RStyga: I wonder how this compares to the 18-135mm WR... 2mm difference is very close in FL, even when it's in the wide end and considering the 1.5X.
@Rstyga From what I've read and seen, I wouldn't want to use the 18-135 at 70mm or over because of softness in the corners. Some say that doesn't matter at those focal lengths, but it does for landscapes. And yes, I sometimes shoot those at 70mm.
If this lens is optically as good as or maybe even a bit better than the 17-70 it's a very good range. Maybe it's a bit expensive for what it is, but then the competition isn't much cheaper. Plus it's weathersealed.
I do think a focus scale window would have been a nice touch, but ok, at least the focus ring probably doesn't rotate.
ManuelVilardeMacedo: Dear Ricoh people: please give the Pentax brand the mercy shot. The brand formerly known as Asahi Pentax, which gave us spot metering, does not deserve being subjected to so much ridicule. Just call every camera "Ricoh". It's OK. Ricoh has a nice reputation for great cameras too. I'd rather never see a Pentax-branded camera again than see gold point and shoots (and DSLRs with LED lights on the handgrip) with an once prestigious name on it.
I see. You will read what you want to read, despite my best efforts. I won't put any more energy into this, because it will just be a waste.
@D1N0 You assume I think my K-3 sucks, call people who have been waiting for a FF Pentax camera for 8 years idiots and claim that that Pentax FF will put other FF cameras to shame, yet I'm presumptuous when I just tell you - with the best of intentions - how I think your posts come across? Whatever, I'm outta here.
@D1N0 He does not ridicule the fullframe camera, because it does not exist yet, and you can't ridicule something that doesn't exist. Makes sense, right? He may ridicule people who wait year after year for a hypothetical fullframe, and I actually agree somewhat on that point. Not that I ridicule people, because their choices are their own. But that doesn't mean I understand people who wait year after year for a fullframe camera with the name "Pentax" on the front. If you nitpick on whether that's 8 or 10 years, I think you're missing the point.
You also assume I write all of this because I think my K-3 sucks. I would advice you to read my comment again and take it for what it is, keeping your assumptions to yourself. I like my K-3, but I wouldn't like waiting 3 or 5 or 8 years for something I could have bought from another manufacturer.
I just don't think you are doing Pentax any favors by writing these posts.
And yeah, I meant "brought up", not "commented on".
iudex: Well I have expected a more thorough coverage of Pentax/Ricoh, but at least there is something. But maybe DPR could have concentrated less on different colours and more on important stuff like new lenses or fullframe (being admited by Ricoh representative for the first time). Especially the lenses deserved more attention: the two big lenses are supposedly fullframe lenses.
The only indication that one of these lenses *might* be fullframe is in the K-mount lens roadmap: both lenses omit the DA nomenclature on the roadmap. In Pentax land, DA = crop. Therefore, the rumours that the 16-85 could be fullframe borders on rediculous, as the 16-85 is described as "DA zoom" on the roadmap. Yes, some DA lenses actually cover the fullframe image circle, but none of them are standard zooms. And besides, if a 16-85 is feasible on fullframe, why doesn't anyone else make it? I know I'd very much like viewing angles like that. But so far it hasn't happened, and there's probably a reason for that.
@D1N0 Regardless of how many years it has been, the fullframe rumors have been circling for a long time without any product releases. That's the point samhain was making. Besides, if the current products are so great, why comment on that fullframe at all?
A K-3 user (without an interest in fullframe).
I don't really put much value in these polls, but I was curious as to how Pentax was doing, so I voted for the K-3 (only way to see the results is to vote). I like seeing it get so many votes, and the K-3 is innovative, with its selectable AA filter, but I think the K-50 deserves a few more votes as well. No other company offers a weather sealed body with pentaprism and dual control wheels at this price point. From a value point of view, I think it's one of the best.
I don't really care about "being different from the crowd" by choosing Pentax as a camera brand. I just don't see the point of it from a photographic point of view, which is what a camera is for, if I'm not mistaken. And Pentax has some weak spots (the DA* lens line is in serious need of an upgrade). But the K-3 seems to be an excellent camera, and I am considering upgrading to it from my K-5.
The Lumia certainly is impressive for a smartphone. However, the Canon still is a better camera. It seems to retain more dynamic range and has more accurate colors. But apart from that, also consider that the Canon is only a camera, whereas the Nokia is a smartphone, first and foremost. That probably means lots of touch controls and only a few push-buttons. And what if you have an iPhone and purchased IOS apps? You may not want to buy this. So it will always be compromised in that regard, which is why I think the future of compact cameras isn't as doomed as some think it is.
Regarding the "constant aperture" of the Lumia; that simply isn't true. An aperture of f/2.8 means the focal length is divided by 2.8 to give you the diameter of the aperture. With a zoom, that focal length increases as you zoom in, so the diameter has to get bigger as well. With a fixed lens, it does not. The image is cropped afterwards to be equivalent to a longer FL, but the aperture diameter is still the same.
HubertChen: For everybody complaining the price:
take one picture with both lenses side by side:a) This Pentax (dwarf)b) Sigma 18-35 mm f/1.8 (behemoth)
Sigma went for the amazingly fast aperture of f/1.8Pentax went for the amazingly small size
Both lenses are amazing in their engineering accomplishment and both ask an equivalent price for it
(The sigma lens already has proven it's IQ, the Pentax one still has to deliver)
That may very well be, but the fact that the Pentax is smaller means it should be cheaper. There's less glass inside it, less material costs. So it should be cheaper to make, which means the margins on this lens are probably way higher than for the Sigma.
E.g. the value is in the Sigma offering, not in this.
Mr Spiff: I'm using a Pentax K7 and it was my first camera I've ever had. I wanted to have a great cam without paying as much as for the Canon 7D. I have been bying some additional gear and then I was pretty dissapointed as all other gear was lower quality as C/N and it was more expensive too (lower markerd share means higher prices). Now I really want to by a well improvement of the cam so a K-3 might be the choice. However if I compare the Nikon D7100 body for less then EUR 1.000,- to the K3 for EUR 1.300,- I don't understand the point of bying a similar cam for a higher price knowing that the other stuff is m0re expenive too... and pentax is always coming later with their improvements as all others... that is for me the real reason why pentax will never beat C/N... I think I will sell my stuff and will save more by bying Nikon and after all I'll have at least the same or even higher quality gear... sorry Pentax, that way you lose your market in Europe...
Well, the D7100 is not entirely comparable with the K-3. Build quality is inferior, and its buffer is only a fraction of that in the K-3, which could be a big thing. And it doesn't feature an AA filter simulator. OTOH it does have a 51 point AF system.
I am curious what you mean by all other gear being of lower quality and more expensive though.