Michael H: A modest upgrade from the existing lens. Differences include:-10g heavier;-one more diaphragm blade;-a few changes to the external design of the lens (looks more like the 50mm); and-different coatings on the glass.
Overall not much difference. Perhaps tests will reveal better optics.
Unfortunately, seems to be correct. Instead of reissuing same lens with extra blade or coating, which is noble, Ricoh could release a new lens perhaps with it, and REALLY make some news?
A little bit of honesty in this lame industry would kill everyone, I presume. Therefore everyone lies, to keep all players in count, an illusion of hard work, dedication, vision and happiness that borders — when you read all those PRs — with hysterical.
It also covers the 645 film area, not merely current digital crop. Ricoh is expecting or at least thinking ahead, to use sensor sizes close to traditional size film ...?
As someone noted, it is true that Samsung NX-1 is made very uncompromisingly — finally! (And now rumours that Samsung is getting out of camera business). But do take a look at NX-1: APS-C mount, and that camera is big by mirrorless standards, rivals DSLRs. And there is no way to avoid it, if things are done properly: mirrorless camera will be of same size or be bigger than a DSLR, because mirrorless has some issues to solve DSLR does not have: two of them are heat dissipation and constant current consumption to feed the viewfinder and lens motors.
Can someone unbiased and motivated, explore, and write an article about this: what will be the TRUE size of a mirrorless camera (system) if designed PROPERLY, no cheating, no cutting corners on issues of (A) heat dissipation, (B) great battery life, (C) decent grip, (D) premium materials used (aluminium, magnesium etc.), and (E) 100% image tele-centricity.
mathlawguy: DPreview has alienated many readers, including me, by an enthusiastic and little-qualified endorsement of a very one-sided blog entry without any apparent recognition of the issues that have persisted for a long time with DSLR cameras. It insults them because many of dpreview's very knowledgeable readers have decided that the insoluble problems of 50 years of DSLRs are outweighed by the huge advantages of mirrorless, notwithstanding their residual flaws. Unfortunately, some good points in the blog entry have their credibility overwhelmed by a polemical tone suggesting that design choices in mirrorless are "wrong" because the author simply has different priorities than many consumers. Yes, the Sony A7 series, for example, does not have the battery life of DSLRs; as a user, I too wish it had better. But this is a tradeoff. As a non-professional, I prefer inserting little batteries more frequently to leaving my camera or a lens at home because it does not fit in a carryon.
Poor battery in A7 is NOT a tradeoff -- it s made deliberate so that a camera appears smaller than s DSLR, and therefore, gain an illusionary advantage and become an alternative. So basically, it is one big lie. A decent battery would make A7 bigger and heavier. Fact remains: mirrorless systems are rooted in compromised design, lies spread around every corner of its design, from conception to delivery. There is nothing true to purpose in it, all but one conceit to lure customer in, and let him regret later.
I haven't seen a mirrorless camera with a decent size battery. They are all tiny and pathetic; camera close the size of DSLR, but twice smaller battery size. I think that is why DSLR is still a workhorse of imaging industry — the mirror must go up and down, LCD must work, shutter, metering, etc, and manufacturers generally put in a decent size battery.
In a mirrorless design, with EVFs that draw so much energy, why manufacturers do not follow the same logic and install a big battery? Ah, yes — the (A) overall design had to be changed a bit, and a mirrorless would become bigger than DSLR. But to lie about "smaller size of mirrorless solutions", they (B) cripple battery department, (C) redesign lenses to draw less energy, which means, must be made from light & inferior materials too, and (D) avoid tele-centricity.
A, B, C and D is where corners are cut and users cheated. Time for mirrorless game stop being one lie after another. Or, more bigger batteries, less big lies.
Sony is the clown of the photography industry; letting them in there only made them look more foolish and insipid. Thus instead of pulling from the A mount venture with dignity and perhaps earn a clap or two for decent performance, Sony designed it to crack by itself, and blame users for it. A goodbye bomb to explode below spectators' seats. Incredible. But what else to expect from a clown?
A recipe for Nikon; make an instant D810.
Indeed, how much they can sell of the same?
Year by year sales figures for imaging industry is a total nonsense of a benchmark, because it is obvious that industry follows some cycles of new development, and then renewed sales in some areas. Every undergraduate knows that corresponds to some sort of sine function graph.
So who really cares how much camera sales are down if sales will pick up again in a few years, with next-gen of tech, new wave of users, etc?
Following the lines of his "talent", he could equally wrap all his cameras and lenses around his neck and jump into lake to make a spectacle.
Kill Kodak, you kill film photography. Kill Sony, you kill digital imaging. I would not be surprised if Kodak was not deliberately sabotaged and expropriated, at least to an extent. So when one day Sony Imaging goes bust in the deflationary economy, like Kodak did, imaging industry goes the way of film, at an accelerated pace.And we are back to the drawing board, pencil and pen. So we should invest in Steadtler's and Faber Castel's shares? :-)
wolfie: Interesting to see the positive enthusiasm for more size and weight as an advantage over mirrorless ...reminds me of how dinosaurs (dino-slrs) failed while pesty little mammals took over every niche they occupied. But hey if you want to persist with a viewing system that only existed because of film, your welcome to the size and weight penalty - which says nothing at all about about supposed better image quality.I think between Ricoh & Pentax they could have done something unique in mirrorless, maybe in a few years 😣
Do you understand why there are no quality mirrorless alternatives for FF DSLR? Because the lenses would be same size. The body — if it is to be robust, would be similarly big. See Leica SL — it is chunky camera, and there is no way to escape that. If one wants robustness and quality, there must be weight to it. Everything else is a consumer joke.K1 from Pentax is not a consumer camera — by everything we see, it is serious pro stuff, and specs won't disappoint. Most likely, it will shred D810 to pieces.
CameraLabTester: Full Frame?
Seriously, Ricoh... you should have just gutted the innards of an MX, replaced it with digital soul, and made a splash.
But instead... you just made a spray.
That would be the XT1 Pentax never made, but Fujifilm delivered. The entire higher end mirrorless exists because DSLR makers, including Pentax, were blind to the obvious: current DSLR design is boring, singing same tune for almost 30 years. Nikon Df was the only step aside. Pentax K-S1 also, but it was ridiculous. If Pentax instead made MXD, many DSLR users would never even consider mirrorless alternative, like the XT1 or similar.
There is a need for a simple, less complicated camera in the film Pentax M body style. Users vouched for it since the dawn of digital. If not FF, then crop, to supplement excellent and tiny DA Limiteds. I have a gut feeling Pentax wanted to do that, but some of their corporate owners scrapped the plan.
robbo d: Scary thing is weight..... k3 is already slightly heavier than a D750 body. Add battery grip, high quality glass and flash X2 when doing weddings ..... i hope its not too much of a tank.Might have to add a gym membership.!!!Pentax k3/k5 are small in form but theyre little heavy suckers ..... so if barney thinks it looks bulkier than D750 ... hmmmm
Pentax will name the camera higher number than D750 and that will fix the weight perception problem. K790 or K800 would a terrific blow to Nikon. Even better, K820, to steal a few sales from Nikon.
vscd: Thumbs up for Pentax. With the knowledge from their history and a great mediumformatbody by his side, this one will rock. Seems there is still someone developing DSLR Cams in the right way.
Let's have the latest sensorgenrations in it with IBIS and some new inventions in the OVF ;) Go Pentax!
I think you are right. Canon and Nikon have totally messed up DSLR camera and lens in the last 10 years. They have become dispassionate monstrosities. No nuance, no tactility, no emotion, no art at all: their DSLRs are chunky bricks designed by a hired ex-Soviet economic politburo, and their lenses motorised exhaust pipes designed by remnants of an ex-German rocket development team left in Japan.When they set the 'professional' standard, no wonder camera business goes down the drain. We have bad role models.
A camera of this calibre has "AUTO" on the main dial?I suggest erasing that, and adding "Canon user" mode. Or "m4/3 folk" mode.
surlezi: No EVF no buy.
It is both OVF and EVF. You will be surprised. Pentax has engineered a technological breakthrough. First ever DSLR that enables sensor feed through the OVF, and instant visual feedback on all changes in settings done through the dial, including, how the SR and ISO effect the final image.
It will have the EVF.That knob on the right reveals that controls on it must feed on direct visual feedback from the sensor.
→ A revolutionary DSLR: Composite mirror + EVF image (probably).Those two new big dials could be full control of the EVF image overlay inside the VF, because camera sends both sensor output and mirror image at once.One dial sets the control, the other fine tunes it, and the button on top confirms it. You have a total control over image preview in the VF before you press the shutter, and can show control and how it affects the image output: 1. how crop looks like, 2. grids, 3. eV compensation, 4. different levels of SR, 5. how ISO affects the image, 6. HDR, 7. See where highlights are, etc. You have an instant visual feedback, far better than using the rear LCD, as in theory, mirror image and sensor-fed image could be combined in one as well and that is possible in OVF only. And of course, no problems with outside light messing with LCD-only preview.Ideally, variably transparent mirror in that case could also be used as a sort of built-in ND filter. A total portable field darkroom.