Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-03-2013, 09:14 AM   #46
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
1/3 should be quite easy for them, keeping in mind they're working on increasing their capacity.
In the same 2012, they had 4 cameras - although 1 was the Q10, and the K-5 II(s) was an "old' model made better. I'll venture to guess that next year we should see at least 3 new cameras, plus maybe another Q.
About lenses, they were only 1 lens behind Nikon; even if with only 2 ambitious projects (the 560mm and the stabilized D FA645 90mm).
If we're talking about the Q, we should probably include the J1, etc from Nikon for comparison.

Personally I don't count the K-5 II as a new camera. It's an update. To overuse the automobile analogy... if you put a new transmission in a car, you don't count it as a new model. If you put a new AF sensor in a camera, I don't count it as a new model.


I don't need or want Pentax to try to compete with Nikon on all fronts. But if you'll allow me to state the obvious... in the areas in which they choose to compete, they have to be competitive in the marketplace.

01-03-2013, 09:45 AM   #47
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,324
Of course, Nikon had 2 series 1 cameras in 2012; and at the other extreme they had the D800 and the D4.
If we don't include the Q, we have 3 Pentax cameras in 2012 (one being the K-5 II brothers) vs. Nikon's 5, and 5 vs. 5 lenses (including a Tamron rebadge, maybe we should say 4?).

To overuse the automobile analogy, the K-5 II is a facelift - pretty much a new model
01-03-2013, 10:17 AM   #48
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by Fogel70 Quote
And if they also design a K-mount module it might be the best mirrorless system for K-mount users.
I guess they could even make an SLR K-mount module if they wanted - bundle the mount, mirror, AF/metering sensors, pentaprism, and viewfinder into one. Pointless, but it could be done. A good example of the pointlessness of the SLR mechanism in the digital age.
01-03-2013, 10:20 AM   #49
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,324
I firmly believe that being able to see is important, even in the digital age.

01-03-2013, 04:19 PM   #50
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
I firmly believe that being able to see is important, even in the digital age.
Yes, of course. But that's what prescription glasses and contacts are for.
01-03-2013, 04:20 PM   #51
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,324
But in the digital age, obsolete i.e. optical technology like prescription glasses and contacts are pointless, right? Surely there must be some much better, electronic replacements
01-03-2013, 07:54 PM   #52
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
But in the digital age, obsolete i.e. optical technology like prescription glasses and contacts are pointless, right?
Who said optical technology is obsolete? In your hurry to disagree, you have managed to give up even the pretense of common sense.
01-04-2013, 12:19 AM - 1 Like   #53
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,324
It is common sense that some people would rather see the subject they want to photograph through optical instruments, and not at some heavily processed image, pale approximation of what the result could be without any kind of post-processing, displayed on some lousy, non-calibrated miniature display. YMMV.
I'll stop here, but please, don't say that optical viewfinders are pointless as if our opinion doesn't matter.

01-04-2013, 10:00 PM   #54
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
It is common sense that some people would rather see the subject they want to photograph through optical instruments, and not at some heavily processed image, pale approximation of what the result could be without any kind of post-processing, displayed on some lousy, non-calibrated miniature display.
Why would you look through optical instruments when you have eyes? And if you have to look through some optical instrument, why would that be the viewfinder of an SLR? Why not use eyeglasses, binoculars, a microscope, or a telescope which were designed to help you see things? A photographic camera is not made for seeing things, it is made for capturing the things you see without it. And the DSLR viewfinder is a poor way of seeing anything - it is like peeping through a hole with a veil over it (the focusing screen). Of course, that being the best you have experienced in a camera, you might think it is the best there is. But try a rangefinder and you'll find out that there are better "sightseeing" viewfinders than those of SLRs, but that did not prevent them from being abandoned, because sightseeing is not what photography is about. Like most people that argue about equipment more than they use it, your arguments have little to do with the reality of photography and more to do with your theoretical enjoyment of photographic equipment.
  • In a rangefinder, the viewfinder was necessary for focusing and somewhat helpful with framing.
  • In an SLR, the viewfinder is somewhat less precise for focusing but is much more precise for framing (but still not perfect unless you have 100% coverage).
  • In a MILC, the viewfinder is perfect for both framing and focusing, as well as many other things that were simply *impossible* without realtime image processing.

So the EVF is better for the two main applications of a viewfinder - framing and focusing - and it can do things that the OVF cannot ever do.

Now, if I miss an application of the SLR OVF that gives it an upper hand in some way that is relevant to photography - what is that? And what kind of images are made possible by leveraging this advantage - do you have any to share? No more talk, just try to walk the walk.
01-05-2013, 12:38 AM   #55
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,735
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
So the EVF is better for the two main applications of a viewfinder - framing and focusing - and it can do things that the OVF cannot ever do.

Now, if I miss an application of the SLR OVF that gives it an upper hand in some way that is relevant to photography - what is that?
Action photography.

