samfan: Hmmmm. I've been waiting for M10 II and I jumped on my chair when I learned it already exists. I like the M10 but what's been putting me off was the EVF, so I was waiting for mark II with a 2+ mil. dot EVF.
Now it's here and I find myself being put off by AF-C performance. Eh... M10 III I suppose?
I agree that the EVF needed a big improvement. The M10 was my first camera with an EVF and frankly it's disappointing after using a quality mirror DSLR. My main system is Pentax K-3 (the Oly M10 is for when I'm cycling or want to travel light) and totally smashes the M10 for viewfinder experience. The clarity, focus point, depth of field judgement just isn't there on the EVF like there is with the mirror viewfinder. All around I really like the Oly M10, good AF, reasonable handling and I still wouldn't be with the EVF even if it's inferior to normal DSLR --- but Oly, why the nutty reverse direction of the lens zoom ring? - it's totally counterintuitive.
Unexpresivecanvas: I just finished using the automatic dishwasher and after seeing all its flashing lights I realized where "P" engineers got the inspiration for this amazing "photographic" innovation. I am sure the pictures from this camera will be better thanks to all the cute LEDs :)
Oh miss my now dead ME Super :( Those days we very different
select: I think the K-3 is the best aps-c on the market, in this color is awesome! but they should make some more lenses and a FF camera...
Actually Pentax has the biggest range of APS-C specific lenses. An FF body IS the missing piece however but that would require updating a lot film era lenses
JonB1975: Want, want, want....... My first dream camera since the 1Ds MkII! As for those people saying Ansel Adams would never touch something like this - How the hell would you know???
Well said Robgo2!!
Jurka: I think it is "crop" medium format, only slightly larger than conventional ff cameras.
Same as the other digital medium formal the sensor has approx 60% extra surface area over FF sensors. That's quite a bit..
RDMPhotos: Starting with the 645AF system kept Costs down (R&D, ect.) & has paid off with the 645D becoming the cheapest Medium format camera on the market & now this new even cheaper Z version.But it's sad how many professionals still scoff at it.
I mentioned the 645D to a former professor of mine, back about 5 or so years ago , when we were just chatting and he was talking about renting a another Medium Format camera with a Digital back , to do some work; a Shoot he was commissioned to do in Japan. He was surprised at the price and said "well yea that's Cheep, and I could probably afford to buy one of those on credit, but it's probably a 'you get what you pay for thing' Pentax is not known for it high end professional quality, but more as a middle of the road camera company, and I don't want to end up spending 3 times as many hours post processing as opposed to the shots that I get from a Professional Medium format camera that I could just rent when I need to"
Yea HIS WORDS, and NOT Mine.
He obviously is ignorant of history of medium format / professional photography and Pentax's long history with such classics as the 67.
I got an Eye-Fo Mobi a few months for a cycling/camping trip so that I could update my blog using my iPhone everynight. I shot all images on my Pentax DSLR in RAW (Eye-Fi Mobi doesn't see these) and at the end of the day then edit/convert in camera to 5mp JPEG those I wanted to publish same day. The Eye-Fi Mobi just sees the JPEGs (and mov files if you shoot movies),ignores the RAW so doesn't waste time on the upload. It'll also ignore JPEGs uploaded previously. Since you're doing a one off upload of maybe 10-12 images once a day the battery drain on both camera and phone was minimal.
In my circumstance I was able to travel relatively light (no room for laptop or tablet) but was easily able to publish daily or through the day if I wished.
I've got a FluCard Pro for my new Pentax K-3 but while it has more functionality available, it isn't as simple to use like the Eye-Fi Mobi was for what I wanted to do on that trip
JEROME NOLAS: Pentax has the worst lens line up. The odd focal lengths, too slow, too expensive. Will they ever change? What's wrong with almost all lens makers(Sony are you listening?) At least Sigma tries harder!!!
Traditionaly with the Limited lenses Pentax labels the lens the actual focal length (e.g. 31mm or 77mm) rather than round the number to 75mm or 30mm as other makers do (and Pentax does for it's standard lenses). Of course 43mm on full frame was the 'true normal' being the diagional of 24mm x 36mm frame. The slower apertures of some (e.g. 21mm F3.2) are a design compromise to make a very small and light lens... obviosuly an area Pentax sees as a niche in the DSLR market. And in many cases these lenses perform wide open where some people won't use their faster primes wide open due to poor performance at wide apertures.
I've pre-orded this lens for my Pentax K-3 but was in two minds due to it's large size & weight. It potentially replaces 3 of the 5 prime lenses I currently walk about with (15mm F4, 21mm F3.2, 31mm F1.8, 43mm F1.9 77mm F1.8) but it's not exactly true when the article says that the Sigma will give us something APS-C shooters don't have now (i.e. wide aperture except perhaps there aren't too many 18mm F1.8 lenses). Us prime shooters have that already.
Anyway, given the reported image quality, the Sigma zoom is at least more convenient than a bunch of primes however they are much more unobstrusive...
iudex: I do not doubt that SL1 is a nice small camera, but praising it as there were no small camera+lens combos in the past is not really fair. Take any entry-level DSLR from Pentax, add an extra small 40mm XS lens and the combo will be even smaller than SL1 with 40mm STM lens. http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1490Tha same with a zoom lens: Canon has nothing to compete with ultra-compact 20-40mm Limited zoom.
>> Canon could learn a lot from Pentax's Limited lenses in particular
> definitely not ... maybe yes for users who have wrong idea about photography.
Please elaborate. I've been shooting for 30 years, 3 brands (Canon, Minolta, Pentax), many good prime and zoom lenses and they all have their uses. Weddings and travel I use mainly zooms. Street I like primes. A small body and 2 or 3 small primes are a joy for the enthusiast to wander with. My son is learning photography with just one prime. It teaches him to move to frame not zoom to frame and from that you learn other things about composition. I don't understand your comment about being for users who have the wrong idea about photography. I'd say it's the right idea about photography.
So lens is Nikkor 105mm on full frame sensor and the Focal Length recorded for the image is 135mm. What am I missing?
Ayoh: Hmm you like a 40mm pancake, wish there was a 21mm version and think a 31mm lens would also be useful...ah if only someone made such eccentric lenses
Well I think you know that Pentax makes such lenses in their Limited series 15mm, 21mm, 40mm, 43mm, 70mm and then the non-pancake 31mm. And even their premium DSLRs are smallish
szhorvat: I'm curious how this sensor performs compares to the (Toshiba built?) one in the D7100. (E.g. does it have banding, like the D7100, or is it banding-free, like the D7000?)
The D7100 has an effective resolution of 6000 by 4000, while the RAW files actually contain 6036 by 4020 pixels. This seems different from the specs of the K-3 (6016 by 4000), though I don't know how and why those extra pixels are discarded.
All sensors have more pixels available than the 'effective pixels' - these are usually approx 20 pixels on each dimension. Some RAW converters actually access these pixels (like the predecessor to Lightroom many of us used for *istD PEF files) but the camera companies exclude these pixels as they can be 'dirty' pixels. Do a search for a more technical answer!
645D: I got my brand new FA50/1.4 for $200 :-)
The renowned Pentax 50 f1.4 not good enough? My how times have changed...http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-11-24.shtml
tongki: flash based application ?
come on, now is the era of iPad,we don't use flash anymore, that's so yeterday
Flash is history and it's a battery killer. I understand why Apple doens't want it near any of their mobile products. Avoid. Adobe knows it's history too. I think we know enough already that HTML5 is allowing us to move on from Flash.
Robbster: Why K-01?
+I want APS-C sensor (lots of options)+In smallish body (mirrorless Sony, Samsung..)+With image stabilization on on the sensor for greater low light/DOF flexibility from ALL my lenses and +a range of high quality lens options from established lens design/manufacturer.
Leaves me with one choice, the K-01
SO, I see some pretty basic enthusiast camera logic that would lead you to a K-01.
Of course, we'll need to see performance in the real world and some reviews and user comments to understand the rest of the trade-offs, but I'm just saying that the choice of specs is actually UNIQUE and is NOT just for P&S upgraders.
I use both DSLR (Nikon) and Mirrorless (Panasonic GH1). Nikon too big, Pany sensor too small. What I want is a blend of the two, taking the APS-C sensor from the Nikon and the convenience/superior video of the Pany without the lens/IS tradeoffs of Sony and Samsung.
K-01 at least specs the right way to meet these needs. Food for thought...
I couldn't agree more. The specs look pretty much as I'd like but wouldn't mind a bit smaller in body. But I'm happy to have that trade off to access the K mount lenses (I think I am going to enjoy my Pentax Limiteds 15mm, 21m, 31mm, 43mm and 77mm) best on this as an alternative to my DSLRs.
I'd also like to see an EVF that attaches to the flash hotshoe
The important things with this compact is the optical viewfinder and the manual zoom, both of which are sadly hard to find anymore yet without them compacts are simply awful to use. I am not just being traditional, these simply work better. At the price I'd be somewhat tempted to get one for a bit of fun.
It's a funny sort of circle for Ricoh because of course Ricoh used it's own version of the Pentax K mount on it's own SLRs (not that it had anything to do with the decision to buy the Pentax camera business)