Forum: Pentax Forums Giveaways
09-07-2016, 02:16 PM
|
|
Not sure I'm in for a red camera but for that quality of camera I'll cope!
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
07-17-2011, 10:35 AM
|
|
CR is the other end of the extreme. CR reviews are targeted at those who are not passionate about what's being reviewed but rather consider whatever it is as a commodity so cars, cameras, home theatre, washing machines, refrigerators, and floor lamps all have the same level of appeal. A good example would be my ex-wife. She could hear the difference between a $30 table radio and my stereo system (Crown, Thorens, Infinity, Nakamichi, and Marantz) but she didn't care as she found either completely acceptable to listen to and had no preference. She is the CR target audience. I remember CR loved Bose speakers and Technics turntables but panned Thorens turntables and cared not for Klipsch or Infinity at the time.
At the same time, too many magazines and websites are at the other end of the extreme. As an example, when I started researching new speakers I found review after review of high end Thiel and Mordaunt Short and such which is both interesting and nice as a reference... but useless to me at the time. While I love home theatre I cannot justify a $12,000 - $28,000 speaker system. Boring as it is I need to know what's good at much lower price levels. I ended up buying a Definitive Technology speaker system but had to spend time finding real info on them because they were a lowly $800 system.
Personally, I think it would be nice to find a source that sits between these extremes. More thorough, more accurate, and more targeted than CR is but not at the enthusiast level where only the high end is acceptable. While I am currently unemployed, even when I was working and making good money I could not afford nor justify a K-5 or a D-3s or such which is why I have a K100D Super and a D40.
CR has its uses, just not for those who are passionate about whatever is being reviewed...
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
07-16-2011, 04:26 PM
|
|
Hoya paid $770 Million US for Pentax. Based on unit sales and probable profit margins I would venture a guess that Hoya at worst broke even and more likely made a bit of a profit on the sale of Pentax imaging.
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
07-13-2011, 07:21 PM
|
|
I have not seen the most important subject of all this even mentioned yet...
Has anyone found out what Ken Rockwell has to say about all this??;)
|
Forum: General Talk
07-13-2011, 06:14 PM
|
|
OMG... I know this is old but I just spit out my soda! That is the funniest thing I have seen in years. The sad part is that I know exactly how that "salesman" feels!!! That is a classic!
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
07-11-2011, 08:25 PM
|
|
Not sure what constitutes wise old, I turn 50 this year... can't say that I'm wise though. In this case, I have been away from any kind of real photography since the late 80's. I come back and start again and so I'm looking at this like a newbie and so I'm at a point where I don't have the familiarity anymore with 35mm so it is of little use to me as a point of reference.
I've been carrying around a super-zoom point and shoot up until late so this is all somewhat new to me now. I guess I got annoyed when focal length modifier confused me...
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
07-11-2011, 07:59 PM
|
|
In the case of sensors it is, at best, imprecise. For starters, APS is a format that failed in the first place and is long gone in the second. Sensors in digital SLRs vary in size... 23.6x15.7, 22.2x14.8, 28.7x19... as a matter of accuracy it's just not correct. Why not just use the diagonal measurement of the sensor. Same applies to compact digital cameras as well I mean come on... 1/1.7" or 1/2.33"??
I know it won't change but really, it should in this case. Sometimes hanging on to something like that might make sense but I don't see it here.
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
07-11-2011, 05:30 PM
|
|
Actually, I really don't use them all that much although I guess I should. Sometimes I come off as a bit of a stiff as I tend to be rather direct.
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
07-11-2011, 05:22 PM
|
|
Granted... then again his post that I replied to had no emoticons in it so... :hmm:
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
07-11-2011, 05:20 PM
|
|
Well, I suppose that's that weakness of the internet... you can't read inflection or emphasis. This thread in particular has gotten nasty a few times and I *thought* your message was taking it there again. My apologies.
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
07-11-2011, 04:59 PM
|
|
Is this forum only for those that currently own Pentax or is it only for those that proclaim Pentax as the greatest imaging device known to mankind? Why so thin skinned? I own a Pentax and a Nikon, am I only half welcome here?
I think it's a tribute to (most) of the members here that someone who no longer uses the make still likes to read and contribute to the forums here. Lighten up Dude...
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
07-11-2011, 04:52 PM
|
|
Well, after doing some googling it appears that Ricoh has stated that the Pentax name is not going anywhere. I think they are now owned by a company that is much better suited to grow the brand I think. As for AMD and ATI, I was hoping they'd keep the name but in the computer world companies hit #1 and then flame out all the time... Voodoo graphics comes to mind... so I guess it probably wasn't as big an issue...
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
07-11-2011, 03:06 PM
|
|
Was not aware that Nikon was quite that diversified. I took a look, seems that the camera division accounted for probably 80% of thier profits. The instrument division took a loss and the remaining profit came from the precision instrument division. As for Ricoh, that won't even go into effect until October and likely will bear no fruit for at least 12 months but it is a good sign. I do wonder if Ricoh plans on keeping the Pentax name or if they will eventually morph it into Ricoh (think ATI/AMD). I had a Ricoh 35mm SLR at one time, it was a nice camera.
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
07-11-2011, 05:43 AM
|
|
Hate to admit it but.... I am lazy where flash is concerned. I know many people enjoy it and find it as a way to be creative. To me it's just a way to take a picture I might not get so the less I have to fiddle with it the better so in that respect it's important to me and the Nikon system takes all the guesswork out of it. It throttles it down beautifully if necessary and makes sure exposure is as good as it can be with little to no intervention necessary.
As for your points above, the top LCD makes no difference to me as I can usually get all the info I need in the viewfinder. DOF preview is nice but I find I don't use it a lot. I do wish the D40 had auto-bracketing. The 11 point AF is nice too although I find I end up using the center sensor almost all the time and so find the superior metering of the D40 more important. I do like the in body SR and the in body focus motor and think that those two things along with DOF preview and auto bracketing are among the strongest points of the K100.
As for the right here and now, I wonder how committed Pentax is to the DSLR market. Both Canon and Nikon have a much more complete lineup of bodies and features. Nikon in particular has nothing else to focus on while Pentax has a very lucrative medical imaging business and now a very nice medium format digital camera. Not sure why but Canon has never interested me at all. I suppose one day I may settle either on Pentax or Nikon...
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
07-11-2011, 05:18 AM
|
|
Actually, was not planned. I bought the K100D Super because I already had an investment in lenses from my K1000 and ME Super days. I like it but then my daughter found a great deal on the D40 and bought it for me... it stays. Since my wife now has the D3000 I can borrow her lenses if I need more than the kit lens although I do look around and will buy a lens or two if I ever find a really screaming deal like through ebay or some such.
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
07-10-2011, 07:47 PM
|
|
Not necessarily as I stated in the previous message. Consider though that 35mm might have longevity but it is going away... sooner rather than later I would guess. I don't think it matters though as this industry seems to hold on to obsolete terminology long after it's necessary or relevant. Case in point, sensor size: 1/2.33"... as I understand it that format is a carryover from long gone video sensors of some kind. APS... a dead film format that wasn't even that popular to begin with. Micro 4/3???
Matters not, things will continue as they are. I just fail to see the logic.
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
07-10-2011, 07:22 PM
|
|
Well, I have no experience with the K-5 or the D7000. I have a good friend who is a major Nikon user, he has a D300s, D90, D5000, and a D3100. I know another friend who has the K-7 and a backup K20D. I have a Nikon D40 and a Pentax K100D Super, my wife uses a D3000. I lack the extensive knowledge and experience of many of the users here and I realize that user error is a possibility but I can generalize a few things...
The area where I feel Nikon clearly has an edge is the flash system and the light meter. Even my lowly D40 has a 420 segment color meter and blows my K100D away in real world use and I don't find the K20D or the K-7 equal to it either. I've had my D40 meter easily in areas where my K100 and his K-7 faltered. While I don't do a whole lot of flash photography when I have the Nikon is tremendous to the point if I think I'm going to need the flash the Pentax stays home... it can't compete.
As for autofocus, I hear all the time that Nikon is faster and better but I can't verify that... the K-7 does a great job, my K100 not as good but still more than enough.
I think that Pentax made a monumentally profound decision to make sure their cameras are fully functional with lenses all the way back to the M42 and even medium format lenses. New glass not withstanding I think lenses favor Pentax unless you MUST have brand new high zoom/tele lenses... I can't imagine why you would though.
On the more subjective side of it, I prefer the Nikon menu system. I find it easier and more logically organized.
More is not always better but I think that Nikon certainly gives you more choices so you can better match features for what you need hopefully without having to buy features you don't just to get them. As for aftermarket... no contest as there is considerably more available for Nikon... although that means more junk as well as more useful items.
I lack the experience to reliably say anything about the viewfinder as all of them seem fine to me... sorry, I'm more of a picture taker... the wife is the one with the photographers eye. VR and in camera IS both work, I have no preference there at all.
As much as I hate to say it, if you forced me to choose between my K100D Super and my D40... I would probably choose the D40 by the slimmest of margins...
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
07-10-2011, 06:29 PM
|
|
Agreed. When I first hear about crop factor I understood what it was and what it meant. Then I heard focal length modifier and that's when I got confused and thought that the focal length actually changed... then again I didn't stop to consider how the physical focal length could changed just because it's a DX format as opposed to FX...
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
07-10-2011, 12:04 PM
|
|
In retrospect, I would agree that crop factor makes sense but focal length modifier can be a confusing subject as it sounds like the focal length changes based on sensor format. Crop factor OTOH, is a more logical way of conversion... at least to me anyway.
Sensor terminology still seems to be stuck in bad spot. I would venture a guess that many, if not most people have no clue what APS film was (it is dead right?) or what a 1/2.33" or 1/1.7" format means in a practical sense. Seems to me that describing a sensor size by diagonal measurement or, better yet, like medium format makes more sense....
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
07-09-2011, 05:12 PM
|
|
Don't know anything about that. For me, how worked up I get would depend on how far short it falls from spec and how much that would effect usability of the camera. Yes it should meet or exceed spec but sometimes that doesn't happen. Cars often cannot meet their rated mpg. Your blu-ray player should have neutral output... many don't (they shift colors up or down). I have witnessed premium waterproof watches fail while washing the dishes. While it's reasonable to expect a product to meet it's published specs it's also not unusual to find that's not always the case.
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
07-09-2011, 04:50 PM
|
|
I would agree with this and say that focal length modifier and crop factor should be done away with. It's FUD in it's finest form. IMHO it makes a reasonably simple thing confusing...
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
07-09-2011, 10:11 AM
|
|
If the meter can be integrated into the sensor and still be as fast and as accurate then it seems to me that the SLR should go away... no need for it. You could build a camera smaller, lighter, and capable of far faster continuous shooting without the mirror assembly not to mention simpler and so theoretically more reliable and/or more durable.
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
07-09-2011, 09:53 AM
|
|
This is a discussion I have had before with one of my other wallet draining hobbies (fountain pens). IMHO, the retailer should not be held liable for the quality (or lack thereof) of a product. The only way they ever should is if they have a hand in the product you get (setup, final qc, etc) and even then it should be limited only to those things they directly effect. The retailer did not design or build the product, they simply made it more convenient for you to obtain said product and they get a small amount for providing that service.
If I buy a camera from you, even though you might be an experienced photographer and have a good understanding of the optical theory and operation unless you are a computer and electrical engineer you likely will know next to nothing about the complex operation of the VLSI ICs and algorithms used by the firmware to make the picture... why then would I hold you responsible for the operation or reliability of the product?
As for warranties in general, they are an admission that at our current level of technology we cannot manufacture items that are infallable. In theory a warranty should last long enough to ensure that there are no defects in the materials it's made of and that it was not improperly assembled. Anything after that enters a very difficult gray area. Using my camera as an example (K100D Super) white balance is awful indoors - should Pentax replace the camera or write new firmware to fix that?
Keep in mind too that no product ever made lives up to it's advertising so many people buy all kinds of products with expectations that cannot be fulfilled. While I would say that reasonable expectations must be met by a product our court system is a shining example of the complete and total death of common sense and so that makes a difficult situation much worse. Referring back to my camera example, did Pentax fail to deliver because the automatic white balance doesn't live up to my preference? It does work as it will change white balance it just does a poor job indoors. Technically it failed to do what it says because it will not properly adjust OTOH, is it a major failing if I have to spend 5 seconds to manually set for incandesant lights? If so, should they send me a rebate, rewrite the firmware, replace with a newer camera???
As far as a sliding warranty like you state, I would say in the case of a camera at least... tie it to shutter actuations otherwise you'd have a warranty 38 pages long of what constitutes light use, moderate use, normal use, heavy use, excessive use and how those multiple definitions effect the warranty time and liability... I do agree though that a simple 3 month/12 month type of warranty is typically inadequate.
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
07-09-2011, 09:06 AM
|
|
My point exactly, if focal length is a product of lens design only then focal length multipliers and crop factors are fictional nonsense and should be dropped altogether. My very limited understanding of lens design led me to believe that the distance from the back of the lens to the imaging surface were part of the focal length.
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
07-08-2011, 09:12 PM
|
|
All of that makes perfect sense. My point is why hang on to a standard based on something that is completely obsolete? At some point it makes sense to move the standard to something more current. HP in car engines is a good example... they changed the way it's measured several times. APS film is long dead... why keep it as a standard? Just like describing a sensor as 1/2.33"... just call it a 7.5x5.2 (or whatever or call it a 7.8mm diag). Just seems to me sometimes standards hang around long after their usefullness is long gone.
As for the lens focal lengths, if focal length is simply a physical factor of lens design then drop focal length multipliers and crop factors. I know that angle of view does change but if that's it then it seems to me that flm and crop factors muddle the whole thing.
|