I was thinking much the same thing

I compared the 18-250 and 55-300 to my FA 80-320 at the SRS open day a couple of months back.


The 18-250 is impressive considering its range, but ultimately no match for the 80-320 in terms of sharpness. I would consider the 18-250 as a lens which is ideal for holiday snaps where you're really only using your SLR as a glorified P&S, but don't expect to blow the shots up much.

The 55-300 apeared to be superior to my 80-320. The margin was narrower and I am looking forward to confirming this when my Dad's pre-ordered 55-300 arrives. It is also smaller and lighter.

I havn't used the Sigma, but I understand it is comparable to my 80-320 so I would expect the 55-300 to be superior.

the fact is that moving images don't need to be the same resolution as stills, and stills don't need to be shot as fast as moving images.

Any camera which has both a high enough resolution to be useful for stills and fast enough repeat rate to be useful for video is going to be bigger, bulkier and more expensive than its single use equivalent.


The only way it will happen is if you come to a point where you can build both the single use versions no larger than half the size which is ergonomically sensible.

Even then, the classic shapes of stills cameras and video cameras have developed independantly to best serve their purposes. They are not the same. I just can't see a camera being ergonomically sensible for both roles.


Technology be <insert expletive here>ed, if the resulting contraption isn't user friendly, market forces wont let it take off.

good point. One of the best bets for being able to make this camera and make it work well probably wont unless driven to it simply because they can make more money by selling you 2 cameras than 1.

my answer this time is exactly the same as it was a year ago.

For me to buy an SLR/equivalent camera which is also capable of video, the following will need to be true:


1: The stills quality will need as good or better than the equivalent camera without video capability

2: It will need to be no larger or heavier than the equivalent camera without video capability

3: The control layout will need to be at least as intuitive for stills capture as the equivalent camera without video

4: It will need a KAF lens mount

5: It will provide an optical TTL viewfinder image.

6: It will cost no more than the equivalent camera without video.

In other words, if I am presented with two cameras and the only difference between them is that one shoots stills only and the other shoots video at HD TV quality with sound, I'll buy the one with video.

If there is the slightest disadvantage to the video equipped camera, why on earth would a stills photographer buy it?

truer words were rarely spoken.

with regard to the quick shift, I'm pretty sure the 18-250 is the only pentax DA lens which doesn't have quick shift. There certainly are cosmetic differences but they are pretty minor and very similar to the FA28-200 vs Tamron 28-200.

there's probably a good reason the Tamron 18-250 is also sold as the Pentax DA 18-250.

if you've got more than one I suggest selling your story to the press would be a good start

Ice is right, a JPEG straight out of the K10D at 10MP *** should be about 4Meg give or take a bit.

Are you sure you haven't opened and re-saved the previous ones? A 10MP JPEG at minimum compression from a photo editor may well come up at about 8-9MB, but the camera shouldn't be producing anything bigger than 4.5 at the outside.

if you're using it with a K10D, I wouldn't count on that. It's still stop down metering so you'll still get the same problems you would have had, it's just that you have to do the stopping down yourself.


I had one of these macros for a while in K mount, it was a decent performer. I only got rid of it because I got hold of a Tamron 90mm with a matched teleconverter which is slightly better and more compact, although only 1:2 natively.

The vivitar should be a decent introduction to macro anyway.