Aaaagh!!! Why do you tempt me thus?? Surely I have too many lenses already and need no more ... Begone, foul spirit of temptation .

Steve

If life and circumstances conspire to limit the opportunities for taking photographs, one can always indulge in that other time-honoured aspect of our hobby: buying new (to you) kit. For me, that meant getting a FF DSLR for the first time (a K1 - I know, I'm always behind the curve...). And that inevitably led to checking for gaps on the lens shelf. Primes were OK, but FF general purpose zooms for carrying 'just in case there's something interesting' were lacking. A search in the usual places resulted in a £50 (-ish) FA 100-300mm f4.7-5.8 arriving a week or so ago. For that sort of money, I wouldn't be too upset if it turned out to be a lemon.

Well, it's a light weight (good!), plastic, slow, no frills thing with zoom creep that must have been designed before ergonomics was invented. But I took it on a dog walk, than another walk, and another... And I must admit that once I got used to handling it the lens started to grow on me. Here are a few shots from those early walks.

1. At 135mm



2. At 210mm



3. At 300mm




I don't remember seeing much mention of the lens on this forum. However, as far as I'm concerned, it was £50 well spent and the FA 100-300mm is here to stay. And if something a bit more sophisticated is needed, the Sigma 100-300mm f4 and DA* 300mm f4 are also on the lens shelf. But they are really not lenses for taking on walks with one hand holding the camera and the other hand holding a lead with a big dog on the end!

Steve

I've been buying lenses from the used market to go with the used K1 I've recently acquired (thanks HarisF1 ). Not a single penny from these purchases will find its way to Ricoh/Pentax. Am I the reason why Ricoh/Pentax has been having problems? Should I feel guilty?

Steve

Never mind the technology, what is it about using a DSLR that makes it special and needs to be carried forward into whatever Ricoh comes up with for its next gen DSLRs? What exactly is the DSLR experience?

Steve

K mount has morphed many times. Could it morph again? When does a morphed K mount become a different mount? If a mount is a morphed K mount as long as K mount lenses can be mounted, then in a weird sense the Q mount + adapter is a (hugely) morphed K mount because K mount lenses can be used albeit with restricted functionality.

Steve

So K mount is at an end but Ricoh:
- recognises that cameras "are a presence that enriches the very experience of taking photographs"
- will "continue to pursue the shooting style unique to SLR cameras"
- will provide products that enable people to "experience the distinctive enjoyment of SLR photography"

Well, the experts on the experience of taking photographs, the shooting style unique to SLR camera and the distinctive enjoyment of SLR photography are us, the people who actually own and use SLRs. So what do these things mean to you? And what suggestions would you give to Ricoh for moving beyond K mount?

Off-the-wall thinking welcome!

Steve

So we know what Ricoh won't be doing but not what they will be doing. RIP K mount, you've been a good friend for a long, long while .

But does it matter to me? Well, I'm still using Q mount over a decade after it was discontinued. No doubt the same will be true of K mount.

Steve

+1

The negative version reminds me of an engraving.

Steve

The usual walk, yes, but you're showing that the more you get to know a place the more you see. And seeing in B&W, too, which is quite different to seeing in colour. A really nice set. Keep 'em coming!

Steve

The rule of thumb about shutter speed vs. focal length of lens is nicely summarised in link (ignore the 'Beginners' in the title, it's just a good summary of what it's all about). Key to it is that the rule of thumb is from the film era, it's essentially what you needed to do to get something like 7x5 inch prints looking sharp enough. Digital has pushed sensor resolution beyond that of film, made big crops easy and turned us into pixel peepers who want pixel-level sharpness. If you want the ultimate sharpness, you need even shorter exposures than the rule of thumb. Image stabilisation can help but how much help it can provide depends on the photographer (some hands shake more than others!) and the situation (static or moving subject). And no amount of image stabilisation can correct for subject movement within the frame. The conclusion? Experiment, find what works for you, your hands, your technique, your kit and your subject matter.

Steve