This is true, larry, but these complaints typically come from different people. Most of the PDMLers are just fine with the K5, and OK with the Kr. The 645D is REALLY expensive, and the Q is a bit nichey for the price.
This camera directly competes with the NEX 5N, which is about $700 with a kit lens and no EVF. The NEX 7 has an EVF and a better sensor, but is a lot more expensive. It's really about right for its class in terms of features and price. On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Larry Colen <[email protected]> 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. > > > > -- > 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. -- Steve Desjardins -- 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.
