Christmas weather-station

 

I've put everything up (and moved the wind gage twice!), and it seems to be fully operational. O what fun!

PK adaptor arrives for the G1

I can now use my elder PK lenses on the G1, which makes a telephoto option less pressing. I can use any Pentax lens in truth, but the new ones with no aperture ring will only shoot wide open. Initial tests look pretty good, but I need to investigate how I hold the camera with a heavier lens. Often while shooting the ISO-adjust screen pops up, which suggests that I'm pressing something without knowing. Since the adaptor has zero electronics I cannot blame it directly.. but right now I'm not sure what is going on.

The adaptor plus 50mm lens is a match for the 14-45 kit lens. Length and weight are very similar, and the 50 just a bit wider.. and it's a Rikenon so it even takes the 52mm filters! At first glance IQ looks good. The Vivitar 28-105 and Rikenon 35-135 also seem to do well, though at almost 500g these are the ones that make me adjust iso. I've yet to try the Big Gun (Sakar 28-200); lack of IS will be a problem in the gloom of December.


shot with Rikenon-P 35-135mm f/3.5-4.5

I've been struggling with the m4:3 telephoto question for a while now, with three options looking good for different reasons. The obvious answer is the Pana 45-200 with OIS, built for the G1 and able to combat shake. In the lightweight corner is the well-regarded Olympus 40-150, about half the weight and less telephoto - it would not be stabilized so stopping at 150 would be a sensible tradeoff. On the third hand, the Lumix 14-140 would do it all and be stabilized, for a bit more money net of selling off the 14-45. Current sentiment is to stick with number one; the 14-45 is very good and it's tiny, so selling it holds little appeal. Lack of IS can be learned now with the Rikenon 35-135, if that lens suffers from shake the 40-150 will fare no better. At least I have something to get me closer now.. and I get to learn all about the G1's white balance options! ;^)

two systems? me?

Several things make the K-7 an amazing camera, things the G1 cannot touch. Larger sensor means wide-angle shots are easier, and weather resistance & durability are big deals.. some times. So I plan to limit the Pentax kit to 14mm Sigma, 16-45 and 50-200WR for now, and pick up a 45-200 OIS lens. I might "need" to swap my Sigma 14mm for an 8mm Samyang too, which can adapt as a 16mm equivalent on the G1. Hard to say which is the better backpacking camera though: durable and heavy + longer battery life, or small/light, presumably more fragile, and 2nd battery?

Could I not simply have adapted to Sony's offerings six months ago, had a bit more patience? That sub has sailed and submerged, so I don't often look back. If I'd had no A200 experience, the A5xx series would have likely served me well.. but I did, and it didn't. Becoming a 2-system owner was in no way part of my plans.. but given the Casio cam I was doing it anyway, just in denial.

We'll see what happens next!

K7 & G1 part 2: working with RAW

Interesting how the sensors did with the same image scale and exposure. G1's WB was very close, but I manually set the K-7 WB so jpg images look better on the surface. Both 1/13s f/7.1 handheld and iso1250, K-7 at 34mm and G1 at 25mm. I just took the shot and processed in Elements IX to get a pleasant image. I felt no need to go to extremes by working on the iso2000 images, which I also shot. Also took iso160 shots, and must say the G1 image is less blurry in the one-off shootout at ~0.6 seconds.

 

The K-7 needed massive chroma NR, while the G1 needed less of both sliders. Interesting how the patterns on the star and the wall behind it are so different; I really could not get them to match. Let's face it though, I gave each less than 10 minutes in the 'darkroom' - however, I seldom do 1/2 hour processes so it was a fairly typical session.

Do I see a winner? Not exactly, not with this test shot. I prefer the K-7 image slightly better, the wall reflection is more correct with that shot. (BTW it's the upper one!) Both are very good and capable of more precise work; I used a saturation mask on both w/some transparency but no erasing. I really need to learn more about psE IX as it didn't do as I expected when I tried to erase! In any case: no strong winner, which by most folks' standards means a win for the smaller sensor on the G1. Let's not forget the 12.1M vs 14.6M-pixel sensor difference, which I ignored when I cropped the two images to match scale.

G-1 and K-7 parrt 1: the weigh-in

Clearly this part holds no surprises: the G1 is smaller in every way, though just slightly in overall length. Lens is smaller and very light. The K-7 has my lightest DA lens on it, the WR 50-200. On the scale the K-7 weighs in ready to shoot at just over 1kg; the G1 so equipped is 600g.



I also recorded the capture sounds on my little Casio with both about a foot above the cam. Sounds were surprisingly similar but K-7 screw focus whines before the shutter while the G1 has a very soft whir that probably didn't reach the microphone.

Clearly the K-7 lives up to the 'enthusiast' label with higher-res screen, the top LCD panel and the weather sealing. Those will be hard to top, but the flip screen on the G1 is a point in its favor. The investment was small, so let the games begin!

the Sigma 15mm f/3.5 (manual focus)

The great lens deal I closed a couple of weeks back had a gotcha - that happens to me with regularity in the 'classic' lens biz.  In this case my copy is a true manual lens: despite the 'A' setting on the aperture dial, and the electrical contact that goes with it, this lens will only shoot wide open on the camera's auto modes.  I found that out the hard way, shooting its first gig in the Redwoods.  Nearly every shot has a vague focus point rather than pin-sharp detail and immense depth of field.  It was a cold and wet day, and I trusted the 'A' setting despite the suspicious lack of aperture feedback in the viewfinder.  The rest of the trip had its own issues, so it will go down as my least-recorded trip in a very long time.  More recent tests definitely show more promise with this lens!

50-200WR lens: it's a keeper

Further tests of the 50-200WR showed the lens to be worth keeping, so my DAL 55-300 has a new home.  Tests between this lens and my DA 55-300 at 200mm are close enough, and thanks to its size I could hold the WR lens more still which always helps images!

I took this shot at my local park; exposure was correct, but in software I liked it more as I turned down the light.

what's this? another camera??

In a few days a Lumix G1 will arrive on my doorstep. Why is that?!? Well..

• smaller and lighter, to displace my compact Casio, yet
• enough features to challenge the K-7 in casual use (nearly all I've done lately) 
• well reviewed for a 4:3 sensor
• flip screen could be easier on my aging eyes 
• dirt cheap for a lightly-used model
• the 14-45 OIS lens costs more than this whole package!

It will have to serve amazingly well to displace my K-7 though -  but if it does I'm OK with that, since I could sell off the Pentax gear and put quite a bit back in the bank (even after 'splurging' for a 45-200 telephoto) - plus a $30 adaptor would let the G1 use my Pentax lenses.  If it serves poorly I'll just send it back, and search for another way to spend my gift card.  Since I haven't made use of the Pentax' video capabilities the G1's lack is not a real issue. We shall see what the next week brings.

So why don't I just buy more Pentax stuff with that gift card?  Fact is, I'm all out of 'needs' there.  I have modern lenses for 16-45, 50-200 and 55-300 plus a half-dozen manual lenses at 14, 28, 50 and intermediate zooms.  I have a nice tripod and a flash sufficient for my needs, and several SD cards.  Not only is that enough, it's too much - especially as I've been homebound and not able to use much of this.  A smaller camera with decent IQ would provide just as much camera satisfaction and be a smaller cash drain.

test-drive of the WR 50-200

First tests of the weather-resistant zoom were ideal - then again they weren't. A thick drizzle was good for testing its  resistance to foul conditions, but shots were hard-pressed to show much in the way of contrast and color. Even the birds I had hoped to shoot were choosing not to be available! Test shots show a bit of darkening in the edges at f/5.6 at longer focal lengths. As to sharpness, that will need to await brighter days. This shot was processed a bit and cropped a bit; hard to complain at this point!  It's the imager's fault that a tripod was not used despite the gloom.



The bird in the scene is apparently a cormorant; I was thinking something heron-like, but the webbed feet and throat the color of a salamander's belly make it a clear match with online bird sites. On a brighter day it would look like this - it even struck that wing-drying pose before I took the shot. On a day like this one, no pose would be a drying pose!

The lens is pleasantly small and light - sure, I'd heard this online many times, but one must experience it to understand.

let's make a deal..

For the next couple of weeks I'm swapping my DAL 55-300 for a 50-200WR. I have no weather-resistant lenses, and its compact size has appeal; its owner has a similar interest in extended range and the 'aura' that Pentax 55-300 has acquired. Perhaps it will be a permanent swap; we shall see.

In other news I was re-offered an auction item when I came in 2nd. The Sigma 14/3.5 is a relatively compact ultrawide, and was picked up for substantially less than a less-interesting-but-still-fun 8mm fisheye I was considering. I hope it serves me well.

That really needs to be the end of import season; time for some exporting!

And a final farewell to autumn, as the leaves have been stripped away on most of the local trees.  A shot from my local park:

ahhhhhtum

 

What a colorful time! The blue skies departed soon after this; too bad, it always helps to emphasize the leaves.

my winner & still champion

the Vivitar 28-105 (the one on the left).


I've acquired several interesting lenses and had a few pleasant surprises, but overall if I'm keeping just one it's the Kobori (serial#77xxxx) A-enabled lens. Some were dismissed after a few tests, but the top three were worked over more thoroughly.

Here's a basic list, more or less in order of finish (#s 2-4 were very close):
Vivitar 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 (Kobori, serial number begins 77)
Rikenon 35-135 f/3.5-4.5
Sakar 28-200 f/4-5.6
Vivitar 28-85 f/3.5-4.5 (Kobori, no 'A' setting)
Promaster 28-80 f/3.5-4.5
Rikenon 28-100 f/4

So why is the 28-105 on top?

The A option is a big plus, although the Sakar matches that and has better range. On the other hand, I like the sub-500g weight of the Vivitar; 800 grams is just too much bulk for me to carry cheerfully! It also has the curious minimum focus setting which varies by focal length: the more you zoom the closer the focus, ranging from just over 8' at 28mm to 6' at 200. I had a newer Tamron 28-200 in my Sony days that was weak beyond 120mm, so I was quite surprised to see one of the earliest versions of this type perform so well!

the other lenses are all manual-aperture only..
The 28-105 goes close and reaches 1:5, but they nearly all do and the Ricoh goes 1:4. I feel the 28 wide end beats the Rikenon 135 tele, and colors with the Ricoh lens are biased warmer even using auto WB. How that happens I still don't understand, but there it is. The Sakar does the least with close focus, but given it has the longest FL range it had to compromise somewhere.

Color fringing is nearly absent on the 28-105, also true on the Sakar but a bit more CA on the 28-85 and Ricoh.

The one-touch zoom/focus design won me over, since part of my manual-focus motivation is for video use. I'm well covered in AF now, but video doesn't care and using one hand feels right with video shots. So despite their other good points this removed the Promaster 28-70 (despite the A setting) and Rikenon 28-100 (another heavy one) from more rigorous tests.

Last and probably not least: a Kiron 28-105. These are very well thought of, and it should have rated near the top. Sadly, it came paired with the 28-100 and is a Canon mount - so it's not for me. The images on the auction were vague, I didn't know until after I had won which lens was the Canon.. oh well, I'm glad I got to sample the 28-200.


Beautiful.. but which lens? Even I'm not positive, but I believe it's the 28-105.

Having these lenses to square off against each other has been interesting, and while I could still do better I feel I got a very good lens, and have some degree of proof. We shall see how much the market allows me to recapture on these; a few were real bargains so I'll just about break even I suspect.

another week, another lens!

This time it's a Vivitar 28-85 in front of the sensor. Another Kobori model, it's sturdy, dense (500g) and in great shape. Sharpness and contrast are again high, quite impressive! This copy has no A setting, which other similar copies have.. so not quite as versatile on the modern bodies. Still a very good showing though.

another week, another retraction

OK, I see now that manual-aperture lenses do just fine in video mode on my K-7. I was careless enough to be in P mode before, hoping the camera could set the aperture with dials; it clearly stops down when the video is taking place, which allows for dialing down aperture settings on the lens as the video is in progress. Time to go cross out some notes on previous posts -- again.

