[Rob5755]

Thank you for your reply...appreciated. So if the camera is going to used primarily for astrophotography & fast-moving wildlife, you'd recommend the K3-III over the full-frame K1-II? My last camera was the Nikon D300s and it was showing its age. For astrophotography, I'd invest in a high quality F2.8 or F4 prime lens, not a zoom.


My only other question is does Ricoh/Pentax provide a good service life for their products? I only ask because when I asked Nikon if they would (at my cost), do a servicing/factory cleaning of my Nikon D300s, they told me "it was too old of a model to be serviced."

[Kobie]

Thank you for your reply...appreciated. So if the camera is going to used primarily for astrophotography & fast-moving wildlife, you'd recommend the K3-III over the full-frame K1-II? My last camera was the Nikon D300s and it was showing its age. For astrophotography, I'd invest in a high quality F2.8 or F4 prime lens, not a zoom.


My only other question is does Ricoh/Pentax provide a good service life for their products? I only ask because when I asked Nikon if they would (at my cost), do a servicing/factory cleaning of my Nikon D300s, they told me "it was too old of a model to be serviced."

Well, to go with the masses, the recommendation for astro would actually be the original K-1 since there's no built in noise reduction on that model. However, I've seen stellar astro images from both the K-1 II and K-3 III. If it will be doing double duty for wildlife, then I would recommend the K-3 III.
As for no longer servicing cameras, it goes with any industry. There's a certain point when the product is just too old to continue to service. K-30's and I believe K-5's are still able to be serviced so that's pretty good longevity, especially in our "throw away" society.

[kypfer]

My only other question is does Ricoh/Pentax provide a good service life for their products? I only ask because when I asked Nikon if they would (at my cost), do a servicing/factory cleaning of my Nikon D300s, they told me "it was too old of a model to be serviced."

I was in the service/repair industry (business equipment) for most of my working life … I hated having to tell a customer that his long-serving whatever had finally passed it's use-by date, but the fact of the matter was that spare parts can only be practically/profitably manufactured and then stored (on expensive shelf-space) for so long before the income from those parts no longer justifies the cost of that shelf-space!
Add to that the training of engineers to replace those that move on and the availability of appropriately qualified trainers for those trainees and the costs to support that x-year-old piece of equipment quickly spiral … usually to a level that very few end-users are willing to subscribe!

[LaurentD]

The K-3 III Astrotracer officially recommended zoom lenses are the DA* 11-18, DA* 16-50 PLM and the HD DA 55-300 PLM. Any prime lens will work, but other zoom lenses can only be used at either the widest or longest focal length according to Pentax.

Not true. I am using K3-III and Astrotracer type 3 (no GPS) and get wonderful results (Milky way) using my Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 at 18mm or more (23 mm etc.).
It is so handy compared to my previous KP Astrotracer with OGPS-1.
Amazing.

[Roland Karlsson]

Not true. I am using K3-III and Astrotracer type 3 (no GPS) and get wonderful results (Milky way) using my Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 at 18mm or more (23 mm etc.).
It is so handy compared to my previous KP Astrotracer with OGPS-1.
Amazing.

I am sure Pentax means that those are the only PENTAX zooms that they recommend.

[LaurentD]

I am sure Pentax means that those are the only PENTAX zooms that they recommend.

It is not accurate, as I have also used my Pentax 16-85mm with astrotracer type 3, and NOT at 16 or 85 mm: it worked perfectly.
Pentax should reformulate their lenses recommendations, otherwise people will fear to use astrotracer type 3.

[Roland Karlsson]

It is not accurate, as I have also used my Pentax 16-85mm with astrotracer type 3, and NOT at 16 or 85 mm: it worked perfectly.
Pentax should reformulate their lenses recommendations, otherwise people will fear to use astrotracer type 3.

In theory, AstroTracer do not work well if the lens has distortion. Most zooms have distortion att the wide end. In practice, this problem might be acceptable for the user. But, Pentax do not agree.

---------- Post added 01-03-23 at 08:27 AM ----------

It is not accurate, as I have also used my Pentax 16-85mm with astrotracer type 3, and NOT at 16 or 85 mm: it worked perfectly.
Pentax should reformulate their lenses recommendations, otherwise people will fear to use astrotracer type 3.

Actually AstroTracer is a so so solution. I know that many uses it and are satisfied. More power to them. But, the star movements is not even in the sensor plane. It is not possible to make a perfect compensation. And, this is not only theory. I have looked at lots of AstroTracer made images. They, more often than not, have varying star streaks all over the image. Sure, much better than without, but maybe not so good as we are lead to believe. And this is not a quality and precision thing. It is the method that is flawed.

The right solution is to rotate the camera around an axis parrallell to the earth rotation axis. Then the stars do not move and all stars in the field are sharp points. Independent of lens used.

---

Last edited by Roland Karlsson; 01-03-2023 at 02:41 PM.

[Kobie]

In theory, AstroTracer do not work well if the lens has distortion. Most zooms have distortion att the wide end. In practice, this problem might be acceptable for the user. But, Pentax do not agree.

