Kamera Quandaries


duncanM

Link Posted 20/03/2014 - 11:19
Thanks guys- you've really covered all the options for me (though I admit that the suggestion about going to MFT format was a bit off the park for me, as I do retain strong brand affection for Pentax)
I have actually previously tried switching to Limiteds- I had the set of DA15, 21, 40, and 70 until a couple of years ago- but did not really become very attached to them, and sold the lot to go over to the DA zooms entirely. I was disappointed in the 15 and 21 particularly because I reckoned that I had been getting better results from the DA12-24 that I had previously owned and sold prior to getting the Limiteds, and actually went and bought a new DA12-24 again very soon! The quality and range of the DA*16-50 and 50-135 that I bought at about the same time were just a revelation for me, though I know that many prefer the Limiteds for their discrete appearance, among other virtues, no doubt
The bitter pill that I have to swallow is that the K3 with DA18-135 is the only more or less viable alternative with appeal for me, but it is still relatively large and heavy, and I have decided that the appeal of travelling light like Ken [Gartmore] and others, wins out in the final analysis.
It has been really helpful to have it all discussed like this, and I feel more confident that what I am doing is right for me- sincerest thanks, all
Last Edited by duncanM on 20/03/2014 - 11:32

Simonmac

Link Posted 20/03/2014 - 12:17
I envy you- you have gone through all of the Pentax lenses that I wish I could afford. Perhaps there lies the problem....too much choice? Look at your photos and ascertain what your favourite focal lengths are. I have creeping arthritis but I decided to go for the body I always wanted (K511s) and a Tamron 17-50. I have a 16-50 waiting in the wings and I am very excited. I don't need ultra wide angle or telephoto. Cheers mac
duncanM wrote:
Thanks guys- you've really covered all the options for me (though I admit that the suggestion about going to MFT format was a bit off the park for me, as I do retain strong brand affection for Pentax)
I have actually previously tried switching to Limiteds- I had the set of DA15, 21, 40, and 70 until a couple of years ago- but did not really become very attached to them, and sold the lot to go over to the DA zooms entirely. I was disappointed in the 15 and 21 particularly because I reckoned that I had been getting better results from the DA12-24 that I had previously owned and sold prior to getting the Limiteds, and actually went and bought a new DA12-24 again very soon! The quality and range of the DA*16-50 and 50-135 that I bought at about the same time were just a revelation for me, though I know that many prefer the Limiteds for their discrete appearance, among other virtues, no doubt
The bitter pill that I have to swallow is that the K3 with DA18-135 is the only more or less viable alternative with appeal for me, but it is still relatively large and heavy, and I have decided that the appeal of travelling light like Ken [Gartmore] and others, wins out in the final analysis.
It has been really helpful to have it all discussed like this, and I feel more confident that what I am doing is right for me- sincerest thanks, all


macmccreery.com
www.flickr.com/photos/simac/
www.500px.com/simac

Helpful

McBrian

Link Posted 20/03/2014 - 13:06
I solved the travel bag problem relatively easy, I always make sure I pack the car
Cheers
Brian.
LBA is good for you, a Lens a day helps you work, rest and play.

Helpful

MattMatic

Link Posted 20/03/2014 - 13:30
I would also recommend looking at the MX-1. Bought one for my son and am astounded at the output from it. Trumps the original Q easily! And the articulated screen is a great addition. Seriously want one for me now

For travel with dSLR I found the DA17-70 plus DA55-300 was a great set. When I upgraded to the DA*16-50 the DA55-300 still comes along. Very capable telephoto - and I really like the 200 to 300mm for travel It's not up with the DA*50-135 but superb for the weight/price combination.

The only tiny thing is that there are no MX-1 Lightroom profiles at the moment. The Q has profiles, and I have found that they can make a huge difference to IQ in processing - even the DA12-24 leaps up from its raw state to another level. Not sure if there are Q7 profiles yet for the lenses...

Matt
http://www.mattmatic.co.uk
(For gallery, tips and links)

Helpful

duncanM

Link Posted 20/03/2014 - 16:00
MattMatic wrote:

Not sure if there are Q7 profiles yet for the lenses...
Matt

I am running Lightroom 5.2, which does support the Q7, so no problem there
The MX-1 certainly attracts very positive feedback, but I do enjoy having the flexibility of changeable lenses- lenses for courses, as it were

MattMatic

Link Posted 20/03/2014 - 17:13
Duncan,
It wasn't whether LR supports the Q7. It does thru DNG.
It's that lens profiles can dramatically reduce CA and distortions. On the DA12-24 the corner sharpness increases beautifully when the lens profile is enabled. The Q+Q01/02 get suitably corrected, but I suspect that there needs to be a profile update for the lens when on the Q7.
I would say that the Q7 kit sounds ideal for you. I really like the Q system - so tiny and a huge amount of fun. Often carry it with the K5 kit.
Matt
http://www.mattmatic.co.uk
(For gallery, tips and links)

Helpful

duncanM

Link Posted 20/03/2014 - 17:46
MattMatic wrote:
Duncan,
It wasn't whether LR supports the Q7. It does thru DNG.
It's that lens profiles can dramatically reduce CA and distortions...
Matt

Ah- with you, Matt. I must say that the first item on the right column in LR that I went to when developing K5 raw images was always the Lens Correction panel, to tick "enable lens correction", and it was impressive how it was able to sort out all the DA zooms that I had

DanielH

Link Posted 20/03/2014 - 19:30
Bit silly to discount something based on a name dont you think? Its your choice of course but it will give you pretty much what you want, much smaller and lighter with ballpark IQ. Surely you want to make an informed choice not restrict yourself by brand.

Helpful

ISO

Link Posted 20/03/2014 - 19:45
KEN
gartmore wrote:
Q7!

I love my Q and took it on recent holidays to Rome and New York. Picure quality is fabulous. Body, 01 standard prime, optical finder, 02 zoom, 03 fisheye, hoods, remote control F, CPL, a couple of batteries and cards in a case 6 inches wide, 5 high and 4.5 deep. Pretty heavy though at 616 grammes for the lot.

Ken I have read somewhere that there is a problem with the Optical Viewfinder in that it doesn't really work for close ups. Given there are a host of Hot Shoe mountable viewfinders about, I wonder if there are other, adjustable, ones about?
Last Edited by ISO on 20/03/2014 - 19:46

Helpful

duncanM

Link Posted 20/03/2014 - 20:45
DanielH wrote:
Bit silly to discount something based on a name dont you think?

Call me old and sentimental, but the fact is that I started in the 70s with Pentax, had brief dalliances with Canon, Nikon, Contax, Olympus, and probably others too, but always reverted to Pentax. I have to say that the only other brand that I got at all attached to was Olympus. Eventually however, in the digital era, it was Pentax that I stuck with, and the brand has kept me happy. (In fact the only real temptation for me recently from another brand was the Sony RX1, and that was for its full frame sensor in such a neat body, but it is outrageously expensive)
I certainly shall wait until I have had a chance to handle the Q7, to make sure it feels right, and will probably cast a covetous eye on the competition including particularly the Olympus offerings, but I fully expect that it'll be a Q7 in the end

DanielH

Link Posted 20/03/2014 - 21:08
No problem Duncan just didnt want you discounting something that might very well fulfill your needs. BTW IQ will be much better than the Q7 and not that much bigger.

Id better stop now before the mob descends on me
Last Edited by DanielH on 20/03/2014 - 21:23

Helpful

duncanM

Link Posted 20/03/2014 - 22:29
DanielH wrote:
...Id better stop now before the mob descends on me

Yeah- living dangerously

gartmore

Link Posted 21/03/2014 - 00:17
ISO wrote:
KEN
gartmore wrote:
Q7!

I love my Q and took it on recent holidays to Rome and New York. Picure quality is fabulous. Body, 01 standard prime, optical finder, 02 zoom, 03 fisheye, hoods, remote control F, CPL, a couple of batteries and cards in a case 6 inches wide, 5 high and 4.5 deep. Pretty heavy though at 616 grammes for the lot.

Ken I have read somewhere that there is a problem with the Optical Viewfinder in that it doesn't really work for close ups. Given there are a host of Hot Shoe mountable viewfinders about, I wonder if there are other, adjustable, ones about?

Well I suppose it all depends on what you mean by close ups; it does have paralax correction marks but if it you are so close for it to be an issue just switch to live view. No separate finder, think TLR or rangefinder is going to give you the absolute accuracy of an SLR.

I bought the Q primarily for the street genre and find the optical finder ideal but you do have to trust yourself to matrix focusing. I haven't missed a shot yet that way.

I haven't been aware of any CA or PF with the lenses I have and use the inbuilt lens correction as a default setting.
Ken
We must avoid however, snapping away, shooting quickly and without thought, overloading ourselves with unnecessary images that clutter our memory and diminish the clarity of the whole. - Henri Cartier-Bresson -
Last Edited by gartmore on 21/03/2014 - 00:22

ISO

Link Posted 21/03/2014 - 18:38
Hi Ken,
What I read didn't mention it had parallax correction Have you seen the Amazon price for it?

johnriley

Link Posted 21/03/2014 - 19:44
The SRS price looks reasonable when you see what a beautiful jewel it is. The quality of the view through it is outstanding. Crystal clear and up with the best viewfinders of this type.

Likewise the GR viewfinder.
Best regards, John

Helpful
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.