[KDD]

Hopefully!

[crewl1]

That's the trouble with life, things always change.

That's the best thing about life!

[Pål Jensen]

But to be honest, I'd be more happy to see a fast (F/4 or F/2.8) DA* or WR ultra-wide lens announced.

Right now, we can only choose between the overpriced DA*16-50mm (overpriced regarding its optical quality, not its build quality), the good but slow (F/3.5-5.6) 18-55mm WR and the convenient but average and slow 18-135mm WR. None of these lenses are ultra-wides anyway, so it leaves me with few options when shooting wide in harsh weather: stick to the DA*50-135mm or use an ultra-wide lens with a plastic cover on the camera, which collects humidity that eventually can make it into the camera through the lens...

I want a DA12-24mm F/4 WR much more than I want a new K-3, I have to say.

You are aware that there is a DA ~18-70/2.8 (exact focal lenght and speed acording to rumors) and a DA~12-28 on the roadmap for 2013 or later release?
And theres also a Limited zoom lens.
I expect at least some of them to be shown along with the K-3

[tigrebleu]

You are aware that there is a DA ~18-70/2.8 (exact focal lenght and speed acording to rumors) and a DA~12-28 on the roadmap for 2013 or later release?
And theres also a Limited zoom lens.
I expect at least some of them to be shown along with the K-3

Indeed, I saw these lenses on the roadmap. No mention if they would be WR or DA*, though, the only info we have is that they'll be DA.

Now regarding the 12-28mm, especially, I hope it's not some F/4-5.6 lens like the Sigma 10-20mm. If it's F/4 or better with WR or DA*, however, I'll put this lens on top of my next photo products to buy list. But if it's not weather resistant in some way, then I'll be seriously pissed off at Ricoh, LoL.

The 18-70mm F/2.8 doesn't interest me as much, for since I bought my DA16-45mm F/4 (back when I got my K10D), I always found 18mm or even 17mm lenses to have a too narrow angle of view, LoL.

Seriously, I tried the Sigma 17-70mm F/2.8-4 DC "C", and while I was impressed with the sharpness (not difficult to beat the 16-45mm, I must say), I thought the angle of view was quite narrow (the 17mm might have been rounded down from 17.4mm). The lens also has horrible lens flare for stage performances, which is my speciality (ugly and very bright ghosting from the stage's overhead lights present at the top of the picture appear at the bottom of the image).

---

Last edited by tigrebleu; 10-02-2013 at 08:55 PM.

[tigrebleu]

Even for me, the AF thing is huge... I have many great landscapes and macros, I really have to concentrate on wildlife. Currently, partly because I grew up with MF lenses, I find MF more useful than AF for wildlife.. I would really like that to change. It's not true for the guys shooting Nikon although I have to say, the last images I compared with a Canon guy, my A-400 5.6 APS-c images were way better than his 70-200 2.8 with TC images.. he used the burst approach, which didn't seem to work as well as the line up, anticipate and fire at the right time approach, that while tedious, can produce razor sharp results. Up until now it hasn't been important.. but the next year and beyond it's going to be very important. That's the trouble with life, things always change.

I can understand your concerns. I also learned and grew up with MF lenses. I actually had a K1000 with some 28mm, 50mm and 70-210mm MF lenses until I bought my K10D and DA16-45mm F/4 in early 2008, LoL.

In my case, I moved from being a portrait photographer during film to being a stage performance photographer with the digital, so the AF performance is quite important to me.

My subjects go from being still to moving pretty much all the time, and the AF-C in my K-5 and K-7 cameras aren't accurate enough to keep up with the subjects when they move, even as slowly as a person walking on a stage. I could use MF when my subjects are still, but it wouldn't work when they start moving. So I usually stick to AF-S. However, the AF-S often isn't fast or accurate enough to capture my subjects appropriately when they're moving. I used to get out of focus images 50% of the time when I was using the K-7. Things improved a bit with the K-5 (maybe to about 30-40% of OOF images), but it doesn't compare to what I could do with a D300, D3X, EOS 7D or 5D III in similar circumstances.

Hopefully, the K-3 will improve on this aspect. I don't expect 100% of my pictures will be perfect, but going from 60% to 90% would be nice. And this could help a lot of Pentax photographers, whether they shoot wildlife, stage events, sports or anything that MF can't do as well... or as fast.

[dosdan]

And this could help a lot of Pentax photographers, whether they shoot wildlife, stage events, sports or anything that MF can't do as well... or as fast

Yes. A dad attempting to photographing his kid frolicking with their dog and a ball should not be considered a "specialist" pursuit.

The term "Image Stacking" has a different meaning to Pentax AF action shooters:

The act of sitting down at a coffee table in front of a large stack of photos taken at an event, going through the stack searching for any that are in focus.

The bigger the stack, the greater the chance of success.

Dan.

[Sandy Hancock]

I think Subaru and Pentax go together like chocolate & hazelnuts, pizza & beer

I would have to agree with that. Currently on my 5th Subaru....

[repaap]

I would have to agree with that. Currently on my 5th Subaru....

So you are saying that IF I choose to be with Pentax(wich I intend to do), I have to change my car also...wonder how I can fit my puppets in Subary. Maybe forrester..?

[Barry Pearson]

The term "Image Stacking" has a different meaning to Pentax AF action shooters:

The act of sitting down at a coffee table in front of a large stack of photos taken at an event, going through the stack searching for any that are in focus.

The bigger the stack, the greater the chance of success.

ROFLMAO!

Change that to "sitting down at a PC in front of a large Lightroom import of photos taken at an event, going through the import searching for any that are in focus" and I'm with you 100%.

[wpompen]

+1!!!

[Poit]

+2

Although I don't consider it a laughing matter.

When the 'event' is a wedding that someone has paid me to photograph, and 60-70% of the 'special moments' I managed to pre-empt and capture during the course of 10 hours shooting are out of focus, it is NOT FUNNY AT ALL, it's a disgrace!

And yes, I've grown quite angry, my patience with Pentax is almost exhausted. As far I'm concerned K-3 is the last throw of the dice with Pentax. If the AF hasn't improved significantly I'm finished with the brand.

[Sandy Hancock]

You should really be angry with yourself. It is not Pentax's fault you choose to shoot paid gigs with equipment you're not happy with.
I'm pretty sure your clients do not care about your tortured brand loyalty.

When the 'event' is a wedding that someone has paid me to photograph, and 60-70% of the 'special moments' I managed to pre-empt and capture during the course of 10 hours shooting are out of focus, it is NOT FUNNY AT ALL, it's a disgrace!

And yes, I've grown quite angry, my patience with Pentax is almost exhausted. As far I'm concerned K-3 is the last throw of the dice with Pentax. If the AF hasn't improved significantly I'm finished with the brand.

[wpompen]

You're right... I've switched from Canon six months ago and I'm not sure if I was better of choosing Nikon at that moment. I can't deny that the quality of my photos has improved, there's no doubt about that.
But strange things happen, I've blamed the Sigma 70-200 (at one point almost traded it in for the Pentax 60-250) for some time but I understand more and more that the cause is (probably) the K-5.
Of course I could have bought the K-5II at that moment but I had no more budget. Plus, you can't expect the same PRO IQ of a camera that costs less than half of the one you're comparing to.
I really hope tracking AF is for real and working, this is one thing I really miss (I'm shooting sighthounds at +/- 50km/h) and has been my only real frustration with the K-5.

So, let's still keep smiling and hope for the better!

edit: what also surprised me was the way Sigma took down the HSM compatible TC manufacturing and availability (pricing) of lenses...

[Rorschach]

You're right... I've switched from Canon six months ago and I'm not sure if I was better of choosing Nikon at that moment. I can't deny that the quality of my photos has improved, there's no doubt about that.
But strange things happen, I've blamed the Sigma 70-200 (at one point almost traded it in for the Pentax 60-250) for some time but I understand more and more that the cause is (probably) the K-5.
Of course I could have bought the K-5II at that moment but I had no more budget. Plus, you can't expect the same PRO IQ of a camera that costs less than half of the one you're comparing to.
I really hope tracking AF is for real and working, this is one thing I really miss (I'm shooting sighthounds at +/- 50km/h) and has been my only real frustration with the K-5.

So, let's still keep smiling and hope for the better!

edit: what also surprised me was the way Sigma took down the HSM compatible TC manufacturing and availability (pricing) of lenses...

Since you have experience of both Canon (which bodies by the way?) and Pentax, how would you summarize the main strong points of Pentax compared to Canon? Tracking AF and video are clearly weaker with Pentax, that's well known.

[wpompen]

(That's a bit off topic, anyway...) ;-)
I've owned Canon 400D, 450D and 500D, I sent my girl out to buy a 650D because we weren't happy with the IQ of the 500D (400D seemed sharper). The store told her to consider Nikon, Sony or Pentax, and so it started.
I sold all Canon gear and went for Pentax, mainly because of the ergonomic and robust body and of course 7fps, IQ can't be tested with ten photos in and around a shop I guess.
Video is something I don't use at all. The AF problem (as well as just about any) was becoming clear to me after more and more investigation.