With all the talk about Zenits maybe I could chime in too. I never had a Zenit, but thought that they were real cameras, got nice reviews in magazines etc. They were Zenit 3m types then, with 2.0/58 pre-set Helios lenses - it was in the early sixties and I had started photography with a very simple Yashica A TLR - and with the aid of our school�s camera club and its darkroom. It was fascinating and I was 15. I never did buy a Zenit, however. I bought an Olympus Pen-S - a half-frame camera with a fixed f:2.8 lens - and a good lens it was. This was in order to save film costs - as I was still a schoolboy. It was a nice camera - and I did earn money with it - with a buddy of mine we did some ID card photography for our school and a girl school - exciting because our school was boys only. The Olympus I exchanged for a Fujica Half 1.9 - another half-framer but with a fast - and good - lens. I still have fond memories of this camera which was of good quality and clever design. Actually I got one from the US of A a couple of years ago - but my current impression is that it is big - bigger than my Rollei 35 S full-frame - and IMO it was the small Rollei that killed the half-frame. OK - then I managed to get into university and started doing photography for student newspapers and felt that the Fujica was not enough (actually it was and is very good - but only fixed lens). I borrowed some SLRs - managed to break the film advance mechanism of a Konica Autoreflex, twice and also to get a most magnificent overlapping frames in a picture of a jazz band with a Spotmatic, which I considered un-ergonomic. In the summer of 1969 I got a job in food processing industry - hard labour and 12 hour days, but the pay was good - so I was able to buy an SLR - and it was Canon FT - because I thought it was the most ergonomic design. I still do - it was before full-aperture light metering and FT�s meter activating lever is better than Spotmatic�s. Well - after 9 years of good service the shutter of the Canon began to show signs of uneven exposure - and it was butchered in the service department of the official importer. Thus I thought I must exchange it. The choices were Canon A1, Nikon FM and Pentax MX. Guess what happened? The Canon was not easy to operate with my previous generation FD lenses. Nikon was OK but lenses were expensive. Pentax MX was small and light, lenses were affordable and the package seemed good. So in 1978 I switched to Pentax and here I am. Did I make the right decision? A good question. I have had no problems with any of my Pentaxes and yet the thought lingers - would I better of if I had chosen Nikon? Well, see my site for an answer. But I think that if I had chosen Nikon I would not have had to buy Leica so it would have been the most economical solution. But I am not unhappy... Thank you for reading this far. All the best! Raimo Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
-----Alkuper�inen viesti----- L�hett�j�: Rob Brigham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> P�iv�: 11. syyskuuta 2002 18:54 Aihe: RE: How did you start photography > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> Sent: 11 September 2002 17:38 >> To: Pentax List >> Subject: RE: How did you start photography >> >> fearing a Zenit would chew my film up, as inevitably they would. >> Anyone with experience of these alien devices masquerading as cameras >> will know what I mean <g>. > >I know what you mean (Zenit E)!! > >I started with a hanimex (I think) 110 camera. Lusted after one with a >flash! >Then when I joined a school photography club (about 1980) got a second >hand Zenit E, 50mm and 200mm lenses. This sometimes chewed my film up >and when the club folded because the teacher didnt have time to do it, >my photography didnt really go anywhere much for many years. >The 200mm lens broke about 1983ish in Canada. >6 months or so later I saw a Pentax p30t in Guildford Tecno second hand >with a flash and 35-80 lens and just became overcome with lust. I didnt >really believe in AF at the time and this seems ideal for me. I later >added a vivitar 70-200 and Centon 500mm mirror. This served me well for >travels and motorsport for many years, but I never got serious or did >much except when obvious photography situations arose (eg holiday in the >grand canyon, silverstone touring cars). >3 years or so ago, I decided I wanted to get more serious and enrolled >on an evening GCSE in photography, but work travel meant it was >impossible to keep up. >2 years ago I was 'reborn' when my first child was born. I was taking so >many portraits - some of which I loved and some of which could be >better. Then Outdoor photography was launched. Here was some real >inspiration, and I found myself seriously drawn to the MZ-30 for some >reason. Once I got into magazines and cameras etc I lusted after better >lenses, then better camera (MZ-S) and have become fanatical about >photography. Apart from kiddies portraiture, this has been difficult due >to expanding family commitments and lack of time, but I have really >started to enjoy my photography and spent far too much money on it of >late. > >> And now, I'm on the cusp of doing that thing that photographers have >> started to do - I'm 'going digital'. I absolutely *hate* that phrase >with >> a vengeance. > >I must admit that the D1S will likely discount all arguments against >'going digital' apart from the fact it doesn't take my current glass and >I just don't want the hassle of switching. I am seriously pondering a >ZLR at the moment to keep me going until there is a Pentax D-SLR in >about ten years time!!! > >> Actually what I am doing is continuing with my photography >> as I have done from those early days, it's just that I'm switching >media >> because it suits the way I shoot. Of course, I will still use film as >> well, but I fear that it will be for nostalgic reasons. We shall see. > >I think I will stick with film for some time for the family snaps >because I can easily get them all printed to a uniform size, with a >consistent look and file these hard copies in albums. > >For landscapes etc I love velvia etc and as such digital will need to >prove itself up to the challenge of the best slide films around. > >For sports/planes etc digital would be fine. > >Maybe in a couple of years I will be able to sideline film the way you >are - until then, I will follow your progress with interest... > >Rob >
