aerius

Brainfart. It should say Nikon & Canon, but the Limited series lenses do make the rest of their own stuff look like junk. Now if only they could make a camera that looks & feels as good as their Limited series lenses, it's kinda silly having a plastic & rubber camera fitted with a tiny all metal lens. It works great but it just looks wrong.

The K-5 and K-7 are the exact same mount & system so you'd think that it would work, but yeah, it never hurts to get an official confirmation. With regards to lenses and AF, I'm not a zoom lens person so I know absolutely nothing about them other than they're too slow, but with primes I think Pentax still has the best ones. Their DA and FA Limited lenses are IMO unmatched by anything short of Leica or Zeiss glass, the build quality and feel makes all the Nikon & Pentax stuff look like junk. Unfortunately the price tag matches the build quality. The rest of their lenses don't look like they're anything special though.

I don't know, depends on how old it is. I did a quick search and it looks like anything that's A-series or newer will work just fine if set to the "A" setting on the aperture ring. Anything older and it gets messy. http://support.pentaximaging.com/node/5

Yeah, that's the exact same reason I love my Olympus OM-1 and Pen-FT, it's really hard to find a nice small high quality DSLR that does all the stuff I need while being easy to use. For lenses you should be fine, I was using the fullframe 31mm and 77mm FA Limited lenses when I was testing out the K-5 and both lenses worked fine. I did mess up the focus a few times when using manual focus mode but once I got used to the focus confirmation lights it was pretty straightforward. Not as easy as on my OM-1 since it has a way better focusing screen and more viewfinder magnification, but probably around the same as my Pen-FT.

Since you really liked your Pentax Super-A, I think it would make sense to stick with them on your first DSLR. I've tried out the Pentax K-5 for a couple hours at a recent photo show and really liked it, I was using it mostly with the 31mm f/1.8 FA Limited lens since that's what I'm most used to. What I like about the K-5 is that it's the closest in use to a conventional manual SLR; with most Canons & Nikons I can't figure out how they work without reading the manual while with the Pentax I could use all the basic functions just by playing with it for a couple minutes. I don't know what they cost in Europe but they should be in your price range, over here they sell for a bit more than the Nikon D7000. If Fuji doesn't come out with an interchangeable lens version of the X100 in the next couple years, I'm getting a K-5 or whatever their next top of the line camera is.

Real black & white film

That looks like a refund to me. The seller claims there's no wear on the lens and it's like new, that would be a lie since the lens is scratched. Unless he wants to claim that scratches don't count as wear.

So let me get this straight, Sigma is selling a crop sensor camera that cost more than a Leica M9 with Summicron lens? You can't be serious.

In the order that you just posted them: Kodak Ektar 100 (the mystery film), Gold 400, Gold 400, Superia 200, Superia 200, Gold 400. Superia 200 was a fucking bitch to scan, I was at the camera show this past weekend and had a batch of Velvia 50 and Superia film with me so I could try out all the scanners. Tried the Epsons, tried a Nikon 5000 ED, resolution was way better than what I can pull out of my ancient HP scanner but the colours weren't much better even with their full film profiles & colour management systems. Ektar 100 ain't fun to scan either depite what the Kodak PR material says. Gold 400 is a piece of cake, pop it in the scanner and it comes out pretty good every time. I think a lot of the issues people are having with Kodak's films comes from exposing them at box speed or god forbid underexposing them. That's what happened in the 3rd photo where I was under by about half a stop since I wasn't going to slow down the shutter speed any more and didn't want to open up the lens all the way since I still wanted some depth of field. Overexpose it by 1/3 to 1/2 stop and it punches up the colours and contrast.

You can if you want, but saying which ones have nicer colour or look better would be good enough.

Some of these are Fuji Superia 200, some are Kodak Gold 400, and the last one is a mystery film. Same camera, same lens, all shot within the last 8 months.

I finally get fluffy clouds at the bridge.

Back to film. Makes everything a lot simpler; focus, exposure, click, done.

Broke out the Olympus OM-1 and some drugstore film to make sure everything's working before I put the good stuff through it.

Assuming that both 50mm lenses are set at the same aperture on the same camera, they'll have an identical depth of field. The f1.4 has a shallower depth of field than the f1.8 but only when it's opened up all the way, or at least to something larger than f1.8. If they're both sitting at f2 or f1.8, DoF will be identical.

Nice! How the heck did you get that close to the spider? Picked up another camera a few days ago, since I like my Olympus Pen-FT a lot I decided to grab its full frame relative. It doesn't quite have the Leica-like solidness of the Pen-FT but it still has a feeling of quality to it. Super easy to use, twiddle the dials to centre the needle in the viewfinder display and that's all there is to it, easier than the index number system in the Pen. Can't wait till my rolls of Velvia 50 get here.

I can't remember where this one's from, probably a greenhouse somewhere.

This one was on film, I think it was a 1/2 sec exposure And this one's a full 2 sec, couldn't have done it without VR though.

What about reducing the noise at the source? From what I've heard TV damper diode tubes such as the 6CM3 aren't nearly as noisy as silicone diodes while still being able to pass a lot more current with lower voltage drop than traditional tube rectifiers.

Question, do you need good image quality at higher ISO speeds? If you're going to use ISO 800 & above a lot then the Sony NEX system is the only choice for what you're looking for, Samsung sucks when the speed is pushed that high. If you're going to be in the ISO 100-400 range for pretty much all your photos it's a closer race, the Samsung still has a bit more sensor noise but I don't think it's that big of a problem. Samsung has a wide and normal prime and they have a 60mm macro and fast 85mm prime coming out later this year. Personally I like the Samsung NX100 more than the NX10, you lose the viewfinder & flash but you get a smaller, lighter, and easier to use camera with the same sensor.

Go to a garden supply store or use the 'net to order up a couple gallons of Malathion concentrate. Dump a gallon in the pool and give everything else in the yard a thorough spraydown.

From last fall. I've found the same thing with my film cameras, give me a wide angle or normal prime and I'm out there taking photos all day. With a zoom the damn thing's too big and I don't feel like going anywhere with it so I don't get any photos.

Saw Sarah McLachlan at Massey Hall last week, in one word, wow. It's not the same as seeing her in a small venue with 10x less people, but in this case more was better. Special goodness: Greg Keelor showed up for the encore to sing "Dark Angel" with Sarah.

550D is a crop sensor camera so 35mm ends up being a normal lens. Still nice to have though. You'll need to get down to the 20mm or so range to make it a wide angle, I'm not familiar with SLR lenses though so someone else will have to make the recommendations.

Yup, I have those. They're the HD414 pads dyed black with a flat pad sized hole and slits cut in them. Softer and comfier than the standard flat pads but I can't compare the sound on them since I lost a VWAP pad and the remaining one is pretty ratty.