I'm not sure if I have said this here before but I know for a fact that Sigma operate what they call a 9 tenths policy which means that basically 9 out of every 10 units that they produce will have a canonikon fitting. As their warehouse and offices were done quite recently I think it will be a long time before any new stock becomes available in Pentax fitting. As far as flashes are concerned, I had one of the DG super ones for about 48 hours in Nikon fit for my Fuji S3 and I couldn't get it to work at all. Pentax flashes are cheap in comparison to other marque brands and only slightly more expensive than Sigma so I think I would be inclined towards Pentax.

My 2p

Carl

I use ACR to process my .dng files from my Samsung GX10 and I am quite happy with the results that I get. I used silkypix briefly to process the files from another camera that I owned but found it very slow. The main advantage was in the handling of noise which is now less of an issue for me. The .dng's from my GX10 are a reasonable size at 16MB (*istD pef's are 17MB) and I think they include all of the information from the sensor.

The magazine that myrdinn and others talk about is of interest to me because the GX10 also scores 9.3 and I took the photos that accompany the review.

Carl

If you want a laugh have a look here at the top cameras and manufacturers used on flickr.

http://bighugelabs.com/flickr/topcameras.php

Highest position for a Pentax camera is the k100d at 53. The k10d is at 62

For manufacturers Pentax is 9th between Casio and Nokia.

What does this mean? Nothing
What does it prove? Nothing

Carl

Apparently Sigma operate what they call the 9/10 policy for lenses. What that means is that 9 out of 10 lenses produced by Sigma are made with Canon and Nikon mounts on them. The other ten percent are made with Pentax, Sony/KM, Olympus and Sigma mounts. I found this out when I was trying to buy a 180mm macro lens. Luckily I had enquired through a main stockist and the lens is due to arrive next week.

The point of this is that though it is annoying that we have to hunt around for lenses and accessories we have to accept that the manufacturers are driven by market forces. When I bought my Me Super in 1982 I basically had a choice between the Canon AE1, Olympus OM10 or the Me Super. ( If I had had twice the money I could have bought a Nikon (FE2 I think) I chose the Me Super and have never regretted the decision. At that time Canon, Olympus and Pentax were about equal in the consumer/ enthusiast market or at least that was the impression that I got from the media at the time. I don't think the users of any brand felt that they were being discriminated against, unless it was everyone against the Nikon and Leica users.

It stands to reason now that with Pentax having about a 10% share of the market for Dslr's, that this would be represented in the photos used in magazines. I think it could have something to do with the way that the cameras are advertised also. If the public are bombarded with advertisements saying that Canon are the best it is not surprising that they will fall for it in their multitudes. As for Nikon they have always (well since the 1950's) been seen as a quality brand, if they weren't Japanese they would be German judging by the public perception of them.

I think that where Pentax slipped up was firstly when they took so long to release a Dslr and secondly when they chose to stick with lower specification cameras after they released the *ist D so that the successor to that has taken 4 years to materialise. I can understand and respect their reasons for doing this but it is hardly surprising that if they don't move with the market they will get left behind. I think that they are redressing the balance now with the release of the k10d but if they don't advance from there they will get left behind again.

As far as getting published. I don't think it really matters what brand of camera you use, the magazines will publish photographs that suit their purpose if they are good enough. I have, so far owned three Dslr's (Pentax, Fuji and Samsung) and I have had photos printed in magazines from all of them in the last few months. As for professional use look at Benjikan. He is a photographer who uses tools that he expects to do the job consistently, like any other craftsman. He isn't concerned with badges and I doubt if he has lost any work since he switched because clients will know what they will get with him regardless of the brand of camera that he uses.

Just some thoughts

Carl

I don't think I would bother with the 18-35 if you already have the 18-55 unless you want one that will work with 35mm as well. I have found the 18-55 to be superior to the 18-35 in every way. I have just sold mine for £50 on ebay.

carl

Chris

I don't think I would be as bothered about this issue if it had been an independent lens because the marque snob in us all enables us to accept the failings of 'inferior' brands but this is the best that Pentax has to offer at the moment and the reason that I responded to this thread in the first place was to express my wish that the next best that they have to offer is better than this one in this respect. In all other ways I think that the 16-45 is a marvelous lens which is why I am keeping hold of it for now. It is the one that when I take my macro lens off is always on the camera. A bit more reach would be nice but the wide end compensates and I have my 28-70 f4 to fill in (which incidentally has never had this problem). We shall see what the future brings.

Carl

Yes. It's not a work of art just a holiday snap but it does illustrate my point. jpeg straight out of camera re-sized to 1200x800 which is the usual size that I upload to flickr and pbase. Look at the bit that I highlighted and the burglar alarm box to the left. The fringing is still easy to see without pixel peeping. This is taken from 1/9 of the frame and as the difference between print and screen resolution is about 4x the fringing would be clearly visible on a print smaller than A4. I have nothing against Pentax. I have used their stuff for 25 years. My disappointment is with this lens because it performs worse than an independant lens at 2/3 the price and I chose it because I thought it would be better. None of my other Pentax lenses have this problem and none of them are digital lenses. I just hope the 16-50 will be better. Is that unreasonable?




Carl

I asked you to call me picky and you did. These are not extreme conditions just a spring evening (with the sun behind me) and a typical dull English day. I just chose the first 4 examples I came to out of hundreds similar. Maybe it doesn't bother you having to correct chromatic abberation in photographs taken in normal conditions but you must have more time than me. There is a lot about the 16-45 that I like. What I said was that I hope that the 16-50 is an improvement to justify the extra cash.

Carl

Yes. Here are a few 100% crops

1. purple antenna




2. green and purple roof




3. Purple chimney




4. This one can be seen at screen size




Call me picky but if I pay over £300 for a lens from a manufacturer whose main business is making optical equipment I don't expect to have to correct every frame that has a high contrast or oblique edge in it. I used to have a Sigma 17-70 lens for a different system that I used for a while and the results in similar conditions were far better and that lens is £100 cheaper. I know that you pay a premium for marque lenses but I would hope that for £550 in this country the 16-50 would show a marked improvement in all respects over the 16-45.

Carl

I would hope that the 16-50 doesn't have the same problem with fringing, and distortion at the wide end. I have found mine to be a bit of a disappointment on the whole though it is possible to get good photos with it so long as you avoid high contrast edges.

carl