Jman13 wrote:
The K-01 has exactly ZERO of the advantages of the GH2, but with the same body size drawback. It's forgivable if the size gives you something the smaller mirrorless bodies do note (built in viewfinder, better handling), but isn't when it doesn't give any advantages.
One advantage I can think it has is the sensor. IMHO the Sony 16MP sensor is the best non-FF sensor as of today. Another advantage is SR. You have stabilization with every lens.
But I do agree that the GH2 is a lot more attractive than the K-01.
michaelwatkins wrote:
To me this camera seems aimed at the Pentax faithful to keep them from straying. "They want mirrorless, we'll give them mirrorless" was no doubt spoken in some sales or design meeting.
I'm sure that this camera was also aimed at the Pentax faithful to keep them from straying. "They want video, we'll give them video".
Yakim Peled wrote:
I'm sure that this camera was also aimed at the Pentax faithful to keep them from straying. "They want video, we'll give them video".
Spyro P. wrote:
BJP: "Why were you interested in the fashion and design audience?"
Jonathan Martin: "That's important because it's traditionally a younger audience - an audience that Pentax, traditionally, hasn't approached and hasn't managed to get hold of. So with our collaboration with Mark Newson [an Australian designer], we hope to use this exposure to actively target that audience for, probably, the first time"
Is it hip to be Australian
I'd think that if your after the younger audience you'd want it to have a Facebook button and maybe Justin Beibers signature on it or something, not some post modern industrial designer I doubt anyones heard of.
Maybe the younger generation is different down under though and Newson is as big of household name as Hugh Jackman ?
alundeb wrote:
The only feature the could save this camera would be a Full Frame sensor.
Even if it had a FF sensor, it's still a diaper cam...
Imagine trying to shoot with a 300mm lens (never mind the new 600mm Pentax has listed on their lens roadmap) while holding it the camera out at arm's length to focus and compose. Either they've made some incredible improvements in their shake-reduction technology, or they plan to open a chain of fitness centres to help the Pentax faithful to improve their arm strength.
molson wrote:
Even if it had a FF sensor, it's still a diaper cam...
Imagine trying to shoot with a 300mm lens (never mind the new 600mm Pentax has listed on their lens roadmap) while holding it the camera out at arm's length to focus and compose. Either they've made some incredible improvements in their shake-reduction technology, or they plan to open a chain of fitness centres to help the Pentax faithful to improve their arm strength.
Isn't there an HDMI feed? You could carry a HD TV as an optional EVF.
molson wrote:
Even if it had a FF sensor, it's still a diaper cam...
Imagine trying to shoot with a 300mm lens (never mind the new 600mm Pentax has listed on their lens roadmap) while holding it the camera out at arm's length to focus and compose. Either they've made some incredible improvements in their shake-reduction technology, or they plan to open a chain of fitness centres to help the Pentax faithful to improve their arm strength.
This "arm's length" argument is such bs. Have you ever actually used a mirrorless camera without an EVF before? And how about using a tripod when you're shooting with a supertele, you silly goose?
I really think that this camera is a step in the right direction for Pentax; they've done something no one else has with a mirrorless camera by keeping the mount the same as their DSLRs. With the small "limited" lenses they already have and that tiny pancake, this looks like something that could compare really well against regular mirrorless cameras.
But he does have a point. From 135mm on out and LCDs are just not well suited to the task. They're also not well suited for outdoor shooting. They're also not well suited for the over 40's crowd when so many people's eyes start becoming near-sighted. Who's the dope who thought of putting LCDs on the outside of camera bodies anyway? Let's mob him! Or was it a teenaged girl?
If they removed the LCD from all DSLRs and invented an EVF/OVF hybrid I'b be much happier.
the average lens to body ratio for pretty much all manufacturers is less than 1.5:1. that means that averaged across all buyers in a year, they sell 1.5 times as many lenses as bodies. owning three lenses for a DSLR is already getting out there on the lunatic fringe of lens nuts.
Herb...
sebboh wrote:
no, i'm talking about the actual percentage of dslr and milc buyers that never buy any lens other than the kit lens as quoted by canon and nikon. i certainly use more than the kit lens and i know you do.
sorry, 300mm is well within handholdable and i would say even designed to be used that way for as small as m4/3 cameras. i could ask if have you ever used a supertele much? i handhold my 200-400/4 all the time when i am shooting wildlife.
