michael_kuhne

<p>I have been guessing that since the resolution of 24 MP for APS-C and of 36 MP for FF are about equal, performance would be about equal as well. This might include low noise performance, 36 MP FF being of similar pixel density to 24 MP APS-C.</p> <p>Upon viewing these comparisons between the K-1 and K-3 however, it has been quite otherwise. The first thing I noticed in viewing the still-life scene of numerous articles is the K-1's color accuracy. Gone is the slight magenta color cast of most Pentax DSLRs. I selected 400, 800, 1600, 3200, 6400, and finally 12800 ISO to compare between the K-1 and K-3. Once selected, you have to click again on the image to get the blowup. At ISO 400 and 800 I could see virtually no difference in noise in shadows, or in resolution. At ISO 1600, I could see a little noise show up with the K-3 but still very good. The K-1 remained unaffected. At ISO 3200, although still very usable, the K-3 exhibited noticeable noise in some shadow areas, and some detail was lost from noise suppression (the letters at the bottom of the Samuel Smith beer bottle harder to read) whereas the K-1 remained unaffected. At ISO 6400, the adverse effects of noise and noise suppression were very obvious from the K-3, while the K-1 being still virtually unaffected! At ISO 12800, image detail is lost, edges begin to dissolve, and noise is rampant with the K-3, while the K-1's image holds together just fine with only very moderate noise being noticeable- still a very usable image!</p> <p>These are JPEG images at default settings. RAW with expert processing could produce better results- for both cameras. But this test indicates the differences under the same conditions. I am impressed!</p>

<p>I've had mine quite a while with no problems, albeit with only light use. I have found it to be an exceptionally fine lens. Sorry to hear of your lens' defect, which is the first I have heard of with this model. It has been in production numerous years, and I cannot fathom why there should be any issue in getting yours repaired. </p> <p> </p>

<p>This is for collectors. There are no lens tests indicating performance. They need a brass camera, probably manual-only operation, to go with it. Photography has come a long way since 1839, but collectors may like the look from that era. We Pentaxians have our "Art" finely-made metal Limited lenses, some available in a finish of brushed satin silver color if one wishes a distinguished bright metal look. Practically, they are far more compact and have some some useful modern features, compared to this collector's model.</p>

<p>I also generally use the bright setting, shooting jpegs, with tweeked up sharpness which is set on fine. For people shots, or with high contrast scenes, including flash, I will often switch to natural.</p>

<p>Very fine shot, Hin! Some years back, I looked for the "F" 300mm to get the tripod collar but could not find a good copy. I did find the FA version (same optics) at a good price for a brand new case display from a dealer, so I went for that. Very highly rated among this class of fine quality tele lenses. Who could not understand why you hang on to it! You may not use it all the time, but when you do, it can deliver!</p>

<p>Obviously, manufacturers always pay for their own ads. However, I have not seen Pentax (now Ricoh/Pentax) get this aggressive in advertising a new DSLR camera in a very long time. An unusually successful product is undoubtedly the expectation.</p>

<p>Of course, it is obvious they are basing their choice in each category on design aspects and an aggregate of features. It could not be otherwise, since the K-1 is yet to be released or tested, and probably likewise so with some of the others named. I think it is impressive that the K-1's features and design are unique and advanced enough to receive this recognition. It has been creating a bit of a stir overall, and I look forward to seeing forthcoming tests and reviews.</p>

<p>This is very impressive. Especially since there is plenty of first-class competition. It does get me thinking more about getting one. The latest issue of Pop Photography, May 2016, also has both a back cover ad and a double-page inside front cover ad for the K-1. Looks like success in the making. </p>

<p>The attractiveness of the 20-40mm LTD is in its smallness, fine construction and imagining quality, WR, and having f/2.8 at the short end, even though not quite at its best there.</p> <p>With the 16-85mm, the larger size also provides much greater versatility. It is much more wide angle and much more tele. Quality is exceptional overall both physically and optically, providing you get one without a defect. Apparently, there have been some QC issues. I am somewhat interested in this lens myself for possibly my premium wide-range zoom lens, even though having the very nice 18-135mm WR for general use, and my pro style Sigma 24-60mm f/2.8 EX DG, which is compact, fast and sharp but without much range. Any manufacturing glitches with the new lens may be ironed out as time goes on. Performance wise, build wise including WR, range wise, feature wise, and price wise, it seems to be unbeatable compared to other such zooms on the market. And it ain't so slow from 16-50mm.</p> <p>Either of these lenses would be a very good choice, depending on priorities. I hope you get a good one, Justin- it looks like a very good choice to me!</p> <p> </p>

<p>Upon reflection, I will risk another thought. Your lens' macro switch could be a cause in the aperture shift from f/22 to f/30 or f/40. I am not sure why but this is probably normal. It is likewise so with true macro lenses, most of which have a maximum aperture of f/2.8, that the closer you go into macro, the more the actual aperture does shift to a smaller value, so it would no longer be possible to get a true f/2.8 aperture. The f/2.8 might become f/4 or f/5.6, etc. It appears your equipment is probably functioning normally. I hope this information is helpful.</p>

<p> Sorry I missed that. I did not mean you are weird, I just meant it seems to be a weird experience, which might have unknown causes. I should have used the word "always" are not using the aperture ring. When you said you closed down to f/22, the maximum on the aperture ring, I was not totally sure. Since you are not using the aperture ring, that is a non issue. I brought up the film bodies because since they were properly set up for accurate aperture ring use, it is easier to see on the readout how a lens will shift aperture as it is zoomed with a variable aperture zoom lens, but does not do so when electronic control is used instead. Or should not do so, which is what you brought up, I believe. Since you say you have found an answer that satisfies you, I have no further comment.</p>

<p>This is weird. Especially since you are using an "A" lens. Electronic control of aperture works on a DSLR exactly as it did on a film body having electronic control. This is what the "A"means- you can set aperture electronically, instead of using the mechanical aperture ring. Most lenses now do not even have an aperture ring, including variable-aperture zooms. If you set aperture electronically to f/22, it should be f/22, even if the lens is capable of a smaller aperture value (higher number). I have two film bodies that can set aperture either electronically or mechanically with the aperture ring- the Pentax PZ1-p and the ZX-L. It was for such newer camera designs that the lenses having "A" for optional electronic control were invented. The readouts indicate the superiority of using electronic control over using the aperture ring for preserving a set aperture value with a variable-aperture zoom lens. I don't know why the MZ-S went backwards in this regard.</p> <p>As Professor K says, with the variable aperture zoom, it may be possible to electronically push a variable aperture lens to a smaller value at its longest focal length than the aperture ring indicates, because that value does shift as the lens is zoomed. This would happen defacto when using the ring, but with electronic control you'd have to set that value. When wide open at the short end, maximum value will have to shift anyway when zoomed, even with electronic control, because wide open is wide open.</p> <p>I assume you are using the lens set at "A", not using the aperture ring.</p>

<p>Your reasoning sounds logical to me, Justin. I thought about the nice little DA 20-40mm LTD myself for its compactness with extra high quality. But then in my case I already have my 18-135mm and new little 18-50mm WR lenses for wet conditions, and my other Limited primes for compact extra high quality. I do think Pentax erred in the rather expensive new 28-105mm WR FF kit lens instead of a 24-someting WR, which could be useful with APS-C bodies as well, and still have some wide angle. It may be wise to not delay in ordering a Pentax lens, however, as there appears to be a temporary big savings going on for some of them, at B&H anyway. You may need to put the lens into your cart from the list of lenses rather than from the individual lens page, if the price reduction doesn't come up individually.</p> <p>It will be interesting to find out how you like your new Pentax outfit!</p>

<p>I don't see why Pentax does not continue updating the rest of their lens models to WR like they did the kit lens and DA 55-300mm, which is now better than ever. I had the original, damaged the lens barrel edge including filter threads, so I decided to replace it with the HD WR version. I've been pleasantly surprised to find I'm getting even better results with the new version! A DA 12-24mm f/4 HD WR would certainly be nice! </p> <p>I guess the new DA 16-85mm is to be a replacement for both the DA 16-45mm and DA 17-70mm. Like Justin said, too bad it is not f/4, but that may not be possible while keeping size down and quality the same as the present model.</p>

<p>Well Wayne, that settles that. I am glad you did the test of the DA 16-85mm on a FF body. I've been hoping somebody would. Too bad the DA 16-45mm is not WR, but it remains a top lens. Still, the DA 16-85mm has exhibited exceptionally fine test results for APS-C use.</p> <p>Evidently, it is difficult to design a WA lens with very high quality edge performance, especially at wider apertures. The other non-WR Pentax zoom lenses that succeed very well are the DA 12-24mm f/4 and DA 17-70mm f/4. </p>

<p>Justin, I do understand reconsidering and further investigation. But you might be best off to stick with the Limited zoom after all. As you say, it has many advantages. I have not yet seen any good test of the 20-40mm LTD except for the one in POP Photo some months ago, perhaps one year ago. It got a fine rating with their DXO setup. The double-page sample photo they shot with the lens featured in the same issue looked really good edge to edge. I cannot recall the aperture used. It may have been f/4. The photo also contained straight lines near the edges, which exhibited remarkably low distortion. I'd have to dig to see if I still have it to tell you which month to look for in the library to see for yourself.</p> <p>I would also consider getting one, but I love my (unfortunately not WR) fairly compact Sigma 24-60mm f/2.8 EX DG. For WR, as Hin relates, I have found my copy of the DA 18-135mm has been giving me very good results, despite its low rating by Photozone, which was mostly based on edge performance at the long end. It is very compact, very well-made, with silent and accurate AF, but of course not a Limited. The long end I just use to zoom in for close-ups, not being concerned about the edges. If used as a 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 lens it checks out pretty darn good, edges and all, though the new DA 16-85mm may be yet better edge-wise</p> <p>I would get the DA 16-85mm over the DA* 16-50mm (actually 16-47mm) unless f/2.8 is a necessity. I think the new lens will keep to f/3.5-4.5 to 50mm so you're about one stop off the DA* lens but have much greater range beyond 50mm. I believe the new lens has lower distortion, especially at 16mm, and is a bit smaller. It is also possible it may be useable on the K-1 as well from about 20mm, which would make it a great FF or APS-C kit lens. Photozone indicated very good edge performance. I have seen comparative images which illustrated superior edge performance with this lens. </p> <p> </p>

<p>I would think the boundary box would be in a very light outline, and the outer area might darken when switched to APS-C. My old Pentax PZ-1P has such an outline in the VF for pano crop mode, which has never posed a problem for me. In fact, I found it a good reference for getting my shot level when needed.</p>

<p>I am still unsure how much I'd find it useful, but for anyone interested in having a FF camera, the Pentax K-1 certainly appears attractive. Apparently, a tremendous amount of thought over a considerable period of time went into its design, which is unique and very well built. The price point is very attractive for such a product.</p>

<p>Maybe a comparative change in the value of the USD. At $695, the K-3 is still an amazing value.</p> <p> I do wonder what the replacement model will be like. It seems that the new backlit (I think) sensor technology for lower noise performance is just starting to take hold. Then there's 4K video. I keep hoping to see a silver/black color, but Pentax steadfastly refuses to match their silver lenses with the same finish on camera bodies, but instead offers all other colors of the rainbow! </p> <p>Despite newer advancements, I still love my K-5, which delivers great imaging quality. Ergonomics and control features are great. I have found that good as the K-5 is, my K-5IIs really is a little sharper yet, and the AF is indeed better. I bought at closeout prices in both cases. I am now looking forward to also using my new little KS2, which is so reasonable I did not wait. With a small lens I can actually stick it into a large jacket pocket quite easily! My K-5's are truly excellent for noise control without IQ loss, but the KS2 might be even better for noise reduction.</p>

<p>Right, Andrew. I was not thinking of APS-C primes. APS zooms, or some of them, could be a different matter because one can omit the widest setting, where vignetting is usually most problematic, as Wayne did here with the DA 16-45mm. It brings up an interesting question- I wonder how the new DA 16-85mm WR lens would fare on FF if used in this manner? </p> <p>Of course, I also sometimes crop in PS post processing, but I also like to frame my shots best I can when I shoot. I think the switching feature could be very useful. It could also save lens changing and the advantage of fewer lenses carried. I would have liked to have seen the APS-C mode be more like 20mp, but 15mp ain't too shabby. Similar to a K-5IIs. </p> <p> </p>

<p>One cool aspect I was just thinking about is the quick switch between FF and APS-C. In actual field use this provides amazing flexibility for framing. Depending on how you want to frame your subject or scene, with your DA 16-45mm, for example, with the FF setting it can instantly be used as a true extra WA 20mm to normal, for greater coverage (true 20-45mm). Or if wanting less background but more tele, then switch to APS-C (24-70mm FOV), all without having to grab another camera or another lens! Likewise, I could use my Sigma 24-60mm f/2.8 which was also designed for digital but is a FF lens, as a true 24-60mm for more WA to short tele, or switch to APS-C which would provide a 35-90mm FOV. Very handy to say the least!</p> <p>This would also make prime lenses into 2-stage zooms! The FA 43mm Limited, for instance can be used to provide more background and a small group shot as a true 43mm, or if switched to APS-C could be a short tele portrait lens to single out one individual. Want more tele, switch to APS-C. Want more in the frame, switch to FF! </p> <p> </p>

<p>Another unknown factor is if or by how much the K-1 might be superior in the low noise/resolution-retention category compared to the K-3II. Both offer the pixel-shift feature, which I understand is done using a tripod. Only forthcoming tests could provide an answer. Might be worth the cost and extra weight, or it might be only a little gain for a lot of cost and convenience to forfeit. Of course, the DA 20-40mm LTD could still be used on the K-1, but at 15mp instead of 24mp.</p> <p>While still just getting started with the little KS2, it continues to impress me considerably in this category. Come to think of it, this little one, plus a K-1, a 20-40mm or a couple of LTD primes, a WR macro, and a fine zoom or two, could comprise a pretty high-performing kit. <br> </p>

<p>Intersting! That would make the DA 16-45mm f/4 potentially a very useful WA zoom for a FF DSLR. If you should get a K-1, please let us know how it works out. At least, the lens was designed for digital use. Too bad it was not a WR lens, but the price- reasonable.</p>

<p>With similar features, the K-3II is darn near there now! And this is the time to get it, with prices having dropped so low, even though it is not very old. Having an articulating LCD would be nice, though. That was one thing that attracted me to get the little K-S2 as well as being so small- it has amazingly advanced features and very good IQ from what I've seen. I even got it with the very small WR DC kit lens for general use, since it is so cheap. I haven't had a chance yet to use the K-S2 much. Its ergonomics are just slightly cramped compared to the K-5, since Pentax managed to fit in 2-dial operation, but really not too bad considering its size. It is actually smaller than the K-r! </p> <p>I plan to sell off my other bodies, just having a K-5II and KS2. I'd hang on to those two for sure, even if I am tempted by the low price of the K-3II and go for it as well for its special features at such a low price. I'd then have 3 very fine APS-C bodies, each having especially good properties, even if I eventually decide to go a little crazy and also have a K-1 for using those shorter primes with their original FOV. We'll see about that. </p>

<p>The Imaging Resource comparisons are jpegs, but I believe the dpreview comparisons were done of RAW processed test images. Of course, with RAW one can go further in compensating for shortcomings.</p> <p>Interestingly, the little 20mp K-S2 does a very good job of noise control while keeping up with the K-5IIs pretty well in retaining resolution at higher ISO settings. Having the AA filter off is the default setting in these models where it is switchable, the tests being performed with the cameras default settings. The sensor shift process looks like it might be easy to do, and appears to increase detail significantly while not increasing noise effects. Should be effective for higher ISO use. Having this feature along with GPS, compass, wifi, etc would seem quite desirable in a compact body like the K-3II for hiking, camping, biking, travel, or whatever kind of extensive toting.</p> <p>A full frame sensor might indeed handle noise at higher ISO more effectively than APS-C sensors of similar pixel density. Forthcoming tests should offer insight.</p> <p> </p>