audiobomber

audiobomber

Lives in Canada Sudbury, ON, Canada
Joined on Jan 27, 2008

Comments

Total: 175, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2652 comments in total)
In reply to:

rrccad: nice camera, good on pentax for FINALLY coming out with it.

a little redundant on the market, but i'm sure it's a boon for pentaxians or those interested in a limited kit (yet bulky) AF kit.

Personally I could never see the need (or desire) or even wish to get behind a non stabilized viewfinder and AF / AE system but the sensor itself is stabilized.

I'm sure it's possible .. don't get me wrong - before the dozen remaining pentaxians jump all over me. it's simply not optimal and just about every camera manufacturer offers a better solution and photographer experience (EVF with sensor stabilization, IS in lens for optical, hybrid such as sony's newer systems,etc). It's half baked - especially with longer telephotos where framing can be drastically different then what the sensor sees, not to mention part of the advantage of IS is stabilizing the view and also the AF system.

I'm actually surprised it's not on the con's list actually.

DSLR's that had IBIS had unstabilized OVF's, i.e. Olympus and Sony. Oly left the DSLR market, Sony abandoned the OVF. Pentax is the only DSLR maker with IBIS.

Other DSLR users should envy this feature, especially now that cameras are coming out that can use both IBIS and ILIS like Sony and Oly. Pentax can use either IBIS or ILIS (Sigma K-mount).

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2016 at 22:33 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2652 comments in total)
In reply to:

rrccad: nice camera, good on pentax for FINALLY coming out with it.

a little redundant on the market, but i'm sure it's a boon for pentaxians or those interested in a limited kit (yet bulky) AF kit.

Personally I could never see the need (or desire) or even wish to get behind a non stabilized viewfinder and AF / AE system but the sensor itself is stabilized.

I'm sure it's possible .. don't get me wrong - before the dozen remaining pentaxians jump all over me. it's simply not optimal and just about every camera manufacturer offers a better solution and photographer experience (EVF with sensor stabilization, IS in lens for optical, hybrid such as sony's newer systems,etc). It's half baked - especially with longer telephotos where framing can be drastically different then what the sensor sees, not to mention part of the advantage of IS is stabilizing the view and also the AF system.

I'm actually surprised it's not on the con's list actually.

Prove that it has any deleterious effect on AF or framing. I say it's an advantage to see camera shake in the viewfinder. It has caused me on more than one occasion to improve my stance and grip to ensure that shake was minimized.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2016 at 20:47 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2652 comments in total)
In reply to:

rrccad: nice camera, good on pentax for FINALLY coming out with it.

a little redundant on the market, but i'm sure it's a boon for pentaxians or those interested in a limited kit (yet bulky) AF kit.

Personally I could never see the need (or desire) or even wish to get behind a non stabilized viewfinder and AF / AE system but the sensor itself is stabilized.

I'm sure it's possible .. don't get me wrong - before the dozen remaining pentaxians jump all over me. it's simply not optimal and just about every camera manufacturer offers a better solution and photographer experience (EVF with sensor stabilization, IS in lens for optical, hybrid such as sony's newer systems,etc). It's half baked - especially with longer telephotos where framing can be drastically different then what the sensor sees, not to mention part of the advantage of IS is stabilizing the view and also the AF system.

I'm actually surprised it's not on the con's list actually.

Unlike you, rrccad, I shoot a Pentax DSLR at 630mm FOV regularly. IBIS reduces shake and has zero effect on framing or AF. Please show me any reference to these issues regarding Canon or Nikon shooters with non-stabilized telephoto lenses. I've never heard of it.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2016 at 19:49 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2652 comments in total)
In reply to:

rrccad: nice camera, good on pentax for FINALLY coming out with it.

a little redundant on the market, but i'm sure it's a boon for pentaxians or those interested in a limited kit (yet bulky) AF kit.

Personally I could never see the need (or desire) or even wish to get behind a non stabilized viewfinder and AF / AE system but the sensor itself is stabilized.

I'm sure it's possible .. don't get me wrong - before the dozen remaining pentaxians jump all over me. it's simply not optimal and just about every camera manufacturer offers a better solution and photographer experience (EVF with sensor stabilization, IS in lens for optical, hybrid such as sony's newer systems,etc). It's half baked - especially with longer telephotos where framing can be drastically different then what the sensor sees, not to mention part of the advantage of IS is stabilizing the view and also the AF system.

I'm actually surprised it's not on the con's list actually.

"part of the advantage of IS is stabilizing the view and also the AF system."

If you're shaking so badly that you can't maintain the framing, no stabilization system will help. If what you are saying were true, long tele lenses with no IS would have the same issue. IS prevents motion blur, it has no bearing on framing. I prefer to know if I'm shaking the camera, so I can take counter-measures.

"I'm actually surprised it's not on the con's list actually"

That's a ridiculous statement. Every review and photography site considers IBIS to be an advantage. Shake reduction performance has steadily progressed to where it is now, 5 stops on the K-1. Every lens I mount on a Pentax is stabilized, with no cost or IQ penalty for ILIS floating elements. Those are the advantages.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2016 at 17:31 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2652 comments in total)
In reply to:

pentaust: I can see a lot of offended replies following the review of Pentax K1 AF performance. On the one hand some Pentax users feel offended from the poor review given to Pentax K1 AF performance. And DPR feel offended when their methodology is questionned. Well, every AF servo module is designed to perform best for a set of use cases. For example, Pentax Single Point AFC tracking is not meant to be used for tracking a fast moving subject such as a bike or car or motorbike etc... Single point AFC is used in focus prio mode to focus on slow moving target, such as at weddings, so, if you (DPR) got poor AFC single point results on a bike, you did not use the proper mode that is planned by Ricoh engineers. If you used multipoint AFC tracking and selection focus priority instead of FPS priority, you'd already get a lot more keepers. And if you'd use focus preset, your keeper rate would increase even more.

"Even a CDAF-bases Sony RX100 IV passes it with flying colors in single point mode, as does an a6300, a7R II, Panasonic with DFD, Canon 5Ds, Nikon D500, etc."

The K-1 @ f2.8 vs. a Sony RX100 @ f8 FF equivalent, D500 @ f4, A7R II @ f4? And what about the effect of focal length on DOF? Are you seriously comparing 70mm and f8 equivalent on the RX100 to 200mm f2.8 on the K-1?

"If it can't keep focus on our cyclist, that's not an indication that we used AF-C wrong"

I would never shoot that scene without Expanded Area AF, and I would select one of the three f2.8-sensitive points for initial focus.

How do these cameras compare for sports shooting, where AF Hold is crucial? My K-3 hits 80%+ and the K-1 should be better. I had over 90% hits shooting mudbog racing, which is much faster than a bicycle rider.

Words like "poor" and "pathetic" show your attitude toward Pentax. Favoured brands don't receive the same drubbing as Pentax when they are behind in AF (e.g. Fuji and Olympus).

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2016 at 14:48 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2652 comments in total)
In reply to:

norman shearer: Reading all the contradictory comments about AF reminds me of the UK referendum - you just don't know what to believe. I suppose it is all comparative and those that have experienced much better AF are not afraid to say so. However I do wonder if Pentax defaults are partly to blame and user inexperience also?
Whatever, it seems clear that if Pentax could up their game with AF then they could wipe the floor with the competition. So hopefully Pentax are listening and prioritize AF development for the K2.

I don't have a K-1, but my K-3 has several settings that affect AF-C. I use the following for action:
AF Select, with 9, 25 or 27 point expansion
Custom Menu Parameter Settings:
16. 1st frame action in AF-C - Focus priority (make sure focus is on the target before shooting, or you'll have a string of misses)
17. Action in AF-C Continuous - Focus Priority
18. Hold AF status - My default is Medium, but I've used High for sports. Low wanders off the target too readily.
I turn shake reduction off with the K-3, but one shouldn't have to with the K-3 II or K-1.

I've shot lots of action series with far superior results to what was reported in the K-1 review.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2016 at 12:56 UTC
In reply to:

Peter CS: So this looks like a great and very full-featured camera for landscape photographers= bravo for Ricoh/Pentax!
However, much more important than the new version 55-300mm, we need a weather-sealed ultra-wide zoom and ultra-wide primes to really make this new DSLR useful outddoors! (11-24MM, 10-24MM, 10-20MM). Pentax now has a ridiculous amount of variations of the 18-55mm, 55-300mm, but keep avoiding those crucial , weather-sealed lenses...

There is a DA ultra-wide zoom on the way according to the Pentax lens roadmap. Most likely it will be WR.

Link | Posted on Jun 10, 2016 at 11:12 UTC
In reply to:

Peter CS: So this looks like a great and very full-featured camera for landscape photographers= bravo for Ricoh/Pentax!
However, much more important than the new version 55-300mm, we need a weather-sealed ultra-wide zoom and ultra-wide primes to really make this new DSLR useful outddoors! (11-24MM, 10-24MM, 10-20MM). Pentax now has a ridiculous amount of variations of the 18-55mm, 55-300mm, but keep avoiding those crucial , weather-sealed lenses...

No one has as many WR lenses as Pentax. There are only a handful of WR primes, but who wants to change lenses in the rain? A zoom makes more sense in bad weather.

Link | Posted on Jun 9, 2016 at 21:52 UTC

It has the same yellow colour cast as the 60mm DN Art. Not a big deal, but I'd rather it weren't so warm.

Link | Posted on Apr 22, 2016 at 03:23 UTC as 15th comment | 1 reply
On article Week in Review: One for the history books (161 comments in total)
In reply to:

Arizona Sunset: What AF lenses are available for the Pentax FF?

Does IBIS work during video recording? Do we think it will be line skipped or cropped video or both?

There are 15 current-production AF lenses for Pentax Full-Frame. Twelve are shown in this search: http://www.pentaxforums.com/lenssearch/?format=ff&focusing%5B%5D=af
The others are: DA*200m f2.8, DA*300mm f4 and DA 560mm f5.6.

There are 80 AF lenses available if you include discontinued lenses available in the used market. Sigma and Tamron offer some K-mount FF AF lenses.

Link | Posted on Feb 21, 2016 at 12:34 UTC

Shoot a scene with the Olympus OM-D EM-1 and 300mm f4. Shoot the same scene with a Pentax K-3 II and DA*300mm f4 from the same location. Crop the Pentax image to the same dimensions as the Oly image.

Voila, equivalence! Both are 16mp, same FOV, similar noise, same DOF, same perspective, similar DR. Both are weather-sealed. Pentax IBIS is 4.5 stops, Oly is 5 stops. Size is not much different. The K-3 II is slightly larger than the EM-1. The Olympus 300mm is slightly larger than the Pentax lens. Frankly I prefer to use my K-3 with battery grip with a large lens like a 300mm f4. A larger body and smaller lens is the more comfortable option IMO.

What is not similar is the cost; $1600 for the Pentax system vs. $3600 for Olympus. The Pentax lens is discounted right now and the Olympus lens is priced for early adopters, but there's still a huge gap. A couple of grand can buy a whole bag full of K-mount lenses.

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2016 at 00:19 UTC as 6th comment | 3 replies
On article Field Test: Brad Puet and the Fujifilm X-T10 (120 comments in total)

So, which current ILC could not do the same?

Link | Posted on Dec 22, 2015 at 12:58 UTC as 49th comment | 11 replies
On article 2015 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras $800-$1200 (159 comments in total)
In reply to:

audiobomber: If the EM5-II outshines the K-3 II for low light auto-focus I'll eat my shirt. I have an a6000 and K-3. The K-3 will focus in light so dim I can barely see, where the a6000 is simply lost.
I suspect whoever tested the K-3 II is using the wrong settings for the tracking tests, or poor methodology. The EM5-II is stated as having a 75% hit rate in the review. My K-3 will easily do that. I've shot hockey and soccer and hit about 90%. I've had high success rate with BIF too.

The K-3 II has improved tracking for subjects coming straight at the camera, which is the only weakness I see in the K-3 compared to my a6000. A blanket statement that AF doesn't match the competition is misleading and unfair.

Phht! The EM-II doesn't even have PDAF. A6000 AF outclasses any Olympus, and so does the K-3 II for low light AF and tracking.

Link | Posted on Dec 2, 2015 at 03:46 UTC
On article 2015 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras $800-$1200 (159 comments in total)
In reply to:

audiobomber: If the EM5-II outshines the K-3 II for low light auto-focus I'll eat my shirt. I have an a6000 and K-3. The K-3 will focus in light so dim I can barely see, where the a6000 is simply lost.
I suspect whoever tested the K-3 II is using the wrong settings for the tracking tests, or poor methodology. The EM5-II is stated as having a 75% hit rate in the review. My K-3 will easily do that. I've shot hockey and soccer and hit about 90%. I've had high success rate with BIF too.

The K-3 II has improved tracking for subjects coming straight at the camera, which is the only weakness I see in the K-3 compared to my a6000. A blanket statement that AF doesn't match the competition is misleading and unfair.

You don't know what you're talking about .Unlike you, I have both a K-3 and a6000.

Link | Posted on Nov 24, 2015 at 01:56 UTC
On article 2015 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras $800-$1200 (159 comments in total)
In reply to:

audiobomber: If the EM5-II outshines the K-3 II for low light auto-focus I'll eat my shirt. I have an a6000 and K-3. The K-3 will focus in light so dim I can barely see, where the a6000 is simply lost.
I suspect whoever tested the K-3 II is using the wrong settings for the tracking tests, or poor methodology. The EM5-II is stated as having a 75% hit rate in the review. My K-3 will easily do that. I've shot hockey and soccer and hit about 90%. I've had high success rate with BIF too.

The K-3 II has improved tracking for subjects coming straight at the camera, which is the only weakness I see in the K-3 compared to my a6000. A blanket statement that AF doesn't match the competition is misleading and unfair.

Who cares? AF-S speed is not a problem with any modern ILC. It doesn't keep up to either for tracking, and not even close to the K-3 for low light AF.

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2015 at 23:36 UTC
On article 2015 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras $800-$1200 (159 comments in total)

If the EM5-II outshines the K-3 II for low light auto-focus I'll eat my shirt. I have an a6000 and K-3. The K-3 will focus in light so dim I can barely see, where the a6000 is simply lost.
I suspect whoever tested the K-3 II is using the wrong settings for the tracking tests, or poor methodology. The EM5-II is stated as having a 75% hit rate in the review. My K-3 will easily do that. I've shot hockey and soccer and hit about 90%. I've had high success rate with BIF too.

The K-3 II has improved tracking for subjects coming straight at the camera, which is the only weakness I see in the K-3 compared to my a6000. A blanket statement that AF doesn't match the competition is misleading and unfair.

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2015 at 11:59 UTC as 21st comment | 8 replies
In reply to:

Boss of Sony: I thought DSLRs were a dying breed. Won't this FF mean that every lens Pentax has developed in the last 10-15 years will be cropping the sensor?

Good list Petroglyph. I'll add the DA 560mm f5.6. There are many discontinued FF lenses too, M, K and A are manual focus, but there are plenty of fine discontinued F and FA lenses with screw-drive auto-focus.

Link | Posted on Oct 24, 2015 at 18:08 UTC
On article Manfrotto launches Pixi Evo mini tripods for DSLRs (34 comments in total)
In reply to:

neatnclean: "... is designed, in part, to support entry-level DSLRs with large lenses."
yeah right. Entry level DSLR with a large 600/4 on it. hehe!

Fugly design. Too much plastic. Way overpriced. Prefer my Cullman Copter Magnesit.

The Cullmann Copter is only rated for 2.5 lbs. vs. 5.5 for the Manfrotto.

I have the original Pixi in my day bag. I've used it with a K-3 and various lenses, including Sigma 17-50 2.8, DA 55-300 f4-5.8 and DA*300mm f4 with no issues. (The 300 f4 has a tripod foot). Tough little rig.

Link | Posted on Oct 9, 2015 at 18:04 UTC

The photos are great, but there are lots of great nature photos on the net What was really special for me here, was the commentary.

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2015 at 16:40 UTC as 34th comment
In reply to:

what_i_saw: Does this one at least focus on subject instead of the background like the old one did?

An AF point on a CDAF sensor is not as fine as an AF point on a DSLR. That is my experience with an a8000 and K-3. Missing the subject and picking up a contrasty background is far more frequent with a MILC.

Link | Posted on Jul 9, 2015 at 19:18 UTC
Total: 175, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »