Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-13-2013, 02:30 PM   #616
Pentaxian
RobA_Oz's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,126
QuoteOriginally posted by Docrwm Quote
The tag line at the Pentax UK site for the K-50 is " The complete Outdoor DSLR"

The tag line for the K-500 is "Easy to use and high-quality performance"

Seems to me that they are clear that they have a line of cameras again.
Indeed. That shot of the K-50 is interesting, because it is reminiscent of the K30, but without the sloping name-plate.

Also note that the kit lens on the K-500 isn't WR, and it doesn't need to be, of course. That probably answers a question about the DAL WR kit lens: the plastic mount is a partial trade-off for sealing, because they're continuing both lines. It might be cents either way, but these are probably meant to be high-volume, low-margin products, in the terms of this market, anyway.

06-13-2013, 02:47 PM   #617
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 975
QuoteOriginally posted by starbase218 Quote
The cameras represent a solid offering, no doubt, but this just tells me you haven't looked through the VF of a Canon 7D yet.
fair enough, i haven't, but now that you mention it, i recall some claims that the magnification is better. nevertheless, it's "up there". keep in mind the k-500 is priced 100usd more than the canon eos1100. i think i won't bother to look at the specs of that camera
06-14-2013, 12:05 AM   #618
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,609
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
Of course you can get a 600mm FOV with Pentax. Just mount a 300mm lens and crop. That's exactly what micro 4/3 does. Check out the Nikon D7100, it allows you to do the crop in the camera instead of the computer. A smaller sensor, crop in the camera or on the computer, it's the same result.

What's worse about going with m4/3 is that they don't have any high quality supertelepho lenses, just slow consumer zooms. And no real AF-C, and no tracking. Good luck shooting birds in flight. Your friend has made a poor choice. Pentax is not the best DSLR brand for birding, but Panasonic is far worse.
He has a 7-14 F4, 35-100 F2.8 and 100-300 F4.0-5.6. And the kit lens. Sounds like a couple of decent lenses to me, covering anything that you may need. No, it's not the 560mm Pentax lens, but that one is a bit expensive, even for him. Also, he claims that according to reviews the Panasonic lenses are excellent (isn't Panasonic linked to Leica?).

He says that tracking does work... and why wouldn't it, there are many more AF points on the Panasonic than on any PDAF camera, since the whole sensor is being used for AF. Don't forget that videocameras all use CDAF to track moving subjects.

Also, micro 4/3 isn't THAT small. It's going from a 1.5x crop to a 2x crop. The sensor is still big, and you get the full 16 MP with that crop... and still have enough resolution to crop even further. Finally what made him go for Panasonic over Pentax was that the lenses are designed for mFT... with Pentax some lenses are meant for full frame, so you are carying excessive bulk for a bigger image circle that you don't need. Size and weight is important to him, he never even considered the D7100 (eventhough his previous DSLR is a Nikon, and he has several lenses for that system).
06-14-2013, 12:39 AM   #619
Pentaxian
Fogel70's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,737
QuoteOriginally posted by nanok Quote
fair enough, i haven't, but now that you mention it, i recall some claims that the magnification is better. nevertheless, it's "up there". keep in mind the k-500 is priced 100usd more than the canon eos1100. i think i won't bother to look at the specs of that camera
The size of Pentax pentaprism OVF is very close in size to top APS-C DSLR from Nikon and Canon (D7100 and 7D), but Pentax OVF is a bit darker as they have made it more useful for manual focus. Canon use a bit higher magnification on 7D, but as it use a bit smaller sensor the result is the same size.

Pentax K-500 100% 0.92x 1.5 crop. Effective magnification = 0.92/1.5 = 0.61x
Canon 7D 100% 1x 1.6 crop. Effective magnifycation = 1/1.6 = 0.63x
Nikon 7100 100% 0.95x 1.5 crop. Effective magnification = 0.95/1.5 = 0.63x

Entry level DSLR usually have effective magnification of 0.50x, but IMO it's pentamirrors that make the largest difference, as with them you no longer get the feeling of looking directly through the lens. Budget FF DSLR usually have effective magnification of 0.7x, but are brighter as they use larger mirror.

