Anastigmat

Lives in United States San Jose, CA, United States
Joined on Mar 27, 2004

Comments

Total: 352, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Pentax KP Review (665 comments in total)
In reply to:

povetron: What should be the reasons to choose this over K-3 II? I don't get it. Or if someone would want to save some money then he can buy K-70. Even K-3 II is cheaper now.

Get on the APS-C upgrade treadmill. you keep spending money and spinning the wheel and you end up with the same image quality. but bigger files.

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2017 at 17:53 UTC
On article Pentax KP Review (665 comments in total)
In reply to:

Michiel953: So Ricoh/Pentax, against better judgment, is still churning out cameras noone buys?

They are profitable. $1,095 for an APS-C model is very profitable.

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2017 at 15:42 UTC
On article Pentax KP Review (665 comments in total)
In reply to:

SkvLTD: Grips are cool, the pancakes are probably one Pentax piece of glass I'll forever personally like, but good GOD this thing is ugly. Nothing can touch the Df in terms of aesthetics.

cameras are becoming more angular in shape, sort of like the origami (paper folding) design of Japanese cars in the early 80s.

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2017 at 15:40 UTC

I am still waiting for an entry level full frame that costs less than $1K.

Link | Posted on Jun 29, 2017 at 06:06 UTC as 49th comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

Paul Petersen: So much good but please enough with the gelding of features. Does it really cost that much more to add a headphone jack, faster flash sync & 1/8000th shutter? My D7200 has all that and a built in flash. Nikon's next affordable full frame will pack most of those features.

Manufacturing cost is the the reason for omitting features. The real reason is to entice the buyer to buy the more expensive cameras. it is similar to automobile makers trying to sell you a bigger car, which does not cost more to make than a compact, but is a lot more profitable.

Link | Posted on Jun 29, 2017 at 05:53 UTC
On article Video: Removing a stuck lens filter... with a band saw (139 comments in total)

Instead of the ruler, you can use a spanner wrench used to remove retaining rings on lenses, after making the two notches. It is good to have a spanner wrench around because many manufacturers put notches on the retaining rings of their lenses, making repairs simple.

Link | Posted on Jun 29, 2017 at 05:34 UTC as 43rd comment
On article Video: Removing a stuck lens filter... with a band saw (139 comments in total)

Recently i had to do something similar, although the used lens I bought was not nearly as costly. The seller put a filter onto the lens incorrectly and it got stuck. I first removed the glass part of the filter which was held in place with a retaining ring that is easy to remove. Then I used a Proxxon rotary tool (a Dremel clone) fitted with a diamond grinding disk (real cheap, costing only a few bucks) to cut the filter rim, stopping just short of reaching the filter thread of the lens. The last step was using a pair of pliers to remove the filter rim.

To prevent a filter being stuck, apply a small amount of silicone spray lubricant onto the filter threads using an old rag or piece of cloth before putting it onto the lens. Screw it in gently and remove it and redo it if the initial attempt was not successful. Don't force it.

Link | Posted on Jun 29, 2017 at 05:28 UTC as 44th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

bluevaping: Pentamirror, eh no.

The pentamirror is a ploy that is used to try to encourage buyers to spend more money and buy the more expensive models. The mirror really does not save much in manufacturing cost, but it is irritating and annoying to experienced users.

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2017 at 06:37 UTC

I thought the world is moving to full frame. It looks like the camera makers still hope that people will buy the APS-C models because of the big profit margin on these cameras.

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2017 at 06:34 UTC as 11th comment | 5 replies

It is a tough decision. Do I spend a few hundred bucks more and get a FF camera instead?

Link | Posted on Jan 27, 2017 at 06:08 UTC as 2nd comment | 1 reply

Knobs and dials are back in fashion. Pentax introduced push buttons with the Super A/Super Program. Now they are gong back to knobs.

Link | Posted on Jan 27, 2017 at 06:06 UTC as 3rd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

lacikuss: Regardless of IQ 3 fps is a serious limitation for any photographer.

Only if you are shooting birds in flight or sports would 3 fps be a limitation. You need a 600mm lens to shoot birds with this camera.

Link | Posted on Jan 20, 2017 at 14:17 UTC

The 3 major disadvantages of cameras like these are price, price and price. Some minor disadvantages include the dearth of lenses. Zoom lenses are about as abundant as chicken teeth. The size of the camera and its weight will give you back and shoulder pain if it is carried around all day. The crime rate is such that you need an armed body guard to keep this camera from getting robbed.

