Pentax: great concept; poor execution

Sorry, I'm not "keeping up" with the "Pro bodies" if I'm a novice. I'm not going to pay extra money so I can get Nikon or Canon body with BASIC FEATURES that are in the Pentax products and much cheaper. Sorry, I just don't see it. Especially not for someone not merely just buying their first dSLR, but even their second. Pentax doesn't make me pay more just to get BASIC features, Nikon and Canon do.

Andrew, I'm not sure if your premise that fast apertures automatically means bigger. Leica brought out their M 28/2 a couple of years ago, which was smaller than their M 28/2.8 and a great lens it is.

 

I don't think Sigma, or indeed Canon even think about the eventual size of a lens when they design it - all Canon's primes are substantially larger than almost all of either Pentax's or Nikon's equivalents. If size is a priority then there are lens designs that favour that. Voigtländer's 40/2 for SLR's is a case in point, small and fast and very good.

 

Th old pentax 28/2 was only a little larger than the 28/2.8 and a better lens. It was also much smaller (215g v 355g) than the Nikon equivalent.

 

Pentax's own 24/2 is a good exception to their normal choice of small designs - it is 30% bigger than Nikon's and no better in quality, why?

 

I am a fan of small, fast, excellent quality lenses, particularly wideangle lenses, (21-40) which is why I also use Leica rangefinders. Unfortunately the 1.5x crop factor on the pentax's mean that there is really a dearth in their range there. The only lens that comes close is the 21/3.5 - a 33/3.5 equivalent; not much to celebrate is it? How can you isolate the subject with that sort of aperture? Yes, there are advantages to the crop, not least in that you can have anti-shake built in, but I would much prefer a good choice of fast wide primes. How can Pentax come close to emulating the look or usefulness of Leica's 35/1.4 or 28/2 - they have nothing like it. It looks increasingly like it's either Leica M8 or FF Nikon if they make one small enough.

 

I understand that for others a K10 with a couple of zooms suits their needs; it is indeed a reasonable combination, but if I were to decide to go in that direction then there would be no competition with the D300 and their faster, better built zooms, plus the choice of an extensive second-hand selection of readily available primes.

 

As for crippled mounts that someone mentioned - I use a selection of pentax primes - some of them K or M. On the new DSLR's these must be used in stop down mode - hardly what I would call very able. If it were necessary I would understand it, but it is not, it is a budget choice.

<i> ... 21/3.5... "How can you isolate the subject with that sort of aperture?" ...</i>

<br><br>

I find it somewhat amusing to think of wide angle lenses and "isolating the subject" with

shallow focus zone in the same sentence. Please give some picture examples where you've

used this to good effect.

<br><br>

Most of the advantage of large aperture, short focal length lenses is for low light work,

little for subject isolation. A Leica M rangefinder lens in this focal length/field of view

range can be more compact than an SLR lens because it has no moving mirror to avoid.

Although they aren't in the case of the 21, 24 and 28mm f/2.8 lenses compared to the

DA21/3.2 Limited.

<br><br>

Godfrey

Godfrey, I've used the 35/1.4 extensively at 1.4 in India, in huts and slum dwellings etc. I can assure you there is very nice subject isolation.

I'm not sure why the picture does not show. Anyway, this was taken at f2, were it at f1.4, obviously the subject isolation would have been more pronounced. Here is another, taken in the library at f1.4.

I personally think Pentax is doing very well so far. Given the current state of the art in sensor design, is it even possible to have compact <i>and</i> fast lenses for slr digital cameras? The answer seems to be no--not at the present time. Note the size and girth of the Sigma 30F1.4 as compared to a full frame normal from Pentax, Olympus or Leica rf. Huge right--62mm filter threads? The new Panasonic 25F1.4 is in the same class--a vastly larger normal lens for a <i>reduced</i> frame size!!! Consider also the upcoming Sigma DP1--an APS size frame (1.7 crop factor) with a fixed (not zoom) lens equivalent to a 28mm in full frame. And it's speed? Only F4.0!!! Not even the measly F2.8 of the old Ricoh GR1--let alone the F2.0 or F1.4 it would need to even begin to match a GR1 in depth-of-field wide open.<br><br>

 

Then you look at Olympus (and Panasonic) with their 4 thirds system and you see <i>only</i> the afore mentioned Panasonic 25F1.4 and Sigma 30F.14--each fully twice the weight and volume of a Pentax 50F1.4 and 2 to 4 times it's cost. However, there is some contradiction and illogic going on in all of this when you consider that the petite Olympus 21mm F3.5 full frame lens works just fine on a Canon 5D full-frame digital! So why isn't it possible to develop a faster version for smaller frames? This implies that Canon is distinctly ahead in having sensors that respond well to oblique angles light rays. And that also implies that things might change in the near future (within 2 years or so) and thus it would be unwise of Pentax to push ahead too far, too fast (if you forgive the pun).

first thing is I wonder where are the hard core people are who a few years ago, when I was still shooting film, told me to go elsewhere if Pentax didn't suit my needs.

<P>

If Pentax isn't Canikon and you need Canikon wouldn't it be better to buy a Canikon rather than dwell on how crappy your system is? Last I checked you didn't sign a contract when you started using Pentax, you are free to switch whenever you want. Or you could buy into two systems which I think is actually a better idea. For me it would not be a bad idea to buy into nikon for sports and long teles. Probably cheaper, but use my Pentax gear for everything else.

<P>

I find it especially funny because I think some people are upset at Pentax for dropping the aperture ring because it makes those lenses only usable on a Pentax body. Just a note, canon did this over a decade ago, so if you want Canon, you are closer withhe lack of a aperture ring. Nikon also eliminated the ring on newer lenses. Personally I like the ring, but admittedly, I use the A setting 95% of the time. Not really a big deal not having it.

<P>

This isn't exclusive to photography, but as someone with a diverse collection of hobbies I've noticed all groups tend to have a subset of participants that occupies most of it's time with dwelling on what they don't have, can't afford, or can't find, rather than the activity itself. At times I've been in the same boat (literally) but in the end I realized it is better to do with what you have rather than dwell on what you don't. a far more productive approach.

<P>

Next, maybe you don't realize this but the latest DA lenses are all designed to work with a 1.25/1.3X sensor. So Pentax does have a 1.25X upgrade path planned at some point. This is as far as I know as large a sensor that can be used with in camera IS. And while some people might have in lens envy (mostly those who dream of owning another brand but can't because of cost) there are equally as many Canikon users who wish they had in camera IS. Now 1.25X might not be full frame, but I'm still confused as to why FF is better long term? Other than using legacy glass there is absolutely no long term benefit. But camera based IS is definitely a good thing. I wouldn't trade IS for a bigger sensor and those that would are foolish IMO.

<P>

Also, Pentax SDM lenses work and work nicely with non SDM cameras. My ist D handles (in minimal testing on my way out the door monday) the 50-135 2.8 quite nicely. I find this refreshing and a sign of Pentax commitment to generally not leave it's customers behind. Crippled mounts? I have no idea what you mean. In general Pentax is the most backwards compatible. Nikon used to hold the lead but they've in just the last few years began off and on crippling there mounts on a come and go basis.

<P>

Shallow DOF with wide angles?<BR>

35mm isn't wide. It's a wide-normal lens. wide angle starts below 28mm.

<P>

I agree with andrew, carrying a 1lb lens with 82mm filters isn't fun. I believe some people are masochist for wanting the fastest glass possible. fast glass is nice when you need it, when you don't you wish it were f/4 glass. Unless of course you just like "looking" professional with a bigger lens.

<P>

a fast 35mm can isolate while a fast 20mm cannot. the excellent Pentax 35mm f2 works very well for this, and the bokeh is excellent.

<P>

And Godfrey couldn't have been more clear, a fast 20/21mm will not isolate no matter how fast it is unless you shoot at a ridiculously close distance, and by ridiculously I mean within 2 feet of the subject. even then you will not get a terribly blurred background.

