The answer is 42! Now what's the question.......


Thanks for all the responses. My reason for asking is this;

I am interested in taking some star shots and so I was interested in a Wide angle fast lens. I have the 12-24 f4 and the 16-50 f2.8.

I noticed some legacy glass going quite cheap on ebay, as I would be focussing manually anyway I wondered if I could get a bargain.

Obviously not.

Can I just ask a silly question just to get things straight in my head.

An 18mm APSC is equivilent to a 24mm FF lens due to the crop factor however if I mount a 24mm FF lens on my K5iis will it give me the same view as a 18mm or 24mm APSC lens?

I keep over thinking it and cant quite grasp the answer...



Yes I know, think arn't I

I bought my K5iis, months ago, as a backup to the, then yet to be revealed, K3.
Once it was released I was instantly pleased and utterly disappointed in equal measure.

It used the same battery as the K5, yippee
It had basically the same ergonomics as the K5, yippee
It had better video capabilities, yippee
It had better AF, yippee

It had appalling, disastrous and much worse high ISO performance than the K5. Oh no, my plans were wrecked, my hopes were dashed. What was I to do

Oh hang on a minute, real people, taking real pictures are saying that they can't really notice any difference

So what do I make of the test images that show such awful results? Ignore them and listen to the people that have tried the camera in the field, that's what

The test images that have been posted here do show a difference in performance but they also show a difference in lighting and/or exposure (shown by the difference in the shadows). So to me they are questionable.

It is so easy to get bogged down with tests, numbers, stats, etc. and yes they do have some value , but to me it's the real world results that I'm interested in.

I, for one, will be buying a K3 as my main camera. As, on balance all the reviews, both formal and informal are positive. I just hope that there are still some silver ones about by the time I get around to it

Thanks for the critique on my shots guys. They were actually taken during the course in a hotel near Stansted. Although I, genuinely, welcome critique I put them up here to show that these lenses were capable of good portraits rather than if I was

f8 was the 'given' aperture for that particular exercise so that's what was set. However it's interesting to note how the DoF has altered between the 2 lenses.

The camera to model to background relationship hasn't changed between the 2 images and yet the DoF is noticeably less in the head shot compared to the body shot.

I use the 16-50 and 50-135 and find that I can take everything from large groups or head shots both in and out of the studio.

Most of the time the aperture is set at f8 and the lighting adjusted to suit.

Because these are the DA* lenses the quality is spot on. I am studying studio portraiture and, when I finish and take it up professionally, these shall be the two lenses that I will use.

I have no doubt that prime lenses could give better quality but I am more than happy with the detail that I can record

DA* 16-50 ISO 200, f8, 1/60, 68mm



Prior to having the 50-135 I even used the 60-250 which managed some excellent shots but is way to heavy and unnecessary in a studio.

DA* 60-250, ISO 200, f8, 1/60, 180mm

I am very keen on brand loyalty until it lets you down. I was a confirmed Olympus user until I wanted to shoot some video with my DSLR. The E-5 just didn't cut it and Olympus were putting everything into a camera system that I didn't want (m4/3). I wanted good quality video in a weather resistant body.
I sold my camera,flash and 4 lenses and jumped ship to Pentax because it provided what I wanted.

For my holidays I travel a lot into remote areas (Sahara Desert, Arctic Circle) in all kinds of weather condItions. I want a camera system that is rugged, weather and dust resistant, able to capture images (and video) at all times of the day (and night) in a variety of lighting conditions. I am also training to be a portrait and wedding photographer with a view to setting up a business.

I bought my K5iis knowing that it would be my backup camera as I always intended to get the replacement when it was released (assuming that it was APSC). However I am concerned about the IQ. Our next trip is to the Faroe Islands and Iceland.

I would like the better video features of the K3 but I really don't want to compromise the IQ range that I get with my K5iis. It would seem that there is very little between the cameras up to 1600 ISO (or less) and then the noise levels are worse on the K3. I will often shoot high ISO images of campfires, night skies, interiors etc. and i am concerned that I would be compromising this for better video capability. This is not something I would have considered that I would have to do with a new release.

I am now seriously thinking of keeping the iis as as my main camera and buying another (or even a K5) body to use as a backup instead of the K3. I can, just about, live with the clunky video if it means more consistent IQ. It will also save me a heap of £££s.

I have over 6 months before our trip and I shall keep a keen eye out for and K3 firmware upgrades and real life reports of high ISO noise.

On a really sad note; I am also majorly dissapointed that, by the time I get around to possibly buying one, all the silver ones will be gone

Yes it is an awesome looking machine from just about any angle. There were several concepts and preproduction models there which really showed that SAAB could produce really nice vehicles.

I found it fascinating how they had managed to maintain a strong 'family' resemblance from the earliest model to the very latest concepts. A very underrated car manufacturer.

Thanks for the comments.

Thank you

Tony, funnily enough the canvas is cropped to put the horizon on the centre line. So you're spot on

David, thanks for the comment. This was only the second time I had used the 10 stop filter and had forgotten about light leakage. Thanks for pointing it out as I was wondering where those strange reflections had come from. It's something that I shall try and remember for next time.

The magenta tones don't show up on the printed canvas so I'm safe there. However I shall have a play and see if I can sort it.

When I read this I thought "what on earth is he talking about, there's no magenta cast". Then, just like one of those kaleidoscope images, the more I looked at it, the more I could see it
Thanks for pointing that out as you have now completely ruined the canvas on the wall

Just kidding, good spot It just goes to show what a different pair of eyes can pick up.

Thanks for the nice comments on number 2.