>>4454439
full-frame is a joke. full frame digital cameras are fucking heavy and massive.

>>4454441
>one of the shittiest APS-C ecosystem after EOS-M
sure doesn't sound like it

>>4454441
Don't snoy and cannot make sub-500g ff cameras. Sounds like you're just poor

fujifilm got it right. aps-c and medium format is the way to go. full frame only made sense on film

Pentax does none of this on purpose. Its what they had to settle for after failing to produce worthwhile MILCs and modern glass. They tried. They failed. Kek!

>>4454441
>>4454446
cope

>>4454439
go outside

I'll never own Pentax again, and will discourage others from investing in them for one reason - "Aperture block failure", and Pentax's refusal to acknowledge the problem.

>>4454439
Pentaxians are out there enjoying photography with a "kit lens" from 1992 while you're feeling shit about yourself because you still can't afford that f/1.2 prime and f/2 zoom.
Seethe.

>>4454465
Honestly this, my K50 with the kit lens is soooo comfy bros.

File: kitlens.png (579 KB, 1378x871)

579 KB PNG

>>4454465

>>4454465
i have never seen a self described pentaxian (digislug var.) post a good photo

that privilege belongs soley to nikon, fuji, and film chads

>>4454469
because pentaxians are out enjoying photography, not looking for validation on social media.
There's not many of us in the first place.
Really the only time we come out is when a reviewer forgets to mention pentax or says something bad about our cameras lol.

>>4454439
The problem was Hoya, the parent company until RICOH took over. Hoya bled the company while refused to invest in actual research and new products, this era produced those horrid rebrand cheap shit superzooms and soulless kit lenses. RICOH made the first actual effort with the OG K-3, improved the AF and started designing new lenses while refined the coating technology for the few good lenses. RICOH made it possible to make the OG K-1 becoming an instant hit and redesigned the AF and better electronics for the K-3III.
Pentax themselves made some great products and improvements with virtually no budget, from true passion the RICOH gave them the budget. It is a sad story of capitalism but fortunately with a good ending. The real hero here is RICOH.

>>4454476
>RICOH
based printer retards

>>4454478
Do you know what else RICOH did? After the Fukushima tsunami they went over all the debris and salvaged all photos and attempted to recover all of them. Not electronic media, prints and original film prints, individually. Then they sorted them by local regions and put them out in post offices and studios and everyone was free to browse and see if they recognized their photos. RICOH provided the photos free of charge.

>>4454482
source: trust me bro

>>4454492
https://www.photoxels.com/ricoh-s-save-the-memory-project-returning-90000-lost-photos-from-the-great-east-japan-earthquake-and-tsunami/

Here you go, incel
First result from simple "ricoh fukushima photo recovery" google search

you're all just jealous of pentax

>>4454523
Personally, I have considered purchasing a pentax 645D. It's so chubby and cute.

>>4454527
>645D
>Not even medium format
It's Macro four thirds

>>4454532
And? Still better than fool frame and micro fool turds.

>>4454527
Buying a DX medium format other than a hasselblad is a waste of money. They do something special between the sensor filters/microlenses and the profiles in phocus to get brighter exposures, less noise, less background haze, and way better color rendition than fuji/pentax. Also leaf shutters are the main selling point of medium format. Poortax only has two, the rest are FP only. Neither is as good as fujinon hasselblad lenses.

Also, for less than the price of a cfv 50c and not much more than the poortax meme camera, you could also put together a real medium format kit (ie: h3d-39) which is even better (at the first two ISO settings, maybe 3) and finally realize full frame mirrorless is just the best all around paradigm while still having something unique and fun to show for it :^)

>>4454538
They aren't cute or chubby. Sorry!

>>4454538
>STOP BUYING THINGS I DONT LIKE WITH YOUR OWN MONEY!

>>4454539
trans or furry

call it

>>4454548
I don't think a camera can be either of those, big dummy! I mean xtrans ya maybe, but that only sort of counts.

>>4454545
THIS! They get so angry when better men than themselves choose to purchase things with their own money! I wonder why?

>>4454469
Eggy alone mogs every single fujislug on this godforsaken board

File: I_Bet_He's_Thinking_About(...).jpg (133 KB, 800x685)

133 KB JPG

>>4454602

>>4454608
Lol he is so young he doesn't know about Eggy
Tiny little child looking for mama to bring him his milk

File: pentaxk10d.jpg (310 KB, 1841x1233)

310 KB JPG

>10mp camera from 2006 you can buy on ebay for $100
>mogs the shit out of everything on this board taken with cameras costing thousands of dollars

File: k5.jpg (754 KB, 1866x1233)

754 KB JPG

>buy k5 for $80 on ebay
>buy 35mm f/2.4 for $100
>buy gps unit on ebay for $100
>take astro photos like this for <$300
of course other cameras support the GPS unit, and some have it built in, and can do even better for hella cheap.
Super easy to set up astrotracer, just rotate your camera a bit to calibrate the GPS, and it'll track stars automatically.
Set your camera on a rock. No tripod needed.
This photo isn't very special, but using this technique combined with compositing and other astrophotography techniques? Nice.
Cheap trackers on their own cost almost as much as this setup, need a decent tripod and tripod head, and aren't nearly as convenient to set up. They are more flexible and can take you farther, but does it really matter if you're just dabbling in astrophotography and don't want to take it too seriously?
Using IBIS as a star tracker is fucking obvious. I don't know why other brands don't do it (also for simulated moire filter).

File: pentax_andromeda.jpg (649 KB, 1000x667)

649 KB JPG

>>4454617
From Pentax's website, but I can confirm that this type of photo is realistically possible.
This was done with a K-70, GPS unit, and the 18-135mm kit lens. Nice.
k-70 is a 10 year old camera you can buy for ~$300 btw. The 18-135mm can be had for ~$100.

>>4454615
>>4454617
>Russian sounding names
Sus

>>4454615
>Quite boring
>center horizon
>clouds are ugly
>sticks and rock picture.l
>super flat
>extremely blurry

0/10

>>4454621
do better faggot

>>4454615
Nah this sucks

I'd rather look at a cute german shepherd

guess you can't expect autists to understand how a simple landscape scene can evoke emotion and feeling outside of being center-framed photos of their autistic obsessions.
>>4454615 reminds me of how the world looked as a kid looking out of the window at school waiting for classes to end as fall is rolling in and the days start cooling down and there's even that particular scent on the cold breeze reminding you in a month or so there will be snow. The lighting just nails that weak fall late-day sun look, the lack of warmth in that light you've became so accustomed to during the summer.
This photo really does it for me.

>>4454626
No one cares and your interpretation doesnt make it good either. It just makes you a tool for putting meaning where it does not exist. It is trees mountains, and weather. Big woop.

It is a bad photograph. Sorry.

>>4454629
>the photo is only literally what it is
>i dont understand what art is
peak 4chan /p/ autism

File: IMGP6383-2.jpg (1.43 MB, 2048x1365)

1.43 MB JPG

>>4454629
>cute german sheperd

the best we can do is this labradoodle i took with my pentax kf

>>4454629
>it has no meaning
>it’s bad
these two statements can’t coexist

>>4454634
A photograph of mountains is not and will never be art.

>>4454637
Wrong.

>>4454634
landscape photography is pure vibes

if people arent on your frequency tough fucking luck. should have taken a cute husky pic.

>>4454638
landscape photography PURE VIBES bruv

no
cap

>>4454640
>husky

Very very poor taste. Should have posted a cute corgi.

>>4454641
Not art, not good

>>4454642
huskies are a legit vibe cuckotron

save corgis for your manchester chic

>>4454638
no, it’s right. if the photo has no inherent meaning, even interpreting it as “bad” is doing the exact same thing you criticise the other poster for: inserting yourself as meaning maker. Calling a soft, moody landscape photo “bad” reveals more about you than about the photo.
>>4454621
>Quite boring
no, it’s quite interesting
>center horizon
that’s a good, human perspective
>clouds are ugly
no, they’re soft and moody
>sticks and rock picture.
yes, that’s what the landscape looked like. it’s a natural landscape photo.
>super flat
no, there’s contrast.
>extremely blurry
no, it’s quite sharp.

>>4454644
Okay, now you're just making shit up! I only judge you a little for liking a crappy non-art pic. It's fine.

>>4454643
Like I said. Poor taste.

>>4454645
>you're just making shit up!
I did what you did except with a positive spin. you were just making shit up!
>non-art pic
it’s an art piece, following a long line of landscapes in art history

>>4454646
>no u

Very very poor taste in rebuttal.

>>4454645
corgis are kinda qualzucht desu dont push it bruh

>>4454647
it’s exquisite taste
plenty more there for you to latch onto, lazy bones ;)

File: pentax-colors.jpg (89 KB, 1042x491)

89 KB JPG

>>4454640
>if people arent on your frequency tough fucking luck. should have taken a cute husky pic.
but you can't deny these cameras produce hella good color
Pentax is peak here.

>>4454648
>copezucht

>>4454650
>exquisite cope


Is this the true power of Pentax?

>>4454620
>KGB is has secret agents paid to post Pentax propaganda so westerners fall for the meme and waste precious dollars on useless hardware instead of sending weapons to Ukraine

>>4454620
It's obviously cANON posting them without a trip

shit tier autofocus

RAW buffer the size of Gnat Bladder

screw drive lenses in 2025

jpeg profiles locked behind new lenses with HD coatings nullifying their whole selling point of old K mount lenses still work on their modern cameras

did I mention shit tier autofocus?

mirror slapping shake during burst mode produces blurry images so they gimped the RAW buffer to reduce the mirror slap

baked in noise reduction in RAW files

aperture block failure over a 10 year period in like 4 different models of cameras. judge doesn't allow a class action lawsuit. pantecks refuses to fix defective cameras out of warranty.

pentax k-3iii released in 2020 monochrome version in 2024. put a usb-c in the k70 and called it a KF. nothing else.

Nikon Z6 in 2019 nikon now has z6, z6ii, z6ii, z7, z7ii, z8, z9, zf, zfc, z50, z50II, z5, z5ii, and z30 cameras

k mount lens roadmap is kill

k mount lenses are kill

3rd party support is kill

k mount is kill

>>4454814
>shit tier autofocus
learn to focus, nigger retard
>jpeg profiles
turbo nigger
>pentax k-3iii released in 2020 monochrome version in 2024. put a usb-c in the k70 and called it a KF. nothing else.
based

All of the other are just retarded complaints that are not even worth addressing

>>4454815
>press the focus button
>it misses focus
>focusing screen so thick and low res you can see the fresnel lines in the OVF but cant see if you're in focus or not (its NOTHING like nikons precision mattes)
>IBIS made useless by mirror slap
Pentax just lacks the budget to make a really good camera that deserves to be as expensive as the k-1 ii is.

>>4454814
>shit tier autofocus and small RAW buffer
Pentax is shit for sports and it's not the best choice for wildlife. There are a lot of other genres of photography outside of that. Pentax and its autofocus are just fine for most photographers doing most styles of photography.
It's fucking stupid to judge all cameras based on their capability to do birding well when most people buying cameras aren't that autistic to obsess over birds.
>screw drive lenses in 2025
it works anon
>jpeg profiles locked behind new lenses
literally the least important part of a srs camera is its jpeg rendering. It's a fun way for the underdog brand to make some extra money.
>mirror slapping shake during burst mode produces blurry images so they gimped the RAW buffer to reduce the mirror slap
again just more burst mode problems. Don't get this camera for sports.
>baked in noise reduction in RAW files
long story but they're doing noise reduction techniques that you can't do in post, such as measuring dark current, sensor temperature, and individual sensor characteristics, to reduce noise between the CPU even puts it through the imaging pipeline.
>aperture block failure
statistically only affected a very small number of cameras. You can fix it by gluing a magnet to your camera.
>pentax k-3iii released in 2020 monochrome version in 2024
And? Or are you a snoyfag that thinks if you don't buy a new camera every year you're a shit photographer? Pentax is a company that cares about photography, not consooming.
Building cameras that last decades, like the K1000 (sold until 1997), LX (sold until 2001), is one thing that makes Pentax awesome, and is probably part of what put them behind the other brands that insisted you always need to upgrade, and then there's brands like Sony that build their cameras with planned obsolescence.

>>4454814
put a usb-c in the k70 and called it a KF. nothing else.
Parts became unavailable and they re-engineered it to use available parts. Based.
>Nikon Z6 in 2019 nikon now has...
Imagine thinking that you need a new camera every couple of years.
>k mount lens roadmap is kill
K-mount already has all the lenses you need available on the used market, and a variety new ones are available if you want something pristine.
An interview with some dude at Pentax basically said that balancing the used market with new lenses is part of their business strategy and is a reason you should "enjoy Pentax".
Fucking based.

>>4454867
>>4454868
Ie.
Reasons to not buy Pentax:
1. You're a fucking consoomerist faggot.
2. You're a fucking consoomerist faggot.
3. consooooooom
4. ok you actually care about sports photography and birds and stuff like that
5. You're a fucking consuoomerist faggot.
Reasons to buy Pentax:
1. They're fucking based.
2. That kit zoom from 1992 you bought for $70 is good enough to enjoy the hobby
3. Primes from the 70s you buy for $50 each are still fucking great.
4. 31mm, 43mm, 77mm.
5. Because you actually want to enjoy photography as a hobby and not consoom.

>>4454867
>>4454868
>>4454870
Honestly all of this, my favorite is just using the same M42-K mount adapter on my film and digital camera to keep using my vintage glass for low light lel

>>4454870
>entire post rests on you being an incel and hating employed people
no wonder your race is going extinct, timmy.
t. chao zhang, $600k/yr income harvard grad got accepted over 500 timmies because they knew i actually had potential and wouldnt seethe at the exchange of goods and services, working hours, overtime, etc

what you seethe at for being "consooming" i see like buying a candy bar
you are a failure of a man pretending your wasted life was an ascetic choice xaxaxaxa

>>4454893
meds, nigga. Meds

>>4454893
Finally, someone with some sanity.

>>4454893
Every 4chan hobby board is full of sad fucks that are just bitter other people have money to spend and fanboy the cheapest garbage with a smug attitude and forced memes to cope. Its "but in the video game world you’re the loser" shit.

A LOT of 4chan posters are welfare bums, druggies, and losers. Just look at the people based sherriff chitwood drags out.

>>4454916
Stop projecting my dude. You sound like you shoot Sony.

>>4454916
They hated him because he told the truth
>Stop preferring better equipment! It's more expensive!
People unironically say this lol

>>4454893
>chao zhang, $600k/yr income harvard grad
Fuji shooter, guaranteed.

>>4454870
>1. They're fucking based.
means nothing
>2. That kit zoom from 1992 you bought for $70 is good enough to enjoy the hobby
could say the same thing about every other brand, and it would cost even less
>3. Primes from the 70s you buy for $50 each are still fucking great.
Soft as fuck crusty old primes that only perform half as decently on full frame + the cheapest FF camera will set you back $1.5k USED and it's from 10 years ago
>4. 31mm, 43mm, 77mm.
weird focal lengths and that's it

>>4454978
Huh... sounds like it should be called SPENTax at this point! Kek.

>>4454867

>Building cameras that last decades

4 pantecks camera bodies, stretched out over a decade die with aperture block failure. pantecks doesn't repair their defective products. pantecks doesn't even fix the known problem. pantecks just releases a new body with the same defective part over and over.

>>4454870

The Pentax kit lens is shit tier. Leagues behind even the Fuji 18-55 kit lens. There's a reason Pentax shit is dirt cheap on the used market.

