I agree with Andrew and Dr Orloff. The 12-24 (Samsung or Pentax branded are both the same) is a very good lens but has its weaknesses too and I often prefer to use the 16-45 (very sharp, reliable performer).

The 12-24 can distort quite heavily unless used with care and it is also very soft at the edges of the frame. My favourites for landscapes are an old M28 F3.5 and the DA 16-45 that I've just mentioned. The M28 in particular is virtually distortion-free and the 16-45 is pretty good for a zoom.

Regards
David

[quote:3496ace15f="Chrism8"]For me its the K5iis, shot a wild Fallow dear the other week in dull conditions with a Sigma 100-300 zoom plus 1.4tc on a monopod and needed 3200iso to achieve 320th sec @ F7.1 Here[/quote

Do you have a K-3 Chris? I have both K-5iis and K-3 and I think the K-3 would win this contest quite comfortably. The K-5iis is a great camera, but the K-3 is better in almost all respects, AF included and is not significantly worse in the noise department, I don't think 3200 ISO would present a problem at all. K-3 will also allow harsher crops, so no contest for me when shooting wildlife.

Regards
David

I use the following most often on the K-01:

M50 F1.4
A50 F1.7
K55 F1.8
M28 F3.5

Focus peaking works great on these lenses and is best on the M50 F1.4. I find it accurate and easy to use, especially so in dim conditions where any other form of manual focussing would be difficult.

Regards
David

I will do my best to make this Drew, just post the agreed meeting place / time and I will be there unless something unforeseen happens.

Cheers
David

Hi Will, I did say 'if not used very carefully' and Alistair did mention using the on-camera flash which would probably 'kill' the atmosphere.

There are clearly lots of ways that off-camera flash could be used, along with other lighting sources, but it might not be a good idea to experiment like this if techniques are unfamiliar and it is Alistair's first shoot of this type. Your suggestion of using natural light in abandoned buildings seems pretty sound to me.

It might also be possible to shoot without flash if the band is on a stage with stage lighting - this would produce dramatic shots and there should be no issues with a K-5 at relatively high ISO's.

Regards
David

I'm not John. I'm very happy with the performance of my K-3!! It does appear though that a lot of people are bothered about ISO's upwards of 3200. Even the K-5iis will get noisy above this level and the K-3 is not much different, it may be a little worse, but not much.

The K-3 is so much better in lots of other areas that no-one seems to be mentioning, it gives to me an all-round better photographic experience than any previous Pentax body has given, but this will not be enough for everyone.

The photography world in general seems to be very positive about the K-3.

Regards
David

Depending on the lighting I would avoid using flash altogether Alistair. Flash would kill the atmosphere of the shots unless used very carefully, however I am not an expert and Gary Stafford is the one to best advise you on this one.

Regards
David

I think I know who you are meaning Richard, if that's the case he moved before the K-3 was released so he hadn't seen one until he had a go with mine a couple of weeks ago. In that case he moved because he wanted full frame and Pentax were not releasing a full frame camera.

I know of one other Pentaxian on here who has just ordered a D7100, not sure why but I am seeing him on Thursday night so I'll ask him. I do know he was very unhappy with the inconsistent AF on his two K-5 Mk1 bodies, but why he didn't go for a K-5iis or a K-3 I don't know.

I think the biggest reason for people considering a move is the lack of a FF camera.

Regards
David

Hi Richard, nice to see you back! My reasons for buying a K-3 were possibly different to many other people's considerations. I had the money available, so that's was not really a primary driver, although I do like to get VFM! I was not at all happy with my Mk1 K-5 due to poor focussing in some situations with some lenses and I wanted 2 good camera bodies. I already have a K-5iis and didn't see the point in having another one the same so I went for the K-3. I can confirm there are a lot of subtle improvements over the K-5 MkII bodies that will not be immediately apparent by simply reading spec sheets and comparing items on paper, all of these add up to a significant improvement overall.

In the real world the K-3 handles and performs beautifully. I'm not going to list all of the things here that I've noticed as I've already mentioned most of them in previous posts, but I do think that the K-3 is worth the premium over the K-5iis and will be even more attractive if and when the price reduces a bit. Of course, this is just my opinion! The K-3's are selling very well at present, the price may be putting some off, but not everyone.

Regards
David

Hi Chris / Daz

I don't want to get involved in any arguments about the dynamic range of the K-3!! However, I can confirm a few things:

- There are no blown out areas on the dog image in the original file, I have adjusted the levels and possibly gone a bit too far on the whites! The metering on the K-3 is better than the K-5iis and it does its best to avoid blown highlights (quite successfully from what I've experienced so far)

- I can't notice much difference in the dynamic range of the K-3 compared to the K-5iis, there might be a small technical difference but I haven't noticed it in any of the shots I've taken yet. The K-3 still records a lot of shadow detail in a relatively noise free way

- The noise levels on the K-3 files compared to the K-5iis do not concern me at all. As has been pointed out by others, they may be more relevant to some shooters than they are to me but I am very happy with the K-3's image quality so far

My reason for buying a K-3 was that I need (want?) two camera bodies and was not happy with my K-5 mk 1 due to focussing issues. The logical choice for me was to buy a K-3 rather than another K-5iis (which I am very happy with) and I don't have any regrets! I do find it quite interesting reading what other people think though!

Regards
David