Hi Adrian, I haven't had time to check this out yet, but I will do a test tomorrow and post the results. I have taken a few snaps at ISO 3200 and they look pretty darn clean to me. Autofocus tracking is a bit difficult to assess indoors at night but when I get the chance to go down to the local nature reserve I'll have a go at testing this too.

Regards
David

Brilliant Stan, it's great to hear of your success and I hope it spurs you on to even greater things.

Regards
David

Today I received my lovely new K-5IIs and immediately set about taking a few shots inside the house tonight. The first thing I can say is that I CAN notice a subtle but significant difference in sharpness between the IIs and my original K-5. I took exactly the same shot with both cameras, using the same settings and the same lens (Sigma 105mm DG EX Macro) to test both focus speed/accuracy and image sharpness. Settings were 100ISO, F4.5, Centre Spot Autofocus, AV mode, 2 second self timer. Cameras were mounted on my Redsnapper tripod. I found as follows:

1. The IIs focusses significantly faster and in much lower light than the K-5 can manage (this will also apply to the K-5II I would imagine)

2. On the test images I took there was little or no difference in focus accuracy, both were exceptionally good

3. The image shot with IIs is sharper - this is clearly visible on my laptop screen with zero magnification and gets more noticeable the more magnification that is applied. It is also clearly discernible on an A4 size print of the uncropped images. To get the K-5 image to anything like the same sharpness requires Unsharp Mask at at least 102%, but this introduces other issues and makes the resulting image more 'harsh' than the un-sharpened version with the IIs.

The conclusion for me is that the IIs will suit my style of shooting down to the ground, i.e. landscapes, macro and wildlife in the main, with a bit of portraiture now and again.

I am not going to post the two comparison images referred to above as the compression / reduction process to upload them here will render the comparison fairly academic. However, here is one shot tonight with the IIs and a SMC K135mm F2.5 lens, set at F4. No sharpening has been applied to the image.




Discuss!!

Regards
David

I wouldn't go for either Hama or Manfrotto for the following reasons:

- Hama are cheap but you get what you pay for, i.e. flimsy construction and won't last if used outside frequently (as I do with my tripod in all weathers!)

- Manfrotto are relatively expensive, better built but you are paying for the name

I would strongly recommend a Redsnapper tripod, superbly made, relatively inexpensive and will last for many years if looked after. it's also very flexible in terms of positioning and if mine ever broke or was lost I would not even think of looking at another brand.

Regards
David

I like the shots Mark, very well taken and Smeggy's image is a fascinating comparison.

Regards
David

No problem, it's difficult to read between lines when you don't know the personality of the individual writing the words. I can be quite cryptic at times so apologies if the fun-poking was not clear in the words I wrote.

As I said, I will explain (if asked) why I like Pentax and this has converted a couple of people I know. However, most people I talk to couldn't care less about photography, let alone which brand of camera is being used

Best wishes
David

I think you failed to spot the tongue in my cheek as I was writing the comment (hence the exclamation mark after '...see sense'. I often smile to myself reading some of the posts on here and how seriously they are taken!

I couldn't care less if no-one else buys Pentax - I like to be different and Pentax gear happens to suit me. If anyone asks me I will tell them I like the gear and why I like it but it's up to them if they want to buy Pentax or not. I'm not sure why you go on to refer to people buying the same clothes / hi-fi etc.; you seem to have a bee in your bonnet about this

Best wishes
David

I have lots of FF lenses, so would not always be using APS-C lenses on my K-5iis.

When using APS-C lenses, clearly there will be edge softness if the lenses have this characteristic, but what I was referring to was the comment about having to crop a FF image taken with a FF lens if it is soft at the edges. This comment would apply far less if using a FF lens on an APS-C sensor.

Regards
David

Hello Andrew, removing the spring clip does not 'per se' permanently attach it to the lens, but it does mean that it will remove from the bayonet mount whilst still attached to the lens.

The purpose of the spring clip is to positively engage the adaptor to the Bayonet mount, such that it will not twist off. This causes the M42 thread on the lens to unscrew from the adaptor, leaving the adaptor still fitted flush inside the K-mount on the camera. This is inconvenient to say the least if you want to change lenses as you then have to remove the adaptor from the camera body by means of the special tool supplied with the adaptor which releases the spring clip.

The downside is that you have a small risk of the lens twisting off the camera whilst you are using it (because the spring clip is not 'locked' into the K-mount), but in practice for me this is of no concern whatsoever as I make sure the adaptors fit snugly and there is no possibility of them coming loose. I use a fairly heavy Tamron 300mm lens this way and it is simply not a problem. There is a trick to this though, you must make sure the adaptors fit snugly when the lens is mounted to the camera.

- Firstly, screw the adaptor onto the M42 mount on the lens (having first removed the spring clip from the adaptor). Make sure it is as tight on the lens as you can get it without over-tightening.

- Next, mount the lens on the camera - it should fit very snugly with some friction (not too much) and absolutely no wobble or looseness

- If it doesn't fit quite right (too tight), remove it from the camera by simply twisting as you would with any normal K-mount lens (the adaptor should stay attached to the lens if you've put it on tight enough). Remove the Adaptor from the lens and using it as a template, draw around its inner and outer edges with a pen or a pencil whilst it is placed on a sheet of thin paper

- Cut around the inner and outer edges of the shape you have drawn on the paper, try to cut just inside the lines so the hole in the middle is slightly bigger than you have drawn and the outer edge is slightly smaller. You should end up with a circle of paper with a hole in the middle (like a polo mint).

- Fit the paper circle over the M42 mount on the lens and push it right down to the lens body (it should fit snugly), then screw back on the M42 to K-mount Adaptor as tightly as you can.

- You have now created a very thin gasket between the adaptor and the lens which performs two functions: (1) It allows the adaptor to be screwed tighter to the lens with no risk of coming loose and (2) It marginally increases the distance between the adaptor and the lens body which makes it fit tight to the K-mount when the lens is attached to the camera.

I hope this makes sense - believe me it works an absolute treat and turns your awkward M42 lenses into easy to use K-mount lenses with a perfectly fitting cheap M42 adaptor! You still have to manually focus and manually set the aperture, but hey this is where the fun lies!

Regards
David

I think you are possibly right Stephen, only time will tell. Regarding the post, I've converted a couple of people to Pentax so far and there are two more lined up. It is hard to get people to take of their Canon and Nikon tinted spectacles, but once they use a Pentax and realise it's actually quite good they often see sense!

Regards
David