So now I've done it: the Rikenon and Vivitar, both very good performers, were brought in for their push-pull smoothness as video lenses, so the V's A-setting is nice for stills but less relevant now. That'll teach me for thinking I'm done learning :^)

a new heavyweight: champ, or pretender?

I now possess a Sakar 28-200 f/4. It's a massive thing at 710g, solid and ambitious. I'll give it better inspection and evaluation in the next few days, but first to bed and hopefully far away from this headache. It's in good shape, I'll say that much for it!

I took the lens for a short stroll; it performed well, good contrast and decently sharp. It has a curious feature I don't recall from any recent zoom: the minimum distance to focus varies based on focal length! AT 28mm it stops at 2.5m, 70mm=2m, and so on to 1.8m / 6' from 100-200mm. Curious. It also has no 'macro' setting so getting close to your subject just won't happen; a quick test measured magnification (shoot a ruler, divide mm in long axis by 24 for aps-c) shows about 1:8. When this lens was made some big compromises were needed to have this sort of range, so they chose not to worry about close focus. My Vivitar 28-105 has a 1:5ish option at 105mm so its versatility shows there, plus being 200g lighter. Both did well in today's walkabout, but neither were able to get a sharp squirrel image on the fly like an AF lens. Some of that was due to flat lighting though; I should have been higher up the iso scale today.

So why do I own this 700-gram monster? Well, it was paired with a Kiron 28-105 on shopgoodwill website - one of the lenses was PK and one Canon, and the images were unclear on which was which. I put in a base bid, hoping the Kiron was PK, but later discerned which was which after close exam of images showed skylight filter on Kiron, UV on 28-200. By that time my cheap bid had won: less than $20 for the pair! At the very least I should break even when I resell (one or both!), at worst I donate them again. And I learn a little more about old lenses.

And the winner is..

 

Well, there is no clear winner - both would serve very well. The (R)ikenon is a touch smaller overall but the (V)ivitar at 28mm is shorter. Miminum focus at all focal lengths goes a bit closer with R but both focus 'macro' at the same distance, the R at 1:4ish @135mm and the V 1:5ish @105mm. I cannot judge color cast since auto-WB was set, but R was a touch warmer. A bit of flare from the bright window behind my yard-stick, slightly more visible on R. All told it's too close to call - but since V uses the Pentax A mount it's the winner. Due to its design, I can use a step-down ring on the nose and use my 67mm cPL with no apparent vignetting at 28mm f/4. It may be there, but if 28mm f/4 doesn't show it in a cloudy sky it's not worth the worry.. and software could fix any that decides to show up in the future.

testing the 28-105

First impression is a good one: this Vivitar is in amazing condition, very smooth to zoom and focus. The zoom creeps like pretty much all push-pull zooms, but at a steady pace so no element-rattling 'chunk' to fret about. Images are decently contrasty, and bokeh in standard mode is acceptable if not excellent; in macro mode the shorter DOF helps. It has a very short focus, maybe 40° of rotation to reach min focus of just under six feet - a bit long by most standards. In 'macro' mode focus is about the length of my arm (105mm only) and claims 1:5 on the lens.

As to image sharpness.. well, that will need better testing. Skies were grey all day in town, so it was high iso or bust.   The Guinness tap looks crisp enough at iso1000, but we'll need to check it against the Rikenon 35-135 this weekend. Plenty else to do though, we'll see if I can arrange something..

PS - let's face it, this lens is plenty sharp enough. For critical images I'll be relying on the DA lenses, this is partly for fun and more useful for video. Since I've taken maybe 10 seconds of test-video twice, this is a pretty lame excuse for buying a lens! In any case it's a keeper.

going Kobori

Since my Rikenon 35-135 push-pull zoom cannot shoot video unless wide open (a bit limiting, I'd say!) WRONG again - works fine but not in P mode!, I went browsing for another similar option. I found a one-day-only discount on a Vivitar 28-105, also f/3.5-4.5 with a 'true' Pentax A setting, for a similar price to what I paid for the Ricoh. Its serial number begins with 77, a sign that this was manufactured by Kobori. I had known of Vivitar from my past SLR film days, and knew that Series-1 was highly regarded for a time - but Kobori was not a familiar name. The web has a few notes about them but not many. What I read was quite encouraging for other Vivitar 77xxxx lenses, whether Series-1 or not - so the 28-105 is on its way to me. Hopefully soon I'll get to a point where some lenses are leaving the building, but for now it's net-import time.

In other news, it's getting autumnal again in the northern hemi; here's a fine golden backlit shot.

 

retraction & forehead slap

I've been misunderstanding Ricoh auto-aperture lenses for a while, it seems.

 

I've been cheerfully snapping up Rikenon lenses with the auto-aperture "P" setting, blissfully unaware that their P mode only works on Ricoh SLR cameras. Oopz. So much for bliss! I stumbled into this a time or two before I recognized that I was the confused one and not those who wrote about using Rikenons in stop-down mode.

But they look nearly identical on the lens! How could it not be working? Well, turn them over and count the contacts - that one pin that I felt certain was providing info to my Pentax was indeed not telling the camera anything of value. Well it must be saying something - but certainly not the calculated f/number. How sad, and how silly I feel - now I must go back and edit several posts here, wiping out the evidence of my error. But no, I am not wiping this away, it's a story that needs to be told one more time. After all, one less time and I was ensnared.

Despite this these Rikenon lenses are excellent, even more so now that I know every shot I took with them was wide open. I'm less certain that the 35-105 push-pull zoom will be great for video (it does fine, use anything but P mode!) but I still plan on trying to find out! I am glad I learned this before disposing of my Promaster 28-70, which is my only non-Pentax manfocus lens and therefore the proof I needed. Yup, in P mode the aperture lights up and tells me where I stand. Much better.

More New Stuff

I received a gift certificate with limited trade-in selection online; after browsing a bit I chose overstock as my recipient. For a while I considered another Rokinon 2AA bounce flash, which I believe I bought for my Sony via gift certificate.. but I knew how little use it got so I reconsidered & looked around a bit more.
I finally settled on a tripod that can spread itself wide enough for macro imagery and low-to-ground perspective shots, something I'll get more use from. I could not find anything online about Bell/Howell Xplor tripods, other than shopping sites.. so we shall see just what it can do. I also grabbed the $8 charger for the LI-90 battery, which includes a car-charger cord; that could prove vital on a long trip!

