« Christmas Present for You | Main | Great Cameras of 2013 Part III: Olympus and Panasonic »

Thursday, 19 December 2013

Comments

Yes, Ricoh GR is a "proper" upgrade. As for the body, it's hard to improve on so why bother?

So far it's the most interesting.


I would also be holding a grudge.

We're only decent human beings, Mike, and as such, we get pissed off when others are not.

A few years ago (cretaceous age, in digital time) you asked us about our dream camera that no one had ever built.

My immediate answer was "a digital Nikonos!".

I'll probably never buy a Nikon 1 AW1, but is nice to know someone listens (or should I be worry?)

Considering that TOP has such a large and faithful audience, whoever made that dishonourable and shady decision at Ricoh-Pentax was acting like an @r$e of the first order.

As someone who already has and likes Pentax equipment, who has persuaded one brother and one friend to buy Pentax DSLRs and lenses, I'm not impressed.

This kind of thing does not inspire confidence in the brand.

Was this why you sold the K5?

Until I read Roger Cicala's blog I thought the Sony A7 twins might not deserve consideration. After all you don't like adapters and Sony only has two decent lenses.

But if adapted lenses give the results they seem to from his tests someone with a collection of older lenses can get into full frame for very little money and get spectacular results. And the user interface should be as good as it was on the Minolta, Contax RTS or whatever the lenses originally fit.

OK, no AF, lousy EXIF data and all the rest. OTOH the EV will give more accurate focus to the slow worker than anything short of large format contact prints. For my indoor work it is simply the only thing that works. Neither AF or full frame DSLRs come close. I cannot afford to miss focus on my jobs so for me, a Sony is the only game in town.

"Knobs? Dials? We don't need no stinken knobs and dials."

Oh, and completely off topic,

I just signed a stack of prints with my Rapidograph, always an awful exercise but at least I know they will last.

I was just looking at a couple lovely Bromoils that a friend made for me, and I was curious when they were made. I'll never know because the signatures and dates have faded away despite his use of a "recommended" "permanent" pen.

I hope your project on that subject is moving forward. Your fans are waiting.

I do think the Pentax K-3 belongs in the list of nominees, Mike. It's one solid machine for a great price. The only drawback in today's world is that it isn't full-frame. It's probably the best DSLR introduced this year (if you consider the D610 merely a fix for the D600, which I do).

That really chaps my hide that Ricoh-Pentax would slam the door in your face like that. As Roger Bradbury pointed out in an above comment, someone was being quite the careless fool treating Mr. TOP like that. I'm not about to sell off my (beloved and cherished) k-5, but hopefully someone at the company will read the post and comments and realize they released the PR equivalent of a loud smelly fart.

As a long time Pentax user (starting with a Spotmatic in 1968) I'm disgusted by their treatment of you Mike. Also the brutal removal of Ned, who has behaved like a gentleman, does not endear me to the brand. I still like the product though.

As a long-time Pentax shooter I also am deeply disappointed to hear how they treated you. I have owned the K100, K20, and K5, and my wife has progressed from the K200 to the K7, to the K5II. Between us, we have more Pentax lenses than we can fit in our bags. I am truly disgusted with the behavior of a company that I have been very loyal to for many years.

Photographers wanted a Nikon with a small form factor and classic dials. Unfortunately, Nikon choose to focus on the latter instead of the former. I believe this was an unwise decision which ultimately led many to Sony's recent full frame offerings.

The Nikon 1 AW1 is a joke. Well at least for scuba divers. I have used a Nikonos well past 100 feet with no problems. The AW1 is only good to 49 feet. It would have been a travesty if they had called this toy a Nikonos. You've got me thinking about a Ricoh GR though ......

* puts grinch hat on *

Sadly I think the only thing Nikon got right with the AW1 was NOT calling it a Nikonos. I'm not really sure what it is or what it's good for but it certainly isn't the heir to the Nikonos line. Both the I-V series and the RS were pro quality cameras designed for serious underwater use. They had their flaws but they were serious cameras with useful depth ratings, proper lenses and in the right hands were capable of producing Nat-Geo worthy work (and regularly did).

The AW1 - not so much. It's only good to 50 feet which isn't near enough for even casual scuba work. Also the low depth rating makes me wonder what happens if the camera is subjected to pressure waves like you might experience shooting in surf or a river. Definitely not confidence inspiring. The lens mount gives me the heebie jeebies. Unless the camera is totally dry it's just asking to drip water into the camera when you change lenses. And if you can't' change lenses then what's the point?

Speaking of lenses I also can't fathom what they were thinking with the lens selection. Underwater your go-to lenses are a super wide (usually a fisheye) and a macro lens. Nikon offers neither for this camera. A normal zoom underwater is about as useful as a fisheye on land; you can use it to take pictures but it will hardly ever be what you want.

The small sensor is also a liability underwater where light is at a premium. Probably OK for closeup work with a strobe but definitely not the best for wide angle scenic work.

For me if you are serious about shooting underwater then a housed camera with a larger sensor is the way to go. If you're not or just need a splash proof or snorkeling point and shoot then you're better off with one of the cheaper waterproof cameras without the removable lens. They're going to be more rugged and more compact will probably take pictures just as good as the AW1.

$.02
Clinton

Hi Mike, i think it should be mentioned that the Pentax K3 introduces a real innovation: The anti-aliasing-solution. There is no common, blur-inducing filter in front of the sensor-pixels to avoid moire like in nearly every other camera. But you can avoid moire (only if needed) via a litte shake of the sensor, optional. This is a new solution and a real step forward...

I don't know about the GRD, but the GRD IV is already excellent. I have never used a snappier digicam. The only problem with it is lens distorsion, so common in most digicams.

Oh yes and the new Nikon Df is too fat. Why isn't the A7/A7r on the list?

Allow me to add my voice to the chorus of the pentax-shooters disappointed with the brush off you received from Ricoh-Pentax. Hopefully they make things belatedly right

I purchased a Panasonic FZ2200 this year and highly recommend it for the following reasons (my other camera is a Nikon D7000):
1.Light and easy to carry around all day.
2.F 2.8 through entire zoom range (24-600mm).
3. Articulated screen plus eye-level view finder.
4. Four uses programmable configurations.
5. Capable of recording RAW format
6. An extensive collection of tutorial on You Tube.

The comments to this entry are closed.