Above: All Cable Releases of Mine; From Left to Right: Pentax Cable Switch F, Pentax CS-105, Canon RS-60E3, Canon RS-80N3; Top: Traditional Universal Mechanical Flexible Cable Release.
| Cable Switch | For Camera(s) | Period |
| Cable Switch F | SF Series, (P)Z Series, MZ Series (Except MZ-S) | 1987 - 2002 |
| CS-105 | MZ-S | 2001 |
| CS-205 (Canon RS-60E3 Clone) | *ist, *ist D Series, K(number)D Series, K-number Series | 2003 - Now |
| No Support | K-alphabet Series, i.e., K-m, K-x & K-r | 2009 - Now |
The CS-105 is actually the most professionally designed and built cable switch that Pentax has ever made. But unfortunately, it supports/supported only the MZ-S. It has the same design as the Canon upper Remote Switch RS models for their upper class AFSLRs/DSLRs only. The design has an automatic mechanical lock so that the cable switch cannot be detached accidentally. To detach, one must hold and press the silver portion of the connector which will release the lock as you can see from the above photo, for both the CS-105 and RS-80N3. It has one disadvantage IMO, though. That is, the insertion of the connector is directional, which is really no good for inserting the cable in the dark, but which is usually the situation in which the user usually requires to use the cable switch/release!
I didn't buy the CS-205, though, when I acquired my *ist D. I was indeed somehow "angry" with Pentax for changing the cable switch after only one model. As the CS-205 is just a Canon low-end "RS" clone but which was sold at doubled price and was more difficult to find than the Canon (as usual, for all Pentax items!), I opted to buy the Canon. Anyway, even the Canon is of no use to me anyway for more than one year now, as my current and last Pentax DSLRs, namely, the K-x and K-m, just does not support any cable switch/release for each of them (and so does the upcoming K-r)!
Update (9-28): Some people doubt about the usefulness of a wired cable switch and release. I would like to elaborate a bit more about its true value for some applications and the differences underlaid..
1. A cable release actually consists of two switches, one for the half-pressing and the other for shutter release. An IR release controls only one switching, i.e., the release of shutter. Some IR remote controllers of Pentax like those that I built-in with my Zoom 90 WR and purchased together with my Optio 330 have the zoom control, but then so what?
2. The control of the half-press is crucial if you want also to control AE and in most cases, the AF, just like what we are using the cameras daily. Just imagine that when you use a DSLR without half-press function, then.. I think I needless to say more! For some shooting applications like shooting concerts on monopod/tripod or to track racing cars and panning where direct pressing of shutter button is not desirable so as to avoid shakes right before the exposure, a cable release is particular useful - but still we need to do and control the AE and AF, right?
3. An IR controller needs to point directly to the IR receiver and sensor at the body (which is located in the front for Pentax DSLR bodies) as long as it is pressed for the "Bulb" control. With the K-x, the user can choose in the Custom Function that for a "two-press" operation, i.e., to press one to open the shutter and press another time to close it. No matter how, this is not as convenient, reliable, direct and responsive as what a simple wired cable release can do for the user. One of the good examples of application is shooting fireworks, where timing is really critical if you are really using the shutter to control the (multiple) exposures instead of using a black card in front of the camera with a long bulb mode. An old example of mine:-
(Canon EOS 5D: f/16, 5s, ISO 100, 24-105L @24mm, RAW post-processed with DPP, Cable Release Used; Photo taken in Feb. 2008 @ Victoria Harbour, Hong Kong - Click to Enlarge in New Tab/Window)
P.S. I might upload some more fireworks plus some concert or racing car photos later on, as most of my old shared photos were already deleted at my old Yahoo Geocities account which I cancelled but they are not re-uploaded.
Logging you in...
David · 754 weeks ago
RiceHigh 110p · 754 weeks ago
loock · 754 weeks ago
I use MZ-S @ BG-10 and *istD with CS105 and an adapter to 2,5mm stereo jack, but before that I use 2 sec. mirror prefire directy trigered with perfect results.
It's true that MZ-S, *istD, and newer Pentax DSLR are weird hardware limited, in that 2 sec. mirror prefire or mirror lock-up is not posible with wireless remote triger....so as to give you a reason to buy CS-205...but it's not realy necesary as I'v seen my self.
Somebody with one of the newer DSLR with no suport for cable release, can see if there is aded suport for 2 sec. mirror prefire for wireless remote ???
I my self have no interest in entry level camera, and iven that K-5 look nice, I have no more interest in APS-C.
RiceHigh 110p · 754 weeks ago
Chris · 754 weeks ago
The digital camera history apparently follows the film camera history - there as well, people looked down on the smaller formats, claiming the many advantages of bigger formats. But in the long run, what made cameras so popular? Right, it was small and light equipment that you could carry around without hurting your back.
What can FF do what APS-C cannot? The difference is by far not as important as claimed:
- Lenses like the Pentax Limiteds give you beautiful bokeh in APS-C. For my taste beautiful enough.
- With the new sensor, ISO 6400 is good, 12800 acceptable and 51200 accessible. Enough in my view.
- The price to be paid for "Full format" or "Medium format" is: much bigger and heavier equipment (e.g., Nikon D700, Pentax 645D) or lack of features (e.g., Leica M9).
- The picture quality that ANY DSLR camera >1000 USD will give you is FAR better than what we were used from film cameras 10 years ago.
- FF only gives you less noise if the pixel size is bigger, i.e. with a similar resolution as APS-C. So if Leica does its M9 with only 18 MP on a FF sensor and limits it to 3200 ISO - that is certainly good for image quality compared to the average APS-C camera. The advantages are gone when using 24MP and ISO 6400, and the extremely high resolutions are needed only when printing big formats.
So I would not call a K5 an "entry level" camera simply because of the design decision that tried to balance an acceptable size/weight with a very high picture quality. With similar (and unfair) reasoning, you could call the Nikon D700 "entry level" because it is not WR and does not work in cold temperatures, or because of its bulkiness (which, please remember that, is a disadvantage rather than a feature).
Best, C
PS. Leica at least proves that FF is possible with small lenses - and in fact some of the DA Limiteds work just fine on full format. Nikon and Canon just turn me off for the sheer bulkiness of everything they make in the DSLR department.
PS2: BTW, the color response and auto white balance of the K7 was praised by Leica shooter Steve Huff. I'm curious how the new APS-C sensor in the K5 will compare, hope Steve will have a look at that.
david · 754 weeks ago
I clearly think the IR remote is superior in most cases to the old cable trigger. Other than bulb, I cannot think of a time when a wire would be better than a remote (of course, if the camera only takes a wire, then of course).
danny · 754 weeks ago
and to my luck, it also works with my *ist DS &DL ...and it cost me next to nothing :)
Kahuna · 746 weeks ago
1. Camera needs to be placed in a spot where shooter can't aim electronic/IR remote at sensor, such as at edge of tall building, cliff, etc.
2. Shooter needs to be concealed from bird or animal subject.
There are more, but two examples should be sufficient.
Evidently Pentax believes that a cable release has value, because the K5 is designed to use one.
It's always an error to assume that because you personally do not need or have not thought of a way to use a specifc technology, that no one else has.