Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Showing results 1 to 25 of 300 Search:
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 02-08-2012, 09:46 AM  
New K-01 mirrorless camera coming
Posted By Art Vandelay II
Replies: 2,067
Views: 241,315
I did the same :)

I only have two issues with the OM-D; no ISO100, and the viewfinder magnification is lower than I'd prefer. Oh well, no camera is perfect...and now I'll have an excuse to upgrade to the E-M6 one day :lol:
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 02-08-2012, 09:20 AM  
New K-01 mirrorless camera coming
Posted By Art Vandelay II
Replies: 2,067
Views: 241,315
Are you talking about the Olympus 17mm/2.8 with that 504g weight? If so, you're off by 433g. The 17mm pancake only weights 71g (2.5oz). Now the new Voigtlander 17.5mm f/0.95 is quite heavy, but we're also talking about an f/0.95 lens there.

Ready to shoot the new OMD + 17mm pancake weighs in at a "whopping" 496g. I think Olympus has a huge hit on their hands with the outdoor community. Us hiking idiots pay hundreds more to save a few ounces on gear. For me the the OMD will easily replace a K-7/5 as my outdoor enthusiasts camera of choice. Yes, I know the K5 has better image quality, but I find the 16mp m4/3's sensor to be perfectly acceptable.

The K-01 has started to grow on me, but I still really think Pentax should have made a new slimmer mount instead of sticking with the K-Mount. The K-01 just doesn't seem to have much appeal outside of the Pentax ecosystem. A quick look at Amazon shows that the new OM-D is in the #2 and 3 spots in new camera releases (behind the D800), and the Pentax K-01 is nowhere to be found in the top 50. We'll see how this settles out, but I don't like Pentax's chances of coming close to matching the sales number Olympus will have with the OM-D. Which is a shame, Olympus isn't doing anything Pentax couldn't have done.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 02-02-2012, 02:40 PM  
New K-01 mirrorless camera coming
Posted By Art Vandelay II
Replies: 2,067
Views: 241,315
That's why I said "at least to me" :)

I would never say that everyone will choose as I do. It will be interesting to see how things go. I guess we'll find out in a few months when the sales rankings come out. Right now, even though I personally think it's way overpriced, the Fuji X-Pro1 is the #1 selling mirrorless camera at Amazon. I guess we'll know in a a few days if the K-01 can come close to matching that.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 02-02-2012, 02:27 PM  
New K-01 mirrorless camera coming
Posted By Art Vandelay II
Replies: 2,067
Views: 241,315
It seems like, at least to me anyway, that if I were looking for a camera to compliment my large DSLR it would be the smallest option I could get that still produces respectable IQ. Right now, for me, that choice would be most likely the GX1 (just like your friend chose). There is a pretty substantial size difference between the GX1 and the K-01 (when viewed from the top to see the difference in thickness). Further, as far as lens selection goes, m4/3's really has just about the entire spectrum of what most people need covered. So I don't see that as an issue anymore (especially as soon as Panasonic releases their f/2.8 zooms in a few months). The K-01 will certainly have an IQ advantage over the GX1, but as this Canon 1D Mk II vs GX1 comparison shows, it's amazing how far 4/3's sensors have come. I personally can't imagine needing anything better than the GX1 sensor....but, of course, better is always welcome.

Oddly, I've started to view the K-01 as a video camera than can also take nice still photos...in that role it makes a great deal of sense to me.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 02-02-2012, 11:46 AM  
New K-01 mirrorless camera coming
Posted By Art Vandelay II
Replies: 2,067
Views: 241,315
I wouldn't quite quite that excited. As someone who has owned (or owns) Pentax, Sony, Panasonic, Nikon, Canon, and Olympus gear at one point in time or another I'm having a very tough time making a case to myself for the K-01 over some of the other brands (and I have a soft spot for Pentax as a K1000 was my first SLR 20 years ago).

Just take Sony for example. A simple adapter can be used to mount my K-mount glass, obviously native NEX lenses can be used, Leica M glass can be adapted (huge negative with the K-01 IMO), and finally, you can buy the Sony SLT A-mount adapter for the NEX-5n or NEX-7 and mount any of Sony's Alpha lenses and have full PDAF. I hate to be negative about the K-O1, but I just don't see it as a slam dunk by any means. Especially since Olympus is about to drop the EM-5 on us next week.

The K-01 is a cool little camera. The more options the better I say, but I'm not so sure it will do much to attract non-Pentax users into the Pentax brand.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 02-02-2012, 07:57 AM  
New K-01 mirrorless camera coming
Posted By Art Vandelay II
Replies: 2,067
Views: 241,315
I think they seem pretty fair. In fact they were harder on the Nikon V1 then I've ever seen them be to a Pentax camera.

However, on the K-01, be prepared for some negativity. I've already had 2 non-pentaxian friends email this morning asking me what's the point of it is. Let's just say I think it's going to be a very tough sell to anyone outside of the Pentax ecosystem. Even as an owner of a half dozen or so Pentax manual focus lenses I would still rather just adapt them to NEX-7. So I don't expect their review to be all sunshine and roses; nor should it be.

That said, the K-01 is actually a bit better looking than I expected. In B&W it even looks kind of cool....well, until I realized there's no EVF in the top hump :confused:
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 12-18-2011, 07:51 AM  
Mr. Kitazawa slated to announce Pentax upcoming bodies in Dec 19'th
Posted By Art Vandelay II
Replies: 429
Views: 53,533
There's no perfect camera for everyone I suppose. However, since I personally don't care much about zooms I'm all for an ME Super sized mirrorless 35mm camera. As far as high end photographers using large lenses goes..I counter that with Leica. The cheapest lens they make is $1700, and every single lens they make is smaller than a FA31mm limited. They sale so many there is currently a 3-4 month wait because they can't meet demand. So I'd say there are a fair number of high end photographers that appreciate small primes. However, until recently we haven't had many options in the digital world. In fact, the NEX-7 is probably the first true DSLR replacement for a lot of us, and it is just now starting to ship.

As far as using large telephotos, f/2.8 zooms, etc. The one thing I don't understand is it seems no one thinks a large mirrorless camera will ever be made. Further, Pentax could design a modular body (seems righ up Ricoh's alley) about the size of a NEX-7, but design it so a vertical grip could be added to give it more heft when needed. You can always make a camera larger, but it seems Pentax has made a digital K-Mount camera about as small as they can; and they are still too large for some of us.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 12-17-2011, 04:58 PM  
Mr. Kitazawa slated to announce Pentax upcoming bodies in Dec 19'th
Posted By Art Vandelay II
Replies: 429
Views: 53,533
Wow, great news. Hope it's true. I've thought from day one the 645D should have been a mirrorless camera. Although I do have to question the usefulness of medium format in the future seeing as how the Nikon D800 is going to be 36mp and offered without an AA filter to make it even sharper. Just how much more resolution do 99.999% of photographers need? Seems like medium format will be a shrinking market; and it wasn't exactly a large market to begin with.

As far as the full frame mirrorless idea; I'm all for it. Make it about the size of the Pentax ME Super and you'd really have something different in the market. A camera half the size of the D700 (or upcoming D800/5D Mk III) with every bit of the image quality. Talk about a landscape photographers wet dream...
Forum: Pentax Q 09-21-2011, 11:00 AM  
Going Mirrorless, any suggestion?
Posted By Art Vandelay II
Replies: 11
Views: 1,894
SR is nice to have of course, but if you get the new NEX 5N it's usable up to ISO12,800. IMO as sensors keep on improving SR becomes less and less important. However, if you mainly use telephoto lenses then perhaps you might disagree. However I don't personally care one way or the other anymore since I can easily shoot at ISO3200 with most modern cameras.
Forum: Pentax Q 09-21-2011, 07:52 AM  
Going Mirrorless, any suggestion?
Posted By Art Vandelay II
Replies: 11
Views: 1,894
I've owned two different m4/3's bodies, a Sony NEX-3 and I've pre-ordered the NEX-7. My advice is if you're looking to build a system with native lenses I'd go m4/3's, however if adapting Pentax K-mount glass is your goal then I'd go NEX. I personally just think the 1.5x crop factor is better for adapting lenses. On m4/3's most any lens you adapt is going to become a telephoto. However on NEX you can use any of the readily available and cheap 28mm or 35mm lenses and have a nice standard prime.

If interested here are some shots I made with a NEX-3 adpapting a Pentax-M 28mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, and one shot using a Pentax-M 135mm f/3.5 (I don't recommend that lens).
Forum: Pentax Q 09-07-2011, 03:56 PM  
More Q images :-) non-official
Posted By Art Vandelay II
Replies: 163
Views: 26,055
It's funny how actual photographers are usually quite taken with the PEN's and measurbator sites like DPR always have issues. I borrowed a friends E-P3 and shot with it for a day. It really is an amazing little camera. Fastest AF I've ever used (blows away my old K-7 as well as my even older D200) and perfectly usable ISO1600. 3 years old or not it's certainly a better sensor than the Q has. Keep in mind a person can buy an E-PM1 with that same sensor and AF speed + either their choice of the new Panasonic 14-42mm pancake zoom, Oly 17mm f/2.8, or Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 all for about the same price as the Q with just the 8.5mm prime. I'd obviously love to see Olympus get their hands on the sensor from the G3, but until then the E-P3 is a perfectly capable camera.


I wish we had usage stats in the rest of the world like Japan has. Flickr and Amazon sales ranks are about the best we have in North America, but neither are exactly what I would call evidence. As far as mirrorless goes though, even Nikon is starting to feel pressure it seems:

Nikon losing market share in Japan | Nikon Rumors

Canon Clinging to Mirrors Means Opportunity for Sony Cameras - Bloomberg

"With the lack of mirrorless solutions, Canon and Nikon’s combined share in Japan has fallen by 35%, while Sony’s share has doubled."

I just hope Pentax has some other mirrorless solution up their sleeve to compete, because while the Q may be a cute little niche product, does anyone seriously think it can compete with something like a GF-3 or NEX5n? Nikon's 2.7x crop system will be an even bigger threat IMO. It should have better IQ then the Q in an similarly sized package. Aside from people that want to take pics of craters on the moon (which a 2.7x crop can also do quite nicely) why would anyone choose the Q over the Nikon that's coming on the 21st?
Forum: Pentax Q 09-06-2011, 07:00 PM  
Pentax Q in the Flesh
Posted By Art Vandelay II
Replies: 1,308
Views: 180,637
I've come to peace with the Q, I still think it was a mistake using such a small sensor instead of a 2/3's sensor, but if someone likes the Q then fine by me. However, I still don't understand claims like the one above about it being the best enthusiast compact. I simply disagree with that. In fact, the Q got me so interested in small sensors again (it's been a while) I started seriously looking at the competition and was so impressed from the XZ-1 I bought one on eBay for a whopping $335. Not bad for a pocket camera that can do this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/olympusuk/5571956753
(official Olympus UK sample)

Given, the MSRP on the XZ-1 is still $500, but that's a $300 savings over the Q. You have to really want to change lenses to pay that much more for the Q. Sadly, right now the Q doesn't have any lenses to make it worthwhile IMO. Pentax needs to release a really tiny ultra wide ASAP, a lens like that could make the Q interesting (assuming the price drops to under $600). However, until then the Q just doesn't make a whole lot of sense while cameras like the XZ-1 and LX-5 are all over eBay for under $400.
Forum: Pentax Q 09-02-2011, 01:07 PM  
Pentax Q in the Flesh
Posted By Art Vandelay II
Replies: 1,308
Views: 180,637
I think the motivation behind anti-Q posts, certainly my own, is that all of us are fans of Pentax and we simply believe Pentax made a huge mistake and wasted resources that could have otherwise been put to good use. Many of us wanted a camera that can compete with a Leica M9 for 1/5th of the price. Based on the pre-orders of the Sony NEX-7 we were right in wanting one, not only for our personal use, but for the good of Pentax. Who knows where the Q system will be in 5 years, it may take off in Japan and sale like crazy for all I know; but if I were betting, my money would be on the Q system being forgotten all about in a few years. Cameras such as the Fuji X10 simply make more sense for the small sensor market IMO. I applaud Pentax for trying something different, god knows Canikon bore me to death most of the time, but I wish they would have chosen a different unique route.

