Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-13-2012, 09:07 PM   #151
Pentaxian
johnmflores's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somerville, NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,185
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
I think that if we are to compare the K-01 to a Sony product, their SLT cameras are closer to the K-01 than the NEX, because they share the main characteristic of relying on an existing DSLR lens line. And if we compare with Sony SLTs, then only the "unique design" part of your argument remains valid.
True, but one thing that Panasonic is finding out with the G3 is that there is a group of users that actively shun cameras that resemble dSLRs, and if you know the G3 it's pretty far from a dSLR. It's the hump for the viewfinder that does it. Makes no rational sense at all, but the GX1, with the same sensor as the G3 but without a viewfinder and without a flip-twist screen and with a ~25% price premium is getting a lot more love than the G3.

Maybe the dSLR silhouette = complicated to people. Maybe the shape that we know and love is not loved by all? Maybe people are intimidate by dSLRs with all of their buttons and switches and stuff, so that anything that resembles one is lumped in.

That said, I wonder how the SLTs are doing compared to NEX?

QuoteQuote:
Other than the larger sensor, all other points can be applied just as well to MFT cameras. The design of the E-PM1 and E-PL3 bodies looks pretty modern to me - it's not retro, for sure. And they are compatible with the FT DSLRs and all their lenses, not to mention all the other lenses they can use, including Canon and Pentax. So the only thing that the K-01 has on its side is the APS-C sensor.
Agreed that not all MFT is retro-looking, but not terribly distinctive either. The K-01 makes a much bolder statement for sure, and some wil be drawn to that. The FT compatibility is dubious. There's an extra adapter to buy and AF is terribly slow. Adapted lenses are available, but the trend that I'm seeing is less interest in adapted lenses as MFT fills out holes in their lens lineup. The Olympus 48/1.8, for example, is selling well and likely banishing old MF 50s back to the cabinet drawer after a couple of years in the sun.

One thing we've got to also recognize is that the mirrorless market is not a homogeneous thing. It's already stratifying with entry, mid, and high-level products. The E-PM1 and OM-D are going after different market segments.

QuoteQuote:
It would not be necessary to do that, if the camera body didn't have unused space to begin with. Now they are trying to hide lenses inside that body to give it some purpose. This is like one step forward after taking two steps back.

I'd rather preferred that they used that space to add a translucent mirror like Sony - such an approach could justify keeping the K mount.
One thing that's not mentioned about the recessed lenses is that when removed from the body they'll take up just as much space in the bag with what I imagine are oversized rear caps.

At the end of the day, the distinctions I drew are debatable, as we are doing now. It's actually the job of the marketers to draw those distinctions in sharp(er) relief so as to distinguish one from the other. When it's working well, companies are working with ad agencies - their marketing strategists, their copywriters, their creative directors, the whole lot - to find provocative ways to make those distinctions feel vital. It's not just spec sheets and feature lists. Marketing, when it's really working, gives products personalities that are desirable.

02-13-2012, 10:44 PM   #152
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by johnmflores Quote
Maybe the dSLR silhouette = complicated to people.
That is a good point. Some people may not like SLR styled bodies. I'm wondering if the K-01 will be successful at hiding its heritage.

QuoteOriginally posted by johnmflores Quote
That said, I wonder how the SLTs are doing compared to NEX?
I have no idea. But if I could use K mount lenses on A mount, I would have picked one for sure.

QuoteOriginally posted by johnmflores Quote
The FT compatibility is dubious. There's an extra adapter to buy and AF is terribly slow. Adapted lenses are available, but the trend that I'm seeing is less interest in adapted lenses as MFT fills out holes in their lens lineup. The Olympus 48/1.8, for example, is selling well and likely banishing old MF 50s back to the cabinet drawer after a couple of years in the sun.
The FT compatibility is for FT users, not for new MFT users. I don't plan to buy any FT lens, but if I had some, I'd be happy about this aspect.

QuoteOriginally posted by johnmflores Quote
One thing that's not mentioned about the recessed lenses is that when removed from the body they'll take up just as much space in the bag with what I imagine are oversized rear caps.
I mentioned a couple of times that the lenses are not small, they just look small when mounted. The thing that bothers me the most about the K-01 is that from an engineering perspective it makes very little sense. It's entirely driven by backward compatibility, with no other redeeming feature. Which makes me wonder how much such a design will last.
02-14-2012, 01:17 AM   #153
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 896
QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
You do realise the difference is tiny, huh? Or is it true that if I take away your latest tech toy, you can't take pictures at all?

Obviously IQ matters. But Pentax aren't the only ones who can do IQ. I give clients MFT images alongside APS-C. No-one ever notices the difference. My last shot chosen for gallery exhibition came from MFT. My next cover comes from APS-C. There's no real-world difference except in edge cases that any skilled photographer can work around anyway.
That's because it's not true. There is a very significant difference with the majority of MFT sensors and the K-5's APS-C in High-ISO, especially in print. Digitally corrected distortion is also very noticeable on urban landscapes and the like. I'd try and crop it out (more than the correction already does) but the format is already 4:3.

tech toy? why aren't you using your first ever digital camera then, since you're such a 'skilled photographer' technical limitations shouldn't matter to you. boy, someone is certainly full of themselves huh.

QuoteQuote:
Why would Pentax have been under-resourced in moving to MFT? Do you think that designing the Q (a whole new lens mount) and the K-01 did not tax their resources at all? But supporting a developing standard where resources are shared would somehow be more of an effort?

How is designing the K-01 for the "crowded" mirrorless market any better than designing some other system? Obviously Pentax marketing doesn't think it's "crowded", so I guess you disagree with them. We're not so different then.

How long does it take to make lenses for MFT? Well, I imagine that if you have all the optics well in hand, it takes much less time. There's plenty of evidence for that, but I wouldn't want to bore you with more facts.
of course the Q took resources (well spent? very debatable but it happened), so did the 645D, and now so will the GXR. That's my point. developing yet a new mount would take even more resources that Pentax could be investing in their main mount, the K-Mount.

I was saying MFT is crowded, not mirrorless (although that is too). MFT already has two 1st parties making cameras and lenses and two 2nd parties making lenses. You think Pentax should come in this late, find some oddball focal lengths not already served by the 4 other companies with years headstarts and squeeze themselves into a system they had no part in designing?

Optics already 'well in hand'? you do realize it's a completely different format don't you? Sensor format, electronics, flange distance.....Pentax would have to redo every single one of their lenses to natively fit m4/3s, how is this "well in hand"? what Pentax has "well in hand" is K-Mount optics, hence the K-01.

QuoteQuote:
Yeah, and I have no control over that. It's a label the forum assigns to me, due to my long-standing support and insane number of posts. So I guess that's actually your failure in not understanding how the system here works.
You call this "support"? calling on Pentax to throw out what it's taken 50+ years to build, join m4/3s and potentially bankrupt themselves for 3rd place on a foreign platform? The failure is you even being on this forum still.

Last edited by illdefined; 02-14-2012 at 01:24 AM.
02-14-2012, 01:40 AM   #154
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 896
QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
You do realise the difference is tiny, huh? Or is it true that if I take away your latest tech toy, you can't take pictures at all?

Obviously IQ matters. But Pentax aren't the only ones who can do IQ. I give clients MFT images alongside APS-C. No-one ever notices the difference. My last shot chosen for gallery exhibition came from MFT. My next cover comes from APS-C. There's no real-world difference except in edge cases that any skilled photographer can work around anyway.
these are the very latest m4/3 sensors. yes. tiny difference.

Attached Images
   
02-14-2012, 04:40 AM   #155
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,250
As far as the sensor difference, it does seem kind of big. Per Dxo Mark, the GH2's sports iso is 655, while the K5's sports iso is 1162. At base iso, the GH2 offers 11.3 stops of dynamic range, the K5 offers 14.1. Basically, the GH2 is at the level of a K20 sensor. Very good for 4 years ago. Still quite capable of taking good photos, but lagging a bit as well.

I think there is something that people forget fairly frequently. Pentax is a Japanese camera company. They are focused on Asian markets first, followed by other markets. Under Hoya, they basically wrote off the US market. I hope that changes under Ricoh's watch. But a camera like the Q makes little sense in the United States, but is a huge seller in Asia. Just because a camera isn't targeted at you, doesn't men that it doesn't have a target or, even that it will be a poor seller.

As John says, the key to selling the K-01 is advertising and placement. I see no reason why someone considering the purchase of a Nikon D3100 wouldn't consider a K-01 as well -- if they know about it.
02-14-2012, 06:40 AM   #156
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,270
QuoteOriginally posted by johnmflores Quote
Then explain the GH2, which is nearly the same size as the K-x and K-r? Or the new Olympus OM-D, which pretends to bulk itself up with all manner of grips? Fact is, the smaller M43 cameras like the GF2, GF3, E-PM1, NEX3, and so on struggle with larger zooms. The GF2, for example, is not very comfortable with the 14-140. Others have even claimed that the larger G3 is difficult to handle with a zoom.

