[offertonhatter]

Sony did'nt really have to work that hard, as the A100 was in reality a rebadged Minolta Dynax 5D with a 10mp sensor, Only the A700 have they started their own models (and even then it looks like a Dynax 7D)

[ogl]

is There Af Adjustment Menu In K200d?

[ftpaddict]

is There Af Adjustment Menu In K200d?

Wait till it's out and reviewed!

[wasupdoc]

is There Af Adjustment Menu In K200d?

Look in the K20/K200 online brochure: http://www.pentaxslr.com/pdf/k20.k200brochure.spread.pdf

On page 16 in the section about the K200 under customization there is a screen shot of the menu with "AF Adjustment" highlighted. Whether this is a misprint and the screen shot is really from the K20D, I don't know, but it does make me think it will have that feature. Now it could be dumbed down and only allow one lens to be adjusted....

Mike

[mawz]

The "fastest AF" claim from Olympus is with the new 12-60 SWD lens, and only with this lens. Not the other lenses.

And it's still a joke. Tested exactly that combo. Oh, and btw, Oly doesn't specify the lens in their marketing, just the E-3. It's no faster than a D200 with a Tamron SP 17-50 f2.8. Which is not even close to being Nikon's fastest setup (heck, that's screwdriver AF. albeit very fast screwdriver AF). A high-end AF-S or L USM lens on one of Canon or Nikon's top bodies simply destroys the E-3/12-60 combo in AF speed. Sure, AF on the E-3 is a Huge improvement over the other Oly bodies, but that's simply saying that they'd be competitive on AF performance against a D200, A700 or 40D. But they're trying to claim that they can compete with Nikon and Canon's top-end bodies on AF performance. Which simply isn't the case.

[mutley]

Look in the K20/K200 online brochure: http://www.pentaxslr.com/pdf/k20.k200brochure.spread.pdf

On page 16 in the section about the K200 under customization there is a screen shot of the menu with "AF Adjustment" highlighted.

If the K200D can have the AF adjustment menu, so can a firmware update give this to the K10D.

[lol101]

Look in the K20/K200 online brochure: http://www.pentaxslr.com/pdf/k20.k200brochure.spread.pdf

On page 16 in the section about the K200 under customization there is a screen shot of the menu with "AF Adjustment" highlighted. Whether this is a misprint and the screen shot is really from the K20D, I don't know, but it does make me think it will have that feature. Now it could be dumbed down and only allow one lens to be adjusted....

Mike

I think it's a mistake in the brochure, the number of custom functions in the K200 doesn't go that far.

[Jonson PL]

I shoot motorcycle races with the K110D and K10D with no problem at all. Frankly I prefer to plan my shots and shoot off a couple of individual frames on each pass rather than "spraying and praying". High frame rates are not crucial if you know your subject. Do they come in handy sometimes? Sure, but they are not crucial.

I completely agree.
I'd rather take some shorter burst series, go home look at them, practice more on the skill; next time use what I learned to try and get even better shots. Get the composition right to begin with, know what you're looking for, and try to grab when it comes along.
I don't need 10 pretty much identical frames, and then just pick one to work with. Just keep firing away, and you might just miss that one crusial thing happening, when you're weren't paying attention, but just hammering out pictures instead.

Amateurs with a 1D Mark II firing away with 8.3 fps and having the best Canon lens, would never be able to grab the magazine quality shots that Mark Dimo gets with his K10 and 3.3 fps.

1. It not just the megapixel count, it is a vastly improved sensor. The CMOS technology is far superior to the CCD and is what makes those high pixel counts possible while mainatining or improving image quality.

2. I admit a 12MP with larger pixels for better dynamic range would have been a good compromise... But as yet the DR on the new sensor looks pretty darn good.

3. Full frame is not a holy grail. It is not needed with today's sensor technologies. it is a marketing gimmick to allow Canikon to claim that their full frame models are Pro cameras and anything else is amateur. Finally, it would also cause a sever disconnect in the Pentax lens roadmap. None of the DA* lenses would cover a full frame sensor.

I also follow you this one, but I’ll reserve the comments, as it usually tends to get into a deeper debate when the FF fans comes along


Some great Motor Sport shots you got at Photo.net

[24X36NOW]

"Full frame is not a holy grail. It is not needed with today's sensor technologies. it is a marketing gimmick to allow Canikon to claim that their full frame models are Pro cameras and anything else is amateur. Finally, it would also cause a sever disconnect in the Pentax lens roadmap. None of the DA* lenses would cover a full frame sensor."

Not a Holy Grail? I'll leave that argument to the monks. However, Full Frame is definitely something Pentax needs to do for its flagship dSLR. It is not a "gimmick," because a larger original image is always superior to a smaller original image, since less enlargement is required to make any given size print (and less enlargement = better IQ). This reality will not go away no matter how many of those who have bought "digital only" lenses would like it to. As for the Pentax lens collection, obviously they need to come out with new lenses that will support Full frame as well (the "digital only" lenses can be used (ala Nikon) with only the central howevermany pixels of the Full Frame sensor). The technology is not going to stand still, the competition obviously isn't, and Pentax shouldn't either. Let's put something into perspective: Kodak came out with the first commercially available digital SLR in 1991; it had (ready?) 1.6 Megapixels and it had a cost of about THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS. You can buy FOUR EOS-1D Mk III 21.1 Megapixel dSLRs for that money now, and that is without adjusting the Kodak's price for inflation. You think that Full Frame is something that Pentax doesn't need to do? If it doesn't, in another decade it will be a memory. Nikon, which was supposedly "committed" to the APS-C sized sensor, went less than 10 years from the introduction of its first dSLR (D1, 2.74 megapixels, 1999) to its first Full Frame dSLR (D3). Full Frame will become the norm for top of the line digital SLRs, and eventually even mid and lower level dSLRs, because it's better and because the technology will continue to improve quality and reduce costs. Without Full Frame, the limits of what they can fit on the CMOS will soon be reached and their products will stagnate. Increasing the sensor size will become an easier and cheaper path to product upgrades than trying to cram more IQ onto the APS-C size chip pretty soon. Resistance is futile. Compete or die.

[WMBP]

(Full Frame) ... is not a "gimmick," because a larger original image is always superior to a smaller original image, since less enlargement is required to make any given size print (and less enlargement = better IQ). This reality will not go away no matter how many of those who have bought "digital only" lenses would like it to.

I'm sympathetic to this idea to a degree. But "bigger is better" is not an air tight demonstration of the inevitability of full frame. Bigger may be better, in terms of image quality. But obviously, every choice about the size of the sensor involves compromises. Apparently bigger sensors are more expensive. Bigger sensors also require bigger cameras. Obviously they require a different lenses. And then there's the basic fact that bigger is, well, bigger. At which point does bigger become worse? A camera as big as a toaster oven might take FANTASTIC photographs, but who wants to shoot a wedding with one?

What we call "full frame" now was originally the format size of the film SLR, which in its day was criticized for not being big enough to take good pictures. That complaint about the 24x36 format was not exactly proved wrong if by "good" we mean "as good as the photos taken by larger format cameras". There are people using medium format and even large format cameras to this day, and they DO take better photos, other things being equal. But smaller has its advantages, too. The SLR succeed in the first place because it was smaller and more convenient.

I have no clue what the future will bring. Perhaps we'll have a full-frame Pentax camera before the end of 2008, or next year, or by 2010 at the latest. But I strongly suspect that APS-C sensors will continue to be the main format for DSLR cameras for a good while and full-frame cameras will remain very expensive--and will be used mainly by photographers who really need them. That won't be most of us, even those of us who are or are trying to become pros.

Will

[24X36NOW]

I think the inevitability is being dictated by the market, as can be seen by Nikon moving to Full Frame despite "commitments" to stay with APS-C. As for larger still (i.e., medium/large format) being better, no argument - but 35mm struck the right image quality/portability balance and hence its popularity. The dSLRs Pentax currently makes use the same lens mount as old film (i.e., Full Frame) bodies, so it's not as if they'll have to grow by that much to accommodate Full Frame sensors. Bigger sensors are more expensive, but it's not as if we're talking Hyundai vs. Rolls Royce here, and the prices will continue to decline. The Canon 5D's "street" price is about $2100. The new 20D is going to retail for $1300. No way to know what the "street" will be, but that's not that big an incremental price increase to pay for a return to distortion-free wide angles and world-beater image quality (because you know Pentax/Samsung are capable of it), especially with those 24,000,000 Pentax and umpteen million third party lenses out there just dying to take advantage of it!

[WMBP]

Bigger sensors are more expensive, but it's not as if we're talking Hyundai vs. Rolls Royce here, and the prices will continue to decline. The Canon 5D's "street" price is about $2100. The new 20D is going to retail for $1300. No way to know what the "street" will be, but that's not that big an incremental price increase to pay for a return to distortion-free wide angles and world-beater image quality

True, but prices will go down on everything, so even if it's possible to buy a full-frame camera for under $1500 in a year or two, aps-c sensor dslrs will probably be even cheaper than they are today, so the competitive advantage in the market place will continue to be with the smaller, less expensive cameras. I'm pretty sure Nikon is selling a lot more D40s than D3s.

And I'd bet that prices don't drop THAT much, especially at the high end, but even at the low end. The street price for a 5D right now is low in good part because it's over two years old. Somebody please let me know when the Nikon D3 is selling for $2100. I'll sell my wife's china to get one at that price. Just as there is a maximum practical size for a dslr and it's smaller than a toaster oven, there is a minimum practical price for a particular type of camera.

And finally, there's a maximum level of quality that most people - even most pros - are willing to pay for. In theory, bigger sensors are better. In theory, more megapixels ought to be better too. Except that more megapixels (other things being equal) means more noise. And more megapixels is NOT better past about 10 MP (perhaps even less) as people can't see the difference. So, if aps-c cameras are able to produce results that are, in most PRACTICAL respects, as good as the results of full-frame cameras - if you have to get a microscope out to see the difference - then full-frame cameras will be purchased mainly by the handful of connoisseurs or specialists who truly need their advantages.

It's worth noting that my k10d takes better photos than any "full frame" film SLR I ever owned.

... especially with those 24,000,000 Pentax and umpteen million third party lenses out there just dying to take advantage of it!

Pentax fans keep talking about all those old lenses and how great it is to be able to use them on Pentax dslrs. Could someone please tell me where I can buy these old lenses? I've looked on keh.com, in fact, I look there fairly often. Their selection of old Pentax lenses is pretty limited. My impression is that some collector has bought them all up and is keeping them in a safe somewhere.

Forgive me if I'm just being contrary here, which is possible. I have said here many times, my crystal ball is cracked and my guesses about the future should not be taken seriously. I certainly have no idea what Pentax has up its sleeve beyond the K20D. So we shall see.

Will

[nosnoop]

Full Frame will become the norm for top of the line digital SLRs, and eventually even mid and lower level dSLRs, because it's better and because the technology will continue to improve quality and reduce costs.

Only when your definition of norm means Canon + Nikon + Sony

Top of the line C+N+S - yes, but I doubt it would go anything beyond a niche market for professionals and flagship symbol. APS-C will always hold a significant price advantage (which is a huge factor considering the big price downward pressure on entry/mid range cameras); and judging by K20D, the IQ still has room to improve.

At this point, the market for FF is still too small despite the enthusiastic response to D3; total market share from 5D + D3 is less than 2% market share of total DSLR sales in Japan last week. And even if Pentax can grab 10% of that FF market, it would still represent dismal sales.

We can talk again when 5D replacement and Sony FF are out and sales settle down after the initial launch, and we can see if FF has any breakthrough outside its niche boundary. I very much doubt it, and I don't think it would be worth the while for Pentax to consider FF until FF market is at least 10% market share of total DSLR sales. But my prediction is that the FF market would not exceed 5%.

Resistance is futile. Compete or die.

Pentax cannot (and does not need to) compete in the top market segment, it does not have those $$$$$ lenses for example, or the luxury of producing "halo" product such as the PC-E Nikkor 24mm f/3.5D ED. I think it is much wiser to Pentax to concentrate its effort on its strength and where the money is.

[Jonson PL]

Forgive me if I'm just being contrary here, which is possible. I have said here many times, my crystal ball is cracked and my guesses about the future should not be taken seriously. I certainly have no idea what Pentax has up its sleeve beyond the K20D. So we shall see.
Will

Thanks for your points Will. The jump from the best APS-C sensor to FF, is little compared to the jump from FF to Medium Format.
Some of the best photo ops on a mountaineering trip; I missed as I was too exhausted to drag out my FF film camera and big lens. Now with a weathersealed K10 and pancake 21 mm, I’m confident I’ll stand a better chance of having my camera be an integrated part of me; not a bigger cumbersome luggage piece.

I think there is a market for Pentax in the Medium Format range, this was always regarded as their prime Professional market; fashion photography, stock photography, portraiture, "strobist" crowd, and even wedding photography saw use from the 645 and 6x7 MF cam. Latest sounds like the 645D is on hold, but not abandoned.
I know my Pro friend with his Eos 5D, would be jealous if I had a medium format digital

And thanks to Nosnoop for putting percentages on the FF market. One would think that the 5D with the current price, and D3 (lovely cam) with the hype still rolling; would be selling at bigger shares of the market. I guess us users being loud in the forums are not really indicative of what the bigger lump of consumers are ready to put their money in.



The Pro shooter and reviewer Lloyd Chambers felt that the Eos 5D had a way better High Iso reputation than it deserved. And though he has bought several Eos 5D cameras, he is still disappointed in its colour rendering, and preferred his former Nikon D200 here.

“Indoor lighting can be really difficult to work with...or really interesting. Color-balancing skin tones under such lighting is next to impossible, so one just needs to go with the effect. And a color balanced image just wouldn’t capture the feel, so the “wrong” color balance is clearly the right one!
Low light conditions…
It would have been nearly impossible to shoot at f/2.8, and very difficult at f/2. Perhaps the new Canon EOS 1D Mark III, with its ISO 6400 will offer more “reach” into the dark. Flash is simply not an option in such circumstances, being very distracting and downright annoying to wide-pupilled revelers.
Under such lighting, the Canon EOS 5D, unduly praised for its low noise performance, produces an uncountable number of bright speckles when an attempt is made to white balance [Iso 3200]. And a displeasing pattern noise (the worst kind!) develops as well. The upshot is that one must “go red” or use a monochrome rendition to avoid such effects.“ Blog 2. April 2007

Phil from DPr found that the ‘backup Pro-cam’ Eos 5D did not have a noise advantage over the 1D Mark II from the Pro series. And he also found that using digital FF and the way light hits the sensor; edge softness / falloff / chromatic aberrations is experienced.
And with the latest development and technology, Michael R. from LL, found that the Eos 1D Mark III was superior to the Eos 5D in terms of Noise, and that even the Eos 40D might be on par with the Eos 5D.

And photographer and reviewer Miles Hecker found that as a result of being built to a higher standard, the Nikon D2X was not beat at Iso 100 in terms of IQ by the Eos 5D. But the Nikon does come at a way higher price point.


But lets see how an upcoming Eos 6D will do, maybe they will weatherproof it too. When the Eos 5D came out, it was the best on the market in terms of Noise. Many are awaiting a Eos 6D.

[Sleepy]

If the K200D can have the AF adjustment menu, so can a firmware update give this to the K10D.

Pentax can do that; however, I don't think Pentax wants to do that.