[hangu]

The sensor has been updated from that of the K-x - of course I have no clue how and what that means for real-life results, but I expected the K-7 sensor to be the same as the K20D from the literature at the time - slightly different here with the K-r.

I agree with you, I'm just stating a very real possibility since we don't know the performance of the K-r yet. The K-r very well could have the same NR capabilities of the K-x. It certainly would stack up with its competition just fine that way.

[Ash]

Indeed, we'll just have to wait and see...

[JeffJS]

FYI: I just paid 30 Euro (excl 6.75 transport costs) for a Pentax M 200 mm F4 (MF Prime).

• Still targeting for 28 mm F2.8, 50 mm F1.7 and 135 mm F3.5 (with Pangor Auto Macro Converter as well as SLR with big flash...) all for 65 Euro (excl transport costs)
• and maybe combined with some other m42 glass including a 500 mm F8 (100 Euro incl transport costs will be my first offer)

But next to that I still have to go buy a Pentax DSLR... The K-x or its successor? Isn't today the big day for such announcement?

• I am willing to pay more for better and/or bigger LCD, 100% and larger OVF, Low light AF support light (without pop-up flash), WR, better video support incl connector for external stereo microphone, 18-125 mm kit zoom lens, Front/Back focus correction for at least up to 5 lenses.

Also so a nice 40 mm F2.8 MF pancake, LBA?

So then, you want a K7?

[JoepLX3]

So then, you want a K7?

No, K-r at 100-150 USD higher price than K-x now

[GeneV]

Wow, talk about thread drift. We went from singing the praises of manual lenses to singling out the original poster for his camera choices.

[pimpim]

Wow, talk about thread drift. We went from singing the praises of manual lenses to singling out the original poster for his camera choices.

Behold the powers of a troll-bait topic

[Frogfish]

agreed. Each lens has their purpose and use. I do feel, though, that being forced to stop and think through the shot, exposure, speed, ISO, etc has made me a much better photographer. I'm not a noob, but I certainly am not a pro either.

I find that a very interesting statement. Why ?

Because that is very similar to the way I work with ALL my lenses whether AF or MF, ie. in Manual mode (so I get to set shutter / aperture and ISO) and then just let the camera use AF to do just that - with some AF lenses, or of course with my old M42s, I'll switch over to manual focus too.

And Yes, I agree, I think it is making me too a better photographer by having to consider the light, the DoF and what speed I want to use depending on what I want to achieve, rather than just setting AV and firing away.

---

Last edited by Frogfish; 09-10-2010 at 04:07 AM.

[straightshooter]

Reason number 12....the envelope please.
[rrrriiiiippppp]
And the winner is....
Mike Cash, his K20D and his Takumars show you how it's done!

CW

1. You can get some old ones very cheap
2. You can get the best possible IQ with a prime
3. You can buy glass of companies that don't even make auto focus lenses
4. Most primes are not as big & heavy as the zoom equivalents
5. Manual focus lenses don't suffer from back or front focussing offset
6. None have failing SDM issues
7. Very quiet, so best for video applications with sound
8. Easiest manual focus "over-rule" implementation
9. You don't need an UV filter for a < 50 USD lens...

Any other reasons why manual focus primes are better?

10. It forces the photographer to walk through each step of taking a good photograph instead of allowing the camera to do it for you

11. you can tell canikon friends that the glass you're using was from an era when canon and nikon's glass bowed down to pentax's, depending on how old your lenses are (Takumarsssss)

[zapp]

1. You can get some old ones very cheap
2. You can get the best possible IQ with a prime
3. You can buy glass of companies that don't even make auto focus lenses
4. Most primes are not as big & heavy as the zoom equivalents
5. Manual focus lenses don't suffer from back or front focussing offset
6. None have failing SDM issues
7. Very quiet, so best for video applications with sound
8. Easiest manual focus "over-rule" implementation
9. You don't need an UV filter for a < 50 USD lens...

Any other reasons why manual focus primes are better?

1. is cheaper always better?
2. yes, but the best possible IQ should be in new primes with AF. Old primes are not necessarily suitable for digital sensors at all.
3. what is your point?
4. a valid statement, but not new
5. BS!
6. Even a failing SDM lens allows manual focus, what is your point
7. Any lens can be focussed manually
8. Use manual focus on AF camera, ...
9. you never need a UV filter.

It is a funny myth that old cheap lenses make the best value on digital cameras. Why buy an expensive camera and use cheap lenses. Why should new lens designs be inferior to old ones. Many zooms are much better regarding image sharpness than older primes. I don't mind people using old lenses on new cameras, but don't tell others that the past was always better than the present.

Old lenses are not optimiized for digital use - lower IQ
Old lenses do not have new lens coatings - big advances here
Old lenses do not take advanage of new camera features - that may be disabled anyways, but with old lenses you have no choice
Old lenses are not designed for crop sensors - especially problematic for wide angles
Old lenses are OLD - used for 10 or more years and probably worn out.
Old lenses designed for full frame are actually larger than their new counterparts for cropped sensor sizes

Old lenses force you to think about what you are doing - that is a good point.
Old lenses are cheap so you can esily add more lenses to you camera, but don't tell me they are better than new ones

Last but not least. If all comes to the worst, you can throw your lens at somebody - if attacked by an animal or funky people.

[ytterbium]

You can get some old ones very cheap

Only if you're very lucky. Otherwise you'd be getting only trash. Low quality third party failures or worn, sticky, fungus rotten "gems".

[Clavius]

I don't understand the whole comparison here.

You can switch a AF lens to MF when needed, but you can't switch a MF to AF. AF is a extra feature, in the occasion that you don't want to use it... you just don't use it.

I use older MF lenses for seeing if a certain type of lens suits me. I didn't know if I needed or wanted a FA 50 1.4. So, I bought a old Ricoh 50 1.4 for peanuts. I liked the pictures, bought a FA 50 1.4 and sold the Ricoh.

[psur45]

"Amateurs worry about cameras, 'professionals' worry about lenses, photographers worry about light" - Anonymous

[RioRico]

My reactions:

It is a funny myth that old cheap lenses make the best value on digital cameras. Why buy an expensive camera and use cheap lenses.

Because price does not always reflect quality.

Old lenses are not optimiized for digital use - lower IQ

And yet old lenses are prized for their character. Go figure.

Old lenses do not have new lens coatings - big advances here

That is true. So newer lenses have different character.

Old lenses do not take advanage of new camera features - that may be disabled anyways, but with old lenses you have no choice

Those new features may have nothing to do with optics.

Old lenses are not designed for crop sensors - especially problematic for wide angles

Few old ultrawides anyway. Yes, new ultrawides are better.

Old lenses are OLD - used for 10 or more years and probably worn out.

HA! Sorry, my hundreds of old lenses are not worn out. HA!

Old lenses designed for full frame are actually larger than their new counterparts for cropped sensor sizes

I have many old lenses that are smaller than the smallest newbies.

Last but not least. If all comes to the worst, you can throw your lens at somebody - if attacked by an animal or funky people.

No, that's what the tripod is for.

And on another subject:

"Amateurs worry about cameras, 'professionals' worry about lenses, photographers worry about light" - Anonymous

And forum members worry about their arguments.

Actually, that's: Amateurs worry about gear, professionals worry about money, artists worry about light.

[GeneV]

I don't understand the whole comparison here.

You can switch a AF lens to MF when needed, but you can't switch a MF to AF. AF is a extra feature, in the occasion that you don't want to use it... you just don't use it.

Yes and no. Some AF lenses are a pleasure to use in manual focus, but increasingly that is not the case. Short throws, lack of DOF markings, small rings and little damping make many lenses (including SDM) less than enjoyable to mf.

[ytterbium]

Yes and no. Some AF lenses are a pleasure to use in manual focus, but increasingly that is not the case. Short throws, lack of DOF markings, small rings and little damping make many lenses (including SDM) less than enjoyable to mf.

I think any APS-C, brightness optimized viewfinder makes MF a pain. And the catch-in focus is a joke and gimmick that barely functions (kitchen and home renovation supply solutions doesn't count).

With static subject I can *try* to achieve reliable focus around 50mm or more. Under that (e.g. 28mm) either everything is sharp, or nothing is sharp (i can quickly distinguish close, medium, far focus). Thats usable only with f8 or more.