New Pentax is a piece of junk

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Mar 21, 2012.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Mar 21, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "RichA" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > No EVF, no viewfinder at all, just an LCD like a 2nd rate P&S. All it
    > has is decent LCD resolution. Not much smaller if at all than the K5
    > DSLR. Why, why, WHY would anyone buy this?
    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com/previews/pentaxk01/images/comparetok5_top.jpg


    I've almost come to the same conclusion about micro-4/3 compared to APS-C
    DSLRs. With the lens I would want (14-140mm), there isn't a great space
    saving, and not much weight saving either. The Panasonic kit would be
    over £1000 (US $1600), and I would end up with a less light-sensitive
    camera.

    David
    David J Taylor, Mar 22, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Mar 22, 12:54 am, "David J Taylor" <david-
    > wrote:
    > "RichA" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    > > No EVF, no viewfinder at all, just an LCD like a 2nd rate P&S.  All it
    > > has is decent LCD resolution.  Not much smaller if at all than the K5
    > > DSLR.  Why, why, WHY would anyone buy this?

    >
    > >http://www.dpreview.com/previews/pentaxk01/images/comparetok5_top.jpg

    >
    > I've almost come to the same conclusion about micro-4/3 compared to APS-C
    > DSLRs.  With the lens I would want (14-140mm), there isn't a great space
    > saving, and not much weight saving either.  The Panasonic kit would be
    > over £1000 (US $1600), and I would end up with a less light-sensitive
    > camera.
    >
    > David


    Yes, there is no real way to avoid size when it comes to long zooms,
    if you want any kind of aperture speed. In fact, relative to lens
    speed, the size of the lens is large, likely owing to the amount of
    corrections needed to maintain any kind of decent image and the
    separate internal movements for the same reason. However, despite the
    length of lens difference, a GH2 or OM-D and that lens weighs about
    1/2 of what a D7000 and Nikon 18-200mm weigh.
    RichA, Mar 22, 2012
    #3
  4. RichA

    Mike Guest

    On 21/03/2012 5:34 PM, RichA wrote:
    > No EVF, no viewfinder at all, just an LCD like a 2nd rate P&S. All it
    > has is decent LCD resolution. Not much smaller if at all than the K5
    > DSLR. Why, why, WHY would anyone buy this?
    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com/previews/pentaxk01/images/comparetok5_top.jpg
    >

    I have to agree with Rich on this one, the camera was designed to accept
    regular K-Mount lenses. As a result they require a flange to sensor
    registration the same as a dSLR. The idea behind mirrorless IMHO is to
    reduce size by eliminating the mirror box. They (Pentax) could have made
    a new series of lenses to make a compact RF size camera, and make an
    extension tube type adapter for SLR lenses.

    --
    Mike
    Mike, Mar 22, 2012
    #4
  5. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Mar 22, 12:52 pm, Mike <> wrote:
    > On 21/03/2012 5:34 PM, RichA wrote:> No EVF, no viewfinder at all, just an LCD like a 2nd rate P&S.  All it
    > > has is decent LCD resolution.  Not much smaller if at all than the K5
    > > DSLR.  Why, why, WHY would anyone buy this?

    >
    > >http://www.dpreview.com/previews/pentaxk01/images/comparetok5_top.jpg

    >
    > I have to agree with Rich on this one, the camera was designed to accept
    > regular K-Mount lenses. As a result they require a flange to sensor
    > registration the same as a dSLR. The idea behind mirrorless IMHO is to
    > reduce size by eliminating the mirror box. They (Pentax) could have made
    > a new series of lenses to make a compact RF size camera, and make an
    > extension tube type adapter for SLR lenses.
    >
    > --
    > Mike


    They would have had to design a 3rd lens system to make it skinnier
    (which it should have been) which even for Canon would be a commitment.
    RichA, Mar 22, 2012
    #5
  6. RichA

    John A. Guest

    On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 14:27:21 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    wrote:

    >On Mar 22, 12:52 pm, Mike <> wrote:
    >> On 21/03/2012 5:34 PM, RichA wrote:> No EVF, no viewfinder at all, just an LCD like a 2nd rate P&S.  All it
    >> > has is decent LCD resolution.  Not much smaller if at all than the K5
    >> > DSLR.  Why, why, WHY would anyone buy this?

    >>
    >> >http://www.dpreview.com/previews/pentaxk01/images/comparetok5_top.jpg

    >>
    >> I have to agree with Rich on this one, the camera was designed to accept
    >> regular K-Mount lenses. As a result they require a flange to sensor
    >> registration the same as a dSLR. The idea behind mirrorless IMHO is to
    >> reduce size by eliminating the mirror box. They (Pentax) could have made
    >> a new series of lenses to make a compact RF size camera, and make an
    >> extension tube type adapter for SLR lenses.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Mike

    >
    >They would have had to design a 3rd lens system to make it skinnier
    >(which it should have been) which even for Canon would be a commitment.


    4th, after K, Q, and 645.
    John A., Mar 23, 2012
    #6
  7. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Mar 22, 9:43 pm, John A. <> wrote:
    > On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 14:27:21 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > >On Mar 22, 12:52 pm, Mike <> wrote:
    > >> On 21/03/2012 5:34 PM, RichA wrote:> No EVF, no viewfinder at all, just an LCD like a 2nd rate P&S.  All it
    > >> > has is decent LCD resolution.  Not much smaller if at all than theK5
    > >> > DSLR.  Why, why, WHY would anyone buy this?

    >
    > >> >http://www.dpreview.com/previews/pentaxk01/images/comparetok5_top.jpg

    >
    > >> I have to agree with Rich on this one, the camera was designed to accept
    > >> regular K-Mount lenses. As a result they require a flange to sensor
    > >> registration the same as a dSLR. The idea behind mirrorless IMHO is to
    > >> reduce size by eliminating the mirror box. They (Pentax) could have made
    > >> a new series of lenses to make a compact RF size camera, and make an
    > >> extension tube type adapter for SLR lenses.

    >
    > >> --
    > >> Mike

    >
    > >They would have had to design a 3rd lens system to make it skinnier
    > >(which it should have been) which even for Canon would be a commitment.

    >
    > 4th, after K, Q, and 645.


    That's right. Forgot about the 645.
    RichA, Mar 23, 2012
    #7
  8. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    RichA <> wrote:
    >On Mar 22, 9:43 pm, John A. <> wrote:
    >> On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 14:27:21 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    >> wrote:
    >> >They would have had to design a 3rd lens system to make it skinnier
    >> >(which it should have been) which even for Canon would be a commitment.

    >>
    >> 4th, after K, Q, and 645.

    >
    >That's right. Forgot about the 645.



    But Pentax is already designing a system of compact lenses for the K
    mount K-01 which will not work on the K mount DSLRs because the rear
    elements would strike the reflex mirror.
    Bruce, Mar 23, 2012
    #8
  9. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > But Pentax is already designing a system of compact lenses for the K
    > mount K-01 which will not work on the K mount DSLRs because the rear
    > elements would strike the reflex mirror.


    Right, just as Canon uses one lens mount these days, but EF-S lenses wont
    necessarily fit on FF bodies without problems.

    Trevor.
    Trevor, Mar 24, 2012
    #9
  10. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    "nospam" <> wrote in message
    news:310320122039153794%...
    > In article <>, Robert Coe
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> : Right, just as Canon uses one lens mount these days, but EF-S lenses
    >> : won't necessarily fit on FF bodies without problems.
    >>
    >> I was under the impression that that's an intentional incompatibility, to
    >> keep
    >> users from mounting an EF-S lens on a FF body and then complaining about
    >> vignetting, optical falloff, etc. There is, of course, no problem with
    >> mounting an EF lens on a crop body.

    >
    > no, it's because some ef-s lenses protrude farther into the mirror box
    > than ef-s lenses do.


    What ????

