40mm

The K10D has a larger buffer and its write speed is much faster. The K100D seems very lethargic in comparison.

Yes. Both the K100D and the K10D provide focus indicators with both older manual focus lenses and modern AF lenses (when the camera/lens is set for manual focus).

 

If the switch on the camera body is set to MF, there is a hexagonal signal in the viewfinder's LCD readout, the selected red focus patch within the viewfinder will illuminate, and a focus confirmation beep can be heard when the camera achieves focus. There are menu settings for disabling the red patch in the viewfinder and the audible beep, should you prefer.

 

If an older manual focus (only) lens is mounted and the switch on the camera body is set to AF, the shutter will refuse to fire unless the camera detects focus. This can sometimes be useful for 'focus trapping' a moving subject (with the shutter release in continuous mode).

You don't need to buy lots of special gear for the trip, unless you have some special photographic goal in mind, what you have is very adequate. Having lived and photographed in deserts, here's some useful things you will need:

 

* All the regular advice about drinking. A canteen, bottles, collapsible water bladder, gourd, whatever works for you. Carry more than you think you'll need. If you're thirsty, you're already dehydrating.

* Dust is your greatest enemy. Zip-lock bags in lots of varied sizes are your friend. If its not in use, it should be sealed up. A bag for the gear that has more than a floppy lid with clasps. Zip closures are a pain but worth it when things get really dusty.

* A big powerful hand-operated blower, like the rocket blowers or similar. Avoid lens changes in breezy places.

* 'Lipstick' style soft brushes for getting the dust out of crevices.

* Spare batteries. Power supply might be unpredictable. A few Li-ion non-re-chargable CRV3s for emergency use when you can't get recharged will work well for the DS.

* A wide-brimmed hat that is big enough to shade ears and neck. Baseball-syle caps aren't enough. In a pinch, a good hat can also be used to protect the camera in use from billowing dust. Plenty of sun-lotion.

 

Sinai in October should be very pleasant and not outrageously hot, but the wind can be brutal, especially if you're unlucky to get caught in a storm in an exposed spot.

 

Have a great trip. It's a stunningly beautiful land, especially if you enjoy desert scenery or have an interest in geology. One of those places you have to see for yourself to really 'get'.

What they said. It's just some daft marketing dept. scheme. Notice how quickly it was dropped when the latest models came along. I've never read of anyone defending it as a good idea. Being a nerd, I always prefered "splatist".

Despite what the manual says, on occasions I've forgotten to turn it off when using a tripod and not noticed any detrimental effect. It seems to help with a monopod. Try it.

It will vignette on 35mm, it's designed for the APS-sized digital sensor. Some have used the DA 40mm and 70mm successfully on 35mm, but not the 21mm.

<i>On java.com 's download area its called "java software" NINE TIMES; and the word "script" is not even mentioned.</i>

<br /><br />

Again, that's because Javascript has nothing to do with Java software. Other than a similarity in name, they are very different technologies for different purposes. Java.com has nothing whatsoever to do with Javascript.

<br /><br />

Javascript is an ECMA standard for client-side scripting functionality in browsers. Every modern browser supports core Javascript natively, no downloads or installation required.

<br /><br />

Java is a programming and run-time environment for building software applications - nothing to do with client-side web development. It is possible to include Java in html pages by embedding applets, but that practice has all but died out nowadays because easier and more lightweight technologies like Flash have largely replaced it for comparable web applications.

<br /><br />

Please educate yourself about these technologies before advising others about them.

<i>what happens if your target clients dont have Java installed, or the latest Java updates</i>

<br /><br />

JavaScript is not Java.

What's probably hurting Pentax the most in global markets is their huge availability problem, both in bodies and lenses. Bodies seems to be getting better, it's not hard to find a K10D now, but it was for a while after launch. Lenses, on the other hand, are still a problem.

 

The aftermarket brands don't offer the same range for Pentax as they do for the big two. The justifiably desirable Limited Pentax lenses are sometimes tough to find. The FA 50mm 1.4 is sold out the moment it arrives anywhere. Used popular lenses get snapped up from eBay and KEH and the like very quickly. Pickings among more popular lenses can be slim if you want a specific lens right now. The lack of a good fast tele zoom in the range is a problem. Sigma EXs in Pentax mount are very nice, but often difficult to find.

<i>I was at a camera store a few days ago, playing with the K100D and K10D, and the salesman told me that many of the lenses that Pentax plans to release in the future will use a new focus mechanism -- I think he called it "supersonic"; he said it was similar to Canon's USM -- and he said that the K10D would be be fully compatible with those lenses,</i>

<br /><br />

He's correct up to here.

<br /><br />

<i>but the K100D would only be able to use those lenses in manual focus mode.</i>

<br /><br />

But saying this as a certainty is dubious. Nobody knows yet, outside of Pentax. Maybe Pentax doesn't know yet.

<br /><br />

If you buy a K10D, no worries, all current and new lenses will work as designed. Some new lenses may or may not only manually focus on the K100D and earlier bodies. Chances are that Pentax want and are trying to make the new lenses work on all recent bodies. Whether that will be the case when they are finally available, we don't know.

<br /><br />

If you like and can afford the K10D, it's the one to go for, anyhow, for lots of reasons beyond lens compatibility.

I've been that despicable amateur wedding photographer a few times, for friends and family who simply couldn't, or wouldn't, hire a pro. It's doable, with a bit of practise and research. You're starting in the right place, in this forum.

 

I've found the best approach to the expectations issue is just to be scrupulously honest with your potential client. Show them your pictures, explain your lack of experience, even be a little self-deprecating. Explain what a pro can provide (experience, insurance, better lighting gear, amongst much else) better than you. If they still want you and you think you can and like them enough to do it, then so be it.

 

Very importantly, agree well in advance EXACTLY what you're going to provide. Just the exposed film and leave them to it? Files straight out the camera? Processed images on CD? Prints? How many of what and who's paying? I couldn't take money from friends, so I've always treated the work and whatever ultimate deliverables as a gift.

 

Come the event, behave as professionally as you would in your day job and accept that's why you're there - to do a job. It's hard work and I admire those that can do it for a living.

 

All the above and more means it's worked out for me and I've had a blast learning about a kind of photography I wouldn't otherwise get involved in. My 'clients' (for that's how you have to consider them, however close you might be) have been happy, thank goodness. Most of all, I've learned it's got to be someone I'm very close to and for who I really want to do the best job I can to make it worth the stress.

 

As for the equipment, keep it simple, simple, simple. Use whatever you're already most familiar with. I've always liked two bodies, one with a moderate wide prime and one with a moderate telephoto prime, identical cameras, some flavor of bounce and/or diffuser on the flash (practise!).

 

What you know about using it is far more important than the name on your gear, of course. Know your own style and stick to it. Don't buy anything new immediately before if you can avoid it, unless it's a duplicate for backups. Have a spare for everything and a spare for the spares if you can. Triple the number of memory cards you think you'll need. Spare batteries in every pocket. Don't expect to get time to eat.

I have one of each as well and pretty much agree with eveything you say. I wouldn't say you can't manually focus with the K100D, but it's certainly a little trickier and therefore probably slower. For this reason (and the SR), I tend to use the DS for wider lenses and the K100D for longer (shallower depth of field = easier to see where focus is). Neither camera has a great viewfinder compared to 30-year-old 35mm SLRs, but nor does any smaller sensor DSLR, such is progress. The build quality thing is marginal, neither camera is bad in this regard.

 

As for image quality in RAW, I can't tell any difference, either, they're both fine to my eye. I've made 18x12 prints I've been impressed by and find myself wondering how much advantage there really is from bigger pixel-count cameras.

I'm late to the party here, but yes, my understanding is that your understanding is correct.

