Class A

Class A

Lives in New Zealand (Aotearoa) Wellywood, New Zealand (Aotearoa)
Joined on Jun 4, 2009

Comments

Total: 183, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article 2016 Roundup: $1200-2000 ILCs part 2: Full-Frame (366 comments in total)
In reply to:

Class A: Suggestion to DPReview:

Perhaps mention that the K-1 has five-axis image stabilsation (as you do with the Sony) and don't claim that sensor-based stabilisation is used for video (because it isn't).

Wouldn't it also be interesting for readers to learn that the K-1 has an on-demand Bayer-AA filter (-simulator)? A unique feature that seems worth mentioning.

Some may also find the Astrotracer functionality really interesting? I appreciate you couldn't test it yet, but still worth mentioning, right?

Personally, I think the extensive weather-sealing is more worthy of being mentioned in the top "What we like" list than the external illumination, the latter being more in the "nice to have, but not essential" category like the unmentioned third wheel.

@LightBug
I have just seen the latest Flickr statistics: Mirrorless cameras make up a measly 3% of cameras used for submissions. Of course, iPhone submissions trump DSLR submissions by a factor of almost two, but there are still more than 8 times more DSLR submissions than mirrorless submissions.

All this talk about the death of the DSLR seems premature, to say the least, and all the mirrorless hype is still not translating into higher usage figures. The industry will of course try to continue to push a product that is cheaper to manufacture.

Link | Posted on Dec 8, 2016 at 00:49 UTC
On article 2016 Roundup: $1200-2000 ILCs part 2: Full-Frame (366 comments in total)
In reply to:

Class A: @DPreview: Have you ever compared the number of modern lenses available for the K-1 compared to FE lenses for the A7II?

Please see this list of FF lenses that are currently available for the K-1: http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/190-pentax-k-1/314559-ff-lenses-k-1-can-bought-new.html

AFAIC, there are no grounds at all for pointing out a scarcity of lens selection for the K-1. I realise that the A7 series can accommodate many more lenses than just its (rather limited) native FE lenses through adapters but adapters come with their own set of problems (precision, handling, size, AF compromises). Have you never experienced AF issues due to third-party adapters/lenses on the A7 series? I have.

BTW, not only people already owning K-mount lenses can benefit from a vastly wider selection. Even people new to Pentax have access to the used lens market which offers a number of great gems.

"What's your point?" You should ask that question yourself. You are a denying an "advantage for Pentax" although I never have claimed an advantage for Pentax.

All the points I made were just countering the notion of too few FF lenses being available for the K-1 and/or the urgency of raising this as a concern.

I'm out.

Link | Posted on Nov 26, 2016 at 08:14 UTC
On article 2016 Roundup: $1200-2000 ILCs part 2: Full-Frame (366 comments in total)
In reply to:

Class A: @DPreview: Have you ever compared the number of modern lenses available for the K-1 compared to FE lenses for the A7II?

Please see this list of FF lenses that are currently available for the K-1: http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/190-pentax-k-1/314559-ff-lenses-k-1-can-bought-new.html

AFAIC, there are no grounds at all for pointing out a scarcity of lens selection for the K-1. I realise that the A7 series can accommodate many more lenses than just its (rather limited) native FE lenses through adapters but adapters come with their own set of problems (precision, handling, size, AF compromises). Have you never experienced AF issues due to third-party adapters/lenses on the A7 series? I have.

BTW, not only people already owning K-mount lenses can benefit from a vastly wider selection. Even people new to Pentax have access to the used lens market which offers a number of great gems.

I have not been worrying about K-nount FF lens availability ever.

First of all, I have access to more than enough FF lenses for my K-1, some of them being discontinued but excellent Pentax lenses.

Second, Pentax has launched their FF camera with more FF lenses available than Sony did their first FF E-mount camera.

Third, there are six FF Pentax zooms and 13 (thirteen) FF Pentax primes. Please count correctly. Some of the above lenses have not been recently released as FF lenses, but have always been capable of delivering FF image circles.

