving to a 110 camera at 8 or so. About the same time, my father got a Pentax ME Super and I used that a lot as well, basically, any time he wasn't using it.
When I was 11, I found a Argoflex 75 in the attic, complete with a flash gun that took big flashbulbs. I started playing around with this, and loved the attention it got, especially when you would fire one of those big blue flashbulbs. I was impressed by the pictures it took as well, almost as good as my dad's SLR.
I used the Argoflex and my dad's SLR until I was 18 or so, when I purchased a Vivitar PS35 autofocus 35mm pocket camera, and stuck with that until I was 29, when I took a photography class. I dug out my dad's ME Super, but it needed work at that point, so I bought a Pentax Super A, which promptly failed. Then I used a friend's Olympus SLR for the class.
I enjoyed the photography class, I loved developing my own film and prints, and the instructor and art students thought I had a lot of talent. I was an engineering student, and am an engineer at heart, so I didn't speak the lingo, but still had a lot of fun listening to them describe what my photo's "meant"
When I got my first job as an engineer, in 2000, I bought the latest, but certainly not greatest, Pentax SLR, and had fun with that for a while, before digital became to seductive, and I switched to a Fuji Finepix 2800Z. I then bought a Panasonic FZ2, which I promptly destroyed in a fall, and replaced it with an FZ6. During this time with the digitals, I lost my passion for photography. I kept taking pictures mind you, but it was more of a means to record events, rather than as an artistic expression.
After 6 years with the FZ6, I looked at upgrading to the latest/greatest Panasonic, but I noticed the Pentax K01, a funky mirrorless DSLR quality camera that didn't know what it wanted to be. The K01 was an unmitigated disaster for Pentax, because it was too big to attract the typical mirrorless purchaser, and the lack of a viewfinder turned off most enthusiasts, myself included. The price however, for a camera that was full manual capable, with an almost pro-level feature set, and had an image capability rivaling the best of the best in DSLRs, while costing $500 with a pair of lenses, was simply too much for me to resist.
With my purchase of the K01, I had to buy a camera bag, because of its bulk and extra lenses. Suddenly, I was no longer throwing an "event recorder" in my bag, but hauling a camera around in a bulky bag. I started thinking in terms of artistic expression again. I became passionate about photography again. But something was lacking. The best of my images simply did not speak to me the way film generated images had once done.
I started researching the differences between digital and film, and realized we had been fed a lie. Digital is not capable of creating images as good as film can. It just can't do it, currently.
I still carry around the K01, and love it. I have an 8-16 Sigma, and a 18-135 Pentax lens. Those two lenses give me mind-boggling versatility and superb image quality. I just recognize it's limitations and understand the need for a film camera to capture those special images that really speak to me. The digital is wonderful for getting the image NOW, for getting images that would be lost forever, otherwise, and it is very, very convenient. But I wanted film as well.
Further research showed me that 35mm was not where I wanted to go. I decided that medium format was the way to go. I found a Ricoh Diacord G 120 film camera from the late '50s. It is fully manual, with no meter, but the Pentax has a great meter, so I take the shot with the Pentax first, then transfer the settings to the Ricoh. There is something wonderful about slowing down and taking a couple of frames with the film camera, and the resulting images are fantastic.
I also picked up a Minolta Instant Pro to play with the new Impossible Project film, and a '60s era Polaroid 100 to play around with Fuji's instant film. I have been having a ton of fun with photography lately.
So now I want to get into large format on a budget, say under $1000 total. I am wanting flexibility so I can try out different kinds of photography. With my other camera, I shoot just about everything you can think of. I looked at 4x5 first, then 5x7. The lack of film choices with the 5x7 is discouraging, but it looks like the cost and weight of 5x7 is not too much more than 4x5, and one can shoot 4x5 in a 5x7 camera. I do like antiques and wood, so I am considering the older wood cameras, but I am not ruling out more modem stuff. I'm still absorbing the huge amounts of information out there. I love that there is an active forum covering large format photography.
Wayne