I agree about primes, my K-5 makes me smile more when I've got one on it.

My K1000 makes me smile, every click is all my own work.

My Super-A makes me smile, the handling and sound of the shutter...

Then there's the 67

It's likely that the shutter is sourced from a specialised manufacturer, thus it will be designed around a particular spec. Because of the way SR works, the shutter will probably be fixed with the sensor moving behind it. As the sensor moves up/down, the shutter blinds would need to be far enough apart to cover not just the frame height (vertical run shutter) but also by the distance the sensor can move up/down. Thus, if the shutter is designed for a sync speed of 1/250th with a 'fixed' APS-C sensor, with SR the speed would need to be reduced to achieve the same.

Obviously a suitable FF shutter would be large enough to sync at 1/250th, but at additional cost...

Great shots, numbers 1, 2, 5 & 7 stand out for me.

It just goes to show how circular the whole technology thing is. In the '90s the camera brochures claimed you'd never miss a shot with their super-duper AF systems, multiple points, predictive focusing and very expensive super-sonic motor lenses. Each AF system claims to be better, faster and more responsive than the previous one, capable of delivering flawless performance - yet the next incarnation claims it can always do better (super-flawless?).

The difference for 'mere mortals' consuming the end results is skewed because we only see the good/great shots and not the thousands of bad ones that didn't make the cut.

I don't understand the concept of having fifty photographers next to each other, all getting the same shot (or same ten shots on burst) of the same athlete winning a race (arms aloft etc.) or the same golfer, club aloft mid follow-through.

I thought it was about knowing the sport, knowing the participants traits, knowing where to stand for the right shot, anticipating the action and thinking creatively instead of just blasting away at the same thing/time as everybody else hoping your technology works well enough. The same goes for wildlife.

Give me a great environmental portrait of the sport with some creative thinking behind it any day.

Thought I'd share this from BJP's November edition (which covers portrait photography) as part of a round-up of portrait lenses. Given that BJP equipment write-ups usually leave it up to the reader to decide whether it is right for them:

"...with the 77mm f/1.8 FA Limited Edition Pentax offers one of the best compact full-frame portrait lenses ever made."

John.

As mentioned, the Z-1 did have 1/250th with the built-in flash - probably the first SLR to do so. If you set your shutter speed steps to 1/3 of a stop, there isn't really a difference - marginal at best. It does drop the 'spec sheet' a bit - but probably makes the shutter more reliable.

I was quite happy with my Z-1 without the grip(strap), but it's much better with it due to the wrist strap being easier to hold the camera with. For the Super-A you really want the Motordrive-A, faster, smoother and offers a vertical handle & shutter release (similar to the K-5) - heavier though with 8x AA batteries.

With the K-5, I find the camera too small top-bottom and my little finger falls off the bottom. It's better with the grip unless using a short prime - when it restricts access to the focusing ring too much. Being an old film shooter, I normally use the normal hand position for vertical shots (elbow sticking out) even with the grip.

Check all small print carefully, some photo policies are more suited to professional studio/commercial property set-ups, and not to amateur gear stored 'at home'.

From your current list, it looks like you favour primes. Apart from a fish-eye when you need to get everything in (I use the DA10-17 - fishy at 10mm, not so fishy at 17mm), you might consider a DA21 or older 28mm for street shooting. My preference is 28mm on APS-C (or my M40/2.8 on film), M's or A's are readily available.

For astro I'd be using (seldom find the enthusiasm for cold nights) my Tamron 500/8 mirror (it's really a telescope anyway!) but I might also try my M42 Super-Tak 300/4. Or I'd be looking at the GPS module for its Astrotracer function (not sure if it works on the K-7 though?).

John.

There are no problems with older K mount lenses (Kodachrome 25 was my favourite film) resolution wise, but my M28/2.8 has obvious barrel distortion at the edges of the frame (won't be a problem on APS-C where only the centre is used). I don't have a K28/3.5 but my Super-Tak 28/3.5 (with the 58mm filter thread - not the 49mm) flares with a dreamy effect when shooting into a bright sky.

My opinion between 135 film and digital is that you need a very good scanner to get more out of film than the K-5 16mp images and your usable ISO will be much higher than film. Projecting a slide or a Cibachrome print is a different story though.