Start up time for .. lenses? What is this? Do Sony lenses require cranking up of lenses before they are able to be used, haha? :)And that is new feature of digital photography, I suppose? Incredible.
Nice confectionery DSLR, that suits modern trends. Which means, Nikpn does its usual job of not adding too much into it to make it really stand out and turn heads. It is more important to them to release another update in 12 months. Idea for next year's update: swivel screen. In two years, USB 3. In 10 years, it may be a formidable crop camera.Quite Nikon. Quite predictable.
KL Matt: -3 EV AF was one area (that and buffer, frame rate) where the Pentax K3 clearly had the 7100 beat. This puts Nikon back on top of the heap with its low-light AF on all 51 points and IMO ahead of the K3, but I could care less about 8 frames per second personally so others may not see it that way. In any case, Nikon users probably have Pentax to thank for this bump in specifications. These are clearly two areas the 7100 lagged behind the Pentax K3.Another example of how competition is really good for the consumer and the market, and fanboyism is by definition foolish. If you're smart, you're cheering on the competition of your chosen brand: because the better the competition's cameras are today, the better your brand's cameras will have to be tomorrow.
Nah. It's not -3EV or fps or bric-a-brac that one camera "beats the other". It's the lenses.I personally would not touch Nikon's or Canon's crop lenses with a 10 ft long isolated pole. And that is why most people get Pentax, for the optics that does not exist and is not replicated anywhere else.
Zvonimir Tosic: Nice to know Fuji did not dare to compare Total_size-vs-Performance quotient of their cameras with Pentax K-3 armed with, say, 6 DA Limiteds.
But instead with 7DII which has .. ~8 years old sensor tech and no lenses that can compare with Fuji's or Pentax APS-C optimised primes.
Actually Mr Brendon1000, 35/1.4 could be considered ancient approach in lens designs. Because it uses a film paradigm of limited ISO availability for film, which is compensated with large aperture. Then Fuji designs those so called fast primes because (a) they know their future users come from Nikon of Canon camp and know nothing better, and (b) those dreaming of Leicas but can't pay the price, could find their home at Fuji. There is nothing magical in those lenses, only Fuji knows whom they appeal.
What is point in proving Fuji cameras have AF? Should we marvel at that → look, Fuji has an AF! Wow...Is that a bonus that comes with their cameras? I mean Olympus also has AF. Even Leica on their T series. Casio too.
All right, some will call me biased, but before you do that, please re-assure me with good answers. I am looking at the gentleman's picture above, and in his hands a camera with thinner profile, yes, but with a gigantic lens on it, no smaller that equivalent DSLR lens.
So what's the point he wants to make with this engineering "feat"? That laws of optics always apply and scaling down camera size is a myth? Or that DSLRs are still better ergonomically designed and made for big lenses .. but he won't admit that?
Or that overall imbalance of his design to comfortable handling .. is the new way to enjoy photography in the 21st century? Perhaps following the same route of thinking that the most simple and dumbest of cameras world has ever seen are also called "smart" (smartphone) in this 21st century?
Is there a problem with this 21st century or something?
One rule of Japanese business is never mention your direct competitors. Never, especially in the same sentence as your brand name sake. So no wonder they love people stuck with very expensive DSLRs and large lenses, who want to trade to smaller body and equally large lenses. :)
Nice to know Fuji did not dare to compare Total_size-vs-Performance quotient of their cameras with Pentax K-3 armed with, say, 6 DA Limiteds.
Hah, nothing new. Machine grease and olive oil have similar effects and can be found inside your car, your bike, and inside your sandwich. It can also work as a cool photo filter, so it saves on software.
So basically, going back to film, and include negatives / positives when submitting a photograph. Ah, good ol film; we had much less visual rubbish and forgery in film age — despite efforts to tweak and doctor negatives, it was so much harder and for these types of competitions, not worth the effort.
zorgon: It's an interesting camera no doubt, but this is a startup company looking for investors so don't hold your breath. I do hope this digital rangefinder technology will find it's way onto the market however.
You mean, something like Lytro, who came with yet another very good concept after it was taken seriously by the market?
photogeek: They're a year from shipping and the only thing they have is a render? Good luck with that.
Actually in video on their website, there is a camera in hands.
Cheng Bao: A new comer to a dying market in already-dead niche
I would not say it is dying. It is refining itself. It is only a matter of time when the future kids, grown up on iPhones, throw iToys in the bin when they realise there is something better and allows lots of learning too, yet they were oblivious to it. Smartphones have killed quality content: great photography and great music, for the sake of convenience. The great quality content and the opportunity to exercise brain will strike back.
Make is simple, yes, but not simpler than that. Where is ISO control? At least film Leica camera had a simple ISO wheel on the back. If sensitivity control is not simple and intuitive as shutter speed selection, all this brushed aluminium is a waste.
Zvonimir Tosic: 1st looks like a watercolour painting. Very nice.
1st looks like a watercolour painting. Very nice.
Zvonimir Tosic: Interestingly, Pentax representative said that they have already experimented with sensor shift technology to achieve same goal as this, now advertised by Olympus (and Hassy in the past). But, Pentax admits, the result is a large size dataset, plenty of megapickles, but the quality of the picture does not improve.So instead of delivering that — which obviously is not difficult — they would rather focus how to make native resolution even better.
Which is interesting, as it better sheds light on what Olympus really wants to achieve: a perception that their small cameras (which are indeed limited by sensor size and performance worse that others), are also competitors when it comes to large image sizes.
Do not judge my statement above as “mine” because it is the transcript. Pentax engineer said the amount of data increases significantly, but there is nothing significant to be gained from it. In their opinion, other methods of improving resolution performance without increasing number of pixels are more intelligible. Consider this: Pentax speaks from the perspective of 24 MPs, most likely 36MPs in the FF, then the 51 MPs in MF too, and even the resolution performance of the native 24 MPs surpasses anything Olympus can offer natively. They are in a different boat altogether than Olympus, who must — using inferior sensor size and performance — prove it is still somewhat competent system. Olympus has abandoned everything and focuses on m4/3. Pentax, on the other hand, did not abandon anything and justifies each tech to its own. Why would they bother increasing the resolution performance of the K-3 when the FF will bring that, and more, while using the same mount?
Interestingly, Pentax representative said that they have already experimented with sensor shift technology to achieve same goal as this, now advertised by Olympus (and Hassy in the past). But, Pentax admits, the result is a large size dataset, plenty of megapickles, but the quality of the picture does not improve.So instead of delivering that — which obviously is not difficult — they would rather focus how to make native resolution even better.
Design and functionality go hand in had; one defines the other. So if FF design sports obviously huge pentaprism, no doubt it makes perfect sense from the functional point of view: that VF will have something unique. That is where the secret of this camera is hidden (from the first look of it). I do not complain about design at all; I think it is brilliant and unique (that is equally important for immediate recognition factor) and like all Pentax DSLRs, it will surely make lots of sense.
EcoPix: As an old P67 user from way back, my heart fluttered when I saw that photo. Bring it on, Pentax. You can be great again.
As for features I want, are my eyes playing tricks or is that rear screen not 3:2? I would love Super 35 or something akin to the old 6x7 format proportions but bigger than 4/3rds. It would need to fit inside existing image circles.
Not sure whether old Pentax and Takumar lenses would be successful on such a hi-res beast. Maybe 645 lenses would work, and some of their old pro ED teles.
One thing left hanging by Canikon is the obvious - an electronic viewfinder as well as OVF, be it overlay, flip-out eyepiece or slip-on.
I already have enough cameras for several photographers, but if Pentax did something really bold and affordable...
Yes, the 645Z is in 4:3 format, so perhaps they have just reused the back screen feature from 645Z for the FF. This is only a mockup, after all, in which not all things may be accurate. But I presume they surely wanted to show us the HUGE PENTAPRISM, because everyone is talking of it.