Saturday, December 24, 2016
Best and Worst Cameras and Lenses of 2016
Well, Pentax K-1 is the second best and the rebadged DFA15-30 is the only worst! :-o Btw, where are the originally designed Pentax lenses? Any prime?! :-(
Logging you in...
Comments by IntenseDebate
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Peter · 430 weeks ago
There are none and will be none.
I think, that Pentax must have lost most of its lens building abilities, when Hoya dissolved Pentax lens design department to cut down the costs. Hoya had already Tokina for that. Now, with Sigma, Pentax can't do (decent) lenses any more on their own, they need to purchase (rebadge) any non-tivial lens designs from 3rd parties, apparently. All they do is to add a hefty surcharge for not including an optical stabilizer.
That alone is a desaster for the attractiveness of Pentax K, and its future, of course. But even worse, 3rd parties don't seem to bother wanting to fill that gap. They started to ignore Pentax, even with the 3rd parties' new best-selling state-of-art lenses. Best example: The Sigma 50mm f1.4 ART, a professional gold standard for full frame, is still not available for Pentax K, even though it is a best seller everywhere else.
Because the K-1 is also a desaster for Pros (or semi-pro amateurs) due of its pretty useless AF-C (according to e.g. DPReview, fstoppers.com and others' reviews), it will continue be a solution for a few strange nerds only? Or what do you think?
Kunzite · 428 weeks ago
The new D FA lens line has so far 3 released Pentax-designed lenses: the D FA* 70-200, the D FA 150-450 and the D FA 28-105. The first two are high end lenses, while the latter is surprisingly good for its price.
And the K-1, of course, is a landscape photographer's dream.
Peter · 430 weeks ago
Was probably wishful thinking. It would have been extremely attactive for Pentax, if Sigma would have purchased them. Because sigma has lenses, and they don't mind making DSLR bodys with no market relevance, just for pleasure ;)
Chris · 430 weeks ago
I own a K-1 and I'm very happy with it. BTW, I love using primes, mainly because of their small size. BTW, they are small size and STILL have image stabilization, because with Pentax, that's in the body. And with a 20/2.8, 31/1.8, 43/1.9, 50/1.4, 77/1.8, 85/1.4, 100/2.8, 135/2.8, 200/2.8, 300/4.0, the choices are pretty good (and the list is not even complete).
I especially love the ergonomics (menus, buttons, grip) and the colours.that come right out of the camera, using AWB, in any lighting, in JPG.
Peter · 430 weeks ago
Among amateurs, there is also a fraction requiring a useful AF-C, e.g. guys enjoying doing wildlife.
However, landscape hobbyists are fine with AF-S, of course.
The lenses issue is still an issue though, because Pentax (own) lens designs are dated. Again, take the example of 50mm f/1.4. Pentax version is probably comparable to Nikons or Canons old-school designs. Delivering a wide-open performance below todays state-of-art, as established by Sigma ART and Zeiss Otus. And, Tamron's 50mm f/1.8 also joint the state-of-art as well. With Pentax K, you don't have access to this "trinity of excellence". You are stuck to old stuff with all its shortcomings.
The other issue is, if a pentax lens is pretty decent, then it is overpriced. You are stuck between choosing either mediocre or overpriced options, which doesn't help to make Pentax full-frame experiment a long-term success, I believe.
I think the K-1 is attractive for everyone who already has a decent assortment of Pentax full frame lenses, and who is happy with those (and who just doesn't need the most recent state-of-art developments of Sigma ART, Zeiss, and Tamron).
I think the resolution of 36 megapixels is not so decisive for anyone. For the final print, 6 megapixels is enough, because that's in line with the eye's resolution when at a comfortable distance to the picture (in an exhibition). Having more than 6 is good, to have some potential for cropping, and to compensate some resolution losses in postprocessing. But having 24 is more than enough headroom over 6 megapixels, so that I never understood the need for 36 or even 50 for any target medium.
Pentax were better off for the K-1 to
- go for 24 Megapixel
- thuse make it cheaper, reduce noise a little, and increase sensor read-out speed
- make the body compact, not a hefty brick
- also make new FA lenses compact, not those hefty monsters.
Or even better: Ricoh should try to challenge Fuji X next time, not Nikon and Canon. Fuji X is still an expensive system, so I assume that good margins can be earned there. It's a growing segment. Fuji X profits rise, where Nikon's/Canon's (and probably also Pentax') DSLR profits fall. Further, the Fuji X lens choice is somewhat limited, so that Pentax wouldn't have too much of a disadvantage there? Apart maybe, the pentax lenses are mostly old, where Fuji's are mostly contemporary (and have an excellent reputation).
ToetSFX · 429 weeks ago
Chris · 429 weeks ago
BTW, I find it a bit funny how different photography experts seem to always narrow their criteria to one aspect of the camera. For some, the sensor IS the camera. For others, it's all about FPS or movie capabilities. And for yet another bunch, it's the autofocus.
I think the K-1 is well-rounded. And the big potential is, since the stabilization is in the body, lenses can be made more compact (do you hear me Pentax? That is where you can score big time!).
fa31 needs updating · 429 weeks ago
fa31 needs updating · 429 weeks ago
The K1 has been great, but I'm hoping for some more wide angle options. I'm skipping the short zooms.
Chris · 429 weeks ago
Padmakar · 429 weeks ago
.
ToetSFX · 429 weeks ago
crop monster · 429 weeks ago
ToetSFX · 429 weeks ago