The forthcoming Pentax Mirrorless Camera

eddie1960 · 04-13-2011, 04:32 PM

Hes a troll im done here

Caat · 04-14-2011, 02:56 AM

Originally posted by gazonk

I think the confusion boils down to this: It will still be a f/2.8 lens wrt. which shutter speed and ISO you would select for your f/2.8 exposure. However, since the tiny sensor only gets a tiny fraction of all the light that the f/2.8 lens collects, there has to be a catch somewhere. And that catch, of course, is that ISO 100 on those small sensors is about as noisy as ISO 1600 on an APS-C sensor.

Exactly. In fact I also mentioned good lighting in an attempt to remove ISO from the picture as a consideration.

The relatively minor point I was trying to make is rapidly being blown out of proportion!!

Caat · 04-14-2011, 03:02 AM

Originally posted by Pompous Moronox

You said:

Originally posted by Caat
Which is why I said specifically in terms of light gathering power (not DoF) and talked about equivalence in terms of field of view

This is false.

A 200/2.8 lens on the vaporware NC-1 would be 1120mm equivalent vis-a-vis FOV, but it would not be a f/2.8 in terms of light gathering power. You're trying to get a free luch here. The light gathering power equivalency would be about f/16.

No it's not false.

A lens' light gatheirng power in terms of shutter speed at a given ISO is determined by the f/stop and is independent of the sensor. Of course a camera with a larger sensor could raise it's ISO to levels to where the image quality of the NC-1 would deteriorate beyond sense - but that wasn't the point I was making.

HOWEVER

This was in fact a smaller point within what was a relatively small point to being with. The larger point was that a 1120mm that covered either APS-C or 35mm would be extremely expensive and very large. A 200mm lens on the NC-1 in comparison would not.

Asahiflex · 04-14-2011, 05:09 AM

Originally posted by Caat

This was in fact a smaller point within what was a relatively small point to being with. The larger point was that a 1120mm that covered either APS-C or 35mm would be extremely expensive and very large. A 200mm lens on the NC-1 in comparison would not.

As I see it a 200mm lens on the NC-1 is using a cropped image to begin with. So if I use the 200mm on my K-5 and crop it out to match the NC-1's 1120mm equivalent picture I end up with the same image, no? So I could just choose to use the same lens as on the NC-1 (pixel density of the sensors aside).

eddie1960 · 04-14-2011, 05:19 AM

Originally posted by Asahiflex

As I see it a 200mm lens on the NC-1 is using a cropped image to begin with. So if I use the 200mm on my K-5 and crop it out to match the NC-1's 1120mm equivalent picture I end up with the same image, no? So I could just choose to use the same lens as on the NC-1 (pixel density of the sensors aside).

true, however pixel density would also be a difference, it's quite likely the k5 cropped this much will have lower resolution than the nc1 (though less noise caused by density). it will also be a much larger unit to carry. Finally if you wanted the longer DOF the nc1 would have @ 2.8, it will be lost on the k5.
it's silly actually to spend all this time debating it, in reality the target market for this camera really isn't any of us here. it's teenage girls in japan as far as I can tell. the MILC for us will be the apsc hat is supposed to arrive later in the year

Asahiflex · 04-14-2011, 05:26 AM

Originally posted by eddie1960

true, however pixel density would also be a difference, it's quite likely the k5 cropped this much will have lower resolution than the nc1 (though less noise caused by density). it will also be a much larger unit to carry. Finally if you wanted the longer DOF the nc1 would have @ 2.8, it will be lost on the k5.

No, it will not be lost in the situation I described. The DOF is the same, everything being equal (sensor to object distance, f/stop and focus setting) if we crop the K-5's picture to the field of view of the NC-1.

Quote:

it's silly actually to spend all this time debating it, in reality the target market for this camera really isn't any of us here. it's teenage girls in japan as far as I can tell. the MILC for us will be the apsc hat is supposed to arrive later in the year

Yes! I want all this "crop" whining to end. Give me a FF sensor with small flange distance and you'll never hear from me again

eddie1960 · 04-14-2011, 06:21 AM

Originally posted by Asahiflex

Yes! I want all this "crop" whining to end. Give me a FF sensor with small flange distance and you'll never hear from me again

that would be the Leica m9

(wish i could afford that actually, even if i sold off all my kits I'd be lucky to get it with no lens)

Caat · 04-14-2011, 06:30 AM

Originally posted by Asahiflex

Yes! I want all this "crop" whining to end. Give me a FF sensor with small flange distance and you'll never hear from me again

A FF MILC camera would be an interesting option.

I know that this gets said a lot but if Pentax could fit a FF camera into an MX body it'd be great. Not likely to ever happen due to the thickness of the sensor and LCD panel but it would be awesome!

Caat · 04-14-2011, 06:32 AM

Originally posted by eddie1960

it's silly actually to spend all this time debating it, in reality the target market for this camera really isn't any of us here. it's teenage girls in japan as far as I can tell. the MILC for us will be the apsc hat is supposed to arrive later in the year

Yep.

I can see a Hello Kitty Edition already

Caat · 04-14-2011, 06:35 AM

Originally posted by eddie1960

that would be the Leica m9

(wish i could afford that actually, even if i sold off all my kits I'd be lucky to get it with no lens)

The M9 is closest thing but even if I had the money I am not sure I'd like a range finder. The sale of my kit probably wouldn't even stretch to a lens!

eddie1960 · 04-14-2011, 06:39 AM

Originally posted by Caat

A FF MILC camera would be an interesting option.

I know that this gets said a lot but if Pentax could fit a FF camera into an MX body it'd be great. Not likely to ever happen due to the thickness of the sensor and LCD panel but it would be awesome!

it could be done judging by the m9 size though would need to be a little deeper to accommodate the k mount registration distance which is about 17mm deeper

eddie1960 · 04-14-2011, 06:42 AM

Originally posted by Caat

The M9 is closest thing but even if I had the money I am not sure I'd like a range finder. The sale of my kit probably wouldn't even stretch to a lens!

I have ltm39 lenses that could be adapted, and the voigtlanders are pretty nice lenses at more reasonable prices. But an M9 with a good Summicron 50 will set you back close to 645d territory. If I sold everything i own camera wise i could likely come up with the money for a couple of nice lenses and an m6 film body
I like rangefinders, but they have their limitations. For street photography though they are the best choice.

ghelary · 04-14-2011, 08:32 AM

Just add to the "cropped senssor" discussion, I have a pratical example:

I took this moon picture last week-end when I got bored at watching television.

I took this picture with a Pentax 6x7 600mmF4 + Vivitar 2X teleconverter on a Pentax K20D, so compared to the image I would have got on a 6x7 film or even 645D this is extremely cropped. However I still cropped the image I got on the camera to put the result above so I had enough sensor surface to capture what I wanted to.

Regardless of the final image quality (city lights didn't help to get the best) the total number of pixel available with my K20D was higher than the amount of pixels I would have got from a FF camera or from a 645D. There a lot to discuss around, but if you manage to get enough resolution from your lens (and I'm sure you can from the likes of DA70, FA77 or DFA100) a croped sensor can give you better results than the bigger sensor once the image cropped to the resolution you are looking for.

I've seen this argument from sport photographers prefering APSH to FF for that reason, so this is not purelly retorical. Or on another case, if you are hiking on faraway places, you may not be able to carry lenses long enough for the wildlife photography you intend. But a relatively light 100/2.8 would make equivalent to a 600mm... So this NC-1 could be a very companion of an APSC camera in such cases and certainly lighter than the mentionned 600...

gazonk · 04-14-2011, 09:12 AM

Originally posted by ghelary

But a relatively light 100/2.8 would make equivalent to a 600mm... So this NC-1 could be a very companion of an APSC camera in such cases and certainly lighter than the mentionned 600...

Indeed. And it would currently certainly be less expensive to make than a 190mp APS-C camera

Pompous Moronox · 04-14-2011, 09:38 AM

Originally posted by Caat

HOWEVER

This was in fact a smaller point within what was a relatively small point to being with. The larger point was that a 1120mm that covered either APS-C or 35mm would be extremely expensive and very large. A 200mm lens on the NC-1 in comparison would not.

This is false

A 200/2.8 lens for this hypotethical tiny sensor camera would still be rather large, not really much at all smaller than the current "regular" 200/2.8s.

However, to match that camera/lens FOV and DOF performance on a FF camera one would need a 1120/16 lens which would not be much bigger, and would be quite a bit cheaper to make - the 1120/16 would be a very easy design, no exotic materials needed and it'd likely deliver higher quality image than the more agressive 200/2.8.

04-14-2011, 08:32 AM	#478
ghelary Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Paris, France Photos: Gallery Posts: 613	Just add to the "cropped senssor" discussion, I have a pratical example: I took this moon picture last week-end when I got bored at watching television. I took this picture with a Pentax 6x7 600mmF4 + Vivitar 2X teleconverter on a Pentax K20D, so compared to the image I would have got on a 6x7 film or even 645D this is extremely cropped. However I still cropped the image I got on the camera to put the result above so I had enough sensor surface to capture what I wanted to. Regardless of the final image quality (city lights didn't help to get the best) the total number of pixel available with my K20D was higher than the amount of pixels I would have got from a FF camera or from a 645D. There a lot to discuss around, but if you manage to get enough resolution from your lens (and I'm sure you can from the likes of DA70, FA77 or DFA100) a croped sensor can give you better results than the bigger sensor once the image cropped to the resolution you are looking for. I've seen this argument from sport photographers prefering APSH to FF for that reason, so this is not purelly retorical. Or on another case, if you are hiking on faraway places, you may not be able to carry lenses long enough for the wildlife photography you intend. But a relatively light 100/2.8 would make equivalent to a 600mm... So this NC-1 could be a very companion of an APSC camera in such cases and certainly lighter than the mentionned 600... Last edited by ghelary; 04-14-2011 at 08:33 AM. Reason: Edit: to correct the image display

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Mirrorless Camera--Good or Bad?	InStitches49	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	15	11-10-2010 10:15 PM
[RUMOR] Canon's First Mirrorless Camera!	jct us101	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	12	09-14-2010 08:08 PM
Pentax is investigating a mirrorless system camera	falconeye	Pentax News and Rumors	172	04-01-2010 01:03 PM
Pentax mirrorless camera in LX like design body	ogl	Pentax News and Rumors	94	03-23-2010 04:21 AM
Samsung GX fullframe mirrorless camera system?	amonsul	Pentax News and Rumors	46	11-12-2009 05:37 AM

04-13-2011, 04:32 PM	#466
eddie1960 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,666	Hes a troll im done here

04-14-2011, 02:56 AM	#467
Caat Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: United Kingdom Photos: Albums Posts: 927	Originally posted by gazonk I think the confusion boils down to this: It will still be a f/2.8 lens wrt. which shutter speed and ISO you would select for your f/2.8 exposure. However, since the tiny sensor only gets a tiny fraction of all the light that the f/2.8 lens collects, there has to be a catch somewhere. And that catch, of course, is that ISO 100 on those small sensors is about as noisy as ISO 1600 on an APS-C sensor. Exactly. In fact I also mentioned good lighting in an attempt to remove ISO from the picture as a consideration. The relatively minor point I was trying to make is rapidly being blown out of proportion!!

04-14-2011, 03:02 AM	#468
Caat Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: United Kingdom Photos: Albums Posts: 927	Originally posted by Pompous Moronox You said: Originally posted by Caat Which is why I said specifically in terms of light gathering power (not DoF) and talked about equivalence in terms of field of view This is false. A 200/2.8 lens on the vaporware NC-1 would be 1120mm equivalent vis-a-vis FOV, but it would not be a f/2.8 in terms of light gathering power. You're trying to get a free luch here. The light gathering power equivalency would be about f/16. No it's not false. A lens' light gatheirng power in terms of shutter speed at a given ISO is determined by the f/stop and is independent of the sensor. Of course a camera with a larger sensor could raise it's ISO to levels to where the image quality of the NC-1 would deteriorate beyond sense - but that wasn't the point I was making. HOWEVER This was in fact a smaller point within what was a relatively small point to being with. The larger point was that a 1120mm that covered either APS-C or 35mm would be extremely expensive and very large. A 200mm lens on the NC-1 in comparison would not.

04-14-2011, 05:09 AM	#469
Asahiflex Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Netherlands Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,795	Originally posted by Caat This was in fact a smaller point within what was a relatively small point to being with. The larger point was that a 1120mm that covered either APS-C or 35mm would be extremely expensive and very large. A 200mm lens on the NC-1 in comparison would not. As I see it a 200mm lens on the NC-1 is using a cropped image to begin with. So if I use the 200mm on my K-5 and crop it out to match the NC-1's 1120mm equivalent picture I end up with the same image, no? So I could just choose to use the same lens as on the NC-1 (pixel density of the sensors aside).

04-14-2011, 05:19 AM	#470
eddie1960 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,666	Originally posted by Asahiflex As I see it a 200mm lens on the NC-1 is using a cropped image to begin with. So if I use the 200mm on my K-5 and crop it out to match the NC-1's 1120mm equivalent picture I end up with the same image, no? So I could just choose to use the same lens as on the NC-1 (pixel density of the sensors aside). true, however pixel density would also be a difference, it's quite likely the k5 cropped this much will have lower resolution than the nc1 (though less noise caused by density). it will also be a much larger unit to carry. Finally if you wanted the longer DOF the nc1 would have @ 2.8, it will be lost on the k5. it's silly actually to spend all this time debating it, in reality the target market for this camera really isn't any of us here. it's teenage girls in japan as far as I can tell. the MILC for us will be the apsc hat is supposed to arrive later in the year

04-14-2011, 05:26 AM	#471
Asahiflex Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Netherlands Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,795	Originally posted by eddie1960 true, however pixel density would also be a difference, it's quite likely the k5 cropped this much will have lower resolution than the nc1 (though less noise caused by density). it will also be a much larger unit to carry. Finally if you wanted the longer DOF the nc1 would have @ 2.8, it will be lost on the k5. No, it will not be lost in the situation I described. The DOF is the same, everything being equal (sensor to object distance, f/stop and focus setting) if we crop the K-5's picture to the field of view of the NC-1. Quote: it's silly actually to spend all this time debating it, in reality the target market for this camera really isn't any of us here. it's teenage girls in japan as far as I can tell. the MILC for us will be the apsc hat is supposed to arrive later in the year Yes! I want all this "crop" whining to end. Give me a FF sensor with small flange distance and you'll never hear from me again

04-14-2011, 06:21 AM	#472
eddie1960 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,666	Originally posted by Asahiflex Yes! I want all this "crop" whining to end. Give me a FF sensor with small flange distance and you'll never hear from me again that would be the Leica m9 (wish i could afford that actually, even if i sold off all my kits I'd be lucky to get it with no lens)

04-14-2011, 06:30 AM	#473
Caat Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: United Kingdom Photos: Albums Posts: 927	Originally posted by Asahiflex Yes! I want all this "crop" whining to end. Give me a FF sensor with small flange distance and you'll never hear from me again A FF MILC camera would be an interesting option. I know that this gets said a lot but if Pentax could fit a FF camera into an MX body it'd be great. Not likely to ever happen due to the thickness of the sensor and LCD panel but it would be awesome!

04-14-2011, 06:32 AM	#474
Caat Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: United Kingdom Photos: Albums Posts: 927	Originally posted by eddie1960 it's silly actually to spend all this time debating it, in reality the target market for this camera really isn't any of us here. it's teenage girls in japan as far as I can tell. the MILC for us will be the apsc hat is supposed to arrive later in the year Yep. I can see a Hello Kitty Edition already

04-14-2011, 06:35 AM	#475
Caat Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: United Kingdom Photos: Albums Posts: 927	Originally posted by eddie1960 that would be the Leica m9 (wish i could afford that actually, even if i sold off all my kits I'd be lucky to get it with no lens) The M9 is closest thing but even if I had the money I am not sure I'd like a range finder. The sale of my kit probably wouldn't even stretch to a lens!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-14-2011, 06:39 AM	#476
eddie1960 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,666	Originally posted by Caat A FF MILC camera would be an interesting option. I know that this gets said a lot but if Pentax could fit a FF camera into an MX body it'd be great. Not likely to ever happen due to the thickness of the sensor and LCD panel but it would be awesome! it could be done judging by the m9 size though would need to be a little deeper to accommodate the k mount registration distance which is about 17mm deeper

04-14-2011, 06:42 AM	#477
eddie1960 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,666	Originally posted by Caat The M9 is closest thing but even if I had the money I am not sure I'd like a range finder. The sale of my kit probably wouldn't even stretch to a lens! I have ltm39 lenses that could be adapted, and the voigtlanders are pretty nice lenses at more reasonable prices. But an M9 with a good Summicron 50 will set you back close to 645d territory. If I sold everything i own camera wise i could likely come up with the money for a couple of nice lenses and an m6 film body I like rangefinders, but they have their limitations. For street photography though they are the best choice.

04-14-2011, 09:12 AM	#479
gazonk Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Oslo area, Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,746	Originally posted by ghelary But a relatively light 100/2.8 would make equivalent to a 600mm... So this NC-1 could be a very companion of an APSC camera in such cases and certainly lighter than the mentionned 600... Indeed. And it would currently certainly be less expensive to make than a 190mp APS-C camera

04-14-2011, 09:38 AM	#480
Pompous Moronox Inactive Account Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 29	Originally posted by Caat HOWEVER This was in fact a smaller point within what was a relatively small point to being with. The larger point was that a 1120mm that covered either APS-C or 35mm would be extremely expensive and very large. A 200mm lens on the NC-1 in comparison would not. This is false A 200/2.8 lens for this hypotethical tiny sensor camera would still be rather large, not really much at all smaller than the current "regular" 200/2.8s. However, to match that camera/lens FOV and DOF performance on a FF camera one would need a 1120/16 lens which would not be much bigger, and would be quite a bit cheaper to make - the 1120/16 would be a very easy design, no exotic materials needed and it'd likely deliver higher quality image than the more agressive 200/2.8.