michael_elenko

I'm seeking a macro ring flash in good working condition. Older style manual control is fine, but bonus points for a flash that can do Pentax PTTL. Must have a few screw-on rings that come with the original flash. Thanks.

I was referring to Leitaxed lenses acting like manual lenses, but your interpretation is close enough. Actually, I'm able to use my Leitaxed Zeiss 18mm in AV mode in that the shutter speed appropriately responds to my changing the lens' aperture ring. No green button is needed. And with 18mm it's easy to set it at f8 and near infinity. My 35mm f2 ZK works like any "A" lens on the camera. You can still find the 28mm and 35mm models in K-mount (ZK) for a semi-reasonable cost. M

Hi Brian, Hope I'm not too late with comments. I'm assuming that your preferred 35mm shooting falls within the 24-70 focal range. I've owned the K-1 since November. I use it strictly for landscape and closeups. My other shooting of birds and sports I use my Canon 5D Mark III as the tracking AF and longer lens selection (actually lens selection across the board) is far better. The redeeming feature of the K-1 for landscape is pixel shift. I treat the K-1 as a medium format camera as the depth of detail and large print capability rocks. So that is my context. I own the 24-70mm; it's good but not great. To me it's really a required event & wedding lens that launched the camera with a bit more credibility towards working shooters. It's mostly a rebadged Tamron that sells for $800 in the EOS world and is not quite up to the Canon standard lens. I've shot some nice landscapes with it, it is convenient--but the reality is that there are few choices out there for better glass that can stand up to both 160Mb pixel shift images and 36Mp regular ones. A lot of that older A glass does not, but some does. I'd say that the FA Ltd 31mm and the Ltd 77mm do very well. But their sense of "sharpness" which I see is important to you is different from modern lenses such as the Pentax/Tamron 15-30mm and the Sigma Art line. The latter are clinical, digital, flat out revealing. The former are closer to Zeiss and Voigtlander glass--phenomenally sharp wide open but along with that comes artful vignetting and a characteristically unique rendering not intended to game MTF charts. For me, I've enjoyed the look of the newer digital lenses on my Canon, whereas the older style really blossoms on the K-1. When switched it just ain't the same. So I've been transitioning my K-mount glass to Zeiss and the Ltd models. I manually focus anyway because pixel shift is unrelenting when it comes to slight error. Zeiss stopped making K-mount glass 8-10 years ago, so the pickings are slim and pricey. An excellent alternative is doing the Leitax conversion to a basic M style lens. I just converted a 18mm Zeiss Distagon Nikon F mount and I'm very happy. Hope this helps ME

<p>Another vote for Moab Entrada Natural 190.<br> <br />ME</p>

<p>My first attempt at Pixel Shift:<br> <strong>Mushroom</strong><br> <img src="https://photos.smugmug.com/Art/New-Pentax-Shots/i-qVcBDcj/0/L/Mushroom%2C%20Pixel%20Shifted-L.jpg" alt="" /><br> K-1, Voigtlander SL 125mm, f8, 8s, ISO 100<br> <strong>Vashon Island Autumn-2</strong><br> <img src="https://photos.smugmug.com/Art/New-Pentax-Shots/i-qfswNpk/0/L/Vashon%20Island%20autumn%2C%202016%20-3-L.jpg" alt="" /><br> K-1, DFA 24-70mm @ 35mm, f6.7, 1/30, ISO 200</p> <p><strong>Old Shed, North End</strong><br> <img src="http://www.digitaltogo.net/img/s9/v87/p651985182-4.jpg" alt="" /><br> K-1, FA 77mm Ltd, f2.8, 1/90, ISO 200</p> <p>ME</p>

