Die hard film guy considering making the switch.

Damn, I thought Bruce Willis was going to vote Democrat :)

Michael,

I had to think for a few minutes about the Bruce Willis reference. I should have chosen my subject line more carefully:-) As to your point, it could be argued that in this election we will be getting a democrat or the equivalent in either case.

Mel

LOL, I sure hope so. Back on topic, someday I really want to try the Pentax system, I've never owned one. I have heard they made some wonderful lenses.

*I* would get a K10D now, mainly for the VF, and later get a K30 or whatever. I have a K100D to and like it a lot but the VF in the K10 is bigger and is really nice with MF lenses. Try to handle them all if you can.

Mel, I can understand, as I still like shooting film for some uses.

The 77mm Limited f/1.8 is fantabulous with digital and with film as well!! Totally wonderful lens.

Never mind the spec numbers, no VF in current Pentax DSLR models will quite match those found in the better Pentax film models for magnification. That said, they are still all rated very highly. A faster lens will do most to enhance VF viewing.

Mel, I love my K100D Super, as well as my old *ist-D, but I have especially been taking an interest in the K200D as I find out more. There is a real good rebate deal going on right now. Its color quality is apparently more accurate than the K10D, and the K20D for that matter. Both new models have improved dynamic range, which should be of interest to your needs, I assume. The K10D has a slight magenta or purple cast. Its JPEG images are a bit soft, where the K200D's are very sharp. I find I often prefer to shoot JPEG. The K200D has an instant RAW button should I want quick access switch to RAW. The K200D and K20D apparently have a "portrait" color tone setting (this is not a scene mode).

For more rundown and other discussion, check yesterday's post re the K200D at $509.78 by Javier, also- K20D highly recommended... 6/25 by Tom Maher, and the one just before it by Paulo Cortez, has the link. And also- K100D still a good buy? 6/24 by Taylor Phillips.

I would suggest you consider the K20D. On par with medium format 6x7 film at 100 iso.

Ben

" The truth is, I'm tired of fighting with the various labs. They adjust my contrast to please their own eye. They do the same with colors as well. Nothing as frustrating as changing lighting ratios to add or reduce contrast and maybe adding a warming filter in order to get a certain look only to be told that they decided to adjust things."

I HATE it when that happens. In Norway we have only one great lab with great technicians, but that means I have to post my negatives and wait a good while for them to return. Large prints are not cool to send in the post. I don't like to part with my negatives either, but don't have much choice.

If you are used to Medium Format quality, prepare to be somewhat dissapointed. Great as my k10d is, it doesn't measure up to my Mamiya RZ 67 pro II with good film, Ilford delta 100 or fuji reala 100, nor do I expect it to. The main difference is texture and transition between highs/lows. You'll notice when you shoot a high contrast scene.

That said: the k10d produces pretty amazing results IF you can keep the scene within it's Dynamic Range. Shooting in a studio will help you to achieve exactly that. Shoot in RAW. I can't emphasise that enough. It applies to ALL dslr's. The k10d is able to deliver some really great results IF you use RAW. Skin tones are rendered beautifully with the k10d.

Haven't used the k200d at all, and only played with the k20d. It seems as the k200d is a bit simpler design utilizing the same great sensor as in the k10d. It only has one dial though which can be a pain if you like to shoot in manual mode. I would guess that you do exactly that in the studio, with a light meter. The k20d is in operation exactly like the k10d, but it has a higher resolution sensor. Better? I don't know, but it gets high praise for resolution and its high ISO performance. The first is a plus, the second will not likely help you a lot as you shoot in a studio and keep the iso low anyhow, I know I would.

As for lenses: I have the 31mm f1.8 and 43mm f1.9 limiteds and they are absolutely stunning. If the 77mm measures up to them (many think so, claiming it to be the best of the three actually), you're in for a treat. The great news is that it will work perfectly on your Pentax film camera as well, unlike the newer made for digital DA limiteds. Personally I find a 77mm a bit to long on a digital body, but your studio may be large, or you may do a lot of head shots. I have found the 43mm to be great for portraits. Both the 31mm and the 43mm are highly recommended.

