mountainvisions

<blockquote> <p> I have settled with my Sony Action Camera HDR-AS100VR with a remote control worn like a watch on my wrist where I can see the LCD for live view with wifi connected to my action camera and I can control the recording on the remote. It is not ideal in the actual operation as the remote is harder to control with a skiing glove on. The Sony has its quirks but the cost and image quality for still make it a good fit for me. 4K is not important to me but the accessories for selfie, helmet mount, remote with wifi, handy-cam conversion are features that brought me to the gadget.</p> </blockquote> <p>Hin,</p> <p>I'm looking at the Sony Mini (might be what you have). Overall it looks like best bang for buck. The problem with the Virb (I have the original virb) is that it's heavy. This also allows it to record 3 straight hours of video (big battery) but it weighs too much to helmet mount, at least on a climbing helmet.</p> <p>I kept the virb because it was cheap, has good video quality, good ecosystem of accessories, and doesn't require a waterproof case. So, I'll be using it as a secondary camera mounted on bikes, surfboards, boats, cars, remove mounted (it works with my Fenix watch as a remote), but would love something light that I can mount on my helmet. The two options are the sony and a really light 43g Panasonic. The Panasonic, however, lacks a replaceable battery. This is a feature I must have. </p> <p> </p>

<p>Michael,</p> <p>It seems that the K-3 does very well with higher ISO provided you do two things 1) Turn off the AA filter 2) turn off NR. This of course assumes your shoot RAW, which I don't think you do.</p> <p>I've pixel peeped very little (but some) at the K-3 images and it seems that if you are comparing at 100% the K-3 does show more noise (and more detail) but in printing on sub max viewing the noise increase is negligible. Also, if you simply downsample the images to 16MP they also clean up nicely. </p> <p>Overall, anyone happy with the K-5 probably isn't gaining much from upgrading. In fact, I heavily considered a $300-400 used K-5 or K-5II but ultimately, the K-3 or K-3II seems like the best overall bang for the buck. The improved metering, frame rate, focus, and other features definitely all appeal to me. </p>

<blockquote> <p>speaking of "panoramas" take a look at this instrument! The K3II etc mounted on one of these would really rock! Lots of pixel shifted, stacked images and then stitch away! Woof! Time for a new quad-core processor with lots of ram! <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/689699-REG/Giga_Pan_EPIC_PRO_EPIC_Pro_Robotic_Camera.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">(link)</a></p> </blockquote> <p>That thing while big, is actually quite a bargain. I paid over $100 for my NN3MII panorama head. Money well spent, but considering the Gigapan basically does all the work, its actually quite a bargain.</p> <p>Interestingly. A K-3II + 20-40mm DA will run me about $1250...so with the Gigapan, I'd still spend just a little more than a K-1 body. </p> <p>The K-1 is a ridiculous value, but if you aren't pining for FF, than there are better ways to part with your money. </p>

<p>I agree, Michael. For anything but hard core sports or birding, I think the Pentax system is now very complete.</p> <p>Obviously, the FF lenses need to come to market. But considering the 200mm and 300mm work fine. there really isn't a lot missing from a stardard kit from 15-300mm. </p> <p>I really like the tech/controls in the K-1, if I was one of those folks pining for FF body, I'd probably jump on it. Unfortunately, I'm not. Although I'm about to pull the trigger on a K-3II, I'm hoping Pentax announces a K-3 III (or K-2) that basically is a non FF version of the K-1. That would probably make me very happy. </p>

<blockquote> <p>The 20-40mm Limited has been tested showing low distortion and fine IQ. Pop Photo liked it so well at the time they tested it, they ran a full page sample shot- most unusual! But it still is not all that wide angle.... but you are good at doing panoramas.</p> </blockquote> <p>Thanks, Mike. I do prefer a panorama with a nice flat field lens like a DA 35mm f/2.8 macro or a FA 43mm. Or, I'll use a 35mm T&S. The problem with wide angles is the loss of resolution, as well as flare and contrast. This is were a lens like the DA 15mm really has an edge. It isn't the sharpest lens around, but it has amazing contrast and flare control </p> <p>That said, I'm really not a wide angle guy. My ideal lens on a 35mm camera is 24, 28, or 35mm. With 35mm being the lens I'd choose if I could only have one of those three. So it's no surprise the 21mm DA was my favorite go to lens. Not to mention it renders wonderfully. I do wish it was a bit faster, but 3.2 isn't really much slower than 2.8 and 2.0 would have meant a much bigger lens. </p> <p>It seems the 20-40 actually performs on par with the 21mm at 20mm and some folks consider it a 30mm prime with 10mm of zoom on either end. I know the numbers from DXO seem to disappoint, but it seems no DA Limited does well on DXO. Yet, in real life, in the field, I've thoroughly enjoyed my 15, 21, 43mm lenses. Unfortunately, none of them are weather sealed. </p> <p>And yes, I do appreciate the K-3/II is a half pound lighter than the K-1. Part of why I like the Pentax system and am even considering the Fuji system is the light weight and compactness of the system. So that is definitely a factor in the K-3II being in the front of this 4 horse race. </p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>It sounds confusing and I wonder what the K3 variants would be likely to do much better than the K7 or similar sensored K20D.</p> </blockquote> <p>The K-7 is actually a very nice camera. If it hadn't used a Samsung sensor, I feel like it would almost still be good enough for me today. Unfortunately, it's not great at high ISO. Not bad, but not great. I've taken many pleasing high ISO shots (high being 1600 on that body), but also been disappointed many times. It all depends on the light source, background, direction of light. Obviously, this is the case with any photo -lighting is everything- but the K-7 seems to struggle more than it succeeds. </p> <p>It also had issues with focus under various lighting conditions. And worst of all, from a landscape perspective, it had issues on a tripod with the shutter vibration at shutter speeds I unfortunately shoot with on a regular basis. This problem was an issue even with MLU and a tripod. </p> <p>Most of the work I do on a personal level is just landscape stuff and climbing photography. On a professional level it might be some sports or some commercial photography in the form of portraits, interiors of businesses or advertisement material. When I'm strobing with it, the camera is fine, as long as the focus is ok under artificial lighting. I've been burned before and had to reshoot an entire day as a result of the focus issues thinking I did something wrong. There was clearly a back/front focus issue for me under fluorescent lighting. </p> <p>In daylight, it's wonderful. </p> <p>I've reviewed the K-5 and K-3. I enjoyed both cameras. They were in every way better than the K-7 but I simply have been able to get by with the K-7. As far as the, K10D, though I still enjoy the image quality when looking back at old RAW files, it has really not been used in several years other than as a second body or a backup camera. </p> <p>As far as Fuji. The main complaint I've seen is the batteries. I assume this is a result of the EVF. However, the reviews on the EVF say it's basically on par with an OVF. I can't say I'm in love with an EVF, my past experience has been poor. But my past experience was a long time ago. Technology has come a long way. I'd say 70/30 I'm sticking with Pentax, especially with the K-1 now released. Although, I'm not necessarily one of those folks that craves FF, I do think that the value price and tech inside the K-1 along with what I assume with be wonderful IQ will keep Pentax/Ricoh relevant for some time. As long as the lenses are there. Pentax now arguably offers the only complete system from enthusiast compacts to medium format. In fact, the GR cameras were heavily considered before I went with the X10 originally and then an X20. </p>

<p>I'm contemplating this as well.<br> <br />I actually believe from what I've seen the K-3 starts up faster and is ready to shoot in under 1 sec while the 3II takes over a second. That doesn't answer the AF issue, but it's something else that is different. This might have to do with the GPS module or something. </p> <p>I very much doubt the K-3II saw much improvement in the AF. Certainly not a hardware upgrade, so if anything it's just firmware tweaks.</p> <p>Both the K-3 and 3II look solid to me in terms of low light acquisition and tracking, but the tracking is obviously still a weak point compared to other systems. </p> <p>I should note that in good light the tracking of even the K-7 seems good enough for most uses. I've tested both the K-5 and K-3 and found them to be better, but I own neither, so I can't really comment on them on a day to day basis. <br /><br /><br> For me the flash isn't a huge loss and the integrated GPS is a big gain. I do like having my photos geo tagged and while I've seen mixed reviews on the astrotracker feature, it might be pretty cool. Pixel shift will be a nice feature as well. So for me, the K-3II seems like a good option, but I've yet to decide. If I ultimately plan on a K-1, I might be better off saving a few dollars on the K-3 vs the K-3II. <br> As far as lenses, I own the 15mm Limited, 21mm Limited, 43mm Limited 50-135mm DA* , among others. </p> <p>On my roadmap, the 10mm Rokinon. When I sold my Sigma 10-20mm, a lens I liked, to buy the 15mm for the upgraded IQ, I didn't realize I would miss the 10mm end quite so much. The other lens I intend to add is the DA Limited 20-40mm. Although it sort of makes my 21mm DA (my favorite lens) redundant, it gives me a weather sealed normal zoom with great flare control and contrast. </p> <p>It came down to the 16-85 vs the 20-40mm for me, and the 20-40mm just seems to retain that great contrast/color/flare control/bokeh that makes the Limiteds stand out. Combined with filling a pressing need for me, which was weather sealing at the wide/normal end. </p> <p>I'd probably have preferred the 20-40 to be a 15-30, however. </p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p><em>the notion that new lenses have to be optimized specifically for the latest camera's added MPs, I think is ridiculous. Never have I seen a comment of that sort by high-level testing labs- such as Photozone, dpreview, etc.</em><br> <em> </em><br> first of all, the overwhelming majority of Photozone's <a href="http://www.photozone.de/pentax" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Pentax tests</a> have been on a 10mp camera. most of the reviews at 16mp are from 2011. It's just not plausible that results from lower-MP APS-C bodies would be transferable to a 36mp FF sensor.</p> </blockquote> <p>The bulk of the test on Photozone have been done on a K10D which really didn't challenge the legacy glass much beyond the usual issues found in film lenses on digital bodies.</p> <p>If you compare the test on DXO and the few on Photozone.de where the same lenses were tested on upgraded bodies, you can see that the flaws of older or even lower quality digital lenses seem to be magnified as the sensor quality increased.</p> <p>So, it stands to reason that a 30+MP FF camera is going to show a lot more of the lenses weaknesses like fringing and CAs and low resolving power.</p> <p>Again, you can definitely use the lenses, but all anyone is saying is that you might be disappointed in the results.</p>

