Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-13-2020, 09:22 AM - 1 Like   #106
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 639
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
You seriously need to check out the single point AF.s scores on Imagine Resources.
I'll give this another look when you've revised your information, but I won't be holding my breath.

Go here
Pentax KP Review - Performance

Look at the top category "Full Auto Focus"
Search any camera you want to compare."

But just one for example
Full Auto Focus - Pentax .089s
Olympus E-M1 II - .108s

Pick any camera you want, but just a hint, there are about 3 that compete with Pentax on this metric. Many are double the speed.

Just another internet generalization made by ignoring the information that doesn't agree with it.

It's amazing how many times I reiterate, in a line of photographers


it's amazing how often my camera clicks first.
The slowness of Pentax AF depends entirely on the shooting situation and settings used.
But if you know your gear, it's amazing how competitive you can be, with anyone and any camera.
I'v pointed this out often.

I'm tired of listening to everyone expounding on their theories about what is, and ignoring my experience out in the field of what is actually the case, so this is it for today. I'm not defending against the "but, but buts".

Just understand, regardless of what you say, I'll be going with my experience in the field , as opposed to theoretical denials.
Yes, there is a single aspect of af where the Pentax is really good at. If this is the one you use, great indeed, you got the system right for you (if you use one of the very few lenses that currently make use of it). If not, if you use af-c, tracking or multi point af or anything related
to face detectio, eye detection etc, well, that's where other manufacturers are better at the moment.
The op obviously was looking for that part and found it to be better with his new camera. No reason to make such a fuzz about it.

03-13-2020, 09:24 AM   #107
Pentaxian
Dan Rentea's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Bucharest
Posts: 1,716
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
You seriously need to check out the single point AF.s scores on Imagine Resources.
I'll give this another look when you've revised your information, but I won't be holding my breath.

Go here
Pentax KP Review - Performance

Look at the top category "Full Auto Focus"
Search any camera you want to compare."

But just one for example
Full Auto Focus - Pentax .089s
Olympus E-M1 II - .108s

Pick any camera you want, but just a hint, there are about 3 that compete with Pentax on this metric. Many are double the speed.

Just another internet generalization made by ignoring the information that doesn't agree with it.

It's amazing how many times I reiterate, in a line of photographers


it's amazing how often my camera clicks first.
The slowness of Pentax AF depends entirely on the shooting situation and settings used.
But if you know your gear, it's amazing how competitive you can be, with anyone and any camera.
I'v pointed this out often.

I'm tired of listening to everyone expounding on their theories about what is, and ignoring my experience out in the field of what is actually the case, so this is it for today. I'm not defending against the "but, but buts".

Just understand, regardless of what you say, I'll be going with my experience in the field , as opposed to theoretical denials.
Continuous H mode: 14-bit RAW - 10 frames total; 15 seconds to clear. It seems that for action is behind K-3 II to clear the buffer. And 10 frames it's not that much when shooting a small bird that won't stay steady for 15-20 seconds. That would concern me over K-3 II for example. I don't know if I had to choose between high ISO performance of KP vs buffer clearing of K3 II which one I would choose for static birds or for some action.
03-13-2020, 09:27 AM   #108
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 38,519
QuoteOriginally posted by Dan Rentea Quote
Continuous H mode: 14-bit RAW - 10 frames total; 15 seconds to clear. It seems that for action is behind K-3 II to clear the buffer. And 10 frames it's not that much when shooting a small bird that won't stay steady for 15-20 seconds. That would concern me over K-3 II for example. I don't know if I had to choose between high ISO performance of KP vs buffer clearing of K3 II which one I would choose for action.
And there in lies the reason I don't own a K-P. I'm not willing to pay for a camera I could concievably end up leaving on the shelf. Sometimes it's better to just live with the devil you know. Especially true since my K-1 has taken over my landscape duties, and all I'm using the K-3 for is small birds or other situations where I want the extra reach of APS-c to extend the range of my lenses,
03-13-2020, 09:31 AM - 1 Like   #109
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
luftfluss's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,804
QuoteOriginally posted by Dan Rentea Quote
If you shoot a concert or a football/soccer player with both cameras, D5 images looks way better than the D610 images. In labs on the other hand anything is possible.
My own preference is to go for the camera that produces more detail even if there is more noise, and like you say the "looks way better" is, to me, the most important thing.

03-13-2020, 09:34 AM - 1 Like   #110
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 639
QuoteOriginally posted by Dan Rentea Quote
Continuous H mode: 14-bit RAW - 10 frames total; 15 seconds to clear. It seems that for action is behind K-3 II to clear the buffer. And 10 frames it's not that much when shooting a small bird that won't stay steady for 15-20 seconds. That would concern me over K-3 II for example. I don't know if I had to choose between high ISO performance of KP vs buffer clearing of K3 II which one I would choose for static birds or for some action.
This is why I said the k3ii is the faster camera. The kp surely has its benefits too and is cheaper than most other cameras I would take into consideration.
I personally decided for the k3-II and K1-II for this reason (not a bird shooter though).

---------- Post added 03-13-20 at 09:35 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by luftfluss Quote
My own preference is to go for the camera that produces more detail even if there is more noise, and like you say the "looks way better" is, to me, the most important thing.
To be honest, the last time I missed details on a picture due to the camera is quite some years and sensor generations ago. Modern sensors are pretty good.
03-13-2020, 09:35 AM   #111
Pentaxian
Dan Rentea's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Bucharest
Posts: 1,716
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
And there in lies the reason I don't own a K-P. I'm not willing to pay for a camera I could concievably end up leaving on the shelf. Sometimes it's better to just live with the devil you know. Especially true since my K-1 has taken over my landscape duties, and all I'm using the K-3 for is small birds or other situations where I want the extra reach of APS-c to extend the range of my lenses,
Let's hope that with the new APS-C all these worries will be gone. Clearing buffer is quite important when shooting wildlife or sport. Olympus has the speed, but it still lacks in a few important areas for me: EVF, high ISO, handling without battery grip, tracking. It's improved over the E-M1 Mark II, but it doesn't seem to be on par with others, especially for the price.

---------- Post added 03-13-20 at 04:40 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by luftfluss Quote
My own preference is to go for the camera that produces more detail even if there is more noise, and like you say the "looks way better" is, to me, the most important thing.
I will always go with the camera that will help me get the shot in difficult situations, based on my needs. I'm not interested in details (I have plenty in the cameras released in the last 5-6 years) as much as I'm interested in high ISO and af performance. The only thing that keeps me away from 1D series from Canon, especially the new 1Dx mark III is the size and weight. Shooting at a corporate event a doctor for example that is for the first time in front of a large audience with 1Dx will often freeze him and won't be able to talk. It happened to me a few times when I was shooting with battery grip and 70-200mm lens. Since then, I changed my approach.

Last edited by Dan Rentea; 03-13-2020 at 09:44 AM.
03-14-2020, 03:08 AM   #112
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 24,215
QuoteOriginally posted by luftfluss Quote
I shot the K-01 and K-5 II side-by-side for a couple years, and while I never made an exacting comparison between the two, it seemed to me the K-5 II RAW files offered more highlight recovery potential.

I wonder what wizardry Olympus employs to get such good noise performance from the 20MP m4/3 sensor...
Do you think it is wizardry or do you think Olympus massages their RAW data a bit to make it look better? They don't make their own sensors, they are all made either by Panasonic or Sony and so I wouldn't know why there would be significant difference from other cameras on the market. When the K5 and D7000 used the same sensor, the Pentax version tested a tiny bit better on DXO Mark, but honestly, you could hardly tell the difference and odds are that it was just copy variation.

I just think companies (particularly the mirrorless folks) are becoming quicker and quicker to do things to their RAW files to decrease noise and fix lens issues -- stuff that used to be reserved for Jpegs.

03-14-2020, 07:11 AM   #113
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 38,519
QuoteOriginally posted by WorksAsIntended Quote
Yes, there is a single aspect of af where the Pentax is really good at. If this is the one you use, great indeed, you got the system right for you (if you use one of the very few lenses that currently make use of it). If not, if you use af-c, tracking or multi point af or anything related
SO I have to ask, what percentage of your shooting is AF.c? It may be one "small aspect" but that's where I shoot 99.9% of my photos. I'd also point out, on most other systems you double your subject acquisition time using multi focus points. So there's the trade off. If speed in subject acquisition is necessary, you cripple yourself using any multi-point function.

There are one or two systems where multi focus points aquisition is not as bad. SO even for AF.c tracking, there are reasons for not using it. It's fine to say Pentax only excels in one are, as long as you also point out, it's the one most of us use most of the time and also the fastest of the options. SO AF.s has the fastest most accurate times if speed of acquisition is important. As I have pointed out countless times, it gets really annoying people going on on on about how slow Pentax AF.c is, for a feature I hardly ever use, when it's faster for the feature I use.

Whenever I point out these stats, I get this mambly pambly waffling nonsense about "it's only faster in some circumstances." Well, the other better AF.c cameras are only better in some circumstances.

Why is it you point that out with Pentax, and everyone else gets a free pass?

People who have read too many DPR reviews seem to adopt their internal biases.

For many of us AF.c tracking is a completely unnecessary option wed' be happy to buy a camera without. Why it's given such a high value in evaluating a camera's AF is a mystery to us. IN these hugely biased evaluations, based on assumed but badly skewed usage expectations, Pentax speed of acquisition and accuracy are ignored in favour of performance in niche shooting techniques.

Everybody seems to want to buy the camera based on the fact they are hot shot action photographers. It's probably one of the most oversold gimmicks in any industry. Despite the availability of such cameras, it's rare I see really good action images.

Last edited by normhead; 03-14-2020 at 07:37 AM.
03-14-2020, 07:39 AM   #114
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
luftfluss's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,804
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Do you think it is wizardry or do you think Olympus massages their RAW data a bit to make it look better? They don't make their own sensors, they are all made either by Panasonic or Sony and so I wouldn't know why there would be significant difference from other cameras on the market. When the K5 and D7000 used the same sensor, the Pentax version tested a tiny bit better on DXO Mark, but honestly, you could hardly tell the difference and odds are that it was just copy variation.

I just think companies (particularly the mirrorless folks) are becoming quicker and quicker to do things to their RAW files to decrease noise and fix lens issues -- stuff that used to be reserved for Jpegs.
Maybe instead of "wizardry" I should have said "black magic"? I do think it's possible that Oly is subtly massaging the noise characteristics in RAW... I would say that because many m4/3 lenses require RAW-based compensation for distortion and CA, Oly may also bake in a small amount of sharpening and NR. The EM1MkII and later models pack a ton of computational power in those little bodies.

It's interesting to note that Panasonic's 20MP sensor in their flagship G9 is about 1/2 stop behind the Oly EM1 MkII in noise performance at ISO 3200.

It's also interesting to note that the 20MP sensor in the Oly Pen-F (the first 20MP m4/3 camera) performs nearly identically to the Panny G9.

The Oly flagship cameras over the last couple of years pack a ton of processing power, while the older, simpler 20MP Pen-F doesn't.

I think it is logical to draw the conclusion that Oly is "helping" their RAW files outside of lens corrections.

It's also possible that the Sony-sourced sensors have improved enough that these things evolve "organically".

I might be the only person who is actually interested in this, though...
03-14-2020, 08:03 AM   #115
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 38,519
When 3200 ISO gives you the same dynamic range and noise as 100 ISO this will be of interest. If your big interest is the best possible image period, not the best possible in this situation, such discussions are moot.
03-14-2020, 08:08 AM   #116
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 639
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
SO I have to ask, what percentage of your shooting is AF.c? It may be one "small aspect" but that's where I shoot 99.9% of my photos. I'd also point out, on most other systems you double your subject acquisition time using multi focus points. So there's the trade off. If speed in subject acquisition is necessary, you cripple yourself using any multi-point function.

There are one or two systems where multi focus points aquisition is not as bad. SO even for AF.c tracking, there are reasons for not using it. It's fine to say Pentax only excels in one are, as long as you also point out, it's the one most of us use most of the time and also the fastest of the options. SO AF.s has the fastest most accurate times if speed of acquisition is important. As I have pointed out countless times, it gets really annoying people going on on on about how slow Pentax AF.c is, for a feature I hardly ever use, when it's faster for the feature I use.

Whenever I point out these stats, I get this mambly pambly waffling nonsense about "it's only faster in some circumstances." Well, the other better AF.c cameras are only better in some circumstances.

Why is it you point that out with Pentax, and everyone else gets a free pass?

People who have read too many DPR reviews seem to adopt their internal biases.

For many of us AF.c tracking is a completely unnecessary option wed' be happy to buy a camera without. Why it's given such a high value in evaluating a camera's AF is a mystery to us. IN these hugely biased evaluations, based on assumed but badly skewed usage expectations, Pentax speed of acquisition and accuracy are ignored in favour of performance in niche shooting techniques.

Everybody seems to want to buy the camera based on the fact they are hot shot action photographers. It's probably one of the most oversold gimmicks in any industry. Despite the availability of such cameras, it's rare I see really good action images.
I shoot about 20% in AF-C, if it were more, I would switch brands, the other 80% are more important though, so I stay with Pentax.
In my experience accuracy is not better at Pentax by the way, not worse either. In AF-S for stills every camera from the last ten years is sufficient imho.
Another point is, that there are very few lenses available where Pentax af is fast, the standard action shoot lenses, 70-200 and 50-135 are not on that list. The 70-200 by Pentax for example has about half the speed the Nikon F mount does.
Multipoint tracking at the Sony A9 II in my experience was that good that it was point and shoot. This is why it is used. When I do sport photography getting the subject in focus is one of the things I need to concentrate on, with the Sony it just is there, and this is a major gain for some.
If af speed would have been my priority, I would have stayed with the Nikon D200 and not switch to the k10d. Most of the time I am happy with that decission as af speed is not my priority, I use my FA77 in mf most of the time, because the keeper rate is at least as good as the af, if not higher, because I really hit the eye instead of gambling with a too big focus point.
The annoying part is only when we read a user experience here, where the op found his new camera to have better af, or the "I love every thing about my new Pentax but the Af" thread some members in this forum jump at those people and claim that the op talk bullshit.
It is for most people not the most important thing in the world, but just accept some want tracking and af-c, that actually work well.
03-14-2020, 08:26 AM   #117
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 38,519
talk about Over the years we've seen multiple reports on actual research that show Pentax speed of AF.s is as good or better than almost every camera in 'it's class. Same with AF.c tracking in controlled situations. There are specialty camera that have great AF.c tracking for sure. There are also cars and half-tons, and we don't usually directly compare them either.

The proponents of better AF.c on other systems never have proof using actual side by side comparisons. Where there have been side by side comparisons like the Cameraville 24-70 comparisons, the photographers have been surprised at Pentax performance. To the point where you can say, there are those who have done actual comparisons who say Pentax isn't so bad, and those who haven't who say it is.

There is a lot more "Pentax sucks"nonsense where the camera is underrated than there are "some members in this forum jump at those people and claim that the op talk bullshit." posts where it bothers you.There might be bit of bias. Most of us just don't stand for any BS, aimed at Pentax or other wise. It's sad you only think the pro-Pentax position represents bias.

Then you have the usual, people comparing Pentax gear they bought 6 years ago with the new system they just bought yesterday. If you point it out you're pro-Pentax. Because many of us know Pentax really well, and there is so much anti-Pentax nonsense posted it might seem to you we are overly zealous in defending Pentax. But the simple fact is, there is considerably more anti-Pentax bias than there is pro-Pentax bias. Careful who you align yourself with.

People like myself who recommend appropriate systems for every brand based on the shooting needs of the shooter who are forced into defending Pentax on a regualr basis can only be accused of bias if you aren't familiar with our body of work. You'll notice, these kinds of pro-Pentax posts are only made after someone comes in and trashed the system. I'd suggest you don't want to be one of those people. They usually don't know Pentax, and they're information is often completely misleading.

So often people tell me I can't do things I do all the time. It gets tiring,

The site as great for "how do I get the most out of my Pentax". If you want to d how do I get the most our of my Nikon, canon, Sony, Fuji," whatever, there are other sites for that. And for people wasting their time telling us what it can't do.... we already know. We've heard it ad nauseam. Most of it erroneous.

Or as I say often, "Just because you criticize Pentax, doesn't make you automatically right."
Stop generalizing, qualify and quantify your statements.

Criticizing Pentax AF as a whole is just wrong. Pentax has some weaknesses. But almost all camera in their price range do.

Last edited by normhead; 03-14-2020 at 08:47 AM.
03-14-2020, 02:06 PM   #118
Pentaxian
mecrox's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,375
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
talk about Over the years we've seen multiple reports on actual research that show Pentax speed of AF.s is as good or better than almost every camera in 'it's class. Same with AF.c tracking in controlled situations. There are specialty camera that have great AF.c tracking for sure. There are also cars and half-tons, and we don't usually directly compare them either.

The proponents of better AF.c on other systems never have proof using actual side by side comparisons. Where there have been side by side comparisons like the Cameraville 24-70 comparisons, the photographers have been surprised at Pentax performance. To the point where you can say, there are those who have done actual comparisons who say Pentax isn't so bad, and those who haven't who say it is.

There is a lot more "Pentax sucks"nonsense where the camera is underrated than there are "some members in this forum jump at those people and claim that the op talk bullshit." posts where it bothers you.There might be bit of bias. Most of us just don't stand for any BS, aimed at Pentax or other wise. It's sad you only think the pro-Pentax position represents bias.

Then you have the usual, people comparing Pentax gear they bought 6 years ago with the new system they just bought yesterday. If you point it out you're pro-Pentax. Because many of us know Pentax really well, and there is so much anti-Pentax nonsense posted it might seem to you we are overly zealous in defending Pentax. But the simple fact is, there is considerably more anti-Pentax bias than there is pro-Pentax bias. Careful who you align yourself with.

People like myself who recommend appropriate systems for every brand based on the shooting needs of the shooter who are forced into defending Pentax on a regualr basis can only be accused of bias if you aren't familiar with our body of work. You'll notice, these kinds of pro-Pentax posts are only made after someone comes in and trashed the system. I'd suggest you don't want to be one of those people. They usually don't know Pentax, and they're information is often completely misleading.

So often people tell me I can't do things I do all the time. It gets tiring,

The site as great for "how do I get the most out of my Pentax". If you want to d how do I get the most our of my Nikon, canon, Sony, Fuji," whatever, there are other sites for that. And for people wasting their time telling us what it can't do.... we already know. We've heard it ad nauseam. Most of it erroneous.

Or as I say often, "Just because you criticize Pentax, doesn't make you automatically right."
Stop generalizing, qualify and quantify your statements.

Criticizing Pentax AF as a whole is just wrong. Pentax has some weaknesses. But almost all camera in their price range do.
Yes. I think it is important to bear in mind that AF performance is dependent on the integration of the whole system - lens, camera, camera's electronics. More recent cameras often do have an advantage here. They are using more powerful processors, the latest AF software, and often quite recent lenses with very fast motors. An example is the sophisticated tracking AF on some cameras but then you may have to pay a lot for that, if you want the best - far more than any Pentax camera costs.

Obviously Pentax is not competing in this market, or so it seems to me. if you need top tracking AF and the fastest-focusing modern lenses then Pentax is not really the brand to choose. But many people don't need that and have no intention of ever needing it. And if you don't need that then top AF performance isn't really relevant and it doesn't matter if your lens is an older model. It will still work fine within its design parameters for its intended purpose, and if you can't get things to work within those parameters then the problem is likely between the ears, not in the camera. it's all about horses for course, imho. FWIW, I hardly ever use AF tracking on my Olympus camera. I simply don't need to because I don't photograph the kinds of things for which tracking is designed. AF-C is plenty good enough for what I do and still allows for quite a bit of movement in the frame. What I need is fast AF acquisition and lock and then shutter release, which is not quite the same as tracking.

Goes to show one needs to think through getting any camera. Is it suitable for my intended purpose? Is it a jack of all trades or a specialist item? No one would by a Fuji GX medium format intending to shoot horse-racing at speed unless they are nuts. But for other things - landscape, fashion, portraiture - it is superb. Because it was designed with that kind of photography in mind. Ditto Pentax in its own spheres, notably of landscape and the 'field camera' but also extending into general purpose and travel, especially on crop format.

I suppose a potentially tricky exception here is face- and eye-detect AF which seems to be becoming a kind of general expectation in cameras. But like tracking, of which it is a variety, that too depends on both a well-integrated system and the company designing those kinds of cameras for that kind of market. Suppose the company doesn't? Well that's fine. One presumes the company is designing its cameras for a different kind of use. Same with top-spec video. Not all cameras are designed with that in mind. Just do the research before buying. Imho, most of the world's most celebrated images were taken on relatively and sometimes very basic cameras by modern standards. And some of the most celebrated images still being taken today are on 10x8 and 5x4 field cameras using fairly long exposures on film. No electronics there at all ...

Last edited by mecrox; 03-14-2020 at 04:33 PM.
03-15-2020, 03:08 AM - 1 Like   #119
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 24,215
I think the OP should shoot what makes him happy. If that is Olympus, that is fine. It is pretty clear, regardless of hype, that Olympus has gone after the wildlife market in a way that Pentax hasn't done. You can certainly shoot nice images with K mount cameras and lenses, but on the long side it's pretty much limited to the 150-450 and 560.

As far as AF-C goes, I do think from Pentax vantage point (a) it improves with each new camera (the K-new will be better), (b) it is usable at this point, with the right lens, and (c) there are other brands that do do it better. Personally, it doesn't change things for me -- I make Pentax gear work the way I want to and like it, but if tracking auto focus is super-crucial, then other brands might be better.
03-15-2020, 03:15 AM   #120
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 639
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I think the OP should shoot what makes him happy. If that is Olympus, that is fine. It is pretty clear, regardless of hype, that Olympus has gone after the wildlife market in a way that Pentax hasn't done. You can certainly shoot nice images with K mount cameras and lenses, but on the long side it's pretty much limited to the 150-450 and 560.

As far as AF-C goes, I do think from Pentax vantage point (a) it improves with each new camera (the K-new will be better), (b) it is usable at this point, with the right lens, and (c) there are other brands that do do it better. Personally, it doesn't change things for me -- I make Pentax gear work the way I want to and like it, but if tracking auto focus is super-crucial, then other brands might be better.
This sums it up.
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!
300mm, 70-200mm, camera, comparison, d500, e-m1, experience, f/2.8, f2.8, f4, fa*, gear, grip, home, k-3, lens, lenses, money, nikon, olympus, olympus om-d e-m1, om-d, om-d e-m1 mark, pentax, results, tamron, terms, weight, wildlife
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Olympus Lenses for Micro Four Thirds drawing me in....HELP ! Ronald Oakes Non-Pentax: Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc. 19 02-05-2018 09:40 PM
For Sale - Sold: Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mirrorless Micro Four Thirds Digital Camera ChuyQ Sold Items 5 02-21-2017 07:54 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:28 PM. | 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