[saladin]

Rockwell is a flog. Declared that no one needed a camera like the Gr, then went and praised the Coolpix A. Deadset cretin.

---

Last edited by saladin; 02-19-2016 at 01:47 PM.

[Ash]

I'm impressed that they found the camera overall quite favourable and their negative points weren't too unfair.
4.4fps might be a sticking point for many, particularly sports photos, but I'd have to view the review in light of the intended audience who don't demand a machine gun continuous shooting capability.

[jatrax]

It is best to keep in mind that everything he says is designed to increase the click count. Positive or negative, clicks are all that matter. And if a negative review will generate more clicks than a positive one......................

[filoxophy]

It is best to keep in mind that everything he says is designed to increase the click count. Positive or negative, clicks are all that matter. And if a negative review will generate more clicks than a positive one......................

Precisely... I'm ashamed that I actually clicked to see what he would say after I heard it wasn't exactly complimentary. Blah.

[Digitalis]

4.4fps might be a sticking point for many, particularly sports photos,

Sports photographers will go for the Nikon D5/1DX for that kind of thing - anyone expecting a 36mp camera to have the same capture rate is dreaming.

[stevebrot]

you missed the point... of course a slow lens that's decades old isn't going to be optimal, everyone knows that, so why did they make an ignorant comment about its pq in the review? it was a cheap shot at the k-1.

No, it was a cheap shot at a lens that was not very good the day it was made. That much they could have determined by the user reviews on this site. I think I will message them and offer something a little better from my collection of fast 50s. BTW...F/2 is not particularly slow.


Steve

[stevebrot]

I think the "older 50mm lens" bit is a non event. The context is that they are referencing how many legacy lenses can now be used, but dont expect stellar results from all of them. Thats not dissing the camera. I see plenty of reviews that emphasise that you need top glass on the D800 series, for instance.

I have read this in a couple of different places, but truth be told, the pixel pitch on the K-1 sensor is not far off that of the K-7 and most vintage lenses did quite well on that camera and on the K-5 and also on the K-3. As with the K-3, the challenge is one of accurate focus with limited DOF if any lens of reasonable design and pedigree is challenged, it will be due to limitations of available focus options.

There is a reason why manual focus film SLRs all had focus aids.


Steve

[stevebrot]

FWIW, I felt that the DPReview hands-on preview was cautiously enthusiastic. I particularly like the part about the K-1 being what the Df should have been... (my apologies to my Df user friends...truly great camera, but at a price...)


Steve

[monochrome]

FWIW, I felt that the DPReview hands-on preview was cautiously enthusiastic. I particularly like the part about the K-1 being what the Df should have been... (my apologies to my Df user friends...truly great camera, but at a price...)


Steve

Agreed. It would have been very easy to say the same things dismissively - but the reviewer presented the design philosophy (core competence) and thoughtful flourishes (tilt LCD, LED assist lighting) as positive attributes.

I feared a K-01 reception by the review community. Frankly, I'm stunned by the positive reception - not that the camera isn't what they say, but that after all these years of dismissal they're accepting.

[Digitalis]

Frankly, I'm stunned by the positive reception - not that the camera isn't what they say, but that after all these years of dismissal they're accepting.

Isn't is amazing what a few extra sq.mm of sensor real estate can do to a camera reviewer. If this was another APS-C camera they wouldn't be as optimistic as they presently are.

[HoustonBob]

A couple of important points about the DPR preview. Read the comments. They are - for the most part - very positive. Secondly they have K1 DNGs you can download to process in their sample pictures section. Not inspiring pictures but you can get a feel for how good the camera's resolution is. Don't take all that much longer to process than K3 DNGs on my computer.

[osv]

I have read this in a couple of different places, but truth be told, the pixel pitch on the K-1 sensor is not far off that of the K-7 and most vintage lenses did quite well on that camera

it's not about pixel pitch, it's about utilizing the entire surface area of the lens.

cropping the edges out of a ff piece of glass doesn't leave much info about how the lens will perform on a ff camera... for instance, things like field curvature, and how the lens performs in the corners.

when they put slow weak glass on the k-1, it inferred in part that pentax didn't have anything any better, so there is no point in getting a k-1.

the impression that i get with dpr these days is young hipster doofuses, who wear baseball caps on backwards all day, and have never used legacy manual focus lenses Using third-party lenses on the Sony a7 / a7R: Digital Photography Review

remember the dpr 645z article? it generated a bit of a ****storm out here i didn't think that it was all that bad, but i don't own any mf gear: Medium well done: Two takes on the Pentax 645Z: Digital Photography Review

[clackers]

In Googling something, I sometimes end up in a DPR thread and within seconds am reminded why I've never joined.

[Topsy]

it's not about pixel pitch, it's about utilizing the entire surface area of the lens.

cropping the edges out of a ff piece of glass doesn't leave much info about how the lens will perform on a ff camera... for instance, things like field curvature, and how the lens performs in the corners.

But even then it totally depends on your shooting style.
I probably won't (or won't be able to afford) any modern glass, but my fave lenses that I have have been performing excellently on my k50. Of course, I don't expect massive corner sharpness.

I haven't really informed myself much about it, but I'd assume that if the lens performed well on film and still is performing well on digital cameras the corners shouldn't be much different than on film either?

[stevebrot]

it's not about pixel pitch, it's about utilizing the entire surface area of the lens.

I think you may be referring to image circle, not surface area.

cropping the edges out of a ff piece of glass doesn't leave much info about how the lens will perform on a ff camera... for instance, things like field curvature, and how the lens performs in the corners.

I would expect that the weaknesses would be about the same as on 35mm film. For sure field curvature may well be a problem as might corner softness. The nice thing is that both are readily apparent on 35mm film and I have shot all of my FF glass on film. Neither problem is particularly subtle.* I know a few people who shoot vintage (pre-1970s) and later pre-digital glass on the A7Rii and they seem to be pretty happy with the image quality.


Steve

* I will qualify that field curvature may be a problem with wide-angles (28mm and shorter). Flat field was a sales feature for that class of lens as late as the early 1980s and would allow for a premium price at the time. As for corner sharpness...that is a matter of design and not much has changed in that arena in the last 60 years or so at least not for primes. Of the lenses on my shelf, only the Helios 44M is particularly soft in the corners relative to the center.