Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-11-2012, 10:22 AM   #106
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 896
the K20 sensor was quite good.

02-11-2012, 11:56 AM   #107
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 896
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
Either DSLRs are gone or compatibility is dead. There is also the option that no XS lenses will actually be made to extend into the body to the point where they would not be able to be used on DSLRs - so that will limit how much lens bulk can be hidden inside the camera body.
seriously, what *bulk* are people talking about?

has anyone *seen* the DA Limiteds without their hoods? I can fit two of them in a coat pocket. I've even slipped the 21mm and 70mm in a jean pocket, not least of which the non-XS 40mm.

its a seriously big problem that people are unaware of Pentax's Limited Lenses. it's *only* because of the Limiteds that the K-01 makes any sense, and the general public aren't even aware of them.
02-11-2012, 03:53 PM   #108
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Maybe they should contact Kodak about making a new sensor, because the Panasonic ones are lagging and Sony doesn't seem interested in four thirds.
It's not Kodak anymore. The sensor making unit is now a separate company.

The question though is if anyone can produce sensors that are better than those of Panasonic, while keeping the same advantages.
02-11-2012, 05:11 PM   #109
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: NewYork
Posts: 899
QuoteOriginally posted by epqwerty Quote
This is getting out of hand the xs line seems to be the niche for the k01 series. Pentax has announced the da50 and da560 both compatible with the existing k mount dslr. The xs is for people who want the thinnest lens possible for the camera as for an adapter i think the issue would be allowing for af with existing lenses.

Im juat wondering if it was possible to make the mount zoom outward to the required distance for the k mount essentially having a extension tubed that is powered. You could save a fair bit of space. The biggest issue i can think of is the durability as you would be putting tension on the mount/motor when you put on the lens. Youd have to take up space around the mount to allow for the extra metal chunks but if i recall there isnt much there. The other issue is couldyou ensure the distance it extends out consistent.
I think it would be a great idea but doubt it could be easily engineered. Keep in mind how big and heavy some lenses are (I have lenses over 1lb. that do not have a tripod mount). The mechanics would have to be pretty heavy duty which equates to large and heavy I would think. You would also need a drive motor that could move it under the lateral force of a heavy lens. If it could be done with a reliable design that will last it sounds like a good idea to me.

02-11-2012, 05:58 PM   #110
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by illdefined Quote
Sorry? How was anything I said untrue?
Best way to show that is to go again over your statements. Emphasis is mine:

In the beginning, you claimed that RAW files are corrected:

QuoteOriginally posted by illdefined Quote
one thing we should note about these short flange distance mirrorless *digital* cameras: they all rely heavily on file correction, even on their RAWs.
After finding out that correction can be disabled, you have added hints of a conspiracy theory with Olympus forcing mainstream software makers to apply its corrections, or else:

QuoteOriginally posted by illdefined Quote
Yes, the major commercial RAW converters (ACR, Lightroom) process the correction meta-info on import. Not all RAW converters do though, so that's how uncorrected files are attained, by using lesser known RAW converters that don't have deals with the manufacturers
BTW, I am pretty sure that ACR and Lightroom can also disable those corrections.

Unfortunately for your conspiracy theory, it turned out that the very software that Olympus ships is allowing users to disable corrections. So your statement has changed to:

QuoteOriginally posted by illdefined Quote
Olympus's own RAW converter is a lesser known converter, and it's default is Auto (correction).
The Olympus RAW converter may be lesser known to you, because you have no experience with Olympus products, but you can be fairly sure that it is known in the Olympus community. And it is definitely not one of those "lesser known RAW converters that don't have deals with the manufacturers".
02-11-2012, 06:10 PM   #111
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 896
I never said the RAW corrections were undoable. I said they're automatically corrected, by *default*. and they are, because they are meant to be (and honestly have to be with some m4/3 lenses).
02-11-2012, 06:26 PM   #112
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by illdefined Quote
Uncorrected micro 4/3 files will look considerably worse than uncorrected Pentax (or just SLR) files with a good lens.
Well, this is untrue again, because it is too general. There are several MFT lenses that don't get any corrections applied and the results cannot look "considerably worse". In fact the performance of those lenses is exceptional. These are the Leica lenses from Panasonic, and the Samyang and Voigtlander lenses. There may be more, but these are the ones I am aware of.

QuoteOriginally posted by illdefined Quote
They need much less correction and correction is destructive.
Even when you say something I can agree with, you manage to insert a part I don't. Correction is destructive, yes. But saying that the Pentax lenses need much less correction is arguable. Wide angle lenses like the DA 12-24 can definitely benefit from CA removal and people will do that either using Pentax's correction or the correction tools of their image processing software. Just because correction is not done, it does not mean that it is not needed.

Coming back to the part I agree with you: correction is destructive indeed. However, whether you correct issues in the optical design or in software is a matter of philosophy. Correcting distortion, for example, may be costly in terms of extra elements, lens bulk, and production cost. OTOH, making an exceptionally sharp lens and then correcting its distortion will still leave you with a very good lens that you have produced for less and that can still match the results of lenses that are supposed to not need correction. This seems to me to be the philosophy applied in the MFT world. A case in point is Olympus's 12/2 lens which can compare very positively with Pentax's DA 21 Limited - the 12/2 borders are good right from f/2, while the Pentax gets comparable quality only stopped down at f/4.

QuoteOriginally posted by illdefined Quote
You may personally find the final result "good enough" but watch your edges, something you thought was in the frame might just be "corrected" out.
I use MFT manual lenses, so nothing gets corrected because the camera has no idea what lens I use and what it needs to correct. To give you a practical idea of what results I get, here is a full frame and a 100% crop taken from its border (click on the images for the larger versions):

Full frame:


100% crop:
02-11-2012, 06:40 PM   #113
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 896
Yes I'm well aware of the difference in design philosophy (some would say 'compromises') of the m4/3 system. http://www.dpreview.com/articles/distortion/

I always qualified my statements by saying *some* m4/3 lenses, and *good* lenses on SLRs, implying there are more of the former that need correction than the latter. speaking of, what "manual MFT" lenses are you using? I wasn't aware Olympus made manual lenses for MFT.


Last edited by illdefined; 02-11-2012 at 07:05 PM.
02-11-2012, 11:08 PM   #114
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by illdefined Quote
Yes I'm well aware of the difference in design philosophy (some would say 'compromises') of the m4/3 system.
There is no engineering product that doesn't include some sort of compromise. Do you think Limited lenses don't involve compromises?

QuoteOriginally posted by illdefined Quote
speaking of, what "manual MFT" lenses are you using? I wasn't aware Olympus made manual lenses for MFT.
If you click on the images, you'll see all the info - that shot is taken with the Voigtlander 25/0.95. Olympus doesn't make manual focus lenses, but Voigtlander and Samyang do. Kenko-Tokina also recently announced some mirror lenses and those would be manual focus too.
02-11-2012, 11:25 PM   #115
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
It's not Kodak anymore. The sensor making unit is now a separate company.
Some additional information - the company's name is Truesense Imaging:

Kodak's image-sensor spin-off gets a name: Truesense | Deep Tech - CNET News
02-12-2012, 12:06 AM   #116
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 896
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
There is no engineering product that doesn't include some sort of compromise. Do you think Limited lenses don't involve compromises?



If you click on the images, you'll see all the info - that shot is taken with the Voigtlander 25/0.95. Olympus doesn't make manual focus lenses, but Voigtlander and Samyang do. Kenko-Tokina also recently announced some mirror lenses and those would be manual focus too.
Oh I understand full well. I just wonder why it's ok for your MFT camera to make such vital compromises in its design but not the K-01.

You had to go outside the system to get comparable image quality and sacrifice AF. that's major, and it's pretty obvious to me you got it *in spite* of MFT, not because of it.
02-12-2012, 12:46 AM   #117
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by illdefined Quote
Oh I understand full well. I just wonder why it's ok for your MFT camera to make such vital compromises in its design but not the K-01.

You had to go outside the system to get comparable image quality and sacrifice AF. that's major, and it's pretty obvious to me you got it *in spite* of MFT, not because of it.
You don't understand. I am a manual focus user. That's why I got into Pentax in the first place - I didn't care much about AF and I heard that their prime lenses were good too. To give you an idea of my preferences: I fault Limited lenses for being AF.

The second thing is that I didn't get a Pen to replace my Pentax - I was just intrigued by the Voigtlander lens and the ability to use it on a relatively compact camera. But in the process of using Olympus I realized the benefits of using an LCD or EVF rather than an OVF - they make more efficient.

So for me, the ideal kit is one made by Voigtlander. I don't have much interest in Olympus lenses yet, simply because I hope that Cosina will make the focal lengths I care about.

That is just something you should know, to understand where I'm coming from.

Speaking of compromises, they only make sense when there is something to gain out of them. The Olympus compromises are not important for what I do and in exchange I get features that I benefit from and access to a promising line of lenses. The K-01, otoh, doesn't give me anything that I could not already get from my Pentax SLRs.
02-12-2012, 12:51 AM   #118
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 896
sounds like a very specific, very personal use case. maybe you should try a system that has focus peaking like NEX or Ricoh (and soon Pentax)

You were disparaging the K-01 as a whole.
02-12-2012, 12:58 AM   #119
Pentaxian
bossa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 4,538
Even the K-5 is too small without a grip. Anyone whining about the size of a K-01 must either have teensy weensie hands or just prefer to operate cameras using tweezers. Oh! and perhaps a microscope.
02-12-2012, 04:11 AM   #120
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by illdefined Quote
sounds like a very specific, very personal use case.
That's because you turned the discussion personal and asked me why I compromised with manual lenses on Olympus. Now you're surprised that my personal motives are personal? They're mine! Duh!

QuoteOriginally posted by illdefined Quote
Oh I understand full well. I just wonder why it's ok for your MFT camera to make such vital compromises in its design but not the K-01.

You had to go outside the system to get comparable image quality and sacrifice AF. that's major, and it's pretty obvious to me you got it *in spite* of MFT, not because of it.
You got it wrong too. MFT gave me a control over composition, focus, and DOF that I never had with an SLR. Instead of trial by error approaches, it allowed me to take images with predictable results, because I could see the result before pressing the shutter. It's another style of shooting and I find it almost as beneficial as the transition from film to digital.

QuoteOriginally posted by illdefined Quote
maybe you should try a system that has focus peaking like NEX or Ricoh (and soon Pentax)
For what? NEX has no lenses I want to use and Ricoh won't have anything either. Even if Ricoh comes up with a K mount module, it probably won't have SR. In the meantime, I can use all my lenses with my E-PL2 and they can even gain tilt capability. I'll either get an E-M5 with the additional grips, so I can use my longer lenses, or I might consider a Samsung NX, if the rumor about adding SR to their bodies will turn true. Of course, if Pentax would make a fully functional MILC, I'd consider that too, but the K-01 is crippled.

QuoteOriginally posted by illdefined Quote
You were disparaging the K-01 as a whole.
And I laid down my reasons clearly. Besides, its worst competition doesn't come from MFT or NEX, but from existing Pentax bodies. With the K-5 still on the market, the K-01 makes no sense. For $300 extra you can get a magnesium alloy WR body with extra controls - why bother with the K-01 at all? Because it's mirrorless!?
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
adapter, advantages, benefit, body, design, k-01, k01, lenses, mirrorless, pentax, pentax k-01, size
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How to get AF-adapter to work with 645 adapter angus Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 5 04-01-2011 05:53 AM
Give up SR and get a thinner camera? Andi Lo Pentax DSLR Discussion 25 01-24-2011 11:35 AM
MYO (Make Your Own) 645 to K Adapter bodhi08 Pentax Medium Format 5 07-20-2010 01:27 PM
Will the 67 to 645 adapter make a comeback? mikebob Pentax Medium Format 27 06-27-2010 08:59 AM
Why can't they make something like this... regor Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 22 03-20-2010 01:16 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:55 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top