Paris, Ben, and "those" rumours;) - Page 3

RMabo · 10-28-2007, 03:25 AM

Originally Posted by stewart_photo

I seriously doubt any of those individuals would actually know about the things you wrote.

Stewart, selected distributors are "beta testing" prototypes of the camera so they know about many technical details even if things are still "subject to change". Pentax do discuss with their distributors when they work on a camera, the more input they get the better. Of course those are on NDA so they aren't allowed to tell details, but they do make some "general hints" to keep us happy.

regken · 10-28-2007, 07:33 AM

Originally Posted by *isteve

I think they will build up their "strong prosumer" image by continuing to differentiate their cameras from mainstream makers and provide unique features, handling and quality levels for that market, just like they have for some time. They will attract the types of pro that dont need big, heavy machine gun cameras but who do need very high quality, robust engineering and image quality in a more convenient package and in the meantime pick up a lot of well informed enthusiasts along the way.

A modern day M2? Mmmmm yes please.

That sure sounds like a solid development program considering Pentax's history. If, as you say, Hoya has made a commitment to allow Pentax to continue on with the developments started before the K10D, what could the upgrade be? You also indicated that Hoya might be giving more authority to the most innovative personal.

Let's step over to the wild side for a moment and speculate as to what these developers would want to create based on your assumptions. Let's also assume they have an APS-C size CMOS 14mg sensor from Sanyo/Nikon available to them. The emphasis for this "prosumer" would most likely be directed toward better DR and improved high ISO performance(2 stops better than K10D) before any other features. Live view for accurate focusing would also be a priority. Faster AF would take a back seat to more accurate low light focusing. The size of the body would be the same as the K10D. Calibration of individual lenses for front/back focusing might be another priority. Higher FPS might be totally ignored. It's got to have at least one drawback that can be loudly complained about. The jpg will not be changed from the K10D settings. Need to give Phil something to justify another "just" rating.

These are not necessarily the features I want. I think these are what would set Pentax apart from the competition and appeal to the "prosumer". Price point? A MSRP of about $1.200 and a street price of $900 the same as the Nikon D80 today.

Regards,

Ken

Tom Lusk · 10-28-2007, 08:52 AM

"They will attract the types of pro that dont need big, heavy machine gun cameras"

"Higher FPS might be totally ignored."

"Faster AF would take a back seat... "

So- they don't want to attract anyone other than studio and landscape photographers?

I for one would like to see higher FPS AND faster AF (and larger buffer).

regken · 10-28-2007, 09:06 AM

Originally Posted by Tom Lusk

"They will attract the types of pro that dont need big, heavy machine gun cameras"

"Higher FPS might be totally ignored."

"Faster AF would take a back seat... "

So- they don't want to attract anyone other than studio and landscape photographers?

I for one would like to see higher FPS AND faster AF (and larger buffer).

Hi Tom,

I understand where you are coming from and it would be great if they could offer the features you want. It's just my guess they need to leave some of these features off because of price point and the need for things to add to a body that will be upscale from this one.

Regards,

Ken

thibs · 10-28-2007, 09:08 AM

Originally Posted by Tom Lusk

So- they don't want to attract anyone other than studio and landscape photographers?

I for one would like to see higher FPS AND faster AF (and larger buffer).

So for you there are 3 types of pros and that's it?:

Landscape Photographers
Studio photogtraphers
Sport photographers

Mmm a bit short maybe but be it ...

As for buffer, it is very easy to cure that problem, just throw a bigger memory chip. Those things aren't expensive these days soPentax won't have a big excuse if they do not cure the buffer problem on a K20D+ camera.

Faster AF, sure I would like but indeed indoor AF performance is way more problematic for most people so it is more of a priority if I were them. The AF is already way faster than on ist-D serie.

Higher fps... on a "K20"-like camera I'm not sure this would be a priority but why not. It all dependson the sensor they will use and again on a K20D-like camera I think DR/ISO/Noise performance is quite a bit more important. On a K5D/K1D-like camera, of course it is a different story. I wouldn't expect more than 4 fps on a K20D-like camera but 3 is more likely.

Tom Lusk · 10-28-2007, 09:34 AM

"So for you there are 3 types of pros and that's it?:
Landscape Photographers
Studio photogtraphers
Sport photographers"

Here's my list-

Landscape, studio, and all others, including, but not restricted to, sports and wildlife...

You see, Pentax has a deserved reputation for being a value leader. Excellent products for the $$. But there are many, I suspect, that would gladly pay more for a higher performing camera. I would, and if Pentax can't offer it soon, I'll have to switch brands, reluctantly. January will be crunch time for me.

regken · 10-28-2007, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by Tom Lusk

"So for you there are 3 types of pros and that's it?:
Landscape Photographers
Studio photogtraphers
Sport photographers"

Here's my list-

Landscape, studio, and all others, including, but not restricted to, sports and wildlife...

You see, Pentax has a deserved reputation for being a value leader. Excellent products for the $$. But there are many, I suspect, that would gladly pay more for a higher performing camera. I would, and if Pentax can't offer it soon, I'll have to switch brands, reluctantly. January will be crunch time for me.

I think we are talking about two different cameras. The one I'm referring to would be the K20D. You on the other hand want what I would think would be a K1D, more like the Nikon D300. It would be outstanding if Pentax were able to launch both of these models in January but that is asking a lot. An announcement of a K1D by mid to late summer seems more realistic. I would expect this model to be bigger and more expensive, $1500 to $1800? It would seem to me they need to do the K20D first.

*isteve · 10-28-2007, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by Tom Lusk

"So for you there are 3 types of pros and that's it?:
Landscape Photographers
Studio photogtraphers
Sport photographers"

Here's my list-

Landscape, studio, and all others, including, but not restricted to, sports and wildlife...

You see, Pentax has a deserved reputation for being a value leader. Excellent products for the $$. But there are many, I suspect, that would gladly pay more for a higher performing camera. I would, and if Pentax can't offer it soon, I'll have to switch brands, reluctantly. January will be crunch time for me.

OK - first a proviso - I DONT know the specs of the new cameras - I just suspect that Pentax are aiming where they make the most money and build up market share. In the short term it would not be sensible to go for the top of the range pro system because the market is limited. Maybe later but only when the cash flow is improved and the customer base is healthy.

So assuming they stick with the prosumer segment in the meantime you have cameras at the level of the 40D, D80, D300 and A700 representing the full extent of said segment. Where Pentax decide to pitch the new model I dont know, but I suspect they will not compete directly with any of them but will offer something a bit different and produce a worthy K10D successor. If so, and they keep the price reasonable, then it comes down to priorities.

If you were forced to choose would you rather have improvements to speed or IQ? Indeed if it IS possible to demostrate clear IQ advantages in such a closely matched segment it would be very interesting to see it. The Canon 5D demonstrated that a lot of users would put up with an average body and average performance for a really good sensor.

OTOH if the IQ is comparable but Pentax manage to up the performance, I dont think I would bother upgrading just for another couple of FPS to be honest.

thibs · 10-28-2007, 11:28 AM

Mmm something which came to mind is ... IF Pentax intends to put the 645D to market in short/middle term, the Studio Pro Photographer market is covered with that one. Maybe Landscape too. So those would be of a lesser importance for an hypthetic "pro" or nearly "pro" APS body.

equinox · 10-28-2007, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by *isteve

If you were forced to choose would you rather have improvements to speed or IQ? Indeed if it IS possible to demostrate clear IQ advantages in such a closely matched segment it would be very interesting to see it. The Canon 5D demonstrated that a lot of users would put up with an average body and average performance for a really good sensor.

OTOH if the IQ is comparable but Pentax manage to up the performance, I dont think I would bother upgrading just for another couple of FPS to be honest.

Steve you make a good point here. As much as some of us that would like more FPS, I would prefer better Dynamic Range and better IQ. I have not seen anything on the K10D that made me want to upgrade except the fact I could record images faster, not better shooting RAW. If Pentax can follow the Fuji route of better DR than most I would be very interested.

sft · 10-28-2007, 12:00 PM

Yup neither will I, higer FPS, more AF points, etc. really don't mean much to me - I guess the AF points is nice to have and especially faster AF in low-light but not fps. What would intrigue me to upgrade would be better IQ, more dynamic range and expanded high ISO shooting (say ISO3200 as good as ISO1600 on my K10D for example). Otherwise a camera with the specs of the 40D, A700 or D300 with similar IQ to my K10D will not be a camera I desire except for maybe if high ISO is better. Some of those things but not all would be great for me - anything with 3-5fps, more AF points and faster AF, increased ISO range (ISO3200) and improved high ISO performance (though still retaining the detail) and possibly slightly improved DR with real 16-bit RAW

, I'll take 14-bit too but I am glad that they won't use the Sony CMOS - I'm not a huge fan of the outputs of CMOS sensors at base ISO's. By the way - nice write up Steve.

*isteve · 10-28-2007, 12:16 PM

Originally Posted by equinox

Steve you make a good point here. As much as some of us that would like more FPS, I would prefer better Dynamic Range and better IQ. I have not seen anything on the K10D that made me want to upgrade except the fact I could record images faster, not better shooting RAW. If Pentax can follow the Fuji route of better DR than most I would be very interested.

Nikon are claiming marvels for their new sensor design on the D300 and D3, so perhaps Pentax came up with some tricks of their own. You never know. I would definately like to see a more gradual highlight falloff to make studio work easier, but extra shadow range would be nice too. Ideally all this would be set in camera....

3fps? I can work with that. In other respects I would be happy with general refinement of the K10D - a bit quieter, smoother and faster all round but nothing major. I would love the shutter from the *istD - it was sooo quiet by comparison. I guess they have to add liveview just to compete but I will probably never use it.

regken · 10-28-2007, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by *isteve

I guess they have to add liveview just to compete but I will probably never use it.

I've been talking to a very good photographer (Pro) that has both a K10D and an L1. He said while doing a shoot with the K10D from a tripod he found himself wishing for the live view he has on the L1. This feature may be more valuable than a lot of us think.

ken

and · 10-28-2007, 12:43 PM

I guess the usefullness of LV depends on the implementation, I like the sound of Nikons implementation, in particular that you can zoom in so much, combined with the high resolution lcd. dont really need LV myself though... but I would love a high res lcd for checking image sharpness

*isteve · 10-28-2007, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by and

I guess the usefullness of LV depends on the implementation, I like the sound of Nikons implementation, in particular that you can zoom in so much, combined with the high resolution lcd. dont really need LV myself though... but I would love a high res lcd for checking image sharpness

A better LCD is nice but there is NO LCD on the planet that will compare with the view on a decent laptop. I learned a while back that in a studio anything critical needs to be uploaded and looked at on a big screen, at least for exposure pusposes. For critical focus I still find a well adjusted OVF better than any LCD finder or rear panel.

In the meantime I just feel cameras are becoming gadgets and losing their functional appeal. Its the main reason I would never buy a D3. Far too many features. I almost laughed out loud reading the spec sheet. Its verging on the absurd. And as for the 1DS mk 3 I would love to see a sensor like than in a cheaper body - I expect the "old" 16mp sensor will end up in the replacement fopr the 5d.

For landscape AND studio work the basic image quality is by far the most important issue. For reportage and sport I would argue it is not. Its nice to get both in the same camera, but it means you are paying for something you hardly ever use or compromising on something that would actually be more useful.