>>4454908
>>4454893
>>4454916

Samefag

At least the pentax user knows his cameras suck he's not shilling his favorite brand for $0.00 a hour

>>4454439
This isn't even a tech thing, like, this is just cringe.
Bad all around.
APS-C is garbage here. We're not demanding ultra premium FF sensors, but bayerless B&W has its uses. This being APS-C makes it a meme. The practical issue of having a crop sensor makes your lenses not work as intended, and that's BAD.

>>4454465
>use a 43mm
>want to use new body
>haha 43mm go ~65mm! hope you weren't looking for the same FOV or anything, baka
this isn't even about kit vs prime quality or premium shit you're just a moron

if they're rolling out full frame B&W that's fine but having the only one in a lineup be APS-C is terrible

>>4454893
>>4454916
I have money, I’ve just realized better cameras don’t make me a better photographer, and spend more time trying to upgrade my skill, not my camera.
The problem with consumerism in context of photography here isn’t that you’re spending money, it’s that you’re trying to derive enjoyment and satisfaction not from the art of photography, but from buying cameras.

File: Screenshot 2025-08-01 232952.png (63 KB, 882x316)

63 KB PNG

Looks like this thread generated so much attention towards Pentax that their crusty old forums crashed! I guess they couldn't handle more than 10 logins per month

>>4455225
Reminds me a lot of their cameras.

>>4455225

if you log in with your pantecks forums account the error goes away

>>4455089
>I only take boring photos of rocks and leaves all on my lonesome so no one needs a better camera than this heavy slow POS
Whats it like having ass burgers

>>4455089
I'm sorry you lacked the creativity to utilize better cameras.

At least you can pretend your AF dpad mashing and focus ring turning are valuable skills now.

>>4455352
>creativity to use better cameras
>buy whatever dpreview and youtube said was the best camera for 2025 for X amount

???

>>4455352
>creativity is buying a better camera
this is your brain on snoy
I shot some film today on a Kodak Tourist II with the Kodon shutter and Kodet lens. Single-element lens, 1/50 second fixed shutter speed (with one or two blades, I forget), and max aperture of f/12.5.
I had a lot of fun. I've been in a creative rut lately and it was a refreshing challenge to work within this camera's limitations.
Proof to myself, if no one else, that camera doesn't decide creativity.

But Pentax cameras are, realistically, close enough to competing cameras in performance. They've always used competitive sensors. The main thing is, is that the autofocus isn't suited for serious sports or wildlife photography. Pictures of your kids, street, etc. autofocus is fine. And then a lot of lenses are either straight up film era lenses still in production, or are designed with similar optical formulas, so you're going to get soft corners. This isn't necessarily a bad thing -- outside of a few niches, soft corners can enhance a composition by drawing your eyes to the sharper center of the image.
Or despite the other people bitching about FF lenses on APS-C, if you care about sharpness, using those film-era lenses which have exceptional center sharpness, when used on APS-C you get sharpness edge-to-edge.
But besides all that, Pentax does have some more modern lenses with edge-to-edge sharpness. They're uncommon used so you have to buy new or used at near-new prices. That's not really why you buy Pentax though.

>>4455425
So why do you buy Pentax?
Because Pentax and Leica are the only two brands that "get it".
They understand that technical superiority doesn't mean photographic superiority.
Snoy straight up like "features go brrrrrrr", and sure you can shoot super high performance video with 16 stops dynamic range or wtfever, they're a fucking PITA to shoot with unless you're actually autistic and you probably also think maintaining an Arch Linux installation is a fun hobby in and of itself.
Panasonic is just a Temu version of Snoy these days.
Canon and Nikon seem to just design the cameras the same they always have, probably only because of internal design documents of their grandfathers that they can't violate are telling them to design a camera a certain way, and they have no fucking idea where to go with it from there. And OM System is constrained by being unable to develop new products, just upgrade firmware of old ones and load them up on the same production line.

But Pentax and Leica? They actually give a fuck about the experience of using their cameras. Better photographs aren't taken because a photographer has more megapixels or more dynamic range or what not, they're taken because the photographer is able to forget about the camera in their hands, its operation coming naturally and without thought or effort, as they're focusing on composition and considering exposure - and their fingers, without conscious thought or intervention of the photographer, manipulate the camera to suite the photographer's vision.

>>4455427
Anyone who wants to become a better photographer should seriously unironically get a fully manual film camera, like the Pentax K1000, although any similar camera from other brands works as well.

Go back to the basics of photography -- exposure is as simple as the ring on your lens and the shutter speed selection to line up a needle. And there's not much else to consider beyond that. No menus, no IBIS, no bracketing, you're stuck with the ISO of the film you loaded. Just you, the exposure triangle, a matte screen to focus, and a square to look through.
It's a simple enough paradigm that the camera will quickly become an extension of your arm. You'll stop thinking about the camera. You'll realize all that shit that Snoy tells you that you need to take good photos? It means shit. Good photos is about composition.

And that's what Pentax understands in their camera deisgn. They give you the tools that you expect, and genuinely do help you, to take pro-tier photos. And then they design it in a way that gets the fuck out of your way so you don't have to think about it.

>>4455427
>and Leica
suddenly I don't feel like shooting pentax anymore

There is only 1 single reason to buy Pentax:
>get an old WR body + 18-telephoto mm zoom lens for around $150
>use it as your rugged travel camera
>gets the job done
>if they steal it or it breaks it's just $150

File: IMG_20250315_012813.jpg (2.63 MB, 4000x3000)

2.63 MB JPG

Pentax stopped being relevant when they started to make digital cams.

>>4455514
The last competitive Pentax was the K5ii/K3 it was downhill after that especially with the aperture solenoid failures on the lower end cameras that came after it. The K10D/K200D was probably the best one vs its competitors, only the Nikon D200 was better.

File: IMGP2935-2.jpg (992 KB, 4512x3008)

992 KB JPG

im not letting this thread die pentaxians and other furry freaks and weirdos

i just bought a k1 mark ii, all pics taken with a $20 takumar 70-210mm from 1980s that weighs a fucking brick

File: IMGP2924.jpg (864 KB, 3840x2560)

864 KB JPG

>>4462023
im selling my kf to pay for it for $3-400, i bought it for $920 on ebay ($1000 w/tax) w/4000 shutter counts

File: IMGP2938.jpg (2.83 MB, 3840x2560)

2.83 MB JPG

>>4462024
5.0 mustang pp1 at max focal length at a light

File: IMGP2932-2.jpg (889 KB, 3840x2560)

889 KB JPG

>>4462025

File: IMGP2930.jpg (1.68 MB, 4507x3008)

1.68 MB JPG

>>4462026
im taking this thing to a wedding tomorrow, what primes should i buy? all my lenses are 1980s shit

pentax-fa 80-320mm
pentax-f 70-200mm (2) and 70-210mm f4-5.6s (1)
quantaray 28-90mm (other than some pincushioning its a sharp lens)
pentax-f 35-70mm f3.5-4.5
pentax fa smc 50mm f2.8 macro
penta da 35mm f2.4 and da 50mm f1.8 (keeping for my k200d)

i think im gonna either pick up a 50mm f1.4 or 35mm f2 non-limited prime. how is the 28-105mm d-fa?

File: IMGP2921.jpg (1.01 MB, 3840x2560)

1.01 MB JPG

>>4462027
one last pic

>>4455516
Fucking LOL
This retard thinks the K-1, KP and K-3III was a downhill

>>4462100

Were they better or worse than a equivalent Canonikon DSLR? They were at least 2 years too late.

>>4462100
I’m literally so covetous of a K-3 III atm

>>4462100
>K-1
A few cool gimmicks but ultimately non-competitive with a d750 of all things
>KP
Lol, the camera
>K-3III
Why would I buy this instead of a d500?

>>4462107
Me too, I'm just waiting out on the K-1 III. 61MP BSI, high speed readout, K-1 screen, K-3III AF and 8 FPS. Meanwhile the K-1 in APS-C mode with some tricks and technique gives me 6.7 FPS

>>4462106
>>4462108
I don't give a shit about you incel

>>4462119
Never going to happen because Ricoh is discontinuing DSLR production to print money selling GRs. That's why their camera division was the most profitable since the merger.

>>4462123
that would make sense
but only if ricoh was keeping pentax as a profitable business venture
it's been made pretty clear at this point it's just the pet project of some ricoh exec
so pentax almost certainly will continue to exist as long as that exec is with ricoh

>>4462119
>61mp
Fucks color rendition wideways. The photosites are simply too small.
>Readout on a DSLR
Lol.
>K3-III AF
So still behind the d750?
>8fps on a new DSLR
Do you want it to be $3000?

still hoping for a new film slr

>>4462119
>>4462205
inb4 they just make the k1iii a film slr

>>4462235
It's the only decision I would respect pentax for.
>k1iii: is actually a k1000 with an extremely small autofocus motor slipped in. no screen. center point af only. all controls physical.

File: Screenshot 2025-08-27 at (...).png (2.36 MB, 2654x1278)

2.36 MB PNG

Just bought some new e-waste pentaxbros right before I go to Montreal this weekend, my KF actually got awesome pics with a similar promaster until I got a little rough cleaning it and it literally fell apart (little arm connecting aperture blades to lever broke?). I think these older lenses work even better with the FF sensor on the K1s.

Selling atm:

KF w/kit lens 7869 shutter count for $350 ($380-400 on eBay)

100mm Macro with heavy haze for $40 ($60 on eBay)

18-135mm DA (very light haze, still gets nice pics) for $80 ($100 on eBay)

Gonna list a duplicate 70-200mm Takumar-F (sharp as hell with clean optics) and 35-70mm f3.5-4.5 for $30 locally/$40 on eBay.

Split on selling my DA 50mm f1.8 and 55-300mm DA-L since I still have a K200D APSC body. The 55-300mm is fine other than requiring a heavy microadjustment when it was on the KF and the 50mm I barely use but its 100% like new. I'm gonna try to find a FA SMC 50mm or 35mm.

File: IMGP2847-2.jpg (2.28 MB, 3888x2608)

2.28 MB JPG

>>4463348
>55-300mm DA-L
f4-5.8? There's one for sale local to me that I'm thinking about buying, is it any good? How's it at full zoom? I want to get a higher zoom lens for taking pics of birds and shit like that

File: IMGP4373-2.jpg (546 KB, 2048x1365)

546 KB JPG

>>4463384
Its very sharp at full zoom and its one of my favorite lenses other than the size. I personally use a 80-320mm instead now since I think its sharper at full zoom. 70-200/210mm Pentax-F is pretty damn good too for the $20-30 they go for.

Don't pay more than $60-80 imo, its pretty old (10-15 years). Otherwise lots of bang for buck and I would def recommend it over the 1980s-90s 70-300mms (I wouldn't pay over $40 for one, they often have really bad purple fringing and distortions)

I mostly take aviation photos since I work at a airport, this was at full zoom. Its very good as a general walkaround lens imo. Compact + 55mm for normal pics and 300mm for reach shots

>>4463389
Thanks, it's listed for $180 aussiebucks so I'll try talk him down on price. He's also got a Tamron LD 28-300 f3.5-6.3 and I'm not too sure if I should go for that or go for the 55-300

>>4463392
Those Tamrons are honestly kinda shitty. The only good walk around zoom lens would be the 18-135mm imo. Otherwise you're better suited getting a prime and a tele.

$180 AUD is steep, try to find a 80-320mm FA, those are good too. For reference I've seen 55-300mm PLMs (best Pentax telelens that isn't $1000+) go for $200-250 USD and that's the latest revision of that lens.

If you can't find either look for a 70-200/210mm Pentax, even the older Takumars are great. The pics I posted earlier with my K1 were with a 70-210mm Takumar F I paid $20 USD for. What's surprising is how sharp they are and how little aberrations they have. 70-300mm is only acceptable imo if you have a good known copy or you get it for $30 or less.

>>4463348
>K200D APSC body
those are subject to the aperture solenoid problem iirc so don't count too much on it

>>4463439
This stupid thing has 131k shutter counts despite looking brand new. That might explain why the K200Ds are so rare. Every time I found one on yahoo auctions it would get bid up to $70-120 or more. I actually bought this one on eBay for $80.

>>4463449
may it's too old to be affected. How do you see the shutter count ? I bought a second hand k5 last year for 250€ and I meant to look at it but don't know how

>>4463559
https://www.camerashuttercount.com/

>>4463563
thanks, turns out the shutter count is at 25k, is that a lot ?

File: dog-daycare-milwaukie.jpeg.png (301 KB, 450x300)

301 KB PNG

>>4454439
The optical viewfinder is the last stand of photographic integrity. Specs come second.

Just be glad you're getting more reach than you would otherwise.

File: file.png (10 KB, 333x257)

10 KB PNG

>>4463563
damn son

>>4463683
it’s literally garbage now
just give it to me and I’ll dispose of it for you

>>4463581
>blending cinefag, cAnon and doghair egghead in one
Is this performance art?

File: imgonline-com-ua-twotoone(...).jpg (4.36 MB, 8653x2400)

4.36 MB JPG

>>4463683
>>4463559
im cooked :skull: :skull: :skull:

>>4463581
Do you understand how little anyone cares now? Maybe stop obsessing over these people and post some photos.

Did you like the horse pics I posted in fgt?

>>4463581
>when the mods ban your trip and you go full mask off

>>4463822
Who's banned?
>>4463581
EVFs are overrated. For stills they suck, for kino the external monitor/recorder mogs them. They're decent forma ENG I guess.

>>4454439
>>don't switch to a new mount in the digital transition so all your customers can still use their old film lenses
Who did? Canon's EF was released in '87 which obviously only had film offerings at the time, but later got digitals starting in the late 90s. Nikon F didn't switch mounts for digital either, though they did add some complications throughout its lifetime. Minolta's alpha mount stayed from the 80s and even continued onto Sony DSLRs. Sigma's SA mount was the same from their film SLRs to their digitals. Mamiya re-used the 645AF mount for the couple of digitals/digital backs they made. The only one I can think of that ditched their mount entirely for the digital era was Olympus, but even then it was only because they switched formats (FF -> 4/3).

>>4463843
Even when Pentax mistakenly decided to join the sorrow of mirrorless back in 2012 they didn't switch mounts for it. The only other brand that did something similar was Sigma but they eventually cucked out to L-mount, which at least is admittedly a real full frame mount))
>>4463581
Pretty based post if not for the r*ddit b*ast in it)

>>4463848
Ok but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about film to digital, not DSLR to mirrorless. Also that was one camera, whereas they made three other mirrorless cameras under a different mount.

>>4463854
Q series were basically novelty toys, they don't count. The lens lineup itself is a joke.
They can be exploited for reach with the tiny pixel pitch but can you really be sure of what they're displaying when there's no OVF? I guess you could introduce a Leica Visoflex into the path but it'd be pretty cumbersome to operate if feasible at all, I haven't checked the distances))

>>4463855
The Q series is no more a toy than the K01.

>>4463856
I guess you're not wrong about that one, all mirrorless is a big joke.

>>4463856
>K01
It's a decent camera with much better IQ than the Q-series.

File: IMGP2990.jpg (1.43 MB, 3888x2608)

1.43 MB JPG

>>4463389
>>4463399
Ended up getting the 55-300, need to actually go out and use it properly but from fucking around in the backyard a little bit it seems nice, thanks

>>4463924
It is a good lens, optically much better than the average consumer telezooms of this range. The AF is slow for anything moving but good for sitting birds.

Might as well ask the pentaxians here:
Im a poorfag with a few minolta MD lenses for my snoy and I wanted to experiment with a DSLR for cheap, so pentax's manual lens shake reduction looked cool but idk if it would work with them
There are listings in my country for a k10d with 2 lenses (sigmas 18-50 and 70-300) for 70 bucks or a k100d with the kit 18-55 lens for 40, would they be worth it? Is 6mp too crummy today?
Also it seems that the k100/200d can be used for IR more easily without conversion, has anyone here tried it?

>>4463581
>The optical viewfinder is the last stand of photographic integrity.
optical viewfinders' pros
>use no power
optical viewfinders' cons
>make cameras bulky
>small and crammed and not customizable
>don't show you how the photo will actually look like, all the colors and dynamic range is still you eyes'

You don't take pictures with your eyes, but with the sensor your camera is equipped with, be it a digital one or a strip of film. Compact photography started out with metal wires forming a frame through which to roughly see the FOV of your camera. Then rangefinders came, which gave you a nice little glass window with frame markings. Then the rangefinders became coupled and allowed you to visualize the focus of the lens. Then came OVFs that allowed you to actually see from the POV of the lens itself. And now, ultimately, we can directly see what the sensor receives. It's just the natural evolution of things. If you want to LARP for photographic integrity then go back to framing your shots with a metal fucking rectangle.

>>4464409
I do Minolta A Mount too: Why not look for a amount DSLR? Those all have anti shake aka IBIS, Konica actually pioneered the technology in 2003-2004 before Pentax iirc then Sony labeled it Steadyshot.

Sony a350/a380/a390 can be had pretty inexpensively if you want to stay a CCDfag and they have the highest mp CCDs

KM 5Ds if you want unique colors from a strong CFA.

Avoid the a100/a200 unless you get them really cheap, they kinda suck I have two a100s and I never liked the pics out of them.

6mp is just fine if you want to share stuff on /p/ or social media, the jpegs come out to under 5mb. The lack of megapixels is more noticable when you try to crop stuff. My bigger issue is the lack of dynamic range, it's more noticable in the 10/12/14mp CCDs imo.

Newest possible DSLR that works natively and that's the best with those A Mount lenses is a Sony a68/77/77ii or a99/a99ii but expect to pay at least $4-500 USD. A99s and a99iis go for retarded money, as much as a A7R4 ($1400-2000) when I see them up for sale. a99 is closer to 5D Mark IV pricing ($6-900). All the older Sony CMOS DSLRs are kinda unreliable and prone to randomly dying.

Pantecks viral marketing was better before COVID, you guys need to step your game up

>>4464430
There are absolutely customizable ofvs silly guy

>>4464440
ok, what OVF gives me focus peeking and zebras?

>>4464439

we're busy shilling the new Ricoh GRIV in the compact thread Nikon ambassador

>>4464438
with bayer megapixels actually matter, but they have to be quadrupled (for normal people) or doubled (for observant individuals) to really notice

and with these cameras you can just tell zoomed out. finely detailed things that are small in the frame get fucked. if it's closeups it's not so bad. it's a definite aesthetic that plays nicer with some things than others.

>>4464430
>And now, ultimately, we can directly see what the sensor receives.
That's view cameras not EVFs

>>4464485
View cameras don't show you what the colors of your film and exposure will be, are you stupid? Also are you too brain damaged and illiterate to understand what "compact photography" means? Or are you such a zoomer faggot you simply skip lines when reading, eager to reply?

>>4464502
I don't want to defend that retarded tripfag but you are even retardeder.
>And now, ultimately, we can directly see what the sensor receives.
A view camera is the only conceivable type of camera that statement could accurately refer to. You're not seeing what it receives in a MILC, you're seeing how it interprets it. And to a lesser extent, through DSLRs you're seeing an image corrected by mirrors or a pentaprism and not what the camera sees although you didn't even stop there and went full retard.

>>4464528
My question is, was that anon always a retard or does my presence blind him with rage and turn him retarded?
>>4464502
You already got your reply, it should be obvious.

File: md_50_1_7_dsc00315.jpg (622 KB, 1280x851)

622 KB JPG

>>4464438
Oh, they're actually MD mount lenses, the totally mechanical ones like picrel
I bought three for cheap to experiment with and kinda locked myself into the system despite not having an X300 to use them natively kek, might grab one eventually in case I wanna try film
>Those all have anti shake aka IBIS, Konica actually pioneered the technology in 2003-2004 before Pentax iirc then Sony labeled it Steadyshot.
Yeah, my original target was a minolta 5D, but it seems that its anti-shake system uses electronic data from the lenses, so fully manual ones don't work as well (according to this anyway, but idk in practice: https://www.konicaminoltasupport.com/index.php?id=4569&tx_faqmanager_pi1[question]=4087)
While Pentaxes can adjust the anti-shake manually by selecting the focal length on the menus
There's one for 65 with a 18-70 lens near me, so I'm still considering it, minolta AF lenses are on sale here for like 10-30 bucks
>Newest possible DSLR that works natively and that's the best with those A Mount lenses is a Sony a68/77/77ii or a99/a99ii but expect to pay at least $4-500 USD.
Yeah that's beyond my monthly budget lol, I was thinking on getting an LA-EA2 for my mirrorless in the future if I get the 5D

>>4464553
You're probably right with that, apparently it's a issue adapting M42 lenses to older Sony A cameras where you can't set the focal length. I'm imagining it's the same for the Manual Minoltas, the AF Minoltas have a chip that reports aperture and focal length that works on the Sony A DSLRs.

All the older Sony DSLRs are prone to lens error and bad Steadyshot/IBIS. The worst ones being the newest ones for some reason. A68/A77/A99 are all still $500+ which is insane considering they're definitely not better than any of their competitors from the same era (Nikon D500, Canon 7DM2, and even mirrorless Sonys soon). A lot of the ones I see for sale are broken despite relatively low shutter counts. The older ones can break too but it's mostly the IBIS not working. Look for a a300+ anyways but the good Minolta AF lenses aren't cheap (anything APO, usually $80+ with some like the 80-200mm f2.8 being around $2-300). I really like my a390 despite being crippled in terms of features, it has given me nice pictures (in raw...the jpegs suck) but I like my KM 5D more.

Honestly pay the extra for the K10D but I heard those have autofocus issues as they age (back focus issues where I guess the sensor or whatever goes out of alignment). I have a K200D and I like it a lot too, that's a K10D inside a ist body. The fun part is the K10D and KM 5D/7D share the same battery so you can go between the two if you find a cheap one later

>>4464442
>peeking


I'm supposed to take your opinion seriously? Lol

>>4464602
come back when you can properly structure your sentence to be in question form

>>4464603
You want to grammarfag me with no capitalization at the beginning of a sentence and no punctuation. Kys. (!!)

OVFs look cooler but are functionally inferior to EVFs in every way. They are a worse photographic tool.

The OVF/EVF debate really shows who uses their cameras and who fingerfucks them and shitposts about it.

>>4464604
>too much of a pussy to handle his own tactic being used against him
typical

File: Screenshot_20250901-13454(...).png (1.58 MB, 1080x1738)

1.58 MB PNG

>>4464605
I agree, but the whole "EVF feels like a cellphone" line got to me and made me realize the reason I use a camera is to get away from taking photos with a cell phone.

Boys how did I do? $100 after taxes and shipping for my K1ii. I actually don't have any fast zooms. Closest I have are a Pentax-F 35-70mm, 50mm Macro, and Pentax-F 35-135mm with some hazing. Seems on the low end for this lens in other mounts.

File: file.png (1.32 MB, 1563x1031)

1.32 MB PNG

is the ol' stack of primes actually worth getting or is it just an overrated meme?

File: Screenshot 2025-09-06 at (...).png (520 KB, 583x655)

520 KB PNG

>tfw cant visit the pentax factory for a free service

>>4465900
Depends.
Shooting anything that moves a lot? Encountering different subjects with different sizes or formats? Primes aren't ideal.
Shooting consistent subjects like street or landscape? Primes might just be for you.

>>4465900
Primes are ideal for normal photography. If you can't wing it with a 35mm or 50mm, especially now that cameras range from ISO 50 to ISO 12800 and still produce better quality than 35mm film did (maybe a little less definition at max grainpeep after scanning the film... with a camera), you simply aren't a good photographer.

If you always need to fill the frame with a detail shot then use a zoom so everyone can clearly see you have no soul.

>>4454459
is this a problem on the K-1II? i had my k-50 shit out on me oh and the battery latch broke.

>>4466029
K1ii instead has the PASM dial die and the hot shoe mount break

Don't ever lock and try to move the PASM dial or drop/bang it with a flash on to try to avoid that

The newer shutters aren't as good either. The floor for them is $1000 used I noticed. Trade in is $580-630 for K1iis and eBay wants 14% seller fees. I paid $920 for mine with 4000 shutter counts, $1000 after tax. Seller probably made $750 after shipping and eBay fees.

>>4466029
nah, it's the solenoid thing and the K-1 II is immune to that

>>4466030
i was debating between the d850 and the k-1II. pentax's weather sealing is a big selling point since i'm in the pnw and it's raining here 4/5ths of the year. i guess the d850 is sealed but nikon is more wormy about what's sealed and what isn't. i bought an old d7000 for nostalgia recently but it's not weather sealed really.

File: IMGP2956.jpg (2.27 MB, 3840x2563)

2.27 MB JPG

>>4466032
My opinion as someone who's ran his K1ii through 500 or so pics after 3 weeks?

If you're not a Pentax fanboy, you don't have any lenses you really love, you're not shooting any vintage lenses that could be improved by IBIS, and they cost the same go for the D850.

The good Pentax lenses and cameras cost more secondhand because they sold 100 of them to every Nikon. And Nikon glass is excellent. There's a lot of cheap/good F Mount lenses with VR. The K1 is honestly just a D810 with worse AF and IBIS/GPS (same sensor iirc along w/A7R). K1 AF means you'll miss static shots if you're not fast enough. My lenses might have some backfocus and I might have to correct for it which I haven't had the time to do so. I do like MTF priority, but Pentax software when shooting auto tends to trend to high ISOs, thankfully the images come out clean even at 12800 ISO.

Nikon build quality for their DSLRs is tank-like only matched by the Canon 5D series. The weathersealing on Pentaxes is only if you get a WR lens ($$$ and not too many out there) otherwise you'll have the ring around the lens as a entry point for water. Its definitely fucking huge but if you have a long enough strap it carries the weight well. My bigger problem is no silicone cases and the only company that sells a skin wrap for it is in fucking Latvia and you can't mail order anything from Europe -> USA. Nikon just has a bigger aftermarket.

That said I am a little bit of a Pentax fanboy and if you're willing to tolerate shitty glass to experiment with its cheap. I took this with a 35-70mm Kit Lens from 1989. Below are all pics I took with it. I had that or the 50mm 2.8 FA Macro (another 90s film shit lens).

I don't think I'm selling mine. I like the camera a lot. But sometimes I wonder how would my experience have been if I just stuck to Nikon and picked up a D750/D850. The $920 before tax # I quoted included a grip and 2 batteries.

>>4465794
>>4465810
>>4465965
>>4465970

File: IMGP2959.jpg (3.04 MB, 2563x3840)

3.04 MB JPG

>>4466035
Same pic w/o the border shot raw. The PO left me a awesome film simulation.

For example there's nothing like the 24-120 f/4 Nikkors. The closest you get is the 28-105mm f3.5-5.6 D FA K1 Kit Lens. There's this huge gap in lens development/sales between the film stuff and the introduction of the K1 where half of the "good" lenses won't work because they were originally designed for APSC sized sensors. I'm selling my 18-135mm and 50mm DA primes for that reason.

FA = Full Frame DA = APSC.

Anyways if you get a K1 don't pay more than $1000. You can get a better mirrorless FF for that price. I do think the forced NR/acceleration complaints are a little overrated. The bigger issue with it is the horrible AF even compared to Canonikon DSLRs like the 5DIV and Nikon D750/850. But on the flipside the IBIS + GPS make it invaluable for astrophotography. I kinda bought it because I wanted the "ultimate" Pentax and never had a FF before.

https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/pentax-k1-ii/pentax-k1-ii-image-quality.htm

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentax-k-1-ii-review

File: IMGP3245.jpg (2.53 MB, 3840x2560)

2.53 MB JPG

>>4466038
This is at 12800 ISO with the 50mm prime. I did run it through LR's denoise, but the image is acceptable. It did take 3-4 attempts since it missed focus.

>>4466038
>better mirrorless
Nice oxymoron

>>4466032
funny that you say this, I had a d7000 that I used as a beater camera for quite a while, shot with it in the absolutely pouring rain many times, and it never missed a beat. Nikon build quality is untouchable in my eyes.

File: IMGP3073.jpg (4.24 MB, 3840x2563)

4.24 MB JPG

>>4466035
I meant to say that they sold a lot more Nikons than Pentaxes. I can find probably 20 D750/850s sold locally and maybe 1 K1. And for me the Mark II upgrade was extremely important since sometimes I shoot planes/cars like the pics above >>4462023

Mine was a 2016 build era K1 that was converted to a Mark II by Ricoh when it came out.

>>4466041
I don't have to microadjust a mirrorless and you can find stuff like Z6IIs, R8s, and A73/A7Cs for $1000-1200. Best argument for DSLRs is the cost though. Most of the upgrades in the last 10 years are for Youtube influencers. I love lurking ebay for cheap lenses. I just bought a Sigma 50-200mm f4-5.6 DC OS HSM for $40 shipped/taxed (might be for APSC tho, worst case I'll slap it on my K200D) and I'm waiting on a (possibly lost in the mail) Tamron 572D 70-300mm f4-5.6 LD I paid $26 shipped/taxed for.

I bet Nikon F/Canon EF will probably let you do the same imo. Definitely F since those cameras still had the screw drive AF motors in them.

>>4466046
>I don't have to microadjust a mirrorless
And it can't focus with the beam from a flash. Mirrorless cameras aren't real cameras, they're søytoys.

>>4466047
The still visible "IR" beam? Might as well use a flashlight if you're one of all 5 people who still use that.

>>4465990
>>4465978
im a dumbass and forgot to mention that its the old ass 35-105mm f3.5 from the 80s, its supposedly good enough quality that its nicknamed stack of primes

>>4454532
Its sensor is the same size as a 127 film frame, but calling it the 44D doesn't sound as cool

File: file.png (885 KB, 968x437)

885 KB PNG

redpill me on the Q series and how much of a dumbass I'd be for buying one, these things look neat

>>4466100
They're basically toy cameras but they have plenty of reach when you put a full frame telephoto lens on them. Thing is, you can't really trust what you see because there's no OVF. Still, the reach is unmatched.

>>4454439
why shouldn’t I buy a 645z?

>>4466301
You should.

>>4466303
that’s exactly what I’m thinking
time to start saving…

File: IMG_3448.png (2.49 MB, 1170x2532)

2.49 MB PNG

sweaty_forehead.jpg

>>4466307
>>4466304
Theyre so chunky I love them.

>>4466308
ever use one?

>>4466312
Nah, but I have used a couple different medium format cameras. If you get one be prepared that they are kinda tough to use as a walk around and snap type camera. Slow, methodical, preferably on a tripod with artificial lights type work is where they really excel.

>>4466316
>Slow, methodical, preferably on a tripod with artificial lights type work is where they really excel.
In other words they excel at Photography.

>>4466032
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/24-photographic-equipment-sale/482253-sale-pentax-k1-ii.html

1,000 for a nearly new K1ii with only 250 shots. Mine was the same price after tax with 4200 shots and a extra battery + grip. I hope someone here buys it.

I also played with a D780 at Adorama and found it to be pretty nice too I wouldn't hesitate to look into a D750 or a D780. The d850 it's a little difficult to use, I feel like it's too much camera for me. It has too many buttons and I couldn't even figure out how to change the mode until I asked one of the sales representatives. I'm sure it's a good camera but it definitely has a learning curve and it's a bit chunkier than the 780. Definitely a little smaller than the K1 still but I do like how to K1 is better laid out. I think if I wasn't a Pentax Fanboy I would have been really happy with a d750/780.

Adorama wants nothing to do with Pentax at the trade-in desk.

B&H Photo cut me a check for $165. The 55 to 300mm DA-L I paid $82 for and got $65 back, the 18 to 135 DA WR I paid $62 for and I got $100 back. They didn't want any of my '80s film autofocus lenses those are probably going to go on eBay for $30 (35-70, 70-200).

>>4466032
All weather sealing fails over time and none of it is any more standardized than the dodgy weather resistance of bluetooth earphones. A $20 rain cover beats paying $1000+ just because a model was declared to be "weather sealed" once.

>>4466341
>Definitely a little smaller than the K1
they're about the same, the k-1 is actually smaller in height/width (but 5g heavier)
https://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=nikon_d850&products=pentax_k1

>>4466320
Exactly. Just imagine how incredible cameras would be if all the innovation went into image quality instead of ease of use.

>>4466350
You mean Nikon before they went full videofag?

>>4466341
There's literally a button that says "MODE" on the d850 kek

>>4466355
We need a camera with a MOOD button I think.

File: Screenshot_20250907-23371(...).png (1.1 MB, 1080x2098)

1.1 MB PNG

>>4466355
Yeah I kept hitting it and twisting the lower ring on the same dial expecting it to be like a PASM dial, instead turns out you have to press it and the rear right scroll wheel next to the AF button. It was kinda annoying. Too many fucking buttons. The D780 I picked up was a lot more intuitive/easier to use. Pic related to see what I mean. I was pressing hold and twisting the ring on the same dial expecting that to change modes

AF also wasn't working when I half pressed the shutter only if I pressed the AF button but that could've been some retard reprogramming it while it was on display.

>>4466371
you should be using bbf anyways

>>4466104
ended up ordering a Q7, not expecting super duper quality form the photos but it seems like it'd be fun to carry around everywhere and fuck around with

>>4466307
I’m not gonna get it
it’s too expensive

File: Screenshot 2025-09-14 at (...).png (683 KB, 1369x697)

683 KB PNG

just bought this for trade in value....we're so fucking back...$77 shipped n taxed to my door

i actually feel kinda bad for the seller hes only making $56 but i nearly bought a $190 50mm f1.4 pentax hd over this for my k1ii

gonna try to find a cheap 28-105mm dfa kit lens i guess next there's one for $270. i dont have any pentax d-fa hd lenses lol. they're all $500+ used

File: file.png (1.11 MB, 1093x695)

1.11 MB PNG

i got it
bros this thing is puny

>>4468104
Wow. Cute.

>>4468104
holy shit I didn't realise it was that small. wtf?

>>4468104
I want to mount this on my K-1's hotshoe
I wish they had made all the lenses in black though

>>4468375
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1570456-REG/

fuck this is based

someone fund it k1 + q hotshoe attachment

>think I found the right combo of settings to use the k-1 for reasonable action shooting
>take ~200 photos during a performance
>camera crashes out near the end
>turns out it stopped writing to the card too
>most of the photos just don't exist, not even a skip in the numbering
t-thanks pentax
guess I learned my lesson

>>4468400
iktf

I did high-continuous burst shooting on my KF when I was at Disney Animal Kingdom and halfway through the camera locked up and some of the pics came out half purple like the sensor had a issue. Had to restart the camera and it shot fine after.

These Pentaxes have the processing power of a fucking calculator and when you ask too much they BSOD

>>4468405
the k-1 mkiii will totally fix these issues right guys

File: Screenshot_20250916-11101(...).png (60 KB, 724x906)

60 KB PNG

>>4468032
Update: I got raped and he probably realized B&H/MPB will give him more money.

If you're reading this you're butterfinger nigger

>>4468032
>13 reviews
How to Lose at eBay

>>4468536
Request a picture of the damaged lens

File: 40keks.jpg (57 KB, 742x655)

57 KB JPG

>>4468536
Ah the classic ebay way of saying
>I only chose auction because I thought a pair of retards would bidding war it and get me more money
>This sold for less than I really wanted, wtf the world is so unfair
Ask him for a photo of the damage and insist that you'd still like the item anyway as you only wanted it for parts. If he still wants to be a cuck, get ebay involved.

File: file.png (494 KB, 863x440)

494 KB PNG

lel

with this little shits crop factor this is a 1380mm lens

I have had a pentax k70 since 2017/18 with a single lens a 55-300. I love it b/c its quiet and it doesnt make a single noise. I recently bought a new lens, a pentax 50 classic. Why does the new lens make the a motor noise? like a whirling sound when i press the shutter button.

>>4469139
Is a screwdrive lens I guess

>>4469139
>>4469162
either that or IBIS, which is pretty audible with my K-r

>>4468536
>>4468539
>>4468541
please do it and update us.

File: Screenshot_20250919-15443(...).png (980 KB, 1080x1741)

980 KB PNG

>>4469210
I'm too lazy and gonna let it slide. I'm still gonna keep a eye out for one lol.

Fyi if someone wants there's a K3 Mark 3 for $885 with 4.5 hours left on eBay. It's a nice silver color too. I have a feeling it'll probably go for a little over a thousand only because the K3 Mark 3s are even rarer than the K1, and they cost the same $1800 brand new. Ricoh is just not interested in selling DSLRs that's why they charge the same prices as 5 years ago for the same camera. Was really surprised when I found out that the K1 was actually really cheap brand new because the competitor dslrs were easily $1000 more when they came out.

Whats the difference between the Pz-AF and Mx-AF Tamron teleconverters? The pins look different and they both look like they have the screw drive pin. Either way I bought this last night for cheap. If it's actually meant for a Minolta I'll use it on that.

>>4469162
>>4469205
its got to be screw drive. does anyone have recommendations for lens without screwdrive? like a basic pancake?

>>4469243
https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/search.php
maybe the DA 18-50 f4-5.6?
it's been sold in SMC & HD versions, you may be able to get the older one for cheap

>>4454439
I’ve got my heart set on a K-3 III Monochrome. Why shouldn’t I do it?

>>4469463
$3000 APS-C lmao.
I like the concept but until a manufacturer either does one for $800 new or makes a FF version, it's a cope camera with a cope niche.

File: hWalbnwB_400x400.jpg (25 KB, 338x338)

25 KB JPG

>>4469494

>>4469524
>Why yes, I can't just convert it to b/W in post
>Inb4 you get extra res no bayer blah blah
It's still a colossal waste of money. Put your money where your mouth is. Oh wait, nobody even half sane is getting one over a 5dsr.
I reiterate: cope. Lmao.

>>4469526
You seem upset, friendo.

>>4469528
Not in the slightest. You couldn't read a stop sign let alone the room.
Everything said has been statements with minimal emotional input.

>>4469526
Tom did get one and used it a lot. Shame they banned him here.

>>4469494
have an upvote sir
monochrome would be fine as a low/mid priced toy. ironically dedicated monochrome cams are worse at black and white than just converting to bw in post. because you're missing the color channels you can't selectively adjust each color's luminosity in the result. only thing you're gaining is more resolution but then again - what for? do you really want to see every skin pore and pimple in high res? hell most fags even use bloom filters nowadays to tone down resolution. so yeah. monochrome is perfect for leica fags who want to larp.

>>4469534
>ironically dedicated monochrome cams are worse at black and white than just converting to bw in post.
Skill issue.

>>4469463
>Buy Sigma APS-C with Foveon
>Better lenses
>Incredible colors
>Incredible B&W with actual editing capabilities without colored filters
Sigma's B&W is almost comparable with Leica's monochrome sensors. Pentax shit is lame and worse

>>4469543
I was considering a Foveon
I’m basically looking at alternatives to CFAs
I wasn’t heaps keen on any Sigma ILCs but the Merrill series seemed interesting
the K-3 III mono seems appealing because it’s sharper and better at collecting light than cameras with CFAs
I don’t find the high price tag heaps appealing though
>>4469534
I’m indifferent to this

File: 1732343930224752.png (613 KB, 1024x1005)

613 KB PNG

>Bought a Pentax KF with a 35mm f2.4AL
>Want to take better photos at night and higher quality photos
What lenses should I be looking at?

>>4469660
hear me out but
a tripod and a flash

>>4469660
What's the matter with this board's obsession with muh night photos? What fucking photos do you take at night with no light?

>>4469660
Miss my pentax gear and most importantly my 50mm 1.4
What a fucking lens

File: IMGP2794.jpg (4.14 MB, 2500x3563)

4.14 MB JPG

>>4454615
One of my favorite cameras I have is a QS1. My most favorite is the K1, and I also have a GFX100II and an XE-5. QS1 was like 300 bucks with 5 lenses and I take it everywhere.

>>4454615
This is basically my ideal when I edit. I shoot mft though. Is it really the camera for this look? In this case the lighting is obviously helping, it's a beautiful scene. I've seen other Pentax photos with nice warm tones like this though.

>>4470163
The K10D is still a worthwhile investment in 2025. It is a still photography camera through and through.
>in-body image stabilisation
>no video
>two “creative styles:” bright and standard (i.e. minimal bloat w/ useless trash like picture modes)
>metering switch beneath the mode dial
>customisable RAW button
>front and rear dial for aperture/shutter speed control
>feels great to hold, deep grip and tactile texture
>pop-up flash is handy although weak (GN11 @ ISO-100)
>incredible battery life
>light-up top LCD
>muh CCD sensor
idrk if it’s “better” or “more aesthetic” but it seems different; look at sample galleries; it seems earthier somehow than CMOS sensor output, imo
now the bad
>it is a slut for light and doesn’t play nice at >ISO-400
>AF is a mixed bag: AF-C is worthless; AF-S is ok with select point; overall, still needs a lot of light to work reliably
since you can get one for <$300AU, it’s really a no-brainer

>>4470195
10mp is quite limiting but I'll consider. The K3iii is real expensive for APS-C. I've read the lenses have a nice look to them as well, perhaps that's a bigger differentiator.

>>4470201
For what it's worth I saw a K3III sell for $920 on eBay used last week. They're expensive new because the prices never dropped since they were released but go for fucking nothing used because good mirrorless APSC costs around $1000 (Z50II, a6600/6700, R7/R10) and even something like a D500 is $5-600.

You can get a K10d/K200d for under $100 if you look hard enough often in mint shape. K3/K3II/K70 is usually $3-400 (sometimes under $300). KP is the pricey one at $600.

>>4470202
ty friend! I will keep my eyes peeled...

File: IMGP2869-1.jpg (2.89 MB, 3888x2608)

2.89 MB JPG

>>4470195
>>4454615
luv me k200

>>4470201
>10mp is quite limiting.
Yes, even with very sharp glass (eg Sigma ART), the resolution is not there for ultra-fine definition and at >ISO-100 you will kill shadow detail and colour when you inevitably apply noise reduction. For about twice the price you could get a K-3 II or KP, which will have much higher resolution but it’s not the mythical “CCD.” You have to decide for yourself if it’s worth chasing after “muh toan” by looking at sample galleries.

>>4470230
It’s just neat. The K200 is identical to the K10D afaik except it has a different body material, might not be weather sealed either (not that weather sealing holds up after lul twenny years).

>>4470241
It is weather sealed, but Pentax weather sealing doesn't mean shit when most of the lenses don't have the gasket around the lens mount. K200 = K10D internals in a smaller ist-D sized body and updated jpeg engine. I really like mine but they're rare since they were only sold for one year.

>>4470240
KPs are expensive in America. K70 is $2-300. K3 is $250-400. KFs are getting cheaper at $3-400.
K10D you can easily find for $100...K200D is a little more only due to rarity.

https://ebay.us/m/YPmHEk

https://ebay.us/m/2tKOBZ

Just avoid japanese sellers unless you want to get raped by tarrifs to the tune of $50 in fees + 15%. A lot of them dump on US eBay to the point that I find myself having to filter them.

>>4470259
>updated jpeg engine
anything interesting sooc?

>>4470259
>look up K200D
>no front dial
I could never

File: IMGP0079.jpg (3.83 MB, 3872x2592)

3.83 MB JPG

>>4470260
Honestly no besides this, which makes me think I should take it with me to DC this weekend. I have a few APSC lenses I keep around (35mm and 50mm DA, and a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 SP A16 I accidentally bought for $100 shipped thinking it was a FF lens) I'll take with me. I got my K1ii a week after getting my K200D so it kinda sat on the backburner.

Was originally gonna take my KM 5D + 35-70mm F/4 and 100-300mm APO...think I'll take my K200D + Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 and a Pentax-F 70-210mm

I might still sell the 17-50mm after since I have alongside a 28-75mm f2.8 Tamron that is FF meant for my K1 I also paid $100 for.

>>4470240
I find CCD grain more pleasing, the bigger issue is the lack of dynamic range for anything other than shooting outdoors in the daytime. Some cameras like my Olympus E500 (8mp 4/3rds Size Kodak CCD) struggle even on cloudy days and if its too bright you're almost always better off underexposing by -.3 or more.

>>4470296
>DC this weekend
we should meet up and idk rub our k1s together

>>4470296
>Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 SP A16

Unfortunately, I have one of these low quality LEMONS!

File: IMGP4044.jpg (3.43 MB, 3992x2992)

3.43 MB JPG

people weren't lying about the Q being fun to use

File: IMGP4064.jpg (1.77 MB, 4000x3000)

1.77 MB JPG

>>4470478
the little control wheel at the front with quick filters is cool

File: IMGP4027.jpg (2.66 MB, 4000x2868)

2.66 MB JPG

>>4470479
image sharpness of course is pretty mid and the noise can get pretty bad pretty quick but whatever

File: IMGP3227-2.jpg (3.05 MB, 3840x2563)

3.05 MB JPG

>>4470443
mrow >:3

im probably gonna go with my gf parents but i might also skip on them to drive to check out a car 6 hours away, havent made up my mind. definitely gonna pack my k200d, fresh set of eneloops, 17-50mm tamron a16 (yes i know its shit but i'll give it a shot) and sigma 50-200mm hsm os (this i know is shit but i paid $40 for it and its brand new)

i just got a offer from the seller for this k200d here for $95 w/free shipping, hoping someone here buys it. its a screaming deal, i paid $80 for mine and didnt find out it had 130k+ shutter counts until after the fact.

https://ebay.us/m/YPmHEk

this was one of my favorite scenes from when i went to montreal 3 weeks ago. walking down mont royal and got a nice view of beaver lake

File: IMGP3006.jpg (3.7 MB, 3840x2563)

3.7 MB JPG

>>4470574
forgot to mention that was with my k1ii + fa smc 50mm f2.8 macro

im still getting used to not automatically hitting ai nr when i upload my photos, turns out when you shoot with a <10 year old ff sensor after a dozen apsc cameras you dont have that much noise

Is anyone here crazy enough to do wildlife with their Pentax? It's criminal to me how Pentax is lightweight, sturdy and weather resistant but doesn't have any bodies with very good AF for wildlife, but I've seen some do it.

>>4470589
>Pentax is lightweight, sturdy and weather resistant but doesn't have any bodies with very good AF for wildlife
The K-3 III is the best they can offer, apparently (I haven’t used one but I’d like to; I’d like a K-3 IV or a K-1 III even more, thoughbeit).