PK24X36NOW: Sorry, but I don't get it, Pentax. This is a 2:1 zoom ratio, relatively slow, variable aperture lens that isn't very wide on the wide end, isn't very long on the long end, and you want 849 POUNDS for it (I don't even want to think of what that is in dollars)?!
The main thing that's "limited" about this lens is what - range, versatility??
You would think that for your top-line lenses, you should be able to muster a 3:1 zoom ratio, constant aperture, and a focal length range that isn't boring.
If they are going for ultimate lens correction with no compromises, then the limit on the zoming might be understandable.
I'm all for dials, but the lack of an aperture ring on the 'kit' lens is just wrong. They should supply it with the earlier 50mm.
70's? I think it looks mid eighties. The silver one reminds me of their cheap plastic film cameras.
Zigmont: I guess I'm the only one who thinks this obsession with the past, i.e. "retro" is absurd. I'm old enough to remember the Nikon F's in the '60's, I don't want a camera that looks like that, I want something new and modern that breaks the old barriers.
Retro design is an excuse for companies who have no new ideas and can't come up with a new and ground-breaking design, so they go back to the past.
Quite frankly, I'm sick of all the new "retro" look cameras. I want the camera of 2020, not 1950.
Some of us regret not being born 500 years ago, and regret that we are surrounded by architecture from people with your attitude who don't care at all that it depresses the rest of us.
Classic 80s. Retro for me is 70s and earlier.
KariIceland: Seriously dpreview?! A white guy dressed as a stereotype native american?! Why dont you just do black face while you are at it?!!!
"Seriously dpreview?! A white guy dressed as a stereotype native american?! Why dont you just do black face while you are at it?!!!"
There is really nothing wrong with this. How about being offended by a english guy wearing lederhosen, ie. posing as a stereotypical german?
People are getting offended by absurdities. Go and live in the 3rd world and get your priorities recalibrated.
jcmarfilph: The biggest should have been insta-crap photos. Those lousy filters are completely unnecessary and a photo with great composition will be a great photo. No need to hide those mediocre IQ of iPhones and other phones. And FWIW, a photo should not be square in aspect ratio all the time.
There's crappy and there's crappy. The point of the instagram crappiness is that it ages and gives a sense of atmosphere and nostaligic history to the pic. A straight pic is often just too boring.
The lack of money due to the extended world wide financial crisis is part of this problem. For a consumer the choice can come down to a smartphone vs a nice camera. I know which one I would choose.
bleeboo: I'm afraid DSLR's, if not extinct, will be far fewer in the future.
Look at what has happened with mp3's as opposed to the full sonic quality of a CD.
People have actually accepted muddy and distorted sounding music as "acceptable" for the sake of transportability.
Just as have many accepted blurred and washed out phone snapshots as passable.
For me, I'll always play the music I love most with as much sonic integrity as I can, meaning top level equipment to do so.
The same goes for photography. I'll always have a DSLR.
I'm afraid, however, I'm going the way of the dinosaur.
hmmm, that's not quite right. In double blind tests, mp3s are indistinguishable from CD so long as they use a good modern encoder at 192kbps, joint stereo, vbr. FLAC and SACD are a pointless waste of space (and money). CD has been beaten.
rdz: tautological??? WOW! DP REVIEW Vocab class is now in session. Bueller? Bueller? Not only do we get the absolute pinnacle of camera reviewing expertise we also get the word for the day. My dictionary is smokin'.
It's not so uncommon to use such words in the UK. dpreview is/was partly UK based.
Having said that, why use a long word when a diminutive will suffice?
itsastickup: What interests me the most is the cut in shadow dynamic range in the x100s. It's the marvellous DR (and OOC jpegs) that had me get the X-pro1 and but for that change I would have pre-purchased the X-pro2.
But there was an ommission int he review: unlike the x-pro1 review the x100s review didn't test the shadow/highlight q-menu controls. The X-pro1 review showed that using these controls hugely extends shadow dynamic range.
"The X100S has the same JPEG tone controls as the X-Pro1, so if you want to open up the shadows, you can."
But that wasn't tested in the x100s review, so we don't really know that you are going to get much more or the kind of deep shadow DR seen in the other cameras. It's enough already to sow serious doubt that the x100s has such limited shadow DR in default settings.
It was a surprising omission in the x100s review.
What interests me the most is the cut in shadow dynamic range in the x100s. It's the marvellous DR (and OOC jpegs) that had me get the X-pro1 and but for that change I would have pre-purchased the X-pro2.
MayaTlab0: "One point worth noting here is that the X-E2 doesn't just allow you to select a minimum shutter speed - it forces you to select a single fixed speed, and unlike Nikon's recent SLRs, there's no 'Auto' option that takes the lens's focal length into account."
Oh dear. Why can't they get it right ? Is it so hard to create a few lines of codes to just copy what others are doing ?
I'm doubting it's just a few lines of code.
Tom_A: My wife often leaves her big nikon dslr at home and she likes my xe-1. This would be a perfect camera to add to our household, and we can share lenses.
BTW, a little ergonomical quirk of the XE1 is not resolved: the exposure compensation dial should ideally have a lock button in the middle. Now it is too easy to accidently turn it.
I wonder if that special manual focus system would become available in a firmware upgrade to the XE1.
I use EV compensation all the time and a lock would not be welcome. It just needs to be stiffer like on the X-Pro1.
This is seriously interesting to me. I love large phones but they are just too big on the leg (front pocket). And in HTC's case, way too heavy.
If this phone has Samsung's legendary plastic light-weightedness then I'll be seriously examining its specs. I just hope the audio is not as rubbish as the Galaxy S line and their bogus poorly implemented Yamaha and Wolfson chips generating thumping distortion and high output impedance. Just use something off the shelf, Samsung. REaltek etc have been true hifi for years now.
Otherwise it's back to iphone for me, I'm afraid.
One of a kind...but not very original.
A camera that looks like to be a mac.
Gesture: Welcome, welcome upgrade and features to K-5 and a great competitor to Nikon D7100. But what is it with companies and naming. The next camera will be the K-1 and, then, there is no where to go. Others have boxed themselves in with naming everything the X Z and/or 1.
Even going the other way has its limits with numbers going in to the tens or hundreds. Time to change the lettering which is perhaps the intention.
itsastickup: Most of the cons look like fishing for something negative to say.
"Underexposed video in very low-light conditions"
Not on the evidence of that video. Unless it was actually early evening and much lighter, the video was just right.
My comment was in reference to 'underexposure' not performance.
Most of the cons look like fishing for something negative to say.