<P>

a few examples of close range wide open (f1.8) photography below. bottom line is fast wide lenses are meant for extra low light shooting and not blowing out the backgrounds. not saying there is only one way to use a lens or a FL but if your looking for the most quality you generally shoot wides and super wides with zone focusing, and medium to small apertures (5.6-16).

 

<P>

<a title="Dinner At Ouzeri" href=" ><img src="http://static.flickr.com/1066/983013875_d05dc2ca62_d.jpg" border="0"/></a>

<P>

This one actually shows some background blur with the 20mm at f/1.8. But considering the butterfly is within 18 inches of my lens not all that impressive. The 20mm EX is a good lens. Not a great lens, but considering no other brand makes anything in it's class it's the only game in town. It's just too damn big.<BR>

<a title="Butter Fly In The Sky, Take A Look It's In A Book, Reading Rainbow..." href=" ><img src="http://static.flickr.com/171/383370979_eee9d402b3_d.jpg" border="0"/></a>

<p>

Justin<BR>

-----<BR>

<A HREF="http://mountainvisions.blogspot.com">Mountain Visions</A>

Pentax has a good sense of what is necessary in a camera. Its cameras also have good

handling, and the lenses - my current favorite is the 1,4/50mm - are great. (a comparable

lens in the Canon empire costs twice).

 

Coming from film - Nikon and some Minolta - naturally went to Nikon first, and later

discovered Pentax. I was immediately impressed by the inventiveness and creativity of this

smaller company. When I saw how the K100d outperfomed the D40, and in color

reproduction, even the D80...

 

Well, the K20, or how they will call it, is on my purchase list when it comes out, and the

K100d will become reliable back-up camera.

 

You don't need to go into a shoot with 8000 Dollar camera. I have the impression that

some photographers need that expensive equipment due to lack of trust in themselves.

It's the photography business version of the expensive car in the driveway. True

photography happens in your mind, and the gear must be good to create what you see.

 

A moment of truth came for me, when, after internet research I went into the store and

saw the cameras in "person" and could handle them. The Nikon D40: I couldn't take that

plasticky thingy serious. The Rebels are even worse. And if you are in business, you spend

as little as possible to get to a certain quality level.

 

What you need is a clear chain of good tools and methods: shoot RAW, have good lenses, a

well calibrated computer, good software (not some shareware junk) and, above all, you are

out there shooting, shooting, shooting.

 

Look at the masters of photography with their uncoated lenses. Look at the little Leica with

only a 50mm lens Henri Cartier-Bresson took his master pieces with.

 

And then look at what even a modest DSLR like the K100d can do in RAW if you know how

to handle it.

 

As much as I like to browse reviews and look at dream gear, I try to keep both feet on the

ground and only buy what I really need. And have more air to breathe, cost-wise. There is

a tendency of some people to preferably shoot test charts and count the resoution lines,

which is diametral opposite to what photography is all about.

 

Regarding the lens line-up: this is undeniable. There are too big gaps.

 

But generally I appreciate Pentax as a flexible and creative company who knows exactly

that this creative mind is their survival chance against the big boys.

A lot of that shareware junk is pretty good. More shareware junk = more money for photo excursions and camera gear.

 

but otherwise excellent points.

I have seen examples of the Pentax 31mm f/1.8 Limited isolating subjects very well. Sharp wide open, too.

 

If you're thinking Nikon, the new D300 appears to be a very impressive design. Just don't expect to get a full-featured compact backup body as a companion- they don't make one. Nikon also lacks currently available fast wide-angle glass below 35mm.

Quite a lot of defensive nonsense written here - from Justin Serpico - "bottom line is fast wide lenses are meant for extra low light shooting and not blowing out the backgrounds." This is just rubbish, as the pictures I posted show. The other half of the point of such a lens, for thousands of people, is that they soften the background. If I want a low light only camera then I can shoot a D3 at 6400 with any old lens. Some people want aesthetic control over the depth of field and are not content to just shoot and put up. If it is a good lens, qua Leica, then the quality is superb wide open.

 

As for 'Fast Primes' claim that fast small lenses are 'not even possible' just take a look at the zuiko 21/2 and the 24/2 two of the fastest, smallest and best lenses in their class, coveted nowadays by Canon shooters to use with adapters instead of their modern zooms, and made in the 80's. If Olympus could make them then, then why can they not be made by others now?

It is not my intention to rubbish Pentax, or claim that they make poor equipment, on the contrary, as I said, much of their equipment has been very good - as I clearly pointed out.

 

However I do not want to pretend that there are not glaring gaps in their line up or grat flaws in their planning - the worst of them from my perspective is a fast, small, top quality wide, like the already mentioned Zuiko 21/2. Even updating and reintroducing their old 28/2 would be a good start.

<i>> As for 'Fast Primes' claim that fast small lenses are 'not even<br>

> possible' just take a look at the zuiko 21/2 and the 24/2 two of<br>

> the fastest, smallest and best lenses in their class, coveted<br>

> nowadays by Canon shooters to use with adapters instead of their<br>

> modern zooms, and made in the 80's. If Olympus could make them<br>

> then, then why can they not be made by others now?<br>

> </i><br>

<br>

If you look at a ray-trace of these lenses, Robert, you'll see that the angle of incidence of

the projected image at the imaged plane deviates from orthogonal rather a lot as you

reach the edges/corners

of the format. This is just fine when you are designing a lens for film, which has virtually

no sensitivity to angle of incidence, but a serious problem when projecting the image onto

a digital sensor. It causes exaggerated CA, corner and edge darkening, and sometimes

moire effects. <br>

<br>

This is why fast, short focal length lenses designed for digital capture tend to be large

rather than compact as they were in the past. Manufacturers don't make too many of them

because their profitability is also poor ... most buyers today seem to want zoom lenses.

<br>

<br>

Godfrey<br>

Robert, without trying to be overly offensive it is clear you don't understand tha concept of wide angle or it's properties.

 

35mm is not wide angle. it is a wide normal lens. it therefore has a focal length that is able to be isolated. most photographers agree true wide angle starts at the 28mm if not 24mm focal length. So I believe we should disregard you 35mm shots.

 

Please post some examples of your isolation results using a 24mm or a 20mm lens! I look forward to seeing them.

 

As I noted, I am able to isolate with a 35mm lens using a wide aperture. I never said this wasn't possible. I even noted at a close enought distance a 28mm could blur out the background, although even this becomes more difficult at 28mm if your not close enough.

 

What I noted was the lenses you ask for (20mm range) CANNOT isolate in any realistic sense.

 

So instead of looking at the photos I posted, taken with a fast 20mm prime, shot at close distance and seeing that as close as those were shot, and as large of an aperture (f/1.8) where the focus plane is smaller to begin with you post that it's rubbish what I am saying.

 

You are asking for 35mm focal length results out of a 20mm lens. Robert, this simply isn't possible. It is less so on a APS sensor because a 20mm lens gets 30mm FOV but still has 20mm DOF or at least a full stop more DOF than a FF sensor.

 

But good luck to you in your search for a lens that has impossible properties.

No, Justin, you have misunderstood. I am asking for a lens, that can do what my 35/1.4 can do. This is what I've been talking about all along.

 

"How can Pentax come close to emulating the look or usefulness of Leica's 35/1.4 or 28/2 - they have nothing like it." I only referred to the 21/3.5 as the lens that would be needed to come close to the 35mm field of view on a 1.5x crop camera.(The 21/3.5's double disadvantage is having the depth of field of a 21 and being almost three stops slower than the 35/1.4 - a massive limitation in any attemt to isolate focus - MY WHOLE POINT)

 

I also asked for "a 23/1.8, or a 16/2 for APS sensor, on the same small scale" and then later mentioned the 21/2 Zuiko (as it already exists), since I find the size of the 14/2.8 to be unwieldy.

 

If what Gregory says about the need for equivalent wideangles to be much larger than those for full frame, at an equivalent speed, because of the intolerence of digital sensors, is true (compare Pentax 14/2.8 with the faster and smaller Zuiko 21/2 - same field of view) , then this is another massive argument for dropping the whole idea of APS sensors for anything other than telephoto advantages. Give me full frame and much smaller/faster wideangle lenses any day.

 

As for your definition of wideangle, well, it is just that, your definition. I mentioned that I liked shooting with wideangles in the 21-40 range. That range by any definition is wideangle. Since 43mm - 50 is considered normal.

 

I used the above pitures as examples of the look I am after, one taken with the 35/1.4 the other with a 40/2.

 

I am fully aware of the difficulty of limiting depth of field with very wide angles.

 

So the problem with what Pentax is offering in the wideangle (21-40) range, is at the wide end (their 14mm - equivalent to 21mm)they are far too big - hence my mentioning the neat 21/2 Zuiko; and at the other end (35-40) they are far too slow. Two separate things.

 

Apart from the full frame cameras, which are still very bulky, Leica , with its 1.3x crop and its much better, faster, smaller lenses suited to versatile wideangle shooting, seems to be the obvious way forward for me. Roll on Full-frame rangefinder.

I presume I'm "Gregory"..

<br><br>

The DA14 is somewhat bulky, true, but it's a superb performer. Worth it if you want/need

that FoV. Compared to the Olympus 21/2 ... Yes, it's larger. But not by as much as your

comments would have one believe:

<br><br>

<table width="350" align="center">

<tr>

<td>Pentax DA 14 f/2.8</td>

<td>Oly 21mm f/2</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Filter Size 77mm</td>

<td>Filter size: 55mm</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Length 2.7" (69mm)</td>

<td>Length: 1.7" (44mm)</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Weight 14.8 oz (420 g)</td>

<td>Weight: 250g (8.8 oz)</td>

</tr>

</table>

<br>

<blockquote>

The DA14 has a stepped ring at the front to handle a larger front element and filter in

order to reduce vignetting, so it is not that much wider in your hand than the Oly 21/2. It

is an inch longer and 6 oz heavier ... and of course, a proper lens hood is quite large to

suit the field of view and provide good effiency, which would be the same for both lenses.

Bigger, but not the monster. you're making it out to be.

<br><br>

With a 31/1.8, 35/2, and 43/1.9 in the lens line at present, your statement about Pentax'

offerings are "far too slow" seems ridiculous to me.

<br><br>

Godfrey

</blockquote>

Sorry Godfrey.Just carelessness on my part.

 

With a 31/1.8, 35/2, and 43/1.9 in the lens line at present, your statement about Pentax' offerings are "far too slow" seems ridiculous to me.

 

Well, let's see. x1.5 and what do we have? - a 47/1.8 (and huge), a 53/2 and a 65/1.9 (nice and small) - all fine if you want a standard lens; but what do any of them have to do with a 35/1.4?

 

We've always had fast, good, relatively small and cheap standard lenses with almost all manufaturers; these just happen to be overly expensive standard lenses now.

 

All of these lenses are good, though the 43/1.9 is soft wide open and neither of the other two can be compared to the summilux asph wide open, where I want to be able to shoot now and then.

 

I don't think I'm asking for the Holy Grail, and nor do I think I'm making too much of this. For years now, thousands of PJ's and street shooters have wanted a fast 35 for the multiplicity of tasks it can fulfill. Leica has had 35/1.4's and 35/2's in both rangefinder and SLR for years, as have Nikon, Canon, Contax and Minolta as SLR lenses. Pentax chose never to produce a 35/1.4 (apart from a prototype), and now that their crop makes their 35/2 a 53/2 equivalent, and even their very fine, but overly large 31/1.8 a 47/1.8, there is a conspicuous absence.

 

You can justify this as much as you like, but it still makes no sense to me.

 

Your example of the comparrison of the 14/2.8 to the Oly 21/2 is an insight of how far brand loyalty can influence reason. The 21/2, is, remarkably, the same size as both the Pentax 20/2.8 and the Nikon 20/2.8, both small for 20/2.8's. However it has a smaller filter size than either, and feels smaller in use, AND it is a whole stop faster. Add to this that it is also a better performer and you have a really neat and excellent lens.

 

I have heard that the 14/2.8 is a good lens, but it is a stop slower - a significant speed difference and something of an influence on DOF possibilities - considerably heavier and much more bulky. So, 2x slower, 70% heavier, 60% longer and with a filter size 40% bigger. If we'd have been told that this was the new offering in Olympus mount in the days of film, when all we had was full frame, then I think a with this much of a size and speed compromise it would have been a difficult sell compared to the Olympus 21/2.

 

Of course, digital has its advantages and there will inevitably be compromises that go along with it, but maybe we should demand a bit more than what manufactuerers are content to give us. As I've said, for my priorities - fast wides, I think Pentax and some others have far to go.

You are asking for the holy grail. And you've gone on and on for pages about it. ;-)

<br><br>

You keep shifting ground too, Robert. Of course, there's no debating opinion ... you don't

like what Pentax is offering. But the facts are that, at the LONGER end of the range you

were talking about, Pentax has plenty of fast primes. At the SHORT end, the DA14 does

very well and isn't *that* much larger than the very lens you chose as a model for a fast

ultrawide. Comparing a 20mm and a 14mm lens, expecting them to be the same size for

the same lens speed, is absurd.

<br><br>

And then there's the DA21 LImited... It's tiny ... no one else has anything like it, including

Leica. It's much smaller and lighter than the Elmarit-M 21mm f/2.8 ASPH, for instance. It's

a half stop slower ... not a big deal. It images beautifully wide open:

<br><br>

<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/godders/DA21WO" target=new>

homepage.mac.com/godders/DA21 Wide Open</a>

<br><br>

I've had no trouble using the DA14, DA21 and FA43 to

achieve what I need in limited DoF as well as low light capability. With any of the current

Pentax bodies, we have quality at ISO 800 that surpasses anything that film could do, and

there's your one stop faster...

<br><br>

Godfrey

Godfrey, you've missed the point. Read what I said again.

 

"But the facts are that, at the LONGER end of the range you were talking about, Pentax has plenty of fast primes."

 

I've been talking about the range in 35mm cameras of 21-40mm.

 

All Pentaxes fast primes, with 1.5x crop, fall in the range of 47-65mm.

How does that give me a 35/1.4?

 

You cannot compare the 21/2.8 from Leica to the 21/3.5 from Pentax, since the Leica can be used on full frame film or a 1.3x crop, while the 21/3.5 can only be used, so far, on the existing 1.5x crop, making it a very underwhelming 33/3.5 equivalent.

 

Why would Leica even want a lens like the 21/3.5? With the K10's 1.5x crop this is the FOV equivalent of a 33/3.5 - utterly unspectacular, especialy compared to the 35/1.4 and 35/2 they already have.

 

As to your last comment, well, I can hardly think you are being serious. Compare:

 

21/3.5 (FOV equ. 33/3.5)DOF at 3 feet = 17 inches.

35/1.4 DOF at 3 feet = 2 inches.

 

Even at 8 feet, wide open, the 35/1.4 has narrower depth of field possibilities than the 21/3.5 at 3 feet. So, far greater control over the isolation of focus.

 

What part of this do you not (or pretend not) to understand? ;~)

 

As for it being the holy grail, hold on. Leica already has an M8 with a 1.3x crop; plus their superb 28/2, it is almost there - this gives a 36/2 equivalent. A bit too much depth of field, but not bad.

 

If I were prepared to put up with the great bulk of the D3 or the Canon FF, I could use their 35/1.4's and get just what I want - apart from bulk and weight, no compromise, plus higher ISO's than on the K10.

 

So it seems, there is nothing close from any manufaturer that uses the 1.5x Crop. Leading me to believe that these cameras will always be creatively limited when used with wide angles.

I understand everything you're saying, Robert.

 

As I said above, there's no debating opinion ... you don't like what Pentax is offering.

 

Buy something else.

 

G

very sensible response.

 

for some reason people feel they are compelled to buy a brand because it produces something they want, but not all of it.