    >(crop sensor cameras have smaller mirror boxes).


    Smaller mirrors (not mirror boxes), the lens mount to sensor distance must
    be the same or FF lenses won't work, and they do. And the lens mount is the
    same size of course.


    > you were able to mount those lenses on a full frame camera, the mirror
    > would hit the rear element of the lens when it flips.
    >
    > nikon's dx lenses don't have this ridiculous limitation



    Because Nikon have a greater lens mount to sensor distance, making them
    unable to use many other lenses with adapters that Canon can. I prefer Canon
    for that just that reason, even if YOU think it ridiculous. Swings and
    roundabouts! :)

    Trevor.
    Trevor, Mar 31, 2012
    #10
  11. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    "nospam" <> wrote in message
    news:310320122358462090%...
    >> > no, it's because some ef-s lenses protrude farther into the mirror box
    >> > than ef-s lenses do.

    >>
    >> What ????

    >
    > which words did you not understand?


    That would be "some ef-s lenses protrude farther into the mirror box than
    ef-s lenses do"
    Individually the words are OK of course. Perhaps you meant to say "... than
    some other ef-s lenses do", which is hardly a revelation to anyone!


    >> >(crop sensor cameras have smaller mirror boxes).

    >>
    >> Smaller mirrors (not mirror boxes),

    >
    > smaller mirrors means smaller mirror boxes.


    Nope, just less mirror in them.


    >> the lens mount to sensor distance must
    >> be the same or FF lenses won't work, and they do. And the lens mount is
    >> the
    >> same size of course.

    >
    > i didn't say the flange distance changed.


    You said the mirror box is smaller, so if the mount size is the same, and
    distance is the same, WHAT part of the mirror box is smaller?


    >> > you were able to mount those lenses on a full frame camera, the mirror
    >> > would hit the rear element of the lens when it flips.
    >> >
    >> > nikon's dx lenses don't have this ridiculous limitation

    >>
    >> Because Nikon have a greater lens mount to sensor distance,

    >
    > wrong. in fact, it's the other way around. having a greater flange
    > distance means protruding elements are *more* likely,
    >yet nikon managed to avoid the problem entirely.


    Are you for real!? Having more distance between mirror and lens mount allows
    for additional lens clearance. Thats the main difference.


    >> making them
    >> unable to use many other lenses with adapters that Canon can. I prefer
    >> Canon
    >> for that just that reason, even if YOU think it ridiculous. Swings and
    >> roundabouts! :)

    >
    > what does using lenses with adapters have to do with the shortcomings
    > of ef-s lenses?


    There are no shortcomings, only in YOUR brain.

    > try to stay on topic.


    And you don't of course. :)

    Trevor.
    Trevor, Mar 31, 2012
    #11
  12. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    "nospam" <> wrote in message
    news:010420120110109084%...
    > In article <jl8kpj$uvt$>, Trevor <>
    > wrote:
    >> >> > no, it's because some ef-s lenses protrude farther into the mirror
    >> >> > box
    >> >> > than ef-s lenses do.
    >> >>
    >> >> What ????
    >> >
    >> > which words did you not understand?

    >>
    >> That would be "some ef-s lenses protrude farther into the mirror box than
    >> ef-s lenses do"
    >> Individually the words are OK of course. Perhaps you meant to say "...
    >> than
    >> some other ef-s lenses do", which is hardly a revelation to anyone!

    >
    > actually, i meant to say some ef-s lenses protrude more than ef lenses
    > do, but given the context (ef-s versus ef) it should have been obvious
    > what was meant.


    It's obvious you can't write, or read what you've written anyway.


    >> >> >(crop sensor cameras have smaller mirror boxes).
    >> >>
    >> >> Smaller mirrors (not mirror boxes),
    >> >
    >> > smaller mirrors means smaller mirror boxes.

    >>
    >> Nope, just less mirror in them.

    >
    > nope. there's no need to keep the box the same size if the mirror is
    > smaller. think about it.


    Yes I have, what part of the lens mount is the same size, and the distance
    between lens mount and sensor/film plane is the same are YOU having trouble
    with?
    The mirror box *IS* smaller in CSC cameras of course, not what is being
    talked about however.


    >> >> the lens mount to sensor distance must
    >> >> be the same or FF lenses won't work, and they do. And the lens mount
    >> >> is
    >> >> the
    >> >> same size of course.
    >> >
    >> > i didn't say the flange distance changed.

    >>
    >> You said the mirror box is smaller, so if the mount size is the same, and
    >> distance is the same, WHAT part of the mirror box is smaller?

    >
    > all of it.


    Obviously you are a complete loon or a stupid troll.

    Trevor.
    Trevor, Mar 31, 2012
    #12
  13. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 13:41:59 +1100, "Trevor" <> wrote:
    :
    : "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    : news:...
    : >
    : > But Pentax is already designing a system of compact lenses for the K
    : > mount K-01 which will not work on the K mount DSLRs because the rear
    : > elements would strike the reflex mirror.
    :
    : Right, just as Canon uses one lens mount these days, but EF-S lenses
    : won't necessarily fit on FF bodies without problems.

    I was under the impression that that's an intentional incompatibility, to keep
    users from mounting an EF-S lens on a FF body and then complaining about
    vignetting, optical falloff, etc. There is, of course, no problem with
    mounting an EF lens on a crop body.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Apr 1, 2012
    #13
  14. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Robert Coe
    <> wrote:

    > : Right, just as Canon uses one lens mount these days, but EF-S lenses
    > : won't necessarily fit on FF bodies without problems.
    >
    > I was under the impression that that's an intentional incompatibility, to keep
    > users from mounting an EF-S lens on a FF body and then complaining about
    > vignetting, optical falloff, etc. There is, of course, no problem with
    > mounting an EF lens on a crop body.


    no, it's because some ef-s lenses protrude farther into the mirror box
    than ef-s lenses do (crop sensor cameras have smaller mirror boxes). if
    you were able to mount those lenses on a full frame camera, the mirror
    would hit the rear element of the lens when it flips.

    nikon's dx lenses don't have this ridiculous limitation and can be
    mounted on full frame cameras without any issue. the camera will
    automatically go into dx mode or that can be manually overridden since
    some dx lenses will cover the full frame at some focal lengths.
    nospam, Apr 1, 2012
    #14
  15. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <jl8gup$oap$>, Trevor <>
    wrote:

    > >> : Right, just as Canon uses one lens mount these days, but EF-S lenses
    > >> : won't necessarily fit on FF bodies without problems.
    > >>
    > >> I was under the impression that that's an intentional incompatibility, to keep
    > >> users from mounting an EF-S lens on a FF body and then complaining about
    > >> vignetting, optical falloff, etc. There is, of course, no problem with
    > >> mounting an EF lens on a crop body.

    > >
    > > no, it's because some ef-s lenses protrude farther into the mirror box
    > > than ef-s lenses do.

    >
    > What ????


    which words did you not understand?

    > >(crop sensor cameras have smaller mirror boxes).

    >
    > Smaller mirrors (not mirror boxes),


    smaller mirrors means smaller mirror boxes.

    > the lens mount to sensor distance must
    > be the same or FF lenses won't work, and they do. And the lens mount is the
    > same size of course.


    i didn't say the flange distance changed.

    > > you were able to mount those lenses on a full frame camera, the mirror
    > > would hit the rear element of the lens when it flips.
    > >
    > > nikon's dx lenses don't have this ridiculous limitation

    >
    > Because Nikon have a greater lens mount to sensor distance,


    wrong. in fact, it's the other way around. having a greater flange
    distance means protruding elements are *more* likely, yet nikon managed
    to avoid the problem entirely.

