For anyone who likes statistics -
The conclusion from the results of a recent investigation of my cameras (a K-r and a K-5) is that 100% of my Pentax DSLRs have been 100% reliable over 100% of their lives.

Philip

Football is clearly related to photography - for even the best teams, no matter that all the skills are there, that the composition is right, that all the parameters are well-controlled, yet they usually produce only a handful of really good shots.

Philip

Totally agree with you, Smeggy. It seems strange that anyone would want to write in an apparently negative tone about any feature that is intended to be positively helpful. If an AF check shows up an inaccuracy then that is not only useful knowledge gained, but also Pentax facilitates and stores in camera memory (for up to 20 lenses) the correction of the AF system. In my case, I wish it were just as easy to correct the photographer's errors.

Philip

The thesaurus must soon run out of superlatives! These are really wonderful photographs, Gary. Thank you.

Philip

Thank you, John and Stuart.

Philip

Thank you for viewing and commenting, Stuart - I'm pleased that you like them. Those old lenses are compact, well made, and of lasting quality.

Here are two more flowers from the same garden centre, shot with the 28mm lens -

5.
[IMG]http://i1200.photobucket.com/albums/bb327/MrB154/PUser/IMGP2730r1.jpg[/IMG]

6.
[IMG]http://i1200.photobucket.com/albums/bb327/MrB154/PUser/IMGP2731r1.jpg[/IMG]

Philip

If you look at depth of field tables you will see that, at shorter distances, the depth of field is about the same on each side of the subject plane. E.g. For a lens on a K-5 at f=50mm and f/5.6 for a subject 100cm away, the depth of field is 4.12cm in front of the subject and 4.49cm behind.

It is, of course, at even shorter distances where accurate focusing becomes much more important. Much less so at greater subject distances - in the scenario above, if the subject were 5 metres away, the depth of field would increase to total almost 240cm, and at 10m DoF would be over 3m in front and over 8m behind.

Philip

(Sorry Algi - didn't see your comment, but this is supporting it!)

For anyone who is interested, I used the method I described in the other thread at
https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/topic/rolls-royce-special-edition-36076/p-0
to photo a ruler before and after AF adjustment. These are the crops - the image should be viewed at full size:

[IMG]http://i1200.photobucket.com/albums/bb327/MrB154/PUser/AF-Adjustment.jpg[/IMG]

The camera was tripod mounted and the shutter was released by the self-timer to avoid camera-shake. The focus point was on the 200mm mark. Before AF adjustment (left) the depth of field lies mostly between 200mm and 210mm (in fact the 2 of 200 is not sharp); after AF adjustment the depth of field is is more evenly distributed either side of the 200mm mark (as it should be, and the 2 is now sharp).

These results are consistent and, therefore, reproducible - by anyone.

Philip

Doubtless there are professionals in every sphere who shun some of the modern gadgets but there will be others who rely on them. I can comment only as a relatively inexperienced amateur digital photographer - the view through the 18-135mm zoom on my K-5 is good, but it simply cannot compare with the brightness, clarity, and manual focusing aids of my old ME Super with 50mm prime, and so I prefer to use AF all the time. As the K-5 includes the feature to check and calibrate the AF system, my view is that I might as well make use of it, particularly as it is not a difficult procedure, and any adjustment needed for any attached lens is stored in the camera. I happen to think it can make a helpful difference to AF but, as with many other things in photography, there is a free choice as to whether or not to use the feature. I also think it is evidence of camera quality rather than declining standards.

Philip

At the garden centre there were, not surprisingly, lots of plants (real ones, not ceramics), many of which were in bloom. Here are a couple of flower photos - first a rose then a pair of roses:

3. [IMG]http://i1200.photobucket.com/albums/bb327/MrB154/PUser/IMGP2721r1.jpg[/IMG]

4. [IMG]http://i1200.photobucket.com/albums/bb327/MrB154/PUser/IMGP2722r1.jpg[/IMG]

Philip