Everything suggested might help a little, but with my K-r I don't have this problem with manual focus. I wear glasses, but usually find myself looking over the top of them through the viewfinder, which shouldn't help.

Despite this, I don't have the problem that Dan describes and am fairly confident that 95% of the time what I see in the viewfinder is replicated in the photo - the other 5% is camera shake or trying to focus with very shallow DOF.

Dan shouldn't need catch in focus or to be playing around with the green hexagon. They are valid suggestions for helping to mitigate this, but shouldn't be neccessary. Unless I have a spectacularly good copy of the K-r, which I doubt from the reviews, then there would seem to be an issue with Dan's.

How long have you had it? If it's still in warranty I'd be inclined to return it. Can you try another K-r to see if you still have the problem?

It's certainly not something that you should have to live with. The K-r is a superb camera, but there is always bound to be the odd lemon which slips through quality control.

Hi Dan

I have no problems focussing at wide apertures with the viewfinder of my K-r. I regularly use f1.7 and f2.0 with my 50mm and f2.8 with my 135mm. Both of these are manual focus.

There are obviously issues with the depth of field at small apertures so it's always harder to focus, but what I see in the viewfinder is usually what I get. Sometimes the focus is out, but that's due to my error, not the camera - usually optimistically low shutter speeds coupled with low ISO whilst hand held.

Is this focus problem all the time or just sometimes? Presumably you have no problems with the same lens at smaller apertures?

If you are anywhere near Norfolk you would be welcome to try mine and see if it's the camera which has a problem or the lenses you are using.

Thanks Matt.

It's very confusing for what ought to be a straightforward subject.

I didn't mean to correct you - just wanted to help someone else avoid my mistakes.......

There seems to be pleny of people who buy these in ignorance or because of incorrect claims by Ebay sellers and who are then dissapointed and give up with tubes altogether.

Actually from trial and error (lots of error) the above isn't entirely correct.

Both fully manual (no aperture linkage/no electrical contacts) and 'auto' types (with the aperture linkage/no electrical contacts) will work happily with 'M' lenses with an aperture ring, but without the 'A' setting. I don't have an 'A' lens, but have read that these types won't actually work with it in the 'A' setting, but can't confirm that.

The difference between the two is this.

With the fully manual tubes (no aperture linkage) if you select f16, for example, on the aperture ring, the aperture on the lens will immediately close to f16 making the subject darker in the viewfinder and harder to compose/focus.

With the auto tubes (with aperture linkage), selecting f16 in the same way will leave the aperture wide open to make it easier to compose/focus and the aperture will only close to f16 when you take the shot.

I've seen auto types for sale that have the electrical contacts for aperture only (presumably can be used in AV mode for semi-auto metering) and a fourth type which has the full range of contacts for use with any lens as described above.

Hope this helps avoid some expensive mistakes. I only know this from trial and error buying a range of tubes and using them with a variety of lenses as I couldn't find any decent information about what the differences were.

I'll second the Kata bags. I have a 467i which, until recently, was only around £59 at Warehouse Express. Very well made with exactly the right balance between space for the camera gear and a day bag. Took it around Asia for 23 days and it still looks like new and was very comfortable.

Thanks - sounds like I need both and I was trying to save money.......

I think I'll get the panning head for now as it's hardly any more than the tripod alone on offer at present. I can always add the ball head at a later date. (Or perhaps I'll get the ball head now and add the panning head at a later date)

Just about to order a tripod from Redsnapper and not sure whether to go for the 284 and 3 way panning head for £66.90 delivered or pay the extra £39.10 for the RHS-12 ball head with the 284.

Any thoughts on whether the ball head is worth the extra and why?

I'll use the tripod anywhere I need to keep the camera absolutely still or in low light. I do a bit of everything. I am trying out a bit of macro, but not too seriously yet until I'm sure I like it. Just using manual 135mm and 50mm with tubes - might try reversing the 50mm. I do a bit of wildlife with a longer lens. Some landscapes with and without a ND filter. And everything and anything in between.

Weight of both is similar, but the maximum load of the ball head is double that of the 3 way head at 10kg. My equipment is nowhere near that at maximum - well less than 3kg mostly.

Any thoughts appreciated

I still haven't got around to placing my order with Redsnapper, but was going to in the next day or two, so if yours is taking up valuable space.....

Actually just £35 and £40 respectively at Amazon in the UK at present, so an even better option.

Hi

As with everything it depends on what you want to do and place on it, but in general a tripod isn't something you want to compromise on. Most of the budget models are so poor that you will end up replacing them fairly quickly.

The first two certainly fall into that category. Manfrotto are a better make, but the one you mention isn't suitable for a DSLR. The maximum load is 1.5kg which is nowhere near enough to be stable. The maximum height is poor too.

For just a little more, about £66 delivered, you can get one of these, or the 284 alternative, which are a world away from the three you mention.

http://www.redsnapperuk.com/camera-accessories/RS-283_tripod_and_RSH-24_3-way_he...