Reply interspersed.
On 10/31/2012 8:51 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
Colin, have you ever developed a new technology product from the
initial "customer requirements" to shipping?
I did, though it was a software piece.
How much time have you spent designing, writing and testing embedded
firmware?
100% - it was all software, though it wasn't embedded.
As far as I can tell, Hoya cut back development to the absolute bare
minimum to keep the company afloat and maximize short term profits,
so it would seem that Ricoh has to pretty much start with a clean
slate.
Sadly it may be very true.
Lets look at the K-5. When it comes to low light work, it is
absofuckinglutely amazing. In some ways it is close to on par with a
D700. The D800 increases the resolution over the D700, but for low
light it's not a lot better. The Canon 5d3 is pretty amazing in low
light, but either of those cameras cost two, nearly three times what
a K-5 does. What was the K-5s one weakness in low light? Focus.
And they seem to have addressed that issue.
Few points.
1. Why would you want to compare Pentax to Nikon? If your tool gets the
job done, why to compare?
2. How much K-5 costed when it was introduced? And how much Canon 6D or
Nikon D600 cost now. Heck, just recently you, guys, had a sale (even
mentioned by TheOnlinePhotograher.com) where you could buy Canon 5DMk2
together with 24-105/4L for 2.200 of your currency. That's not a shabby
proposition...
3. I don't know about cameras of other systems but my K-5 has a tendency
to color everything in dark violet when it is dark outside. I'd call
that a weakness...
I'd love more, smaller, focus points, but that's a much bigger, time
consuming, and expensive redesign.
Is it really??? Aren't cameras supposed to be somewhat modular like any
other modern technological marvels?
Yes, autofocus could be a bit quicker, there are improvements that
could be made in auto exposure. So, if you are the sort of
photographer than just wants to aim the camera and let it make all
the decisions and do everything that requires any actual skill, then
maybe Pentax isn't the brand for you. Maybe you'd be happier with a
Canon point and shoot.
Why do I get a feeling that you had a bit of defensive tone here???
Let's say this:
1. If in good light I point my camera somewhere with reasonable accuracy
in terms of focal point being directed at where I want it to auto-focus,
I expect it to auto-focus just there. Not to the object far behind or
another object far in front.
You know, Larry, in the user manual of my Ricoh GXR it is written
English on white that this camera will always tend to focus on the
object closest to it. I cannot express in words how easy it is for me to
get proper focus now in terms of accuracy. Because I know what to expect.
And pardon me being blunt, why for crying out loud Pentax makes me to
have to investigate or research how it's AF works - write it in the
fucking manual so that I can read the darn thing.
2. If in good light I point my camera to a simple scene I want to get a
reasonably accurate exposure reading. What's the point of auto-exposure
if I get not 1% or 5% of bad exposures, but like 90% of them so that I
have to be mindful of what specific exposure compensation I have to dial
in for each session of shooting.
You see, I shot with Nikon D700 on one occasion. In-doors, mixed light
sources, not very much light all together. I had D700, 24-70/2.8 and
some flash. I used it as insanely big and heavy point-and-shoot. Guess
what - I got all my shots in. No focus or exposure problems whatsoever.
None, zip, zilch, nada... The only shots I lost where to camera shake or
badly chosen moment. If Nikon can develop such a reliable accurate
system, then why cannot Pentax? (*)
And no, I won't be happier with Canon point and shoot.
(*) Clarification: I am talking purely in terms of technology here.
Boris
--
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.
