|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
08-27-2015, 02:25 AM
|
| |
The idea that everyone's supposed to get their cameras from two sources among more of a dozen in the market is just too alien to me.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
08-27-2015, 02:17 AM
|
| |
The frogs are awesome and I especially love the bird on air. There's just something about that photo.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Mirrorless Cameras
08-05-2015, 02:28 PM
|
| |
Try to keep focus. We're discussing what is it that you can put on a mirrorless camera that you can't put in an SLR. As you point out, the reason SLRs don't come with EVFs already is that the technology isn't mature enough. Mirrorless cameras, being crippled, have no other choice, mature tech or not.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Mirrorless Cameras
08-05-2015, 11:38 AM
|
| |
You seem fixated on the idea that an SLR can't have an EVF. Where did you get that bizarre idea from?
Or, better, a hybrid, which is something that's impossible in a mirrorless, because, err, well, it can't do optical TTL.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Mirrorless Cameras
08-05-2015, 07:52 AM
|
| |
The very first time I saw a color LCD, I was blown away by its sharpness and contrast. To me it was obviously superior. However, there were other people who griped about LCD refresh rate and color accuracy for several years. I couldn't even see what they were talking about -- but they were doing different things with their computers.
[/quote]
Well, there you have it. As of now, LCDs are able to do 95% of what CRTs did, and better. That's now. And that's because they've been improving since day one, whereas CRTs had not much where to go.
Compare classic Polaroids with a modern Instax. The Instax is as of now almost able to be used like an old Polaroid was. Almost, but not quite. And it can get to the point where it will be better, but the money isn't there (I think the market is, -ish, but the marketing is far from adequate and the final products themselves seem to have a lot of people in the design team that have no idea what they're doing.
Crippled???? I have no idea how you figure that.
[/quote]
It can be easily deduced from the -less bit - it is just like an SLR but without an important bit and unable to do what was done through it, and all it gains is being smaller, but it isn't by a large degree, and the lenses can be almost as big.
I can't really put it more clearly than I did from the outset - each and every thing that you can put in a mirrorless camera to make it better, you can also put in an SLR. That's the opposite of LCDs vs CRTs.
I don't see any DSLR with an EVF.
When I first learned photography on a 35mm SLR, composing and focusing through the taking lens was a revelation to me. It was the ultimate. This was how I wanted to take pictures. However. . . Unfortunately, today's DSLR optical viewfinders aren't really the same thing. They're relatively small, dim, and lack focusing aids. They're not the ultimate. An EVF works better in dim light (because it gains up the image), gives a better visual impression of exposure, offers focus aids such as magnification or focus peaking, and can overlay more readable info about the camera settings and status. To me, an EVF is obviously better than an OVF in much the same way that first color LCD was obviously better than a CRT.
[/quote]
See? If and when that becomes the general perception, then SLRs will start having EVFs. Or rather hybrid OEVFs, like the Fuji X100 and famly.
The reason they don't yet is precisely that EVFs aren't considered up to the job, globally speaking, even if in specific situations they may have an edge (unlimited gain).
SLRs didn't generally used to have 'Live View' either, they have now. Touchscreens were derided, and yet touch focusing opens a lot of possibilities (and given the slowness of contrast AF, it can sometimes dispense with the need for a remote shutter).
Like with the Polaroid issue, and the viewfinder issue, what irks me is that in so many fronts we are only now recovering the small great conveniences we had in former eras. That's why I'm aggravated that Pentax has no EVFs. Or that Q lenses are few. The old order was replaced before the new order was ready. I don't see that so often in other fields.
---------- Post added 08-05-15 at 03:57 PM ----------
You could make a tiny K-mount mirrorless camera, the problem is that the distance from the lens to the sensor has to be almost 2 inches, like with any 35mm mount (well, some used smaller distances, but always more than an inch). There's no way around that limitation, and it goes for Pentax, Canon, Nikon, or anyone else. That means that the system will hardly ever be pocketable, even with a DA40 XS.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Mirrorless Cameras
06-27-2015, 06:24 PM
|
| |
I can't see how it compares to LCDs vs CRTs. Who ever complained about the former? Yes, it took a while for LCDs to reach the quality of CRTs, but ti was always a matter of degree. Here in this case, there is nothing of the sort. A 'mirrorless' camera is just a crippled SLR, not something different. There is nothing it can offer - apart from a difference in size that is necessarily static rather than evolving - that an SLR can't incorporate as well. Each and every thing that you can put in a mirrorless camera to make it better, you can also put in an SLR. If lenses were much smaller, then there might be a point, but modern SLR lenses are not necesssarily that bigger when compared to mirrorless lenses. Lens size ends up being a function of sensor size more than register, and with diminishing returns.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
06-27-2015, 06:10 PM
|
| |
I could take pictures like that with an EVF. Not without one. Not all of us are steady armed athletes with perfect vision.
I have taken a lot of nice pictures with the Q10, but it always comes down to specific types of photo for which the lack of a VF is not so impacting.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
06-27-2015, 06:06 PM
|
| |
One thing Pentax gets is ergonomics. I find the K-30 much easier to use than the Canon 70d, even if I prefer the latter. The ISO range setting, for instance, is great. I wish there were similar things for speed and aperture.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
06-27-2015, 06:02 PM
|
| |
The Q might be great for a lot of things if it had a bloddy freaking EVF. Without it, it can be more or less good, hardly ever great.That the OVF usable with the 01 costs an arm and a leg doesn't help.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
06-27-2015, 05:52 PM
|
| |
That PP can make an important contribution to the final quality of images beyond what can be accomplished in camera only - no more no less.[/quote]
I'm puzzled. RAW files have nothing done in camera only. They always need PP (whether by hand or by some photo editing software defaults). But judging by the quality of your photos, this is something you must know, so I can't make sense of your comment.
---------- Post added 06-28-15 at 01:57 AM ----------
Hence why reh asked if wildman had JPGs to compare to.
And that's obviously what reh meant when he referred to issues. Of course they have issues. They have whatever issues the sensor, lens, and any other bits of the photo-taking coalition put there.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-30 & K-50
05-07-2015, 02:06 PM
|
| |
We have a K30 and it's great, possibly the best bang for the buck we ever got with a digital camera, but I can't compare it to the K20d as I've never seen one.
I wouldn't shoot above ISO 800 if I want a good quality picture, but where some distortion is allowed I've used it successfully up to 25600.
And as far as I'm concerned it's the one beautiful digital K camera Pentax has made so far, but it seems I'm the minority there.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
05-07-2015, 05:12 AM
|
| |
So, for you who got the lens, can you show us something done with it?
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
05-03-2015, 05:46 PM
|
| |
The problem is it's hard to find shipping for less than 25. Euros, not dollars (tho that's currently less of a difference).
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
05-03-2015, 04:28 PM
|
| |
I'd get one if it could be had for under 50 including postage (and preferably less). As it is, I think it's unreasonable.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
04-22-2015, 03:40 AM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax Q
04-21-2015, 03:29 PM
|
| |
I'm sorry, but I find the original post to be out of line. It would make every sense if it was meant for some folks who come here to bash the system. But, on the contrary, it focuses on those who point out specific improvements they'd like to see. It's poor enough form to mix up the two attitudes, let alone tell the latter they should shut up until they can make the most out of a system they aren't dissing in the first place.
If I can't shoot properly without a viewfinder, I should shut up about it until I manage to shoot as good as folks who can shoot without it? Really, is that the advice that will take us forward?
I opened this link thinking it had to do with tips and tricks on how to get the most out the system. How wrong I was!
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
04-21-2015, 02:48 AM
|
| |
I've decided that the Q's sensor is 6.08 (x4.56), since the other figures don't make sense. The Q7's is known to be 7.6 (x5.7).
For the diffraction values, I really don't know if they're independent of every other factor, but I'm following a table that is inverse of aperture:
(Notice that the numbers for integer apertures are exact, whereas the others are rounded. It's what we do anyway for f numbers, which are really multiples of the square root of 2.)
f1 1600
f1.4 1100
f2 800
f2.8 560
f4 400
f5.6 280
f8 200
f11 140
f16 100
f22 70
f32 50
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
04-20-2015, 10:43 AM
|
| |
The Q tries to resolve 4000/6.08/2 lp/mm = 329, whereas the Q7 tries to resolve 4000/7.6/2 = 263. The resolvable lp/mm are 400 at f4, ~280 at f5.6, 200 at f8, so you need not worry about diffraction on a Q at f4 and on a Q7 at f5.6.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
04-20-2015, 10:28 AM
|
| |
There must have been some limitation, because when you use the quick dial for 'Smart Effect' and you tap the 'save RAW data' button after taking the pic,
- if you are in a quick dial digital filter mode, such as bold monochrome, the cam will save a RAW file with a different name and it will be listed separately in the picture player
- if you are in quick dial 'Smart Effect' 'cross processing' mode (a mode which, when used not via Smart Effect, allows RAW), the cam will save the RAW file in 'correct association' with the JPG just as if you had been shooting in normal RAW+
Possibly something that they had to rewrite more than a little bit of software to support in latter models, otherwise I think they'd have it fixed in firmware by now.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
04-20-2015, 10:20 AM
|
| |
I mildly regret not having taken the Q10 with a 50mm to Kraftwerk last night.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
04-17-2015, 03:29 PM
|
| |
? Citroen invented a lot of stuff.
Do you have any reference to the EVF thing? It's about the only thing I miss on the Q (aside from more lenses, of course, but frankly more important).
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
04-16-2015, 06:44 PM
|
| |
Q lenses are absurdly expensive because they're complex. It's much easier to design lenses for larger formats. That said, 8mm cine lenses from 50 years ago can give great results on the Q, so I wonder.
I think Reh's financial loop analysis makes sense.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
04-16-2015, 06:34 PM
|
| |
Pentax is the Citroen of camera makers, not the Audi.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
04-14-2015, 08:25 AM
|
| |
A note: no zoom lens is a macro lens. A real macro is built differently from normal lenses. They are slower (larger smallest f number), sharper, and usually have selectores or indicators of the type of magnification. BUT in marketing speak, lenses which can focus more closely than the average have been called 'macro'. In practice, and taking into account that this is the Q we're talking about, you may get enough magnification out of them, but sharpness (which is an important point with the Q) is not on a par. Either way, the point of the Q is to have fun, and you can have lots of fun with almost any lens you put in it. And if you shoot in 'bold monochrome', for instance, the lens and ISO do not matter, it always comes out fantastic!
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
04-14-2015, 08:17 AM
|
| |
What do you have to do to a non-WR camera to ruin it, anyway?
|
