Fantastic. I'm a bit nauseated though - don't think I'm the Right Stuff for spaceflight of any sort.
Considering what Polaroid did to it's retiree's (went bankrupt and stole their pensions - like Enron) I wouldn't buy a toilet brush with their name on it.
Only certain parts of the lens assembly actually move to perform auto-focus - in auto-focus specifically designed lenses It usually takes an engineer to ground the discussion. As a professional, I'm not sure if this type of lens would be a "fit" for auto-focus. When using fast glass such as an 85 1.2 I find myself constantly turning it (the auto-focus switch) off so I can choose the exact area of selective focus. Great glass will be for now: large, heavy and expensive. This is the way things are until either the laws of physics change or there is a major breakthrough in materials/optical engineering.
Images from a past that's hard to even imagine. Not to spoil the fun but people should know that George Eastman stole the process for coating light sensitive emulsion onto flexible film (and was eventually sued) and he positioned his office so he could monitor female employee's taking bathroom breaks. Yes there was Dickensian side of life back then that was was not recorded on these toys for the rich.
This is Pentax's chance to go after the fat cats pushing their wears at every consumer point. I know that marketing is expensive and breaking into markets is arduous. As good as this camera is it won't make a dent in the market unless it's sold well.
Pentax needs to market their cameras better. They show up occasionally on the bottom shelf without any display materials at most retailers if at all. They make terrific cameras for the money but are seen mostly as an "also ran", especially in New England.
CameraLabTester: One main reason why this lens could not be made as an AUTOFOCUS lens, as some have asked why, is the glass.
Just look at the cross section image showing the 12 elements.
No AUTOFOCUS motor ever built could move those ton of bricks fast enough.
2.14 Pounds (.970 Kilograms)
With great glass comes potentially great images.
Thanks T3 for being the voice of reason here; it usually takes an engineer to ground the discussion. I'm not sure if this lens would be a "fit" for autofocus. When using fast glass such as the 85 1.2 I find myself constantly turning it off so I can choose the exact area of selective focus. Great glass will be for now: large, heavy and expensive. This is the way things are until either the laws of physics change or there is a major breakthrough in materials/optical engineering.
I hope they morph this pile of amateur app-junk to a Windows only platform: full of bugs and "convoluted" work-arounds, where it should feel right at home. Still waiting for Apple and Adobe to work out their differences (read: mutual juvenile peeing contest) and come out with something professional photographers and their clients would actually want to use.
Does it add Multigrade/Polycontrast filtration to the image for contrast adjustment? Is that too technical? Why am I even asking such questions? Never mind. I'll go snort a line of powdered Dektol.
Does Neiman Marcus have a camera counter? I'm just sayin'.
webrunner5: Leica has just turned into a Whore as of late. They need to get a grip, no pun intended. What Goofball would pay for that.
Well, yes. I too kind of lost interest when I scrolled through the different "dedicated" case options and didn't see a red alligator one.
Oh good. Thanks Nikon, you found my dad's army flashlight. When the switch is left in the standby mode the light will turn on instantly once the release button is pressed halfway on any Nikon camera. It uses a short range proprietary radio frequency to achieve this. Oh it doesn't?
The George Eastman House it's not.
citizenlouie: These are the killers.... Very good move, Pentax. But what I don't understand is why Canon Red on Pentax lenses.... What happened to green?
Given Pentax's propensity towards garishly painted cameras I guess we should be thankful it's not tartan plaid or pink polka-dots.
Not too sure many out there appreciate the relative optical simplicity and unmatched performance potential of single focal length/prime lenses.
I'm hoping that this is all a cruel hoax to get our collective ire up. If not, well, The Lion King is loosely based on Hamlet, but no one confuses the two. I hope.
JerseyJohn: Ansel Adams wept
Seen the Ansel Adams color images as well as some stuff shot by Edward Weston. While both their B&W works are timeless and awe-inspiring, the color is competent but pretty much forgettable. To see Adam's work in a parallel media, check out his work "Singular Images" using Polaroid B&W.
The Parthenon should be ready for that first coat of Weatherbeater™ or Benjamin Moore any time now. Will look worlds better than it does now. Hope Sanna is free to wield a brush.
califleftyb: I hate graffiti.
Spray paint on the Acropolis, highly skilled excrementation.
seragram: sacrilege. LOL
Mr. Moonlight has his dates and terms wrong. Modern color films as we know them are known as integral tripacks. Kodachrome was introduced in 1935. It was originally intended as a commercial motion picture film but it never took off; the technicolor process was preferred due to it's ease of making copies. Kodak spooled the product into 35mm magazines and was a success among amateurs and professionals alike. Sheet and roll film sizes followed. Agfacolor (transparency film) was released a few years after. Kodachrome was a dye-additive process while Agfa used dye couplers. One only has to look at magazines from the 1950's and '60's to see just how much color photography was being done. As for myself, I still dream in Tri-X. Tonight I'm sure I'll have colorized nightmares.