improving the Pentax kit

Now that I've owned pretty much every sub-$400 lens at least once :-) I am forced to conclude that the gear needs revamping.  Oh yes, this is something I have a lot of experience in - but hopefully the learning process has allowed a few lessons to sink in.

Many ways can make sense with a set of lenses, and often one calls one lens 'ideal' then builds an imperfect kit around it. My problem comes from trying to solve simultaneous equations with a few variables left unsolved.   I want weather-resistant lenses that all take the same filter size, are small and light and with the best IQ available for under $400 .. well, that really won't do, it's just too much to ask.  Let's whittle it down a bit.

My current prime setup has been all-manual (focus and aperture) with 28, 50 and 135mm covered.  I have owned more, including a 24mm and the DA 35/2.4, but I don't really use primes enough to keep a bunch of them around.  A major gap in the 80-100mm range has been troublesome, but that's macro territory and therefore beyond my budget - yet somehow a Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 fell through the auction system and into my lap. This non-Di model is one generation back from brand new - so now my primes are joined by one of the best lenses ever made. Maybe that's hyperbole, but the dyxum site (Minolta) rates it 4.8/5 and Pentax owners go 9.2/10 - so maybe it's real.  My tests show it to be most impressive and likely my best current lens & perhaps best ever.
Late addition - found a DA 35/2.4 at Amazon, so my prime kit is becoming more automatic & less manual.  At just over $150 this lens is easily worth having, even at the expense of the faster 50mm Rikenon.  This deal puts a few other primes on the block.

As to mid-tele zooms, I've tried copies of the Pentax 50-200 (two flavors) and the 55-300 (in DAL and DA form) as well as a 100-300mm Quantaray (that one was better than I expected, by a long way).  While I love the 50-200's compact size and 52mm filter size, the 55-300 does a better job in too many ways. I found a DA 55-300mm f/4.0-5.8 in excellent condition recently at a great price; when free shipping became available it became mine.  That's really all the telephoto I need so let's finally stop working to improve on excellence.

I've tried nearly every available wide-standard zoom under $350: DA 18-55 (regular and WR) and 16-45 (twice), Sigma's 17-70 and 18-50 (both f/2.8-4.5) plus their original 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3, and Pentax' DA 18-135WR as well.  Each was a good news/bad news lens, whether by design or by my luck of the draw.  Since WR is really important to me, I have three choices: 18-55, 18-135 and the beyond-budget 16-50.  Given these facts, the 18-55 will do until I hear of something that works better for me.


* The K200d is my tool of choice, but finances may be freeing up a bit for a lunge at the K-5 during its temporary (?) price drop.  That would require very good optics to do its best.. and now I have some that easily qualify. On the other hand the k-r is about to be replaced, and if Ricoh/Pentax design a midrange WR body with the 12M- or 16M-pixel Sony sensor that will be worthy of my attention.

trying another new trick

Personally, I have never given HDR much thought.  Like so many computer enhancements, it was often overdone and very unnatural.  I even disliked HDR as a term, since many times no true black remained - it was a skewed DR that made everything bright but nothing really dark, quite unlike the world I live on.

Recently I saw some images more to my liking and decided to look into it a bit more.  I picked out a raw image that I had tweaked to my satisfaction, showing Mts. Rainier and St.Helens from north Portland (yes, Rainier is that big!).  This was an alpenglow image at high FL on my F550exr.  I then gave it a quick dash through a PS-Elements plugin called ReDynamix, which is fast and came with a free-trial mode.

This was produced quite swiftly.. a bit too swiftly, as I can see issues that show I was a little rushed.  I took the sunset colors away without meaning to, and magenta-tinted trees doesn't come across as realistic.. but not as bad as I often think of when HDR comes up.  So the result of this first test, while not quite right as a finished product, is quite satisfactory.  Guess I'll pay the price for that plugin, which right now is .. wow, a mere $16 at http://www.mediachance.com/plugins/redynamix.html

F550 more impressions

A simple test of whether a camera 'works' for you is to count the surprises, and see if the good ones outnumber the bad ones. Here is a case where I fully expected a fairly well-exposed building and a lot of silhouettes - and I didn't get that. As far as metering goes the F550 did a very good job!  I was walking as I snapped this, so no points off for sharpness or composition this time :^)

Now on the other hand, you can see the oft-reviled lens' tendency to go kaleidoscopic - in this case it just seems to be a purplish halo, but in extreme cases it's made up of several colors. So while I will not claim this image is anything near perfect, I am more impressed than disappointed.

..so what about the Pentax kit?

Recent posts have been all about the F550, but the K200d is still around. My Pentax kit of the recent past has mutated faster than .. well no analogy comes to mind, it's been that bad. Why is that? Long story..

The past two years have seen great chaos in our personal life, and it's been reflected in my camera gear. In early 2010 my Sony A200 and some Minolta lenses ruled, and our health was under control. I switched over to Pentax as a trial run, picking up a refurb K100d - and I liked it. About a month later my dream camera, the K-7, went on sale for a record-low price (back in the cashback days of yore) - exit K100, enter K-7. About that time my bride started experiencing strange medical symptoms and visiting specialists, but things felt like they were under control. While that was going on, however, I was learning the K-7 was not a great fit for me; it's very much a right-eye camera and I've been a left-eye VF viewer since the mid-70s.

After Thanksgiving 2010, medical issues became a big thing - therefore medical bills did too. Given my ambivalence toward the K-7 and our tightening belt, I let it go along with several nice lenses and picked up a K200d. It worked very well for me, though its low-light limitations were apparent.  After a few months my wife's condition stabilized, which allowed me to look around for fresher options. At that point I found a barely-used k-x and grabbed it: farewell K200d (and strong weather resistance..).  In too short a time I found a great deal on the k-r; I let the k-x go, a move I would later regret as the k-x fit my hands a smidge better for equal image quality. Although I was limiting myself to $50 bids on auction sites (most of the time), it's amazing just how many lenses $50 could buy in a tight economy - so the lens collection got large rather swiftly.

Then the medical issues returned with a vengeance, demanding fresh budget cuts - so farewell to almost all my PK gear, and welcome back to another gently-used K200d and kit lenses. A couple of bargain primes and a Rikenon zoom remained, but the kit is much smaller. And that's where I stand today, waiting a clearer medical signal & keeping a low profile on auction sites.

I reluctantly stretched the budget a bit when I found the F550exr for $175, as I knew that was about $80 below its typical price. I even tried to cancel the order, but it came - and now I'm glad I have it. The budget flexed that far but no further. Maybe in six months the budget will allow me to dream again.. but maybe not.

As to my next Pentax?  Right now, that's a tough one. The obvious choice is the K-5, but my re-training to a right-eye shooter is still a work in progress. What I would choose above all is a weather-sealed k-x, or put another way a K200d with the 12Mpixel k-r sensor. Perhaps Ricoh/Pentax will choose to offer a sealed camera below the K-5, but I would not bet on that happening. Many Pentax users have asked for this (and a WR version of the 55-300!) but Hoya/Pentax was not interested. In the meantime the k200d will serve me well.

F550 - finding the limits

OK, today was push day, where I tried high ISO and other extreme shooting to push the F550 over the edge. I must say that, although the image below is blurred from slow shutter speed, the image itself is within my tolerance for iso3200 noise on a jpeg image. Going to 6400 shows some banding though, so (no surprise) that's a bad idea for a 1/2" sensor! Note that the bizarre mottled sky is in fact city-lit clouds with the first light of dawn behind them - so that's pretty much what the sky looked like at 6:40AM.

Even pushing up the fill light shows no banding on the iso3200 shots I took. I expect banding would show in underexposed images with fill light added - but it doesn't show if exposure is close. Since I don't delibereately underexpose high-iso shots and them boost them for shadow detail, this is not a deal breaker for me.  To stop at iso3200 and expose well is perfectly acceptable for a camera that I can pull from my pocket. If I ever feel the need to shoot that way, then I will need to find a different camera; my K200d dSLR isn't ideal for that either.

As to the zoom lens - many other web sites speak about its kaleidoscopic flare, and I'm able to reproduce that. It's not common on shots I took where I expected to produce it, so another not-so-big deal; I have images of twilit fields with lamps and they do not reveal it at reasonable exposure levels. Here it is - but this is cropped and fill light added to make it look its worst!


Here's another lens issue, a shot of the moon that shows some color fringing (especially the cyan on top). This is a huge crop of a bright object in a dark sky, so again not a shot I would choose this camera for most of the time.


So the results are unsurprising, at least to me: this camera does typical shots extremely well, but can take 'bad' images if pushed too far or in difficult situations. Its iso noise is better than my 3-year-old K200d (with aps-c sensor) when shooting jpeg, which I find surprising and impressive. If I were holding a 2010-11 Pentax (either k-x, k-r or K-5) the contest would end in a hurry; I had under $200 to buy a camera part though, so those bodies are not avaible, nor is a fast Pentax-mount zoom. I feel that this was a very good imaging investment for where I am now, and for what I usually shoot. It's a keeper.

F550 tests: zoom range

Here is a four-panel zoom sequence arranged clockwise, with no particular spacing attempted within the range. The equivalent FL shows as 25-370 in Picasa rather than the advertised 24-360; close enough in my book, too close to measure.

That's not bad, especially considering that it all fits in a jacket or cargo-pants pocket.

---

Oh why not one more, zoomed in just between the buildings & in front of the gold tree: look closely and you can see the red car in the left image, and easily read the clock on the right one.

F550 proof of concept - panoramas

OK, other than leaning a bit (corrected here) I've now managed a click & spin panorama.

This is not something I expect to use often, but times will reveal themselves once one has the tools. Certainly on the far left one can see some distortion; this is not fully wide but nearly so, therefore no surprise. Exposure looks good and my cursory look shows not massive disconnects in the stitching. I've stitched no more than five panos in my time (using PS Elements), so it wasn't a huge sales point on the F550 - just another interesting feature for the great price break I saw on a day of weakness.. :^)

proof of concept: Raw recovery from a small (EXR) sensor

I now am test-driving a Fuji F550exr. Why? Several reasons:

• available for $175 'used'
• 24-360 equivqlent FL
• EXR modes to provide expanded dynamic range or better signal/noise performance
• Raw capture
• manual mode + P/A/S automation*
• back-side illuminated CMOS
• HD + a few hi-speed video options
• instant panorama mode
• multi-shot NR mode
• and a great price for all the above. 

 Yes, the price was good enough to mention twice - this was a 'used-very good' grab at Amazon's marketplace, their version of the Land of Misfit Toys - some times they're merely misunderstood, of course, so people return them without an objective reason.  Price alone is nice but I do not buy a camera just because it's under $200; this one is here because it's pretty much unique at that price for the features it offers.  For me, if a sub-$200 raw-image-capable camera if available, it's worth considering! This dense, pocketable camera also has GPS if you're into that - but bring a spare battery or two in that case.

 

This collage is both images from a Raw+jpg, clearly a harshly-lit scene (expecially for a 1/2.0" sensor) - but Raw processing nearly pulled out a miracle here. This was less than 5 minutes' work in PS Elements 9. It nearly brought back every washout, and detail came back in the wreath - and in both cases the larger print on the lower part of the door is legible. OK, I'm impressed.

* If one seeks the down sides, note that this is a 2-aperture camera with a third via ND filtration. It should also be noted that Fuji's EXR modes are accessible in several ways, only few of which are made clear in the virtual owners' manual - check forums and blogs for best settings. This complexity probably results in indifferent online reviews (and returns to the Amazon Marketplace!)  I must take the word of bloggers and forum members for now, as it's really quite baffling.. makes one wonder if even Fuji knows what their sensors can do!  


Right now I've gone with the common wisdom of M image size, 400% DR recovery and P setting, but occasionally go to auto-EXR and watch what it selects.  Sure, now I've 'crippled' it to mostly 8Mpxl shooting in M mode - but it's great there, and it's shooting Raw!  If you think this is stupid, the camera is not for you.


Note - here is a great source for Fuji real-world info, linked especially to a post on what M image size brings to the table over the full 16Mpixel shots.  Kim has tested many different cameras over time and has taken the time to see what works, documented or otherwise.  Worth browsing his site (and his site has an index... why don't I? :^).

what's wrong with this picture?

Surely something is wrong - definitely from a technical standpoint, valid points can be made. But it's not bad: given the low light and strong wind it's fairly sharp.

  Really though - what is wrong? Let me put it another way - this shot used an 18-200 Sigma zoom lens. Ah, now we know what's wrong: not only is it an oft-reviled "superzoom", it's an 18-200. For reasons that elude me the 18-200 is less liked than the 18-125 that it replaced - and prices reflect that. It's also downgraded by its new cousins, the larger, creepier & expensive 18-250 and 18-270 models. Sure this one has no HSM and no IS, but Pentax has focus and stabilizers enough for my satisfaction.

This is the third time I've owned the Sigma 18-200. The first time was on my A200, and among other things it beat out the 17-70 Sigma as my backpacking lens on our 2009 Sierra hike. An even greater heresy is that it outdueled a Tamron 18-250 - they were to my eye a draw on IQ, and the 18-200 was lighter and did not creep. (Another factor was the resale value on the far-less-reviled 18-250 - in fact the 18-250 sale paid for the 18-200 and most of the 17-70!)

Last year I got a very good deal on a Pentax-mount copy, but like much of my gear it was sent to new owners during a budget crunch. I didn't expect to pick up another, but my recent life has been unexpected in more ways than I can count. Because this is the 18-200 its former owner was forced to cut prices to make a sale, at which point it reached my point of no return. The previous copy was a very good price, but this one was $60 less! With a few more good tests it could put the DA50-200 on the block, at which point this lens could cost me under $40 net.

Especially with that in mind, I see nothing wrong with this picture! :^)

before.after

Sometimes one sees a photo, but not see it. This was a fine example - great color, decent leaf patterns, but lousy light & no tripod. The plant is nice, but only nice. The colors are the thing though, so why not zoom while that slow exposure is going on? And so I did. Amusingly, the EXIF says this was shot at 31mm; true, but only part of the story..

a fine, wet day..

and therefore the perfect day for the k200d and 18-55wr lens to take a walk!

The day was quite gloomy from start to end, and the last few days of rain brought many leaves to the ground. Made for great patterns above and below! It's very nice to have a camera in hand with no worries about where the drips land.

These shots in RAW were psychadelic in their colors; I desaturated them quite a lot here. Perhaps too much, but closer to what I saw in the gloomy grey of late day.

Coming home through the park I found an unoccupied bench.. what a surprise.

this is only a test.

I still wonder how Amazon can do this: sell a new camera, take it back, resell it as Used-VeryGood, and still allow easy returns! I try not to overdo this, fearing at some point it may not be available - yet here it is.

I have been thinking again about something more compact, a camera that can do it much (surely not all!) while fitting in a pocket. I have watched all the new tricks come out for better low-light imaging: backlit sensors, multi-shot NR and the like. Last year I tried a Ricoh CX model, but it was from the pre-backlit-sensor era, and images were not enough better than my six-yr-old Casio - so thanks Amazon, please take this one back :^)

Fuji had nearly disappeared from the advanced-camera scene after the E900 and S6000 cameras; I nearly bought each of those, but decided to hold off for their replacements. The E series died, and the S series went to non-Super CCDs - no thank you! For a while the SuperCCD became nearly extinct. Recently it was reborn as the EXR sensor, which uses a curious sensor array that allows pixel binning and multi-level chip readout to make images in new ways. I was considering the F300, but with the 500 model the SuperCCD was replaced by an EXR CMOS design now. While CCD images are special, CMOS brings new things to the table like fast burst speeds, a range of video options and less energy drain - and the EXR design is backlit too, bringing improvements to higher-ISO images. The F550 and F600 even allow for RAW shooting, with a bit of a speed penalty. They are 16Mpixel chips, which I feel is way too many pixels on a pinkie-nail sensor.. but they can mutate into 8M superpixels with the EXR binning.

Anyway, a few appeared on the Amazon site in 'used-very good' shape. I tried this before and found what appeared to be an unused camera in front of me - so I am willing to try again! An EXR F550 will arrive in a few days for my testing pleasure. No, it cannot sub for a K-5 in many conditions, but it will fit in far more pockets - and since I have not been in situations lately where the absolute best camera is needed, this just might do. And if you want more info on real-world uses for the EXR cameras, you cannot do much better than to visit this site!

old dog, new trick: L.a.b. color space?

Someone at AlphaMountWorld pointed out this link as another way to process images. It's interesting to try a new thing, and my copy of Elements has the SmartCurve plugin which allows for L.a.b. processing - so I gave it a tryout.

Here's the before/after image of a recent shot with the k200d. I really liked the leaves, but clearly the image was too warm judging from the bark. The L.a.b. setup allowed me to preserve the color balance in the leaves yet adjust other parts of the scene. Interesting!

Could I have done as well using RGB or another color space? Most likely.. but this was pretty quick. It definitely pays to try different methods of processing, just as it does trying different cameras before buying; the next one could fit you far better than the current one, and you'll never know for certain without trying.

edit -- I find the Y·Cb·Cr color space to be very similar, and that is one I had used in my early days of digital processing with LViewPro.  For quick manipulations I still use 1.D2 of that software, a great feature set for such a tiny package.

test every lens (no matter how many times you own a copy)!

Sure, I admit it: this is at least my third Pentax 18-55 lens. Each time the purchase, and the sale, made sense within its context. This time I own a WR camera with no WR lens.. so the DA 18-55WR makes plenty of sense.
 
Each time I change lenses I enter a column in my Excel 'data base', so in many cases I've been able to copy a column from the dead file to the live one. And each time the parameters change a smidge, so I test where the minimum f/ratio changes through the focal range, and take a quick shot of a ruler to count the mm and determine the close-focus ability.

In this case I picked a real close-focus winner among the many excellent 18-55s: this is very close to .4x (I see 62mm at close focus, so sensor size of 24/62 yields 0.39x). The specs say .34 and my previous were closer to that value. I did lose slightly on the f/ratio, but if you can tell the change at 35mm instead of 40mm you're better at it (and more concerned about it) than I.

Later tests against the DA 50-200 are less glowing, as the 50-200 at 50 bests the 18-55 at 55 when both are f/5.6 aperture. Also curious is that the FL values aren't quite aligned - so do I have a 55-200 or an 18-50? No big deal, just a curiosity.

k200d, autumn

Back in business, and on a more sensible budget! No more shooting an hour after dark with no tripod like the k-r, but when I can shoot I know the results will be excellent. A cool but fine day allowed me to bike home from work among the colors - here is a great example, trimmed and tweaked from jpeg.

An 18-55WR is coming soon, so weather beware: I'll be coming out rain or shine!

(note the later post on L.a.b. processing; I prefer that shot to the one here)

turnovers part II

If you go back to my March post you'll see how I sold my K-7 and 18-135 to improve the household budget. I settled in with a k200d and was satisfied.. for a while. The budget crunch eased a bit, a like-new k-x became available - and off I went again. The k-x became a k-r, and several lenses came swiftly. Some were bargains, others simply irresistible - but the result was too many lenses, especially considering that family health issues kept us from traveling to photogenic places. I took some great shots of the yard and my bike commutes to work.. but any camera could do such things justice.

Those medical bills have tightened our belts again, so here I am in a familiar spot - out with the new, in with another k200d! Other than a WR 18-55 (maybe next paycheck?) I have most focal lengths covered, and a few elder primes remain from the sell-off. To some degree I'm settling for old gear - but the k200d is an impressive camera, and while not a low-light champ the 10Mpixel sensor will meet my needs (like it did when its twin sat in my A200). It's also weather resistant, which is almost always a good thing here in the Pacific NW.

Looking back on my previous images with the k200d (like the one above), I see good images and memories of less stressful times. I'm looking forward to tacking many more images under the k200d banner!

the great purge of early fall 2011

Can I really hold to it this time? Will I actually reduce both the lens count and the focal-length redundancy that sits on shelves around me? Let's find out!

In the past week several lenses have departed, a few more are being considered, and a few leftovers will head for the donation bin. In some cases I have purchased 'replacements' - similar lenses found at bargain prices, but not a true purge in the technical sense.. :^)

When this is over the number of prime lenses will drop to 2 or 3, and zooms to 3 or maybe 4: not exactly sure yet which will win out. That's a sad commentary since I've owned a couple of them before and sold them, so how can I not know which I prefer?? Well, that too is technical - meaning I don't understand it either. Some days it's vital they all take 52mm filters, other days I'm compelled to go with the most versatile, or most compact, or ... like I said, I cannot explain what isn't clear to me, so enough. It does feel good to feed the credit-card bill though, that needed to happen.

Update - a week later and the shelves are nearly bare. Two zooms and three primes remain (but that count includes just one of three 50mm choices - still hoping for a sale or two to clean that mess up!).

going, going..

Another week later and the count is now one AF zoom (DA50-200, surprise!), the Rikenon 70-150 f/4 and three primes: 28/2.8, 50/1.4 and 135/3.5. That's it (note counting two tired zooms headed for the donation box). Also just the G1 body, as the k-r has been returned to its VISA origins. I will bid very low for a while and hope to return to Pentax, but for now this needs to be it. Surprises me to be here, but it will do for now.

how not to relax, part LXVIII

How about a 3½-day hike to help me relax? Sounds great.. until life intervenes. First it's the weather: none of my WA Cascades hikes will be available with 1-2" of rain in the forecast. Plan B minus is a long drive to the Wallowas, an excellent place to relax and clearly the best weather. So..

Day 0 - long drive, camp just after sunset in NE Oregon. Already dark, fire danger extreme and I just have a tarp, so a rough night in the car - oh, and 12 hours of darkness, welcome to autumn!

Day 1 of hike - start hiking at 9:30, arrive just before 5PM at Douglas Lake. Trails are poorly marked and my map skills are not great - and I've already blown out a blister on my left heel. Dinner was not to my liking, so about half of it came back to the trailhead. And strangely enough the camp was fogged in most of the night, at 7400 feet!

Day 2 - given the sore foot I'm thinking a loop over Glacier Pass is a bad idea, so I'm revising the plan. Today will end after a 45-minute walk to the infamous Mirror Lake, and I will retrace my route to exit. Instead I caught myself 1/3 of the way to Glacier Pass anyway, after taking a nonexistent trail around the Left side of Moccasin. I returned to Moccasin and found neither Glacier Pass nor Mirror Lake junctions - and a new blister has formed on the right heel. I sit down at the shore, soak my ruined heels in the lake and patch the blistered areas. Now I am getting upset: I've found a half-dozen "trails" that lead to illegal horse camps but no clear hiking trails to well-known destinations?!? The trail to Mirror Lake was never found, so I limped toward lower Horseshoe Lake to cut my losses (I'm a solo hiker and had seen no other people, so conservative play is the rule). By the time I reach there I'm so angry at the situation that I no longer want to stay an extra minute in this 'horse wilderness'. At 5:45 I'm back at the car, exhausted and limping. Camp is once again in the car, at Wallowa Lake park.

Day 3 - instead of 1½ more days of hiking, I'm driving back to Anacortes where my wife awaits. That is my fourth straight day of working myself to physical and/or mental exhaustion - somehow contrary to the "relaxation" plan.

So in summary - I have a few photos that may have turned out well, thanks to the K-r, 18-55 and 55-300 - but very few memories that I wish to share or relive. The drive was far too long, even for a 3½-day hike: four day hikes with a warm bed in Anacortes would have served me far better. Other than the excellent Z55 backpack and the nice weather, little comes to mind as positives. At least I was allowed to vegetate in Anacortes with few responsibilities, so I did an extra day of nothing - that's relaxing!

As to my errors, they are quite surprising to me. It has been a very long time since I had to find moleskin in my pack, and it was a great relief to find that the first-aid kit contained some (now nearly all gone). I have had so few foot issues in the wild I cannot recall the last time with certainty - it may have been 1998 in the Wind Rivers. As to my map and routefinding issues, they too are a shock as I have done several x-c navigations in my time. My feet required a trail this time. Taking the non-mapped route to the left of Moccasin Lake can only be seen as a confusion/repetition of seeing the route go to the left of the previous (Douglas) Lake. In any case failing to find the mapped path just below Moccasin that leads to Mirror plus no path to the right of Moccasin is a real head scratcher. In either case my maps were poor: the USFS Wilderness map is too small a scale to be useful here, and my Topo! printout plots a trail right through Douglas Lake which I chose to disregard. After Horseshoe Lake I found Zero trail markers, and given the number of horse paths I feel that this lack is not reasonable. Had I only gone via the main and not Alt path through the Basin this would not have happened - but my maps failed to show the 50-foot drop between the Basin trail and Douglas Lake, which is why I retreated to the Alt trail and a campsite. Waay too many 'if only's on this trip - so I'm done with it.

oh no: lens tests again!

 

So, I did it again. I trimmed my kit down, only to let it grow again. I fell for the Costco Principle: look how much I saved by.. er.. buying stuff! ? !! Slow learner, that's me -- assuming I'm learning at all.

I picked up a kit lens the best possible way: from the Ugly bin at KEH.com. I have yet to hear anyone complain after doing this; I am sure that some are quietly returned and no more is said, but what one tends to hear on forum sites is flat-out praise.

Now I'm one of them: in my case, Ugly meant no hood or front cap, but otherwise a great lens in excellent Ugly condition.

Then I began to lose it - first to a student down on his/her luck, then to a person leaving Pentax. So I should get a gold star for promting education (if not a tax break), and putting an ex-Pentax user out of their misery was nice of me too. But suddenly here I am with an 18-55 II kit lens, a DA16-45 and a 17-70 Sigma. I've liked the 17-70 since my Alpha days, and had one for the Pentax (why did I get rid of it, I wonder..). And I love the focal length of the 16-45.. well OK just the 16 part, that 45 part is why I've sold this one Twice before! And the kit? I hear Allan Iverson in an interview room somewhere, saying "we're talking 'bout KIT LENS, man. Really? KIT LENS?". But they're good, and often very good.

So - more tests. I hate lens tests, for two reasons: they are often of things I seldom shoot, and I screw them up. I screwed this test up too, by forcing all lenses to use the same aperture And shutter speed - great to see exposure differences, sure, but a lousy way to let a lens show what it is capable of doing. Oopz - er oops. So I shot all lenses around 50mm (threw in a 55-300 and two Rikenon primes too), then closeups, then as wide as they go. And I looked them over for a good 10 minutes before picking a winner. OK more like 45 minutes.. but it felt like a week. I hate lens tests.

And the winner? Well of course, everyone's a winner - pass out the medals and take a bow! Well, to my profound embarrassment I give the overall prize to the Ugly 18-55. Not excellent at anything much, but the others had certain areas where they failed worse than the kit. I so wanted a 'better' lens to take on my backpacking trip.. but hey, I'm taking a 240g lens that shoots .35x closeups and takes 52mm filters! Those are mighty good points, so I'm satisfied. And I'll be even more satisfied when I recoup 80% of my expenses selling the other lenses.

Now go get some sleep, and when you awake you won't remember this article, and those lenses I put up for sale will sound perfect as your kit-lens replacement.

"we're talking KIT lenses, man!"

change is the only constant

The bank balances dictated a constriction to my imaging deals, with more emphasis on 'outgoing' -- so out went the DA35 and DA16-45 (with great reluctance). In six months I expect to reacquire the zoom, it fits my style very well. I toyed with letting the k-x go, and the 18-200 Sigma, then finally put both together and off they went. The money from that deal went truly sideways though, as a local offer on a k-r was truly too good to pass - so the bank balance dropped but not by as much as planned. A few more deals may trim the 'fat' from my lens collection and make this sting a little less.

So how did the k-r catch my eye? Well, the k-x felt like my ideal camera, and I felt certain that I could wait at least another generation before moving it. However, the k-r catches all of my "but.." issues re. the k-x and with a very small size/weight penalty. The sensor is equivalent if not equal, and that means amazing. Had the k-r been priced $30 higher I'd have looked the other way (albeit with discomfort) - but there it was, and here it is. If the budget breaks further I will more likely let the micro-43 gear go instead, as I have a good amount of Pentax gear at prices that just cannot be duplicated until another generation of cameras is in people's hands. Several $50 primes, a couple of zoom bargains and the k-r in absolutely pristine condition - yes, once again I can say "this will serve me well for years" and believe that I mean it. :^)

welcome back my friends..

I admit it - despite two failed attempts to really like the Pentax 55-300 zoom, I was hunting again. I owned both DA and DAL versions at one point with my K-7. The DAL went a-swapping for a weather-sealed 50-200, and the DA left during the budget crisis that ultimately cost me the K-7 as well. Now I've retrenched with the k-x and find that the better high-ISO performance allows this long zoom to have a better chance to yield blur-free images.
I didn't need this lens badly, so I let a few deals slip away, primarily on the DAL (optically identical but with a few less bonus features). But at last I stumbled into an offer I dared not refuse - so a 'like new' DAL is on its way, and the Sigma 100-300 will move on to cheer up someone else. The 100-300 is a better lens than I had expected, but pulling back to 55mm is a great feature - and f/5.8 beats 6.7 for those hi-zoom lo-light images I persistently try to capture. At least I now have iso5000 available in a pinch!

I find it ironic that my two original favorite lenses are back in the stable. The DA16-45 really caught my eye when I migrated from Alpha gear, and teaming it with the 55-300 and a 50 prime seemed perfect. The K-7 led me in other directions (mostly weather-sealed ones) but the k-x has turned me around. Thankfully the wheeling and dealing was a draw financially, so I'm happy to be back with this pair.

another Rikenon joins the kit

When I saw this at auction, I drew a blank. I knew nothing about the lens, so I did some research. A 70-150 should do well given its short zoom range, the XR line is well thought of, and it's reasonably small at 450g and using 52mm filters. OK then: why not submit a few bucks over the minimum and watch? Well, that was enough.


And its performance is disappointing - in that it makes me wonder why I own so many other lenses!

This is one talented and fun lens. It's also a bit of a pioneer with its separate zoom and focus rings despite being made in the 1-touch era, and more impressive it has an internal zoom mechanism - only focusing causes this lens to change size. It has a sorta-macro mode, less than 1:5 closeup but still handy. I've had a difficult time wrestling it off my k-x, it's that much fun and the images are that good.

Here's the image folder in Picasa: enjoy! I know I enjoyed making them.

assembling primes, part 2

a follow on to this post

I've had some more luck recently on the auction markets, most notably for a 24mm lens. I found a deal on the forum website for a Vivitar 24mm f/2 - exactly what I had hoped for, a very nice price, and in great condition. Since then I also won out on an SMC-M 200mm f/4 in quite excellent condition. And to top it off I caught a winner on a 'Sears' 50mm f/1.4, which is a clone of the Rikenon XR model. Those have generally won high praise online, and I concur: it's a very nice lens, as long as flare is not allowed to ruin the contrast.
So I now sit at 24 - 28 - 35da - 50(x2)- 100macro - 135 - 200mm. More than enough for now, more precisely one more than enough; that Chinon 28 can go. I'd prefer a manual 35mm lens, but the DA35 is in fact cheaper than any manual that I have managed to track down. Guess I cannot complain, but I seem to want to!

kit-like zooms, Pentax style

Something about the 18-55wr keeps calling me back - I've had two now. It's the overall package that's hard to ignore: really light weight, quick shift, weather seals (even if the k-x has none it's reassuring) and quite good image quality. Also takes smaller filters than lenses that try to replace it; when matched up to my 50-200wr with a 49/52mm step ring, one set of 52mm filters can do it all!

Something about the 16-45 keeps calling me back - I've had two now (boy that sounds familiar..). It's bright at f/4 through its range, fairly light weight, and its 16mm f/4 setting keeps me from spending all my cash on the 15 Limited :^) It also has quick shift, which I find quite handy. Color and contrast are very good, and the latest one was well treated and at an excellent price. Part of its issue before was that I was trying to go with 16-45 and 55-300, and that gap sounds small but seemed to be something I need. I've closed a part of that gap with the 50-200, and I will just crop as needed (or maybe that 18-200 Sigma will be attached to the camera that day?). I feel better about this lens now that I've tried so many alternatives, and for outdoor/mountain scenery I feel the wider range will be valuable. Again: we shall see..

kit-like zoom commentary: Sigmas first

What I liked about my three Sigmas, and why they could be expendable.

The 17-70 is a great do-it-all lens: very good focal range, decently bright, good sharpness and bokeh, and extremely good at close focus. I have already let this go though.. what happened? Well, it's a bit heavier on the k-x than I liked (I am an admitted weight weenie), and the 16-45 is cramped in focal length but goes a smidge wider and focuses nearly as close. I perfer the color and contrast a bit more on the DA lens, and the quick shift is something I missed. And this is one of those Sigmas that zoom in the other direction relative to most other models; of course the DA16-45 extends the opposite of others' so this is a relatively small knock. Other than not going out to 70mm, the DA16-45 is just more matched to my needs, it seems.

The 18-200 is another reverse-spin zoom, but boy does it have range. Think of it as an 18-170 f/3.5-5.6 and you'll see why the kit zoom moved on despite the quick-shift and light weight. My 18-200 weighs in under 400g and is good with sharpness and bokeh. Its downfall is that Pentax reports all over 170mm as f/6.7, even worse than the stated 6.3 (splitting hairs here though). It may stick around as the ideal quick-snap option though, the one lens to carry when you are not out to do imaging but just capturing opportunities. It could use a bit of PP to really sharpen up relative to the Pentax lenses I have (16-45, 50-200wr). And when focusing close with the 18-200 (which it does well) the effective FL up close is more like 170 than 200 fully extended. All hi-range zooms do this though, one of the 'compromises' that these lenses inflict on users. We'll see if it stays around..

The 18-50 f/2.8-4.5 is a new and curious lens. The price is quite nice, it does not change size while zooming or focusing, focus is nearly silent, and it's mighty fast. It's only f/4.5 from about 45-50mm so it isn't one to go faint quickly, another positive. It also has stabilized optics, which Pentax users don't need but my tests suggest it does a slightly better job than SR in low light. As an indoor lens it would beat out the 16-45 for silence and brightness is used wide open.. but that isn't a common use for me. Its close-focus talents are not close to the 16-45, and its range is more cramped. Sounde like this one will not be staying.

testing a mess of kit-like zooms (executive summary)

I've caught a few amazing deals recently online and at auction, which allowed me to try out several wide to mid-tele zooms on my k-x. I had not intended to do this, but fell victim to the proverbial offers that I could not refuse! Let me retrace my steps:

• Had a very nice 18-55wr with my K-7 but let both go.
  
• Found a used k-x at one site, a used 17-70 Sigma (1st generation) on another.
  
• I then found a great deal on another 18-55wr, which is substantially lighter than the 17-70! Weight is important and the price around $100.
  
• I placed a bid of just over $200 on an 18-200 Sigma, and to my surprise it won. I had this in my Alpha days (the 17-70 too!), and find it's still a good match with the 12-Mpixel sensor.
  
• A sub-$250, gently-used DA16-45 called out to me.. and I answered. I let the 17-70 go to pay the bill. I tried the 16-45 on my K-7 but didn't love it as much as I expected.
  It's a bad sign when you own the same lens twice; a straightjacket that keeps me away from online sites is starting to sound like a good investment :^)
  
• Last but not least I hit a Fathers Day deal on the new 18-50 Sigma with HSM (whisper-quiet focus) and OS inside (in-lens SR). It also doesn't change size during focus or zoom - cool. At that point the 18-55wr left again.

So that's it. 18-55, 17-70, 18-200, 16-45, and 18-50 - all in the space of about three months! I will gather my thoughts soon and provide more detail, and talk through which one or two will stay. Each has merits, few have demerits (other than redundancy), and all have image quality that earns my coveted "more than good enough" award. We'll see.

assembling the bargain primes

When one is on a Limited (big-L) budget in the world of Pentax, it's a wonderful thing. Their Limited series of primes garner high praise from all, but the price of admission is far too steep for me right now. I'm on a (lower-case) limited budget, so prime lenses come from past eras or new designs for thinner wallets. Right now that means the Pentax DA35mm f/2.4, which I picked up for less than its common $200-ish going rate. A very nice lens, light and compact, it fits nicely between my Chinon 28/2.8 and Rikenon 50/2.0 bargains. Today came another piece of the puzzle, a 100mm f/2.8 SMC-M macro. By itself it stops at 1/2 life size, but its reputation for close and distant shots is very good. The folks at keh.com put this in their 'Bargain' class but other than a somewhat tight focus ring it's in amazing condition. It fits between the 50mm and the SMC-M 135/3.5 that was also available at a fine price on auction.

My current problem in the Pentax mount is a complete lack of a bargain 24mm lens. Vivitar made some 24s but their rarity keeps prices up, and Pentax models are quite expensive. I'd rather have a 24mm than my 28, it fits better with the 35 and 50 as far as spacing.. oh well. Something between 50 and 100 would also be fine, but most 85mm lenses are not all that cheap either. I have no great rush on this plan, having a few good zooms that will usually be along - and until the budget can expand I may be done for a while.

The 'thrill of the hunt' is in play for PK primes!

the more things change?

How curious - two years ago I had the difficult choice of Sigma's 17-70 or 18-200 to take backpacking with my Sony A200. Now several bodies and one brand switch later, I've won back both these lenses in PK mount! I knew I liked them before, guess this proves it.

A curious thing about Pentax is that f/5.0 simply isn't an option in 'Av' mode; as I zoom at max. aperture with most lenses, they jump from f/4.5 to 5.6 at some point. Now I learn that they also don't "do" f/6.3 as above 175mm this becomes f/6.7 according to the camera. More tests are needed to see how this lens does, but it's great having a 400g lens that can do so much! Its closest focus is .30x, bokeh looks fine at first blush.. sharpness tests still to come.

k-x recovery from exposure disaster

Shooting in M mode is still rare for me, so I screw up with some regularity. I recently sold two 50mm lenses and kept my original Rikenon f/2.0, so I was getting reacquainted with it when this happened. Iso400, previous shot clearly taken in strong light. And below it is the reprocessed shot in Elements 9.



When I say 'reprocessed' I mean the Levels slider was moved to the left. That's it! No color adjustments, or noise reduction, or sharpening or anything else - just made it brighter. That's quite a nice result, reminiscent if not as capable as its elder 16-Mpixel sensor in the K-5. Look around the web to see how that can take a shot of a coal mine & make something of it! :^) Anyway, I'm more than pleased with the results of minimal processing on a poorly-executed image. And oh yes - this is a jpg image, not RAW with all its benefits.

that'll do!

I have been trying out the bargain 100-300 Sigma (Quantaray label), the small f/4.5-6.7 model. Other than contrast, and a small drop in sharpness, this lens is more than suitable for what I will be asking of it. Below is a shot at 300mm, the original plus Picasa-fied version (boosted shadows/fill/highlights to taste, and sharpened a touch), then collaged & cropped.

 

Plenty good enough for what I do. BTW this is hand-held through a windowpane of unclean glass, shot wide open (f/6.7) spot-metered @ iso1000. Now that's a torture test! :^)

comparing 50-200WR and Quantaray (Sigma) 100-300 at 200mm

I actually won a telephoto bid! A Quantaray open-box deal came to me for a good price, which keeps me from spending $200+ on a long tele that won't get much use - that's a good thing!

First tests with the lens show it to be decently sharp, easily "sharp enough". Its shortcoming seems to be contrast, which makes an image look softer to me than it is. This doesn't look like a problem to me, and with the k-x abilities at higher ISO the slow specs on this lens (f/4.5 at 100-155mm, f/5.6 to 230mm then f/6.7) are less damaging: just set at f/8 and let ISO compensate.

comparing kit-wr lens and Sigma 17-70

Although the 17-70 is a stronger offering in every way - build, speed, and range - the light weight of the Pentax 18-55 makes it a fine knockaround option. Its weather resistance is a good thing too, even on a less-sealed body like the k-x... but is its image quality too great a compromise?

 

It appears not - these two shots were taken consecutively at iso320 and Av mode set wide open. The DA18-55 is on the left here, and while a decent bit slower at f/5.6 (48mm, where the Sigma is at f/4) its image quality on this scene is more than adequate. Sharpness looks as good, bokeh a bit better. The Sigma image is set at -2/3EV to match up the exposures, so the DA lens picked a better setting. At around half the weight, and given the k-x talent at higher ISO settings, the result is quite impressive for a lens about 1/3 the cost (actual costs: $95 new vs. $250 used!).

Nice to know my camera has a good all-purpose lens for easy snaps. I still expect the 17-70 to be the choice when image quality is most important though - but both are quite versatile!

More tests of the G1/GH1 sensors

 

I was considering a rearrangement of my Lumix gear in favor of a G2. I like both my G1 and GH1 but have mixed feelings about each. On the other hand, selling both and grabbing something else is not financially practical! I therefore tried another test to see why I find a benefit to the GH1 sensor elusive. It rates higher at dxo's vaunted website, so something about it should be valuable!
Confining myself to indoor images, I found my wife's purse near a bright window and decided to see how the two cameras handled the absurd range. With both set to similar parameters (iso160, 1/10s f/3.2 using the Oly 17mm prime) I put the cameras on the floor and gave it a shot.
First up, the G1 is fainter for the same image. Its abilities to capture detail look similar but were hampered by that; I tried a second image with +2/3 EV, but that was much too much so discarded. I stuck the two RAW images into a Picasa collage, then boosted the fill light a bit. In this test, unlike the previous ones, the GH1 does look better. Its color balance holds up with less chroma noise, which had appeared before. This time I was more gentle in the fill boost, I guess, as the banding on the sensor was not apparent (I could see it with a larger boost though). Given this result I'm less inclined to let the GH1 go.. but a few more tests could be worth while.

k-x+1wk=OK+

A week into the K-x adventure.  Its size is mighty close to the Lumix GH1, though for the most part lenses are still larger.  Not all that much difference between the 45(50)-200 zooms, but crop factors make a difference in final image size, so it's actually a 90-400 vs 75-300 in 35mm terms.  Going to the Pentax 55-300 would tilt compactness back to the micro-43 camp, certainly.  The elder Sigma 17-70 is massive compared to the Lumix 14-45, but really I like the 17-70 in all other respects.  This is my 2nd copy after enjoying it on my A200 in 2009, so I knew I'd like it; in fact, somewhat to my surprise I prefer it to the Pentax 16-45, 18-55 and even 18-135 - so I'm glad it's back even at 450 grams.

I have the K-x set to auto-iso up to 5000, and its straight-from-camera images are similar to what I'm used to at 1600.  Truly a step up in sensor quality!  Here's a torture test at iso5000 - Raw image, lightly cropped but otherwise unprocessed:
This feels like a lot of dynamic range and reasonable color noise in the shadows for such a setting, and since it's a Raw image I could clean this up if I felt the need.  Wow.

70mm tests with the k-x

I put the Pentax k-x to work on a nice scene in the yard.  First up was the DA 50-200 WR at 70mm for a wet-leaf image, then the Sigma 17-70 (gen.1) - both at f/6.3 but auto WB/iso.  Looking at them overall I would take the 50-200 by a hair - but of course it's in its midrange vs. the extreme end so to some degree that's an expected outcome.  The background on the lower image is slightly more blue perhaps, and while exposure info is a match the DA-wr chose iso200, the Sigma 250.  I prefer the Pentax' choice.  It should also be noted that AF was engaged, and on the k-x one cannot be certain it chose the same focus point when multiple points are in play (I had AF-5point set).  When compacted by Picasa's collage tool it is very hard to pick a winner.

OK enough suspense: the top image is the 50-200.

kit changes coming (and Fast!)

I've made what amounts to my final adjustment in the Pentax gear.  I let the K200d and Tamron 18-200 go as a package, having found two excellent (I hope!) used deals.

The first was a K-x in 'excellent' condition for under $400.  I've enjoyed several excellent cameras in my recent past, but no camera with an excellent sensor.  Given this chance to see what one can do, I've allowed that to overrule my wish for a weather-sealed camera for now.  The more I read about this sensor, in the Sony A500 and k-x/k-r cameras, the more it appeals to me.  I really didn't want to step up to 16Mpixels, since several of my lenses may not be up to the capabilities of the A580/K-5 cameras - and my budget wasn't up for those anyway.  Having owned both 18-200 models now, I still feel that they are great for 10Mpixel sensors but perhaps best left there; it's a fun range, but with a great sensor I fear the images would not be well served by a do-it-all lens.  I can't say with any proof, it's just a feeling - but I'll go with that.

