Originally posted by nakey Whilst i don't mind some sigma lenses, i do agree. pairing the 18-125, 18-50DC and 55-200DC wasn't a bright decision.. if only i knew back in 05 when i got my *ist DS
A few "professional" customer service people in camera stores I've been to have told me they thought Pentax didn't make their own lenses, on the basis of CRK's behaviour.
Quote: Still funny that one of the CRK reps go "it's good value compared to the Hassy", then i turn the corner and they're trying to flog the hassy as good value
That's why I really wish we had Pentax Australia instead of CRK. Can't serve two masters. Frankly, I think the Pentax 645D would probably be just as good, if not better, for 90% of the current Aussie Hasselblad users, unless you really, really need 60MP.
Originally posted by Philippos Actually, they have a different target markets. Nikon made the D3, but they also made the D3x. As Pentax is non existant in sport photography, it does not need a super fast sensor (it doesn't have the lenses or the AF system to support it). A high resolution FF however, is much closer to Pentax's fanbase desires. Personally, I wouldn't mind a weather sealed equivalent to a Sony a900 (or a850), or a Canon 5D with all those video features and Pentax glass (at Pentax prices).
Why shouldn't Pentax have fast AF? Why shouldn't they have long, fast lenses and high ISO sensitivity? Why not? Are these bad things?
Probably the reason Pentax isn't used by sports photogs isn't because Pentax users don't want to shoot sport - it's because a lot of them found the AF speed, FPS and noise levels not conducive to sports photography.
In 1992, Nikon released the F90. It was regarded as a stop-gap measure, to create an AF system that could compete with Canons, since a lot of journalists were abandoning the traditional Nikon camera for Canons with faster AF (that, and Canon was playing the loss-leading game Nikon played forty years earlier.)
There's no reason why a 35mm-styled camera from Pentax should just have higher res and that's it. If you want a high res Pentax, there's a new 40MP camera out that got low FPS, low native sensitivity, and can be had for the same or less than the Canon 1D MKIII or Nikon D3S.
Originally posted by thibs Once and for all, there'll be never an APS-H camera.
Lenses are not compatible (yep some are not even for APS-H), it would introduce yet another cropped format, would mean new lense because standard/wides are not anymore and there's no sensor for it.
Exactly. Some of the APS-C wide angles barely cover the sensor - such is the nature of wide angles. Canon's the only one who dicks around with APS-H - that's because they've got their own foundry, have a shedload of money (from printers and photocopiers and letter sorters and whatknot,) and seem to like splitting as many hairs as possible with their camera lineup ("...a new upper-lower-middle-lower advanced prosumer camera from Canon!") in order to make the competition's range seem full of gaps ("None of the other manufacturers have an upper-lower-middle-lower advanced prosumer camera...")
Oh, and they've already got a lineup of FF lenses. Which is what you end up using on the APS-H cameras. Not their EF-S lenses, which cannot physically mount on, say, the 1D MkIV.
So you end up using FF lenses on a cropped camera, which is just...pointless for someone like Pentax, who doesn't seem keen on having a body count like an 80's action flick.
If you're going to go large, may as well go all the way. Pentax still has everything it needs for a FF camera. No one complains about their 35mm-era lenses on their digitals. Just dust off a few old designs - D-FA* 200mm f4 Macro SDM, anyone? - et voila!
Whatever the case, the next camera better have a sweet-shaped pentaprism housing.