spqr_ca: I have to admit, the K-30 has got me very, very, curious to see what the successor to the K-5 is going to look like. I'm in the crowd that thinks it would take a lot from Pentax to make a K-5 user feel a real desire to upgrade, but given that the K-30 is practically on par with the K-5, I'm beginning to think that they might figure that out...
Also, I like the look of the camera, so put me in the positive crowd. I'd still only buy it in black though.
It might be the best strategy for Pentax to not one-up the K-5 at this point in time. Camera nerds already know that the K-5 is a dynamite value in its niche, and it will remain to be a great value even after the 7D2 rolls around.
The K-30 looks to be the right direction for the company to take. Pentax has no business playing in the entry-level fields for now, so the "advanced amateur" niche is where to strike next. The weather-sealing is an excellent feature from a marketing point of view. It readily distinguishes the K-30 from its competitors, in a way that's easy to express in a simple image: the K-30 soaring in a trail of water.
Peiasdf: Just checked out Pentax's lens line up and I cannot find a single fast normal prime. The cheapest "50mm" is 35mm f/2.4 at $180 while the fastest is 31mm f/1.8 at $1,000. Where is the cheap f/1.4~f/1.8?
Good cameras, weird ass lens line up.
Considering the class-leading high ISO capabilities of the K-5/K-30, 2.4 is more than fast enough for indoor shooting. The 35mm 2.4 is an excellent lens for the price, sharp across the frame even wide open.
It also happens to work just fine on full frame cameras, which is a nice bonus.
Nikon and Sony are to be commended for offering fast normal-on-a-crop primes for fairly cheap, but it's not the only strategy out there. Love it or hate it, Pentax has instead adopted the strategy of making small, light lenses that are sharp wide open, as opposed to larger, faster lenses that are softer at their widest apertures.
topstuff: All very lovely, but this is'nt really an F2.8 lens is it, compared to APSC or FF?
What would be the equivalent APSC lens? A 17-50 I guess? And if my understanding is correct, would this 4/3 lens have to be a F1.4 to have the same light gathering as a F2.8 in larger sensors?
As said somewhere below, I don't think it is a simple as simply doubling the focal length to get a "FF equivalent" and keeping the max aperture the same.
I am not sure if this really a f2.8 as we know it. I am sure the people at DPR can clarify !
A lovely thing though I am sure, especially with an OMD EM5.
2.8 is 2.8 when it comes to exposure.
2.8 is 5.6 when it comes to DOF at the same focal length, as compared with a 35mm sensor.
People talking about total light gathered are comparing apples to oranges. It's not like you gather a bunch of light, put it in a barrel, and then sell it at the market.
malcolm82: For the amount of light it gathers this is not a compact lens at all. The new canon 24-70 f/2.8 gathers 4 times as much light and is only 113mm long. If this lens had the same size in proportion to its sensor size it should be only 57mm long not 74mm. This is also a simpler design with only 14 lens elements instead of 18 for the canon which should make it even more compact. It just goes to show how much worse these small sensor lenses are compared to full frame lenses.
Are you really saying this lens is "worse" than a full-frame 24-70 lens because it is all of 17mm longer than you think it could possibly be?