mountainvisions

<p>Hin,</p> <p>If you know where the action is going to be, setup for it, pre-focus and wait for it. Yeah, you'll lose some shots that happen outside the action, but you'll always come home with something worth keeping. <br /><br /><br> I think people tend to rely on AF to help them out of not knowing the sport they are shooting. And while that definitely probably helps staff photographers that get random assignments, I think if you are shooting your sports, the ones you care about and possibly participate in, than figuring out where the action will be and pre-setting everything is by far the most logical way to capture the action. </p> <p>Doing it this way isn't sexy, it doesn't utilize all the sophisticated tech in your camera, but it brings home usuable images, and often they are much better than what you'd get if you were chasing the action (as I call it). </p>

<p>I'm excited about this camera. Unfortunately, it doesn't use the same DLi-90 battery that almost all other Pentax cameras have used for a few years (yes, I realize that those were higher end cameras, but...)<br> <br /> Anyway, if I were to take two bodies, this and say the K-5IIs or the K-3II or the K-1 (I only own the K-5 and K-7, btw), I'd have to carry two sets of batteries. Since the Dli90 seems to be as good enough for almost every Pentax flagship, why not just integrate it into the lower models. <br> </br>Beyond that, this camera really looks like a winner and Perhaps this will entice me to upgrade to the K-3II (larger body) and the K-70 (smaller body) that I can interchange as needed. The downside, it's not nearly as ruggedly built as the K-7/5/3 series, which gives me some reservations.<br></br> Still, this is a fantastic camera as spec'd, and I'm sure the IQ will be equally good.</p>

<p>I got my K-5IIs for $425 shipped with a battery grip. I think if you raised your budget to $350-400, you could get a K-5II, which to me is the sweet spot of image quality/features to cost. The K-3 is a great camera, but it's a bit bigger and really not a lot better. The K-7 on the other hand has the same size, shape, control layout, build and such, but it's IQ is vastly inferior to the K-5 or K-6II. The samsung sensors just werent that good compared to Sony and in my case, there were a lot of quirks including focus calibration and white balance focus issues.</p> <p>All that said, in daylight the K-7 focused just fine, it also had quite decent IQ if you exposed properly. But it definitely wouldn't be my recommendation when you can get a K-5. </p>

<p>The K-5 is replaced by the K-5II and K-5IIs, the K-5IIs is replaced by the K-3.<br> The K-50/K-30 series is a step below. These are roughtly equivalent to the KS-1/2 series.</p>

<p>This week I'm going B&W from El Yunque National Forest in Puerto Rico</p> <p><a title="Waterfalls of El Yunque #3" href=" data-flickr-embed="true"><img src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7579/26902823412_01a48f1dd2_c.jpg" alt="Waterfalls of El Yunque #3" width="800" height="800" /></a><br> K-5IIs, HD DA 16-85mm<br> .<br> .<br> And a little bit of color from Viejo San Juan. A mural of famous Puerto Rican writers with the light blue Puerto Rican independence flag. My little sister called the whole thing "very Tumblr" (whatever the hell that means). I'm thinking that's a modern word for hipster.</p> <p><a title="Puerto Rican Heritage in Viejo San Juan" href=" data-flickr-embed="true"><img src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7364/26843186412_3bc7da0c4e_c.jpg" alt="Puerto Rican Heritage in Viejo San Juan" width="800" height="600" /></a><br> K-5IIs, HD DA 16-85mm</p> <p> </p>

<p>Sigma has generally always tried to do the right thing from rechipping lenses to changing mounts (a long time ago) to updating firmware in flashes. Their QC might be hit or miss, but I think, as long as you can deal with the hassle, they will make it right.</p>

<p>BTW, that bottom shot has me hungry, Hin!</p>

<p>The focus limiter does kind of suck that it's missing, but it does have quick shift which doesn't eliminate the need for a limiter but does offset it.</p> <p>I've never adapted a lens, but I definitely would if I had some sort of MILC camera. However, once you adapt, you lose AF anyway, so the limiter becomes even less an issue. </p> <p>All in all, I'm happy with the WR designation and the Limited lens like build in place of a focus limiter and aperture ring. The lens is compact and the fact it's a dedicated macro means that extra 15mm addition to my 16-85 is a worthwhile addition to the camera bag. </p> <p>Now if Pentax would just make a UWA with WR. </p>