---------- Post added 01-03-23 at 08:27 AM ----------



Actually AstroTracer is a so so solution. I know that many uses it and are satisfied. More power to them. But, the star movements is not even in the sensor plane. It is not possible to make a perfect compensation. And, this is not only theory. I have looked at lots of AstroTracer made images. They, more often than not, have varying star streaks all over the image. Sure, much better than without, but maybe not so good as we are lead to believe. And this is not a quality and precision thing. It is the method that is flawed.

The right solution is to rotate the camera around an axis parrallell to the earth rotation axis. Then the stars do not move and all stars in the field are sharp points. Independent of lens used.

Would that not be what the O-GPS does since the sensor can rotate, move up and down and left and right?

[Rondec]

In theory, AstroTracer do not work well if the lens has distortion. Most zooms have distortion att the wide end. In practice, this problem might be acceptable for the user. But, Pentax do not agree.

---------- Post added 01-03-23 at 08:27 AM ----------



Actually AstroTracer is a so so solution. I know that many uses it and are satisfied. More power to them. But, the star movements is not even in the sensor plane. It is not possible to make a perfect compensation. And, this is not only theory. I have looked at lots of AstroTracer made images. They, more often than not, have varying star streaks all over the image. Sure, much better than without, but maybe not so good as we are lead to believe. And this is not a quality and precision thing. It is the method that is flawed.

The right solution is to rotate the camera around an axis parrallell to the earth rotation axis. Then the stars do not move and all stars in the field are sharp points. Independent of lens used.

Astro Tracer isn't good enough for someone who is dedicated to astro photography, but for people like me who simply dabble in it here or there it is completely adequate. There are lots of bad astro photography images made without astro tracer too, so you are simply identifying the fact that this sort of photography takes serious skill and the best images use a level of equipment that most of us don't own.

[Larrymc]

Astro Tracer isn't good enough for someone who is dedicated to astro photography, but for people like me who simply dabble in it here or there it is completely adequate. There are lots of bad astro photography images made without astro tracer too, so you are simply identifying the fact that this sort of photography takes serious skill and the best images use a level of equipment that most of us don't own.

Great point, Vince! I really don't recall any other camera offered by any camera company that has a feature like Astro Tracer 3 or Astro Tracer. I'm sort of puzzled at people pointing out short comings of features on Pentax cameras that aren't offered by other camera companies?

[Rondec]

Great point, Vince! I really don't recall any other camera offered by any camera company that has a feature like Astro Tracer 3 or Astro Tracer. I'm sort of puzzled at people pointing out short comings of features on Pentax cameras that aren't offered by other camera companies?

I think the point is that you will start to get start trails at a certain point. Without the astro tracer, you may be able to shoot at 15mm and 30 seconds without having significant trailing (that may be a bit optimistic). Add in the tracer and you can go longer before you start to see significant trails. Obviously there are limits in both cases.

Astro tracer is extending your exposure some without any additional cost.

[Grimmus]

But, the star movements is not even in the sensor plane. It is not possible to make a perfect compensation.

This is not strictly correct. I think you may be confusing the challenges of managing the rectilinear distortion with astrotracer on wider lenses, which doesn't occur when you are using a telephoto. Astrotracer is not perfect but the shortcomings can be overcome with good practice and knowledge in capture and processing for both wide and telephoto (and putting the matchbox sized OGPS in your pocket beats hauling an equatorial mount around - not discounting that a dedicated tracking and guiding mount will be where the best results are obtained).

[LaurentD]

Actually AstroTracer is a so so solution

Sorry but:
- I have made many Milky way images using astrotracer (now type 3 so no need for O-GPS and its calibration): the stars are DEAD SHARP (except on the 10% right up corner). 27 mm focal length, 60 seconds exposure.

- otherwise, good luck in the mountains (at 8000 feet or above, climbing 4 hours to reach the spot) to carry an equatorial mount, and to align it, especially if a mountain or trees hide the Polaris star!


BTW why the hell Nikon, Canon etc. do not add software in their FW to follow the sky like the Pentax astrotracer?

[Rondec]

Sorry but:
- I have made many Milky way images using astrotracer (now type 3 so no need for O-GPS and its calibration): the stars are DEAD SHARP (except on the 10% right up corner). 27 mm focal length, 60 seconds exposure.

- otherwise, good luck in the mountains (at 8000 feet or above, climbing 4 hours to reach the spot) to carry an equatorial mount, and to align it, especially if a mountain or trees hide the Polaris star!


BTW why the hell Nikon, Canon etc. do not add software in their FW to follow the sky like the Pentax astrotracer?

I'm guessing there are patent protections on certain ways of implementing things like astrotracer. Nikon and Canon "could" implement something similar, but they need to have their own, different way of doing it if they don't want to pay Pentax a fee for the use of their idea.

This is always the challenge to implement something that someone else is already doing. Companies are often able to make more money from their patent portfolios than from their actual products.

[LaurentD]

I'm guessing there are patent protections on certain ways of implementing things like astrotracer.

Yes, certainly.

But if I remember well, autofocus has been implemented first by Minolta, then all brands have followed.
Same for sensor stab, optical lens stab and many other features, certainly patented but fortunately implemented almost on any camera.

So if so many features have been "copied" from one brand to another, why not astrotracer mode 3?