SmilerGrogan: How dare anyone blame LensRentals for supplying a bad lens? I have rented dozens of lenses (and bought a few) from them and all have been stellar. Look elsewhere if you seek someone or something to blame.
@alex wrote <<There was no pixel peeping back then, only photography ;-) >>
Oh, I've been a pixel (grain) peeper since the middle of the previous century. I learned a lot doing it, too; f'rexample I learned to avoid sodium sulfite like the plague in 35mm film developers if one values sharpness. Just don't make prints bigger than, say, 8x10 from a 35mm neg.
Now, I've learned that unless one is making prints measured in feet (or meters) all modern cameras are more or less equal. But I still pixel peep, trying to learn even more.
madecov: Congratulations to Hasselblad! as someone who lusted after one in the early 80's I for one am very pleased to see a new product and one that is so nice especially. Back in the late 70's I wanted a Mamiya Sekor SLR or a Topcon. The Minolta XK was on my wish list, I ended up with a GAF (Chinon) SLR. These companies are gone, I am very pleased to see Hasselblad has not gone the way of Kodak or any of the many others who are gone.
NowHearThis: Meh. At that price I'll wait for the 200mp version.
It's likely Pentax will upgrade their 645Z sensor in the near future -- 50mp just doesn't cut it anymore, I guess.
Dudodelmundo: Has anyone tried processing the files with darktable or some linux based raw developing tools, yet?
I did when the camera was previewed by DPR with samples; if you use the latest darktable, (beta) the files are recognized and rendered correctly. There may not be a lensfun filter to correct lens distortion yet.
Darktable and UFRaw betas are available for Ubuntu/Mint through PPAs on the home sites of the apps and through backports for Debian.
iShootWideOpen: I still can't get over Leica mounting a 28mm lens over a 35. Seriously, why?
I surmise they used it because, when paired with software-distortion control in OOC JPEGs, the field of view is more like that of a 35mm lens.
This is apparent when comparing OOC shots with uncorrected RAWs.
This time, the title is right on, IMO; now we know how much a lens which matches a hi-rez sensor costs.
Not only is a 7rII pricey, so are its optics.
Smaug01: You had me as soon as I saw the 'PENTAX M' 50/2 lens!
I tried to make it clear that the Pentax 50mm f:2 is quite a good performer when stopped down.
I have an old, beaten-up, scratched 50mm f:1.4 which is quite sharp from f:2.0 and smaller.
I bought the 'A' model for its auto-exposure coupling on my first Pentax digital, an *ist DS. It was when I used this lens wide open that I noticed the extreme curvature of field.
Sharpness at small apertures is not rocket science and does not require a high degree of correction; sharpness at wide apertures is quite another matter.
Planars, although sometimes marketed as f:2 lenses, were best when limited to f:2.8. That's why the Sonnar was made (same design as later Pentax 50mm f:1.4s.)
The number of elements is not a gauge of quality imaging by itself
Mount your f:2.0 and focus on a flat wall parallel to the sensor plane, then turn to one side and then the other and observe the way the wall seems to be made of Jell-O near the corners. That's what I'm talking about.
odpisan: VERY BAD K-1 NEWS
for Pentaxians across Europe:
US price: about 1.800 US $
EU price: about 2.200 US $
It is simply unfair !!
NOW YOU CAN SEE WHY PENTAX IS NOT SO POPULAR IN EUROPE.
<< NOW YOU CAN SEE WHY PENTAX IS NOT SO POPULAR IN EUROPE. >>
Pentax is not so popular in the Americas, either. In the 70s, Pentax was vying with Canon in the US market for top seller. Then Pentax took over the wholesale distribution and dealers fled.
Pentax does not know how to market on a distributor level and Ricoh would be smart to fix the Pentax marketing team or find another.
EcoPix: As a Pentax 6x7 stock shooter in the halcyon days of stock, this camera has a lot of appeal.
I know dpReview isn't into retro, but it would be a very readable piece if dpReview could get a hold of a Pentax 6x7 II with one of the later lenses (the 45mm was a gem) and some Velvia and do a comparison with the results from the K1, as that would be the imaging equivalent. The 645Z is another league again.
After reconsideration, I have to amend my reply: Assuming 35 lp/mm for the 6x7, and then multiply to correct for image circle, the 6x7 negative will have to be enlarged less than the 35mm-sized sensor. So, with 2.25 times the linear size, the corresponding resolution becomes 35lp/mm x 72mm = 2520 lp vs (my guess) ~4000 for the K1.
2520 lp is close to a modern APS-C camera like the K3II.
I have one of those (actually the optically-identical 'A' model) and they are not very sharp until f:5.6 or so.
Only a 5-element design with lots of field curvature wide open (enough that I can see it in the viewfinder!)
The f:1.7 (six elements) or f:1.4 (seven usually, but early m42 versions were eight) are better performers at bright apertures; avoid wide open on all, though.
I'm afraid there will be no contest, should such a comparison take place. Development of the film negative is key -- sodium sulfite acts as noise reduction when used in developers; the only one without it, to my knowledge, was Agfa's Rodinal (a similar brew is sold by Fomadon, now, I believe).
In film days, a lens which resolved 35 line pairs per millimeter was sharper than most common films.
I expect the K-1 to resolve more than 160 lpm with pixel shift and a super-sharp up-to-date lens.
However, if enlargements are kept moderate, the difference might disappear.
And this does not take into account film's inferior dynamic range: ~8EV vs. 12EV or more for the K-1 (my educated guess.)
I just downloaded and processed a RAW image -- Superb!
But I will need a faster computer with more RAM -- my ancient box chokes on the 100-Mb tiff files which result.
This, of course, is not Pentax's fault.
New rule: update your camera, update your computer.
16 Gb RAM would be nice for these images.
fotokeena: Can the manual focus lenses of the Pentax 645 be used on this camera? is there an adapter available now?Thanks!
Pentax sells exactly such adapters.
Bram de Mooij: Nice to see the effect of this deviating portrait approach. I like it very much. Nice model, even with a big nose :-)
At one time I was a TV performer; the weekend new anchor, who looked gorgeous on-camera with a huge telephoto lens attached, in real life had a badly hooked nose and a lantern jaw. He was never shot at close distance with a normal or wide focal length! (Nor would he turn his head to talk to his co-anchor).
Also, if the portrait is done for payment from the subject, flattery is required. Every portraitist knows this. Only Rembrandt rebelled semi-successfully from this convention.
Joseph Karsch is also an exception bc his sittings were often paid for by organizations rather than the sitters themselves.
The Name is Bond: It's not slight distortion, it's a lot of distortion. and he's only getting away with it (not really) because much of the time they have their faces at an angle.
And long lenses aren't just about bokeh but removing the distortion. Headshots of top models were done at 300mm+ on FF for a reason (cropping can do this now with shorter FLs).
That 'familiarity' theory is similar to the logic that went in to Robert Altman's use of wide-angles in his films. But really all it did was pierce the 4th wall and make a jarring affect. You essentially became the camera-man (or Johnny Depp's armpit).
Similarly, this theory sounds great, but the effect for me is to make highly refined snaps with the uglification of the distortion.
As with eveyrthing, I'm sure this works for some, and where there's a market there's someone to fill it.
@The Name is Bond.
I have no dog in this fight; I use either technique when appropriate, but as I never use a studio, the "environment" portrait is more usual for me.
Taste is a personal thing; I am not advocating, simply explaining what I have learned.
@timbuckto-- "So taste and times change."
Some fifty years ago, while a soldier attached to the White House Press office, I took a course from Okimoto, LBJ's official WH photographer. Until then, I had used the older model of the portrait, shot with long lenses, but it felt artificial to me, as the distance prevented any light banter between the photog and the subject -- indeed, producing a picture of a "dead" subject apparently floating in space (bokeh).
Okimoto taught that, being flat, a photo could never achieve reality (3-D) and shouldn't even try to do so.
He called his style of using wide-angle lenses for portraits "environmental", Along with similar styles used at Life and Look magazines of the time, it soon became very popular and allowed the subject to be connected in meaning to the background.
This was a very well-thought out technique.
(unknown member): A) This camera has some impressive dynamic rangeB) The suckers at Pentax marketing should have been fired long time ago...do it now - the choice of images to display is simply terrible. Not terrible like they are not artistic, but terrible like you loose huge part of the possible income from prospective customers repulsed by the choice of images. And if you are not sure about this check the 200 negative comments and several forum threads provoked by these images...
@Yanko: "The suckers at Pentax marketing should have been fired (a) long time ago."
Yep. Pentax's fault has always been marketing. In its heyday, Pentax outsourced wholesale distribution to Heiland and then Honeywell in the USA and to other firms in Europe; when Asahi took over this function internally, dealers fled, leading to lost sales and falling market share.
Maybe Ricoh is better in this regard, or, perhaps online sales will moot the point.
Neither Walmart nor Best Buy will ever sell Pentaxes, I believe.
Richard Kwon: Would you buy this if Panasonic makes this same camera in China for half of the cost of it? I don't think I would, but I still want anyone of the Leica cameras...
@onlooker. Re: shutter speed. Yes, top speed was probably 1000. So were most cameras of the time. I never had one. I saved and saved for it, but the price kept going up until it became the Leica CL, and was permanently out of my reach.
Analogue: Minolta made for Leica a camera labeled the CL. It has since beciome a very rare and expensive collector's item. Made by Minolta in Japan.
SirSeth: What kind of garbage is this? It's as daft as sending journalists out with iPhones and firing all the staff photographers.
It's already happening on the small-market level, which usually indicates what will be mainstream in short order. Right now, I see small local tv stations have handed out cell phones and selfie sticks to field reporters in order to save the cost of camera and audio techs.
If a poorly-educated audience will buy/watch such inane "content", why pay for expertise?