Deal number two was also surprising, and allowed the 18-200 to move on: a gently-used, 1st-generation Sigma 17-70 lens.  I owned this lens with my A200 and thought very highly of it: f/2.8 at widest setting, a reasonable f/4.5 at the long end, close focusing, very good sharpness and bokeh... it's a great package that I welcome back into my bag.  I was sure that I'd have one of these in Pentax mount when I first made the switch from Sony, but the DA 16-45 caught my eye for a while.  Its range was just too confining for me though, and the 18-55wr also caught me short on the telephoto end at times.  I like the concept of the DA 17-70, but the price on this Sigma was excellent.  The other temptation was another Sigma, the newer 18-50HSM that zooms and focuses internally; how interesting to see a lens in that range that does not extend while zooming!

I say these changes are coming Fast because I expect them to both be delivered in the next three hours!  I also received my new 72mm polarazing filter (shouldn't have sold the old one, I suppose) today, so it's a new kit all at once.  This should be fun!

An hour later, and the 17-70 is here.  How odd: I have no body to try it on!  Looks to be in great shape though, more compact than I remember. 

Well OK - the k-x came into town too late - it reached me at 8:15AM Saturday.  Wow, looks new to me - and oops, it came with a 4G chip inside!  Guess I'll check with the seller about that..

graduation part 2

Here is a sample showing what happens when the meter is free to pick exposure. It's a mixed bag, as the skies are far better with the filter (left) and it helps to liven up the tree blossoms! On the other hand note how the grass is more washed out - the lower left needs some help or some cropping. The unfiltered shot has more tonal balance, but sky and blossoms are less snappy. Clearly this is something one can work on with exposure, and especially with RAW images. Since these were sample shots I just went with jpeg here, but in more highly-valued shooting I would have the RAW shots to recover some of the foreground.

If one just wanted blue skies, the polarizer would still be a great choice for this shot - I did not try that out with these images. I believe it was in my bag, but I was coming home from a long week of work so didn't do the extra effort. Next time!

graduation!

I've tried many photo fads since the 1970s, but I had never tried out a graduated neutral-density filter. These simple lenses are half-grey half-clear and rotate into position to make ultra-bright portions of the image less so. I found one online for less than $20 so figured it would be a rather inexpensive learning experience. One can achieve very similar effects in post-processing, but learning how light behaves and how computers work are separate learning experiences - so I bought it.

The shot shown here are not perfect examples, as I was in manual-exposure mode for the unfiltered (left) shot. I then added the filter, dialed down the cloud and shot again, so the foreground is exposed identically. Since one cannot pick on the cloud without the entire upper half being affected, the dark trees suffer in this shot. As I recall the meter showed this 2nd shot to be about 2/3 stop underexposed. Several levels of darkening are available using different filters, as is the abruptness of the dark-light transition. Mine shows why it cost so little, as the transition area is irregular; that really doesn't show up since it's practically in contact with the lens' front element, so for the money this performs just fine.

sports report!

Having lost a bit of flexibility in the past twenty years (it's around here somewhere), I received some new golf clubs at Christmas.  These are newfangled beasts with whippy graphite shafts and oversize heads; the head on the new driver reminds me of a butterfly net or perhaps a table-tennis paddle.  I finally gave them a test today, and oh my - I can swing at about 2/3 speed and get results similar to my teeny-head stiff-steel-shafted relics of the 1980s.  Swinging at what I think of as full speed yields random results (seldom good random though) as the shaft is flexing at the wrong part of the swing.  The irons are still steel shafts, though a bit less stiff I expect, so I need to rethink how fast I need to swing depending on which club I use.  Well, OK: not rethink so much as think.

This implies that I can get in a full round of golf and still be able to move the next day; I found that a bit more difficult the last time, sad to say.  More golf for less effort means.. well, more golf!  Also more flexibility and improved conditioning.  Sure, some will say it's not a "real" sport.. well it'll do for me.  Just consider it a nice walk in an expensive park, with a bit of stretching twisting and muttering thrown in.  Maybe a beer too.

micro 4-3rds decision

Based on a hint from my wife, I've made the call and will keep the GH1 over the G2.  She has indicated that learning more about photography would be fun, and having cameras with near-identical controls would therefore be more valuable than cameras with near-identical sensors.  That plus a bit more versatility in video - and the fact that the GH1 is in hand but G2 was still at the warehouse (though about to ship, I was told).
So our lineup is set for now.  I even have close-up lenses to stop me from buying a macro lens, but now up pops a forum post about macro lens + slide holder = great slide copier.  Drat, that sure would be handy, and much faster than my scanner...

windfall?

While realigning gear, my brother hit town with a bag of old Minolta products he found in his garage. I offered to look them over, and found two bodies and three lenses: a Deitz 35-75 zoom, Elicar 35mm f/2.8, and (gasp) a Rokkor MC 50mm f/1.4! I was compelled :^) to pick up a MC/MD adaptor for my Lumix micro4:3 camera to give the two primes a spin, and they look very nice at first blush. We shall see if the hefty f/1.4 is more compelling than my Rikenon f/1.7 or f/2, but the Rokkor sure is nicely built.

turnovers

Well, it's been a busy week or two of contemplation and action. The family budget is overdone on several fronts, and clearly photography has been one of them. A few deals fell into place which allowed me to realign my priorities, so I have a substantially "new" kit of used Pentax gear: K200d, 50-200wr, tamron 18-200 and primes.

Yes, the K-7 and 18-135wr are gone, which freed up funds to grab a used K200d, 18-200 and a 135mm f/3.5M - and still put a bunch of money back in the bank. One more decision point is coming soon on the micro-43 front, after which another deposit will be made. If more cuts are necessary, the K200/18200 package will go and I will survive with the Lumix gear (and Pentax primes).

While the Pentax cameras are 'better' in the pure sense, with features and durability the m4:3 do not match, the G1 has enough features and the ones that are most important to how I take pictures. Each has its own unique way of doing things, and the G/GH series do things I like.  Interestingly, the K200d does things more to my liking than the K-7, which was very difficult to use with my left eye due to all those buttons that my nose and right eye were crowding!  I suspect I've come full circle (or perhaps a Möbius loop?) and am using the same sensor I was using a year ago in my Sony A200.  Oh well, I took some excellent images with that camera!

I very much doubt my images will suffer in this transition, and the bank balance will suffer much less. No more deficit spending in the imaging dep't!

a few more G1/GH1 tests

 

I tried to force the two Lumices to show me their worst today: RAW mode & underexposed to show me grain and banding. They obliged well enough, with the G1 showing enough red chroma noise to unbalance the image slightly to the warm side. The GH1 was more color-neutral, but stronger banding is apparent on the shady side of the mailbox. In either case the jpg images were nice and clean, and a moment's PP would make the RAW images better.

I then put the G1 and GH1 to a slightly different test, trying both at 45mm on the 14-45 and 45-200. All were shot at f/6.3, though two were shot at -1EV and two at 0 - but that allows other things to reveal themselves (like the tree branches above the car). I'm going to give the prize to my 14-45 as slightly better at 45mm. Both are very good though!

 

tests complete -- no surprise

Inconclusive. All gear is more than good enough, and even iso2500 shots look fine with 2-3 minutes of work. Shots proving I did something are at the Picasa page.

twelve birds, six stones..

What an aggravating day today, photographically. I'm trying to decide on Pentax v. micro4:3, trying to decide Lumix 45-200 v. M.Zuiko 40-150.. and now GH1 v. G1 as well. That's a lot of permutations, but I'm trying to get a few test shots that might illumine a few things of note.

I took my K-7 and the 18-135 to the office, hoping for better tests on that combo. It was another grey day, less fog but dense high clouds. I broke out the camera just before lunch, and found the SD card was still in the computer at home. That hurt, but then I remembered the little pouch with spare 4GB Lexar cards in my pack: hooray!
They were not there.
Pouch yes, but no chips.
It will be most interesting to learn which parallel universe those dropped into, as their sole purpose in life was to cover my .. tracks when this sort of thing happens. So no tests & a more relaxing lunchtime, at which I sent away the Rikenon 135mm lens. Time to trim the collection a bit as I decide what system fits me best.

My new "80 percent" lens for the K-7

Although the purpose of interchangeable-lens cameras is best fulfilled by occasionally changing the lens, I find that it’s nice to have one lens that will serve for around 80 percent of my shots. The DA16-45 is an excellent lens, but stopping at 45mm made it about a 50% lens for me, and the 55-300 although wonderful was even less in demand. I picked up a 50-200WR a few months back, and despite its cramped range and lesser sharpness (relative to the 55-300, in most opinions) I found it suited me better. It's small and light, give me more consistently smooth bokeh... and stopping at 200mm keeps me from venturing beyond SR's ability to combat motion blur when I play in faint light. I had picked up an 18-55WR for its weather properties, but its range was not much wider than the 16-45, it's inherently slower in most of its range, and its imaging qualities are less highly praised by most users.

In the meantime, Pentax introduced the 18-135WR along with its K-5. I could not bring myself to spend $500-plus on this lens, but it got me to thinking. After a full 20 minutes of thought, I rid myself of the 16-45, 18-55 and 55-300 lenses - in essence swapping them for the 18-135.

What did I gain?

• A lens that is considered a “kit-plus” lens like
  the 16-45 but with a lot more range
  
• A “DC” motor that is nearly silent
  
• Rounded aperture blades for better bokeh (though my other lenses may have had that too?)
  
• A WR lens that won’t need changing in conditions when WR is needed!
  
• Last but not least, a lens that I can use for at least 80 percent of my shots.
  

And what did I lose?

• the 16-18mm range, which I really will miss.. but maybe 5-10% of the time
  
• a little bit of speed (the 55-300 was f/4 from 55-120)
  
• all ability to use the screw-driven focus, should the DC motor fail
  
• perhaps a bit of battery life, assuming DC is more of a drain than the screw-drive motor
  
• perhaps some sharpness also, relative to the 55-300 (perhaps - we shall see!)
  
• and some nice-looking lenses that decorated my shelf :^)

The 18-135WR arrived late on the 9^th of February. Wow, what a small package! Compared to the 50-200WR, it is similar in length. The 18-135 is much thicker, using 62mm filters instead of 49mm; the new lens is fairly small but dense. It was getting dim outside so I got in a few snaps, which showed the promise this lens brings: a slight whoosh and it snaps into focus. Given the fairly silent shutter of the K-7, the package is impressively easy on the ears.

I know nothing of DA^* lenses - they are the top dogs in the Pentax lineup, weather resistant, often f/2.8 and with SDM motors. They are large, heavy and expensive: three strikes so out of my lineup (for those who need the light grasp and can afford them, I have no doubt of the lens' talents). Many have been ridiculed for SDM motor failures, especially the 16-50. I expect this is fifty lenses out of several thousand, but those with bad motors are loud on most forums - and several have had it happen more than once, which is more ominous still. I therefore venture into motorized lenses with some trepidation, but hopefully the DC system is SDM with a few issues resolved in advance. I'll keep the receipt handy and register soon though.

Like every DA lens I've owned, this one comes with a hood. Not merely a hood but one with a slide-out partition so you can turn a polarizing filter with the hood attached. You can lose the slide-out part though, so some care is needed. The slide is at the bottom of the hood in landscape mode, so if holding the camera vertically the shade loses a bit of effectiveness if you hand isn't covering the small gap. The lens focuses internally so no realignment is needed due to focus. This is the first lens I know of that has the focus ring close to the camera mount, so at some point I'm bound to be confused; I have not run into that yet as an issue. All DA lenses can be manually focused while AF(s) is engaged - if you can find the ring. (Note that DAL lenses are the exception to these DA-specific details: the bargains of the Pentax line, these have plastic mounts, no hoods and no 'quick-shift' manual focus override.)

GH1.. what, still more gear?

I was preoccupied when the last of the GH1 cameras were dispersed on Panasonic websites. I joined Club Panasonic, I visited their Facebook page - but none of the options I tried led to the $375± camera/lens deal. I could not determine if I qualified for the EPP specials. And since I was working hard on other matters at the time I let it go, presuming that a few of the purchasers would turn the cameras around for a small fast profit.

Well, one came up & I took it - so more tests are coming soon as the G1 and GH1 square off. Very similar cameras in function, the GH1 seems to have a different 'eyebrow' to accommodate the video microphones. The big deal is the sensor though, which outputs similar 12mpx images but scores higher by a decent margin in most tests. The dxomark site shows the GH1 sensor to be a notable improvement on G1 and K-7 scores in most respects, and review sites are quite positive on the new sensor. We shall see about that, and what technical tests show compared to what I actually shoot.

It seems the body I bought is among the very last, according to the serial number. Many GH1 owners prefer cams with the older firmware which could be 'hacked' to provide video specs that sounded better - again, whether that results in images that are substantially better is not entirely clear. I read a few private blogs which showed before/after, and concluded that a small improvement was visible for those who know what to look for. I'm seeking the best bargain stills though, so lack of hacking will not trouble me unduly.. and of course, the GH1 video is far superior to the G1 since it had no video abilities at all. Good enough for me!

a blockbuster trade

I've cleared the shelf a bit (and thinned my wallet) by trading three DA lenses for the new 18-135WR. Reviews indicate it's at least as good as the 18-55 plus is weather sealed - so off go the 16-45 and new 18-55 along with a little-used 55-300. This idea was contemplated earlier, but I feel the Pentax side of things has been neglected; this might help me decide whether my future is Pentax or elsewhere. I still have the 50-200 for longer reach, and perhaps some day either a 10-17 fisheye or their magical 15mm Limited will appear in my collection.

On the m4:3 side I picked up a great deal on the Olympus 40-150. This is small compared to the 45-200 but will not be stabilized on my G1 - so fair weather only. Initial tests are as expected: great optics, easy to carry, a risk of motion blur if I'm not careful.

here's a comparison

 
Since all my Pentax lenses would shoot wide open, here's a tripod shot using the Vivitar 28-105 at 105mm f/5.6 to compare with the 45-200. That shot was taken an hour earlier and at 97mm (gosh what precision!), so apples are compared but like Granny Smith to Gravenstein. As noted in other posts, the Vivitar/Kobori 28-105 continues to show itself as a very nice lens!

comparing the Lumix 45-200..

I'll need to use a tripod to compare this lens, as lack of OIS will bias against alternatives. This lens does great work (as advertised), and it's a bargain too (also as advertised!). I have a line in for a micro-Zuiko 40-150, no IS for Panasonic cams but very small and light. We'll see how it does.