CameraLabTester: Pentax should really hire a good industrial designer.
Their cameras are good and perform well.
But they appear just freakishly ugly and out of fashion.
I disagree. I find the Q7 to be quite an attractive camera.
Wow. That is an impressive list of Cons.
Jogger: The cost of the camera and 50/2 would buy you a D800 and $13000 of very good lenses. Am i making too much sense?
The correct phrase would be:
"What's the point of owning 15 Maserati's, when I can own 1 Corolla?"
Sdaniella: i'm here to only share relevant info for shooters like myself who happen to be already dSLR owners, be it FF, or APS-H, or APS-C, who have held off for quite along time with great reservations on a suitable 'prosumer' compact to complement the dSLR, and that it must have a level of IQ and sufficient focal length choices for daily walk-around 24/7 carry around digicam, and not 'another' full ILC system, which do not perform anywhere near what can already be had with our FF/APS-H/APS-C dSLRs.
or even PowerShot G shooters looking for an update 'G' but with vastly improved IQ of a dSLR.
i do it with keen interest on how the G1X compares to what we already own, so that upon scrutiny, the IQ would not be at a level that we'd be ashamed of being handicapped with, that many smaller systems face, or 'in between' or current mirrorless systems. and YES, good performance in LOW light at HIGH ISO's do matter, as we have already taken it for granted with our current larger sensored dSLRs.
Is there any way to hide posts by author?
whtchocla7e: Best news I've heard all year. Deep down inside.. I had hope.The X100 is no longer a contender for me.
Big fevon in a small package. Dreams do come true.
"f2.8 has'nt been considered fast since the fifties!"
You know what was considered really fast in the 50s? ISO400.
I might get crucified here for saying this, but the body and design is not doing anything for me. There is really some great technology here, but why create a camera that isn't a SLR to look exactly like a 30 year old SLR. I understand the desire to evoke nostalgia, and a 'retro' feel, but it's about time for some fresh design input in this industry. The technology and mechanics of taking pictures has progressed much in the last 5 decades, so why design cameras around ergonomics for antique film based SLRs?
There must be a balance somewhere between the extremes of the Nikon/Canon cold war of releasing the newest iteration of their panzer tank line every few months, and the ultramodern Pentax K-01.
Optimus Prime called, he wants his camera back.
DStudio: How funny - a K-mount adapter for the Q! It provides access to a lot of lenses, though - maybe not such a bad idea. At least it may increase sales of the Q to current Pentax owners, a market they should certainly take advantage of.
.... and thus the universe will end.
RBellavance: Anybody else somewhat disappointed that the 50mm is not f/1.7 ?
As long as it has beautiful optical qualities, I can forgive the f/.1 difference. Considering that the K-5 has incredible ISO qualities even at 6,400, I think F/1.7 should suffice. If the lens has some size advantages its to F1.4 and F1.7 peers, I think it is well worth it.
loock: Where is D-FA 90 f 1.7 for K FF35, star or Ltd. ???
On crop 645D, 90mm is like 71mm on FF35 - what portret lens is that ???
It's a portrait lens designed by some incredible optical engineers using the latest computer aided design mechanisms. I guess they forgot to check off the box that said "Only Follow focal lengths that have been around for 5 decades that were hand designed on paper".
Can someone help me rationalize the design decisions here. It seems that the metal grip location where you would place your right hand would be quite slippery while wet, and less grippy than the material used for the rest of the body. The shape of the lens side seems completely counter-ergonomic to being held by a human hand even for carrying purposes. Also, blue buttons with blue print on some of them for an underwater camera?
The D10 wasn't pretty, but this seems like a big step backwards ergonomically. It seems to me much more likely that one would accidentally cover the flash on the D20 versus the D10. Or maybe I'm just missing it....
Muscle memory must be the only thing sustaining these manufacturers from rehashing their compact line-ups year after year.
I almost wish I hadn't viewed these samples in full size. The resolution is unreal.