[MMVIII]

Maybe I'm taking you too literally but wouldn't an "official review" be based on how well a camera performs for a broad spectrum of users and not necessarily for what you use it for?

I like personal statements in reviews, as long as they are open and show some aspects from a certain users POV. This should not be mixed with preferences based on taste, sympathy or familiarity in reviews that pretend to provide quantitative "numbers" e.g. a single rating scores as their final result.

[derekkite]

Maybe I'm taking you too literally but wouldn't an "official review" be based on how well a camera performs for a broad spectrum of users and not necessarily for what you use it for?

The improvements in still camera technologies are about chasing down corner cases; low light, dynamic range, AF, etc. How it extends the edges of capability in a specific shooting scenario is what I want to know.

[Matthew Saville]

Maybe I'm taking you too literally but wouldn't an "official review" be based on how well a camera performs for a broad spectrum of users and not necessarily for what you use it for?

There are many different review sites that attempt to advise many different types of photographers. Personally, instead of just going down the line and talking about aspects of quality or performance in an objective manner, I try and approach reviews from other standpoints that specific readers will hopefully find far more helpful than anything else. So, things like what types of photographers should buy this or that camera, what its most direct competition is and why you might choose one over the other, and the basic genres of photography that I think a camera would excel or fail at.

Having said that, you still might use the term "broad spectrum" to describe the kinds of photography I do. My full-time job is weddings and my hobby is astro-landscapes, plus I have a fair amount of side-job practice at theater and gymnastics, so it's a pretty well-rounded POV for any camera. I merely try to stress to readers that they need to make decisions based on what their own specialties / passions are. Even if that means my review isn't the review that truly sells them on a camera, there are plenty of other great photographers out there reviewing equipment in environments I don't encounter a lot.

TLDR; I would never buy a camera based on reading just one generalized review, so writing reviews from that standpoint in the first place can actually be a detriment if you're not careful. If you're buying equipment based on online reviews alone, you should be reading at least 3-5 reviews from well-qualified sources. :-)

---------- Post added 10-12-15 at 09:45 AM ----------

But I thought that low light AF sensitivity is the one area where Pentax AF does hold its own, no?

Sensitivity is one thing, and IIRC on paper the K-3 II boasts the same -3 EV sensitivity as other current industry cameras. In the real world, however, it's not as easy as a spec on paper, or even as easy as merely locking focus in a controlled test. Focus tracking, and an overall forgiveness / comfort of shooting at the edge of the envelope, is highly valuable.

In my admittedly still not-as-extensive-as-I'd-like experience, Pentax' line of Limited FA / DA primes are indeed pretty awesome but just not quite on the same level as USM / SWM / HSM / USD autofocus when it comes to the incredible precision possible at impossibly shallow apertures, in unforgiving shooting conditions.

In other words, yes, it'll get the job done, and anyone with a decent amount of experience wouldn't complain too loudly. But Canikon AF still gives you a greater cushion of trust when it comes to really pushing the envelope, which Canikon shooters grow accustomed to.

BTW I'd love to hear from folks about which lenses they feel have the most precise and reliable autofocus in low-light; I'm certainly very interested in performing as much testing as I can, it's what I do. Curiosity and a desire for truth will always trump my personal opinion or initial experience; I'm a fair guy... ;-)

[kenspo]

Had a shoot today. Tried to tell her we dont need FF. She didn't take it well!

Attached Images

 

[Poit]

I don't know that Pentax is particularly interested in the wedding market, though. I could be wrong. If they were, at least for my market here in the US, they'd be releasing insane f/1.4 lenses left and right, affordable but jaw-droppingly flawless f/1.8 lenses left and right, and a trio of 2.8 zooms for both sensor formats.

I guess they're kinda working on that last one, and their FA / DA limited primes are pretty awesome though not always super fast. But the one final key ingredient that wedding photographers demand is, wizard-like magical autofocus capabilities in low-light. Like, so dim that you can barely see through the viewfinder and hand-hold with a crazy ISO and slow-ish shutter speed, and it's still nailing focus. That's the kind of low-light AF that I've come to demand as a full-frame Nikon wedding photographer.

My interest in the Pentax FF is more for outdoor adventures and other extreme / specialty things that I think Pentax is more well-suited than any of the bigger names are. Astro-landscape photography, and any sort of extreme adventure landscape photography in general, is what I like to do in my spare time.

I may actually keep my Nikon D750 for weddings, with the 3-4 basic lenses I need to get that job done, even if I add a serious Pentax kit to my bag for my adventures.

With this in mind, my hope for the Pentax FF is that it prioritizes dynamic range and high ISO performance, and megapixels can come third on the to-do list. Having said that, since the camera will be used for landscapes, I do hope they can pull off the #1 and #2 priorities AND still hit 36-42 megapixels, actually.

36 and 42 are relatively manageable numbers when it comes to filesize, if you consider that both Nikon and Sony offer 12-bit lossy / lossless compression that gets the raw files down to about 1 MB per 1 MP. And as a wedding photographer, I find myself frequently using 1.2x and 1.5x crop mode for general candid imagery, which at 24 and 16 MP respectively, makes 36 MP a great tool for event photojournalism.

Keep in mind that I'm also a fan of the two-camera idea; I believe that eventually if Pentax is going to really do anything with this, they need to expand beyond a single flagship full-frame line and offer a high MP and low MP camera. 24 and 42 go together very nicely.

Hmmmm, you may be right, but I think it's relatively safe to assume that Pentax won't rely on the FA Ltds as the only choice of FF primes forever. I believe both Asahiman and Kenspo have alluded to new primes in the works to be announced next year (which hopefully will be f/1.4, weather sealed, and SDM). As you say, they've already covered two-thirds of the f/2.8 zoom trio. Pentax AF is not bad in low-light, but I agree it's not the quickest or most reliable in the mayhem of a wedding shoot. AF speed and accuracy is one of my major gripes with Pentax, but that applies to most professional photography, so if (as it would appear) they're pitching the FF to the pro market, I would assume (or hope) there has been a big step forward on the AF front. The 645z covers the studio / methodical market already, so logic would dictate that the FF covers the faster shooting pro market, and APS-C remains the realm of enthusiasts (not that logic necessarily comes into it).

I guess I'm just wishing out loud (for purely selfish reasons) that they come out with a killer wedding system. As I've said before, wedding photography encompasses so many disciplines / demands (product, portraits, low-light, event, photojournalism, wet weather, portable lighting etc etc) that any system which nails the demands of a wedding photographer will be a great all-round system.

I agree with your thoughts on multiple bodies / options, too. I would be very surprised if they don't offer more than one option, but whether that occurs immediately, and what the options are, remains to be seen. 24 and 42 do indeed go together nicely. 42 for the detail freaks (and those who are scared their APS-C lenses will be useless), and 24 for the speed (and low-light) freaks

---------- Post added 10-13-15 at 08:59 AM ----------

Had a shoot today. Tried to tell her we dont need FF. She didn't take it well!

LOL, I guess that depends on your definition of 'well'. It looks like a more interesting outcome than the ones we see around these parts Maybe I need to move to the 'no full-frame' camp.

Any new gear in use?

[kenspo]

Hehe..i still want a couple of the new FF But shoot went well anyway. Had a fun day No, no new gear today..but soon

[Poit]

Hehe..i still want a couple of the new FF But shoot went well anyway. Had a fun day No, no new gear today..but soon

Cool photo Kenspo.

Do you shoot weddings at all? Regarding my discussion with Matthew, could you divulge if the new FF system will be a good wedding rig? Maybe just say "yeah it'll be great", or "no, not pitched at wedding photographers yet"

I know you're going to say 'I can't comment', but no harm in asking

[reh321]

Hehe..i still want a couple of the new FF But shoot went well anyway. Had a fun day No, no new gear today..but soon

Looking at this picture reminded me of the "discussions" here about flash. What kind of flash do you use to illuminate a scene like this? How do you trigger it from Pentax gear??

[Pepe Guitarra]

Do you need an assistant?

Had a shoot today. Tried to tell her we dont need FF. She didn't take it well!

[kenspo]

Cool photo Kenspo.

Do you shoot weddings at all? Regarding my discussion with Matthew, could you divulge if the new FF system will be a good wedding rig? Maybe just say "yeah it'll be great", or "no, not pitched at wedding photographers yet"

I know you're going to say 'I can't comment', but no harm in asking

Thanx!

I do sometimes! Yes, it will be great!

---------- Post added 10-13-15 at 06:25 AM ----------

Looking at this picture reminded me of the "discussions" here about flash. What kind of flash do you use to illuminate a scene like this? How do you trigger it from Pentax gear??

In studio i use Elinchrome lights and triggers. Works like a charm. And in the "field" i use Godox AD360's..

---------- Post added 10-13-15 at 06:25 AM ----------

Do you need an assistant?

Haha..i have if i need..but i like to do everything myself

[Matthew Saville]

Hmmmm, you may be right, but I think it's relatively safe to assume that Pentax won't rely on the FA Ltds as the only choice of FF primes forever. I believe both Asahiman and Kenspo have alluded to new primes in the works to be announced next year (which hopefully will be f/1.4, weather sealed, and SDM). As you say, they've already covered two-thirds of the f/2.8 zoom trio. Pentax AF is not bad in low-light, but I agree it's not the quickest or most reliable in the mayhem of a wedding shoot. AF speed and accuracy is one of my major gripes with Pentax, but that applies to most professional photography, so if (as it would appear) they're pitching the FF to the pro market, I would assume (or hope) there has been a big step forward on the AF front. The 645z covers the studio / methodical market already, so logic would dictate that the FF covers the faster shooting pro market, and APS-C remains the realm of enthusiasts (not that logic necessarily comes into it).

I guess I'm just wishing out loud (for purely selfish reasons) that they come out with a killer wedding system. As I've said before, wedding photography encompasses so many disciplines / demands (product, portraits, low-light, event, photojournalism, wet weather, portable lighting etc etc) that any system which nails the demands of a wedding photographer will be a great all-round system.

I agree with your thoughts on multiple bodies / options, too. I would be very surprised if they don't offer more than one option, but whether that occurs immediately, and what the options are, remains to be seen. 24 and 42 do indeed go together nicely. 42 for the detail freaks (and those who are scared their APS-C lenses will be useless), and 24 for the speed (and low-light) freaks

Firstly: I guess I'm just that impressed with what APS-C is doing at 24 MP, that I feel full-frame 24 MP would be a bit less exciting for most folks. Especially from a landscape photographer's perspective: if I were spending all my time at ISO 100, and my only choices were two 24 MP sensors, I'd be happy with the APS-C option. In other words, if I'm going to spend $2-3K more, (in total for a whole system) ...then it had better offer more than just an extra stop of high ISO performance and slightly higher dynamic range. It needs to throw in some extra resolution on top of that.

A killer FF Pentax with SDM WR primes and zooms would be a dream, if they can just achieve that "witchcraft" level of low-light autofocus performance that leaves you in disbelief that the camera is still nailing shots.

I really, really hope that this considerable delay is not just a part in a factory, or a quibble over ergonomics, but a fresh new nearly-impossible performance standard for anything and everything that has cost Pentax its much-deserved portion of the limelight that has remained elusive thus far.

My money is on 36 or 42. I just hope that Pentax, like Sony and Nikon, offer at least two different RAW capture algorithms that afford photojournalists a bit more flexibility. The DNG format is already awesome, but a 12-bit lossy PEF option could really, really save some filesize space and allow for a much higher FPS. Oh, and as Nikon has proven, 1.2x and 1.5x crop modes are fantastic for shooting telephoto sports when you want to deepen your buffer just a little bit, and get just a bit closer to the action. I know at least two friends who shoot weddins on Nikon D800's / D810's and during a ceremony with their 70-200, they're in 1.2x crop mode pretty much the entire time.

But I digress. Time to get back to hunting for the best deal on a FA limited 31...

[redcat]

But I digress. Time to get back to hunting for the best deal on a FA limited 31...

you might want to go to japan, they have dirt cheap FA 31 ^^ btw, how can you add photo to your signature ???

[Matthew Saville]

you might want to go to japan, they have dirt cheap FA 31 ^^ btw, how can you add photo to your signature ???

I'd absolutely love to visit Japan someday, and I'll certainly be treating myself to a piece of gear or two while there.

I don't know about the photo in the sig, I just saw that it was allowed so I did it. Probably just HTML tags. Kinda seems bigger than all other folks though, so I was actually just recently thinking of toning it down. Hmm.

[DimC]

....
BTW I'd love to hear from folks about which lenses they feel have the most precise and reliable autofocus in low-light; I'm certainly very interested in performing as much testing as I can, it's what I do. Curiosity and a desire for truth will always trump my personal opinion or initial experience; I'm a fair guy... ;-)

From my experience, the quickest and most reliable AF lens under low light is the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM.
I've been using this lens for Dance recital and it worked consistently under very low light ...and another great feature is that it's ...dead silent !

Dimitri.

[Poit]

K-3, DA*16-50, AF540FGZII. The AF nailed it on this occasion:

http://www.petemolloyphotography.com/Weddings/Wedding-Samples/i-PwrwF4H/A

---------- Post added 10-13-15 at 08:21 PM ----------

Oh no!!! I've just opened up my entire repertoire to you all!

Well...not all....and a good reason for FF