[milarmon]

Robin, you are so right. I thank you for defending Arthur C. Clarke and Kubrick.

Ditto... and I must add... I thank you for helping Batman

[BobL]

Why oh why can Pentax not get it right.......16.5 MP, 2/3rds Sensor, when I ask are they going to make a camera with professional standing, full frame 22 MP.
Were I entering the market at this time I'm afraid I'd be going Canon. Scarry thought for a dedicated Pentax Man, but as a professsional photographer my competitors have the edge over me with high end equipment.
I have a whole bag full of lovely Pentax & Sigma lenses ranging from 10mm to 500mm & yet can't buy a body over currently 15 MP......come on Pentax, get with the Pro market & give us a camera worthy of the Pentax brand. Until then I'll have to stick with my 2 K20 D bodies. because it's just not worth an upgrade for 1.5 MP. I totally skipped the K7 despite being given one to play with for 3 weeks, a not worth changing battery packs & accessories for.
I keep hoping that Pentax will come up with something to rival Canon, but they always seem to trail the market.

Why oh why can Pentax not get it right.......16.5 MP, 2/3rds Sensor, when I ask are they going to make a camera with professional standing, full frame 22 MP.
Were I entering the market at this time I'm afraid I'd be going Canon. Scarry thought for a dedicated Pentax Man, but as a professsional photographer my competitors have the edge over me with high end equipment.
I have a whole bag full of lovely Pentax & Sigma lenses ranging from 10mm to 500mm & yet can't buy a body over currently 15 MP......come on Pentax, get with the Pro market & give us a camera worthy of the Pentax brand. Until then I'll have to stick with my 2 K20 D bodies. because it's just not worth an upgrade for 1.5 MP. I totally skipped the K7 despite being given one to play with for 3 weeks, a not worth changing battery packs & accessories for.
I keep hoping that Pentax will come up with something to rival Canon, but they always seem to trail the market.

Maybe producing high end super-duper pro spec model does not translate to profit. It probably will look very cool though.

[MickB]

Why oh why can Pentax not get it right.......16.5 MP, 2/3rds Sensor, when I ask are they going to make a camera with professional standing, full frame 22 MP.
Were I entering the market at this time I'm afraid I'd be going Canon. Scarry thought for a dedicated Pentax Man, but as a professsional photographer my competitors have the edge over me with high end equipment.
I have a whole bag full of lovely Pentax & Sigma lenses ranging from 10mm to 500mm & yet can't buy a body over currently 15 MP......come on Pentax, get with the Pro market & give us a camera worthy of the Pentax brand. Until then I'll have to stick with my 2 K20 D bodies. because it's just not worth an upgrade for 1.5 MP. I totally skipped the K7 despite being given one to play with for 3 weeks, a not worth changing battery packs & accessories for.
I keep hoping that Pentax will come up with something to rival Canon, but they always seem to trail the market.

You know the D700 'only' has 12MP right?

[Class A]

In short, it's a great film but not a good one.

I think "2001: A Space Odyssey" is a movie made by a photographer (Kubrick) for photographers (hardly any dialogue, stunning visuals).

From Films considered the greatest ever - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) tops the Online Film Critics Society list of greatest science fiction films of all time.[87] It is also the only science fiction film to make the Sight and Sound poll for ten best movies, and was selected as the best science fiction movie ever by the American Film Institute during their 10 Top 10.

Nuff' said.

I know OT, but I owed that to my avatar.

[Pål Jensen]

Why oh why can Pentax not get it right.......16.5 MP, 2/3rds Sensor, when I ask are they going to make a camera with professional standing, full frame 22 MP.
Were I entering the market at this time I'm afraid I'd be going Canon. Scarry thought for a dedicated Pentax Man, but as a professsional photographer my competitors have the edge over me with high end equipment.
I have a whole bag full of lovely Pentax & Sigma lenses ranging from 10mm to 500mm & yet can't buy a body over currently 15 MP......come on Pentax, get with the Pro market & give us a camera worthy of the Pentax brand. Until then I'll have to stick with my 2 K20 D bodies. because it's just not worth an upgrade for 1.5 MP. I totally skipped the K7 despite being given one to play with for 3 weeks, a not worth changing battery packs & accessories for.
I keep hoping that Pentax will come up with something to rival Canon, but they always seem to trail the market.

Firstly, only a small percentage of pros use full frame cameras.
Secondly, none of your clients can spot the difference between an image made by a 16mp camera or a 21mp one.
The fact that some want an FF camera is another matter.....

[Pål Jensen]

Maybe producing high end super-duper pro spec model does not translate to profit. It probably will look very cool though.

It doesn't create profit for pros either; that's why the majority of them use APS sensored cameras....

[falconeye]

Firstly, only a small percentage of pros use full frame cameras.
Secondly, none of your clients can spot the difference between an image made by a 16mp camera or a 21mp one.
The fact that some want an FF camera is another matter.....

I'll probably have to write an article about the real benefits of a larger sensor. All the ISO, viewfinder, DoF etc. discussions miss the point. A camera with a larger sensor simply lives on larger tolerances which turns into more keepers (AF accuracy, lens quality, vibrations etc. and yes, possibly more exposure headroom too). Even the most aggressive APSC defenders (and I know quite a few of them even within Pentax) are overwhelmed by the quality of their photography with the 645D (they line up to be allowed to use one..). Why is this if sensor size plays no rôle?

I can live with Pentax still be APSC only in 2010. But I am increasingly getting tired by seeing repeated discussions that size doesn't matter. It does.

[Rondec]

First of all, I really liked the book 2001: A Space Odyssey, but the movie was beyond me. I always thought that it benefited a lot from being released when drug culture was high in the United States. It just seems like the kind of movie that would seem deeper when you were smoking weed...

I do forsee the K5 price falling pretty fast to D7000 levels and then stabilizing there. They would have been planning to have a slower drop in prices anyway, down to 850-900 dollars, with the similarly speced D7000 coming out cheaper, that will hurry the process.

[gawan]

I'll probably have to write an article about the real benefits of a larger sensor. All the ISO, viewfinder, DoF etc. discussions miss the point.

Please do so, there are lot of fuzzy technical documents out there, but a new well written article with clear arguments would be great.

[Pål Jensen]

I'll probably have to write an article about the real benefits of a larger sensor. All the ISO, viewfinder, DoF etc. discussions miss the point. A camera with a larger sensor simply lives on larger tolerances which turns into more keepers (AF accuracy, lens quality, vibrations etc. and yes, possibly more exposure headroom too). Even the most aggressive APSC defenders (and I know quite a few of them even within Pentax) are overwhelmed by the quality of their photography with the 645D (they line up to be allowed to use one..). Why is this if sensor size plays no rôle?.

I'm perfectly aware of the benefit of a larger sensors and hope to buy the 645D at some stage myself. However, I was replying to the statement that FF is needed for professional photography; this is not true at all. Most pros do not use FF. They run a business and many find that the APS sensor makes more business sense.....

[rparmar]

First of all, I really liked the book 2001: A Space Odyssey, but the movie was beyond me. I always thought that it benefited a lot from being released when drug culture was high in the United States. It just seems like the kind of movie that would seem deeper when you were smoking weed...

This is a more perceptive comment than the earlier one that tried to relate the film to people being "too serious", whatever that means. The last segment of the film is definitely an "eye opener" and those on recreational substances went to the theatres to see it for that reason only. The fact the film had an intermission was doubly convenient - no need to sit through all those boring monkeys and astronauts!

As an instructive I might watch Stanley Kubrick A Life in Pictures. The cast of product makers (Speilberg, Lucas, et al) paying testimonial to his unique vision is quite impressive. It's really what seperates them. All of the are technically great filmmakers, but vision is a unique quality very few possess. In photographic terms it's what seperates us from Arbus, Frank, Eggleston, Adams, ect.

This is the root of my disappointment, as expressed in an earlier post. It is all well and good for someone with no photographic knowledge or imagination to diss 2001. But for a supposed photographer on a purported photography forum to do it shows a distinct lack of insight.

Guess I used to many words for you. Is this better?

Your attempt at putting forward your opinion is hampered by your use of insults from the grade three playground. I recommend you sharpen your wit if you wish to play with the adults. Quite an unusual attempt at "courtesy", to boot.

[Tringle WP]

I do forsee the K5 price falling pretty fast to D7000 levels and then stabilizing there. They would have been planning to have a slower drop in prices anyway, down to 850-900 dollars, with the similarly spec'd D7000 coming out cheaper, that will hurry the process.

IF the rumours are true the price of the K5 is a decent flashgun more than an equivalent D7000. And more than a 7D. Honestly, IF this pricing is correct it is just a nail in the coffin.

Like one of the previous posters here I skipped the K7 and stuck with my K20D (and K10D). I don't see anything on the K5 feature list that would make me buy this sensor in anything other than a Sony A580 for roughly half the money.

It's so depressing

[gazonk]

This is the root of my disappointment, as expressed in an earlier post. It is all well and good for someone with no photographic knowledge or imagination to diss 2001. But for a supposed photographer on a purported photography forum to do it shows a distinct lack of insight.

Hear, hear! I just recently watched it again (just got it on BlueRay) and I hadn't seen it in reasonably good quality (only on mediocre televisions) since last time I saw it in a cinema too many years ago. And I was really stunned by the photography, just prints of the first few landscape shots alone could be enough material for a wonderful photography exhibition. I watched it with my kids (youngest 12 years), they finally wanted to know the source of all those references in other movies The main observation from my kids was that the only thing in this movie that reveals its age was the meeting/conversation scenes at the moon station.

[ManuH]

This is the root of my disappointment, as expressed in an earlier post. It is all well and good for someone with no photographic knowledge or imagination to diss 2001. But for a supposed photographer on a purported photography forum to do it shows a distinct lack of insight.

When I first visioned 2001, I had 17 and I had an epiphany. Weirdly not about photography but music (Ligeti, Katchaturian and the 2 Strauss). The film left a lasting impression on me also for its stunning visuals and atmosphere. Everything Kubrick has filmed, not just 2001, is worth watching.