 

Just to complete the story, I haven't got the 40mm or 70mm, but, as already mentioned, word is they're usable with 35mm film format. I have tried the 21mm on an old MX body and it vignettes. Not as much as I thought it might, but it's obvious, nonetheless. On my K100D, it's a very pleasing lens, however, and turns the camera into quite a neat little package. A useful moderate-wide-angle on the DSLR (about 32mm equivalent to 35mm), as well.

Yes, it's going to be very interesting to see what happens when a major manufacturer decides it's time to fill that hole in the market. At the moment the difference in price, and sensor resolution between DSLRs and "medium format" digital cameras is a gaping chasm. If Pentax can step in and offer a significantly larger sensor but in a relatively affordable package (relative to Hasselblad and the like), it could be a huge deal.

<p><i>The K100D and K110D have greatly improved AF over the earlier bodies. WIth the exception of the K10D (which is even better) and possibly the *istD (Powerful Af motor with indecisive sensor) and MZ-S (powerful AF motor with older sensor) these have the fastest AF Pentax has ever done. They aren't as well built as the D,DS or DL series bodies (which are extremely well built for the cost)</i></p>

 

<p>I have a K100D and an *ist DS. The *ist DS autofocus isn't as bad as some on web forums protest, it's ok, just nothing to get very excited about. The K100D is a marginal, not vast improvement. As for how well built they are, I can't tell the difference.</p>

 

<p>If you shoot RAW, you won't tell much difference in image quality, either. In JPG the K100D is marginally better, I guess, but not so much in the end result to make me care, especially. The *ist DS has a very good viewfinder, for a DSLR. The K100D's is ok, but if you like to manual focus, you're better off with the *ist DS. The K100D has a bigger rear LCD. Some folks think that's a great thing, in practice I find it underwhelming. They both have a similar bunch of wacky exposure modes that I try to ignore. In manual and aperture priority the metering seems pretty good, but as always you can't always rely on it 100%.</p>

 

<p>The big deal with the K100D is shake reduction. It works and probably gains you a couple of stops of hand-held sharpness, in general.</p>

If money is no object, the Pentax 31mm Limited Edition is the way to go, by all accounts... I wouldn't personally know... too rich for my blood. So I got the 30mm Sigma, instead. It's larger and more plastic and doesn't have the olde worlde all-metal weaponized finish of the 31mm Pentax job and I dare say it's not as perfect in terms of overall image quality, but it's still a very competent lens in all regards, far as I can tell. I thought about the 40mm, but it's a bit on the long side for my taste and loosing 2 stops on the Sigma ia a bit of a blow. From what I've heard it's a fine lens, just not my thing.

 

The nice thing about Pentax around these focal lengths is there's plenty of choice and none of the choices are bad. Comparing MTF curves doesn't help you make better pictures. Get the one that most suits your vision and style.

<img src="http://www.jenweb.net/photo/scratch/IMGP1373w.jpg" /><br /><br />

<i>Pentax DS & Sigma 70-210</i><br />Backyard fall sunrise.

If the zoom ratio is [long end / short end], wouldn't a prime have a zoom ration of 1(one)? [long end / short end, where long = short].

I'm of those that think assigning a couple of digits on an abitrary scale to something as subjective and emotional as a personal reaction to a photograph is ridiculous. Whether the digits come from someone with a believable name or not seems irrelevent.

 

Furthermore, photographers, on the web at least, seem peculiarly enthusiastic about rating their raters. I'm not a filmaker, fine artist or musician, but do such people fret so over their audience's qualifications to judge them, or are they more concerned with satisfying a wider audience? Why erect artifial goalposts by striving to be a photographer's photographer, when there's a world of potential appreciation?

 

Are photographers even qualified to judge photography? Are the best picture editors the best photographers? Should we discount the opinions of all film, music, literature and fine art critics if they are not the best film-makers, musicians, novelists or fine artists, as judged by other film-makers, musicians, writers and artists?

 

This is what perplexes me about any rating system. Other photographers think a photographer has made a good photograph. So what? Pre-qualifying the raters in the proposed ways seems only to maximise photographic incestuousness. Your opinion doesn't matter if you're not one of us.

 

Please permit me to make an alternative suggestion. It amazes me that no online photographic community, amongst the proliferation now available, has earnestly pursued a collaborative approach to photography. In simple terms, "if you like this picture, you might also like..", or, "if you like photographs by this photographer, you might also like..."

 

There's been solid research into collaborative filtering techniques and algorithms since the popularization of the internet. The tools exist. The success of collaborative filters is strongly related to the quantity of content and the size of the participating audience. Photo.net would appear to have no shortage of either. I might even suggest that by implementing a collaborative rating system, the popularity of the site might increase, the value to those posting photographs be enhanced and the loyalty of visitors rewarded - the more you rate, the more accurate the filter, the greater the satisfaction - a positive feedback loop.

<i>I also note some answers such as "of course it is a fake". That is the kind of answer I heard many times, but what I asked is HOW it can be proved. By just saying that it is fake, you don't prove anything.</i>

 

It can be proved by five minutes with Google and a quick trip to the rangefinder category on ebay. It's nobody's job here to do simple homework for you.

Of course it's a fake. If anyone else wants one, here it is on ebay...

http://cgi.ebay.com/LEICA-II-Vintage-Rangefinder-35mm-Camera-Olympic_W0QQitemZ320024285171

 

I bought one a couple of years ago just as a fun ornament to add to my collection of cheap and weird cameras. You're very lucky if it actually works. The workmanship, especially inside the back, is crap. Most of them are so poorly made you can't get film in them. Kitsch garbage, if you like that sort of thing.

The latest firmware update adds support for the new SDHC(High Capacity) SD cards to the *ist D(x) series of cameras. According to Pentax, that's all it does. If you're not planning on buying or using one of these new cards (> 2 Gb), there's no reason to rush to install the latest firmware. No harm in it, but no other benefit.

I shot a few weddings, portraits, events and suchlike with one, years ago. Sure it's probably not the sharpest among the Nikkors, but it's not a dog, either. I wonder if there's sample variation at play here, because the one I had wasn't all that bad. Not stellar, but acceptable, especially for hand-held stuff. I've never condidered absolute sharpness the ultimate quality of a lens anyhow - there a threshold above which any improvement is negligible, especially in hand-held 35mm.

 

Anyhow, I liked the way it handled, which is why I used it. Very easy and forgiving, balanced very cooperatively on an FM-type camera body. useful close focusing feature. Biggest shortcoming was it's a variable aperture and only a 3.5 at the widest. All-in-all I found it a very useful lens, for a while, especially for those times I didn't want to schlep a bag around. But maybe I'm a freak.

For what it's worth, of the lenses I've actually used and tested, rather than read about on the web, two A series 50mm f/2s were good, but not great, the couple of A series 50mm f/1.4 were both outstanding, the A series 28mm f/2.8 was unimpressive (I got better from Tamron wide-angle zoom), whereas the 24mm f/2.8 was much better, the 105 f/2.8 was also very good. Amongst those I've used, I've found nothing that was as good as the 50mm f/1.4. I'd go so far as to say it beats the Olympus OM and Nikkon 50mms I've used in the past, fantastic at f/2 or smaller and great on either film or digital.

 

As ever, your milage may vary, what someone else likes in a lens might not interest you, and beware sample variation, especially in the used market among lenses of unknown history.

Thanks Helen - I was obviously getting my film designations in a twist there! NPH is about the only film I use these days, so thoughts of its demise were a little disturbing - it's a great film, really versatile. I buy bulk and keep it in the fridge, so somehow I'd missed all the fanfare around the renaming/rebranding. Why can't marketers leave a good product alone?