PentaxForums.com to Interview Pentax Japan on Feb 11 - Preliminary responses up!

**monochrome** · 02-12-2012, 05:27 PM

Originally posted by Aristophanes

Sensor supply a this level is NOT about just sourcing the produce from a variety of third parties. Way more complicated than that, I'm afraid.

At last. I spent half the afternoon researching that.

Pablom · 02-12-2012, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by Ex Finn.

I would be happy with APSC that had a FF viewfinder. How hard would that be?.

am I wrong to think it's not possible?

RXrenesis8 · 02-12-2012, 05:52 PM

Welp, that's it, I'm tired of waiting for Pentax to put out a FF DSLR, I'm jumping ship to a different kind of camera...

Chex · 02-12-2012, 05:52 PM

APS-H is only dead because of poor marketing. Cost to IQ wise it's probably the best option available.. isn't a "unique" market something Pentax is looking for anyways? I think a good weather sealed mirrorless APS-H with a good EVF would do just fine... Regardless, Pentax continuing to not provide a FF solution when most of their PK mount glass is FF is annoying.. commit one way or the other already!

Chex · 02-12-2012, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by Aristophanes

Sensor supply a this level is NOT about just sourcing the produce from a variety of third parties. Way more complicated than that, I'm afraid.

Of course it's more complicated.. but it doesn't mean it cannot be done. Surely whoever Kodak's sensor making department to has the means etc.. I wouldn't expect them to be able to use the exact same sensor as Nikon and then undercut them on the market, the D800 has a 36MP sensor, I do believe Sony also has a 24MP FF sensor available if I'm not mistaken.. regardless.. with little to no effort put forth by Pentax on it, we will never have a solution.

RXrenesis8 · 02-12-2012, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by Pablom

am I wrong to think it's not possible?

Sort of, You can get one of these O-ME53, or any other viewfinder loupe but the viewfinder will be darker.

Chex · 02-12-2012, 05:59 PM

Originally posted by RXrenesis8

Welp, that's it, I'm tired of waiting for Pentax to put out a FF DSLR, I'm jumping ship to a different kind of camera...

Looks very much like my FF solution for Pentax right now as well..

noser · 02-12-2012, 06:19 PM

Originally posted by eurostar

Because they need to sell hundreds of thousands of cameras. Not just thousands.

Untrue, if the sales stats reported elsewhere here are to be believed. I was surprised as many that it only took 000's of units to rank. Ten thousand would put them on the top of the heap.

King of the hill

A #1

(sorry, going to Vegas this week...)

ElJamoquio · 02-12-2012, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by boriscleto

It's mainly "My thingy is bigger than your thingy".

That, and the viewfinder can be twice as big, and the noise half as much, and the DOF 1.5x smaller, and the stop faster wide-angle lenses.

ElJamoquio · 02-12-2012, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by Pablom

am I wrong to think it's not possible?

It's possible, but it would be less than half as 'illuminated' as a viewfinder you're currently used to.

drougge · 02-12-2012, 06:43 PM

Originally posted by Ex Finn.

I would be happy with APSC that had a FF viewfinder. How hard would that be?.

It's easy, but you probably wouldn't. What you want is an APS-C camera with a viewfinder that's as good as on FF, without showing more than will be in the photo. That's hard. Or strictly speaking, impossible. (Since whatever you do could also be done on an FF finder.)

Since I know no one ever understands what I say even when I'm clear, I should probably explain what I just said. You can make a camera with an FF view finder, showing what would have been recorded by an FF sensor, and put an APS-C sensor in it. This is easy, and useless, because you just see extra stuff not in the recorded picture. (Well, not completely useless, but it doesn't provide most of the benefit.)

But certainly, the only reason I want FF is for a better finder. (Really, I want more than FF, but I'm willing to compromise so my lenses can still be used.)

ElJamoquio · 02-12-2012, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by drougge

Since I know no one ever understands what I say even when I'm clear, I should probably explain what I just said. You can make a camera with an FF view finder, showing what would have been recorded by an FF sensor, and put an APS-C sensor in it. This is easy, and useless, because you just see extra stuff not in the recorded picture. (Well, not completely useless, but it doesn't provide most of the benefit.)

I was assuming that he meant putting a FF size view finder, with 100% coverage rather than 225% coverage. Still possible optically but not without dimming the image.

arnie0674 · 02-12-2012, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by ElJamoquio

the viewfinder can be twice as big

that is a feature i would pay for.

Originally posted by ElJamoquio

the noise half as much

Is the noise really that much better than the K-5? I dont have a K-5, so I dont know how noisy it is, but my understanding is that it does a really good job at minimizing noise. I would pay for significant noise reduction, but I dont care for 30 megapixels. I'd rather a 16 or 18 megapixel camera with really low noise levels than a 30 megapixel camera with some noise.

Originally posted by ElJamoquio

the DOF 1.5x smaller

I guess in some cases that a good thing, and in some its a bad thing.

K1D27H · 02-12-2012, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by Aristophanes

And Kodak sold the unit to an industrial venture equity company.

Is it not the Truesense Imaging (then Kodak Sensor Division) still supplies their sensors to all their clients such as Leica (M9, S2) and Pentax (645D)?

Originally posted by Aristophanes

And who supplies the FF sensor?

Sony?

The same company whose customer Nikon buys 100% of their FF sensors now, and has a hand in designing them?

You think Sony will let Pentax drop the high margins on the FF camera market to make Sony's best customer angry?

Not going to happen.

Got a spare $100 million for the fab and the patents?

Teledyne Dalsa just offer a new 24mp sensor for full frame format. Still a CCD, however.

http://www.teledynedalsa.com/sensors/products/sensordetails.aspx?partNumber=FTF6040C

ElJamoquio · 02-12-2012, 08:19 PM

Originally posted by arnie0674

Is the noise really that much better than the K-5? I dont have a K-5, so I dont know how noisy it is, but my understanding is that it does a really good job at minimizing noise.

I have one (two if you count Mrs. ElJamoquio's camera). It DOES do a really good job at minimizing noise. It's the best noise/(sensor area) sensor that I'm aware of in a DSLR. I love it.

But a sensor that had 2.25-2.5x the area of the k-5 would trounce the k-5. That's why the 5d mark ii has less noise at iso 800 and above, even though that camera was the lowest priced full frame camera when introduced AND is going to turn four years old this year.

My point is, if the equivalent k-5 sensor material/design was used as a full-frame sensor, the signal to the sensor would be over twice as high for a given field of view.

Originally posted by arnie0674

I would pay for significant noise reduction, but I dont care for 30 megapixels. I'd rather a 16 or 18 megapixel camera with really low noise levels than a 30 megapixel camera with some noise.

I'd recommend buying a 30 MP camera and downsampling when you wanted less noise; and cropping when you wanted a 'longer equivalent focal length'...

Originally posted by arnie0674

I guess in some cases that a good thing, and in some its a bad thing.

...or larger DOF.

02-12-2012, 08:08 PM	#209
K1D27H Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Nakhon Pathom, Thailand Photos: Gallery Posts: 109	Originally posted by Aristophanes And Kodak sold the unit to an industrial venture equity company. Is it not the Truesense Imaging (then Kodak Sensor Division) still supplies their sensors to all their clients such as Leica (M9, S2) and Pentax (645D)? Originally posted by Aristophanes And who supplies the FF sensor? Sony? The same company whose customer Nikon buys 100% of their FF sensors now, and has a hand in designing them? You think Sony will let Pentax drop the high margins on the FF camera market to make Sony's best customer angry? Not going to happen. Got a spare $100 million for the fab and the patents? Teledyne Dalsa just offer a new 24mp sensor for full frame format. Still a CCD, however. http://www.teledynedalsa.com/sensors/products/sensordetails.aspx?partNumber=FTF6040C Last edited by K1D27H; 02-12-2012 at 08:19 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Interview with Pentax Japan Executive	Noisychip	Pentax News and Rumors	255	01-24-2012 08:13 PM
Suggestion Photo Critique responses	Ash	Site Suggestions and Help	16	01-23-2011 11:58 AM
Pentax UK's responses to my K-5 questions	adamfogerty	Pentax News and Rumors	8	10-22-2010 12:36 AM
Dear Pentaxianne Landers... (+Japan wide Lens prices Feb 2010)	JesseDavis	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	02-27-2010 05:02 PM
Interview with Pentax Japan	ckanthon	Pentax DSLR Discussion	0	06-22-2008 12:45 PM

02-12-2012, 05:27 PM	#196
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by Aristophanes Sensor supply a this level is NOT about just sourcing the produce from a variety of third parties. Way more complicated than that, I'm afraid. At last. I spent half the afternoon researching that.

02-12-2012, 05:38 PM	#197
Pablom Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Usa Posts: 1,940	Originally posted by Ex Finn. I would be happy with APSC that had a FF viewfinder. How hard would that be?. am I wrong to think it's not possible?

02-12-2012, 05:52 PM	#198
RXrenesis8 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Orlando, FL (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 523	Welp, that's it, I'm tired of waiting for Pentax to put out a FF DSLR, I'm jumping ship to a different kind of camera...

02-12-2012, 05:52 PM	#199
Chex Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: The 'Stoke, British Columbia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,678	APS-H is only dead because of poor marketing. Cost to IQ wise it's probably the best option available.. isn't a "unique" market something Pentax is looking for anyways? I think a good weather sealed mirrorless APS-H with a good EVF would do just fine... Regardless, Pentax continuing to not provide a FF solution when most of their PK mount glass is FF is annoying.. commit one way or the other already!

02-12-2012, 05:58 PM	#200
Chex Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: The 'Stoke, British Columbia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,678	Originally posted by Aristophanes Sensor supply a this level is NOT about just sourcing the produce from a variety of third parties. Way more complicated than that, I'm afraid. Of course it's more complicated.. but it doesn't mean it cannot be done. Surely whoever Kodak's sensor making department to has the means etc.. I wouldn't expect them to be able to use the exact same sensor as Nikon and then undercut them on the market, the D800 has a 36MP sensor, I do believe Sony also has a 24MP FF sensor available if I'm not mistaken.. regardless.. with little to no effort put forth by Pentax on it, we will never have a solution.

02-12-2012, 05:58 PM	#201
RXrenesis8 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Orlando, FL (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 523	Originally posted by Pablom am I wrong to think it's not possible? Sort of, You can get one of these O-ME53, or any other viewfinder loupe but the viewfinder will be darker.

02-12-2012, 05:59 PM	#202
Chex Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: The 'Stoke, British Columbia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,678	Originally posted by RXrenesis8 Welp, that's it, I'm tired of waiting for Pentax to put out a FF DSLR, I'm jumping ship to a different kind of camera... Looks very much like my FF solution for Pentax right now as well..

02-12-2012, 06:19 PM	#203
noser Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Calgary, AB CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 292	Originally posted by eurostar Because they need to sell hundreds of thousands of cameras. Not just thousands. Untrue, if the sales stats reported elsewhere here are to be believed. I was surprised as many that it only took 000's of units to rank. Ten thousand would put them on the top of the heap. King of the hill A #1 (sorry, going to Vegas this week...)

02-12-2012, 06:38 PM	#204
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	Originally posted by boriscleto It's mainly "My thingy is bigger than your thingy". That, and the viewfinder can be twice as big, and the noise half as much, and the DOF 1.5x smaller, and the stop faster wide-angle lenses.

02-12-2012, 06:39 PM	#205
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	Originally posted by Pablom am I wrong to think it's not possible? It's possible, but it would be less than half as 'illuminated' as a viewfinder you're currently used to.

02-12-2012, 06:43 PM	#206
drougge Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Malmö Photos: Gallery Posts: 787	Originally posted by Ex Finn. I would be happy with APSC that had a FF viewfinder. How hard would that be?. It's easy, but you probably wouldn't. What you want is an APS-C camera with a viewfinder that's as good as on FF, without showing more than will be in the photo. That's hard. Or strictly speaking, impossible. (Since whatever you do could also be done on an FF finder.) Since I know no one ever understands what I say even when I'm clear, I should probably explain what I just said. You can make a camera with an FF view finder, showing what would have been recorded by an FF sensor, and put an APS-C sensor in it. This is easy, and useless, because you just see extra stuff not in the recorded picture. (Well, not completely useless, but it doesn't provide most of the benefit.) But certainly, the only reason I want FF is for a better finder. (Really, I want more than FF, but I'm willing to compromise so my lenses can still be used.)

02-12-2012, 07:02 PM	#207
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	Originally posted by drougge Since I know no one ever understands what I say even when I'm clear, I should probably explain what I just said. You can make a camera with an FF view finder, showing what would have been recorded by an FF sensor, and put an APS-C sensor in it. This is easy, and useless, because you just see extra stuff not in the recorded picture. (Well, not completely useless, but it doesn't provide most of the benefit.) I was assuming that he meant putting a FF size view finder, with 100% coverage rather than 225% coverage. Still possible optically but not without dimming the image.

02-12-2012, 07:12 PM	#208
arnie0674 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Photos: Albums Posts: 173	Originally posted by ElJamoquio the viewfinder can be twice as big that is a feature i would pay for. Originally posted by ElJamoquio the noise half as much Is the noise really that much better than the K-5? I dont have a K-5, so I dont know how noisy it is, but my understanding is that it does a really good job at minimizing noise. I would pay for significant noise reduction, but I dont care for 30 megapixels. I'd rather a 16 or 18 megapixel camera with really low noise levels than a 30 megapixel camera with some noise. Originally posted by ElJamoquio the DOF 1.5x smaller I guess in some cases that a good thing, and in some its a bad thing.

02-12-2012, 08:19 PM	#210
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	Originally posted by arnie0674 Is the noise really that much better than the K-5? I dont have a K-5, so I dont know how noisy it is, but my understanding is that it does a really good job at minimizing noise. I have one (two if you count Mrs. ElJamoquio's camera). It DOES do a really good job at minimizing noise. It's the best noise/(sensor area) sensor that I'm aware of in a DSLR. I love it. But a sensor that had 2.25-2.5x the area of the k-5 would trounce the k-5. That's why the 5d mark ii has less noise at iso 800 and above, even though that camera was the lowest priced full frame camera when introduced AND is going to turn four years old this year. My point is, if the equivalent k-5 sensor material/design was used as a full-frame sensor, the signal to the sensor would be over twice as high for a given field of view. Originally posted by arnie0674 I would pay for significant noise reduction, but I dont care for 30 megapixels. I'd rather a 16 or 18 megapixel camera with really low noise levels than a 30 megapixel camera with some noise. I'd recommend buying a 30 MP camera and downsampling when you wanted less noise; and cropping when you wanted a 'longer equivalent focal length'... Originally posted by arnie0674 I guess in some cases that a good thing, and in some its a bad thing. ...or larger DOF.