06-14-2013, 05:13 AM   #620
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,631
QuoteOriginally posted by kadajawi Quote
He has a 7-14 F4, 35-100 F2.8 and 100-300 F4.0-5.6. And the kit lens. Sounds like a couple of decent lenses to me, covering anything that you may need. No, it's not the 560mm Pentax lens, but that one is a bit expensive, even for him. Also, he claims that according to reviews the Panasonic lenses are excellent (isn't Panasonic linked to Leica?).
The 35-100 is the m4/3 equivalent to a DA*50-135, definitely not a birding lens. The Panasonic 100-300mm f4-5.6 is no Leica. It's a standard consumer grade zoom, very close in performance to a DA 55-300mm. From Photozone: "Performance-wise you still have to accept some performance penalties that are simply associated with such consumer-grade long tele zoom lenses."

M4/3 has no fast or high quality telephoto lenses (e.g. Canikon 300 f2.8, Pentax 300 f4, Sigma 400 f4.5) and no supertele zooms (Nikon 80-400, Canon100-400L, Sigma 50-500 etc). These are the lenses recommended for birding.

QuoteOriginally posted by kadajawi Quote
He says that tracking does work... and why wouldn't it, there are many more AF points on the Panasonic than on any PDAF camera, since the whole sensor is being used for AF. Don't forget that videocameras all use CDAF to track moving subjects.
You didn't say which Panasonic, but I looked at the DPR review of the GH3, their top model. For bird-in-flight, you need to see your target at all times and fire off bursts. The Panasonic only allows 4fps, vs 7-8 for APS-C DSLR's.

Tracking according to DPR:
"The tracking system, can be a little reluctant to lock-on to a subject (such that we doubt it will achieve a lock in time to catch most fast-occuring events). Once locked the camera will attempt to re-focus with the subject but the results we got were pretty hit-and-miss, with the camera frequently refocusing onto the background or not keeping-up with the subject."

No other M4/3 model fares any better. AF-C on that system is virtually useless, and an EVF is compromised for following action compared to an OVF.

QuoteOriginally posted by kadajawi Quote
Also, micro 4/3 isn't THAT small. It's going from a 1.5x crop to a 2x crop. The sensor is still big, and you get the full 16 MP with that crop... and still have enough resolution to crop even further. Finally what made him go for Panasonic over Pentax was that the lenses are designed for mFT... with Pentax some lenses are meant for full frame, so you are carying excessive bulk for a bigger image circle that you don't need. Size and weight is important to him, he never even considered the D7100 (even though his previous DSLR is a Nikon, and he has several lenses for that system).
You said you can't get a 600mm FOV with a 300mm lens. I said you can, just crop. That is a fact, the D7100 crop mode demonstrates this, plain as day. Yet still M4/3 shooters don't get it. A 300mm lens is a 300mm lens, regardless of which body it's mounted on.

I wouldn't compare any Panasonic body to a top tier DLSR like the D7100, because Panasonics have basic and mid-level specifications. A Panasonic body is smaller than a Rebel, D3200 or K-500, (as long as you don't go with the GH3). The Panasonic 100-300 is not a small lens.

Pentax DA 55-300mm: 112 x 71mm, 440g
Panasonic 100-300 OIS: 126 x 74mm, 520g
Canon 70-300mm IS: 142 x 76mm, 630g
Nikon 70-300mm VR: 144 x 80mm, 745g

M4/3 is not a good choice for birding. If you posted a thread in the Open Forum at DPR to ask about a birding system, I doubt anyone would even suggest Panasonic.

