mountainvisions

July 19, 2012

They review every feature except for the phone's ability to -- gasp! -- make (and maintain) a phone call.

</blockquote>

I don't disagree with that statement, but...I don't think many of us use our phones primarily as phones any more. I text, email, even skype (rarely but occasionally) and honestly, even my 10in WiFi only Toshiba Thrive (IMO, the ultimate photographers tablet, with full size SD, ports, and ability to use a 1TB external FAT32 HDD, completely replaces a laptop on the go), can handle calls directly to my phone # through GrooveIP. When my cell rings, my tablet does at the same time. Beautiful.

I think VoIP will replace cellular calls in the next few years. Making call quality entirely dependent on data connection. As it is, GrooveIP, Facetime, or Skype are already just data.

July 19, 2012

I've found over the years that reviews tend to be a 24-48hr process. Granted, I believe that my reviews go a little long (in my retainment of the camera and my words in the review), but I do tend to figure out the intricacies of the camera in that time.

Unfortunately, most tech blogs have a camera either short term, or they "borrowed it" from a store on their own dime and then returned in the return period. In either case, at most they have the camera for a week or two.

Bottom line, most reviews are topical, stuff you can get from a spec sheet. Case in point, the Verge (or engadget, but I think the verge) reviewed the K-30, it was awful. So bad in fact, that I asked my brother (tech junkie and blogger), why bother?

More than likely, the guy was used to reviewing smart phones or tablets, and the lack of apps and cool features of a real camera just didn't appeal to him. He seemed annoyed by buttons and menus and things that make and SLR and SLR.

Oh and the design was boring.

Those sites should stick to reviewing phones, that is what they do best.

July 19, 2012

Hahaha! Seriously, I was laughing my ass off when I read that. Thanks, Doug! A good laugh is always needed!

July 19, 2012

Just thought some of you would get a kick out of this. Pentax used to do this themselves at trade shows, but then I think some idiot probably got cocky and did something similar and damaged his camera, most likely suing Pentax, because I can find no mention of those previous instances on the web.

July 19, 2012

It's just the level of HDR...stops and blending.

This is largely a gimmick feature, even on the K-01, just as it was on the K-7 and any other camera that had it. So play around with it and see which one you like.

The HDR does work without a tripod, but you will get better results with it.

July 4, 2012

There is absolutely no excuse to not have a 28mm f/1.8. I believe 1.8 or even 2.0 is fast enough and a fine compromise in price/size to speed ratio.

I don't understand why Pentax thinks the 40mm lens is still a normal lens.

June 21, 2012

I never saw this issue. can you post a sample?

June 21, 2012

The impact on APS-C bodies, APS-C lens development and, really, any other product development, because resources would be sucked in this FF platform

</blockquote>

As I noted above, Pentax users might get the full frame, but it might also be the end of Pentax. Your comments don't do anything but support that statement. When companies go all in on anything, it better be a winner and a game changer.

I don't really understand how the K-mount is old tech. Nikon still uses it's mount. The mount isn't necessarily limiting innovation, especially not in mirrored cameras.

One thing you note that I do agree with is that perhaps with more competition on the low end (mirrorless and even high end compacts) Pentax might benefit from a full frame sensor to differentiate from the mirrorless cameras. However, I'm not sure that this is enough. 1 stop over a Sony APS-C Nex isn't going to really change the photography world.

As much as some APS-C users feel like they are getting the short end of the stick, it appears it just depends what side of the sensor size fence your mount of choice could use.

In the case of Sony, it's APS-C sensors are competing against M4/3s, so the Nex cameras look spectacular. If they were competing against full frame mirrorless cameras, they might not appear as spectacular.

It goes without saying, I think the whole sensor size debate is pointless at this point. Go out and shoot images, if they are being rejected or coming up short of your needs. evaluate if it is your photography skills or the equipment. If it's the later, feel free to rethink your equipment choices to solve the problems. If it's the former, we'll the minutia of the sensor size probably isn't going to matter.

June 19, 2012

Antoni is spot on with what I was getting at.

Selling Sigma lenses does nothing for Pentax. Pentax needs to sell Pentax lenses and accessories for the K-FF to make sense. Which means, quite simply, they have to have an existing and sales worthy lens lineup in stock in stores or online retailers.

I actually am amazed that FF still gets people giddy enough to claim that Sigma lenses and the 50mm FA will make it all worthwhile. You have to admit, that is kinda funny.

I always point out that Sony built a hell of a lens system and some great camera bodies, including full frame shooters, and has nothing to show for it.

As ME pointed out, Ricoh seems to be using Pentax as a hobby project, so it's definitely possible we will see a K-FF, but I have a feeling this is going to be a Minolta move that gives everyone full frame at the expense of Pentax survival. And this is all for 1 stop of ISO and so we can use what are now probably not so amazing legacy wide angles in all their glory.

June 18, 2012

Pentax has always said it wanted to be a boutique type brand. Yes, a niche brand. Niche brands command higher prices and thus higher profit margins.

The problem is, Pentax is a niche brand, but it's niche is carved as a company that gives you a lot of image quality, a lot of build quality, and a lot of value for your dollars.

I get that every company wants to be Apple, where people just walk into the Apple store and drop their credit cards on the counter as if some mystical force made them do it, but the reality is a lot of companies want this and very few achieve it. I suppose in the camera world, Leica is probably the only company to really live like this.

I guess Pentax learned putting a premium price tag on something doesn't necessarily mean it's a premium product. (though, I think we all do realize that dollar for dollar Pentax gear is probably under priced versus the competition...if only we had a teleconverter and a 24 or 28mm lens to remind us of that).

June 18, 2012

I've always said, eventually Pentax MIGHT actually produce a full frame camera.

A lot depends on cost of the sensor and cost of the supply chain for the camera.

Pentax simply will not sell enough $2000 cameras to justify the full frame investment. IF they can produce a K-5 like camera with full frame for K-5 pricing, they'll definitely sell a few.

However, you have to remember, Pentax has almost 0 full frame lenses (yes, they have a few very expensive limiteds, and a few updated full frame (FA*) DA* designs that MIGHT work flawlessly on full frame sensor, but for the most part, you have no lenses to go with this camera.

And here is the argument against anyones argument of the FA Limiteds being enough. Buying all 3 FA limiteds is now a $2000 investment, I don't consider this a bad investment, but it would come on top of a $1500-2000 camera. And, you' still only have 3 prime lenses. For many people that would be enough, but take a look at all the threads that reference the "holes" in Pentax lens lineup because they don't have 5 flavors of every lens like Canon does.

Now think about this, you not only don't have 5 flavors of EVERY lens, but you now have ONLY 3 lenses to choose from. Do you really think the K-FF will be a hot seller? I suppose they could sell it as a package with the 3 Limiteds, for like $3500 or something. That would be a great deal, but how many people does that really appeal to? Whenever we Pentax supporters mention, "well, Pentax has the Limiteds and no other Japanese company makes anything like them," we mostly hear, "so what, a bunch of overpriced primes."

Point being, the Limiteds are a niche lens design that appeals to a decent number of Pentax shooters, but for a K-FF to work, it would have to make pretty much every user upgrade. Ffor me, that would involve reinvesting in 35mm lenses I no longer have. Honestly, I'd buy a K-FF, but I probably wouldn't invest in new lenses for it. At least not many. So where is Pentax making money off me?

June 8, 2012

I will say this, as someone who has owned or reviewed every flagship Pentax DSLR, the K-5 was the first one that made me not want to go back to the previous model.

For instance, while the K-7 was vastly superior in interface, function, and features to the K10D, I always thought the K10D was the best IQ DSLR Pentax ever made until the K-5.

The K-5 had all the K-7 features and some, plus the imaging that made me finally turn the page of the K10D.

Bottom line, $919 if you have it is an insane bargain on the K-5, and I am certain it will not disappoint. On the flip side, the K-30 looks REALLY good, but it isn't built with the same materials as the K-5 and lacks many features. The only compelling reason to opt for a K-30 is video, unless the AF is actually light years improved. My guess, unless Ricoh engineers new something Pentax didn't, AF will be marginally better.

June 5, 2012

Well, this has been the argument for a long time. Don't even try to tell us how much a 600mm f/4 will cost you in Pentax vs Canon. But how many of us need 600mm f/4 lenses? Quite frankly, I rarely need 300mm f/4. And if I did, I'd just pick up a modern Nikon D something to mount my Nikkor 300mm f/4 onto. Problem solved!

So your options. Inferior imaging (and arguably inferior ergonomics) or spending a few more bucks on a few lenses. Overall, though I haven't actually added up the cost and could be horribly wrong, I think it is still cheaper to build a fully weather sealed Pentax system than a Canon system, bearing in mind Pentax has generally had better IQ from it's cameras and it's optics are either on par or superior in many cases. It's not like you are really paying more for less. You are paying more for perhaps a little more.

June 5, 2012

Good luck. I'm not a fan of taking apart lenses. My attempt at fixing a 50mm A f/2 was a bust. I had a bag of lens parts. I ended up using the lens as a loupe. And keeping in mind, that repairing the 50mm was supposedly a really easy fix.

The question I always ask myself is, will I have a paperweight that is unfixable when done? If the answer is probably or maybe, I send it off, hoping the repair will cost less before I destroy whatever it is.

May 22, 2012

Yes and no.

It's slower, smaller buffer, lacks a metal body, lacks a top LCD. I'm sure the menu system isn't quite as complete. I'm guessing lack of sensor shift (just a guess, I might be wrong).

There is no doubt it isn't a K-5, but if like me you tend to shoot a lot in manual and RAW, and it has a chunk of the K-5 features + it has the K-5 IQ, I see no reason not to consider it.

On the flip side, if you can score a K-5 for around $900, it's still probably a better overall camera for the most part.

Typically Pentax does just enough to make people make a big decision.

Case in point, the K10D vs the K200D.

May 21, 2012

BTW, other than the damn flash lip returning, it's a decent looking camera from first glance.

Buffer isn't impressive, flash sync like the normal lens is just something I accept will never happen.

Overall, ergonomics look decent. The fact the scene modes are menu items is nice. You could definitely see this being a professionals 2nd camera body or even primary.

Overall it looks solid.

May 21, 2012

Hmm, I won't click the link to Rice High. I can only imagine his tirade over there. Perhaps he's mellowed a bit, but I seem to remember some mention of his tirade on the K-01 JPEGs. If that is true, then he is insane as ever. I'm not going to enable a madman.

May 21, 2012

Do I have to come out and say it once again...? :-D

</blockquote>

Well, you know we agree on that. However, from a professional system, where primes are less and less used (though still used, I watched the MLB guys switch to their 24/35mm primes the same time I did), I don't think Pentax gives up much.

But yeah, if there is any bigger hole in the universe than that 21-31mm gap. And really, is it that hard to repackage existing 28mm's into a modern design? Apparently so!

May 21, 2012

I'm not going to lie, I don't get it either.

Usually, unlike a lot of people, I try to figure out some positive aspect to a move. But with the FA 50mm, the FA 43mm, the DA*55 and the 40mm DAs, I have not idea why we need this lens.

Worse, if you are making a lens line specifically for the K-01 (and it's successors) than I am with all the grumblers on why didn't they just build ground up lens system for all the benefits of such.

Honestly, while I find the 43mm a useful lens, I can't use it as a normal lens on my cameras. It's just too long, as a matter of fact, I stopped using the 40mm 2.8 XS because, while it's a nice sharp lens, and insanely compact, it is just too long as my normal lens.

Also, just because it's designed specifically for ILC doesn't mean it won't work with SLR. Best I can tell the lens mount/contacts is the same, my guess is they mean it's compact to make up for the thickness of the K-01.

One final note, I've always said that no matter how tiny the camera is, the lens size is a deciding factor. Pentax might have figured out a way to make the K-01 relatively compact. It's thick, but the combined lens and body thickness might actually be thinner than other ILCs. Don't quote me on that, but certainly feel free to determine if there is any validity to it.

May 20, 2012

Pentax can't produce Canon's lineup. Neither can Leica or Voghtlander, or even Olympus.

The reality is that Pentax is a relatively small player in the market, it's a step above the real niche players, but not significantly. If you need to options that Nikon and Canon offer, you need to go with Nikon and Canon. IMO, Pentax should actually further scale down it's line of lenses. Cutting out duplicate range lenses, focusing on superior quality and price to quality ratio.

The DA* lineup is optically excellent. It gives up nothing to Nikon or Canon. However, Pentax 16-50 had some issues early on with focus motors and focus speed. No one can confirm this was fixed. I'd rather they fix what should be a standard pro lens than release tons of additional lenses. And if you look at the DA* zooms, you have what, IMO, is mostly a complete lineup. 16-50, 50-135, 60-250, 200mm, 300mm. They need a teleconverter and a UWA to complete it. But that's a professional kit plus some. I suppose you could use the 14mm f/2.8 as your UWA (it's basically a DA* minus the sealing) or the 12-24mm. Or just go with Sigma's excellent 10-20mm.

If Pentax made a teleconverter (inexcusable that they don't) you'd have options to get to 600mm with the Pentax system (600mm f/5.6 isn't all that slow of a lens) which I am sure is more than enough for most people besides birders.

What would the system then be missing?

May 20, 2012

We've went over the DX0 mark scores before.

The consensus, they were not relevant to real world use.

The reason I point this out, is because it was pointed out to me when I noted how good the maligned K10D was. Bearing in mind it was maligned for it's lack of 1600+ ISO and noisy 1600 images. FWIW, I have to say that at low ISO, this photographer was larger unimpressed with Pentax "upgrades" till the K-5. I still look at my K10D RAW 6 years later and think they exceptional, the K-5 is the first camera I have used that repeated that.

Remember, almost 2 years after the K10D was released, it was still on the DXO top 10 cameras, this included multiple full frame cameras and multiple cameras over $3000.

Also, wasn't the K-5 like #3 on the list when it was released? In front of many full frame cameras. I'll use DXO marks as the end all debate killer, as long as we can always use them as the end all debate killer. But until then, I'm not going to argue DX0 marks that can't be repeated in real world shooting.

May 19, 2012

There is as much as you could do with the K-7 and even better with the OM-D. That will be good enough for many people. The APS-C format may survive in its MILC incarnations, but I don't know if it will survive in SLR format.

</blockquote>

Actually, the K-7 doesn't really give up much to the larger sensored cameras (full frame). In the end, it's always boiled down to a single stop. If that stop is important to you, then you need full frame. If it isn't, then it's up to you.

The gap between the M4/3s and full frame is gigantic. The gap between the K-5 and full frame is pretty marginal. Is there a gap? Absolutely, but it's just not enough to declare death. And until full frame drops down to APS-C pricing, I'm not convinced that the cost to quality ratio is a reasonable cost. You are still looking at $1000-2000 price difference...all for a single stop! If APS-C is going to die, they need to produce a $1500 K-5 like camera with a 24x36 sensor, at that point, I completely agree, APS-C will probably be dead.

The only format I see moving to a very niche market is digital medium format. Very few people need that sort of resolution, and even the ones that might can sometimes get by with a full frame camera.

May 18, 2012

Robin, I have to agree with Andrew on this.

A "kit" lens is a base model lens priced to go a long with a base model camera. Pentax could start selling the K-30 with the 16-50 f/2.8 as a package, but I'm not sure any of us with consider that the kit lens.

I don't think Oly has a leg up on Pentax, I think Oly painted itself into a corner and is making the most out of the sudden resurgence of small cameras. Before M4/3s it was looking like Oly was going out of business. At some point the market will saturate, and people will come back to the core of what a camera system is...quality of images.

Well, that is my opinion, I am constantly shown that my faith in human intelligence is vastly over rated. I actually ask my brother for his opinion now, because I realize he deals with far more stupid people than myself on a daily basis. My isolation from stupidity has cost me in my ability to understand the true dynamics of humanity at it's most average.

Sorry, but Oly is a double amputee when it comes to image quality. There is only so much you can do with that little sensor.

May 18, 2012

R.T.,

Thanks for the update, I probably did know that, but I certainly didn't think about it. While a lot of people on these forums pine for a Pentax full frame camera, a 4/3 camera just doesn't even compete in quality to APS-C.

So while Olympus might have a budget lens and camera (and I like OM-D, I think it's a good move, and a camera I would consider), I think it sacrifices much to much in terms of IQ to size to cost.

In the end, the camera is still about the quality of images it can produce. The challenge is finding a camera/system that fits your own needs and still produces the level of quality you need. I don't believe M4/3 is capable of that.

The OM-D intrigues me, but like the other cameras with tiny sensors, I'm not sure it would suit my needs.

May 18, 2012

BTW, in case you missed the viral Double Rainbow video a while back:

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by mountainvisions