I was going to disagree at first as Mac owners are paying twice as much for the same hardware as a PC and not getting anything much better (BTW, I don't have an OS preference, I'd Tripple boot XP, Ubuntu and OSX if I could to get the benefits of all whenever I wanted).

But, that article is the first I've seen that has been very positive.

Maybe mac owners are smarter that I'd previously thought.

I don't like the shape of older cameras and I prefer them to be black, same with lenses. Too many 'sharp' edges on older things.

Right, I was using a manual lens so focusing was a bit of a problem.

I think I'd get annoyed at having to focus using a separate button most of the time. It seems to only happen with my A50 1.7, although I didn't use the others much because of the low light.

Oh and the camera was set to manual focus.

I'm trying to get used to my K10, but in low light it sometimes refuses to fire the shutter. It is rather irritating as it does it on any mode, even manual which I use most of the time.

On the K10D the PEF uses lossless compressed where as the DNG does not. This means 9-12MB for PEF files and 18MB for DNG. Using Adobe's DNG converter you can compress the DNGs to 9-12MB in size matching PEF.

It is an F3.2, my bad. Can't remember all the lenses out there

It is a shame that there isn't anything faster than the DA 21 2.8 and nothing on the roadmap either. Still 2.8 isn't that bad, although for low light it makes a huge difference just being able to go to 1.8 or 1.7.

Next lens will probably be the FA50 1.4, although I still really want the * lenses so this could be problematic. Probably not though as the * lenses keep getting pushed back.

Pentax lens roadmap:

http://www.digital.pentax.co.jp/en/lens/roadmap.pdf

Under the DFA 55 for 645 there is the DA* 55 1.4.

I like the idea and I want.



If I could only have three good primes for my K10D I'd have:

20ish, so DA 21 2.8

50ish, 50-55 something like the FA 50 14.

200ish, an FA* 200 or similar

Well, all the SDM lenses announced so far are 67mm or wider, the motor takes up a fair bit of space. As a line of high end lenses larger front elements mean more light and better performance. It is a 5mm longer focal length and same aperture, doesn't mean it can't be larger. Canon have a 50mm f1.2 with a 72mm front end, a lot of Canon and Nikon lenses have large front elements, especially those with supersonic/ultrasonic motors.

From the photozone charts the 16-45 doesn't look mush better than the 18-55. The constant f4 aperture is a bonus, the extra light from the larger front element and the wise angle sharpness are really good if you need it. I'm waiting for the DA* 16-50 2.8, and hoping performace is similar or better. So I'm saving for that as I don't see much point in going for something pricey that I may never use.

I've not really used my 18-55 though, I find the FoV and DoF on the 50-200 is perfect for what I'm doing at the moment. I really need to isolate subjects from the background which isn't really possible with the 18-55. There isn't anything large and interesting that I've seen. I keep putting the 18-55 on the camera hoping to use it only to take it off a few minutes later.

Also just saw that there is a DA* 55 1.4 on its way which looks to be rather good: SDM, weather sealed, large front element (a guess). But that would be much bigger and heavier than the FA 50.

I really just want a fast AF lens at the moment as the A lens is good but can be annoying.