Lives in United Kingdom United Kingdom
Joined on Aug 5, 2006
About me:

in this order

600mm f8 Sigma Mirror
50mm f1.7 Chinon
K100D with the 18-55 kit lens
Vivitar Series 1 f 3.5 70-210
Pentax M f4 75-150
Pentax M f1.7 50mm
SMC Takumar f3.5 28mm
Super Takumar f3.5 35mm
SMC Takumar f1.4 50mm
SMC Takumar f3.5 135mm
Samsung Schneider D-Xenon 50-200
Tokina ATX Pro 28-70 f2.8
FA 43mm Limited
Ricoh XR Rikonen APO 300mm
Zenitar 16mm
Tamron 90mm Macro f2.8
Tamron 300mm F2.8
Pentax M 100mm macro bellows

Other than that:
Olympus E330 - used with K-mount lenses + LV
KM A200 - ISO 50 is great, and so is the lens
Fuji Finepix F700 - amazing little cam, fast, RAW and lovely DR


Total: 28, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »

There is only one conclusion out of this announcement: Pentax is doomed!

Link | Posted on Feb 4, 2015 at 22:29 UTC as 187th comment
On article Ricoh expands Q series with Pentax Q-S1 (357 comments in total)
In reply to:

locke_fc: Sorry, but a 1/1.7" sensor is no longer acceptable. Might as well use your smartphone instead.

The sensor is not puny, the optics are great. 17mm to 200mm covered with three small lenses with great handling - what's not to like?

The sensor is as good as much lauded 1" sensors at base. Next complaint stage is - High ISO - well for low light, use your FF, and it will be better than your 1" camera, just as well.

Horses for courses, this myopic bashing is embedded in photo enthusiast mentality.

Link | Posted on Aug 5, 2014 at 20:36 UTC
On article Ricoh expands Q series with Pentax Q-S1 (357 comments in total)
In reply to:

Raist3d: Nice presentation of product by Pentax Japan.


I wish they had made a very fast prime. Would have stayed using it.

Well I am still using it - but would also like a very fast prime (or three :-) - in standard FL's) .

Link | Posted on Aug 5, 2014 at 20:31 UTC
On article Ricoh expands Q series with Pentax Q-S1 (357 comments in total)
In reply to:

SW Anderson: Back to the future with a much better and more appropriate classic retro look -- one of the original Q's enjoyable features. For me, the Q-S1 isn't a matter of whether, but when, I'll get one.

For the Q's sniping detractors, photography for many of us isn't all about big, slick-magazine covers and two-page spreads. We'll never do billboards and might never indulge in exhibition-size prints. We can enjoy on-screen and small-print images, along with using a good-looking, well-made camera that provides an amazingly feature-rich, flexible shooting experience with easy portability. Some of our best images are more about a memory captured or scene preserved than impressive resolution and amazing sharpness seen via pixel peeping.

My Q is fun and useful in many picture-taking situations where my big, bulky but technically superior DSLR would be as out of place as a semi-truck at a gymkhana. Some folks seem to enjoy the Q as a target for put-downs. I see that as their loss, not mine.

Let me see you with 70-200mm equivalent lens the size of 06 on a Q, or 17.5mm-22mm wide 08 on Q7.

The stuff you do not see, or is not that well known (outside of bashing the concept of "too small sensor" which on base ISO is as good as Nikon V series) does indeed exist.

Q series is the smallest complete camera system, and for low light - well I have a DSLR, as do most small system users anyhow.

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2014 at 23:04 UTC
On article Hands on with the Pentax 645Z (705 comments in total)
In reply to:

ali alriffai: Everything in this camera is hot but flash syn @ 1/125 is a big downside :-(

There are actually two LS legacy lenses that you can get for this mount, out of production but obtainable if this is a must.

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2014 at 21:55 UTC
In reply to:

forpetessake: Soon we'll have just three survivors: Canon, Nikon, and Sony. Hopefully Sony will buy Olympus and Fuji on firesale.

Totally wrong - stable companies financially are Canon, Fuji and Ricoh, while the others are weak. Nikon due to high exposure to camera business, and Sony, Panasonic and Oly due to other issues where their camera business units could face either a sale or some other form of restructuring.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2014 at 19:48 UTC

How much larger is this combo comparing to RX1 as the price is about the same for A7r + this 35mm.

Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2014 at 11:44 UTC as 71st comment | 2 replies
On article Ricoh announces HD Pentax DA AF 1.4X AW rear converter (52 comments in total)


Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2014 at 15:30 UTC as 7th comment
In reply to:

ethanolson: I'm excited to hear about the Macro for the Q.

What's wrong with 08 mini zoom - ie 17.5mm start (FF eq)? looks like it performs rather well and the size is tiny.

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2014 at 15:26 UTC
In reply to:

peevee1: "Model name (tentative): TELEPHOTO MACRO

Unifocal telephoto macro lens (high-performance-series model) for use with Q mount interchangeable-lens digital cameras
Market launch: to be determined"

Finally - the first lens which actually can make the system useful.

second, or even third; ie 06 and 08

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2014 at 15:24 UTC
On article Pentax Q7 Review (254 comments in total)
In reply to:

michael345: The Panasonic GM1 and 12-32mm lens is available since Nov 2013. Basically, there almost no reason to buy the Q7 any longer (except that its a little cheaper).

