[phoenixvision]

Just to add to the multiple reasons to stay with Pentax.....I had a flash problem with my new Pentax flash...with the locking mechanism....and it fell off the camera, causing fairly extensive damage....I use the flash professionally and need it fixed promptly...Pentax service covered it all, and go it to me at godspeed...so nice to have that kind of personal support after so many years of being a Pentaxian.....

[ChristianRock]

Just to add to the multiple reasons to stay with Pentax.....I had a flash problem with my new Pentax flash...with the locking mechanism....and it fell off the camera, causing fairly extensive damage....I use the flash professionally and need it fixed promptly...Pentax service covered it all, and go it to me at godspeed...so nice to have that kind of personal support after so many years of being a Pentaxian.....

Where do you live, if you don't mind me asking?

I could be wrong, but from threads here I don't know if we have that kind of support in the US right now...

[RussV]

I've been using Pentax for over 40 years now. I use a K10 these days, not state of the art at all but does everything I need, is weather proof and rugged. Plus my seven A and M lenses work fine.

As to the superiority of other brands against Pentax, well I've never heard of anyone who, when shown an excellent picture, can tell what brand of camera took it. Concentrate on better photography not lines per inch and review results.

[ChristianRock]

I've been using Pentax for over 40 years now. I use a K10 these days, not state of the art at all but does everything I need, is weather proof and rugged. Plus my seven A and M lenses work fine.

As to the superiority of other brands against Pentax, well I've never heard of anyone who, when shown an excellent picture, can tell what brand of camera took it. Concentrate on better photography not lines per inch and review results.

I agree with everything you said.

I'm also very fond of my K20D and it does everything I need. For low light, I use a flash I think my ISO 100 pictures look better than the newer K-r I have which has a Sony sensor. Not that the K-r is a slouch It works well for family pictures. And I also worry about the pictures themselves instead of just measuring stuff, though at time I'm grateful for people that do measurements, even if the main things can't really be measured IMHO

[rburgoss]

...As to the superiority of other brands against Pentax, well I've never heard of anyone who, when shown an excellent picture, can tell what brand of camera took it. Concentrate on better photography not lines per inch and review results.

People who are constantly relying on tests (photo gear) and debating in favor or against any brand based on such tests, are like the people who can't go to an art exhibition, a theatrical play or a good restaurant, before reading the "critics". Somehow they need someone else to tell them what to like and what to dislike. To me, if I like something or dislike it, I don't need anyone to tell me what to think or do about it. I just do it.

This reminds me about some trick played on a bunch of so called "art connoisseurs" during the late 60's (psychedelic era of art). The gave a few monkeys at the zoo some canvas and oil paints. The chimps had a party with the toys. Then, some of the "paintings" were framed, placed on exhibition at a nice gallery and labeled them as "anonymous artist".Then they called a couple of "well known" art critics for private showings prior to the main exhibition opening (vernissage). The critics did their part as expected and published some articles about how profound, colorful, balanced and yet, abstract forms or art were those paintings from an anonymous artist.

The snobs flocked in. They got into discussions about the light handling and about the rule breaking in such wonderful works of art. Some pieces got sold too.... it was not until few weeks later, that the truth was revealed and almost all of those "connoisseurs" claimed that "I was aware of the scam and joke, so I played along just to see some of my colleagues fall...." Yes, sure!

[ChristianRock]

People who are constantly relying on tests (photo gear) and debating in favor or against any brand based on such tests, are like the people who can't go to an art exhibition, a theatrical play or a good restaurant, before reading the "critics". Somehow they need someone else to tell them what to like and what to dislike. To me, if I like something or dislike it, I don't need anyone to tell me what to think or do about it. I just do it.

This reminds me about some trick played on a bunch of so called "art connoisseurs" during the late 60's (psychedelic era of art). The gave a few monkeys at the zoo some canvas and oil paints. The chimps had a party with the toys. Then, some of the "paintings" were framed, placed on exhibition at a nice gallery and labeled them as "anonymous artist".Then they called a couple of "well known" art critics for private showings prior to the main exhibition opening (vernissage). The critics did their part as expected and published some articles about how profound, colorful, balanced and yet, abstract forms or art were those paintings from an anonymous artist.

The snobs flocked in. They got into discussions about the light handling and about the rule breaking in such wonderful works of art. Some pieces got sold too.... it was not until few weeks later, that the truth was revealed and almost all of those "connoisseurs" claimed that "I was aware of the scam and joke, so I played along just to see some of my colleagues fall...." Yes, sure!

Love that story. And I totally believe it.

The current crop of new, super-sharp lenses makes for pretty boring pictures IMHO. In the 90s I think we had the high point for lens development and Pentax, Zeiss, Canon and Nikon all put out some pretty stellar optics. Of all the manufacturers, I think Canon and Pentax still value how a lens makes the pictures look overall, rather than just how it performs in someone's basement shooting charts and newspapers. Hirakawa Jun made a technical report about Pentax's direction back then (the 90s) and while my link to it no longer works, forum member Greg (northcoastgreg) has the main parts in a blog post here: Lessons from a Legendary Lens Designer | Photographic Ideals, Basic Principles | The Northcoast Photographer

[osv]

As they explain you will only start to notice it if you look at your image 50% size... For a A7r, 50% size give you... 8MP. (50% is based on scale, not surface).

prove it.

show us real-world pictures that were shot with adapters that don't have any glass inside, that show reduced resolution.

no one else has been able to do it, you'd be the first.

---------- Post added 11-03-2014 at 09:47 AM ----------

First, you say Pentax optics suck, the system is limited, crippled and that Sony's system has access to the best optics ever made by anyone;

telling lies about the content of thread, that everyone can read, serves no purpose, lol

---

Last edited by osv; 11-03-2014 at 10:47 AM.

[ChristianRock]

OSV, it seems like Pentax is a very bad fit for you. You like to test lenses - Pentax is for people who actually like to take great looking pictures.

Here's some reading for you and other measurbators on why you should not expect Pentax lenses to be the MTF champions of the world, or the darlings of DXO (really, the same thing, they're just measurbators): Lessons from a Legendary Lens Designer | Photographic Ideals, Basic Principles | The Northcoast Photographer

[Rondec]

I guess the reason I like Pentax is for the slow lenses. It is really easy to compare lenses between Canon, Nikon and Sony. Tougher to compare Pentax with them, since Pentax makes slower, smaller lenses. In lens motors, faster lens speeds and in lens image stabilization all combine to make lenses from other companies larger in comparison. As to image quality, it is fine. You can get good images with any of the brands out there.

DA 40 limited.



DA 15 limited.



FA 31 limited.



FA 77.



DA *55



DFA 100 macro.

[Nicolas06]

I guess the reason I like Pentax is for the slow lenses. It is really easy to compare lenses between Canon, Nikon and Sony. Tougher to compare Pentax with them, since Pentax makes slower, smaller lenses. In lens motors, faster lens speeds and in lens image stabilization all combine to make lenses from other companies larger in comparison. As to image quality, it is fine. You can get good images with any of the brands out there.

DA 40 limited.



DA 15 limited.



FA 31 limited.



FA 77.



DA *55



DFA 100 macro.

I know from having reading some review some time ago based on a bas sample the guy had that the DA15 shoot is just not sharp. so even through I cannot see any problem with your DA15 image and I think it look quite good, I'll say that with a modern glass with 3000 lwp/ph on extreme corners at f/1.4 the results would have been completely different.

Likely first you would have kept the heavy lens at home because it is too heavy. So more likely the perspective would have been different as you would have used a different lens to begin with.

Even if you did take it, it would have fail to render the nice star thanks to rounded apperture blades. Lastly it would have add some flare artefact and constrast loss.

But it would have given you better corner sharpness and fantastic low light performance at f/1.4.

[Rondec]

I know from having reading some review some time ago based on a bas sample the guy had that the DA15 shoot is just not sharp. so even through I cannot see any problem with your DA15 image and I think it look quite good, I'll say that with a modern glass with 3000 lwp/ph on extreme corners at f/1.4 the results would have been completely different.

Likely first you would have kept the heavy lens at home because it is too heavy. So more likely the perspective would have been different as you would have used a different lens to begin with.

