Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-06-2010, 04:05 PM   #16
Site Supporter
Biro's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,182
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by philbaum Quote
You do have me puzzled, with 5 very fine zooms in your signature line, i'm wondering why you haven't taken advantage of a small prime lens yourself at some point, the K200 isn't that large. If you want small and fast, the FA 50, FA 43, DA70, all fit that bill, at least compared to zooms in size and speed. I have had a lot of fun with the FA 50 f1.4
Oh, I may very well go after a small Pentax prime very soon. I posted a rant a couple of days ago under the lens section... venting my frustration with the lack of a modern, cheap, fast (f/2.0 or wider), normal prime from Pentax. The FA Limited's are lovely, but other than the 43mm, they're simply too much money for me these days. I am likely to work on collecting the DA Limiteds.

Meanwhile... I suggest an EVIL camera for Pentax for two reasons: 1) I see an obvious market opportunity for the company, whose consumer P&S digicams aren't all that impressive. This would be a great way to catch even more people moving up from P&S. 2) I think a well-done EVIL camera would make an excellent second body for many (but not all) Pentaxians - especially if they could use existing DA pancakes on them.

My suggestion in no way indicates an unwillingness to use Pentax primes on my K200D. I fact, I wouldn't rule out adding a K-x to my kit down the road.

01-06-2010, 04:10 PM   #17
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,400
QuoteOriginally posted by Art Vandelay II Quote
That's the beauty of EVIL's...they're free to do whatever they want. There is no reason they couldn't make an EVIL range finder with auto focus. You'd have a huge bright optical viewfinder for use up to 90mm's or so, then for telephoto stuff you can just use the rear LCD. An EVIL/rangefinder hybrid if you will. That would solve all of a rangefinders short comings (no AF, no telephotos). Of course I say the likelihood of such a camera being produced is next to zero.

Or, they could include a good version of the optical zoom view finder found on the Canon G10...there are so many options...
The rear LCD suffers the same problems as an EV in low light, because the sensor performance goes down with light and the sensor is the limiting factor in all EV cameras today, not the view finder as such but the poor low light performance of the primary image sensor.

a range finder is also a waste because they have to deal with parallax error in focusing target, as well as no zoom function and they would need to know lens focal length to give you a focusing piint in the viewfinder.

There is a reason for through the lens technology.

To be blunt an evolution of the X 70 (I think it is) Bridge camera is more likely, and much more useful. If they made that with a zoom that was 20mm to 100or 150 mm equivelent, I would buy one. I don't see the need to go to 500 mm on a bridge camera, it is a marketing thing, they do it because they can, and it sounds impressive until you try and use it, but a 20mm equivelent on the bottom end would make a real good travel camera
01-06-2010, 04:53 PM   #18
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,157
I have yet to see an electronic viewfinder that comes anywhere near close to being a good viewfinder.
The best ones that I've seen have been mediocre at best.
I don't really see much reason to go to junk viewfinders when so much of photography depends on them.
If you want an electronic viewfinder, just use Live View.
01-06-2010, 05:23 PM   #19
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 112
I have a Panasonic GH1 and a K-x.

Regarding the 4/3 sensor: Yes, It's fine... when the light is fine. The GH1 (and most 4/3 sensors) struggle terribly under lower lighting. ISO 800/1600 is the maximum usable ISO. Another major point is that DOF is much deeper than the APSC counterparts. Sure, this can be fixed with lenses, but there's not enough lens options for m43 yet that support autofocus.

Also, the viewfinder lags like a mother if they lighting is low - to the point where it's basically a slideshow. Not fun at all, but useful for noobs to tell them "HEY, YOUR PHOTO IS GOING TO SUCK IF YOU TAKE IT LIKE THIS!"

My GH1 with 20mm f/1.7 was a pretty good low light performer, though. No image stabalization made it a pain to use and made me realize how I can't live without it.

Now, introduct the K-x. Usable ISO up to 6400, Image stabalization, APSC sensor, virtually same size and weight, plethora of lens options, etc.
Cons: no microphone in jack, no autofocus during video.

I'll take the $549 K-x over the $1399 GH1 any day - unless i'm doing heavy duty video.

01-06-2010, 05:33 PM   #20
Junior Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 38
Not sure why all those that don't like the idea on an EVIL camera are so adamant that Pentax shouldn't build one. As long as they continue to make DLSR's why wouldn't you want Pentax to expand it's target market. I for one, would jump on a Pentax mount EVIL body, as long as its IQ was at least close to DSLR.

I bought a GF1 and tried it out for a month and eventually returned it. The thought of giving up my Pentax glass (I'm not a manual focus kind of guy) and all the features of my K20D for the little GF1 with its much more expensive micro 4/3 glass.

