|
Forum: Sold Items
02-02-2013, 12:52 PM
|
| |
That Made in Japan thing...have you seen any conclusive testing that the lens is any better?
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-17-2013, 02:37 PM
|
| |
The link you have sent is for the 24mm tilt shift, not the 10mm f/2.8.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
12-21-2012, 10:58 AM
|
| |
If you're implying that a 12mm f/2 prime for APS-C is difficult to make, might I direct you to review existing lenses? The Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 is weather-sealed, full frame and costs $2000. Sigma's 8-16 at f/4.5 would be about ~2.3 stops slower than the theoretical lens, but also significantly wider, and is an excellent lens at $600.
I would submit that existing lenses show very well the feasibility of a <$1000 manual focus APS-C lens shooting at f/2. If lens manufacturers would implement an alternative to leaf apertures, it might even be more compact (~10-15% smaller diameter).
Beyond that, 12mm f/2 is not challenging the laws of physics by an means. If you suggest otherwise, please lay out your reasoning.
P.S. You might review my other posts to see the level of discussion and calculation that I'm willing to engage in.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
12-21-2012, 10:41 AM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
12-21-2012, 12:07 AM
|
| |
Heres an update on this lens, pasted from email exchange with samyang mgmt:
Please refer to our comments below.
A few questions:Is the 'end of 2013 availability' the current forecast?
==> Yes it is
Are you still committed to releasing the 10mm f/2.8 prime for Pentax K mount?
==> Yes, 10mm F2.8 lens will be available for Pentax mount
Will Pentax K mount be delayed when compared to Canon, Nikon?
=> No, all the mounts (Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax ...etc) will be released same time.
So...Q4 2013 at earliest. The lens is still in development.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
12-20-2012, 02:33 PM
|
| |
Amen to your comment on Pentax losing it's way with the prime market.
Personally, I'm more interested in this than the 8-16. While the 8-16 seems to be a very sharp lens, I'm very interested in doing low-light/night time landscape photography and the f/2.8 speed will offer much more photographic expression than going a few degrees wider.
IMO, Pentax should make a 12mm f/2 prime DA* WR. Now that would command attention!
Hopefully this Samyang is <$350. However, for excellent optics - in particular the MTF resolution and contrast - I would pay $600+.
|
|
Forum: Lens Sample Photo Archive
11-11-2012, 11:05 PM
|
| |
The 400mm APO Macro with 77mm thread seems to be very well reviewed - by those who have it. However, it also appears that this lens is a rare bird. Are there more owners out there?
In 2012, it's amazing that Pentax can barely beat this 10+ year old lens...and Pentax is at 10x the cost!
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
09-17-2012, 09:34 PM
|
| |
Thanks for the tip, but after reading this thread, I know that this product is simply not possible/feasible/rational. Here's my 'reasoning', presented by David Letterman 'Top 10 fashion'.
All right ladies and gentlemen...The Top 10 reasons a wireless DSLR can never be released.
10. I'm sure the battery will die after 20 pictures with 'all those' extra chips.
9. Is Canon now part of the CIA...why does Canon want to know where I am all the time?
8. It has to be bigger no matter what the specs say. Dimensions are like statistics, you can measure anywhere on the body to get any dimension you want.
[Dave interrupting monologue]...By the way Paul...speaking of measurements, do you know that these camera nuts like 'full frames'? What's with that...you're a photography buff?
[Paul Shaffer] That's right Dave...we like them Rubenesque.
[Dave] You know, I always wondered why fat things are associated with Ruben...I mean you have a painter...a sandwich...and Paul's camera?
[Paul] That's why I don't take pictures of our guests Dave...my camera was the inspiration for the Fatify app.
[Dave laughing] Stick to the keyboard Paul...All right moving on with #7.
7. Canon will likely not even release this product once they know how many people will refuse to buy this camera. It's a horrible business move. As Churchill said, I'm sure this is the beginning of the end of Canon.
6. Is there an iphone integrated? Why? I don't want an iphone inside my camera body.
5. The pros won't like this because GPS and Wifi are 'consumer' features. Leica would never do this 'consumer' stuff like wireless or video.
4. Ball don't lie.
3. Canon and Nikon people always lie.
2. The first cell analogue phone I had was always dropping calls. It follows then that the Wifi has about the same range as an 18" wired shutter cable release.
And the #1 reason for not believing in this product....drum roll...
1. It's not a Pentax. Everyone knows that Pentax leads the market in all useful innovation!
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
09-15-2012, 03:08 AM
|
| |
What's art? Last I checked, pictures of explosions from crazy angles and at crazy high refresh rates could very well be art. Seen any war films lately? How about Myth Busters?
Now, just because your team couldn't 'express' anything with that big budget and crazy technology does not mean that others should be encouraged to 'refrain from polluting the purity of photography with technology'.
Actually, one of the most impressive and emotional pictures ever taken was from space. It was Earth Rise, the Apollo 8 shot.
Now, was that a snapshot...a scientific documentation effort...or art? Whatever it was, I'm glad they used the best camera technology they had and didn't insist on using glass negatives (you know...to preserve the soul and difficulty of photography so not just any lunar astronaut passing by could grab a great pic).
Are you saying that I can't just throw a camera in your backyard with a remote viewfinder and expect to take a picture of a polar bear in the wild?
Or are you saying that the BBC type footage should always be expensive and out of reach of the unwashed masses?
Now I don't expect that Pentax will supply a consulting biologist (either integrated or as a clip on accessory), but that doesn't mean that they can't give me a remote viewfinder capability - for low cost.
And regarding blimps or whatnot, if I want an aerial overhead shot of our family reunion, should I pass on that out of some misplaced attachment to the photography techniques of yesteryear?
Just curious: Do you drive your car to photography shoots or do you find that your glass negatives are upset by the high speed mechanical conveyance? Oh you don't shoot with 8x10 negatives? Oh well, I assume you're at the least still shooting film right, with manual aperture and focus? And you develop everything yourself right...just so you can make sure to extract the last bit of artistic value (kinda like your vinyl record collection with tube amps)?
This 'purist' message is lost on me...and unless you routinely bring your viewing audience to tears or their feet, then perhaps your technique and equipment could still use a little technological enhancement as well. And even then, my wife the painter would argue that you're still not really creating a vision, but rather just capturing what any fool might see with their own eyes as well.
After all, is your camera really nothing more than a remote viewfinder freezing a moment in time for an audience to view later from a different place? If so, who cares how and from where you actuated the shutter.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
09-14-2012, 12:07 PM
|
| |
Now we're talking! However, I'm all about getting the better quality of the DSLR, so no 1080p video cam for me.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
09-14-2012, 12:01 PM
|
| |
OK...in place of my written opinion, I offer this:
BBC One - Polar Bear: Spy on the Ice (promo clips viewable)
You might note what they say:  Quote: Drift Cams were specifically designed to film autonomously without the need for a camera crew. While the purists will shoot 800mm+ telephoto shots from a mile away (we've seen that for years now), the BBC will figure out how to reward their viewer with great still or moving images from just feet away. In doing so, they not only provide great entertainment, but also offer scientists documentation for research.
As I'm unlikely to travel to the Arctic anytime soon, and cannot possibly see all the exotic locations, I appreciate the efforts of photographers to bring them to my TV or computer screen. More so, it's nice to see the videographers/photographers accessible to, and rewarded by, a larger audience.
Tools that allow for new types of imagery and perspective do not threaten the photographer's role; like all technology, it simply allows a human to enhance their efforts, good or bad as they may be.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
09-13-2012, 06:07 PM
|
| |
I can respect your position and would appreciate if you could post your cousin's thoughts here after you described the 'Remote Viewfinder' technology to him/her. As to making it less restrictive, I think it offers much more freedom. The photographer can be more aware of the surroundings, and can move at a distance to observe the scene from different perspectives.
As to 'making it easier to get a shot of an animal' I'm all in favor. Firstly, if people are able to stay away from the animals, I think it's safer for photographer and animal. Secondly, if people take pictures of an animal, I think they're very likely to see the value of preserving our natural places and the animals that live there.
Instead of a bear rug in front of the fireplace, let's see more 'personally shot' photos of the bear on the mantle.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
09-13-2012, 05:08 PM
|
| |
Because Nikon wasn't being very aggressive about this. It's the type of move you make when you don't want to be out front, but also don't want to be left behind. More so, I feel Nikon did not want to eclipse the D800 and D4x with 'premium' features. Note that I don't credit Nikon for being out front with new technologies, although they've certainly done well following an evolutionary design path which focuses on low cost packaging (D800/D600) of their established and upgraded bodies, while not ceding any overt feature space to competitors. Sony with the SLT technology, embedded GPS, camera apps, and the like is definitely trying out new things - indeed, Sony's Minolta acquisition shows what Hoya could have done with Pentax.
To recap, let's revisit the 'why for' scenarios briefly. For nature photographers, Wifi wireless brings whole new avenues of shooting via the remote viewer. Likewise, for live event photographers, the LTE feature will be absolutely awesome; they can start shooting photos knowing that they are instantly being relayed to their editor. These portions of the industry are always looking for an edge and their budget reflects that...time matters for the event photographer, and nature needs new photography perspectives. Photographers sometimes literally 'die for a shot' - and technology can help.
The 'why for integrated and not a dongle' argument has not been comprehensively evaluated. However, if wireless is integrated, there are numerous benefits:
- Physically, it's better packaging. With body integration and board level chipsets, there are no protrusions (which invite a snag and broken dongle). Overall, the package also takes up less space.
- Related to #1, integration means a closed door, and that means a retained weather seal - no small thing for Pentax's emphasis on WR throughout the product line.
- Integrated antennas can be much better than dongle antennas as the camera body is bigger and allows more tuning.
- With an integrated board level device, there's no need to worry about whether the phone is charged, bluetooth is linked, etc. For the event photographer with LTE, they just compose and shoot, shoot, shoot (upload/sideload happens in the background and doesn't intrude on the photography process).
- It can be easier to create product derivatives, like the aforementioned RemoteK30 (less troubleshooting and testing).
- Compared to dongles, integrated features are actually less burdensome to develop (hardware and software wise), have better performance, are more reliable (easier troubleshooting), consume less energy (usb is not a low power link), are cheaper for the consumer, and more profitable for the company.
- People like integration. They could have a non-cellular PDA with larger screen and a small phone linked via bluetooth (and a gps dongle plugged in), but they seem to like the single package of the smartphone (for all the reasons mentioned above...especially #6).
Why hasn't wireless on a DSLR happened?
The DSLR companies have not been the most innovative camera companies. IMO, the Go Pro HD Hero and Red Camera type companies are the ones that have pushed the industry envelope. However, sooner or later one of the 'Big Imaging' companies will decide to stop being defensive with wireless features and go on the offense. I'm confident that this will happen within the next year, and even Pentax has the resources to be the first. This is a relatively easy feature win for whoever is most aggressive.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
09-13-2012, 02:32 PM
|
| |
Pentax doesn't even have wifi available as a add-on, which proves my point about them losing out on the innovation front.
It's not either or. Pentax now has 3 separate camera models, all having the same imaging sensor. There's obviously room for segmentation.
As previously mentioned, it's relatively simple to create 2 separate products: 1 wireless and 1 non-wireless. The non-wireless model would simply not have antennas and wireless chips on board. Pentax would sell the non-wireless model for $50-100 less.
IMO, the wifi modules are all very lame...especially on a weather sealed body.
Someone will go the route of maximum integration, and reap the benefits. My guess is that it will be either:
- Sony, they already have onboard GPS, the camera app store, and some wifi models. They are also a consumer electronics company and could 'integrate' remote viewfinder/playback with the PS3, their laptops, their connected TV's, etc.
- Canon needs to fight back against Nikon, and for pro shooters the wireless benefits are numerous (especially LTE with the instant news cycles). Canon was the first to bring strong video capability to full frame DSLR's (and how the purists bemoaned this) and they sold tens of thousands of units to videographers. They're probably less afraid to change now.
- Nikon might do it on their D400, but probably in a weakened form (ie deliberately limiting features so as to not eclipse big brother). I think that the next release of their D4x 'pro body' - or even a refresh - will include these features. Ditto for a D800 refresh.
You naysayers might note something: Since this thread started, Sony has released a full frame with integrated GPS and Nikon has released a full frame with wifi support. I haven't noted that either model is a battery sucking beast nor overly expensive. In fact, both are noted for being great values - with no mention of anything other than good battery life.
So, who's looking more right as to the technical feasibility and desirability? I'll keep arguing this as long as it takes...because it's not often that I can proved to be so convincingly right.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
09-13-2012, 12:21 PM
|
| |
And here I thought you might be a production engineer or something.
The price that Nikon sets for the D800E is based on what people will pay - not their production cost.
I stand by my line item analysis.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
09-12-2012, 04:11 PM
|
| |
x
Yes and No. I want to retain the SLR phase focusing. Without creating an entirely new upper body design, the simple thing is to simply re-use the K30 design and ignore the 'eyepiece'. The reason I say this is because the exposure metering requires the pentaprism...although that could likely be designed for with cheaper mirrors and a bit more compactness.
If phase focusing was not a necessity, then the K01 'guts' would suffice.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
09-10-2012, 07:44 PM
|
| |
Can someone explain why you would spend $7000 on a 560mm f/5.6 when you can get a Nikkor 400mm f/2.8 for $9000? And that Nikkor lens would actually let you buy a full frame to go along with it.
I'm a Pentax K30 owner with about $2500 in lenses to go along with that. That's been a good investment and offers a great value. However, if I really needed a long telephoto, I'd find the extra couple thousand to buy the Nikkon, or just rent a setup.
Am I missing something here? I actually suspect that Pentax might never actually deliver a single lens of this type...this is just their way of 'living down' a promised product from their roadmap which they know is not competitive at all. In other words, this is their 'we'll put a price so high that nobody will ever try buy this vaporware'.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
09-10-2012, 01:44 PM
|
| |
There's always testing and the tradeoff of weight vs. strength...but mechanical force is one of the easier things to design for. The big thing is to limit protrusions and use an inherently strong shape. I'm fairly confident that as I envision it, you could drive a car over the RemoteK30, drop it over Niagra falls, etc.
Good...because for a fraction of the cost of your lenses, the 'remote' body could protect them as well. There are certainly pictures/videos I would risk my (camera) body for, and I thought that attitude would be widespread amongst enthusiasts and pros.
I'll PM you...would like to see what you have come up with.
First post gets you first right of purchase (if I'm involved in this...which I hope I'm not...as it will take me years to get to this project).
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
09-10-2012, 01:29 PM
|
| |
Ok...we could make the body out of transparent polycarbonate and you'd still be able to stick your eye up to it and see a viewfinder image. DSLR enough? Yep.
You are way out in the weeds on this one. Not really much in the way of constructive dialogue now...your objections run low (unless you really don't want it).
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
09-10-2012, 01:26 PM
|
| |
Good pickup. Without even looking at the link, I was sure you're pointing to the industrial and scientific imaging stuff (yep...I was right).
Not quite the same, and definitely not the same market (they sell them in single unit quantities).
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
09-10-2012, 01:24 PM
|
| |
MonoK30 was a bad name...changed it to RemoteK30.
Certainly true, but not necessarily so. It's usually only because marketing people want to charge more/make more or restrict the market (ie limit cannibalizing). I would suggest that Pentax not take such a dim view...they need BUZZ!
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
09-10-2012, 01:21 PM
|
| |
Well, there's no viewfinder, but it can certainly use the same optical and imaging elements (ie phase focusing, etc).
The rounding took care of that. I have done embedded systems programming. This is cheap stuff ($10-15K).
Would you buy it for $500? Can you see it being useful?
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
09-10-2012, 01:18 PM
|
| |
Removing the anti-aliasing filters and color filter array from the imaging sensors does almost nothing to reduce the cost of the Leica. Removing screens, viewfinders, and buttons from a K30 body most certainly does.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
09-10-2012, 01:12 PM
|
| |
Your 1 line of text certainly reads more like a casual opinion rather than a well-supported analysis.
Tell you what, I'll build this thing if Pentax won't...and I'll offer you the first one for $500.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
09-10-2012, 12:57 PM
|
| |
...said body intended to thrill 'skateboard shredding' videographers and 'backyard birdfeeder' enthusiasts...in equal amounts.
In a pentax forum thread discussing the viability of adding GPS/Bluetooth/Wifi/cellularLTE wireless features to a DSLR, the question arose: Why?
The 'for' scenario presented was one of 'remote viewing'. No, this is not a CIA type 'psychic' project of the 1950's ("what are they saying now in the Kremlin"). That being said, the concern over government takeover of your brain via the wireless equipped DSLR was indeed a concern cited by some. Before you don your tinfoil hat and point the tinfoil (?) sword in my direction, please note that I am not dismissing privacy concerns, but rather feel that gaining new technology does not always mean losing privacy.
Indeed, new technology does not also mean losing creative control or diminishing the soul of the photographer, but rather will enhance and expand our imaging possibilities.
So, focusing on the benevolent features of wireless, I concocted the following simplistic scenario:
The cost of the wireless features would be about $50 to Pentax. Challenge that number if you like, but there's some component costs and discussion of development and production costs to back it up. As to the technical feasibility, I cited an HD Pro/Hero 'action' camera add on costing $100 which promises Iphone/Android viewing from 600 feet under 'optimal conditions'. Again, one may question marketing claims (always good), but a near line-of-sight radio link in the Alaska outdoors (away from Radio Frequency pollution) is almost spot on to the definition of 'optimal conditions'. Indeed, even with the 3 year old wifi standard, there's ample evidence online of establishing connections at ranges greater than 600'.
I added to the discussion by also discussing how photography might be changed, and whether a new body type might be warranted (see bold, underlined text in the linked comment).
However, a dear reader did in fact move on to the next challenge: the viability and costs of the 'remote sensing' body. I will now discuss the cost element for something I called the RemoteK30 (as in 'pick up your tablet and step back from the camera').
To be clear, the cost of developing and producing a robust physical casing is quite low. Remember, there are far fewer openings due to removing the screen and physical controls (which could really be limited to an on-off switch and battery door). Removing the buttons, screens, prism viewfinder, etc removes a significant amount of cost. The result is a monolithic type casing with a lens mount, battery/sd card door, on/off switch, and maybe a hotshoe/external power port.
My cost estimates:
Development
1. ~$20-30k for development and prototyping of a milled plastic/metal body casing
2. ~$100,000 for polycarbonate body mold and production line jigs
Production
1. Body cost of about $5 (polycarbonate is cheap material) - maybe 30% of the cost of a K30 body and all the doors, etc.
2. Assembly and Quality Control cost of about $20 - ~25% of the cost of a K30. This is a much simpler body.
3. Bill of Material (BOM) for battery/electronics-PCB/imaging sensor/ae/focusing ~ $150 - ~75% of the cost of a K30 BOM. Would use all of the same electronics and imaging components as the K30, K5 MkII, and any future cameras.
Figuring a production run of 10,000 pieces, development costs are ~$15 per body. The production costs are ~$175, or about half the cost of a K30 body. So, rounding off, Pentax could produce these bodies for ~$200/each - on the same production line as the K30.
Figuring a very handsome profit margin (better than the K30), Pentax could still sell the RemoteK30 (ie the robust remote body) for $200-$300 less than the K30. At 30% smaller volume and dimensions, it would be instant buzz and instant competition for HD Hero/Pro type cameras.
Would a $500 RemoteK30 'remote imaging' body with Pentax K mount be attractive to many photographers and videographers? I think so.
Whether catching an unobtrusive, up-close picture of a bear, or a predatory groom at the wedding altar, it's clear that sometimes removing the photographer from the scene can make for a safer, better photo or video.
All in favor say 'aye'!
|
