Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-15-2014, 11:36 AM   #136
Pentaxian
g026r's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,328
The main thing when it comes to size of cards is what versions of the Secure Digital standard the camera supports. Anything above 32GB requires support for the SDXC standard. According to the camera database:

QuoteQuote:
Memory card type
SD, SDHC (max. 32GB), SDXC via firmware update
So if you've got your K-r upgraded to the latest firmware, then you should technically be good to go. (I've never seen a PNY card, let alone used one, so I can't comment on any issues that particular brand has.)

05-15-2014, 01:42 PM   #137
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Southern California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,181
I'm pretty sure the K-r can't take advantage of the speed of the PNY card, even though it can recognize (and use) the capacity. So I don't think it will go any faster - the K-3 is the first Pentax capable of taking full advantage of the PNY's claimed writing speed, AFAIK.

Also bear in mind that, for most camera applications, write speed is much more important than read speed. But even that only matters when you're taking photos in rapid succession, or perhaps if you want even quicker image reviews.


I generally like to split my capacity up amongst multiple cards, but either way is acceptable.
05-15-2014, 04:47 PM   #138
Senior Member
Zealex's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: New York
Photos: Albums
Posts: 150
Original Poster
Very true. The PNY is a good deal IMO but I have no need..

I was going to get the PNY or the Sandisk bundle from costco but this one from Adorama is pretty cheap...

SanDisk 16GB Class 10, Ultra SDHC UHS-I Memory Card, 30 MB/s Read Speed SDSDU-016G-A46

Might as well just get one since that's all I need. I have a habit of copying all the photos I took then formatting memory haha.
05-15-2014, 05:37 PM   #139
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Southern California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,181
The SanDisk Extremes are better cards. I imagine the Ultras are OK too, but I use only the Extremes.

05-15-2014, 06:15 PM   #140
Senior Member
Zealex's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: New York
Photos: Albums
Posts: 150
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by DSims Quote
The SanDisk Extremes are better cards. I imagine the Ultras are OK too, but I use only the Extremes.
The extreme is 6 more dollars, not a big deal and it is faster but I'm under the impression a class 10 like the ultra is more than enough speed for the K-r?
05-15-2014, 08:51 PM   #141
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Southern California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,181
QuoteOriginally posted by Zealex Quote
The extreme is 6 more dollars, not a big deal and it is faster but I'm under the impression a class 10 like the ultra is more than enough speed for the K-r?
There's a reasonable chance you won't see any difference on the K-r, but it's worth noting there can be a huge difference in actual performance among class-10 cards.


I sometimes also use Kingston cards, which are slower than SanDisk Extremes, but I rarely notice the difference in daily use.
05-15-2014, 08:59 PM   #142
Senior Member
Zealex's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: New York
Photos: Albums
Posts: 150
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by DSims Quote
There's a reasonable chance you won't see any difference on the K-r, but it's worth noting there can be a huge difference in actual performance among class-10 cards.
Of course.

I'm googling it right now and I think the K-3 can only support more than 30mb/s...the older bodies can only read/write a max of 30mb/s. The min speed is 10mb/s and I doubt it will be running at max all the time.

So I think the ultra will already "peak" my K-r and I wouldn't any difference if I used the extreme.

Edit: What difference do you notice with the Kingston's?

I haven't tried using continuous shooting yet, but I'd hate to miss a shot because my camera was buffering cause the SD card was slow.
05-15-2014, 09:41 PM   #143
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Southern California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,181
QuoteOriginally posted by Zealex Quote
Edit: What difference do you notice with the Kingston's?

I haven't tried using continuous shooting yet, but I'd hate to miss a shot because my camera was buffering cause the SD card was slow.
I only got the Kingstons because I needed to quickly pick up more capacity at a reasonable price for an event or while on vacation. I have the 100x and 120x Kingston 16GB and 32GB cards. All my SanDisk Extremes are between 4GB and 16GB.

Once your buffer fills up, then you will notice the speed of the card. You either have to wait longer before you can shoot again, or you shoot at a much slower continuous speed as the buffer writes to the card one image at a time.

05-16-2014, 08:11 AM   #144
Senior Member
Zealex's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: New York
Photos: Albums
Posts: 150
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by DSims Quote
I only got the Kingstons because I needed to quickly pick up more capacity at a reasonable price for an event or while on vacation. I have the 100x and 120x Kingston 16GB and 32GB cards. All my SanDisk Extremes are between 4GB and 16GB.

Once your buffer fills up, then you will notice the speed of the card. You either have to wait longer before you can shoot again, or you shoot at a much slower continuous speed as the buffer writes to the card one image at a time.
Hmm...maybe I'll just the spend the 6 extra dollars. Watched these videos and the buffer is much faster on the extreme than the ultra...

Plus the average write speed on the extreme is higher than the ultra. Doubt they'll always be running at "peak"
05-28-2014, 09:46 PM   #145
Senior Member
Zealex's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: New York
Photos: Albums
Posts: 150
Original Poster
Figured I'd post here instead of creating a new thread...

I was thinking of experimenting with a fixed/primed lens and stumbled across a few Pentax-M 135 f/3.5's selling for around 40-50 dollars. That focal length seems decent for what I shoot plus f/3.5 is faster than any zoom I have (my 55-300mm is f/4.5 at 135). I know a lot of people recommend the DA 35mm f/2.4 but idk if I'd really use it that much...i barely touch the 18-55mm haha and that lens is pricey.

I mostly use 260-300mm for my shots because I shoot a lot of birds at a lake nearby...but when I shoot other animals or things I tend to hover around the 100-150mm range.

What I'm trying to get at is, do you think this "investment" is worth it? Granted it's 40 bucks, but if I adopt that mentality now 40 bucks here and there adds up. Would I benefit greatly from having this 135mm f/3.5 fixed/prime next to my zoom 55-300 f/4.0-5.8 (and tamrom 28-200mm f/3.8-5.6) or should I just save the cash and just play with the 55-300mm for now? I could see having that faster aperture at that focal length being a benefit in some situations...but what do you guys think?

Thanks
05-28-2014, 10:30 PM   #146
Junior Member




Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 43
QuoteOriginally posted by Zealex Quote
Wow, I did not expect to come back here to so many replies and helpful information! Many thanks to the all of you.

I'm reading up as much as I can on digital SLR's but there's so much information. I do know the k-500 and the k50 have a pentaprism rather than a pentamirror which is a good thing and 100% visibility. I just want a camera that can take very nice detailed photos in not too well light areas, perhaps some nice empty fields, a few animals, maybe even my little sister playing soccer! Price is a bit hard because I'm a college student who would feel a slight blow for $650. On the bright side, summer is coming so I can work a few extra shifts to save up! My father also offered to give me 200 bucks so that would cover tax and the $150, leaving me with $500 to pay.

I really like the K-50 because it's weatherproof and might be worth that alone just in case I get caught in the rain or a wet area. Some protection never hurt huh?

The place that sells it just sold out on white which blows...but maybe black would be a better color anyways (white gets dirty no?) Anyways, I think I'm going to look around and perhaps contemplate a used body and buying new. Biggest issue with used is that I fear issues I may not know about buying may arise...or I overlook a flaw that I'm not aware about.

Thanks everyone again so much!
I just started with a k 50 and love it and just bought a used tameron 28-300 .... The lens works great with it. I used it to photograph my 2daughters track meet and it was great using all the zoom from close at the finish line 15 feet away to where she passed the baton 200m away.
05-28-2014, 11:30 PM   #147
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Southern California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,181
QuoteOriginally posted by Zealex Quote
What I'm trying to get at is, do you think this "investment" is worth it? Granted it's 40 bucks, but if I adopt that mentality now 40 bucks here and there adds up. Would I benefit greatly from having this 135mm f/3.5 fixed/prime next to my zoom 55-300 f/4.0-5.8 (and tamrom 28-200mm f/3.8-5.6) or should I just save the cash and just play with the 55-300mm for now? I could see having that faster aperture at that focal length being a benefit in some situations...but what do you guys think?
The M135/3.5 was the first prime lens I bought, largely because of the good reviews. I found that I couldn't even get images as sharp from it as my DA55-300. It could be that I had a bad copy, but I had bad luck with it. I was much more happy with my A135/2.8 I got later. And then the FA135/2.8 I have now is really great - a big difference from the DA55-300. In fact I don't even have my DA55-300 anymore, because lenses like the DA*50-135/2.8, FA135/2.8, K200/2.5, and F*300/4.5 are so much better. But they're also so much more expensive!

Give it a try if you like, but any of the 135/2.5 lenses (even the cheaper Takumar) are much better, in my experience. In fact, you really should seek out an M or A100/2.8 non-macro. That lens changed the way I think about photography. It would be much better to put your money toward that.



Since you're using the 260-300mm end of your lens so much, you won't be able to replace it any time soon. But that's OK, because it's a very good lens. And I'm glad to hear this, because it sounds like it was especially the right choice for you (I remember you were considering the DA50-200 at first). Eventually you may look at a 300/4 or 300/4.5 lens. But they get pricey, especially if you want Auto Focus.

So why aren't you using your DA18-55 much? Is it the focal lengths, or is it because you don't like the images that come out of it as much as from the DA55-300? There are some wonderful focal lengths in that range (especially 24mm, for me) that you should also get used to, even if it means getting another lens or two.

My advice would be to get one of the 100/2.8 lenses first, and then explore getting either a macro, a 50mm lens like the excellent A50/1.7, or something in the wider range.

Last edited by DSims; 05-28-2014 at 11:50 PM.
05-29-2014, 09:04 AM   #148
Senior Member
Zealex's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: New York
Photos: Albums
Posts: 150
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by DSims Quote
The M135/3.5 was the first prime lens I bought, largely because of the good reviews. I found that I couldn't even get images as sharp from it as my DA55-300. It could be that I had a bad copy, but I had bad luck with it. I was much more happy with my A135/2.8 I got later. And then the FA135/2.8 I have now is really great - a big difference from the DA55-300. In fact I don't even have my DA55-300 anymore, because lenses like the DA*50-135/2.8, FA135/2.8, K200/2.5, and F*300/4.5 are so much better. But they're also so much more expensive!

Give it a try if you like, but any of the 135/2.5 lenses (even the cheaper Takumar) are much better, in my experience. In fact, you really should seek out an M or A100/2.8 non-macro. That lens changed the way I think about photography. It would be much better to put your money toward that.



Since you're using the 260-300mm end of your lens so much, you won't be able to replace it any time soon. But that's OK, because it's a very good lens. And I'm glad to hear this, because it sounds like it was especially the right choice for you (I remember you were considering the DA50-200 at first). Eventually you may look at a 300/4 or 300/4.5 lens. But they get pricey, especially if you want Auto Focus.

So why aren't you using your DA18-55 much? Is it the focal lengths, or is it because you don't like the images that come out of it as much as from the DA55-300? There are some wonderful focal lengths in that range (especially 24mm, for me) that you should also get used to, even if it means getting another lens or two.

My advice would be to get one of the 100/2.8 lenses first, and then explore getting either a macro, a 50mm lens like the excellent A50/1.7, or something in the wider range.
Well, the takumar 135/2.5 is only around 50-60...so not that much more expensive on eBay. I will search for a cheaper copy in the mean time but that isn't a bad price... And that's a fast lens!

What would the m or a100/2.5 have over the 135/2.5? The 100/2.5 seems the be in the 150ish range on eBay :/. Disregarding the length.. Wouldn't the 135/2.5 be better because it's slightly faster and has more or less the same reviews and ratings??

What does non-macro mean? I know there's terminology like infinity past infinity to mark points of focus... And then it goes all the way to macro? Macro on a lens =/= macro photography?

I love the 55-300mm..only compliant is that it's f/5.8 but at the price I cannot complain. I use it most often because I tend to shoot birds and animals and find the long focal length to be very handy.

I don't use the 18-55 much because I don't find myself needing short range since I tend to be more obsessed with wildlife than portraits of landscapes though I have captured a few good ones.

I don't really notice the quality of the 18-55mm...but perhaps I have an untrained eye.

Though I think should play around with shorter focal lengths... Learn to use it haha. Going back to what I said earlier... When you say get a macro do you mean a lens capable of taking photos of bugs (cause I'd love to do that!) that might be my next aim. I believe there was a filter that could allow my 55-300mm to serve as a macro lens for like 50 bucks... Let me see if I can find what I was talking about and post it back here.

