pwithem

<p>I still don't see any logic supporting the premise that legacy full frame lenses will perform poorly on the K-1's 36MP sensor, as compared to 35mm film. I hear insinuation about coatings, which makes me think the sensor surface vs a film surface might register light a little bit differently, but I've never seen such a thing presented for judgment. Maybe there's something to this and it's been done somewhere? </p>

<p>It makes sense that higher and higher pixel density would allow you to explore the limits of your glass in a way that film may not allow. That is, you could blow up a digital image more (effectively/easily) than you could film, and thereby expose evidence of glass imperfection. But if this is the case, it's only showing how digital would give you more capability over film, not that the glass performance is somehow worse. It's always up to the user how far you want to crop and zoom in a photo before printing, but if you operate on digital within similar boundaries you might use with film, I wouldn't expect any glass performance issues. </p>

<p>Consider that the 16 MP K-5 has about half the sensor surface area and half the MP as the K-1 sensor, so the pixel density would be nearly the same as a K-5. I've been very happy with my full frame glass on the K-5, so why should I expect performance to get worse with the larger, uncropped sensor? (Of course, if it's vignetting, that would happen on 35mm film too.) Also consider that the K-5 has higher pixel density than the K20, K10, and *ist D. Those increases in density (even with noise) have been overall improvements, granting more crop/zoom capability. Was legacy full-frame glass getting worse for somebody during those body improvements? If you just want to make the same size prints as before at similar dpi, the K-1 36MP sensor is not going to limit you, it's just going to give you greater FOV.</p>

<p>DPR's statement</p>

<blockquote>

<p>a 36MP sensor is <strong>likely to be fairly demanding</strong> on older glass, and our initial impressions of shooting with one older 50mm Pentax prime aren't wholly encouraging.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>doesn't prove anything; it doesn't tell us why a 36MP sensor is "likely to be demanding" on older glass. Maybe DPR knows something, but they're not telling us here. Until I see a direct comparison, the notion that higher MP "puts demands" on a lens is a boogey-man argument that many fear but few understand. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Sounds like SDM failure. I went through three failures and two repairs on my 16-50. After the third failure, I came very close to fixing, selling, and buying a Sigma lens. Instead, I did not send in for another repair, but found a procedure for altering the firmware, which made the lens default to use of screw drive motor for focus. It was the best thing I ever did. Of course, it makes the normal screw drive motor noise, but that was music to my ears because I knew it was focusing. <br>

Giving up the SDM was a very easy sacrifice to make. In exchange, I got to keep weather sealing for the 16-50 range, retain the good optics of the 15-60, and not lose money on selling and buying new. And it simply works every time. <br>

<br />You should be able to find the procedure by googling, but if you have trouble, I can take a look and try to confirm what I did - it was a couple of years back. I had to use my K10D (which I no longer have) to complete the procedure, so not sure if it'll work using current bodies.</p>

<p>I've had a happy ending to my problem with the DA16-50 and thought I would share. First of all, I didn't get rid of it. Initially, I was torn as to what I might get to replace it. There were a couple of good candidate lenses, in particular a Sigma "splash proof" 12-24mm that is yet to be available. The hardest thing was going to be giving up my only WR lens. Aside from this, I had other things going on and didn't want to be distracted with lens management. So, I didn't do anything and let the issue sit. </p>

<p>Flash forward to now, I just did a search to see if anyone had managed to modify the firmware, allowing either SDM or screwdrive focus. As it happens, someone has! Seems to be only in the last month or so, so still recent news. The procedure changes the firmware of the LENS itself, and locks it to screw drive focus only, unless you restore the old firmware. So, you can then put it on any Pentax body, and it will screw drive focus. </p>

<p>In practice, the procedure was very easy to do, although it doesn't seem you can carry it out on a K-5 due to needing access to certain debug menu options. I used a K-x. The result: my DA16-50 now autofocuses again! And it's faster than the SDM ever was. Do I feel regret that I will never enjoy SDM again? Answer: no! After three SDM failures, the reality is that it was never a viable feature to begin with, at least for this lens. Now I get to keep a lens I like, and have it work!</p>

<p><br />For anyone interested in doing the same, below is a link to the instructions and a link to a youtube video (not mine) showing the result. The instructions are a little unclear due to translation, but it becomes apparent as you go along. If anyone needs clarity, I'd be happy to help. </p>

<p>http://www.pentaxiste.org/pratique/depannage/article/how-to-deactivate-sdm-and-allow?var_mode=calcul</p>

<p>

 

<p>Good luck Patrick. Another possibility is that the electrical contact pad beneath the shutter button could be going bad or maybe just needs to be jostled around a bit. Somewhat of a project, but you could dismantle the camera case and inspect the the shutter button. Sometimes just opening things up and reseating parts does wonders for making things work correctly. I once took apart my DS to fix the flash popup button. In that case I had to use some epoxy, but it was nice to be able to do it without sending it off and paying lots of $$. There was a very nice set of instructions with pictures on the web for how to open up the DS - the DL would be similar I'm sure. If you want to try it out, you could google it. </p>

<p>I haven't tried contacting Pentax directly, but it's worth a shot. I believe each repair is warrantied for something like 6 months. I'll have to check the paperwork. The last time around they didn't charge me, because it was so close to the end of their last repair. Which is nice, I guess, but I'm done with paying shipping and/or repair and having to go without the lens for a month or so. </p>

<p>Unless Pentax is to intervene in some phenomenal way, I'm leaning toward the Sigma equivalent of this lens. </p>

 

<p>I'm not sure why your DL didn't fire. If it's in M mode it shouldn't care whether the flash is up, or what your shutter and aperture values are; it should just shoot when you tell it. If it's truly misbehaving as you describe, I might suggest trying a reinstall of the firmware. Also maybe verify you have the most up to date firmware. If this doesn't cure a possible software corruption, then maybe it's due to a hardware malfunction. <br>

<br />In general, the k-x will be a solid step up in low light / high iso performance. But again, in M mode, it should just shoot when you tell it. Depending on lighting, you can take some pretty useable 1600 iso shots. The K-30 or K-5 are also solid improvements in iso over the k-x. I'd skip the K-7 in this case, unless you saw it for the same price as a K-x. I've had the K-5 for almost a year now, and can't imagine considering another body unless a FF came along. Between the K-5 and K-30, if the same price, i'd go with the K-5. </p>

<p>Oh, for the DL try this: set the autofocus to be a button other than the shutter firing button, and disable autofocus on half-depress of firing button. I suspect this is actually your problem. Without doing this, then whenever lighting is low, it will take a long time to refocus every time you do a half shutter depress. Even if you achieve focus, if you don't fire right then, but let up instead, it will have to go through it all over again. If you pop up flash, it probably would have to pre-flash to focus, but the overall process might be quicker. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>In actual truth, I don't take advantage of the WR that often. But, the 16-50 zoom range makes for the best all-purpose lens on a given outing, so it's nice to have that be the WR lens. Sigma has a new splash proof 12-24mm lens out that looks attractive, but apparently it won't accept filters. To me, that's a huge negative: wide angle lens w/o polarizing filter option? There are also the 17-50's from both Sigma and Tamron, which make for the obvious replacement choices.</p>

<p>Slightly divergent from the topic, but if I wanted WR on anything, it would be the pancakes. I have a DA15 mm and a DA40mm, both of which are attractive for single or multiday hiking/camping trips. In most cases I can get around WR, but I like the peace of mind that if I'm caught in sudden or even minimal and persistent rain, I don't need to mess with shielding my camera.</p>

<p>Hello Pentax community,<br /> My 16-50mm SDM motor is failing again, for the 3rd time. So if I pay for repair, I will be on the 4th SDM motor, assuming each repair has been a motor swap out. I'm beside myself. The optics are nice and I want the WR feature, but I also want AF. Without an option to use the screw drive motor, the only future I can see is: (1) to accept that it's a MF lens, (2) continue to pay for yearly motor replacement, or (3) sell and replace with 3rd party non-WR option. </p>

<p>I'm not a professional photographer and photography is a hobby activity - which is partly to say that I don't exercise the 16-50 nearly enough to even remotely explain the regular SDM failures. Each motor is good for about 9 months, which includes maybe 4-5 outings of use. No African safari, no rain forests, no desert, but rather family get togethers and dayhikes.</p>

<p><br /> I'm leaning this time for option (3), but repair first and sell with full disclosure. This to me is just ridiculously unacceptable, but I don't feel I have any other recourse. What have other pentax SDM users done? Any inside info on why Pentax has never owned up to this? <br /> Pat</p>

<p>Not mentioned was the DA 40mm limited. More expensive than the new 40mm pancake for the mirrorless, but still less than half the 31mm limited cost. It's going to be a little longer than the 50mm equivalent you're looking for, and at f2.8, it's not faster than some of the other lenses mentioned, but if you're looking for discretion, optical quality, and fast focus, it has all of these. I'm not experienced with street photography, so I'm just commenting to it's capabilities. Good luck!</p>

<p>There's still the FA50 and the FA35 they could resurrect. Admittedly, it's getting crowded in that range. Also, although it's not money in Pentax's pockets, there do exist many decent Sigma lenses that are FF. The fact that they are 3rd party doesn't change that they are decent lenses and help fill the FF gaps. So as consumers, we do have options. This will be more apparent to the informed Pentax user vs newcomers, however.<br>

<br />Still though, FF is not new. I understand the growing pains of updating product lines and introducing new tech, but to crank out an obligatory FF 18-55mm kit lens to bide time - how hard can that be for Pentax/Ricoh? <br>

<br />I think where Pentax can really make a mark with FF though will be if they offer a compact form with ergonomic interface and conventional presentation; following the DS, K-x, and K5/7 tradition. I see reviews of the newest Nikon FF body - and while an impressive piece of work - I can't imagine ever wanting to carry around that car battery and taking pictures with it. SR would be a bonus, but not really essential for a first run if they nail the other attributes. </p>

<p>I read Ned's response that was linked to above, but I'm just not feeling the love. First, distinguishing that the price increase is not a price increase, but a policing of the MSRP value is a diversionary point. It's like saying slavery didn't cause the (American) civil war. The existing consumer base has built their purchasing/upgrading habits and expectations around a pricing scheme that has been fairly stable over the past several years. Whether you want to call it policing or providing a direct path to your bottom line (i.e., "price increase") is beside the point - the fact is that Pentax made a decision that increased the pricing ecosystem of their products, in order to make more money. The dramatic price change is like dropping a meteor on prehistoric Earth; a portion of the existing dinosaur consumer base will die out and - if Pentax remains - a new customer base will evolve. It's purely a business call, which they're entitled to do, but I don't buy the "we never meant to hurt you" tone. The justification that it will "benefit the brand and many of you" is a pointless waste of words, because we can't see their books and have no way to judge for ourselves. <br>

I see this as them trying to position themselves to become more like Nikon and Canon. Maybe there are bigger ambitions like digital FF in the works, but it's not how I'd prefer to get there. What originally attracted me to Pentax was fantastic value, practical/ergonomic features (SR, compactness of size), and access to high quality. Cameras like the DS, K10D, K-x, and K-5, along with FA50, and Limited lenses all lived up to that. You could inject relatively affordable sums of money into the Pentax system and have excellent performance in your targeted area of interest. Whereas Canon and Nikon, you had to inject a lot more money to do the same, or you just ended up with less. With camera misfires (my opinion) like the K01 and the Q (which I consider a viral mutation on the noble concept of compactness), the recent price change maneuver feels more like another example of how increasingly out of touch the Pentax business minds have become. </p>

<p>My 2 cents. I had a katzeye screen for my K10D (now sold and have a K5) and I did not use the optibrite or any other special markings. Didn't miss any of it. Maybe if I saw the difference optibrite could make, I might could be jealous, but I remained ignorant and nothing registered enough to bother me. <br>

The markings were pretty easy to let go. If you've used the selected focus points, you tend to know where they are and you know where the red dot is, so it's not a great disadvantage to lack the bracket lines. <br>

So, I had the ~$100 katzeye screen, loved it, and miss it on my k5. Although, with the improvements in the k5 autofocus, I haven't been as tempted to mess with manual focus. In general, the AF, ISO, and metering on the k5 make things so easy, I feel damn near obsolete.<br>

I have wondered, why no split screen as default for all the DSLRs out there? Cost saver I suppose, but seems it was such a standard on film SLRs that it would've carried over. Admittedly, my first SLR was a DSLR, so maybe late generation film SLRs dropped the split screen. </p>

 

<p>Justin,<br>

You've inspired me. First, I left out a portion of my experience above for brevity. That experience is that when I ventured out with the K10D + DA16-50 I knew going in it was going to be bouncy around my chest and heavy (lot of blame goes to the DA16-50). I searched pretty rigorously for a holster of dimensions no larger than I needed and settled on the Lowepro TLZ 1, which turned out a perfect fit and it has a number of D rings for attaching harnesses to. I believe you can buy a chest harness for this holster as well, but I didn't like the idea of this harness resting beneath my backpack shoulder straps. So, the next time I was near an REI I bought a decent length of webbing and an assortment of clips, figuring I could rig something together and fasten somewhere on my pack. It was a noble effort, but the best I could do with that approach was awkward and tedious to put on and adjust for comfort - and it still didn't hold the holster firmly against my chest, so it swayed or bounced when I moved. </p>

<p>After that I decided it wasn't worth the trouble unless it was altogether lighter and less bulky. Fast forward to the K-x + DA40mm - the combo was so blessedly light that just hanging it on my neck wasn't too bad from an endurance standpoint, although still inconvenient mobility-wise. So now I'm encouraged to give the harness-and-holster approach (I have a Rezo TLZ 10 for the K-x) another go.</p>

<p>Did you use an off the shelf harness system for your non-rock climbing activities? I might also give the biner clips and bungee cord a consideration.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Final note, thru hiking is a totally different animal. The goal is to move long distances without much rest periods, or time for real photography</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is true, although my "thru hiking" is just two or three nights. I reasoned that to justify taking the DSLR, it has to be easy to access and carry. I'm not there yet, but getting close. Even though you can't take much time to pause on these hikes, I kick myself when I encounter a striking scene or interesting lighting and don't have my camera or it's buried in my pack. :/</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>As good as mirrorless cameras might be, shooting with a DSLR is so much faster. I can leave it on all the time, just tap the shutter to activate the meter as I remove it from the bag, put to the eye, fire the shot and drop it back in the bag. It's why I usually deal with it on day hikes.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed. I'm not convinced I could live with a mirrorless performance after being used to SLR; just willing to try it out. </p>

<p>The topic of backpacking and photography has been an area of trial and error for me, so I thought I'd share my experiences. The context is that I'm hiking/camping on the Appalachian Trail with friends, doing 10-15 miles a day. So, I want to bring DSLR control/quality/capability. My first attempt was to take the K10D with a Da*16-50mm. The logic was that I'd have weather sealing, great wide angle for vistas, and some zoom for portraits. This turned out a bad choice:</p>

<ol>

<li>with a holster case (for stowing safely in my pack), combined weight was 6 lbs - this is a lot of weight for a single non-essential item and over the miles I came to resent bringing it </li>

<li>size & weight are ungainly for spontaneous shooting. If in your pack, you have to stop and take it off to get the camera out. If instead you hike with it around your neck, you will feel like Frodo Baggins and believe me the burden is heavy, yes precious it is</li>

<li>weather sealing is redundant. In actual circumstances where it's raining, you're probably still hiking - and - with either poncho or jacket/pack cover on, getting the camera in and out of your pack is a nuisance. So, your behavior adjusts accordingly and you leave it in the pack. Even if you did shoot with it in the rain, you're not going to want to pack it away wet, so your best bet is to not get it wet at all (or particularly dirty). </li>

</ol>

<p>With that experience in mind, I had eventually acquired a K-x and DA*40mm pancake and the difference was heavenly. </p>

<ol>

<li>total weight with holster was now 2.5 lbs.</li>

<li>light and small enough that I could wear it around my neck for whiles at a time, so I'm ready for dear, ponies, pretty rays of light through the trees, or whatever. Still cumbersome at times - bounces around against your chest - but WAY less annoying than K10D combo.</li>

<li>I treat it just as carefully as I would any other valuable item, so no great need for heavier ruggedized/rain&dustproof features. </li>

</ol>

<p>Followup thoughts:</p>

<ol>

<li>K5 might also be good choice - somewhat heavier & larger, but not much. Advantage would be weather sealing, ISO, and maybe better res video if that appeals to you. Still a good idea to stick to pancakes, and there are no weather sealed pancakes, unfortunately.</li>

<li>Q system somewhat interesting - but part of the point is to have an APS-C format. And if you want option for shallow DOF, I'm not sure how well Q can deliver (i think it has a "Blur Control" mode for artificially applying bokeh in software). Otherwise, there are other small format point and shoots with DSLR-like control. </li>

<li>If Pentax were to market a camera with DSLR-like abilities to a backpacker, I would want: very small and lightweight (might as well say mirrorless), APS-C, k-mount, aperture, shutter, iso control, good ISO, and weathersealing. The quicker handling response the better, but being ready and not cumbersome is more important than shooting moving subjects. </li>

</ol>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Patrick, Pentax does produce a full frame camera. It's the 645D. ...<br>

I really don't understand what people think they are going to gain from the FF camera. I still believe these people have a closet full of FF lenses and feel cheated that they need have to use a multiplier.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The 645D is simply a non-choice for the vast majority of people, so I can't really take that comment seriously. Pentax digital FF isn't going to bring world peace, and its true that its value (I think) would depend most strongly on a user's current lens collection. You get more fov on your wide angle lenses. You can also argue the better iso performance with larger sensor size. Those could be really big, depending on what you like to shoot. <br>

Whether digital FF makes sense financially for Pentax I can't say because I don't see their books; I can just name what I want and point out a logic to pursuing that direction. They already have FF lens designs and maintain current production of several flagship products (31/43/77 mm limiteds), which have very marketable reputations. It seems more than half their work is done for them, whereas with Q they have to convince people that system is great, plus design and build new lenses to outfit that system. <br>

I like that Pentax is willing to try out Q, because it shows they're willing to pursue outside-of-the-box ideas - and I hope it works out for them, but I don't want it for myself. <br>

I think the "twitch" that I referred to earlier was because Q reminds me of the direction an mp3 maker called iRiver took - they used to make really great and ergonomic mp3 players before iPods (which chain you to Apple) came on the scene. Then instead of competing with their strengths, they just starting going ultra novelty and cutesy with Mickey Mouse shaped mp3 players that were "really small", etc. iRiver still exists, but they're not very relevant. <br>

Anyway, Q is not Mickey Mouse, it just reminds me of Mickey Mouse! </p>

 

<p>Not sure what to think. <br>

The K5 seems like a great product (which I want, but still expensive), and the Q seems like a misfire; tipping the novelty vs function scale over the edge on the novelty side. In truth we have yet to see how it functions and how the market bears it out. But, it's just under 2/3 cost of a K5 and will its dof or fov hope to compare with dslr interchangeable lens systems? If not, and with such a small sensor, why bother with interchangeable lenses at all? <br>

I'm still just twitchy at the Q product direction. I'd really hoped to see progression toward a FF product, with emphasis on compactness that Pentax does well and seems to get market acknowledgement for. Also, with FF, it would reinvigorate sales of their already existing and renowned FF lens lineup! And oh would I love to have a WR pancake lens, or 2, or 3, be they APS-C or FF. That would be such a win people would buy into pentax for it alone. But with Q they start from scratch and it may tank...<br>

Ok, sorry for the rant. So which way will Ricoh go?</p>