michael_kuhne

<p>It was unclear why the K-3 did not suit him, but he liked the K-1. The only thing I can figure is his being normally a Nikon user, he is used to and prefers larger camera bodies. He liked the new 28-105mm kit lens too, finding it to render very good imaging.</p> <p>It is encouraging that he found results with legacy glass to be pretty good, enough to like using them. Even good enough that he practically drooled over the prospect of having a 43mm f/1.9 Limited on the K-1. One good thing about the advantage offered by the K-1 in terms of once again enjoying the normal FOV perspective of such FF smaller prime lenses, is their smaller size would somewhat offset the size and weight factor of the K-1 as a toting ensemble. Even the highly-regarded 31mm f/1.8 Limited, though not as compact as the 43mm LTD is still fairly small for what it is, and would make for a versatile FOV on a FF body. Both of these lenses would offer versatility, and once agin combined with the 77mm f/1.8 Limited would comprise a neat, low size, low weight kit of high quality. It remains to be seen whether Pentax will upgrade these lenses with newer versions optimized for digital, and having WR and DC.</p> <p>Come to think of it, right now Pentax has an amazing lineup of DSLR models for quality, features, and value. Where else can you find similar to the K-50, having very good construction with WR, fine IQ, 2-dial operation, all for less than $300? Then the very nice little 20mp KS2 with wifi, articulating LCD, WR and many features at a very reasonable price, then theK-3's K-1, all the way up to the D645Z medium format? </p>

<p>Upon reflection, I wonder how the K-1 will fair on low noise at higher ISO. No doubt better than the K-7, as are the K-3's also. At 36MP the full frame should produce similar pixel density to the 24MP K-3, necessitating about the same degree of noise control.</p> <p>The reason until now I have not gone to a K-3, but decided on keeping my K-5 and getting a K-5IIs (very cheap at closeout) is I found the K-3's more aggressive noise control reduces edge sharpness and detail above ISO 640 to be below that of the K-5IIs. At ISO 640 they are both about the same, indicated by the K-5IIs being only a tad better at ISO 800. By ISO 1600 the K-5IIs is clearly superior in sharpness and fine detail. Both achieve good noise control, but the K-5IIs apparently does so without ill effects. At ISO settings below 640, the K-3 has clearly superior resolution, even above the still very fine K-5IIs. All this can be seen on the Imaging Resource comparometer in the still-life image with the fabrics, bottles, etc. at various ISO settings. To get the K-5IIs results, you have to click "all cameras" at the top to get a list containing discontinued models.</p> <p>I first noticed this situation in comparing the dpreview tests of the K-3 and K-5. There may be a way to make up for this in PS with a little extra sharpening, etc. There is also an extra sharp photo setting that might compensate. But I still doubt the K-3 to be better than my K-5IIs at or above ISO 800.</p> <p>As to the K-3II and the K-1, however, the pixel-shift technology could be a game changer. Its use especially above ISO 800, might very well produce superior results. For that reason, as well as having the GPS and compass, I would go for a K-3II if desiring a compact model, and get the little WR flash. The K-1's allure is in using say 43mm, 50mm, 35mm lenses etc. in their original FOV aspects. The testing of the K-1 should be very interesting.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Looks like the compact, very good performing 20-40mm WR Limited may be in your future, Justin, and who could blame you! I too love the 21mm Limited. But as you said, unfortunately not WR. And I think the 20-40mm actually outperforms it as to distortion. </p>

<p>If you go for the K-3II, Pentax makes a weather-resistant small flash that should be easy to carry, has tilt and other features for about $150.</p> <p>I have the excellent Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8 lens, but now also have the DA 55-300mm HD WR upgrade, and find it really exceptional, especially for the price. I have been very pleased with the results I am getting. I think it is better than the original, which I bought years ago but was slightly damaged, and I wanted to get the WR feature. Be sure to get a top notch HD super-coated protective UV filter. B&H recommended a German-made B&W X-S pro Digital UV Haze MRC nano, which is supposed to be scratch and smudge resistant and easier to clean. This lens can keep aperture to f/4.5 out to 200mm, which is pretty fast, and with quite fine quality.</p>

<p>You might consider the DA 12-24mm f/4 instead of the 20-40mm LTD if its range fits your kit. It is of course larger, but it's a helluva WA lens (unfortunately not WR or DC). With the superior high ISO performance of later model bodies, f/4 is like the new f/2.8 across all brands. Starting around 15mm distortion is quite low. Pentax should come out with a WR update of this lens.</p>

<p>Hi Justin,<br> It is hard to beat the K-3 prices now for what you get. Resolution would be about the same as the K-1. The K-3 II also has no built-in flash, the K-3 does. I don't know about the wifi. The advantages for a FF format of course are for lower distortion, faster aperture wider angle. A good thing for landscapes, as you like to shoot. Low light, low noise performance should also be better. But then there is that weight to lug. I think a K-1 is around 1/2 lb. more than a K-3. The 20-40mm Limited has been tested showing low distortion and fine IQ. Pop Photo liked it so well at the time they tested it, they ran a full page sample shot- most unusual! But it still is not all that wide angle.... but you are good at doing panoramas. </p>

<p>It may be the lack of flash that held the price well below $2,000 and the weight from being yet a bit heavier. Part of the weight may be due to the design of the unusually flexible rear LCD articulation.</p> <p>One might consider, with the (very nice) small accessory Pentax WR flash at $150, offering tilt and other good features, the total price is around $1,950. Still quite reasonable, for having such a high-end setup.</p>

<p>I see no "law of physics" here. Show me a Photozone test where the latest 36 MP FF DSLR tested with the same lens as a previous 24MP FF model revealed the lens' corners turning in LESS lines per picture hight, therefore muddy corners. It has been at least the same or more, from what I have seen.</p> <p>Keep in mind, the lines of picture hight on the 24mm hight of a FF sensor may be numerically greater than a test of the same lens on an APS-C body, yet have no more or even less resolution. This is because the hight of the APS-C sensor is only 16mm. If there were 2,000 lines registered in the FF test and then a crop were made cutting out a 16mm sample, there would be fewer lines in the resulting image. So 2,000 lines in APS-C test test results indicate greater resolution than 2,000 lines in a FF model test. Laws of physics here DO apply. We must realize this fact when reviewing a previously tested lens which is then tested on a FF model! If the lens then shows slightly fewer lines, it actually may be doing very well on the new camera. There is, however, often more lines turned in, but not necessarily more resolution than on some APS-C models, as indicated above.</p> <p>There is no such thing as a camera "out resolving" a lens. It can only resolve to the degree provided by what the lens delivers to it. The camera may have more resolving capability than the lens can deliver. If a corner shows clarity in a 100% blowup with a 24mp sensor, it will show at least the same clarity with a 36mp sensor. It is a relative issue. If a lens reaches its maximum resolving capability in its corners at some point, but not in the center, then the center will deliver more lines, making the corner "look" comparatively worse on the test. But if one cannot see much or any of the center's improvement in the print size or viewing size being used, even that would not be noticeable.</p> <p> </p>

<p>I am definitely in agreement- lab tests are valuable but it comes down to comparing images.<br> In your case, Andrew, your FA 20-35mm f/4 on a K-1 may not better your DA 12-24 f/4 (a very fine lens) on a K-5IIs. Except, there may be less distortion at the wide end. Same may be true with my nice Tokina 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5, as I also own the DA 12-24mm. Distortion being increased due to going to wider mm to get the same FOV has been an unavoidable problem for APS-C. There is also greater size at the same aperture speed with wide angle APS-C lenses. APS-C is therefore more practical for normal to tele use, requiring less size and weight, while the opposite is true with FF and wide angle to normal use. Your dilemma is a tough call, since the DA 12-24mm is so good.</p> <p>Your FA 24-90mm would actually be an exceptionally versatile and useful lens on either format. It still provides wide angle use for APS-C, like having a FF 35-135mm f/3.5-4.5 (nice) or very useful on film or on a FF DSLR as well.</p> <p>Other really outstanding lenses, however, which have not been closely matched by a DA replacement for the same FOV, are what I have in mind regarding the K-1. Examples are the FA 35mm f/2, the 31mm f/1.8 and 43mm f/1.9 Limiteds. The very compact, low distortion FA 28mm f/2.8 is quite good too. It would be nice if they do well on a FF body. Their modest size would also help offset the carrying bulk of the FF DSLR body. I have all these except the 31mm. </p>

<p>Well, the situation is, though many older FF lenses not designed for digital use have proven themselves when used on APS-C bodies, the edges of such lenses are not used when cropped on the APS-C format. We don't know how those edges will perform on a FF DSLR. Edges on digital sensors seem to have an issue film does not have. Certain such Pentax lenses, however, such as the 31mm Limited, have done very well when tested on the K-5, including the far corners. That should indicate at least the edges should still be fine on a FF DSLR.</p> <p>As far as a scientific test showing too great of a "demand" being placed on a lens, which met demands put on it by film use, due to greater MPs in a recent DSLR camera, I agree with Patrick regardng the pixel density. That may not even be any greater with the K-1 than the K-3, and not much over the K-5! Since a FF DSLR is new to Pentax users, one may follow the lab tests of Nikon lenses for Nikon users on Photozone, or POP Photo to find evidence of such a concept. I can understand a lens having a potential for lines of resolution being less than a camera's ability to deliver lines of resolution, whether center or edges. So the lens "tops out" at a certain point. But it may still come in at a very good or excellent rating. Newer lenses may or may not test much better or any better. Actually, when I have seen an older, high-quality lens retested on a newer DSLR having substantially greater MPs, more often than not I have seen the lens achieve more lines of resolution on the new camera vs the previous test on the old one! </p> <p>As to the built-in flash issue, for those who never use one, do mostly studio work, etc. that is a non-issue. But here we have Pentax's first FF DSLR, which I would think should be designed to attract a broader market of users. I especially like to use mine for daylight fill flash, where the only shadows of concern are the ones I am trying to open up with the fill, as well as put some catchlight in the eyes. But even for indoor use in a pinch where there's no time to fiddle with other flash setups. The small accessory WR flash is nice, even has tilt for bounce, but it does add another 5 oz or so to an already weighty body. Other recent camera models have both wifi and a built-in flash. </p> <p> </p>

<p>I realize some optimizing is a good idea for digital due to the nature of sensor technology. A fault in that technology, the way I see it. But the notion that new lenses have to be optimized specifically for the latest camera's added MPs, I think is ridiculous. Never have I seen a comment of that sort by high-level testing labs- such as Photozone, dpreview, etc. Once a lens has performed well on a FF DSLR, it has carried over quite well when retested on one of greater MPs. That is not to say a newer lens cannot do better. But the idea that having higher MPs "puts demands" on a lens has nothing to do with reality. The camera merely records what the lens makes available, or should. As to Pentax, take the case of the classic FA 31mm Limited. It was retested by Photozone at 16 MP to see if it showed greater resolution at higher MPs so it could be compared to a later lens. It did so, even though it was never optimized for digital. But this was still not digital FF. I think it safe to say, the performance we see in the extreme corners in the APS test will be the case for the edges at FF. The extreme corners remain to be seen at FF, though these were very good on film.</p> <p>The FA 43mm Limited did not perform well in the corners on the 16MP K-5, as it had on the 10MP K10D. But Photozone blamed the different AA filter design of the K-5, not the increase of MPs. That was not brought up.</p> <p>A lot of it is relative. Due to more MPs, if the highest resolution for the center is raised to 3,400 lines, and an older lens gets an excellent rating there, but the edges can only advance a little over what they did on a previous camera, that makes the corners look comparatively bad. While in reality, we may have been thrilled with those corners on the previous model. The corners simply topped out on the new camera. But will we see that in photos? That is the question. I think probably not, because unless we make huge blowups, though we may notice some improvement, we are unlikely to see the new camera's or lens' full resolution. Would we see a difference with a new lens designed with improved corners, and being optimized for digital? Maybe, but if the old lens has good corners, even here it might appear too close to tell at typical viewing sizes.</p> <p>What bothers me about the K-1 is its weight, being 7 oz heavier than the Nikon, yet unlike the Nikon, having no built-in flash. They say the flash was "replaced" with wifi and GPS. Well, my little K-S2 has wifi, I believe, and how often would I use GPS vs a built-in flash? I use flash even for daylight people shots. Pentax makes a nice, small WR flash at $150, but even it adds some 5 oz more to the camera, and something more to carry around.</p> <p>As to a good, compact WR kit lens, I see Pentax now has a new D-FA 28-105mm f/3.5-5.6 DC WR at $500 (!) which is quite large for what it is. Nearly 1lb. and nearly 3.5 inches long. It had better be pretty darn good! What is needed is a really good shorter WR kit lens starting at 24mm, which still offers some wide angle if used on an APS body. Because of this development, I would still go with my quite compact FF Sigma 24-60 f/2.8 EX DG, which was designed for digital, and see how that goes. No DC motor or WR, however.</p> <p> </p>

<p>John, many of us will be interested in knowing of your experience. </p> <p>I do not think the better old premium glass was deficient in sharpness, after all film may still be best in that respect. I have forgotten the details, but I do recall reading that the technology of digital sensors is problematic at the edges and needs some compensation in lens formulations. Special coatings are part of that. Nevertheless, some lenses that were designed for film bodies have faired quite well when tested on DSLR bodies. </p>

<p>The new Pentax 24-70 f/2.8 is large, heavy, with an 82mm filter size, and is probably a re-badge of the Tamron with updated Pentax coatings. That is ok, because the Tamron lens has received very good reviews. I was speaking of a possible f/4 lens, more affordable and lighter. The idea being to replace the Pentax FA 28-70mm f/4, optically a very fine lens from the 1990's, which was a lighter and less expensive alternative to their excellent but weighty FA* 28-70mm f/2.8 fast pro zoom.</p> <p>We tend to assume newer is always better. But lab tests have shown this is not always true. The much more expensive current Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG for example, has not equalled the fine lab results of the previous Sigma 24-60mm f/2.8 EX DG of a few years ago. I have seen this happen occasionally over the years with new lens replacement models. There are some lenses, on the other hand, that have endured in the top ratings decade after decade without being replaced. The Pentax 31mm f/1.8 Limited is one of those. It would take quite a replacement lens to beat it. Perhaps just adding coatings, a DC motor, and WR would do for a FF DSLR. </p>

<p>It also depends on print size or viewing screen size. In most cases, 36mp may be meaningless compared to 16 or 20mp regardless of using the most advanced lens available. A poster size image may show any advantages.</p> <p>Also, the reality is that 36mp spread over a full frame size sensor produces a pixel density of the image around the same as with a 24mp sensor of an APS-C size. So there is no meaningful gain of image resolution by going to full frame over say the K-3 or even the 20mp K-S2. Even hard to see over a 16mp K-5, which produces excellent imaging. There should be an improvement in noise of a stop or two of higher ISO, and more control of depth of field.</p> <p>That is not to say there could not be any difference by going to full frame. The lens coatings could be a a factor, though Pentax has long been known for having industry-leading coatings. Coatings for digital, I have read, are especially advantageous at the edges of the frame. Where APS-C crops out the edges of full frame lenses, those edges come back into play with a FF DSLR. So edge to edge performance may be an issue with older glass. My full frame Pentax D-FA 100mm WR macro, DA* 200mm WR, Sigma 24-60mm 2.8 EX DG, and Sigma 24mm f/1.8 EX DG are specifically made for digital use. How well the others will do, and how much may be compromised at the edges, and how important that might be for the image subject, remains to be discovered.</p> <p>Come to think of it, instead of a new 28-70mm f/4, a new high-quality 24-70mm f/4 would be even more versatile, could still be compact and lightweight, and useful for both FF and APS-C, where it would be the equivalent of 35-105mm. Hello Pentax?</p>

<p>Depends on which FA* lens, Javier. Some carried over very well to digital use, as well as did the FA Limiteds. My FA* 300mm is one example. I know Nikon did not scuttle all their finer legacy FF glass, but upgraded some- mainly I think to add the silent AF motor. Film, after all, has lines of resolution comparable to an awful lot of MPs.</p> <p>I have noted that the Nikon D810, though physically larger than the Pentax K-1, is some 4 oz lighter, and it does have a built-in flash. But it cost a lot more. Perhaps the K-1's night sky stars shooting mechanism accounts for the extra weight and lack of flash.<br> </p>

<p>The pricing is attractive. Should be interesting to see the Dpreview test report when it comes out. The night sky shooting feature is a good thing too. I guess I could get a small pocketable flash. Pentax makes one that is also WR.</p> <p>The K-1 body is actually a bit less wide than the K20D! And not much higher or thicker. But it is heavier by a significant 7 oz. Still it is pretty compact for a FF DSLR, yet very well built, compared to the competition. I wonder about the file sizes of images at 36mp? But quality should be outstanding.</p> <p>As to quality old glass for 36mp use, I have the excellent FA 35mm f/2, the 43mm f/1.9 and 77mm f/1.8 Limiteds, Tokina 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 II, Tokina 28-70mm f/2.8 Pro II, Sigma 24-60mm f/2.8, Pentax 300mm f/4.5, and the very nice, lightweight Pentax 28-70mm f/4. All of high quality imaging capability, but none of these are WR.</p> <p>The new 24-70mm f/2.8 WR is a very good lens, but it is a heavyweight with its 82mm filter size, and I already have that range and speed covered as above. It would be a good idea for Pentax to come out with a WR version of the fine FA 28-70mm f/4 to keep carrying weight down with this FF camera. The only WR lenses I have for FF use are the D-FA 100mm f/2.8 macro and the DA* 200mm f/2.8, which could be useful, but both of course are tele lenses. My interest in FF use is mainly for wide angle to short tele.</p>