<blockquote> <p>A lot of us (myself included) have been anticipating using some of our legacy Pentax glass on the new full frame. Now it's disconcerting to hear that the old lenses may not cut it with the full frame sensor. Kind of interesting because the original 35 mm negative they were designed for was the same 24-36mm dimension.</p> </blockquote> <p>It's not a sensor size issue (although, I do wonder if the edge sharpness is magnified by the sensor shift/stabilization) but a resolving power issue. FF digital with 30+ MP has exceeded that of 35mm fill and then there are other issues like the flat sensor vs the film plane and some other issues like ghosting on a digital sensor. </p> <p>Really, none of these issues are new, and your old lenses will work. You just will find they aren't quite as good as the new, designed for digital lenses. </p> <p> </p>

<p>My photography gear has largely been used sporadically over the last few years. I've shot an event here or there but for the most part, I've been using digital compacts like the Fuji X10/20/30 series for their ease of use in the mountains. I've also been shooting with the Pentax WG-90 or a Garmin Virb when things get wet or messy or I need some video. My two DSLR's remain the Pentax K-7 and K10D.<br> <br /> For my uses the Fuji X series compacts are pretty darn good. Robust build (I've dropped it on concrete or rock, twice, from at least 3ft), fast(ish) lens, fast frame rate, great battery life, almost all the controls are external. Optical or hybrid VF, actual zoom ring. However, the camera, while perfect for it's use -hanging from a rope or minimalist travel/adventure photography- it is quite limited in overall usefulness if photography is the primary goal.<br> <br /> Now the question: The K-1 is a great deal, but it's system is limited at this time. Sure, I have legacy full frame glass (24-200mm, including a Voghtlander 90mm and a FA 43), but the fact is, newer lenses, even the bad ones are often better on a DSLR than legacy glass.<br> <br /> At this time, a new K-3 II is selling for under $750 and would be a great upgrade to the K-7, which has served me well, but unfortunately failed fairly miserably at the type of photography I often do with it when I use a DSLR. Paired with my existing DA glass and perhaps a DA 20-40mm Limited, I'm still only spending $1200 for the K-3II.<br> <br /> I do like the additional controls on the K-1, I do like the 3rd control wheel, built in GPS and WIFI. I like the fact the K-1 doesn't necessarily penalize DA lenses (canon , for instance, doesn't even allow it's smaller format lenses on it's FF DSLR). But, the fact is, I'd probably be using DA lenses on it for the most part.<br> <br /> And the K-3. Sort of the dark horse. No pixel shift, no GPS. But it does have a pop up flash. FWIW, I have elinchron wireless triggers so the popup flash really isn't a big deal for me aside from fill, which I still prefer a diffuser for anyway.<br> <br /> Finally, in light of the fact with the K-1 I'd be essentially rebuilding a system from scratch eventually, I'm actually also looking at the Fuji XT-1 (or it's successor) and the Fuji System. The downside of the Fuji system. It's a sub FF system, it's got a very limited (but very high quality) lens lineup, it's not cheap, and it's essentially Pentax back in 2006 with much better technology in the bodies.</p> <p>So, K-1, K-3/II, or Fuji? <br> Go....</p> <p> </p>

looks like maybe some who think 24x36 is the holy grail of digital photography might need to take a deep breath, this is either going to induce panic or a lot of excuses. Pentax K-3 vs the Nikon D600 http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/default.asp?newsID=5438&news=pentax+K-3+Nikon+D600+head+to+head+comparison+Pentax+wins What do you think?