Last edited by audiobomber; 06-14-2013 at 06:13 AM.
06-14-2013, 07:40 AM   #621
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,969
QuoteOriginally posted by kadajawi Quote
He has a 7-14 F4, 35-100 F2.8 and 100-300 F4.0-5.6. And the kit lens. Sounds like a couple of decent lenses to me, covering anything that you may need. No, it's not the 560mm Pentax lens, but that one is a bit expensive, even for him. Also, he claims that according to reviews the Panasonic lenses are excellent (isn't Panasonic linked to Leica?).

He says that tracking does work... and why wouldn't it, there are many more AF points on the Panasonic than on any PDAF camera, since the whole sensor is being used for AF. Don't forget that videocameras all use CDAF to track moving subjects.

Also, micro 4/3 isn't THAT small. It's going from a 1.5x crop to a 2x crop. The sensor is still big, and you get the full 16 MP with that crop... and still have enough resolution to crop even further. Finally what made him go for Panasonic over Pentax was that the lenses are designed for mFT... with Pentax some lenses are meant for full frame, so you are carying excessive bulk for a bigger image circle that you don't need. Size and weight is important to him, he never even considered the D7100 (eventhough his previous DSLR is a Nikon, and he has several lenses for that system).
I think Panasonic pays Leica to use their name.

The problem I have with the whole "crop factor" debate is that it somehow people decide that a 300mm lens isn't a 300mm lens any more. It is a 600mm lens, because you are shooting it on four thirds (or 450mm if you are shooting on APS-C). That just isn't true. If you shoot the lens on a Q, does it really become a 1500mm lens? Of course not.

In the end, the only "improvement" in length with smaller formats has to do with the increased pixel density with a smaller format versus larger. So, 16 megapixel four thirds has no additional length over 24 megapixel APS-C. This is added length currently is fairly minor in nature and not a particular reason to choose a smaller format over larger format.

In the end, consumer zooms perform like consumer zooms on any camera, usually needing to be stopped down in order to achieve adequate performance on today's high megapixel cameras.
06-14-2013, 08:30 AM   #622
Pentaxian
starbase218's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Planet Earth, Sol system, Milky Way galaxy, Universe
Posts: 1,025
QuoteOriginally posted by nanok Quote
fair enough, i haven't, but now that you mention it, i recall some claims that the magnification is better. nevertheless, it's "up there". keep in mind the k-500 is priced 100usd more than the canon eos1100. i think i won't bother to look at the specs of that camera
The "competitive edge" I see with this line-up is definitely that the basic model is already very well equipped and is equally suited to enthousiast/semi-pro users: dual control wheels, 100% pentaprism viewfinder. It is already very much a usable photographic tool. Only for more specialized use (outdoor, sports) do you really need to go further up in the range.

The only thing I wonder about is the small difference between the K-50 and the K-5 II. Autofocus is better with the K-5 II, as is burst rate. But other than that they're not that far apart. I am anticipating something like a K-6. The difference between the K-500 and K-50 is also small (as it is the weather sealing), but I think it is understandable.
06-14-2013, 08:34 AM   #623
ogl
Banned




Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,114
The difference between K-5IIs и K-50 is higher than you think. Not small. K-50 misses some important things.

06-16-2013, 06:14 PM   #624
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,790
QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
The difference between K-5IIs и K-50 is higher than you think. Not small. K-50 misses some important things.
Or completely unnecessary things that 95% of the market doesn't need for terrific photos.

That's why one has different cameras at different price points.

Last edited by Aristophanes; 06-16-2013 at 06:33 PM.
06-17-2013, 12:30 AM   #625
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,609
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
The 35-100 is the m4/3 equivalent to a DA*50-135, definitely not a birding lens. The Panasonic 100-300mm f4-5.6 is no Leica. It's a standard consumer grade zoom, very close in performance to a DA 55-300mm. From Photozone: "Performance-wise you still have to accept some performance penalties that are simply associated with such consumer-grade long tele zoom lenses."

Ah ok.

