Originally posted by UncleVanya I complete disagree that the kit lens is no good. I'm sorry but too many people have made great images with it. The truth is several possibilities could make yours suck that are not generic failings of the camera. Move on if you are done but try to understand that your experience is atypical.
I'm told it's not the camera, but the lens.
The reviews of the lens point out how soft it is. Use of apertures at the high end make it soft. Use of apertures at the low end make it soft, so It seems prone to producing images that aren't sharp. I was told the images I posted are what I should expect to get out of the kit lens. Are you saying it should be better?
The shots on Dpreview seem to be consistent with my attempts.
Pentax DA 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6 AL review: Digital Photography Review
The lens kit club show some good images but they nearly all seem to be reduced size images so you can see how good it really is at 100% and you can't see the EXIF to get any clues as to the best settings.
I have managed to get some shots that look OK. It seems a matter of hitting the sweet spot with the lens settings. That seems to render it below par outside of those parameters.
I do have two kit lenses to play with. DAL and a DA WR, so I'll try comparing them. If they produce similar results then it would seem unlikely to be me having a lens that was worse than normal.
I'm really surprised such a soft lens is deemed acceptable on a DSLR. What's the point of getting a camera with a bigger/ better sensor only to produce soft images?
---------- Post added 08-19-15 at 05:52 AM ----------
Originally posted by clackers Well, that FZ1000 is expensive, Oricman. But a 1" sensor gives reasonable stills and the video is very good.
It's not expensive if you compare to the price of lenses I'd have to buy to get the same results from a K30. A 16-85 is nearly as much. Then I need the telephoto end. A good zoom can be £1000+