All Forum Comments
Comment by George Lazarette posted on LX vs ME super vs KX vs K2 at 25/03/2015 - 11:10
Get rid of all the non-Pentax stuff. Go for the best lenses (Limiteds and stars). If you don't, you will always regret it.
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Lens Upgrade Choices at 25/03/2015 - 11:07
The Super A was a jewel among cameras. Same sort of size and handling as the MX, but more modern and with exposure automation.
The K2 was great in its day - I bought one to replace my SPII, but made a dash for the ME when it appeared, closely followed by the ME Super. But when I left that on a taxi, I replaced it with the Super A, and that was the camera I really loved.
The Z1-P was the most capable Pentax film camera (more so than the MZ-S), but it was a bit of a lump, and I was glad to sell it.
The K2 was great in its day - I bought one to replace my SPII, but made a dash for the ME when it appeared, closely followed by the ME Super. But when I left that on a taxi, I replaced it with the Super A, and that was the camera I really loved.
The Z1-P was the most capable Pentax film camera (more so than the MZ-S), but it was a bit of a lump, and I was glad to sell it.
Comment by George Lazarette posted on LX vs ME super vs KX vs K2 at 24/03/2015 - 23:44
If a 135-format camera had made sense commercially, Pentax would have made one before now.
What would be nice is for those who need 135, and for those that think they need it (a rather larger number), to buy a brand that does offer 135-format bodies.
This "debate" about 135-format has been going on ever since Pentax introduced the *ist D. All the arguments have been put forward a thousand times before. They were boring then, and they are very boring now.
There are a couple of people on this forum, namely K10D and MikeP, whose example the whingers should follow. These two didn't moan endlessly; they went out and bought a larger format body from another manufacturer. As far as I know, they now use the system, Pentax or other, that best meets their needs at the time.
Let's be quite clear. This debate has little to do with photography and a lot to do with penis-envy.
What would be nice is for those who need 135, and for those that think they need it (a rather larger number), to buy a brand that does offer 135-format bodies.
This "debate" about 135-format has been going on ever since Pentax introduced the *ist D. All the arguments have been put forward a thousand times before. They were boring then, and they are very boring now.
There are a couple of people on this forum, namely K10D and MikeP, whose example the whingers should follow. These two didn't moan endlessly; they went out and bought a larger format body from another manufacturer. As far as I know, they now use the system, Pentax or other, that best meets their needs at the time.
Let's be quite clear. This debate has little to do with photography and a lot to do with penis-envy.
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Full Frame So They Say at 17/09/2014 - 06:46
Marat wrote:
Of course not. But forum rules say you should only post pictures taken with a Pentax body.George Lazarette wrote:
It's Pentax User Forum, not Pentax and other brands from time to time Forum.
But I use Pentax lenses on a Sony A7 as well as my K-3, does that mean I am not welcome here?hogboy wrote:
..............but please make room for other brands from time to time.
Why?..............but please make room for other brands from time to time.
It's Pentax User Forum, not Pentax and other brands from time to time Forum.
There is an argument that the reverse should be true, since the lens affects a picture more than the body does. However, we are where we are.
I don't know why the perpetual whingers (Yves and Cabstar being examples) continue to post here. If they don't like the forum, surely the answer is to stay away. But something always draws them back....
So, for that reason, and many others, I don't think the forum is going to die.
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Pentax, or ?? at 16/09/2014 - 01:20
hogboy wrote:
..............but please make room for other brands from time to time.
Why?..............but please make room for other brands from time to time.
It's Pentax User Forum, not Pentax and other brands from time to time Forum.
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Pentax, or ?? at 16/09/2014 - 01:05
Fletcher8 wrote:
Pentax / Ricoh have made some steps in the right direction with the K3 and the 645Z, but they really need to improve and update lenses to go with these cameras. As the 3rd parties reduce support for the K mount, I personally am wondering if I should call it a day with Pentax, I love the operation and handling of the K3 and really enjoy shooting Pentax, but in relation to what I require and need now, Pentax and its offering for me personally is making me think very hard about my loyalty to the brand and question if i should sell my Pentax gear. Another aspect that is becoming apparent, is that other brands are offering what I need at a lower price and with more choice. The problem Pentax Ricoh face is that once people change system its very unlikely they will win people back if and when they do meet their needs in relation to the products they produce.
I can't imagine how the great photographers of the past managed to produce anything worth looking at. They didn't have digital, or colour, or zooms, or wide apertures and yet they STILL managed to produce fantastic images.Pentax / Ricoh have made some steps in the right direction with the K3 and the 645Z, but they really need to improve and update lenses to go with these cameras. As the 3rd parties reduce support for the K mount, I personally am wondering if I should call it a day with Pentax, I love the operation and handling of the K3 and really enjoy shooting Pentax, but in relation to what I require and need now, Pentax and its offering for me personally is making me think very hard about my loyalty to the brand and question if i should sell my Pentax gear. Another aspect that is becoming apparent, is that other brands are offering what I need at a lower price and with more choice. The problem Pentax Ricoh face is that once people change system its very unlikely they will win people back if and when they do meet their needs in relation to the products they produce.
