andrewg_ny

<p>I have both two copies of AF360FGZ version I (both purchased used for < $150 each) and AF540FGZ version I.</p> <p>I mostly use the AF360FGZ's for multi-flash P-TTL wireless -- because I miss the swivel feature of the AF540FGZ. I like being able to bounce vertically when I'm shooting vertically ('portrait orientation') and also the option of bouncing the flash backwards - often you have a light-colored wall behind you.</p> <p>If I could only have one flash, it would probably be the newest AF360FGZ version II which includes the swivel, plus other niceties like weather sealing and LED constant light source (these I care less about than the swivel). <br> I believe the AF360FGZ is plenty powerful, and I prefer the somewhat smaller size. What I wish Pentax would offer though is a 2x AA battery version, similar to the Olympus FL36 -- it sacrifices some refresh rate but this makes it noticeably smaller than even the AF360FGZ, and it has pretty much all the same features (or at least the Olympus version of them)...</p> <p>....which brings me back to the question I should have asked in the first place. Did you have a decent hotshoe flash on your Olympus PEN? No matter which brand, shooting flash is a significantly different skill than available-light photography with its own learning curve. I am wondering in what way your Oly PEN was unsatisfactory? (Though I'll grant that handling a small PEN with a large hotshoe flash may be less comfortable than SLR).</p> <p><a href="http://pttl.mattdm.org/">Here's a resource</a> for various P-TTL flashes (Pentax and third-party).</p>

<p>The manual's not real specific though there may be some actual difference. It says (summarizing a bit):</p> <ul> <li>GREEN setting is used for low flash output</li> <li>RED setting for high flash output</li> <li>for distance 1m-3.5m (3.2'-11.5') green can save batteries (or RED can be used <em>when smaller aperture</em> is desired)</li> <li>Overexposure results when red setting is used for subjects closer than 1m</li> <li>Underexposure results if green is used for subjects beyond 3.5m</li> </ul> <p>These statements suggest that there may be some difference in power between the settings.<br> <br />It sounds like you're trying to use P or Tv and have aperture set automatically, probably the flash's dedicated features are telling the camera what to set the aperture to. I'm not sure that's the right way to go. I would probably use M with the aperture, shutter, and ISO set as I want, set the ISO on the flash to match. In either auto mode, the flash will cut output when it believes (from the front-mounted sensor which according to the manual has surprisingly narrow 20 degree coverage, a field of view similar to a short telephoto like 80mm on a DSLR) sufficient exposure has occurred. You can then adjust output to taste by changing ISO (without changing flash ISO) or aperture on the camera body.</p> <p>If you don't have shutter, aperture, and ISO fixed (M or X modes) then you're not isolating the effects of the red and green modes because the flash will cut exposure when it thinks it's provided enough. And even then, exposure might not be different if you're in the middle of the effective distance range.</p>

<p>Does it improve with use? I have sometimes found that my DA17-70/4 SDM will be <strong>very</strong> sluggish if I haven't used it for a few months but after a few minutes of exercising the AF it starts to perk up and work better. I am not certain why this would be, possibly there's something that loses a charge after a while?</p>

<p>Wait, do you have my long-lost MX?<br> <br />(I kid.)</p>

<p>Regarding "don'ts", it's hard to know exactly where you are in this process -- are you familiar with the difference between flash modes: Manual / Auto / TTL / P-TTL ? Understanding these will help you know what will work and with what limitations.</p> <p>As an alternative to a manual/non-TTL flash for triggering optical slaves (or for wiring up off-camera flash with longer sync cables), you can also go for radio triggers. Some of these are inexpensive, though (as with generic optical triggering) the flash is full manual. If you're triggering the flashgun with a radio trigger, you really don't care much about the brand of flash unit, you just want the flash to have some manual control so you can reduce power as desired. <br> This said, if you had a Pentax P-TTL compatible flash that includes both manual and P-TTL modes, you could use the manual mode when off-camera or mounted on the Fuji, and still optionally have P-TTL automation when shooting on-camera. Same story with a Fuji TTL flash -- if it also offers a manual mode, that could also be pressed into less-automated use when mounted on or triggered by the Pentax.</p> <p> </p>

Antoni, I can't say for certain that you're wrong about them being "the same" but will point out that the published specs don't match in terms of #elements/groups, weight, minimum focus distance, or focal length. This said, that Vivitar 13/2.8 IS priced very low, less than half the cost of any of the ultra-wide zooms, so I'd imagine might be of interest to anyone considering that Samyang 14/2.8.

<p>There's nothing particularly wrong with the models you mention. I will suggest that the imaging sensors on the models slightly newer than the D3000 are a bit better for lower light (high ISO settings). The models (whether Nikon, Pentax, etc.) with 12 or 16 megapixels were generally improved in this regard vs. the 6-10-megapixel sensors. Note that I don't consider the megapixel count difference to be particularly important, but the somewhat improved dynamic range and high-ISO performance are nice to have.<br> <br />Others have already mentioned the more common Canon and Nikons, a few Pentax models to consider (oldest-to-newest):<br> The K-m or K2000 are probably the Pentax models closest to the Nikon D3000.<br> 12mp, single e-dial, pentamirror viewfinder</p> <ul> <li>K-x</li> <li>K-r</li> </ul> <p>newer 16mp, dual e-dial with bigger/brighter pentaprism viewfinder. The K30 and K50 are weather-sealed.</p> <ul> <li>K30</li> <li>K500</li> <li>K50</li> </ul> <p>Video in general, as well as live-view autofocus are areas that were just appearing in the marketplace during the early part of this period so are generally markedly improved in later models.<br> If video is important, I think it's also worth considering a mirrorless model; I think you'd find the micro 4/3 models <strong>Panasonic Lumix G3 or G5</strong> well suited to general-purpose entry-level duty for stills or video, they're a bit more compact than APS-C DSLRs with optical viewfinders, and include pretty good electronic viewfinders that can be used even while shooting video. Their slightly smaller 16mp sensors seem fairly competitive with the Sony-made 12mp sensors in Nikon or Pentax bodies though not quite as good as the 16mp sensors in the newer Pentax/Nikon/Sony bodies. AF is pretty good and they also feature optional touch screen controls and variable-position rear LCD.</p>

<p>I would also be inclined towards the DA 15/4 limited or a designed-for-APS-C ultrawide zoom, probably the Pentax DA 12-24/4 or one of the Sigma 10-20 variants. There is a Pentax DA14/2.8 (designed for APS-C) but it's rather expensive, I'd still lean towards my earlier suggestions. I personally own the Pentax 15/4 and 12-24/4. It's a shame the well-regarded Tokina 11-16/2.8 isn't available for K-mount. Also consider that the native Pentax lenses can take advantage of in-body distortion and CA correction.<br> <br />Another consideration is whether you think you might use any filters -- the Samyang won't accept them. The compact DA 15/4 uses 49mm filters like many other Pentax primes, the other ultra-wide choices generally take 77mm filters (as does the Sigma 17-50).</p>

Sadly, I think the curious Ricoh is better-looking than that ghastly Toyota.

Tendency to hunt slowly due to long focus path -- if camera decides to rack focus towards minimum it can take a while to hit minimum and return to desired distance. Can be annoying if subject is person who has to wait for that.

<p>Agree with Douglas, 100/2.8 macro is a bit long and slow-focusing for portrait duty. I don't own many third-party lenses myself but would suggest you investigate Sigma 70/2.8 EX Macro if you're looking for something double-duty. I don't know a lot about it but believe it at least offers a focus limiter which may improve AF when you don't need super-close focus. It's also cheaper than either the FA77 or the 100 macro.</p> <p>It's a shame the Tamron 60/2 Macro isn't available for K-mount as that might have been another good option.</p> <p> </p>

The Nikkor is supposed to be pretty decent, so merely matching it wouldn't be shameful. It is a few years old now, and isn't weather-sealed so I'm not surprised it's a little cheaper. The Canon 15-85 is $50 more than the Pentax and isn't sealed either. Both offer internal optical stabilization while Pentax can rely on bodies for that (and probably save a little on production costs). I had sort of wished for a spec a bit more like the compact Zeiss 16-80/3.5-4.5 (62mm filter) but not this time. That lens has become quite expensive ($999), I seem to remember it much more reasonable a few years ago.

<p>I think Ray is referring to upgrading the firmware on his old K-10D?<br> <br />I imagine card is emptied on the computer, then re-formatted in-camera it might work. I seem to remember that when K10D was first released, it didn't have SDHD (>2GB SD) support, this was probably added later, perhaps this update caused a little trouble.</p>

<p>I can see that. I imagine there will be some similar deals available at times during the holidays.</p>

<p>The lens looks OK and I can imagine picking it over some of the alternatives, we'll have to see if it can outperform the better examples (e.g. Pentax or Sigma 17-70). It obviously offers WR and a little more range over the Pentax or Sigma 17-70's.</p> <p>I'm a little disappointed that it's just as large as the DA17-70/4 despite the 1-stop slower max aperture, even has a larger 72mm filter size, though this isn't that surprising, the Nikkor 16-85/3.5-5.6 has very similar specs.</p>

Pentax/Ricoh's <a href=http://view.s6.exacttarget.com/? j=fec917777561007e&m=fe9212737561007873&ls=fe2915787366067b751c75&l=fefb117270640c&s=fe5f117777670d7b 7514&jb=ffcf14&ju=fe5f1571776207797d13&r=0>apology</>.

<p>I would not expect an on-camera depth-of-field preview button to do anything useful with an adapted lens -- but you can do your own preview by simply stopping down the lens with the aperture ring. You should see the viewfinder darkening, etc. as you do this, you may need to toggle that auto/manual switch Rick mentioned if it is not darkening.</p> <p>I would have thought that absent a C/Y lens telling the body how to stop down it would have metered the light it sees, disengaging the aperture simulator. It would be the photographer's responsibility to stop the lens down before shooting. It may meter OK in aperture-priority mode, though you'd probably want to open up the aperture for focusing, then stop down, check for acceptable shutter speed, then take picture.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Joking aside, these are pretty good new color combos (even if rather effeminate, which was probably the point).</p>

<p>The more interesting thing is that Pentax/Ricoh found such a gigantic woman to hold their camera. The fact her fingers can even reach in front the lens while holding it is astounding -- her giant mitts make a K-mount SLR look like Pentax-Q.</p> <p> </p>

<p>I imagine that glass surface on the other side of the focusing screen might be the pentaprism. Glad you managed to fix it.</p>

<p>The FM isn't huge but it is 'one size increment' bigger than a more compact SLR like Pentax MX/ME, Olympus OM or even the Nikon-ese EM or FG. There are some options for SLR pancake lenses (usually 40/2.8 or 45/2.8) or relatively compact 50/1.7 or 1.8, 35/2.8, or 28/2.8 (some of the even older f/3.5 primes are even smaller) but beyond these the lenses start becoming noticeably larger than Leica rangefinder lenses.</p>

<p>The Pentax model Lex mentioned is PC35 AF, which we coincidentally discussed at greater length in <a href="/modern-film-cameras-forum/00csWK">this other current thread</a>.</p> <p>It offers autoexposure & autofocus, and has built-in flash but lacks the bulb mode. No manual settings other than manual ISO and a 1.5EV backlight compensation button.</p> <p>As others mentioned, the disappearance of manual modes (and bulb) on compact cameras coincided with the appearance of built-in flash and motorization. Cameramakers traded bulky mechanical linkages for more flexibly-arranged electronic bits, and filled space with motors and batteries powerful enough to charge a flash and operate those motors for advance and rewind.</p> <p>I think there may have been a few models with motorized advance but manual rewind. No idea if any of these models met your other criteria.</p>

What are you hoping to get out of a new camera system that Olympus isn't giving you? Pentax has a somewhat unconventional glass line-up, maybe not for everybody. Tends toward lighter, more compact kit at the expense of maximum aperture. Relatively few 'very fast' primes if that's what one is looking for.

<p>One more thing -- you might search on Flickr for images taken with various P&S cameras.</p>

<p>I would lean towards the compacts with prime lenses unless you really want the zoom since the zooms are generally pretty slow and more fragile. </p> <p>I have here a pretty nice Pentax PC35 AF. Things I like about it -- shows you in the viewfinder approximately how far it's focusing (there's a scale with an indicator that moves when you half-press) -- in many models you have no idea what camera is focusing on. Since this was an earlyish AF model, I guess they wanted the photographer to have confidence in it. It also doesn't flash unless you tell it to with a switch. Many newer models reset to 'auto' every time camera is switched off. It's got a nice 35mm f/2.8 prime lens. It's compact but feels sturdy in the hand -- has a metal back. It's also got a +1.5EV boost button for backlit subjects, and is pre-DX so has manual ISO (only up to 400 though).</p> <p>This particular one isn't motorized -- manual film advance and rewind. Makes it very quiet and sucks down less battery power.</p> <p>One thing I don't care for is there's an audible underexposure warning. Not real loud but the photographer can hear it, and it can't be turned off (at least not without taking the camera apart).</p> <p>I also have hear a Pentax Espio Mini (aka UC-1). These are quite small, really can't get all that much smaller and still fit 135 film...and much newer than the PC35AF...these have a 32mm f/3.5 lens, wider than most cameras of this sort. These are more automated, motorized, DX encoded film, multiple flash modes (always reset to 'auto' when camera is turned off). Viewfinder automatically switches frames for close range to account for parallax effect. These are all plastic but on the plus side barely weigh anything.</p> <p>I describe both of these to give you a little taste of some of the differences you'll encounter. Most of these are available quite inexpensively so you can probably try more than one...perhaps load different cameras with different film. In fact, many might cost less than purchasing a battery and processing a roll of film.</p>