Link | Posted on Jan 20, 2017 at 14:14 UTC as 19th comment | 1 reply

The new camera should be a lot more profitable for Leica, as it has switched over to using a CMOS sensor, which is a lot cheaper to make than FF CCD sensors.

Link | Posted on Jan 18, 2017 at 23:28 UTC as 165th comment | 1 reply

It is welcome competition not only to medium format cameras but also to the FF 35mm format. It would have been even better if Fujifilm found a way to reduce the bulk of the rear LCD, which seems to be the main reason for the depth of this camera. Hopefully more manufacturers, perhaps including Nikon and Canon, will bring out medium format mirrorless cameras of their own. Pentax will probably bring one out, because the 645 is simply too bulky in its current body with the mirror. Old lenses can be made to fit the new bodies by using a short extension tube.

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2016 at 16:19 UTC as 98th comment | 1 reply

The new instant film will take off as well as a lead zeppelin.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 22:58 UTC as 14th comment | 2 replies

A mirrorless camera that seems to be about as deep as a SLR. Looks like they did not take full advantage of the design and reduce the lens flange to sensor distance. Nevertheless, the lack of mirror flap should contribute to sharper images, especially at slow shutter speeds.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 22:51 UTC as 119th comment | 1 reply
On article Striding Forth: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Review (2156 comments in total)
In reply to:

photoshack: Being that I'd used Canon (largest investment, lots of lenses), Sony A7S II, Fuji X100S I have always gone back to FF Canon bodies. I don't care about GPS but could see why travel guys would need it, I don't care about Wireless (I had it, found it clunky and too slow to actually use and chewed battery.) Occasionally I use a Camranger on the Canon for wireless previews, long exposure but really that is more of a toy.

So while people are slamming Canon for its sticking with DSLR form-factor using that old mirror and being "big", I really don't see the problem...the others cannot compare when you are looking for the results. Granted I have looked at Nikons with some envy, but to me they are the real competitor not mirrorless consumer cameras.

So this IV seems like a good upgrade for those who need those features, and the extra MP and ISO range is very good.

Sony simply does not have the ability to make a mirror that flaps up and down fast enough for 10 fps or more. Canon and Nikon are the only camera makers who have the ability since they have been making pro cameras for over half a century. Sony's move to pellicle mirrors was less than a resounding success, and mirrorless is their next alternative. So, what does Sony fans claim? That the mirror is old fashioned and clunky.

If you can make a mirror fast enough for 10fps or more, then it ain't clunky. The format that benefits the most from mirrorless is medium format. The mirrors on those cameras are too large and they cause vibrations. Since few people shoot sports with a 1 fps medium format camera, and since removing the mirror reduces weight and the size of the camera, mirrorless medium format makes a lot more sense than mirrorless FF. Mirrorless APS-C also makes more sense than mirrorless FF.

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2016 at 16:18 UTC
On article Striding Forth: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Review (2156 comments in total)
In reply to:

woerd: This sure will be a very good drsl body. Unfortunately the camera concept with mirror is becoming old fashion and chunky. I owned a number of full frame drsl bodies from Canon but i changed to Sony (A7RII) and i never wanna go back.
My opinion: unless you are an action shooter you better choose the Sony for it's new technologies and image quality.

Problem with cameras like the A7RII is that there are very few lenses made for it. Using lens adapters defeats the advantage of compactness the camera and lenses specifically designed for it have. New lenses are also more expensive. Besides, long lenses designed for this camera aren't any shorter and they are in fact longer because the shorter lens flange to film plane distance of the camera means the missing extension has to be added to the lens. So if you carry several telephotos, they will all have extra length built into them. I guess it isn't a problem for most people who buy into mirrorless because they are unlikely to use long lenses, which are used mostly for wildlife and sports.

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2016 at 16:09 UTC
On article Striding Forth: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Review (2156 comments in total)

This camera is nice and capable, but manufacturers have to introduce cheaper FF bodies, ideally for less than $1,000 or the sales slump of DSLR cameras will continue. Most people already own an APS-C model or two, and those who don't can get one real cheap on the used market. The only real upgrade is FF, but the price is still too high for the budgets of most photographers.

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2016 at 16:02 UTC as 393rd comment | 1 reply
Total: 352, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »