Slight correction. After resizing, always resharpen!

G

You can't remove the head on most consumer tripods.

G

Nsantos, the sensor issue occurred in an early batch of cameras, and was fixed promptly by Pentax. It has not recurred.

Piotro is probably right in saying that the Nikon, when equipped with the right lens, may be faster than the K5. However, the right lens will not be cheap, and the gap is much narrower than it used to be. If sport with long lenses is the only purpose of this camera, and money no object, then the Nikon may be the better bet. In virtually every other respect, you would be better off (and have more money left over) if you choose the K5.

G

Felix,

The cloud may be why the picture is not very sharp or contrasty, but Piotro is correct that it doesn't show the K5 at its best.

G

If you can afford the 77mm, then it is the fastest and best lens of the three, and really the best one for portraits (unless shooting groups of people).

I would agree with Pentaxophile that one would need to shoot wide-open to get the best out of the 77, but that is hardly an imposition. The lens is fantastic wide-open.

I have never experienced any CA or fringing with the 77 except when shooting into trees against a bright sky. The solution is to make your sitter use a chair, rather than a branch.

G

Without looking them up, and knowing nothing about these two lenses, I would say that Carl Zeiss Jena is not the real Zeiss, and whilst some of their stuff was good, some of it wasn't. In other words, the Carl Zeiss name is not a guarantee of quality.

Ricoh never made a great success of themselves in the SLR age, but much of their kit was very good. We needn't feel embarrassed that Pentax was taken over by Ricoh.

I'd take a punt on the Ricoh, but people who actually know these lenses may advise otherwise.

Practically speaking, watch out for the dreaded pin on the Ricoh, and remove it if there is one.

G

Is it sitting on its stand? (If not, it won't stand up by itself.) if it is on the stand, take the stand off.

G

That was such an extraordinary statistic that I looked it up. Historically, it was true that there were many more women than men (the lads went fishing, and drowned), but more recently, there have been more men.

I can only think that if women outnumbered men while you were there, that somebody must have leaked your itinerary to the lassies, and they came over in droves like the herring gutters of yore. Either that, or the Unst beer made you see double, if not treble.

Scallops are so expensive in London that I've been forced back onto caviar. So perhaps another trip is in order. I'll let it be known that you're coming, and see what that does to the sex ratio.

Cheers

G

I don't want this comment to go to your head, K10, but you generally talk a lot of sense. The *istD was a great camera, and whilst the pixel count has gone up with succeeding models, I don't think IQ (in good light) has improved much, if at all.

Nice pic, too.

G

Yes, that occurred to me. However, I suspect it's new - after all, lenses are designed by computers now, and one of the parameters is ease of mechanised construction. So I assume it will be a new design.

But we shall see. I doubt that I shall get one (unless it's VERY inexpensive), but I am very interested in it.

G