The GM1 is

- smaller
Camera size is almost equal, but Panasonic lens is smaller.
Angle of view of the lenses is also very similar (24-64 vs. 23-69mm eqivalent). See also this:
http://j.mp/J5muuC (shortlink to camerasize)

- the gm1 has much (!) better image quality

- Prices do not differ very much (ca. 450€ Q7 vs. 670€ for GM1 are the cheapest I could find in Germany, both with lens)

- MFT System offers many more lenses, if you want to change it

Just compared today, and you can use comparometer here, while GM1 has a better sensor - the difference is about a stop, not more... Actually Q7 is the about the same as old gen M4/3's sensor in terms of low light performance if not slightly better.

Try GM1 with Pana 20mm f1.7 prime, while small - it is not exactly pocketable or comparable to Q7 with 01 prime. Put a lens that will go from 70-200mm f2.8 eq. on GM1 and 06 lens on the Q7... tell me again which one is easier to use... you may just as well use E-M1, and all that for a stop of better sensor performance. 08 lens released for Q7 is 17-27mm eq, and still impressively small, for sure you cannot have that with GM1.

So in short, if you want small - Q7 is small with lens coverage from 17mm to 200mm eq, and in body IS, not to mention a lot better ergonomics which are remarkable for this size camera.

Small body does not a small system make, as you would like to infer in your post.

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2014 at 20:27 UTC
In reply to:

Emacs23: Same size as Canon 85/f1.8 and slightly smaller than equivalent Nikon. About the same low light performance (FF vs APS-C), more than twice expensive (three times more expensive than Canon). And the performance will be worse than those full framers, because to be better it should be better than Otus 55 (which is about on par with Nikon 85/1.8G at equivalent apertures mounted on D600, Otus mounted on Nikon D7100).

It is still a smaller combination overall, and so what? - with the right lens in most other circumstances your combo is half size or less than FF cameras, while if you need low light performance, you are up to FF levels now.

While you can put this lens on your Fuji, you cannot shrink your FF camera in good light no matter how much you pay (unless you get a Sony that is :) )

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2014 at 10:02 UTC

Great stuff.

It should give us some perspective.

Link | Posted on Jul 23, 2013 at 20:56 UTC as 34th comment
On article Just Posted: Pentax Q7 Real-world Samples Gallery (135 comments in total)
In reply to:

Anepo: What is the POINT of having a camera with interchangeable lenses that is worse than SEVERAL compact camera's with non nterchangeable lenses? This is basicly a TOY mirrorless rather than a REAL high quality mirrorless like the gx1, om-d, epl-5 e-pm1 e-pm2 & such.

@ Annepo - Well the evidence is DXO - which is what is generally used for sensor comparisons, and is popular when you get a very good sensor in as with OM-D :-D.

Thus whe whole range of M4/3 cameras one of which is EP-M1 - are very similar to Pentax Q, better in low light for about a stop, but worse DR and color accuracy, so actually at low ISO Q with its tiny sensor is better! Go and check for yourself, and that is the "proof".

Last point is that in principle neither Q or EP-M1 are good low light cameras, better than having nothing, or a smartphone, but not "great" - however to dismiss Q as worse, and qualify such M4/3 cameras as "high quality", or "far superior" is just plain inaccurate.

Link | Posted on Jul 4, 2013 at 10:51 UTC
On article Just Posted: Pentax Q7 Real-world Samples Gallery (135 comments in total)
In reply to:

Anepo: What is the POINT of having a camera with interchangeable lenses that is worse than SEVERAL compact camera's with non nterchangeable lenses? This is basicly a TOY mirrorless rather than a REAL high quality mirrorless like the gx1, om-d, epl-5 e-pm1 e-pm2 & such.

How is it worse? Q10 with previous gen smaller sensor was about part with E-PM1 that you mention above on DXO (3pts difference), Q7 will score better, as sensor is often put as some sort of an issue, when it clearly is the best small sensor implementation in the industry, where a 1/2.3 sensor can perform as well as some M4/3rd ones. If you were happy with IQ from e-pm1 I am sure you would be happy with IQ from the Q.

On other points, such as size and erognomics Q wins easily, so what is it exactly that makes this camera worse?

Link | Posted on Jul 3, 2013 at 22:18 UTC

Good method to kill their own business.

Link | Posted on May 6, 2013 at 21:12 UTC as 620th comment

There is actually a lot difference from those particular samples

Ricoh - nice and even, excellent corners
Nikon corners = mush
Sigma - head and sholuders above the other two in center while about par with Ricoh in corners, and no moire.

If IQ at low iso is a priority Sigma looks like a clear choice.

High ISO, GR has a bit more chroma noise than Coolpix, but also more acutance, it seems that Nikon may be using some NR in Raw, but in principle very similar performance.

Link | Posted on Apr 23, 2013 at 09:05 UTC as 14th comment | 5 replies
On article Just Posted: Ricoh GR preview (158 comments in total)

Just when I think that I do not need any new cameras :) ... This one is in my price range to boot, best handling in a small package with the right sensor. Can't wait.

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2013 at 11:43 UTC as 34th comment
On article First Impressions: Metabones Speed Booster (351 comments in total)

Interesting product, will there be one in PK mount? I for sure would be interested to try it out.

Link | Posted on Feb 1, 2013 at 00:33 UTC as 126th comment | 3 replies

I like this score, it equals the resolution field a lot across the cameras and across the formats, except showing that FF can resolve more with a given lens, which is a fact of life. Also M4/3rds are about the same as APS-C for that metric.

So hopefully this bring the MP race into perspective a bit more.

Will be interesting what it shows for Foveon cameras, once the tests are made.

Link | Posted on Dec 17, 2012 at 17:29 UTC as 79th comment
Total: 28, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »