andrewg_ny

<p>Technically, I think the interesting bits are:</p> <ul> <li>Hybrid live view AF with on-sensor phase detection AF points</li> <li>Support for new electronic aperture (currently only supported with new 55-300/4.5-6.3 ED PLM WR RE (in addition to electronic aperture, also retractable and has pulse linear AF motor (PLM))</li> <li>continuous AF for video (presumably this benefits from that new lens) </li> </ul> <p>Also merges some of the capabilities that may have been available in K-3 or K-S2 but not both</p> <ul> <li>14-bit RAW (prior entry/mid-level bodies had 12-bit RAW)</li> <li>first entry/mid-level body with 24mp sensor</li> <li>Wi-Fi</li> <li>pixel-shift</li> </ul>

<p>My experience and most of the criticism that I've read over the years is mostly concerned with speed & tracking more than accuracy when comparing against other makers' SLRs. Pentax seems to favor accuracy over speed with their AF logic. Even greater accuracy should be possible with live view contrast-detect focusing, and the newer models have continued to improve in this regard. I believe the K-7 had the first more-or-less fully-featured live view implementation, and the K-5 and K-01 made significant speed improvements to contrast-detect focusing. Possibly later models may have improved this yet further but I don't know to what extent.</p> <p> </p> <ul> <li>K-7 (SAFOX VIII+), 11 points, rated to 0EV like all SAFOX VIII models before it. I'm forgetting what the '+' was for here, I suspect it started to incorporate white balance into the AF?</li> <li>K-5's AF module (SAFOX IX+) 11 points, rated to -1EV</li> <li>K-5ii's AF improved a bit (SAFOX X), the sensors became more sensitive to lower light (I believe to -3EV?) but still had 11 points. I skipped from K-7 => K-5ii, I found this change noticeable, and I think this also helps with slower lenses like zooms.</li> <li>The K-3 (SAFOX 11) added a few more points (totaling 27 points), and maybe a slightly faster & more powerful motor (?)</li> <li>K-1 added yet more points (SAFOX 12, with 33 points), but (probably because it's sharing some components designed for APS-C models) the spread of the points covers less of the frame (appear more concentrated in middle). The reviews I've read seem to suggest it's not a dramatic improvement over K-3.</li> </ul> <p>Other possible accuracy issues can be lens and aperture-specific. Focusing is normally done with wide-open rather than shooting aperture, and particularly with phase-detect AF, there may be calibration issues between a particular lens and body.</p>

<p>I have an LX I haven't used much. As you've probably heard before, it really does 'feel' like a step up from most other Pentax film cameras. (I'd say the same thing about the 645N, they just feel better put-together, more attention to detail, etc. I have no experience with P67 but would be surprised if it doesn't share that professional-duty build level.). It is a nice size and ticks a lot of feature boxes, especially in comparison to most other Pentax bodies.</p> <p>I don't know about a hard expiration date. I think one thing that has kept me from enjoying my LX it as much as I should is the nagging feeling that while it is functional it probably could be that much better if I had it CLA'ed. (Most notably, the mirror lockup isn't quite right on my example) Unfortunately service is rather pricey and I have a lot of other quite like-able Pentax film bodies to choose from, so I haven't gotten around to it. So if you were to pursue this, I'd suggest going in with the attitude that a CLA (if not a real repair) might be warranted to get the most out of it, especially considering that the resources for repairs are not getting less scarce. Maybe look for an example that has had a recent CLA.</p> <p>I don't want to discourage you though -- something like this can be an itch that you just have to scratch. And this isn't nearly as extravagant a commitment as one might make by going with Leica.</p>

<p>Looks like a firmware update may be required for Cactus RF60 to use HSS with V6 ii, possibly new purchases already have it.</p> <p>The Godox kit might work, it looks a little cheaper to buy (more like $200 for a transceiver + flash rather than ~$250 for the cactus). Not sure whether the Li-ion batteries for the Godox are a net win or not (Cactus is using AA's). The transceiver you linked was a Canon version, I think. Looking at <a href="http://www.godox.com/EN/Products.html">godox.com</a> it appears they offer a 'generic' version with single contact for brands other than Canon/Nikon/Sony. Not sure how much functionality you lose, I'd be inclined to download & check the manuals thoroughly, possibly look for someone with first-hand experience using Pentax with these, maybe try to contact Godox sales, etc.</p>

<p>I was referring to Pentax's own P-TTL optical wireless. The better Pentax bodies can trigger these with the RTF (on-board flash) as trigger. Do you mean radio triggers?<br> <br />I've only read about these a little recently but the latest Cactus V6 II triggers claim to support HSS with Pentax and even other makers flashes, they have profiles for a bunch of third-party flashes too. If this sounds like something you're interested in, I'd probably start looking at that compatibility list. </p> <p>There is some note on compatibility with Pentax HSS but (you'd probably want to confirm this) my interpretation is that you can only use Pentax flashgun HSS with Pentax bodies; put another way, Pentax flashgun will probably NOT HSS with non-Pentax bodies. I suspect that non-Pentax flashes with HSS capability may still HSS with the trigger on Pentax bodies.</p> <p>It sounds like Cactus RF60 might support HSS when used with their V6 II trigger. I have a suspicion that when using the triggers (quite likely with the Pentax flashgun as well) you get manual HSS but not P-TTL automatic exposure. It looks like the trigger has a TTL pass-through shoe so you'd get the autoexposure (probably only with flashguns that would normally give you P-TTL autoexposure, such as Pentax units but not Cactus RF60) when the flash is mounted on-trigger-on-camera but not when triggered wirelessly.<br> <br />I suspect that for you with what you're describing, manual exposure would be fine. There's a good chance you can find someone on Pentaxforums who has tried HSS with these triggers first-hand.</p>

<p>Aging thread now, but F5 has little manual-focus-aid 'triangles' as arrows on either side of the in-focus dot in the viewfinder -- suggesting which direction to turn the focus ring when focusing manually. Indicators like this were also present on some other early AF bodies like Pentax ME-F and SF-1, presumeably because it was assumed a lot of old manual focus lenses would still be in use. Possibly on the Nikon these flash when camera 'gives up' trying to AF. I guess I am also wondering whether this works OK in good daylight and it's just that it's failing in dim interior lighting.</p>

<p>For what it's worth, the older AF-540FGZ and AF-360FGZ models can be bought used within that budget. At the very least, compatibility is more or less assured, especially when considering more advanced P-TTL features like HSS and P-TTL wireless.</p> <p>There's a pretty good <a href="http://pttl.mattdm.org/">P-TTL info page here</a> though starting to become a bit outdated.</p>

<p>Assuming that Tamron is actually assembling and/or supplying components for these lenses, presumably the tech they're using for AF motors is similar to what Pentax has used in its SDM models so that naming convention was adopted. It's not clear that one type is considered by Pentax to be generally superior to another or more appropriate for high-end models as they've been putting DC motors even in high-priced lenses like the DA560 and D-FA150-450 as well as DFA645 90/2.8 (the other modern 645 lenses used SDM).</p>

<p>I have the same Sigma 24-60/2.8 EX that Michael K. mentionned, for the most part I've preferred my Pentax FA 24-90/3.5-4.5 over that lens. The Sigma is a little more solid-feeling but I find the backwards (vs. Pentax) turning controls and relatively fiddley hood & lenscap attachment kind of annoying in comparison, plus I find the colors a little different than Pentax. It's relatively compact for an f/2.8 zoom but it does have a 77mm (vs. 67 for the FA24-90 3.5-4.5 and the Tamron 28-75/2.8) filter size, and it's also heavier (548g, vs. 355g for the FA24-90 and 505g for the Tamron 28-75). Plus I like the extra reach, and the 24-90 is pretty decent at the long end of its range, slightly better I think than the DA17-70/4 (67mm filter, 485g) that I usually use these days, more of a concession to the usefulness of having wide angle in the same lens. Unlike the other three alternatives, it also features quiet SDM AF and "quick-shift" manual focus touch-up (the other three require switching the body to MF to allow moving the focus ring). If I was buying today I would probably be looking hardest at the the 16-85 and 20-40 limited. The most recent version of the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 is probably better than the Pentax 17-70, at least in some regards.</p>

<p>Zane, that chart isn't a bad summary. I sort of wonder about K100D/K100D Super as 'Mid-range'.</p> <p>In my version, I'd have K100D and K100D-Super as Entry-Level, and I'd move *ist DS and *ist DS/2 to Mid-range, as these had the improved pentaprism viewfinder and TTL flash vs. the truly entry-level *ist DL. </p> <p>And the K100D was pretty much an *ist DL + SR (shake-reduction) and better JPEG engine, and the K100D-Super was pretty much the same except for SDM lens support, so I'd have called these entry-level.</p>

<p>There are some in-camera settings for controlling the folder, described on p133 in <a href="http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/support/man-pdf/optio-e30.pdf">the manual</a>. Maybe its behavior will seem better if you use the 'Date' option for the 'Folder Name' setting. </p> <p>Is what you're saying though that the camera is now forgetting various settings between sessions? Does this happen when your battery dies or literally every time the camera is turned off and back on? Perhaps there was some sort of battery that was supposed to help remember settings (and possibly keep the clock/date working) that no longer functions. </p> <p>My recommendation though is that you not fight the camera and instead find a better process when importing to your PC/Mac that will automatically rename the images for you -- typically I would have it do something like YYYYMMDD-NNN.jpg where YYYYMMDD is the capture date, and NNN is a sequence# for that day. It would also possible for you to rename your existing images to the same pattern, as the capture date is retained in the image files embedded metadata.</p>

<p>Cool find, looks like an aftermarket modification. You can now enjoy the vaunted experience of shooting APS-C digital -- but on film, with classic camera handling!</p> <p>I read Klinger and instantly think of the M*A*S*H Corporal (played by Jamie Farr).</p>

<p>I can't speak for this particular model, but a few other 35mm pentax point & shoots that I've tried do allow firing without film or even with the loading door open. <br> It's possible that the battery condition could affect the shutter but if it's strong enough to operate the zoom, etc. that wouldn't be my first guess.</p>

<p>I'm not really expecting Nikon or Canon to jump on this in any hurry, but it is conceivable if they think marginal sales justify it. Consider that Panasonic began adding sensor-shift stabilization to complement lens-shift stabilization in selected m4/3 bodies. (I don't think Panasonic has adopted pixel-shifting yet, but I think Olympus has).</p>

<p>Hin, those are pretty nice. Were you that close or did you crop?</p>

<p>I know this thread is a little old now...</p> <p>I think cameramakers have to choose a balance between trying to simulate what the resulting picture will look like vs. boosting the gain for the viewfinder/rear LCD preview to make composing & focusing easier. Sounds like Panasonic's preview is not helping you as much as you're used to when doing long exposures (esp. with ND filters). It's possible there's a setting that controls this, but the approach I'd probably take is to meter daylight without the filters and then figure out how many stops I need to adjust in manual once the filters are installed -- do a little trial and error and see which recipe provides what you want.</p>

<p>Hin, I think when people see the increased AF sensitivity the first thought is 'low light' -- but I suspect it also helps with slower lenses as well.</p> <p>My K-5ii was an upgrade from K-7. I don't think I've used this model enough yet with AF.C tracking to know just how much better it is in that regard. Clearly K-3 has taken another intentional step beyond all previous Pentax D-SLRs by including more than 12 AF points (27)...I also am curious how much difference this makes in practice.</p>

<p>35's are a little tougher to find cheap because by the late 70's and early 80's when K-mount was going full-steam, the more popular and typical wide prime bought by the masses was a 28mm.</p> <p>As far as Pentax-branded, I don't think you're probably going to find a 35mm for $50 with K-mount -- but there are good choices with adapted M42 screwmount (like Pentax SMC Takumar 35/3.5) in that approximate price range.</p> <p>The least expensive Pentax-branded K-mount 35's I see are Pentax-M 35/2.8, but even these are going for a little more, like $85 or so.</p> <p>The lower-cost 35's are usually from lesser-known brands...but I'd guess that assuming condition is decent that any would be serviceable. Ricoh/Rikenon would probably be good but also may be hard to find for $50. Sometimes you can get 'lucky' and find something bundled with an old body.</p>

<p>Hin, I can't speak too much for K-3 but as of K-5ii, the AF module improved its light sensitivity. I think this has been the most noticeable AF improvement on a Pentax DSLR that I can recall.</p>

<p>I've always wanted a F*300/4.5, but these lenses have held their value well so remain rather pricey, plus the ones that show up on the market are often beat-up and/or missing the tripod foot (not sure if the hood gets lost too?). For whatever reason, this one has always appealed to me more than the FA* or DA*. I ended up with a DA*60-250/4, not sure I can really justify owning both.</p>

<p>It's better than not getting the award, but there are lots of specific categories so there's some sort of award for a significant new product from pretty much each manufacturer. It's almost as if each category was named with a recipient in mind.</p>

<p>Tim, I'm sure there's at least some degradation. I'd think if you shot at f/11-13 or so, there should be a bit more fine detail at the plane of focus. That said, your image might benefit from the extra DoF at the cost of the most detail the lens can deliver at the the plane of focus.</p> <p>Michael's MZ-S comment was related to the fact that one of the last advanced film body models -- the MZ-S -- could not do what your K100D is doing -- that is, manually controlling the aperture when aperture ring is set to 'A'.</p> <p>I guess this Sigma lens is an AF lens (comparable to Pentax-F or Pentax-FA)...if the lens was only 'A' compatible, it would not report the different aperture to the camera as the lens was zoomed -- it would say f/22 even though it was effectively f/40 when zoomed to 80mm.</p> <p>This is not my area of expertise but I suspect the effective aperture when using the 'macro mode' may be different than what the lens reports to the camera. The lens electronics probably report the changing minimum & maximum apertures as the lens is zoomed but not specifically when switching macro mode.</p>

<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. I suspect that optically, the 20-40 or 16-85 are the best choices, the most likely to give you that IQ boost that approaches what you'd get with primes.</p> <p>My current standard zoom is the 17-70/4, though I've never been all that pleased with the focusing, and it isn't fully sealed either. It is competitive with but probably not completely better than Tamron 17-50/2.8 or Sigma 17-70/2.8-4. It along with the DA* 16-50 are probably the 'best of the rest', Pentax-wise. </p>

<p>So back to the context I was mentioning a few weeks ago... K-5ii with DA12-24/4 and DA17-70/4 vs. K-1 with FA20-35/4 and FA24-90/3.5-4.5. In both cases the FA lenses are smaller than their DA counterparts.<br> I'm probably not being completely clear but the question in my mind is not whether the pixel-level performance will be as good using the older FA lenses on a 36mp K-1...for this, I expect the answer is probably no...seems newer lenses tend to handle the pixel pitch of higher-resolution sensors a little better than older designs, and aberrations are better-designed out. The thought though is that this might be offset by the extra pixels, 50% in each dimension.<br> The question is more whether the apparent detail for a given scene will be better or worse -- for example, if you were to downsize the K-1 image taken with the FA glass to 16mp...or if you were to print both images to the same size paper...which would look better?<br> I guess a similar experiment could be conducted by using top-level glass on a 6-or-10mp body vs. something not quite so good on a 16mp body but this wouldn't necessarily answer my specific question authoritatively.</p>

<p>What might lead me one direction is whether some decent legacy FA glass (that I already own) produces good output on the new body -- for example, if my FA20-35/4 and FA24-90/3.5-4.5 produce output that significantly betters what I get with DA12-24/4 and DA17-70/4 on my K-5ii. These are cases where the FA glass is actually more compact than the DA alternatives. I'm not really that interested in buying large and pricey new glass.</p> <p>I think many of the comments about 'sensors being demanding on lenses' come from the notion that it's a waste of an expensive extra-hi-res sensor to have lenses that aren't just about perfect. From a more practical standpoint though -- does it produce higher-quality images than my current APS-C alternatives while using more average glass?</p>