<blockquote> <p>In hiking, I preferred lighter gear. Not because it is more capable but it helps me to have a small single-lens kit tucked in my backpack. When I manage to get K-3 or K-3 II (or even a K-5 II), it would be used in more serious shooting as in events and the occasional birding and casual sports.</p> </blockquote> <p>I'd personally opt for the K-3II and GPS and Pixel shift, but that is definitely more suited to the things I shoot. And I almost went with it, but I sort of left the door open for the K-1 and I preferred the compact body on the K-5 (slightly more compact) than the K-3, the ability to enter the composition adjust mode more quickly (raw button) and a few other things. I've really found the composition adjust is a useful feature in lieu of lugging a dedicated shift lens, which I do already own. Obviously it's got less than half the adjustment and works best with wide angles, but it's a useful feature for perspective control.</p> <p>I basically wanted the K-3II tech in the K-5IIs body and ergonomics, but decided that the K-5IIs would make a better backup or more compact option to the K-1 should I go that route. For me, the IQ and metering/AF difference between the K-3 and K-5II was mostly an even deal. The K-3 might be a little better in some areas but the K-5IIs holds it's own and on the IQ front it's really close.</p> <p>The end result for me. I saved $400 (including a BG-4 grip, which I don't use enough to justify buying at full price, but I do appreciate having on occasion) and decided instead to add a few lenses that I needed. Ended up with the 16-85, 35mm FA which I've always liked and makes for a nice fast normal lens (I once owned this, sold it and the FA50 in favor of the 43mm and then realized the 43mm was just too long an APS-C while the 35mm was just long enough), and picked up a 70mm DA. I also added a DFA 100mm.</p> <p>I'm not really concerned about using DA lenses on the K-1 should I get it. Not a big deal to me. and I like the compact nature of the DA 70 vs the 77mm. The fact that Pentax, unlike Canon allows use of DA lenses on a FA camera is a big bonus in enticing me to upgrade.</p> <p>Like you, Hin, for stuff not shot from the trunk of my car, I prefer more compact equipment. Obviously f/4 lenses don't always get it done, but for the most part I'd opt for smaller bodies and lenses when possible. The reason I didn't jump into the mirrorless realm is that I realized that while the body is a lot smaller and even lighter. Once you attach a decent lens to it, the size advantage is mostly gone and in some ways the mirrorless now has a disadvantage in that it's unbalanced. I think Pentax, especially the K-5II, does a great job balancing size, weight, image quality and functionality into a complete package of camera body and lenses. </p> <p> </p>

<p>Along with a bunch of lenses, I just bought a DFA100 WR. Love the fact it's a WR and love it the IQ, although I can't say I've done any real macro with it yet. No issues so far, but I only used it for about 50 shots over a week in the month I've had it.</p> <p>Sounds like bad luck. Chances are it's a rare issue and they don't have parts for it. Perhaps the aperture has to be replaced? </p>

<p>DP review basically wrote that the K-1 was the best IQ of a full frame camera they had seen, and that was before Pixel Shift.</p> <p>Pentax definitely has hit a home run in terms of IQ. </p> <p>I'm definitely considering the K-1 over the K-3II or K-3II successor. Although, I am very happy with my K-5IIs upgrade and in no rush to upgrade in the near future. Had the K-1 been out a few months earlier, in my upgrade window, I'd probably have gotten it. </p>

<p>From what I've seen it's a lot to do about nothing. I suppose if you are hoping to never scratch your camera it's a big deal, but most people won't keep a camera a few year and use it regularly without a few dings, scratches and so on.</p> <p>I think it's great Sigma is going to fix it. They have always been good about updating firmware, chips and anything else that they can do. They might not have the best QC, but they definitely stand behind their products. </p>

<p>A few images from Puerto Rico.</p> <p>The beach at our rental house at Playa Punta Santiago. The hill in the background is actually part of a preserve that is one of the largest nesting areas for sea turtles. The hill itself was used in WWII as a military bunker to look for German U-boats. <br /> <a title="Caribbean Sea at Punta Santiago" href=" data-flickr-embed="true"><img src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7204/26553704370_f0346d31ef_c.jpg" alt="Caribbean Sea at Punta Santiago" width="800" height="534" /></a><br /> K-5IIs, DA 16-85mm @18mm. 15s/f8/ISO200<br /> .<br /> .<br /> Pelican at Playa de Ponce. The detail out of this camera and lens combo is just absurd.<br /> <a title="Pelican" href=" data-flickr-embed="true"><img src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7781/26836815875_569961d13c_c.jpg" alt="Pelican" width="530" height="800" /></a><br /> K-5IIs, D-FA 100mm macro. f3.5/ISO 80.</p> <p>As a side note, I highly recommend the DA 16-85mm. Yes, it's slow. Yes, it's somewhat large and takes 72mm filters...but as a general purpose daylight/tripod mounted lens for all conditions, I have no issues with it. Although it's only 3.5-5.6 max aperture, it is very sharp wide open. If you put it on a tripod, there is almost no reason to bother with primes. Just bring a faster prime or two with the kit for low light hand held shooting.</p>

