CalArti

About a month ago, I added a Nikon CoolPix P6000 to my camera bag. For some time now I’ve wanted a compact camera that’s easier to carry around than a digital SLR, but one that is also capable of producing decent prints. The P6000 isn’t without its problems, but does a good job of filling that bill.

Here’s a rundown of what I like and don’t like, about the camera:

Likes:

1. Size, weight, handling: Like I said, I wanted something small and compact to easily carry around. This camera can easily fit into a jacket pocket, and in a pinch even fits in a shirt pocket. It’s light enough that you don’t even know you are carrying it. Nonetheless, the all-metal body has a solid feel to it – Nikon really hit the right compromise between diminutive size, lightweight, and rugged construction.

2. Image Quality – this hits on several of the camera’s features. The high megapixel count, great optics, image processor, and RAW file support result in excellent image quality. The one caveat is that noise levels above ISO 200 start to become problematic, and at ISO 800 and above they degrade image quality. That does result in slow shutter speeds and so it is hard to freeze action - but between the Vibration Reduction and the incredible depth of filed at all apertures (no need to stop down much) I find I can get good hand held results in many situaitons.

Here’s a hand held shot of the Kalamazoo River, taken from a bluff along the north bank:

The photo is unremarkable, but I printed it at 11 x 14 and then again at 16 x 22 inches in size. I was amazed at how well the detailed held up. I had hoped that the camera could produce acceptable 11 x 14 inch prints, and it seems to be well able to do that, and more.

3. Infrared Capability: Hey wait? That’s not on the spec sheet?!!

Shortly after I got my camera, I bought a filter adapter off eBay, and of course the first filter I tried was an R72 IR filter. Here’s a hand held shot of the park in downtown Kalamazoo, one of my first IR test shots.

There are issues and work arounds needed to get consistent results with the IR filter – I plan to devote a future post to that topic – but overall, the camera kicks out some great IR images with the R72 filter, at shutter speeds that are fast enough to hand hold. Nikon ought to put that on the spec sheet.

That’s what I like – and that covers almost everything I want from the camera - plus a little extra with the IR capability. Here are a few things I don’ care for, but tolerate.

Dislikes:

1. Poor close focusing ability: It seems that every compact camera suffers from this. The macro focusing ability is at the wide end of the zoom range, and while you can get close to the subject there is poor magnification, limited ability to control the background, and wide angle perspective distortion in the shot. Here’s a shot of a very compliant Common Whitetail that illustrates these problems:

Yes - I was able to get the camera close to the subject, but so what? It’s a poor shot. Bottom line – this camera, without modification, is a poor choice for macro work. But, sadly, it seems that every other compact out there suffers form the same problems.

That said – I’ve had decent luck using close up filters and reversed lenses on the filter adapter. More on that in another post, but here is a better closeup of a much smaller insect taken with a 50mm lens reverse mounted in front of the camera;s built in zoom:

2. Mutually exclusive features: This is a minor nit, since I don’t use a lot of the bells and whistles built into the camera, but many of the features of this camera do not work with each other. Shooting RAW mode excludes almost all of the special features – no scenic modes, no digital zoom, no lens distortion correction, no high D-range shooting, etc. In the case of shooting RAW this is understandable – many of these features involve modifying the raw capture, and so are incompatible with RAW mode which aims to present the raw data in an uncorrupted format. But there’s no reason why auto bracketing is incompatible with RAW. Same thing with the macro scene mode - which simply restricts the lens to the zoom range when macro focusing is available, and sets the AF to focus on the closest point.

Bottom line – if there are some features you want to use, make sure they all work together.

Other stuff

Here are a few things that I neither like nor dislike:

1. GPS: I’m not sure that I’d want to use this, but it seems to work fine. It is slow to get a fix, though – in a field under blue sky with no trees nearby, it takes 5 to 10 minutes for the GPS to get locked in. By comparison, my rather old Magellan Explorist 200 was able to get a lock within 2 minutes in the same situations. But it does get a fix and it does work.

2. Optical viewfinder: it’s nice to have and I use it a fair amount, but the distortion is horrible and it crops so much of the image that it’s of very little value for serious composition.

3. Battery life: I read a lot about how the battery doesn’t last long, so I decided to test things out. Granted, I had charged my battery several times by the time I tested it, but I managed to get over 500 RAW captures from a single charge. No use of flash. Overall, I can’t ask for more.

Overall - I’m happy with the camera. Is it on par with a DSLR? Not quite… Does it produce Medium Format results? Are you kidding??? Is it a great little camera you can stick in your shirt packet and still use to get good 11 x 14 inch prints? You betcha!

After a bit of dawdling, I finally got around to downloading Photoshop CS4. Part of my reason for procrastinating with this upgrade is that I had heard about problems and limitations of running CS4 on 64 bit Windows XP Pro (the x64 edition.)

In my case, the rumors turned out to be completely wrong. I downloaded a trial version this morning and applied the registry tweak described on Adobes’s site (here). I then checked the “Enable OpenGL Drawing” box, found within Photoshop under the Preferences -> Performance tab. And voila – the zoom and rotate tools work like a charm. I can’t say that these tools are going to change my life, but the bird’s eye zoom looks like it will be very handy when doing detailed adjustments.

I was particularly happy to see that the GPU features worked on my x64 machine. It’s just my subjective impression, but CS4 actually seems to be a bit faster than CS3 – which is nice. FWIW – my rather aging PC is an Athlon 64 x2 4200 with 4 gigs of ram and a GeForce 7600gt video card. Definitely not a powerhouse.

I went back to a couple of RAW files I had passed over last summer, and ran them through the CS4 camera raw. It would be easy to not even notice the adjustment brush and the gradient filter tucked into Camera Raw – but they are worthwhile enhancements.

The interface is somewhat different – I can’t say that it strikes me as particularly better or worse. All morning I have been accidentally closing the whole application when I want to just close out a file… “Oh – the little ‘x’ is over there now, not up here…” But heck, it’s only been a few hours and by tomorrow the new interface will be old already.

Overall this was a worthwile upgrade and after a couple of hours of playing around I bought a serial number from Adobe. Here’s one of the shots from last summer, processed in CS4:

Update, March 12, 2009: After a few days of running it through its paces, I’m happy to say that 64 bit Photoshop is still working fine on Win Xp x64. The opengl effects are a lot of fun, and they’ve been working flawlessly – in the 64 bit version of the program. More important – the 64 bit version of Photoshop really sails through tasks. Even with large files, it is very quick and responsive – and I’m only giving it 2.75 gigs to work with.

The same I not true with the 32 bit version of Photoshop CS4. Here images break up, go blank in spaces, and even come together all akimbo after successive zooms and rotations. The situation is made much worse when a lot of images are loaded. As an experiment I loaded 6 different images, all in the 200 – 250 megabyte size - and ran them through a series of simple zooms, flips, and rotations. Everything worked flawlessly in the 64 bit version of PS, but in the 32 bit version the images quickly looked like a mess, with mis-rotated parts and blank areas. I should emphasize “looked like” a mess because the images themselves proved to be fine – only the display was garbled. I assume this must be a bug in the 32 bit video drivers for my video card.

Since I plan to work in the 64 bit version most of the time, this isn’t a major issue. I stumbled into it while scanning some prints today – the scanner drivers only work in the 32 bit version of the program.

Last week I hit a milestone of sorts – I finally replaced an ink cartridge on my new-ish Epson 3800. I purchased the printer last August when the Epson 2200 that I had been using died from a massive paper jam.

Here are a few subjective observations about the Epson 3800:

Print Quality: Obviously the most important characteristic of any printer. As you’d expect, the print quality from the Epson 3800 is outstanding. I’m hard pressed to say that I actually notice much difference in color prints – they look great – the real improvement is in mono / B&W prints. Metamerism – which seemed to be the bane of B&W prints done on earlier printers – is finally at bay, though it not completely gone. As with any of Epson’s high-end printers, though, the 3800 produces fine results.

The Advanced B&W (ABW) print mode usually produces great results, but it can be pretty fickle. So far I’ve found that I have to print at the ‘darker’ or ‘darkest’ setting to get the kind of contrast and deep blacks that I’d like – which is kind of odd since I don’t do a lot with heavy blacks in most of my B&W shots. In a few cases, ABW mode has produced some seriously ‘off’ results – choppy gradients, poor tonality. “Spent” - shown above - is one image that simply refuses to print well in ABW mode. In those cases I just prep the image in Photoshop and print with profiles, as I would with a color print. That usually does the trick, and doesn’t leave me reliant on the print driver to get the results I want. But for quick and easy mono printing, ABW can work fine.

Printer Size: I initially planned to get another printer with 13 x 19 inch maximum output. While a larger print size is desirable, I’ve been pretty happy just sending the larger prints to a lab for output on a Chromira. Space is also a consideration since my office / studio does not have room for a really big printer. I was pleasantly surprised to see that the footprint of the Epson 3800 is only a few inches bigger than that of the Epson 2200 it replaced. It fit nicely on the stand that I used for the old printer. The printer is also light enough for one person to carry.

Build Quality: This is the one area that disappoints. I guess I can’t complain too vigorously, since I just said that one of the things I liked about this printer is that it is compact and lightweight. However, the plastic in the unit feels pretty lightweight. Both the input and output paper trays feel flimsy, and one good whack (or cat jump) would probably do them in. One particular annoyance is that the small metal plate that holds the front paper tray closed by attaching to a magnet on the unit fell off on day one. I’ve tried to glue it on a few times, but it doesn’t reliably hold. It’s annoying.

Paper Sizes: The Epson 3800 only handles cut sheet paper. At first, I didn’t think this would be a major limitation. In the past I have only used roll paper for mass producing small prints, or for the very occasional panoramic image. What I didn’t realize is that sheet paper selection is pretty limited at larger sizes. While there is a good selection of papers at 17 x 22 inch size, that reflects only a 1:1.25 aspect ratio – i.e. a 16 x 20 inch print. If, like me, you shoot at 1:1.5 or greater aspect ratios, paper selection become problematic.

Some papers are available in 17 x 24 inch size, but even that is not a complete solution. One of the first larger prints I pulled on the 3800 is the Skegemog Swamp, shown here. It’s pretty much un-cropped, and the image prints to 16 x 24 inches. That calls for a 17 x 26 inch slice of paper – something I’ve been unable to locate.

My solution was to purchase roll paper and cut it into sheets the size I needed. So far I’ve printed several larger images on Epson Ultra Smooth Fine Art Paper, and Enhanced Matte Paper. It’s not an ideal solution because the papers have to be pressed flat before being used – something that took a few days under a very heavy pile of mat board to achieve. (The Ultra Smooth Fine Art Paper never did get fully flat.)

I also picked up a roll of 16.5 inch wide Epson Premium Lustre Paper. I haven’t tried it yet but I’ve done a lot of printing on sheets cut from 10 inch wide rolls of this paper. The Lustre paper seems to flatten out pretty readily, so I expect it will work well. Call me fussy, but I wish it was 17 inches wide, as opposed to 16.5…

So far, the largest prints I have made have been 16 x 24 inch images on 17 x 26 inch paper. Both Epson Enhanced Matte Paper and Ultra Smooth Fine Art Paper have worked well at this size. The printer driver lets you set up a custom paper size up to 37 inches, so a print of 17 x 36 seems to be possible, even though that is outside the stated specifications of the printer.

If you are going to try to cut sheets form roll paper, be sure to use a good trimmer to get a clean, straight edge to feed into the printer. In my case I rolled the paper out on a work table, made an initial cut with a razor blade and straight edge, and then trimmed the final edge in a rotary trimmer. I also took car to not touch the coated surface of the paper and to blow any dust particles off the surface before printing.

Paper Handling: This seems to be one area where the 3800 gets some criticism, but so far I have had no complaints. I haven’t done anything extreme, but I did manage to produced a few hundred photo note cards on 9 x 5.8 inch Museo Artist Card paper. I just dropped the sheets into the sheet feeder, fudge the driver setting by telling it I was printing on Enhanced Matte Paper, and printed using the Museo profile. The result were great and the paper just chugged through the sheet feeder with no problems. While feeding sheets cut from roll paper has been a bit of a challenge at times, the rear paper feeder has worked very well for this.

Cost Effectiveness: The larger 80ml ink cartridges means that ink costs with the Epson 3800 are much more reasonable than with the much smaller cartridges used in smaller printers. But then, the 3800’s 80ml cartridges are only a few dollars less expensive than the 4880’s 110ml cartridges. So while the 3800 is a huge leap forward in terms of ink costs, the real savings are to be had with the printers that use even larger cartridges.

Many other sites have noted that, when the cost of ink is taken into account, the 3800 actually costs less than the smaller Epson 2880.

Driver: I’m using the 64bit driver on Win XP x64. Disregard my rant from last night - this morning I realized that I should install the latest version of the driver before critiquing. Guess what? All the main options are on the first page! Nice job, Epson. What can I say? It’s no worse that most pieces of software. If you are setting up a print that does not conform to your saved settings, you’ll have to click through a few screens to set things up. Paper type and basic print mode selection is on the main screen, but you have to drill into the ‘advanced’ table to fine tune color, dpi, and other settings. Paper size and paper feed options are on another tab. So, in general, you have to click on three separate tabs in the driver to set up basic print settings. It’s crazy that the most commonly used setting can’t be put on just on tab.

Overall, I’m really happy with the Epson 3800. The larger print sizes, better ink prices, and improved B&W printing make it worthwhile – and I didn’t have to re-arrange the furniture to make room for it. However, if I were in the market for a new printer now, as opposed to a few months ago, I’d take a serious look at the new Epson 4880.

A few months ago I ordered what will no doubt be my last rolls of Kodak High Speed Infrared film. It’s sad to see an old standby pass on, but while online buying film, I decided to pick up a few rolls of Rollei IR400.

I was looking for a film that could produce the same startling infrared affect that the Kodak film delivered. After shooting a couple of test rolls, it seems that the Rollei film is certainly up to that task. Here are a few first impressions of the film, plus tips regarding exposure and development.

Exposure

Without a filter, or with just a #25 red filter, setting the ISO to 400 and metering through the lens worked fine. As with most ISO 400 films, though, I prefer the results at ISO 320 or even 200.

As you’d expect, there is no IR effect when shooting without a filter. And, unlike some other IR films, there is very little IR effect when shooting with a #25 red filter. To get a pronounced IR effect I had to use a Hoya R72 infrared filter.

My first experiments with the IR filter were disappointing. I utilized a 5 stop filter factor, so I metered at ISO 400 with no filter and then increased the exposure by 5 stops – effectively shooting at ISO 12. I bracket up and down a stop, for ISO 24 and 6. Unfortunately, with the R72 filter in place, this still resulted in a grossly underexposed negative.

So the second time around I ramped up the filter factor to 7 - 10 stops – shooting at ISO 3, 1.0, and even 0.5. The shot above was metered at ISO 1.0 and was taken with the R72 filter in place. In bright midday full sun, with the lens at f16, this was a 1 second exposure – pretty darn long and comparale to the digital IR work I’ve been doing. (Just to be perfectly clear for folks trying to wrap their heads around adjusting exposure to compensate for filters – I metered the above shot with the camera set to ISO 400. That gave me a recommended setting of 1/500th of a second. I then clicked the shutter button to increase the exposure by 9 stops to 1 second even.)

The R72 filter was critical for getting the distinct IR effect. The image below compares two shots, one taken at ISO 200 with a #25 Red Filter, and the other with the R72. While Kodak HIE, Ilford SFX, and even the now long defunct Konica IR750 all produced good results with the plain red filter, with the Rollei film the red filter just doesn’t cut it. The technical specifications sheet recommends a deep red filter, but I have not tried that.

Development

Having only shot two rolls of this filme, I processed the first in Rodinal 1:50 and the second in HC110 Dil H (1:66). The roll dipped in Rodinal was grainy – very grainy. The HC110 roll had much more subdued grain, and much better tonal range (of course, that is also a result of the second roll being better exposed.) The successful process with HC110 was 20 minutes and 20C, with agitation one per minute for the first 15 minutes, and every 30 seconds for the last 5 minutes. For the next roll I’ll probably drop the agitation for the first few minutes, and extend the time, in hopes of coaxing out a bit more shadow detail.

Rollei IR400 is the first 35mm film I’ve used that has a water soluble anti-halation / dye layer. While this is generally the rule for 120 and 220 films, I wasn’t expecting it in a 35mm format. As recommended on the Massive Development Chart, I pre-soaked the film for 5 minutes before developing .

In conclusion, I’m really happy with the rest results from this film, and am looking forward to doing more work with it.

"More of a ramble than a review...."
September 19, 2007: Updated to include D FA 100mm f2.8 macro. Added note re D FA lenses to lens types.
April 14, 2007: Updated to include the DA 16-45 f4.
April 14, 2007: Upaded to include note about Ricoh lens compatability.
January 7, 2007: Updated to include Pentax DA 18-55.
June 6, 2006: Updated to include teleconverters.

I’ll never forget when I bought my first SLR camera. I was working on a project making digital collages, and found that I needed to go out and take some photos to use as source material in the collages. I knew nothing about photography, but I did a little reading and wandered into the local camera shop, intending to buy an APS camera, which (based on my reading) seemed to be the obvious future of photography...

By chance I wandered over to the used equipment counter, and before all was said and done I had blown my budget and was walking out of the store with a Pentax Pz-70 camera, and a pair of Takumar-F zooms. I was elated – I was certain that I would never need to buy another piece of camera gear again...

The decision to go Pentax was purely accidental, but for me it was a happy coincidence. The basic Pentax K mount is virtually an open source design, and Pentax’s commitment to backwards computability remains strong. With a few exceptions, you can use almost any lens on any body. I used to love using the FA 43mm f1.8 limited - a very new lens - with the 20+ year old Pentax LX. Similarly, my mid 1980's Kiron 105mm macro lens works wonderfully with the *ist-D digital SLR body. Auto focus, manual focus, lenses and bodies are all interchangeable (with a couple exceptions.) This opens up a wide world of available lenses and equipment.

(Unfortunately, the interchangeability of lenses and bodies is not as complete as it was a few years ago. These days you have “D” lenses that are intended to work with digital SLRs, some newer lenses that lack aperture rings and are incompatible with some bodies. And lastly some bodies are incompatible with the very oldest Pentax lenses (though, through a rather ingenious work-around, the *ist-D digital SLR can be used with even he oldest K Mount lenses.)

For a full rundown on all aspects of Pentax gear, check out Bojidar Dimitrov's Pentax K-Mount Page.

The purpose of this essay is to share a few subjective impressions of the K Mount lenses I have personally used. Over the last few years, as I have bought and sold a variety of K-Mount lenses, I've often wished for more info regarding available lenses. So here are my thoughts regarding the lenses that I have owned and used.

As noted in the title, the following observations are primarily my subjective impressions about the lenses. From time to time I do run formal tests of my lenses, but that is usually to determine the relative quality of two or more comparable pieces. I never run formal resolution tests that determine line per millimeter data or some other objective data. There are sites that have this data - www.photodo.com being most notable - and such information can be a useful factor in evaluating lenses. But ultimately, this is more of ramble than a review.

A Few Qualifiers

Although the comments below are subjective, here are a few qualifiers that may put some in perspective.

First, it's important to note that while many lenses are discussed below, I regularly use just a handful of lenses for most of my work. Hands down, the SMC A* 200mm macro is my most used piece, and accounts for most of the close up images of insects and plants on this site. Three zoom lenses pick up most of the balance - these being the FA 20-35mm, FA 28-70mm, and Sigma 70 - 200mm. While I used to shun zooms, I've found these lenses to be excellent for landscapes and general purpose shooting. For event photography, portraits, and the odd wedding, the FA 28 - 105 and Sigma 70 - 200 are ideal choices. Aside from the above, the A* 400 f2.8, often with the F 1.7x teleconverter, is my main choice for birds and some landscape shots.

Other favorite lenses that see less use include the, Kiron 105mm macro, FA 50 f 1.7, A 50 f1.4, and the rather funky F 17 - 28 fisheye zoom.

And while these and other lenses get the occasional work out, a small number of lenses covered below have seen little use. These were mostly opportunistic eBay deals - those rare occasions where a low bid prevailed. I usually run some quick test shots with new lenses, but in some cases the lenses have been used very little, and I’ve ultimately sold off many of these lenses. I try to note these cases so you can weigh the comments on the lens appropriately.

Terminology

The terminology below should be familiar to anyone experienced with Pentax K mount lenses. For those who are not, here is a quick guide:

SMC: Super multi-coated. Pentax's patented 7 layer multi coating process. Almost all of the K Mount lenses were SMC, the Takumar-F series being the main exception.

Takumar: Probably the most confusing term in the Pentax lexicon. Originally, Takumar lenses referred to Pentax screw mount lenses. With the introduction of the super multi coating process, SMC-Takumar lenses appeared. With the subsequent introduction of the bayonet K Mount, the Takumar label was applied to budget lenses that lacked the SMC coatings. These lenses were made in both manual focus and auto focus mounts.

K Series Lenses: The earliest manual focus K mount lenses bore no series designation. They simply bore the "SMC Pentax" and "Ashai Optical Co., Japan" designation. For the sake of clarity, I have used the designation SMC-K in describing these lenses.

M Series Lenses: In the early 1980's, Pentax introduced a series of compact, manual focus, lenses designed to accompany the popular ME, ME Super, and MX cameras. These lenses bear the designation "SMC Pentax-M" along with "Ashai Optical Co., Japan."

A Series Lenses: These manual focus lenses have the contacts and aperture ring setting to support program modes - like auotexposure mode or shutter priority. When set to the "A" setting the camera body can control the aperture setting. These lens also support evaluative metering in modern camera bodies. (The K and M series lenses allow only center weighted metering.) The “A” lenses retain full compatibility with all Pentax Cameras, including the most modern digital SLR's. The prior K and M lenses are not compatible with some newer bodies.

F and FA Autofocus Lenses: Pentax has produced two series of autofocus lenses - the F and FA lines. In many cases, the differences between these two series are primarily cosmetic, with some differences in internal electronics. While some FA zooms support the power zoom function, newer FA zooms do not.

A newer variant on the FA lenses are the D-FA lenses. These are optically optimized for digital photography – with lens design and coatings that intended to reduce chromatic aberration and otherwise work well with digital SLR’s. However, the image circle covers the full 35mm frame, these lenses have aperture rings, and are therefore fully compatible with Pentax K Mount film cameras as well.

Star "*" Lenses: Pentax designates their highest quality lenses with a green star - usually transcribed with the asterisk. M*, A*, F*, and FA* lenses all incorporate ED elements, and in many cases incorporate internal focusing (EDIF).

I describe non Pentax K Mount lenses as follows:

K-compatible: Manual focus lenses that do not support autoexposure features.

A-compatible: Manual focus lenses with auto exposure support.

Autofocus: Third party lenses comparable to Pentax F or FA lenses.

Note about Ricoh lens compatability:

Ricoh program lenses are not compatible with Pentax Auto-Focus bodies. You can identify these lenses by a “P” on the aperture ring – when the ring is rotated into the “P” (Program) position, it locks in place and you have to depress a small button to get the aperture ring to move again.

The Ricoh program lenses have a small ball bearing contact on the rear flange of the lens that will pop right into the hole that holds the AF cam on Pentax autofocus bodies. The result will be that the lens gets locked tight on the body, only halfway mounted. I learned this the hard way trying to mount a Ricoh lens on my Pz-1p! It took a trip to the repair shop to get the lens off the camera.

The Ricoh program lenses will work fine on manual focus Pentax bodies – no AF cam or hole to get stuck on. With my Ricoh 50mm f 1.7 I just removed the back flange from the lens and took out the ball bearing contact. With the modification it no longer works as a program lens on Ricoh bodies (not that I have any Ricoh program bodies) but it is now compatible with Pentax AF bodies.

Older, non program Ricoh lenses do not have the contact or this problem These lenses are basically like SMC-M or K lenses in their aperture operation.

With the exception of the 50mm f1.7 mentioned above, all of the Ricoh lenses reviewed here are the older, non-program models, that fit without problem on all Pentax bodies, both manual and auto focus.

And with that - here are the lens summaries:

Prime Lenses

Sigma 14mm f3.5 (A-Compatible): In brief - very wide, flawlessly rectilinear, and reasonably priced. This is not a lens that I use very often, but when I do the results are usually good. The ultra wide angle of view opens up many interesting creative opportunities. The lens is very sharp, suffers form light fall off at aperture below f8, and does have a problem with flare / reflections when bright light sources hit the front element. The are not uncommon problems for lenses of this focal length. For me, this is a nice optic in a focal length that I don’t use very often, and was available at a reasonable price. I have the manual focus version of this lens, and keep it in my bag, despite infrequent use. This lens was replaced by Sigma's 14mm f2.8 EX Sample photos - 1, 2, 3.

SMC-K 24mm f2.8: Much sought after and often pricey, I used this lens only a few times before selling it. The few shots I took with it looked very good, but the FA 20-35 f4 looked just as good, so I decided to hang onto the zoom and sell off the prime.

Ricoh XR Rikenon 24mm f 2.8 (K Compatible): Adequately sharp but somewhat weak in flare control, this lens nonetheless is very reasonably priced, features an outstanding build quality, and is an excellent way to get into a prime at this focal length. As with the 24mm SMC-K, I sold it off in favor of the FA 20-35 f4.

Ricoh XR Rikenon 28mm f2.8 (K Compatible): This is one manual focus lens I still use a lot. Its a standard for my infrared film shooting. I’m very satisfied with the results of this lens. Not a common lens, it can be had at a reasonable price when you do find it. Sample photo.

SMC-A 35mm f2.8: The most disappointing Pentax lens I ever tried. Unsharp at any aperture, this lens just never produced good results. Not recommended.

SMC-K 35mm f3.5: I bought this as a replacement for the SMC-A 35mm f2.8 and was happy with the results. Again – sold it off when I got the FA 20-35.

SMC-M 40mm f2.8 Pancake: Many people find the diminutive size and nearly perfectly "normal" focal length to be very compelling, and this lens regularly sells for a pretty high price on eBay and other venues. Personally, I'm not enthralled by this piece. Granted, the 40mm focal length is great - the perspective is more relaxed than 50mm and does not have quite the wide angle feel of a 35mm. But this small size makes this lens a pain to work with, the optical quality is good but not outstanding, and the price is ridiculously inflated. If you like small things or if you can get this lens at a discount, it just may be right for you, otherwise you can get better optical performance and a fraction of the price from an SMC-M or A 50mm f1.7. While the 50mm is over twice the size of the 40mm, it still is only about 1 CM longer - so with a little ingenuity you can probably still be able to carry the more bulky 50mm setup.

SMC-FA 43mm f1.8 Limited: A really outstanding lens - exceptional build quality and style, with really impressive optics. The price is a bit daunting though. As much as I liked this lens, I ultimately sold it off. The most compelling reason for me to use this lens was the focal length, but as I moved to the digital *ist-D with it’s 1.5x focal length factor, the 43mm lens became an effective 65mm – not nearly as compelling. Sample photo.

SMC-A 50mm f1.4: A fine normal focal length lens, very sharp, great flare control, and excellent color rendition and contrast. In the "bang for the buck" category this is near the top - a truly great optic typically available used for under $100. I tested this lens against the Ricoh Rikenon 50mm f1.4 and very rare Rikenon 55mm f1.2 - and it outperformed both. Sample photos 1,2.

Ricoh Rikenon 50mm f1.4 (K Compatible): Not particularly sharp and with pretty poor flare control, this lens does have some interesting characteristics. I shot quite a bit with this for a while, but it was supplanted by better 50mm lenses. While it makes pleasing images with a nice bokeh, there are better choices in the 50mm range. Sample photo.

SMC-M 50mm f1.7 / SMC-FA 50mm f1.7: I'm lumping these together since they are virtually identical optically (the most notable exception being in the lens coatings.) These lenses are very sharp, with excellent flare control. Folks who love minutiae love to debate over the pros and cons of the 50mm f1.4 and 50mm f1.7. From my perspective the optical differences are so slight as to be meaningless. However, the manual focus M 50 f1.7, which often sells used for $20 -$30, certainly is a great buy. I use the FA 50 f1.7 when shooting film with an AF body, and the A 50 f1.4 when shooting with a manual focus body. This lens also performs very well on the *ist-D digital SLR, thought the effective 75mm focal length is not ideal.

Ricoh Rikenon 50mm f1.7 (K Compatible): I bought a newer version of this lens on sale, and used it on a camera that I kept under the car seat for a few years. The all plastic construction of the newer lens is a bit disappointing, the optical performance is very good but not on par with the Pentax 1.7.

SMC-M 50mm f2: I use a pair of these lenses as loupes for examine slides, but have never put them on a camera to test them out.

Ricoh XR Rikenon 50mm f2 (K Compatible): This is rumored to be one of the sharpest lenses ever made for 35mm cameras. I bought an old, clunky, all metal version of this lens for $10 on eBay. I have yet to test it out.

Sigma EX 50mm f2.8 macro (Autofocus compatible): Pretty big and bulky for a 50mm, this lens focuses down to 1:1 without any additional extension or filters. I use this lens mostly for snow crystal shots, and it has performed admirably in that capacity.

SMC-M 50mm f4 macro:

Very sharp, but also rather slow, This lens only focuses down to half life sized - you need to added extension tubes or close-up filter to get additional magnification. Its a nice lens and pretty inexpensive as macro's go, but if you want a macro lens for close focusing, one that focuses down to 1:1 would be much better. If macro focusing is not important, a faster, cheaper, smaller non-macro 50mm is a better choice. I mostly use this for shooting snow crystals, though in the last year the aperture blades have gotten sticky (especially in sub freezing temps) so it has been supplanted by the Sigma 50mm f2.8 for that use.

Ricoh XR Rikenon 55mm f1.2 (K Compatible): A big, fast lens that comes close to the Pentax SMC f1.4 and 1.7 50mm's in quality. I like the size and heft of this lens, and the mystique of a lens this fast is really appealing. But in my tests I found that the SMC 50mm f1.4 was sharper at f 1.4 though f4, at which point the performance of the two lenses seemed to be equivalent. This is a fine optic, but more of a collectable than a working lens, IMO – which is why I sold mine to a collector. Sample Photos 1, 2, 3.

SMC-M 100mm f2.8: Great lens, Small, great optics, and available at a reasonable price. This is a nice lens for portrait work or general shooting - much smaller than a 100mm macro and with a focusing mechanism that allows you to fine tune distant subjects as opposed to close ones.

Kiron 105mm f2.8 macro: A big macro lens that focuses down to 1:1, this was my main workhorse lens before I bought the SMC-A* 200 macro. There are a lot of macros in the 90-100 mm focal length, and many are very good. This is one of the best and is great if you can get it at a reasonable price. I use this on the digital *ist-D, also with good result. There is some very slight chromatic aberration apparent when using this on the digital, but nothing beyond the ability of Photoshop’s raw interpreter to correct. Update: Once I started using this lens on the K10D, I noticed pretty significant chromatic aberration, particularly at high magnification shots. It is still manageable in Photoshop, but prompted me to upgrade to the DA 100 f 2.8.

Sample Photo 1, 2, 3, 4.

SMC D FA 100mm f2.8: As noted above, I upgraded to this lens, in part to get past the chromatic aberrations of the Kiron 105mm macro, but also to gain autofocus in a macro lens. This lens is much smaller and lighter than the Kiron, however it lacks the rugged metal construction of the older lens. Autofocus can be relatively fast – but the lens lacks a focus limiter so if the camera does decide to start hunting, the lens can annoying swing far out of focus. The manual focus ring is large, and the focusing mechanism is smooth. This lens also employs the clutch focusing mechanism, so you can manually focus at any time without disengaging autofocus on the body. The lens also features a focusing clamp, which will lock the focus position in place – handy when working in a studio environment.

This lens has a really huge hood, which attaches to the main body of the lens, and not the front element. This means that as the front element extends – and as you focus down to 1:1 it extends by a couple of inches – the hood does not move. However, at high magnifications the front of the lens is almost flush with the edge of the lens hood, making the hood essentially ineffective. Personally, I don’t like the design and have opted to just put a hard, 49mm threaded hood onto the front element (by chance I have a sturdy metal one that works very nicely.)

From my limited use of the lens thus far, image quality appears to be superb. I intentionally shot high contrast scenes, hoping to induce chromatic aberrations or fringing, but virtually none was to be found. Resolution, detail, edge definition are all excellent. Color saturation, contrast, and flare control are all excellent. Tested on a film body (Pentax Mz-S) the lens proved that it did indeed cover the full 35mm frame, even at 1:1 magnification, with no noticeable light falloff in the corners.

Overall – I’d highly recommend this lens to anyone seeking a 100mm macro. Someday, when I get over my emotional attachment, I might even sell my Kiron, which seems to be doomed to get even less use than before.

Sample photo: 1.

Bayonet Takumar 135mm f2.5: Generally regarded as a dog, this lens lacks the Pentax SMC coatings. While the build quality is nice, the multi colored aperture markings make it look somewhat cheap. And this is a cheap lens - usually retailing below $50 US. But for all it's faults, I always have fun with this lens. The finder is really bright for a telephoto, the shallow depth of field wide open is great, and while it's not the sharpest optic it does a decent job in most situations. If you find one priced cheap, grab it and join the fun.

Pentax SMC A* 200mm f2.8: A truly fine lens in every respect. Sharp, well build, fine Bokeh, impressive speed. Like many A* lenses it can be expensive, but is worth it. Ultimately, I sold mine off – at one point in time I had two zooms that covered 200mm and three prime lenses at this focal length. I whittled that down to the pair of zooms and the following lens:

Pentax SMC A* 200mm f4 macro: My most used lens - rock solid in build quality, exceptional optics and sharpness. This lens focuses down to 1:1, at which magnification the size of the image projected onto the film is the same as the size of the subject . I use this as my primary lens for both field and studio macros. This lens is compatible with the excellent 1.4x - L and 2x - L teleconverters - and in combination with those you can achieve some really high magnification images. This has continued to be my #1 most used lens for macro work with the A*ist-D, and the results are truly excellent. Highly recommended. Sample photos (most of the insect and butterfly galleries.)

SMC M 200mm f4: Compact, well built, with very good optics. This is an affordable 200mm, not in the league of the A* lenses noted above, but also costing only a fraction as much. I use this lens with a 50mm reverse mounted in front as an easy way to get 4x life sized macros, and it does well in this application.

SMC A* 300mm f4: Quite small and compact for a 300mm, excellent optics but not quite at the level of the A* 200's. My only complaint about this lens is the minimum focusing distance - just under 3 meters - which can limit it's usefulness with small subjects. Despite this quibble, this is an excellent lens. This lens also works well on the *ist-d, where, due to the focal length factor, it is the equivalent of a 450mm f4 – a much more useful focal length for telephoto subjects. Despite this – its one of the least used lenses in the bag. Sample Photos: 1, 2.

SMC A* 400mm f2.8: Big, fast, and heavy - I use this lens for birds, landscapes, and the occasional close up. I almost always use this lens with teleconverters - typically the 1.7 F autofocus adapter, but also with the 1.4x-L adapter and 2x adapter. With the 1.7x adapter, this lens becomes the equivalent of a 640mm f4.5 on a 35mm camera, and the equivalent of a 960mm f 4.5 on the *ist-D. While the autofocus aspects of the adapter are limited with this lens, AF does kick in once the lens is pre-focused. Sharpness is on par with the best of the Pentax A* lenses. The only complaint I have with this lens is that the Bokeh can be harsh, particularly when used with the 2x-L teleconverter. Sample photos (no teleconverter): 1, 2, 3. Sample photos (with 1.7x teleconverter) 1, 2, 3.

Tokina 400mm f 5.6: Like most Tokina lenses, this is a well build, solid piece. It's fairly small and compact for a lens of this focal length. Optical quality is acceptable at f5.6, much better at f 8 and 11, though it never rises to the level of the Pentax A* lenses. On he *ist-D this lens become the equivalent of a 600mm lens on a 35mm camera – making it very usable for birds etc. Sample photo.

Takumar 500mm f4.5: Often refereed to as "Battle Ship Takumar," this lens is big, heavy, and all metal. My copy was the oldest, single coated screw mount version that was crudely modified to be a K-Mount lens by having a K mount adapter permanently affixed to it.. It was also make in a SMC screwmount version, and a K-Mount version. The K Mount version, which incorporated the same optical design, was manufactured through the late 1990's. With a manual aperture, physical size close to its focal length, and minimum focusing distance of 10 meters, this is definitely not a modern optic. But that does not prevent it from delivering great images. In terms of sharpness, my tests show this lens to be on par with the Tokina 400mm f5.6 - very good but not outstanding. Where this lens is really outstanding is in it's saturation and contrast. Looking through this lens there is a visible 'pop' to colors that you can see in the finder - and that shows on the film as well. The screwmount version can found at very reasonable prices - mine cost $430 - and are probably the best way to get into some serious 'big glass' at a reasonable price. Though I sold my Takumar off before going digital, I suspect that the chromatic aberrations in this lens (even visible to some degree in film shots) would really impair its performance on a digital SLR. But – that’s speculation on my part. Sample photos 1, 2, 3.

Zoom Lenses

Purists dis them, but using a zoom may be the best way to get the shot you want. The ability to quickly frame up the shot by changing focal length means you get more shots. Though zooms often lag behind fixed focal length lenses in terms of image quality - the shot you get is always better than the shot you miss. Here's a rundown on the zoom lenses I've tried:

SMC DA 16-45 f4: It took the Pentax K10D to get me serious about the APS-C format. Up till then I was reluctant to buy any of the DA lenses, because I figured they would be incompatible with film shooting, and ultimately incompatible with a full frame digital SLR. But now that my 35mm film shooting is virtually nill, and the APS-C format seems to be here to stay, I’m finally willing to invest in these lenses. Besides – the DA 18-55mm kit lens that came with the K10D made me miss having a wide angle lens.

The DA 16-45mm lens is a notable step up from the 18-55mm zoom. The constant aperture (f4 at the widest) is nice. Overall sharpness is excellent, both in the center and the edges of the frame. There is no noticeable light fall off in the corners. The zoom range is very useful – corresponding to a 24-70mm lens in 35mm terms – though it would be nice if it were a little longer. Close focusing and maximum magnification are OK, but not as nice as the 18-55mm. Flare is very well controlled throughout the zoom range.

Physically, the lens is fairly large, but light and easy to carry. The accompanying hood is a nice accessory.

This is a fine general purpose zoom, and is the lens I usually keep on the K10D. What’s not to like? The lens displays slight chromatic aberration in high contrast scenes – like tree branches against a light sky. Not enough to be a major problem.

Pentax SMC-F 17-28 fisheye zoom: Now here's an odd duck. At the widest setting this lens has a pronounced fisheye effect, but as you zoom in the fisheye effect becomes less pronounced until it all but disappears. At the 28mm setting, this lens shows very little fisheye distortion, but shows a wider angle of view than a typical 28mm - approximately that of a 24mm. One drawback of this lens is that it cannot take fromt mounted filters due to a concave front element - there is a holder for geltain filters on the rear of the lens. This is a great lens that offers a lot of creative opportunity - and it's a lens unique to Pentax. Highly recommended for use with film cameras. The situation changes somewhate with the *-ist-D Digital camera. Because the digital sensor crops out the edges of the frame - where the fisheye effect is most pronounced - you don't get much of a fisheye feel to this lens on the digital SLR. Instead, you get what looks like a pretty poorly dorrected, high distortion, wide angle. It is wide, and if you can correct the barrel distortion in Photoshop this lens may be a good wide angle alternative for the *ist-D. Sample Photos 1, 2, 3, and the photo of the room here.

DA 18-55mm f3.5-5.6: This is an inexpensive ‘normal zoom’ for Pentax digital SLR’s. The “DA” designation indicates that the lens covers only the area of the APS sized sensors in Pentax digital SLR bodies, and would probably produce vignetting if used on a film body (something I have to try!) For being such an inexpensive lens (mine came with a Pentax K10D kit for an added price of well under $100) this is a very good lens. It’s not up to the most rigorous standards – wide open it is soft in the corners of the frame, shows noticeable light falloff, and is subject to pretty noticeable chromatic aberration. The image quality improves notably when it is stopped down. It also focuses extremely close for a standard zoom – verging on macro lens magnifications – which is a real boon for those of us who like to get close. I plan to upgrade to the 16-45 or some other high quality normal zoom (at 4-5 times the cost of the DA 18-55!) but for everyday shooting, this lens is more than adequate. I’ve also produced one exhibition print from an exposure taken with this lens - this shot – and while some of the defects are apparent when the image is viewed at actual pixels on the computer screen, the print itself looks extremely good.

Vivitar Series 1 19 - 35mm (A Compatible): A great lens at the price, this zoom is sharp and contrasty through its range. The one problem is flare. I used this on one trip - many indoor shots were great as were outdoor shots where the sun was behind me. But catch a few sun rays on the front element and you'd swear that Captain Kirk is beaming into your shot. A good lens if you are on a budget, not the best of class. Sample Photo.

Pentax SMC-FA 20-35mm f4: This is one of my favorite lenses and gets a lot of use. The 20-35mm focal length is a lot more useful when shooting film, but is still useful with the *ist-D. Images are sharp and contrasty, with minimal distortion. Like many ultra wide angles, this lens is prone to flare, though the accompanying hood is pretty good at helping to control it. An excellent lens all around and one that I’m sure to always take with me. I wound up selling off my SMC-M 24mm f2.8 in favor of this lens. Sample photos 1, 2, 3.

Pentax SMC FA 28-70mm f4 AL: This is another standard lens, and one that I use frequently. Excellent performance throughout the zoom range, and a good performer on both film and digital bodies. It should be noted that this is one lens that gets very mixed reviews – some people love it, others hate it. Maybe there is a lot of variation between individual lenses – I don’t know. But I do know that this lens is one of my favorites, and has produced many excellent images. Sample image: 1, 2.

Takumar F 28-80: The autofocus Takumar lenese are Pentax's 'budget' line (not to be confused with the older, screwmount Takumars, which were first rate lenese.) One of the first lenses I bought, and frankly one of the worst. Soft, unsharp, prone to flare. It had a macro setting at the long end that did provide for fairly close focusing, but the sharpness was lacking. Not recommended.

Rikenon 28-100mm f4: An old style, manual focus, constant aperture zoom. Probably set a record for the lens I owned the shortest period of time. I bought one on eBay, tested it, sold it within a week. It was sharp enough, seemed prone to flare, but had terrible barrel and pincushion distortion at the different ends of the zoom range. When you can see the distortion in the finder – time to fine a new lens.

Pentax SMC FA 28-105mm f4-56: This is the only power zoom lens that I have every used, The power zoom features were big in the Pz series of Pentax bodies, though I have never used them. The lens itself is very good, though in my opinion not up to the standards of the FA 28-70. The variable aperture is not a major problem, but is a bit of an annoyance. Optical quality is very good, but some distortion is apparent in larger prints shot at the wide angle end of the zoom. Sample photo.

Pentax SMC A 28-135mm f4: A real classic zoom that was no doubt a gem of a lens in it’s day. These can be hard to find and usually fetch a decent price. I found this to be a good sharp lens – not on par with the best primes or even the more modern zooms though. It’s solid as a rock (metal construction) and weighs about as much as a rock as well. It features a macro function on the short end – so you can focus close with the lens set to 28mm, not very logical IMO. I used mine on the trip to Skanee, and got a lot of excellent photos with it – but sold it off shortly thereafter. Sample images 1, 2, 3.

Sigma EX 70-200mm f2.8: Not as sharp as the best prime lenses in this focal length (e.g the A* 200 f4 macro or A* 200 f2.8) – but still very good. I use this with lighthouse photos, sports events, and various people shots. One quibble – it malfunctions at very cold temperatures (e.g. around 0 Fahrenheit) – the aperture opens up and does not shut. Sample photos: 1, 2, 3.

Pentax Takumar F 70-200 f4-5.6: Despite being a budget lens, my sample of this optic was excellent. I sold it when I bought the FA 80-320, but wish I still had it.

Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm f3.5 macro zoom: This lens was a bit revolutionary when it was introduced in the mid 1970’s. Apparently, it was one of the first third party lenses to be introduced that offered a quality that rivaled that of the major brand name optics. Several version of this lens were made – I had the first version, with the 67mm filter size. A lot of people rave about this lens, and it still enjoys a good reputation. Maybe I had a bad sample – you never know when you buy something used – but I found it to be lack luster in performance. Images were adequately sharp at f 8 and f 11, but were soft at more open apertures and downright soft wide open (aft f 3.5). The macro feature was intriguing – the lens snaps into a macro setting and focuses down to half life sized. On my lens, at least, the picture quality in macro mode was poor – about on par with using a single element close up filter. Again, maybe I had a bad sample – a lot of folks swear by this lens – and maybe it was quite the item 30 years ago. But personally, I would not recommend it.

Pentax SMC FA 80-320mm f4-56: This is one lens that I bought, never used much, but have not sold. I like it – very lightweight and with a good telephoto range. Performance from 80-200 is very good, more or less on par with the Sigma noted above, but of course a stop or more slower. Quality softens a bit beyond 300. Sample photo.

Tokina ATX 100-300mm f4: A massive, manual focus, constant aperture, ‘one touch’ zoom. Built like a rock – very solid. Optical performance is good, but not outstanding.

Teleconverters

Teleconverters fall into a unique category. Since they can only be used in combination with another lens, its difficult to evaluate them on their on merits. In my experience, a teleconverter that works well with one lens, may perform poorly on with another. Ultimately, using teleconverters is a bit hit and miss.

In theory, one way to avoid that kind of uncertainty is to use lenses and teleconverters that are designed to work together. Pentax makes several K Mount teleconverters that are specifically designed to work with certain lenses.

Among the current teleconverters, and the most pricey, are the 2x-L, 1.4x-L, 2x-S, and 1.4x-S series. The “L” series stand for long lens, and are designed to work with longer optics. The “S” stands for short lens.

Despite these designations, some converters are designed to be used with specific lenses. For example, the “L” teleconverters are designed to be used with the A* 200mm macro, while the “S” converters are designed for use with the A* 200mm f 2.8 (non macro.) The “L” series converters are the least flexible in terms of use. They have an extension that reaches up into the lenses that they are paired to work with. This enables them to integrate into the lens nicely, but also make it impossible to mount them on any lenses other than those they are designed to work with.

Both the “S” and “L” teleconverters have the electrical contacts needed to preserve full auto exposure features with Pentax cameras. However, there is no linkage for the autofocus drive shaft, so while these converters can be used with autofocus lenses, you loose autofocus functions when using them.

A real odd duck in the Pentax teleconverter lineup is the 1.7x-AF converter. This converter links to the camera’s autofocus mechanism, and focuses by moving the elements in the teleconverter itself, as opposed to the lens.

When I bought an A* 400 f2.8 for birding, I also bought the matching 2x-L and 1.4x-L teleconverters. Here’s my impressions of those (and other) K mount teleconverters that I’ve used:

Pentax SMC 2x-L converter: This is a fairly large converter, and is compatable with several long focal length lenses. Its expensive, and to be honest I’ve never been very impressed by its performance. Images loose a fair degree of sharpness, contrast, and saturation, but even worse is the horrific bokeh that this teleconverter and the A* 400 can produce. I keep it as 'part of the set' for the A* 400 f2.8, but in my opinion the AF 1.7x produces a much better image at almost the same degree of magnification, and the Kiron MC-7 is also also better.

Pentax SMC 1.4x-L converter: In stark contrast to the 2x-L, I can hardly tell the difference between shots taken with this converter on and without it. It is particularly useful on the 200mm macro for getting 1.4x life-sized images, with virtually no degradation of image quality.

Pentax SMC 1.7x AF converter: Like I said, this is truly a unique offering from Pentax. The optical quality is excellent – this is more or less permanently affixed to my A* 400 f.2.8 for birding (resulting in an effective 680mm f 4.5 lens for 35mm film, and a comparable 1020 mm on the *ist-D, due to the digital 'crp factor.'). The autofocus, functionality is surprisingly good – best with fast, shorter focal length lenses (e.g. a 50mm f 1.4). The effective range of the AF is limited with longer lenses, but is accurate and effective still.

Pentax K mount 2x TC6 teleconverter: This is an old, 6 element converter that lacks the contacts needed for auto features. My sample was a pretty poor performer – tack sharp in the center (and only the center) but with progressively worse distortion towards the edges of the frame.

Kiron MC 7 2x Teleconverter:

A surprisingly good third party converter, works very well with the Kiron 105mm macro, but also as a general purpose converter. I had both the K Mount version (no electrical contacts) and the A compatible version, which supports full contacts. Both worked very well.

I have a few more lenses to add to this someday – and maybe someday I’ll buy a few new optics that can be added. In the meantime, for more scientific testing, consult sites like photodo.com.

A few months ago, when I upgraded to a Pentax K10D digital SLR, I had an unpleasant surprise: the venerable X’s Drive II that had worked flawlessly with hundreds of compact flash card transfers was unable to reliably transfer the SD cards that the new camera used. And so – it was time for new portable storage device.

After actually doing some research, I settled on the CompactDrive PD70X. As you’d expect, CompactDrive’s latest offering is a big step forward from the now several year old X’s drive. After some debate I decided to get an 80 gigabyte drive installed in the compact drive housing – sufficient to hold the rather large DNG RAW files that the K10D kicks out. (I could have just used the smaller, proprietary PEF RAW format files, but what the heck…)

I bought the drive at www.mydigitaldiscount.com – the same place where I got the X’s drive years ago. Their price, including the drive, was competitive, and I’ve never had a problem with their service.

Here’s a run down of what I like, and don’t like, about the PD70X:

1. Speed: Leading the “like” list is the speed of file transfers. This drive is fast! My old and slow Kingston and PNY 1 gig CF cards transfer their full load onto the Compact Drive’s hard disk in just under 4 minutes. Much newer and faster SanDisk Extreme III SD cards can transfer 2 gigabytes of data in just over 5 minutes. The manual advises using high speed cards to achieve the best transfer rates, and that clearly seems to be the case. In any event – the PD70X is way ahead of the old X’s Drive II, which took about 15 minutes to download a single gigabyte CF card.

2. LED Display: The well thought out LED display provides you with the essential information needed to use the drive without a computer. First, there is a lasting icon that lets you know if the card transfer was successful or not. Unlike some drives that may just flash an ‘OK’ signal for a minute or so, the PD70X leaves an icon on the screen until you power it down – so you don’t have to guess about unattended card transfers. In addition, the drive display shows the available space on the installed hard drive, shows the progress of card transfers, and even shows the voltage output from the batteries. And if something does go wrong, there’s a pretty comprehensive set of error codes that help you diagnose the problem quickly.

3. Power Supply: When used in the field, any portable storage device is limited by the its battery life. Having a 40 or 80 gigabyte hard drive doesn’t do you much good if the device's batteries die after 2 gigabytes are transferred. The CompactDrive attacks this problem from two angles. Running off of 4 AA rechargeable NiMh batteries, the documentation claims that the drive can handle up to 80 gigabytes of transfer on a single charge. I haven’t come close to testing this in real use – but I have transferred several cards onto the drive without appearing to even dent the battery capacity. The other advantage is that – should the batteries be depleted – they are widely available AA batteries. It’s easy to pack a spare set in the bag and be sure of ample power. The drive itself serves as a battery charger, and simply plugging it into the AC adapter starts the process of charging the installed batteries. That said – I still have had a few problems finding the right batteries for this drive (see the “don’t likes” section….)

4. Build Quality: The aluminum housing of the PD70X looks very solid. Having broken a few pieces of plastic gear while shooting out in the bitter cold earlier this winter (temperatures so cold the plastic got brittle and fragile) the metal construction looks good

5. PC Interface: USB II and it downloads files as fast as any good external USB II drive. Nuf said.

OK – sounds pretty darn good. So what’s not to like? Well, I can always come up with something…

1. File structure: This is the only significant annoyance I’ve found thus far with this device. Like most portable storage drive, the PD70X creates sequentially numbered folders to store the contents of each card transfer. So, transfer 3 cards onto a brand new PD70X and you’ll get 3 folders – CARD0001.UHS, CARD0002.UHS, and CARD0003.UHS. The CARD####.UHS is the default folder naming convention – by adding a simple .txt file to the main directory you can change this to whatever you want.

BUT – the PD70X always writes to the first available entry in the directory. So – using the example above – if you decide to delete the CARD0001.UHS directory, and then save your 4th memory card to the drive, the drive creates a CARD0001.USH folder and saves to it. In other words – folder saves are not sequential.

I can see this being a real annoyance in the future. I keep files on the portable storage device as yet another level of backup, until the device starts to fill up. But – I also take a lot of silly photos and from time to time dump the same card to the drive a couple of times. The X’s drive saved file transfers sequentially – if the last folder number was number 895, the drive would simply save the next card as 896. Just by leaving the last folder used on the drive, the card dumps were always incremented forward, and you could always tell what folder was the most recent. This isn’t the case with the PD70X – and if you edit and delete folders it could be a nuisance to figure out which folder holds your most recent files.

2. Power Source: I thought this was on the “like” list. Well, it is, but there are still some limits. For one thing, I found some 1800 mAh batteries are not up to working with the PD70X – even though they are new batteries and have a fresh charge. The drive errors out during power up, with a #20 – No Hard Drive Present error. I assume that these particular batteries just can’t put out enough voltage to get the HD to even power up.

I upgraded to higher capacity batteries (2650 mAh) and they work fine, as NiMh batteries go. But they still suffer from the fundamental problem that they lose their charge when not in use. So if the drive sits in the bag for a week or two without a charge, the battery life is seriously compromised. And while the drive does have a built in charger – it is not a high speed charger. So you have to be sure to charge the drive up in advance.

3. CF Card Port: Maybe I worry too much, but the CF port on the PD70X is really shallow. CF card ports have lots of little wire pins. I’ve never had a problem with bent pins (though I’ve known more than a few folks who have) – BUT the CF ports I’ve used before have been very deep – deep enough for the card to get very well aligned and straightened out before it interfaces with those fragile wires. The shallow port on the PD70X means you have to be careful when inserting a card. So far I haven’t had any problems, but, like I said, I worry…

4. USB Cable: OK, I’m getting picky here, but a 3 foot long USB cable? Come on… It’s just long enough to plug into the front of the computer and put the drive next to the key board. OK – I can go buy a 6 foot able or a USB II mini hub, but that’s annoying…

Overall – the “like” obviously outweigh the “don’t likes” – and I’m looking forward to working with this drive. A bigger question – with the dropping price of CF and SD memory cards – is whether or not you need a portable storage device at all. For the same price as the PD70X I could have bought a bunch of SD cards. Given how cheap these cards are getting, it’s almost unnecessary to use any portable storage device. Personally, I prefer using the portable drive and carrying enough cards to cover a full day’s shooting – the best of both worlds.

Note: This is an update to my original post on the K10D, which can be found HERE. 

It’s been a couple months since the Pentax K10D first arrived, and I’ve managed to squeeze out just over 2500 images – granted most of the cats and holiday decorations. But it’s given me plenty of time to play around with the camera and get familiar with it.  

So here are few more thoughts an observations about this camera:

• 10 megapixels makes a difference:  Intuitively, I didn't think that going from 6 to 10.1 megapixels would make much of a difference. But then, intuitively, I initially didn't expect a 6 mexapixel camera to rival 35mm film as well as it did. Looking at the results I have to say that there's a noticeable difference in detail between 6 and 10 megapixels. I'm not quite ready to abandon medium format for some particularly demanding uses, but my initial reaction is that 10 megapixels delivers an image quality as good or better than 35mm film.

• Chromatic Aberrations on older lenses: Maybe it's because of the increased pixel count, maybe its due to the how the RAW images are processed, but I'm noticing more chromatic aberration on the Pentax K10 D than I noticed on the *ist-D. My Kiron 105mm f 2.8 macro, for example, had a minor degree of CA on the *ist, but a significant amount on the K10D. While it's largely correctable in the RAW converter, I suspect that a few more older lens will be falling by the wayside as this becomes my primary camera.

• Shake reduction:  Still works great! It's amazing how quickly I've gotten used to shooting hand held 1/15th of a second shots.

• Dust Removal:  The K10 has a dust removal setting, where it knocks the sensor around to shake off any dust specs. This works extremely well! After several trips to the woods and the beach, I still have yet to even blow off the sensor with a hand blower. I've actually got shots with notable dust specs on the sensor, that disappear after running the dust removal process.

• Banding Noise: This seems to have created a big hub-bub in several user discussions of this camera. on line. It's a bit of a mixed bag in my opinion. To begin with, this camera is extremely low in noise, and I have yet to see any noise problem (banding or otherwise) in any shots that were well exposed (over even a stop or so off the mark.) However - a significantly under exposed shot that is  'pushed' several stops in the RAW converter will begin to display noise (go figure) and that noise does seem to have a banding pattern to it. It's particularly noticeable if the image is converted to a monochrome shot using the channel mixer, as the noise can be more prominent in one channel than another. (In my experience the problem can appear in either the red or blue channel.) Of course, ISO 1600 is more subject to noise than lower ISO levels, so the problem can be more noticeable at this setting. Personally, I don't see an issue with it since any shot that's even close to properly exposed avoids this problem.

• Battery Life  I was somewhat concerned with switching to rechargeable batteries with the K10D. After all, the *ist-D would run off any old set of 4 AA batteries, and a set of AA lithiums could last 1500 exposures or more. Thankfully, the rechargeable batteries in the K10D seem to last well beyond the 750 exposure Pentax estimates (since I don't use the flash, that is probably a main reason why they last longer.) I still bought 3 backup batteries just to be sure I'm never caught without.

For now that seems to sum it up. Overall, this is an excellent camera and I've been having a great time getting to know it.

Two weeks ago I received a Pentax K10D digital SLR. I had put in my order for this camera with B&H Photo, based on the specifications and trust that Pentax would deliver. After a week of testing and tying the camera, I can only say that I’m more than satisfied. This is not so much of a review of the K10D, as a recording of my subject reactions to it. But then, I guess that’s what most reviews ultimately are!

I bought the camera plus lens kit, which included the Pentax DA 18-55mm lens. Along with the camera and lens, B&H offered a bundle including a SanDisk Extreme III 2-gigabyte SD card.

Here’s a rundown of what I like – and don’t like – about this camera. (The first list is a lot longer than the second.)

On the like list –

1. Image quality: As with the *ist series, this camera offers first rate color, detail, and sharpness. I shoot RAW so I take responsibility for the overall image quality, but I haven’t seen any significant limitations on what this camera is capable of. Noise is low, color accuracy is high, and detail and clarity are first rate.

2. Build in Anti-Shake: The K10D sports a sensor based anti-shake system. For the last few years I’ve envied the availability of Image Stabilized or Vibration Reduction lenses available for Canon and Nikon systems. With the arrival of the K10D I now have almost two dozen anti-shake enable lenses, ranging from 14mm to 800mm (400 + 2x teleconverter.)

So how well does the anti-shake work? Here are a couple of test shots of a venerable Argoflex TLR. They were taken hand held at 1/8th of a second using the 18-55mm at 55mm, f8. These are both 'actual pixel' shots of the camera, the top one taken with shake reduction enabled, the bottom one without. As you can see – the anti shake function adds a lot of sharpness!

(A full image of this venerable camera can be found later in this post.)

I’m looking forward to seeing how the Pentax anti-shake feature works with macro photography – with a little luck, next summer will result in a bevy or more / better dragonflies!

3. Speed: This camera is fast! With the Extreme III card you are never more than a few seconds from the next shot, even shooting large RAW DNG files. For JPG shooting the speed is outstanding.

4. 10.2 effective megapixels. This is a noticeable step up from the 6.1 mexapixel *ist-D. At the end of the day, I don’t think this camera will make my medium format gear obsolete for landscape shooting. But as digital specs march forward it’s only a matter of time…

5. Viewfinder: the K10D viewfinder is bright, with a decent level of magnification. The
*ist-D finder was good – better than many other digital SLR’s that I’ve played with – but the 10D takes it another step forward.

6. Large LCD: Wow! I can read the menus without my glasses. And the detailed zoom really lets me know what’s sharp (or not). Great!

7. DNG RAW files: If you shoot RAW, and you want to make sure that you can access those RAW files in the future, a open standard for RAW shooting makes sense. The Adobe DNG standard isn’t as universal as TIFF or JPG, but it certainly is a step in the right direction away from proprietary RAW formats that may or may not be supported by future software. If you don’t care about this – the proprietary Pentax PEF format is also an option.

8. On demand RAW shooting: I seldom shoot JPG’s, but when I do there is always that shot or two where I wish I could quickly flip over to RAW mode just for a shot or two. The K10D has a nifty RAW button – if you are shooting in Jpeg mode just hit this button and you get an on-off RAW shot (and a JPG to boot.) Nice.

9. Fast AF: Back in the film camera days, Pentax always took a lot of heat over their pokey and low-tech AF systems. The AF on the K10D is exceptionally fast, and works great in low light. The *ist-D was good, this camera is excellent. Pentax has also opened the door to future hypersonic lenses – we’ll see what the future holds.

10. User programmable settings memory: Well, that’s a mouthful. What it amounts to is that this camera lets you decide what gets reset when you turn off the camera, and what settings are retained in memory. The *ist-D used to drive me crazy when shooting macros, because the 2 second mirror pre-fire mode was always reset after the camera powered off. So I’d inevitably take a shot with it off, and then have to reset it. Now I decided whether that – and a slow of other functions like exposure compensation, auto bracketing, white balance, sensitivity, etc go back to default after power on, or stay were they were last set.

11. Show shutter flash synch in aperture priority: Prior Pentax Cameras could only handle slow shutter synch in manual mode – which added an unnecessary step to shooting birds with slow shutters speeds and fill flash. At last – slow shutter synch is selectable for aperture priority. I may just dust off my birding lenses…

12. Full backwards compatibility with K Mount lenses. As with the *ist series, you can use any K mount lens, no matter how old, with the K10D. For Pre-A lenses – really old lenses with no program mode capabilities – you are limited to stop down metering. Pentax has made this fairly painless – just hit a button and the lens stops down and takes a reading. For A and later lenses virtually all functions work, though you do have to input the focal length to get Anti-Shake to work with an older lens.

13. Post Exposure Histogram Display: The K10D offers a host of post exposure information displays. Aside from the standard histogram, you can see the red, green, and blue channel histograms separately. The camera can be set to enable blown out highlights to flash or under exposed shadows to flash.

14. Build Quality / User ergonomics: This is one solid camera. Feels good in the hand, offers a vertical batter grip as well. It continues the Pz-1p and *ist-D dual control wheel design ethic. With hyper-manual and program shift modes, you can set the camera to offer suggested exposure options, and quickly and easily adjust those on the fly. Since most features are selected via switches, buttons, and dials, there is less of the annoying (and time consuming) drilling down into menus.

15. The User setting: One of my favorite settings from the Pz-1p camera, that I’m glad to see back on the K10D. This setting lets you set a favorite user profile, and quickly switch to it with just the twist of the mode dial.

16. The usual Pentax features: In addition to the above, the usual Pentax features are available in this camera. By that I mean the 2 second mirror pre-fire for macro shooting, the DOF preview incorporated in the collar around the shutter button, and the general build quality and ergonomics.

17. Weather sealing: I’m pretty unabashed about using my cameras out in bad weather, and so far I’ve not had any problems. But now at least I have a camera that is actually sealed against the elements. Well – a second camera that’s weather sealed. The Pentax LX had similar sealing.

So those are things I really like. Here are a few things that may or may not be important:

1. The 22 bit color conversion factor: the sensor in this camera records 22 bit per channel data, which is then translated down to 12 bit per channel for final saves (in RAW mode.) This may just be a bit of specmanship – a technical bragging point – but the overall image quality is excellent, so who cares how its achieved.

2. Extended bracketing mode: This feature lets you choose to bracket white balances, sharpness, and contrast levels. Cool – but as a RAW shooter I can’t say I need it.

3. Digital Preview: Basically, with this enabled you compose the shot and press the DOF preview button. The shutter snaps and you see a digital preview of the shot – complete with histograms and flashing high lights / low lights (if selected). Neat – but unless you are really short on memory cards, why not just take the shot and re-shoot if it’s not what you want? The camera is so fast, you won’t need to spend a lot of time waiting for it to write to the card or something.

4. Rechargeable battery: Some review sites have voiced some rather idiotic comments on this subject, suggestion that prior Pentax DSLR’s weren’t serious contenders without rechargeable batteries. I’ve also seen some absurd numbers about battery life using AA batteries (like 80 shos per set of batteries.)

I for one liked using AA batteries in my older Pentax DSLR’s. In the *ist-D a standard set of AA Lithium batteries could produce upwards of 1200 exposures (I routinely logged 1400 –1500 when I tracked it.) They are cheap, they are everywhere, and I’d rather be able to run off to a drugstore and buy new batteries than have to wait to recharge a semi-proprietary battery. So I’m ambivalent to the new rechargeable batteries in the K10D.

That said – I picked up a generic spare battery and will add a couple more to be sure to be able to meet extended shooting needs. (They are supposed to be good for ~700 shots – we’ll see.) I don’t anticipate any problems here – I do think I’d prefer the old AA approach.

5. APS-C Sensor Size: I’ll confess to some ambivalence to this format. I don’t see anything magical (or even very logical) about the 135 format (the 24x35mm film format a.k.a. know as 35mm film). I like how the APS sized sensor adds reach to my telephoto and macro lenses. I also like how the smaller format sensor works with the ‘sweet spot’ in most 35mm lenses – the center portion where sharpness is at it’s peak and distortion is at it’s minimum. But I still love shooting at a wide angle. The 18-55mm kit lens that came with the camera is a step in the right direction, and I may just need to break down and purchase some DA lenses, made to work with the APS sized sensor.

And now the even shorter list – the one thing I don’t like about the K10D:

1. P-TTL Flash (only): As I count it, Pentax has gone through 3 generations of TTL flashes. There were analog TTL flashes, digital flashes, and the newest P-TTL flashes. P-TTL is by far the best for exposure accuracy, and offers extended synch speeds (it will synch at any shutter speed, not matter how fast) but it’s not perfect. At least not for the specialized purposes I use flash for. For one thing – it must be used with a lens that can exchange information with the body. That excludes many older lenses, and also reverse mounted lenses for extreme macro use. The older TTL modes did not have this restriction.

As a result – if I want to take snow crystal shots with this great new camera, I either have to use manual flash or go back to stacking lenses or some other means of gaining extreme magnification.

Oh well – the worse case scenario is that the *ist-D has a permanent job as the official snow crystal camera, and I’ll look at upgrading my current P-TTL flash (the AF360FGZ) to something with more power for general shooting.

Aside from this one nit, I can’t find much to fault in this camera. It’s great to see a small, individualistic company like Pentax come out swinging, and actually hold their own against much larger competitors. It’s particularly heartening to see that they seemed to have listened to feedback from users, and have worked hard to build a camera that is truly responsive to the wants and needs many people have expressed. It’s no wonder that the K10D is wining awards and accolades, and let’s hope it’s a sign of even better things to come from Pentax.

Link: http://www.jandcphoto.com/

A few years ago, when I first started with medium format photography, I decided to test out as many of the available B&W emulsions as possible. I’m pretty flexible (some might say fickle) and I tend to change brands in all things, so it was natural to just buy a few of everything and proceed.

Nonetheless, a few favorites quickly emerged. Traditional, old style emulsions really have a look that I like, and Plus X, Tri-X, Neopan 400, and the Afga APX emulsions have been among my favorites.

A somewhat lesser known film, Classic Pan 200, marketed by JandC Photography, has emerged as one of my favorites, and is more or less tied with Agfa’s APX films in terms of the number of rolls I’ve shot over the last few years.

Read more »