If I had enough money to burn I suppose I would've kept both bodies and started collecting m4/3 lenses. Now if a Pentax mount EVIL body were available, I'd just pick up one of those and keep my lenses and probably start buying more pancakes as well.
01-06-2010, 05:41 PM   #21
Site Supporter
Biro's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,182
Original Poster
The shortcomings of cameras with electronics viewfinders are well-documented. But that doesn't mean there isn't a market for them - even among serious enthusiasts.

How many people who own Pentax DSLRs also own any of the following as an alternate camera?: Olympus E-P1, Olympus E-P2, Panasonic G1, Panasonic GH1, Panasonic GF1. How many are waiting eagerly for the final word on image quality and a Pentax adaptor for Samsung's NX1? Perhaps more than many would like to admit. How many of those people would enjoy a similar product from Pentax - especially if you could use your DA pancakes on it?

With current - or at least readily available - technology, there's no way electronic viewfinders can compete with optical viewfinders in low light. But that's not necessarily a deal-breaker. I use my Panasonic LX3 quite a bit. But an EVF would make it a lot easier to use in bright sunlight that tends to make the LCD difficult to see. A Pentax EVIL camera that can use quality optics might be very attractive in such a situation. The X70 would have to be totally redesigned to be a viable option for me.
01-06-2010, 05:52 PM   #22
Damn Brit
Guest




Be careful what you wish for. Any energy Pentax devotes to another type of camera may be at the expense of DSLR development.
01-06-2010, 05:58 PM   #23
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 886
QuoteOriginally posted by LeDave Quote
Sorry if I offended you Art Vandelay II. When I say DSLR, I meant for both APS-C and Full Frame, a DSLR doesn't necessarily mean it has to be full frame, a SLR is a single lens reflex and the mirror is what makes that reflex.
You should mean for APS-C, full frame, or any size sensor someone puts in a mirror box and under a prism. The upcoming Pentax 645D will also be a DSLR. As is the Olympus E-30 and every other classic 4/3's camera. I've never owned any of them, so I don't care one iota about an E-3 for example, but facts are facts, classic 4/3's cameras are DSLR's and their m4/3's counterparts share the same sensors, and processors; ergo their IQ should be equal.

So when you made statement that EVIL's don't have the same IQ of DSLR's that was 100% untrue. Furthermore, at this point I'd challenge just about anyone to distinguish between 4/3's and APS-C when looking at prints. At best APS-C is one stop better. I think the jump from APS-C to 35mm is larger myself. The new Nikon D3s for example as very good ISO 12,800. That's 3 or 4 stops better than most APS-C DSLR's plus it has better DOF control to boot.

QuoteOriginally posted by LeDave Quote
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe all EVILs have a electronic shutter because they don't have a mirror.
All current m4/3's cameras use mechanical shutters. Panasonic is working on removing the shutter, but they haven't released one without it yet. I'm nut sure about the Samsung NX10.


Last edited by Art Vandelay II; 01-06-2010 at 06:12 PM.
01-06-2010, 06:06 PM   #24
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 74
I definitely think Pentax should act FASTER this time.
While Olympus hasn't done any good job yet on pancake primes, and they still seems to put zooms at priority (next things come up are 9-18mm, 14-150mm). I just can't help thinking it's a great opportunity for Pentax as primes are almost the signature of Pentax. I think we are AGAIN seeing Pentax sitting there and wait until everyone else is there before they decide to put their hand on the cake.
01-06-2010, 06:10 PM   #25
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 886
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
To be blunt an evolution of the X 70 (I think it is) Bridge camera is more likely, and much more useful. If they made that with a zoom that was 20mm to 100or 150 mm equivelent, I would buy one. I don't see the need to go to 500 mm on a bridge camera, it is a marketing thing, they do it because they can, and it sounds impressive until you try and use it, but a 20mm equivelent on the bottom end would make a real good travel camera
See, I'm the opposite. I own exactly one zoom lens, a Nikon 24-85mm for my Nikon F100. And to be perfectly honest it's near worthless for me aside from snapshots. I guess slow glass is find for landscapes, but any time I take a pic of someone I want to have at least an option to shoot at f/2. So a camera like an X70 has absolutely no purpose for me. Of course I also never use lenses longer than 135mm also. So a GF1 + a 20mm f/1.7 is a far more useful camera to me then a superzoom bridge came with a 28-400mm lens.
01-06-2010, 06:24 PM   #26
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,400
QuoteOriginally posted by Art Vandelay II Quote
See, I'm the opposite. I own exactly one zoom lens, a Nikon 24-85mm for my Nikon F100. And to be perfectly honest it's near worthless for me aside from snapshots. I guess slow glass is find for landscapes, but any time I take a pic of someone I want to have at least an option to shoot at f/2. So a camera like an X70 has absolutely no purpose for me. Of course I also never use lenses longer than 135mm also. So a GF1 + a 20mm f/1.7 is a far more useful camera to me then a superzoom bridge came with a 28-400mm lens.
but here's the catch, on a bridge camera format sensor, it is not hard to make a 20-150 equivelent F2 lens, at least in terms of size. if the focal length is limited to that range it is possible to build and offer, and if someone made it, the only real issue is it would kill a large portion of the SLR market simply because this represents 90% of the casual user;s needs.

not so much "snapshots" but well composed travel photos.

I presently use a Kodak XD9750 which has a 38-380mm F2.8 to F3.6 optical zoom. in the off position it measures 4 x 3 x 3.5 inches.

No it does not fit in my shirt pocket, but I can tell you I really wish it had a lens from 20-150. smaller zoom ratio but twice as wide.

Is it equal to my DSLRs, no, but does it do a good job,, yes it does. i only wish it covered a wider range that made it perfect for travel. the X 70 goes wider still, and if it (or similar was in the market place when I bought the Kodak 5 years ago I would have taken it, but.... I will still use my SLR with my 10-20, and my 70-200 and 300 and 400mm lenses for a lot of shots because that is not what a bridge camera is for,
01-06-2010, 07:49 PM   #27
Site Supporter
Biro's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,182
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Damn Brit Quote
Be careful what you wish for. Any energy Pentax devotes to another type of camera may be at the expense of DSLR development.
Well, I understand your point, Gary. But I'm convinced EVILs (with or without viewfinder) will be the Next Big Thing for camera makers. So I see this as a chance for Pentax to strengthen the bottom line while still creating some fun cameras for the consumer and serious enthusiast alike. But they would second cameras for people like us - at least until the next breakthrough in EVF technology. And a healthier Pentax is what we all want, right? A healthier Pentax might be able to afford some of the more-niche oriented products some of us want.
01-06-2010, 07:49 PM   #28
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,157
QuoteOriginally posted by ktnndal Quote
Not sure why all those that don't like the idea on an EVIL camera are so adamant that Pentax shouldn't build one. As long as they continue to make DLSR's why wouldn't you want Pentax to expand it's target market. I for one, would jump on a Pentax mount EVIL body, as long as its IQ was at least close to DSLR.
My concern with a company that puts as few bodies on the market at one time as Pentax does is that they might very well stop making DSLR cameras in favour of electronic viewfinder cameras if they start making electronic viewfinder cameras.
Your concern about lack of choice is my concern as well.
I truly find EVFs to be virtually unusable.
01-06-2010, 09:04 PM   #29
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 886
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
but here's the catch, on a bridge camera format sensor, it is not hard to make a 20-150 equivelent F2 lens, at least in terms of size. if the focal length is limited to that range it is possible to build and offer, and if someone made it, the only real issue is it would kill a large portion of the SLR market simply because this represents 90% of the casual user;s needs.
Well, a wide aperture is only half of the equation; fast aperture without a large sensor is also worthless to me. I used to have a Canon Powershot G2 with an f/2-2.8 lens on it and it could barely isolate a subject even on macro shots because the sensor was so small (just like the X70). Olympus/Panasonic supposedly chose the 4/3's size sensor because it was the smallest sensor size they could make that still would allow for good DOF control. And DOF is why I like fast glass. Being able to shoot in low light is just a bonus. Olympus does have two f/2 zooms for their DSLR's, but the standard (in 35mm terms) 28-70mm f/2 and 70-200mm f/2 are just as large as full frame f/2.8 28-70mm and 70-200mm lenses.

So they may be able to make a 20-150mm f/2 eqv zoom to cover a tiny sensor like in a bridge superzoom, but there is no way they can make one to cover a sensor as large as 4/3's...well, not unless you want a lens as large as a 500mm full frame prime lens.
01-06-2010, 10:05 PM   #30
Damn Brit
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by Biro Quote
A healthier Pentax might be able to afford some of the more-niche oriented products some of us want.
I can't see them getting healthy by spreading themselves thinly. Pentax are dependent on outside sources for sensors and they would be for EVF. There's no advantage there for a company with a small budget.
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!
adaptor, camera, cameras, da, dpreview.com, four-thirds, lineup, market, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, primes
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
EVIL Camera at Photokina for Pentax ? wll Pentax News and Rumors 19 09-11-2010 06:22 PM
People "The deadly evil Pentax Camera" charliezap Post Your Photos! 6 06-05-2010 05:39 AM
Early review of Sony NEX-3 EVIL camera Urkeldaedalus Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 27 05-24-2010 11:47 AM
Crazy,possibly stupid idea for a Pentax EVIL camera BLD367 Photographic Technique 2 05-07-2010 07:49 AM
Help me build a good kit. (A Virtual Camera Bag) doggydude Photographic Technique 2 12-21-2006 06:37 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:15 PM. | 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