iudex

iudex

Lives in Slovak Republic Slovak Republic
Joined on Dec 16, 2011

Comments

Total: 743, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
On Sigma dp0 Quattro announced with 14mm F4 lens article (138 comments in total)
In reply to:

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?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2015 at 15:17 UTC
In reply to:

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.

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.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2015 at 14:06 UTC
On Sigma dp0 Quattro announced with 14mm F4 lens article (138 comments in total)
In reply to:

christom: Where are the pictures of the new camera??

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?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2015 at 11:56 UTC

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). ;-)

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2015 at 11:52 UTC as 36th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

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. ;-)

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2015 at 11:39 UTC
In reply to:

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.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2015 at 11:33 UTC
In reply to:

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!

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.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2015 at 09:53 UTC
In reply to:

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).

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2015 at 08:35 UTC
In reply to:

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. ;-)

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2015 at 07:26 UTC
In reply to:

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.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2015 at 07:21 UTC
In reply to:

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.

Viking: you are right; the Pentax 18-55mm was something like:
f3,5 @ 18mm
f4 @ 19-22mm
f4,5 @ 23-35mm
f5,6 @ 36-55mm.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2015 at 07:19 UTC
In reply to:

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 @ 18mm
f4 @ 19-22mm
f4,5 @ 23-35mm
f5,6 @ 36-55mm.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2015 at 07:18 UTC
In reply to:

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.

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.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2015 at 07:15 UTC

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.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2015 at 07:11 UTC as 13th comment
In reply to:

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
;-)

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2015 at 15:49 UTC
In reply to:

Martinka: 2020 g, this lens is by far the heaviest of all the other 70-200/2.8 lenses

Quick comparison:
Pentax 70-200/2,8: 1,75 kg
Canon 70-200/2,8: 1,49 kg
Nikon 70-200/2,8: 1,54 kg.
So the Pentax is a bit heavier, but not dramatically.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2015 at 15:46 UTC
In reply to:

MikePursey: The DA* 50mm/200mm/300mm also cover the FF sensor.

I heard the same. Anyhow for the 50mm (you probably meant DA* 55mm/1,4) there´s no need to use DA lenses since there are officialy 2 FF lenses: FA 50mm/1,4 and DFA 50mm/2,8 Macro.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2015 at 15:36 UTC
In reply to:

Davidfstop: Yes! But is it too late?
I have been a pentax devotee since my late teens, and still shoot with my K7. I kept hanging on in hope.
But, as other posters have commented, price and a couple of legacy features will be important.
Olympus have a new camera Em-D M5 mk2 which just might be the one to jump ship for, with a good review and starting price + features desirable to a keen mountain walker and photographer.
It's just getting harder to make decisions.
Come on Pentax! (I mean, come on Ricoh)!

So maybe holding on to APSC DLSR is a good compromise: better pictures than from M4/3, but less bulk than FF. And K-3 is a hell of a camera with all Pentax advantages (weather resistant, durable, yet still relatively small).
Anyhow even if we don´t go FF, it´s another reason to remain a Pentaxian, since there is still the perspective to step up one day.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2015 at 10:29 UTC
In reply to:

iudex: Since the introduction of the prototypes (without exact specification) I knew these would be FF lenses. Not only they looked huge (not typical for DA lenses), but their expected focal range was typical for FF lenses (70-200mm).
So now Pentax (sorry, Ricoh, I cannot get accustomed to this) has 8 fullframe lenses even before the introduction of a FF body (FA Limiteds 31, 43 and 77mm, FA 50/1,4, DFA 50mm, DFA 100mm and this two new telezooms). Actually the only lens missing is a standard zoom, something like 24-70mm and Pentax FF camera can go on sale.
P.S. Not mentioning the fact some DA lenses are rumoured to actually cover FF sensor.

Good point. It would probably be no big problem for Tamron/Sigma to change mount to existing FF lenses which are now available for C/N only.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2015 at 10:11 UTC
In reply to:

petreluk: The image released suggests a classic DSLR. It's pretty brave of Ricoh to do this since technology and perhaps the market point the other way, towards smaller, mirrorless cameras with better IQ from new-gen sensors. Only time will tell whether this is a Quixotic gesture since Ricoh will need to sell several tens of thousands of these beyond the couple of hundred gear heads and their test charts on an Internet site. The quality of the two newly announced FF telezooms will be crucial in this regard. If they are anything less than stellar then some of the fans on here will start to drifts away. Still, who wouldn't applaud a Quixotic gesture from an industry short on romance and pizazz.

I don´t think FF DSLRs are selling poorly. Canon and Nikon are investing heavily in FF cameras and they seemingly see a huge potential of this segment (Nikon has 5! FF cameras). Plus long time Pentax users still have many FF lenses so it would be not a problem to step up and buy a FF. I have only 2 Pentax lenses now but one of them is FF lens and the rest of my lenses would not be useless on FF body, they could work in crop mode (so basically just like they work now). So going FF for me would not mean dumping my glass, I could use all of them and maybe need to buy only a lens or two (not mentioning all the accesories are usable too). OTOH going mirrorless would mean giving all my lenses away and start building a completely new system, so buying e.g. a MFT camera would cost more money than going FF.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2015 at 10:07 UTC
Total: 743, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »