A great entertaining series - he seems very well-behaved. He looks quite streamlined in number 2, and number 3 is a hoot!

Cheers.
Philip

Great detail there, Nigel. I think that lens is great on APS-C - I'm pleased I followed your example!

Cheers.
Philip

I agree.

My earlier post comparing the MX and the K-5 were about the grip on the camera, not the extra add-on battery grip. Also my post referred to the cameras when fitted with a typical standard lens, not a huge zoom or telephoto.

I often carry my camera using one hand and a wrist strap, and the larger built-in grip of a DSLR makes that feel more secure. When actually taking a hand-held shot, I always hold the camera/lens with two hands, and again, I find that the large built-in grip with finger slot (as on the K-5 etc.) gives a firm and secure hold. Each to his own.

Cheers.
Philip

I just wonder if such comparisons are being fair. I would have thought that an example of a typical enthusiast's walkabout film combo would have been something like the MX with a standard prime lens, e.g. the 50mm f/1.7. Now in recent digital times, an example might be a K-5 with a zoom lens, e.g. the 18-135mm. The latter setup has twice the mass of the former, so the large grip is a significant benefit when holding the combo, in addition to its other practical use (which was not an issue for many film cameras) - providing the space for a high capacity battery.

Cheers.
Philip

Although I have not had the chance to handle a KP yet, intuitively the grip design doesn't look as though it would be as functional as the typical Pentax built-in grip, for example as on the K-5IIs:




Whichever size is fitted, it lacks that almost semi-circular depression into which the second finger nestles to give a good feeling of security when held in the hand.

Perhaps, in practice, this makes little difference, and I suppose one might soon get used to it. Nevertheless, in my opinion it also spoils the aesthetics of the camera, looking like what it actually is - a bolted on extra lump. Presumably it is also the reason why the KP only has room in the body for the short-life battery.

Cheers.
Philip

You should know that objects are not what they seem to be. When taking a photo, the camera instantly removes the three spatial dimensions from the object while capturing the image. However, the object is constantly interacting with both the camera and photographer, and it restores its own three dimensional aspects at a speed so rapid that it is beyond human perception. In your world, it detects your presence and adjusts itself so that it always gives the same image under the changing conditions that you describe. However, in everyone else's world, when we move to a different distance from the object, it changes its own dimensions to cause us to see a different perspective in its image.

Philip

All the helpful posts above show you that the LAWS OF PHYSICS produce DIFFERENT images in the setups of the type that you describe in the first post.

The only exception would be if each of the two images showed ONLY a single 2-dimensional plane, perfectly parallel to the image sensor surface, from the 3-dimensional scenes that most people would shoot most of the time.

Any pair of photos, representing anything in part or in whole that was 3-dimensional in the real scene, will show differences when they are the result of shooting from different distances, no matter which different focal lengths are used.

If you claim otherwise, then it is YOU breaking the laws of physics or, more likely in my view, you are trolling.

Philip

From 'The Great JPEG Shootout', we can conclude that, if we want the best point-and-shoot camera, we would be misguided to spend around £600 on a Pentax K-70, when we could spend around £2k on a Nikon D500, and possibly see a few small highly subjective differences in image colours.

Cheers.
Philip

That is quite simply NONSENSE.

My posted images prove your point to be WRONG.

The perspective of the model car is quite obviously DIFFERENT in each photo.

No cheers.
Philip

I addressed that directly in an earlier post; in case you missed it, here it is again:

To clarify the point: the K-70 has a fully-articulated screen, which can be used to take pictures from a low viewpoint easily in both landscape and portrait orientation. The KP has a tilting screen which is only really usable for low shots in landscape orientation. Therefore, for me, that is a negative point for the KP.

Cheers.
Philip