 |
JacobSR
Lives in
CA, United States
Joined on
Sep 13, 2006
|
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
Beat Traveller: Brace yourself... the 'equivalent aperture' posts are coming.
Just like shutter speeds are the same speed on FF or on APSc cameras. So are all the shutter speeds on all formats.
Aperture readings are also the same in FF or APSC or all the other formats. This is standard, Every lens or camera manufacture have to ubide by these rules.
So f1.8 (FF lens) on FF sensor is the same f1.8 (APSc lens) on APSc sensor. Yes the f1.8 FF lens aperture pupil has to be bigger to cover the the larger format but the exposure should read the same. The only difference is the field of view. Depth of field might look like f2.8 on FF.
ISO (wich is also is standard) and the light propertys is another matter due to sensor technology, processor technology, SNR, size of format, size of pixels, numbers of pixels, density of pixels and the rest of the process. It varies from camera to camera.
mmitch: Pentax needs to catch up to the rest of the Camera Companies and release a Full Frame body! I really got tired of waiting and switched to Nikon. I owned a K5 it's a great camera, but it's limited lens selection and lack of interest by Pentax to further the company along I can no longer support.
MMitch:
On your 2nd comment many would disagree with you. Here is a professional photographer who claim there is no difference in image quality between K5IIs and 5D Mark III when printed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jH3WevFWbzw&list=UUnGQjVXHOC7lGSr3R9wxuaw&index=3
Pete: I agree with previous posts re: FF/BF issues. In certain situations, the K-5 struggles. Even, in some cases, in the same light, but if one person is more tan than another. I see some this in stage-lighting situations. If the II series addresses that, in all honesty, that would be a phenomenal camera. That occasional issue is my main gripe with the K-5.
On the K5 some claim that if you turn the shake reduction off you get much improved AF speed. Use SR only when needed.
Plastek: Brilliant camera. Puts the point of mirrorless existence in doubt now. Especially when it comes out that APS-C compact with excellent lens is smaller than m4/3 or 1" mirrorless with a lens.
We know all compacts don't have a mirror, why should they? But we don't call them mirrorless. The term mirrorless came when the G1 came out with interchangable lenses without a prism or mirror box so we called them mirrorless to distinguish them from DSLR 's. This camera is designed as a compact.
Looks very much like the Pentax Optio X, from something like 2005?
http://static.productreview.com.au/pr.products/b5_4deeb2687cd1d.jpg
Marty4650: Setting aside the merits or liabilities of the Q system.... is this an actual upgrade of the Q, or just a repackaging of the Q with a few very minor improvements added? (higher top shutter speed, optional viewfinder, optional remote control, AF assist lamp, etc.)
When you compare the specs of the two cameras it doesn't look like there is very much new here. I assume that the new lens and the new adapter will work with either camera, so why buy the new Q10 when the Q is selling for half it's price?
How about new improved sensor and upgraded processor for better image quality.Iis that not enough? how about better video performance with manual control during video...upgraded shutter to prevent rolling, redesign body for better ergonomics and deeper grip. Well if it's not for current Q owners, then its for others.
qwertyasdf: When P&S and camera phones are moving on to larger sensors
Someday, the Q might have the smallest sensor not just amongst other CSCs, but all photo-taking gadgets....
Way to go.
@zapatista
There is no point for cell phones to move to a larger sensor. As I understand there have been a huge imvestment and R&D done on this sensor, givin it great Image quality. But it's not only the sensor that count. You have to have high quality optics and a great image processor to go with it, in a nice compact body like...the Q ;)
Plastek: Woh, it looks like this will be one of very few cameras you can recommend someone while being sure he will make best possible purchase from the market right now. IMO the K30 is what Sony should release as A65 - lower MPx, watersealed with WR lens (I wouldn't mind even 18-55 re-made to WR), higher buffer and mirror flip-up mode (this goes for A77 too obviously).
Well... they didn't... so it looks like I'll be recommending other brand for this price-point than.
(ps. it's funny how poorly Canon and Nikon equivalents look comparing to K30 or A65 in terms of bang for the buck.)
It's made by Sony but Developed by Pentax. Both have done a great Job.
alexeyga: Hey Pentax boys, why don't you enlighten the public what's the point in WR if all the best Pentax lenses (like 31LTD, 43LTD, 77LTD) are not WR-ed?
And why would anybody want to invest into Pentax DA* lenses that are actually WR-ed, but come with the SDM AF mechanism that is prone to failure?
@alexeyga
I believe The lenses you mention are full frame and were originaly made for Pentax 35mm film cameras.
I need another camera like I need a hole in the head. But I realy want this one.
jj74e: ahh dang whichever company started making tilt screens popular (i think it was sony).
tilt screens seem kind of like a really bad middle ground. most, if not all, don't tilt enough to be particularly useful, but they're still thicker than regular screens. especially on a non-pocketable camera like this, what difference does a few mm make to accommodate a fully articulating screen that actually offers some more usability. it's not like it's going to be the difference between it fitting in your jeans or not.
I agree that a fully articulating screen is nice, but I think the tilt screen is still flexible. one thing it would allow me to operate the camera from waist level. Which it's much more convenient and comfortable than arms length. There is more balance and stabilization, especialy with the long zoom.
derfla1949: A DSLR-like superzoom with a 1/2.33" sensor.
'nuff said.
Nobody is saying that, but if you are observant enough you can see that most all camera makers, make and sell more cameras by far with this type of sensor (or similar size) than any other. It's the bigest market, it's what keeps the doors open, and give support to the other format sizes. Some of the people here have such a superiority complex, they can sit with their computers and say: We are too good for this kind of stuff, they think the world revolve around DPreview.
techmine: I am actually in the market for a superzoom. Most likely it's going to be Panasonic fz200. Its a camera cut above the rest with constant f2.0 aperture. That feature alone is enough for me.
Yes F/2.8 is nice but does it hold well throughout the zoom range? is it really usable? with today high ISO's, I don't need lens speed as much as optical quality. IMO slower lenses can allow higher quality glass in a compact design.
derfla1949: A DSLR-like superzoom with a 1/2.33" sensor.
'nuff said.
1/2.3 sensor is the most succefull and probably #1 selling sensor of all formats. There are more cameras sold with this sensor than any other. Much more R&D and $$$$$$ spend on 1/2.3 sensor than the others. As a result Image quality has come a long way and is been advancing and improving at a faster rate than any other sensor.
It's a bridge camera, it's suppose to look like a DSLR. Don't they all? So what's all the fuss here.
If a point & shoot doesn't have a viewfinder, then it should have an articulating screen. It makes the operation so much easier and you don't have to hold the camera up to your eye level all the time.
Looks like Canon SX150.
I don't know how Pentax does it, with all these features packed in a very compact body.
I like the unique design, love those curves and bumps, the placement of the controls. It makes me want to pick it up and hold it to see how it feels. The ergonomic looks great. Excelent job Pentax.
I can't fiqure what this is. Is this water and stuff flushing down the toilet? Boy I would be worried if my stuff came out like that! I would go see a Doctor.
I'm sorry but I disagree, I'm not sure why your eyes are troubling you, it could be something else. Because black background is very comfortable to my eyes vs the bright white which is very harsh.
I think when you staring at text on a white backround, the text is mostly about 15% of the page, but you are also staring at 85% of the bright white backround, which it's very harsh. Try to stare at your laptop outside at night and you will know what I mean. I think part of what makes Dpreview so popular is the black background.