Pete,

Can't recommend an older landscape lens. Because they were designed for 35mm and not APS-C digital they tend to be larger and more expensive - even second hand! It's down to the 16-45.

However, as I said in the PM to you, a lot comes down to controlling the light. So, a tripod and set of Cokin P (or even the smaller A) ND Grads with your 18-55 should produce some excellent landscape images.

Portraiture - as I said in the PM - the 50mm/f1.4 is one of my favourites. The f1.7 is good, but the f1.4 has a different quality to the image. Not sharper... just different. But, even second hand you're looking at around £100.

The trouble is, by the time you've bought and tried all these older lenses, you'll find you've spent the same as a 16-45 anyway And there's nothing that I've seen that can touch the 16-45 at that price point

Matt

(Pete - thanks for the comment! There are plenty of images on my ePhotozine account Link is from my website, but it's the same username as here)

Sorry Pete, I haven't got any images... I've only used the f1.4 on the K10D. (The f1.7 is on the *ist-D at the moment). I only have images taken with the *ist-D. Believe me, it's a sharp lens.

Do be aware, though, that you have the opportunity of VERY shallow depth of fields. If you shoot wider than f4 (ie between f4 and f1.7) you will have to be absolutely critical in focusing. Shooting at f2 you have the possibility of getting someone's eyeball in focus but not their nose!
(That's why I usually use center or selective focus on the K10D rather than let the camera decide )

So, to test sharpness, shoot at about f8 to f11.

I suspect you'll get shots before I could post any anyway...

Matt

I paid £59 for my mint SMC-F 50/f1.7
And that was from a dealer. You can try www.mxv.co.uk, www.lcegroup.co.uk and www.ffordes.co.uk (though a bit pricey)
Matt

Michael,
It depends...
This supports CA adjustment: http://super5.arcl.ed.ac.uk/baspmirror/radcor.html

And so does SILKYPIX Developer Studio. ( www.isl.co.jp )

However, some CA isn't easily removed automatically. I've found the quickest approach in Photoshop is this:
* Add a new blank layer
* Change the layer blend mode to "Color"
* Pick a soft round brush, opacity at 50%
* Hold the ALT key down and click somewhere near the CA to pick up a colour, and...
* Paint over the CA.
* Repeat with ALT - click and paint until gone.

(As the adjustment is on a new layer, it's easily toggled to see the effect!)

This should get rid of the obvious colour cast and bring it in line with the rest of the image. You see sometimes you get purple fringing which can't be removed by the automated tools.

(However, I think Fred Miranda has a tool on his site, as well as as this excellent little set "dSLR tools": http://actions.home.att.net/dSLR_Tools.html)

Hope that gives you something to get on with
Matt

It always did that
In fact the *ist-D does it too, and the *ist-DS.
It works like this:
* Camera loads the embedded JPG preview in the RAW file. This loads really quickly.
* If you leave the preview long enough then the camera has time to shunt out the whole 9 to 16Mb of data, demosaic the RAW, apply colour curves etc etc and display. That takes a little time

Matt

viewfinder,
I sincerely hope that was meant to be tongue-in-cheek and not sarcasm...

If you want to slate Pentax then you'll get a better response from other forums - generally this forum is a great help to those who are interested in learning more, and finding out how to use their Pentax gear more fully.

Can we please keep it that way??

Matt

Looks like we're getting into circular arguments here

(I've got better things to do... like take photos )

And it's (probably) Sony that does that, not Pentax
Of course, larger sensors consume more silicon, have lower yields from a wafer and are consequently more expensive.
I'd rather have lower priced 3:2 than higher priced 1:1.
Matt

viewfinder,
I thought that was your thought But doing that would make the camera physically much larger to accommodate the square sensor. And right now the sensor would be much more expensive.

Unfortunately, a lot of the DSLR design is driven by the size of the sensor - and the size of the sensor is designed by third parties who design what they think is required. So currently the only choices are 3:2 or (big) square for medium format from Kodak. Unless you make your own sensors that is (like Canon).

Personally I like a diminutive camera - it's much more discrete and portable.
If I really want square, I'd go 645D

(And BTW, I agree that £170 is too much for a grip There are other threads here that show you can get it much, much cheaper if you shop around )

Matt

Huh?
And just how, exactly, would you acheive that 90 degree rotation in camera? You'd need a larger mirror, bigger pentaprism and viewfinder, a deeper body, and all the gubbins to rotate the sensor... or have a larger sensor that would make the camera a couple of grand more.
I don't find the physics and mechanics "laughable".

I have absolutely no problem rotating to take vertical shots. The grip isn't just for 90 degree work - if you have a huge lens it makes it easier to hold (or so I'm told). If you've ever been involved in manufacturing, you might appreciate just how expensive it is to create an item like the grip - that has very limited "consumer" take...

Compared to other DSLRs I've had in my hands, I like the K10D a lot... but you're entitled to your views nonetheless

Matt