WE, the wife and I, seem to be drifting, slowly, slowly, away from the Pentaxes. We've sold off a few lenses (DA50-135, FA31 & FA43) and one of the K-5s, and invested in a OM-D (that's my wife's new pet - she had quite a few lenses for it already) and a Nikon V1 (Mine, although I bought it for my wife, orginally). I use mine mostly for bird photography, something it does with more than a little flair, and the available lenses are very sharp (with an adapter you can also use normal Nikon lenses, with retained SR/VR, and autofocus! It is also a very good video camera.

The OM-D is excellent for street photography, or in lightning-fast action situations - focusing is about as fast as with the V1, thus pretty outstanding! The anti-shake is far better than the K-5's, so taking impossible shots is pretty easy!

It was mainly kit weight that stopped us using the Pentax cameras as much as we thought we would. With the V1 I get a superb telephoto kit weighing less than just my Sigma 150-500, without any camera. The V1 kit is also much less bulky, which in my book is very important, especially on travels.

As yet the Nikon 1 system doesn't do panoramas, or is the small sensor optimized for landscape photography, so the normal back-up on travels is a NEX-5N with a couple of short primes (say, Sigma 19, Pentax 40, Zeiss 24, or Nikon 35, all f1.8, but the Pentax - the 40 and the 35 need an adapter, of course).

I really wish Pentax would come up with a small, sensible, mirrorless camera, with a nice viewfinder, not another big lump like the K-01.

If they don't, in the foreseeable future, I think my Pentax days are over, but I might well keep a few lenses !

The only ones I can remember is 31 and 43 ...

For longer focal lenses zooms are usually much cheaper, and more useful, as it makes aiming your lens so much easier. If you need fast lenses, say f2.8, with a long focal length, say over 200mm, you have to be very well financed to buy any kind of lens, zoom, or prime.

So I use a mix of primes, and zooms, with my cameras, both when using the K-5, the K-x, and my Nikon V1. With my NEX-5N I use only primes, none of them labeled 'Sony', as the selection of lenses is poor compared to other camera systems.

No offence taken, but it is a interesting subject!

I just took three photos with my Sigma 150-500 (set at 230mm), free-hand, with both SR & OIS on, and eventually with only OIS on, and eventually only SR on, and while there is hardly any difference, I'd say SR comes out slightly worse!

Exposure was 1/60, f7.1, by the way, and the distance about 25 meters.

But it is all within the margin of error, as I can't prove I shook less, or more, while taking the first photo than the last!

Redid the test, at infinity, and 500mm (same aperature), and the results are even more in favour for the OIS. The subject this time was church steeple, and with SR on, or both on, you can't really see the lightning rod on side of the steeple, while it is quite sharp with only OIS on!



Sadly, I have no short focal length lens with OIS, but I kind of feel the advantage becomes less the shorter the focal length.

But I see no evidence of the great battle between the two stabilisation systems!

I use my Tamron 70-200 for jobs like that, and have gotten a very good allrounder in the bargain! I do have the Tamron 90, a lovely lens, which is tack sharp, but you wanted a longer !

To improve the macro capacity of the 70-200 I use a 77mm Canon 500D screw-on close-up lens (not the cheapest add-on!) at times, but it makes the lens combo a bit front heavy. The results are excellent, though!

Definitely the Tamron, as while the Sigma is modern, with O.I.S. and internal focusing motor, the sharpness of the Sigma is not the best. That's what the DPReview test crew concluded, and I must say I never have regretted following their advice, so I did.

Used mine for photographing wilde roses Yesterday, and as usual, nothing to complain about. Rather the reverse. Of my zoom teles this is the one I use most (I also have a two Sigmas, the 120-400 & the 150-500 - of which the latter is far better in my book, unless you're talking 120-200, as that's the strong end of the 120-400).

I've used my 70-200 for airshows, bird photography, public events, and as a macro - it has always come out just fine. Compares well with my wife's FA77 in the wide end, and runs circles around the Sigmas I have, except, maybe at its very long end. And that it is a constant aperature design makes it so much nicer (Sigma's 70-200 is similar in that respect, but optically inferior)!

But if you need VR, SR, OIS, or whatever you call it, Sigma is the one for you!

I tend to use mine (newly bought from ffordes in Scotland) with the IS on, and sometimes the SR as well on - can't say I see any big differences!

Hi again,

A little more personal details:

Married since ten years, MA in journalism, studied languages at university before that, and at one time tried to become Dr. of aeronautics, so I am interested in aircraft, aerodynamics, and such matters. Full-size as well as RC models. Fairly deft at editing photos, using various programs, including Photoshop; and like DTP (like making magazines), like to do pen and ink drawings, and water colour painting.

I like taking photos of animals (mostly birds), and at events (like airshows), but not very interested in photos of buildings and art.

Interested in Macro photography, but as yet a beginner. Hope to get into more serious video, but little to show, as yet.

Use mainly iPhoto, but also have legal versions of Aperature, Lightroom, Bibble and Phocus (the latter is Hasselblad's excellent photo editor - which as yet is free, gratis, and for nothing!). Also have various add-ons like Topaz and Neat,

I earn my living by driving articulated buses (ours are to 24 meters!) in a big town, overcrowded by cars, bikers and pedestrians! And try to travel the world on my time off!

Hi all,

Tord from Sweden here!

Got my first camera ages ago (around 1960) and when in my teens I had a full SLR kit, that I had bought from my sister's boyfriend (he upgraded to Hasselblads), for very little money, considering what I paid! To that I did get a few Pentax lenses (the ol' thread 55 and the 100 bellows lens - and a bellow, of course).

Then tired of carrying all that stuff around (eventually gave it away), switched to two Minox 35s (each costing at least thrice the cost of the SLR kit!). Then those worse out and I switched to Konica Big Minis, which eventually led to my first digital, a Konica KD-500 (still got it, still vibrant colours, but missing a few pixels here and there).

Also have had a few other cameras, like Polaroids, and Olympus, & Fuji, compacts.

One compact led to another (and the wife bought a few, too), till I tired of dust inside my cameras and low ISO, and went DSLR, just before going to the 'stepson's' wedding in Thailand (actually my wife's son's, a man, by now, around 30 years old. His dad, long gone, once owned a photo studio - so cameras are nothing new in this house).


So the choices were not that many - as I wanted a camera with viewfinder, detachable lenses, capable of high ISO, and not that big to carry around.

I had read some before setting off to MediaMarkt, the closest photo shop, on New Year's Eve. After handling a lot of possibilities, including the mighty Nikon D300S, and various offerings from other makers, it was the K-x that fitted my hand best, and I knew it had decent high ISO capacity. The trip to Thaialnd proved its worth, even with the kit lens (almost never used now).

That was soon followed by a K-7 and a SFX, then a K-5 (which is off to repairs after an accident in Newent, but spare parts seems to be scarce, so I'm waiting, and waiting - it is just the seal for the display glass that's missing - maybe the manufacturer got hit by the Tsunami?!).

The lenses are a few as well, ranging from 10mm to 500!