These are horribly overdone.
dosdan: In this class of camera, I find it strange how much time DPR devotes in their reviews to a camera's JPEG engine output. With the high DR & resolution capable from modern sensors, the "enthusiasts", who would seem the likely market for this type of camera, are probably shooting raw to take maximum advantage of the image capabilities.
If you want to do "quick and dirty" post-processing, you can literally just upload to lightroom and apply the same treatment filter to every photo. Then export the photos you want. This is doing the EXACT same thing as your camera's firmware, except with software that has been developed for years to be GOOD AT PROCESSING PHOTOS and with way more capabilities, even for a quick batch edit. Big hard drives are pennies compared to photography gear these days. There is simply no excuse if you consider yourself an "enthusiast."
Honestly, I'm really disappointed in the styling of these models. The bold, angular, but compact design of the k-5, k-5 ii, and especially k-30 were to me absolutely awesome. I've always hated the bulbous, bar of soap look that canon goes for. Hope they change it back.
Also I don't know what this says for a true k-5 successor that will blow us all away. Keeping the same great features is nice but they're both getting a little dated. Having a great 24MP sensor, focus peaking, more focus points, maybe an articulating screen, and a ramped up movie mode would be phenomenal. Was expecting a k-300 entry level then a k-3 some time by the end of this year but now I have no idea what they're trying to do here.
marike6: When shooting "minutes from your home" means dramatic cliffs in Loop Head, Ireland, then yes, I suppose you don't need to travel to far and exotic lands for find interesting subjects. If you live near the Long Island Sound in NY, or some New England town, say New London, CT, I'd say the work of making compelling landscapes "in your own backyard" gets dramatically more difficult.
Where the author lives looks like paradise for a landscape photographer, you could literally shoot the same scene in different seasons, with different light, treatments, and focal lengths, and you'd never run out compelling things to shoot.
Beautiful images, and interesting article. Bravo, and thanks very much.
Damn straight. I live in CT, go to school in another northeastern city, and it's very difficult to find worthwhile places for landscape photos. We have some traprock ridges out here but they're pretty uninteresting; we have the Taconics which can be nice, but they're an hour or so away for most, and don't have many interesting features. The only way you're going to find really dramatic natural wonders in the northeast is go to the Adirondacks (esp. High Peaks), the White Mountains, the northern Greens, Maine coast/lakes, or Baxter, and a few other isolated peaks. IMO many of these places could stand up to the wonders out West. But unfortunately these are all hours away.
xtoph: It is really great that dpr is working on presenting lens comparisons. But while the optical performance potential is obviously central, in practical application it is more likely things like autofocus performance and precision which are likely to have a greater direct impact on results. So, will dpr attempt to provide some evaluation of these factors? Autofocus speed and consistency are difficult to test objectively, but there has to be something you can tell us. And objective information such as the number of discrete focus points a lens can stop at is exactly the sort of rare data that dpr may have the clout to twist out of the various brands. (eg, the greater precision afforded by the superior number of focus distances available on the ef 50/1.2 compared with the ef 50/1.4 is a major factor in real-world performance variation between these lenses, which never shows up in sharpness-obsesses lens reviews which are specifically designed to eliminate focus performance from the test.)
Just my two cents, but if I could choose between a tack sharp lens with slow AF and a somewhat sharp lens with state-of-the-art instant AF I would always choose the former. I don't shoot people very often so speed issues are almost totally irrelevant, and consistency issues (if time is not a factor) should not exist excepting the case of a defective lens.
I don't understand why so many people are talking about these photos being overedited and "unrealistic." The editing looks very tasteful and quite seamless to me. Beautiful landscapes in beautiful, soft light require some tweaking to bring out their full potential.
Absolutic: Pentax just need some big company with deep pockets to buy them. Not sure how long they can survive on their own. Sony or somebody else, buy them already.
According to wikipdia:Pentax Revenue: ~2 billionRicoh Revenue: ~21.5 billion
Those seem like deep pockets to me!
We're going to see great things with pentax under ricoh. This is just the beginning.
Nathebeach: That is what happens when marketing designs products instead of, well, engineers or actual photographers to name a few. I really want to like Pentax, but come on! They are making it really hard.
Pretty sure many of the big players have crappy superzooms. Why would this dumpy camera affect your opinion of pentax's serious dslr's?
snake_b: Anyone know if they will ever offer an option, like Nikon, to choose between 12 and 14 bit? Probably not a huge difference in DR, but why not use if if you don't care about larger files?
And what's this about an intervalometer? That sounds incredible.
Every current Pentax model has a built in intervalometer, including the k-r, actually.