And stupid question... I read somewhere that the maximum aperture on the K-r was 3.5...somewhere on the Internet but that doesn't sound right since aperture maximum and minimum is dependant on the lens??

Thanks for replying, and I apologize for any grammatical mistakes.. SwiftKey 3 can autocorrect things for the worse sometimes.
05-29-2014, 01:23 PM   #149
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Southern California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,181
QuoteOriginally posted by Zealex Quote
What would the m or a100/2.5 have over the 135/2.5? The 100/2.5 seems the be in the 150ish range on eBay :/. Disregarding the length.. Wouldn't the 135/2.5 be better because it's slightly faster and has more or less the same reviews and ratings??

What does non-macro mean? I know there's terminology like infinity past infinity to mark points of focus... And then it goes all the way to macro? Macro on a lens =/= macro photography?
The A and M100/2.8 non-macro manage to yield more beautiful images throughout, which also includes nice looking Out-Of-Focus backgrounds. It's reminiscent of the FA77 without the AF and the higher price tag. You probably won't understand until you get one - I sure didn't. Buy somewhere other than eBay (like here on the pf marketplace) when possible - as much as 1/3 (maybe more) of the used lenses I've got on eBay have had problems. But if it's not available anywhere else you may have no choice. For example, I got my excellent (but somewhat uncommon) F24-50/4 on eBay.

Dedicated, fixed Focal Length macro lenses get much closer than the pseudo-macro setting on some zooms. They also tend to have sharper images and are engineered to produce a "flat field" with minimal distortion - e.g. a photo of a blueprint would have straight lines.

QuoteOriginally posted by Zealex Quote
And stupid question... I read somewhere that the maximum aperture on the K-r was 3.5...somewhere on the Internet but that doesn't sound right since aperture maximum and minimum is dependant on the lens??
I have no idea what this might have been about, because you're right - it's dependent on the lens. Someone on the forum recently had a problem where an older 24/2.8 Sigma lens wouldn't open up past about f/3.5, but that was a rare, lens-related problem.
05-29-2014, 02:57 PM   #150
Senior Member
Zealex's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: New York
Photos: Albums
Posts: 150
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by DSims Quote
The A and M100/2.8 non-macro manage to yield more beautiful images throughout, which also includes nice looking Out-Of-Focus backgrounds. It's reminiscent of the FA77 without the AF and the higher price tag. You probably won't understand until you get one - I sure didn't. Buy somewhere other than eBay (like here on the pf marketplace) when possible - as much as 1/3 (maybe more) of the used lenses I've got on eBay have had problems. But if it's not available anywhere else you may have no choice. For example, I got my excellent (but somewhat uncommon) F24-50/4 on eBay.
That's a high rate, what where the issues you've encountered? The bay generally has a larger selection than the marketplace, though, I am searching now as we speak.

QuoteOriginally posted by DSims:

Dedicated, fixed Focal Length macro lenses get much closer than the pseudo-macro setting on some zooms. They also tend to have sharper images and are engineered to produce a "flat field" with minimal distortion - e.g. a photo of a blueprint would have straight lines.
So a dedicated macro lens is better at getting finer details...hence why it's used to photograph insects and miniscule things and a non macro excels in backgrounds?
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
battery, bit, bundle, camera, charge, cost, dslr, ebay, films, frame, holder, hood, k mount, lens, lenses, love, pentax, pentax help, photography, photos, post, prices, reason, reviews, shutter, slr, usd
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nature the garden's a bit confused Cee Cee Post Your Photos! 5 04-12-2014 06:53 PM
Confused on lenses lennon007 Welcomes and Introductions 9 03-07-2014 01:51 AM
Really confused on Third Party Flash for Pentax K30 rp_dxn Flashes, Lighting, and Studio 12 09-21-2013 08:54 PM
Should i get a 8-bit or 10-bit (wide gamut) monitor? HenrikDK Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 11 08-08-2013 03:51 PM
14 Bit vs 12 Bit Raw Real Life Example cali92rs Pentax DSLR Discussion 16 07-05-2013 01:44 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:27 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top