stratplaya: This girl has made some bad choices in her life.
Clint, I'm absolutely sure that wasn't stratsplaya's intention. Look at the guy; someone with no contact with certain social realities will be forgiven to wonder why that woman chose such a despicable creature to share her life. That's not the same as blaming the victim.
RonHendriks: It is amazing how much fuzz there is about the ending off the K-01. Most camera's go down easy, so all this fuzz is about something special!
Popetographer: you've just employed the adjective that best describes the Pentax K-01's aesthetics: «grotesque»!
Where are the "equivalent aperture" trolls?
What do I find ugly about this camera? It is a silly question, because taste is not quantifiable; but, in a nutshell... everything.
Tim F 101: Simple cause of death: it makes no sense to own a mirrorless camera with a SLR's register distance. If the lenses and camera body are no smaller for a given sensor size, then just buy the SLR. It will focus faster and its viewfinder will work better. Pentax tried to cheap out of designing new lenses for a new mount and got exactly the reception they deserved.
IMO the design was fine. Odd but it got people talking. The real problem was that the system as designed had no technical reason to exist.
Waxwaine, you missed Tim's point completely.
ManuelVilardeMacedo: Now we all can understand why DxO is so cautious about releasing X-Trans support...
Oh, a Canon fanboy bitterly resenting Canon's less-than-stellar DxOMark tests. Spare me!
Yes, one of the ugliest cameras in the world is now gone. It was a monumental failure, hence the interest.
bzanchet: I think it`s a shame, at the studio comparison tool, the IQ is one of the best I have ever seen. There is no need to complaint about the design, just buy something else, IMO I think it could bring some new ideas to the manufacturers... They are so short minded nowadays that all we see is some vintage designs coming back, where is the creativity?
The problem with the K-01 was not so much its looks, but that it was always at a loss to find its own spot. It was too big for a CSC camera, too small and fiddly to replace a DSLR. And, for its price at the time of launch, you could have bought a K-r body, or even a K-x, and you'd have got a proper handgrip and an optical viewfinder without adding too much to the bulk. Of course, when the K-30 came, Pentax buried the K-01. The latter's advantage of allowing K lenses to be mounted became irrelevant (and so did its image quality) in face of its flaws. I don't see why people should hesitate in choosing the K-30 over the K-01.Pentax could have done much better, but apparently they were too jaded to understand the market's demands.And being fugly didn't help the K-01's case...
Now we all can understand why DxO is so cautious about releasing X-Trans support...
Why am I not surprised?
Mssimo: Some big tech guy on the radio took this 5DmkIII to the super bowl, guess what happened.... They did not let him in with the camera. He did not get any pictures and it ruined the experience for the entire group. How much is this worth to you. Maybe the RX1 comes at a premium, but being able to take it places you could not take a DSLR may be priceless for its buyers. Lets take a look at the numbers:
Full frame compact sensor camera: +-$1900Zeiss Wide Angle 35mm f/2 Biogon T* with autofocus: +-1000Total: $2900
6D/D600: +- $1900Sigma 35mm F1.4: $900Total: $2800
Having a great time at the super bowl with many images that captured the moments...Priceless...or at least worth the extra $100 bucks.
This is assuming you want the best of the best, lots of other great cameras on the market: RX100, X100s, OMD and so on.
Well, Massimo, with a 35mm lens the players would look minuscule on the field. And that would be if you could get a clear view. On the other hand, you would get awesome pictures of the spectators' scruffs...
Priaptor: You have to love all the hoi polloi posting their inane negative comments. None of you cretins even own one. It must suck to be just another wannabe.
yuvyuv: I can't find the specific hypocrite comment I wanted to reply to. So I just paste it here for all of them.This picture was created for you. Terrorists told the photographer were to be. They knew children would die there. They launched there missiles with a remote control, from a populated building. Those children died just for your tongue Clucking. And as long as you blame Israel for it, they will continue to die. the Israelis don’t have other options. (no, they don’t consider die quietly to make you happy as an option) they already doing an insane effort to minimize causalities on both sides, including the development of missiles that stop their missiles. Do you know another country that shows such sensitivity to their enemy's civilians during a missiles attack on its own civilians?
The reality is that you're a nutcase. It would be pointless, and rather unwise, to argue with someonelike you.
Tape5: If anything at all, this single photograph must provide some insight for those who have always wondered why the Israeli Palestinian conflict has been dragging on for decades.
just look at the comments. We observe a virtual equivalent of a genuine punch-up here. By people who are neigher here nor there, all on the account of a photo.
If we cannot have peace with a photograph, how can we expect a father to have peace carrying his dead child or an Israeli who must live under constant threat of rockets and attacks?
It's true, Antony John, but if we go that far we'll eventually end up writing a book. Said book would begin with a chapter on the UK- and USA-backed interests of Standard Oil, BP and Shell in the Middle East and how they intersected with Theodor Herzl and other Zionists' legitimate aspirations towards a jewish state. It would be interesting to keep commenting on that, but it would be time-consuming and, frankly, a bit out of place. (Wasn't DPR about photography?)
This is the consequence of the anti-arab feelings that were spread all over the world after 9/11, exacerbated here by braindead Mitt Romney supporters who refuse to accept their defeat. Add some religious fervor to it and there you have it.The opponents, on the other hand, are left-wing potatoes who still see the world as they did back in 1968 and refuse to accept things have changed since their days in university. They're as narrow-minded as the right-wingers, but they feel culturally superior. Put these two groups against each other and the result is an escalade in radicalism. You don't approve of what Israel is doing to palestinians? You're a terrorist and an anti-semitic, maybe even a former Gestapo officer, who knows? You show sympathy for the israeli? You're a cold-blooded assassin.Now you know why this will never end. And don't try to bring anything sensible to this debate: it's no use. You'll be slayed by both camps.
Yuvyuv, you are making a fool of yourself. Do yourself a favour and get some help.
yuvyuv, you're a sick person. You need help.
Zig Ermeson: Lots of criticsism. People defending the Israeli site? This is sad. Why no women in the picture?
My mistake, avidan. What I meant was that Israel should return to the confines prior to 1967, as settled in 1993's Oslo Accord - which I maintain, despite your rather medieval views on war.
razorfish: Maybe sales are not what they expected, but the camera itself is fantastic. I was never in doubt, and got it the moment is became available. Fully professional m43 is something I've wanted for years. Compared to professional dslr's, the GH3 is tiny and lenses even more so. The GH3 is for people who think the 5d, a99 and accompanying lenses are too large.
The 6D and D600 cost twice as much as the GH3, but it's unlikely they are twice better in image quality.