K20d...

and · 10-27-2007, 11:35 PM

Originally posted by *isteve

Pentax are not likely to go head to head with the D3 and 1DS mk3 just yet, but what they have in plan will probably be a lot more relevant to the rest of us.

How about the 5D/1D

roentarre · 10-28-2007, 01:48 AM

FF is not really that big deal.

It is the better DR and less noise that is what I will be looking for.

I still like k10d's colour rendition and texture details in its images, comparing to 1ds and 5D shots. But honestly I would only prefer protraits using 5D. For everything else, I prefer k10d.

One frustrating thing about k10d is its propensity to produce clipped corners in its images under harsh light. Less rooms and tougher to rescue these problems in photoshop.

It seems that January is the definite time for release now. Really looking forward to it.

thibs · 10-28-2007, 01:53 AM

Originally posted by *isteve

Pentax are not likely to go head to head with the D3 and 1DS mk3 just yet, but what they have in plan will probably be a lot more relevant to the rest of us.

Teas us, teas us ...

and · 10-28-2007, 02:02 AM

Originally posted by roentarre

FF is not really that big deal.

It is the better DR and less noise that is what I will be looking for.

better DR and less noise = FF

wll · 10-28-2007, 02:17 AM

Originally posted by and

better DR and less noise = FF

Since Pentax has discontinued most of the FA lenses and is making only DA, where does FF come in.

All indications and lenses produced the past couple of years are APS-C size.

wll

and · 10-28-2007, 02:51 AM

Originally posted by wll

Since Pentax has discontinued most of the FA lenses and is making only DA, where does FF come in.

All indications and lenses produced the past couple of years are APS-C size.

wll

Yep all indications is that the next cameras will be APS-C, I am not speculating that it will be FF. I am just saying FF is better than APS-C

We are allowed to dream are we not

thibs · 10-28-2007, 02:56 AM

Originally posted by and

Yep all indications is that the next cameras will be APS-C, I am not speculating that it will be FF. I am just saying FF is better than APS-C

We are allowed to dream are we not

No, FF is better if you only account for sensor performance relative to noise/resolution ratio.
If you factor in the price of the sensor (don't tell me in 2 years blabla, we are not in 2 years), the frame rate (of course bigger sensor = slower frame rate), the final price of the camera and the that you will have to buy handfull of lenses to match that sensor...

And those beleiving their FF lenses will all do as well on an FF sensor as on a film will quickly bie their tongue IMO.

roentarre · 10-28-2007, 03:00 AM

Originally posted by and

better DR and less noise = FF

I am not an expert in this but I think better photosites with better DR would do the job better.

FF can improve DR to a small extent (quoted from a friend on line in which I have little idea about it). It is the ultimate sensor units that are important.

DOF is good with FF bringing better subject isolation. But it is not really a big deal that we have to go FF.

p.s. I actually want to try out Fa* 24 f2 on a FF pentax dSLR... using it wide open. It would be so much fun!

roentarre · 10-28-2007, 03:05 AM

Originally posted by thibs

And those beleiving their FF lenses will all do as well on an FF sensor as on a film will quickly bie their tongue IMO.

You are getting me worried ...

But looking at the old canon L lens line up, it is quite likely these Fa lenses might not perform too well even in FF dSLR...

thibs · 10-28-2007, 03:09 AM

Originally posted by roentarre

You are getting me worried ...

But looking at the old canon L lens line up, it is quite likely these Fa lenses might not perform too well even in FF dSLR...

Wide angle lenses will cause problems and in general some lenses will probably show quite a bit of fringing and light fall-off in the corners (not only WA).
Of course lenses taht do now very well on APS-C will probably be good on FF. But maybe just only good. What would you do if your beloved FA*80-200/2.8 (just an example btw) was just "not that bad, really" on your brand new FF. Seeing the price of the lens I'd be VERY upset personnaly.

Mats · 10-28-2007, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by thibs

No, FF is better if you only account for sensor performance relative to noise/resolution ratio.
If you factor in the price of the sensor (don't tell me in 2 years blabla, we are not in 2 years), the frame rate (of course bigger sensor = slower frame rate), the final price of the camera and the that you will have to buy handfull of lenses to match that sensor...

Sensor size has nothing to do with frame rate, MP count does. A 12 MP FF sensor carry the same amount of data as a 12 MP Aps-C sensor, assuming they have the same bit depth.
/Mats

thibs · 10-28-2007, 02:47 PM

And since marketing wise, coming with an FF sensor with less Mpix than an APS-C sensor is suicide, the problem is still there.

Mats · 10-28-2007, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by thibs

And since marketing wise, coming with an FF sensor with less Mpix than an APS-C sensor is suicide, the problem is still there.

Nikon D3 (FF)has 12.1 MP, D300 (APS-C)has 12.3 MP....
Not that i think that a Pentax FF or 1.2 or 1.3 sensor would be below 14 MP but its a matter of users you are aiming for. Nikon surely wanted superior high ISO performance and high FPS with the D3.
/Mats

*isteve · 10-28-2007, 07:14 PM

Originally posted by Mats

Nikon D3 (FF)has 12.1 MP, D300 (APS-C)has 12.3 MP....
Not that i think that a Pentax FF or 1.2 or 1.3 sensor would be below 14 MP but its a matter of users you are aiming for. Nikon surely wanted superior high ISO performance and high FPS with the D3.
/Mats

Because they want to reduce the number of big white lenses lining the touchline at the worlds' sproting events. Basically the ID mk2 had vecome the ubiquitous tool of the professional sport photog and Nikon want that back. The fact that Canon also managed to mess up their AF and delay full production of the 1D3 probably helped too but I suspect Canon are seriously worried.

None of which is remotely relevant to any of us unless we are expecting a change in career.

Mats · 10-29-2007, 12:27 AM

Originally posted by *isteve

Because they want to reduce the number of big white lenses lining the touchline at the worlds' sproting events. Basically the ID mk2 had vecome the ubiquitous tool of the professional sport photog and Nikon want that back. The fact that Canon also managed to mess up their AF and delay full production of the 1D3 probably helped too but I suspect Canon are seriously worried.

None of which is remotely relevant to any of us unless we are expecting a change in career.

Yepp, the heat is on for Canon. They are no longer the one and only choice for the sports photographer.

I wonder what target groups Pentax are aiming for with the "K20D"? If I were in Pentax productplanning i would look at those that actually compared between K10D, D80 and perhaps 400D and did not choose the K10D.
What was the key factors that made them not choose Pentax? My guess is that the main issue would be the AF performance in low light, AF speed and the missing predictable continuos AF, dunno if the last one is true but reading web forums like dpreview it is easy to think so.

So for users here AF speed or fps was not on top of of the priority list, but Pentax needs to expand their customer base and attract also those with AF speed and fps as the no 1 or 2 feature.

I think it would be impossible for Pentax to release a "K20D" with 3 fps and K10D AF system but i also dont think that Pentax will place themselves as the AF speed performance leader or the highest fps shooter. Where i think that Pentax want to be considered good is in lowlight AF performance and when it comes to fps and AF speed i think that it must be made a "non issue" for for potential buyers, meaning 4-5 fps and better predictable autofocus.

And i think that the above can be done without sacrificing the Pentax "soul", good handling, top notch viewfinder, best value, IQ etc. Potential customers that did not even consider/know about the K10D, can only be won by advertising money (from Hoya?).

/Mats

10-28-2007, 01:48 AM	#242
roentarre Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 11,783	FF is not really that big deal. It is the better DR and less noise that is what I will be looking for. I still like k10d's colour rendition and texture details in its images, comparing to 1ds and 5D shots. But honestly I would only prefer protraits using 5D. For everything else, I prefer k10d. One frustrating thing about k10d is its propensity to produce clipped corners in its images under harsh light. Less rooms and tougher to rescue these problems in photoshop. It seems that January is the definite time for release now. Really looking forward to it. Last edited by roentarre; 10-28-2007 at 03:03 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: K20D, Battery Grip, NEW K20D battery, cable remote (Worldwide)	Albert Siegel	Sold Items	6	09-23-2010 08:02 AM
In Canada: Summer Rebates for K20d or K20d plus lens	Pentaxtic	Pentax DSLR Discussion	1	07-17-2009 11:34 AM
Magic Lantern Guides: Pentax K20D and MasterWorks: Jumpstart Guide for the K20D.	Reportage	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	10	02-12-2009 10:24 PM

10-27-2007, 11:35 PM	#241
and Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,476	Originally posted by *isteve Pentax are not likely to go head to head with the D3 and 1DS mk3 just yet, but what they have in plan will probably be a lot more relevant to the rest of us. How about the 5D/1D

10-28-2007, 01:53 AM	#243
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	Originally posted by *isteve Pentax are not likely to go head to head with the D3 and 1DS mk3 just yet, but what they have in plan will probably be a lot more relevant to the rest of us. Teas us, teas us ...

10-28-2007, 02:02 AM	#244
and Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,476	Originally posted by roentarre FF is not really that big deal. It is the better DR and less noise that is what I will be looking for. better DR and less noise = FF

10-28-2007, 02:17 AM	#245
wll Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Mission Hills, CA Posts: 773	Originally posted by and better DR and less noise = FF Since Pentax has discontinued most of the FA lenses and is making only DA, where does FF come in. All indications and lenses produced the past couple of years are APS-C size. wll

10-28-2007, 02:51 AM	#246
and Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,476	Originally posted by wll Since Pentax has discontinued most of the FA lenses and is making only DA, where does FF come in. All indications and lenses produced the past couple of years are APS-C size. wll Yep all indications is that the next cameras will be APS-C, I am not speculating that it will be FF. I am just saying FF is better than APS-C We are allowed to dream are we not

10-28-2007, 02:56 AM	#247
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	Originally posted by and Yep all indications is that the next cameras will be APS-C, I am not speculating that it will be FF. I am just saying FF is better than APS-C We are allowed to dream are we not No, FF is better if you only account for sensor performance relative to noise/resolution ratio. If you factor in the price of the sensor (don't tell me in 2 years blabla, we are not in 2 years), the frame rate (of course bigger sensor = slower frame rate), the final price of the camera and the that you will have to buy handfull of lenses to match that sensor... And those beleiving their FF lenses will all do as well on an FF sensor as on a film will quickly bie their tongue IMO.

10-28-2007, 03:00 AM	#248
roentarre Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 11,783	Originally posted by and better DR and less noise = FF I am not an expert in this but I think better photosites with better DR would do the job better. FF can improve DR to a small extent (quoted from a friend on line in which I have little idea about it). It is the ultimate sensor units that are important. DOF is good with FF bringing better subject isolation. But it is not really a big deal that we have to go FF. p.s. I actually want to try out Fa* 24 f2 on a FF pentax dSLR... using it wide open. It would be so much fun!

10-28-2007, 03:05 AM	#249
roentarre Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 11,783	Originally posted by thibs And those beleiving their FF lenses will all do as well on an FF sensor as on a film will quickly bie their tongue IMO. You are getting me worried ... But looking at the old canon L lens line up, it is quite likely these Fa lenses might not perform too well even in FF dSLR...

10-28-2007, 03:09 AM	#250
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	Originally posted by roentarre You are getting me worried ... But looking at the old canon L lens line up, it is quite likely these Fa lenses might not perform too well even in FF dSLR... Wide angle lenses will cause problems and in general some lenses will probably show quite a bit of fringing and light fall-off in the corners (not only WA). Of course lenses taht do now very well on APS-C will probably be good on FF. But maybe just only good. What would you do if your beloved FA*80-200/2.8 (just an example btw) was just "not that bad, really" on your brand new FF. Seeing the price of the lens I'd be VERY upset personnaly.