Even if you did take it, it would have fail to render the nice star thanks to rounded apperture blades. Lastly it would have add some flare artefact and constrast loss.

But it would have given you better corner sharpness and fantastic low light performance at f/1.4.

I am fine with the DA 15. There are 14mm f2.8 lenses out there, but unfortunately, they don't have the same resistance to flare, which is what I enjoy so much with the DA 15. I own the DA *16-50, which is a fine lens -- probably sharper than the DA 15 at f4, but honestly, when you are shooting landscape shots, you shoot stopped down. I bought a book by Art Wolfe and he shoots all of his landscapes at f16 to f22 (depending on format). More important to have everything in focus. If I shot at f4 with the DA 15, though, I would certainly be frustrated.

Da *16-50 shot.

[Nicolas06]

prove it.

show us real-world pictures that were shot with adapters that don't have any glass inside, that show reduced resolution.

no one else has been able to do it, you'd be the first.

Most review don't publish any photo or their chart images they use to get their MTF results. DxO doesn't prove its mesurements are accurate. In the sense this is logical, you would not have a clue of what to the with the image... Except maybe if you decided to buy imatest or in case of DxO their testing suite... Even they could have mis focussed the lens or had a bad sample.

But you trust DxO and their score... And ironically you serve it as a way to get your point.

Suddenly when a guy with with a test bench whom work is to check the quality of lenses, that just don't see test 1 or 2 samples but dozen of them if not hundred for the most popular to check the quality of the lens they rent, that don't even use a camera but directly the test bench to remove the sensor limitations out of the equation, It become totally irrelevant and this has to be proven with sample images even through the guy did test a few adapter samples and not just one.

You would call me cynical but I can't help but think that your credulity toward DxO and septisism toward LensRental is more linked to how it would support or detracts your arguments than anything related the openess of their methodology and the ability of the individual to get the proof they didn't bullshit them.

Because I mean, be it DxO, LensRental or Photozone... there nothing that prove that their test are accurate.

But hey... I'am just cynical.

I'am sure in reality that just your scientific curiosity. And now that you realized you forgot to give your own proof from the DxO results, you will take care to ask DxO to provide the images they used for their test... And to authenticate theses in a way we can sure it come from the right lens and body without any wait of cheating.

I appreciate your rigor.

[mattb123]

The only time I wish my DA 15 was faster is when shooting stars, and it still does ok at f/4 IMO.

[osv]

Most review don't publish any photo or their chart images they use to get their MTF results.

...But hey... I'am just cynical.

more clueless than anything, because like so many others out here, you don't own the cameras in question, and you have no idea how they perform.

you think that lensrentals post is gospel, but you failed to recognize the differences between shooting a test chart and shooting in the real world.

it's got nothing to do with them publishing any pics or any charts... when you shoot test charts, you have to be absolutely perfectly square to the chart, period.

that's not a requirement in the real world, which is why dumb adapters have zero effect on the resolution of the picture... they don't alter the alignment of the glass inside, so they can't change the optical properties of the lenses.

[Nicolas06]

more clueless than anything, because like so many others out here, you don't own the cameras in question, and you have no idea how they perform.

you think that lensrentals post is gospel, but you failed to recognize the differences between shooting a test chart and shooting in the real world.

it's got nothing to do with them publishing any pics or any charts... when you shoot test charts, you have to be absolutely perfectly square to the chart, period.

that's not a requirement in the real world, which is why dumb adapters have zero effect on the resolution of the picture... they don't alter the alignment of the glass inside, so they can't change the optical properties of the lenses.

Guys ! Guys !

osv finally discovered the light... In 10 year he may even understand why there a thread called "The 15mm limited control my mind club". Except of course adapter change the optical properties of the lenses... I mean they change the registration distance to begin with and this one has to be micro level precise... Or you get a blurred image. That one of the reasons to have adapters. And that why you can easily adapt only longer registration distance lenses to shorter registration distance bodies but the reverse require optical element to compensate (like the 1.7 pentax converter that add AF support... some glass is required including the 1.7X TC part to manage the registration distance).

Anyway, that was a good play and a good trolling from your part. Thanks for the fun and the laugh osv ! You are priceless.