<p>I wonder what the K-one half will be like? I have an array of fine full-frame lenses, but I do make use of a built-in flash on the fly, where I'd otherwise miss a shot. I'd prefer having one so I don't have to lug a flash around.</p>

<p>Tried again today- with success! I don't know either. Computers and I are not very compatible, even though I bought a new macbook pro last year.</p> <p>Very nice shots, Dorus. The Sigma 50-500mm is very highly rated, and you've shown why very well!</p>

<p>Not getting the pics by Dorus Oshiva. Just a blank for each with a little boxed " ? "</p>

<p>I am not getting any of Javier's pics from Jan 3. Just a blank with a little box in the middle containing a ? for each one. Anyone know why?</p>

<p>Right, Andrew. I looked it up. For two grand you get 4 more mp's resolution, an articulating LCD, 10 fps instead of 6 fps, and I'm sure a few more electronic updates over the D7000, but then lose the built-in flash. The buffer is larger, but the D7000 buffer is already pretty good. Depends I guess on how much burst shooting is done and the actual difference in results. Seems rather costly for the upgrades offered unless there is a real need for a particular upgrade. </p>

<p>I belive the D7000 is a 16mp APS-C model? If so, an excellent camera, low noise and high performance. I think Andrew is perhaps right regarding Nikon lenses you already own, depending on the quality of these particular lenses. You might be better off putting your money towards an additional or a better Nikon lens. </p> <p>If the D500 is a full-frame model, I fail to see the logic for sports, because many sports require some degree of telephoto shots. APS-C is especially more suited for telephoto use over full frame, because you'd have to use a much larger, heavier, more expensive lens in many cases, to get the same shot in your frame at the same distance.</p>

<p>Pentax DSLRs and WR lenses are great for rainy conditions. Rain and splash yes, underwater no. I just bought a Pentax K-S2 kit with the little 18-50mm WR (which comes without a hood) from B&H. Neat little ensemble. I like having the WR compact model as an even more compact alternative to my K-5 and IIs bodies when I need that extra compactness. I can actually fit it into three of my jackets with large pockets, little zoom and all! Lots of capability in a small package, yet still a DSLR that can take even my big lenses. Now I'll be looking for a raincoat with big pockets.</p> <p>Very nice photos, Javier, which certainly do illustrate the WR advantage!</p> <p>Hin, something to consider regarding the new DA 16-85mm WR. When in the same range as the DA* 16-50mm, the new lens is f/3.5-4.5, or only about one stop off the DA* lens. The new lens apparently has tested better than the DA* in many respects- distortion, vignetting, etc. And it uses DC AF rather than SDM, which seems to be faster and more reliable than SDM.</p> <p>BTW, Javier, I have had the DA 18-135mm WR for some time, and find it to be a very useful and versatile lens.</p> <p> </p>

<p>I've had the DA* 50-135mm for quite some time. Got it very reasonable with a $100 rebate before the prices went up. A fine lens. Some people have had problems with SDM on that model, so far I have not, knocking on wood. The 20-40mm f/2.8-4 Limited is very nice. Pop Photography tested it and went ga-ga over it, even running a double page spread of a sample shot to show its fine quality with low distortion. If you don't absolutely need a f/2.8 for a wide range all-around lens, the new Pentax DA 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 WR has gotten great reviews, and has a silent DC AF instead of SDM. I believe the DC is a tad faster AF as well as more trouble free than SDM. It is not cheap, but much less than the DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 and in many respects actually out-performs it. Also, between 16-50mm its aperture holds to f/3.5-4.5, so only about stop off the f/2.8 model, with the extra reach when needed.</p> <p>Not long ago, I purchased the DA 55-300mm HD WR lens and I am surprised at the good quality I've been getting. It still uses the camera's screw drive AF. If you use a protective filter, I recommend getting the Hoya HD haze filter with it. I've not found any image quality loss with it. This lens will hold its aperture to f/4.5 or less all the way to 200mm, the range in which its image quality is at its very best, and being only about a stop off a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens while having greater range.</p>

<p>I agree, Andrew.</p>