[scottax1]

Thanks to everyone for your helpful responses. However, I described my situation poorly so please allow me to clarify.

I bought into Pentax based primarily on the purported efficacy of SR. My intention was to transition from Canon to Pentax. Bottom line -- it ain't working for me. I can't get SR to work consistently when shooting with lenses >100mm. And yes, I've adjusted the SR setting. I have a couple MF SP Tamron telezooms that I hoped to use but the results are disappointing. By way of comparison, my (already sold, unfortunately) Canon 70-300 IS astounded me with the results it regularly could produce handheld at long shutter speeds.

So my real dilemma is whether to cut my losses and sell off all the Pentax gear I've acquired OR keep a small kit comprising a K100D and some of the really nice shorter Pentax glass and my Tamron SPs. The Canon is useless with the Tamrons whereas the Pentax allows a lot of control with them.

In addition to the SR issue described above, it has finally sunk into my thick skull that even if Pentax manages to get its act together on fast glass it will remain so expensive that it won't be practical. Even now I can buy a brand new 70-200 f/2.8 IS lens brand new for less than a used Pentax lens of comparable spec -- primarily because of demand.

In short, I have to decide whether I keep a small Pentax kit for personal use or just give up. It's clear to me that I can't use it for the type of serious work I want to do. The lack of effective SR combined with the high cost of premium glass is a deal killer for me.

Sorry about the confusion caused by my original post.

Scott

[jgredline]

Odd because I find the SR to work exceptionally well...
This might sound like a dumb question, But do you have the SR turned on?

[Ash]

Now that you have the K10D, keep it. You'll get the fast glass you want perhaps a month or 2 later, and you'll get to exploit all the versatility and user-friendliness of the K10D with that glass, not to mention the SR is more effective and advanced on the K10D than on the K100D. And this is coming from a K100 user and lover - to be truthful though, in retrospect, I should have gone for the K10D even if just for the professional feel, extra picture taking and processing speed and customisable features that do come in handy - on top of that 10Mpixels is just that much more definition than 6.

Having said this, I have no qualms with my K100D - dirty sensor problems aside, I have become quite accustomed to the features of this nifty camera and am happy with its performance. Both are great cameras, but there's no advantage in going down from K10 to K100, even if for finances - and I'm one of the most financially frugal people around saying this!

Hope this helps.

And this thing of good photographers using film cameras first, I believe, is a matter of opinion.
I've used a manual SLR camera (Ricoh KR10) for a 2 month visit to Kenya (to save my K100D from being stolen/smashed etc.) and have found it helpful in getting me used to combining aperture and shutter settings, but after a while it became a drag to set each shot when spontaneous things happened.

Sure I could have gotten myself an AF film camera with Av and Tv modes, but having digital feedback with histogram and focus review makes it easier to get the right shot and move on - to me at least. I'm no pro photographer, but I'm finding it good to learn photography on a digital SLR, getting used to interpreting all the technical details of the histogram and picture quality - and is much cheaper in the long run...

[JamesD]

Downgrading because of an inability to make use of the k10d's shake reduction and all that this entails (from what you told us), simply doesn't compute. I find the shake reduction (as do many here) gives me an extra couple of stops and at times even a third stop. So, it seems to me that you have a problem that "could and should" be addressed rather than pulling the plug on your k10d. You need to discover what you are doing wrong and the only way to know this is to submit some samples of what you mean along with the EXIF so that we can examine them and perhaps find the culprit. It may be your technique but I can almost guarantee you that it is highly unlikely that it is the fault of the k10d.

So... can you give us some examples of its inability in this area?

[SupremeMoFo]

I've used both (the K100D was a loaner). I was pretty damn happy when I got my fully-functioning K10D back and knew I'd made the right purchase to begin with. Don't do it.

[Deni]

I wouldn't do it if I was you. If you can, hire a k100d for some days. Use only that, then go back to the k10d. Did you miss anything?

I have a k100d and I'd swap it with you + $200 .

[scottax1]

Odd because I find the SR to work exceptionally well...
This might sound like a dumb question, But do you have the SR turned on?

Yes, I'm very careful about that.

Now that you have the K10D, keep it. You'll get the fast glass you want perhaps a month or 2 later, <SNIP>

No idea why you're confident about this; I'm not. If anything, prices continue to rise and availability shrinks as more people buy the digital 'K' series bodies. For what I do, I like to have a fast (f/2.8) pro-grade telezoom and a somewhat slower (f/3.5-ish) telezoom as a back-up. Third party pro versions now go for more than Canon branded ones and the Pentax version is far more than a new Canon even with IS. That's bad enough but I can't seem to find a relatively fast (f/3.5) back-up zoom in Pentax AF mount. All that I've seen are f/5.6 on the long end.

Downgrading because of an inability to make use of the k10d's shake reduction and all that this entails (from what you told us), simply doesn't compute. I find the shake reduction (as do many here) gives me an extra couple of stops and at times even a third stop. So, it seems to me that you have a problem that "could and should" be addressed rather than pulling the plug on your k10d. You need to discover what you are doing wrong and the only way to know this is to submit some samples of what you mean along with the EXIF so that we can examine them and perhaps find the culprit. It may be your technique but I can almost guarantee you that it is highly unlikely that it is the fault of the k10d.

So... can you give us some examples of its inability in this area?

I'd appreciate the help. If I'm doing something wrong, I'd like to know about it. I'll make and post some files to the gallery.

It would make more sense however if I had had problems with my Canon 70-300 IS as well. Perhaps the SR of my K10D isn't working correctly. In which case I despair of sending it off to Pentax for what is reportedly ~2 months for service.

BTW, where might I find examples of successful use of SR with longer (>100mm) focal lengths?

Thanks for all the input!/Scott

[magnum1]

If you are finding you made a mistake and don't care about the functions the K10D has, I say not only downgrade, but get out of the Pentax brand altogether. If you are not serious about your photgraphic future you may as well buy a Nikon D40. Actually, a point and shoot will suffice.
Not trying to be rude here but I really can't think of any good reason to downgrade other than not being serious about the craft. Why buy it in the first place. Research would have told you this.

Sorry.

[vinzer]

If you are finding you made a mistake and don't care about the functions the K10D has, I say not only downgrade, but get out of the Pentax brand altogether. If you are not serious about your photgraphic future you may as well buy a Nikon D40. Actually, a point and shoot will suffice.
Not trying to be rude here but I really can't think of any good reason to downgrade other than not being serious about the craft. Why buy it in the first place. Research would have told you this.

Sorry.

Sorry, but I'm not too sure about the helpfulness of your post. Someone who isn't really serious about their photography wouldn't even care to bother looking and scouting for fast glass. They'd just throw their camera in the cabinet and let it gather mold there.

Unless scottax1 is extremely wealthy and has tons of money to throw around, he wouldn't bother to maintain two camera systems if he's not really serious about his photography. He wouldn't even care to start this thread in the first place if he don't give a darn about his craft.

Research can also unload good things about Pentax, which is probably why he has a K10D in the first place. The lens roadmap also probably helped potential buyers allay their fears of the lack of fast long glass. I would think someone who didn't do much research would've bought the D40 you're offering instead of the K10D.

And, oh, by the way, I've seen people who are serious about their photography and use D40s. To label those who use entry-level DSLRs as non-serious photographers would also include the many fine photographers here on this forum using K100Ds and their predecessors. They're certainly not lacking in seriousness for the craft as far as I could tell.

Let's focus on scottax1's system dilemma instead of questioning his love of photography.

Scottax1, it doesn't sound like you need the money badly, so why not wait until January, at least, so we could see what Pentax has up its sleeve? If the long lens still doesn't show, maybe then you could downgrade or sell the whole system you've got?