SLR video and 'one-touch' zooms

I'm thinking that the rather primitive nature of current dSLR video will be best served with an old-fashioned push-pull zoom lens. When shooting in real time the left hand is required to zoom and focus during hand-held clips, and shifting from zoom ring to focus ring will more likely wiggle the camera. With a bit of practice, the 35-135 Rikenon could serve well as the 'video lens' when wide-angle shooting isn't vital. Since I've only taken one short clip since late June, and video wasn't my reason for picking up a K-7, this isn't a huge concern.. but it's an interesting and valid reason to keep one of these old designs in the bag!

Rikenon contest: game over (almost)

After assembling a decent group of Ricoh lenses I gave them a semi-rigorous testing at 35, 50 and 70ish mm. I am incapable of being truly rigorous, as some variable will always creep in - but I am satisfied that they all had an equal chance to show off. I used Live View with 6x to get focus as good as possible. Both in ease of use and image quality, the winner was the 35-135 f/3.5-4.5 P one-touch, with 28-100 a short step behind and the 28-80 f/3.5-5.6 further back. The 35-135 is 500g so heavier than I'd like in my man-focus walkabout, so I may try a few more before it's over.. but for now it's the best of my bunch, and still 100g lighter than the 28-100! All lenses were sharp enough, but contrast was stronger on the 35-135 so less processing would be needed. All are prone to contrast loss with bright light on the front element.

I did not throw the Promaster 28-80 into the mix for these tests, but if I do acquire a few more lenses I'll try it with the 35-135 and future set; in some ways IQ looks similar to the 35-135, and size and weight are nice. However, it's showing its age with some play in the focus/zoom rings; the 35-135 is very smooth and a pleasure to use. I'd forgotten the fun of a 1-touch since they were outlawed in the late '80s (kidding here, I think).

going, going..

In Alpha-mount news, my last two optics are now spoken for. Amazing what can happen when you post for-sale notices for a few months, take a month off & repost. I guess this means I won't be grabbing an A33/55 model now -- not that I really could. What it really means is that the Rikenon lenses I bought last week are already paid for! Other than a Compact Flash or two, the Sony and Minolta gear is outta here. It was a great ride, and I wish the new owners well.

toying with Rikenons

My Pentax AF lineup is pretty much set, with 16-45, 55-300 and 1.5x teleconverter covering many bases. An AF 50mm would be handy, but that will come later. In the meantime I've sought out a manual-focus answer for those times when I want to play with exposure like the old days. Price and availability have steered me toward Rikenon lenses, with a 50 f/2P and 135 f/2.8XR primes already in hand. Both do very well for sharpness, and the 135 has excellent bokeh. The 'P' lenses are the Ricoh equivalent of Pentax 'A', so can adjust aperture and use most all of the K-7 exposure modes (NOT TRUE as I learned later - just like XR models, Rikenon P lenses must be used off the P setting in stop-down manual mode with Pentax cameras!)The XR and other non-P models can only do manual aperture and need to be in manual mode to work.

silk tree w/50mm

For zooms, I found a 28-100 f/4P early on, but it had some issues that super-glue resolved. It also seems to have optical issues, its contrast is mighty poor - plus at 600g it's just not going to get out much. In seeking a replacement I've won bids on two other Rikonon-P zooms, the 35-135 and 28-80 f/3.5-5.6. When they arrive I'll update this page, pick out a winner and let the others go, and maybe seek another Rikonon to dethrone it.

In my searching for lens information, I found a great site for Rikenon data - check it out here. I wish I had found this page earlier, as it shows the 35-135 weighs 500g, still a lot but perhaps it will do. Both the lenses I ordered have 58mm filter threads, so my current polarizer will work with them, saving both expense and hassle. I knew the 35-200 and 60-300 weighed a lot, so I've resisted those two.

Ricoh has been in the camera business for a long time, and they used both M42 and PK mounts in parallel with Pentax. In several cases I've heard claims that early Pentax and Ricoh lenses are identical other than the SMC optical coating; I cannot verify that and feel no need to research it.

One item that's noteworthy is that some Ricoh lenses have a strongly-projecting pin on the mount that needs to be removed, otherwise it pops into Pentax' AF screw-drive slot and the lens gets stuck! Some lenses have just a gentle, rounded button that slides past the drive slot, but others will be nearly impossible to get off the camera if the pin stays on the mount - so be careful! Also note that Ricoh seems to have been a source for Sears, Montgomery Ward and other 3rd-party vendors, so look carefully. A contact pin/button on the auto-aperture lenses is expected, but a separate pin should be matched up to the mount to see where it will fall, and removed if it's not intended to touch the Pentax body's contacts. Just remove the bolts on the PK mount and invert; it seems a couple of tiny screws hold the pin down, so unscrew one, twist the retaining bracket aside and push the pin out through the back - or just remove both bracket and pin. This is what I've encountered on a single lens, so I cannot claim they all look like this..

I'm looking forward to trying out these lenses against the 28-100. I also have a Promaster 28-70 that is functional and lightweight (and is a true A-type mount!), but has a lot of play in zoom and focus. I'll see how they fare soon, and I'll let you know! As with all tests, these are single copies from which I shall make wild claims; your copies will not likely do what mine do, nor is what I shoot a match for your interests - so let's not get carried away on this. My tests will be casual in any case, seeking sharpness bokeh flare and ease of use - and little else.

my time with the A200

In April 2008, the Sony Alpha A200 had some incredible and unique features. My research found it to be unique among many similar cameras for in-camera stabilization (SSS), dynamic-range boost (DRO), a screen whose info rotated when held vertically.. all sorts of things that were swiftly implemented in one form or another elsewhere. My A200 years were quite happy ones, but one small problem haunted me: Best Buy's decision to clear out the A700 occurred about two months later. This was a superior camera in every way, and for only slightly more money - but my return period had passed so I pretended to get over it.

The A200 was indeed the camera I had sought. Images in low light were now stabilized and shadow-boosted as needed, depth of field was a factor again, and I was having fun with photography. I played in RAW mode and bought some Elements software to tweak images more to my tastes. It came with me camping, backpacking, stargazing and nearly everywhere. On very few occasions did I look at the shots and feel that the camera had let me down (I cannot think of any times, but I suspect it must have so 'very few' will cover that :^). I especially liked shooting in RAW+jpg mode with the Monochrome 'style' - I had fine mono jpgs and a RAW file to adjust later.



My lens collection grew, mainly with Minolta lenses from the '80s. I really liked each one for its special reasons, but none of them could do it all. My main 1-lens solution was first a Tamron 18-250, then later a Sigma 18-200; I preferred its small size & lack of 'creep', and it came along on the Sierra hike. Other favorites were Sigma's 17-70 and Minoltas 100-200, 50 f/1.7 and 35-105 Macro, all 1st-generation AF classics.

Some of the most special Alpha images can be found at these links: beach - Sierra & Crater Lake - San Juan islands

Well, that completes the historic cycle - now for my Pentax transition go back to my June 2010 post.

21st century imaging (part 3)

At some point in the 1999-2000 'offseason', I moved away from the bulk of SLRs and into compact 35mm photography. Since compact cameras now had 28mm zoom lenses, my wide-angle capabilities were intact, and I could carry far less imaging gear with similar results. I was already shifting into digital with the mini-DV camcorder, and that method of recording my life held greater appeal at the moment. My 2000 and 2001 Sierra visits were captured with this camera, but Europe 2001 was strictly camcorder shots plus a tiny, no-zoom digital camera. In 2002 I again carried 35mm compact and DV-cam into the mountains, but I soon saw the flaw in my reasoning. I saw that images from that year had decidedly poor edge quality, and at 28mm some showed strong vignetting. I had gone too far in my search for compactness, and sacrificed too much quality!

At some point in 2000 I found a 1.6 megapixel Kodak DC260 on sale and began my voyage into digital stills. That camera came with me in autumn 2000 on an ill-fated hike that turned into a road trip, and captured a fine enough image of Mt. Shuksan and the autumn colors. It was promising, but images were mighty small at the time: not about to replace the enlargements that 35mm film brought me!


By 2003 I had moved up to a 4-meg camera, Kodak's LS443. A sharp 35-105 equivalent zoom brought me images worth showing off from trips to the Ruby Mts (Nevada) and Enchanement Lakes (WA) that year.

However, small digital cameras were lacking in wide-angle ability, and I missed that. At some point I shifted to a Panasonic LC40, also 4-meg but with a few more features that I liked, and while doing research into better cams in 2006 I found a closeout Casio P505 whose features were enticing and the price just right.

I spent much of 2007 and early '08 searching for my ideal camera, with relatively large sensor, wide-angle capabilities, and with luck reasonably compact size. I thought Fuji would win out; the S6000 supercam was almost perfect, and I was certain the updated model would be mine. Alas, their 'update' had no SuperCCD sensor and lost many advanced features. I began to look again at SLRs in digital form, hoping that the 4:3 sensor would result in smaller cameras. Again I was disappointed, as the Olympus E500 was a very talented camera but equal in size to APS-C cameras. Given my demands for image quality, and after plenty of research and dashed hopes, I finally accepted the result: I could only be happy with an SLR -- again.

In the opening months of 2008 I surveyed the features available in dSLRs, and prioritized what I found important. I was willing to look past a few of them, but I was certain that internal stabilization would improve too many images to ignore (recall that lens-IS was still relatively hard to find). That left me with Olympus, Sony and Pentax for more study. I wasn't into AA power despite my 40mm lens on the shelf, and my E510 tests came up short - so the Alpha 200 became my new favorite camera.

big cameras & long hikes part2

1997 - my descent into madness. Everything was just fine, until we decided to hurry to a lakeside camp in the central Sierra. While preparing to cross a stream I tossed my water-bottle across, where it gently landed in a clump of shrubbery. Then I got stupid, deciding the camera could do that and avoid a plunge with me into the shallow creek. You guessed it: it bent the shrubs, then catapulted onto rocks and into the creek. Boy did I cross in a hurry!! I removed the film and dried it out, and the next afternoon the camera was fine. Can't say the same for the 40-105 lens, whose mount was slightly canted; the rest of the trip, half my shots turned out (the left side!). Stupid, embarrassing - and two consecutive years that a large camera failed to justify the weight. Sure both were my fault - but I had to bring myself along, so the camera took the fall (ouch).

one of the pre-fall shots


1998 - A triumphant return to the Wind Rivers, with Program Plus and a 24mm lens. It was also a flawless set of images, almost like normal again! Most memorable in many ways, but the day we needed good weather was of course the day it was its worst. Oh well, that's how the wilderness works - and oh those bugs!


1999 - Every ten years was an extra-Big Trip, so we kept tradition alive with an ambitious cross-country Sierra ramble. I was cutting weight like mad, and went with just the 40mm f/2.8 pancake lens. Incredibly sharp, a little bit wide.. and challenging in such a spectacular area.



It was a fine trip and I brought back some great images - yet my love of such bulk was wearing thin. Simple compact 35mm cameras now had 28-80mm zooms, and of course the film size didn't vary; why carry something so large for a small image improvement? Also, a small digital camcorder came along on the last two trips (the '93 trip was a larger type); that form of recording was growing on me, and could take poor stills on a chip.. would that format would be my next main medium?

And so I entered my Dark Years of imaging.

big cameras & long hikes part1

My love-hate relationship with SLRs came to a head during big hiking trips. Seeing a few shots of the Sierra triggered my flashback to what I've experienced on long backpacks, so here goes with a few long-ago memories. Apologies for the bad scans from my slide-shooting days!

1979 - My first Big Trip, into Wyoming's Wind River Range. I believe I had my Praktica SuperTL, a 50mm f/1.8 lens, and perhaps a 2x or 3x teleconverter. I know I had nothing wider, or I'd have done a far better job with the images. I took some great shots, but I also had my first (and sadly, not last) SLR failure. While taking a photo of granite rock from point-blank range the camera strap failed, and the camera hit very hard. I was in shock, as was the camera: it failed to take images, early on day two of a 5-day hike and just as I approached the most scenic part of the trip! I rewound the film, investigated everything I could reach, but the shutter would not trip. After several minutes I decided to crank the shutter to B and see if something changed: amazingly, a loud clunk shivered the camera when it went to B, and everything returned to normal. Stunned by my good fortune, and fearful it would swiftly end, I shot the Cirque of the Towers like mad, using an entire 36-exposure roll within about 50 feet of walking. (I knew at the time that a wide-angle lens needed to be in my bag, and that I'd have to return here to use it.) The remainder of the trip was saved as the camera never failed again - but boy was I spooked by it!


1989 - Ten years later it was the Sierra Nevada, and a Pentax SLR. Wish I could recall which lens went along, but no one has a shot of me with it. A gorgeous trip, and as best I can remember the camera performed flawlessly.


1993 - The next trip failed on several counts. I brought an SLR and a video cam, wishing to try my hand at 'action' wilderness shots, but the main failure was one of acclimation. My system breakdown at 10000' near Pine Creek Pass, Sierra Nevada was not SLR but altitude sickess; as I was hiking solo I was forced to retreat without meeting my hiking partner on day three. Bad memories, and few images!


Other trips were planned but postponed - then the camera errors began to haunt me..

1996 - A return to Pine Creek brought smaller headaches to me, but massive ones to my camera. Despite carrying a spare battery for my camera, I did not see its warnings and so shot a ton of underexposed shots, mostly in the morning when the battery was weakest. Afternoon shots tended to turn out, but it was a real pain to see these after the fact. Irreplacable sunrise shots and other great memories.. but some good ones too! It took a lot of time in a rental darkroom to retrieve some details, but many were lost and only remain in my fragile memory-book..

how many cPL filters? + bridge zoom

It happens to any lens collector at some point: how often will a polarizing filter be attached to a particular lens? Few lens suppliers spend energy on 'standardizing' their filter threads, but polarizers are expensive - so when to say when?

In my case I'm trying to stop at two: the 58mm and 67mm sizes that fit my 16-45 and 55-300 Pentax lenses. I have a 55 and 72 from my Alpha days though, but would prefer not to carry so many! I picked up the big set of step-up rings (eight, I think); my 50mm lens now has 52-55-58 (2 rings) which not only adapt the filter, it makes for a decent though shallow hood! I can take the 55-58 plus filter for my 135mm, and the 67mm size fits my Rikenon 28-100 just fine. Problem with that one is that it's a really heavy lens at 605g, I fear it's not long for my bag as it's over my personal weight limit.

I'm seeking a 'tweener zoom to bridge the 16-45 and 55-200, as the 50 is great but at times a bit of zoom would improve composition. Something in the range of that 28-100 is good, but smaller would be more used - I've sought in vain for a Sigma 28-80 f/2.8-4 (and its 58mm thread size!). In the meantime I've bid on a 28-135 Sigma that could go with me on many unscripted walks when 16 won't be needed and 300 is too large; we'll see if that bid wins in a day or so. I had hoped that 16-45, 50, 55-300 would be 'perfect' for me, but of course I'm not perfect so why should I expect it elsewhere? :^)

farewell A200

My first dSLR sold and was shipped away yesterday. I could have posted to an auction site and probably made more, but the hassle factor was too much - so someone got a very good deal! So now it's K-7 for 'everything', though my Casio P505 is my small and able backup. My wife's Canon A720 also does great work, especially now that Eneloop batteries keep it running forever (it hated alkaline, like so many cameras do today). We're all geared up, looking for a vacation to throw itself at us.

new tools.. er toys.. no really, tools!!

Since picking up the K-7 and a few lenses, I have been buying some accessories as well. Here's the story so far...

* second battery, generic
It charged up just fine, and the camera still functions and shows battery-life readout. I've been using it for several days with no incident. Let's face it though: both Pentax and generic have been charged only once, so this will need updating in a year or two! Since their disclaimer inferred that the camera might not display the battery's status, I thought I'd state that in my case, it does.

* nested set of step-up rings
These come as a massive set, sent by mail from Hong Kong. I didn't need them all so a surplus sale is coming soon. These allow me to step from 52mm to 58 so my current cPL can be attached to my Rikenon 50/2 using two rings (52-55+55-58). The bonus here is a cheap and short hood for the lens! I will also keep the 62-67 step just in case, since I have a 67mm cPL as well.

* Seculine Twin1R3-UT remote, wireless and wired capabilities
This sounded good, and hey it is good! I can use it as a wired remote and it uses no battery power, or it can become a wireless transmitter if that's important. Supposedly has a great range, and oh yeah it can be a flashing white light for .. well, some reason can be found for that I'm sure. I tested it with the wire and with battery out: works! I then pulled the wire and added the battery: works too! Yes, so does the flasher.. whoopee.

* Paint Shop Pro X2 Ultimate
The $20 price was too good to refuse.. but I haven't loaded it yet. I have Elements 6 and it met all my needs for Sony's A200, plus I've learned its features pretty well - so it should do my K-7 just as well. I think I will let this go unopened, and accept a few less dollars as the price of jumping on irresistible sales.

* 58 and 67mm polarizing filters
The 58mm purchase was a complete auction fluke, I looked for one and found a lightly-used Hoya right before this auction closed. It was an excellent price and looks/feels great, better than the 67mm Ritz mid-range model I bought in town. Both should do fine.

* 52mm UV
Just in case a UV filter can reduce veiling glare on my Rikenon 50. Well, let it be known that it doesn't - it may help a bit, but not enough to warrant more rigorous testing. Here's the before/after:

pushing buttons

Today I tried something that I've never succeeded at doing right: multiple exposures! It was not something I tried often with film, and for good reason: my cameras never made it easy to do. With the K-7 it was two or three buttons and done. I then cropped it in-camera as well, which I'd never done on a dSLR but had managed with my Casio P505. The result was easy, and quite nice. My wife had been doing some math problems earlier, so I shot her book then her in the kitchen; a quick crop boiled it down to essentials.

Once again, I'm impressed with this camera's abilities.