To say "what I require and need now" is absurd. You need an eye, that is all.
Comment by George Lazarette posted on New lenses How Exciting!!! at 16/09/2014 - 00:57
Chris likes to shoot birds and planes on the wing, so AF speed is especially important to him. His initial choice of brand was perhaps not the happiest, therefore.
For the rest of us, the K-3 would seem to represent extremely good value (unless we "need" more than 24 million pixels).
But I suspect there will be a noticeable improvement in the AF area, so talk of jumping ship is premature. First impressions are no substitute for proper side-by-side testing.
G
For the rest of us, the K-3 would seem to represent extremely good value (unless we "need" more than 24 million pixels).
But I suspect there will be a noticeable improvement in the AF area, so talk of jumping ship is premature. First impressions are no substitute for proper side-by-side testing.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Officially K-3? at 11/10/2013 - 15:57
Pentaxophile wrote:
- Wanting FF isn't just about 'moar megapixels'. Some mobile phones can beat my K30 in the megapixel race. Does that mean they offer better IQ? Of course not, sensor size matters. By the same token, my K30 appears to be bettered by the Nikon D700, in IQ terms, despite having more pixels. IMO of course. To me it does look like sensor size does make a difference.
You'll say 'Aha, then what about the 645D'? Again - size, expense, and lens line up.
- For most of us I agree this isn't about 'needing' FF. APSC is really really good. Most of us including me are happy with it. But FF offers something some people want - better image quality (assuming the use of decent lenses) - much better high ISO - narrower DOF available - etc... I'm not going to argue with these people, it's their choice entirely.
Indeed. You have put your finger on it. The operative word is "want", not "need".George Lazarette wrote:
If I banged my head, and woke up to find I "needed" more pixels, then I would do what to me seems the obvious solution, and that is to acquire a 645D. I would then have a choice of formats at my disposal, with all the ergonomic advantages of the K-mount on the one hand, and LOADS of pixels on the other.
It would make more sense to consolidate around a 35mm sized sensor system than have two formats (one of which is eyewateringly expensive, is huge, and has a comparitively limited lens line up), wouldn't it?If I banged my head, and woke up to find I "needed" more pixels, then I would do what to me seems the obvious solution, and that is to acquire a 645D. I would then have a choice of formats at my disposal, with all the ergonomic advantages of the K-mount on the one hand, and LOADS of pixels on the other.
- Wanting FF isn't just about 'moar megapixels'. Some mobile phones can beat my K30 in the megapixel race. Does that mean they offer better IQ? Of course not, sensor size matters. By the same token, my K30 appears to be bettered by the Nikon D700, in IQ terms, despite having more pixels. IMO of course. To me it does look like sensor size does make a difference.
You'll say 'Aha, then what about the 645D'? Again - size, expense, and lens line up.
- For most of us I agree this isn't about 'needing' FF. APSC is really really good. Most of us including me are happy with it. But FF offers something some people want - better image quality (assuming the use of decent lenses) - much better high ISO - narrower DOF available - etc... I'm not going to argue with these people, it's their choice entirely.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Officially K-3? at 11/10/2013 - 11:34
Nice to see Ricoh putting some money into the system, and this camera seems to have developed more excitement than any since the K10D (which surprised everybody).
I have three observations.
1 I don't like to see Ricoh's name on the back of the camera. I suspect soon it will be on the front, and we will find that they have saved the mount, but lost the (Pentax) name. Still, better than the other way around, I suppose.
2 The new HD lenses provide little comfort for those who want a 135 format camera. A good lens selection will be vital if Pentax (Ricoh!) are to move in that direction, and I suspect they remain to be convinced that there is a big enough market.
3 I am bemused by Puma's assertion that he "needs" 135 format (for which he doesn't provide a reason). If I banged my head, and woke up to find I "needed" more pixels, then I would do what to me seems the obvious solution, and that is to acquire a 645D. I would then have a choice of formats at my disposal, with all the ergonomic advantages of the K-mount on the one hand, and LOADS of pixels on the other.
I have three observations.
1 I don't like to see Ricoh's name on the back of the camera. I suspect soon it will be on the front, and we will find that they have saved the mount, but lost the (Pentax) name. Still, better than the other way around, I suppose.
2 The new HD lenses provide little comfort for those who want a 135 format camera. A good lens selection will be vital if Pentax (Ricoh!) are to move in that direction, and I suspect they remain to be convinced that there is a big enough market.
3 I am bemused by Puma's assertion that he "needs" 135 format (for which he doesn't provide a reason). If I banged my head, and woke up to find I "needed" more pixels, then I would do what to me seems the obvious solution, and that is to acquire a 645D. I would then have a choice of formats at my disposal, with all the ergonomic advantages of the K-mount on the one hand, and LOADS of pixels on the other.
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Officially K-3? at 11/10/2013 - 10:47
Nice to see some old familiar faces are still here.
I am waiting to see who buys a "full-frame" camera, and whether anybody returns to the fold. I am also glad I didn't sell much of my old glass.
Exciting times.