Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home

Showing results 1 to 25 of 144 Search:
Forum: Sold Items 12-19-2018, 12:06 PM  
For Sale - Sold: Pentax K-5 II Body only or w/ DA 50-200 WR - Lower price again.
Posted By tigrebleu
Replies: 27
Views: 3,865
Hmm... would you consider selling the body without the lenses?
Forum: Pentax Full Frame 01-11-2014, 05:02 PM  
¡¿another pentax ff image?!
Posted By tigrebleu
Replies: 28
Views: 4,274
This is a very old image. I remember seeing this on the Pentax SLR forums at dpreview after I bought my K10D in early 2008.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 01-07-2014, 11:38 PM  
Sigma announces new 50mm f1.4 DG HSM Art Lens
Posted By tigrebleu
Replies: 223
Views: 36,621
Some newly designed polymers are much more thermal resistant and don't expand or contract much (though still not as little as metal). But they're rather expensive... My guess is Sigma used a bit of these in their lenses featuring "thermally stable components", where metal would be difficult or improper to use.

LoL! But then, the old Saturn cars don't have rust on any of these polymer panels.

Joke aside, no comparison between lenses and cars possible. Lenses usually don't stand outside in -5 to -20 Celcius degrees for all winter, nor do they stand under the degrading UV rays of the sun all year long.

But I get the point, polymers do expand more. ;)
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 01-07-2014, 11:25 PM  
Sigma announces new 50mm f1.4 DG HSM Art Lens
Posted By tigrebleu
Replies: 223
Views: 36,621
While this lens uses a double gauss design, I doubt we can call it that... Rather, it's more like a double double gauss lens design, LoL.

It looks like if two double gauss design lenses were stacked one in front of another. I trust Sigma to use this design in order to improve image quality. I got the feeling this lens will beat the crap out of the other 50s (and/or 55, 58, etc.) out there...

Here's a random guess: razor sharp wide open, razor sharp at middle apertures and razor sharped stopped down until diffraction sets in, low CAs, low distortion, low light falloff, etc.

In fact, the only thing I don't like about the Sigma lenses is their flare resistance, which is... pretty bad. I owned the 70mm Macro, which was pretty good with flare resistance, but I did use the 10-20mm F/4-5.6 on my K-7 and 17-70mm F/2.8-4 "C" on my K-5 on a few occasions, and both were uber ugly for stage event photography, and were so because of the atrocious flare issues they were plagued with.

The 10-20 makes every spotlight turn into a supernova of distorted rainbow colors, and on the 17-70, a reflexion of every light source appears at the bottom of the image. Otherwise, they're respectively good and great lenses, and both are very, very affordable.
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals 12-19-2013, 03:30 PM  
Pentax staying small. An advantage?
Posted By tigrebleu
Replies: 27
Views: 2,297
By the way, Canon imaging sales did okay in 2012 (business in the black), like Ricoh (in the black too). Nikon did less well than expected, and was a little in the red in terms of sales, if I recall correctly. Other imaging corporations (or imaging divisions of a corporation) were either just okay or a little in the red. Some were not doing very good (Olympus), but none looked in danger or anything...

In theory, and under the same management, smaller companies usually can turn around faster to adapt to the market's changes than bigger ones.

But in practice, management is key to how a company can survive in an ever-changing market. The best example is Kodak... It used to be the biggest photo company in the world. Several times bigger than Nikon. And when digital cameras first were introduced on the market, Kodak was manufacturing most of them. But they ended up filing for bankruptcy anyways. The big size of the company didn't helped when it was time to turn around, but it probably went down because of some bad decisions made by management (like introducing 7 new APS film cameras the year Canon and Nikon stopped introducing new 35mm film cameras to focus on point & shoot digicams).

Still, a smaller company usually has fewer employees, which results in lower operational expenses, and has a higher cashflow-to-borrowed money ratio in its operational budget which means it's usually less affected by interest rates or (not too big) financial losses. That can make a company more "agile" in the business world, for it doesn't need to borrow more money to put capital into new technologies when the market is changing and its operational costs are low. A bigger company can end up more in debt when sales don't meet expectations, which can reduce its ability to change its orientation as swiftly as a smaller company.

But then, if the company is specialized (example: a super thin electronics copper wire products manufacturer) and that its specialization becomes obsolete because of a new technology, it can disappear in no time, no matter how agile its small size makes it into the economical world and how good its management is. They often lack the financial power a bigger company could have to change its business into something else before it's too late.

Example: Canon manufactures lenses, still and digital cameras, but also broadcast lens components, printers, copiers, chipset manufacturing machines, scientific optical imaging stuff, etc. So they could adapt better to a drop in camera and lens demand, thanks to copiers, chipset manufacturing machines, etc. They can develop business into different markets as well, for they have a wider range of activities that makes them a solid name in other things than just cameras.

Nikon's business, on the other end, is mostly concentrated in still cameras and lenses, with a fair part of sports optics, microscopes, optics and scientific optical imaging stuff completing their portfolio. If the camera market was to suffer a lot from a big change, Nikon could be much more affected than Canon in the same circumstances. This is what happened in 2012 and 2013, and it will probably go the same way in the next years to come, before the market stabilizes a bit (less entry-level point & shoot to the expense of mobile devices, a more frequent DSLR update to make up for the decreasing market of first-time DSLR buyers, etc.)

All-in-all, I'd say a smaller size can be an advantage in business, but it depends a lot on the business type you're in and, mostly, how good your management is.

But I'm no expert on this subject, so consider all of the above as being just my two cents.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 11-15-2013, 07:37 PM  
Minor Roadmap Update- TC is now HD
Posted By tigrebleu
Replies: 50
Views: 12,121
I'd wage on the same new HD coating appearing on all but the kit lenses. Same for the DC motor.

The WR is IMHO a different matter, however. It's more complex to add WR on a lens, and it drives the price up, so my guess is, most of the affordable primes and zooms lenses updates or new products won't have WR in them, but all mid-range to pro lenses will. But that's a so-so guess anyways.

As long as Ricoh FINALLY comes up with some F/4 or better, WR ultra-wide prime or zoom lens, I'll be happy. I'm disappointed not seeing such a lens released yet.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 11-15-2013, 07:28 PM  
DA 20-40mm Ltd. By The Numbers?
Posted By tigrebleu
Replies: 184
Views: 23,901
Hey, no problem Ron.

I do understand your point, though, Canon and Nikon offerings in this focal length range is limited to rather big FF lenses on APS-C DSLRs. Though all these lenses have rather good IQ, they're... big, LoL. Good job on your part of the research, BTW. You even included the prices, something I didn't care as much about.

I was happy to add a few other products for the sake of comparison. :)
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 11-15-2013, 07:23 PM  
DA 20-40mm Ltd. By The Numbers?
Posted By tigrebleu
Replies: 184
Views: 23,901
Well, as I stated in the beginning of my reply, I did get the point of comparing APS-C sensors solutions on other systems in the same focal length range, but indeed, maybe not everybody did. My point, on the other hand, was just to provide more products to compare the DA20-40 to, especially in the more compact categories of APS-C and 4/3rds dedicated lenses.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 11-13-2013, 08:47 PM  
DA 20-40mm Ltd. By The Numbers?
Posted By tigrebleu
Replies: 184
Views: 23,901
I understand that you wanted to compare lenses with a similar focal length range on APS-C, but comparing full frame lenses with an image circle about twice the surface area of APS-C lenses isn't fair for the full frame lenses to start with, at least in terms of size, weight and filter size. You still have a point in the fact that Canon and Nikon don't have a lot of APS-C options in the range of the DA 20-40mm (the 17-55mm F2.8 lens they both have in their line-up is the only one, actually :lol: ).

To be fairer, you could also have included other lenses with a similar equivalent focal length range, but in APS-C (DSLR or mirrorless) and in FourThirds and MicroFourThirds mount.

So I added a few APS-C and 4/3 lenses to the ones in the original post. And for purposes of a "decent" comparison, I didn't include any lens with a max. aperture smaller than F/4, or any lens with a focal length lower than 28mm or greater than 70mm in full frame equivalent, so that it's close to the limits of the Pentax's 30-60mm in FF equivalent focal length range. Here we go:

- Canon: no lens in the 28-70mm FF equivalent focal length range and/or with a max. aperture of F4 or faster.

- Fujinon: no lens in the 28-70mm FF equivalent focal length range and/or with a max. aperture of F4 or faster.

- Nikkor: no lens in the 28-70mm FF equivalent focal length range and/or with a max. aperture of F4 or faster.

- (Olympus) Zuiko Lens 14-35mm F2.0 SWD
Filter: 77mm — Size (D x L): 86.0mm x 123.0mm* — Weight: 900g* — Weather sealed: YES** — Motor: SWD — Stabilizer: NO, in-camera
*: Plus the length and weight increase of a MMF-2 or MMF-3 adapter when used on MicroFourThirds cameras.
**: Only with MMF-3 on MFT cameras (MMF-2 not weather sealed).

- Panasonic: no lens in the 28-70mm FF equivalent focal length range and/or with a max. aperture of F4 or faster.

- Pentax DA Limited 20-40mm f/2.8-4.0
Filter: 55mm — Size (D x L): 71.0mm x 68.5mm — Weight: 283g — Weather sealed: YES — Motor: DC — Stabilizer: NO, in-camera

- Samsung: no lens in the 28-70mm FF equivalent focal length range and/or with a max. aperture of F4 or faster.

- Sigma ART 18-35mm f1.8 DC HSM
Filter: 72mm — Size (D x L): 78mm x 121.0mm — Weight: 811g — Weather sealed: NO — Motor: HSM — Stabilizer: NO (in-camera on Pentax recent DSLRs)

- Sony: no lens in the 28-70mm FF equivalent focal length range and/or with a max. aperture of F4 or faster.

- Tamron: no lens in the 28-70mm FF equivalent focal length range and/or with a max. aperture of F4 or faster.

The Sigma 18-35mm beats the DA 20-40mm on aperture speed and wide FOV, but is much shorter at the tele end and doesn't have weather sealing. And it's a LOT bigger than the Pentax 20-40mm.

The other one, the Olympus Zukio 14-35mm F/2 is as big as the Sigma 18-35mm, has similar aperture and size, and is even a bit heavier. But it does have weather sealing.

Still, the DA 20-40mm offers the best option in the pack when it comes to traveling light or using a non-obstrusive lens on your camera, at least in this very limited focal length range.


If I could've included the Fujinon XF 18-55mm F/2.8-4 R LM, it would have been a close call, with the Fujinon having a better focal length range but no weather sealing... Same for Panasonic's Lumix G X Vario 12-35mm F2.8 Asph. / Power OIS lens, with the Panasonic having a faster aperture, wider FOV but shorter tele reach and no weather sealing either. But both go beyond the 28-70mm FF equivalent focal length range.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 11-13-2013, 07:14 PM  
DA 20-40mm Ltd. By The Numbers?
Posted By tigrebleu
Replies: 184
Views: 23,901
All these lenses have silent focusing (USM for Canon, SWM for Nikon)... All Canon lenses mentioned in the original post are weather sealed, but the Nikon 17-35mm is not weather resistant (well, there's a ring at the mount, not no W/R on the rest of the lens), while the 16-35mm is fully W/R.

The Canon 16-35mm and Nikon 17-35mm are F/2.8 pro lenses, and make good use of metal in their construction, with some external parts made out of plastic. The Canon 17-40mm and Nikon 16-35mm have a metal barrel, and some external parts made out of metal, but they use a bit more plastic on the exterior than the pro lenses.
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion 11-12-2013, 11:08 PM  
And meanwhile, in Israel -
Posted By tigrebleu
Replies: 6
Views: 1,743
You are right, Hasselblad never made any TLR camera.

