Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-05-2012, 10:48 AM   #76
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 5,002
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
Well, once you flex your elbows, it also becomes impossible to hold the camera at "forearms length". Unless you are photographing your toes, your forearms should be at an angle to your body and not extended out from it.

I am just tired of listening to this "arms length" strawman argument. And I don't like it made into "forearms length" either. Why don't you guys just say that your interest is in having a camera body over your face. It is perfectly accurate and with some tweaks, you can even use it as a pickup line.
"Forearm's length" is the length of your forearm, not the position it is in -- so you can hold the camera at "forearm's length" with elbows bended. You're the one that wouldn't allow the common-sense use of the term "arm's length" (meaning arms extended far enough away from the head so you can focus on the LCD -- however literally far away that is), and now you are quibbling about forearms. It is not a straw-man argument -- you have to hold the camera out extended from you, true? That is all that is being expressed -- it is not an easy and stable way to hold something of weight for any length of time. I don't see how anyone can disagree with that part, even if you are prepared to accept it.

02-05-2012, 11:07 AM   #77
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
Well, once you flex your elbows, it also becomes impossible to hold the camera at "forearms length".
I have no idea what you are talking about, but I assume you know perfectly well what I am saying. But in case for reaosn you don't, let me be more explicit: I do not wish to hold my camera away from my face at the distance equal to the length my arm, the length of my forearm, the length of my hand, the length of my spleen, or any other length at all that requires me to focus on an LCD (for me, focusing my eyes on an LCD is impossible at any distance greater than about a foot, which is somewhat more than the actual length of my foot).

The advantages of holding a camera up to your face rather than a foot or more in front of my face remain exactly as I stated before. I can see the composition much larger (magnification is much higher when viewing the entire frame), I can hold the camera steadier, I don't take up as much space in a crowded environment, and I don't cause as much of a visual distraction. You can also add, my grip is more secure. None of which is necessarily be much of an issue for the occasional snapshot photographer, but I might take *hundreds* of shot a any given event, and every single one of those factors is a huge drawback for me. Combined, they are an absolutely dealbreaker.
02-05-2012, 10:29 PM   #78
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
I have no idea what you are talking about, but I assume you know perfectly well what I am saying. But in case for reaosn you don't, let me be more explicit: I do not wish to hold my camera away from my face at the distance equal to the length my arm, the length of my forearm, the length of my hand, the length of my spleen, or any other length at all that requires me to focus on an LCD (for me, focusing my eyes on an LCD is impossible at any distance greater than about a foot, which is somewhat more than the actual length of my foot).

The advantages of holding a camera up to your face rather than a foot or more in front of my face remain exactly as I stated before. I can see the composition much larger (magnification is much higher when viewing the entire frame), I can hold the camera steadier, I don't take up as much space in a crowded environment, and I don't cause as much of a visual distraction. You can also add, my grip is more secure. None of which is necessarily be much of an issue for the occasional snapshot photographer, but I might take *hundreds* of shot a any given event, and every single one of those factors is a huge drawback for me. Combined, they are an absolutely dealbreaker.
I got your preference the first time. I just think it is disingenuous to claim you *need* to hold a camera at arm's length to use its LCD. So I picked on the way you described that use, not on your personal dislike for that shooting style.

And I agree with you about the lack of EVF on the K-01 too - it's the biggest omission and one they cannot rectify in any way. Worse than the lack of AF confirmation points in the K-x, perhaps.
02-05-2012, 10:42 PM   #79
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
and I don't cause as much of a visual distraction. You can also add, my grip is more secure.
I just noticed a device that can address both these issues: see this post in another thread.

02-05-2012, 11:01 PM   #80
Pentaxian
johnmflores's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somerville, NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,147
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
I just noticed a device that can address both these issues: see this post in another thread.
That should work, but that also makes the K-01 plus loupe bigger than a K-5. If someone regularly needs a VF (for long glass, for macro, for far-sightedness. etc), the K-5 (or the K-r successor) may be the better choice.

I like the K-01, but I have no illusions as to what its strengths and weaknesses are.
02-06-2012, 04:31 AM   #81
New Member




Join Date: Mar 2010
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24
Why are people blindly defending this camera's obvious weaknesses?

It's a new camera. It's relatively new technology. Pentax jumped in on it. Big deal. Why are people on here deluding themselves into believing(or trying to persuade others) that this camera will be practical for most photography?
Without an electronic viewfinder(and perhaps with one{this is new tech as well and seeing everything in real time without affecting speed and buffering will take big leaps in image engine) and being forced to hold the camera away from the face and frame the shot looking at a screen simply won't cut it for real work.
I get that some people like it and are willing to adapt the way they think of a camera and the overall manner in which they shoot in order to embrace this system. That's fine.
But those who try to argue that a camera whether for fashion, weddings, nature/wildlife, and other digital photography will be practical with this camera just sound silly.
Someone will probably quote this and pick it apart and that's fine, too, I guess. Meanwhile, they avoid the point that hold a camera even of light weight is an isometrics exercise.
While I love to exercise, these static positions wreak havoc on the upper back, neck and shoulders, and can cause all sorts of issues, before even addressing the shaky images one will undoubtedly get. That's just not practical for everyone.
It's more than just thinking about the camera differently. It's simple physics. We naturally lean on things, elbows on stomach, arms on trees, monopods, etc., because they help to steady us.
As we reach out, we're less steady.
Now that's not to say one can't steady themselves and get the shot. But this is then a point and shoot camera and not practical for fast motion, accurate imaging.
Also very inconvenient for those who need those extra milliseconds to manual focus when the auto isn't cutting it(I think Pentax gets a bad rep here undeservedly).
Again, I see this being a cool walk around camera for taking shots that will wait for you.
But there's a reason why the Canon G12 powershot and others like it are favored by serious photographers(including myself) who want lightweight, compact point and shoot convenience without giving up their viewfinders.
Why Pentax couldn't have slipped in a viewfinder is beyond me. Who cares if it's through the lens?
That is s a fair adaptation for shooters to make.
But forcing people to look at a screen(which always drains much more battery) is just going with the trend.
I got into the Pentax brand precisely because I saw that they weren't interested in following trends, but setting them.
While Canikon were making cameras bigger and bigger, Pentax made a compact, efficient, and wonderfully weatherproof camera that in skilled hands could take photos just as good if not better than the so-called pro cameras.
It seems to me that leaving out an EFV, Pentax are ensuring this model will be forgotten next year. Planned obsolescence was something I thought Pentax avoided.
Anyone who argues how difficult these cameras would be to use, please come out with me and shoot 2500-4500 photos at a wedding in a few hours and let's see how many you miss and screw up because you had glare issues or wasted time adjusting and then holding your camera away from you as you look back at the screen and then take the shot.
We should be on here making Pentax see their mistakes, not supporting weak equipment. Pentax has my favorite glass of all the brands and I think they're a great brand(despite some QC issues and a subpar customer service experience which was eventually handled).
For video, however, I think this camera is ideal, as you're already going to be staring at the lcd, anyway.
02-06-2012, 05:48 AM   #82
Pentaxian
johnmflores's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somerville, NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,147
QuoteOriginally posted by BrightStar Quote
It's a new camera. It's relatively new technology. Pentax jumped in on it. Big deal. Why are people on here deluding themselves into believing(or trying to persuade others) that this camera will be practical for most photography?
Without an electronic viewfinder(and perhaps with one{this is new tech as well and seeing everything in real time without affecting speed and buffering will take big leaps in image engine) and being forced to hold the camera away from the face and frame the shot looking at a screen simply won't cut it for real work.
I get that some people like it and are willing to adapt the way they think of a camera and the overall manner in which they shoot in order to embrace this system. That's fine.
But those who try to argue that a camera whether for fashion, weddings, nature/wildlife, and other digital photography will be practical with this camera just sound silly.
Someone will probably quote this and pick it apart and that's fine, too, I guess. Meanwhile, they avoid the point that hold a camera even of light weight is an isometrics exercise.
While I love to exercise, these static positions wreak havoc on the upper back, neck and shoulders, and can cause all sorts of issues, before even addressing the shaky images one will undoubtedly get. That's just not practical for everyone.
It's more than just thinking about the camera differently. It's simple physics. We naturally lean on things, elbows on stomach, arms on trees, monopods, etc., because they help to steady us.
As we reach out, we're less steady.
Now that's not to say one can't steady themselves and get the shot. But this is then a point and shoot camera and not practical for fast motion, accurate imaging.
Also very inconvenient for those who need those extra milliseconds to manual focus when the auto isn't cutting it(I think Pentax gets a bad rep here undeservedly).
Again, I see this being a cool walk around camera for taking shots that will wait for you.
But there's a reason why the Canon G12 powershot and others like it are favored by serious photographers(including myself) who want lightweight, compact point and shoot convenience without giving up their viewfinders.
Why Pentax couldn't have slipped in a viewfinder is beyond me. Who cares if it's through the lens?
That is s a fair adaptation for shooters to make.
But forcing people to look at a screen(which always drains much more battery) is just going with the trend.
I got into the Pentax brand precisely because I saw that they weren't interested in following trends, but setting them.
While Canikon were making cameras bigger and bigger, Pentax made a compact, efficient, and wonderfully weatherproof camera that in skilled hands could take photos just as good if not better than the so-called pro cameras.
It seems to me that leaving out an EFV, Pentax are ensuring this model will be forgotten next year. Planned obsolescence was something I thought Pentax avoided.
Anyone who argues how difficult these cameras would be to use, please come out with me and shoot 2500-4500 photos at a wedding in a few hours and let's see how many you miss and screw up because you had glare issues or wasted time adjusting and then holding your camera away from you as you look back at the screen and then take the shot.
We should be on here making Pentax see their mistakes, not supporting weak equipment. Pentax has my favorite glass of all the brands and I think they're a great brand(despite some QC issues and a subpar customer service experience which was eventually handled).
For video, however, I think this camera is ideal, as you're already going to be staring at the lcd, anyway.
The camera that you want is already made - the K-5 - and is due to be updated shortly.

But please stop trying to tell me that this is not the right camera for me, that I'm somehow wrong or naive for thinking that it won't do what I ask of it. I'm old enough and smart enough and experienced enough and accomplished enough to make my own decisions and figure out where this camera will fit in my arsenal.
02-06-2012, 07:20 AM   #83
Veteran Member
Docrwm's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Somewhere in the Southern US
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,275
QuoteOriginally posted by johnmflores Quote
The camera that you want is already made - the K-5 - and is due to be updated shortly.

But please stop trying to tell me that this is not the right camera for me, that I'm somehow wrong or naive for thinking that it won't do what I ask of it. I'm old enough and smart enough and experienced enough and accomplished enough to make my own decisions and figure out where this camera will fit in my arsenal.
Hey, haven't you already used a camera with no OVF? The reason I ask is that the K-01 is so new that it's kinda hard to imagine what using it without an OVF will be like......oh, wait - there are dozens of cameras on the market without OVF's (e.g., DMC-GF2) and some even have APC-S sensors (can you say Sony).


Last edited by Docrwm; 05-06-2013 at 08:12 PM.
02-06-2012, 07:50 AM   #84
New Member




Join Date: Mar 2010
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24
QuoteOriginally posted by johnmflores Quote
The camera that you want is already made - the K-5 - and is due to be updated shortly.

But please stop trying to tell me that this is not the right camera for me, that I'm somehow wrong or naive for thinking that it won't do what I ask of it. I'm old enough and smart enough and experienced enough and accomplished enough to make my own decisions and figure out where this camera will fit in my arsenal.
Clearly you missed the entire point, despite having quoted my entire posting.
I mentioned that for those who find this works for them, great. I was addressing those arguing against the obvious and undeniable fact that shooting with it as an all day camera presents serious physical challenges and is impractical.
I'm not telling anyone what's right for them. I was speaking about the ways that this camera works.
No attempt was made to give insight into how to tackle those potential problems. You just quoted my comments and then disregarded them. How does that contribute to this thread?

Makes this whole thing pointless when people get uptight, but contribute nothing.
02-06-2012, 07:52 AM   #85
New Member




Join Date: Mar 2010
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24
QuoteOriginally posted by Docrwm Quote
The camera that you want is already made - the K-5 - and is due to be updated shortly.
Yes. I own a k5 and am quite pleased with its performance.
How do you know there is an update coming? This is good news.
02-06-2012, 08:01 AM   #86
Pentaxian
johnmflores's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somerville, NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,147
QuoteOriginally posted by BrightStar Quote
Yes. I own a k5 and am quite pleased with its performance.
How do you know there is an update coming? This is good news.
Sorry if my last post was a little sharp - it was written before my morning coffee. But I suspect that you are arguing with yourself. I don't think that anyone here is suggesting that this is a direct replacement for a dSLR and an equal to one in all ways. Nobody, far as I can tell, has said that they plan to shoot weddings with the K-01. And more to the point, even if they did, who are you to tell them that they can't or shouldn't?

I imagine that everyone discussing the K-01 here already owns a dSLR or four, and is mature enough to evaluate the merits and misgivings of the new kid on the block and decide for themselves whether it's worth opening up their wallet. It's clearly not for you, and that's ok. I'm not telling you that you are making the wrong decision. All I ask is that you do the same. If someone wants to use it for weddings, let them.

Regarding the K-5 replacement....no solid word, but it's due for an update.
02-06-2012, 08:30 AM   #87
New Member




Join Date: Mar 2010
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24
QuoteOriginally posted by johnmflores Quote
Sorry if my last post was a little sharp - it was written before my morning coffee. But I suspect that you are arguing with yourself. I don't think that anyone here is suggesting that this is a direct replacement for a dSLR and an equal to one in all ways. Nobody, far as I can tell, has said that they plan to shoot weddings with the K-01. And more to the point, even if they did, who are you to tell them that they can't or shouldn't?

I imagine that everyone discussing the K-01 here already owns a dSLR or four, and is mature enough to evaluate the merits and misgivings of the new kid on the block and decide for themselves whether it's worth opening up their wallet. It's clearly not for you, and that's ok. I'm not telling you that you are making the wrong decision. All I ask is that you do the same. If someone wants to use it for weddings, let them.

Regarding the K-5 replacement....no solid word, but it's due for an update.
I wasn't telling anyone that they couldn't. I was pointing out how impractical it is for long continuous shooting and I gave wildlife, fashion, weddings as examples. I think amateurs(in the older definition- those who do something for the love of it) are often much more demanding and I was merely stating my thoughts on how impractical this feature set is for a company who usually makes products with demanding users in mind.

QuoteOriginally posted by johnmflores Quote
And more to the point, even if they did, who are you to tell them that they can't or shouldn't?
I am not telling anyone that they can or can't use anything they want.
I'm giving my views on the camera which is what this thread is about. People can do as they please. What does that have to do with this conversation?
If you read my posts on this topic going back, I was actually asking a genuine question to find out how others who may like this camera, plan on dealing with the obstacles I mentioned.
If they can't find practical ways to handle glare and shake, then it's nothing more than an $800 ill-equipped toy and I have no interest. And that's obviously a personal opinion based on what I expect from a camera of this price and I don't think anyone reading this is misperceiving my words and thinking I'm demanding they not purchase the camera. Purchase it. I'm curious to see the video quality. I shoot video all the time and better quality in smaller packages means more possibilities and in turn, better video. It's my hunch that the designers and marketing people at Pentax knew just how much these features would appeal to videographers who like decent quality for less.
Is the quality going to match my Ex1r? No. And I don't expect it to. So I would never raise that argument.
I only pointed out flaws I see in the camera while being used as a camera, which I expect should have been dealt with.

If others don't have the same demands, no problem.
Agree or disagree, that's fine. But I have every right to state my view.

As far as the k5 update-- I got excited there for a moment. Perhaps they'll announce soon. I still think if Pentax wants to stay in the game they've got to offer a 35mm equivalent sensor camera.
02-06-2012, 11:17 AM   #88
Pentaxian
johnmflores's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somerville, NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,147
QuoteOriginally posted by BrightStar Quote
I wasn't telling anyone that they couldn't. I was pointing out how impractical it is for long continuous shooting and I gave wildlife, fashion, weddings as examples. I think amateurs(in the older definition- those who do something for the love of it) are often much more demanding and I was merely stating my thoughts on how impractical this feature set is for a company who usually makes products with demanding users in mind.



I am not telling anyone that they can or can't use anything they want.
I'm giving my views on the camera which is what this thread is about. People can do as they please. What does that have to do with this conversation?
If you read my posts on this topic going back, I was actually asking a genuine question to find out how others who may like this camera, plan on dealing with the obstacles I mentioned.
If they can't find practical ways to handle glare and shake, then it's nothing more than an $800 ill-equipped toy and I have no interest. And that's obviously a personal opinion based on what I expect from a camera of this price and I don't think anyone reading this is misperceiving my words and thinking I'm demanding they not purchase the camera. Purchase it. I'm curious to see the video quality. I shoot video all the time and better quality in smaller packages means more possibilities and in turn, better video. It's my hunch that the designers and marketing people at Pentax knew just how much these features would appeal to videographers who like decent quality for less.
Is the quality going to match my Ex1r? No. And I don't expect it to. So I would never raise that argument.
I only pointed out flaws I see in the camera while being used as a camera, which I expect should have been dealt with.

If others don't have the same demands, no problem.
Agree or disagree, that's fine. But I have every right to state my view.

As far as the k5 update-- I got excited there for a moment. Perhaps they'll announce soon. I still think if Pentax wants to stay in the game they've got to offer a 35mm equivalent sensor camera.
If you would simply say "I won't be buying this camera because of A, B, and C." that would be fine, but then you go and challenge people to wedding shoot-offs and call it wholly unsuitable for whole genres. There may very well be a wedding photog that can find a creative way to use this camera, or a wildlife photog that has a 600mm lens and a gimbal head that's just dying to shoot video with the K-01.

Ironically, I think we are in agreement on some points - i.e., there are better options for hand-holding long lenses. I think we are closer in opinion than our words might suggest. Let's just agree to disagree and then wait greedily for new on the K-5 successor. OK?
02-06-2012, 06:06 PM   #89
New Member




Join Date: Mar 2010
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24
QuoteOriginally posted by johnmflores Quote
If you would simply say "I won't be buying this camera because of A, B, and C." that would be fine, but then you go and challenge people to wedding shoot-offs and call it wholly unsuitable for whole genres. There may very well be a wedding photog that can find a creative way to use this camera, or a wildlife photog that has a 600mm lens and a gimbal head that's just dying to shoot video with the K-01.
I think you still miss my point.
As far as video, wildlife or any kind, I've already stated that the camera seems ideal.
For photography, I made those points because of some of the other posts where people seem to outright discount the physical challenges this system presents so I was bringing up real world settings.
If you read my posts, I made clear I was speaking to those people and invited them to show me how this is done.
Again, it's a new camera and this thread is precisely about scrutinizing the usefulness of the technology, hence the title: why a mirror less camera?
I shouldn't have to sugar coat it or phrase it in a way that is to everyone's liking.
I never said that creative ways can't be found to use it. In fact, I'm making the point that creative ways are going to be the only ways, as practical every-day shooting will be hindered.
It's obvious that anyone can use anything in any way they choose and for whatever purpose. Those are all points clear to anyone past grade school. Why would I have to phrase things this way. I'm trying to get at the heart of this camera's usefulness.
What Pentax did here was quite cool. They gave us the options we love with the ability to use all the classic Pentax lenses we love on a camera much smaller and a bit simpler than a DSLR. This is cool. I just think they dropped the ball by not including a viewfinder so that people could hold the camera to their eyes. I think it's a poor design and will hinder most serious shooters.
I stand by that opinion. Obviously, everything is open to subjection including the definition of "serious shooter".

My other concern is that with the focus on this camera they will neglect the k5 update. Hopefully, I'm just wrong there.
02-08-2012, 06:52 AM   #90
Pentaxian
johnmflores's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somerville, NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,147
QuoteOriginally posted by BrightStar Quote
I think you still miss my point.
As far as video, wildlife or any kind, I've already stated that the camera seems ideal.
For photography, I made those points because of some of the other posts where people seem to outright discount the physical challenges this system presents so I was bringing up real world settings.
If you read my posts, I made clear I was speaking to those people and invited them to show me how this is done.
Again, it's a new camera and this thread is precisely about scrutinizing the usefulness of the technology, hence the title: why a mirror less camera?
I shouldn't have to sugar coat it or phrase it in a way that is to everyone's liking.
I never said that creative ways can't be found to use it. In fact, I'm making the point that creative ways are going to be the only ways, as practical every-day shooting will be hindered.
It's obvious that anyone can use anything in any way they choose and for whatever purpose. Those are all points clear to anyone past grade school. Why would I have to phrase things this way. I'm trying to get at the heart of this camera's usefulness.
What Pentax did here was quite cool. They gave us the options we love with the ability to use all the classic Pentax lenses we love on a camera much smaller and a bit simpler than a DSLR. This is cool. I just think they dropped the ball by not including a viewfinder so that people could hold the camera to their eyes. I think it's a poor design and will hinder most serious shooters.
I stand by that opinion. Obviously, everything is open to subjection including the definition of "serious shooter".

My other concern is that with the focus on this camera they will neglect the k5 update. Hopefully, I'm just wrong there.
I'd like to direct you to some real people with some real world experience with the camera

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-k-01-forum/174006-hands-photos-k-0...ser-group.html

I don't think that they found any serious usability issues with the camera. I'll take their experiences of actually using the camera over the opinions of those drawing conclusions from the comfort of their keyboard...
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!
camera, dslr, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mark on mirror Callist Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 13 01-13-2012 03:15 AM
Mirror up, camera won't turn on clickinchick Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 3 01-26-2011 07:20 PM
Mirror lens help whelmed Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 02-10-2010 12:05 PM
Noise when mirror is up lawtonkar Pentax DSLR Discussion 2 02-07-2010 03:20 PM
Mirror, Mirror in the Garden... JMR Post Your Photos! 11 02-20-2009 03:41 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:26 AM. | 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