<p>Though I responded to Dave on the other site, I'll put some thoughts here for the record. The other day I took advantage of some free time to spend several hours shooting with the K-1 and the DFA 24-70mm. Going in I was pretty skeptical and even had put the lens up for sale, figuring that it was too big and heavy and just not worthy of the cost (I got it as part of a package deal).</p> <p>Well so much for assumptions. I found the DFA 24-70mm a joy to use. It balances quite well on the K-1 (I don't have the grip). Quiet with very good optics. The AF was spot on, really a non-issue. The lens has a wide band near the front element that is used for zooming, whereas the focusing band is closer to the camera body. This layout works really well, as my left hand could then help support the lens in a natural way.</p> <p>This is a professional lens and was required to give the K-1 some cred out of the chute. While I do wish it was lighter, the big negative for some is the ridiculous markup Pentax applies to offset the bargain price of the K-1. In the Canon world the cost of the Tamron is substantially less, which also reflects the general perception of the lens as being good but not Canon L Mark II great. I'm seeing gently used versions of the Tamron lens (which only differs in minor ways to me) going for $600.</p> <p>That all said, I'm keeping the lens as a convenient high-quality event and landscape tool. Down the road I can see the allure of brand new fast Pentax primes released in 24mm, 35mm, and 50mm focal lengths, but the key words for the zoom are <em>now</em> and <em>convenient</em>.</p> <p>ME</p>

<p>The K-1 arrived in the midst of our inaugural autumn rain storm late this past week. This morning, however, was quite nice out, so I had some fun learning the camera's capabilities. There is a lot to like, especially the pure imaging and rendering. I'm going to have to once again retrain my Lightroom methods. Images come out so sharp without the AA filter and so clean that only minimal sharpening of dng files appear to be necessary. I am also very impressed with the FA 20mm f2.8. That small size is just easy. If Pentax can come out with a FF version of the DA 15mm Ltd. then I'm good for a long time in the ultra-wide department.<br> A few samples:<br> <strong>Our landmark still functioning (automated) Pt. Robinson Lighthouse, 1889</strong><br> K-1, FA 20mm, F8 @1/180, ISO 200<br> <img src="https://photos.smugmug.com/Art/New-Pentax-Shots/i-XrDfzFp/0/L/Pt.%20Robinson%2C%20Vashon%20Island%2C%20October%209%2C%202016-L.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p><strong>The Beach nearby</strong><br> K-1,FA 20mm, f8, 1/500, ISO 200<br> <img src="https://photos.smugmug.com/Art/New-Pentax-Shots/i-DPtPqdK/0/L/Pt.%20Robinson%20beach%2C%20Vashon%20Island%2C%20October%209%2C%202016-L.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p><strong>Succulents in Autumn</strong><br> K-1, FA 77mm Ltd., f2.8, 1/500, ISO 200</p> <p><img src="https://photos.smugmug.com/Art/New-Pentax-Shots/i-PQFHRbG/0/L/Succulents%20in%20autumn-L.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p>ME</p>

Thanks all for comments. I ended up outright purchasing a bundle of the K-1, DFA 24-70mm, FA 50 f1.4, and the FA 77 f1.8. And then, somehow I found a FA 20mm f2.8. I shoot a lot at 16-24mm, so this should help bridge the gap until modern lenses get released, preferably lighter in weight. Stay tuned. ME

<p>Thank you both. The weight issue is of great concern and I'm feeling a little frustrated because the ultrawide focal range is most popular with me. I wish the FA 20mm were commonly available. I wish even more that Pentax comes out with a modern version of the 20mm along with each of the FA Limited lenses. I guess patience is a Pentax virtue.<br> <br />ME</p>

<p>Howdy everyone,<br> I’m renting a K-1 in a few weeks and am seeking recommendations for a couple of current K-mount lenses that I can also rent that would help bring out the full capability of this camera. I left the Pentax world several years ago, but have seen some great shots with the K-1. I’m faced with an upcoming choice whether to upgrade to a Canon 5D Mark IV, but my sense of due diligence is telling me to check out the K-1—on paper it seems outstanding. I’ve kinda been awaiting this day for a while as I have intentionally held on to a few of my favorite K-mount lenses including the Voigtlander SL 125mm which I look forward to testing out.<br> I do a lot of cityscape and landscape type of shooting. I’m tempted to rent the new Pentax 15-30mm f2.8, but that thing is heavy. Have any of you used the FA 31mm on a K-1? I’m pretty OK with my stock of 50mm lenses. Have folks used the FA 77mm much for non-portrait shooting?<br> All suggestions are welcome.<br> Thanks,<br> ME</p>

