K5IIs, how good then?

I don't really get the point of all this square format stuff..... this is supposed to be a reason that I don't need my BG-4 grip to help with vertical shooting? Well, I suppose it might be a reason if I actually had a square format sensor - but I don't! So that goes out the window.

In any case, I'm not sure that a square format would be ideal for the range of general photography that most Pentax users would engage in - I see it as potentially more restrictive than liberating.

And the cropping argument? Surely most cropping is done for the purpose of allowing a little leeway with framing and tightening up a composition a little at the end of a workflow? That is, a minimal amount, not throwing away a lot of pixels. If we are to start cropping for the purpose of changing the aspect ratio of our images, then that takes it onto a whole new level.

Those that I listed earlier ... 'There are clear gains with the K7 / K5 conbined with battery grip - firstly the obvious extended power with an extra Li-on and 6 AAs on board.

But also the grip provides the key shooting controls (shutter, EC, ISO, green button, AL-L, and the two e-dials) in the same position vertically as the user would have them in normal position (as do the top Pro bodies of the competition without a grip). Once you're used to flicking the camera over into vertical and the hands hardly move you'll never want to go back.

And the grip adds a solidity (yes, weight) and tactile security that transforms handling - for me its just all positive'.

Plus, for tripod use, the BG-4 grip allows you to change both a camera battery and the AAs with the camera in place on the tripod - without the grip you have to remove the camera from the tripod first.

Well as said I had a grip on my K20D for a quite a while, and I concluded it didn't alter the whole feel and handling of your camera for the better. I went back. of course others may feel differently.

What makes the MkII or IIs better than a MkI if you shoot RAW? I can accept that the lack of AA filter impacts results. If you manual focus on static subjects using RAW, where is the improvement as it comes down to the user to determine the quality of the final result.

I have previously commented that I shoot JPG. Lately, I have shot a lot of landscape images in RAW. I like the Pentax out of camera JPG's better than Nikon JPG's and tweak the latter to match the Pentax look.

Once shooting in RAW, I process both Pentax and Nikon RAW files in PS and the only difference I see then is down to sensor size and lens used.

So how is MkII RAW better than MkI RAW? Indeed, how can one tell the difference between a 5D MkIII RAW with a Pentax Ltd and Pentax?

Best regards

No idea about comparing in that way K10D, but RAW is not totally unprocessed. There is a limited amount of processing that you get regardless, but to be fair not likely to be significant in terms of what you eventually see on your screen.

I think the Pentax look is more than just the JPEG algorithms though. There is a character to the lenses as well, and of course the basic response of the sensor plus that minimal processing. Even when cameras use sensors that a nominally the same, they may not be from identical batches or types of that sensor. Sensors may have stages of development too?

As mentioned a deeper body needed for a square sensor could accomodate an extra battery, and also twin card slots

Quote:
But also the grip provides the key shooting controls (shutter, EC, ISO, green button, AL-L, and the two e-dials) in the same position vertically as the user would have them in normal position (as do the top Pro bodies of the competition without a grip). Once you're used to flicking the camera over into vertical and the hands hardly move you'll never want to go back.

I find this clumsy. Better suited to people who shoot with their right eye as opposed to left eye. A square format would negate the need to ever switch from landscape to portrait shooting

Obviously if the camera is bigger and with an extra battery you'd expect additional weight. Ergonomics can be designed into the body just as easily as a grip

Depends where that extra battery I mention is placed doesn't it. And who takes both the spare battery and the AA holder out with them? I never used my AA holder.

Also why is a problem discarding pixels which you don't currently have on your camera in any case. Also, the current dimensions aren't ideal for many photographs. I definitely prefer a square format for lots of my photos. And 8x10 is better suited to to lots of photos too, so you'd be discarding less pixels in those situations.

So, like I said. What benefits are you missing?

So we Pentax users really are privileged! Roll on the 35mm size sensor.

Best reagrds

I'm not sure privelidged is the word I'd use, but if you like what the end result is that's enough.

Regarding the whole battery grip vs square format argument ....

Alan, for now the benefits you claim for the square format are hypothetical to us - we don't have it - I am talking about the advantages of the grip over and above the camera on its own that I do have (a K7 - grip and handling etc are the same as K5 also). If we do get then get a chance one day to comapre the features / handling of a square format Pentax DSLR with an APS-C or FF one and try out the grips, then we could ressurrect this argument. Until then its only guesswork.

I am recomending people try out the option we do actually have at the moment and consider the benefits I have listed.

The preference for a particular feel and weight is obviously personal, but our responses to a change in this respect depends on where we have come from (what we have used before). In my case I did use a film SLR from another maker which was small, but had an attachable grip which included a small tripod built in - this added up to a more substantial feel and improved handling I found.

Same with the K7, but the BG-4 includes more functional benefits. I think the two battery plus AA option is excellent for extended trips, or maybe when camping. You might have limited opportuities to plug in the charger, and so the AAs are there to get you through. And you can usually find AAs to buy all arouind the world in quite isolated places.

I've tried many grips on many cameras and have never found any point to adding to the weight and bulk.

The Pentax cameras are compact and efficient so no need IMHO to add anything.

As for batteries, I carry three (including the one in the camera) and rotate them. Battery life is never an issue.

Having said that, if anyone finds a grip useful, for any reason, then go for it.

We build up a kind of tactile memory for these things, which becomes natural over time - changes therefore feel unatural initially unless you persist and re-develop that tactile memory. For me, the camera with grip is the norm, thats what feels right. If I use the K7 without the grip now it feels like a silly little thing, toy-like!

I am suggesting that people consider the potental benefits 'on paper', and give it time to allow the new 'tactile memory' to develop. That then creates a new norm.

I find it quite extraordinary that what is surely one of the key accessories provided by Pentax for their top of range models can be so disregarded, and here of all places amongst the most 'serious' and committed users. The unit itself is very special - perfectly moulded to extend the dimensions of the camera in a completely natural way. The two make one, you could say.

And if suddenly the square format is being propelling to the tops of the wish-lists, then there's going to be lots of dissapointed people when the company only put out a new APS-C and / or 'FF' model!

I don't see what's so extraordinary. Accessories are provided for those who need them, that's got nothing to do with how "serious" we are.

The square format has been mooted for many, many years, but when tried on film SLRs has always failed.

If you want a square image, then crop square. For the right shot it can be perfect, but in this widescreen world it wouldn't stand a chance if that was the normal format.

It's odds on you'd get a square camera that used the shortest side of the APS-C format anyway, but if it was the longest side you'd end up with a very odd looking beast with little general appeal.

It's a bit like using the rear focus button, I must have tried using that instead of the shutter button probably 7 or 8 times before I got used to it. Now I couldn't go back to the old way.

We can certainly agree there