Pentax is objectively correct about lens-body design.Put the autofocus motor and image stabilization inside the body instead of in the lens. It opens up the creation of some truly compact lens design once you incorporate floating apertures. Pic rel is a 35-105 f/4-5.6 FULL FRAME lens. >72x71mm (2.8 x 2.8in) >345gIt's smaller than most mirrorless 18-50 aps-c kit lenses. The autofocus speed/accuracy you sacrifice by doing so is well into the range of diminishing returns for 98% of photographersIt's amazing how correct one company can be about camera design and really highlights the legendary fumble in marketing Pentax has made.
>>4382217Or 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 designEverything makes so much more sense now
>>4382228Pentax 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.
>>4382228I 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.
>>4382230Oh 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 preferredThere 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.
>>4382240I 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.
>>4382240Birders are based and enjoying gods creation is a healthier hobby to have than creepshotting new yorkers
>>4382228Can’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
>>4382320Yes, 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.
>>4382217You know who really got it right? Film era Olympus. Put the aperture AND shutter speed on the lens ezpz
>>4382246Wasn't trying to argue friend, I just suddenly had a reason to dump my pet theory lol>>4382248I 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.
>>4382217Pentax 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.>>4382234Daddy 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.
>>4382234>best for dads shooting their family trips at beaches and in forestsand for dolls apparentlythe 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 MakeRICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.Camera ModelPENTAX K-1Camera Softwaredarktable 4.8.0Focal Length (35mm Equiv)70 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandImage Created2024:10:15 15:07:32Exposure Time1/200 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramNot DefinedISO Speed Rating400Exposure Bias-1 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo FlashFocal Length70.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1920Image Height2400RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeMacro
>>4382373Ah yes, one eyeball and 1/2 the hair fringe in focus.
>>4382380>Too much of a retard to realize it's mimicking portrait styleBack to school, bugger
>>4382397>portrait stylePortraits generally require the face to be in focus, retard.
>>4382397>Portrait style>Nothing in focusIs this what Obama wants? For us to miss the focus?
>>4382402Wrong
>>4382402...Wrong...
>>4382402...and Wrong
>>4382407>>4382408These look like ass. Something that probably got taken off the Centerlink website's section for low-income and homeless welfare programs.>>4382410This 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.
>>4382410Wong*
>>4382413>taken off the Centerlink website's section for low-income and homeless welfare programs>everything kind of contributes to the stylingNon-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?
>>4382410wow nice focus on the stringy out of place hairs on the top of this old womans balding head. nailed it
>>4382415They weren't arguments, they were observations. >you are still wrongWith zero justifcation or explaination. Lovely.>>4382416Because 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. >>4382418Post a better photo then
>>4382345this guy gets it
>>4382429All 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)
>>4382435>still refuses to define or explain why his objective points are objectiveAny day now m8.
fuck, knew I should have spent a little more time choosing a photo>>4382380>>4382397sorry that was just a random snapshit I picked outthis any better >>4377441 ?>>4382217basically all of Pentax's recent lenses have used in-lens focus motors though, so your point kind of falls flat
>>4382452>this any better >>4377441Yes. 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 flatand they're huge
>>4382443What'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-toWhich 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,>>4382435You 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.
>>4382477bigger 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 incompetenceits 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.
>>4382487no because they larp as cinematographers that have actors hitting marks in planned focus pulls.
>>4382217Why would you need a MOTOR for FOCUSING?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:
>>4382488>Remains unable to explain why missing focus is a good thingAlright 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
>>4382502who's a little schizo? Yes you are, yes you are!
>>4382505oh wait you’re an actual npclike the kind of soulless animal that watches monty python and asks where the jokes were
>>4382506nigga you are such a faggot it is painful to watch you lose this argument
>>4382217Nikon 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
>>4382507The “argument”>Softness is a creative tool>NO SHARPNESS IS ALWAYS BETTER SHOW ME A PEER REVIEWED SOURCE TO PROVE OTHERWISEWhat a world where I, the sony shooter, am the one who understands that soft focus and defocus can be used creativelyIts 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.
>>4382510Bruh 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.
>>4382510Jesse, what the fuck are you talking about
>>4382518>why isnt the face shaaaaarp>why did you use this BAD lens its not shaaaaaarpBecause its a creative decision, you fucking idiot. Keep your mouth the fuck shut if you cant understand something this simple, fatass.
>>4382520Why 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?
>>4382217It's a glorified kit zoom, an ancient one. What's the point
>>4382524Hahaha you're so fucking tilted it's insane. I didn't think literal lego-tier IQ people were allowed on the internet
>>4382407This is bad.>>4382408This is terrible.
>>4382673It destroys any 3D pop the image might have had
>>4382453>it's entirely possible to get an entire face in focusyeah all you need is to take more than 2 seconds to compose the shotdolls are neat because they don't move while you experiment with focal length, aperture, and camera-subject-background spacing to get it rightthe 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 MakeRICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.Camera ModelPENTAX K-1Camera Softwaredarktable 4.8.0Focal Length (35mm Equiv)85 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandImage Created2024:10:12 00:17:46Exposure Time1 secF-Numberf/8.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Exposure Bias-1 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo FlashFocal Length85.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1920Image Height2400RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeMacro
>>4382373>>4382791really pleasing bokeh and colorsmaybe pentax nerds are onto something
>>4383423always have been
>>4383423>colorsyeah that's the chromatic aberration
