Happy holidays







You may spot that image in your local newsagent.

Very nice indeed, I like the alertness of the first two shots.

It is simply a typical look of a landscape taken with a telephoto lens. I think the strength of a telephoto is to isolate the focal point of a scene from its surroundings - so I think it can work for landscapes as it would work for wildlife. The key for me is simplicity, one strong element. This scene is more of a journey, a good leading line and different elements for the viewer to journey through and that is the problem since the telephoto compression works against that aim.

I agree, very good viewing.

The real action shots are the standouts for me 5,7,8. The images are quite small and difficult to judge but I think slightly faster shutter speeds (or perhaps slower) would have been better, particularly 8 which is a bit blurry but not blurry enough for more drama, betwixt and between. Slightly blurred always strikes me as accidental, sharp or obvious blur strikes me as a choice. I think B&W might add something too.

Some great deals there. On another forum I've been trying to sell someone who has only ever heard of Canon and Nikon your K50 and two lenses deal.

I thought the question was does a 24mm full frame lens on APSC give the same result as a 24mm APSC lens on APSC. That's why I answered 24mm. I'm ready to be baffled now.

Not a silly question at all.

24mm. The difference is that the full frame lens provides a larger image circle. The 24mm APSC lens on ff would vignette heavily.

I think. Cue many pages of talk about angle of view and depthe of field that I won't understand.

I have no criticism of the K3, I think it looks like a great camera. Just with the caveat that some users report that the tracking autofocus isn't quite as good as it seemed with the build up. I don't think the OP has a choice between the right and wrong camera, rather two great cameras. The two things that stop me from upgrading are the ongoing quality of my K5 - I've only owned it for three years I think it deserves better from me. And the quality of the images I have seen from the A7R with the FALtds. The latter has convined me to squirrel those funds away to see what Pentax do next. If I buy a K3 then I won't be able to afford the next step. If I were buying new into the system now and looking for a camera to serve me for five years I would buy a K3 without hesitation.

But a K5 will still do a fine job as well. I can mostly be seen planting my tripod in an Ice Age but not always.




And I've seen plenty of way better bif shots than that with the K5.

I did see a quantum leap from the K20 or K7 to the K5. I'm afraid I haven't yet seen a quantum leap from the K5 to the K3. Is the K3 an improvement on the K5? From what I've seen yes. How much? Not enough yet to justify the difference in cost. You get extra pixels, no doubt. If you can use them then great, if they are just to be cropped away then I don't see that as a good enough reason - just put more effort into using the available pixels. I am happy to be convinced though - but I want to see K3 shots that blow away what I can do with my K5, so far I haven't seen any.

I do believe that this says more about what a great camera the K5 is. Three years and it holds its own, I think it still will in another three years, which is a long time in the digital world.