And while your at it, look at the Fuji X Pro 1. That body isn't the smallest out there, is it?

Consider also that we live in a zoom world, with primes being a very small segment of the market. With that in mind, it makes sense for Pentax to make a mirrorless that will be more comfortable to hold with a 5-10x zoom. An EVF would have been even better, but most people don't use them anymore anyway, so SR's gotta do the heavy lifting.

So this fact of yours isn't such a fact after all.



Ever heard of a shop called Amazon? Or BHPhotovideo.com? Or Adorama.com? Or Etsy.com? Or Zazzle.com? Or Zappos.com Or Ebay.com? It's 2012, Robin. People buy things online all the time. So people who step up the the K-01, either with the 40 or kit zoom, will have plenty of opportunity to buy other lenses.

Looks like this fact has a lot of holes in it too.



If Pentax's advantage is weather-sealing, why do they only have 2 cameras with it? Sounds like a product-level feature and not a brand attribute to me.

Regarding ergonomics - have you actually tried to use the K-01 or are you just making up fact from looking at photos? If you are that good, then you better go find employment at Apple or Canon or Pentax or something; you can save them the costly and time consuming step of building mockups and models and just pontificate your FACTS from the comfort of your home.

I actually get paid to design user interfaces and I won't dare judge the usability of the K-01 until I've actually used it.



Those two statements together make no sense. Literacy FAIL.



25% more expensive isn't "about the same cost" in any language. And the fact is, while some people buy camera based on detailed analysis of spec sheets, others buy them for other reasons. Like style. Like not wanting to have an old man's camera. Like the color yellow. Is that rational behavior? No. But we're not rational creatures.


Get over yourself, Robin. These are opinions pure and simple. To judge the usability of a physical product without touching it, let alone using it is just laughable. And to wrap it up in this air of pseudo-intellectualism is over the top.

You can be terribly condescending.

Let me take this slowly so you can understand.

We don't need your lectures.
Good rebuttal John I'll just point out a math error the OMD is actually 33% more expensive ( $250 is 1/3 of $750 = 33%) conversely the K-01 is 25% less expensive - says the guy who got 14% in grade 12 math (but spent 24 years doing retail math)
02-14-2012, 06:46 AM   #157
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,157
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
Because no one else puts sensors in potatoes?

It strikes me now that Pentax was pretty consistent at making weird engineering decisions. Let's look back at when they moved away from M42 (1975 - a very late move). Why did they keep the same register distance? Canon FD already had a shorter register distance, so it's not like there was some technology issue that they had to solve. Why didn't they build the K mount to be wider and keep lenses closer to film? With that decision we could have now had M42 adapters that covered the mount contacts and used the lens lock mechanism instead of a stupid little flange that locks inside the mount and even allows a degree of movement when small lenses are used. What was so special about the 45.46mm distance that they needed to stick with it? In light of those past decisions, the design of the K-01 is not at all surprising.
They kept the same register distance because that is what was needed to clear the mirror. Canon increased the register distance with the EF mount because the FD mount wasn't deep enough and they were getting vignetting on the mirror with the longer, faster lenses that had become viable with improvements in computerized lens designs.
The FD mount was technically very flawed, and was, of course, a kludge to fix the even more flawed breech lock mount.
For Pentax, keeping the register distance on their mirrorless camera is a smart move, the reasons have already been mentioned about 700 times in this thread alone. What wasn't a smart move was making an ergonomically challenged camera as a first attempt at the mirrorless market.
02-14-2012, 07:03 AM   #158
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,270
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
As far as the sensor difference, it does seem kind of big. Per Dxo Mark, the GH2's sports iso is 655, while the K5's sports iso is 1162. At base iso, the GH2 offers 11.3 stops of dynamic range, the K5 offers 14.1. Basically, the GH2 is at the level of a K20 sensor. Very good for 4 years ago. Still quite capable of taking good photos, but lagging a bit as well.

