Paul Petersen: The D500 as the new king of cropped photography really brings out new shooting styles like shooting into the sun. Yes my D7200 does a great job and I really like it their IQ is almost identical. But the body is really where the 500 steps out. For the cost of the upgrade I could add another Sigma 1.8 zoom. Decisions.
Not sure if you were looking for opinions, but I'd go for the zoom. Nothing against the D500: my thinking is that if you absolutely needed any of the new features you probably would have no dilemma there.
If you say the IQ is about the same, I'd say the lens makes more sense. I'm also a bit biased in favour of Sigma, so take it with a pinch of salt.
Nice shot, although the VII one is much better imo. The processing looks way too much here, like a halo as Conan mentioned. Does the pink/red surfer girl actually need dodging and burning to stand out from this background?
My monitor is not calibrated, perhaps that's the problem.
Fogsprig: They have nothing to do in APS-C directory or what?Kind of sad news, because K-3 was a really nice camera but it's obsolete IMHO.
I'm not sure if your reply was to my comment Calvin. If it was, I can't see the relevance of the A7 series to whether or not the K3 is now obsolete.
The Sony Alpha cameras certainly are competition, given that they can also use K-mount lenses via an adaptor, and they seem very fine machines. Personally, and I don't know how many share this view, but I think I'd prefer to use the lenses, either Sony or Pentax 'natively' if possible.
With regards to the OVF/EVF question, I'd prefer a hybrid between the two if possible, if not, I think I'd still chose an OVF at the moment. In my case then the choice would be clear, given that the Pentax is made to their usual standards.
The K3 wasn't released that long ago, and now there's also a K3-II. In what way are they obsolete now? Because there will be a larger-sensored version released soon?
Nikon and Canon still seem to be making APSC cameras as well as their FF models.
This is a blatant and direct insult to pixel peeping! I wonder if they did it on porpoise?
The instigators should be tracked down and subjected to raised eyebrows and scornful comments, then shown images taken with a 42MP BSI sensor until they beg for mercy.
Michael J Davis: Dan's introduction made it sound as though this 'type' of camera was 'new' - with no reference to Panasonic and Olympus or even Fuji predecessors. Otherwise why explain that the evf isn't a DSLR? and that a flip out screen can be quite useful? (Oh yes, 'quite' in British English means something different from 'quite' in US English - best avoid it in an international forum.)
Also in such a short review does the reference to film styles really have any place?
Nice camera sure, but I'm not sure that the summary mentioned its stongest points...
Out of curiosity, what does 'quite' mean in US English?
On another issue, and I might be off in my assessment here, but I'd guess the film styles were mentioned because jpegs are a fairly big plus of this camera. This means the in-camera filters are worthy of more serious attention than the average DSLR.
Skipper494: A case of 'too little, too late'? It certainly appears to have little advantage over the X-E2, which I prefer, due to the placement of the EVF. However, Fuji scores in having very little compression of the RAW files, which gives cleaner images, despite being long passed by Samsung's 20MP and Sony's 24MP.
In fact, Fuji's RAW file is about 45% larger than the Sony's. It is worth noting that Samsung's EX2F has considerably less RAW compression, if any. Of all my cameras, I prefer the Samsung EX2F and the Fuji X-E2. Though my D700 is superior, it is just too cumbersome and heavy for me at my age.
I'm sure you know this, but if it's lossless compression the only effects are saving disk space, and perhaps taking a little longer to save the RAWs to the memory card.
Given the choice I'd take compression over none, always assuming you're not losing any data. Sony's approach of enforcing lossy compression in their A7 series is very disappointing.
Prognathous: It would be nice to see Ricoh delivering DSLR firmware updates similar to what they've been releasing for years for their high end compact cameras (e.g. the GR series), these are typically choke-full of new features and enhancements.
Meh. If the updates do much more than offer compatibility with newer lenses, bug fixes or slight performance increases they probably got it wrong at launch.
This one's been pushed quite considerably don't forget. The unedited version is quite clean.
ThatCamFan: It screams internal dust magnet.
Ummm, it's sealed, as are the majority of Pentax DSLRs.
chj: To Sony (and all camera manufacturers)
Put a damn touchscreen on your cameras. It is by far the best way to choose a focus point. Anyone that says otherwise has simply not used one and is exalting their "skill" in getting around their camera's limitations. Technology trumps skill. You can't get faster, more reliable autofocus than my GM1 (unless you have another Panasonic). Don't tell me about workarounds. The GM1 nails focus more often.
OK, manual focus can get tighter focus on a stationary subject that's willing to wait for you to set up. But with that kind of time, ANY camera can get tight focus.
So stop listening to photo geeks that equate touchscreens with bad phone photos. On a GOOD camera, a touchscreen is an immensely powerful tool that has more impact on photos than pixel peeping details.
Feedback from DPR photo geeks is 0.005% of the market. The other 99.095% are using touchscreen phones. The camera market is shrinking, because you are listening to the wrong market.
What if you prefer to use the viewfinder?
I'm intrigued! Care to provide a little more info?
marc petzold: Nice Info about that particular picture background, i was happy to read it,more of that, please. That composition looks very good to my eyes.
Apart from that, the Canon 16-35 L II Lens wasn't that good reviewed at lenstip, for example:
Canon EF 16-35 mm f/2.8L II USM11. Summary
solid, sealed barrel, excellent image quality in the frame centre, chromatic aberration sensibly controlled, only slight distortion, taking into account the focal lengths range, low astigmatism, low vignetting level, very quick, silent and accurate autofocus, lens hood and a case included.
unacceptable image quality at frame edge in the aperture range from f/2.8-4.0, average work against bright light, bad price/quality ratio.
The lines make sense to me and don't seem pretentious at all or merely to fill in space in the article. Perhaps the photographer couldn't have exactly articulated those things in the moment (or perhaps he could!), but it may well explain the thinking behind the original composition in the wild - and the final and presumably carefully considered cropping at home - fairly accurately.
Finally I also think it's a great image, thanks for the insights offered.
audiobomber: You can't tell IQ or build quality from a photo. Ricoh says this lens is intended for people who want higher IQ than a kit lens. It's safe to say it will outperform the 18-55, 18-135 and the various superzooms.
The DA 18-135mm feels like a pro lens; it is tight, no creep, no rattles or looseness anywhere. It makes a Tamron superzoom feel like junk. I expect the 16-85mm will be the same build, and hopefully IQ will match my 16-45mm. If so, I'll sell the others and get this.
One review says the 18-135 is crap? Well, case closed then. Even though if you look through their review of the 18-55 they seemed to be fairly happy with the optics, which of course perform significantly worse than the 18-135...
Back to this 16-85 lens I'm a little surprised by the RRP to be honest, regardless of how the tests turn out.
shutterbud: This is image drags your eye, but upon closer/longer examination there seems something off about it. I don't know what. Perhaps it is the unreality of the scene? That is its power but also its weakness, as if the photographer decided that what was in front of him wasn't interesting enought to shoot 'as is' and so had to manipulate both the frame and the viewer.
Liking the image isn't compulsory, but you're obviously going to be in the minority there. He did get first place for a reason, and people coming to this page may well have been attracted by that specific photo.
FWIW, the 'unreality' of the image is what caught my attention. Some of that is as was mentioned the fish eye, but I don't see it as a negative. Mundane or ordinary are not adjectives I'd like applied to my own work, and this photo certainly doesn't fall into that category.
forpetessake: The images are soft, and noisy, and lacking dynamic range ... and still they are pretty good for such a tiny sensor.
The dynamic range doesn't look too shabby in the shot directly into the sun (mountain on the right hand side). There's another one with a girl indoors sitting on the sofa to the left of the frame behind some blinds - the shadows aren't blocked up and the patches of sunlight don't appear blown.
Overall, it doesn't appear lacking to me regardless of sensor size.