Btw, does anybody reckon their bokeh's bigger than mine?
About the price of an entry level fast-ish portrait prime. Go figure! (I think I'd still rather have the lens.)
D1N0: so now he's made petapixel and dpreview with his pic. No reason to complain.
If he hadn't complained, he wouldn't have made it onto those sites. So... it *was* a reason to complain?
Gazeomon: What's next, chrome?
The UK already has one: http://www.pentaxuser.co.uk/forum I would stick with the one that has the most users if there isn't some other problem...?
stevens37y: Can this system be used offline at all?
There is a desktop app, so I think the answer may be, "yes".
wolfloid: Why has Pentax never got around to producing a small, fast reporter's lens in the 35-40mm equivalent range? What is the point in a small, quiet, ergonomic camera if there is nothing small and fast, in the right focal length range to put on it?
Please don't mention the 21/3.2, since it is neither fast nor in the right range (nor very good). It is really a mystery to me. Are they not able to make one?
Fast lenses usually aren't. The relationship goes the other way, in fact.
Jogger: This could actually be a viable RX10/FZ1000 competitor if not for the gimmick light-field sensor, proprietary image format, and lack of video.
Sort of in the same way that a Ferrari Testarossa could have been a great motorbike if it weren't for the extra wheels?
Yes, there's a gap in the line-up. We've talked about this on the forum. However, competing with Sigma's 18-35mm f/1.8 will be difficult if it lives up to its promise. Sigma also has fast primes at 24 and 28mm for Pentax. So from a consumer standpoint, there's no problem - just go with Sigma and be happy.
I think this is a great new colour. Loving the black lettering, too.
Andy Dan: The next step will be a golden one like the old LX :-P but made out of plastic.
New lenses that's what Pentax really needs. How about some new 2.8/4 zooms and 1.4/1.8 primes Ricoh? You will never launch the fabled full-frame so newer aps-c glass is a must. Fuji did it in style from scratch.
It's a pity that Pentax has had some bad management and marketing in the last 10-15 years.
@Andy Dan: I think you have misconceptions about the quality of these lenses.
ThomasSwitzerland: Pentax is pure no-nonsense camera. When Ricoh/Pentax goes full-frame, I will jump on.
Edit: Why bother?
Mike Davis: I suspect the label "Diffraction Correction" exaggerates the effectiveness of this feature. No amount of processing can magically recreate actual subject detail that was lost to diffraction as the light passed through the aperture. It might be able to simulate what appears to be genuine subject detail, but it won't be accurate.
For example, assuming that all other variables affecting resolution are up to the task... If diffraction at a given f-Number is just bad enough to prevent you from discerning the date "2014" on the face of a coin lying on a table several meters from a camera equipped with a normal FL lens when viewing at 100%, "Diffraction Correction" isn't going to reconstruct that data from thin air when the data never got past the aperture in the first place.
You can't make a silk purse from a pig's ear.
I see Lee Jay, we have a proponent of another holy war in you, as described. Everybody act surprised in 3.. 2.. 1..
And yet, when you make that same argument about distortion correction, you have a holy war on your hands. Food for thought?
Retzius: Does this fix the flopping mirror?
Retzius, the K-5 series also had reports of this. I got one anyway and never encountered the problem. I'm not sure how many cameras there are that don't have a considerable flaw - pick your brand, and you either get mirrors dropping out, oil splatter on sensor, shutter shock at certain frequently used shutter speeds, light leaks, the list goes on.
It's a bit like the real water pub: "We've got underexposing cameras, overexposing cameras, poorly white-balancing cameras, non-waterproof waterproof cameras, shallow DoF cameras, deep DoF cameras, fixed focal length cameras, crappy zoom cameras, diffraction-limited cameras, cameras with poor built-in flash, cameras without built-in flash, cameras without hotshoe, cameras without viewfinder, cameras without tiltable screen, cameras with poor battery life. We've got faulty cameras, broken cameras, and verboten cameras, we've got..."
Puddleglum: Why are they still selling it in the App Store a day later? What a mess.
History suggests that the opposite is true - that Apple takes ideas from its third party developers and integrates them into its own software. Pixelmator simply uses existing Mac OS X APIs that are available to all applications, and also wraps around some open source software.
Here are some opinions on Apple business practice:http://www.tuaw.com/2014/03/31/ifixit-ceo-kyle-wiens-apple-is-doing-all-they-can-to-put-third/http://www.cultofmac.com/231121/seven-apps-apple-killed/
This is a complaint that comes around at nearly every major Apple event, and has done so for almost ten years now that I can remember. Compare that with other brands, and you'll see the difference.
I used to drink the Kool-Aid, but I got through the clinic and have been dry since.
Jun2: cloud means you have to rent software and data storage space, then they will study your files to figure out ways to make more money out of you.
Don't worry about me, Rickard - worry about the rest of society instead. If you have an iPhone, Apple currently probably has the data to estimate when you'll be due for a hip replacement. You, meanwhile, may have no idea. Just one example. You know where this is going, yet you're afraid to be ridiculed should you be seen to have exceeded "reasonable paranoia". I'm not.
I'm not sure that Apple cares about Pixelmator sales. The history of Apple's relationships with its third party developers suggests they're ready to screw them any given minute.
@deep7: But it remains to be seen whether they'll keep up RAW support when they're not selling a "Pro" photography app any more. The WWDC demo certainly didn't mention it.
Michael Piziak: Neither Aperture or Lightroom will get my money. Gimp is free.
Wolfgang, there is UFRaw for Gimp, same as ACR, and for a dedicated raw app, you can pick from Lighttable, RawTherapee, Photivo and a bunch of others. All open source. Informed opinionating is preferred...
But things have clearly gotten to the point where conscientious users are expected to do extra work to get out of "cloudy" default settings and re-instate their privacy. And even then the software is closed source and may be sending data home. How many of you are actually monitoring what goes through your networks? How many of you would be able to pick up on little encrypted or steganographied data packages? And are taking the time to do so? Didn't think so.