Still doesn't stop the Canon shooters from snapping up SMC-Takumar 85mm f/1.8s for similar prices - for a 40+ year old, all manual lens and then drooling about them...

As long as you use the genuine Pentax adapter there shouldn't be any issues. Non-genuine adapters may not allow infinity focus (they must be flush with the bayonet mount for it to work properly). Opinion on here differs as to whether non-genuine adapters are a good idea, I personally will only use the genuine ones.

Years ago M42 lenses went for peanuts as everybody wanted bayonet, AF and auto-aperture lenses - now they can be highly sort (and priced) because with the right adapter they can fit almost any camera system.

The Super/SMC Takumars are very well made, all metal lenses and they certainly feel very different to today's plastic lenses. You are limited to stop-down metering, but once you get the hang of it it's not a problem. Once you've focused wide-open, flick the Auto/Man switch on the lens to stop down so your metering works for the set aperture and shoot.

John.

PM sent.

Hi Bob,

If you're not aware, there are two versions of those with different filter thread diameters. One is about 49mm and the other about 58mm (I think). Could you measure the diameter of it?

John.

Hi cedricd,

It's convenient if you have already have a K and/or M42 glass collection, and obviously they are great lenses. I just can't see a newbie with a mirrorless CSC getting on well with an M42 Takumar. I've seen various posts on the 'net asking why someone's new Takumar won't mount on their new M42 adapter - only to discover it's a K mount Takumar...

John.

Since buying my MX-1 I've hardly used my K-5, the MX-1 covers all of my 'casual' shooting (I usually have the DA 17-70 on the K-5 and the MX-1 basically covers this range). I haven't been on any 'photo trips' since though and obviously would use the K-5 for those. In fact in the last two months I've shot my 67 more than the K-5.

Phones & tablets with cameras are popular because you can share your photos instantly, it's more about convenience than quality. low-mid range cameras will probably disappear, leaving the higher end ones for those who care about quality and handling or those that have a USP (waterproof etc...).

I don't understand the adapters though, especially with older manual focus lenses (i.e. Takumars on Sony Nex's). Why buy a sleek, super small interchangeable lens mirrorless camera and whack a big/heavy manual everything lens on it? Then you might as well be carrying a DSLR!

EDIT: I meant to say that you first whack on an (often bulky) adapter, then whack a mis-matched lens onto that.

John.

Sadly as has been mentioned, the market for a 'classic' DSLR is far too small for mainstream manufactures to consider (Leica could probably pull it off for 5-6K and might even consider a colour version!).

The OM-D (real name ???-??-?) is so small it's comical, very much like a 4/3rds mirrorless with a pretend prism with an EVF inside it.

Hi Lancer3397, welcome to the forum.

I haven't used any of the lenses you mention (I do have an old Sigma 70-300 APO and their 400mm MF prime), but a zoom is far better for an airshow. Unless you're only interested in fast jets or small props, you'll probably be wanting to zoom out for large aircraft or formations. A 400mm prime will likely be too long for many situations.

Remember that getting good shots with a 500mm lens is more involved than a 300mm lens (especially for moving subjects). They're less tolerant of (and more prone to) shake and need more careful handling. In some situations, even framing at those focal lengths can be difficult.

Note that to avoid freezing propellers, you'll need to be shooting ideally at less than 1/250th, which doesn't allow much leeway for long lenses.

Sorry can't help with the three Sigma zooms, but experience tells me I'd go for the longest lens I'd be happy carrying/holding all day (depending on budget).

Regards,

John.

The problem with tripods and high magnification (1500mm on a FF camera is about 30x magnification) i.e. a pretty effective telescope. Any vibration is going to be magnified enormously, most tripods will struggle one way or another. With big lenses, any wind can also have an effect.

The problem is increased for astro work because of the inclination angle - many tripod heads can't hold the camera/lens combination at an angle solidly enough - even assuming a solid tripod mount on the lens (where it should be).

The whole concept of a 'digital MX' wouldn't work. By the time you've got the sensor (any size) and the processing engine etc., you've got everything you need for most of the 'K5' functionality. Cost savings are going to be very low (or even negative if you have to rework generic software). As a niche product it wouldn't work.

A better idea would be to provide analogue 'camera profiles' giving a choice of cameras/functionality, which would keep it a mainstream product - vital really.

John.