I use multiple exposures in my K20D so it's been around a while. It's very useful for a number of situations -- getting longer exposures is one of those.

You will see from my comment on the article page that I was right there with the DA35 Limited as it was released. I think that the comments of Carl and mark are right on the money. I also think that a good deal of their wonderment was down to the camera and sensor (K20D).

I actually ended up getting rid of my copy of the DA35 Limited for two reasons, both of which they touch on. First, the focal length is not useful for me. And second the manual focusing, once outside the macro range, is pretty much impossible. Instead I kept the FA43 Limited.

It is not at all a surprise to me that Pentax glass is the equal or better than Zeiss or anyone else for that matter. There are plenty of lenses as good as the DA35 Limited. Pentax glass simply doesn't get its due.

Since the only fast wide primes have poor edges (e.g. all the Sigmas) they are not suitable for group portraits. Also thin depth of field does not work since someone will be out of focus. I would never think of anything less than f/2.8; in fact f/4 to f/8 is much safer. So a zoom that is sharp at f/4 (as I recommended) is quite ideal.

However, for portraits anything wider than, say 16mm has too much geometric distortion. So I retract my recommendation and substitute the DA16-45. It's smaller and lighter than the similar DA* and has somewhat better IQ to boot. I'd try not to go wider than 24mm but it's there if you need it.

Not enough light? That's why the pros use flash. Tilt and swivel are essential. Just buy the Metz 58 and learn how to use it.

That must be my fault.

I agree that diffraction needn't always be a concern. But for those prioritising sharpness it's good to know that, for example, all zooms made for MFT are diffraction limited no matter how you shoot. Rather puts things in perspective.

Pentax beats MFT for:
* dynamic range
* noise at any ISO
* features
* ergonomics
* viewfinder
* larger sensor
* system depth
* manual focusing
* innovative shooting modes
* immediate access to bracketing, etc.
* battery life
* wide angle availability

MFT beats Pentax at:
* video (some models)
* exposure accuracy (but you'll blow highlights due to reduced DR)
* cuteness factor (Olympus)
* mounting third-party lenses

Size is a wash. The MFT bodies are smaller but the camera plus a couple of lenses still requires a shoulder bag.

MFT should have produced pancakes in all focal lengths, but failed to capitalise on this potential advantage. Even the Panasonic 20mm isn't that small (compared with DA40). The older lenses made for PEN half-frame were nicer.

P.S. I shoot the Olympus E-P1 with either the PEN G. Zuiko 40mm or the Panasonic 20mm. Or sometimes a Leica, M42 or Pentax lens through an adapter.

I am a big fan of primes but nonetheless suggest you get the DA12-24mm for this task. Because you just might need 12mm indoors. And the IQ is second to none in this range.

No way. I already have such a lens (though mine is all metal and cheaper still). Instead the Pentax version needs to be superior to all others, not compromised for some large aperture or ideal of perfect test scores. It must be designed by Jun Hirakawa to the exemplary standards of the other FA Limiteds.

Those few select quotes are hardly illuminating in themselves. "Fast blackout times are critical for tracking action"? Er, thanks for the tip!

Regardless, such passages are vastly outnumbered by the lists of facts and figures, comparison charts, obsessions over which features are lacking, etc. Yes we all might care about those things, but it is a matter of proportion. I am not saying that this sort of a review does not serve a function, merely that they are entirely typical in this regard.

Like similar sites the Imaging Resources reviews consist of enumerating and comparing features. The writers treat cameras like gadgets and rarely say a single word about photography. These articles are useful only as glosses on the manufacturer's press releases and for certain functional determinations.

I have so far stayed with the K20D, though no doubt the K-5 is a superior camera in almost every way.

If you want video the Pentax implementation is far from the best.