Pentaxophile wrote:
I think you're right Bychan. Now I've got it home, I can see it takes the K7 and Tamron 17-50 (without reversing the hood), with space for a clutch of primes or something like the 70-210mm, but the 55-300 would be tight unless you reversed the hood.

I don't understand what you mean about the width - the camera is stored lens down, not sideways.

Pentaxophile wrote:
I would have thought it would be padded, to call itself a DSLR bag? I've just ordered a Crumpler Messenger Boy 2500 bag from SRS - i'll let you know if it looks big enough for the 55-300. It's only £20.

japers45 wrote:
Hi Adrian,

I have a black one of these. It is extremely lightweight and very unobtrusive. I usually carry K5 with DA35mm 2.4 attached, a Sigma 10-20mm and maybe one other lens (sometimes even DA*50-135 which is pretty chunky.

If it looks dodgy weather wise I select only WR lens because there is very little protection against the elements.

I took it to Rome earlier in the year and it was very light and comfortable. There is only minimal padding- covered foam on the inside of the base and the dividers, however the bag slung across your body feels secure and I have never had any problems with knocks etc.. Care is needed but I am sure you wouldn't chuck your precious gear around. When I carry it it never leaves my side even when I am sat down.

I bought it because at the price it was so cheap. There is a lot of talk on the forum about walkabout lenses- I can take one on camera and two others and barely notice I'm carrying it- great for days out and very easy to access over a rucksack style bag.

There are some fabulous alternatives out there but some can be a bit pricey. I can recommend it adn would buy it again but the doubts you have are fair.

Not sure how I've managed to write so much about a bag!

Mike-P wrote:



Actually I am looking for one to carry the K-5 with 18-135mm and 55-300mm so will keep an eye on this thread.

redbusa99 wrote:
i have a Lowepro Rezo 170aw ,this holds k7 with 55-300 attached ,da 16-45, 105 sigma macro or you could replace one of these two with 2 small primes and carry 3 spare lenses. also has pocket for memory cards, wireless remote. i also push a Gorillapod zoom tripod through the 2 loops on the front.being an aw it has the waterproof cover

Stuey wrote:
1 and 3 are also my favourites

Excellent

davidtrout wrote:
We used to holiday on the Llyn Peninsular many years ago and its a lovely area. Your excellent picturesThe bring bring back many happy memories.
David

simonkit wrote:
Like them all but No3 for me, I like how both the quarry roads and road down to the left act as lead-ins taking you over to the distant mountains and coastline. Lovely colours too which have been pretty rare over the last few months I have a new K5 just sat waiting to catch a few landscape shots if this bl**dy weather would sort itself out!!

Simon

Smeggypants wrote:
3 and 4 for me also - lovely light!!!

thoughton wrote:
My vote also goes to number 3. Love the quarry foreground, and what a lovely sky you had. Really nice colours too!

K10D wrote:
Fair comment but what if others don't shoot at or need high ISO?

I don't have a K5, yesterday I was at a West Australian Pentax shoot at an RAAF Museum. Two of the guys were using K5's which helped in the low light. I used my K7. I also used a D7000 and D700. The D700 had no issue with high ISO and the 14-24mm f/2.8. I used the 24-70mm f/2.8 on the D7000, also at high ISO. I used the 16-50mm SDM on the K7 with a flashgun.

The guys were a bit stuck with FOV issues as the widest lens they had was the 15mm (21mm on cropped). They don't use third party glass.

I think the images in the OP are more than good enough but lets keep our feet on the ground. Those that have K5's should just use them and try not to give the impression to others that it's a must have piece of kit.

There are other camera's out there that work very well at high ISO and have faster glass to match (at a price).

A camera is a tool and nothing more. For those like me that also use other makes alongside Pentax, it's no different than having various tools on the garage shelf.

Surely, making an image is more important than the tools used to make it?
So K10's, K7's et al will always be capable cameras.

Best regards

Pentaxophile wrote:
What a sky! I think no. 3 is my favourite, I think the quarry is an interesting part of the landscape to include. I don't think the foreground rocks are quite interesting enough in no.1, and present a sort of barrier in no.2.

A superb place. I remember going down Vortigern's Valley as a kid. The atmosphere of the place is really special.

Algernon wrote:
The 1st three are great, really like the vivid colours

I'm not keen on the last one... too much brown in the foreground,
but even if that was removed the composition just doesn't work

Epithet Man wrote:
For me, it's the sky of #4 with the foreground of #3.
EM

HowardJ wrote:
Da iawn, ardderchog.

My favourites are No 1 and No 3. Possibly crop a bit of the brown off the bottom of No 4, but then perhaps it would unbalance the image.

Are you looking down the Llyn or toward Caernarfon? I can't make it out.

Hwyl,

Howard

bwlchmawr wrote:
Wonderful rich colours in both land and sky from one of my favourite places.

I like the clearly defined rocks in the foreground of no.2. I know rules are there to be broken, but I always feel slightly uneasy when a horizon nearly or exactly bisects the frame...

That lens is one I think I'd like to own, but these shots (and please don't take this the wrong way, Adian) illustrate just how carefully ultra-wides need to be handled. They enhance the foreground, which is great, and offer excellent depth of field, which is also great but can make the subject (in this case the mountains) shrink and become insignificant. If you see what I mean. I even found this in the bad old days of film when I saved up for ages and bought a Sigma 24mm but hardly used it, even in the Alps.

I'd still like to play with the 10-20 for a week, though! (Preferably in North Wales!) Perhaps it would get it out of my system...

aliengrove wrote:
1 and 3 for me, can't make up my mind which I like best, I like the composition and the foreground in both of them. In 4 the foreground spoils the picture IMO, it's a bit dull in comparison to the rest of the frame, and in the second one the foreground rocks take up a bit too much space. Great sky!

Northgrain wrote:
+1

But I think #1 snatches it because of the greater sense of depth of field - leads into the image and to the far hills.