[Update: article. If I did not already have a million Canon and Nikon lenses, the K-7 would be very tempting indeed for me. In a nutshell, it's a professional camera for an amateur price and size.]"Pentax has it right when they call the K-7 a camera with pro features at a semi-pro price. I'm tempted to warn pure amateurs away from the Pentax K7, as I did with the Nikon D300, so that they don't get lost in its wonderful tangle of fine-tuning options. But the good news is that if you lock the Pentax K7 into Green zone mode it turns off most of the options that can befuddle and just starts using Pentax's years of experience to take well-balanced photographs."
----
I haven't even read this very well yet (my fusillini pollo is ready), but this looks like a highly interesting camera release. Especially if Pentax really has broken the insane rule camera manufacturers seem to have followed in the digital age: that you only get the best camera by getting the biggest and heaviest camera.
I also warmly applaud Pentax for being one of the very few modern camera makers willing to invest in making prime lenses (non-zooms). True, I love the versatility of zooms, and with today's production methods they can be compromise-free in image quality. But in theory you should still be able to get a sharper, smaller, and cheaper lens if you let go of the need for zoom. I wonder if this theory is really true in practice?
So for instance I might be very interested in the super-compact super-wide Pentax 15mm lens. Sadly, while it's beautiful mechanically, it is very expensive, and the image quality does not seem to live up to the expectations I have for twice the price of some of the very good zoom lenses you get these days. An F:4.0 prime lens at over $600 better be really f***ing sharp, and this seems to be "very good" only stopped down two stops, and not very good at full opening. That's a bit disappointing.
But I hope Pentax and others will make more primes, particular wide ones, because while we now have some very sharp professional zooms, they tend to be very big, very heavy, and very, very expensive.
We know it can be done. For example the Konica Hexar camera in the nineties had a 35mm 2.0 lens (fixed) which was top of the line. It was as good in all respects as the famous 35mm lens from Leica, and it cost less, including the camera! With today's technology and a willing camera maker, we should be able to get a camera which is even better than the Konica Hexar in all respects, size, price, speed, and quality. In short, a street photographer's camera par excellence.
11 comments:
Fusillini Con Pollo
Chicken, chilli, sun dried tomato, roasted red pepper in a rich tomato sauce.
Sounds delicious!
Not the forget the pasta screws.
Yes, it's delish.
No Konica product will ever rival the functionality of a Leica camera. And the sharpness and imaging ability of the glass will never compare. Lenses and glass made and used by Leica FAR surpass anything else. I used Leica equipment (the M series) professionally and nothing comes close.
Research before you post. And if you knew anything at all about photography and optics - sharpest part of the lens is the very center circle - usually between f5.6 and f8. Don't call yourself a photographer if you know the basics. Just be an amateur. You have the arrogance of the typical Limey.
Come on, KY, you are usually not this blunt.
I'm not a limey.
The favorable comparisons of that Konica lens was made by professional reviewers, it was not something I just pulled out of the air.
Virtually all lenses are better stopped down and in the center, but for some the differences are big, for others they are negligible.
In reply, Eolake - have you seen the MTF specs of the Konica lense? Do you know how to analyse them and compare the data to others?
So-called professional reviewers are just that - people who review things to make a living - and make a living - and maybe even a kickback.
If the Konica lense you mention is superior to everything and all out on the market, I guess Nikon and Canon and Hasselblad and Leaf and Schneider and Rodenstock will soon be buying them, won't they...?
You're exhibiting the "I'm better than most and know more than most" syndrome, and with no facts to back you up - that makes you a limey.
I'm really not, come on. :-)
Oh, I know...
Just giving you a hard time because of where you live.
Seriously now - all this talk (mine included) about specs and features of cameras and lenses, mean nothing if nothing of visual value is produced. Peaple shot produce images and impre3ssions - and THEN worry about the shortcomings of their equipment.
A non-visual, untalented idiot with an HDIII isn't going to shoot anything better than someone shooting Tri-X in a K-1000. I know this, because I went to school with such people. Always the best equipment and the latest and greatest - no visual imagination whatsoever.
Check out www.belgiumdigital.com - very nice images and great inspiration - even for 'older' photographers. :-)
OK, I guess I can live with being called a limey in the interest of saving 30% in taxes over Denmark. That buys a lot of fucking Pentaxes.
Okay already - I apologize and withdraw my earlier comment. You're not a limey. You're a Danish. :-)
Yeah. Sweet and seductive, but not good for ya in the long run.
You're exhibiting the "I'm better than most and know more than most" syndrome, and with no facts to back you up - that makes you a limey.
Seems to me that's what you're doing. Not just about the equipment, but throwing out the old "my classmates were untalented hacks" line. Pretty lame.
Post a Comment