As far as the Photography Blog samples go. The noise control is quite good for a small sensor it seems, nothing you can't get from an E-PM1 for $300 less of course, but not bad. However what is going on with the barrel distortion? I know m4/3's lenses are designed without worry of distortion and then corrected digitally, it looks like Pentax is doing the same thing, but forgot about the correcting the distortion part of it. This is the worst distortion I've ever seen from a standard prime.
Forum: Pentax Q 08-29-2011, 05:05 PM  
More Q images :-) non-official
Posted By Art Vandelay II
Replies: 163
Views: 26,055
Surely you can't be serious. Lets ignore for a moment that m4/3's sensors are large enough to give DOF control, something most photographers require, and just compare images at various ISO's using Imaging Recource's handy comparison tool: Imaging Resource "Comparometer"

If you don't feel like using that here is an ISO3200 comparison screenshot from the G3 and the K5 (the ISO king of the APS-C world). Can you even tell which is which? Even if you do get lucky enough to guess correctly the difference in the two is so minimal that it won't make a difference in any real world shots.

Further, the extreme corner crop of the trees you chose to post as a sample showing how poorly m4/3's sensors perform was taken using the cheapest and worst lens in all of the m4/3's line up. Why not look at shots taken from the new pancake 14-42mm power zoom lens that is bundled with the GF3? That seems to be a more accurate comparison with the Q. With lenses attached they are about the same size, and about the same price.
Forum: Pentax Q 08-29-2011, 10:30 AM  
More Q images :-) non-official
Posted By Art Vandelay II
Replies: 163
Views: 26,055
Great post, and very true.

My issue with the Q is not that it can't produce nice images in the right hands, a talented photographer can produce wonderful images with near any camera. My issue is I simply think it was a bad decision on Pentax's part to create the Q instead of a larger sensor mirrorless camera (note: both of Sony's recently announced mirrorless cameras are in the top 20 at Amazon where as the Q is nowhere to be found in the top 100). Someone out there is going to create some fantastic art with the Q, but I'm still scratching my head over the Q from a marketing perspective. Pentax has seemed to go after the smallest niche imaginable.

Nikon is announcing their mirrorless camera on Sept 21st, and both the NX200 and Fuji X10 are being announced this week. My prediction is all them will outsell the Q by a wide margin.

Anyway, back on topic. The images in Ogl's last link look ok, but there is a lot of noise reduction being applied, even at ISO400.
Forum: Pentax Q 08-29-2011, 08:08 AM  
More Q images :-) non-official
Posted By Art Vandelay II
Replies: 163
Views: 26,055
There in lies the problem with the Q. m4/3's cameras will be compared directly to the Q from all the review sites. The Q looks really good for a $400 P&S, but the unfortunately Pentax has choosen to price it out of that range. IMO it should be compared to cameras like the Olympus XZ-1 and upcoming Fuji X50, even though those two have fixed lenses. However at $800 people are going to expect more of it. That pic Ogl linked to looks awful. The bokeh filter, who knows, it could work ok for some static situations, but never as good as the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 does in all situations. Samsung is also about to release the NX200, and with their pancake prime line up a person can get an ever so slightly larger camera that is going to put the Q to shame. The Q is a cool little camera, I admit that, but if Pentax doesn't lower the price on it very quickly then I just can't see it being very successful at all.
Forum: Pentax Q 08-24-2011, 06:44 AM  
Pentax Q in the Flesh
Posted By Art Vandelay II
Replies: 1,308
Views: 180,637
Forum: Pentax Q 08-22-2011, 05:28 PM  
Pentax Q in the Flesh
Posted By Art Vandelay II
Replies: 1,308
Views: 180,637
I still use my 35mm film cameras myself. In the last few years alone I've shot with a Nikon FE2, Pentax LX, and a Voigtlander Bessa R3A at one time or another...but sadly when we made the digital switch manufactures seemed to forget that many of us preferred small SLR's such as the Pentax ME Super and then proceeded to make nothing but large bulbous DSLR's for almost a decade. My first DSLR was a Pentax K100D because it was the smallest thing I could find at the time, but it had a horrible view finder (felt like I had tunnel vision compared to a even a cheap film SLR such as a Pentax K1000). Olympus started making the E-4XX series about that time, and they were quite small, but their viewfinders were even worse. It wasn't until the advent of m4/3's that I felt we had a true digital street shooter too fill the void left by film cameras like the ME and Olympus OM series (unless you were one of the few that could afford/justify a Leica M8).

In fact the live view systems on CSC's is why I said they are indeed better than DSLR's at street (and better than film SLR's also). I sat on a park bench in central park and took this pic of a man reading his paper without him even noticing I was doing it. I took this pic of a man drinking his morning coffee 90 degrees around a corner. Outside of the new Sony translucent mirror DSLR's the live view systems on every DSLR I've tried have been so painfully slow I haven't bothered using them. So to get shots like that you had to just use the force and point the camera without looking through the viewfinder.


Kind of off topic, but apparently Fuji is about to announce a $600 Fuji X10 with a 4x f/2 zoom, 2/3's size sensor, and Fuji X100 build quality for $600? Will be interesting to see how that compares to the Q. Not interchangeable lenses obviously, but I imagine a good number of street photographers will be highly interested; I know I am.
Forum: Pentax Q 08-19-2011, 09:13 AM  
Pentax Q in the Flesh
Posted By Art Vandelay II
Replies: 1,308
Views: 180,637
Even if you compare the size of the GF3 to the size of the Q with pancake primes attached there's not much of a difference. Based on the size of my hands I just don't think I could use a camera much smaller than this:



That is right in the ballpark of my old G10, and it was borderline too small as far as I was concerned.


The Olympus 14-42mm is pretty tiny as is, but the rumors this week are that Panasonic is about to release some insanely small zooms. I personally wont be buying them because it sounds like they are going to function like a compact camera lens, complete with power zoom. But I imagine a P&S upgrader will feel right at home with them:
Pancake sized motorised zoom lens coming for Panasonic GF7, GH3 | EOSHD.com


Try carrying a m4/3's or even a NEX camera around a city for an entire day, or on a 10+ mile hike then say there aren't many advantages. I once brought both my K-7 and a NEX-3 to NYC for a week, I used the K-7 for all of 2 hours, and didn't get it out again. True, there are some DSLR's smaller than the K-7, but every single one of them aside from the Sony A33/A55 (which aren't even true DSLR's) have horrible pentamirror view finders that I personally can't stand using. For street photography there is simply no contest. You can shoot with these small EVIL's all day long and hardly anyone notices, but the second you whip a DSLR out people turn and look.

The Panasonic 14mm f/2.5 is $325, the 20mm f/1.7 is $370. Just how cheap do lenses need to be? You are aware the Q is $800 right? As I said early, exactly how many pancake primes does a system need? Street shooters are already covered with m4/3's with the 12mm, 14mm, the 17mm, and the 20mm. I could happily shoot all year long with just the combo of the 12mm and 20mm. Here is a guy that uses a single prime for an entire year, and gets fantastic results. Not every lens for a system has to be tiny. When using a camera around my house, or in the studio I simply don't care what size the lens is.

But as mentioned early up this thread, the Q's problem is not that it is going to be an awful camera. I'm sure we're going to see some fantastic shots made with it. The problem is the competition it faces is simply better; and cheaper to boot. It sounds like Nikon CSC is going to be announced soon. If the rumors I've read about it are even partially true I just think the Q is DOA. Both are going after they same niche; small sensor, ultra compact, but with a 2.7x Sony sensor the Nikon CSC should simply be the better choice for most people.
Forum: Pentax Q 08-17-2011, 02:19 PM  
Pentax Q in the Flesh
Posted By Art Vandelay II
Replies: 1,308
Views: 180,637
Even at a web size something very unpleasant is going on in the three areas I circled. On the statue it could just simply be the alignment of a twig paralleling the shape of the statue, causing it to have a halo look, but either way, something is not so good. On top of that, the blur itself looks like a simple gaussian blur created in Photoshop, it has no depth to it what so ever. Of course there is also the tiny little issue of if you want to use background defocus the subject can't be moving...

I also assume those are taken at telephoto focal lengths...which is not what we were originally discussing after I posted a 24mm eqv shot.
Forum: Pentax Q 08-17-2011, 01:49 PM  
Pentax Q in the Flesh
Posted By Art Vandelay II
Replies: 1,308
Views: 180,637
Ha, yeah, it is fun to see what you can do with it. Sadly this pic I snapped of my LX one day when hiking is about as soft as I've managed with a non-macro pic:



It had just enough softness to separate the camera from the background...but yeah, I would love to see Apple go up to even a 1/2.3 size sensor for the next iPhone.
Forum: Pentax Q 08-17-2011, 01:28 PM  
Pentax Q in the Flesh
Posted By Art Vandelay II
Replies: 1,308
Views: 180,637
If you're a single point AF guy like me then you no longer have to worry about CDAF speed on mirrorless cameras. The E-P3 is indeed blazingly fast. Faster than any DSLR I've owned in-fact (K-7, K10D, Nikon D200, Canon 50D, etc, etc.). The upcoming Sony NEX-7 is also rumored to be in that speed ballpark.

I can't speak about continuous AF, because that is simply something I never use; but I suspect a bird photographer would probably still be happier with something like a D300 with it's 51 point array.
Forum: Pentax Q 08-17-2011, 01:14 PM  
Pentax Q in the Flesh
Posted By Art Vandelay II
Replies: 1,308
Views: 180,637
Are those taken at wide angle or taken with telephoto? The portrait looks to be at least a 60mm eqv shot. Either way, from a technical point of view none of those are very impressive. I can clearly see the bokeh filter smudge around the ladies face in the portrait as well as the stone statue photo; even at small web size. The purple flower photos looks the best to my eye, but that is still a pretty nervous background there. If a Leica 35mm Summilux is a 10 on the bokeh scale, and and iPhone is a 1, then I'd put that somewhere in the ballpark of 4.

Again, it's not that DOF control is all that matters to a camera system; some people don't care, but the problem is the Q faces competition that does offer DOF control (without the aide of software)....and for less money.
Forum: Pentax Q 08-17-2011, 01:00 PM  
Pentax Q in the Flesh
Posted By Art Vandelay II
Replies: 1,308
Views: 180,637
Ha! Well thanks, but not exactly a work of art there. That was just one of my first test photos I took within an hour of unboxing my new lens. I'm going to do a motorcycle road trip this fall from NC to Nova Scotia stopping by NYC and various others spots along the way. Hopefully I can put that lens to good use on that trip, because it is fantastic. It's the first AF lens I've owned that can rival Pentax Limited's. In-fact Pentax needs to steal that manual focus lock mechanism from Olympus ASAP and produce a 28mm f/1.4 using it.
Forum: Pentax Q 08-17-2011, 12:18 PM  
Pentax Q in the Flesh
Posted By Art Vandelay II
Replies: 1,308
Views: 180,637
In comparison to 1/2.3" yes, 4/3's is indeed large; much much larger. IMO, anything from a 3x crop to a 2x crop is about the right size for CSC's. Anything in that range will give some DOF control, yet still be pretty small over all. Nikon's camera announcement on the 24th could spell bad news for the Q if they are indeed using a 2.7x sensor. I'm betting the camera will only be a tiny bit larger than the Q, but be in an entirely different IQ class. Yes, of course, IQ isn't all that matters; but in this price range with the competition the Q is facing it is pretty important to most people.

As far as the sample I posted, that isn't exactly a close up macro shot. The subject (if you want to call it that) is about 2' high (or a bit over 1/2 a meter). In other words, about the same size as a head and shoulders portrait. I'm a big fan of the LX5, and would choose that over the Q if I were looking for a tiny camera, but I've never seen a wide angle portrait from that camera produce a soft background. I have however seen a few pics on the telephoto end of the X-Z1 with fairly pleasant bokeh; but still, nothing close to what you can get with a 4/3's sensor and a 50mm lens.
Search took 0.02 seconds | Showing results 1 to 25 of 300

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:22 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com 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?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top