I must stop biting my nails!

I'm just trying to figure what is stopping the adaptor from being released by the usual push button method.

Camera took a really hard knock yesterday. Was in a car accident. Seems to still work, but I always get paranoid looking at pictures after that, and the behavior of the camera as to whether it was like that before!

So, I finally got a K10D. Haven't been able to test it properly yet as the weather has been dull around here to say the least! But so far I love it. I got the Sigma 18-50mm EX DC f2.8 Macro lens too which so far seems to be a really nice lens.

One question though. Has anyone here used old S mount lenses on a K10? I have a 135mm prime that I would love to use. I bought one Pentax K-mount/S-mount adaptor, but it seems a little fiddly. It won't detach easily and I am wary of faffing around with it for fear of dust getting on the CCD.

Does anyone know of any decent, easily detachable (preferably ones that can be permanently attached to the lens) S-mount adaptors?

Okay, it's late in the day to chime in one this one, but I can relate to it from the video field, which is what I make my money from.

Not sure how much this will apply to stills cameras, but since both video and stills either use CCD's or CMOS it should still apply in all but RAW modes.

For video cameras, manufacturers set the camera to produce the most accurate skin tones at 3200k preset. With the professional (ie shoulder mount style) cameras, there is usually an optical daylight colour correction that you can switch to for daylight shooting. On all other cameras the correction is performed electronically.

White balancing can throw things off in other areas. White balancing works by taking *away* colour. So performing such a function can affect the image in other ways that you may not notice at the time. Not just in terms of colour, but also in other ways too.

In terms of video I never ever white balance unless I am in mixed lighting conditions and have a base light that I want to act as the 'white' one, or I am in an unavoidable situation with mixed daylight and tungsten. The most I will do in an everyday situation is to manually adjust the colour temperature up a bit if I know I am not going to have time to grade it just to warm things up slightly. But I rarely do this. In situations where clouds cover and uncover the sun I may white balance under the cloud so that when the sun is out things look warmer, but when the cloud covers the sun again the subject won't suddenly look 'cold'. But if I know I will be post grading I won't do this.

The other reason I rarely white balance is because if you look at 'white' you will find that it is rarely ever truly white. White balance during a sunset and kiss goodbye to all those lovely reds and oranges. White balance during 'golden hour' and you can kiss goodbye to all that lovely warmth too.

Different cameras will white balance differently. Some may white balance cooler than others. Whereas if you keep to the preset you know that the manufacturer has gone to pains to ensure accurate skin tones using that setting.

Will do. Though I know that at this very moment the camera is in the hands of some very prominent film guys already.

Thank Grass Valley for that. They wanted to reduce the competition for their new Infinity camera. Some manufacturers such as Sony are already manufacturing a lot of their equipment in the EU (Wales to be precise) so they won't be affected.

The current shoulder mount cameras are portable already. The thing is that smaller cameras have been around for years, some of them with good quality. The BBC is often using Sony Z1's for example in their regional news. But in actual fact many broadcasters have realised that they can't replace with the smaller cameras. They have a different aesthetic to the bigger shoulder mounts because they are harder to use (servo controlled lenses etc).

Inexpensive Steadicams are already around. They take real skill to use and are not suited to news environments.

The fact is that the equipment already exists (tiny cameras and much more inexpensive equipment) for people to make really good stuff. In fact they do. But when it comes to the top draw productions and quality news gathering all these technological developments haven't counted for a lot. Well, okay yes, it has had an effect (covert filming etc, and some controversial documentaries). But in general it all comes down to quality. Technology is proportional too, so as the small cameras become more advanced, so too do the larger ones.

Then there are the laws of physics. 2/3" CCD's are ideal for news. They produce a great picture and allow enough control over depth of field to be creative in video. But you need lenses of a certain size to work with them. If you want that control over depth of field, and that is one big reason why 2/3" cameras are used, there is no getting around that. As well as that, the 2/3" cameras are used on dramatic productions too in conjunction with Digiprimes. At the smaller chip sizes it becomes harder to make video lenses suited for high definition, and harder still to make short focal length ones.

Add to this that with the smaller chips below 1/2" you can't maintain sharpness above f5.6 very well. So nope, small cameras will never ever rule the roost in the pro arena simply because of the laws of physics and the fact that we don't like to use small fiddly cameras

Even if a 35mm sized chip is put into a small camera, the lenses will still have to be the same size, and the design of the body of the camera will be difficult in order to retain balance when shoulder mounted (an issue Red has run into and had to solve with all those additional 'cages').

I agree totally. The two mediums may merge to a degree. But it won't be total in any given direction. A still photograph tells a story that video cannot and vice versa.

Hope to order my new K10D soon! Better start another thread as I was wondering what sort of performance people were getting out of their old 35mm Pentax lenses on it?

Moving image is too complicated. As the newspapers websites have shown, they fail to grasp some of the fundementals of moving image gathering.

Those big shoulder mounted cameras that video news guys use, as well as also being used to shoot current affairs and even movies, are like that for a reason. Although they are big, they have to be that way and ENG guys wouldn't have it any other way because that sort of body gives stability and balance while shooting the many off the tripod style shots that are required for that line of work. The small handycam sized cameras just don't cut it and are not good to use for news gathering (no matter what the cost cutters might try and tell you).

As far as obtaining beautiful high production quality images goes (which is what a camera like Red will mainly affect), there is a lot to it in moving image. Equipment to make the camera move within a scene in a film, or in an advert is very expensive, large, and complicated (in the case of a Steadicam for example), and there is no getting around that no matter how small or inexpensive the cameras become.

A National Geographic stills photographer can obtain results on their own out in the field. To obtain National Geographic quality moving images requires an entire crew. Want a sweeping shot over a canyon? Thats a helicopter hire with a gyro mount minimum. Want smooth tracking shots through an environment? Thats a Steadicam (which takes daily practice to be any good at, and the device itself can cost many times the camera). Or a crane, or a dolly. All of which take lengthy amounts of time to set up and require a number of people to cart around.

This is why I do not think still images will ever be replaced. No matter how much technology exists there will be no getting around the sheer effort needed, extra crew, planning, and editing time needed to produce quality video. It simply isn't viable. As I mentioned earlier, newspapers are trying to do video, but they are often using cheap handycams to do their reporting. Even if such cameras could ever produce the quality needed (doubtful since they are all fixed lenses when any ENG guy worth their salt uses 2/3" interchangeable lens cameras for control) it still wouldn't change the need for a certain set of ergonomics in that field.

Stills photography has its own difficulties and specialist skills. And I believe that a stills photograph can often say far more than moving images, and people know that I think.

Old, out of date information. I'm not sure how much I can reveal so I have to be careful due to a magazine I write for running an exclusive. But there is one DP on a very well known series that is running tests with Red on set. Red has also been chosen for use in some major motion pictures to be shot in the near future. It is far beyond the hot air stage. It is very, very real, and officially it will be in the hands of the people who pre-ordered it in 2 weeks time. And those are hard facts that have come to me as someone who writes reviews on these things and often gets to try cameras before they hit the market (not trying to boast, just establishing where I am coming from).

I have to admit that I was a naysayer about Red myself in the beginning. However they have come leaps and bounds in the last couple of months, and as I say they are ready for release in 2 weeks for the people who preordered.

What this means for photography in general remains to be seen. The other manufacturers won't be able to stay still after this. Though interestingly Red, although it has a custom sensor, is basing itself upon DSLR technology.

I don't think that this will mean an end to stills photography. As someone who does both I can say that they are two separate beasts. The video newspaper that was mentioned by viewfinder is not actually that far off. There is a prototype 'foldable' video paper that was on display at a recent tradeshow. But the question that arises in my mind is "do I want to see every image moving?" I don't think so. Stills have a different allure to video, and if we look at technology as being proportionate, the developments in Red should mean that before long medium or even large format sensors for stills should become affordable to the masses.

Hi, I'm new here.

I've been thinking about getting a K10D. I am a video cameraman by trade, but would like a DSLR to keep my practice with composition etc. When I caught this thread I couldn't help but think of a new video camera that is being developed.

It is called Red and is being developed by the guy who owns Oakley sunglasses of all things! The camera will be launched to the people who reserved one at NAB in April.

The interesting thing about it is that it uses a 12mp CMOS with a S35mm sized frame. The cost, a measley $17k. Peanuts for a camera such as this. Video cameras with that size of sensor and resolution have until now cost over $100k. My 2/3" broadcast camera cost $26k 3 years ago and most still list for about the same even now. And thats a mid/low end model.

So Red could help to revolutionise both the video and the still camera industries in terms of cost. Remember that Reds newly developed sensor can record 12mp at up to 60 frames per second! At windowed resolution it can cope with 120fps! The still grabs from the video sequences it has produced, as well as still grabs from those sequences at full 4k resolution blow away any DSLR I have ever seen. Mainly because the pictures look so natural and completely undigital. For example these totally raw and uncorrected images taken from the prototype;
http://red.com/images/gallery-still/4k_1.jpg
http://red.com/images/gallery-still/4k_3.jpg

Take a look at http://www.red.com