How many K-01 owners here?
Posted 17/08/2012 - 11:45
Link
JohnX wrote:
Personally wouldn't buy one for anything else, as I really think cameras should have view-finders!
I get fed-up trying to avoid photographers holding their cameras out in front of them at arms length.
Surely choice is a good thing though?johnriley wrote:
There will be a point where I can't resist a K-01, basically for use as a studio camera for copying and small product shots. On a tripod, using the back screen is a very effective way to set these up.
It might also be useful for flower studies - composing on the screen is an effective way of avoiding having to constantly bend my back to look through the viewfinder.
To get this thread focussed back on the K-01, that was my first thought when I saw it - ideal on a tripod composing off the LCD. There will be a point where I can't resist a K-01, basically for use as a studio camera for copying and small product shots. On a tripod, using the back screen is a very effective way to set these up.
It might also be useful for flower studies - composing on the screen is an effective way of avoiding having to constantly bend my back to look through the viewfinder.
Personally wouldn't buy one for anything else, as I really think cameras should have view-finders!
I get fed-up trying to avoid photographers holding their cameras out in front of them at arms length.
In some respects I actually find it preferable (composing on a screen). By having the camera at arms length you can get a greater appreciate what is going on outside of your frame, which can often be difficult when using a viewfinder.
Also, holding a camera up to your face often makes certain subjects act differently which can impact the type of shot you're trying to capture. In fact I find the further I can keep a camera from my face, the more likely I am to get the shot I want (in terms of candid shots specifically).
As with all things in life it's a case of horses for courses.
Posted 17/08/2012 - 12:43
Link
BigJR wrote:
In some respects I actually find it preferable (composing on a screen). By having the camera at arms length you can get a greater appreciate what is going on outside of your frame, which can often be difficult when using a viewfinder.
Also, holding a camera up to your face often makes certain subjects act differently which can impact the type of shot you're trying to capture. In fact I find the further I can keep a camera from my face, the more likely I am to get the shot I want (in terms of candid shots specifically).
As with all things in life it's a case of horses for courses.
For live action nothing beats a direct optical viewfinder. Everything else will not be in real time and then there's the time lag from pressing the shutter to the image being captured. You might manage to capture something now and again at arms length as long as it's not moving too fast A lot of the time you will just capture a blank frame In some respects I actually find it preferable (composing on a screen). By having the camera at arms length you can get a greater appreciate what is going on outside of your frame, which can often be difficult when using a viewfinder.
Also, holding a camera up to your face often makes certain subjects act differently which can impact the type of shot you're trying to capture. In fact I find the further I can keep a camera from my face, the more likely I am to get the shot I want (in terms of candid shots specifically).
As with all things in life it's a case of horses for courses.
-
Half Man... Half Pentax ... Half Cucumber
Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff
Algi
Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff
Algi
Posted 17/08/2012 - 13:19
Link
Algernon wrote:
-
You're clearly speaking from your own experience not mine.
BigJR wrote:
In some respects I actually find it preferable (composing on a screen). By having the camera at arms length you can get a greater appreciate what is going on outside of your frame, which can often be difficult when using a viewfinder.
Also, holding a camera up to your face often makes certain subjects act differently which can impact the type of shot you're trying to capture. In fact I find the further I can keep a camera from my face, the more likely I am to get the shot I want (in terms of candid shots specifically).
As with all things in life it's a case of horses for courses.
For live action nothing beats a direct optical viewfinder. Everything else will not be in real time and then there's the time lag from pressing the shutter to the image being captured. You might manage to capture something now and again at arms length as long as it's not moving too fast A lot of the time you will just capture a blank frame In some respects I actually find it preferable (composing on a screen). By having the camera at arms length you can get a greater appreciate what is going on outside of your frame, which can often be difficult when using a viewfinder.
Also, holding a camera up to your face often makes certain subjects act differently which can impact the type of shot you're trying to capture. In fact I find the further I can keep a camera from my face, the more likely I am to get the shot I want (in terms of candid shots specifically).
As with all things in life it's a case of horses for courses.
-
Posted 17/08/2012 - 13:42
Link
BigJR wrote:
[quote="Algi"]
For live action nothing beats a direct optical viewfinder. Everything else will not be in real time and then there's the time lag from pressing the shutter to the image being captured. You might manage to capture something now and again at arms length as long as it's not moving too fast A lot of the time you will just capture a blank frame
-
You're clearly speaking from your own experience not mine.[/quote]So do you think that airshow photography with a K-01 at arms length and a 50-500 on the front would be practical?[quote="Algi"]
For live action nothing beats a direct optical viewfinder. Everything else will not be in real time and then there's the time lag from pressing the shutter to the image being captured. You might manage to capture something now and again at arms length as long as it's not moving too fast A lot of the time you will just capture a blank frame
-
Although I do think I know the answer, it's a genuine question - I can't imagine shooting aircraft with a K-01, especially if the LCD has the sun on it.
The 50-500 is heavy enough to hand hold at the best of times, let alone at arms length
.
Pentax K-3, DA18-135, DA35 F2.4, DA17-70, DA55-300, FA28-200, A50 F1.7, A100 F4 Macro, A400 F5.6, Sigma 10-20 EXDC, 50-500 F4.5-6.3 APO DG OS Samsung flash SEF-54PZF(x2)
.
Pentax K-3, DA18-135, DA35 F2.4, DA17-70, DA55-300, FA28-200, A50 F1.7, A100 F4 Macro, A400 F5.6, Sigma 10-20 EXDC, 50-500 F4.5-6.3 APO DG OS Samsung flash SEF-54PZF(x2)
.
Posted 17/08/2012 - 13:47
Link
This video shows the lag of the Pentax Q viewfinder. It would
be interesting to see one for the K-01
http://whatblogisthis.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/lag-of-pentax-q-rear-lcd.html
-
be interesting to see one for the K-01
http://whatblogisthis.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/lag-of-pentax-q-rear-lcd.html
-
Half Man... Half Pentax ... Half Cucumber
Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff
Algi
Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff
Algi
Posted 17/08/2012 - 13:54
Link
Algernon wrote:
This video shows the lag of the Pentax Q viewfinder. It would
be interesting to see one for the K-01
http://whatblogisthis.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/lag-of-pentax-q-rear-lcd.html
So when you take the picture, is the image you get what was on the LCD at the time, or what was happening in real time.
This video shows the lag of the Pentax Q viewfinder. It would
be interesting to see one for the K-01
http://whatblogisthis.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/lag-of-pentax-q-rear-lcd.html
.
Pentax K-3, DA18-135, DA35 F2.4, DA17-70, DA55-300, FA28-200, A50 F1.7, A100 F4 Macro, A400 F5.6, Sigma 10-20 EXDC, 50-500 F4.5-6.3 APO DG OS Samsung flash SEF-54PZF(x2)
.
Pentax K-3, DA18-135, DA35 F2.4, DA17-70, DA55-300, FA28-200, A50 F1.7, A100 F4 Macro, A400 F5.6, Sigma 10-20 EXDC, 50-500 F4.5-6.3 APO DG OS Samsung flash SEF-54PZF(x2)
.
Posted 17/08/2012 - 13:56
Link
The same applies to EVFs, there's always a lag, making them IMHO almost useless for action shots.
On the other hand, there are lots of subjects where a screen is an advantage. No one camera fulfills all requirements, but the one that comes closest to being universal is the DSLR.
On the other hand, there are lots of subjects where a screen is an advantage. No one camera fulfills all requirements, but the one that comes closest to being universal is the DSLR.
Best regards, John
Posted 17/08/2012 - 14:01
Link
johnriley wrote:
The same applies to EVFs, there's always a lag, making them IMHO almost useless for action shots.
Sony A77.The same applies to EVFs, there's always a lag, making them IMHO almost useless for action shots.
Quote:
We don't have any way to measure the Sony A77's viewfinder refresh rate under bright lighting conditions, but our sense is that it's quite high: Motion was very smooth and fluid, and we had no sense of a delay or lag between the subject's motion and what we were seeing in the viewfinder.
Low refresh rates were often a bugaboo of early EVFs, but the problem seems pretty completely banished with the combination of the Sony A77's sensor, fast processor, and OLED EVF technology.
We don't have any way to measure the Sony A77's viewfinder refresh rate under bright lighting conditions, but our sense is that it's quite high: Motion was very smooth and fluid, and we had no sense of a delay or lag between the subject's motion and what we were seeing in the viewfinder.
Low refresh rates were often a bugaboo of early EVFs, but the problem seems pretty completely banished with the combination of the Sony A77's sensor, fast processor, and OLED EVF technology.
Posted 17/08/2012 - 14:03
Link
BigJR wrote:
Surely choice is a good thing though?
As with all things in life it's a case of horses for courses.
Tend to agree which is why I buy different systems.Surely choice is a good thing though?
As with all things in life it's a case of horses for courses.
Best regards
Too far from a shore.
Posted 17/08/2012 - 14:05
Link
I have no idea what you're quoting Mike, but it's a purely subjective comment. "But our sense is" doesn't represent a scientific evaluation IMHO.
Best regards, John
Posted 17/08/2012 - 14:12
Link
johnriley wrote:
I have no idea what you're quoting Mike, but it's a purely subjective comment. "But our sense is" doesn't represent a scientific evaluation IMHO.
But then your honest opinion (IMHO) probably represents a scientific basic fact even less so I will listen to a decent review of someone who has used the camera for a period of time.
I have no idea what you're quoting Mike, but it's a purely subjective comment. "But our sense is" doesn't represent a scientific evaluation IMHO.
Posted 17/08/2012 - 14:14
Link
You don't know that Mike, but you'll have to listen to what you wish to listen to I guess.
Best regards, John
Posted 17/08/2012 - 14:17
Link
At the end of the day it's all opinions John .. do I listen to someone who has used the camera for a few weeks or someone that has (and please correct me if I'm wrong) not actually ever even touched an A77?
Things move on thankfully and no doubt one day EVF's will be every bit as good.
Things move on thankfully and no doubt one day EVF's will be every bit as good.
Posted 17/08/2012 - 14:21
Link
You are wrong, but this is a Pentax forum and the Sony cameras are off topic.
Best regards, John
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
24425 posts
24 years
Tyldesley,
Manchester
Do you find it makes the Q a little more awkward size-wise?