 

find another brand that suits you better. if olympus is it, i think they could use your money.

 

good luck.

Justin, you obviously can't follow a simple string of sentences and come up with the correct understanding.

 

Godfrey, I present you with hard facts and instead of addressing them you call it opinion. How cheap is that? I thought you might be someone who could actually take an objective stance; it seems however your devotion to your brand/1.5x crop format has taken away your ability to follow reason. Yes, you're happy with pentax and their limitations and this obviously precludes anyone making any criticisms.

 

Ra, ra, Pentax to you both, may you be devotedly happy, and defend them forever.

<center>

<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW7/large/41a-half.jpg"

target=new>

<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW7/large/41a-dpr.jpg"

border=0>

</a><br>

Seating - San Francisco 2007<br>

<i>©2007 by Godfrey DiGiorgi<br>

Panasonic L1 + Vario-Elmarit 14-50mm f/2.8-3.5 ASPH OIS<br>

ISO 100 @ f/4 @ 1/50 sec, P, fl=44mm <br>

<br>

Click photo above for a larger rendering in a new window.</i>

<br></center><br>

Your facts are irrelevent in this case, Robert. You don't like what Pentax is producing, and

you've come up with a bunch of facts to support your opinion. That's fine: it's still your

opinion that 'what Pentax is producing is not what I like' that these facts are there to

support, and only that.

<br><br>

I disagree with your opinion because what Pentax is producing works well for my

photography, which in many ways sounds similar to yours. Perhaps if you chose to take

what was there and learn to exploit it to your advantage, you would find it at least

acceptable if not exactly what your imagination wants to define as to your taste.

<br><br>

I don't shoot exclusively with Pentax DSLR either ... nor am I exclusively a Pentax

enthusiast. If you followed my work, you would see that I also do a lot of work with a

Panasonic L1 (4/3 System DSLR) and a Pentax 645. As well as Nikon, Canon, Leica,

Hasselblad, Rolleiflex, Contax, Minox, Sony, Minolta, Fuji, and other brands, in a wide

range of film and digital sensor formats.

<br><br>

There's nothing to defend. Pentax produces a good range of excellent lenses, in sensible

focal lengths and speeds, and good DSLR bodies at present,

very suitable for a lot of different kinds of work. All at very accessible prices too, including

the Limited lenses (compare on that basis to your Leica Elmarit-M 28mm f/2 ASPH ...). I

hope they continue to do so in the

future. But if not, I'll buy equipment that does ... and not whine about it.

<br><br>

So go rah rah yourself. ;-)

<br><br>

Godfrey

Hmm, not sure how to respond.

 

I understand what you are saying. I think you're wrong.

 

Does that mean I can't read a sentence? not really, it just means you couldn't win your debate so your reverted to insults.

 

fair enough. actually, if you ever took a debate course you'd have learned the moment you get personal you lost the debate.

 

So Rah Rah for me, cause I won the debate, and thats all that matters to me...stick that in your Leica 28mm 2.0 and smoke it.

OK, a straightforward challenge to both of you.

Tell me, exactly, how you can come anywhere near a 2 inch depth of field at 3m, or a 15 inch depth of field at 5m with a lens with the SAME field of view as a 35mm lens on a full format camera, with your K10.

 

It's a simple question. If you think what I'm saying is simply a matter of opinion, then answer it.

 

In case you think it irrelevant, then just bear in mind that thousands of very famous PJ's have taken the ability to be able to do this as part of their aesthetic repertoire, and have made good use of it over the years in many famous photos. If being able to do this does not interest you, that I understand, there other things to do with a camera; but why pretend that someone who doeas want to have this capacity is asking for something unusual, or is being somehow contrary. It has been something that has been taken for granted by so many for years.

 

Justin, when you make such remarks as "if olympus is it, i think they could use your money." when I made no mention of Olympus cameras, only their lenses - with adapters, it tells me very clearly that you have not read, or understood, what I said. If that really insults you, then I suggest you do people the courtesy of reading what they write before replying.