dansclic: Well, thé aps c lenses are so so. Considering thé fact that they will have to build up à complete set of FF lenses, it is not obvious that people will switch to pentax, see what happens with sony. Choosing a FF brandname means choosing a complete system having wide open primes and teles, aso.
What if you don't like shopping flea markets and ebay? How many are there at the Camera shop?
John C Tharp: Pentax has one thing that they bring to the market that no one else really has- real weather sealing, that can embarrass competitor's professional (1D X, D4s) models, in bodies, lenses, and accessories.
Pentax would do well to play to this strength!
Pentax has never had the performance to compete with Canon and Nikon's top sports and wildlife gear. It wouldn't matter if it was submersible, you aren't going to find the pros switching to a Pentax for that kind of work. Not to mention the lens situation.
I think they are going after the wrong competition. NOBODY has a chance against the depth of Canon and Nikon in the FF DSLR market. But right now there is only one* FF mirrorless player. THere's plenty of room to compete there, especially if you can get some compact lenses in play. They could play up the retro love with an affordable K1000 rebirth along with some awesome compact primes. Of course it would require a different mount, but there aren't many current FF lenses in K mount anyway.
*excluding Leica because they aren't really mainstream
Marty4650: I suppose this fills a gap for the Pentax users between the K3 and the 645Z. But I really wonder if full frame Pentax is necessary? There are over a dozen full frame cameras currently available on the market, and Pentax might need a whole new line of lenses for it. And the K3 is pretty darn good.
I guess the market will decide. A few Pentax users will love it and buy it, but I doubt it will attract many converts from other brands with deep lens catalogs.
They did for the Ricoh GXR and Pentax Q.
tkbslc: If you really wanted a FF DSLR, you'd have switched to Canon, Nikon or Sony about 5-10 years ago.
If you were just starting out, Do you think you'd pick a system with one body option and that has had no new FF lenses in 20 years over Canon and Nikon?
If you really wanted a FF DSLR, you'd have switched to Canon, Nikon or Sony about 5-10 years ago.
Think I'll stick with my iPad Air 2.
Thanks for elaborating on my sarcastic quip.
Rooru S: what the hell...I could buy another camera with that price...
I did say "pretend".
Craig from Nevada: Just purchased the HD10. I was looking for a laptop for travel, but got this on impulse. They claim 8 hours of battery life (I have my doubts about that claim). The size and price was a selling point. I am hoping to send emails, read a book, and watch a movie with it either on planes or hotels--nothing more. The keyboard case was $99.00.
We shall see how this goes.
If it's a movie and book you bought from Amazon, it will work wonderfully.
I bet you comment about your BMW on news articles about the new Civic.
I really wanted to like my FIre Tablets, but there just isn't enough pros to compensate for being locked out of regular Google Apps and the Play store.
Not one that you can pretend is a $5000 camera, though!
$185 sounds fair if it had the LCD built in. Without an LCD, I think maybe $40?
For those asking why this is a worthwhile test, I see a lot of comments where people say an RX10 (or the FZ1000) can replace a DSLR kit. I think this shows one way in which that is not true. In many ways, it likely can.
I would have liked to have seen the two reviewers swap cameras half way through to eliminate operator variables.
BostonC: The length is wrong, should be 45.5mm.
Oh, gotcha. Sorry for misunderstanding.
Now start working on a 9mm f2.0 for MFT. You'd have a line waiting to purchase that lens!
They make a 42.5mm 1.2 if that's what you'd like.
M1963: So many remarks on manual focus. Which is faster - rotating a focusing ring or fiddling with buttons and dials to select the focusing point?
For low precision and with a short throw, MF is faster.
Milvus? Was Balzac taken?
StevenE: Micro 4/3 is a good sensor size for video since you often need a little more DOF in order to keep subjects in focus. But for photography it sucks. There are very few lens options to get truly shallow DOF on micro 4/3. A micro 4/3 25mm would have to be f/1.0 or better to be interesting for photography. Even a Canon Rebel with 35mm f/2 IS would be miles ahead of this at about the same price, and you have tons of options for other lenses
It's not insulting. It's just, again, evidence that you are speaking from assumptions.