Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Pentax's April 1st joke camera arrives 3 months late...

Reply
Thread Tools

Pentax's April 1st joke camera arrives 3 months late...

 
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-23-2011
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
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-23-2011
On Jun 23, 8:25*am, Bowser <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-23-2011
On Jun 23, 8:25*am, Bowser <(E-Mail Removed)> 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!!

 
Reply With Quote
 
John A.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-23-2011
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 06:01:51 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>On Jun 23, 8:25*am, Bowser <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-23-2011
On Jun 23, 10:58*am, "Neil Harrington" <(E-Mail Removed)> 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?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mike
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-23-2011
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
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mike
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-24-2011
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
 
Reply With Quote
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-24-2011
On Jun 23, 4:54*pm, Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 05:07:56 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
> 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
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-24-2011
On 6/23/2011 8:53 PM, RichA wrote:
> On Jun 23, 4:54 pm, Eric Stevens<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 05:07:56 -0700 (PDT), RichA<(E-Mail Removed)>
>> 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
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-24-2011
On 6/23/2011 10:11 PM, Rich wrote:
> PeterN<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:4e03ee80$0$12487
> $(E-Mail Removed)-secrets.com:
>
>> On 6/23/2011 8:53 PM, RichA wrote:
>>> On Jun 23, 4:54 pm, Eric Stevens<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 05:07:56 -0700 (PDT), RichA<(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>> 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
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: When that New Camera Arrives at Your Doorstep Dave Digital Photography 6 12-12-2007 12:49 PM
When that new camera arrives at your doorstep... Dave Digital Photography 24 12-10-2007 01:30 AM
Nikon announces full frame, 18 megapixel (Sony CMOS sensor), F6D (F6 based Digital SLR) (apparently NOT an April Fools Joke). Steven M. Scharf Digital Photography 8 04-02-2005 11:09 PM
joke-dirty joke Joyce Danielson Computer Support 0 02-08-2005 11:42 PM
How can I click on a joke and have a new joke appear? Michael Javascript 16 09-26-2003 10:06 PM



Advertisments