My Pentax FF is Already Here! ;-p

My Pentax Full Film body is almost 15 years old now. And, I am right here waiting for the Pentax Digital Full Frame body for at least 13 years! :-(

The DA560 is Not Completely Full Frame Compatible

See the latest test by the PF with a roll of film for the $7,000 DA560 lens put onto a MZ-S:-

http://www.pentaxforums.com/news/da-560mm-f56-is-it-a-full-frame-lens.html

The test pictures speak for themselves, there is heavy vignetting at corners at f/5.6. It should be noted that the hood was not extended for these shots. The darker corners can still be seen at f/8, i.e., one stop from wide opened, although it is not as obvious then.


Updated:  Compatibility of DA Lenses on Full Frame

Twelve Years of 135 Full Frame Digital Cameras (Timeline 2012->2000)

Reference Source: Dpreview Digital Camera Timeline and individual camera pages.

Time	Camera	Resolution (in MP)	Sensor Make	Screen Size (in Inch)
Sep-2012	Canon EOS 6D	20.2	Canon	3
Sep-12	Leica M Typ 240	24.0	Cmosis	3
Sep-12	Leica M-E Typ 220	18.0	Truesense	2.5
Sep-12	Nikon D600	24.3	Sony	3.2
Sep-12	Sony RX1 (Fixed Lens)	24.3	Sony	3
Sep-12	Sony A99	24.3	Sony	3
Sep-12	Sony NEX-VG900	24.3	Sony	3
May-12	Leica M-Monochrom	18.0	Truesense	2.5
Mar-12	Canon EOS 5D Mark III *	22.3	Canon	3.2
Feb-12	Nikon D800/E	36.3	Sony	3.2
Jan-12	Nikon D4	16.2	Nikon	3.2
Oct-11	Canon EOS-1D X	18.1	Canon	3.2
Jun-11	Leica M-9P	18.0	Truesense	2.5
Oct-09	Nikon D3S	12.1	Nikon	3
Sep-09	Leica M-9	18.0	Kodak	2.5
Aug-09	Sony A850	24.6	Sony	3
Dec-08	Nikon D3X	24.5	Sony	3
Sep-08	Canon EOS 5D Mark II	21.0	Canon	3
Sep-08	Sony A900	24.6	Sony	3
Jul-08	Nikon D700	12.1	Nikon	3
Aug-07	Nikon D3	12.1	Nikon	3
Aug-07	Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III	21.1	Canon	3
Aug-05	Canon EOS 5D *	12.7	Canon	2.5
Sep-04	Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II	16.6	Canon	2
Mar-04	Kodak DCS Pro SLR/c	13.5	Kodak	1.8
Feb-04	Kodak DCS Pro SLR/n	13.5	Kodak	2
Sep-02	Canon EOS-1Ds	11.0	Canon	2
Sep-02	Kodak DCS Pro 14n	13.7	Kodak	2
Feb-01	Pentax MR-52 (Never Marketed)	6.0	Philips	2
Jul-2000	Contax N Digital	6.0	Philips	2

* My Purchased Models

There are a total of 30 models (29 marketed) and 2012 is really the Year of 135 Full Frame digital cameras in which 11 new models have been rolled out! Btw, let's see if we could at least hear some news of a Pentax FF within 2013! >:-o


Read Also:-

Pentax SLR Cameras 1952-2011

Major Canon Cameras 1930 to 2010

Death of My Second Pentax SLR

(Above: My MZ-30 with my FA 43 Limited)

The week before, when I tried to use my MZ-30 for shooting film, the light meter first went nuts and then the mirror locked up after pressing the shutter and it did never come down again anymore no matter how!

I used nearly new Panasonic CR2 lithium batteries and its expiry date is in 2020, which worked completely flawlessly when they were put into my MZ-S. Really too bad.. :-(

And, my SFX did die twice like that, for exactly with the same symptom and for what happened. What an unfortunate "coincidence"! >_<

Btw, can anyone tell me that what has been going wrong with this "mirror locked up" issue? :-o


Related:-

When the Super Pancake Meets Different Bodies~

Can Pentax DSLRs be Made Thinner?

"Film is Dead"! ;-)

The World First / Pentax First: My (Obsolete) Pentax Collection

Monday Dreaming: Pentax Strikes at Photokina!

Having thought too much about those upcoming new Pentax stuff these days, so have just made a dream early this morning, call it ridiculous or plain stupid if you like! :-o Yet to share anyway..


1. K-300 - 16MP basic (cheap) model, old sensor, no WR, no remote switch socket, no microphone input for video. Treat it as a K-01 with the addition of the old Penta-mirror finder found in the K-x/K-r but with deletion of the stereo mic input;

2. K-5N - with the new 16MP Sony sensor (likely the one used in the NEX-5R) and new SAFOX X, 21 AF points, finally! (9, crossed, 12 linear), slightly higher frame rate at 7.5 to 8 fps, flipped monitor screen:-

	-	-	-
|	+	+	+	|
|	+	+	+	|
|	+	+	+	|
	-	-	-

3. K-3/K-S - with the somehow old Sony 24MP APS-C(!?) sensor, and new SAFOX X, S model being variant without anti-aliasing filter to be marketed at a later stage, lower frame rate (~4.5 to 5 fps), flipped monitor. Last time the MZ-S model reminds me of the S letter hints the end of the line, and hopefully! Btw, the K-S is said to be priced at 1400 Euros - same original (high) price as the K-7 when it was first sold.

4. 645DN - replaced with a new 49 x 37mm 50MP CCD sensor, support 16-bit RAW, effective 48MP in 48 x 36mm. So, the crop factor of the 645D will change! That is, from 1.36 to 1.25X, e.g., the DFA 645 55mm "standard" lens used to a 43mm on the 645D in 135 sense and it will effectively become a "40mm" lens on the new 645. The 645DN will be aggressively priced at 1,000,000 Japanese Yens (~US$ 13,000).

5. New O-GPS2 unit and an AF200FGZ compact external flash replacement.

6. First announcement comes on September 3rd.

There is no K-01 nor Q replacement. And there is no Full Frame! >:-|

The alarm clock sounded then and I saw no more things! :-(


N.B. Don't blame me for anything inaccurate! The Relative Humidity RH=50% (which is good for the storage of glass, lol..)! After all, it was just a dream made by someone who "needed to see a doctor" and who "has no credibility of any at all"!! ;-p


Last Related:-

Photokina for Less Than 30 Days to Come - Pentax Predictions

Why One Would Want Plastic and Rubber for a Camera?

This K-5 was cracked after a crush:-



Source: http://forum.xitek.com/thread-1000353-1-1-1.html (in Chinese)

The new K 30 looks like shockproof, with its plastic/rubber outer shell construction. So, it seems that sometimes plastic and rubber is better than metal, especially consider that the K-5 metal shell seems to be flimsy and not thick enough. This can be seen in the above photo for the wound. Surprisingly, this was exactly my own feeling when I first picked up the K-5 in my hands. In contrast, the Pentax MZ-S film body is a different story (except for the filmsy "data back" of it).

Visualising the Change of Ownership in the History of Pentax from the Product Labels

In reversing time order..

4. 2012: Pentax Ricoh Imaging Company:-

A Ricoh K-5:-



Source: A DPR Forum Post

3.5. 2011-12: Transitional Period from Hoya to PRIC:-



Label and documentation are showing Hoya but there is a notice of change of ownership included in the box.

Source: Changing the Focusing Screen of K-5 - Tips and Techniques

3. 2007-2011: Hoya Corporation:-

A Hoya K-5's bottom:-



K-5 is a Pentax DSLR model which carries both a Hoya and a Ricoh label for the units manufactured before and after.. Btw, mine is a Hoya unit.

Source: Imaging Resource

And my Optio WG-1 GPS purchased last summer:-



Source: My Take (Tick) on the WG-1 GPS! ;-)

2. 2001-2006: Pentax Corporation:-

My K100D:-



Source: Where are the Pentax DSLRs and Lenses Made?

1. 2001 and before: Asahi Optical Company:-

The bottom labels of my MZ-S and Optio 330:-



Source: Where are the Pentax DSLRs and Lenses Made?

DA40 XS Lens Tested on Film

Thanks to Frank (aka Fengwei), who has carried out this test with the lens mounted on his MZ-S with film a bit earlier, we could know that this XS lens is actually completely full frame compatible!

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/178336-da40xs-lens-tested-film-mz-s-da40xs-kodak-gold-200-a.html

I think he has done a good job which is beneficial to the Pentax community. After all, I consider his this quick test to be useful and valuable since no one has checked this and published the result before.

Furthermore, I would like to take this chance to make an apology to Frank as the last time I was mistaken that he was a camera dealer and that he had been breaking the Pentax NDAs for times which he had agreed and signed and subsequently he felt offended for what I'd supposed. Now, provided that for what he has declared here for the last time is true, possibly he is just a super die-hard Pentax fans and keen supporter who has bought almost every Pentax new item ever released these years such that the dealer could leak every new product information to him and let him play with all those beta units. Nonetheless, I still believe that the dealer broke the signed Pentax NDA for so many times these years then. But never mind, as Frank has also pointed out, this is not the fault of him as he has never signed any agreement with Pentax, which I agree. After all, it's always good for us to learn those leaks, only if there exists people like Frank, and his "brave" dealer as well! ;-D

Okay, let's talk back about the implication of the test result, i.e., the XS lens actually covers full frame. There are two possibilities for why's that: 1. Pentax has been too lazy and/or cost conscious to re-design the lens for APS-C and they just opted to use an existing old optical design of them and just re-packaged it so as to make it smaller, lighter and thin; and/or 2. They do really plan for the Full Frame in the Future!

Besides, I have done back a quick technical comparison between the specs of DA40 Limited and that of the XS lens. It seems that both of them are 5 glass elements in 4 groups and the maximum magnification / minimum focusing distance are exactly the same. As it is now also verified that the XS lens is also having a full 135 image circle, the chance of the same optical formula is employed is actually quite high.

Last but not least, my ever-updating summary about the full frame compatibility of DA lenses has been updated in conjunction.

Firmware Updates Fantasies! :-o

Since the old *ist D days, nine years ago, I have been seeing that whenever there is a new firmware update from Pentax, people started to imagine and then reported that there were some silent updates for improvements or debugs embedded which had not been told officially. Lately, exactly the same phenomenon happened once again and actually it did happen every time! Some K-5 users started to rave about about how "great" the firmware version 1.13 was for the "improved AF" for both speed and accuracy! :-o And this saying has been spreading all over the Internet after the first few sayings and that's a showcase of how rumours work! So, I think it's time for me to measurbate again! ;-)

Test Conditions and Procedures:-

1. Mounted an AF lens onto the camera body (of which the battery was fully charged*), forced it to turn to the minimum distance. In this case it is at 0.3m for the FA28 lens in use. (At first I wanted to do this test with the DA35/2.4 but which lacks a focus scale which is not good for this test and thus I used the FA28, which I believe is still a standard lens on APS-C. Nonetheless, I checked and verified that the AF and hunting behaviours of the two lenses were very similar on my K-5.);

*MZ-S was using two LiFePO4 batteries with two hollow dummy conductors in AA.

2. Put the camera in AF-Single mode with only the Central AF point was selected and activated, focused it onto a target which was illuminated by 4000K and 2700K light sources roughly equally. The lighting level was measured to be at about 7.5EV (ISO 100 equivalent). The target object was at about 3 metres away;

3. The same test was repeated for five times (The camera was hand held). The K-5 was tested twice with the new firmware;

4. Recorded the sound and imported the sound file into a sound wave editor and measured precisely for the AF time required, from the AF started to work and then right before AF PCV confirmation tone was heard. All timings are recorded for all the AF achievements. See the following illustrations:-



5. For the last time of the AF, the photo was taken to verify the AF accuracy. (Not applicable for the MZ-S, which is just a film camera!)

The Results:-

Camera	AF Time (1st)	(2nd)	(3rd)	(4th)	(5th)	Average	Sound File
K-5 FW 1.12	0.326 s	0.400 s	0.331 s	0.333 s	0.607 s	0.399 s	Download
K-5 FW 1.13 (1st Test)	0.548 s	0.324 s	0.790 s	0.407 s	0.321 s	0.478 s	Download
K-5 FW 1.13 (2nd Test)	0.327 s	0.333 s	0.340 s	0.329 s	0.406 s	0.347 s	Download
MZ-S	0.316 s	0.419 s	0.505 s	0.632 s	0.692 s	0.513 s	Download

So, my safe conclusion is that the new firmware should make no difference. I have quickly checked the three last photos taken in 100% viewing size that the AF accuracy is not much different, neither. There are some randomness (inconsistency) of the AF performance as you can see from the above results which is not negligible and is actually significant. I guess at this point some would say that I should do the test on a tripod, but I think hand-holding the camera is a real-world case for what I wanted to check in this test. At least, I had tried to hold the camera steadily and pointed the AF sensor onto roughly the same part of the target as far as possible. That's it.

Of course, as usual, I Blog, You Decide! After all, different people will still have different conclusions and opinions even for the same tests, as always! :-)


Read Also:-

K-r AF Accuracy Comparison: FW V1.10 Vs 1.01, under Yellow and White Light Sources

My Pentax K100D Full Review

The "Ideal" K-mount Mirrorless

Well, I named mine as the RH-01, which has the following appearance and features! ;-D


(The backdrop is close to the main body colour of the Yellow K-01! I think if I had it, it could look slimmer when put onto that as part of the thick body could be hidden! ;-D)

1. It has a thin and small body!

2. It has an articulated monitor!

3. It has an aperture control ring! That's called the "Hyper Operation" in Pentax terminology! In addition, the aperture can be changed at anytime during video recording!! It also had the H.264 MP4 compressed video in 30 frames (long time ago!) that some Pentax fans has *suddenly* raved about! ;->

4. It weights far less than the K-01! :-o The above combo with a *Pentax K-mount* pancake lens is only at 540g, with flash, battery and memory card plus a light handstrap, too. In fact, the above lens weighs 140g by itself, leaving the body alone weighs only at 400g, which is yet ready to shoot. And, if I used a cheaper adaptor, I can save 30g more!

5. The match is with better outlook and more balanced with all those elegant DA limited pancakes rather than a thin lens on a thick bricky body! >:-(

After all, I am keeping my K-x, same as the K-m, which are yet the smallest and lightest Pentax DSLR bodies and most importantly, they are equipped with a *viewfinder*, if they are meant to be made bigger!


Related:-

The Half-Baked K-mount Mirrorless! >:-(

Size and Weight Comparison for the K-01 (Against K-5, K-r and K-x)

K-01 Poll 1/2: Do You Like about the Design Appearance of the K-01?

K-01 Poll 2/2: How Do You Think about the Practicality of the K-01?

Kodak Digital Photo Products are Completely Dead! :-(

Last times, they sold their sensor division, and then filed for bankruptcy protection, this time they said they no longer produce major digital photo products..

Official Notice: Update on Kodak's Transformation

Well, it is always sad to see such once a giant company running into a status like this. Sad! :-(

How about Kodak films then? Btw, I still have two rolls of unused ISO 100 "Pro" films of theirs which have not expired yet, which I bought to be used in my MZ-S at fall of the last year.

DA35/2.4 and DA70/2.4 Limited on Film (Large Samples, f/2.8 to f/11)

The following shots were made with the above two DA lenses on my MZ-S with Fuji Superia 200 film on a bright day and film-scanned in about 6 megapixels. Here they are:-

DA(L) 35/2.4	DA 70/2.4 Limited
f/2.8	f/2.8
f/4	f/4
f/5.6	f/5.6
f/8	f/8
f/11	f/11

So, it is proven that both lenses are 100% Full Frame compatible. As for the optical performance (versus problems) at different apertures, it'd better for you to go measurebate and find these out by yourself! :-)


Related:-

Compatibility of DA Lenses on Full Frame

Old Unpublished Shootout: MZ-S Vs K100D Vs 5D

Here is a shootout test which I made years ago but did not publish before. It is about shooting-out a MZ-S w/ a FA24-90 (w/ Slide Film) Vs an APS-C K100D w/ a DA16-45 Vs a Full Frame Canon 5D w/the EF 24-105L. Here we go:-

http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v313/RiceHigh/5D_Vs_K100D_Vs_Slide/?start=all

EXIF data are kept for the K100D and 5D samples, which are in full size of 6MPs and 12MPs respectively. The slide used for the MZ-S film gear was a roll of Fuji Sensia II 100, which was processed and then eventually scanned using a Minolta Dual Scan III film scanner, in 12MPs also.

