I had this back in august was playing with settings and found dng caputure it works an does improve images but only slightly.
iudex: Oh I have just noticed this: max format is 35mm FF. Is it just a typo, or is it really a FF zoom?
Probably a typo :( but fingers crossed till confirmed
The only 2 things that would deter me is it's not f4 and the price image quality needs to be brilliant to justify it.
May be Pentax needs to get some crowdfunding (just as Panono did) to get their "Full-Frame camera" into production? Go one Pentax try it and see how much you could raise and at the same time see how many of us Pentaxians want FF.
Just please don't go OTT with the colours, what you've done with the K3 in enough Black, Silver and Titanium is all thats needed ..............
Jokica: Pentax, give us FF, please! I will pick one in pink, I swear.
I'll grudgingly buy one in Black if thats all you offer......
I dread to think what will happen with a full frame Pentax camera. Makes me seriously consider swapping to Nikon or Sony
Canon are becoming like the boy who cried wolfe.................
I awoke from my hibernation for this? Wake me when Pentax launch their Full-frame cameria..........
Having searched other sites and looked at the website it comes from my money is on a new Canon user only Flickr style image sharing site.
DPhotoWriter: Canon buys Samsung and releases the Canon Galaxy S6 starting tomorrow! The S6 features 10-step optical stabilization, 100x optical zoom lens with flat lens design, APS-C sensor, folding display, 16-core processor, 1mm thickness -- all that goodies for $10.
Bet it only comes in white.................
Other sites seen to think thers a full frame 45-50 megapixel camera on its way. but after the last time they issued a similar message we ended up with a photo competition...............
Are the 23 i had it all DPR staff?
KonstantinosK: Whatever happened to the MX-1? Is it still in production?
I always for the MX would of made a great name for a Mirrolass APSC camera which could use the lovely limited range of primes as well as the rest of the Pentax range. hmmmm just image a retro styled MX with digi view finder built into the hump.
Thought it was discontinued a few months back, was announced very quietly.
RStyga: As much as I like Sigma, they need to drop this Quattro-design fiasco A-S-A-P before they surpass the SD1 original release-price fiasco. WHAT ON EARTH did the designers think when creating the Quattro??? IT IS ugly, IT IS grossly not ergonomic, IT IS not compact in any conceivable way!!! There is nothing positive to this design at all. Sigma wake up...
It's worst than the Pentax K0-1 design disaster by Marc Newson. My wife is Left Handed and she cannot get on with this camera atleast with a more traditional design it is more user friendly.
Matt1645f4: If its the Monkeys image, what's to stop others using images taken by the Mars rover for example the hardware is NASA's but the image is captured by the Rover (yes the rover can be made to take a photo remotely but it sends back many of its own). The same can be said for each operator that directs the rover to photo various objects. is it theirs?
It's a theoretical point
Michael J Davis: I agree entirely with chillgreg!I think of the number of creative photos I've taken 'by accident' - does that mean that I'm to be deprived of the copyright of those?
And what about that silly 'camera toss' craze a few years back - they were intended to be taken, but not under the control of the equipment owner.
This is a very dangerous precedent.
I'm not dis agreeing with you at all. It just an observation of the comments others are making that who ever took the photo owns it. It's clearly the Photographers image the process and set up he put in place to achieve this is his and not the monkeys.
Matt1645f4: If he went out there with the intention of allowing the Monkey to use his equipment and see what the results would be would he still be the copyright owner?
I would of thought yes. As it would of been his creative intention that lead to the images capture. And i can't see much difference in this argument that would deny him his copyright.
This does question the right of copyright. If i was to go and make a Photograph of another photo would this entitle me to the copyright, as i would of created a new and unique image?
I don't disagree, my point is about the creative process and does the point of creation determines ownership or the creative set up and development not contribute at all.
KrisAK: Headline from The Telegraph (UK news):
"Wikimedia votes to decide who owns monkey selfie."
Cast your vote today. Humans only.
Having read the article it seems to me that the the person who uploaded it a second time is using the differences of international copyright Law to validate his upload. However having already removed the photo once, hasn't Wikimedia set a precedent?
If its the Monkeys image, what's to stop others using images taken by the Mars rover for example the hardware is NASA's but the image is captured by the Rover (yes the rover can be made to take a photo remotely but it sends back many of its own). The same can be said for each operator that directs the rover to photo various objects. is it theirs?