yes, in fact you can borrow my Panasonic if your Kodak should fail you!

but anyone that anal isn't worth listening to unless they wield a Banhammer, and only Mods have banhammers.

just my point of view of course, I'm just trying to say I really don't think it's worth worrying about.

to be fair, there's absolutely no point doing away with the mirror box unless you shorten the register distance, and doing that while keeping the same physical mount would be a recipe for confusion with lenses focusing past infinity, not reaching infinity, and potentially having protruding rear elements which would damage the mirror if mistakenly mounted on a DSLR.

changing the mount is only sensible in this situation. The best way to go would be a new mount with a sufficiently short register distance to allow space for complex adaptors for a wide selection of DSLR lenses.

it is my impression and experience that the mods on this forum are very reasonable and quite laid back (certainly by comparison to other forums I have participated in). I therefore find it very unlikely that John Riley or any of the others has the time or inclination to sift through the EXIF of every photo in the classifieds section checking that they were all taken with a Pentax.

In Your Photos and especially the comps things are obviously different, but TBH if I were a mod I'd find it mildly insulting that anyone would think me anal enough to even consider enforcing that rule in classifieds.


If you're bothered, just "save for web" your classified photos. That will remove the EXIF and then who's to know what camera took the shot.

our point is not that the size is a bad idea, but that it's actually no smaller once you mount a lens on it. Dimensionally yes it's smaller than a K-x, but in terms of practicality it's still too big to pocket so it makes no practical difference.

Basically these little mirrorless wonders are trying to be a modern ME+40mm Pancake, which is a good idea. Unfortunately the marketing departments keep getting hold of them and going "it wont sell unless it has a 10x zoom" and crippling them with a lens which is twice the size of the camera and turns a dinky little thing into an ugly monstrosity with no advantage for the consumer.


My biggest fear is that these DO sell well, because punters are gullible. The EVFs are almost certainly cheaper to make than an optical viewfinder, so the optical finder will go the way of the aperture ring. No actual benefit to the consumer by their removal, just a cheaper way to make a slightly worse camera. Then because we actual photographers are so few and far between, the OVF will disappear from sensibly priced cameras and we'll be left fighting over the last functioning K7.

every time I see a thread about this lens I become increasingly glad I bought mine before the K100D came out for £50 with the 2x converter.

Hope it turns up ok, you wont be disappointed by it's quality

I agree with John.

To my mind this type of camera should be marketed with a range of truely tiny pancake lenses, not 18-55 and 18-200 zooms which make it just as big and bulky as a small SLR without the advantages of a proper viewfinder.


Now if Pentax were to make one with versions of the DA pancakes......

What you have all failed to realise is that the above mentioned cameras were actually made by Pantex and Nickon. They are equipped with a Color Digital Lense!!!!!!

I agree with Tim, last one screams "PP background blur" to me.

That PP technique is VERY hard to make look natural, I've played with it many times and only got it to work in a way I liked once.

The trouble is, the edges are hard to do acurately and even if you get it spot on the subject ends up looking cut out and stuck on (as here, particularly around the handlebars and the top of the fuel tank). Also the subject (which hasn't been blured) ends up looking much more noisy than the background.

You may find you can make it look better by bluring the edges of your mask slightly (assuming you're making one blured layer and one plain one, then masking one onto the other). Also consider adding some artificial noise to the background. Lastly consider toning down the level of background blur a bit. It wants to be just enough to make the viewer look at the bike without making him/her think about the background, because whatever you do you'll never make the bokeh look like a lens produced it.


Sorry, I've rather focused on the shot I don't like in its current form but I hope I've been helpful. The other two bike shots are pretty cool and I like the engine close up particularly.

I'd say the only item of any real interest in that list is

70-300MM F4-5.6 DG MACRO SIGMA PENTAX, -BOX, HOOD,REAR CAP, UV FILTER

presumably not the APO version as they don't say it is, so not fantastic but if it's going cheap might be worth it.

If the whole lot is going really cheap and you haven't got a 70-300 then go for it for the undamaged Sigma, if the lot goes above about £40 then pass.