RF > SLR > EVF

QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
And what kind of images are made possible by leveraging this advantage - do you have any to share? No more talk, just try to walk the walk.
Here's a low light example with the K-x:

01-05-2013, 01:38 AM   #56
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,311
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote

So the EVF is better for the two main applications of a viewfinder - framing and focusing - and it can do things that the OVF cannot ever do.
I would say thats a matter of opinion rather than fact. Most would choose one or another, care less about the technical differences, and choose what fits their needs best.
01-05-2013, 02:29 AM   #57
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,324
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
Why would you look through optical instruments when you have eyes? And if you have to look through some optical instrument, why would that be the viewfinder of an SLR? Why not use eyeglasses, binoculars, a microscope, or a telescope which were designed to help you see things? A photographic camera is not made for seeing things, it is made for capturing the things you see without it. And the DSLR viewfinder is a poor way of seeing anything - it is like peeping through a hole with a veil over it (the focusing screen). Of course, that being the best you have experienced in a camera, you might think it is the best there is. But try a rangefinder and you'll find out that there are better "sightseeing" viewfinders than those of SLRs, but that did not prevent them from being abandoned, because sightseeing is not what photography is about. Like most people that argue about equipment more than they use it, your arguments have little to do with the reality of photography and more to do with your theoretical enjoyment of photographic equipment.
  • In a rangefinder, the viewfinder was necessary for focusing and somewhat helpful with framing.
  • In an SLR, the viewfinder is somewhat less precise for focusing but is much more precise for framing (but still not perfect unless you have 100% coverage).
  • In a MILC, the viewfinder is perfect for both framing and focusing, as well as many other things that were simply *impossible* without realtime image processing.

So the EVF is better for the two main applications of a viewfinder - framing and focusing - and it can do things that the OVF cannot ever do.

Now, if I miss an application of the SLR OVF that gives it an upper hand in some way that is relevant to photography - what is that? And what kind of images are made possible by leveraging this advantage - do you have any to share? No more talk, just try to walk the walk.
Sorry, but you are very subjective and are forcing yourself to "prove" that I shouldn't like an OVF.
People started to use optical instruments to help surpass the limits or defects of their vision. I am using eyeglasses, thank you for asking, but "eyeglasses, binoculars, a microscope, or a telescope" would serve very different purposes than a camera's viewfinder. Indeed, you're trying hard to force the idea that an optical viewfinder is "pointless", while lacking arguments.

No, a DSLR viewfinder wasn't the best I had experienced; do not make such assumptions (I'm including the 645D here, since I has able to handle it for brief periods). The one I liked better was a TLR, and by the way, I tried rangefinders as well.
It's funny that you claim a rangefinder is better, since it's quite limited - useful only for a certain focal range, and useless for close-up; at least the better ones have parallax correction. I would also like to see how well they work with a zoom Of course, within its limits it does have advantages.

You didn't realize yet that a MILC doesn't have real time image processing? Not in a computing sense; there is a visible delay. And by the way, WYSIWYG is a lie.
01-05-2013, 03:24 AM   #58
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,735
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
The one I liked better was a TLR,
Without a porrofinder or prism, everything is backwards on those.

QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
I tried rangefinders as well.
It's funny that you claim a rangefinder is better, since it's quite limited - useful only for a certain focal range, and useless for close-up
Leica made the Visoflex for that.

QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
I would also like to see how well they work with a zoom
The Tri-Elmars seemed to work quite well:

Leica 16-18-21mm f/4 Tri-Elmar Field Report
01-05-2013, 04:57 AM   #59
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,324
Only left-right are reversed.

The Visoflex transforms a rangefinder into a SLR, so it quite proves my point

Ah, the Tri-Elmars... not a zoom, though, more like 3 primes in one (and it has a matching, 3 focal viewfinder).
01-05-2013, 05:11 AM   #60
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,735
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Ah, the Tri-Elmars... not a zoom, though, more like 3 primes in one.
Well, the word "zoom" has changed its meaning over the years.
It used to mean a parfocal lens that you could zoom during an exposure
to get weird effects of apparent motion.

Now, the "stepped" power-zooms on P&S cameras
only differ from the Tri-Elmars in their "zoominess"
by offering several rather than just three focal lengths.
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!
camera, cameras, development, line, mm, pentax news, pentax rumors, possibility, products, ricoh, ricoh camera, users
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
GOLDMAN: The Economic Crisis Ends In 2013 jeffkrol General Talk 4 12-10-2012 03:27 PM
NEW Pentax Lens Roadmap 2012/2013 oddesy Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 331 04-07-2012 02:42 PM
Will Pentax/Ricoh bring a FF camera in 2012? Raffwal Photographic Industry and Professionals 25 04-04-2012 06:04 PM
New Jersey set to host F1 race in 2013 ! jogiba General Talk 4 10-27-2011 06:37 AM
New Ricoh Camera is Here! Angevinn Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 35 12-09-2009 06:47 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:30 AM. | 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