halfwaythere: Ricoh is slowly driving the Pentax brand off a cliff. I think most of the pentaxians are going to miss the Hoya days.
Nah, Hoya were driving that car rather faster ... ;-)
I bought one but my copy was frustratingly soft. Returned.
Retzius: Does this fix the flopping mirror?
Sadly, no. I had an episode a few days after updating to 1.10 (having never had the problem before). Had to remove the battery to get it to cease.
sfa1966: "Right now you can opt out of receiving notifications on a per-thread (or per comment) basis"
OK I just didn't see how that discriminated between 'per comment' notifications (which I would like to receive) and 'per thread' notifications (which I would not).
Will try it out.
"Right now you can opt out of receiving notifications on a per-thread (or per comment) basis"
Betico: I'm happy to read the Jeff's reviews. He writes clear and to the point. I miss his comments about the battery door on his DPreview reviews. On his former website he never missed a comment regarding the bottom of the camera. His comments about the battery doors were very helpful. I guess DPreview does not allow him to write these comments now.
I did read the K-3 review, but was sorely disappointed. I thought after all that time you could have covered the battery door in a lot more detail.
Fabulous shots. Could cycle through the set for hours. A great find, and well done on how you've digitized the slides. They look superb.
No Sigma DP(x)M? Or do they not fall into this category?
sfa1966: Ouch. I am a loyal Pentaxian, but I have to say that is very poor. The left side of the image looks like mush. The centre is unimpressive. Soft, soft, soft. And in the comments below, Richard Butler tells us that the much-heralded-by-the-fanboys 01 Prime was tested and it came out "considerably worse"!
C'mon Ricoh, kill this Quirky Quackers waste of your resources!
I'll ignore the personal stuff, but oh yes: when it's the Q7, DPR should indeed take the time to conduct a thorough Sherlockian investigation of different combinations of other Q equipment. They are sure to come to a different conclusion. Perhaps that's because there's so many variables (highly variable variables, if this test shot is anything to go by) which might go wrong in a line which has self-professed 'toy lenses'.
Meanwhile - gosh! - all the other brands' cameras in the comparisons look fine! DPR must have gotten a lucky good copy of those then!
Ouch. I am a loyal Pentaxian, but I have to say that is very poor. The left side of the image looks like mush. The centre is unimpressive. Soft, soft, soft. And in the comments below, Richard Butler tells us that the much-heralded-by-the-fanboys 01 Prime was tested and it came out "considerably worse"!
Tape5: What is Q?
I have only seen one Q and that was in Star Trek.
I think perhaps you need to get out a bit more ...
@ RogerLittle:That's Pentax cameras for you. Simply ahead of their time. ;-)
Mescalamba: Hm, in what exactly is that 18-55 new? Previous one on K-5 and so is WR too.. And its not particulary good lens.
What's new is that this is a WR version of the DA-L (plastic mount) kit lens. Previously, WR was only for the metal mount.
Very impressive. Sigma, make a Pentax K-mount version please.
Maybe the sunshine, the blue skies and some nicer-than-usual compositions are playing their part, but these are the best samples from a compact I've seen on this site in a good while.
windmillgolfer: First, all the images are very good, at least, and the waterfall image is superb.
Marriage saving, yes, fully recognise/understand. Carrying even just a pocketable LX5 sometimes causes 'issues'. I can see that an iPhone (probably the 4S) might kill several birds with one stone :)
A very telling comment from a working pro photographer. What is the future even of high-end P+S cameras if phone cameras continue their strides forward?
And, oh yes, the images are truly excellent!
Mike Griffin: I see some overblown highlights. will be interesting to discover if that is a camera characteristic when used at default settings.
Which picture(s) Mike? Can't see any on my monitor (well, arguably only the first one (night shot of theatre), but that is an OOC JPEG of a high contrast scene at ISO3200, so I am not too concerned ...)
Sorry if I missed it somewhere, but what is the minimum focus distance for macro usage?
No change as at 5 March. So, is this story a spoof?
Very nice indeed. My beloved DP1 is beginning to show its age at 30,000 shots, and the DP1M will be a logical replacement.