I'm outta the game

Hi Kristian,

you've got some wonderfull shots on your galery (Loved your seattle collection). I'm thinking about buying the 17-70 too, could you tell me wich ones were taken with the sigma?

As for Steve, don't let the frustration of some bad results get to you. Be persistent and you'll get good photographs regardless the equipment you use.

In my case, I'm about to buy the K100d and the sigma 17-70 for it's versatility but if I have to settle for the kit lens to save a few euros, that's ok. It wont be the kit lens my main limiting factor, I will...

regards
Sérgio

snow4ever said:

with all due respect, you couldn't be more wrong. Last week I
bought my most expensive lens ever, a 10-17 Pentax fisheye which
will come out $360 with the rebate, I should get this lens next
week along with a K100D. Do I need this lens - no, did I want it,
well yes.
I've seen so many great examples of kit lens shots here that I'm
convinced that the kit along with the 50-200 are all that most
photographers need for most of their photographic needs. There is a
lot of 'I just bought' lens bragging here on dpreview, that's great
I wish I had the bucks to buy 300mm fast primes too, but I don't,
do I let it get in the way of my enjoyment of photography? of
course not. Truth be told a lot of people who buy expensive and
exotic lenses use them very little. LBA is what it is, an
addiction, kind of like alcohol and crack, does anybody really need
crack? No, but of course the addict thinks they need it, that of
course in the nature of an addiction. BTW, I'm being ridiculous
here of course, I'm not really comparing crack addicts with
LBA'ers, I mean they are close, but not quite the same.
Have a look at my gallery pics, the most expensive lens I've ever
used in any of those shots is a $340 Sigma 17-70. Back when I had
my DS one of my favorite lenses was a 28mm M that I got on ebay for
$40.
--



Kristian Farren
http://kf3.net/gallery/

Click to expand...

cheddargav said:

Ummm, I like it a lot!

I'm guessing a 77ltd....
--
The owner of a *ist DS

Click to expand...

Nope. )

I told you, I have no dSLR. I'm just prospecting the market to buy one.

It is a Pentax ZX-M (film) with a 50mm f1.4;
Actually, if you look closely, you can notice spots from fixer traces.

Cost: camera + lens: 150 USD (bought by a friend and given to me as a gift).

--
-------------
http://www.pbase.com/miancu

cheddargav said:

Ummm, I like it a lot!

I'm guessing a 77ltd....
--
The owner of a *ist DS

Click to expand...

Ahem.... I forgot to thank for the credits.

I'm VERY rude. I apologize.

miancu

--
-------------
http://www.pbase.com/miancu

First of all, I got a Vivitar 200mm f/3.5 for FREE as an unexpected bonus with some other cheap eBay purchase. Unfortunately I don't have any pictures posted, but it's a nice lens.
Then, my favorite $4 lens, the Sears Auto 55mm f/1.4:



Here is another freebie, the incredibly compact Auto-Takumar 35/3.5:



Yet another free lens, an SMC Takumar 50/1.4 (these usually are $30-50):



Here is my favorite $9 lens, the Jupiter-9 85mm f/2:



In other words, with the tremendous support Pentax has given to manual lenses, it doesn't take a lot of money to get good results. I hope yours wasn't just a subtle "I'm selling my gear" post and that you really are concerned about the cost, because I think you have options!

Take care,
Sean

• if you can work with used manual focus primes

like
Pentax A 2.8/28, 1.7/50
Pentacon 2.8/135 (or Pentax K 2.5/135 !!)
Tubes for macro work (
(all cheap but optically very good)

Additionally mybe the Kit (or better the Sigma 18-125) lens for some AF and snapshot things.

What else do you want or need? NEED ?

Perhaps you re-think your decision.....

--
Paul

No problem!

I'm a sucker for a good black and white

Being a rank amatuer that bypassed the whole film "era" (apparently there was a time before digital!?!), I sometimes consider picking up a cheap film SLR and using it to shoot nothing but black and white

I think would help me develop (no pun intended) my photography skills (ie, no delete button!)

miancu said:

cheddargav said:

Ummm, I like it a lot!

I'm guessing a 77ltd....
--
The owner of a *ist DS

Click to expand...

Ahem.... I forgot to thank for the credits.

I'm VERY rude. I apologize.

miancu

--
-------------
http://www.pbase.com/miancu

Click to expand...

--
The owner of a *ist DS

carpents said:

First of all, I got a Vivitar 200mm f/3.5 for FREE as an unexpected
bonus with some other cheap eBay purchase. Unfortunately I don't
have any pictures posted, but it's a nice lens.
Then, my favorite $4 lens, the Sears Auto 55mm f/1.4:



Here is another freebie, the incredibly compact Auto-Takumar 35/3.5:



Yet another free lens, an SMC Takumar 50/1.4 (these usually are
$30-50):



Here is my favorite $9 lens, the Jupiter-9 85mm f/2:



In other words, with the tremendous support Pentax has given to
manual lenses, it doesn't take a lot of money to get good results.
I hope yours wasn't just a subtle "I'm selling my gear" post and
that you really are concerned about the cost, because I think you
have options!

Take care,
Sean

Click to expand...

See, Steve ?

Still ya wanna quit this wonderful world ?

--
-------------
http://www.pbase.com/miancu

cheddargav said:

No problem!

I'm a sucker for a good black and white

Click to expand...

Mee too. Mee too.

cheddargav said:

Being a rank amatuer that bypassed the whole film "era" (apparently
there was a time before digital!?!), I sometimes consider picking
up a cheap film SLR and using it to shoot nothing but black and
white

Click to expand...

Join the gang. I'm the same rank.

Yep, it's nice shooting on film. But after soooo many nights spent in my mother's kitchen enlarging and developing I really think digital is VERY comfortable.

There's at least one thing that - IMO - it's unbeatable on film: the dynamics. Looking at my past photos I cannot stop myself realizing that the details I got both in shadows and highlights I have never ever after witnessed on any digital shoot.

cheddargav said:

I think would help me develop (no pun intended) my photography
skills (ie, no delete button!)

Click to expand...

One BIG problem with digital photography is the fact that we tend to be non-selective about what we shoot. I read on one forum about a guy that took 10.000 shots in a night or so. Imagine the costs in the film era of doing that. Being cheaper to point and shoot on anything meant lowering the artistic quality of whatever was supposed to be in those frames.

However, there are, obviously, huge advantages.

But this is not about that. Is about convincing Steve that he's up to doing a BIIIG mistake.

miancu

I think this thread says more about the superb quality of this Pentax forum and the friendliness of its community of photographers than about one person who has decided to give it all up because it is "a rich man's game". As more than one person has said, its all about the photography and the photographer, not the equipment and how expensive it is. Personally Ive been looking for my first digtal SLR camera after having many point and shoot digicams. I've used a Pentax 35 mm SLR camera in the 80's on my East Africa adventure and look forward to having a digital version soon. The K1000D looks very promising from what Ive read here, but Im trying to wait for the dpreview professional review before I jump out and buy it. Ive visited another SLR forum here and iin contrast to it, this one seems very easygoing, unpretentious and helpful. So if Steve is reading this thread hopefully he wont give it up totally as so many have attempted to encourage him. There you go. Thats my spiel for the day --Terry

Beats me how all those old-timers managed to get any pictures at all, with no auto exposure, no auto focus, no image stabilisation, no zoom lenses, no instant review and histogram .... and instead of a CCD sensor they had this weird stuff called film or even plates. Hell, how many of them must have given up like you Steve, and gone back to painting? oh hell thats darn complicated too, all those paints and brushes to buy and keep clean. How about sketching? Sorry for the sarcasm it comes in my genes.

Seriously though, being "only' able to afford spending a few hundred dollars on your gear is a luxury most of us could only aspire to when we started getting interested in photography. You can do plenty with the money you have. Just dont give in to LBA.
--
IML

A camera is for life, not just for Christmas.

tknterry said:

tknterry wrote:
I think this thread says more about the superb quality of this
Pentax forum and the friendliness of its community of photographers
than about one person who has decided to give it all up because it
is "a rich man's game".

Click to expand...

Ditto.

$12 Sears 135mm f2.8 -



And



If you can swing $35 (might be up to ~$50 now), there's the Pentax SMC-A 50mm f1.7 -



Sorry to see you giving up so easily...

--
http://photos.evangordon.com

Steve,

First, to leave would be a huge mistake. And deep inside,after reading the above threads...I think you know that.

Secondly, you need to understand that this forum is made up of a vast diversity of users with a smattering of pro's, a good number of talented and successful middle agers who have paid off the house and thrown the kids out (yippie)...and they finally have some of their hard earned money to fritter away (deservedly so BTW) on themselves. Additionally you have the techno guys who go over every lens with a micrometer and a microscope and probably a cat scan t'boot because they like that stuff. But the vast majority of members appear to be eager young people, many with talent, looking to gather information and learn to become better photographers.

It is this diversity that offers so much to the Pentax forum.

Don't get lost in why people are here and don't concintrate on the talk of all the expensive lenses because that is NOT what photography is about. And don't give up on digital imaging because of the icorrectly assumed cost.

When I taught photography at a Medical School, my first assignment was for students to put their cameras away. I made them build Quaker Oatmeal pinhole box cameras and go out and shoot (I often wondered what they did with all that oatmeal...I digress). Not only did they learn photography...they actually made some truly wonderful images. Today, you live in a time where it is truly hard to get a poorly made lens if you put even a minimal amount of effort into choosing one.

Contrary to the ebay bashing on all forums....there are good - great deals out there. You are not a pro so don't expect a National Geographic product every time you click the shutter. Use the lenses you buy and learn to use them effectively. It is only....and I emphasize this to all phtographers....by constant shooting that you learn to maximize your potential by utilizing your equipment. And, the more you use it the better you understand it, and your eye deveopes good imaging techique... and the more you will enjoy this avocation. As you critique yourself by looking at other peoples work that you admire you will evolve and know what equipment you might need in the future. Decide then....not now. You are putting an unecessary and insurmountable obstacle before you now by thinking you need the best and the most expensive. Absolutely nothing could be further from the truth.

Let me say this too...

In it's base form photography is only the capturing of light. What you chose to do and say with that light is found only within you. It is the journey of doing, learning and seeing that makes photography so wonderful and in doing so expands the mind of the individual involved. Photographers (both pros and amateurs) over time develop an eye for the workd they live in that no other gathering of minds do. So, don't quit....get what you can afford today and evolve with it. There will come a time in your life, if and when you decide, that spending some money will be worth the photographic rewards of the investment.

HANG IN THERE STEVE!

Stephen

--
http://www.pbase.com/scgushue

I apologize for this being a dSLR forum, but I have to convince ol' Steve.

These are photos made with Pentax ZX-M + 50mm f1.4 lens. I remind you the value, Steve, (in us bucks): 150. One lens you can easily get (manual).

All film, scanned (drumscan).

An old lady:



Another one, made in my kitchen. As I was sippin' my mornin' coffee. The film was a russian Lomo that I have discovered in my closed. A virgin roll. I think I forgot that it was there. This film is something like 20 years old. I've made some tests, developed myself in a very simple solution (just 2 chemicals). Look how blurry it is. Is it a bad photo ?



This one is from a lovely romanian region, in Apuseni mountains. I've discovered there an ancient water mill (> 200 years) that was still in function. Making good flour. Just like our Pentaxes, Steve. Take a look:



Another one, the gate handle from a Bucharest monastery, Stavropoleos:



The last one, night in Sibiu (Hermannstadt):



That's the last from me.
What do you think, Steve ?

miancu

--
-------------
http://www.pbase.com/miancu

Again, permit me to express my admiration for your shots, it's really nice to see some gritty black and whites here

--
The owner of a *ist DS

cheddargav said:

Again, permit me to express my admiration for your shots, it's
really nice to see some gritty black and whites here

--
The owner of a *ist DS

Click to expand...

Thanks, cheddargav. My pleasure.

I really want to know what Steve thinks.

miancu

You have to make your own decision about whether to stick "in the game" or not. Photography has always been an expensive endeavor.

However, you don't have to buy so much equipment. Buy one or two decent lenses, new or used, and learn to get the most out of them. The price of lenses was never the big expense really. The cost of film and processing used to be the killer ... overall, the best photographers are those who practice a lot so the cost of film and processing rapidly overshadowed all other expenses, and I'm not even talking about prints here. With a digital SLR, the up-front costs are a bit higher but over time, with lots of use, it becomes relatively less and less expensive than buying equivalent film eqiupment was in the past.

For me, a perfectly capable Pentax kit would be a DL body, a 28mm and 50mm pair of lenses. That's altogether $400 for the lenses and $450 for the body. Another $100 for two fast SD cards, 2G capacity, and I could do a tremendous amount of photography for that money. Not cheap but not overwhelming. I could eschew the 50mm lens for a while if money was tight at the outset also.

I choose to buy more than that with broader uses, but that's choice... !

Godfrey

Steve325 said:

I know many of ya'll don't know me on here. I just joined here
recently, but have finally decided to get my way out of
Photography. It's a rich mans game and it's next to impossible to
get good results without dropping the big bucks on lenses. I was
looking at lens prices and it comes with a cost of $700+ for a
decent lens and telephotos are still no where to be found.

I'd like to thank you all for the help along the way and I'll be
back in this game when money ain't a concern. Take care

Click to expand...

I have a hard time believing it is other than for a little attention.

Steve325 said:

I know many of ya'll don't know me on here. I just joined here
recently, but have finally decided to get my way out of
Photography.

Click to expand...

So.. you were into photography and now you're not? Maybe you were into photography for all of 10 minutes as you enjoyed some retail therapy and that was the end of it?

Steve325 said:

It's a rich mans game and it's next to impossible to
get good results without dropping the big bucks on lenses. I was
looking at lens prices and it comes with a cost of $700+ for a
decent lens and telephotos are still no where to be found.

Click to expand...

Just plain not true.

Steve325 said:

I'd like to thank you all for the help along the way and I'll be
back in this game when money ain't a concern. Take care

Click to expand...

It can't be. The whole thing makes no sense. Go buy a 12x image stabilized Panasonic FZ30. $500 bucks will get you amazing results. That's 420mm, image stabilized!

well, I can kind of understand the frustration of wanting the top quality lenses and not being able to afford them, but as has been shown it doesn't need to be a rich mans game (and Lord knows if it had to be, I'd be following him out!)

--
The owner of a *ist DS

I'd like to thank everyone for all the replies and showing examples of how cheap lenses can take some great photos. Maybe I just haven't given it enough time

My biggest problem is that every time I go onto PhotoSig and look at the top photos, I never see a photo that's taken from a cheap setup. It's typically your NIKON D2X, 500MM 2.8 VR lens or something along those lines.

It's frustration rather than giving up a hobby. I feel with 2 more lenses and I'd be set, but with those lenses I want comes a huge price tag. All I want is a 400mm prime for surf shooting and a 180mm macro for macros, but both of these typically run $400-500 each.

I'm gonna hold onto the camera and try to make the most with what I got.

I do have 3 cheap lenses, but to be honest, I just haven't been impressed with any photos I have taken with this camera out of 2500 shots.

I have a
Pentax-M SMC 50mm F1.7
Pentax FASMC 28-90 F3.5-5.6
Vivitar Series 1 (2nd Edition) 70-210 F3.5