This is especially amusing since the camera has not yet been released to the public . I guess publishing a spec sheet and having demo models gets you a participation award so to speak. ME

<p>A couple of years ago my family headed out to the really good LeMay Auto Museum in Tacoma. They had a very fun VW exhibit. I brought along my Canon 5DMK3, but mistakenly grabbed the Tokina 12-24mm f4 lens instead of the Tamron 17-35mm that Hin refers to above. The Tokina is of course, quite related to the Pentax DA 12-24mm. On the FF 5D, the Tokina was very decent from about 19mm-24mm, especially after magical auto correction in Lightroom. Nothing that I'd practice regularly but on a tight budget it can work.<br> <img src="http://www.eyeinthetriangle.com/Fun-Collections/Cool-Cars/LeMay-Auto-Museum-Tacoma-WA/i-ndcJL6J/1/L/1965%20Double%20Cab%20Pickup-L.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p>That Tamron ultra-wide is very useful. Most ultra-wide zooms are very heavy and the Tamron is not. Until the past year, the quality of most ultra-wide zooms for Canon mount was average, so this lens' performance was surprisingly decent--especially with digital fixin's. And it's cheap, so I don't feel like I have to baby it, especially when traveling.</p> <p>ME</p>

<blockquote> <p>Don't get your hopes up about the autofocus. Pentax has always finished a poor third compared to Canon and Nikon. I would be pleasantly surprised if they improved it enough to move up a notch into second place.</p> </blockquote> <p>Having very good autofocus on static or slowly moving objects should be expected on top-of-the-line DSLRs in 2016, so I would expect the K-1 to be a bit better than the K-3 at a minimum.</p> <p>I owned the K-3 for a few months and thought the predictive AF was a serious improvement for the Pentax platform, but a few generations behind my Canon systems. Neither the K-1's specs, nor are Pentax lens systems really aimed at the more-than-casual sports and wildlife shooters, so it would be unreasonable to expect excellence, especially at that price point. If the K-1 improves things another 10-15%, that may suffice to meet the needs of most of the camera's purchasers.</p> <p>The hard work that boosts a platform onto another level is predictive AF and the ability to configure that capability to your granular requirements. Both Canon and Nikon are in a predictive/tracking AF arms race right now, with SONY doing serious engineering in the parallel mirrorless universe. These improvements are a matter of both the camera body and the lens being designed to work tightly together. That would take a lot of R&D on Ricoh's part (though I wish they just license the IP from one of those companies), with a very questionable return.</p> <p>ME</p>

Well there are at least two ways to evaluate whether a lens is up to snuff: objective vs. subjective testing. The former one can conduct using those line-pairs charts and then get numeric confirmation one way or another. That seems to cover pure sharpness and leaves other desired lens attributes aside. Subjectively, one can put the lens through a number of rigmaroles and then pass judgement in line with experience and other perceptions. I have always favored Mike Johnston's lens stressing practices. Exactly how is one going to evaluate results is another interesting factor. If your printing setup is calibrated and profiled, then a fine printed output would seem to work. Since recently getting a 5K iMac, onscreen evaluation has been revelatory. The degree of full screen 1:1 detail (definitely not pixel peaking on 5K) has opened my eyes to both differences between lenses as well as impacts of good and lousy post processing. I think my standards have risen accordingly. So, I look forward to seeing K-1 images taken with classic glass. ME

<p>About 4 years ago Ctein wrote an <a href="http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/02/d800-megapixels.html">insightful article</a> "Myths About Megapixels" shortly after the 36-megapixel Nikon D800 came out. Myth # 4 was "<em>It's pointless to add more pixels because lenses aren't good enough.</em>"<br> I recommend folks read this and the other linked articles. The key line in his reasoning is "A 36-megapixel sensor will resolve around 75 lp/mm. Even mediocre 35mm lenses will hit 75 lp/mm at some aperture over some portion of their field of view. This is true of both fixed focal length and zoom lenses. They'll show peak resolutions more like twice that."<br> I just don't think the K-1 will pose resolution and lens quality issues for users, provided they follow good camera handling and stability practices. <br> ME</p>