colesf

Joined on May 8, 2006

Comments

Total: 9, showing: 1 – 9

This is why Ricoh/Pentax/whatever will never be more than 4th place: they put their efforts into silly commemorative junk like this. It reminds me of Hasselblad and Leica, the only two companies with even less innovation and imagination.

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2016 at 23:35 UTC as 3rd comment | 4 replies
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2652 comments in total)

"Part of the reason for all the interest in a full-frame Pentax is the vast collection of K-mount lenses that exist around the world."

Boy , oh boy. This lame argument needs to die a quiet death. It was lame in 2000, but now in 2016, it's irrelevant except for a few diehards eBay junkies. And that does not a market make. Do Nikon users jump up and down because they can use the old dust-filled relics in their closet? Do Sony users trumpet their AF lenses from the Clinton era? No, only Pentax and its fans use this bizarre marketing strategy. It would be like a third-tier car maker, like Suzuki, adding a cassette player to their cars so that baby boomers could play their precious English Beat and Journey tapes.

Besides the issue of lens availability, what exactly is the point of 36 mp? I think most photographers got over printing 4x6 foot prints when they realized huge prints are just narcissistic.

Link | Posted on Feb 20, 2016 at 16:28 UTC as 448th comment | 33 replies
On article Retro through-and-through: Fujifilm X-Pro2 Review (2487 comments in total)

The first version of this camera had bad parallax error--very frustrating to try and shoot with the 90. Yes, there was a bit of " correction" with moving frames, but it was very inaccurate. Even my 1990 Mamiya 6 has better parallax correction with its 150 lens. If Fuji hasn't fixed this, then I'd call the optical viewfinder nothing more than a nod to nostalgia instead of a really usable feature.

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2016 at 04:56 UTC as 202nd comment

Pentax is too late to the FF party. What possible advantages in photo quality of every metric can it offer over the K3? I can already shoot in the lowest light. I can already make huge enlargements if I need to. Why would I or most of the world, which clearly now favors smaller sized cameras, want to spend more money on a larger and heavier camera with fewer updated lenses for what can only be a marginal increase in visible quality. Pentax would have been better off producing faster and more durable AF mechanism, or even lenses with built-in SR as an option (I've always found the built-in SR in their cameras to be rather mediocre and not competitive with Canon or Nikon).

Link | Posted on Jan 30, 2016 at 20:50 UTC as 17th comment | 8 replies
On article Hands-on with the Fujifilm X-Pro2 (77 comments in total)

When I first looked at the Pro-X1, I compared it to a Pentax k3. After some side-by-side shooting, I had one question about the Fuji: why? In size, the K3 is very small, and the Fuji really isn't as small as one would think. The K3 can fit in a tiny bag with tiny 21, 70, and another Limited such as the 40 or whatever. The K3 can easily take large zooms or telephoto. Perhaps the Fuji can, but the K3's optical viewfinder is much better. The K3's batteries last for at least 1000 shots in my experience, and you can add a grip. The K3's controls are more intuitive, while those of the Fuji, especially with regards to the viewfinder, drove me crazy. You can still get a K3, and now for $1000 less. I suspect the new Fuji still only makes sense for dentists and doctors of a certain age who used to (or their dad used to) have a Leica and fancy themselves "serious" photographers and want to flash something different on their yearly brag-cations.

Link | Posted on Jan 23, 2016 at 16:17 UTC as 8th comment
On article Retro through-and-through: Fujifilm X-Pro2 Review (2487 comments in total)

The previous model had very poor parallax correction, making the 90 very impractical to use. It's hard to figure, especially as other companies like Leica and Mamiya have made these viewfinders for decades. If you have to switch to the horrid EVF just to have accurate framing, then all you have is an overly complex but underperforming camera specifically created, like Nikon's overpriced DF, to market to baby boomer nostalgiia.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2016 at 16:16 UTC as 422nd comment | 3 replies
On article A lot to Leica? Hands-on with the Leica SL (Typ 601) (1514 comments in total)

If the studio comparisons are to be believed, then the Leica would seem to offer little (especially concerning the price) if any advantage over the Pentax k3.

Link | Posted on Oct 22, 2015 at 23:19 UTC as 111th comment
On article Ricoh teases spring 2016 full-frame Pentax DSLR debut (528 comments in total)

If Pentax's past is any clue to the future, then
A. It will be a year behind schedule
B. The AF and metering performance will still lag behind everyone else

You can't bring out a new camera system based on either decades-old lens designs or hoping that legacy lenses will suffice. They need to bring out many more updated lens designs with reliable AF motors.

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2015 at 21:53 UTC as 120th comment | 6 replies

The k5IIs has pretty crappy moire. What's curious is that the Canon 5D mk ii and iii both have it just as bad.

Link | Posted on Nov 11, 2012 at 04:07 UTC as 15th comment | 6 replies
Total: 9, showing: 1 – 9