Each picture was shot with close enough settings as possible, e.g., the same focal and Av. However, as the base ISO of the K100D was 200 but the rating of the film is 100, I opted to test the 5D in ISO 200 also. The cameras were then mounted onto a tripod and the shots were taken with mirror-locked up before the exposure.

View the album, the first ten pictures with numbering X-XX are of the film, and the the second group of ten with file names of IMGPxxxx are of the K100D and then the last group with the names of IMG_xxxx are of the 5D. It's your take now, if you're yet to measurbate. In short, I might conclude that "Film was Dead", but then do note that the workflow may NOT be fair enough to the film after all! :-)


Read Also:-

"Film is Dead"! ;-)

MZ-S Silver Limited

See this post at the Xitek forum today that reminds me of this excellent film body of Pentax once again!


(Above: An unusable combination - DA15 Limited Lens on MZ-S Silver)



And, below pictures are of my black-coloured MZ-S:-


(Source: "Film is Dead"! ;-))

Also, one picture of my MZ-30 Silver:-


(Source: Can Pentax DSLRs be Made Thinner?)


Read Also:-

Silver K-5 and DA Limited Lenses Announced

K-7 Limited Silver

Why Should a Pro SLR Not Have a Built-in Flash??

Large Size Pentax Q Sample Photos Plus Hands-on Movie Review Posted by Pentax Insider

(Above: First and Last Pictures - ISO 3200 with the Pentax Q)

First of all, view this Flickr gallery:-

http://www.flickr.com/photos/n00bs/sets/72157627083831739/with/5943039553/

Test samples in Large (but not Full) Size (in 3200 x 2400) preserved with Complete EXIF data are posted. Do note that those are real-world shots taken both indoor and outdoor and for various subjects including portraiture and scenery. But the undoubtedly more important thing for the pixel peepers is that the ISO speeds used ranged from 125 to 3200! :-o By inspecting those real-life samples, we can now have a much better idea about the IQ/PQ of the Q and how it should perform actually, e.g., with the standard 8.5mm "01" prime lens. And, will the small sensor with supposed to be better optics plus more intensive image processing do the magic? Go figure out yourself! :-D

It should be noted that the firmware version of the Pentax Q under test is in 0.30 as shown in the EXIF, that means that it is yet a beta firmware, with Pentax normal tradition of firmware numbering, i.e., production firmware version should be named as 1.00 and above.

Furthermore, there are some other interesting photos posted in which the objects in the photos are somehow special, including a never-seen-before Pentax Q with transparent outer shell as well as the never-mass-produced Pentax Full Frame DSLR prototype K-1. Go have a look and I'm sure that you, as a Pentaxian, will not be disappointed! Do note again that all photos were made with a Pentax Q!

Last but not least, the same author posted also a "movie (hands-on) review" of the Pentax Q. In which, we can see clearly about some of the operations of the Q, and more importantly, we can finally learn something about the system performance of the Q, for the first time, e.g., the AF speed and responsiveness and rate of continuous shooting:-


(URL: http://youtu.be/RRbi_zEK5GI)

Enjoy! :-D

Why Should a Pro SLR Not Have a Built-in Flash??

(Image Source Page: http://product.pchome.net/dc_nikon_d800/picmore-265747-3956555.html)

via the latest Nikon D800 Rumour and Specs at the Chinese PCHome:-

http://product.pchome.net/dc_nikon_d800/param_265747.html
(Google English Translation Here)

If the rumour is really true, I just wish to ask: Why NOT?? >:-(


(Source Article: The World First / Pentax First: My (Obsolete) Pentax Collection)

At least the excellent and well-built Pentax MZ-S had one. But then one may say that the MZ-S is not a true pro cam anyway! :-o :-(


(Source Article: "Film is Dead"! ;-))

SAFOX IX Tungsten/Yellow Light Front Focus Issue Fully Investigated

Background

Since K-r and K-5 have been marketed, many Pentax users have been complaining about the obvious Front Focus (FF) issue resulted when using these cameras, when they were shooting at lower light and more so under tungsten light source, actually. A recent report here.

In fact, this "Yellow Light FF Symptom" was with Pentax users for long since Pentax made their first DSLR, the *ist D. But I did find that the problem was not as severe as before since Pentax had made the K-m and with the two successive models of the K-7 and K-x, too. But rather unfortunately, with the K-r, it seems that this issue strikes again and more of those adverse reports arose, which was also confirmed shortly after a few days use of my new K-r! :-(

So, I decided to do yet another controlled experiment, to compare the old SAFOX VII of my MZ-S, the SAFOX VIII (latest version) of my K-x and the SAFOX IX (first version) of the K-r:-



Test Methodology

1. The focus target is as below. It comprises of a stair case of 3 flat surfaces. The centre one is the main target, which has a good contrasty pattern, and is used for the AF, with the central single focus point of the cameras, in AF-S mode.



2. Each of the camera body is then mounted on a sturdy tripod. The light source is changed between Yellow and White, photos are taken and then where the final focus arrives in the final image per picture is observed. The lens focus/distance scale for the final focus measure is also recorded, for each picture.

3. The shutter release button is re-pressed for a few times until there is no re-focusing/hunting and that the camera believes firmly that its decided AF focus is correct.

4. Other testing notes and conditions: FA 43/1.9 Limited in Av mode at f/2.0, ISO 200, SR off, AF Single, Central AF point, AWB, latest firmware in K-r and last latest firmware in K-x.

The Results

Camera	Recorded Image	Lens' Distance
MZ-S / White Light Source	N/A
MZ-S / Yellow Light Source	N/A
K-x / White Light
K-x / Yellow Light
K-r (AF Fine Adj Off) / White Light
K-r (AF Fine Adj Off) / Yellow Light
K-r (AF Fine Adj On, at Max. Value of -10) / White Light
K-r (AF Fine Adj On, at Max. Value of -10) / Yellow Light

Observations and Conclusions

1. Both K-x and K-r (*without* focus adjust) are fairly accurate with white light source.

2. Under yellow light source, the K-x focus shifts forward and too with the K-r. But the span of the shift of the K-x is considerably less than that of the K-r. As a result, the K-x' picture is still somehow acceptable even it is front focused. On the other hand, the K-r picture under yellow light is totally out of focus for the target owing to the serious front focusing. This is verified from the lens' focus scale readings in the above the four respective pictures, too.

3. With focus adjust at -10 for the K-r, now it focuses more correctly under yellow light, but then it then causes obvious back focusing in white light. Again, the span between white and yellow light is large, although it is not as large as when the focus adjust is off.

4. The MZ-S / SAFOX VII is affected least by the yellow light with minimal effect. By looking at the focus scale, it matches well with the best focus pictures under white light for the K-x and K-r.

Afterall, how does that ten years old SAFOX VII still outperform both the last version of SAFOX VIII and now the latest SAFOX of IX (but which is now the worst!)? How come Pentax yet once again has sucked quality from the SAFOX IX, which they had already improved it to avoid the problem somehow with the latest revision of the SAFOX VIII?? :-o

And since I purchased the K-r to upgrade but not downgrade, its more serious yellow light FF symptom than the K-x really upset me. And this is for sure a big disappointment - I did not expect the K-r could be and should be worse than the K-x! >:-[

Remedials, then?

1. Use the LiveView to focus, the LV CDAF is not affected by the yellow light, last time I checked and verified. But with LV, of course it has its problem and limitations, such as no OVF could be used and the prolonged shutter lag (the shutter will be fired twice before a picture is taken).

2. Manually change the focus adjust setting each time for Yellow or White light source (do remember to set the memory function for the last accessed menu item to avoid more troubles if you do this! And do remember to check frequently to avoid "user error"!!).

But of course, the pre-requisite for you for doing this is that you must first have an accurate K-r in AF which requires no -ve focus adjust by default in the very beginning, just like mine. Otherwise, you will never be able to enter the required amount of (the -ve) correction if you have already used up some of the quota, just in case - which could happen with the "excellent" QC of Pentax nowadays.


Read Also:-

How AF Errors Can Decrease *Effective* Resolution?

EOS 60D Hands-on Impressions

Tried the 60D twice just because wanted to buy it, below are some brief impressions of mine:-

1. The 60D is still somehow big and bulkier. It is not felt much smaller than my 5D, especially when a larger lens like the EF-S 18-135 lens is mounted.

2. The plastic out-shell of the 60D, which is made of the same plastic material and with the same texture as that of the 550D, felt really cheap! :-( Frankly, the black coloured Pentax K-r yet feels better!

3. The AF speed with the 18-135 lens is not really that fast, or it should be called slow by EOS or Canon's common standard!

4. The viewfinder is larger and bright and is easier to view than that of the 550D. Red illumination indication is also brighter and easier to view than the 550. The viewfinder is much sensitive to smaller aperture, though. Just say, when zooming the kit lens to 135 (i.e., at f/5.6), the finder image will noticeably be darker.

5. The operation and user-friendliness is in general acceptable. But it is not as intitiative as that of all those Pentax DSLRs and I think it is not better than the 550D in general (first putting aside the added direct keys for some control functions). I just could not figure out how to change the exposure compensation directly but resorted to change it inside the menu afterall! :-( Anyway, maybe it's me for overlooking something but this is NG for its user-friendliness, especially when it doesn't work out directly even for an experienced DSLR user like me!

6. The highlight headroom of the 60D is nearly non-existent. Just say if just +1.0 EV is added to deliberately overexpose the picture a bit, many of the highlights are clipped and destroyed.

7. Nevertheless, the IQ and resolution of the images are good for JPEGs directly out of the camera. Colours are good and the per pixel sharpness is good, too.

8. The mirror slap of the 60D is just a joke! It is clunky and the shutter lag is noticeable. It is no better than that of the entry level 550D! Or, the 550D is just better in this department! In fact, the 550D's mirror action is more Pentax MZ-S/*ist D alike whilst the 60D is more *ist DS like, if I had to compare.. I am sure that Canon has sucked some good quality from the 60D for what were originally there inside its predecessors like the 40D or even the 30D, of which more smooth/silent/faster mirror slap could be detected!

9. The articulated and rotatable monitor of the 60D is a joy to use, which really help composition for difficult angles when the camera is used in conjunction with LiveView mode. And it opens up more creativity afterall, as Canon markets. The monitor is sharp and with saturated colours, although it tends to be a bit too cold (blueish) to my like (I guess it is the same one used in the 550D anyway).

10. AF accuracy seems to be good for both units I tried with the 18-135 and then another two different EF 50/1.8 lenses. Exposure accuracy could be called good and bright pictures are usually re-produced despite that highlights are easily clipped (even with no exposure compensation). AWB is reliable with ambient atmosphere preserved well without major annoying colour cast no matter under what light sources including natural daylight, fluorescent or tungsten.

11. The built-in flash of the 60D is with a larger area than that of the 550D and with a nice diffuser that produce softer picture than harsh one. It is bright enough for casual shooting and the coverage is good without any noticeable vignetting found.

12. There is a mode dial release lock which should be pressed before the mode dial can be turned. Whilst it is centred like the design of the K-5/K-7, it is actually not a button that is clearly isolated and requires deep press. It is just a membrane button which requires a very light touch afterall. Whether you like it or not would boil down to a matter of personal preference then.

After all, I've decided NOT to buy the 60D as it just fails my basic requirements for a DSLR with better build and performance and to be smaller. Indeed, I believe that the 550D is a better DSLR overall, as it is smaller/lighter and sold cheaper, and the mirror slap is gentler as well. IQ wise, both 60D and 550D is more or less the same. So, I would better to save my bucks for the upcoming 5D MkIII, which according to my sources, should come in early next year of the 2011, possibly not later than Easter.


Read Also:-

550D Full Review, Tips and Tricks

"Film is Dead"! ;-)

I put a roll of film into my beloved film Pentax MZ-S back to July 2009 for taking some photos in a time-lapse manner with time-stamp on frame. Yesterday, the frame counter has reached 29 and the roll of film will expire some time next year..




So, I declare, film is dead! At least this is almost true for my case. Why? It is because within the same period, I think I have made 10k+ digital images and frames already. But as for film, I've only managed to take 28, for 16 months! Just! ;-))

Speaking of the MZ-S, and for gear talk, its mirror action is just so smooth and the vibration caused by the mirror slap is nearly non-existent! Well Done, my Old Pentax!!


Read Also:-

Some More Dubai Images ;-)

A 45k-image 3-year Time-lapse Video with the K110D

Preview: Cantax K5D Full Frame! ;-)