[monochrome]

haha, because I'm so friggin old I can't see anymore...

It is such a pain focusing through a viewfinder with glasses on...

I can actually set the dipper on the viewfinder to match my prescription, but then I can't read the camera settings form the back screen or chimp the image. I didn't need glasses until I was 50. And I'm not sure I've got the whole glasses thing worked out yet.

I just had my OEM diopters CLA'ed and recalibrated. Cost a bunch of money, could only work half-speed for a month afterward -- but using a viewfinder without glasses again is such a thrill.

At 18" I can even read the LCD without glasses. I now understand why so many people shoot at arms' length.

[gofour3]

I don’t have and have never owned a camera that supports AF, so I have never used it.

As a film only shooter SLR/6x7 viewfinders are big and bright, so for me AF is completely unnecessary.

Phil.

[luftfluss]

I just had my OEM diopters CLA'ed and recalibrated. Cost a bunch of money, could only work half-speed for a month afterward -- but using a viewfinder without glasses again is such a thrill.

At 18" I can even read the LCD without glasses. I now understand why so many people shoot at arms' length.

I use an EVF viewer with my K-01 for tele work. I auditioned 3 viewers, and returned one because the eyecup wouldn't cover the glasses frame on my left (shooting) eye.

[formercanuck]

For most of my purposes, MF is too slow. There's nothing worse than trying to track chickadees at a feeder with an MF lens. Or missing a candid shot because you didn't get it in focus. For me it's simple, for most uses AF is more accurate than I am and quicker than I am. But hey, I'm the infidel here.

No - you're not an infidel here. I use AF a lot. In fact, probably about +90% of my shots are AF. In my case, I'm typically shooting candid pictures, and I don't have the time to stop and MF. When I'm doing landscape, macro or portrait style, I have a LOT more time to compose the shot. The majority of my pictures are candid / action though.

---------- Post added 10-11-14 at 11:05 AM ----------

That is the price you pay for cheap in-lens motors - no real end stops. And in AF lenses you can't damp the focus helicoid or make the throw angle too large because then the AF would not work or would be too slow.

I had a play with the DA18-135 in a shop when it first came out but decided to pass on it since the lack of tactile focus end stop would have driven me crazy. It is bad enough not having a physical aperture ring.

I did a 'lenrentals.com' rental of the DA 18-135mm, and it took great pictures, focused very well, IMHO. It did drive me a little nuts on the MF without any focus stop (where's infinity ot min focus!?). It also took a bit of getting used to having the opposite zoom from my sigma. That being said, I have MF (primes) and AF (zooms) for their specific purposes.

[wombat2go]

I just had my OEM diopters CLA'ed and recalibrated. Cost a bunch of money, could only work half-speed for a month afterward -- but using a viewfinder without glasses again is such a thrill.

Cataract?
I have a cataract that developed over past 8 months in my good eye that I use to focus the -M lenses to the extent that I can't accurately focus either the MX or the K-01 any more.
Next week I am having it removed and an interocular lens fitted, of a diopter that will allow me to see to infinity.
The other eye will follow and they tell me that the doctor will decide its diopter to balance the first one.

[monochrome]

Cataract?
I have a cataract that developed over past 8 months in my good eye that I use to focus the -M lenses to the extent that I can't accurately focus either the MX or the K-01 any more.
Next week I am having it removed and an interocular lens fitted, of a diopter that will allow me to see to infinity.
The other eye will follow and they tell me that the doctor will decide its diopter to balance the first one.

Yes, in both eyes. I was told I've been looking 'around' them for as long as 15 years, They're a side-effect of another eye disease which precludes corrective I-O-L's. I still wear eyeglasses and have a small correction for distance, and close-up work (tri-focals) but none for 12"-24" and the diopters are now balanced, whereas before there was 2.25 diopters difference between eyes.

Using the new K-3 viewfinder diopter correction and holding the camera away from my body if I need to use the LCD I can shoot quite comfortably without my glasses, using my right eye for the first time in 15 years.

So I've had a 'CLA' (new intraocular lenses) and 'recalibration' (balanced diopters).

[gaweidert]

Official old fart here. I went with Pentax DLSR's because I have been buying Pentax mount lenses for over 40 years. Manual focus is second nature to me too like a lot of ohters on the board. Even when I got my PZ1-p and ZX5n I did not get any auto focus lenses to go with them. I got my first auto focus lens two years ago when I got my K5, It was he 12 -24 DA lens. This year I got two more, a Tamron 70-200 f2.8 and a Sigma 17-70 f2.8 - 4.0 lens. They work fine, but I find that when using the Tamron lens especially I still take a high percentage of manually focused shots. And I really don't like not having an aperture ring on a lens.

I had a lot of trouble adapting to my K5. It just didn't feel right. Then one day I dug out my old SMC Takumar 55mm f1.8 screw mount lens, installed the adapter in my camera and went out shooting. Everything just sort of fell back into place. The lens is superb. I felt like I was using my Spotmatic II again. It slowed me down a little bit and image quality went up as a result. I found myself liking digital photography even though I am hopelessly addicted to the smell of fixer.

Here is a cropped shot using that lens on my K5-IIs. I really don't think any of the limited lenses out there today could do any better: