mpgxsvcd: I find it interesting that everyone keeps saying “Look at the Market Share Nikon has” instead of “Look at the profits Nikon is not making”. Having a big market share is a good thing only if that market has growth potential and is already profitable. Having more of a non-profitable market is actually a bad thing.
Just them and Pentax?? Because they sure are......
And that folks is how one stays in business, marketing to an audience that they know will purchase your products.... regardless of forum geeks and DSLR / 4/rds snobs and pixel peepers.... colours, fun and know your Asian markets.Think Canon, think evolution and great marketing, this is just another way of doing it...... not going to make my camera case in a hurry, but it works for Ricoh.
So, if it was titled, Black n white study of Thailand's monkey's and temples.....would it be better received ???It must be annoying for these sites to sift through the crumbs before photokina comes, after which everyone will be bombarding them with why the camera's aren't being reviewed fast enough........ cant win I guess, but yes there is some better work out there, just tech wise it puts the cat amongst the pigeons.I know why he used a Nokia to shoot his holiday, it's a seriously good mobile phone cam and a very capable camera full stop. The ability to blow up large out of this sensor has had me fool a few friends who own DSLR's.
Typical nonsensical rhetoric by those blinkered forum geeks here.....Most brands cover many designs to keep all manner of people happy. It's brand awareness to produce something like this.By far the biggest % of consumers want a smallish point and shoot, don;t waste their time comparing and measurebating or care less about DSLR's.If you have a compact, next to a bridge cam, next to a DSLR next to a......then that's why you become the market leader worldwide.If you don't like these superzooms, that's fine, tens of thousands will......and I shoot a totally different brand, yet it's just plain good business sense for any brand to cover a few bases and keep the $$$ coming in, so they can afford the R&D on your precious next gen DSLR......be happy
Chris2J: To me: a stupid exercise.
.....oh dear, life has to fit in a nice square and serious box does it??
That's an awesome series of photo's. Well done that man. Great to see someone setting up shots like this and having some FUN with their photography. Makes a change from the usual and endless geek talk about megapixels, sensors, constant apertures and who's 4K video is better.........
Was easy to download and looks like a cheapened version of Lightroom meets photoshop. Some interesting features, but after a quick look through, I don't really like what I see, very noisy and tacky applications. Some are OK.Not bad for a free offer, but I'm deleting it and sticking with LR5 & PSE.Good for those looking for a free enhancer.
Thanks for posting that.....very inspiring
Zvonimir Tosic: Regarding inverting the 645 Z into a mirrorless;There are numerous worthless mirrorless systems out there, from a tiny sensor ones all up to the FF. Why are you so hungrily craving another one? Why such a desperation, insatiable greed, lack of respect for uniqueness?Isn't there enough cheap electronics to feast from, or you crave something that still dares to stand on its own and resist to the blind fad? It seems many have already become the Borg.
As I pretty much figured, it's currently all to do with size / weight. My DSLR feels fine and for landscape / weddings I feel no need for mirrorless. If I was going to go hiking in the mountains or long days as a tourist and was after ultimate power to weight ratio, then yes Olympus and Fuji...........
on a serious note...........what is there really to be gained from mirrorless when actually taking a photo?? I'm not against them, I just have mirror cameras...(apart from K-01 I just snapped at bargain price) Sure they are generally smaller, ok, cool, what else will make such a difference to my photo's that I can't do with a K5, 70D or similar? AF is generally within acceptable range for most all modern cameras.....I don't do mcuh video, if I did for weddings coming up, i'd buy a video cam....so i'm quite serious, do they offer major advantages?
BozillaNZ: So int he end Pentax still can't produce any full-sized sensor cameras! It's either Cropped 35mm or cropped 645, Pentax is for Croppers! It's sensor is far smaller than theactual '645' model number suggests, no matter how you fans spin it.
He's happy, just successfully grabbed, Troll of the month award....
Khun_K: it is a time this product, although I am sure will be quite good, will not help Pentax, it is unfortunate that there is little room in the market left for Pentax. Nothing wrong with Pentax, it is just tough.
The ignorance of some people astounds me.....
Super486: 645Z for landscape/portraits and K-3 for action would be a great combo!
said it a long time ago, Ricoh/Pentax now need to hook up with a mobile device producer, then they'd be gaining a whole lot more to their tech and prospective market.
+1 on that,The Pentax combo now looks seriously achievable and usable for pros and enthusiasts. For me, at least, by passes any FF requirements. (not that it would be a bad thing)
mike kobal: Sorry, but a sensor size of 44x33mm cannot be called medium format by traditional definition.This is a APMFS-C sized sensor (Advanced Photo Medium Format System type-C)
The 645Z raises the bar again with IQ vs size of camera discussion.It boils down to how much you are willing to lug around, what your requirements REALLY are,How much your prepared to pay, andHow much you place on the camera being a "look at me" kind of trophy.For most portrait and wedding work nowadays, 4/3 and aps-c will easily suffice as they are producing FF quality from not long ago.Of course it's MF, significantly bigger than FF....peoples definitions are often stuck in age old ideas.
How does the most popular cameras thingy work over on the right? Obviously you have to have had a review first(??) to gain any sort of popularity.
Its not going to ruin my day, just saying.............
That's a seriously affordable piece of amazing kit !!!!
Cmon DPR, lets have a decent review this time, hey look it's got video, that should give it at least 80%...........Lol
gravelhopper: Interesting to see that dpr does not mention the K3's AF capability in low light. For every in-door available light photographer this is as cruicial as low noise at high ISO. When reviewing the K5 II this was mentioned: "As for light levels, I was able to compare the K-5 II with the Nikon D7100, and found I was able to focus with the K-5 II in lower light than with the Nikon. In exceptionally low light (a large blacked-out room lit with a single tungsten bulb) there was a clear point where the Nikon's AF system (rated down to -2EV) just gave up, never delivering a focus confirmation beep, and the K-5 II (rated down to -3EV) kept on making accurate decisions." Also something I do not understand: for both the K5 ii and the K3 the whole "performance" section is missing while it is being part of other reviews. Anyway, I hope the K5 ii low light capabilities are a base feature in all Pentax bodies now.
...yes the K5II low light AF is insanely good
Keith Reeder: Zvonimir,
you've made that ALL up.
Yes, that's the one i'm thinking of......
gdfthr73: It Just drives me nuts. So many amazing full frame lenses for the K mount camera and no full frame K-mount camera exists. WTF
Brendon,Ultimately it comes down to your 'power to weight ratio' so to speak. What do want to lug around vs what IQ you really need. The reality is even many pro's are using lesser sized sensor systems now when FF is not really needed, like aps-c or 4/3. If your photographing for the average wedding or a small magazine article, the IQ of these smaller sensors is producing the quality of FF a few short years ago.....so how good do you need for most applications? Where really a K3, Xt-1 or OM-D would easily suffice.