I had a lens get stuck on a GX20 a couple of years ago. As the camera was still under warranty I thought it best to return the camera to Samsung to avoid warranty issues.
They did get the lens off the camera OK but ruined the GX20 in the process and were unable to source spares to repair it. Samsung refunded what I had paid for the camera.
So as John said, it depends on what the lens is and note the risks taken to effect its removal.

It might prove cheaper to look out for a second hand K100 or K110 to replace it or put the money towards a newer body. I see several K100's have sold on eBay for around £100 recently so the repair cost might not be economical unless the lens is quite valuable.

John

+1

I can't see any issue with this. I may have a trawl through my old slides and see what I can come up with.

John

Sorry, have to eat humble pie - the Tamron doesn't have it. When I got the lens and tried it I thought it did, but it doesn't. Since trying the Tamron it has been kept in its box so my initial quick impression was wrong. Given the lens was made by Tamron as a joint venture with Pentax, one would have thought Tamron would have included the Pentax data in the lens though. And yes, the Pentax one does.

I have no idea how they're programmed, I wonder if the camera uses a default if that detail isn't in the lens chip.

John

It would have made a more reliable comparison to show each of the shots without any PP at all as this has masked the differences. Yes, the lens will stop down to whatever you set it to and you can recover the underexposed exposures up to a point. But that isn't Auto ISO, it's more akin to underexposing a film and push processing it.

John

M Mode is Manual mode - TAv is Auto ISO mode. They're different!
You cannot get auto ISO in anything other than TAv mode which requires a lens that can have the aperture set from the camera body. TAv mode IS Auto ISO mode - and you cannot use it without an appropriate lens.

The usual way to get the full range of aperture settings from a non A lens (eg an old K or M lens) is to set the camera to M (Manual) and pre meter with the green button. An excepetion is to use one of these lenses wide open when you can set the metering mode to Av where it will make the exposure using the widest aperture of the lens. Stopping the lens down won't alter the expose so it will gradually become more and more underexposed depending on how small the aperture is set. It could be that one of those underexposed settings gives a better exposure than the metered setting. That's because some subjects do require an exposure less than the meter suggests. Should the lens being used not allow open aperture metering (old M42 pre-set lenses for example) these would work in Av mode but probably not reliably at small apertures (it would depend on the amount of available light.)

Should Pentax uncripple the mount in a new camera then it would be expected to work with the old non 'A' lenses which would also enable us to use the old K and M lenses in just the same way we did on our ME's and MX's etc. all that time ago. That is allow full use of a K or M lens automatically in Av or even TAv modes.

John

For info, the Tamron lens does pass the lens info for in-body lens correction. (I've got both a Pentax and a Tamron version.) If there is any difference, the Tamron version seems a little warmer in its colour rendition for some reason, but that's about all.


You tell us! I know it's hinted at on the Pentax Road Map but I've not seen details of it yet, have you?

John

One of them was a bit like one of those wedding photos where a kid's hand got caught in the shot by mistake. This time it's the top of someone's head! (The one with the white and yellow walls.)

The Youth Award winner of the old gent with the soldiers was quite well taken.

The Arts and Culture one looks a bit of a reject.

Then the red one after that isn't even sharp or in focus!

Do you have to use a Sony camera to take the entries? If so, could that explain it?

John

Very good!

Well you don't have to claim it if you don't want it!

John

There are quite a few threads on various forums where completely dark (underexposed with nothing obvious at all showing) K-5 images have been processed to give an acceptable image. What you have shown is testament to the K-5's great dynamic range and potential for getting detail out of the shadows. I presume the original images showed a progression of each one getting one stop darker?

John