All Forum Comments
Comment by giofi posted on TBA: HD PENTAX-DA 20-40mm F2.8-4 ED Limited DC WR at 07/11/2013 - 06:19
+1
Go for it, it is a much better camera!
Go for it, it is a much better camera!
Comment by giofi posted on Upgrade from K20D to K5 worth it? at 31/10/2013 - 19:13
johnriley wrote:
Giorgio, I don't think I quite said what you think I said as I was referring to two different things there.
The main thrust of the argument though was that makers leapfrog each other constantly, so changing marque just because something new comes out can be a bit futile, because next month the boot will be on the other foot.
John, I fully agree with you on that!Giorgio, I don't think I quite said what you think I said as I was referring to two different things there.
The main thrust of the argument though was that makers leapfrog each other constantly, so changing marque just because something new comes out can be a bit futile, because next month the boot will be on the other foot.
Comment by giofi posted on Why do we stay with Pentax? at 28/10/2013 - 20:57
johnriley wrote:
I was reading the review in AP re the Olympus E-5 replacement and reflecting how it already seems dated and blown out of the water by the K-3. The comparison between the K-3 and a FF camera also shows the K-3 as clearly superior in results.
John, I hope you are right, but I thought we are still waiting for a full test of the K-3? If you allow me, they are pretty strong statements made after reading a review on AP ..... I was reading the review in AP re the Olympus E-5 replacement and reflecting how it already seems dated and blown out of the water by the K-3. The comparison between the K-3 and a FF camera also shows the K-3 as clearly superior in results.
I have had the opportunity to try the "Olympus E-5 replacement" and it is a quite different camera than the K-3, IMO.
I guess that different cameras suit different requirements, they might be best at something, but not necessarily at everything.
Comment by giofi posted on Why do we stay with Pentax? at 28/10/2013 - 19:27
PM sent
Comment by giofi posted on [London] Pentax DA* 16-55 2.8, Pentax DA* 55mm 1.4 at 27/10/2013 - 12:43
I also have the k-5 ltd and I did not have any problems with the silver finish. And I agree, it looks great with both black and silver lenses.
Comment by giofi posted on Silver K-3 at 18/10/2013 - 15:24
davidtrout wrote:
The new Mark11 Jessops is an improvement over the old now defunct earlier model, at least at The MetroCentre on Tyneside. Staff are far more helpful with Pentax inquiries than at the previous now defunct model. The store is bigger and has a dedicated Ricoh Pentax section. OK it's set further back in the store than the two leading brand names but staff have a positive attitude.
On my first visit when the store had just opened a salesman wearing a Pentax t-shirt answered my queries.
I went in a couple of days ago to ask about the K3 and the salesman (Canon t-shirt) was most helpful.
David
PPG http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/davidtrout
It looks like also Richo is doing a lot better in terms of promotion and dealing with retailers if there is space for Pentax. And if staff is more knowledgeable, Richo is investing in training, etc...The new Mark11 Jessops is an improvement over the old now defunct earlier model, at least at The MetroCentre on Tyneside. Staff are far more helpful with Pentax inquiries than at the previous now defunct model. The store is bigger and has a dedicated Ricoh Pentax section. OK it's set further back in the store than the two leading brand names but staff have a positive attitude.
On my first visit when the store had just opened a salesman wearing a Pentax t-shirt answered my queries.
I went in a couple of days ago to ask about the K3 and the salesman (Canon t-shirt) was most helpful.
David
PPG http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/davidtrout
Comment by giofi posted on Pentax - a good range now at 12/10/2013 - 15:52
BarryPearson wrote:
I've read/heard that this is actually a bit of a hindrance for video, in that full HD is still only 2MP in size. So you're getting all this information flooding in off the sensor and having to do a lot of work to reduce it all down to 2MP. Hence why we're seeing more 120 fps offerings on some smaller sensor cameras than on high MP DSLR's.
I think there is a case for a genuine crop, (perhaps to 16 MP), rather than a down-size. In other words just throw the edge pixels away. This is, in effect, why some people use K-mount lenses on the Q - for "reach", typically for birding. richandfleur wrote:
Thinking fundamentals here, would that still be raw sensor data if it's then scaled down? RAW being straight off the sensor I'm assuming there's only ever one native resolution available.Smeggypants wrote:
[quote:3496ace15f="Lancer3397"]I never understood the pissing match when it comes to cramming huge megapixels onto the sensor.
I could see myself getting a K3 but running it at 16mp instead to make image size efficient
Can you select 16MP RAW from it?[quote:3496ace15f="Lancer3397"]I never understood the pissing match when it comes to cramming huge megapixels onto the sensor.
I could see myself getting a K3 but running it at 16mp instead to make image size efficient
I've read/heard that this is actually a bit of a hindrance for video, in that full HD is still only 2MP in size. So you're getting all this information flooding in off the sensor and having to do a lot of work to reduce it all down to 2MP. Hence why we're seeing more 120 fps offerings on some smaller sensor cameras than on high MP DSLR's.
Why crop rather than just capture the whole 24 MP and let the photographer crop later? To reduce the size in kilobytes. This might increase the number of images in the buffer, the speed at which the buffer can be cleared to the card at high fps, and would obviously increase the images per card, reduce import time into Lightroom, etc.
But there isn't the slightest hint in the specifications that the K-3 has such a feature![/quote]
BarryPearson wrote:
I've read/heard that this is actually a bit of a hindrance for video, in that full HD is still only 2MP in size. So you're getting all this information flooding in off the sensor and having to do a lot of work to reduce it all down to 2MP. Hence why we're seeing more 120 fps offerings on some smaller sensor cameras than on high MP DSLR's.
I think there is a case for a genuine crop, (perhaps to 16 MP), rather than a down-size. In other words just throw the edge pixels away. This is, in effect, why some people use K-mount lenses on the Q - for "reach", typically for birding. richandfleur wrote:
Thinking fundamentals here, would that still be raw sensor data if it's then scaled down? RAW being straight off the sensor I'm assuming there's only ever one native resolution available.Smeggypants wrote:
[quote:3496ace15f="Lancer3397"]I never understood the pissing match when it comes to cramming huge megapixels onto the sensor.
I could see myself getting a K3 but running it at 16mp instead to make image size efficient
Can you select 16MP RAW from it?[quote:3496ace15f="Lancer3397"]I never understood the pissing match when it comes to cramming huge megapixels onto the sensor.
I could see myself getting a K3 but running it at 16mp instead to make image size efficient
I've read/heard that this is actually a bit of a hindrance for video, in that full HD is still only 2MP in size. So you're getting all this information flooding in off the sensor and having to do a lot of work to reduce it all down to 2MP. Hence why we're seeing more 120 fps offerings on some smaller sensor cameras than on high MP DSLR's.
Why crop rather than just capture the whole 24 MP and let the photographer crop later? To reduce the size in kilobytes. This might increase the number of images in the buffer, the speed at which the buffer can be cleared to the card at high fps, and would obviously increase the images per card, reduce import time into Lightroom, etc.
But there isn't the slightest hint in the specifications that the K-3 has such a feature![/quote]i believe that is exactly what is implemented on the d7100, which allows you to select a smaller crop size and increase shots per second + number of shots k continuous shooting. But it might be that this is not seen as a key feature for Pentax users and anyway continuos shooting speed on the k-3 in impressive...
Comment by giofi posted on What will the new Pentax really offer us? at 10/10/2013 - 08:57
Still not on eBay.... So still available and still open to reasonable offers!
Comment by giofi posted on FS: Sigma 10mm and Sigma 2X converter at 07/10/2013 - 19:54
Smeggypants wrote:
Smeggy,giofi wrote:
But for the K-3 to be a Canikon beater the key is fast outofocus, not sensor quality. It seems to me that the differences in sensor performance are not that significant, but cameras such as the d7100 now have very fast AF as a differrentiator. If i am not mistaken the Nikon D7100 has a better AF than the D600, which is more about sensor performance. Or am I wrong?
Well I'm primarily basing my interest in the K-3 in terms of whether I'll want to buy one, not whether it's a Canikin beater. But for the K-3 to be a Canikon beater the key is fast outofocus, not sensor quality. It seems to me that the differences in sensor performance are not that significant, but cameras such as the d7100 now have very fast AF as a differrentiator. If i am not mistaken the Nikon D7100 has a better AF than the D600, which is more about sensor performance. Or am I wrong?
My comment was in reply to a previous post talking about the K-3 being a Canikon beater.... Personally, I share your view, but for Pentax to succeed, they need to find that differentiation that will capture users' attention.
Comment by giofi posted on New K3 image - interesting! at 06/10/2013 - 22:41
Trying to gauge, is this around the same size as a 31? A street shooters zoom
Philip