I think there is something that people forget fairly frequently. Pentax is a Japanese camera company. They are focused on Asian markets first, followed by other markets. Under Hoya, they basically wrote off the US market. I hope that changes under Ricoh's watch. But a camera like the Q makes little sense in the United States, but is a huge seller in Asia. Just because a camera isn't targeted at you, doesn't men that it doesn't have a target or, even that it will be a poor seller.

As John says, the key to selling the K-01 is advertising and placement. I see no reason why someone considering the purchase of a Nikon D3100 wouldn't consider a K-01 as well -- if they know about it.
You've nailed the real issue. Under Hoya the US market was pretty much killed and the focus was put entirely on the home market (which apparently they understood quite well because the Q has been very successful there as you point out)

Iwill also point out that though you can't go in and buy a lens in the US that easily, in other markets it's not as bad. If I take the 7 km walk home in nice weather I could stop at 4 different retailers and buy Pentax lenses. Certainly buy living in the biggest market in Canada I have an advantage, but AFAIK you can get Pentax lenses in most major markets in the country without huge difficulty.

As for the rest of the world in the last few years I've been in Paris, London, Barcelona and rome and seen Pentax in shops in all 4 cities.

Last I did see someone mention on one of the endless K-01 threads that his local retailer who no longer carries Pentax in florida is actually going to start again after meeting with Pentax at CES and seeing the K-01. apparently the whole tone had changed at the Pentax booth (even if the booth itself was pretty sad). This is a good sign but lets be realistic the US market tax policies don't reward local shopping but reward Internet shopping so even though Pentax may get into more stores reality is in the US it will take time to build a network

It seems to me that there are a lot of unrealistic expectations of how Ricoh would change the company overnight coming out of a disastrous year for camera production.
They took possession 4 months ago. in that time we have now seen 3 cameras announced several lenses a map for more lenses that was sated as subject ot revision (duh all maps are usually to add not take things away BTW) Consolidation of the 2 arms - which will mean more effective marketing arms.
Most of these items would have been shelved Hoya projects or Projects delayed by the disasters last year. the K-01 definitely was meant to be out earlier heck the designer did the work in 2010.
What i wouldn't expect Ricoh to do is lay out their whole strategy well before they had product close to release. that would just be dumb but it seems to be what people expect.
If I had to predict what we will see this year it would be 3-4 DSLR and 2 more mirrorless (a Q replacement and a step apsc) by year end. I would expect a further revised roadmap for lenses by then as well. All this product will be More indicative of Ricohs plans than the current crop of announcements BTW
We will also see a K module for the GXR and possible a GXR MK II back on the Ricoh side I would think

It's definitely shaping up to be an interesting year or 2. My best advice to anyone looking to buy now is if the K5 and K-01 don't meet your needs then perhaps you need to buy into a new system. If on the other hand your gear is working and you just have GAS you might want to wait and think of fall as your upgrade time. Meantime satisfy the GAS with a new lens maybe

02-14-2012, 07:10 AM   #159
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,270
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
They kept the same register distance because that is what was needed to clear the mirror. Canon increased the register distance with the EF mount because the FD mount wasn't deep enough and they were getting vignetting on the mirror with the longer, faster lenses that had become viable with improvements in computerized lens designs.
The FD mount was technically very flawed, and was, of course, a kludge to fix the even more flawed breech lock mount.
For Pentax, keeping the register distance on their mirrorless camera is a smart move, the reasons have already been mentioned about 700 times in this thread alone. What wasn't a smart move was making an ergonomically challenged camera as a first attempt at the mirrorless market.
nicely restated. While i may have preferred a different mirrorless I don't think it is a bad product but just one largely taking a different tact. I think a launch of the mirrorless most people here would have liked would have been an insane entry into a market largely focused on entry level, that is only now maturing enough to support higher end (nex 7, OMD, Xpro1) models
Photokina is probably where the higher end model will come

The K-01 mistake is in radically departing from what the very conservative ILC market think as of as a good camera design (which is essentially unchanged in almost 50 years) Whether ts a success or failure is yet to be determined though. a year ago all we saw was massive fail whenever the Q was mentioned. yesterday someone posted some amazon japan sales ranking and in it's segment Q was ranked #1. yep #1. not what i would call a fail then. (someone local has a 3 lens kit up for $750 on CL and I have to say it's been calling to me
02-14-2012, 07:17 AM   #160
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
@John Flores

Your basic argument is that because my facts do not apply all the time in every instance, they are wrong to use as generalisations. That is a fundamentally flawed position. If you followed that line, you would have to admit that there are no facts in the world outside of basic laws of mathematics (and even then).

