4 K´s in a row

ET2 said:

Joe Bowers said:

D3200 image quality is horrendous. Just .... awful. Of course, it's cheap, so you're getting what you pay for.

Click to expand...

Funny D3200 scored 81 points on dxomark, just one point lower than K-5

Click to expand...

so given the scaling factor advantage with DXO score the d3200 scored appallingly.

let re-scale the scores

d3200 81/3 (dxo scaled to 8mp) =27
k5 82/2 = 41

Maybe that’s why in the real world the d3200 appear to have considerably less IQ than the K5 ?

--
My PPG
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/andrewwaldram
My Photo Stream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/awaldram/
1x.com
http://1x.com/artist/awaldram/wall

ET2 said:

K01 is on sale
K30 is on sale.
Two left.
K-5 replacement third ...
And fourth .. who cares if it's not on sale this year?

Click to expand...

During April Show in Moscow it was leaked that there might be lighter/cheaper version of 645D.

Greyser said:

Greyser said:

K01 is on sale
K30 is on sale.
Two left.
K-5 replacement third ...
And fourth .. who cares if it's not on sale this year?

Click to expand...

During April Show in Moscow it was leaked that there might be lighter/cheaper version of 645D.

Click to expand...

That wouldn't be a 'K' though, would it.
--
Cheers,
sfa

A very limited photographer ...

solarider said:

AFAIK, K-30 is on order only, not on sale. Still not released.

Click to expand...

If it's on pre-order, that means its on sale

Qwntm said:

FF is just not what it's cracked up to be. At least it wasn't for me. If Pentax does one, I'd probably get one because you know they'll do it right, but if not, my experiences with Nikon D700's and Canon 5D2's are enough to make me sure I'm not going to lose any sleep over it!

Click to expand...

I've used both FF and APS-C extensively professionally for the past few years. If you can't tell the difference, buy an APS-C and save a thousand dollars. But for me the difference is significant. As far as detail, FF is sharper but APS-C is good enough. The reason I want FF is simply for DOF. Small sensors simply can't get the same creamy bokeh with full body portraits.

They do fine up close, for headshots or top-half portraits and the like, but when you move back to get a whole body portrait, the bokeh from APS-C is just unacceptable in my opinion. And again, I would know because I have used FF.

You can brenizer a nice shallow depth of field with an APS-C but that's adding a lot more work and can't be done for moving subjects.

An 85mm f/1.4 on a FF simply can't be beat on an APS-C.

sfa1966 said:

sfa1966:
That wouldn't be a 'K' though, would it.

Click to expand...

It's all rumors so far. "K" may stand for just another Pentax camera. We'll see. I'm patiently waiting for the 560/5.6, though.

2 different K5 replacements-- great and greater-- sounds great-- just hope one has an articulating LCD.

Cheers. Ernie

hikenhi said:

Why they produced the DA 17-70 f4 and the DA* 55 f1.4 in KAF3 mounts with SDM-only, I'll never know. I just know that I'll never buy a lens in that mount given the known failure issues with the SDM lenses.

Click to expand...

Actually, there are those who feel that the (seemingly) total lack of SDM issues with those two lenses can be attributed to the fact they don't also have a screw drive. That theory has been floated more than once on the intertubes, and the anecdotal evidence clearly points to the 16-50 and 50-135 as the biggest SDM land mines. Of course, this doesn't explain the (again, seemingly) low incidences of failure in the DA*s 200, 300 and 60-250.
--
Todd
http://www.naskedov.zenfolio.com
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/toddnaskedov

GordonBGood said:

DLBlack said:

Then maybe a updated Q with an optional EVF and better sensor. The 1" Sony sensor will put the Q equal to the Nikon System 1.

Click to expand...

Come now, Dave, we know that the larger sensor 'Q' upgrade isn't going to happen as that would make the whole 'Q' line-up of lenses orphans wouldn't it?

Regards, GordonBGood

Click to expand...

Most likely true. Still does one know what the image circle is for the Q lenses. The Q body does seem to have space for a larger sensor. Most likely the 1" is a little to big to fit. Still can't one dream.

Dave
--

awaldram said:

ET2 said:

Joe Bowers said:

D3200 image quality is horrendous. Just .... awful. Of course, it's cheap, so you're getting what you pay for.

Click to expand...

Funny D3200 scored 81 points on dxomark, just one point lower than K-5

Click to expand...

so given the scaling factor advantage with DXO score the d3200 scored appallingly.

let re-scale the scores

d3200 81/3 (dxo scaled to 8mp) =27
k5 82/2 = 41

Maybe that’s why in the real world the d3200 appear to have considerably less IQ than the K5 ?

--
My PPG
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/andrewwaldram
My Photo Stream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/awaldram/
1x.com
http://1x.com/artist/awaldram/wall

Click to expand...

--
Edward

http://www.youtube.com/photouniverse
http://www.edwardthomasart.com
http://www.pbase.com/edwardthomas

Joe Bowers said:

Qwntm said:

FF is just not what it's cracked up to be. At least it wasn't for me. If Pentax does one, I'd probably get one because you know they'll do it right, but if not, my experiences with Nikon D700's and Canon 5D2's are enough to make me sure I'm not going to lose any sleep over it!

Click to expand...

I've used both FF and APS-C extensively professionally for the past few years. If you can't tell the difference, buy an APS-C and save a thousand dollars. But for me the difference is significant. As far as detail, FF is sharper but APS-C is good enough. The reason I want FF is simply for DOF. Small sensors simply can't get the same creamy bokeh with full body portraits.

They do fine up close, for headshots or top-half portraits and the like, but when you move back to get a whole body portrait, the bokeh from APS-C is just unacceptable in my opinion. And again, I would know because I have used FF.

You can brenizer a nice shallow depth of field with an APS-C but that's adding a lot more work and can't be done for moving subjects.

An 85mm f/1.4 on a FF simply can't be beat on an APS-C.

Click to expand...

I could see the difference.

It just had absolutely NO IMPACT on my work in any meaningful way quality wise and very much undercut my creativity and desire to photograph. But that was my results, everyone is different.

--
Edward

http://www.youtube.com/photouniverse
http://www.edwardthomasart.com
http://www.pbase.com/edwardthomas

hikenhi said:

I did say redundancy in the "auto"focus, didn't I? SDM fails, screw-drive prevails. I experienced it personally on a bad copy of a DA* 16-50 f2.8 after 3 weeks of ownership. I got a brand new one from the factory. Haven't had any issues with it in almost 2 years.

Click to expand...

Yea, I know you did say redundancy in the auto focus.

But if you can still manually focus, it's not like your shoot is over. Seems like a whole century of photographers got by without AF and arguable made better more meaningful photographs. Just sayin'

Though I agree, seems very un-Pentax like to not allow for the lens to switch over to screw drive if you want to considering all the gearing is already there.

--
Edward

http://www.youtube.com/photouniverse
http://www.edwardthomasart.com
http://www.pbase.com/edwardthomas

Köln - 2 Tage (Cologne, 2 days) to visit photokina

What else did you expect?
Albert

ET2 chain well and truly pulled

When people take themselves to serious they are soft targets

He was right about 'This Clown' I was clowning about and he was the patsy.

Qwntm said:

awaldram said:

ET2 said:

Joe Bowers said:

D3200 image quality is horrendous. Just .... awful. Of course, it's cheap, so you're getting what you pay for.

Click to expand...

Funny D3200 scored 81 points on dxomark, just one point lower than K-5

Click to expand...

so given the scaling factor advantage with DXO score the d3200 scored appallingly.

let re-scale the scores

d3200 81/3 (dxo scaled to 8mp) =27
k5 82/2 = 41

Maybe that’s why in the real world the d3200 appear to have considerably less IQ than the K5 ?

--
My PPG
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/andrewwaldram
My Photo Stream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/awaldram/
1x.com
http://1x.com/artist/awaldram/wall

Click to expand...

--
Edward

http://www.youtube.com/photouniverse
http://www.edwardthomasart.com
http://www.pbase.com/edwardthomas

Click to expand...

--
My PPG
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/andrewwaldram
My Photo Stream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/awaldram/
1x.com
http://1x.com/artist/awaldram/wall

asahi man said:

K-low
K-30
K-5 better
K-5 Class but higher Grade
NO 35mm
645 replacement? Who knows ;-)

Click to expand...

Well, then I hope for a "K-5 better" option with:

• classic K-5's sensor or its improved variant for still photography
• more precise/reliable AF

In that case I am immediately buying two bodies, enjoying the photographic heaven for a long long time

It's just a matter of hit and miss. Those two lenses are the first and still the most popular DA* that Pentax has and still produce. Of course you're going to missconceive the culprit of the problem with an SDM issue when all you hear is a majority of these failures which would be from a the most popular ones that have been around the longest. You've got to think beyond the problem to find the cause. Speaking of which, what do you do if you need autofocus and your using a KAF3 mount lens whos SDM fails while you're in the field? Don't use big words--think smarter and deeper than the tabloids paint the picture to be. My first copy of my "Screw-drive DA 12-24 f4 was a dud with its ability to autofocus, so like I said,"Hit and miss."

Shakespeare? Big words? Not sure I follow. In fact, I don't understand a good portion of what you wrote here. I'll try to respond to what I do understand.

If a lens fails "in the field" I'd adjust the best I could. If SDM failed, I'd manually focus, or go to a different lens. In terms of NEEDING autofocus, I'm not sure how often one would be in a situation where one needs to get a shot, and can ONLY get it with autofocus, but I guess I could be convinced. What did you do when your 12-24 failed? Are you proposing that every lens have both silent and screw drive?

Re: failure "in the field," I had my DA 12-24 fail at the beginning of a three week trip through Southern Utah and Colorado (aperture spring popped loose). Because the aperture couldn't be controlled, I didn't wonder "why, oh why didn't they keep an aperture ring for redundancy in case my auto aperture spring failed?" I just used the DA 21 for landscapes those three weeks instead. You can usually find a way around problems.

In terms of the theory that SDMs in the 16-50 and 50-135 failed because of screw drive, I was simply offering a different take on your stated faults of the 55 and 17-70. I don't necessarily believe it, I don't have access to nearly enough data to come to any kind of conclusion, and I doubt any on this forum do.

In fact, by mentioning that your own screw-drive lens failed because autofocus mechanisms are "hit and miss," you kind of shoot down your earlier argument. If any kind of AF can go bad, what difference does a KAF3 mount make? Pros using Canikons for high stakes shooting use silent motors too that I have to guess fail occasionally. It's just a risk.

I'm not looking for a fight, it just seems to me that KAF3 vs KAF2 is kind of a trivial argument. .

hikenhi said:

It's just a matter of hit and miss. Those two lenses are the first and still the most popular DA* that Pentax has and still produce. Of course you're going to missconceive the culprit of the problem with an SDM issue when all you hear is a majority of these failures which would be from a the most popular ones that have been around the longest. You've got to think beyond the problem to find the cause. Speaking of which, what do you do if you need autofocus and your using a KAF3 mount lens whos SDM fails while you're in the field? Don't use big words--think smarter and deeper than the tabloids paint the picture to be. My first copy of my "Screw-drive DA 12-24 f4 was a dud with its ability to autofocus, so like I said,"Hit and miss."

Click to expand...

--
Todd
http://www.naskedov.zenfolio.com
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/toddnaskedov

I hope the new sensors have faster readout ala oympus/ panasonic for faster focussing during live view...

Q replacement (although i have to wonder if they are even making enough profits from the Q line to make it worth it)

Entry level K ----> or perhaps they will skip and do a K-01 replacement instead
K-30
K-5 replacement
Medium Format replacement

Let me break it down for you:
1st:
:Let's say Pentax SDM failure rate is 2%, regarless of mount style KAF2 or KAF3

:They sell 5,000 units of each/yr for the DA* 16-50 2.8 and DA* 50-135 2.8, and start selling the units in 2006 with the release of the K10D

:To keep things simple, lets say say all the other SDM lenses were released in 2008 and they sell 1,000 units of each/yr.

This would mean that roughly 1,400 of the 70,000 units of the DA* 16-50 2.8 and DA* 50-135 2.8 failed between 2006-2012.

Of all the other 5 models of SDM lenses that were release after 2008, only 500 of those 25,000 units sold failed between 2008-2012.

It's a no brainer why you hear all the blame going to those two most popular SDM lenses that have been around the longest and sold the most, when you've got a pool of horror stories about SDM failurs from from those some-1,400 bad units vs. only 500 bad units for all the other SDM models that are less popular and sell way less units/yr and haven't been around as long.

2ndly:

"Hit and miss referes to your ability to get a good copy of "Any" lens. My second copy of my DA 12-24 has been flawless for 5 years, and the original was pretty much DOA as was my first copy of the DA* 16-50 which crapped out after about a few hundred shots.