norman_head

SO, what's the deal. Post on Thursday... one picture? Taken on that day of that week?

Your content can not be submitted. This is likely because your content is spam-like or contains inappropriate elements. Please change your content or try again later. If you still have problems, please contact an administrator.

Or I could just find an easier site to use.

Still trying to get an image to show up here. Anyone know where I can see a set of posting guidelines?

 

 

That involved uploading to this site and copying the address. Does direct linking work from sites like flickr?

The K-P appears to be a great one body option for people who just want one camera body to cover all their photographic needs.

I use that lens with a K-3. I love the weight. It also works with a HD DA 14. TC, and if you can find one you can stack a really old F 1.7x AF Adapter with it to get 476mm, ƒ6.3. That makes a fantastic lightweight long lens combination if you canny your lenses on hikes etc.

What he said.^.. my wife has shot with my K-3 and my K-1, but she still loves and uses her K-5. Last I checked in the 6 years she owned it she has 66,000 shutter actuation, it's rated for 100,000 so she should get at least 3 more years out of it. We also used to have a Sigma 18-250, which worked great on it. As long as you have a good copy (ours was decentered and couldn't be repaired) it will be better on a K-5 than it was on your K-10. The K-5 rated on DxO is still a top 50 camera, 6 years later. Of course it was top 10 when it came out, but, time marches on. As for lenses, look at the plastic fantastics, DA 35 2.4, DA 50 1.8. or my favourite, the 40 XS a no frills. no aperture ring, or DoF scale version of the famous FA 40 2.8 ltd. The 40 XS being my favourite of the three.

I barely ever use MF lenses, that being said, when I ran lens tests for various primes and zooms at 35mm, my revered Tak 35 3.5 was voted the favourite image in a poll of 7 lenses (that included the very sharp plastic fantastic DA 35 2.4,) with Approx. 100 voters. On the other hand , it took me more tries to get a good focus. So despite owning a Tak 50 1.4, a Tak 50 ƒ2. , a Vivitar M 135 2.8 (which I use to demonstrate how bad older lenses can be) and the aforementioned 35, I rarely shoot manual. It just seems un-necasrily finicky. But it's great way to get really good images for less cost, it you are on a budget.

 

In some cases like the new Zeiss Milvus lenses, you are certain to get better resolution, although I've yet to see an image where I actually liked the rendering of those lenses. It's all a matterr of personal taste. If testing with real life images and polling users has taught me anything, it's that no lens in blind tests is going to get more than 40% of the vote, even the most famous and popular, and even older lenses like the cheap plastic FA 35-80 will get some votes as the the lens that produces the most pleasing to view images.

 

As for the plastic mounts versus metal mounts, lens rentals in their testing decided that most people don't know these days, and the only difference they noted was plastic mounts are cheaper to repair. Metal mounts tend to destroy what they are mounted to when banged and broken. Plastic mounts usually just need the mount replaced. And most folks who complain about plastic in lenses simply don't know about the amount of plastic there is in the lenses they own.

The 55 1.4 seems to be a pretty amazing lens. There are two types of commenters on this lens, those who don't own it and see lot's of problems, those who own it and love it. Beware of taking advice from those who don't own the lens.

 

Hard to believe that people are still talking about SDM failure. That is so 6 years ago. That would be like me saying "don't buy a Nikon, look at the sensor stand problem." Pentax's SDM problems are older than the Nikon stain problem, but in the minds of some Nikon users, the stain problem that got Nikon banned in both Russia and China should be forgotten. Pentax's gaffes should be remembered forever. All Pentax pro motors are called SDM . There is no relationship between the original SDM and the motors now called SDM.

 

As for lens availability, many of us have FA lenses, there are millions of them, and they work just fine. Too funny saying there are only 12 lenses available for it. I myself own more than 20.

 

As for lens quality, if that's an issue I'd currently go with the Sony, however Pentax is within months of releasing a new 50 1.4 which will be as modern as anything out there. It will be expensive but so is the Sony. I bought my K-1 a year ago, and it's an incredible camera. For still life using Pixel Shift it produces superior images to a D850, especially at high ISO, but slightly lower IQ in normal mode. The big issue for me is the price of Sony systems. I simply don't have that kind of money. With a K-1 and a few ancient lens I can compete with the best and often do. I'd get a K-1 and go for the new FDA 50 1.4. Copies of the lens are in the hands for the lens testers and sample images are being posted. It's less than 2 months away from production. An older FA 50 1.4 might keep you happy until then if you don't want the expense of the 55 1.4.

 

So in the end, my advice, if you want it today, go for the Sony, if you can wait 4 months, consider the new Pentax 50 1.4 to be released this spring and K-1. The hit rate is fine, I regularly shoot beside Canon, Nikon and Sony shooters. if there is a hit rate difference it's minor. As one comparative review comparing the Pentax, Nikon, Sony and Pentax, the Pentax is s little slower, you are talking hundredths of a second slower. Unless you are shooting high speed sports or birds in flight Pentax can keep up with anyone. One BiF shooter told me his keeper rate went up to 75% from about 40% switching to Nikon, but I often shoot 500 frames to get 5 or 6, so 200 images to choose from instead of 350, I can live with that. I get what I need, and avoid the extra expense.

 

And if you really want 55mm, give the {metas 55 1.4 is great lens. It might work for you.

<p>I don't use flash much myself, but just from reading a lot of forum posts, I've gathered that the flash is probably the weakest part of the K-5 system, and so far I've heard the K-3 isn't any better. Of the wedding guys who own multiple systems, none that I know of use their K series cameras for flash work... although the guys who use just a k-5 seem to be able to make do. People switch to Nikon just to get the more capable flash system. I would never advise one to switch to Pentax for the way it handles flash. In fact I'd say don't even think of switching to Pentax for it's utility with flash, unless you've tried the system and can live with it. It's one of the big reasons people complain about Pentax cameras. For my purposes it's fine. But I use flash for fill light in images, maybe once in every 10,000 images, never use multiple flash units, in fact the built in flash on the camera is all I've ever used. I've never seen a post discussing TTL that said "this works great" on any Pentax K series camera. Sorry I don't have a more positive answer.</p>

<p>I use Imaging Resource for these kinds of comparisons.. I don't see a lot of difference in dynamic range. The K-5 IIs would seem to have perhaps a little better colour, the M5 is surprisingly good though, and despite there being little difference in the test scores, the M5 looks a little bit cleaner. Interesting. I saw no discernible difference in dynamic range. The images are very close. However, I'd expect the 30%-60% additional lw/kh that's been measured on the K-3 will take it way beyond the M5. Very good images from the M5 though. Almost up in foveon country in terms of sharpness. I notice they had no images tested below 200 ISO. For a landscape guy, the richer colours and lower ISO setting might give the K-5 the edge, but the M5 was certainly has it's strengths, well beyond my expectations. I don't see anyone being unhappy with those images. Thanks for pointing that out.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In body image stabilisation is outstanding and my experience is such that I would ot consider aother system which doesn not have it.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You do know the K-3 has in body stabilization, plus a selectable AA filter that uses a slight shift in the sensor during exposure to emulate an AA filter where moire is likely to be present. <br>

<br>

Looking at the OM-D-E-M5 on DxO I don't see it measuring up to my K-5 in any category, performance wise. It would seem to be at the level just above my old K20D. I simply could never go back to a camera that has a dynamic range with a number in the 12s. I assume there are other qualities, that don't have to do with the actual image produced that have you considering this camera the top of the APS-c world. Like the combination of weight and performance or something like that. But that would be more interesting if you'd actually used a K-5 or D7000, D7100 or in a few days a K-3, or another one of the APS-c cameras that I've heard others rave about.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

<p>These are the current facts. Using 36 Mp camera the crop mode is about 15 Mp, not even as much as K-5. A D7100 or K-3 will give you 24 Mp in the same crop area. You can try and spin that any way you want.. but that doesn't change it. If you're using an FF sensor in crop mode, you're better off with a D3200, a D5200, or a D 7100 (or a K-3). You will get more resolution and IQ in the area of the crop sensor with APS-c. There quite simply are no 50 MP FF cameras. ANd no one knows what will come first. A 36 Mp APS-c camera or a 50 Mp FF camera. It could be that the D800 was the one and only time FF had an advantage with crop lenses, or cropped images.</p>

<p>The fact that you can write a paragraph implying that's not true doesn't ad anything to the conversation.</p>

<p>Being an early adopter, if the same thing goes wrong with my camera twice, I get a new camera. I splurged for the extended warranty thing. There have been so many cameras bad at launch lately, including the Nikon D600 and D800 I don't want to take any chances.</p>

<p>As a wild life camera the K-3 will be absolutely awesome. As a person who's already ordered a K-3, I know exactly why I ordered it and what it will be good for. Not one thing mentioned above in this thread changed my mind. Big things coming are</p>

<p>Dual card slots with tethering and a wifi card in the second slot.<br>

New AF system.<br>

A first ever in any system selectable AA filter.<br>

Best low light focusing in the industry. I have to ask Mr. Christofor why none of the other players in the industry haven't matched the low light focusing capacity of even the K-5 II. It's getting to be kind of old news around Pentax land. I guess it never occurred to you that the fastest AF on the planet doesn't mean squat, if it's so dark your camera won't focus when others will. Pentax tackled low light focus first then started working on their AF speed. A different approach, but Ricoh has stated their goal of making Pentax AF the best in the business. Pentax is a different company than it was under Hoya.<br>

More resolution than any Canon camera, APC-c or FF.<br>

Makes the absolute best use of long lenses in terms of Subject size. Easily outpaces it's only competition, the Nikon D7100 in many features.<br>

8 Frames a second in burst mode.<br>

While others complain about Pentax and their lack of whatever imagined ills attract their attention at the moment, Pentax shooters just keep rolling along. Of course Pentax doesn't have to develop a slew of new lenses. There are over 340 lenses currently available of K-mount, over 3 million currently in use. Many of these companies you speak of will vanish before they come close to Pentax's numbers. Of course they have to bring out a lot of new stuff. Their users have very little old stuff that's still functional if any at all.<br>

Pentax is doing just fine. The fact that some people don't see it is neither here nor there. When all these other companies have a single lens like the FA 31 ltd. regarded on some sites as one of the top 3 of all time, then maybe we'll start talking about Pentax needing new stuff. The DA* 60-250 f4 is still a lens that would be worth buying a whole Pentax system for , just so you can use it. For us outdoors, wildlife landscape shooters, their stuff was already top notch. They just increased their lead with the K-3. I'm not going to bore you and say it's the best camera for everything. But if you shoot outdoors and you carry your gear, a K-3 with the limiteds and a 60-250, along with a few third party lenses is the way to go. Bar none.</p>

<p>Well, the verdict is certainly in on tis particular discussion , certainly for me. Foveon 14.5 MP images compare quite favourably with D800e images when printed, and are considered equal to the D600 in terms of resolution with higher pattern extinction points, this in a 14 MP sensor.... the results of my DP2 Merril are simply astounding compared to any bayer images I've ever seen. CCD, or CMOS, they are still Bayer arrays, and quite simply, the Foveon sensors leave them in the dust in terms of IQ. It takes at least 10 seconds to process a file, the high ISO is useless, too noisy... but used at it's base ISO of 200 or 100 ISO, it performs well in low light situations with long exposures. It''s more like using an MF camera than a tiny little point and shoot. Based on my own tests, you simply cannot match this output with a bayer sensor. To me, my DP2 is the secret weapon in my camera bag, allowing me to hit way over my head in terms of IQ for cost outlay. This camera will try your patience... but you can produce images that are simply better than anything out there, except maybe a D800e. And it will cost you $$3500 on a D800 to do what you can do with a DP1M, DP2M or DP3M for $1000. I'm keeping my APS_c for telephoto work, but the DP1M and DP2M are top shelf landscape set ups.</p>

<p>http://i1132.photobucket.com/albums/m579/Norm_Head/Pentax_forum/Sample_by_lens_name/DP2-30mm-Foveon/pano-road-to-BB-pixel-peep_zps5205fbaa.jpg</p>