In different terms, you are nit-picking and have failed to demonstrate why any of my points are not in the main true.

"Then explain the GH2, which is nearly the same size as the K-x and K-r?"

That would be an exception of which there are a few. Do note I said "primary advantage".

"Or the new Olympus OM-D, which pretends to bulk itself up with all manner of grips?"

I am not sure what the word "pretend" means here, unless you think the grips are imaginary. But the fact that there is an optional grip does not mean the main body is any larger. I am sure you know what a grip is for. And you might be familiar with the concept of accessories?

"Fact is, the smaller M43 cameras like the GF2, GF3, E-PM1, NEX3, and so on struggle with larger zooms."

Fact is, most camera users do not need and might never even use a larger zoom in their entire photographic lives. Smaller cameras also struggle with tilt/shift lenses, bellows, and any number of other items used by the minority. I am not promoting smaller cameras for so-called professional users.

"And while your at it, look at the Fuji X Pro 1. That body isn't the smallest out there, is it?"

Judging by the earlier Fuiji's I have used, no it isn't. But I think you will have to admit that a discussion about the K-01 and possible Pentax alternatives is not really about the same market as the Fuji.

"Consider also that we live in a zoom world, with primes being a very small segment of the market."

Please tell that to Pentax who want to market the K-01 with a telephoto prime.

"An EVF would have been even better, but most people don't use them anymore anyway, so SR's gotta do the heavy lifting."

SR does not replace an EVF. Nor are they mutually exclusive.

"It's 2012, Robin. People buy things online all the time. So people who step up the the K-01, either with the 40 or kit zoom, will have plenty of opportunity to buy other lenses."

Yep. And even more opportunity to buy non-K-mount lenses, the vast majority of which are not in production or not stocked. But this doesn't help the majority of buyers on the low end where this camera is marketed who still go into a shop to get their camera.

All the guff about the K-01 being compatible with millions of lenses ignores the fact that these are a) hard to find for a good price, or b) hard to find at all. Yep, we are not living in 2000 when k-mount lenses were largely cheaper than the competition, and a lot more plentiful on the used market. We are in 2012 when the competition has better deals.

"If Pentax's advantage is weather-sealing, why do they only have 2 cameras with it? Sounds like a product-level feature and not a brand attribute to me."

You are thinking only of DSLRs. In the point'n'shoot market they make a big deal about their rugged cameras. In fact they just released another one. And do remember that this is where potential buyers of the K-01 are coming from. Apparently. Besides, "only 2 cameras" is quite a lot in their small DSLR line, a higher proportion than any other make.

"Regarding ergonomics - have you actually tried to use the K-01 or are you just making up fact from looking at photos?"

I always love when someone trots out this old warhorse, as if designers themselves don't make lots of preliminary decisions based on images and modelling and prior art and known design principles and prior constraints etc. etc. without ever holding a tangible product. Of course I cannot make a final decision about the design until I use it, but there are many clearly visible flaws.

Besides, buyers will be making decisions without holding the camera, if they all shop online as you assert. So it makes more sense for me to do so, not less.

"I actually get paid to design user interfaces and I won't dare judge the usability of the K-01 until I've actually used it."

Well, if you think credentials help your argument (they don't) I once led an architect-design-build team to success in a competitive B2B market. Whoop-de-do.

"Those two statements together make no sense. Literacy FAIL."

You are using the word literacy incorrectly -- how ironic! So I can't actually tell what you mean.

"25% more expensive isn't "about the same cost" in any language."

Depends on the numbers and the market, doesn't it? 25% of one dollar is only a quarter. Those willing to spend $800 might well spend $1000 if they know they are getting significantly more for their money.

"And the fact is, while some people buy camera based on detailed analysis of spec sheets, others buy them for other reasons. Like style. Like not wanting to have an old man's camera. Like the color yellow. Is that rational behavior? No. But we're not rational creatures."

Yep, as this thread demonstrates!

But I don't remember once remonstrating against the colour yellow. In fact, I defended the Pentax choice to release coloured SLRs when other were slagging them.

"Get over yourself, Robin. These are opinions pure and simple. To judge the usability of a physical product without touching it, let alone using it is just laughable. And to wrap it up in this air of pseudo-intellectualism is over the top. "

Here we see your emotional attitude come to the fore. I made no personal attacks or insinuations in my post, very unlike you. As for facts, I refer to the beginning of this message where I explain your misapprehension about them.

