I've had this lens since 2008, been really pleased with it. I would estimate that at least half the pictures I take with my K-30 are with this lens, despite also having 10-17 Fisheye (Samsung version) Sigma 10-20(f4-5.6), & 150-500, plus DA 55-300 & DFA 100 Macro (non WR) to play with.
Criminal waste when you consider the cost of the Tamron against the combined cost of the rest, but it tends to stay on unless I want to go wider, more telephoto, or closer (macro)
In fairness, most of my photography includes plenty of walking & carrying to get there, and I don't make big prints, I'm sure the other lenses would get more of a look in if either of those was the case

Milamber

PM Sent

Hi Milamber

I would think the ability to have interchangeable lenses covering a range of 27.5 to 247.5 in 35mm terms that the Q would give you outweighs a compact, especially as you have rejected the X5 as too big.

I'm not an expert on geography, but I'm guessing that these places will have very bright sunlight which means an OVF or EVF would be very useful. X5 would have given this, but as you say too big

If I was going on what sounds like such a fantastic trip I would want my pictures to be recorded onto a larger sensor than comes with a compact.

I recall that some of the criticism of the Q at launch included no EVF, very small sensor, yet another new lens mount with people wishing it had been based round the open source micro four thirds that would have given access to a bigger range of lenses – not good in terms of lens sales, but surely good in terms of body sales.

I think the ideal Pentax for your needs would have interchangeable lenses, like the Q, but a larger sensor, e.g micro four thirds and the option to fit an EVF.

Sadly at the moment it does not exist, let’s hope Pentax produce one in the future

I totally agree.


The Vicar

I take your point, and I think my Samsung GX-10 operated in a similar way to what you describe, but without the algorithm bias, which sounds a good idea.
However, the K-01 only has a rear wheel, and high ISO performance is so good, you would only really want to force ISO lower than 400 to get a wider aperture or slower speed. A bit like using a ND filter.
The K-01 also has to be held in front of you using the LCD screen as it has no viewfinder, making camera shake more of an issue, so higher min ISO will mean higher shutter speed for grabbed shots, and less chance of shake. Hence why I want to increase the min ISO

Thanks for the suggestion John.
Tried this and it just extends the top range to ISO 25600
I have spotted that on the K-01 the auto ISO range shows a small min 100 and a larger max. On the K-30 they are equal size, with an arc underneath each indicating which thumbwheel to turn to change it.
I suspect the current firmware does not allow changing min auto ISO, which is a shame for a sensor with such fantastic high ISO performance.
I imagine it would be an easy thing to provide in a firmware update.

Sorry if this has been asked before.
My K-01 has an auto ISO range currently set at 100-3200, and the wheel lets you adjust the max up or down (e.g. 1600 or 6400). How do I adjust the min? I want to take it up from 100 to 400.
On the K-30 with its two wheels, one does max and one does min.
Can the min be adjusted on the K-01

Thanks
Peter

With the new firmware, how can you resist

Too late Tony

Apparently the new firmware does fix it

According to the US forum new firmware is out, there is a link to it over there, and the feedback of those installing it is 100% positive.

Main benefit seems to be faster AF, how much varies by lens, but as a generalisation it seems the lenses which were slowest before are the ones showing the biggest improvement. People also reporting getting a focus lock where they couldn't before