s_brown2

<p>Yep, vote with your feet. The glass from Sigma and Tamron is just as good, if not better in many cases (though not weather sealed).</p>

<p>From dpreview: "However, the K-m cloning process has meant that although you can now at least select the active AF-point, it's still not displayed in the viewfinder."</p>

<p>So the AF point can be selected, thankfully. But not showing it in the viewfinder??? Why does pentax always have to put something dumb in their entry-level models which would not cost them anything to do properly?</p>

<p>I hope the 11 focus points are marked in the viewfinder at least. If they are invisible that would be really silly.</p>

<p>FINALLY!</p>

<p>My first digital SLR was a k100d, and guess what... I'm still using it. None of the cameras they've put out since have made me want to upgrade. They have either been too heavy and clunky (though well-specified) like the k20, lightweight but crippled (K-m), or just not much of an upgrade (k200). The k7 looks like a great camera, but again, I want something smaller and lighter (mainly for hiking and travel).</p>

<p>They've ticked almost all of my boxes with this one, assuming they've got the IQ right. Nice and light, but very well featured. The only thing it's really missing is weather sealing but I can live without it. A pentaprism would be nice too, but it's not a deal-breaker. Excellent news on the larger buffer size, and thank god they put back in the ability to select AF points (unlike the Km). A much better AF system than the k100.</p>

<p>And the price is fantastic. I'd almost given up on Pentax producing any more cameras that I would want to buy, but I think I might actually get one of these.</p>

<p>When I bought the original k100 it was because it had many more features than any other small dSLR on the market. Since then, the other camera companies have added many more features to their entry level models to the point where Pentax no longer had much advantage. I kind of feel like this camera will help them steal back some market share in a very important (large) segment of the market.</p>

<p>Very sorry to hear that Justin. I know exactly what you mean by thinking of Caney being a person in a dog's body. My cat is like that and I will be devastated when one day I lose him. It makes me upset just thinking about it now.</p>

<p>There's not much to say, but life is truly bittersweet isn't it. When something is hurting real bad you know you've lost something very special. But far better to have experienced the beauty of life, and then lose it, than to miss out on it altogether. RIP Caney you beautiful animal..</p>

<p>R.T. wrote: "this makes Sigma look like the role model here."</p>

<p>As far as the 50mm goes, Sigma *is* the role model. Very nice lens indeed, though a bit heavy (hey, you can't have everything!). For the price that Pentax is charging for the 55mm though, you would certainly expect it to be at least as good as the Sigma, if not better. Sadly it does not appear to be the case. Ignoring "lens tests" such as the one at DPR, one only has to compare image samples from around the web to see that the Siggy is a nicer lens from a bokeh point of view (very important IMO in an f1.4 lens). Anyway, I'll hop off my Sigma 50mm horse now...</p>

<p>The depth of field at f1.4 is so limited that often it's useful to shoot at f1.6 - f2.0 anyway. If you are working at f1.4 you need to be extremely precise. I wouldn't worry too much about the extra speed gain.</p>

<p>The Pentax 50mm f1.4 is indeed excellent value. I wouldn't agree that it is any better than the 50mm f1.4 from other camera makers, but it is quite a bit cheaper and the quality is similar. I believe the new Nikon 50mm f1.4 is pretty good though, probably a bit better. The Sigma 50mm f1.4 is, I think, the best of the bunch... much nicer bokeh. Quite a bit heavier though and a bit more expensive. IMO the Pentax DA* 55mm is seriously over-priced.</p>

<p>The 30mm Sigma f1.4 is screw-drive AF, not SDM. Funnily enough though I've noticed on a number of forums Nikon users asking for the availability of non-SDM versions of Sigma lenses because they found the SDM motor too slow. Anyway, I've got a Siggy 30mm f1.4 and it is excellent quality. I've compared side by side with a 31mm pentax f1.8 and decided I liked the Sigma better. Less purple fringing (hardly any wide open), faster, and actually a bit sharper wide open too (even at f1.4 compared to 1.8).</p>

<p>Your memory card is in upside down... ha!</p>

<p>Note: I have no idea whether this information is correct, but you can see how to do it on the k10d here:</p>

<p>http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/3158-k10d-service-menu-af-adjust.html</p>

<p>USE AT YOUR OWN RISK! I haven't even read through the whole thread, so read carefully and do some other googling. However it does sound very similar to the process I used on the k100d. For more information you can google "k10d debug mode". Maybe start a new thread here because I'm sure a few people have used it before. There may be some threads in this forum already!</p>

<p>Cheers, S</p>

<p>I had the same problem with my k100d.</p>

<p>Fixed it by setting the autofocus adjustment to about +110 in the 'secret' debug mode. Worked pretty well and made a massive difference. At f1.4 my images were all out-of-focus because it was back focusing by a huge amount. It definitely wasn't the lens, because the same lens was sharp on other bodies, and I had problems with other fast lenses on my k100.</p>

<p>Well hopefully everyone will hold off buying Pentax lenses for a while. They can only charge what the market will bear.</p>