In fact, I remember reading something about the fact that the founder of Rollei and Mr. Hasselblad himself actually had agreed on Blad never making TLR so it wouldn't compete against Rollei's TLRs...
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion 11-12-2013, 11:04 PM  
Help! Which Camera should i Buy?
Posted By tigrebleu
Replies: 8
Views: 999
The lack of an anti-aliasing filter can impact the image quality of pictures with fabric on them. It shouldn't be an issue with sports photography, as it usually requires higher ISO settings that should make any moiré disappear under the noise, even the little noise found at settings as low as ISO 400.

Now for weddings, the lack of AA filter can cause moiré to appear on fabric. It's pretty ugly when it happens, and there's NO WAY to know if a file will show moiré or not unless you look at them on a computer monitor, for the LCD screen at the back of the camera CAN NOT show moiré even if it happens — its resolution is too low.

Also, keep in mind that most lenses will act as an anti-aliasing filter when used at small apertures (F/16 and smaller), for diffractions starts to set in at F/11 on APS-C sensors. And diffraction just makes subjects fuzzier-looking as it creeps into the image. Usually, best results are obtained at medium apertures (F/4-F/8), but that's also at medium aperture that moiré is more likely to strike.

The issue of moiré doesn't appear very often, except in fashion photography, because of the fine detail in the fabric, and in architecture, where fine, parallel lines can cause moiré if photographed at the wrong distance (the World Trade Center's Twin Towers were a good example of that). But even in fashion and architecture photo, it's not a major issue, for it happens only occasionally. Out of forty photos, one picture might have moiré, while the thirty-nine other won't because the shots will be made closer or further from the subject or at a different aperture.

But the problem is even less an issue if you shoot RAW. The best RAW converter do include tools to remove moiré (it acts like a softening filter, though, making you lose some level of detail). I use Capture One Pro and its moiré removing tool is just awesome. Lightroom's moiré reduction is supposed to be very efficient too.

Now regarding the sharpness, the lack of an anti-aliasing filter can help bring out extra detail in pictures. But...

In theory, the K-5 IIs should win the sharpness contest when compared to the K-5 II, at least on subjects with a high level of detail. But the difference isn't huge to begin with unless you zoom into the image or produce very large size prints.

But when applying careful sharpening on the K-5 II files, the difference between both cameras should become invisible to the naked eye. Of course, adding some sharpening to the K-5 IIs files as well will give the K-5 IIs the edge, back, but only for so long, as the files of the K-5 II are probably able to handle much more sharpening than those of the K-5 IIs, which will produce more and more demosaicing artefacts as more sharpening is added.

So if you mainly shoot landscape at low ISO, the K-5 IIs is worth it. If you shoot subjects with fabrics (or architecture with fine parallel lines) often, then the K-5 II might be more appropriate, and the difference can be evened out with some good sharpening anyway.

Hope it helps.
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion 11-11-2013, 04:30 PM  
Question about 6MP bodies and low light performance
Posted By tigrebleu
Replies: 82
Views: 6,486
Well, lower pixel count means larger pixels, which usually leads to a better signal/noise ratio, which is good for low noise.

However, technology improves fast, so fast that today's sensors with larger pixel count actually produce better images than sensors with bigger pixels, unless these sensors with bigger pixels are those of recent cameras (like the sensors found in the D4 or 1DX, which have big pixels compared to the APS-C D7100 or 70D).

I have the K10D, K-7 and K-5, and I can say the noise per pixel (not the overall noise, but the noise when looked at 100% magnification) of the K-5 beats hands down the noise per pixel of the K-7, which in turns beats the K10D hands down too, LoL.

I even used to have a K100D, but I sold it shortly after I had bought it used, because the shutter was much louder than that of the K10D (thanks to the K10D's weather seals, most probably). Was the K100D better than the K10D? Yes, the K100D was as good at ISO 3200 as the K10D was at ISO 1600, which proves the lower pixel count does matter to some point. But the lower pixel count of the K100D meant the noise became visible much sooner as I enlarged prints, and the K10D would beat the K100D as soon as I produced to anything equal or above the 8x12 inches size print. And when I print, I print at least 8x12 inches, so... I sold the louder K100D.

Most important, keep in mind that both cameras were released pretty much at the same time, so they had similar technology in them. But newer technology means better pictures (noise levels-wise), and pics of my K-7 at ISO 1600 still look better than those of the K100D at the same ISO.

In fact, while I used my K10D at ISO 1600 with mixed feelings (I often had no choice, being a stage performance photographer), I did use the K-7 at ISO 1600 without too much worry and I can now use my K-5 at ISO 6400 with pleasure and make poster size prints from these files (but then, I shoot RAW and process my images to remove the unwanted noise, and with the best software for that IMHO).

Even better, more pixels means the noise, if any, will look finer on prints (and on almost all LCD monitors), except when reaching the limits of the sensor's resolution potential.

If you want a camera that has a very good noise control and not too many pixels, look for some used D700s. They're much cheaper now (for FF DSLR cameras), and they have "only" 12 Mpix. But they're Nikons, so you'll need new lenses...

Bottom line, used K100Ds are so cheap, I'd recommend you go for it if you want less pixels. Worse case scenario, you'll be left with a backup camera that doesn't perform as well as you thought. Best case scenario, you'll have the resolution / file size compromise you're looking for.
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion 11-09-2013, 03:09 PM  
And meanwhile, in Israel -
Posted By tigrebleu
Replies: 6
Views: 1,743
Had the same reaction. I was all "Wow! Since when did Pentax made a twin lens MF camera just like the old Mamiyas & Blads?" :lol:
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion 11-09-2013, 03:07 PM  
And meanwhile, in Israel -
Posted By tigrebleu
Replies: 6
Views: 1,743
Historically, Pentax has always been very insular with regards to its sales shares, i.e., most of Pentax products are sold in Japan, with only a small margin actually being sold outside the country, which does say something about the popularity of Pentax products in Japan...

However, that doesn't mean Pentax products aren't popular outside Japan.

The problem comes from the distribution network, and the resellers' decision to keep Pentax in store or not. The problem is, many resellers say, Pentax products don't sell, so they won't keep them in store. Well, they could sell better if the resellers stopped pushing only the big names (i.e., Canon, Nikon, and to some extend now, Panasonic, Samsung and Sony). I've worked in photo speciality stores for 7 years, and in one of them, they looked at Pentax with laughter, while in the other one, I was able to sell as many Pentax DSLRs than I would for Nikon DSLRs (yes, Canon came 3rd).

But on the other hand, a lot of resellers had issues with Pentax's service in the past (not in every country, but in some). Issues like ordering less than common lenses taking weeks (or even months) because they were constantly backordered, or repairing cameras not being done properly (I remember sending back a camera 4 times to Pentax Canada to finally have it repaired properly when I used to be a photo store manager). That kind of service will not help a reseller to vouch for that brand, even less a smaller brand.

However, things look much brighter now that Pentax is a Ricoh brand. I'm sure Ricoh will work hard to penetrate the market outside of Japan with strength, and although it may take some time to do so, I'm sure things will improve a lot over the next few years. But there's a long way ahead in certain cases it seems... "K-5, New!"... really? :lol:
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 11-02-2013, 12:56 PM  
The DA limited is 20-40? and WR?!
Posted By tigrebleu
Replies: 1,331
Views: 181,868
Good point indeed. The Sigma 18-35 is way, way bigger than the Pentax 20-40 (which is to be expected with a lens with such a fast aperture).

Making a lens smaller than normal usually means a compromise on something else, either image quality, focal length range or maximum aperture. Ricoh-Pentax did a great job in keeping the size down with the DA 20-40mm, making it a great travel & street photography lens. Great to capture stills and videos of shy people, whereas a big lens will usually scared them away.

The drawback are the compromises, the first being the maximum aperture. While F2.8-4 isn't bad at all, it's far from what the Sigma 18-35mm F/1.8 can offer in terms of shallow depth of field control. But that thin DOF comes at a price, hence the huge size of the lens. The other compromise could be image quality. Sigma managed to keep the IQ very high on its 18-35mm F1.8, but they had to make a compromise on size to achieve that.

Most probably, the compromises Ricoh had to make on the 20-40mm F2.8-4 didn't affect image quality. They already made those compromises on focal length range (a 2X zoom isn't very impressive on that aspect, :lol:) and on the maximum aperture, which is good, but not very fast by today's standards for such a short range zoom. So the IQ should be quite high in the end.

Kudos on the good job, Ricoh!
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 11-01-2013, 11:20 PM  
The DA limited is 20-40? and WR?!
Posted By tigrebleu
Replies: 1,331
Views: 181,868
Here's what I think is a decent translation :

Ricoh (Pentax) to announce the HD PENTAX-DA 20-40mm F2.8-4 ED Limited DC WR in a few days?

We are (or I am) able provide information that came from a reader (or readers) about two new Ricoh (Pentax) interchangeable lenses.

Ricoh Imaging could announce in a possible near future the introduction of two new lenses :

- PENTAX 08 Wide Zoom Lens
- HD PENTAX-DA 20-40mm F2.8-4 ED Limited DC WR

The 08 Wide Zoom Lens lens was published in the lens road map as part of the Q Mount, and was named a "WIDE" lens. This lens, once released, will allow to cover the focal length range from the ultra wide to the telephoto on the PENTAX Q.

The HD PENTAX-DA 20-40mm F2.8-4 ED Limited DC WR seems to be the DA Limited Zoom which appeared in the lens road map as part of the K Mount, based on the indications regarding its focal length. Details are unknown, but judging from the name, it includes a DC motor, although the weather-proof construction might be a mistake. The focal length of this lens is not something seen very often, so it is going to be a quite unique lens.

Thank you to the person(s) who sent me this information.

If this lens is indeed announced in the next days, I expect a lot of excitement in the Pentax community.

This piece of glass, though it has a bit odd of a focal length range (20-40mm isn't very wide nor isn't very long on the tele reach), could prove to be very useful for a lot of photographers, provided it comes in a compact package, like most DA Limited lenses usually do.

Too much compromises on the size can sometimes lead to compromises in image quality, something which can be avoided by staying conservative with the focal length range. I expect this zoom to deliver very sharp images, perhaps as sharp (or almost) as the other DA Limited primes. The maximum aperture is pretty decent for a (possibly compact) Limited lens, and while I would've preferred a constant aperture, this can once again a compromise to help keep the size down and the image quality high.

The DC motor isn't impossible at all, for Pentax was, until recently, one of the rare manufacturers still designing new lenses which are using the noisy screw-driven motor. Most of the others (Canon, Sony, Pana, Oly, Nikon, etc.), don't build lenses using screw-driven motors anymore, even if they still carry old screw-driven lenses in their line-up. There are some rare exceptions of course, but even Sigma and Tamron are switching to lens-based motors on most of their new products. Pentax had to catch up, and while SDM probably wasn't the most successful attempt at doing this, the DC motor seems to be the logical way to go for most of the new lenses.

The WR might be a mistake indeed, but it's not impossible the Ricoh-Pentax engineers managed to fit weather seals in rather compact Limited lens. That would make it the first Limited that can go under the rain without fear of damaging this delicate piece of art, and a nice alternative to the DA 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 ED WR.

I guess the suggested retail price will probably be between $US 800 to $US 1,300, judging on the price of other HD Limited lenses. But that's just pure speculation.

Nice lens, but not one that answers my needs for a weather-proof ultra-wide lens (or even very wide lens). Actually, I would've like some HD Pentax DA 15-45mm F/3.2 ED DC WR better, and a nice HD Pentax DA 12-24mm F/4 ED WR would've been a dream come true.

But still, looks like a darn nice lens.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 10-21-2013, 02:38 PM  
Pentax Plant in Cebu announcement....
Posted By tigrebleu
Replies: 5
Views: 3,107
It is usual to do such things in such circumstances indeed, however, the way different corporations do it varies a lot from one corp to another. Some only issue cold, impersonal press releases while some take the time to communicate in a humane, caring manner, and Ricoh is indeed one of these companies.

The Ricoh Corp. seems to be a very well managed, people-concerned company (well, compared to many others, that is).

I'm not entirely surprise by this, but I'm pleased to see they had the courtesy of informing people about the whereabouts of their employees and the condition of their plant in the aftermath of the earthquake and to reply to those who had the courtesy to ask about this in the first place.

That kind of attitude is what I'm looking for in a responsible corporation today. I'd rather support a corporation that tries its best to be the most ethical, environment-friendly and financially transparent possible than a company that focuses only on its quarterly and financial year results. Ricoh seems to belong to the first kind, and it's good to see the Pentax name is now in such good hands. That's called responsible capitalism, and people will be looking for that more and more in the future (just look back at the 2008 toxic mortgage nightmare in the U.S. if you want to see some irresponsible capitalism at work).

If Ricoh / Pentax product buyers manifest their enthusiasm about their brand and its ethical conduct, I'm sure the brand would benefit from that, and would gain a lot of new customers just because of its ethical attitude (not that the other photo brands aren't ethical, but Ricoh seems to be on top of its game at that, at least from what I could see so far — and I've been following Ricoh closely since they bought Pentax).

So spread the word about Ricoh if you think they deserve the praise. :)
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 10-13-2013, 11:34 AM  
Ricoh/Pentax patent 16-70/4, 18-70/4-6, 25-350/3.5-6 APS-C lenses
Posted By tigrebleu
Replies: 58
Views: 10,163
I agree, Fogel. The DA17-70mm could use a WR version. However, maybe Ricoh fears such a lens might end up competing with the DA*16-50mm, so they could decide to not make it WR...

Same goes for the 18-70mm lens being a kit lens.

Also, the DA16-45mm is in need of a replacement (it was discontinued after all), so a WR version with a new optical formula to avoid the darn wide-angle softness in the corners (thanks to a wobbling lens) would be welcome, hence the possible 15-45mm lens. If that one is WR and F/2.8-3.5, it will replace my old 16-45mm in a no time.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 10-10-2013, 05:34 PM  
DA zoom "Ltd" listed in lens road map
Posted By tigrebleu
Replies: 34
Views: 6,640
Well, products on the roadmap usually hit the market much longer after the expected date (case in proof: DA*60-250mm and DA 560mm, just to mention these two :lol: ). So if the roadmap says a product in development could be released in 2014, assume it will actually be available in 2015-16. This is a safe way not to get your hopes too high.

Quite frankly, I'd rather go for a WR replacement of the 12-24mm F/4 lens, or another ultra-wide prime with WR or DA* designation, but I'd be tempted by a compact Limited zoom just for its compactness when shooting shy subjects.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 10-10-2013, 05:25 PM  
DA zoom "Ltd" listed in lens road map
Posted By tigrebleu
Replies: 34
Views: 6,640
Good point on the FA 20-35mm F/4 being a lot smaller and lighter than the Sigma 18-35mm F/1.8.

Maybe Ricoh will manage to make this new Limited zoom into a pancake (or close), which would have its advantage a lens like the Sigma. The Pentax lens would be a compact, travel lens with decent aperture (F/4, F/3.5, maybe a bit better) and great IQ, while the Sigma would be a no-compromise, fast but bigger and heavier lens with great IQ as well.

Let's face it, when I'm shooting people in the public during music festivals, they tend to be shy with my rather big DA16-45mm pointed at them, so using a Sigma 18-35mm wouldn't better in these circumstances. Having a compact 20-35mm-ish lens could be useful at these moments.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 10-10-2013, 01:21 PM  
DA zoom "Ltd" listed in lens road map
Posted By tigrebleu
Replies: 34
Views: 6,640
I agree. I'm pretty sure a Ltd series zoom will have a limited zoom range so it quality isn't compromised. The higher the zoom ratio, the more compromises you need to live with, and Limited lenses are supposed to be the top in terms of image quality, so I would expect a small zoom ratio of around 2x for such a lens.

