Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-14-2010, 09:44 PM   #106
Nubi
Guest




I want a FF body with no AF or SR or LV. I don't need multiple frame per seconds either. I bet they can make it pretty small then.

05-14-2010, 11:20 PM   #107
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,112
QuoteOriginally posted by Nubi Quote
I want a FF body with no AF or SR or LV. I don't need multiple frame per seconds either. I bet they can make it pretty small then.
with Kodak sensor?
05-14-2010, 11:53 PM   #108
Veteran Member
Christopher M.W.T's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Geelong, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 1,689
QuoteOriginally posted by nosnoop Quote
This is another example of different people's preference. Some may go for black level, some may go for ultimate image quality.

OTOH, some may like LCD's more efficient power consumption. And for homes with bright rooms, LCD would be more practical than plasma; or for people living in high altitude, LCD works better too.



Where in the world do Pentax users prefer 4/3 over APS-C?
And I don't consider perfect focusing, flash sync to 1/4000 and live histogram as inferior technology at all.
As for LCD vs Plasma, don't be fooled some LCD's are very power hungry and remember their backlights are on all the time where plasma can vary its overall brightness, but yes your right LCD is better in bright rooms but when it comes to ultimate image quality the best LCD's still can't match the plasmas for black levels.

The EP1 & GF1 both have flash sync's of only 1/160 and 1/180. As I understand they also use contract detect focus which "at this point" is still slower than traditional AF, although I do agree it is the future.
05-15-2010, 03:50 AM   #109
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: West Coast , Sweden
Posts: 467
QuoteOriginally posted by nosnoop Quote
This is another example of different people's preference. Some may go for black level, some may go for ultimate image quality.
To be picky, still the Pioneer plasmas released in 2008 is still the best screen when looking at black levels and color correctness. I don't know what else qualifies for ultimate image quality Responds very good to calibration too.
It's sad that 2 years later, none has beaten the last models before they canceled their production.

05-15-2010, 04:27 AM   #110
Nubi
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
with Kodak sensor?
Actually, MF sensor in a smallish DSLR body will be nice. You know, sort like S2. At any rate, get rid of AF and SR. Or maybe AF and SR are options. How's dat??


BTW, are there lots of "hentai" in Russia? I am getting worried.
05-15-2010, 04:39 AM   #111
Veteran Member
Christopher M.W.T's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Geelong, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 1,689
QuoteOriginally posted by Supernaut Quote
To be picky, still the Pioneer plasmas released in 2008 is still the best screen when looking at black levels and color correctness. I don't know what else qualifies for ultimate image quality Responds very good to calibration too.
It's sad that 2 years later, none has beaten the last models before they canceled their production.
The Panasonic Premiers have, they are lesser known as they are more sold into the custom market.

The last gen Pioneers all used the Panasonic glass, all the Pioneer Kuro gear was bought up by Panasonic, so it still exists.
05-15-2010, 04:50 AM   #112
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: West Coast , Sweden
Posts: 467
QuoteOriginally posted by C.W Tsorotes Quote
The Panasonic Premiers have, they are lesser known as they are more sold into the custom market.

The last gen Pioneers all used the Panasonic glass, all the Pioneer Kuro gear was bought up by Panasonic, so it still exists.
I have no knowledge what is sold in the customs market, but the fresh VT series don't quite reach to kuro standards but a Z-series is rumored this fall using kuro tech. After all not a year has past since they bought the Pio patents so it takes time to reach market with new product. I expect it to be in the $3000 leage, so it won't be cheap.

Well.. OT it is..
05-15-2010, 05:56 AM   #113
Veteran Member
kevinschoenmakers's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Shanghai
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,513
QuoteOriginally posted by Nubi Quote
BTW, are there lots of "hentai" in Russia? I am getting worried.
What? Do you mean Hanzi/Kanji (Chinese characters)?

05-15-2010, 08:49 AM   #114
Nubi
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by kevinschoenmakers Quote
What? Do you mean Hanzi/Kanji (Chinese characters)?
"Hentai"

You better ask OGL about that one !
05-15-2010, 08:55 AM   #115
Veteran Member
kevinschoenmakers's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Shanghai
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,513
QuoteOriginally posted by Nubi Quote
"Hentai"

You better ask OGL about that one !
I know what that is, but why the ... did you bring that up?
05-15-2010, 10:04 AM   #116
New Member
clickclack's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Summerville, South Carolina
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3
Digital is harder to manage vs. film

QuoteOriginally posted by WMBP Quote
Speaking as one Dallasite to another: I don't think so.
I think we've been going through a period where it looked as if things were going to get so easy, where cameras were going to get so smart, that we almost wouldn't need photographers. That period is going to continue now for a little while, because the additional of high-res video seems to be giving some folks the impression that they won't have to worry about when to snap the shutter.
Except that IT JUST ISN'T THE CASE. Cameras have NOT gotten that easy. Oh, if you put your camera into green mode, you may significantly reduce the risk of totally blowing a series of shots, the way you used to be able to completely blow a roll of film. And if you don't nail a shot, you may be able to lessen the damage in Photoshop or whatever you use to process your photos.
But the "photography is easy!" idea is a lie, and people are going to wake up and realize it sooner or later. I now make a significant part of my income from photography. And if I had to sum up what I've learned in the last five years as a working photographer, I'd put it this way: Digital photography is a helluva lot harder than I realized. And I should add, I had a lot of experience with photography in the past.
I'm old enough to have lived through several periods in which people thought technology was making everything easy. Back in the 1980s, especially after the release of the Mac and the appearance of the first version of PageMaker, people thought that desktop publishing was the way of the future, and a lot of art directors and page layout people thought there was no future for them. Wasn't true. What the 1970s were to fashion, the 1980s were to page design—in other words, a nightmare. And eventually people woke up and realized that they didn't NEED to use three fonts to write a business letter, etc. They realized that what they had been doing for a while actually SUCKED. And that to do it better, they were going to have to learn stuff they didn't want to learn, to work harder than they wanted to work.
It's clear now that everybody has a camera with them all the time, and that's not going to change. What will keep the pros alive is simple: better photos.
Will
Hello sir:

As an "elder", I began my love of photography while being in the 7th grade, back in the early 60s. Through the past 40 years, I've used and owned a number of medium-to-high-end name brand cameras which were all film based.
Then came digital. WOW! Actually, YUK! I didn't and still don't like dealing with all of the myriad of things that must be thought about and done in order to have a shot come out "properly". To me, there's just too much finagling that has to be dealt with computer-wise. Difficult? You betcha!

Film has had 100 years of development which allowed me to just pick which type of film I desired for a particular shoot and then concentrate on the artistic side of photography. Limited by the film? Perhaps. Not sure of what you captured? In some instances. Slow to see developed slides? Mostly yes. But--I taught myself to selectively frame, expose and shoot in order to capture the moment (as well as to not waste slides--my primary type of medium that I so loved).

That being said, I finally made (was forced to???) the switch to digital via a K20D with these lenses: DA-SMC 16-50 f2.8; DA-SMC 50-135 f2.8; and a DA-SMC 10-17 f3.5-4.5. Great quality & features; but still a format that is not as fluent, intuitive and easy as film work.

So, in the end I wholeheartedly agree with you--digital IS harder vs. film. Yet, here we are. My hope is that in the near future we will be able to just pick-up our DSLR, frame, expose and shoot and see the wonderful results that we once saw with slides without a lot of time spent sitting in front of a computer.

I know I'm older and yet I continue to teach myself about a medium that I must deal with in order to continue photographing. It is what it is.

