[swanlefitte]

On a cliff with a prime you can zoom in fast with your feet. It's very hard to zoom back out again.

[reh321]

Yup, I also have primes for that. And wides for some other things. I also do get the idea of having F/4 zoom. Nothing wrong with them. Besides, having something feeling like heavy also depends on ones build. For some even 1,5 kg is too much for longer period of time..

I believe the most recent cameras are leading trend to obsolete "constant wide aperture" lenses for everything other than DOF considerations - most everyone who doesn't need them for "subject isolation" is going to use higher ISO values to get the needed exposure rather than lugging the heavy lenses around.

[biz-engineer]

That's why I have f4 zoom lenses for general use. I don't need f2.8 to shoot that kind of images and I'm more than sure that I won't want to carry an f2.8 lens an entire day to shoot landscapes.

Such 70-200 f2.8 is not designed for landscapes, it's designed to cover both people photography (full body, 2/3, 1/3 and head shots) and sports from perimeter of playgrounds where you don't need a 300 f2.8, the 300 f2.8 will frame too narrow. You have all Canon, Nikon, Tamron, Sigma and Pentax staff who designed 70-200 f2.8 zooms , there must be a reason (a significant market) or you are smarter than several thousands staff of camera system designers and marketing who have been doing their job for many decades. Primes have different roles, they are more like additional options for very specific conditions. Professionals use what they need for the situation, not necessarily a 300 f2.8, can be a 70-200 f2.8 as well (why not?), they use 70-200 when close enough and 300 when further away, they observe the situation and adapt to it, and 99% of the pro don't argue in internet forums, they are too busy to do their jobs correctly. I know a guy here who is photographing the Olympic games: skying. He use a D5 and 400 f2.8, 200-400 f4, he goes 3 days before the D day in order to assess the place, review schedules , weather forecasts etc, he doesn't discuss on internet forums, the difference between internet forumer and pros is that the pros are pragmatic based on solving problems in the field, while internet forumers argue because they want to be right without a situation that define choices. Internet forumer who read DP reviews don't learn anything other than comparing camera gear specifications without knowing for what it's designed the way it is.

[house]

I think the joker in the pack of that analysis is that the new 11-18 isn't really a lens for the KP, which was partially design led and a bit niche - advertised as a compliment to the smaller DA Ltds - the 11-18 is not a small elegant lens and suggests a chunkier more flagshippy body.

It looks no worse on a KP than any other camera.




The idea that cameras are released in a series from cheap/bad to flagship/good is odd to me. A sports flagship isn't a landscape flagship isn't a street flagship. (simplified take) The 11-18 isn't a sports lens. the KP is arguably the best landscape APSC pentax has produced? Why mount the 11-18 on a sports/wildlife flagship, it makes no sense.

[normhead]

It looks no worse on a KP than any other camera.




The idea that cameras are released in a series from cheap/bad to flagship/good is odd to me. A sports flagship isn't a landscape flagship isn't a street flagship. (simplified take) The 11-18 isn't a sports lens. the KP is arguably the best landscape APSC pentax has produced? Why mount the 11-18 on a sports/wildlife flagship, it makes no sense.

Do they even care who buys it? As long as people buy it, if they use it for a paper weight it doesn't matter.

[Dan Rentea]

Such 70-200 f2.8 is not designed for landscapes, it's designed to cover both people photography (full body, 2/3, 1/3 and head shots) and sports from perimeter of playgrounds. You have all Canon, Nikon, Tamron, Sigma and Pentax staff who designed 70-200 f2.8 zooms , there must be a reason or you are smarter than several thousands staff of camera system designers and marketing who have been doing their job for many decades.

I don't speak for anyone else but myself. I said from begining that f2.8 lenses (especially the 70-200mm f2.8) are targeted lenses as far as I'm concerned and I would buy one for indoor sports. I didn't said either that there must be a reason or you are smarter than several thousands staff of camera system designers and marketing who have been doing their job for many decades with primes also. And I didn't said that you or others shouldn't buy and use a 70-200mm f2.8 zoom lens or any other f2.8 zoom lens. I told you also why I don't use 70-200mm f2.8 lenses (too big, too heavy, etc.). The portrait photographers that I follow on Facebook/Instagram/500px don't use zoom lenses and I understand them because I also tend to use primes for people photography (full body, 2/3, 1/3 and head shots) or f4 zooms when I travel.

So, as you said earlier and I agreed with you, we all have differents needs and perspectives. If you don't accept mines, it doesn't mean that my methods are worse than yours just because you like to shoot with a 70-200mm f2.8 lens.

[biz-engineer]

Why mount the 11-18 on a sports/wildlife flagship, it makes no sense.

That because if the flagship can shoot 10 frames per second, it can also shoot one frame of a landscape scenery. Does it make sense?

---------- Post added 10-09-18 at 22:19 ----------

we all have differents needs and perspectives

Yes, that's for sure. The DFA*70-200 is a stack of primes, that's why it's heavy and expensive.

---

Last edited by biz-engineer; 09-10-2018 at 01:21 PM.

[EssJayEff]

There seems to be one or two every year fall into the gorge at Niagara Falls.

Ayano Tokumasu Niagara Falls Death: Student's Last Moments Caught On Camera, Couple Says

Clicking on the video with the selfie article, I first had to view an advertisement video for a funeral home. Bizarre coincidence. I tried it again and the second time I got an advertisement for a Photoshop workshop.

[normhead]

That because if the flagship can shoot 10 frames per second, it can also shoot one frame of a landscape scenery. Does it make sense?

---------- Post added 10-09-18 at 22:19 ----------


Yes, that's for sure. The DFA*70-200 is a stack of primes, that's why it's heavy and expensive.

Too bad you can't unstack them and take just the one you need that day. If you're shooting at 70mm, you are carrying a lot of extra weight. That front element could probably be used on a 70 1.4.

[northcoastgreg]

KP is even a bit bigger than my K-5IIs

The dimensions on these cameras is a bit misleading. If you had both cameras in hand you'd easily see that the KP is overall smaller — i.e., it takes up less volume. The space saving is mostly around the grip area. Since I've had the KP, I've had three people (all photographers) ask me if I was shooting film and one person ask if I was shooting a mirrorless camera. That never happened with my K-5 series of cameras. The KP is a compact DSLR for serious photographers. In order to make it compact, it had to lose some features normally associated with higher-end cameras, such as top LCD (there's literally no room for it), larger battery, two card slots, etc. For those of us who don't need large buffers or dual card slots (and there's a lot of us), it's a great camera. It makes a great companion for the K-1.

[Dan Rentea]

Yes, that's for sure. The DFA*70-200 is a stack of primes, that's why it's heavy and expensive.

Depends on what kind of primes. No matter how good a 70-200mm f2.8 lens is, it can't shoot at f1.4 or f1.8. A good prime like 85mm f1.4L lens costs almost as much as a 70-200mm f2.8L lens. Not to mention the 200mm f2L lens which costs almost as much as three 70-200mm f2.8 lenses.

And for day by day use, a 70-200mm f4 lens can't be beaten by a 70-200mm f2.8 lens. At least this is my conclusion after shooting with both. Again, these are my preferences which may be completly different than the ones from other photographers. For example, I wouldn't wanted or needed a 70-200mm f2.8 lens to carry it an entire day at an air show. The 70-200mm f4 lens was perfect due to size, weight and optical performance and it was easy to move around with it and take panning shots like this one.

image host

[ogl]

The dimensions on these cameras is a bit misleading. If you had both cameras in hand you'd easily see that the KP is overall smaller — i.e., it takes up less volume. The space saving is mostly around the grip area. Since I've had the KP, I've had three people (all photographers) .

I had *ist D, DS, K-5, I have K200D, K-5IIs and tried KP and I can say it's almost the same as my K-5IIs. But K-5IIs is more comfortable in hand. I had tried K10D, 20D, K-x, K100D.

KP is not big. K10D looks bigger, it's bigger in reality and it was really bigger in hand. Some of users prefer bigger cameras. Some - smaller.
But KP is not the smallest between Pentax's models. One of the common Pentax models. On par with a lot of other models.

[surfar]

Such 70-200 f2.8 is not designed for landscapes

Mine shoots landscapes, have a look at the shots on DP Review.

I know a guy here who is photographing the Olympic games: skying.

Yeah, i heard about the new sports they have @ Tokyo...Skying should attract lots of spectators.

Internet forumer who read DP reviews don't learn anything other than comparing camera gear specifications without knowing for what it's designed the way it is.

Yes, and the ones that take notice of the pre production images they post there,well,they arent very smart are they?How could a website that only gives the K-1 82points and the K-1ii 79 points have any sort of credibility?

[biz-engineer]

Mine shoots landscapes, have a look at the shots on DP Review.

You could also use table spoon to dig the ground, it also works, if that's how you select your equipment.

---------- Post added 11-09-18 at 08:30 ----------

Yeah, i heard about the new sports they have @ Tokyo...Skying should attract lots of spectators.

What you don't get is that most of the photography results are gotten thanks to the know-how of the professional, if you don't have his know-how, advertising of equipment will not help.

[surfar]

What you don't get is that most of the photography results are gotten thanks to the know-how of the professional,

My opinion differs, most of photography results are gotten by amatuers and some amatuers know how to get images as good as many professionals.

Now heres an example, i made a 80 minute surfing/music video back in May.I gave it to a few friends who all said it was good.

Amongst those people is a world renown photographer/videographer.(he shoots a GH4)

I shot it on an entry level Olympus for the daytime surfing and in the afterdark music section i used a $$$ony Z3,thats a smartphone.

I first used a Pentax in 1967.