[Class A]

The sync speed doesn't concern me in the least.
When using the camera at full sync shutter speed, the flash duration is the actual amount of time that the subject is lit.

True, but it is still useful to have a as high as possible shutter sync speed in order to be able to reduce ambient light, e.g., when using flash in bright daylight.

With the advent of HSS flash, the need for high shutter sync speeds has become a lot less urgent, though.

[BigDave]

True, but it is still useful to have a as high as possible shutter sync speed in order to be able to reduce ambient light, e.g., when using flash in bright daylight.

And if you have ever shot outside in daylight, with fill flash, the high sync speed becomes VERY important. Yes, flash duration controls the exposure for the dark lighting situations, but if the sync speed is not high enough you are stuck at the highest sync speed in bright light situations (in this case, 1/125 or 1/180 sec). When you could go to ISO 50 or 64 film, a sync speed of 1/125 or 1/180 can work, but now that we are stuck at no less than 100 or 80 ISO, a higher sync speed is really helpful.

But for those that require this, my wish for an in-lens shutter lens or two for a new Pentax full frame has its merit! Then you are synced at all speed up to about 1/2000 sec. maybe! Ahh, to dream!

Regards,

[Class A]

...but if the sync speed is not high enough you are stuck at the highest sync speed in bright light situations (in this case, 1/125 or 1/180 sec).

Have you ever tried HSS?

It only works with system-specific flashes, unfortunately, but it is an option.

[Digitalis]

But for those that require this, my wish for an in-lens shutter lens or two for a new Pentax full frame has its merit! Then you are synced at all speed up to about 1/2000 sec.

Coincidentally, the probability of that happening is the same as the Yellowstone super-volcano erupting in the next 10 years. Leaf shutter lenses have reduced shutter durability than what is commonly experienced with focal plane shutters, there are several reasons for this: most have to do with the fact that it is hard enough to make a shutter strong enough but to only have a limited amount of space in which the shutter will fit - most leaf shutters are good for 20,000 releases while focal plane shutters are capable of significantly more higher ratings. Secondly most leaf shutters impose speed limitations on the lenses, a majority of leaf shutter equipped lenses are around f/4.5 - f/2 at the fastest, and those lenses are for medium format. There is also a considerable cost to adding a mechanism like a leaf shutter to a lens, imagine incorporating SDM focusing and a leaf shutter into a modern 50mm f/1.2 lens - to house all that the lens would be absolutely massive. Yes it is a nice thought but you have to be realistic, there is more than one way to skin the HSS cat. Global shutters look like a promising alternative, and a much more practical one.

[NotaxPen]

I started in photography as a teen in the '60s. I bought my first SLR in ~1973 (eye level TTL focus, what a concept!). My first autofocus SLR was in 2006. Now, after 40 years of practice, I certainly know how mf works on an SLR. I've taken lots of shots in my life without AE or even a built-in meter, too. However, if you have the features, it is nice to have a system for using them. AF isn't always the right choice, but when it is, it allows your thinking to be focused on something other than focusing.

I also agree about the FF viewfinder. It is one of the things I still enjoy about the film bodies.

My K-5 is the first camera I've used that has autofocus (except a point-n-shoot I've used a few times)
For me, autofocus is similar to the power button on the side of the seat in the Fusion I'm currently driving.
Yes, I can press the button and have the seat slide back automagically, but it takes 20 times as long as my old Toyota where you lifted a mechanical release and slid the seat back using your legs. I get frustrated every time I try to get out of the car.
Old farts like me will probably always wonder why some newer technology makes things more complicated instead of easier. And of course everyone else is wondering how anybody survived before the electronic age.

After using nothing but medium format for the last decade or so, looking through an aps-c viewfinder is really painful. I was actually saving up for the 645D to be my first digital camera before I was laid off.
On my current salary, that's not going to happen.
The K-5 get's the job done, but it sure would be nice to have a better viewfinder in a camera with such great ergonomics.

[Digitalis]

I was actually saving up for the 645D to be my first digital camera

Well the 645D isn't exactly full fame 645, the sensor is slightly smaller. But the viewfinder is much larger than APS-C format cameras as far as the K5 goes - it gets the job done.

[ogl]

Well the 645D isn't exactly full fame 645, the sensor is slightly smaller. But the viewfinder is much larger than APS-C format cameras as far as the K5 goes - it gets the job done.

Any camera with any sensor bigger than 24*36 mm is middle format. Crop-factor is just for convenience to calculate focal range.

[GeneV]

* * *
After using nothing but medium format for the last decade or so, looking through an aps-c viewfinder is really painful. I was actually saving up for the 645D to be my first digital camera before I was laid off.
On my current salary, that's not going to happen.
The K-5 get's the job done, but it sure would be nice to have a better viewfinder in a camera with such great ergonomics.

As a fellow old f--t, I would describe manual focus on APS-C as just not being that much fun, therefore I mostly use the AF. I think you are getting at the same thing. A couple of years ago, after several years shooting digital, I picked up one of my film bodies with a manual lens and remembered why I did not feel I was missing anything back in the manual focus days. For at least a year or so, I did not want to shoot anything but film--a good deal of it also in medium format. I almost skipped the K20d (eventually found it too cheap to pass up) and skipped the K7 entirely during that period. I don't know that I would have sprung for the K5, until it became a bargain. I do miss those finders.

[lytrytyr]

I would describe manual focus on APS-C as just not being that much fun.
I did not feel I was missing anything back in the manual focus days. I do miss those finders.

Maybe nostalgia isn't what it used to be,
but personally,
I prefer the green hexagon on the APS-C porrofinder of a K-x
to the microprisms of an old Spotmatic.

[indyphil]

Have you ever tried HSS?

It only works with system-specific flashes, unfortunately, but it is an option.

its not a true solution to the problem of overcoming ambient light. It helps us if we want to use a wider aperture - as a ND filter would. But because the flash power falls as we use HSS (due to its nature of being a multiple flash burst strung together) it isnt helping us to overpower ambient light. All it really does is allow us to use a wider aperture without a ND filter.

Higher sync speeds for a single burst of flash would be very useful for folks who want to overpower ambient light.

[Rondec]

its not a true solution to the problem of overcoming ambient light. It helps us if we want to use a wider aperture - as a ND filter would. But because the flash power falls as we use HSS (due to its nature of being a multiple flash burst strung together) it isnt helping us to overpower ambient light. All it really does is allow us to use a wider aperture without a ND filter.

Higher sync speeds for a single burst of flash would be very useful for folks who want to overpower ambient light.

But even most full frame cameras are only a half stop faster than Pentax's 1/180th second. 1/250th second would help some, but certainly wouldn't be a night and day difference.

[IchabodCrane]

its not a true solution to the problem of overcoming ambient light. It helps us if we want to use a wider aperture - as a ND filter would. But because the flash power falls as we use HSS (due to its nature of being a multiple flash burst strung together) it isnt helping us to overpower ambient light. All it really does is allow us to use a wider aperture without a ND filter.

Higher sync speeds for a single burst of flash would be very useful for folks who want to overpower ambient light.

Is it really worth designing an all-new shutter mechanism to gain just a half stop in sync speed?

[hangman43]

But even most full frame cameras are only a half stop faster than Pentax's 1/180th second. 1/250th second would help some, but certainly wouldn't be a night and day difference.

And the new Canon 6D is only 1/180th just like Pentax

[Quicksand]

Is it really worth designing an all-new shutter mechanism to gain just a half stop in sync speed?

I don't know if I'm right or not, but I always assumed camera makers just bought shutter assemblies from a supplier like Seiko or Nidec Copal.

Focal plane shutters with 1/250 sync capability obviously exist, and could probably be acquired by Pentax from their supplier, but I suspect there's some combination of cost, power budget, vibration, size, etc. that results in the selection of 1/180 instead.

[mattdm]

I don't know if I'm right or not, but I always assumed camera makers just bought shutter assemblies from a supplier like Seiko or Nidec Copal.

Focal plane shutters with 1/250 sync capability obviously exist, and could probably be acquired by Pentax from their supplier, but I suspect there's some combination of cost, power budget, vibration, size, etc. that results in the selection of 1/180 instead.

Let's not forget sound. I'd really not like to give up my quiet shutter simply for the sake of a faster sync speed which I would rarely use.