<p>You can never have too many photos of dogs or owl chicks.</p> <p>Currently dumping and sorting images from Puerto Rico where I brought a selection of cameras from the Olympus TG-4, the Fuji X10, the Sony Action Mini, and the Pentax K-5IIs with 15mm, 35mm, 100mm and 16-85. I used all of them. The Pentax for landscapes and low light shooting, the TG-4 for in and underwater, the Fuji for in motion/adventure stuff (on dry land, such as climbing and biking) and the Sony for climbing video. Wish I'd taken the Sony biking and wish I was more cognizant of it. I sadly didn't get much climbing footage.</p> <p>Unfortunately this weeks contribution is from my Fujifilm X10 from last November in the Mojave desert between Red Rocks (Las Vegas) and Joshua Tree National Park. <br> <a title="Mojave" href=" data-flickr-embed="true"><img src="https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1613/25817157143_76662c9eae_c.jpg" alt="Mojave" width="800" height="534" /> </a><br> Fuji X10....unfortunately after using photoshop for years with Adobe going to a subscription service, I've been forced to look for alternatives (I actually still have a working copy of photoshop, but I refuse to use a subscription service, so I'm premptively moving on). Currently I'm learning ACDSEE for X-trans sensors, image management and JPG editing and loving DXO Optics for bayer sensor RAW files. Unfortunately, I'm still learning ACDSEE and you'll notice from weird sharpening in some of these images. I'll eventually replace them with final images. Interestingly I didn't notice the issues till I exported to JPG, so I need to figure out how to soft proof the sharpening in the adjustment layers.<br> <a title="Mojave" href=" data-flickr-embed="true"> </a></p>

<blockquote> <p>Personally I'm a naturalist dragging along an instrument to snag photos. You are all much better photographers than I'll ever be. But it is nice to see a wayward sheep come home again!</p> </blockquote> <p>Just an adventurer that lugs a camera to bring home memories. Along the way, I just happen to have some beautiful sights appear before me. The camera just helps me look at the lighting and the composition to really try to bring something home that people want to peer at with the same interest I had in the moment. <br /><br />I think that's what it is all about,, whether it be a sunrise on a backcountry peak, a technical ascent high on a wall, or a cappuccino in a local cafe. It's emotional connection you have with your images, seeing the world you see and trying to bring it back for everyone to get the same feelings.</p> <p><a title="Standing on the edge of the unknown" href=" data-flickr-embed="true"><img src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7022/6387977367_95d58f9109_z.jpg" alt="Standing on the edge of the unknown" width="640" height="424" /></a><br> Pentax K-5, DA 21mm.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Justin. Good to see you are back. Where the hell you been. Sometimes I swear you are a CIA agent gone for a year or two.</p> </blockquote> <p>Hey Bob, good to see you are back as well. I haven't seen a lot of you on here either. I definitely was on a bit of a hiatus following my back surgery in 2013. Ironically, I thought it would be a good time to get invigorated with photography again, like after my ACL reconstruction in 2006. But, alas, I actually was more motivated to get 100% healthy and back out into the mountains. And along with that I didn't want to be editing in front of a computer much, partially because I already sit all day at work, and prolonged sitting is not particularly good for the spine.</p> <p>The bottom line, after climbing was almost taken away from me for good, it sort of sparked some passion that I really hadn't had in a bit. In fact, there was a point I thought I was done climbing for lack of passion. Now I'm sort of settling back into a less OCD (obsessive climbing disorder) routine and diversifying again. Unfortunately, the weekends are short and splitting time between everything is sometimes an arduous decision.</p> <p>Here are a few for this week...</p> <p>My wife following Autopilot at Buck Mountain in the Adirondacks.</p> <p><a title="Autopilot at Buck Mountain" href=" data-flickr-embed="true"><img src="https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1637/26418252132_7e2e27041c_c.jpg" alt="Autopilot at Buck Mountain" width="600" height="800" /></a><br> Pentax W90</p>

<blockquote> <p ><a name="00ds9s"></a><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=321130">Wayne Campbell</a></p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>Justin....here's your chance....pull the trigger</p> </blockquote> <p>Well, I did pull the trigger, cost wasn't a factor as the 20-40 is a mere $497 on Amazon, as Wayne pointed out.</p> <p>However, I opted for the 16-85. I certainly don't like large slow zooms so I was sort of a snob with it, never really considering it. While I typically don't like variable aperture lenses at all and I prefer internal focus and zoom. I think Pentax built a winner with the 16-85.</p> <p>it's got a bit of distortion and soft edges at 16 wide open, the center is sharp even there. it appears very usuable stopped down. It then gets very prime like from 20-60 or so. Dropping off a bit at 85 where it's a slow 5.6. However, at f/8-11 where the 20-40mm Limited also seems to shine, this lens exceeds some primes in performance. So even though it's relatively slow, the fact the wider apertures aren't just spec sheet filler is nice.</p> <p>Flare control, distortion and vignetting are all very well controlled for a zoom.</p> <p>Pair it with a wide prime and a fast normal and you have a nice all weather 3 lens travel kit. I'll be pairing it with the 15mm and 28 or 35 or 43mm. I might consider tossing the 70mm DA in the bag as well since it's so small.</p>

<p>This one is another Coastal Carolina shot from a coffee house/beer garden. Some might argue that beer and caffeine and definitely worth risking your life for. <br> <p> <img src="https://farm1.staticflickr.com/716/21258142640_391ce0e45f_c.jpg" alt="" /><br></p> Pentax K-7, DA 21mm. Processed (RAW) in DXO Optics Pro 10 with unknown film simulator</p> <p>Even bolts can be beautiful...so I tell myself. Climbing anchor bolts/chains at the top of a rock climb in the Adirondacks. Until about 10 years ago bolts were rare inside the Adirondack Blueline and New York State in general. In fact, aside from a few random anchors, I didn't clip a bolt my first 5 years climbing in the early 2000s. These days, while hundreds of new trad routes go up a year, there has been a proliferation of bolted sport and "modern" trad routes. <br> <img src="https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1536/26281992875_b6657a24c2_c.jpg" alt="" /><br> Pentax W90 macro mode</p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>Zooms are always a tough compromise. I'm not sure who you think has a better lineup than Pentax though in this regard, especially once you add WR to your requirements.</p> </blockquote> <p>Very true. And compactness is another preference. However, I was expecting a little more from a 2x zoom with a $1000 price tag. I think overall I'm disappointed Pentax has so few WR lenses. For instance the 12-24, 14, 15mm are all unsealed. So no wide angles either. And the 16-50 is almost 10 years old, it's time for a refresh, perhaps improving the lens a bit at the wide and wide open end. I think updating the coating to the HD would probably have the most effect on zooms with more elements.</p> <p>That said, I've really looked at user reviews from photographers (vs. test freaks) and also at larger images available around the web (flickr and such) from folks using the 20-40, and overall I think it's a very good lens. And for the $500-600 it currently sells for new, it's probably not severely overpriced. If I can land one for $500, factoring in the size and sealing, I have a feeling I'll be very happy with it for landscapes and general outdoors photography.</p>

<p>Hin,</p> <p>Yep, Acros is my favorite film emulsion in B&W, you can do a lot with it depending on pushing and processing time. It does quite well at higher ISO when pushed.</p> <p>Nice work with the skiing shots, I was thinking of mounting two small cameras to my climbing helmet to get a dual perspective, but I can barely stand the weight of one camera!</p> <p>MattB, </p> <p>Is there any Pentax or Pentax mount gear you don't own? Nice images and showcase of your vast array of equipment! Love to see both. The blacksmith one definitely caught my eye. </p> <p>Doug,</p> <p>That Lady liberty photo is great with the seagull, but you need to correct that off center angle on the pedestal, it's driving me nuts!</p>

<p>The main problem with the 18-55, is that if I want to make that much compromise, I'd probably opt to just carry my Fuji X20 around. If I'm going through the trouble of a DSLR, I definitely want the best results I can get. By no means am I saying the 18-55 is a dog, quite the opposite from what I've seen, I'm just not sure for me it's a compromise that makes sense.</p> <p>After thinking about it more and more, I think the 20-40mm makes the most sense. Yes, it's not as sharp as I'd like at f/2.8 or f/4 at the edges. It seems optimized for 20-30mm. Overall, for what Pentax was charging when it was released, it seems like a lot of compromises were made. But...</p> <p>Like any lens, it depends how you are planning to use it. For me, I want something that obviates the need to protect or change my DA Limiteds in harsh conditions. It also fits in nicely with a 15mm.20-40/70mm travel/landscape kit that probably isn't much bigger than the two zooms. If I toss in a 35mm f/2 or 43mm Limited, I have speed as well in the normal range (and my panorama lens). Although I was hoping it was sharper wide open, I don't often shoot wide open. I also like all the other characteristics of the lens. Size, overall IQ stopped down, flare resistance, edge to edge sharpness (stopped down), lack of CAs, etc. make it definitely more appealing. Obviously I'd love for it to be perfect at f/2.8, who wouldn't?! </p> <p>I do think I'll also pick up a 16-85 at some point, which would be my compromise lens, aka, my kit lens. </p> <p>The 18-135 was a good lens when I had it for a review. I did like it, but I feel like the slightly better IQ of the 16-85. along with the 16mm end, would be preferable to me since if I took that lens, I'd probably leave my limiteds at home and just take a 28mm f/2 or 35mm f/2 for when I needed a fast(er) lens. </p> <p>I guess we've all figured out one of my pet peeves in photography is soft edges. It's why I no longer own any of those super sharp Sigma normal/wide angle primes. Great centers, poor edges. Drove me nuts. </p>

<p>Shooting at the coast is always tough for me. I'm not particularly motivated. In fact, I only took my camera out two days on this 10 day trip.</p> <p><img src="https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5814/20825124273_22b3f9cf61_c.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="450" /><br> K-7, DA 15mm</p> <p><img src="https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5797/21454690471_3b820d400a_c.jpg" alt="" /><br> K-7, DA 21mm</p>

Hin, I like your rationale. Let me clarify. Although higher iso negates some need for fast glass limited DOF or isolating focus still requires wider apertures. So basically, I'm looking at the best option for edge sharpness with the fastest aperture. I already have the 15mm, 21mm, 30mm Sigma, and 43mm limited for compactness. What I'm really looking for is a harsh conditions lens for when changing lenses is either impossible or inconvenient. I really liked how the 20-40 fit into my system for travel and backcountry adventure, but I'm a little skittish of its edge performance from f2.8- 4. If it sharpened up at f/4 it would be a winner in my book. I'd probably setup my travel kit like this, 15mm, 20-40, 30mm f/1.4 and depending on what I expected to shoot, either 50-135 or 70mm

John, I'm not so concerned with the SDM it's a cheapish fix and it really only seemed to fail on early lenses. But the 16-50 IQ is very similar to the 20-40 in terms of edge sharpness. The 20-40, however, has many good qualities over the 16-50. But the 16-50 has 4mm on the wide and 10 on the long and a faster constant max. Also, all the DA* lenses are weather sealed. Technically they have the highest level of sealing vs. The WR. Either one is fine with me, I'm not looking to shoot in a monsoon, I just want to not have to worry in harsh conditions, like a rain forest, the beach or the desert. And I do often shoot in less than fair weather. I'm just careful with my lenses or use beater lenses (like my 28-70 f/4)

After thoroughly evaluating Pentax vs Fuji, I've decided on a K-3ii. The popup flash means less to me than GPS, astrotracer, and pixel shift. The X-T1 is very compelling and so is the fuji lens lineup. If I wasn't invested in Pentax and didn't like where Ricoh is taking it, I'd be with Fuji in a heartbeat. I already love their compacts. So, now the question, the one thing my system has always lacked. A weather sealed standard zoom. And looking at the Pentax lineup, I'm not surprised I never bought one. Sadly, Pentax really doesn't offer much here. Choices: 18-135 (slow, and not as good at the 16-85) 16-85 (slow, a fixed f/4 would have been ideal) 16-50 (mixed bag) 20-40 (seems to be soft at the edges) Unfortunately, that's a fairly sad lineup. Optically the 16-85 is best, but nothing special at 16. The 20-40mm would be fine from a speed standpoint, but it seems to need to be stopped down to f5.6 to shine. I do like all its other characteristics, flare, contrast, and bokeh, but it's really not what I expected from a short variable aperture zoom, especially at the edges. If I'm not going whether sealed, well, the Sigma 18-35 really looks nice. But it's a monster. The 16-50 seems like a mixed bag for a flagship standard 2.8 zoom. I'm OK with gambling on the SDM as my 50-135 DA* has been fine. I'm a little confused why Pentax lacks such a lens. Thoughts? And of course thoughts on the current options.