Well... "To hold its own" is an expression that implies demonstrating
competence in a difficult situation including situations where the
object of the expression is out-matched. It does not imply superiority
or even equality but rather simply being competent and competitive. My
specific use in the content of the the Pz-1p vis a vis the F5 is that
while the Pz-1p is clearly not in the same league as the F5 it
nonetheless possesses features that are competitive with it. In those
days features such as mirror lock up, depth of field preview, and auto
bracketing were reserved for higher end SLR's (even the F100 did not
have MLU) and the Pz-1p had those and others.
I understand your point that many of the differences between film bodies
are de minimis and that the glass is more important - and I agree that
the glass *is* most important - but the features of the bodies were
relevant to the kind of film photography that I did back then. I would
certainly never would say that my Pz-70 held its own against an F5.
I should avoid using idiomatic expressions... all I was trying to say is
that while the Pz-1p wasn't a patch on the F5 I never felt disadvantaged
using it it except in situations where AF was crucial.
Mark
On 2/10/2015 12:56 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Feb 10, 2015, at 8:15 AM, Mark C <[email protected]> wrote:
Looking at B&H I realize that not only the F6 but several other higher end
cameras are still available new - so I stand corrected on that.
I did a lot of shooting with a friend in the past who had an F5 - a very
impressive camera though I felt my P-1p could hold its own against it (as long
as autofocus was not required...)
I'm not sure what "hold its own" means in the context of making photographs
with a film camera.
I was never a Pentax film camera user, although I owned an MX for a short while
during the period I was using Pentax DSLRs. I sold Pentax SLRs when I was
working in a camera shop ages ago, they seemed nicely made, small and light
(the Spotmatic and others of that time period), and the Pentax lenses had a
good reputation. By the time of the P-1p, I'd pretty much forgotten Pentax
existed, sadly.
I started in 35mm SLRs with a Nikon F in 1969 (my uncle helped me buy it), went
to Olympus OM system for a time, went to Minolta XD for another time, went back
to Nikon after six years had passed (1975 to 1981). Just liked how the Nikons
felt and worked more, liked the lenses, and the Nikon F/F2/F3 viewfinders were
the best. I had a couple of the FM/FE series models too. From '81 to '2001, I
had the same Nikon F3/FM2n/FM kit all the way through. I dallied with a Contax
SLR for a bit, but traded it off for other stuff after the romance had
departed. Another dalliance with Olympus OM system (OM-1, OM-4T, some of their
superb lenses) went the same way. By the latter part of the 1990s, I was
thinking about the digital wave coming and thought I might upgrade my film
cameras one last time. The Leica R8 had been released and it was a thing of
lust and desire for me, but I simply couldn't afford the lenses. I stuck with
the Nikons I had until I sold all my film SLR gear and dove into digital
cameras; Nikon AF bodies and the first Nikon DSLRs that I tried were simply
unappealing. I went other ways.
A decade later, a friend drops a neglected, black, 1973 Nikon F Photomic FTn
body into my lap as a gift. I picked up an 85 and a 50, took it out for a spin,
and the magic of Nikon and film was back for me again. Since then, Charles gave
me the 1965 F that he had kicking around in a box, I've acquired 18, 28, macro
55, and macro 105 lenses in addition, had the 1965 F overhauled so it's working
perfectly now, my uncle gave me his F80 since he has lost the sight in his
shooting eye, and I gave the black F/FTn back to the guy who gave it to me
because he really wanted to have it. I also acquired a big bunch of Leica R
lenses from an estate sale (along with a couple of Leicaflex SL bodies) and the
magical R8 body—all for virtually nothing compared to what they'd have cost me
back in the day.
Never mind the Leica RFs and other 35mm gear…
In all that, what has really stood out is that with an SLR film camera what matters most to the photos are
the qualities of the lenses you use (not "better or worse" so much as whether they render the way
you want) and the quality of the viewfinder experience. I never got into the autofocus film SLR world at all,
really, which is what makes "holding its own" something of a question mark … What I interpret from
that is "I thought the lenses from the P-1p did just as well as the Nikon F5," which makes sense
depending upon exactly what lenses you and your friend were using. But I'm probably mistaken.
The feel and quality of the equipment is another thing too. Nikon F series
cameras and their top lenses are battle-axes, designed to be beaten up and used
anytime, anywhere, in any conditions, and survive. They're overbuilt to a
fault, heavy and solid. They're also relatively simple (until the F4) and
easily repairable (still are, most of them). Love that, although I hate
carrying so much weight around all the time nowadays, in my advancing dotage.
Whew. Can you tell I'm not working this week? ];-)
G
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection
is active.
http://www.avast.com
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