Herb...
deadwolfbones wrote:
This "arm's length" argument is such bs. Have you ever actually used a mirrorless camera without an EVF before? And how about using a tripod when you're shooting with a supertele, you silly goose?
HerbChong wrote:
the average lens to body ratio for pretty much all manufacturers is less than 1.5:1. that means that averaged across all buyers in a year, they sell 1.5 times as many lenses as bodies. owning three lenses for a DSLR is already getting out there on the lunatic fringe of lens nuts.
Herb...
indeed, my point. it ends up being something like 95% of dslr owners with only one lens. most of the rest with 3-5 lenses and then a tiny fraction of a percent with 10 or more like the people on this forum.
My longest lens is the Sigma 100-300/4, which I use to shoot motorcycle racing. I never use it with a tripod, I admit, but only because the sport requires me to move a lot to cover it properly. With anything longer than that, or any more sedentary subject I'd certainly use a tripod when possible.
But anyway, my main beef with that post was the ongoing arm's length accusation. I've never seen anyone who knows what they are doing use a MILC that way.
HerbChong wrote:
sorry, 300mm is well within handholdable and i would say even designed to be used that way for as small as m4/3 cameras. i could ask if have you ever used a supertele much? i handhold my 200-400/4 all the time when i am shooting wildlife.
What is the correct way, that someone who "knows what they are doing", uses to shoot a camera without a VF or even articulating screen handheld with a long lens
With my GH2 and NEX5, it was at least possible to flip the screen out to shoot it in a TLR style stance, looking down at the screen and holding the camera body in close.
Can't do with with a screen that doesn't articulate as you can't see what your shooting. Tried it plenty with the EP3 and while its otherwise a fantastic camera, put a 100-300 on it and its hard to hold stable. Just can't hold 600mm equiv focal length with your arms sticking.
I've made by living as a sports photographer for the largest collegiate athletic dept in the nation for the past 8 years so I do think I know a thing or two about working with long lenses (currently Nikon 200-400 f4 VR and 400mm f2.8 pre VR version) and often used to handhold my old Canon 500 f4 for shorter periods of time when shooting wildlife back when I used to enjoy photography more as a hobby, but thats because it was used on a body with a VF so I could tuck my arms in, get a stable stance and use my forehead as a 3rd point of contact.
Go try that using Liveview with arms outstretched and see how easy it is that way....
deadwolfbones wrote:
My longest lens is the Sigma 100-300/4, which I use to shoot motorcycle racing. I never use it with a tripod, I admit, but only because the sport requires me to move a lot to cover it properly. With anything longer than that, or any more sedentary subject I'd certainly use a tripod when possible.
But anyway, my main beef with that post was the ongoing arm's length accusation. I've never seen anyone who knows what they are doing use a MILC that way.
I rarely ever used my NEX-5N or GF1 more than a foot or so away from my face. Dunno why you would, though I never did try to seriously shoot that long of a lens on a mirrorless (my Nikkor 105/2.5 was probably the longest I used with any regularity). Seemed a bit silly to try. :/
Having worked at a camera shop thats exactly it. Few if any customers even had an interest in another lens because of cost, intimidation with changing them, lack of awareness of what was out there, and most commonly they didn't want to carry additional gear. Same goes or flashes. You can explain all the ways an external speedlight is better and most people want a popup because its built it, couldn't care less for a hot shoe even.
Lenses etc just aren't exciting to the typical camera buyer.
We are 50-100 forum regulars here who apparently can't get enough lenses, often owning multiples of a single focal length because we enjoy small differences in how a lens renders, talk about "drawing style" etc.
Most people don't do that. Bunch of soccer moms on the sideline of little Timmy's game are not discussing their thoughts on a Cron IV vs III, or in what applications they prefer a Sonnar style 50
Maybe 1 out of 10 or so customers would be interested in getting a longer lens, usually a slower 55-200 type kit tele zoom.
1 out of 10 of those would inquire about a 70-200 2.8 type because they really wanted to shoot their kids sports
Never had anyone ask about a 400 2.8 etc nor did we even carry anything like that. People that buy that type of glass are going to go to a bigger retailer like Roberts, or B&H etc.
sebboh wrote:
indeed, my point. it ends up being something like 95% of dslr owners with only one lens. most of the rest with 3-5 lenses and then a tiny fraction of a percent with 10 or more like the people on this forum.
. Really?
