Neil-H: I half expect a DPR article soon about going even further back in time. This time it's manual everything that frees the artist, next it's finger painting bringing us back to Louis & Clark and the Louisiana purchase....
Ah the good ole' days, why are we even using these clunky machines anyway... Is it just me or is this all backwards? Why are we celebrating getting less for our money? If I want to shoot manual everything, I can, I simply turn off AF and shoot in Manual with a lens with an aperture ring. But to pay these prices for lenses that can't AF if it's really needed, that's just odd.
This arises a great question. Are consumers willing to pay $399 for the experience of simply owning and shooting a manual lens? And is it justifiable to fault them? To be honest, If I were to purchase this lens just because it's a "manual" lens then I'll be missing the point of purchasing this beautiful lens in the first place. I do not own a single Sony camera, but I find this lens attractive and I do not doubt using it would result a unique experience from a AF lens.But would I spend $400 for it? Nope. :-)If anything, it's a good conversation piece...
Umm...apparently 6 people had already owned the 645z.-_-
LXNights: For me it's the K-3. Pentax made up in a big way for their previous lapse in video by giving a proper and solid operating system here, including the addition of a plug to use earphones, which is vital for people like myself well versed in video. The ability to choose between using the anti-alliasing (sic) filter is nothing short of brilliant, in addition to the other features well documented here on DPreview. And the price point makes it a slam dunk. This is a very important camera for Pentax because it shows they can make a sturdy professional machine (notice I didn't say enthusiast) that can compete with anyone, it also points to a future that is very bright indeed. I've been shooting with Pentax for nearly 40 years, and despite recent tough times, I remain as proud as ever for what they have accomplished, and where they are going, and the K-3 is indicative of that. Thank you, Pentax-Ricoh.
Nothing competes with the LX. This gem is in a league of it's own.
HubertChen: @ Heie2 or anybody else passionate about Pentax
I very much agree and share your passion for the Pentax Camera Body, and I might add and you might have meant it: The brilliant User Interface / Firmware.
Would you be interested to work together on writing a very different kind of camera review ? It is not about Megapixel, resolution or any of that stuff. It is about how the Pentax camera inspires joy in photography. How it increase quality of your output, not in megapixels, but in such ineffable qualities as composition and creativity, which only can be measured indirectly, as in how many people actually like your pictures. ( They never care megapixel and RAW sharpness, they always care what you shoot and how ).
The K30 and K5 have a magic quality which seems to escape traditional reviews. I am passionate about capturing this quality and make it visible to others. Would you be interested in working together ?
-It does not record +30Mbps (some blocky artifacts + jello effects)-Digital SR crops sensor during recording -Can not output true HD on monitor, one can only use VGA connection to output live recording to monitor.
Granted, all the negatives are only on video mode which can easily be solved with minor tweaks and cheap DIY hacks.The K01 excels in stills, there have actually been some comparison between the K5 and k01, which most members in pentax forum speculating the K01 images look "sharper" because it has a much thinner anti aliasing than the k5.
I've recently purchased a K01 with the 40mm DA XS pancake lens. The purchase came after 3 years of shooting with my beloved K200D, which now has over 35,000 actuations. I have used it in snow, sleet, and rain.The k200D was AHEAD of its time, and therefore Pentax literally dropped the ball on the camera and had to discontinue it. I will not part with this 5 year old camera because I have compared the images from k01 with the k200d and although I noticed some improvement in detail, most importantly High ISO noise control, the overall difference is minimal.
I applaud Pentax for majorly updating the K200D, because this is essentially what the k30 is, minus the top LCD screen. :)
But, why did I buy a K01? Simply put, you can not get a body + pancake lens combo for $339 :-)This camera has a lot of quirks, and it definitely was not worth it's original price of $749. -One does not have full manual control with M42 lens-Sound gain level is too prominent when recording.
Gesture: I think back to late in the film era when the Contax G was launched. It was an expensive, beautifully designed, real camera with fantastic lenses. It was a luxury item, but one of value and good taste and for a time there was quite a cachet to it with Hollywood folks, etc. walking around with them. Many celebrities in the film era were ardent photographers and rolled out their Leicas, Nikon RF, Rollefilex, etc. because they wanted the best, not the busiest.
But on a lighter note, I am happy that your friend found an genuine Alexander Calder mobile at a thrift store. He is truly a lucky guy.And I am glad you will enjoy shooting your Contax. I shall reserve my lettuce for a latter occasion, I'll provably make a Romaine Salad or something.
Secondly, competition: we need to have a more diverse, urgent and competitive mindset in technological advances. The only reason why the USA sent men in the moon was because we were competing against the Soviets. The only reason why USA created the atomic boom was because we thought that the Germans were ahead of us.Thirdly and most importantly! The economy. In other words, the values and prices of products with the most advance technology. Everything needs to be cheaper! What good will serve a company to produce the most expensive technological wonder if only a few people can afford it? Cost for production would be higher than the revenue, and that's a big loss. That's why we are still stuck in the past. This Hasselbald is NOT revolutionary and it is uber expensive! Which goes to show us that true revolutionary technology is definitely not cheap enough for mass production. And the economy still not good enough to help people afford the bling.All three factors are crucial.
lol, watch, 20 years from know you will be amazed that technology will not reach a "singularity." In fact, some people would still be using their Iphone 5 as a collectors item, and photographers would still be using their film cameras, and some would still be using their Tintypes and Daguerreotypes just like they had used it a hundred years ago and still are using it today.I remember at the turn of the century, in the year 2,000, people thought that technology would be so advance that cars would be completely automated. But, I am still driving my '86 Toyota Corolla and the new cars today sure aren't automated.Look, I agree with you that we have the capacity to achieve a technological revolution or "singularity" if you will. But, it's not going to happen anytime soon because of three BIG factors:Culture: the majority of population needs to accept and be accustomed with the advance of technology. Some culture repress the people from this like North Korea, Algeria, Bahrain, Burma.
BiggerDiggler, no one is arguing against your position however laughable and far-fetched your opinion could actually sound. The core of your statement is actually very true, technology is advancing quickly and is becoming smarter and better, but there's a fallacy in your reasoning thereof. technology and science is ruled by laws that bind them, and therefore it is a finite element or tool, technology can advance only to a certain point. Whereas an idea is substantially connotative, and therefore it is infinite. It is not bound by any rules or laws, rather, it is subjective and expressive.So, how can you submit a reason that superior technology will create superior art? when the main value of art is to express an idea. ie: "View from the Window at Le Gras," is true art, and it is by no means better or inferior than the various arts made in the modern age. It does however hold a great historical value.
Now go shoot your Contax G2s before I hurl a lettuce at you, Dr. Kurzwell says so.
@BiggerDiggler:I don't really care if digital consumer sensors will kill professional digital cameras in the future. I'll still keep my film cameras.If you are not satisfied with the images produced by your Contax G2s maybe you should give me your Contax, I'll make sure to use it like it was meant to be used, and you can keep your cheap Costco Panasonic point and shoot. :)BTW, the issue is not how revolutionary the technology is or how great the image quality of the sensor is. The issue is using an image to express a feeling and to make a statement. In this digital craze, people forget that an image is not all about resolution, pixels, or latitude.
Luca Alessadrini: "So, we have heard our fan's criticisms about the 'showy' nature of the NEX-7 Lunar and SonyBald has decided to upgrade the body to a more 'normal' looking camera body next fall. The new camera body will include mythical materials such as Unicorn leather and a magnesium body sprinkled with Philosopher's stones for just €5,741.85 ($7,500). But, that's not all, SonyBald's recent partnership with Adidas has allowed us to produce a special addition scratch-and-sniff body for only €765.58 ($1,000) more. At this time the scratch-and-sniff option is only limited to Adidas Moves cologne."
I can just see this unfolding.
mbpm: I believe Pentax is pricing the 560mm F5.6 as a 859mm F5.6 equivalent given most Pentax cameras are ASP-C. Hence the $7,000 price tag for the 859mm equivalent of a 1.5x cropped sensor.
Just to make a poor comparison:The Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM Autofocus Lens cost about $13,899.00
The (CRAZY good) Sigma 300-800mm f/5.6 EX DG APO If HSM Digital Autofocus Telephoto Zoom Lens ranges form $7K to $8K depending on the camera mount.
And Nikon just announced development of 800mm F5.6 VR super-telephoto lens, no price was given.
If the Pros are going to buy this lens, Pentax is assuming they will "see" it as a 859mm prime lens.But all the explanation aside, I still think it's expensive.
Hold your horses there forpetessake. I am just giving an explanation for what Pentax is probably assuming what the price range should be, I never said I was in favor of the high $$ of the Pentax or that this explanation fully answers the price tag. Hence, the "poor comparison."I only said that the Pentax PRICE for the 560 mm/5.6 lens is akin to that of a 800mm. Which is EXPENSIVE for a 560mm.I am not comparing anything BUT the price range, that's all.Again I am only giving an assumption on PRICE, if you were to correct me, please do so in a more illustrated way. Like comparing it to another lens closer to $7K (like the sigma, which I have mentioned above). Don't just go off tangent stating that the 800mm/5.6L is more expensive because it requires more "materials and effort." Because I already know that.Take a breather.
I believe Pentax is pricing the 560mm F5.6 as a 859mm F5.6 equivalent given most Pentax cameras are ASP-C. Hence the $7,000 price tag for the 859mm equivalent of a 1.5x cropped sensor.
I've only dreamed of this camera.
On the side note, I cannot believe there's only one post besides me!
Thomas Kachadurian: Ho hum. It won't sell at $300.
^ Well...yeah, you're right. But nevertheless, you're still right.
panpen: I have a DP2 and it is as good as my M8 with 28mm Elmarit third version at iso 100 and 200. Anything above 400 is for black and white as color is completely lost. While the DP2 is an amazing camera that replaced my $4k M8 with a manual lens, I would never pay $1k for the Merill version. If iso 400 and 800 were good I would have given it a second thought. In the last two months Adorama had tons of DP1 and DP2 demos or E+ for less than $300. $1000 is a stretch even for a great camera like Sigma DP
Fine, let me play along.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APS-C"All APS-C variants are considerably smaller than 35 mm standard film which measures 36×24 mm. Sensor sizes range from 20.7×13.8 mm to 28.7×19.1 mm."
DP1 Merrill: Sensor size is 23.5×15.7mmIt does not matter that they raise the sensor's size by 2.8x1.9mm. the DP2x is still considered to have an APS-C sensor. The changed crop factor of 1.7 to 1.5 does not matter and still does not change the fact that the DP2x has pretty much the same features as the DP1 Merrill.http://www.dpreview.com/news/2011/2/8/sigmadp2x"Sigma DP2x Compact digital camera with an APS-C size, 14MP image sensor."I know that the Foveon X3 format for early DP series resembles the Micro Four Thirds system, but it is not considered as one.
"Sensors equipping most DSLRs and mirrorless interchangeable-lens cameras" Your point is not valid because the size difference of the sensor still does not justify the price value of the DP1 Merrill. Period.
Duh, the DP2x also has an APS-C sensor.
-_- do a little research before posting, dude.
"The size of the image sensor used in the DP2x camera is 20.7mm x 13.8mm. It is approximately seven to twelve times larger than sensors used in ordinary compact digital cameras."http://www.dpreview.com/news/2011/2/8/sigmadp2x
I agree with panpen here.
1 year-old DP2x: $700-Same features as the DP1 Merrill-24.2mm/2.8 lens
New DP1 Merrill: $1,000-Much 'improved' move mode VGA (640×480)-19mm/2.8 lens
^A very good and honest answer, thank you.But comparing the DP1 Merrill to the DP2x, which would sell more? I must say that one can speculate that DP2xs' sell more because of it's price. At about $700, it is both affordable and...amazing.The DP1 Merrill is not that affordable and has pretty much the same features as the DP2x. But, I guess I am going in circles here because most of the people that post here provable already know this.Or maybe I am failing to see the new amazing features of the DP1 Merrill over the 1 year-old DP2x to justify its price point.
^ I didn't mean to push you buttons, and I apologize if I did.Unfortunately I find your questions and 'answers'...unflattering. Again, don't take it personally. Your assumption that I "aint that interested in cameras" is, well, funny because it "aint" true. :)But, it's ok because I don't take such assessments personal.Please enlighten us with numbers that determines the DP2sx sell more, and also, do you own any Sigma cameras? But please don't answer the question if you are going to take it personal.*Hint: My initial response was a joke. In short, I was been sarcastic; hence the smiley face :)
So, Y U So Mad? :(