    > making them
    > unable to use many other lenses with adapters that Canon can. I prefer Canon
    > for that just that reason, even if YOU think it ridiculous. Swings and
    > roundabouts! :)


    what does using lenses with adapters have to do with the shortcomings
    of ef-s lenses?

    try to stay on topic.
    nospam, Apr 1, 2012
    #15
  16. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <jl8kpj$uvt$>, Trevor <>
    wrote:

    > >> > no, it's because some ef-s lenses protrude farther into the mirror box
    > >> > than ef-s lenses do.
    > >>
    > >> What ????

    > >
    > > which words did you not understand?

    >
    > That would be "some ef-s lenses protrude farther into the mirror box than
    > ef-s lenses do"
    > Individually the words are OK of course. Perhaps you meant to say "... than
    > some other ef-s lenses do", which is hardly a revelation to anyone!


    actually, i meant to say some ef-s lenses protrude more than ef lenses
    do, but given the context (ef-s versus ef) it should have been obvious
    what was meant.

    > >> >(crop sensor cameras have smaller mirror boxes).
    > >>
    > >> Smaller mirrors (not mirror boxes),

    > >
    > > smaller mirrors means smaller mirror boxes.

    >
    > Nope, just less mirror in them.


    nope. there's no need to keep the box the same size if the mirror is
    smaller. think about it.

    > >> the lens mount to sensor distance must
    > >> be the same or FF lenses won't work, and they do. And the lens mount is
    > >> the
    > >> same size of course.

    > >
    > > i didn't say the flange distance changed.

    >
    > You said the mirror box is smaller, so if the mount size is the same, and
    > distance is the same, WHAT part of the mirror box is smaller?


    all of it.

    > >> > you were able to mount those lenses on a full frame camera, the mirror
    > >> > would hit the rear element of the lens when it flips.
    > >> >
    > >> > nikon's dx lenses don't have this ridiculous limitation
    > >>
    > >> Because Nikon have a greater lens mount to sensor distance,

    > >
    > > wrong. in fact, it's the other way around. having a greater flange
    > > distance means protruding elements are *more* likely,
    > >yet nikon managed to avoid the problem entirely.

    >
    > Are you for real!?


    yes.

    > Having more distance between mirror and lens mount allows
    > for additional lens clearance. Thats the main difference.


    that's also the main problem. if you have a greater flange distance,
    the need to have a shorter back focus distance for shorter focal
    lengths is *higher*. if anything, nikon should have this problem, not
    canon, for the very reason you specify.

    > >> making them
    > >> unable to use many other lenses with adapters that Canon can. I prefer
    > >> Canon for that just that reason, even if YOU think it ridiculous. Swings and
    > >> roundabouts! :)

    > >
    > > what does using lenses with adapters have to do with the shortcomings
    > > of ef-s lenses?

    >
    > There are no shortcomings, only in YOUR brain.


    everything has shortcomings. nothing is perfect.

    the fact that ef-s lenses cannot be used on an ef camera *is* a
    shortcoming.

    nikon dx lenses do not have this limitation. someone who upgrades from
    a nikon dx system to an fx system won't have a pile of obsolete lenses.
    they can continue to them in dx mode and in the case of a d800, it
    might even be an upgrade from what they had, even in dx mode (15 mp).

    speaking of which, what will you be doing with your ef-s lenses when
    you buy that $500 full frame canon slr you so desperately want? they're
    not going to fit.

    > > try to stay on topic.

    >
    > And you don't of course. :)


    i'm not the one bringing up lens flange distances and offbrand lenses &
    adapters.

    the subject is ef-s versus ef. period.
    nospam, Apr 1, 2012
    #16
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Wereo_SUPREME

    Yahoo Answers is a piece of Junk

    Wereo_SUPREME, Jan 9, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    399
    joevan
    Jan 15, 2007
  2. Guest
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    412
    comp sci kid
    Nov 13, 2004
  3. Guest
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    361
    Bobby
    Oct 20, 2004
  4. Guest
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    389
    Consultant
    Dec 10, 2004
  5. RichA

    Nikon D3000 a piece of junk?

    RichA, May 19, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    373
    Ray Fischer
    May 22, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page