Invest in a good photo editor program. I find lightroom to be easy to use, but you really can't beat photoshop for versatility and options. There are other programs I haven't used which reportedly are good. Just make sure whatever program you use have a good RAW engine. This is your new dark room. This is where you develop. Get to know it. Also invest in a good monitor and calibrate it.

To sum up: the k10d (and I assume the k200d and k20d) are great cameras, but don't expect Medium Format quality. Don't use jpeg's, use RAW. Get the FA limiteds, they are really that good.

This is of course only a heavily biased and personal opinion and your actual needs may differ wildly :-)

I wish you the best of luck on your digital voyage.

Cheers

Fredrik

And here I thought your question was going to be about the difference between shooting film versus digital. Wrong!!

Pentax made some wonderful lenses. My first SLR was a Pentax back in 1962 and had the finest lens I have owned.

Wow. I really didn't mean to sound as Mr. Know it all, cause I really don't.

Benjamin has a really good thing going, and if he vouches for the k20d's abilities, I choose to trust him. User experience at that level is very valuable.

Cheers

Fredrik

Surely if you want to avoid labs, you will have no choice but to print yourself....so this is no reason to switch entirely to the digi wonder cameras..you could still shoot film and scan instead...

In order.. K20D, K10D, K200D, K100D-Super, K100D, K110D..

I have no preference over any of them, they're all fine cameras. As Benjamin points out however, the K20D has some stellar resolution when paired with quality glass.

Hi Mel, You said you're doing printed portraits in 16X20 and need an occasional 20X30. For those print sized I'd want the extra resolution offered by the k20d. Many people do it, but I think 16x20 is a bit of a stretch for a 10mp camera; certainly 20x30 is. At a minimum you'll have more latitude for adjustments with the k20d. And the extra stop or two of dynamic range you get with the k20d might be useful for you too.

Regarding the 77mm, stunning, simply stunning lens. I own all three of the FA limited lenses plus a few excellent zooms; if I'm shooting tighter portraits it's my best by far.

/Roger

for what it is worth; I don't shoot pentax, but:

I do scan film. You may be surprised what you can get out of your own slides and negatives. That in conjunction with advanced digital color controls, it is a great way to go.

As for the K10D vs. K200 -> I don't know anything except that the K10D was marketed as a semi-pro body and may have some wireless flash functionality advantages.

James Photography RI

James P Jones: I almost went the scanner route hadn't it been for labs giving me prints that showed negatives drying on each other, not sure how they managed it, but they did it, no scanner is going to fix that.

Mel: As far as the K20D goes, i think it is worth every penny, i can't compare it to the K10D with it's CCD sensor, i do love to compare it to my former Canon 30D with its CMOS sensor and i'm loving the K20D. Although i do love tinkering about with RAW files (as in come back for another look after i am long done delivering prints), i was never this happy with jpegs straight out of camera. Many should appreciate the "hands off" approach to forced noise reduction on ISOs under 3200. What surprised me the most is to see a company supporting all their old lenses on their latest DSLR. Add the M42 to K adapter from Pentax for even more support, It might irk some to need a flash with "Auto mode" if you want to use flash with pre-A lenses, which doesn't come into play with studio strobes or available light photography. Considering the K20D's resolution, and your background in MF, i would expect you enjoying Limited lenses on the K20D, or if the budget for it is there even Zeiss ZK lenses.

Did i mention the K10D would leave you w/o something you might expect to find? No PC Sync to plug into. The K20D has it. (which may not matter if you use wireless triggers that you have on your hotshoe) I never owned a K10D, i did however see people mention skin colors when talking about why they prefer the K20D, couldn't find a reference right now, maybe you may want to ask/search on pentaxforums.com

Hope any of this is useful,

Daniel

"I almost went the scanner route hadn't it been for labs giving me prints that showed negatives drying on each other, not sure how they managed it, but they did it, no scanner is going to fix that."

True, no scanner will fix that. But a change of labs would work!

I meant with that "I was done taking chances with my film in other people's hands" ;)

Don't cheap out...

Take a deep breath and get a K20D w/DA 18-55 II, DA 40 Ltd and DA 55-300 lenses then don't look back and second guess yourself. You will be set for years and you'll only have yourself to blame when you pop that odd clinker image. Get anything less and you'll be disappointed, or worse... catch LBA.

...my 25 cents (US)...

