jpino79: How much is the chance that the Autofocus and Flash sytem will be improved? Or is this something Pentax users aren't using that much and therefore not important?
No, we focus only manualy. How does autofocus work actually?
McBrian: Yet another Pentax article that can't be written without a childish barb,
Did DPR fling a barb at Sony when they showed their new lens mockup models?
McBrian: you see ghosts. ;-) Barney: don´t waste your time with responding to such comments. Btw. when you interview some Ricoh guy, don´t forget to ask about the possible price.
Nice to read Pentax news from CP+ that early on DPR.From what we can see we can only speculate, but some things are already visible. The body is seemingly bigger than the K-3, but definitely smaller than D810, I´d say on par with D610, i.e. it will be one of the smallest FF DSLRs. The dials are visible and the function of many of them can be guessed. The ergonomics seems OK, very similar to K-3. The screen will obviously tiltable (up and down), but not fully articulated. And the hump on top is too big not to contain a flash, so I believe there will be one (plus there is the button down left).So now I hope for max. 24 MPx sensor and decent price and this might be my next camera. :-)
Matt1645f4: Looks good cross between a K3 and 645D, hope the specs impress too once more is known about it.
I do not need the specs to impress (like 36 or more MPx), I just want the same Pentax APSC cameras provide, only with fullframe inside.
Prognathous: Hopefully for the K-3 replacement they adopt a centered articulated screen, and not the selfie-oriented side-hinge design. There's a good reason all* >$1500 cameras that offer an articulated screens keep it centered.
* By "all" I'm referring to Pentax 645Z, Nikon D750, Sony A99, and the new $1500 Samsung NX1. I'm not aware of any camera of this caliber that uses the side-hinge design.
Basicall it´s a choice between two directions of articulation vs. four. It is obvious more is better. You can be satisfied with just two, but that does not mean it is better.
christom: Where are the pictures of the new camera??
viking: which Pentax lens did you mean? There is 14mm f2,8 lens and 15mm f4 lens. If you meant the 15mm, well it´s a Limited lens and that means high standard of optical quality as well as rock-solid build (btw. I own one). Maybe it´s not the sharpest lens out there, but optical performance of a lens does not include only sharpness, but also resistance to flare (where the HD coating excells) and chromatic aberation, low distortion etc. But most importantly the lens is tiny, unlike the beast on that Sigma. And I ask again: why would I change a DSLR for a compact if not for compactness?
And what should be that reason? If you indicate fully articulated screen is more vulnerable, well in my own experience shows it can stand pretty ugly behaviour without consequences. Up-and-down articulation is only half the solution.
Here you are: http://www.imaging-resource.com/?ACT=44&fid=17&d=4471&f=sigma-dp0-quattro.jpg Seeing the picture the question arises: why does the lens have to be this big? F4 is pretty slow. I believe a DSLR with such lens would be no bigger (my 15mm f4 prime is much smaller). Where is the advantage of a compact camera then?
I have been thinking of upgrading my K-30 (which works perfectly, it´s just the GCD - gear collection disease ;-) and the obvious step up was the K-3 (or maybe K-5 IIs). However the features this new camera brings are nice to have: wifi with NFC (NFC on my phone would finally get it´s use) and most importantly the articulating screen, which I miss many times when shooting macro. I am sure the K-3 successor will have all this but that would mean further waiting (and then maybe the fullframe will have all this and next dilema will be born). ;-)
RStyga: Hopefully the WR design will prevent the duo-cam design from sucking dust. The lens is, however, very dark... F4-5.6... a F2.8-4 would be much better even if it would make the lens' diameter larger.
This lens comes from the days when owning a Sigma lens was something to be ashamed of. Maybe there is a reason why this lens is not in production any more and why the newest Sigma lenses are so big and heavy. ;-)
Zvonimir Tosic: Excellent! Diameter of the lens has changed from previous versions, though.It is not 52mm, now it's 58mm. But if it's shorter, and sports a real, quiet motor, even better. Everything may signal an optically even better kit lens; considering improvements and new optical formula, I would not be surprised.Well done Pentax!
I believe all the new technology helps, however I am convinced making a zoom this small means some compromises had to be done so the two things go against each other; so maybe the outcome will be similar to previous 18-55mm lens (which is not a bad thing, the kit zoom was quite decent).Anyhow I am just theorizing, I am not going to buy such lens, however newcomers could be pleased with such small lens and maybe never change it.
This zoom is actually 4mm shorter than the 35mm/2,4 prime (itself a small lens) and only 2mm longer than DA 50mm, so the kit is really compact. As regards the optical quality the collapsible construction indicates more compromises than fixed barrel, so I would be careful with predictions; we will see.
ogl: Diameter 41 mm (1.61″)Length 71 mm (2.8″)Mistake in specs diameter 71 mm, length 41 mm
Yaeh, it´s clearly visible the lens is wider than longer (plus if the filter thread is 58mm it is obvious the diameter cannot be smaller).
Eigenmeat: Waste of time, it's not like you can fit a DSLR into your pocket even WITHOUT a lens.
Instead, they should do something like the "first DSLR kit lense that starts at 24mm equivalent".
So if you cannot stich a camera in your pocket it is a waste of time? Well then I guess you are crying at a wrong grave and you should look at 1/1,7" sensored compacts. ;-)
ogl: What kind of hood?
The text says: Low-profile lens hood (included).Btw. as far as I remember the kit lens on my camera did not come with a hood. So I guess it will be the same here: the cheaper DA-L without the HD coating for kit will have no hood and this HD version will.
Viking: you are right; the Pentax 18-55mm was something like:f3,5 @ 18mmf4 @ 19-22mmf4,5 @ 23-35mmf5,6 @ 36-55mm.
iae aa eia: Now, Ricoh, I challenge you to make an 18-55mm ƒ/3.4-4.8 no longer than the shortest 18-55mm ƒ/4-5.6 (or 3.5-5.6) from the competition. You'll see making this lens no shorter but "just" half stop less dark will impress much more.
Dstudio: actually the 18-55mm lens retained f3,5 only at 18mm. Every slight touch of a zoom means f4 (i.e. at 19mm you have f4). As far as I remember the course of luminosity was:f3,5 @ 18mmf4 @ 19-22mmf4,5 @ 23-35mmf5,6 @ 36-55mm.
iae: What is the difference between f3,5-5,6 and f3,4-4,8? It´s 0,1 to 0,5 EV, you really would not see the difference in real use.F3,5-5,6 is a standard for kit zooms; to see some difference the producers would need to make a lens cca. 1 EV faster, just like the Fuji did with it´s f2,8-4 kit zoom.
Good job Pentax. While I guess none of existing Pentax users buys this lens, for newcomers it is a nice choice and a good answer to those complaining about the bulk of DSLRs. With this tiny zoom (not bigger than a 50mm prime) the amera gets really small, actually as small as it gets for a DSLR with a zoom.Of course the construction has itś downsides (shorter FL, worse luminosity) however it´s a negligible sacrifice for such amazingly small size.
humbala: Such an ugly lens
If you prefer the look then better look elsewhere in Pentax´s portfolio: http://cdn.mos.techradar.com/art/cameras/Pentax/Pentax%20K-S1/Press%20shots/Pentax-K-S1-pink-970-80.jpg;-)