AP First Look at K7
Posted 16/06/2009 - 14:20
Link
Tooks wrote:
I'm puzzled why you would consider it acceptable to have to spend another wedge of cash on a light meter though.
And I'm puzzled why you would consider it acceptable to have to spend several wedges of cash to get shake reduction in every lens. I guess that makes us even.
I'm puzzled why you would consider it acceptable to have to spend another wedge of cash on a light meter though.
Joining the Q
Posted 16/06/2009 - 15:03
Link
I'm puzzled as to why anyone would not spend another wedge of cash on a light meter
Ken
“We must avoid however, snapping away, shooting quickly and without thought, overloading ourselves with unnecessary images that clutter our memory and diminish the clarity of the whole.” - Henri Cartier-Bresson -
“We must avoid however, snapping away, shooting quickly and without thought, overloading ourselves with unnecessary images that clutter our memory and diminish the clarity of the whole.” - Henri Cartier-Bresson -
Posted 16/06/2009 - 15:18
Link
hefty1 wrote:
Yeah, I guess, although I don't want/need shake reduction in every lens! Actually, I don't think VR lenses are necessarily more expensive though to be honest, some of Nikon's most expensive optics don't have it at all for instance, and some very low cost ones do.Tooks wrote:
I'm puzzled why you would consider it acceptable to have to spend another wedge of cash on a light meter though.
And I'm puzzled why you would consider it acceptable to have to spend several wedges of cash to get shake reduction in every lens. I guess that makes us even. I'm puzzled why you would consider it acceptable to have to spend another wedge of cash on a light meter though.
I will accept it would be nice to have the option though...
There, I've said it!
Posted 16/06/2009 - 15:21
Link
gartmore wrote:
I'm puzzled as to why anyone would not spend another wedge of cash on a light meter
Are they really necessary though? I used one back in my film SLR days (1985 onwards), but not sure I'd use one now.I'm puzzled as to why anyone would not spend another wedge of cash on a light meter
Each to their own though.
Posted 16/06/2009 - 19:47
Link
Quote:
By the by, I was on the Pentax Japan website yesterday, and counted 32 "K" lenses. Back in Pentax's heyday, I seem to remember there were 27 lenses available. Most are of very recent design.
It depends when you look, but in the M series days there were over 40 lenses and I have just counted up the number in the copy of "Pentax Lenses and Accessories" that happened to be in front of me and they numbered a staggering 52. This was 1987.By the by, I was on the Pentax Japan website yesterday, and counted 32 "K" lenses. Back in Pentax's heyday, I seem to remember there were 27 lenses available. Most are of very recent design.
Of course no-one bought any more lenses then than we do now, probably less, so it was all largely theoretical for most of us.
Best regards, John
Posted 16/06/2009 - 20:08
Link
SMC PENTAX LENSES BOOKLET FROM 1982 - 45 LENSES
briefly:
11 of which were zooms including a 400mm-600mm reflex zoom
3 macro and one shift lens
super telephotos went up to reflex 2000mm
34 lenses had diaphragm automation, the rest with various combos.
briefly:
11 of which were zooms including a 400mm-600mm reflex zoom
3 macro and one shift lens
super telephotos went up to reflex 2000mm
34 lenses had diaphragm automation, the rest with various combos.
FILM - Pentax: LX, K2 - 24/2.8, 40/2.8, 50/1.4, 120/2.8, 80-200/4.5, 28-105mm 2.8 macro, AF 280T
DIGITAL - Nikon : D300 - 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED AF-S VR DX
DIGITAL - Nikon : D300 - 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED AF-S VR DX
Posted 16/06/2009 - 23:18
Link
johnriley wrote:
Of course no-one bought any more lenses then than we do now, probably less, so it was all largely theoretical for most of us.
Perhaps I was thinking back to my Spotmatic days. Or perhaps my memory ain't what it used to be.Quote:
By the by, I was on the Pentax Japan website yesterday, and counted 32 "K" lenses. Back in Pentax's heyday, I seem to remember there were 27 lenses available. Most are of very recent design.
It depends when you look, but in the M series days there were over 40 lenses and I have just counted up the number in the copy of "Pentax Lenses and Accessories" that happened to be in front of me and they numbered a staggering 52. This was 1987.By the by, I was on the Pentax Japan website yesterday, and counted 32 "K" lenses. Back in Pentax's heyday, I seem to remember there were 27 lenses available. Most are of very recent design.
Of course no-one bought any more lenses then than we do now, probably less, so it was all largely theoretical for most of us.
Anyway, I was quite impressed that there are now 32 lenses.
G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.
Posted 17/06/2009 - 12:53
Link
At the risk of dragging this post back to the origianl topic, I've just read the review and in photo magazine terms I would describe it as 'glowing'.
OK the headline doesn't help, but for a pre-production camera it more or less reads "I really like this and if it does what it says it could be a winner"
OK the headline doesn't help, but for a pre-production camera it more or less reads "I really like this and if it does what it says it could be a winner"
Posted 07/07/2009 - 11:19
Link
Lol... I noticed this week a disgruntled Nikon D300 owner wrote in to Angela, complaining about the favourable comparison of the K7 with his camera, specifically the new HDR function. Angela had to put him in his place.
Looks like Pentax owners aren't the only defensive ones!
Looks like Pentax owners aren't the only defensive ones!
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
369 posts
18 years
Lincolnshire,
UK
I assure you I do not start such debates....
The fact is that it's a rather sterile debate, to which you are a major contributor.
Anyway, that's my last word on the subject. I'm off to find a Nikon forum and give them the benefit of my valuable advice. I'm sure they'll appreciate it.
G
I don't think these discussions are actually arguing at all, I think it genuinely is a worthwhile discussion. If you disagree, then you don't have to contribute...
I really don't know why you have such a problem with it to be honest....
Have a good day.