|
Forum: Pentax Q
05-15-2019, 04:25 AM
|
| |
I have to admit I was rather disappointed to see Pentax discontinue the Q line. By the time I was ready to purchase a compact camera, it was gone. I went with a Panasonic LX100, which I like, but I think the Q would have been more "fun". (Especially since I never wanted to pay the premium for the "colorful" K's, but many of the Q models were available in wild colors which I think befits their nature.)
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
12-06-2018, 11:50 AM
|
| |
It also refers to the arrangement of wings on certain aircraft. What does that tell you?
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
12-06-2018, 12:26 AM
|
| |
I'll have to disagree with you there, Mee. I found myself doing a lot of 135's with mine. (I also find myself doing a lot of 135's with my 18-135.) Maybe they would be 150's if it had a little extra reach, but the lens is so nice, I almost don't want them to touch it. (At least, not the optics.) And considering they have NO primes in that range . . .
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
12-05-2018, 01:10 PM
|
| |
I remember thinking the focus ring felt weird, but I thought that was just the quick-focus. (I think it was my first quick-focus lens.) My copy didn't have any front- or back-focus issues, and the focus ring wasn't actually loose. I hope if you purchase it again you get a good copy. Once mine (eventually) focused, it was spot-on every time.
---------- Post added 12-05-18 at 02:12 PM ----------
That's a really good point. I didn't actually look at the rumor until after I replied to Lev. I think it's safe to say that there either weren't plans to refresh them or they fell through. Besides, from all accounts, if I was going to refresh the pair, I'd probably rework the 16-50. It doesn't seem to get much love.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
12-05-2018, 12:41 PM
|
| |
Very solid optics and a really useful zoom range marred only by a (very) slow, if no longer unreliable, AF drive motor. IF Pentax were to update the focusing motor in it, I think it would be a runaway seller for them.
You almost can't not have the da* 50-135 on APS-C. I sold mine a little over a year ago and have regretted it ever since. I didn't realize how often I used that zoom range. Nearly everyone whose comments about the lens I've read has loved the lens despite the SDM problems on early copies. Pentax was supposed to have fixed those. How long's it been since you've heard of a new SDM lens with a problem? (Not really intending to hijack the thread.)
Having said that, I was very disappointed by the AF speed (which is why I sold the lens). My 18-135 beats the pants off it for AF. It makes the 50-135 far less useful, and made me consider sending it to Uncle Vanya to be converted to screw drive despite the fact that my SDM worked perfectly. (It's supposed to focus much faster as a screw-drive lens).
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
11-28-2018, 08:50 AM
|
| |
Hate to tell you this, but it's never been the sensor that has limited video in Pentax products. It's the processing.
Larger camera manufacturers have more money to dump into custom processors & advanced battery management (the big problem). Pentax AFAIK takes off-the-shelf chips from other manufacturers and rebadges them, hence the "trailing edge" video. Since Pentax claims to make still cameras for photographers, it's not really a priority for them.
Video processing takes lots of compute power, needs lots of bandwidth, and hence takes lots of battery juice and generates lots of heat. These work greatly against battery life and require custom silicon.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
10-30-2017, 02:23 PM
|
| |
I seem to remember reading somewhere (can't quite remember) that Ansel Adams thought that magic ratio was about 1.4. This makes the Pentax Limiteds (15, 21, (x1.5)31, 43, (x1.25, da*)55, 77) a pretty magic set for APS-C users as most of those numbers are "spot-on" (if you agree with Mr. Adams). If you really want, I can look in some of his photo books to see if I can find the quote, but that just reminds me that I've got to get Joss Whedon's Firefly back to him.
---------- Post added 10-30-17 at 04:30 PM ----------
As many of you might have guessed (if you surmised at all), I've done little useful photographic work. My pictures are mainly crap. But the brief months I spent working for a small newspaper drilled into my head why photojournalists carry a 24-70. (Of course, it was a poor paper, so I used my Pentax with the 18-55. f/2.8 would have been nicer.) For indoor events (of almost any kind) there's just about nothing better. For sports, that 70-200 gets you almost any indoor sport you might want. I've never done a wedding (or a weeding) but I can imagine it would be about similar to covering a basketball game (if you were quieter & more careful).
I photographed an indoor trade show a couple of months ago (unfortunately, I took the LX-100 because I didn't know they wanted me to photograph it)
and an enthusiast who had a day job as a portrait photographer showed up. He complained to me about his lens choice -- he brought his 70-200 & a
15-30 or something similar (Canon). I understood exactly where he was coming from. However, I looked at the photos on his web site, and he was talented -- he certainly got some nice shots with that combo, it just made his job harder.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
10-29-2017, 11:54 AM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
10-26-2017, 09:12 AM
|
| |
You know the thing that frustrates me? Ever since I purchased my first DSLR in 2008, I've tried to make pictures as good as I imagined them in my head, but my gear keeps getting in the way! All I need is a Limited zoom 9-30mm f/1.2 that's about the size and weight of my DA 15, and I could make those photos! PENTAX, YOUR GEAR IS GETTING IN MY WAY! I'm going to have to look at alternatives now.
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
10-26-2017, 02:53 AM
|
| |
I think he is assuming the free (or possibly non-DXO) versions are going away.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
10-26-2017, 12:58 AM
|
| |
It also makes light fandangos extremely hard to see.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
10-25-2017, 06:49 AM
|
| |
I want to let everyone know that I find this discussion fascinating -- many things I hadn't considered, and many plausible explanations for the so-called low-light blues. Especially the anecdotal factor -- people's experiences vary. What does one word really mean to two different people?
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
10-23-2017, 01:01 PM
|
| |
I've been reading reviews of the Tamron 17-50 vs. Sigma 17-50 & Pentax 16-50. One of the big complaints I read about the Tamron is that it has "trouble" focusing in low light. If they're all the same aperture (f/2.8), why would one lens focus "better" in low light than the others? Could this just be people's impression of the Tamron because of its relative cheapness, or is there something specific that would cause one lens to outperform another for focusing in low light?
Also, do these problems disappear when using contrast-detect (live view)?
I'd really love some sort of science-based explanation.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
10-21-2017, 04:12 AM
|
| |
That's just as well. I've put aftermarket screens in two Pentax DSLR's, only to find that they needed shims to correct the distance which are almost impossible to find. (One of my major irritations of Pentax is that you can use all this legacy glass but they don't make focusing screens to support it.)He means that a lens (especially an old or cheap one) will focus "differently" when turning clockwise vs. counter-clockwise (left-to-right is different than right-to-left) because of wear and/or sloppy manufacturing.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
10-12-2017, 10:36 AM
|
| |
I don't think he was demeaning the K-1. It seemed to me like he was mocking DxO for putting a camera in their top-10 based on something other than popularity. I've watched several of his shows and he doesn't seem to have an anti-Pentax bias.
But why should he try the K-1? He's got lots of Nikon and Canon glass, and he's happy with their cameras. Just because I prefer the ergonomics and lens line-up of Pentax doesn't mean everyone does. Not everyone wants to shoot with a compact bag of Limited primes.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
10-11-2017, 10:25 PM
|
| |
If anything, more MF models (compact or not) would mean more sensor availability. Where does everyone else get their sensor? Most manufacturers that make sensors (even if they also make cameras) sell the sensors separately because it's so expensive to develop them. And I think that Pentax has a much better chance than most for the same reason I liked the K-mount system when I purchased my first SLR in 2008 -- a well-established line of lenses and excellent compatibility with vintage glass. Plus, as many folks have mentioned with other mirrorless systems, much of the size advantage goes away when you get away from "normal" focal lengths because they can't make the lenses any smaller. Not to mention that MF glass is bigger to begin with.
I think Pentax's chances to sell mirror-based systems are better in MF because shooters there are more likely to employ tripods than 35mm format shooters. Also, the 645z just looks more impressive to many non-camera-savvy customers than the Hasselblad or Fuji bodies.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
10-11-2017, 05:15 PM
|
| |
That was my understanding -- as far as flash exposure goes, P-TTL was more of a "work-around" than anything else. Not that any other camera company did it any differently. Whatever else P-TTL does (I'm guessing optical remote flash control?) would probably have been possible to add on to TTL if they didn't have to replace it in the first place.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
10-11-2017, 12:25 PM
|
| |
I should watch him more often. I find him amusing. Thanks for the link.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
10-09-2017, 07:21 PM
|
| |
Plus it works with Pentax being a tough, weather-sealed, cold-capable system.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
10-09-2017, 07:19 PM
|
| |
How much usable (necessary?) focus range does that typically take off a lens?
|
|
Forum: General Photography
10-09-2017, 04:13 PM
|
| |
I think they will continue to develop Thetas as long as they're successful, and that's great! This won't take resources away from other successful camera lines. The Theta's success will not, I believe, take away from the 645 digital, FF, or APS-C lines as long as they are successful in their own right. The profit-per-sale has the potential to be much higher on the higher ticket items. Ultimately how much money will they be able to get for a Theta vs. a 645Z? Also, there's a certain amount of prestige involved for Ricoh/Pentax in making the higher-ticket cameras.
Don't forget that one of the appeals of the Theta is that it is associated with a "real" camera company (which impresses many who know no better). Cross-pollination is also possible, with ideas and technologies moving either way. This can only help both lines.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
10-09-2017, 02:47 PM
|
| |
Wow. I didn't even know people did that. I thought "cage training" was cruel. But I don't have a dog -- I'm not an "animal lover," so most of this doesn't apply to me anyway.
---------- Post added 10-09-17 at 04:50 PM ----------
Why black-and-white, per se?
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
10-09-2017, 02:33 PM
|
| |
That's an interesting take on it I hadn't considered.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
10-09-2017, 03:43 AM
|
| |
I could actually go for that. Naming things after Fred amuses me, like this: Fred Paris. They actually take that seriously. I'm not sure if they realize how funny that sounds.
---------- Post added 10-09-17 at 05:44 AM ----------
Well, it does seem that some old lenses suffer from that. Especially if they've spent time near the equator.
---------- Post added 10-09-17 at 05:45 AM ----------
I always thought that name was just plain strange. But when I think about naming premium lenses with *, it makes a certain sort of sense.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
10-09-2017, 03:36 AM
|
| |
But much less amusing.
---------- Post added 10-09-17 at 05:36 AM ----------
I still like "super-duper multi-coating" better. :D
|
