[StiffLegged]

Ferpectly correct, that’s zigactly what I was thinking of.

[UncleVanya]

@bertwert

My all time favorite xkcd.

[Serkevan]

@bertwert

My all time favorite xkcd.

There's always a relevant xkcd - and that one's indeed one of the best.

[hjoseph7]

If it took great pictures back then, then it will take great pictures now !. You would be surprised by how Professional Businesses with large staffs of photographers feel about these new features. They could care less about EVF, 4K, flippy screens, Mega Pixels etc. They only care about what the final image will look like and how it fits into their system. Of course "Price" is another major concern. There are some exceptions, such as in Sports Photography where a mirror-less camera will probably beat out a DSLR, but again not by much.

[UncleVanya]

If it took great pictures back then, then it will take great pictures now !. You would be surprised by how Professional Businesses with large staffs of photographers feel about these new features. They could care less about EVF, 4K, flippy screens, Mega Pixels etc. They only care about what the final image will look like and how it fits into their system. Of course "Price" is another major concern. There are some exceptions, such as in Sports Photography where a mirror-less camera will probably beat out a DSLR, but again not by much.

A successful family and portrait photographer I know in my neighborhood has two Nikon D300’s as her work cameras. Her clients pay her and love her work. Specmenship and measurebation are too often a fuel for GAS.

[tromboads]

Hi all!

It's like it's never been the camera, and it's always been shortcomings in our own craft and skills. Wait that sounds like taking responsibility for an internal perceived failing that I can't adjust easily. Oh, in that case it really is the camera that was holding me back the whole time!

I've just recently re-purchased a K5.

I wasn't taking many photos, the hobby had gone stale, so I sold everything a couple of years ago, kept my Q. I then ended up with a Canon 5D and a 50mm of all things just because what was this full frame stuff I was missing out on (turns out not that big of a deal).

Still wasn't taking many photos, I found the 5D annoying to carry around. just, big. A friend started showing interest in photos so I gave him the 5D and a couple of Ansel books.

So here I was with the Q. This is all I'd need right? Well if I'm honest it was just annoying to use. The LCD is terrible, the focus peaking is horrible, I found myself more often covering the screen with my hand to make a viewfinder so I could see what's going on, I started looking at ebay for hot shoe view finder attachments and I'm like, wait a second, If only they made a digital interchangeable camera with a viewfinder..

Welcome back K5

SLR's Rule!


And while I'm just gloating about owning the greatest Digital SLR on earth once more, the seller was like, I have some lenses I wont be needing, I'll chuck em in too. The postman arrived and it has;

- DA35
- DA50
- DA17-70
- DAL 50-200
- Pentax-F 70-200
- Couple of sub-par sigmas (18-50 & 28-80)

Score.

/end hijack , viewfinders are great.

[UncleVanya]

…the seller was like, I have some lenses I wont be needing, I'll chuck em in too. The postman arrived and it has;

- DA35
- DA50
- DA17-70
- DAL 50-200
- Pentax-F 70-200
- Couple of sub-par sigmas (18-50 & 28-80)

The DA 35 $ DA 50 plastic fantastic duo is a great boon; the DA 17-70 is one of my favorite normal range zoom lenses I enjoyed mine but ultimately gave it to my niece. The DAL 50-200 is small and light and despite so so optics it can be a lifesaver when you need that length. The 70-210F series is not too bad albeit slow optically, I’d wager It beats the 50-200 in everything except size and weight (and shooting at 50-69mm. Lol)

---

Last edited by Sandy Hancock; 11-16-2021 at 01:40 AM.

[tromboads]

I've used the DA35 & 50 before so very happy with them. I never got into the 17-70, (just went to the DA* 16-50) nor any of the 80's zoom's so It will be fun to compare the 70-210F against the DAL50-200. at least, if nothing for my own interests sake.

What do you mean slow optically? Aren't they both F4-5.6

And yes the 50-200 weights nothing, good little package.

And all because viewfinders are cool

[UncleVanya]

What do you mean slow optically? Aren't they both F4-5.6

And yes the 50-200 weights nothing, good little package.

And all because viewfinders are cool

Yes both are f4-5.6. I wasn’t intending to compare it on that dimension, just saying that out was pretty good other than slow. The 50-200 is probably not as good but much lighter and smaller.