pentax k01 photo

Review of the camera Pentax K-01

The camera is notable for the fact that it is an APS-C (crop x1.5) mirrorless camera from Pentax - the company that invented pentaprism and thus laid the foundation for DSLRs.
Not surprisingly, the brand's followers didn't like this model. And for third-party buyers, the camera came out rather awkward - the camera is not small and not light (560gr).
The Pentax K01 was released in 2012 and was discontinued in 2013. It's funny that the Pentax Q, released in 2011, is still in production today.

The exterior of this model was designed by the famous industrial designer - Mark Newson... Someone may like it, but some may not. But in any case, it is undeniably unique.

Together with the Pentax K-01, the Pentax 40mm f2.8 lens was released. This is a super-small pancake. The lens weighs only 90g. By the way, in the same 2012, the Canon EF 40mm f2.8 STM pancake with a weight of 130g was released. According to my tests, Canon EF 40mm f2.8 STM demonstrated the best image quality.

Below you can compare these lenses side by side + Industar 50-2.

pentax 40mm f2.8 vs canon 40mm f2.8 vs industar 50-2pentax 40mm f2.8 vs canon 40mm f2.8

 

For more information about this curious camera, see my video review on Pentax K-01:

Buy Pentax K-01 on ebay

Canon EOS R5 vs Fujifilm GFX 50S

In theory, these cameras should have the same dynamic range at base ISO values. Confirmation of this is on the nerd site photonstophotos.net. I was curious to check if this is the case and what will come out of comparing the best full frame for 2020 - Canon EOS R5 - versus the relatively old (2016) medium format - Fujifilm GFX 50S.

gfx 50s vs canon r5

What is there in terms of detail?

If you put on the top-end lens for a full frame, then the difference in detail will be minimal, but nevertheless, the medium format still has an advantage in micro contrast. I spent most of the test on TS-E 24mm f3.5L on Canon, but I also compared the photo with a better TS-E 17mm f4L... The GFX 50S is equipped with a Fuji GF 32-64mm F4 R LM WR lens, which demonstrates ideal image quality. In general, with the medium format, the story is such that you need to use native optics to fully reveal it. If on R5 I can put on a pancake EF 40mm f2.8 STMthen on medium format Although this lens provides almost complete coverage and high detail, the photography experience is not the same. In general, the details are very high on both cameras, but the GFX50S, anyway, is slightly ahead of the camera with a smaller matrix.

About dynamic range

If you just compare how these cameras pull out shadows and overexposures, then the original graph is correct and I tend to agree with it. The dynamic range plus mine is similar in extreme values. But this, if we talk specifically about the darkest and brightest areas. If we compare halftones and shadows - that is, the middle areas - then the medium format again has an advantage. It feels good, but the photo with the GFX 50S looks softer and more voluminous. I tried to achieve the same effect through post-processing. It turns out very close, but still not the same. So, the victory again belongs to the medium format.

Is there a big difference in quality between the R5 and the GFX50S?

No. The differences I'm talking about are extremely small. In terms of the aggregate characteristics, the R5 goes far ahead of the GFX50S. In terms of photo quality, the differences between them are very subtle. The medium format GFX 50R / S will be of interest to a photographer who does not even want to hear about the video button, but is chasing the maximum volume and detail in the frame.

It should be understood that the medium format will cost you more, despite the plus or minus the similar cost of carcasses. On the R5, it is not at all necessary to wear top-end RF optics to get a high-quality result. There are tons of quality EF lenses out there. But for the GFX system, native medium format optics are an indispensable condition. I chose a functional full frame and don't regret it, but the longing for medium format still remains ...

The tests themselves can be viewed in this video:

Should you buy the medium format?

Sony A7C review

Earlier i already wrote about this camera. Now she got my review.

The novelty from Sony should amaze with its compactness in the presence of a large full-frame sensor.

What came of this?

The carcass is really compact and relatively lightweight. Below you can see the appearance of the Sony A7C.

 

The problem is two things:

1) selection of full-frame optics for a compact camera with an awkward grip.
2) as always with Sonya - ergonomics.

The camera came to my view with two full-frame tele-lenses (70-200mm f4 and 85mm f1.4). You can forget about compactness with such optics. The camera has a kit Sony 24-60mm f3.5-5.6 lens. This is a really smart decision. Everything else on this camera would be out of place.

The second question is the quality of the viewfinder, screen, body and buttons. In general, as always, the standard diseases of Sonya. Sony A7C reminded me of a cheap amateur crop when I picked it up. The buttons are inconveniently located, the controls are frankly lame. In particular, it is not clear to me why it was necessary to remove the wheel under the index finger ... The viewfinder looks like something from the Fujifilm X-T20 series or Canon m50 - the same tiny and uncomfortable. Only this is a full frame for 2000 dollars. We believe in full frame magic, is not it?)

What about the image quality?

When it comes to Sony cameras, its adherents start screaming about an "incredible picture" and a cool matrix that forgives any amount of crooked hands. Just take a sony with a cool matrix and nothing else is needed. After all, the matrix shoots, not the photographer, right?

So ... I tested the Sony A7C side by side with Canon EOS... From the photographs I saw about the same thing - the dynamic range, ISO, noises. Full frame behaves +/- the same as Sony and Canon.

I ran a video test at ISO 3200K for Sony - full frame, for Canon R - with crop. The image from the A4C came out less noisy, but more blurry in the shadows. I shot in the studio with one light source and shot myself at different distances. Coming closer - you get overexposure, moving further - you get a flat, noisy and underexposed image. What is the conclusion after this test? It is important how you work with lighting, not what matrix and camera you have. Far from the light source, the "picture" on both cameras looked lousy.

Conclusion

When thinking about buying Sony cameras, many people believe that these devices will give them unearthly images due to the coolness of their camera (back-illuminated sensor, etc. marketing crap). The problem is that it isn't. A high-quality image forms light and straight arms of the photographer /videographer... The camera is required to be comfortable and reliable. This does not apply to Sony cameras.

As a blogger camera, I would much rather recommend Fujifilm X-S10... At half the price, this crop camera produces very good video. In this case, you can use really compact optics, and not deceive yourself with another unfinished novelty from Sony.

Watch my video review of the Sony A7C: