|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
02-27-2012, 11:41 AM
|
| |
PureView means they use all 41 megapixels to take the image, but they take clusters of 7 pixels, and average them to obtain a single pixel. Cropping just throws away the extra pixels, Nokia is using the extra pixels to reduce noise, so it's not just a marketing word.
It also allows a digital zoom using progressively lower numbers of pixels in each grouping.
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
02-27-2012, 10:51 AM
|
| |
They are also likely to incorporate this sensor tech into a Windows Phone later this year. They'll have to wait for the major release of WP8 (Apollo), since the current OS won't support it.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
02-14-2012, 09:57 AM
|
| |
Both Canon and Nikon have "competing" 50s. A cheaper $100-$150 lens at f1.8, and the better quality f1.4 that's more like $350. Before the 35 2.4, what was the cheapest non-kit lens in the Pentax lineup? I think it might have been the 50 1.4 at roughly $350. The 40ltd is also around the same price.
For new DSLR owners, it's a pretty big leap of faith for your first lens purchase. Having the entry-level lenses available is a great way to get new users started and trigger their LBA for future sales.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-01
02-09-2012, 11:48 AM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
02-06-2012, 12:58 PM
|
| |
I have both lenses right now, and I'm considering whether or not I want to sell the FA50.
I generally find the 43 to be a touch sharper, and as you said the build feels fantastic.
I think it depends on what kind of shooting you primarily do. If you are often in low light, the extra wiggle-room on the aperture of the 50 might be better for you.
In my case, I often find the 50 a bit too long, so shaving 7mm makes shooting inside my house a bit more comfortable. If you like the 50 focal length and can even go a bit longer, you might also consider the DA* 55, which seems to be a fantastic lens.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
02-03-2012, 02:44 PM
|
| |
This whole thing reminds me of all the tech journalists who wrote off the iPad as "just a big iPod touch" and "not a real computer".
I'm not saying the K-01 is going to be the massive smash that the iPad is, but I think it's positioned to sell quite well.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-01
02-02-2012, 08:49 AM
|
| |
I know it's hard to believe, but there is a pool of potential camera buyers who do not want a DSLR.
They may find them too big or too intimidating with all the controls. These users have been sticking with P&S cameras, but increasingly they can get very similar capabilities from their smartphones. (Canon's recent disappointing quarter was due primarily to a drop in P&S sales)
When these customers want to get better IQ, they look to the mirrorless market.
That is why Pentax made the Q and now the K-01. I'm really happy about the aggressive pricing they took (I thought the body only would be priced at $899). It makes me believe in Ricoh's intent to grow the brand.
I'd like an EVF, but I assume it can be added to the hotshoe, much like the NEX-5 (which is clearly the product Pentax has targeted here.)
Plus, I imagine someone with a bunch of focus-group studies has figured out that they can sell more units by having the EVF as an optional extra versus including it and raising the price.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
01-31-2012, 03:15 PM
|
| |
The K200D was my first DSLR for this very reason.
The K-5 was the first Pentax offering with enough improvements across the board to make an upgrade worth considering. I sold my K200D after getting a K-5, but sometimes wish I hadn't. It would be a fantastic backup body.
I agree with whoever said the K200D grip was more comfortable. The K-5 digs into my middle finger a bit.
I think the K200D had an easier learning curve to get great pictures out of it (as it should, being an entry-level camera).
All of that said, I don't think I could go back to a single e-dial and no ISO button now.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
01-26-2012, 03:10 PM
|
| |
I also love watching the rapid price drops in tech....however that won't help much with a FF sensor.
Here's a photography forum discussing when FF prices would get to the $1500 mark....four years ago.
Full frame sensor future prices
And here is how one user there summed up the problem when comparing the cost of other electronics to sensors.
While I'm sure Canon and Nikon are enjoying fairly healthy margins on their aging FF cameras, since the rest of the camera's tech is probably cheaper now. The fact is that those FF sensors are very expensive and always will be.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
01-26-2012, 10:42 AM
|
| |
Look, I would love for Falk's camera to become a reality. I would buy one in a heartbeat.
I just don't believe it is economically possible to meet that price point with all of those features.
It's my natural state to be pessimistic about the things I want to happen. That way, I can only be delighted when I'm wrong instead of being let down by unrealistic expectations.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
01-26-2012, 10:03 AM
|
| |
It seems to me that the "hatred" is not for FF itself, but what the production of said camera would do to Pentax's bottom line. Almost everyone is here because we like our Pentax products and we want the company to be successful.
Of course everyone is speculating one way or another, but on the anti-FF side, I think the basic idea is that there is no way for Pentax to insert itself into the established Canon/Nikon duopoly. If they try to price themselves lower than the 5dMkII, Pentax will either be losing money on every body sold or sacrificing quality. They could possibly make a premium FF that competes with the 1D / D3-4 models at a lower price point (say $3500-ish), but I don't know if there's much of a market there.
I tend to agree with fontan, that if Pentax goes FF, it will be mirrorless. By creating a new category, they could potentially gain customers from the pool of photographers who want FF IQ, but do not want the weight of a FF DSLR. This also fits the overall trend at Pentax of making cameras smaller and lighter so that you can always have them with you.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
01-20-2012, 10:09 AM
|
| |
You are correct, Falk.
First, let me acknowledge how much I appreciate the amazing work you have done on camera analysis.
That said, I don't think anyone here really knows how much it costs Pentax to build a camera. We can just speculate on what information is available.
The information I'm thinking about is that the K5 was thought to be too expensive when it was first released, and the same thing is now true of the Q.
When a new CaNikon is released, they know it will sell hundreds of thousands of units*, so they can source a very large order of sensors, AF units, etc.
Pentax does not have that luxury, and cannot afford to sit on a pile of unused tech because they ordered 400,000 sensors and only sold 200,000 cameras.
I think it is perfectly feasible for a theoretical FF Pentax to hit the $2250 price tag, but only after it has been on the market for a while and proven popular enough. Just like we are seeing with the K5 prices now.
If a FF camera is released, the starting price will likely be closer to $3,000 unless they are able to massively shave costs in some way. (No weather-sealing, plastic build) However, it seems to me that Pentax focuses on maintaining superb build-quality as part of their brand image, so they would not dilute that with a sub-standard FF camera.
That's why I think your cost figures are not likely to be a reality (as much as I would like them to be)
*Interestingly, the new Nikon 1 which competes directly with the Q is similarly priced (though it has a slightly bigger sensor if I'm not mistaken). I attribute this to the fact that Nikon isn't as confident in the market for the ultracompact IL category, and therefore couldn't get the same bulk discounts it would receive for an SLR.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
01-19-2012, 09:58 AM
|
| |
I don't think there is any way for Pentax to get a FF at $2,000-$2,500 USD. That's what a 5D Mk II runs for, and it has:
-worse build quality
-Canon's economy of scale
Realistically, a Pentax FF would be north of $2,500 and may even sacrifice some features to get there.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
01-17-2012, 10:42 AM
|
| |
If they specifically coded instructions to address AF issues, they would definitely document it. There's absolutely no reason not to.
Because these types of AF issues seem to be sporadic for people, I think it's more likely that updating the firmware essentially does a factory reset of the camera which flushes out any weird bugs that may be affecting the AF system. (possibly the flash exposure as well).
I've been having trouble with focusing the FA43 on my K-5 (running 1.03), so I'm hoping I get a similar improvement with the firmware.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
01-09-2012, 11:07 AM
|
| |
Mine also broke due to an unfortunate incident. Currently waiting for parts to be repaired.
Here is the photograph of the unfortunate incident.
It's not a good picture, but serves as a reminder to make sure the front of the lens is kept beyond a toddler's maximum reach.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
01-03-2012, 11:15 AM
|
| |
A good zoom lens is nice to have when you have an ambulatory child outdoors. You might do well with the 18-135 and 55-300 combo.
For indoors shots, I used the FA50 1.4 a lot, but it always felt a bit too tight (doesn't help that I have a really small house).
I just recently got the 43 ltd, and have been loving it so far. I don't miss the half-stop of aperture, since I generally shot the 50 at f2.0 and up to improve sharpness.
I seriously looked at the 35 ltd macro, but read that the autofocus can be really slow because of the huge focus range. I wasn't certain my wife and I were up to the challenge of trying to use a slower AF with a 2 year old.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
12-30-2011, 12:35 PM
|
| |
I regularly find Pentax stuff on Adorama.
:p
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
12-30-2011, 12:02 PM
|
| |
I can't give an opinion on other systems, but I can tell you that I've found the K-5 to be hit and miss on the types of shots you are looking to take, axl.
I have two kids under 3 and trying to take portraits of them is often frustrating. Sometimes the subject is uncooperative, and other times the AF seems to be the problem. I'll shoot center AF right on the face, and the shirt's neckline will end up pin sharp. Then under the same conditions, it will nail it on a different shot.
It's very similar to the issues that Christine detailed in this other thread. I may send the camera in for AF calibration as was suggested there.
The most annoying part is that it almost feels like it only has AF problems when taking pictures of children. Any tests I do with a static object or adult comes out perfectly.
I'll also add that in my experience Gimbal is correct. You can't expect to get a sharp image of a baby/toddler under 1/100 unless they are sleeping.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
05-24-2011, 11:09 AM
|
| |
TAv is now my go-to mode for outdoor shooting. Since I'm usually shooting fast moving subjects (toddlers), I want to set a fast shutter. In Tv mode (or P-mode after adjusting shutter), this will often throw the aperture wide open which I may or may not want, depending on the shot.
Letting the sensitivity be set automatically for the fluctuating light when moving around outside is perfect.
Indoors, I've got more controlled lighting and often use a bounce flash, so I like to use M.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
05-24-2011, 08:48 AM
|
| |
Went from k200d to K-5 just over a month ago. It was the first camera Pentax put out that was enough of an improvement on all features to push me over the edge (well, maybe the 645d, but I'm not looking to drop 10k on a camera....yet)
My first copy had to go back because of the low-light focusing issue, but the second body is amazing.
The high-ISO capabilities and improved autofocus help me get shots that would not have been possible with the k200d.
I haven't looked back through enough pictures to detect any 'pop' from the k200d that is missing in the k5 photos, but if there is any minor difference in quality, I would chalk it up to the CCD vs. CMOS sensor.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
05-12-2011, 08:21 AM
|
| |
Are you planning to take pictures of your daughter mostly indoors, or outdoors?
70 is probably too long for most indoor shots. I have a 2-year-old son, and it's nearly impossible to shoot him inside with the FA 50. They just don't sit still for long at this age! It's usually easier to get them smiling if you are closer to them as well. The DA (L) 35 might be the best prime for indoor toddler pics (or the 31 Ltd, if your budget can handle it).
:edit: I forgot you already had the DA 21. That might be your go-to lens for toddler shots. The DA 70 makes sense then to get some more length in your arsenal.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
05-03-2011, 08:24 AM
|
| |
I just got a replacement k5 after experiencing low-light FF on my first body.
So far, my test shots seem to show much better AF indoors. I haven't checked if the new body is on firmware 1.02 or 1.03, but the upgrade to 1.03 did not help my first k5.
First body had a 393XXX serial #. New one is 402XXX.
I'd encourage anybody with AF issues to return their k5 for a new unit. It's such a fantastic camera, let down by early QA issues. I imagine Hoya rushed it out to make the holiday season. If the K5 were released in February, I doubt we would have nearly as many complaints.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
04-28-2011, 09:35 AM
|
| |
There's definitely barrel distortion at the wide end of both lenses. It seems much worse in the kit lens to my eye.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
04-27-2011, 01:12 PM
|
| |
The first shot might be a case of low light front focusing.
This has been a problem with many units, I sent my first k5 back because of it. (replacement should be on the way any day now)
A tip I found here on the forums is to try using the live view AF. It often works perfectly when the viewfinder AF fails.
If you haven't tried updating the firmware to 1.03 yet, that would be the first suggestion. If it still won't focus right, return it for a replacement unit.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
04-27-2011, 12:55 PM
|
| |
The main reasons you might want to consider the 50 f1.4
-if you often find yourself needing an extra stop of light when shooting with the Sigma
-if you find your shots with the Sigma are not as sharp as you'd like
-you think the Sigma is just too big sometimes.
-you have a severe case of LBA
I have the FA50 1.4 and although I love the lens, I'm about to sell it.
I wanted to consolidate my lenses as much as possible, and the DA* 16-50 seems like it's going to cover most of the shooting I want to do right now.
I might miss the FA50 at some point, but the images I'm getting from the DA* are equal to the FA50 90% of the time, and it's much easier to use indoors where the FA50 is a bit too long.
|