Thanks for listening. Be well.
05-15-2010, 01:26 PM   #117
Nubi
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by kevinschoenmakers Quote
I know what that is, but why the ... did you bring that up?
That's an easy one to answer. That is to get reputation points, of course.
05-16-2010, 11:02 AM   #118
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 418
QuoteOriginally posted by C.W Tsorotes Quote
Why do they need Evil?

I for one cannot see any serious photographers take EVIL seriously for the forseeable future, at this point it is STILL an INFERIOR technology.

Yes it provides more compact bodies but the reality is the quality and performance of EVF's are still miles behind optical VF.

Reality is people have been doing very fine with size and ergonomic SLR's & DSLRS for the last 50 years or so. Now all of a sudden everyone needs more compact DSLSRs?

I for one find the K-7 a smidgen too small and uncomfortable without the grip. Also the body with the grip balances well with something like the DA* 50-135, if the body were any lighter the entire camera would be out of balance and awkward.
Nope, no serious photographer would want a smaller, unobtrusive shooting platform, just absolute image quality and the best technology available.Which of course is why we all shoot medium format. After all, FF is inferior technology, and APSC worse still.

Sheesh. Once upon a time, 35mm was called "miniature format", a trade off of absolute quality in favor of size and portability. So what makes the DSLR the magic 'perfect' size? Especially since the size and ergos of modern DSLRs are bloated hippos next to a small film body; compare the K-7 or K-x to an ME or an LX, and then tell me that people have been fine with bulky boxes for 50 years.

The world in general, and technology specifically, is about more than technology and specs. Which is why a lot of serious Pentaxians are having a ball shooting with the inferior K-x, and would have even more fun shooting with an even lighter, smaller camera.
05-16-2010, 07:30 PM   #119
Nubi
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by junyo Quote
Nope, no serious photographer would want a smaller, unobtrusive shooting platform
Hm . . . . . .


I bet you that I can find more than a few "serious" photographers who shoot APS-C and don't even feel the need to go to FF. In fact, there is this one guy who shoots professionally, and he still shoots with K20D, I hear.

I realize that MF is superior to FF. To serious photographers the difference is I am sure pretty large. But, even serious photographers typically shoot for this kind of audience or that (especially if one is a professional), and the most of the times they the audience probably cannot tell if the pic was shot with MF vs. FF, especially if printed on a magazine size paper, for example.

Sure, there are genre of photography, where MF is almost a must, as probably in landscape photography, or something like that. But I am sure those genres that absolutely require MF do not consist majority, no??

I for one is a horrible photographer, but still want FF, because I am so used to 135 format. That's all. When I slap my FA 31 ltd, it just don't look the same. It looked rather odd at first, and took a bit of getting used to. I want to buy one of those A* or Zeiss 85, so I want FF.
05-16-2010, 10:56 PM   #120
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,161
It is all a latter of compromise. Except for studio/landscapes, most pros would not want to do with a slow (fps) and low iso sensor (mf) so they'll chose FF.
Those who needs high fps as first priority will chose aps-c/aps-h, for now.
When low/middle end FF cameras will do 7-8 fps with good buffer, high fps guys will change to FF IMO and aps will go down to low end bodies/compact bodies.
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!
k7, pentax news, pentax rumors
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Pentax Flagship Camera SF1 SF-1 Body with Body Cap, Battery, and Original Manu yyyzzz Sold Items 6 03-15-2010 11:54 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax F 70-210mm 4-5.6 and Pentax F 35-70mm 3.5-4.5 Macro and SF1 camera Body jjdgti Sold Items 5 12-30-2009 12:25 PM
For Sale - Sold: FS: Pentax SF7-body / AF400FTZ / 3 Pentax-F lenses / GENUINE Pentax-accessori frederik9111 Sold Items 7 03-23-2008 03:00 PM
For Sale - Sold: FS: Pentax K1000 (Body only)+body cap+leather case+ strap Not Registered Sold Items 3 11-02-2007 07:51 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:54 PM. | See also: NikonForums.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