Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Digital Photography (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f37-digital-photography.html)
-   -   Pentax's April 1st joke camera arrives 3 months late... (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t750384-pentaxs-april-1st-joke-camera-arrives-3-months-late.html)

RichA 06-23-2011 12:07 PM

Pentax's April 1st joke camera arrives 3 months late...
 
I like that one lens. Largest body to lens element ratio I've ever
seen. Probably they didn't make the lenses as physically small as
they could because people might not want to pay $300 for a kit lens
otherwise. "Toy Lens." Hilarious!

http://dpreview.com/news/1106/110623...axqpreview.asp

RichA 06-23-2011 12:36 PM

Re: Pentax's April 1st joke camera arrives 3 months late...
 
On Jun 23, 8:25*am, Bowser <yeeec...@bleah.ugh> wrote:
> On 6/23/2011 8:07 AM, RichA wrote:
>
> > I like that one lens. *Largest body to lens element ratio I've ever
> > seen. *Probably they didn't make the lenses as physically small as
> > they could because people might not want to pay $300 for a kit lens
> > otherwise. *"Toy Lens." *Hilarious!

>
> >http://dpreview.com/news/1106/110623...axqpreview.asp

>
> Man, this thing has "utter failure" written all over it. Who would carry
> this when they can carry a superzoom with the same size sensor? Can't
> wait to see the (lack of) image quality.


What they got right:
-magnesium body.
-5 fps shooting
-Built-in 3 image HDR (with that sensor, they are going to NEED it!)
-In camera shake reduction. Though with all the extra space not taken
up by glass in the lens bodies, they could have built it in there!!

What they got wrong:
-the sensor. 1/2.3" enough said.
-the slow prime lens. f1.9 at a 47mm equivalent? That's the best
they could muster??! They should have at least an f1.2 if not faster
lens.
-$250 for an EVF add-on.
-wasting a dial on the front on "art" filters. I do not think it is
re-assignable.
-No pancake lens evident. I thought the idea was to make it portable
as possible?
-$800 price tag for what amounts to a well-built P&S.
-Add another $80 for the extra battery, which you will need since you
do on all the other compact IL cameras to shoot any amount of images.

The horrifying thing is that with this camera, an 8mm lens = a 47mm on
a FF camera. Graphically illustrating how small the sensor really is.


RichA 06-23-2011 01:01 PM

Re: Pentax's April 1st joke camera arrives 3 months late...
 
On Jun 23, 8:25*am, Bowser <yeeec...@bleah.ugh> wrote:
> On 6/23/2011 8:07 AM, RichA wrote:
>
> > I like that one lens. *Largest body to lens element ratio I've ever
> > seen. *Probably they didn't make the lenses as physically small as
> > they could because people might not want to pay $300 for a kit lens
> > otherwise. *"Toy Lens." *Hilarious!

>
> >http://dpreview.com/news/1106/110623...axqpreview.asp

>
> Man, this thing has "utter failure" written all over it. Who would carry
> this when they can carry a superzoom with the same size sensor? Can't
> wait to see the (lack of) image quality.


Wow! I missed this, someone posted that is has NO in-camera
shutter!! Which means no adapting other lenses!! Enthusiasts need
not apply!!


John A. 06-23-2011 01:20 PM

Re: Pentax's April 1st joke camera arrives 3 months late...
 
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 06:01:51 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Jun 23, 8:25*am, Bowser <yeeec...@bleah.ugh> wrote:
>> On 6/23/2011 8:07 AM, RichA wrote:
>>
>> > I like that one lens. *Largest body to lens element ratio I've ever
>> > seen. *Probably they didn't make the lenses as physically small as
>> > they could because people might not want to pay $300 for a kit lens
>> > otherwise. *"Toy Lens." *Hilarious!

>>
>> >http://dpreview.com/news/1106/110623...axqpreview.asp

>>
>> Man, this thing has "utter failure" written all over it. Who would carry
>> this when they can carry a superzoom with the same size sensor? Can't
>> wait to see the (lack of) image quality.

>
>Wow! I missed this, someone posted that is has NO in-camera
>shutter!! Which means no adapting other lenses!! Enthusiasts need
>not apply!!


I imagine a mechanical shutter would get in the way of the EVF add-on
functioning.

RichA 06-23-2011 03:51 PM

Re: Pentax's April 1st joke camera arrives 3 months late...
 
On Jun 23, 10:58*am, "Neil Harrington" <n...@home.net> wrote:
> RichA wrote:
> > I like that one lens. *Largest body to lens element ratio I've ever
> > seen. *Probably they didn't make the lenses as physically small as
> > they could because people might not want to pay $300 for a kit lens
> > otherwise. *"Toy Lens." *Hilarious!

>
> >http://dpreview.com/news/1106/110623...axqpreview.asp

>
> Interesting. Their arrangement for getting the flash away from the lens axis
> is certainly unusual. Looks like a Rube Goldberg machine.
>
> But where, oh where, is the Nikon ILC that we were assured would be here
> before now?


Under 18ft of debris in Japan?

Mike 06-23-2011 11:11 PM

Re: Pentax's April 1st joke camera arrives 3 months late...
 
On 23/06/2011 8:07 AM, RichA wrote:
> I like that one lens. Largest body to lens element ratio I've ever
> seen. Probably they didn't make the lenses as physically small as
> they could because people might not want to pay $300 for a kit lens
> otherwise. "Toy Lens." Hilarious!
>
> http://dpreview.com/news/1106/110623...axqpreview.asp
>

All I can say it's a digital Pentax Auto 100.... without the SLR part!

Mike

Mike 06-24-2011 12:22 AM

Re: Pentax's April 1st joke camera arrives 3 months late...
 
On 23/06/2011 8:07 AM, RichA wrote:
> I like that one lens. Largest body to lens element ratio I've ever
> seen. Probably they didn't make the lenses as physically small as
> they could because people might not want to pay $300 for a kit lens
> otherwise. "Toy Lens." Hilarious!
>
> http://dpreview.com/news/1106/110623...axqpreview.asp
>

All I can say it's a digital Pentax Auto 110.... without the SLR part!

Mike

RichA 06-24-2011 12:53 AM

Re: Pentax's April 1st joke camera arrives 3 months late...
 
On Jun 23, 4:54*pm, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 05:07:56 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I like that one lens. *Largest body to lens element ratio I've ever
> >seen. *Probably they didn't make the lenses as physically small as
> >they could because people might not want to pay $300 for a kit lens
> >otherwise. *"Toy Lens." *Hilarious!

>
> >http://dpreview.com/news/1106/110623...axqpreview.asp

>
> Magnesium body!
>
> At the first sign of battery trouble, the things a bomb.
>
> They should have used a plastic body.
>
> Regards,
>
> Eric Stevens


Lithium + water + plastic = napalm

PeterN 06-24-2011 01:54 AM

Re: Pentax's April 1st joke camera arrives 3 months late...
 
On 6/23/2011 8:53 PM, RichA wrote:
> On Jun 23, 4:54 pm, Eric Stevens<eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 05:07:56 -0700 (PDT), RichA<rander3...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I like that one lens. Largest body to lens element ratio I've ever
>>> seen. Probably they didn't make the lenses as physically small as
>>> they could because people might not want to pay $300 for a kit lens
>>> otherwise. "Toy Lens." Hilarious!

>>
>>> http://dpreview.com/news/1106/110623...axqpreview.asp

>>
>> Magnesium body!
>>
>> At the first sign of battery trouble, the things a bomb.
>>
>> They should have used a plastic body.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Eric Stevens

>
> Lithium + water + plastic = napalm


Y Our knowledge of chemistry is underwhelming.

--
Peter

PeterN 06-24-2011 02:21 AM

Re: Pentax's April 1st joke camera arrives 3 months late...
 
On 6/23/2011 10:11 PM, Rich wrote:
> PeterN<peter.new@nospam.verizon.net> wrote in news:4e03ee80$0$12487
> $8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com:
>
>> On 6/23/2011 8:53 PM, RichA wrote:
>>> On Jun 23, 4:54 pm, Eric Stevens<eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 05:07:56 -0700 (PDT), RichA<rander3...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I like that one lens. Largest body to lens element ratio I've ever
>>>>> seen. Probably they didn't make the lenses as physically small as
>>>>> they could because people might not want to pay $300 for a kit lens
>>>>> otherwise. "Toy Lens." Hilarious!
>>>>
>>>>> http://dpreview.com/news/1106/110623...axqpreview.asp
>>>>
>>>> Magnesium body!
>>>>
>>>> At the first sign of battery trouble, the things a bomb.
>>>>
>>>> They should have used a plastic body.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Eric Stevens
>>>
>>> Lithium + water + plastic = napalm

>>
>> Y Our knowledge of chemistry is underwhelming.
>>

>
> I'm sure your knowledge of "chemistry" is second to none.


the issue is your qualifications to make your statement.

FYI I am NOT an expert in chemistry, but I do know enough to understand
that there are different formulations of plastics. I also understand
enough organic chemistry to understand that certain reactions cannot
take place without the requisite environmental conditions being present.
Some reactions require a catalyst.
So now pray tell us how you would create this reaction. It is in the
public interest to know whether the plastics used in camera bodies, as
formulated, can create a danger.

--
Peter


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.