villagranvicent: "...and no, this does not mean that we are in Ricoh's pocket." "...I am not a Pentaxian, just to get that out of the way."
Then why mention the subject, to avoid people asking for the GX8 review?
David2553: If these're called enthusiast compacts, what'd you call those Ricoh GR, Fuji X100s and X70, Sigma DPxM,Q, Somy RX1? Considered that you call camera like Nikon D7200 and D600 enthusiast camera as well. These are more like Popular or Commercial grade
Well, he does, but as his mother's requirement.Now I have nothing against him, his mother, one style or another et coetera, but I don't think zoom would be an enthusiast's requirement.A consumer's, more likely, but an enthusiast should know better.
Kevin Coppalotti: Compacts come of age? Then why is DPreview was still recommending the Fuji X100T as best travel compact, a camera dating back to 2010?
It has not yet come of age... its bar/t mitzvah will only be in 2023...
"good cameras"? :-P
I though 30x zoom was the polar opposite of what "enthusiasts" want...That should be the preserve of "mass market" compacts IMHO...
colesf: "Part of the reason for all the interest in a full-frame Pentax is the vast collection of K-mount lenses that exist around the world."
Boy , oh boy. This lame argument needs to die a quiet death. It was lame in 2000, but now in 2016, it's irrelevant except for a few diehards eBay junkies. And that does not a market make. Do Nikon users jump up and down because they can use the old dust-filled relics in their closet? Do Sony users trumpet their AF lenses from the Clinton era? No, only Pentax and its fans use this bizarre marketing strategy. It would be like a third-tier car maker, like Suzuki, adding a cassette player to their cars so that baby boomers could play their precious English Beat and Journey tapes.
Besides the issue of lens availability, what exactly is the point of 36 mp? I think most photographers got over printing 4x6 foot prints when they realized huge prints are just narcissistic.
You've got to know what to look for.Without extensive computer use in the design phase (even though some lenses at the end of the '70s were designed with the help of SW, just think of the computational capabilities at that time...), zooms and extreme focal length were generally difficult to build, very expensive, very rare, and generally not exceptional.You have the one-of-a-kind, exceptional Nikkor 13/5.6 (which is prohibitively expensive), we have a very good 17/4 fisheye (originally made in 1975).
Other than that an some other notable exceptions, you'll want to stick with short tele to wide angle using tried and tested optical formulas.
You have the tiny Nikon-E 100/2.8, we have an even smaller (by a hair, if I'm not mistaken) and really astounding 100/2.8, for instance.
I'm not trying to convince anyone to do that!I'm just trying to tell you that shooting old lens isn't as bad as your prejudices make you think it is!So do as you please, you have an outstanding equipment already, but before saying old lenses are always "soft", difficult to use and generally not worth it, well, then think again.
1. I did, there are plenty of exhaustive compatibility charts online, and I know some people who shoot Nikon vintage lenses firsthand (not on the internet).
2. Maybe on Nikon, on Pentax it's much, much easier.
Blah blah blah despise despise despise... I'm done talking here, you just aren't capable of listening.
1. only Nikon's hi-end bodies allow metering with old lenses (AI and pre-AI), with Pentax you can buy a 10 years-old entry-level body and still be able to meter
2. I never said that everybody should have the same need, on the other hand you said that old, legacy lenses are not worth it, when people have been shooting with those on hi-MP sensors (Sony A7 series on FF, 24MP Pentax bodies on APS-C) with outstanding results. Not mediocre. Not so-so. Not good-enough. Not good. Not Very good. Outstanding. ;-)
I bought my first DSLR because I had some old lenses I wanted to try.
If those lenses were Nikon from the same period, I would have had more issues.
If those lenses were Canon, then there was really nothing I could have done (mount change in '87).
They all are vastly superior in IQ to modern kit lenses, and are all pretty common and inexpensive.A newby could start with three primes (28-50-100 for instance), not regret even a pricey kit lens at all, and spend way less.You have to try and shoot test targets with them to believe that.
Jorge,if you stopped being condescending and actually searched for some information (as others have suggested), you would have by now realized that Pentax made some outstanding glass back in the '70s and '80s.
That's not the same as saying that modern glass is worthless, on the contrary, the widespread use of computer prototyping means we can now have glass that we couldn't even dream of back in the day - but that doesn't necessarily mean it was "soft".
For instance, I could name a few very, very sharp manual lenses (manual aperture, manual focus) that however exhibit moderate to significant purple fringing (that was the price to pay without ED glass).
If one knows when and how to use those and when and how to use the modern counterparts, he is certain to obtain the best possible results in any conditions.
It's all about knowledge and, of course, choice.
PKDanny: $6000??? No AF?? WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THEM??
AF for video? you're jesting, right?
I'd suggest the author of the article to look into the Pentax MultiMount aftermarket item, as dcshooter suggested.It will most likely be available for K-1 as well.
sneakyracer: Given the Pentax K mount has a 1mm shorter flange focal distance than the Nikon F mount (both are 44mm in dia. though) I would asume that it is possible to adapt Nikon F lenses to the Pentax K-1. That opens up access to a huge range of lenses for those who do not need AF or even auto aperture namely Landcsape and Arch Photogs.
That said the K-1 has an impressive feature set and all at a great price point.
I am sure the sensor is similar to the one in the Sony A-7R v1. so it should perform at least as well.
@sneakyracernot at all... I'm more than happy with what they came out with.And can't really see how you came up with that conclusion.
bakhtyar kurdi: It looks to me that the the 15-30 is the exact copy of the Tamron 15-30, nothing wrong with that, the Tamron is an amazing lens, can someone confirm this?
It's not the first time that Tamron can't bother to make a lens in K mount, but instead of doing that at a loss make an arrangement with Pentax.Pentax usually puts coatings, WR etc. on the plate and the result is an enhanced Tamron lens, with the Pentax logo.Everybody ends up happy, including the customer.
Poweruser: If you want to use Tamron lenses, why not just get a Nikon / Canon?
Because you can't mount a ridiculous amount of legacy glass on that, and still get to use SR :-)
aramgrg: Just the fact that they ordered the non vc version and list it higher is irritating! We're not stupid Pentax!
Plus, no VC should make it lighter.Pentax has always been very very good at making good SR and good coatings (even back in SMC times).
The Squire: Big news. I wasn't sure if this or Duke Nukem Forever was going to be released first.
They don't release very often, but when they do it's always interesting... I almost bought in to Pentax a few years ago, only the slow release cycles put me off.
@Squire"I'd still debate that too"Right, it's great for customers making their first purchase, since they can always choose a current model and not last year's.It's bad for everyone who's upgrading or already made a purchase.
SnappyUK: Serious value for money, and the commitment to legacy glass is admirable, as are some of the more specialised features contained within the body.
If I hadn't already got a significant investment in another manufacturer's system, I'd be very tempted by this. As it is, I can only hope that the low price triggers a reduction in the cost of other makers' full-frame bodies.
I was talking about legacy film glass ("full frame"), but taking into account the potential additional space required by sensor movement (SR).As you can see, I'm being even overly cautious.
Resolution in the "center" is already known since I and others already shoot '70s film glass on 16 and 24MP APS-C cameras with fantastic results, at least technically speaking if not photographically! ;-)
If it comes (the Otus), I'll like it :-)
@jonny: the fact is that lens vignetting gets you an unbalanced picture if you crop.Post-crop vignetting (that I rarely use, and when I need it, I draw it by hand where I need it) OTOH is centered on the frame