Fourth, if you include third-party lenses from Sigma, Tamron, etc, there are 14 (fourteen) FF zooms and 49 (forty-nine) FF primes. These are all original K-mount lenses, no adapters required. I've used adapters myself for a while and it sucked. Thanks, but no thanks.

Fifth, there are more FF lenses on the roadmap, with an expected release date in 2017.

Link | Posted on Nov 26, 2016 at 00:12 UTC

Why don't they fast forward to what they are heading to?

They should just sell ready-made pictures. Some of them will have cut-outs where heads/bodies of customers are merged into.

Done.

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2016 at 05:31 UTC as 10th comment

I prefer the rendering of this new version over that of the old Sigma 85/1.4.

Now Sigma only needs to release it for K-mount and they'll have a buyer in me.

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2016 at 04:53 UTC as 62nd comment | 1 reply
On article 2016 Roundup: $1200-2000 ILCs part 2: Full-Frame (366 comments in total)

@DPreview: Have you ever compared the number of modern lenses available for the K-1 compared to FE lenses for the A7II?

Please see this list of FF lenses that are currently available for the K-1: http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/190-pentax-k-1/314559-ff-lenses-k-1-can-bought-new.html

AFAIC, there are no grounds at all for pointing out a scarcity of lens selection for the K-1. I realise that the A7 series can accommodate many more lenses than just its (rather limited) native FE lenses through adapters but adapters come with their own set of problems (precision, handling, size, AF compromises). Have you never experienced AF issues due to third-party adapters/lenses on the A7 series? I have.

BTW, not only people already owning K-mount lenses can benefit from a vastly wider selection. Even people new to Pentax have access to the used lens market which offers a number of great gems.

Link | Posted on Nov 13, 2016 at 23:27 UTC as 36th comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

InfamousOne: Dale, did you try any of the RAW functions after iOS10 update? As now iOS supports natively the same raw files as on OS X. So NEF's are just fine and can be seen as an image in any iOS app. I wouldn't be surprised if it "just worked" even in the WD app–

If you still have it around, it may be worth a check!

Pentax supports DNG out of camera. Are you saying that does not work either?

Link | Posted on Nov 13, 2016 at 18:32 UTC
In reply to:

Class A: Why is the Fuji GFX being referred to as a "medium format" camera? Its sensor has the size of the crop-MF format that is currently used in other MF cameras.

While these other cameras have a mount size that will allow their successors to have full MF sensors, the GFX won't be able to grow its sensor size.

Calling the Fuji GFX an "MF" camera is like calling a camera with an APS-C sensor an FF camera just because it makes the mount small enough that an FF sensor will never fit. Using an APS-C sensor never made a camera an FF camera just because a lot of other cameras with FF-mounts used APS-C sensors.

I can understand Fuiji trying to get away with a "medium format" label, but why do journalists follow Fuij instead of calling a spade a spade?

I know that full-sized MF doesn't exist yet. I'm talking about the future. Let's see in five years what sensor sizes will be on offer then.

The GFX system is not as future proof as current digital MF systems.

And no, adapters won't help the GFX, unless they are speed-boosters. But who wants to use a 50MP sensor with adapters and speed-boosters that all have their slight or not so slight problems?

Plus, the speed-booster would only work with a big MF lens and then we are back to the A7 series ergonomics issue. Huge lenses with tiny cameras are just a mismatch.

The cameras in the A7 series and the GFX are fine cameras. I don't have anything against them. I just don't like it when they are hyped up beyond proportion as the non-plus ultra and solution for everyone.

Link | Posted on Oct 2, 2016 at 14:35 UTC
In reply to:

Class A: Why is the Fuji GFX being referred to as a "medium format" camera? Its sensor has the size of the crop-MF format that is currently used in other MF cameras.

While these other cameras have a mount size that will allow their successors to have full MF sensors, the GFX won't be able to grow its sensor size.

Calling the Fuji GFX an "MF" camera is like calling a camera with an APS-C sensor an FF camera just because it makes the mount small enough that an FF sensor will never fit. Using an APS-C sensor never made a camera an FF camera just because a lot of other cameras with FF-mounts used APS-C sensors.

I can understand Fuiji trying to get away with a "medium format" label, but why do journalists follow Fuij instead of calling a spade a spade?

"..ire"?
"..all bent out of shape"?

Can one not ask a question without being met with insinuations of aggression?

The Pentax 645 is a true MF camera with a crop-MF sensor. It mounts proper 645 MF lenses and when you acquire such lenses, you'll only have to wait for one of the full-MF successors to be released in order to be able to shoot with an original MF format.

I've heard of the technical definition of MF as being "anything between 135 format and large format" but I don't think the majority of people think of a sensor that is slightly larger than 36x24 as an MF sensor. Is a 37x25 sensor already an MF sensor? Technically, it is, right?

Marketing is never looking for truth but if someone asked me about which MF cameras exist, I'd tell them about the biggest, the ones that use crop sensors but allow one to collect MF lenses, and the ones that have no future to grow.

An "FF+" format is fine, just don't associate the grandeur of standard MF formats with it.

Link | Posted on Oct 2, 2016 at 08:06 UTC

Why is the Fuji GFX being referred to as a "medium format" camera? Its sensor has the size of the crop-MF format that is currently used in other MF cameras.

While these other cameras have a mount size that will allow their successors to have full MF sensors, the GFX won't be able to grow its sensor size.

Calling the Fuji GFX an "MF" camera is like calling a camera with an APS-C sensor an FF camera just because it makes the mount small enough that an FF sensor will never fit. Using an APS-C sensor never made a camera an FF camera just because a lot of other cameras with FF-mounts used APS-C sensors.

I can understand Fuiji trying to get away with a "medium format" label, but why do journalists follow Fuij instead of calling a spade a spade?

Link | Posted on Oct 1, 2016 at 23:02 UTC as 10th comment | 9 replies

Nice to hear confirmation that the K-1 has been selling very well! The apparent commercial success rhymes with the popularity and acceptance rate the K-1 has very quickly gained in Pentax-specific forums.

The K-1's handling is deeply satisfying and it achieves gorgeous results, in particular with the Limited lenses.

Well done Ricoh! The enthusiastic reception of the K-1 is a well-deserved reward for the respective development investment.

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2016 at 11:57 UTC as 17th comment | 7 replies

The Fuji GFX 50s is neat, but I don't think it will be able to compete with the 645 system in the long run. While both share the same sensor size at the moment, the 645 system can grow to feature a full-size 60mmx45mm sensor whereas the mount size of the Fuji suggests it will always be stuck in "baby-MF" land.

AFAIC, the Fuji is better characterised as an "FF+" camera. The classic and common MF film cameras featured larger formats and the 645 system can evolve into a "full MF" system without users having to change their lenses (or even the mount).

Personally, I think the 645 has further advantages (OVF instead of EVF, plus adequate hardware controls rather than featuring a limiting retro-approach). However, I am aware of the fact that others come to a diametrically opposed conclusion. To each their own.

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2016 at 11:51 UTC as 18th comment | 3 replies
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2663 comments in total)
In reply to:

Class A: The K-1's sensor was measured by DxOMark. They call it a "Full-frame marvel" and it currently sits at 4th position in the overall ranking, beating cameras costing almost twice as much.

In all measurements the K-1 beats the D800 and even D810 at the same ISO setting. Only because the D810 has a lower ISO setting (64 rather than 100), it receives a higher dynamic range score.

A (real) lower ISO setting is of course a legitimate advantage (the Pentax K-5(II) put a lot of APS-C competitors behind it with its ISO 80 setting), but it is still impressive what Pentax manages to get out of that sensor for the supported ISO range.

The K-1 is even very close in performance to the leading Sony models with their high-end 42MP sensor. Another testimony to the fact that the Pentax engineers did a marvellous job!

P.S.: I understand you are busy and it is not feasible for you to engage in a dialogue with every single poster.

I was just a bit disappointed with my recent luck with respect to the frequency at which I received responses. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think DPR staff could respond less to general posts/complaints and focus more on responding to posts that have a higher promise of resulting in fruitful / illuminating discussions.

I do understand, however, that one does not want to be receiving baseless accusations all the time without being able to respond.

Link | Posted on Sep 27, 2016 at 02:34 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2663 comments in total)
In reply to:

Class A: The K-1's sensor was measured by DxOMark. They call it a "Full-frame marvel" and it currently sits at 4th position in the overall ranking, beating cameras costing almost twice as much.

In all measurements the K-1 beats the D800 and even D810 at the same ISO setting. Only because the D810 has a lower ISO setting (64 rather than 100), it receives a higher dynamic range score.

A (real) lower ISO setting is of course a legitimate advantage (the Pentax K-5(II) put a lot of APS-C competitors behind it with its ISO 80 setting), but it is still impressive what Pentax manages to get out of that sensor for the supported ISO range.

The K-1 is even very close in performance to the leading Sony models with their high-end 42MP sensor. Another testimony to the fact that the Pentax engineers did a marvellous job!

Dear Richard,

thank you very much for responding. Much appreciated!

1) If a JPEG evaluation is done, it should not influence a category called "low light score" (or similar). Such a heading suggests low light sensor performance, not an evaluation of the choices that were made for JPEG engines & their parameters.

Why not just have a "JPEG" score on its own and not pollute other scores with JPEG performance? Wouldn't that be a better separation of concerns?

2) I am not claiming that DxO's way of measuring is the be all and end all method. However, I'm claiming it provides a level playing field. If you set two different cameras to "ISO 3200" it does not mean anything. One camera could show less noise just because it amplifies the signal less (leading to underexposure relative to the other camera). I don't know if you take manufacturer-stated ISO figures at face value, but if you do, your results will be slanted.

Link | Posted on Sep 27, 2016 at 02:29 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2663 comments in total)
In reply to:

Class A: The K-1's sensor was measured by DxOMark. They call it a "Full-frame marvel" and it currently sits at 4th position in the overall ranking, beating cameras costing almost twice as much.

In all measurements the K-1 beats the D800 and even D810 at the same ISO setting. Only because the D810 has a lower ISO setting (64 rather than 100), it receives a higher dynamic range score.

A (real) lower ISO setting is of course a legitimate advantage (the Pentax K-5(II) put a lot of APS-C competitors behind it with its ISO 80 setting), but it is still impressive what Pentax manages to get out of that sensor for the supported ISO range.

The K-1 is even very close in performance to the leading Sony models with their high-end 42MP sensor. Another testimony to the fact that the Pentax engineers did a marvellous job!

@Chris M Williams: Are you going to reply to my concrete questions regarding the unexplained differences to DxOMark measurements?

I don't expect immediate responses but somehow I doubt anyone from DPReview will revisit this comment. It would be nice if DPReview staff not only responded to aggressive posts but also to concrete technical questions.

Not that you don't respond to technical questions in general, but I've been unlucky with getting responses to my posts.

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2016 at 16:13 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2663 comments in total)
In reply to:

Class A: The K-1's sensor was measured by DxOMark. They call it a "Full-frame marvel" and it currently sits at 4th position in the overall ranking, beating cameras costing almost twice as much.

In all measurements the K-1 beats the D800 and even D810 at the same ISO setting. Only because the D810 has a lower ISO setting (64 rather than 100), it receives a higher dynamic range score.

A (real) lower ISO setting is of course a legitimate advantage (the Pentax K-5(II) put a lot of APS-C competitors behind it with its ISO 80 setting), but it is still impressive what Pentax manages to get out of that sensor for the supported ISO range.

The K-1 is even very close in performance to the leading Sony models with their high-end 42MP sensor. Another testimony to the fact that the Pentax engineers did a marvellous job!

Hi Chris,

regarding video I think you should have two separate scores and allow a camera recommendation be made without its video performance coming into play.

Using a stills camera for video is as ergonomically inadequate as using a video camera for stills. You can do it, but it is a pain. I'm not arguing against the inclusion of some video features for DSLRs, but most still photographers won't use it and very few will use it to an extent where a very close examination of the features matters.

While we are on the subject of ergonomics, I wonder how you determine that the D810 has better ergonomics and handling. Although the K-1 is often referred to as a "twin-dial" camera in your review it actually has three dials for making shooting related adjustments. Even without the third dial, for someone used to the way the K-1 operates, I argue it is at least as ergonomic as the D810.

If it is hard to objectively measure such aspects, wouldn't it be better to user broader categories?

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 22:38 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2663 comments in total)
In reply to:

Class A: The K-1's sensor was measured by DxOMark. They call it a "Full-frame marvel" and it currently sits at 4th position in the overall ranking, beating cameras costing almost twice as much.

In all measurements the K-1 beats the D800 and even D810 at the same ISO setting. Only because the D810 has a lower ISO setting (64 rather than 100), it receives a higher dynamic range score.

A (real) lower ISO setting is of course a legitimate advantage (the Pentax K-5(II) put a lot of APS-C competitors behind it with its ISO 80 setting), but it is still impressive what Pentax manages to get out of that sensor for the supported ISO range.

The K-1 is even very close in performance to the leading Sony models with their high-end 42MP sensor. Another testimony to the fact that the Pentax engineers did a marvellous job!

Hi Chris,

thanks for chiming in.

If you look carefully at the DxOMark measurements for SNR 18%, you'll see that the K-1 beats the D810 at any ISO value that both cover. Yet you score the "low light / high ISO" performance of the D810 higher.

How come?

Are you perhaps taking the manufacturer provided ISO values without adjusting them first? You'll note that the K-1 uses ISO values that are very close to actual measured ISO whereas the D810 and A7R II use higher figures for what amounts to actually less "sensitivity". If you simply compare cameras at the same ISO values then the one "cheating" will look better in "low-light / high ISO" tests.

I'm writing "cheating" in quotation marks because a manufacturer is free to use whatever ISO measurements they want. That's fine (although I argue true values are better for the photographer), but once you start comparing cameras, you must not rely on their ISO figures.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 22:28 UTC

A "disappointment" is the result of expectations not being met. What were your expectations?

That the camera is somehow innovative? You don't know in what way, but it needs to be innovative somehow?

You write that Canon has not been innovative for 10 years now, but you are still living through a "big disappointment" because they have failed to be innovative (showing "reinvention") again? Were 10 years not enough to adjust your expectations?

You speak of a "big disappointment" but you just go on and on how great the camera is. Your only point seems to be that you would have liked to have seen the camera two years earlier.

So Canon should not have released this camera because it is "too late anyhow"?

I have to ask: Has DPReview now descended to the level of using click-bait article headlines? I have never seen such an example of the opposite of a "Damning with faint praise". What is this? A "Praise with faint damning"?

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2016 at 16:09 UTC as 268th comment | 3 replies
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2663 comments in total)

The K-1's sensor was measured by DxOMark. They call it a "Full-frame marvel" and it currently sits at 4th position in the overall ranking, beating cameras costing almost twice as much.

In all measurements the K-1 beats the D800 and even D810 at the same ISO setting. Only because the D810 has a lower ISO setting (64 rather than 100), it receives a higher dynamic range score.

A (real) lower ISO setting is of course a legitimate advantage (the Pentax K-5(II) put a lot of APS-C competitors behind it with its ISO 80 setting), but it is still impressive what Pentax manages to get out of that sensor for the supported ISO range.

The K-1 is even very close in performance to the leading Sony models with their high-end 42MP sensor. Another testimony to the fact that the Pentax engineers did a marvellous job!

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2016 at 10:08 UTC as 88th comment | 14 replies
In reply to:

ThorstenMUC: They should team up with Fujifilm, Olympus/Pana and maybe Ricoh, to design ONE system compatible between the smaller camera-manufacturers - competing against the existing Nikon and Canon light-system offers.

But I'm pretty sure this remains wishful thinking.

The Cactus V6II serves all these brands and a couple more.

Link | Posted on Aug 20, 2016 at 06:37 UTC
Total: 183, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »