malabraxis: I'm a Nikon user, born and bred, but you have to admit that the Olympus OM-D looks sexy! Technicalities aside, it's got a certain aesthetic touch that most DSLRs lack. Just like todays cars, they all look the same; and then you get the Zondas and Koenigseggs!Oh well! Back to my outdated D200 I suppose...
You have a definite point, Pal2012.
At any rate, shunning the forums can only be good for your mental health.
SkiHound: Wow, what vitriol is expressed in these posts. I know there are many exceptions but the overall tone is really disconcerting.
Absolutely correct, SkiHound.
It is indeed disconcerting. I feel like giving up photography and taking up interpretive dance or collecting monkey wrenches.
Husaberg Grok: Calling people who defend a system they love a "fanboy" is getting pretty old.
Insulting people and the systems they like is just weird and immature.
Over the 50+ years that I've enjoyed photography I've enjoyed many fine formats and brands and I've never felt it neccessary to put down or denigrate another enthusiust or their gear. Neither have I been put down in the real world.
Just think about it.
Grok is right on target. He's a well-bred gentleman. He has stated his case with dignity and respect.
@peevee1>Shooting at this focal without a viewfinder must be interesting. :)
I guess they'll be telling us to use a tripod.
samhain: Too bad it doesn't have a viewfinder.
A VF on a compact is NEVER about framing. It's about steadiness. Especially at longer focal lengths in a breeze. Every tittle of added steadiness makes for a sharper image.
Now they'll be calling me a sharpoholic or whatever. Or they'll say great photos don't have to be sharp. Logic takes it up the wazoo around here.
I wish people would give up the snippiness and try a little empathy. Shed the wisecracks and drill down to facts. Kick your ego in the nuts for a change.
>Times change. Habits change. Ways change.
But triteness endures.
Richard Murdey: This smells like an opportunist move by Pentax, a cheap gimmick to cash in on nostalgia for the Pentax 70's era film cameras. Olympus did it with the OM-D, and Pentax thought they would be leaving money on the table if they did not do likewise.
If it sells, more power too them. To me it looks tacky, especially the way the lens and tilting LCD screen parts are just bolted on to the "MX" body with no thought to maintain any stylistic cues.
>just bolted on to the "MX" body
What kind of pictures does this camera take? Good? Bad? :)
ncsakany: knock, knock
steve131: I am not against Pentax. I do like Pentax very much!
But honestly, how can MX-1 compete without a viewfinder?Are we expected to hold the camera in the air with one hand, and focus with the other by looking at the LCD?Yes, we can use a tripod, but in reality, that's not how we take a photo?
The logic quotient around here is becoming vanishingly exiguous. Let's go to Aristotle school.
Mescalamba: Why would anyone buy this?
>So who cares?
This is the nub.
achim k: I would buy it if it had a viewfinder (EVF or GOOD optical)!
A VF is a help in taking good pictures.
Logic is a help in communicating well. No, a necessity.
backayonder: How can we pretend these camera's have a retro look about them when there is no viewfinder?
"Retro look" is hoke."Brass" is hoke.
No VF is a shortcoming.
This tweedle-dee of a camera is something of a snore.
For an extra $150, you can have an RX100 (also sans VF).
the mono eye: creative indeed... but need to see how much of a "smart phone side-kick" it can be...
Someone please explain this "smart phone side-kick" thing to me. Why not carry a normal-looking digicam for a side-kick? What are they teaching in Marketing/Communications School these days?
sarlo100: This isn't the answer. Canon should just build the camera/smartphone already. While they still have time to get ahead of the curve.
Where's that loud buzzing sound coming from?
ogl: How to use it...?
This is incomprehensible.
Chris Tofalos: No EVF - again! Amazing and very disappointing omission...
Hrrgh. Hrrrrghhhhhh. Hnnnnnnnhhhhh. Splat!
Lots of smearing at hi ISO's.
High cost/benefit, in my degraded opinion.
mpgxsvcd: Why are the only high ISO samples, pictures of other pictures? That is completely misleading. Could you remove those images and replace them with real world high ISO images?
>What's your definition of real world?