1. Albinar 28mm f/2.8 Macro vs Pentax FA 31
2. pentax pz-10 vs Canon 5D
Picture with Pentax pz-20 instead
Of course there is no comparison from the ridiculous pair that I make up in the analogy above. I like to think of the positives as my amateur skills can't justify to have expensive equipments that I can't afford. And I heard from others that there are photog business required to take certain photo in film such as those for a large poster and b&w. I may not know the reason in detail but if the 'pro' need to use film for a good reason, there is no reason we abandon the thought of film cameras like the camera manufacturers. And manufacturers are mostly after money as 1st priority in business. Films are hopefully to stay for many good reasons and it can only benefit customers for quality, diversity, history and passion into photo taking.
My recent venture into ebay get me 2 SLR bodies with 3 lens, 1 2x tele converters, 2 UV and 2 Polarizer filters all the cost of a single bran new lens
- Pentax pz-20
- Sigma 75-300
- Pentax 28-80 (power zoom switch broken)
- Pentax 28-80 (a good one)
- Rokunar 2x tele converter
- 2 uv and 2 polarizer filters
4 comments:
Film HW is cheaper now but there are reasons people switched to digital. Figure in the cost of developing the film, and the lab may not get the picture developed the way you like. Also, the chemical used to develop the film harms Mother Earth, etc.
They all look nice.
May I ask how to use the macro
function?
Pinwu
Nice deals on the lenses. There was a Pentax 200mm f2.8 on Craigslist for $60 that I replied too slowly too. The owner said it was already sold by the time I inquired.
That second picture is the PZ-20 rather than PZ-10, isn't it?
Post a Comment