>>4382217
Or maybe you only shoot cats and building corners and have no clue. Might as well use your phone.

Doesn't this create issues with large telephotos that need to move lots of heavy elements when focusing? Having good telephotos for bird photography is important for modern photography brands and I don't ever see anyone suggesting Pentax for it. (I do like Pentax though)

>>4382228
>bird photographers are single-handedly driving the stupid trends in lens and camera design
Everything makes so much more sense now

>>4382228
Pentax made the best cameras for dads. Not professionals and hobbyists.
Lets be real. If your dad had a pentax he was fucking awesome. But its not exactly and engineering wonder or smart design. Its just the best for dads shooting their family trips at beaches and in forests. Its for taking a nice photo of your wife and kids posing at niagra. It’s just not a 1d or a d850 and no amount of cope can change that.

Or change that their niche kind of got stolen by canikony. Now all 3 have great build quality, great WR, and some really compact lenses are coming out. Yes even sony. People are taking snoys up into the arctic circle and into warzones now. The only thing standing between us and a new era of 35-105 f3-5.6 mft tier junk with crap coatings is tamron, viltrox, and ttartisans release schedules.

>>4382228
I got an old 80-200 2.8 af-d for nikon (motor in body) and yeah, focus speed is pretty slow on my D700 (an F5 or D4 might be faster) but its still fine for motorsports which is what I've used mine for.

>>4382230
Oh yeah, it makes sense for a lot of reasons:
- demographic is often older retired people with money
- phones cannot into sharp telephoto so buying a camera actually makes sense
- requires longer telephoto than sports and action
- requires equally high res as landscapes for cropping means top end bodies are preferred
There are a lot of birders these days. ebird is secretly a massive photo sharing network and free advertising for camera brands. Carrying a fuckoff big Z8 and 180-600 zoom to a birding meetup is instant cachet. Plus zooming in on a little bird and seeing individual feathers is fun. Canon, Nikon and Sony are very successful (for a camera brand in 2024 at least) and are all excellent options for birding. Why cater to the audience that's happy with a kit prime and little cheap body when birders are willing to fork over a few ks for a single lens? Especially when achieving any sort of profit is so hard. It's a race to the top.

>>4382240
I wasn't being sarcastic, it does make a lot of sense. Those are all good points and now that I think about it, the only time I encounter other photographers they are basically just bird photographers.

>>4382240
Birders are based and enjoying gods creation is a healthier hobby to have than creepshotting new yorkers

>>4382228
Can’t you have the focus in the body on some lenses and others in the lens? Thought that’s now Nikon kept their mount going for so long

>>4382320
Yes, Pentax, Nikon, and Minolta/Sony have all done that. The issue arises when they decide to cheap out and make bodies without focus motors and complicate compatibility. Nikon added further complexity by fucking with stuff like aperture control/metering.

One is that hasn't been mentioned yet is screw drive AF is bloody noisy, that shit wouldn't fly these days with everyone being obsessed with video. Also one other advantage besides size and weight is it would reduce the cost of lenses.

>>4382217
You know who really got it right? Film era Olympus. Put the aperture AND shutter speed on the lens ezpz

>>4382246
Wasn't trying to argue friend, I just suddenly had a reason to dump my pet theory lol

>>4382248
I don't disagree, though many parts of birding culture I could do without.

>>4382344
>with everyone being obsessed with video.
Another win for pentax is not succumbing to this. Amazing how doing less is really all I want in a brand.

>>4382217
Pentax was well known for good decisions in terms of technology but marketing-wise they are retarded, and to be fair most users are retarded too.
Although one thing is for sure, driving a long telephoto fast zoom is harder than a small slow zoom, hence why Canon and Nikon decided for the in-lens AF system.

>>4382234
Daddy problems? go to the therapist, kiddo

>>4382349
>Amazing how doing less is really all I want in a brand.
Pentax needed to open the mount to any manufacturer, nowadays the only way to sell more bodies would be to make different bodies with different mounts.
A possible K1 mk III with EF or F mount would do a killing with old romantics. Then again i don't recall any brand who has done that other than.

File: IMG15276.jpg (1.14 MB, 1920x2400)

1.14 MB JPG

>>4382234
>best for dads shooting their family trips at beaches and in forests
and for dolls apparently
the K-1 is over-represented in the /jp/ doll threads for some reason

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera Model	PENTAX K-1
Camera Software	darktable 4.8.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	70 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:10:15 15:07:32
Exposure Time	1/200 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Not Defined
ISO Speed Rating	400
Exposure Bias	-1 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	70.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1920
Image Height	2400
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Macro

>>4382373
Ah yes, one eyeball and 1/2 the hair fringe in focus.

>>4382380
>Too much of a retard to realize it's mimicking portrait style
Back to school, bugger

>>4382397
>portrait style
Portraits generally require the face to be in focus, retard.

>>4382397
>Portrait style
>Nothing in focus
Is this what Obama wants? For us to miss the focus?

File: w1.jpg (84 KB, 560x840)

84 KB JPG

>>4382402
Wrong

File: w2.jpg (108 KB, 640x840)

108 KB JPG

>>4382402
...Wrong...

File: w3.jpg (175 KB, 1000x800)

175 KB JPG

>>4382402
...and Wrong

>>4382407
>>4382408
These look like ass. Something that probably got taken off the Centerlink website's section for low-income and homeless welfare programs.
>>4382410
This is not *bad*, but only because everything kind of contributes to the styling. The fisheye, monotone background, and well-lit subject all come together. HOWEVER, I'd still argue having at least the entire face in focus would make it better.

>>4382410
Wong*

>>4382413
>taken off the Centerlink website's section for low-income and homeless welfare programs
>everything kind of contributes to the styling
Non-arguments, you are still wrong

>>4382413
>I'd still argue having at least the entire face in focus would make it better.
nta, but why? What does the whole face in focus mean to you or conversely, what does the partial focus take away?

>>4382410
wow nice focus on the stringy out of place hairs on the top of this old womans balding head. nailed it

>>4382415
They weren't arguments, they were observations.
>you are still wrong
With zero justifcation or explaination. Lovely.
>>4382416
Because we're judging photographs by all their merits. As it stands, it's a fine photo, 6/10 (/p/ has never scored more than 9/10). Partial focus on your subject's main features just seems... wrong. Her face is the salient feature, and half of it isn't sharp. You could argue instead that only half her face is the intended subject, but then you've lost me; I'd need somebody to explain to me why having half of someone's face in focus is desirable.
>>4382418
Post a better photo then

>>4382345
this guy gets it

>>4382429
All that only to make us see your arguments are based on subjectivities in specific ("entire face should be in focus or you lose me"), which makes you objectively wrong in general (portrait photography)

File: 1730814622937865.png (117 KB, 461x400)

117 KB PNG

>>4382435
>still refuses to define or explain why his objective points are objective
Any day now m8.

fuck, knew I should have spent a little more time choosing a photo
>>4382380
>>4382397
sorry that was just a random snapshit I picked out
this any better >>4377441 ?
>>4382217
basically all of Pentax's recent lenses have used in-lens focus motors though, so your point kind of falls flat

>>4382452
>this any better >>4377441
Yes. Actually rather well done. Holy shit look >>4382416, it's entirely possible to get an entire face in focus.
Bonus points to anon for actually owning a camera and taking photos.

>>4382452
>basically all of Pentax's recent lenses have used in-lens focus motors though, so your point kind of falls flat
and they're huge

>>4382443
What's there to explain? portraits are not a technical how-to from your subjective tastes, it's a style of subject acquisition.
Portraits can have faces half-blurred, you were and still are wrong

>>4382481
>>4382481
>portraits are not a technical how-to
Which would make it objective if it were, because that's what objective is; a framework, rules, or other defined set of steps. Since it *isn't* that, it's subjective right?
Yet,
>>4382435
You started by saying subjectities are irrevant.
First of all, pick a lane.
Second of all, I've still yet to hear WHY having half your subject in focus is a positive. "Creative license" is not explaining it. You could shit on the floor and claim it's art, but I'm asking you why the lack of focus is desirable.

>>4382344
>One is that hasn't been mentioned yet is screw drive AF is bloody noisy, that shit wouldn't fly these days with everyone being obsessed with video.
I thought serious video people all used manual focus because even the in-lens motors aren't quiet enough.

>>4382477
bigger than canons and optically worse so they offer nothing over 70s junk but more weight, more size (more important than weight), more expense, and soulless rendering. is that the fault of a focus motor that takes up like 1x0.25” or pentaxes usual engineering incompetence

its like calling mirrorless bad because of nikon/fuji/panasonic and digishits

>>4382485
>creative license is not able to be processed by my neural network. reiterate. reiterate. i have measured the. modulations transfer function. of your portrait. and found significant resolution loss. my systems have determined. this is a bad photo.

>>4382487
no because they larp as cinematographers that have actors hitting marks in planned focus pulls.

File: tamron-1981_4149.jpg (549 KB, 1185x1650)

549 KB JPG

>>4382217
Why would you need a MOTOR for FOCUSING?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: 1730813747188546.gif (839 KB, 480x498)

839 KB GIF

>>4382488
>Remains unable to explain why missing focus is a good thing
Alright it's confirmed, I'm arguing with a retard

>>4382501
>ERROR. ERROR. REITERATE. I DEMANDED. AN OBJECTIVE MEASUREMENT. OR VALIDATED PEER REVIEWED SOURCE. TO ADD TO MY MEMORY CHIPS. FOR COGNITIVE INTEGRATION. CREATIVE LICENSE. IS NOT A VALID INPUT. PROGRAMMING INSTRUCTION: SATISFY A THE NEED TO JUSTIFY. THE LOSS OF INT: MODULATION TRANSFER FUNCTION VALUE. CAUSED BY YOUR ACTIONS. *BEEEEEEEP* ERROR. ERROR.
Average canon mirrorless user

>>4382502
who's a little schizo? Yes you are, yes you are!

>>4382505
oh wait you’re an actual npc

like the kind of soulless animal that watches monty python and asks where the jokes were

>>4382506
nigga you are such a faggot it is painful to watch you lose this argument

>>4382217

Nikon has this 28-100mm nikon lens, never accepted into nikkor line, hideous geometric distortion, light plastic barrel, maybe nine elements, but late ff dslr and corrections make it seem match from heaven

>>4382507
The “argument”
>Softness is a creative tool
>NO SHARPNESS IS ALWAYS BETTER SHOW ME A PEER REVIEWED SOURCE TO PROVE OTHERWISE
What a world where I, the sony shooter, am the one who understands that soft focus and defocus can be used creatively

Its almost like the memes are wrong and us snoygods are just leicachuds with less cope. Hence all the jelly niggors trying to slander our cameras and fujislugs mad that we can also have sharpness as a creative tool.

>>4382510
Bruh you're schizoing out hard just cause the other guy wants to know why having a face in partial focus is a good thing. Meds.

>>4382510
Jesse, what the fuck are you talking about

>>4382518
>why isnt the face shaaaaarp
>why did you use this BAD lens its not shaaaaaarp
Because its a creative decision, you fucking idiot. Keep your mouth the fuck shut if you cant understand something this simple, fatass.

>>4382520
Why are you humorless? Is it the same lack of soul that makes you unable to comprehend the words creative decision? Do your parents know you’re not a person?

>>4382217
It's a glorified kit zoom, an ancient one. What's the point

>>4382524
Hahaha you're so fucking tilted it's insane. I didn't think literal lego-tier IQ people were allowed on the internet

>>4382407
This is bad.
>>4382408
This is terrible.

>>4382673
It destroys any 3D pop the image might have had

File: IMG14165.jpg (1.35 MB, 1920x2400)

1.35 MB JPG

>>4382453
>it's entirely possible to get an entire face in focus
yeah all you need is to take more than 2 seconds to compose the shot
dolls are neat because they don't move while you experiment with focal length, aperture, and camera-subject-background spacing to get it right
the latter is most important imo, if you get that right you don't need to be wide open for a blurry background
>>4382477
"huge" just comes from being modern over-corrected lenses (how successful that correction is for Pentax is debatable, like the 85/1.4)
I just meant why praise them for screw drive when they've been moving away from it for many years now

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera Model	PENTAX K-1
Camera Software	darktable 4.8.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	85 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:10:12 00:17:46
Exposure Time	1 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Exposure Bias	-1 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	85.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1920
Image Height	2400
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Macro

>>4382373
>>4382791
really pleasing bokeh and colors
maybe pentax nerds are onto something

File: 1730925574296111.png (14 KB, 256x256)

14 KB PNG

>>4383423
always have been

>>4383423
>colors
yeah that's the chromatic aberration