How to get K-r to focus in the dark?

[antoineb]

you claim that DSLRs are not obsolete because they're present in large numbers today. True, but: (1) buggy whips were also being sold in large numbers when motor cars were emerging, and (2) most cameras in the world today, by far, are mirrorless.

you say that the DSLR will continue, even if without a mirror? Erm, sorry, but it's called "reflex" because of the mirror. That mirror is a pointless thing in the digital age, but which was the only solution in the day of film because you coudl expose the sensitive surface just once.

So now if you remove the mirror, you've got a camera with interchangeable lenses, but it's NOT a DSLR anymore. Might just call it a "camera", call a DSLR an "old camera", and most other cameras will just be side functions of other devices (say the iPhone) so won't need a name.

I own and use a DSLR (8'000 shots in 5 months) but I am conscious that it's an obsolete design, with inferior low light focus, too many moving parts, too large, you name it. The day a civilised tool is available, I'm out. This day is almost here.

 

[awaldram]

you claim that DSLRs are not obsolete because they're present in large numbers today. True, but: (1) buggy whips were also being sold in large numbers when motor cars were emerging, and (2) most cameras in the world today, by far, are mirrorless.

you say that the DSLR will continue, even if without a mirror? Erm, sorry, but it's called "reflex" because of the mirror.

No I said most dlrs design would remain even if the mirror was removed I made no comment an what it would be called.

That mirror is a pointless thing in the digital age, but which was the only solution in the day of film because you coudl expose the sensitive surface just once.

True but no technology present today at reasonable cost can come close to teh resoltuion of an optical vewfinder.

Back LCD are a bone thrown to P+S up graders and do not replace viewfinders as the camera is a lot more stable held against the face.

Electronic viewfinders will replace optical and offer a lot of exciting enhanments (overlays) once they can deliver resolution and contrast without noise in all shooting conditions.

So now if you remove the mirror, you've got a camera with interchangeable lenses, but it's NOT a DSLR anymore.

I never said it was but the technology on use would be still predominately a 35mm design body design due to ergonomics and practicality.

Current system cameras today still owe most of their shape and design back to mid 80's technology.

Might just call it a "camera", call a DSLR an "old camera", and most other cameras will just be side functions of other devices (say the iPhone) so won't need a name.

I own and use a DSLR (8'000 shots in 5 months) but I am conscious that it's an obsolete design, with inferior low light focus, too many moving parts, too large, you name it.

To be obsolete there would have to be a better replacement available today, By your own admission you use a dslr why??

The day a civilised tool is available, I'm out. This day is almost here.

Ah so you agree with me that today dlsr is not obsolete .....maybe tomorrow.

--
My PPG

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home#section=ARTIST&subSection=1471087&subSubSection=0&language=EN
My Photo Stream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/awaldram/

 

[antoineb]

I always find it amusing that a lot of people argue that the OVF is so great because the DSLR is so much more stable when held to the face. And sure it is.

BUT - the issue is, the DSLR design is too big and heavy, add a lens it becomes even bigger and heavier. So then you MUST hold it to the face indeed.

BUT, if you had a civilised modern design, not a dated design, the thing would be small and light enough so you'd never need to hold it to your face just to get stability!

Plus you know what, I find it so much more enjoyable to be able to look at the world around, not just the frame I'll shoot. Even Leica users love this.

let's look at a few samples to decide, all hand-held. Ah but sorry, they're from a mirrorless camera, which weighs less than most DSLR lenses! As a result it can be held away from the face easily. It has full manual controls, and a stabilised lens. And it's nearly 4 years old. And I still use it quite a bit because it's not just much more portable and discrete and versatile than my D7000, it's also genuinely better at macro shots while costing half the price of a dedicated macro lens. Hmmm.

flower at 1/60th and nearly 300mm
http://www.flickr.com/photos/antoinebach/5671419973/in/photostream

horse chestnut flower bud at fast shutter due to 500mm focal
http://www.flickr.com/photos/antoinebach/5558673880/in/photostream

near-macro shot at over 500mm
http://www.flickr.com/photos/antoinebach/5500510195/in/photostream

European cornel flower buds at 500mm and 1/320th
http://www.flickr.com/photos/antoinebach/5499195964/in/photostream

 

[jungleexplorer]

Hey guys, I appreciate the "slr against mirrorless" war, but to me it is all a matter of output. I looked hard at the mirrorless cameras before making my decision to buy. Two things that discouraged me were low light performance and zoom lens range. As far as low light performance, the K-r blows most of the mirrorless cameras out of the water at 1600 ISO, all that is except for the Sony Nex-5. It was close at 1600 ISO and was my first choice over the K-r, but there is no 300mm lens for it and to get the range of the lens that came with the K-r kit I bought for $750, I would have had to spend about $400 over the cost of the Nex-5 with the 18-55 lens which is $650.

The other thing was that, after much research, I was pretty confident that if a used an adapter to put a heavy slr lens on the Nex-5, I would run the risk of damaging it. So I decided to buy the K-r now with the two lens, and maybe down the road I can pick up a nex-5 for a couple hundred used off of ebay.

Now as to my original question (SLR/Mirrorless war aside). It is obvious to me now that SLRs overall have a harder time focusing in the dark. But to get the low light performance I want today (inside my budget of course) the K-r is the best camera I can get. To help it focus in the dark I have several options; I could buy an expensive external with a better AF assist light, use a strong flashlight or or buy a cheap kaleidescope laser pointer pen. I tried the flashlight thing and it works. I retook the same scene as the one I started this thread with and it turned out better then the first one. I will include it below. I have ordered a red and a green kaleidescope laser pens and I will report on their effectiveness once I get them.

 

[Barry Fitzgerald]

I always find it amusing that a lot of people argue that the OVF is so great because the DSLR is so much more stable when held to the face. And sure it is.

So let's not argue! Don't you think the lack of VF puts a lot of people off mirrorless? I do..it's been a hit in Japan but in Europe most couldn't care less about it!

BUT - the issue is, the DSLR design is too big and heavy, add a lens it becomes even bigger and heavier. So then you MUST hold it to the face indeed.

As we're talking about Pentax cameras erm they're fairly compact really this ain't no Canon EOS 1d MkIII huge difference in size I've used one not that is big and heavy. This is a K-r it's not that big ain't that heavy.

BUT, if you had a civilised modern design, not a dated design, the thing would be small and light enough so you'd never need to hold it to your face just to get stability!

What's civilised modern design? A camera with no VF at all in many cases.

Try getting a longer tele lens that is small and weighs nothing even a slow one up to 300mm ain't gonna be wafer light. Hold that out and arms length and I think you've got some problems!

Plus you know what, I find it so much more enjoyable to be able to look at the world around, not just the frame I'll shoot. Even Leica users love this.

Actually I remember a guy I knew who used to walk around with a 35mm slide frame with nothing in it to help with composition the VF is useful to isolate the subject and you've got live view if you want it too.

let's look at a few samples to decide, all hand-held. Ah but sorry, they're from a mirrorless camera, which weighs less than most DSLR lenses! As a result it can be held away from the face easily. It has full manual controls, and a stabilised lens. And it's nearly 4 years old. And I still use it quite a bit because it's not just much more portable and discrete and versatile than my D7000, it's also genuinely better at macro shots while costing half the price of a dedicated macro lens. Hmmm.

flower at 1/60th and nearly 300mm
http://www.flickr.com/photos/antoinebach/5671419973/in/photostream

horse chestnut flower bud at fast shutter due to 500mm focal
http://www.flickr.com/photos/antoinebach/5558673880/in/photostream

near-macro shot at over 500mm
http://www.flickr.com/photos/antoinebach/5500510195/in/photostream

European cornel flower buds at 500mm and 1/320th
http://www.flickr.com/photos/antoinebach/5499195964/in/photostream

Yes the FZ's are not bad bar the recent one which looks awful for IQ. But a superzoom with a bad EVF isn't a DSLR..some compacts do well for macro too.

But I really don't get your point..if your idea of fun is peering into a fuzzy electronic VF knock yourself out superzooms are nice but they're not DSLR's and they won't meet the needs of many users esp not for DOF control either.

 

[antoineb]

as long as it works for you - great ;-)

 

[falcon_wizard]

One of the significant benefit of SLRs over Mirrorless is Battery autonomy. This is inhenrent to the design and was a key discriminator for me. Those Screens and EVFs chew up batteries a lot more. This is very important for me when travelling and being away from electricity. I can get 600-700 shots on a single SLR battery.

--
Steph
http://www.photosvoyagenature.com

 

[antoineb]

good point - unrelated to the OP's initial problem, but good point nevertheless.

I indeed easily get over 1'000 shots on my D7k, if not more. Which is consistent with it being rated at 1'050 shots CIPA, which includes a lot of flash use.

On my compact superzoom (TZ-10) I have often found battery life to be just enough for a day and a bit (maybe 200-250 shots?), however on my superzoom I've been much more relaxed as it is rated 400 shots CIPA so if you don't use flash max this gets you to 500 shots easy. Fine for most hikes lasting a few days.

 

[awaldram]

good point - unrelated to the OP's initial problem, but good point nevertheless.

I indeed easily get over 1'000 shots on my D7k, if not more. Which is consistent with it being rated at 1'050 shots CIPA, which includes a lot of flash use.

On my compact superzoom (TZ-10) I have often found battery life to be just enough for a day and a bit (maybe 200-250 shots?), however on my superzoom I've been much more relaxed as it is rated 400 shots CIPA so if you don't use flash max this gets you to 500 shots easy. Fine for most hikes lasting a few days.

I take around 900 shots on a two day meet and double that on a 4 (naturally).

I carry 3 batteries 1 in body 1 in grip and 1 spare this gives me a capacity of around 3000 shots which I have never exceeded.

With your TZ-10 O would need 12 replacements and your superzoom 8 sets.

With this in mind you can see why I mentioned technology maturing with OLED before obsolescence could set in.

I'm not a pro and shoot less than the paid Photogs at meets who go through many sets of batteries on their 1ds's which using the OVF can take 1500 or in LV 270 (guess how much LV they don't use).

--
My PPG

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home#section=ARTIST&subSection=1471087&subSubSection=0&language=EN
My Photo Stream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/awaldram/

 

[antoineb]

of course you're right - before you factor in the COST of it all!

my old superzoom which does 400 shots (CIPA, so more like 500 if I use little flash), cost around $350 or so. That's with one battery. This compares with my d7000 doing well over 1'000 shots with also one battery.

sure I can add spare batteries on the DSLR but can also do it on the superzoom so this doesn't change anything.

and obviously the DSLR is bigger and heavier also because it is fitted with a larger heavier battery...

 

[jungleexplorer]

The K-r is very compact for a slr. It is just as compact as the HS20 superzoom. Most mirrorless cameras are not much smaller with the exception of the Nex. I would have gone with the nex 5 if there were a 300mm lens made for it.

I always find it amusing that a lot of people argue that the OVF is so great because the DSLR is so much more stable when held to the face. And sure it is.

So let's not argue! Don't you think the lack of VF puts a lot of people off mirrorless? I do..it's been a hit in Japan but in Europe most couldn't care less about it!

BUT - the issue is, the DSLR design is too big and heavy, add a lens it becomes even bigger and heavier. So then you MUST hold it to the face indeed.

As we're talking about Pentax cameras erm they're fairly compact really this ain't no Canon EOS 1d MkIII huge difference in size I've used one not that is big and heavy. This is a K-r it's not that big ain't that heavy.

BUT, if you had a civilised modern design, not a dated design, the thing would be small and light enough so you'd never need to hold it to your face just to get stability!

What's civilised modern design? A camera with no VF at all in many cases.

Try getting a longer tele lens that is small and weighs nothing even a slow one up to 300mm ain't gonna be wafer light. Hold that out and arms length and I think you've got some problems!

Plus you know what, I find it so much more enjoyable to be able to look at the world around, not just the frame I'll shoot. Even Leica users love this.

Actually I remember a guy I knew who used to walk around with a 35mm slide frame with nothing in it to help with composition the VF is useful to isolate the subject and you've got live view if you want it too.

let's look at a few samples to decide, all hand-held. Ah but sorry, they're from a mirrorless camera, which weighs less than most DSLR lenses! As a result it can be held away from the face easily. It has full manual controls, and a stabilised lens. And it's nearly 4 years old. And I still use it quite a bit because it's not just much more portable and discrete and versatile than my D7000, it's also genuinely better at macro shots while costing half the price of a dedicated macro lens. Hmmm.

flower at 1/60th and nearly 300mm
http://www.flickr.com/photos/antoinebach/5671419973/in/photostream

horse chestnut flower bud at fast shutter due to 500mm focal
http://www.flickr.com/photos/antoinebach/5558673880/in/photostream

near-macro shot at over 500mm
http://www.flickr.com/photos/antoinebach/5500510195/in/photostream

European cornel flower buds at 500mm and 1/320th
http://www.flickr.com/photos/antoinebach/5499195964/in/photostream

Yes the FZ's are not bad bar the recent one which looks awful for IQ. But a superzoom with a bad EVF isn't a DSLR..some compacts do well for macro too.

But I really don't get your point..if your idea of fun is peering into a fuzzy electronic VF knock yourself out superzooms are nice but they're not DSLR's and they won't meet the needs of many users esp not for DOF control either.