All Forum Comments
Comment by Lance B posted on Photographer captures amazing images of lions after submerging himself in watering hole for three months at 14/05/2010 - 07:09
All this chasing after high ISO is silly. As light levels drop, so do colour and contrast.
There may be times when it would be useful to have good 6400 ISO, but nobody is surely suggesting that more than a tiny minority of pictures will ever be taken at high ISO.
Most people are likely to take most pictures at between 100 ISO and 400 ISO. After that, the light gets dull and uninteresting. And close up, you can use flash.
I do take Lance's point that the cost of 135-format sensors will come down, but one has to look at the whole system, and factors other than price. Larger lenses are heavier and more expensive, and one of the delights of the Pentax system is that even a thoroughbred professional camera like the LX is both sturdy AND small and light.
If you have to hump a couple of bodies and a number of lenses around, which would you prefer to take - Pentax LX or Nikon F5?
I know my answer.
G
I would like FF for the larger, brghter VF, but even the VF wasn't that imnpressive on the D700. Yes, it was bigger, but not by that much. The 24-70 f2.8 is a sensational lens. Man, what build quality. I would gladly pay for a lens of this quality from Pentax.
I definitely do not want a D700 FF camera from Pentax. My belief in a FF camera from Pentax hinges on the desire and belief that they can make one as small as the K-7 and at worst the K20D. I was even a little scared off the D300s's size.
The other factor that turns me off the D700 is lack of in camera SR. The 24-70 f2.8 is not VR!!
Comment by Lance B posted on Interview with Hiroshi Onoda, manager of Pentax Europe. at 07/05/2010 - 02:35
I'm not so sure, because it is related to the quality needed by the market. FF sensors may well become cheaper, but so will APS-C.
They may well become better, but so will APS-C.
So when the noise level is irrelevant, the pixel count as high as anyone needs for any purpose and all this can be packed into an APS-C (or smaller!) sensor, why would we want a bigger camera using FF?
This is why most film cameras were 35mm and not medium format. The 35mm format is capable of outresolving what the eye can see on a 16" x 12" print (The lens book, Schultz and Hicks) and that's all most people need and want.
The limit on film was that formats smaller than 35mm did not fulfill this simple quality requirement. On this basis, as things stand now, I would expect 4/3 cameras to have a hard time.
Comment by Lance B posted on Interview with Hiroshi Onoda, manager of Pentax Europe. at 06/05/2010 - 10:40
It is the price point which is the issue, not the fact that an APS C sensor will always be cheaper. Yes, price is impotant at the low end of the market, but at the high end of the market where the advanced amateur and the semi pro lurk and currently purchase top spec APS C DSLR's, then there is a price point at which these people spend their money at and that seems to be about the US$1,500 mark. This is where the D300s and 7D are at the moment.
The only other limiting issue is size, and really, the only reason most of the FF cameras are so big these days is that they are designed for pros and therefore are pro use robust tough, are designed like tanks simply because you are paying huge $ for them and expect this type of build quality, and they are large for the large and heavy lenses that most pros use. Pros don't generally treat their cameras like advanced amateurs from what I have seen. They throw them around with gay abandon where as advanced amateurs polish and clean and cherish them with kid gloves.
These cameras are large because they are for pros, not necessarily because they need to be big. They will reduce in size once the sensors are cheap enough. In other words, they will become small when they the sensors are cheap enough to attract the advanced amateurs and not the other way round.
I shall add this for those that think I am a FF apologist. I am not. I do not need FF as APS C fits the bill nicely for me, but I have put forward my beliefs of what will transpire once FF sensors become cheap enough "for the masses". It is inevitable that they will and it is inevitable that C, N & S will jump at the opportunity to amortise FF costs of lenses and development of their FF cameras that they already have in order to profit from the advanced amateur and semi pro sector. If Pentax fail to also go the FF route, then there is a very strong possibility that they will lose most of their advanced amateur user base and those users will never come back once they have invested into another system.
There is only one thing that I really would like that FF offers and that is the large bright VF. There rest is just icing on the cake.
Comment by Lance B posted on Interview with Hiroshi Onoda, manager of Pentax Europe. at 06/05/2010 - 07:27
I hope this hasn't been posted previously, but I saw this over at the "other forum".
Translated interview.
http://es.babelfish.yahoo.com/...ide%3D135&lp=es_en&btnTrUrl=Traducir
As indicated by the orignal poster over at the "other forum", I have copied and pasted the main points:
To summarize:
The priority for Pentax right now is to complete the existing DSRL range as soon as possible.
This year there will be updates of existing cameras, and some completely new models.
There will be a professional camera above the K-7, but he cannot say when will be announced.
When asked about when will be distributed the 645D worlwide, he says that they want to gather some experience in Japan before taking further steps./
This all looks quite exciting. Hopefully, the professional camera above the K-7 will be FF. I would like FF more so for the big bright easy to use VF, the other IQ beneifts would be great as well. Let's hope that if it is FF, that it is small like the K-7 or at most the K20D. If I wanted a large FF camera, I would have already migrated to Nikon, like *isteve.
This would of course mean that Pentax would need to introduce FF lenses, but there are a few of the current lenses that would work anyway. The DFR macros, The FA Limiteds, the DA*60-250(?), the DA*200 and possibly the DA*300, the DA*55(?) would/could work on FF. In the short term, this would mean that Pentax would need to be developing lenses like: a 20mm f2.8, possibly a 24mm f2.8, a 24-75 f2.8 zoom and a 70-200 f2.8 zoom and then fill in other lenses as they go. In other words, if the long DA* lenses - 200mm and 300mm, did work on FF, then we would have a ready FF system if the new lenses were developed short term.
Of course, this is all pure speculation, but one that I think Pentax probably needs to go into if the FF sensor cost is low enough. Pentax are not going to get any, or many if at all, converts from Canon, Nikon and Sony, so, any FF users will be current Pentax APSC users wishing to upgrade and maybe some new to DSLR users wanting a top spec camera, ie advanced amateurs, and have not yet bought into a system or those that are not entrenched into another makers system. So, to entice 'advanced amateur new to DSR users', the price needs to compete at the same level as top spec APS C cameras, otherwise, they will more than likey go APS C and end up with a Canon, Nikon or Sony.
Comment by Lance B posted on Interview with Hiroshi Onoda, manager of Pentax Europe. at 04/05/2010 - 04:35
Comment by Lance B posted on My Camera is Giving me Fits at 19/04/2010 - 06:28
I know I have front focusing issues, allways have had.
Other than that I can't offer any explanation for your problem. Do you have other lenses you can try at infinity?
https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/topic/k-7-shims-18721
It is one thing to be able to get AF accuracy via the AF adjustment feature, but another to have the actual focus screen reliably and accurately focus when manually focusing (and for that matter have accurate AF confirmation via the focus screen) and hence the shim adjustments between the focus screen and the pentaprism.
I removed the .40mm factory shim and put in a .20mm shim and this corrected my slight manual focus error.
Comment by Lance B posted on Strange focusing at 08/04/2010 - 02:05
https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/topic/k-7-shims-18721
I replaced my .40mm shim in my K-7 with a .20mm shim and the manual focus is spot on, now.
Comment by Lance B posted on Strange focusing at 07/04/2010 - 07:03
For those that followed my thread regarding the Katz Eye focus screen and the issue of the shim, I have received my set of shims and am happy to report that the shim replacement seems to have worked correctly. I have only done preliminary testing, but a .20mm shim seems to be about right.
Here is my original thread on this site:
https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/topic/k-7-shims-18721
As those who read my original thread may remember, the factory fitted shim of .40mm caused front focus compared to what appears in the VF. In otherwords, my focused point in the VF would be behind what was actually recorded on the sensor. When I removed the .40mm factory fitted shim, the recorded image onto the sensor moved to behind the correctly focused image in the VF when I composed the image - to about the same amount as when the shim was installed. So, I figured that the factory fitted shim of .40mm needed to be about .20mm and this seems to be correct by my preliminary testing.
Comment by Lance B posted on Shim replacement works on K-7! at 29/03/2010 - 08:37
Good to see that Pentax charges a sensible price for the shims... I was scared that they would overprice them just like simple plastic things like lens caps, hotshoe covers and such.
Comment by Lance B posted on K-7 shims at 22/03/2010 - 03:47

