On Feb 2, 2012, at 5:17 PM, Larry Colen wrote: > > > On 2/2/2012 1:28 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: >> >> On Feb 2, 2012, at 3:20 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: >> >>> Cotty<[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> how the hell are you >>>> supposed to use it with anything longer than (say) 150mm lenses? >>> >>> There's this thing called a "tripod". >>> :-P >> >> I see the grin, but to address this in practical terms (or at least in my >> ego-centric terms:-), I couldn't possibly use a tripod with my 60-250 all of >> the time, and it requires the shooting technique Cotty suggested. Handheld >> with the K-01 would be next to impossible. That said, I wouldn't mind having >> one with that 40mm lens as a travel camera, but I couldn't justify the cost >> for that alone. > > It seems that most everyone that complains about some feature or other are > looking at the camera bodies and complaining that they don't do everything, > rather than there are situations where a particular body works better than > other ones. > > I like the Q, but the sensor is too small, and it doesn't work well with my > K-mount lenses. > > I like the K-5, but it's too expensive, and while Live View is very handy at > times, the delay between shutter press and taking a photo is way too long. > > I'd love to have a 645D, but it won't fit in my pocket, and the 645 glass is > way too expensive. > > The K-01 is nice and cheap, and just small enough with the new 40 that it > would be easy to carry around, but it wouldn't work well with my bigma. > > Many of the people complaining that the new body, that will probably hit a > street price under $600, won't work in every situation, are the same people > that would turn around and drop $800 on a specialty lens, be it macro, > telephoto or whatever. > > Let's look at where it could come in handy. You're taking a trip, and you > want to have a spare body, but space is pretty limited. Besides, the K-5 is > just a little too big to conveniently fit in a jacket pocket, or a fannypack, > when you're walking around a strange city and don't want to carry your camera > bag. > > You do a lot of macro photography, particularly of things close to the > ground, where you can't easily look through the viewfinder. > > You do a lot of indoor photography, in low light. You can't use the focus > assist light because that's too distracting to the subjects, or it makes it > hard to take a candid when the camera shines a green light in someone's face. > It's really too dark to focus manually through an optical viewfinder, so you > need a live view that actually works. > > You, or someone close to you, wants a camera with better image quality than > most point and shoots without dropping $1,000 on a body, but the person using > the camera isn't really a camera person and really wants features like face > detection focus. > > There are a lot of cases where this actually would be the right tool for the > job. Complaining that the K-01 doesn't do everything well is like complaining > that an 8" crescent wrench isn't very good for hammering in nails when you're > framing a house. >
True enough. But since the 60-250 is my most used lens, the fact that it will undoubtedly be awkward with that lens is reason enough to make it a non-starter for me. That's not to say it's a bad camera. It should prove to be a good choice for some folks. Paul > > -- > Larry Colen [email protected] (from dos4est) > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
