We're Nikon and we're going to continue to do things the way we have because we are Nikon. But we're not going to deny doing something different in the future.
Looks like a polished turd.
marc petzold: I'd like more the K-50 Design, or K-30. But in fact the K5 Series & K3 looks best from a Pentax Body for my eyes. Just classical, black look, no experiments, no design stuff or flashing LEDs like the S1. As for the S2 Pictures: especially when i do see the image illlustration 3 & 4 here, i'd wondering myself - is that a "real" camera, or some kind of cheap toy?Sorry, i can't bear these silly so called design experiments...perhaps i'm too old for stuff like that, indeed, but i wouldn't choose that sort of design even if i'd be 12 oder 25 either way back in time.
Yes, that's right. If you want a serious looking camera, then buy a K-3 or 645z, or wait for the new FF model. Otherwise, let's try not to take ourselves too seriously.
jaxson: No mic or headphone ports.No mention of real stabilisation during video, instead of the rubbish simulated 'Movie SR' offered presently.
If not for video, then the flip out screen is for selfies?
The screen is for taking pictures, which is what all good DSLRs are for. Movies are for camcorders, which this is not. Look to another brand, my friend.
Horshack: Ricoh's announcement: Get ready to get ready!
By announcing an end of 2015 delivery date, Ricoh has really put a stake in the ground this time. I don't see them missing this target, or major credibility will be lost. As much as we joke about Pentax/Ricoh, when they've promised something, they appear to deliver as promised.
Which is better than their usual "Get ready, to get ready to be getting ready".
Good article. Makes me wonder how much my brand of choice (PENTAX) studies the sales of their existing full-frame lenses vs. APS-C to see how many are positioning themselves for a possible future full-frame body.
aekn: These Canon reviews with real world comparisons are great validation for those with "aging" technology like that of the Nikon D7000.
I guess investing in a new D7000 for $525 right now isn't such a bad move, from an image quality standpoint.
That's why I just bought 3 of them!!
These Canon reviews with real world comparisons are great validation for those with "aging" technology like that of the Nikon D7000.
aekn: As long as Canon (and its incompetence) is around, Richard's business should thrive!
Now we just need to get Richard the startup funds to build a sensor for Canon and they'd be all set.
As long as Canon (and its incompetence) is around, Richard's business should thrive!
We're contemplating full frame...unless we can make it in a million colors. Then it's a no brainer!
So wrong! So PENTAX!
NeilJones: Wow, great video specs but NO TILTING SCREEN! Fail!!
Fail? So everyone needs a tilting screen?
Paks: So wheres the review DP REVIEW?
@40daystogo...Sorry, that was sarcasm. Glad to hear it's coming Jeff!!
A fair review indeed, if anything a bit generous given the fact that image quality and ergonomics seem worse to me than the G1 X I loved so much.
I don't see the benefit to the macro setting if the images are often fuzzy, even with a small aperture.
But hey, at least it has an expensive add-on EVF and wifi built in. Yay.
Greg VdB: I heard a rumor that a subtle name-change is imminent:www.d-preview.com...
Richard - even picking it up for the first time would give you a leg up on Ken Rockwell...
So...look at the first image of the DPR "Hands On" report. Once you get the hood and EVF attached, and extend the flash, how is this easier to use than a mirrorless ILC?
All we needed was a slightly up-sized G12 or a refined G1 X classic. I can't believe I had my hopes up for this monstrosity.
justmeMN: As someone who owned a Pentax film-SLR, it's sad to see what the company has become. The company was sold, and resold, and doesn't have much of a future. In 2010 they had a whopping 1.5% worldwide market share, and it's probably even worse now.
It's sad to see these types of uninformed posts. Companies being sold and re-sold are called "today's economy". What does it matter what market share they have as long as the company is profitable (one of the few that are today)? If you're a consumer, product features, quality, price/performance ratio, and accessibility (even if only online) should be mostly what matters.
I'm proud of you! Nuff said.