10-28-2007, 12:53 PM	#251
Mats Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sweden Posts: 60	Originally posted by thibs No, FF is better if you only account for sensor performance relative to noise/resolution ratio. If you factor in the price of the sensor (don't tell me in 2 years blabla, we are not in 2 years), the frame rate (of course bigger sensor = slower frame rate), the final price of the camera and the that you will have to buy handfull of lenses to match that sensor... Sensor size has nothing to do with frame rate, MP count does. A 12 MP FF sensor carry the same amount of data as a 12 MP Aps-C sensor, assuming they have the same bit depth. /Mats

10-28-2007, 02:47 PM	#252
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	And since marketing wise, coming with an FF sensor with less Mpix than an APS-C sensor is suicide, the problem is still there.

10-28-2007, 03:26 PM	#253
Mats Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sweden Posts: 60	Originally posted by thibs And since marketing wise, coming with an FF sensor with less Mpix than an APS-C sensor is suicide, the problem is still there. Nikon D3 (FF)has 12.1 MP, D300 (APS-C)has 12.3 MP.... Not that i think that a Pentax FF or 1.2 or 1.3 sensor would be below 14 MP but its a matter of users you are aiming for. Nikon surely wanted superior high ISO performance and high FPS with the D3. /Mats

10-28-2007, 07:14 PM	#254
*isteve Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London, England Posts: 1,187	Originally posted by Mats Nikon D3 (FF)has 12.1 MP, D300 (APS-C)has 12.3 MP.... Not that i think that a Pentax FF or 1.2 or 1.3 sensor would be below 14 MP but its a matter of users you are aiming for. Nikon surely wanted superior high ISO performance and high FPS with the D3. /Mats Because they want to reduce the number of big white lenses lining the touchline at the worlds' sproting events. Basically the ID mk2 had vecome the ubiquitous tool of the professional sport photog and Nikon want that back. The fact that Canon also managed to mess up their AF and delay full production of the 1D3 probably helped too but I suspect Canon are seriously worried. None of which is remotely relevant to any of us unless we are expecting a change in career.

10-29-2007, 12:27 AM	#255
Mats Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sweden Posts: 60	Originally posted by *isteve Because they want to reduce the number of big white lenses lining the touchline at the worlds' sproting events. Basically the ID mk2 had vecome the ubiquitous tool of the professional sport photog and Nikon want that back. The fact that Canon also managed to mess up their AF and delay full production of the 1D3 probably helped too but I suspect Canon are seriously worried. None of which is remotely relevant to any of us unless we are expecting a change in career. Yepp, the heat is on for Canon. They are no longer the one and only choice for the sports photographer. I wonder what target groups Pentax are aiming for with the "K20D"? If I were in Pentax productplanning i would look at those that actually compared between K10D, D80 and perhaps 400D and did not choose the K10D. What was the key factors that made them not choose Pentax? My guess is that the main issue would be the AF performance in low light, AF speed and the missing predictable continuos AF, dunno if the last one is true but reading web forums like dpreview it is easy to think so. So for users here AF speed or fps was not on top of of the priority list, but Pentax needs to expand their customer base and attract also those with AF speed and fps as the no 1 or 2 feature. I think it would be impossible for Pentax to release a "K20D" with 3 fps and K10D AF system but i also dont think that Pentax will place themselves as the AF speed performance leader or the highest fps shooter. Where i think that Pentax want to be considered good is in lowlight AF performance and when it comes to fps and AF speed i think that it must be made a "non issue" for for potential buyers, meaning 4-5 fps and better predictable autofocus. And i think that the above can be done without sacrificing the Pentax "soul", good handling, top notch viewfinder, best value, IQ etc. Potential customers that did not even consider/know about the K10D, can only be won by advertising money (from Hoya?). /Mats