[monochrome]

Good point, but I think they should try to reduce the weight of the successor of the K-01.

Possibly, but the mass also helps me stabilize the camera. I do not intend to criticize the drive to smaller and lighter, but I really don't understand the need. For my use the MILC market has moved beyond what I consider rational, though I had a nice conversation and swap hour with a Nex5n user over the weekend with the E mount 18-55. He holds the camera like a compact - thumbs and fingers and never manual focuses. FWIW, he still is an active 6x7 user, so he is an outlier on both ends of the size spectrum.

Where we agreed to disagree - holding the camera (he didn't want to use the SLR grip, I didn't want to use the compact grip), mounting exiting lenses, Newson design (he could see how I could like it).

Where he won - Flip up LCD screen; 10FPS, video (though we didn't spend a lot of time there)

Where we agreed - pocketable in useable form. The 18~55 is almost 2.5" long, meaning the Nex5n with that lens mounted is deeper than the K-01. The 16mm pancake is 22mm deep so with that lens mounted the Nex5n is comparable in depth to the K-01 with the DA40XS. 220gm vs. 680gm is a major difference!!

Everything else we called personal preference.

My conclusion is we should examine how users hold the cameras (as I have described). I'd bet the entire debate hinges on K-01 antagonists wanting to hold it like a compact.

---

Last edited by monochrome; 06-11-2012 at 09:51 AM.

[RXrenesis8]

The lens protrudes > 40mm into the body? I wonder what the rear cap on this lens is going to look like. Maybe I can use it as a shot glass when the lens is mounted!

[RioRico]

The lens protrudes > 40mm into the body? I wonder what the rear cap on this lens is going to look like. Maybe I can use it as a shot glass when the lens is mounted!

+1 for multi-use accessories. Y'all may be surprised at some of my uses of ordinary rear lens caps -- almost as useful as old 135 cart cans. Of course, I only employ old non-Pentax caps -- mostly Canon and Minolta -- because the Pentax caps are NEEDED. But if a metal screw-in front lens cap can double as a dissection table, a deep-inset rear cap should be just right for double-shots!

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

It's not free. On the cheap pancake lenses like the Panasonic 14mm and Olympus 17mm, barrel distortion is very high. Correction would lose you 1-2mm of focal length turning the "35mm equivalent" lens into something closer to 37-38.

But what do you expect from inexpensive lenses? The entire point of this focus on sharpness at the detriment of distortion is to produce lenses that are either more compact or more affordable or both. You can always pay more to get lenses without distortion if that is what you want to use.

[wjjstu]

But what do you expect from inexpensive lenses? The entire point of this focus on sharpness at the detriment of distortion is to produce lenses that are either more compact or more affordable or both. You can always pay more to get lenses without distortion if that is what you want to use.

I never said I expected anything more from inexpensive lenses but you lose more than just "a bit of sharpness" at the edges with software correction. You can lose significant amounts around the sides of the image. This point is often never mentioned in cons of software correction.

The MFT prime lenses I mentioned have something like 5% barrel distortion and you'll lose several mm of effective focal length. Is there a calculator somewhere that can show how much this zoom would lose if it went trendy and corrected its flaws with software filters?

[Aristophanes]

The lens protrudes > 40mm into the body? I wonder what the rear cap on this lens is going to look like. Maybe I can use it as a shot glass when the lens is mounted!

Pshaw!

That's nothing.

Mamiya 43mm f/4.5 for Mamiya 7 215-032 B&H Photo Video

[RioRico]

Pshaw!

That's nothing.

Mamiya 43mm f/4.5 for Mamiya 7 215-032 B&H Photo Video

Yes, its rear cap would double as a tumbler.

[philbaum]

Possibly, but the mass also helps me stabilize the camera. I do not intend to criticize the drive to smaller and lighter, but I really don't understand the need. For my use the MILC market has moved beyond what I consider rational, though I had a nice conversation and swap hour with a Nex5n user over the weekend with the E mount 18-55. He holds the camera like a compact - thumbs and fingers and never manual focuses. FWIW, he still is an active 6x7 user, so he is an outlier on both ends of the size spectrum.

Where we agreed to disagree - holding the camera (he didn't want to use the SLR grip, I didn't want to use the compact grip), mounting exiting lenses, Newson design (he could see how I could like it).

Where he won - Flip up LCD screen; 10FPS, video (though we didn't spend a lot of time there)

Where we agreed - pocketable in useable form. The 18~55 is almost 2.5" long, meaning the Nex5n with that lens mounted is deeper than the K-01. The 16mm pancake is 22mm deep so with that lens mounted the Nex5n is comparable in depth to the K-01 with the DA40XS. 220gm vs. 680gm is a major difference!!

Everything else we called personal preference.

My conclusion is we should examine how users hold the cameras (as I have described). I'd bet the entire debate hinges on K-01 antagonists wanting to hold it like a compact.

Thanks for the interesting discussion and you make a solid point about how users expect to hold the camera.

I'm not too opposed to the weight if the weight is due to some functional purpose. But i'm a little concerned that the weight of the K01 may be simply due to Newson and/or Pentax not giving it any thought. The K01 has:
a. a built in focusing motor
b. SR in the body
c. flash hotshoe
d. a deeper, larger mount
which probably add some weight, on the other hand, the Nex 5n has
a. a tiltable lcd screen

Mobile phones have gotten incredibly small compared to the rotary phones when i was a kid. In my opinion, gazonk is right - Pentax needs to look at shaving some weight unless its absolutely necessary for some unknown functional purpose. I can even forgive Pentax not worrying about it in the first model year, but to ignore it flies in the face of where many consumers are at. I have a friend who develops back problems (pre-existing condition) after carrying a K5 with lenses around all day while exporing Utah canyons. Recently he has acquired the Nex5n and loves it for the weight. I don't have back problems, but still am envious of the Nex 5n's light weight. I may wait for the next K01 successor to see what happens, or not wait - haven't made up my mind.

Just saying, that for Pentax to ignore size and weight is at their competitive risk - unless they have a reason that they can sell the consumer on.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

I never said I expected anything more from inexpensive lenses but you lose more than just "a bit of sharpness" at the edges with software correction. You can lose significant amounts around the sides of the image. This point is often never mentioned in cons of software correction.

Actually, it doesn't look like there is anything lost. I just corrected some 14/2.5 images today and I got *more* detail in the edges, not less. It appears that the sensor records more information to allow for such corrections.

Here is an example - two 100% crops, scaled down to half their size, no special processing.

Left border crop from uncorrected image:


Left border crop from corrected image:


You can notice quite a bit of detail being uncovered in the left border of the corrected image. And the difference in sharpness is unnoticeable.

[Caat]

Actually, it doesn't look like there is anything lost. I just corrected some 14/2.5 images today and I got *more* detail in the edges, not less. It appears that the sensor records more information to allow for such corrections.

Here is an example - two 100% crops, scaled down to half their size, no special processing.

Left border crop from uncorrected image:


Left border crop from corrected image:


You can notice quite a bit of detail being uncovered in the left border of the corrected image. And the difference in sharpness is unnoticeable.

The small size makes a definitive statement difficult and the slightly reduced contrast of the corrected image also reduces perceived detail. However, I would actually have to disagree. I think the uncorrected version has the appearence of greater detail.

The problem is that 'all' the corrected image is doing is stretching the existing image and presumably using some kind of interpolating alogrithim (isn't it?). I don't think this necessarily means that the correction has to be noticeably worse but I don't think it can add real detail.

[eurostar]

The small size makes a definitive statement difficult and the slightly reduced contrast of the corrected image also reduces perceived detail. However, I would actually have to disagree. I think the uncorrected version has the appearence of greater detail.

The problem is that 'all' the corrected image is doing is stretching the existing image and presumably using some kind of interpolating alogrithim (isn't it?). I don't think this necessarily means that the correction has to be noticeably worse but I don't think it can add real detail.

I think what dooes he mean is that there is much more area of image shown at the border in tyhe corrected image than in the uncorrected one. If they come from the same file, it really mean that there is a part of the cover circle that is not shown in the frame of the original picture, and that is brought into the frame as the software corrects it.

[Caat]

I think what dooes he mean is that there is much more area of image shown at the border in tyhe corrected image than in the uncorrected one. If they come from the same file, it really mean that there is a part of the cover circle that is not shown in the frame of the original picture, and that is brought into the frame as the software corrects it.

Ah, I see.

But doesn't distortion correction just take the corners and effectively stretch the existing pixels?

Of course in some cases this may for all intents and purposes be as good as adding in detail by representing it more faithfully than the distorted picture

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

The small size makes a definitive statement difficult

Look at the left border - there is more detail coming into view on the left of the leftmost rivet in the corrected version. Everything that you see at the left is newly brought into the frame in the corrected version.

I think what dooes he mean is that there is much more area of image shown at the border in tyhe corrected image than in the uncorrected one. If they come from the same file, it really mean that there is a part of the cover circle that is not shown in the frame of the original picture, and that is brought into the frame as the software corrects it.

Right. The RAW image contains more information than what we see when we convert to JPEG. Of course, if we were to correct a JPEG images, all this detail would not be found anywhere, so it would be lost.

But doesn't distortion correction just take the corners and effectively stretch the existing pixels?

Yes, except the borders we see are not the borders of the captured image stored in a RAW file. The loss you mentioned applies to correcting JPEG files.

Of course in some cases this may for all intents and purposes be as good as adding in detail by representing it more faithfully than the distorted picture

Given that for many scenarios the borders are either out of focus or less sharp because lenses themselves are not that sharp at borders, the correction will be more like a drop in the ocean. There are many issues that are negligible like this. Theoretically, SR is also messing with your image by moving the sensor, but the effect is negligible compared to the rotation blur you would get from camera movement.

[RXrenesis8]

I think what dooes he mean is that there is much more area of image shown at the border in tyhe corrected image than in the uncorrected one. If they come from the same file, it really mean that there is a part of the cover circle that is not shown in the frame of the original picture, and that is brought into the frame as the software corrects it.

Impossible. Software cannot simply pull more of an image out of thin air.

[Caat]

Look at the left border - there is more detail coming into view on the left of the leftmost rivet in the corrected version. Everything that you see at the left is newly brought into the frame in the corrected version.



Right. The RAW image contains more information than what we see when we convert to JPEG. Of course, if we were to correct a JPEG images, all this detail would not be found anywhere, so it would be lost.



Yes, except the borders we see are not the borders of the captured image stored in a RAW file. The loss you mentioned applies to correcting JPEG files.



Given that for many scenarios the borders are either out of focus or less sharp because lenses themselves are not that sharp at borders, the correction will be more like a drop in the ocean. There are many issues that are negligible like this. Theoretically, SR is also messing with your image by moving the sensor, but the effect is negligible compared to the rotation blur you would get from camera movement.

Sorry - for some reason I completely missed the extra bit of image on the left hand side!!

However, this really makes no sense at all because it would mean that all uncorrected Pentax RAW files are cropped....

I have a load of RAWs with my 16-50 I will check these for this phenomenon.