Illogical lusting for Pentax K1

[Bryan]

I spent 40+ years building a physical archive of carefully captioned transparencies. It fills 8 big filing cabinets. The captions were all logged into a searchable database using Helix Express running on a Mac starting with a IICi. When I had to join the digital world, the new system had to resemble the physical system as closely as possible. If I were starting to-day, I might well let something like Lightroom do some sorting, but that's not where I am. Photoshop makes no attempt to file my finished images and DxO wouldn't try to meddle either.

 

Microsoft Word tries to help if it thinks I am making a list for example. I hate software which tries to interfere with my work methods so I'm hesitant to lock horns with Lightroom's preferences if there is a simpler option.

 

 

I feel the same way about over friendly software. I used to program a Z80 in assembly language, could read and drive external devices, and loved knowing exactly what went on (control freakery).  In contrast I find most things Windows related baffling...

 

I also had huge reservations about Lightroom. I originally bought it for the raw converter for my Sony - I had been using Canon's, own software. I found it totally counter intuitive at first; in fact I hated it.  I also had what I thought was a perfectly good database before starting LR

 

However, reading the likes of David Kilpatrick about digital workflow, I decided to stick with it and got to use the catalogue for keywording. I have learned just about enough to get by for both processing the pics and storing the data.  I have tried following some tutorials on more advanced techniques, but the results just didn't appear to justify the energy expended. I am much more comfortable with PS, that I have used for years, for titivating pictures. I now have a pretty good idea about what LR does best and what is better left to PS.  I would now be reluctant to drop LR, it is fast and convenient, once you know just enough to do what you need.....

[CM photo]

 

I spent 40+ years building a physical archive of carefully captioned transparencies. It fills 8 big filing cabinets. The captions were all logged into a searchable database using Helix Express running on a Mac starting with a IICi. When I had to join the digital world, the new system had to resemble the physical system as closely as possible. If I were starting to-day, I might well let something like Lightroom do some sorting, but that's not where I am. Photoshop makes no attempt to file my finished images and DxO wouldn't try to meddle either.

 

Microsoft Word tries to help if it thinks I am making a list for example. I hate software which tries to interfere with my work methods so I'm hesitant to lock horns with Lightroom's preferences if there is a simpler option.

 

But we're getting away from the idea of upgrading to a K-1 Pentax. The body is a bargain, the first lenses look big and fast and expensive, but I see nothing much about the 28-105 zoom is only 3.5 at its fastest setting.

 

You don't seem to understand how Lightroom works - not sure what experience you had to give you such a negative impression of a really excellent program. There are two main parts to Lightroom - the catalog and the raw converter. The catalog is a very good flat file database with superb search facilities, just like a stack of cards you might have for locating your files in your filing cabinet or a simple database program to keep track of them as you mention. It doesn't move anything (unless you specifically request it to do so) and is very non-intrusive. The catalog doesn't contain the files - it just tells you where they are and keeps track of the metadata through the xmp files if you are processing raw. It is easy to learn, extremely intuitive to use, provides a very efficient workflow with Photoshop and the latest version is a major improvement over previous versions in terms of speed - not to be written off easily I suggest.

 

 

Absolutely.  And, of course, you can import all your digital scans into Lightroom.  I do, and I have a separate catalogue called "scanned images" but they could just as easily be integrated into a catalogue with files created with a digital camera, too.  You can number and sort them how you like. 

 

Anyway, it works for me.  I've had Lightroom since it was first introduced (Lightroom "1") and wouldn't be without it.

[famousbelgian]

I too learned all my basic photographic skills on a Pentax. Like most students back then (and even now) I had the Pentax K1000, it is the only 35mm body I have never been able to part with and it still works as well as it first did in the 1970s. 

 

But, having tried all recent Pentax digital bodies as they emerged at photography shows, I would not go for one of them now. They just don't feel right, and a camera that doesn't FEEL right is just not going to get used and certainly not ENJOYED. No matter what the features, make sure you try before you buy.

 

I switched to Fuji X-T1 about 18 months ago and it has completely rejuvenated my photography. I believe that is because the X-T1 is sooooo much like the K1000. Imagine if Pentax had done what Fuji have done? They would have had a runaway success, even bigger than Fuji.

 

Don't be enthusiastic about using old lenses on the latest digital bodies, it's ok for a bit of fun but NONE of those lenses are going to get even close to the latest professional glass. I tried my old Hasselblad lenses on my digital body and it was awful.

 

Good luck, whatever you decide.

 

Marc

[MDM]

I too learned all my basic photographic skills on a Pentax. Like most students back then (and even now) I had the Pentax K1000, it is the only 35mm body I have never been able to part with and it still works as well as it first did in the 1970s. 

 

But, having tried all recent Pentax digital bodies as they emerged at photography shows, I would not go for one of them now. They just don't feel right, and a camera that doesn't FEEL right is just not going to get used and certainly not ENJOYED. No matter what the features, make sure you try before you buy.

 

I switched to Fuji X-T1 about 18 months ago and it has completely rejuvenated my photography. I believe that is because the X-T1 is sooooo much like the K1000. Imagine if Pentax had done what Fuji have done? They would have had a runaway success, even bigger than Fuji.

 

Don't be enthusiastic about using old lenses on the latest digital bodies, it's ok for a bit of fun but NONE of those lenses are going to get even close to the latest professional glass. I tried my old Hasselblad lenses on my digital body and it was awful.

 

Good luck, whatever you decide.

 

Marc

 

I am sure it applies to most but it's not the case for everything. I have an old 55 mm Micro Nikkor and it is absolutely amazingly sharp corner to corner on a 36MP body and colours are just fine. Also my old Tamron 90 Adaptall Macro lens is excellent - this was Tamron's flagship lens with the adapter for use on different systems. Still works fine on the Nikons although I rarely use it.

[IanGibson]

I'd expect a lens designed for full frame (or 35mm) to perform quite well on a crop sensor camera. Because of the smaller sensor, the "bad" bits of the image (the edges and corners) aren't seen by the sensor, so you only get the centre definition. Not that I'm an expert, by any means.

[Bryan]

I'd expect a lens designed for full frame (or 35mm) to perform quite well on a crop sensor camera. Because of the smaller sensor, the "bad" bits of the image (the edges and corners) aren't seen by the sensor, so you only get the centre definition. Not that I'm an expert, by any means.

 

Yes, it has been my experience that older Pentax lenses, particularly primes, but also some of the less ambitious zooms (2x) are fine on the crop sensor. They outperform the standard Sony fitment. I've not been able to try them on my Canon FF camera, due to worry over the mirror striking the aperture lever, so the jury remains out on that one. The weakest two lenses in my collection are the standard Sony 16-50 and a newish Sigma 19mm f2.8. The latter is curiously difficult to focus manually, while the autofocus is not entirely reliable. I might take 4 shots for a panorama but be unable to use the collection because one is not sharp (centre point focus).

[IanGibson]

 

I'd expect a lens designed for full frame (or 35mm) to perform quite well on a crop sensor camera. Because of the smaller sensor, the "bad" bits of the image (the edges and corners) aren't seen by the sensor, so you only get the centre definition. Not that I'm an expert, by any means.

 

 

Yes, it has been my experience that older Pentax lenses, particularly primes, but also some of the less ambitious zooms (2x) are fine on the crop sensor. They outperform the standard Sony fitment. I've not been able to try them on my Canon FF camera, due to worry over the mirror striking the aperture lever, so the jury remains out on that one. The weakest two lenses in my collection are the standard Sony 16-50 and a newish Sigma 19mm f2.8. The latter is curiously difficult to focus manually, while the autofocus is not entirely reliable. I might take 4 shots for a panorama but be unable to use the collection because one is not sharp (centre point focus).

I'm not sure what body you are using (NEX 6?), but I use back button focus on the A6000 which means that once the lens is focused, it doesn't move.

[Bryan]

 

 

I'd expect a lens designed for full frame (or 35mm) to perform quite well on a crop sensor camera. Because of the smaller sensor, the "bad" bits of the image (the edges and corners) aren't seen by the sensor, so you only get the centre definition. Not that I'm an expert, by any means.

 

Yes, it has been my experience that older Pentax lenses, particularly primes, but also some of the less ambitious zooms (2x) are fine on the crop sensor. They outperform the standard Sony fitment. I've not been able to try them on my Canon FF camera, due to worry over the mirror striking the aperture lever, so the jury remains out on that one. The weakest two lenses in my collection are the standard Sony 16-50 and a newish Sigma 19mm f2.8. The latter is curiously difficult to focus manually, while the autofocus is not entirely reliable. I might take 4 shots for a panorama but be unable to use the collection because one is not sharp (centre point focus).

I'm not sure what body you are using (NEX 6?), but I use back button focus on the A6000 which means that once the lens is focused, it doesn't move.

 

 

It's a NEX 6 . I used to make a lot of use of back button focus on my Canon cameras, but confess that I was not aware that the Sony had that facility - Just done an Internet search and it appears that the NEX 6 doesn't have it, the NEX7 does, and clearly the A6000 etc.