There could well be two versions of the rubber eyecup Roger ...... No doubt LennyBloke will confirm. The more common one is larger, but this one looks like a smaller version which would fit in the case easier.

Without any rubber eyecup the front lens is quite exposed. Any rubber eyecup should work OK to protect it. This one might even be better.

I already have one of these and they are really the only way to focus a long lens accurately through the viewfinder using the ground glass image.

The price is very good. Still available new at £299.

--

Is this complete? ...... i.e. Has it got the rubber eye-cup?

--

Nice job

Did your wife keep asking you to play "Faraway"

--

I see that they have dropped the PENTAX name
All the other manuals have it PENTAX K-5 etc.

Does that mean it won't be on the camera and the delay with the release was due to someone having to remove the name from the bodies

It could of course be all down to employing an idiot

--

You don't need angle of view and tans. It's just similar triangles.

300/35 = 8.57 magnification factor so for 23.7 sensor it's
8.57 x 23.7 = 203.1mm

Alternative use 297mm A4 paper = 297/23.7 = 12.53x mag.

View at 12.53 x 35mm = 438.6mm

--

Have you tried manually moving the focus drive pin back and forth.

That's why bellows for Hasselblads weren't very popular.

From a results POV a lot of keen macro enthusiasts would want to see stacked shots before deciding on how good a lens/system performs.

Moire is also a big concern on the eyes of flies etc.

--

What will be the difference then between a K-1 shot and a K-5 shot pixel peeped?

Answer: They will be identical

I'm the original pixel peeper from the film era I used to use a powerful microfiche magnifier/viewer to look at negatives. There used to be a lot of detail that was too fine to ever show up on a print and 35mm showed far superior detail to my 6x7 cameras at peep level....... but when printed the 35mm was very poor in comparison and had a stop less of tone on the Ansel Adams Zone Scale

--

Ha! Ha! You shouldn't pixel peep especially when upscaling. You'll soon be convincing yourself that a $10 2X TC is better than the Pentax 1.4 TC just like this man did......

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/293399-pentax-h...

I'm waiting for the pixel peepers who will be saying shortly that a K-5 is better than the new FF K-1............ Who will be first

--

Your missing the point completely here. Macro reproduction ratios have nothing to do with how sharp the finished result is. Obviously a top Zeiss Macro lens will give better results than a cheap unbranded lens. The ratios are also used with microscopes.

You might find something of interest on this site.....

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/macro-lenses.htm

--