<p>"Also, I am betting you ran the K100 on NiMH batteries and not lithiums?"</p>

<p>Thanks Justin. Yes I'm using rechargeables (eneloops). I realise that lithiums would give better performance, and are lighter as well, but I don't like using batteries and then throwing them away (even if they last 1000 shots). Sounds like the k10/20 would be better from this point of view, as well as the stronger motor. It would be nice to jump straight up to the k7 and get the focus assist light, but I'm going to have to wait a year or so for prices to come down.</p>

<p>Thanks for the info!</p>

<p>@ R.T.: Can you comment on whether the k20 autofocus is much better than the k100? Specifically with heavier lenses. I think the motor on the k100 may be a bit measly, as it seems to do ok for speed on my kit lens but struggles with heavier, better built lenses. Also, is there much difference on the ability to lock focus in low light or is it pretty similar? Thanks!</p>

<p>A significant downside with the k2000 is that the focus point is not selectable... you can only choose "centre" or "auto". If you choose auto there is no indication as to which focus point the camera has chosen when it locks focus! Just thought I'd point that out in case you were not aware already.</p>

<p>The focus point thing was a deal breaker for me (and many others) for the k2000. Otherwise I would have bought one.</p>

<p>I'm also considering an upgrade from the k100d (non-super) to the k20d.</p>

<p>The main annoyance with my k100d is poor autofocus. When using heavier lenses (eg. Sigma 30mm f1.4) it's really slow to focus. The focusing points on the left and right-most of the screen are also pretty poor (are these lines rather than cross sensors?) and don't really work at all in low light. In general focusing in low light with a fast lens is generally not great, and trying to focus on a moving target not good either.</p>

<p>Sooooo... how much better is the k20d in this respect. The k7 is certainly expected to be a significant improvement on the k20d, but is the k20d already much better than the k100d? I'm not shooting sport, but I want a body that can handle shooting moving objects indoors when using a heavier lens... for example, a slow moving toddler or a cat.</p>

<p>I understand this area of autofocus (low light, moving objects) is one of the toughest situations for any camera. But it seems the earlier Pentax models (like the k100d) were particularly weak in this respect. I'm interested to know whether I'd notice much improvement going from my k100d to the k20d. Thanks!</p>

<p>As others have stated, you have three options:<br /> * 16-50mm f2.8 (or 17-50mm or 18-50mm) (pentax, tamron or sigma)<br /> * 17-70mm f4 (sigma or pentax)<br /> * 28-75mm tamron</p>

<p>Each one involves a compromise and unforunately there is no way around it, short of carrying an extra lens. The extra lens option could be something like a 50mm f1.4 with the 17-70mm, or a 21mm with the 28-75mm, or the 70mm f2.4 with the 17-50mm. Obviously it involves buying an extra lens though and you may not be in a position to do that.</p>

<p>My advice would be to get one of the 16/17/18-50mm f2.8 if you think you would miss the wide end. You can always crop to get a bit more length. If you like to get in close though, and aren't too bothered by the wide end (like me), then the 28-75mm is the way to go. I would only go for the 17-70mm if you are able to pair it with a 50mm f1.4 for lower light situations and when you want shallow depth of field. This is a pretty versatile combo.</p>

<p>w5 by a long shot. For me it is the only photo which has dramatic visual impact and will catch the eye of the judges. Excellent composition and a really intriguing perspective. The geometric arrangement of the lines, coupled with the textural contrast between brick, metal, and cloud really make this photo. It's very clean and it is not all obvious that it is the photo of the side of a building. It's a very interesting and very impressive shot. Technically it is not absolutely perfect (a little more dof in the left corner would have been good) but I am nitpicking.</p>

<p>The other photos are "nice", but won't stand out amongst hundreds of entries. They don't challenge the viewer and invite the gaze to linger. They are still very good shots but, for me, are not in the same league as w5.</p>

<p>Regardless of how you go in the competition, congrats on some great work. I would be very pleased with myself if I'd taken w5.</p>

<p>I was following one of the threads at dpreview where some tech guy who clearly knows his stuff has been analysing the K7 video output. His verdict... the 1080 output is not "native" resolution and is crappy quality. The 720p quality is much better, as one would expect and there are no complaints with that. I suspect that both the Canon 500D full HD mode (20fps) and the K7 1080 mode are more about marketing than anything. It's the quality and ease of use at 720p which will actually count for users.</p>

<p>The external microphone jack is a definite bonus, and is what really sets it apart from the canikon competition (excluding the 5D).</p>

<p>OK, as a doubter I have a challenge for those who believe the '3d look' is mostly about the quality of the lens. Grab your favourite lens which gives you good '3d', and another crappy lens which doesn't. However, make sure the second lens can be set to the same focal length and aperture as the first.</p>

<p>Now go and take some pictures. Whenever you take a photo with the first lens, take the exact same photo with the second. Obviously this will preclude pictures of moving objects, but that's not too much of a limitation. Make sure all the camera settings and lens settings (focal length, aperture) are the same in each case. In fact, you may need to apply a tiny bit of exposure compensation since when a lens says "f2.8" it is not always actually f2.8. Anyway, you get the idea. Try and capture identical images.</p>

<p>Then come back and show us two pictures of the same subject (same focal length, aperture, focus point etc). If one lens truely is "3d" capable then it should stand out in a side-by-side comparison.</p>

<p>Just had another idea... it would be awesome to demonstrate a pin-hole camera. Very simple... you just need a cardboard box and some photographic paper. You can find instructions on google.</p>

<p>A pinhole camera is a great way to explain how images are made. And it really is amazing to see... even for a western kid who is used to seeing cameras all the time.</p>

<p>ps. I bet some members of this forum could probably help find a bunch of cheap digital cameras on ebay. And some folks here may have an old point and shoot they would be willing to donate.</p>

<p>Here's an example of what you could get. $20 on ebay, 4 of them available and "buy it now". They even take AA batteries! You could use the "make an offer" feature and probably get a good discount.</p>

<p>http://cgi.ebay.com/HP-PhotoSmart-M307-3-2MP-1-8-16MB-15x-Sound-Video-HLP_W0QQitemZ370211415037QQcmdZViewItemQQptZDigital_Cameras?hash=item563251e3fd&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=65%3A12|66%3A2|39%3A1|72%3A1199|240%3A1318|301%3A0|293%3A1|294%3A50</p>

<p>It's a great thing to do by the way. Well done! I might think about doing something similar next time I am travelling through Asia.</p>

<p>I would seriously consider buying some cheap-ass digital cameras off amazon or ebay for $10-20 each. Even if you only buy, say 25 digital cameras, you could use them for teaching and to get the kids enthused. There's nothing like seeing a picture immediately after taking a photo, and it will stop them becoming bored and forgetting about the camera because they don't get to see any pictures from it.</p>

<p>You could also arrange to let them take turns at having a digital camera for the day, before passing it on to the next kid in their group.</p>

<p>There are obviously issues with charging digital cameras, memory etc etc so it's not necessarily the best stand-alone solution unless you are able to buy a bunch of identical cameras. But I don't think it has to be "either/or". Some digitals would really be great for hands-on teaching.</p>

<p>One other thing you could do is ask people you know to donate you their old digital cameras from 5+ years ago. I suspect many people have a 2-3MP point and shoot sitting around that they will never use again, who would gladly donate it to a cause such as this.</p>

<p>If you're concerned about batteries, memory cards, and usability, maybe buy as few as 5 digital cameras... get identical ones, set them up in auto mode (maybe even tape over some of the dials), and buy a bunch of small memory cards (at 3MP per pic you won't need big ones!). Kids who have never held cameras will be amazed, and will happily share one between 5 of them I should think, particularly if you set up some ground rules.</p>

<p>Cheers, S</p>

<p>Richard, I wouldn't worry about the reviews of the 30mm f1.4. Generally they say that it is very sharp in the centre, and pretty soft at the edges. However, when you are shooting wide open it's rare for the subject to be at the edge of the frame. Usually that part is out of focus anyway. Plus because the OOF areas are generally very blurred, it tends to make the in focus areas appear sharper than they actually are.</p>

<p>The only real concern, for me, with the 30mm is getting a decent copy with no front or back focus. If you have a k20d and can adjust for this then it's no big deal. I suspect a lot of the comments on poor focusing with the Siggy are simply due to people not being aware of exactly how shallow the DOF is at 1.4.</p>

<p>I generally select lenses not by reading MTF charts or pixel peeping, but looking at images people have taken with the lens. I'm not looking for flaws which only become apparent at 100% -- I'm looking for flaws which are apparent even at web resolution, because that is how most of my images are viewed. Hence why I place a high emphasis on bokeh quality as it is impossible to correct in post processing and is readily apparent at all resolutions.</p>

<p>You can see some shots from the 30mm f1.4 shot wide-open at http://www.rytterfalk.com/2008/05/31/sigma-30mm-f14/. If you search around his site you'll find some other nighttime shots of at parties and weddings using the 30mm.</p>

<p>Robin, I'm going to disagree with you there and say that your 43mm image has "pop" because of four main factors:<br /> 1. Her face is in sharp focus<br /> 2. The other areas of the picture are either nicely soft... look at her neck for example... or in darkness. Darkness has a similar effect of allowing the subject to jump out at you.<br /> 3. The lighting and shadows help to emphasise the shape of her face... lips, chin etc. Our brains get a lot of shape information from surface shading.<br /> 4. Her chin and lips "pop" out of the image in particular, because they are the sharpest, and are surrounded by areas with little detail (or darkness)</p>

<p>I really do believe that it is possible to account for each and every apparent "3D effect" by a combination of depth of field, perspective, lighting, subject arrangement and good bokeh. Good contrast and sharpness of the lens obviously add to the effect by highlighting the in focus area of the subject.</p>