Since the FA 20-35mm F/4 is still pretty sharp for an old film lens, it could indeed be adapted to the requirements of digital technology. I wouldn't rule out a deeper re-design of the lens, though, maybe with the final result being an APS-C dedicated, 18 to 20-35mm F/4 zoom (or something in that range).
Forum: Pentax K-3 10-08-2013, 01:22 PM  
For those not pre-ordering... when will you buy?
Posted By tigrebleu
Replies: 65
Views: 6,268
When the reviews and the comments from users clearly indicate the AF system has improved a LOT over the K-7/K-5, especially with moving subjects. Then, yes, I'll commit to a K-3.

But for now, my K-5 is more than okay.

Its DR and high ISO image quality (up to ISO 6400) do meet my requirements (something my K-7 couldn't), and the 16 Mpix resolution is more than I need. So why drop 1400-1500 Canadian dollars on a camera that will most likely have the same DR and high ISO image quality (roughly) and produce bigger files (50% more HDD space required) than my K-5 if the AF is disappointing?

I don't want to buy a brand new K-3 and discover its AF system has 16 more AF points but is still just as subpar vs. competition as with the K-5. So I'll wait for the reviews to come in, and if they say the K-3 can track a moving subject as well as a D7100 or EOS 70D can, then I'll make the move. And with luck, the price of the K-3 will have dropped by 200 dollars in the meanwhile. :)
Forum: Pentax K-3 10-08-2013, 01:10 PM  
Anybody excited to get a flu?
Posted By tigrebleu
Replies: 80
Views: 9,530
Well I don't think Pentax was ever good with naming its products.

Just think of the *IST series. It was supposed to be pronounced "starist", but people used to call these cameras "Ist", because de star was so not obvious, they kept missing on its presence. But even with the knowledge of the star's role in the name, what kind of name is that? "Starist", really?

And then there was the K-7. Which in French, sounds almost exactly like "cassette", as in audio tape. Actually, the acronym K7 is commonly used in France to describe VHS, Beta or MiniDV video cassettes and audio cassettes alike.

Things get even worse with the "Q", which sounds exactly like the word "cul" in French, a word French-speaking people use do describe people's rear ends or behinds. Just put the word "cul" in Google translation and see for yourself.

Yeah, I know. K is supposed to mean "King" and Q, "Queen". But maybe the guys at the marketing should do a bit of research before launching products with such names. :lol:

Pentax obviously never thought about how the name of that camera would sound in French, but then, it figures when you look at the numbers of their sales. About 88% of all Pentax cameras are sold within the borders of Japan, so with only 12% of units sold on the exterior market, no wonder why they don't care much about this exterior market...

Still, the K-??? naming system has an advantage over competition: it sounds different from the "D" naming stuff the big two are currently using. D800, D7100, D300s, EOS 6D, EOS 5D Mk III, EOS 70D, etc. "D" for digital...

Back in the days of the D100 and EOS 10D, the "D" was used to describe the camera was a digital one, because film cameras were still in use. But today, film SLRs are a thing of the past (even though some manufacturers still sell film SLRs), so the presence or absence of a "D" in the name of a camera doesn't matter anymore. So why keep using this "D" anyway? Looks like Pentax got the memo there, but Nikon didn't, nor did Canon (except for the Rebel line of products, which can be called EOS ???D in some places and Rebel T?i in other markets).

Sure, that "K" naming thing isn't gonna make Pentax sell more cameras, but if it can attract people just out of curiosity, it can't hurt.
Forum: Pentax K-3 10-08-2013, 12:11 PM  
The K-3 finally has what I've been looking for in a DSLR.
Posted By tigrebleu
Replies: 34
Views: 5,645
I stand corrected. Thought the K-7 had 12-bit RAW files, and yet I can't find anywhere specs confirming this or not, but just read the K-5 has RAW 14-bit files.
Search took 0.01 seconds | Showing results 1 to 25 of 144

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:57 PM. | See also:, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]