"We don't need your lectures."

Really? I make one post in a long thread (all I planned on making until personally attacked). How many did you make? Which one of us is lecturing then?

Are you so scared of a counter-argument that you need to censor me completely? Pretty sad.

You need to seriously look at your own issues, man.

Last edited by rparmar; 02-14-2012 at 07:22 AM.
02-14-2012, 07:27 AM   #161
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
QuoteOriginally posted by illdefined Quote
You call this "support"? calling on Pentax to throw out what it's taken 50+ years to build, join m4/3s and potentially bankrupt themselves for 3rd place on a foreign platform?
You mean, like they did with the Q?

QuoteOriginally posted by illdefined Quote
these are the very latest m4/3 sensors. yes. tiny difference.
Stop pixel peeping and start being a photographer. You might also try shooting at ISO 100 if you care about IQ.

QuoteOriginally posted by illdefined Quote
The failure is you even being on this forum still.
You finally said something correct. But perhaps not for the reason you think.

Last edited by rparmar; 02-14-2012 at 07:33 AM. Reason: gluing posts together
02-14-2012, 07:37 AM   #162
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,270
Thing is Robin ISO 100 doesn't meet all your needs. for some it may but not me. If I go from my K7 to m4/3 I'm gaining nothing in iq. so there is little reason for me to consider it. If OTOH I go to a K5 or the K-01 I'm seeing big jumps in high ISO performance (which is my biggest gripe about the K7) the expanded DR will also benefit me in shadow detail at lower iso so why wouldn't i want that if i can get it.
I know you are happy with m4/3 and that's great but it isn't (nor will it ever be) the best option from a performance standpoint. Neither will apsc versus same generation FF but for me it can hit closer to the mark.
there's nothing wrong with comparing the 2 at high iso when the argument is about the new m4/3 being good enough. maybe but not for all things.
02-14-2012, 08:19 AM   #163
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 896
QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
You mean, like they did with the Q?
I had doubts about the Q (still do), but apparently the Q is a profitable product globally. And it's their own mount not a foreign one, no licensing fees, no heavy competition. The Q wasn't a "bet the company" decision. Joining MFT and making lenses for other companies' cameras clearly would've been.

QuoteQuote:
Stop pixel peeping and start being a photographer. You might also try shooting at ISO 100 if you care about IQ.

Really, that's your response? Ha, if you don't understand the value of being able to shoot print-quality ISO 6400 then your notion of "being a photographer" is severely limited (and shockingly arrogant). Get out of the studio and try some street shooting in NYC, then tell me the value of high shutter speeds indoors and underground. ISO 100 is another luxury, with film-like DR you can't get from MFT yet.


QuoteQuote:
You finally said something correct. But perhaps not for the reason you think.
I'm sorry, you burst onto this thread with your nose up, dropping pseudo-credentials and a bunch of "FAILS" and we were supposed to be impressed? Try actually counter-arguing and backing up your statements instead of trying to bless us all with your keen insights and insults.
02-14-2012, 08:26 AM   #164
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,157
QuoteOriginally posted by illdefined Quote
Try actually counter-arguing and backing up your statements instead of trying to bless us all with your keen insights and insults.
Dude, for some of us, it's all we have.
02-14-2012, 08:28 AM   #165
Pentaxian
johnmflores's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somerville, NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,185
QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
Are you so scared of a counter-argument that you need to censor me completely? Pretty sad.

You need to seriously look at your own issues, man.
That's funny. I'm having a good debate with the others here. We disagree, but that's ok. No rancor.

Your tone, in contrast, is not winning many friends here. I'm not the only that finds your tone off-putting.

If many of the threads you participate in devolve into pettiness, you gotta start thinking about the one constant in all of it.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
adapter, advantages, benefit, body, design, k-01, k01, lenses, mirrorless, pentax, pentax k-01, size
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How to get AF-adapter to work with 645 adapter angus Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 5 04-01-2011 05:53 AM
Give up SR and get a thinner camera? Andi Lo Pentax DSLR Discussion 25 01-24-2011 11:35 AM
MYO (Make Your Own) 645 to K Adapter bodhi08 Pentax Medium Format 5 07-20-2010 01:27 PM
Will the 67 to 645 adapter make a comeback? mikebob Pentax Medium Format 27 06-27-2010 08:59 AM
Why can't they make something like this... regor Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 22 03-20-2010 01:16 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:40 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top