paulkienitz

Yeah, like the Quattro, but put a big control ring around the protruding part. And don't put the eyepiece to the right of the lens, fer chrissake -- either above it or at the left corner, ...

Another me-too new mount would be fairly hopeless for Pentax. I think they'd be a lot safer doing mirrorless with the K-mount, with a few wide/standard lenses that stick into the body to make them ...

K-P II or K-P replacement is sure what it sounds like.

I've heard equally valid rumors that Hasselblad may be going out of business. At this point in the evolution in the camera industry, there is no safe buy.  Not even Canon and Nikon are safe ...

Don't worry, that was just my high school nickname.

If you overexpose the sky, even in B&W, it can lead to trouble such as fringing around the bird's edges.  But if the overexposure is mild you might get away without trouble.

I wore out my Oly OM-2, but I've never worn out a Pentax. But that's only true for bodies.  My first-gen DA 55-300 is rather worn out -- the focusing isn't smooth and can make gear-grinding noises ...

I figure with any BIF you just have to expose for the sky, keeping it on the pale side, and then pull the shadows to see the bird.  Blowing out the sky to see the bird better does not produce a ...

Almost every time I see someone shooting a mirrorless camera, it's with a native lens.  (Just as with any other kind of camera.)  Is your experience different?  Adapters are a niche usage for any ...

People won't want to buy a slim mirtorless camera body unless they expect to do at least half of their shooting with new slim lenses.  Otherwise they have little incentive to replace the SLR.  ...

An adapter is supposed to be as good as a lens and body that actually go together, but it just isn't.  Mirrorless systems always tout their adapters... but how often do you see them actually being ...

I still think it's the best overall approach, and I think it's one that Nikon, for one, may end up wishing they'd taken if their new Z-mount ends up laying an egg... since in doing so, it will ...

Sorry, I didn't mean that to come across as undercutting your post -- I was mainly speaking to the OP, giving reasons why I would recommend the 1.4x over the 1.7x.

I have tried the 1.7x AFA on my 300, and the modern 1.4x converter is much sharper. It works almost perfectly with the DA* 300/4, as it was designed specifically to work with that lens in ...

I've often wanted a dot sight when using the DA* 300 with the Q for birding.  It's quite difficult to aim without something like that.  But the one time I tried to order something that would mount ...

Absolutely not -- nobody "needs" another fast fifty...

If you're waiting for Pentax to suddenly become ten times better at autofocus than they've been in the past, you may have a long wait.  In your place, I would base my plans on the assumption that ...

Because spec comparison numbers sell cameras, I guess, and high ISO is a number that impresses people. That logic makes a lot more sense in the lower tiers of the market, though.

I think you're way underestimating how difficult good autofocus really is.

Yes, I still shoot with the K-3... when I still manage to shoot, that is. The smaller sensor is appropriate for birding because most shots get cropped anyway, and it's quite adequate for the amount ...