QuoteQuote:
M4/3 has no fast or high quality telephoto lenses (e.g. Canikon 300 f2.8, Pentax 300 f4, Sigma 400 f4.5) and no supertele zooms (Nikon 80-400, Canon100-400L, Sigma 50-500 etc). These are the lenses recommended for birding.
But the 100-300 turns into a 200-600 on the Panasonic, which is already quite decent I suppose. More than you'd get with those lenses you mentioned when using a FF camera, and similar or better when using an APS-C camera.

QuoteQuote:
You didn't say which Panasonic, but I looked at the DPR review of the GH3, their top model. For bird-in-flight, you need to see your target at all times and fire off bursts. The Panasonic only allows 4fps, vs 7-8 for APS-C DSLR's.
It's the GH3.

QuoteQuote:
Tracking according to DPR:
"The tracking system, can be a little reluctant to lock-on to a subject (such that we doubt it will achieve a lock in time to catch most fast-occuring events). Once locked the camera will attempt to re-focus with the subject but the results we got were pretty hit-and-miss, with the camera frequently refocusing onto the background or not keeping-up with the subject."

No other M4/3 model fares any better. AF-C on that system is virtually useless, and an EVF is compromised for following action compared to an OVF.
Yes, I told him. It's a compromise he is willing to make for the smaller size/lower weight (of the whole system) and better video performance.

QuoteQuote:
You said you can't get a 600mm FOV with a 300mm lens. I said you can, just crop. That is a fact, the D7100 crop mode demonstrates this, plain as day. Yet still M4/3 shooters don't get it. A 300mm lens is a 300mm lens, regardless of which body it's mounted on.
You loose resolution. Of course the D7100 has a ton to begin with. But that camera would simply be way too big and heavy. I have a K-5, and I find the D7100 unacceptable. He would barely accept the K-5...

QuoteQuote:
I wouldn't compare any Panasonic body to a top tier DLSR like the D7100, because Panasonics have basic and mid-level specifications. A Panasonic body is smaller than a Rebel, D3200 or K-500, (as long as you don't go with the GH3). The Panasonic 100-300 is not a small lens.

Pentax DA 55-300mm: 112 x 71mm, 440g
Panasonic 100-300 OIS: 126 x 74mm, 520g
Canon 70-300mm IS: 142 x 76mm, 630g
Nikon 70-300mm VR: 144 x 80mm, 745g

M4/3 is not a good choice for birding. If you posted a thread in the Open Forum at DPR to ask about a birding system, I doubt anyone would even suggest Panasonic.
Birding is one of his interests. The camera will have to do other things as well. First and foremost the size and weight is his priority, without sacrificing IQ too much. Also it needs to shoot good video with video AF (I can't convince him that MF is better... ). Also, you'd have to compare the Panasonic to a 400mm lens, not a 300mm lens. Or if you go FF to 600mm lenses. Then the weight and size advantage increases.

As for the debate if the lens changes... technically of course it doesn't. But to make it more convenient/easier to compare you'd say a 300mm turns into a 600mm on a mFT... It makes it easier to compare. Otherwise you'd believe all point & shoots have obscenely extreme wide angle lenses only. Talking in 35mm equivalent is simply making everything easier.

The advantage of a smaller sensor is you can build smaller lenses around it to achieve the same coverage, because the image circle can be smaller. That leads to smaller and lighter lenses.

As for K-50 vs K-5 I see usability improvements in the K-5 which make it more suited to pros. It's not necessary to take good photos, but it certainly helps. Also the video mode will most likely be better on the K-5.

A great photographer only needs a phone for great photos.
06-17-2013, 03:31 AM   #626
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,969
QuoteOriginally posted by kadajawi Quote
[/I]
Ah ok.




As for the debate if the lens changes... technically of course it doesn't. But to make it more convenient/easier to compare you'd say a 300mm turns into a 600mm on a mFT... It makes it easier to compare. Otherwise you'd believe all point & shoots have obscenely extreme wide angle lenses only. Talking in 35mm equivalent is simply making everything easier.

The advantage of a smaller sensor is you can build smaller lenses around it to achieve the same coverage, because the image circle can be smaller. That leads to smaller and lighter lenses.

As for K-50 vs K-5 I see usability improvements in the K-5 which make it more suited to pros. It's not necessary to take good photos, but it certainly helps. Also the video mode will most likely be better on the K-5.

A great photographer only needs a phone for great photos.
If you talk 35mm equivalent, then you need to include the aperture. That would make the panasonic a 600mm f11 lens, which would not be particularly desirable on a full frame camera. Olympus has some truly expensive f2 zooms that get to the level of APS-C, but don't reach the level of full frame when it comes to speed either
06-17-2013, 05:37 AM   #627
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,161
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
If you talk 35mm equivalent, then you need to include the aperture. That would make the panasonic a 600mm f11 lens, which would not be particularly desirable on a full frame camera. Olympus has some truly expensive f2 zooms that get to the level of APS-C, but don't reach the level of full frame when it comes to speed either
Well, if the talk is about reach, we need no stinking aperture equivalence.
We all got it. Strictly speaking th aperture and blabla, but in this case we don't care !
06-17-2013, 06:53 AM   #628
Lens Buying Addict
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 19,500
QuoteOriginally posted by mecrox Quote
I guess some of the logic is that this is the first step towards establishing a range of Pentax cameras starting with a solid model offering a quality sensor, enthusiast controls (two dials) and a pentaprism for 500 bucks. That is going to be noticed. The range - a carefully graded family, not one-offs - also accentuates WR as a desirable feature, if you need it, because not all models have it. A range of cams obliges retailers to take Pentax more seriously, perhaps, and offers more opportunities for generic marketing and deals. Pentax cannot any longer be discounted as a rather eccentric brand which is all over the shop. Instead, they are staking a measured claim to be a serious third player with a credible product range and very much in contention in the DSLR arena. So I guess there are positive ways to look at this news. It's the first step in what is sure to be a long, long game - Ricoh are players of the long game, I believe. So first, they want to lay out some solid foundations. The full building comes much later.
A bit late, I know, but this is the thread winner.
06-17-2013, 06:59 AM   #629
Lens Buying Addict
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 19,500
QuoteOriginally posted by nanok Quote
Pentax has had the balls to provide a full lineup of perfectly capable, no compromises cameras, at virtually all price points (except the very top), this is "all you really need, right here and now, for whichever price you can afford". By sacrificing marketing bullshit. If there's any sanity left on this planet, they won't be able to keep up with pumping them out of the factory. now all they have to do is supply this new mature line up in this new "nonconsumerist" photography market with reasonably priced lenses, interesting lenses, etc. oh, wait, i dreamed myself into believing the market is mature too. well, a man can hope
Runner Up.
06-17-2013, 07:49 AM   #630
New Member




Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 11
I can't believe I just bought the K-30 last week and then the k-50 came out. However, I got a great deal on it and it seems that there is not a lot of differences in the camera. I have been extremely happy with the K-30 so far. Can you see any reason to upgrade?
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!
af, auto, avec, capteur, correction, des, du, flash, ou, 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: K-5, 16-50,50-135,65-250, Sigma 17-50, 50 1.4, 50 1.8, Tamron 90 2.8, Flashes virarfast Sold Items 8 04-04-2013 02:30 PM
For Sale - Sold: K-5, K-7, Pentax 16-50, 50-135, 12-24, Tamron 90 Macro, 70-300, Metz 48 and 58, etc hfthomp Sold Items 10 01-10-2013 07:32 PM
'Like new' Pentax K-30 w/ DA L 15-55mm and DA L 50-200MM for $589 brianV Pentax Price Watch 2 11-23-2012 08:56 AM
new sigma 50-200 compared to pentax 50-200mm George S Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 2 05-21-2011 06:52 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:42 AM. | 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