PIX 2015
Greg Lovern

Greg Lovern

Lives in United States Bellevue, WA, United States
Joined on May 4, 2004
About me:

:
Pentax K-7 since December 2011
Pentax *ist D since March 2004
O-ME53 1.2x magnifying eyecup
Tamron 17-50/2.8
Tamron 28-75/2.8
DA 18-135 WR
FA 50/1.4
FA 35/2.0
FA 100/2.8 Macro
Sigma 12-24 (original version)
Polaris 135/1.8, YS-Mount w/ K-mount T2 adapter (Mid 1970s)
Misc old primes
AF540FGZ II
Pentax ZX-L (MX-6) (now used only with the Sigma at ~12mm for 122-degree angle of view)
:
Current Wishlist:
K-5 II
DA 16-85 WR
DA* 55
DA 55-300 WR
Tamron 70-200/2.8
Sigma 10-20 (wish they'd make the 8-16 in K-mount!)
Lumix GM-1
Canon S90 with Franiec
:
Fond memories:
Pentax Super Program
Kiron-made M42 Vivitar 20/3.5
Olympus OM-1 (~1980)
Sigma 21-35/3.5-4.0 (~1981) (not the much more common 1985 21-35/3.5-4.2)
Leica MiniLux
Dad's 126-cartridge, flashcube Kodak Instamatic X-15 (~1970)
Various old cameras in Grandpa's basement (~1960's & early 1970's)
:

Comments

Total: 131, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

How do I delete this inadvertent post??

Direct link | Posted on Jul 22, 2015 at 20:42 UTC as 11th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Vlad S: It's worth remembering, that the only reason there's something to photograph at the Tayor Swift's show is that her creative team and investors put their imagination, labor, and finances into the production. The photographers are simply riding on Swift's coattails, and the show management is entitled to control how people, who did not contribute to their show, use it to their own ends.

Vlad

The same is effectively true for most photographs - someone owns something in the frame; the photographer usually didn't create everything in the frame. If I take a picture at a national park, should the government own the picture? If I take a street photo, should it be collectively owned by everyone in the frame?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 22, 2015 at 20:42 UTC

Taylor Swift: "Photographers have to work for me for free. But Musicians should be paid even for free trials. What's so hard to understand about that?"

Direct link | Posted on Jun 24, 2015 at 19:35 UTC as 79th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Greg Lovern: > The 70-200mm is the first full-frame telephoto zoom to bear Pentax's 'Star' designation <

Not true. It's at least the fourth. The first three were:
F* 250-600/5.6 (1988)
FA* 250-600/5.6 (1991)
FA* 80-200/2.8 (1994)

@Maxfield_photo: No, their exact text is: "The 70-200mm is the first full-frame telephoto zoom to bear Pentax's 'Star' designation, and features a new 'HD' coating." If you removed the comma and changed "features" to "feature", it would read as you say. As it is, it cleary says it's the first Star FF tele zoom.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 17, 2015 at 19:54 UTC

> The 70-200mm is the first full-frame telephoto zoom to bear Pentax's 'Star' designation <

Not true. It's at least the fourth. The first three were:
F* 250-600/5.6 (1988)
FA* 250-600/5.6 (1991)
FA* 80-200/2.8 (1994)

Direct link | Posted on Feb 15, 2015 at 04:21 UTC as 24th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

timo: Really crummy editorial: Whoever writes up this stuff has left out the crucial qualification: * The world’s shortest standard zoom lens for use with digital SLR cameras (as of February 1, 2015, based on RICOH IMAGING research)

I see that qualification there, and I saw it there long before your post. It's in green text.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2015 at 06:21 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".

Since when is 18mm on APS-C equivalent to 24?? It's equivalence is more like 28mm.

18 x 1.55 = 27.9

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2015 at 06:19 UTC
In reply to:

BeaverTerror: Incorrect headline, very poor journalism by DPreview staff, maliciously done on purpose to generate page views?

Not the world's shortest zoom lens by a long shot. As the footnote indicates, it's only the shortest DSLR zoom lens.

Pretty sure they mean the smallest *weather-resistant*. See the mention of this lens in the announcement here of the KS-2. Not sure why they don't say the same here; probably an oversight.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2015 at 02:29 UTC
In reply to:

joe6pack: Sony's SELP1650 (16-50mm for APS-C) is just 29mm collapsed.

Panasonic's Vario PZ 14-42mm is 27mm collapsed.

They don't count because they have no mirror, hence not DSLR?

And the K-mount has a FFD of 45.46mm, more than twice that of E-mount and M43.

Pretty sure they mean the smallest *weather-resistant*. See the mention of this lens in the announcement here of the KS-2. Not sure why they don't say the same here; probably an oversight.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2015 at 02:26 UTC

Does this replace the K-50?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 9, 2015 at 23:06 UTC as 71st comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

jacek2008: Please Pentax NO built-in toy flash. Give IMAX-like viewfinder view.

And no autofocus either! And no exposure automation; it should be manual exposure only! And no metering; real photographers use a hand-held meter! And no anti-shake, that's for pansies! And no weathersealing! And no LCD preview! And most important of all, no built-in sensor; I'll put in my own!

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2015 at 04:50 UTC
In reply to:

cgarrard: I wonder if the working prototypes of the unofficial MZ-D are still working and who has them- furthermore, what they are worth! :)

You can buy one with a Contax mount as the Contax N Digital. Aside from external cosmetics, lens mount and flash connections, they were essentially the same camera, designed by Pentax except for the N Digital body. It was a good camera for its time if you don't mind shooting at ISO 50 (noisy above that), and Contax/Yashica made some excellent lenses that can be had for a song today.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2015 at 02:15 UTC
In reply to:

Peiasdf: DOOMED before it even came out. SONY A900/A850 came out when the competitions only have 5D2 and D700 at $600-$800 more and A900/A850 didn't make a dent in the FF market. SONY also have a full line of FF lenses for the Alpha twins.

Now the competitions have 6D, 5D3, 5D4, D610, D750, D810, DF not to mention SONY's A7 series. Pentax lenses for the last 15 years are also all geared toward APS-C.

Pentax is DOOMED because they don't have a FF DSLR! Whoops, now Pentax is DOOMED because their FF DSLR is too late to market! And remember, Pentax is also DOOMED because they don't offer everything N/C offers! Plus, Pentax is DOOMED because they were bought by another company! DOOMED, I say! DOOMED, DOOMED, DOOMED, DOOMED, DOOMED!

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2015 at 02:00 UTC

Good to know my old Sigma 18mm will be worth something again.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2015 at 02:21 UTC as 105th comment
In reply to:

Prairie Pal: At least Pentax has a road map, honors it, and is transparent enough to disclose it to their loyal customer base. ...Nikon!

@gskolenda: What makes you think so?? Ricoh is so huge and profitable, they'd have to develop a hundred such cameras, and never sell a single copy of any of them, to possibly approach any danger of bankruptcy.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2015 at 02:19 UTC
In reply to:

Snikt228: Just in time for the DSLR market itself to start to soften and shift mirrorless.

Where do you see that in the sales figures? I don't. See the latest charts at bythom.com (he of silly predictions but good data). All I see in the charts is that smartphones have massacred the point & shoot, and cameras in general are in a bear market. DSLRs still far and away outsell mirrorless systems.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2015 at 02:13 UTC
In reply to:

fmian: Extremely risky move dropping tech budget into this.
The market already has very dominant players in it.
Pentax should be trying to carve a new niche instead of trying to squeeze in between the competition.

There is nothing risky about the money Ricoh has spent on this. Ricoh could easily spend 10 times as much. Ricoh is huge and very profitable. Cameras don't even appear on their P&L as a separate line item; they are lumped in with Misc.
Ricoh's Pentax brand is more about prestige for Ricoh than about making money.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2015 at 02:08 UTC
In reply to:

Joe Ogiba: Pentax Digital SLR - 6 megapixel
Published Sep 25, 2000 | dpreview staff

At Photokina next week Pentax will announce a new 6 megapixel (3072 x 2048) Digital SLR, it will use Philip's 6 megapixel 35mm size CCD (12-bit progressive, 12 µm pixel pitch).

Pentax Digital SLR Specifications
(so far)
Body Pentax design magnesium alloy case
Type SLR (body only)
Imager Philips 6 megapixel CCD
35mm full frame
12-bit progressive scan
12 µm pixel pitch
Image resolution 3072 x 2048
Image types JPEG, TIFF, RAW
Shutter speed Up to 1/6000 sec
Lens mount Pentax KAF2 mount (645N & 67II lenses can be used)
Focus 6-point AF
Viewfinder TTL optical (true TTL)
LCD 2 inch TFT
Flash Built-in retractable flash unit (TTL)
Storage Dual slots:
Compact Flash Type II
PCMCIA Type II
Connectivity IEEE1394 (Firewire)
Sale date Undecided
Sale price Expected ~$7,000
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8322647280/pentaxdigitalslr

The sensor wasn't bad, it just needed a lot of light. A reviewer found it great at ISO 50. But the Canon 1Ds appeared the following year, with much better low light performance.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2015 at 01:58 UTC
In reply to:

jukeboxjohnnie: Glad to see it but so late... I just see pentax as novelty cameras sadly

Yes, the camera that Nikon guru Thom Hogan called the "Pentax D400" (i.e. good enough to be the MIA successor to the Nikon D300) is just a novelty.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 4, 2015 at 23:59 UTC
In reply to:

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.

@marc petzold:

Every review site that has reviewed both the 18-135 and the 18-55 found the 18-135 to be significantly better in the overlapping (18-55) range -- with one exception: photozone, which found the 18-55 to be significantly better in that range.

Now why do you suppose that would be? Could it be that photozone got the best-ever 18-55; much, much better than any copy of the 18-55 ever seen anywhere else? A miraculously fabulous copy?

Or is it more likely that photozone had a bad copy of the 18-135?

A close reading of the Photozone review shows that the author, Klaus, had his doubts about whether it was a good copy. But the German support center told him it was in spec.

Klaus' mistake was to take the support center at their word. Just because the support center told him it was in spec, does not mean it was actually in spec, nor that it was a good copy. He should have tried to get another copy to test.

A test of a bad copy, no matter how thorough, is not a useful test.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 1, 2015 at 05:53 UTC
Total: 131, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »