[Eruditass]

Well said.

The one Leica (film) shooter I know with a good amount of lenses seems less into talking about gear and more about photography than any of the DSLR friends I have.

[Catalana]

I'm going to have to do this too. I moved my Katzeye over to my K5 and it apparently needs a shim. None was needed on my K7. Where did you order your shims from? I know you can get them from Pentax, but do you just order from the main website or what? I would love to know what size you end up using, as that would be the first one for me to try.

Here ya go, info for the washers. I'll probably be posting my experience on Saturday.:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-k-5-forum/131473-k-5-manual-focus.html#post1367571

[DogLover]

Here ya go, info for the washers. I'll probably be posting my experience on Saturday.:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-k-5-forum/131473-k-5-manual-focus.html#post1367571

Thank You! Look forward to hearing your results.

[robgo2]

I can agree with you that Leica owners seem to be willing to spend money on gear. However, in all fairness, I think a LOT of photographers spend a lot of money on gear (especially those of us online in these types of forums). It's not as if the best bodies from Canon and Nikon are cheap... nor their best lenses. And one difference I've noticed in a big way is the need for a lot of non-Leica users to constantly be upgrading and buying new cameras left and right. GAS - Gear Acquisition Syndrome - I don't think it's exclusive to the Leica crowd. There doesn't seem to be too much fear to spend money for MOST photographers I come across online... I'd even venture a guess to say they spend as much; the difference may be their desire to buy 10 lenses instead of 2. Some of the lists of lenses I've seen people buy are flat out funny they are so long.

Regarding the Gear Acquisition Syndorme (GAS), today's photographers who seek the best possible image quality are in a real bind. In the film days, if you wanted better IQ, you only needed to get better lenses or better film, which was constantly being improved. The camera bodies themselves were essentially boxes that held lenses in front of film. In the digital era, better IQ comes with better lenses, but also with better sensors and the cameras that contain them. So unless one has decided that his or her current setup is "good enough," one feels compelled to upgrade cameras every one or two generations. Your own desire for an M9 and mine for a K-5 are examples of this kind of thinking. Camera manufacturers keep tempting us with technological advances, and we are seemingly powerless to resist.

I say this humbly as someone who does not consider himself a true gearhead, although my gear collection is slowly, inexorably enlarging.

Rob

---

Last edited by robgo2; 04-28-2011 at 02:13 PM.

[falconeye]

For a Leica user coming to a K-5, I'd recommend LV for best possible AF accuracy and sharpening RAWs (e.g., using 100% and 0.7px in LR3).

Because Leica has almost no AA filter while Pentax does have one, a comparison of what the cameras and lenses can do would be difficult otherwise. Sharpening as outlined above has no adverse effect at lower ISO settings because of the high quality of the K-5 sensor. The best lenses by Leica and Pentax outresolve the sensors by quite a margin. In the center at least.

[DogLover]

For a Leica user coming to a K-5, I'd recommend LV for best possible AF accuracy and sharpening RAWs (e.g., using 100% and 0.7px in LR3).

Because Leica has almost no AA filter while Pentax does have one, a comparison of what the cameras and lenses can do would be difficult otherwise. Sharpening as outlined above has no adverse effect at lower ISO settings because of the high quality of the K-5 sensor. The best lenses by Leica and Pentax outresolve the sensors by quite a margin. In the center at least.

Interesting.

[Christine Tham]

Having compared photos taken on my K-5 with FA43 and Leica M9 Summilux 35mm, the latter has amazing resolution right down to individual pixels. The FA43 is not too bad but slightly softer. I don't believe additional sharpening is required for a "fair" comparison" - I find the unsharpened raw images from the K-5 perfectly acceptable.

The M9 high ISO performance isn't great. At ISO 2500 it's about as grainy and noisy as my K10D at ISO1600. It really needs ISO below 1000 to look good.

[falconeye]

Having compared photos taken on my K-5 with FA43 and Leica M9 Summilux 35mm, the latter has amazing resolution right down to individual pixels. The FA43 is not too bad but slightly softer. I don't believe additional sharpening is required for a "fair" comparison" - I find the unsharpened raw images from the K-5 perfectly acceptable.

You may find it acceptable but your're comparing pies and apples this way.

E.g., the sharpening tool within LR is meant to undo the effect of the AA filter and at lower ISO settings, yields pixel sharp images even with an AA filter installed.

Not using RAW sharpening at low ISO and with an otherwise flawless image from a camera with an AA filter is user error. The resulting image may still be perfectly acceptable. But it shouldn't be used to judge lens sharpness.

[Christine Tham]

You may find it acceptable but your're comparing pies and apples this way.

LOL - *any* comparison between Pentax and Leica would be comparing "pies and apples" in my opinion.

The only valid comparison for me would be size and weight, and I can confirm they are roughly the same in terms of weight, but the Pentax is noticeably bulkier.

PS - I don't believe the AA filter can be "undone" by sharpening. Any more than a Nyquist filter can be "undone" by transient processing in audio. If you don't like AA, buy a camera without.

[zoltan1983snapper]

Nice piece, Amy--glad to see another Leica user who also keeps up with Pentax. I do think the K5 and FA Limiteds make the perfect DSLR package for the M fan. I've also added a Sigma ultrawide zoom and an SMC 135/2.5 to my kit.

See you on the RFF!

[falconeye]

PS - I don't believe the AA filter can be "undone" by sharpening. Any more than a Nyquist filter can be "undone" by transient processing in audio. If you don't like AA, buy a camera without.

This is why I made my statement.

I know this isn't the thread, so I make a long story short:
1. Bayer AA filters are no Nyquist filters. They leave about 10-30% contrast around the Nyquist frequency.
2. With an excellent lens, the remaining overall contrast at Nyquist is still well above zero, say above 5%.
3. With a low enough ISO floor (K-5 ISO 80 is perfect), the AA filter then can and should be undone (no zero point in the MTF curve between 0 and Nyquist).
4. The undoing is best done with deconvolution. LR3 detail slider selects deconvolution if pushed to the right.
5. The problem is that with additional sources of blur or noise (defocus, lens, diffraction, shake, motion, haze, high iso etc.), the AA filter can't be undone indeed and wasn't necessary in the first place.


Personally, I like AA filters. They avoid color Moiré artefacts which can ruin an entire image. And if used properly, don't necessarily reduce the available resolution.

[Christine Tham]

This is why I made my statement.

I know this isn't the thread, so I make a long story short:

To make it even shorter, AA filter removes information. Once removed, it's gone. End of story.

[DRabbit]

A few more photos...

[kbrede]

A few more photos...

I really like the first two. One of the limits I set for myself is avoiding undifferentiated gray sky. But you make it work. Looks like I need to try harder. I do see that adding a bit of color in the photo helps a lot, something we've lacked for a while around here, due to the season.

[civiletti]

A few more photos...

Nice gull!