|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
08-14-2016, 02:14 AM
|
| |
Many years ago I had a ladyfriend who told me what I should wear as a consultant. No "autumn colours" because I'm pale and they don't work, but navy and red and white, etc. Years after we separated, and I've retired from being a consultant, I still mentally have to ask her permission to buy browns and greens, etc!
I have to keep reminding myself that I no longer need "to save for when I'm retired and living on my pensions". I'm there - whatever I had in mind to spend that money on, now is the time! But I'm still dithering about whether to buy an extra 64 GB memory card or two because of the larger raw file sizes for the K-1!
---------- Post added 14th Aug 2016 at 10:25 AM ----------
I've known Brian Bower for years. He writes books on Leicas.
Some of us do have some 2nd-hand clues about what a luxury camera is!
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
08-13-2016, 04:23 AM
|
| |
The older you get, the more an extra possibility opens up:
Becoming incapacitated or dying before you've been able to spend your money!
I'm 69, with no dependents. (Still healthy, I hope). I think like this now.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
08-11-2016, 02:35 AM
|
| |
Chuckle! How true.
I'm not a professional photographer. I can't claim even to need any photographic equipment!
Also, now I'm a pensioner with all debts paid off and no dependants, my purchasing decisions are based on a completely different algorithm. I have lots of hours available in a week, but not as many years left as I once did. I see no merit in wasting a year without something in the hope that the price falls so that I end up with more unspent money when I can't do photography any more!
My algorithm is if I want it and I'm willing to pay for it then I buy it.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
08-04-2016, 01:25 AM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
08-03-2016, 11:36 AM
|
| |
I'm learning not to waste my time trying to answer those questions!
I switched to Pentax FF photography over 3 months ago. Since then, and perhaps 25,000 frames later, shot in many locations doing all sorts of work, I've experienced greater success measured by what matters to me. (Enjoyment; count of good photos coming away from an event; etc).
I have posted very many of these photos to DPReview.
My K-3II now has the role of doing nothing unless my K-1 breaks.
I have no more need to explain to APS-C users why I favour FF than APS-C users need to justify to m4/3 why they favour APS-C.
(And I don't expect 645z users to explain to me why they favour their format over FF).
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
08-03-2016, 02:13 AM
|
| |
I agree! That is why I said:
"Just two more zooms, as small, light, and "affordable" as possible, added to the 28-105mm, while still retaining high image quality, would transform the Pentax FF lens line-up.... Perhaps an 18-30mm or 18-36mm variable aperture zoom and a 100-300mm variable aperture zoom."
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
08-02-2016, 10:11 PM
|
| |
No one needs to justify going for the FF range or the APS-C range. It is their business, and besides, both ranges are capable of supporting superb photography.
Problems often arise when they do try to justify their planned purchases. The justifications sometimes appear to have holes or flaws, and well-meaning people may point out what appear to be solutions in case that person has made a wrong decision.
It isn't about talking people into buying what they don't want. It is really a matter of ensuring that the person has the best information available to make an informed decision, that may be different from an earlier decision that was less well informed.
(There is an important difference between "I'm going to do X because of reason Y" and "I did X because of reason Y"!)
---------- Post added 3rd Aug 2016 at 06:23 AM ----------
Yes!
Another thing the debate sometimes revolves around (but perhaps implicitly) is what accompanying equipment, such as lenses, people already possess.
Example: I had ordered the two recent Pentax long FF zooms for use on APS-C cameras long before I had decided to buy the K-1. So I already knew that the K-1 would make those lenses more effective, and they reduced the additional further cost of going for a comprehensive FF range.
At one extreme is deciding whether to buy a complete FF range including lenses. At the other extreme is simply deciding whether to buy a K-1 or a K-3II.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
08-02-2016, 01:36 PM
|
| |
It was just an argument for cropping at one end of the focal length range for a particular lens!
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
08-02-2016, 06:34 AM
|
| |
I'm learning to treat the 36 megapixels of the K-1 as a luxury that enables me to do extra things as long as I am prepared to discard lots of them.
Consider your example: Suppose you put the D FA 24-70mm f/2.8 on the K-1. Then obviously, (apart, perhaps, for the weight), the 24mm end of your requirement is satisfied.
Now go to the 70mm end. If you take a photo, and then crop so that the result has the same number of pixels as the K-3-series, (which you appear to accept), the field of view will then be the same as that of an 85mm lens on the K-3-series.
So the D FA 24-70mm lens on a K-1 can do anything that a 24-85mm lens can do on a K-3-series, plus a bit more at the 24mm end.
It can be thought of as a 24mm (36MP) to 85mm (24MP) f/2.8 lens.
Cropping further to get the same field of view from the K-1 as a 105mm lens on the K-3-series, 16MP of the K-1's sensor are now being used.
It can be thought of as a 24mm (36MP) to 105mm (16MP) f/2.8 lens.
(I hope I got my sums right! But the point I'm making is that, if you are prepared to have an image of just 24MP, you can think of a lens on a K-1 as being a longer lens than it is, because you can crop it down if you get too much in the frame).
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
08-01-2016, 02:22 PM
|
| |
For purposes here, what I think is different is: as small, light, and "affordable" as possible, while still retaining high image quality.
Look at the current FF zooms. (5 of them. The remaining 10 current FF lenses are primes). Only the 28-105mm lens fits that description.
Anyone looking at the current FF lens line-up would have to conclude that Pentax simply does not have an "affordable" FF zoom range. Not even close!
Just two more zooms, as small, light, and "affordable" as possible, added to the 28-105mm, while still retaining high image quality, would transform the Pentax FF lens line-up.
Hence transform the price-performance attractiveness of the total Pentax FF system. (Having a relatively cheap camera isn't enough).
The important questions are "what are the small, light, "affordable" zooms that (between them) cover the range between (say) 18mm and 28mm, and between 105mm and (say) 300mm".
As I said earlier: "Perhaps an 18-30mm or 18-36mm variable aperture zoom and a 100-300mm variable aperture zoom".
I am not suggesting those lenses because I want them. I am suggesting them because, in my opinion, Ricoh and its broad potential FF customer base needs them.
Note: I assert that Ricoh must provide those lenses. It would be very bad business to rely on legacy lenses, 2nd-hand lenses, 3rd-party lenses, or Pentax non-FF lenses. I doubt if Ricoh will be that stupid.
(Edit: I think there are 19 current Pentax zoom lenses available for Pentax APS-C cameras. They cover the range from 10mm to 450mm. A number are "affordable". Just 5 of them are FF lenses, and only 1 of those is "affordable").
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
08-01-2016, 07:23 AM
|
| |
I have both the new 15-30mm f/2.8 and the new 24-70mm f/2.8. They both have high FF quality at 24mm.
I'm making the point that Ricoh (which presumably has limited development resources for lens) should be initially going for lenses that are as different as possible from the current ones. And one of the new lenses I suggested was something like an 18-30mm or 18-36mm variable aperture lightish, smallish, "affordable" lens, which obviously also covers 24mm. These are the sorts of lenses that will increase the customer base for the K-1.
Only once they have the maximum spread of lenses, especially lightish, smallish, "affordable" lenses with high image quality, and (probably) new prime lenses as on the FF roadmap, should they they develop and release lenses that are near competitors.
There will always be a desire for a lens that is close to what they have but with perhaps just one parameter different. And when development resources become available, those small gaps can be filled. But what they currently lack to a massive degree are smallish, lightish, "affordable" zooms that are either side of the 28-105mm lens, (which exists and therefore need not be duplicated), and until they have these the Pentax FF lens range will be open to valid criticism.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
08-01-2016, 04:46 AM
|
| |
I don't claim that such a lens wouldn't be useful! Obviously it would be significantly more expensive, as well as bigger and heavier, than the recent 28-105mm lens, but you accept that.
But when you talked of ".... drop in price for the body" I thought I would take the total system cost into consideration. Until that happens, your statement "there would be far fewer cases for APSC" won't happen. A K-1 plus any single lens isn't likely compete well with an APS-C camera plus 2 or 3 lenses covering between them a large focal length range. I would want something lightish and "affordable" shorter than 24mm, and something lightish and "affordable" well beyond 105mm.
Also, I was trying to think of this from Ricoh's point of view. With limited development resources, I think their highest priority should be to supply lenses that are as different as possible from the existing ones, (but with high image quality, which should be a given when selling to someone with a K-1), rather than lenses that are close enough to compete with them. The lenses I suggested might be bought by someone who already has all 5 recent FF lenses, because they are so different and can be used both for entry-level and for travel purposes. (Ricoh won't make money from legacy lenses, so they need lenses in their current line-up).
There would be time to add greater variety later, once the customer base for Pentax FF has expanded as a result of the more "affordable" range.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
08-01-2016, 04:15 AM
|
| |
Speaking as a pensioner without "money to throw around", who has decided to use Pentax FF instead of APS-C because it is a better photographic experience that more easily gives me the results I want, I accept that your statement is personal to you, and I won't attempt to persuade you otherwise.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
08-01-2016, 01:14 AM
|
| |
I agree that those factors will make the Pentax FF range much more attractive. But I am suspicious about the lenses you suggest.
Consider the current 28-105mm lens, which gives me very high image quality. My own tests indicate that it is only f/3.5 right at the wide end, and by 31mm has become f/4. In other words, it is more like a 28-105mm f/4-f/5.6 lens, with a slight aperture bonus at the very widest setting.
I've seen regrets that it doesn't reach 24mm and/or that it isn't a constant aperture. But I'm convinced that either of those would have greatly increased the size, weight, and cost. And/or would have reduced the image quality. I believe that, given the (mostly) no-compromise Pentax FF lenses that are currently available, Ricoh should introduce new zooms that concentrate on high image quality, small-size, low-weight, and "affordability". And I think such lenses would be much more limited in their parameters than your suggestions.
My observation is that as the sensor gets larger, providing a lens with a largish zoom-ratio rapidly escalates in size, weight, and cost. Compare typical zoom-ratios for medium format, FF, APS-C, m4/3, and smaller sensors. Physics gets in the way!
I think the best strategy for Ricoh would be to take it for granted that people wanting a lower-price FF system will buy the 28-105mm lens, then they will want a wide zoom and a longer zoom that overlap just a little bit with it. In other words, offer a 3-lens range, each of them biased towards the above parameters, including cost. Perhaps an 18-30mm or 18-36mm variable aperture zoom and a 100-300mm variable aperture zoom.
(Although I have the 4 recent professional-class FF zooms, I also have the 28-105mm lens, simply because it is light enough with high image quality to be worth having near my K-1 all the time. I might buy the two lenses I've just suggested for similar reasons, perhaps as a convenient FF travel-system).
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
07-26-2016, 11:51 PM
|
| |
I'm amused at some of the responses here and elsewhere in threads similar to this. Not just K-1 versus K-3-series. But Q versus m4/3, m4/3 versus APS-C, APS-C versus FF, FF versus 645z, etc.
When I switched from 35mm film, (which I'd used for over 40 years), to Pentax APS-C, that was right at the time for me. But I couldn't claim it was right for others, because I couldn't assume I comprehended how they experienced photography.
For carry-around purposes, a simple m4/3 system, (in addition to my APS-C system), proved wrong for me, but others might be happy with it. Ditto the Q-system. It was wrong for me, but other people clearly enjoy using it. I eventually realised that for carry-around purposes, any system camera was wrong for me, and I'm happy with my Panasonic LX100 non-system camera when I don't want to carry any system around.
Now I've made the switch to Pentax FF as my system. K-1 plus all 5 recent zooms. (No legacy lenses). I've used it for about 3 months, lots of events and other shoots, perhaps approaching 25,000 frames, 100s of photos uploaded to DPReview threads. There is no doubt whatsoever that this decision was right for me. But since I had already bought the new 150-450mm and 70-200mm lenses for use on the K-3-series, they didn't contribute towards the cost of switching to the K-1. (Now my K-3II has become my back-up in case the K-1 breaks).
Viewed from my position as a now-confirmed Pentax FF system user, I don't expect Pentax APS-C system users to justify their decision. What is right for me won't necessarily be right for them. (Obviously I don't need to justify my decision to them either! The logic they use to explain why they like APS-C often misses the point for me).
I observe that sometimes when people argue in favour of a particular system or sensor-size, what they are really doing is describing their own history, their own views on photography, their own thought-processes in making purchasing decisions. But people differ massively, of course.
(In the unlikely event that anyone wants to know about my history with photographic equipment, I keep my Gear List at DPReview pretty-well up-to-date).
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
07-25-2016, 04:15 AM
|
| |
I think that is one of the best answers I've seen for this question!
An FF system isn't simply "superior". It is different, with its own advantages and disadvantages. (Just as APS-C isn't simply "superior" to m4/3, nor 645 simply "superior" to FF).
I bought the K-1 because I has enough knowledge and experience to be confident that it was the right decision - for me. But people differ massively, and I don't assume that what is right for me is right for others, even if they themselves are experienced.
|
