Frankly speaking as a working photographer with a full battery of Pentax lenses and bodies as my main system and an legacy of (a few) Canon lenses plus a recently acquired Canon FF which I purchased in anticipation of reverting back to Canon (which I have now decided not to).

I am somewhat bemused if not deflated when I consider what the FF has brought me as a practical advantage.

I think that FF might give a definite advantage to specific applications such as weddings (particularly for indoor shooting without flash) or where large print are produced, but I don't feel much of an advantage in other areas.

I have just produced a gallery of sporting prints, website images and brochure illustrations for an International sports village; I saw no advantage from using the Canon.

All images even large display prints, some heavily cropped, were shot using a K3 and K52s

FF is not "game changing" as a tool, certainly for wild life, sports photography etc; i would say, don't underestimate the advantage of the x1.5 factor of a cropped sensor and whilst it would be nice to get an FF Pentax it won't change capability much as a practical tool.

If are not producing large prints of selectively cropped images then think again, not just about the quality issue but also the financial burden re buying FF compatible lenses,

Whilst technically the advantage can be enticing I genuinely do not feel the FF can be justified for most photographers and that the hype is a little misplaced.

As regards a Pentax FF, Pentax might get me there by steady evolution but FF is not a revolution I see as a priority for numerous reasons

I would not be without my Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM (from their Art line), it is remarkable through from f1.4 to f8 , then it is just great ( really). It's bigger brother the 85 mm is the same.

For low light ( +action) photography it is unbeatable and about half the Pentax version, can be used on cropped sensor or full frame.

I feel the same can be said of the 200 and 300 DA* too and remember the 200 is f2.8

Regards

i have been doing quite a lot of indoor sports photograpphy lately where flash is not an option.

I have been using an 85 mm f 1.4 and a 35mm f 1.4 backed up with a trusty Pentax 50 mm f 1.8.

On 400 - 800 Iso I am maintaining good shutter speed and whilst the depth of field at f1.4 needs paying attention too, by and large , Myself, and more importantly my clients, are very happy with the images which will be displayed as a gallery in an international sports village

So what is the topic; I am consistently seeing a distinct difference in the colour rendition between the two cameras with the K5 2s producing a very true colour tone .

The K3 on the other hand, is producing a very warm almost garish colour tone in the artificial light of the court.

It is corrected easilly but it is clear by testing with the same camera settings, interchanging of lens and filters on each body, the two cameras produce strikingly different colour rendition.

i have tested this over and over again and the most marked difference is under artificial lighting; there is a difference under "good daylight"but it is not significant until the sun is lower and the colour temperature changes with; again with the K52s producing the most true to life colour

It seems the two sensors output a different colour tone under identical conditions.

Any wisdom, advice or comments on this would be most welcomed

Regards

Hi,

What a stunning set of Photographs, truly Nat Geo standard in style, composition quality and vision.

i wish I had such photographic skill , thanks for sharing them

Regards

Got it today, spent afternoon shooting a basketball tournament (on the court), eveything shot at F1.4 - f2 on 800 iso - the lens is just like the 35mm F1.4 - remarkable.

Bought theSigma 35mm f 1.4 DG last week based on incredible reviews: shot over 300 indoor sports images for a sportcentre website and framed print gallery; also some newborn baby shots.

The lens is astonishing can find another word to describe it

Thanks for your "heads up" today, I imediately ordered the 85mm; at that price it is incredible and this 85mm is getting the same reports as the 35mm F1.4 - will arrive Wednesday.

Thanks again

Interesting discussion but I would also like to add a cautionary word regarding screen / monitor calibration; whilst the latest screens are certainly much better in terms of rendering true colours, contrast and other image parameters as captured, it is worth not too infrequently checking / calibration on all screens/monitors.

I am prepared to say at the outset I am not totally confident that how I see some associated points on this topic are as relevant as they were in the not too distant past, but I have exclusive use of several laptops and desktops between home and business locations which definitely highlights the affects of ambient lighting conditions:
At different locations,
At different times of the day
In different rooms etc etc

Aside from the varying ambient conditions, having the use of several different computers/monitors definitely underlines some screen calibration issues between individual monitors particularly on finished prints or where a displayed image requires accurate colour rendition.

Regardless of the monitor brand or spec' I have found recalibration to be a necessary consideration and have used the ColorMunki products extensively but latterly the Spydercolor which I really like.

A fixed separate monitor minimises most of the variables and eliminates some; recently I tried a separate Asus ProArt 24-inch monitor which interestingly came with a Spyder 4 calibration tool.

The Asus Pro Art is such a good monitor; it is really a stunning HD tool for editing with a very high quality rendition of the image and super resolution and dynamic range

Calibration checks showed the screen to be very well set up and capable of maintaining the calibrated parameters

As regards laptop computers, 1 have used Monitor calibration tools with disciplined regularity for some years until I bought my first Panasonic Toughbook Laptop which I found rarely if ever needed adjustment; other screens change over time (and not too long a time).

Also portable computers bring other uncontrolled changes that can affect how we see the image on screen, being affected, as I said earlier, by changing locations and the corresponding changes in ambient light, colourcast, reflections etc; and even furnishings and decor (colour)

Even in a fixed location the ambient light / luminance changes with weather conditions and time of day; such variables affect colour and contrast rendition and can confuse our perception of the screen colour as we view it.

Two rules I try to adhere to;

1. Always ensure your print or archived image is based on a calibrated monitor/standard

2. Don't be tempted to change an edited image after it was adjusted / corrected on a calibrated screen ( snapshots may not be so critical).


I am using a Panasonic AX2 Tough-book at present but despite it's diminutive widescreen it does not inhibit my ability to edit based on a check of the final result on a large size monitor and of course a sample print - but for sure you can't beat the image displayed on a 24 inch (+) monitor

if a high quality, hi-fidelity colour PRINT/ Image is required it is interesting to print a sample 6 x 4 and then re-calibrate the "computer screen combination" and then print again, always remembering that the calibration process must include the ambient light component too.

Going back to laptops, Tough-books " don't die " so I have several ( some could be described as venerable) and as I said they rarely need calibration even after being exposed to non-stop use and many adverse travel experiences.

Unfortunately like all laptops the screens are a little small but I find the 15" versions are pretty good despite the size.

Final word on monitor and screen performance; get a Spyder or Colormunki if only to ensure you take out yet another variable that can affect the final image or print.

The capability of modern sensors and latest editing software to correct image parameters is phenomenal but I am not sure how you do that without a calibrated standard; maybe I am still thinking like a "film-man" but I am very happy when an image prints "as viewed".

After all, aside from the technical considerations, you would't want your Mother-in-law's posh " aquamarine wedding coat" to look green or blue as opposed to "aquamarine" when you send her a framed print or run a "post wedding day" family slide show - you could end up singing Soprano for the rest of your life

Had identical problem, Pentax couldn't get a new motor quickly so replaced the lens

I would like to get a true wide angle prime and I am tending toward the 14mm (Pentax) which on the whole seems to be positively reviewed despite it being introduced some years ago.

I would also consider the current 15 mm so if anyone is interested in selling either please let me know.

Comments and experience re the Pentax 14mm F2.8 (IF) much appreciated as I could see a positive place for it in my bag ; it seems a little more technically interesting than the latest 15mm Ltds; however it is a 10 year old design.

Anyone with a view would be most welcomed to comment as given some conflicting reviews I am procrastinating regarding which would be the better option performancewise.

Regards