Originally posted by Erik No, the 17-70 would not become a 22-87 mm lens. It would become an APS-C lens on a camera it was not designed for and -- best case scenario -- blur and vignette like crazy. The 17-70 is
already very soft in the corners at 17mm, has 1.5 EV of light falloff in the corners open wide and some pretty bad distortion -- now imagine what this would look like on a bigger sensor! Allow me to quote the official Pentax marketing blurb on this lens:
"The image circle is perfectly proportioned to a PENTAX camera's image-sensor size." I have not seen how this lens behaves on a full frame camera but it is pretty much a no-brainer to assume that on the wide end there will be black borders -- it would barely be any better on APS-H.
So yes, it would be nice if by some sort of black magic you could have a free 22-87 mm lens, but in reality that's not how it works. Pentax will never, ever release an APS-H camera.
Do DCR have an overview regarding the lenses that they have reviewed ?
Originally posted by Erik Well, I did say "weather-sealed DA*
and Limited" lines. I am fully aware the Limiteds aren't weather sealed, but they are built so well that I wouldn't think twice about taking them into some less than ideal conditions (though I would not pour water into a FA 77, if I had one.)
No one has posted reliable information about body material yet, as far as i know, but I'm pretty sure it will be sturdily built.
Anyway -- I still think this new body looks, more than the previous Pentax digital SLR's, like a "Limited" type design in that it has a certain "retro" flavour to it and has some premium features that photographers care about, like a good viewfinder (according to rumours, anyway). Pentax, with its Limiteds and "just hold a Pentax" campaigns, has always been the photographic enthusiast's camera, and I really see the feature set and design they've got going agreeing with that line of thinking.
I'm going off on tangents here, but I don't think the K-7 is going to be a "pro" camera, as such. I think it's going to be the kind of camera a pro uses on his days off, when he shoots for art or fun... Preferably with a 31 Limited or something attached to it.
Good point about the limiteds
Edit :
Actually, one image I was viewing, the user explained :
"Taken while hiking in the Columbia River Gorge (May 2008). Taken about 15 minutes after dropping my camera (K10D) and lens (DA40) under about 8 inches of fast flowing water... The lens contact points were wet and that is why the focal length is not indicated. However, the K10D continued and still continues to perform without any ill effects from the dunking!"
Originally posted by Art Vandelay II I'm still not convinced they've done that. The Olympus E-30 feels just as nice in my hand as the K20D does, and the D200/300/700 remind you real quick that the Pentax uses plastic shells. And all of them are so close in size that I don't see how a few mm's here or there make any difference to anyone.
I think there is a big difference in size between D300 and D700, compared to Pentax. Particularly when you equip them with lenses :
Originally posted by Caat Its speculation because it doesn't say AF assist light on it. I agree that it is likely an AF assist light but compared to the other aspects of the body, like the HDMI port and MIC input, its not a definate.
Correct me if I am wrong but this would be the first body Pentax has ever made with an AF assist light?
It probably is an AF assist light but I was trying to point out that 99% of what is said in this thread is unsubstantiated. I was being quite literal with my terms
The Z-1P had AF assist light as well. Worked fine, and I preferred it to white light from Canon SLRs. (Don't think I will use it on the K7)
Originally posted by Mats Could be a body curve preventing your fingers to cover the AF Assist lamp?
I hope not, I want it covered
Originally posted by Votesh Anyway, I kind of know what I'm doing now and what I'd like to do with photography in the near future. I don't need all these suggestions that I'm doing it wrong, or could do it another way, because none of the suggestions so far would actually help me get the photos I want. Unless the K7 has some new capabilities that completely dwarf those of my K10D I will probably be looking elsewhere for a new camera body. I love my Pentax camera and lenses, but not to the point of rejecting any other brand. I do this all primarily because its enjoyable for me, and I'm sure I can have fun using any brand.
I wasn't implying that you did anything wrong. I have just lately read up on Astro work, and just provided some input into the dialog.
For faster lenses, you could also consider the Sigma 24/1.8 or 20/1.8.
But I can easily understand if you consider a Eos 5D as well.
I would like to see your future work, am interested as well in this sort of photography. Again, didn't mean any critique of your skill. And then, I’ll let it lie as well, was just curious, also to see if I couldn‘t learn some new stuff as well.
Originally posted by vinzer Marketing, marketing, marketing. Without kick-ass ads and a poorer brand recognition in today's generation of kids, Canon and Nikon will most often be the choice of a prospective buyer.
Peer pressure (a lot of friends owning Canon/Nikon entry-level cameras) and doing the research in-store (where a lot of salespeople push Canon and Nikon) can also tweak the scales in favor of the big two brands.
Good point, I was very close at jumping a Nikon SLR in the film days, when in a store. But after doing reading, discovering that it wouldn't have been a good package.
Originally posted by jay Full-frame has bigger, longer glass to get the same telephoto perspective as crop-frame -- while crop-frame has bigger, more expensive glass to get the same wide angle perspective as full-frame.
So, it depends what you shoot, I suppose.
But, I will say this -- the Tokina 11-17 f/2.8 is a gorgeous wide-angle lens, and I don't think many shooters would need to go much wider than that on APS-C.
Compare its weight and price tag to full-frame lenses of the same perspective, field-of-view and depth-of-field, and I think APS-C still wins out.
Good point regarding the 11-16/2.8. I think many are looking forward to the day that it might come in Pentax mount as well.
Originally posted by jay It seems like you aren't trying to refute the fact that composite materials are stronger than most metal alloys. Yet, you still want a metal body? When composites are clearly a better choice, economically, environmentally, and structurally?
are composites a better choice environmentally ?
Originally posted by Nubi I think smaller is still ok, but lighter i may have some issues with.
I think this is well stated. I like a compact dimension DSLR, to fit into a pack easily. But I don't mind as much the weight issue
Originally posted by nanok i shoot landscape, for most people thermal conductivity of the body might not mean much, but ofr me it does: i do not appreciate my hand freezing on the camera body in about 3 seconds. even worse, i am often away from power outlets in the mountains: shooting with a k100d, with the dreaded nimh acumulators, and having no trouble at all (in the winter), while my good friend with a canon 20d and liion was switching batteries every hour or so (at best), warming them in his gloves, and so on, maybe was funny for me, but was not for him. later on we met again, same story for him, and still no problems for me with the k20d. now the canon 20d might be old tech and power hungry, but three bateryes while i have only one (and in the case of the liion, it went on for days) is a bit hard to explain still. but when you think of how quickly that metal alloy body lets the heat out and brings everything in the camera to bellow zero, it starts to make sense.
very interesting. I also like to hike in the mountains as well. Need to look into the whole battery difference too.
Anyway regarding batteries, making them juicier will also make the actions of the camera faster. We'll see what comes
Edit :
We just rounded quarter of a million views on this thread
Well done PentaxForums !