I switched to K20D from rangefinder 35mm and SLR. I'm skilled with Nikon scanner but hate dealing with increasingly lousy color labs, am too excited about my photography for mail-away.

My own B&W film processing and scanning is very good, so I will probably continue it sometimes...until someone makes a rangefinder-like camera that rivals K20D (note: among its failings, Leica M8 has reliability issues).

B&W conversions from K20D files are better (range of tones, latitude, detail resolution) than scans of B&W negs unless one dislikes lack of grain. As well, Pentax DA primes MAY be higher resolution than many SLR primes. I doubt many old Pentax lenses rival current Pentax lenses.

Y'all ought to try Bibble With Andy Pro plugin for B&W conversions. Michael: You could recommend a little nicer lenses (40 pancake being excepted), settling and the realizing one has settled is what causes LBA in the first place.

Another 2 cents (US) to consider...

Keep things simple. Sure... one can always recommend a "better" lens set, but for banging the buck.. the DA's 18- 55 ver II, 40 Ltd and 55-300 are a solid three-some. When used on a K20D with some everyday film-type discipline, each can deliver spectacular results. LBA springs from wanting to aim high, but shooting low. Proof of this assertion can be found by doing a simple search of this and other Pentax related forums.

Another caution I'd add is avoid third party lenses. If you have a pairing problem between a lens and camera body, you are on your own to develop a work around. Pentax can only offer help with Pentax branded pairings.

Enjoy the season...

Naa, don't do it. Fighting with a photofinisher over crappy work is really so much fun ... The K10D, a DA21, FA43, and DA70 or FA77 are all you need. Great camera, great lenses. You'll likely never touch that horrible old film stuff again. Think of the loss of human interaction that admits!

]:-)

Seriously, I haven't followed the K200/20D cameras much. I'm happy with the K10D and the above three lenses (along with a couple others). They produce great results.

Godfrey

Proceed with both eyes open. Pentax is a great choice and the K20D is priced where digital cameras should be priced. I shoot the Nikon D200 which I consider good ... I've always considered the Pentax offerings to be an equal competitor across the board. Personally, I do not believe digital produces finer color fidelity than film, especially when looking at good prints/slides from the likes of an RB/RZ67 camera.

Digital will of course change the way you work; it will not be as easy as dropping off your film and blaming the lab .. and you digital lab will now be even less responsive to printing issues that arise .. you will be told that your camera settings and post processing are to blame ... and of course, who can argue that? Ask the lab to do anything more than print what you give them .. and you're back to the same problem ..

Nothwithstanding the difference, you will find going digital to be an exciting adventure .. one that gives you a certain measure of freedom to experiment and grow .. and you will want to shoot more than you care to post process as time goes on but I believe you will get satisfying results .. and if your customers like it that's all that matters .. PS don't sell your film gear .. you may want to do some critical comparisons when time permits between what you do in digital and what you do in film .. your own eye should be the best indicator of what work better for you.

If you're shooting 35mm now, you *could* try the middle ground first by buying a Nikon Coolscan V and scanning your film into the computer and printing that way. I'm mostly digital these days (Canon 5D) but I recently replaced my old film scanner with a Coolscan V and am very impressed with it's color scanning of slides and negatives. I'm a little less impressed with black and white film scanning but it does a decent job there too with more work and very clean negatives. Just a thought.

I print with a Epson R1800 (Epson has replaced this now with the 1900) that I bought refurbished from Epson. The printer wasn't too expensive, but I'll just warn you that what they get you on is the ink cartridges and the paper.

When I had free access to the equipment, film was great. The only film I shoot now is mostly B&W and run it myself. Labs just piss me off.

Going digital with the K10D was like a HUGE weight being lifted off of me because I didn't have to worry about the processor destroying my film (the stories I could tell...).

I shoot with K10D's and now have 8 gig Extreme III SD cards. WOW! 489 RAW images on a card that cost less than a pair of Portra pro-packs and processing (after rebate, less than just 1 pro-pack). I have battery grips on both K10's, so I can carry a spare battery and card in each - LOVE IT!

With the operational differences between the K100/K200 series and K10/K20 series, you'll probably be happier with a K10 or K20 (especially if this is your first time shooting sans aperture ring). The only thing that has me drooling over the K20 is the wider dynamic range, but I am very happy with my K10. There are also film emulators available so you can process your RAW files to mimic the same color response as your favorite films.

Don't forget the Samsung GX-10. It is a rebadged K10, but often more available and cheaper.

OTOH, there is talk from insiders that a new Pentax pro model is in the works probably for next year. Check popphoto.com and scroll down the exclusives column to- Pop Photo editors predict what's new... The new top model reputedly will have a new full frame, 35mm size sensor, probably switchable to aps crop size. In the meantime, you could pick up a K200D pretty darn cheap, with the deal going, which could serve well, and keep serving later as a compact alternate and backup. The 43mm and 77mm Limiteds? Absolutely!! That's my thinking.

IMO even if Pentax (ie Samsung) does make the mistake of introducing a ff DSLR (like they almost did with digital MF), pros will stick religiously with Nikon and Canon because they already have plenty of great, modern lenses and/or they were mentored by pros with that equipment and/or because their clients expect the Nikon or Canon label and know that Pentax has always meant "amateur."

"Amateur" is a good thing..Pentax should be proud of it.

It'd be better IMO to introduce a few more compact lenses (eg a truly rectilinear 14/4 DA)...where Nikon and Canon can't begin to compete due to their bulky in-lens IS systems.

There's also a measurable and wide-open market for APS version of G9.

Pentax will lose new ff buyers to 5DII and the rumored D700.

If YOU wanted to make your mark as a young professional (that's who counts, IMO at 64), would you want Pentax?

I bought mine only because it did certain things better than Nikon or Canon. Those things aren't important to professionals.

I do not understand why so many think that this decision is an "all-or-nothing" outcome! Many have both film and digital cameras. Some have even bailed out of digital already . . . Go for it!

Turns out that the K20D is a *major* upgrade overthe K10D in many ways -google Carl Weese's series on it in The Online Photographer. Smarter AWB, much better AF accuracy especially in low light, a unique feature that allows you to correct back or front focus errors for specific lenses (and the camera remembers them) lower noise, more natural color and on and on. With the current discount, less than a grand and well worth it IMO.

Right- I don't care what impression pros want to make or their clients think. I am interested in what will benefit me. If the new design means higher image quality, lower noise without sharpness loss at higher ISO, higher fps shooting, higher standard flash sync with compatible P-TTL and TTL and AUTO, and more versatility with my lenses, fine and dandy with me!! But it is true that Pentax should not narrow the design to imitate the Canikon variety. It should still have the built-in flash, and other Pentax type innovative advancements as Pentax has right along. I would not be interested in just another stodgy, old-fashioned D3, EOS D1s3, N5 tank. A separable battery pack is so much more convenient! I'd be nice if Pentax could produce a great mostly metal and weather sealed version about the size of the MZ-S. Or, better yet, though somewhat larger, re-introduce the PZ-1p's offset hot shoe and dual flash system!! I'd be on that in a hot minute!! I also would like the fact of my PZ lenses' power zoom being enabled, and would appreciate full function.

Since Sony is going ahead, and perhaps Olympus too, Pentax won't be left out.

Wow, I'm impressed with the quality of the comments!

Ben Kanerek's comment about the quality of the K20 output equaling 6X7 at iso100 was much appreciated. Thats a comparison with some tooth as I would not have thought that was possible.

John, I would disagree with your comment about Pentax always meaining amateur. Perhaps in the 35mm market, this may be true. However, in the medium format world, they have enjoyed a great reputation in the professional market with both wedding and outdoor photographers,

To everyone else, thanks for your input. I really appreciate it.

Mel

Hello Mel.

You sound very much like me. MZ-S, 2 LXs, 2 Super Programs, K1000, P30T, ZX-5N and Zx-7. I learned (it seemed) everything I would ever need to know about film, even taught future photographers all the wonders of slide vs print films. I actually recently had one of those students recently contact me and ask if I *still* was using film.

I wouldn't say moveing into digital has been seemless for me. It has completely changed the way I take images-closed some doors and opened others. I moved to the K10D. I convinced myself there were two reasons I 'needed' the camera 1) It was weather proof and I shot mostly nature2) I have a young daughter and I was being eaten alive by processing costs. So I made room on the shelf for the digital camera.

My eyes aren't what they once were, but I can focus a thousand times better with the LX than I can with the K10D. For that matter even the ZX-7(the camera I use in water proof bag for underwater camera), which uses mirrors rather than pentaprism, still seems to be a better manual focus camera than the K10D. Focusing has been an issue, as has getting correct. But then you can take multiple pictures and spruce things up in photoshop. Still I miss Velvia..

Whereas my nature photography was mostly macro and landscapes with film, I now photograph a lot of birds. I didn't do it with film because I missed so many shots. Now I don't mind missing 10 shots to get one truely good one and not have to worry about the procerssing fees. Being able to change film speeds has also been a boon to bird photography as has the 1.5 crop factor.

I am distressed that all my excellent old flash guns are pretty useless, but at least I can still use the lenses. And yes I have the 77mm f1.8 -I had been waiting on a 85mm f1.4 FA before the prices went crazy. It is a very nice lens on both film and digital.

Cheers

Pentax was once a real player in wedding photography, but never more than a side act in other professional work. That's ancient history, easily demonstrated by KEH prices for old 645. Pros that used MF dumped it completely (including Hass) as fast as they could when Nikon and Canon came onto the scene with really good DSLRs.

Very few good labs even process 120 film properly any more (ie they don't manage chemistry properly, they scratch film because they dramatically under-pay their staff).

Pentax was never a player professionally with 35mm, despite the fine quality...they were a wonderful amateur tool and they are still that way in digital. They can be even better without even thinking about competing with the biggies.

I think "Pentax" should make controls optionally more mechanical-seeming, like Leica, or like pre-imbicile Pentax SLRs. Settings buried in menus are hard to find and manage, and many of the most important are buried deeply or spread all over the camera. A more logical setup would appeal to many serious amateurs.

It's laughable to suggest many pros would switch from Nikon or Canon to another brand name.

Six years ago I was 100% sure I'd be shooting film and working in my own BW darkroom until the day I died. I strongly resisted digital, but like some of the posters above I began having problems getting the quality lab services (I did all my own BW, but needed the labs for C41, E6, and color printing) I was used to. So I reluctantly purchased my first DSLR vowing I'd only use it for color and business projects where it was appropriate. Today I'm 100% digital for business and pleasure; I sold my P67II, Hassy, and all the other film cameras that held any value, and shut down my BW darkroom. It's been a wonderful transition, and although I could have never imagined it possible I now prefer digital to film by a huge margin. I still love operating and working with my old cameras like Rolleiflex TLRs, but I usually find that I actually regret using film when it comes to processing and printing. Everyone should choose the tools that work best for them and they enjoy using, but it is possible to learn to love the new tools too. :)

To John who says "It's laughable to suggest many pros would switch from Nikon or Canon to another brand name."

Tell that to Ben Kanerek - A well known fashion photographer of international acclaim who did just that.

I mean no offense, but I get a chuckle when I read statements such as this. The camera does not make the artist. The camera "takes" what the artist wants or sees. The brand is irrelevant. The truth is, some of the worlds greatest pictures ever taken, were take with equipment that would be considered crap by todays standards and some were even crap by their own standards of the day and yet the artist made something special out of it. In short, Canon and Nikon would be nothing without the photographers using their equipment not the other way around.

Mel

You can also check imaging resources website and click on compare images for a visual side-by-side image comparison from various models. I like to use the house poster, and also scroll down to the fabrics and bottles images taken at different ISO settings. In both cases click on the enlargement icons for blowups to maximum. You can check for detail and sharpness, as well as noise in shadow areas. the images were taken in JPEG mode. The Pentax new models do not employ noise reduction at higher ISO settings, to preserve maximum sharpness, but have it available for the user's choice.

The K10D was recently removed, but when it was there I found it was indistinquishable from the Nikon D200.

That is- "imaging resource". And, BTW, those compact Limited lenses are extra nice on a compact body!!

"Tell that to Ben Kanerek - A well known fashion photographer of international acclaim who did just that."-Mel

:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

Mr. Kanerek is known as a Pentax camera marketing person (previously Canon). He's a photographer too, of course..part of the job.

I didn't want less than K20D, therefore didn't buy K10D or D200 ( D300 was a contender but lacked Pentax IS). I didn't need Nikon/Canon's professional extras.

I have very interest in what equipment "pros" use. And in most cases I've found I have very little interest in their photography, TBH... The commercial look of much of the studio stuff doesn't appeal, and production line wedding shots and portraits are generally of no photographic interest to me whatsoever. Well, I suspect they're often of very little interest to the photographers themselves... It's just work, after all.

I have no brand loyalty. I buy whatever suits my personal needs. I'd cheerfully ditch my K100D and all my Pentax lenses if another manufacturer were to bring out something significantly smaller, lighter and better suited to my needs.

Oops, I meant to say "I have very little interest in the equipment "pros" use...."

Paul, I agree..K20D ought to be better competition for Leica, not worrying about professional Canon or Nikon... Leica's not chasing pros either. K20D is better in most respects than Leica M8, and priced more appropriately.

"Smaller, lighter" is amusing. In ancient times, photographers were manly men...they favored Nikon F and Canon F1, and even brick-like Leica M and Canon P in the pre-plastic era. :-)

Uh, what does :-) :-) :-) mean, as well as -D) or :-D) whatever. Someone should publish a dictionary of English-to computerese/computerese-to-English. Then I could drag it out and drop it into my lap to-p- ull out the inuendos.

All the computerese reminds me of the myriad of attorneys I've dealt with, not to mention doctors. Using a phrase in Latin to give the impression of uncommon knowledge. Go to the clinic TELLING the doctor you have some swelling and inflamation around the bursa in the knee. You tell him you've been taking over the counter pain meds. After x-rays and tests, he TELLS YOU his diagnosis- "you have bursitis of the knee." You look that up and find it means exactly what YOU told HIM- bursitis means inflamation around the bursa!! That'll be $400, please. And he writes a prescription for ibuprofen, the same med you've been taking, except now it costs more. Likewise with attorneys- Latin for a some common meaning.

Ah, numerous professional phtographers are "known" to engage in marketing for camera equipment companies. Just browse through any photography mag and you'll see plenty of them giving their testimonials. Does't mean they have become established photographers as part of or due to that job. They have to be well established, I am sure, to be so engaged, as Ben Kanerak was before having any deal going with Canon or Pentax, which materialized after he took an interest in Pentax equipment, from what I've read. That expired some months ago, but Ben still uses and advocates using Pentax equipment.

I know pro photographers most often can be seen at athletic events, and press photographers can most often be seen, using Canon or sometimes Nikon. But I have not seen any investigative studies done to ascertain how many are not using Pentax, or what equipment pros are using, or not using, for handling weddings, portrait studios, landscape for magazines, postcards and calendars, etc. etc. across the country, or around the globe. I do not know what all these thousands of individuals do, and cannot speak for them. I have seen some pros use Pentax. Tim Fitzharris, for instance has been a consultant with POP Photo for years, and has shot with Pentax 645, and Canon with L IS lenses up until very recently.

I don't think there is any aim, intention, or expectation of getting pros to drop their Canon stuff and go to Pentax. Same on the part of Sony. So just what else could it all mean? Hmmmm?

John, I've never been a big fan of big, heavy cameras. Or lenses. Especially if I have to walk around with them for a few hours hanging off my neck. Well, I guess there's a pretty straightforward reason why most sane folk don't choose to wear necklaces/medallions weighing a couple of kilos... :)

I often leave the K100D at home and just pop my little Ixus 950 IS in my pocket. Sure, it limits my photographic options a bit, but it's convenient, practical, and it works. You can even get grainy-but-perfectly-useable-for-web-use shots at high ISOs, if you shoot raw and convert to B&W...

Check out a couple of test shots at ISO 800 and 1600, with the latter being pushed one stop or so in LR, just to see how useable it is in low light...

http://koti.welho.com/pwilkins/ixus800.jpg

http://koti.welho.com/pwilkins/ixus1600.jpg

Here's the JPEG version of the ISO 1600 shot, which came complete with the Digic III's trademark bird-dropping approach to noise reduction:

http://koti.welho.com/pwilkins/ixusjpeg.jpg

Not so nice, eh? But the raw conversions ain't bad at all... OK, it's no K100D, but it can still do a pretty decent job, if things get a bit murky.

Now if Pentax can give me something somewhere roughly between the two, in terms of low-light performance, size, weight, cost and whatnot, I'd be very, very interested.