DAL55-300 and the moon

 
I must say, this turned out nicely. This is a well-cropped jpg image, with highlights tweaked and sharpness bumped up in Picasa. I was leaning against the car, so well-supported but hand-braced. That's all right for 300mm f/7.1 by my standards. When I click on it here & bring it up to full size, it's easy to see the 'crazing' pattern that Picasa's sharpening created though.

My PK manual-focus lenses (mid-July edition :^)

With 16-45 and 55-300 in hand, I'm satisfied that I have excellent glass that can manage the K-7 resolution. I'd like to have less of a gap, but most of the ways to do that would be incompatible with my style - I really like lightweight optics, so for example going for f/2.8 for telephoto isn't worth its weight in gold or glass. On the other hand, going with manual-focus glass has been fun so far; here's what I have in the bag today!

- Rikenon-P 50mm f/2
This is my gap-filler between the two Pentax zooms. It's small and light, even more than the 50/2 Pentax-A. I believe it to be sharper in focus than the Pentax (which I owned briefly), but the Rikenon shows poorer bokeh in shots thus far. It needs more examination and practice to learn its ups and downs. It takes 52mm filters rather than 49mm like most lenses of this type. It is a gap-filler in more ways than one, as I hope to replace it with a f/1.7 or 1.4 copy some day.

- Rikenon-P 28-100 f/4
Another of the P series from Ricoh, their auto-aperture equivalent to Pentax-A. NOT TRUE - Rikenons must be left off P mode and used in stop-down metered manual with Pentax (or always shot wide open)! This lens had issues that were resolved with a few dabs of super glue, as noted in a previous posting. While it admirably fills the gap between 16-45 and 55-300 lenses, it's quite a burden: at 605g it violates my lightweight-lens policy. Given its range and manual focus design, it will be a specialty lens with trips of its own. Besides its decent equivalent of 43-155mm range, it can focus to about 2" off the front element, a handy feature now and then. I prefer the DA 16-45's close focus at all focal lengths to the Rikenon, which can only do so at 28mm. Flare is devastating to image contrast on this lens, and pretty much all lenses not made in the past 5-10 years; my Minolta lenses from the mid-80s had the same issue. One of the reasons I chose this lens is its 67mm filter size, which matches the 16-45; the DA's hood will not fit on this, but at least it's one less cPL filter to purchase.

- Rikenon XR 135 f/2.8
The third of my Ricoh trifecta, purchased at goodwill online ($11 plus shipping). Many companies have 135mm lenses ranging from f/2.5 to 3.5; when I saw this was available, I decided to split the difference. It's a nice lens but has no P setting(IRRELEVANT, see red note above), so it's all manual all the time. Images are very nice, both sharpness in focus and bokeh are excellent.

- auto-Chinon 28mm f/2.8
This lens has been in my garage for some time, attached to an old Chinon film camera that was supposed to be for astronomy. I pulled it out as soon as I began using Pentax dSLRs again; it works quite well and has a nice minimum focus for sligtly-distorted closeups.

- generic 2x teleconverter
The seller of my Rikenon 50mm threw in a 2x TC, which was a nice surprise; I had considered purchasing a 1.4x for future work, but the price is right on this so for now it'll do. I haven't tried it with the 28-100 or 135 yet, that should prove interesting!


Wish list - every photographer has one, whether it's admitted or not!
I bought the DA16-45 to satisfy my wide-angle tastes, so I do not expect a 10-xx or 12-xx zoom to sweep me away. It's possible that a small prime in the 14-16mm range could do so however, perhaps even a fisheye. On the other end, a long tele could get some use, and I like the compactness of catadioptric mirror designs; maybe some day I'll let a 500mm cheapie into the lineup, though I'd prefer a mythical 400mm version. Neither an extreme wide or telephoto prime would get much use though, so not a priority now that the 16-300 range is covered.

more DAL55-300 shots

 
Bokeh effect, zoom range for DAL 55-300
 

Testing the DAL55-300.. and the K-7

 
taken at 300mm across the Willamette River to downtown Portland.

I took the 55-300 out on the town today. It's a nice lens with some great features: relatively small and light, f/4.5 to 200mm (though instantly f/5.6 soon after), fairly quick to focus (though whiny, and no override like the DA version or my 16-45) and sharp to my eyes at all focal lengths. Its bokeh is less amazing in some cases though, but I was not working hard to learn about it; most likely some settings will look better than others. The 55-300 range is very nice, with short tele and extra length all in one package; I find that much more valuable than 1:2 'macro' of the 3rd-party 70-300 types. I do wish I had looked harder at the want ads though, for a few dollars more I could have picked up a used DA model. They've sold now, though more will likely follow - so I need to make a decision. If I send this back I have nothing beyond 135mm in my collection, which is a bit limiting (though with gorgeous bokeh and f/2.8 when needed).

A note about K-7 white balance: it did not perform well under bright blue skies. That might be because I ordered it shipped to western Oregon, so blue-sky balance isn't common :^) but my Alpha A200 did better. I need to check a few other settings too, I tried a few custom menu items that might have shifted more than I expected. So many options on the K-7, and thus far so little time to learn!

lens surgery

“Successful surgery” can mean many things: complete restoration, something replaced with improved components.. or as in this case, removing a few bad parts to return something to a state close to its original condition. Although the lens isn’t exactly Fixed, I still deem my efforts a success!

 

I picked up a tired copy of a Rikenon-P 28-100 f/4 lens recently. I tightened a few handy screws around the edges, but the front element was shifting forward and back in the zoom assembly, leading to random focus. Given the price I paid and its near-useless condition, I decided to go into the lens and find the problem, and hopefully solve it. Four screws allowed the front portion to come off - one was stuck then stripped, so gentle application of my drill "solved" that problem. Once removed I found that the front portion of the lens was not the problem: the zoom mechanism that it attached to was the source of the troublesome wobble. I tried several ways to reach the heads of several loose screws which I could see through the assembly from the backside, but had no luck - the "access panel" was held by tiny flathead screws (I've misplaced that screwdriver), and they were securely glued in any case. After a few other attempts to break in, I went to plan 'B': a drop of super glue on the backside of each screw. Once set, that trick cured the wobble for good.

Reassembly was another adventure: two small metal inserts needed to be reattached, one to keep the lens from focusing beyond infinity and the other to prevent unscrewing the front element beyond minimum focus. I was successful at first (another drop of glue would need to replace the drilled-out screw), but something was not aligned right - focus and/or zoom were grinding near infinity and 100mm. One of the inserts was not behaving, so off came the front piece again. I decided that focus past infinity was not a real problem as it could only go so far (though I need to check that elements are not making contact!), so I left out that insert. Once the minimum-focus support was screwed down the lens worked again – better than ever since the wobble was gone. Whoopee!

This was quite demanding work! It took several attempts to get the front end to match properly with the rest of the lens, necessary to get focus where the markings indicated. The screws I could not undo also locked the focus ring in place, so I couldn’t ‘fake’ this. It was spooky dealing with the tiny screws, and I had to do it several times - but I had done it back in the ‘80s with a useless lens, and given enough patience the results were worthwhile. Other than its 605g weight this is a fun and flexible manual-focus lens, and its P setting allows Pentax cameras to perform auto-aperture exposure functions NOT TRUE - must be used off P setting in stop-down manual mode w/Pentax!. Its 'macro' setting reaches just inside 1:4, and the 67mm filter is already in my bag with the 16-45 DA. Flare will wreck the contrast with this lens, and I do not have a hood - so a spare hand or other light-block is critical for shooting toward the sun. Maybe a screw-on flexible hood attached beyond the cPL is in order - that could also be used on the 16-45, although its own hood is far more suitable. We shall see. I still have the spare screw and focus-stop, so if need be I can go back in - hope that isn't needed though!

gear switch: comparing my Pentax gear to Sony

I've switched over to the Pentax K-7 as my primary camera, and picked up a few good lenses (and some perhaps less so) along the way. Here is my quick evaluation of where I now stand compared to four months ago.

K-7 vs. A200 - no surprise it's a major change, almost entirely for the good. Much of what I found important enough to buy the A200 in 2008 is still here: onboard image stabilization, dynamic-range boost, and the image qualities that only big sensors can deliver. Their sizes are nearly identical, which ironically is why I switched: Sony's A700 features were quite similar to the K-7 but it's too large for my comfort. Sony's recent trend has been small camera = limited features, so given that I'd need to re-learn a new Sony interface it might just as well be a Pentax interface. For the same size (and a price difference <$200, two years later) I have all the features I seek: durability (e.g. weather seals & long-life shutter), versatility (more exposure options, 1/8k second shutter speed) and features I didn't have before (mirror lockup, metering follows AF point). I also have live view and a movie mode; these two features DID NOT factor into my decision, Sony - sorry to break it to you. I've tried LV twice with mixed success, and haven't shot a movie yet in a month. Nice that they are there for my future learning, but not needed at present.

AF lenses - the DA 16-45 was a surprising choice on the surface, as it was replacing my Sigma 17-70. I really liked the range on the latter, but had always wanted an affordable 16mm lens, whether fixed or zoom. I had hoped to catch an A700/16105 kit but had no luck, and the camera was too big in any case - but now I was sacrificing a lot of reach for that 16mm spot. Since the samsung sensor is actually a tiny bit smaller than Sony's, the 16 v 17 is even less vital - but I liked the price and the features so there it is. And the results are amazing, as sharp as the 17-70 but with higher sensor resolution to make it work. Losing f/2.8-3.5 isn't a big deal, less important to me than losing 100g off the lens weight. If the K-7 weighs more, at least its lenses can make up for it. I've owned some impressively sharp lenses in my Sony time, most notably the Minoltas 35-105 Macro and 100-200 f/4.5; the DA 16-45 fits in the same class of glass to my mind. That might be the four extra megapixels talking - but in any case it's very very good, and holds up well on a 14M-pixel camera.

For telephoto, my DAL 55-300 arrives next week; it is highly regarded in reviews by both owners and websites. The DA would be better still, but a few less grams (and dollars) persuaded me to forget its lack of quick-shift focus and non-metal mount. It could be a short-term lens for me if Pentax announces a weather-sealed version of this lens, but the DA and DAL are optically identical and are both under 450g, quite light for such a range. It's similar to the Tamron 70-300 that I attached to the A200 and which has closer 'macro' ability. We'll chat later about how the two compare in use. I used the Sigma 55-200 for a month with the Pentax, which outperformed Sony's well-liked zoom of identical range (both good for sharpness, but the SAL55200 had far more pincushion distortions at the longer end).

With three lenses (16-45, a 50 prime and 55-300) I will have a very versatile kit (though no weather-sealed lenses) that should do me for a while!

MF lenses - for now I'm scrimping a bit on the 50mm prime, having picked up a bargain Rikenon-P f/2.0 lens at auction. I had a Pentax-A 50 for a bit, but a shrewd bargainer took it from me along with the 55-200. The Ricoh lens is a touch sharper in focus but has spikier bokeh, so the images as a whole were slightly better with the Pentax. I also have a Chinon 28mm and a Rikenon XR 135, both f/2.8 lenses that work very well (though it's hard to prove they are sharply focused on the default focus screen, the AF confirmation does give guidance). These lenses have served me well but are not auto-aperture, so M-mode only for these (the 50mm P is the same as Pentax-A lenses so other modes are available). NOT TRUE - P mode only shoots wide open, must use stop-down manual metering w/Pentax!
Last but not least - well, maybe least - I have another Ricoh P lens, the Rikenon 28-100 f/4.0 Macro. It's a fun but heavy lens (605g), and it's lived a full life i.e. the front elements can shift a bit and fall out of focus. It's fun to play with but can be a little frustrating if you aim up or down. And like all of the MF lenses from long ago, flare is quite debilitating so I must carefully keep light from hitting the front glass. As long as that's done images are quite good.

That's it for now, thanks for listening!

A great team: K-7 and DA16-45

 

This is a default jpg with nice contrasts. I had hoped to get the deep red foliage and spiky spruce, but the detail in the spruce branch was a surprise. Now I know the difference between 10 and 14 megapixels: my previous camera would not have hit me like this, and it had some excellent Minolta glass on it. I'm really impressed at how this turned out!