Also, we're looking forward to the test pictures so we could discern where the problem lies.

[Ash]

Scott,

You seem to be quite serious about what you do - looking for fast telezoom glass sounds like an expensive venture. I'm not sure what kind of money you need to buy this kind of gear, but I would be confident enough to say they would work better on a K10D than a K100D. Focus and processing speed, resolution, functionality - all very useful steps up from the K100D. Will the 200 odd bucks from the trade bring you so much closer to buying these lenses?

I too am concerned about the apparent poor availability of good glass for the PK mount, but I'm not worried that if I don't get the glass I want now, I won't be able to get it later. Prices may be going up, but then they could go down again too. I picked up my FA50/1.4 not long ago for US$320 from B&H. Now they're being offered for less than US$200. But I'm not kicking myself over it, because having the lens for the few extra months has been worth it!

Take some more time to think about it all, I'd say... Pair up your expensive glassware with a reasonable body, which you've already got. See how you go with the test shots, I'd be interested to see pictures of the problem you're describing.

Cheers.

[scottax1]

I'm certainly happy to do any tests/checks necessary to find out if the problems I'm experiencing are related to my technique or are the fault of the equipment.

What's the best way to go about this?

Thanks!/Scottax1

[vinzer]

I'm certainly happy to do any tests/checks necessary to find out if the problems I'm experiencing are related to my technique or are the fault of the equipment.

What's the best way to go about this?

Thanks!/Scottax1

Well, you could always shoot the quintessential brick wall using your longest glass twice, one after the other. The first time around, turn on SR. Then turn SR off with the next picture.

Rinse and repeat, but perhaps with different subjects so we could check the performance of your cam's SR better.

Looking forward to your test results.

[scottax1]

No finding a brick wall; I'll just use the one against which I normally hit my head!

I'm planning to shoot three ways:

1) On a solid tripod to establish a standard of comparison (and yes, I'll turn off SR).

2) Same scene handheld with SR.

3) Same scene handheld without SR.

I'm going to try this with two different lenses, one strictly MF and the other AF.

Thanks!/Scottax1

[rvannatta]

No finding a brick wall; I'll just use the one against which I normally hit my head!

I'm planning to shoot three ways:

1) On a solid tripod to establish a standard of comparison (and yes, I'll turn off SR).

2) Same scene handheld with SR.

3) Same scene handheld without SR.

I'm going to try this with two different lenses, one strictly MF and the other AF.

Thanks!/Scottax1

Early on I had some SR failures because I didn't wait for the SR indicator to come on before
shooting, but once I figured out you had to wait until the gyros got up to speed, I've taken some amazing photos with 300mm at pretty slow speeds with excellent results.

[stewart_photo]

Well, anyone who has been into photography more than 4 or 5 years started in the film era, so I don't think it is that surprising. I don't think there is anything about film that fundamentally makes you a better photographer (snip)

Nothing in film itself, but perhaps in the situation. Those who started in the film era and still remain in the game seriously (beyond family and travel snapshots), to avoid wasting expensive film and processing, developed the discipline early on to look at scenes more carefully before shooting and the skills needed to capture the image well with the least number of exposures. Since post processing (lab work) was even more expensive, they also had greater incentive to capture the image well within the camera itself. As a result, compared to the typical less disciplined photographer, these individuals often still today have a much higher percentage of successful in-camera images for the same number of shots.

By the way (a side note, if you will), this judicious use of film is also why many of these these enthusiasts were initially so unimpressed with the notion of saving film costs with ditigal. They didn't waste film, so their film costs were not that especially high (especially when compared to the high costs of digital cameras just a few years ago). And those doing photography professionally simply passed the costs of film and processing on to the customer or client, so these costs were even less of an issue for them.

Of course, none of this is saying todays digital photographer cannot develop the same discipline and skills. Many do. Instead, I'm simply saying they don't have film, processing, and lab work costs as an very strong additional incentive to do so.

stewart

-